IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`HARMONIX MUSIC SYSTEMS, INC,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00155
`Patent 5,513,129
`__________________
`
`
`PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S PATENT OWNER
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1 
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .......................................................... 3 
`A.  Virtual Reality Systems ................................................................... 3 
`The ’129 Patent: The Bolas Brothers (Mark and Michael) And
`B. 
`Their Colleague, Ian McDowall, Invent A New Process To Control
`The Operation of a Virtual Reality System With Music Or Control
`Tracks Created From Music. ........................................................... 5 
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`REVIEW ................................................................................................... 7 
`IV. PRINCETON DIGITAL’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ...................... 8 
`A. 
`“Virtual Environment” (claims 1-9 and 12-21). ............................ 10 
`B. 
`“Virtual Reality Computer System” (Claims 1-9 and 12-21). ...... 11 
`V. THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART. ........................ 14 
`Pocock-Williams – Toward the Automatic Generation of
`a. 
`Visual Music, Leonardo 25, No. 1 (1992), pp. 29-36. ........ 15 
`Fallacaro – U.S. Patent No. 4,771,344. ............................... 16 
`Pimentel – Ken Pimentel and Kevin Texeira, Virtual
`Reality: Through the New Looking Glass (McGraw-Hill,
`Inc., eds., 1st ed. 1993). ....................................................... 16 
`VI. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONER
`PREVAILING AS TO A CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’129
`PATENT. ................................................................................................ 17 
`Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 1, 5-6, 8-11, 16-19
`A. 
`and 22-23 Are Anticipated By Fallacaro. ...................................... 18 
`Fallacaro Does Not Disclose “Generating Said Virtual
`Environment,” As Recited In Independent Claim 1, and As
`Similarly Recited in Independent Claims 5, 12, 16, and 21 .... 19 
`
`b. 
`c. 
`
`1. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`Fallacaro Does Not Disclose “Operating The Virtual Reality
`Computer System,” As Recited In Independent Claim 1, and As
`Similarly Recited in Independent Claims 5, 12, 16, and 21 .... 21 
`Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 15-19,
`and 21 Are Obvious Over Pocock-Williams in View of Pimentel
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). .............................................................. 25 
`The Petition Fails to Identify Any Compelling Rationale for
`Adopting Redundant Grounds of Rejection Under Pocock-
`Williams, Fallacaro, and Pimentel. .......................................... 26 
`The Petition Fails To Demonstrate That The Combination Of
`Pocock-Williams and Pimentel Teaches All Of The Limitations
`Of Any Of The Contested Claims ............................................ 30 
`The combination of Pocock-Williams and Pimentel Does
`Not Teach “Generating Said Virtual Environment,” As
`Recited In Independent Claim 1, and As Similarly Recited in
`Independent Claims 5, 12, 16, and 21 ................................. 30 
`The combination of Pocock-Williams and Pimentel Does
`Not Teach “Operating The Virtual Reality Computer
`System,” As Recited In Independent Claim 1, and As
`Similarly Recited in Independent Claims 5, 12, 16, and 21 32 
`The Combination of Pocock-Williams and Pimentel Does
`Not Teach That The Control Signals That Operate The
`Virtual Reality Computer System and Generate The Virtual
`Environment, Are Generated By “Processing Music
`Signals,” As Recited In Independent Claim 1, and As
`Similarly Recited in Independent Claims 5, 12, 16, and 21 33 
`Petitioner Failed To Show That A Person Of Ordinary Skill In
`The Art Would Have Been Motivated To Combine The
`Teachings Of Pimentel and Pocock-Williams And Would Have
`Had A Reasonable Expectation Of Success In Doing So ........ 36 
`Scope and content of prior art. ............................................ 38 
`State of the art and level of ordinary skill. .......................... 40 
`
`c. 
`
`a. 
`b. 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`c. 
`
`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`Petitioner Fails to Show That It Would Have Been Obvious
`To Generate a Virtual Environment From A User’s First
`Person Perspective From An Audio Signal or Audio Control
`Track. ................................................................................... 42 
`Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 11 or 23 are
`Anticipated by Pocock-Williams under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). ........ 46 
`Pocock-Williams Does Not Disclose “Operating The Computer
`System In Response To Both The Audio Signal and The
`Prerecorded Control Track,” As Recited In Each of Claims 11
`and 23 ....................................................................................... 46 
`VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 48 
`
`C. 
`
`1. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`Ex. 2001 Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298,
`Decision Not To Institute, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15,
`2103).
`Ex. 2002 Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., IPR2012-00006, Paper 43
`(P.T.A.B. May 10, 2013).
