PELLETIER: None from Patent Owner, Your Honor.

JUDGE ROESEL: None from me, thank you. JUDGE MCNAMARA: None from me either.

JUDGE MCNAMARA: None further from me.

The Petition explains that Picard and Ishihara both teach apparatuses that determine surface topology of an object using a source, a beam splitter, and focusing optics arranged in similar manners to produce light at different focal planes.

Assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using Gmitro’s fiber-optic bundle to carry a single light beam to the microlens array, that only addresses part of what the combined system must do.

Given this, Petitioner advances with its Reply considerable new argument and evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using Gmitro’s fiber optic bundle to carry Tiziani’s plurality of light beams.

The Petition failed to meet these requirements with respect to its assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Gmitro’s fiber-optic bundle with Tiziani’s confocal imaging system with a microlens array.

Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tiziani and Kino with the disclosure of Watson to include a motor which moves the objective lens up or down to focus on

Furthermore, Petitioner does not satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements,” but “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support

First, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Dianat never worked with or used a confocal microscope, was never involved in the design of lenses, beam splitters, or polarizers, and was unable to answer certain questions at his deposition.

Patent Owner argues that the Institution Decision is incorrect to the extent that it implicitly construed the Selectively Map limitation as requiring that only a single color component be in focus.

Recognizing that Okamoto may be deficient with respect to the In Focus limitation, Petitioner asserts the following as a fall-back position: Patent Owner in the ’433 Patent admits that algorithms, software and hardware for combining images “in such a way as to maximize the precision of the focused image and corresponding color thereof ... are well known in the art.” ... Further, Pulli7 provides evidence that additional techniques for selectively mapping color data to depth data were well-known and conventional at the time of the purported invention.

Petitioner has not provided a sufficient explanation of how or why a POSITA would have combined Okamoto with the teachings of Pulli, the alleged Applicant Admitted Prior Art, or the references cited in the Reply to arrive at the In Focus limitation of claim 12.