`Ex. 2003 Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc., IPR2013-00183,
`Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013).
`Ex. 2004 IEEE VGTC Virtual Reality Technical Achievement Award 2005.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` 
`
` 
`CASES
`Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................ 38
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir.
`2002) ..................................................................................................................... 10
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). ........ 8
`Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1321
`(Fed. Cir. 2005).. ................................................................................................. 37
`Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enterprises, Inc., 302 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 9
`Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) ....................................................................................................................... 9
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) .................................... 25,37
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..................... 8
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc),
`aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). ..................................................................................... 8
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................. 36
`OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir.
`2012). .................................................................................................................... 25
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 130, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................... 1,2,8,9
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
` ............................................................................................................................... 10
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed. Cir.
`2009) ..................................................................................................................... 36
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................ 18
`Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.
`Cir. 1991). ........................................................................................................ 14,19
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.
`1987) ..................................................................................................................... 18
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ......................................................................................... 3
`
`RULES
`37 C.F.R § 42.1(b) ....................................................................................... 27
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .................................................................................... 1
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc., IPR2013-00183, Paper 12
`(P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) ........................................................................... 37
`Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., IPR2012-00006, Paper 43 (P.T.A.B.
`May 10, 2013). ......................................................................................... 27
`Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B.
`November 15, 2013). ................................................................................ 45
`MPEP § 2131.02. ........................................................................................ 18
`MPEP §§ 2141.01, 2141.02. ..................................................................... 14,38
`MPEP § 2258.I.G .................................................................................... 1,2,8
`MPEP § 2666.01 ........................................................................................ 2,8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board should deny the present request for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,512,129 (“the ’129 patent”) because the Petition for inter partes
`
`review is based entirely on an incorrect construction of the claims. After
`
`correctly stating that a “claim in an unexpired patent subject to inter partes
`
`review receives the ‘broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears,’”1 Petitioner erroneously asserts
`
`that the “terms and phrases from the claims of the ’129 patent require
`
`construction in accordance with these principles for the purposes of this inter
`
`partes review proceeding.”2 That is wrong because the ’129 patent is not an
`
`unexpired patent. Because the ’129 patent has expired, the claims should
`
`instead be construed “pursuant to the principle set forth by the court in Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp.”3 Indeed, the Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) expressly
`
`
`1 Amended Petition for Inter Partes Review, Paper 4, p. 11, quoting 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b).
`
`2 Id. at 11.
`
`3 MPEP § 2258 I G, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75
`
`USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`acknowledges that the principles set forth in Phillips will result in narrower
`
`claim constructions: “Once the patent expires, a narrow claim construction is
`
`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`applied.”4
`
`When the claims are construed under the proper claim construction
`
`principle — rather than under the erroneously applied principle set forth by the
`
`Petitioner — it is clear that each of the three proposed grounds of rejection is
`
`missing at least one limitation from each claim. For example, none of the
`
`three prior art references or combinations of prior art cited by Petitioner teach
`
`that control signals that operate a virtual reality computer system and generate
`
`a virtual environment, are generated by “processing music signals.”5 In
`
`addition, none teach generating a virtual environment or operating a virtual
`
`reality computer system.6
`
`For these reasons as expressed more fully below, the Petitioner has failed
`
`to demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that they will prevail with
`
`
`4 MPEP 2666.01, citing MPEP § 2258 I.G.
`
`5 Infra, § VI.
`
`6 Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition.7 Accordingly,
`
`the Board should deny the Petition.
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`A. Virtual Reality Systems
`
`A virtual reality system creates a computer-simulated virtual
`
`environment and gives a user the feeling that he or she is immersed within the
`
`environment.8 That is, the virtual reality system displays video and/or creates
`
`sounds to give a user the feeling that he or she is part of the virtual
`
`environment.9 In addition, the user can interact with the virtual reality system
`
`to alter the virtual environment.10
`
`A virtual reality system may include a two or three dimensional display
`
`for showing video of the virtual environment to a user and speakers to present
`
`sounds of the virtual environment to the user.11 The virtual reality system may
`
`
`7 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`8 See e.g., Exhibit 1001, ’129 Patent, col. 1, ll. 22-33.
`
`9 Id.
`
`10 Id. at col. 1, ll. 34-42.
`
`11 Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`further include a device to track the head movements for use in generating
`
`“images along the area of viewing interest of the user.”12 A virtual reality
`
`system may also include an input device for enabling the user to interact and
`
`alter the virtual environment.13
`
`For example, one such virtual reality system called a virtual drum kit,
`
`developed by one of the inventors of the ’129 patent, included a glove and
`
`equipment to track the movement of the glove.14 The system then used the
`
`determined movement of the glove to create sound.15 That is, in these types of
`
`virtual reality systems, “manipulation of a virtual object causes the sound or
`
`music to change.”16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12 Id. at col. 1, ll. 42-45.
`
`13 Id. at col. 1, ll. 36-42.
`
`14 Id. at col. 2, ll. 36-42.
`
`15 Id. at col. 2, ll. 54-56.
`
`16 Id. at col. 2, ll. 64-65.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`B. The ’129 Patent: The Bolas Brothers (Mark and Michael) And Their
`Colleague, Ian McDowall, Invent A New Process To Control The
`Operation of a Virtual Reality System With Music Or Control Tracks
`Created From Music.
`
`While other researchers in Virtual Reality focused their efforts on
`
`creating audio by manipulating virtual objects, the Bolas brothers and Ian
`
`McDowall reversed “the paradigm to create a system which has musically
`
`driven objects.”17 Indeed, one of the inventors of the ‘129 patent, Mark Bolas,
`
`was awarded the inaugural IEEE VGTC (Visualization and Graphics
`
`Technical Committee) Virtual Reality Technical Achievement Award in
`
`recognition for seminal technical achievement in virtual and augmented
`
`reality.18 Ironically, Intel’s former chairman Gordon Moore (of “Moore’s
`
`Law”), in the foreword of Pimentel, one of the three prior art references cited
`
`by Petitioner, complimented inventor Mark Bolas as a “VR trailblazer.”19
`
`In one embodiment of the invention of the ‘129 patent, the system
`
`“retrieves music (in some electronic, acoustic, or optical form) and generates
`
`control signals therefrom which are used by a VR system to influence activity
`
`
`17 Id. at col. 3, ll. 43-46.
`
`18 Exhibit 2004.
`
`19 Exhibit 1006, p. 331.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`in the virtual world.”20 A component of the system called the Acoustic Etch
`
`can “extricate a rhythm signal indicative of the beat of some frequency band of
`
`the music (e.g., a band representing drums), or of some other parameter of the
`
`frequency band of the music.”21 The VR system receives the rhythm signal and
`
`“generates control signals therefrom to control the rhythm of a virtual dancer
`
`(or some other moving virtual object).”22
`
`In addition, “control tracks can be generated automatically (e.g., by
`
`electronic signal processing circuitry) in response to a music signal and then
`
`recorded, or can be generated in response to manually asserted commands
`
`from a person (while the person listens to some music signals) and then
`
`recorded.”23 “The placement and rhythm of dancers could be encoded in
`
`prerecorded control tracks, for example.”24 Next, the invention can supply to
`
`the VR system one or more prerecorded control tracks corresponding to the
`
`
`20 Id. at col. 4, ll. 63-67.
`
`21 Id. at col. 5, ll. 4-7.
`
`22 Id. at col. 5, ll. 7-10.
`
`23 Id. at col. 5, ll. 22-27.
`
`24 Id. at col. 5, ll. 32-33.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`music, or can generate control signals from prerecorded control tracks and
`
`then supply such control signals to the VR system for processing.”25 That is,
`
`music and/or prerecorded control tracks generated from music are used by the
`
`virtual reality system of the invention of the ‘129 patent to control the virtual
`
`environment.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`REVIEW
`
`Confusingly, the Petition contains multiple, redundant grounds of rejection
`
`based on the same combination of references. For the Board’s convenience
`
`below is a summary of claim rejections proposed by Petitioner based on the
`
`different asserted combinations:
`
`1. Claims 10-11 and 22-23: Anticipated by Pocock-Williams under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (Ground 1)
`
`2. Claims 1, 5-6, 8-13, 15-19: Anticipated by Fallacaro under 35
`
`U.S.C. 102(b) (Ground 2)
`
`3. Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 15-19, and 21: Obvious Over Pocock-Williams
`
`in View of Pimentel under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Ground 3)
`
`
`
`
`25 Id. at col. 5, ll. 11-16.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`IV. PRINCETON DIGITAL’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`Claim construction is generally an issue of law.26 Because the ’129 patent
`
`has expired, the claims should be construed “pursuant to the principle set forth by
`
`the court in Phillips v. AWH Corp.”27 The PTO expressly acknowledges that the
`
`principles set forth in Phillips will result in narrower claim constructions: “Once
`
`the patent expires, a narrow claim construction is applied.”28
`
`The terms used in the claims bear a heavy presumption that they mean
`
`what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those
`
`words by persons skilled in the relevant art.29 The specification is the single best
`
`
`26 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc),
`
`aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`27 MPEP § 2258 I G, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75
`
`USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`28 MPEP 2666.01, citing MPEP § 2258, subsection I.G.
`
`29 Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
`(emphasis added), citing, CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
`
`1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002); K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`source for claim interpretation.30 Claim terms are to be given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire patent disclosure.31 The customary meaning
`
`applies unless the specification reveals a special definition given to the claim
`
`term by the patentee, in which case the inventor’s lexicography governs.32
`
`When the specification sets forth an explicit definition of a term, that definition
`
`governs.33 In addition, a claim preamble may be construed as limiting “if it
`
`
`Cir. 1999); Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`30 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`31 Id. at 1313; Research in Motion v. Wi-Lan, Case IPR2013-00126, Paper 10 at 7
`
`(P.T.A.B. June 20, 2013).
`
`32 See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (“[T]he specification may reveal a special
`
`definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning
`
`that it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography
`
`governs.”).
`
`33 Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enterprises, Inc., 302 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning,
`
`and vitality’ to the claim.”34
`
`Any term not construed below should be given its ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Princeton Digital proposes the following claim constructions for the purposes
`
`of this inter partes review proceeding.
`
`A. “Virtual Environment” (claims 1-9 and 12-21).
`
`The Board should construe this term as “a computer-simulated
`
`environment (intended to be immersive) which includes a graphic display
`
`(from a user's first person perspective, in a form intended to be immersive to
`
`the user), and optionally also sounds which simulate environmental sounds.”
`
`Princeton Digital’s proposed construction is supported by the specification of
`
`the ’129 patent:
`
`The terms "virtual environment," "virtual world," and "virtual reality"
`are used interchangeably to describe a computer-simulated
`environment (intended to be immersive) which includes a graphic
`
`
`34 Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002), quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`display (from a user's first person perspective, in a form intended to
`be immersive to the user), and optionally also sounds which
`simulate environmental sounds.35
`
`
`Princeton Digital’s proposed construction of virtual environment is identical to
`
`the emphasized portion from the specification reproduced above. Petitioner
`
`did not set forth a proposed construction and instead, merely quoted two
`
`portions of the specification of the ’129 patent.36
`
`
`
`The Board should adopt Princeton Digital’s proposed construction of
`
`“virtual environment” because it is supported by the specification and because
`
`Petitioner did not propose a construction that differs from Princeton Digital’s
`
`proposed construction.
`
`B.
`
`“Virtual Reality Computer System” (Claims 1-9 and 12-21).
`
`The Board should construe this term as “a computer system
`
`programmed with software, and including peripheral devices, for producing a
`
`virtual environment.” Princeton Digital’s proposed construction is supported
`
`by the specification of the ’129 patent:
`
`
`35 Exhibit 1001, ’129 Patent, col. 1, ll. 22-33 (emphasis added).
`
`36 See Petition, paper 4, p. 13.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`The abbreviation "VR" will sometimes be used herein to denote "virtual
`reality," "virtual environment," or "virtual world". A computer system
`programmed with software, and including peripheral devices, for
`producing a virtual environment will sometimes be referred to herein
`as a VR system or VR processor. 37
`
`Princeton Digital’s proposed construction of “virtual reality computer system”
`
`is identical to the bolded portion from the specification reproduced above.
`
`Petitioner did not set forth a proposed construction for this term and
`
`instead, merely stated that “the broadest reasonable construction of ‘virtual
`
`reality computer system’ should include video games.”38 Petition bases its
`
`position on the argument that “the patent holder has taken the position in
`
`litigation that a VR system can be a video game system.”39 Petitioner’s
`
`position is wrong because it is based on the broadest reasonable construction
`
`standard which does not apply to the ’129 patent in this proceeding because
`
`the ’129 patent has expired.40 Moreover, nothing in the proper claim
`
`
`37 Exhibit 1001, ’129 Patent, col. 1, ll. 22-33.
`
`38 Petition, paper no. 4, p. 14.
`
`39 Id.
`
`40 Supra, p. 7.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`construction standard set forth in Philips or elsewhere indicates that claims
`
`should be construed in accordance with a Plaintiff’s infringement
`
`contentions.41 Finally, Princeton Digital did not assert that any so-called video
`
`game qualifies as the claimed virtual reality computer system; it instead
`
`identified particular video games having the claimed virtual reality features as
`
`infringing the ’129 patent.42 That is, the video games accused of infringement
`
`differ from the twenty-five year old video games of the prior art cited by the
`
`Petitioner and discussed in the background section of the ’129 patent.
`
`The Board should adopt Princeton Digital’s proposed construction of
`
`“virtual reality computer system” because it is supported by the specification
`
`and conforms to the proper claim construction standard as set forth in Philips.
`
`The Board should reject Petitioner’s claim construction argument because it is
`
`not based on the proper standard and does not even set forth a complete
`
`proposed construction.
`
`
`
`
`41 See e.g., Philips, 415 F.3d at 303-316.
`
`42 Exhibit 1004, ¶ 22.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`V. THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART.
`
`For a reference to anticipate a claim, “there must be no difference
`
`between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.”43 Any obviousness
`
`analysis requires a consideration of the scope and content of the prior art and
`
`the differences between the prior art and the claims.44
`
`One of the two proposed anticipation grounds of rejection in the Petition
`
`is based on Pocock-Williams and the other is based on Fallacaro.45 The single,
`
`proposed obviousness ground of rejection in the Petition is based on Pocock-
`
`Williams and Pimentel.46 Pocock-Williams, Fallacaro, and Pimentel are
`
`summarized below.
`
`
`43 Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1991).
`
`44 See MPEP § 2141.01, 2141.02.
`
`45 Petition, Paper No. 4, pp. 18-43.
`
`46 Id. at pp. 44-57.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`a.
`
` Pocock-Williams – Toward the Automatic Generation of
`Visual Music, Leonardo 25, No. 1 (1992), pp. 29-36.
`
`Pocock-Williams relates to producing “’automatically generated’
`
`animations resulting from the creation of a computer system that uses rule-
`
`system technology to assist in the automatic translation of sound to image.”47
`
`Critically, Pocock-Williams has nothing to do with generating a virtual
`
`environment from audio or control signals.48 That is, it does not generate a
`
`display from the user’s first person perspective from any audio or control
`
`signal.49 Rather, Pocock-Williams generates a pre-recorded, animation video
`
`(e.g., a series of images like a cartoon) that does not change with any
`
`interaction by a user.50 Indeed, Pocock-Williams makes no mention of virtual
`
`reality systems, a virtual environment, or a virtual reality computer system.51
`
`
`47 Exhibit 1007, Abstract, p. 29.
`
`48 See e.g., id. at 29-36.
`
`49 See id.
`
`50 Id.
`
`51 See id.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`b.
`
` Fallacaro – U.S. Patent No. 4,771,344.
`
`Fallacaro relates to a system in which “viewers may be tactilely
`
`stimulated in response to events occurring during a concert.”52 Critically,
`
`Fallacaro, like Pocock-Williams, has nothing to do with generating a virtual
`
`environment from music or control signals.53 That is, it does not generate a
`
`display from the user’s first person perspective from any audio or control
`
`signal.54 Indeed, Fallacaro makes no mention of virtual reality systems, a
`
`virtual environment, or a virtual reality computer system.55
`
`c.
`
` Pimentel – Ken Pimentel and Kevin Texeira, Virtual
`Reality: Through the New Looking Glass (McGraw-Hill,
`Inc., eds., 1st ed. 1993).
`
`Pimentel provides a general overview of some virtual reality systems.56
`
`The portions of Pimentel cited by the Petitioner relate to the display of a three-
`
`dimensional representation of the stock market controlled by a user “playing
`
`
`52 Exhibit 1005, col. 20, ll. 41-42.
`
`53 See e.g., id. at cols. 2, 9, 20, and 21.
`
`54 See e.g., id.
`
`55 See e.g., id.
`
`56 Exhibit 1006.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`an electronic flute to select particular industry segments.”57 Significantly,
`
`Pimentel makes no mention of generating a display from the user’s first person
`
`perspective from any audio or control signal based on audio.58 Pimentel does
`
`not teach that the control signals that operate its system and generate the
`
`representation of the stock market are generated by processing music signals; it
`
`instead teaches that the control signals are generated from the activation of
`
`switches on the electronic flute by a user.59
`
`VI. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONER
`PREVAILING AS TO A CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’129
`PATENT.
`
`Inter partes review cannot be instituted unless the Board determines that
`
`the Petition demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one
`
`of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.60
`
`Here, the Board should decline to institute an inter partes review on any
`
`proposed anticipation ground because the Petitioner did not show that either
`
`Fallacaro or Pocock-Williams discloses all of the limitations of any of the
`
`
`57 Id. at 77.
`
`58 See e.g., id. at pp. 31-35.
`
`59 Id. at 77.
`
`60 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00155
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`challenged claim