`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT SA,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00635
`Patent 5,513,129
`__________________
`
`
`PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S PATENT OWNER
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ...............................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Virtual Reality Systems .....................................................................................4
`
`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..................................................................................................................6
`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW .............8
`
`IV. PRINCETON DIGITAL’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS .........................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“Virtual Environment” (claims 1-9 and 12-21). ..............................................13
`
`“Virtual Reality Computer System” (Claims 1-9 and 12-21). .........................15
`
`V. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONER PREVAILING
`AS TO A CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’129 PATENT. ..................................16
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 1, 5-7, 10-15, and 21 Are
`Anticipated By Tsumura. .................................................................................17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Tsumura Does Not Disclose “Generating Said Virtual Environment,” As
`Recited In Independent Claim 1, and As Similarly Recited in Independent
`Claims 5, 12, and 21 ..................................................................................18
`
`Tsumura Does Not Disclose “Operating The Virtual Reality Computer
`System,” As Recited In Independent Claim 1, and As Similarly Recited in
`Independent Claims 5, 12, and 21 ..............................................................20
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 1, 5-7, 10-15, and 21 Are
`Anticipated By Lytle. .......................................................................................23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Lytle Does Not Disclose “Generating Said Virtual Environment,” As
`Recited In Independent Claim 5, and As Similarly Recited in Independent
`Claims 5, 12, and 16 ..................................................................................23
`
`Lytle Does Not Disclose “Operating The Virtual Reality Computer
`System,” As Recited In Independent Claim 5, and As Similarly Recited in
`Independent Claims 12 and 16 ...................................................................26
`
`The Petitioner Improperly Picks and Chooses Different Features of
`Different Embodiments From Lytle In Its Anticipation Argument ...........27
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 2 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 1, 12, 13, 15, and 21 Are
`Anticipated By Adachi. ....................................................................................29
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Adachi Does Not Disclose “Generating Said Virtual Environment,” As
`Recited In Independent Claim 1, and As Similarly Recited in Independent
`Claims 12 and 21 .......................................................................................29
`
`Adachi Does Not Disclose “Operating The Virtual Reality Computer
`System,” As Recited In Independent Claim 1, and As Similarly Recited in
`Independent Claims 12 and 21 ...................................................................33
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Any of Claims 10, 11, 22 and 23 Are
`Anticipated. ......................................................................................................34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Williams Does Not Disclose “(a) prerecording a control track having
`audio and/or control information corresponding to an audio signal and (b)
`operating the computer system in response to said prerecorded control
`track,” As Recited In Independent Claim 10, and As Similarly Recited in
`Independent Claim 22 ................................................................................34
`
`Williams Does Not Disclose “operating the computer system in response
`to both the audio signal and the prerecorded control track,” As Recited In
`Claim 11, and As Similarly Recited in Claim 23.......................................35
`
`3.
`
`Lytle Does Not Anticipate Any of Claims 10, 11, 22 and 23 ....................36
`
`E.
`
`Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Any Of The Challenged Claims Are
`Obvious Over (i) Tsumura In View Of Williams, (ii) Lytle In View of Adachi
`or (iii) Thalmann In View Of Williams Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). ................37
`
`1.
`
`The Petition Fails To Demonstrate That Any of The Combinations Of
`Prior Art Teaches All Of The Limitations Of Any Of The Contested
`Claims ........................................................................................................38
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Neither The Combination of Tsumura and Williams Nor The
`Combination of Lytle and Adachi Teaches Or Suggests The
`Limitations Relating To A “virtual environment,” As Recited In
`Independent Claims 1, 5, 12, 16, and 21 ..............................................38
`
`Neither The Combination of Tsumura and Williams Nor The
`Combination of Lytle and Adachi Teaches Or Suggests The
`Limitations Relating To A “virtual reality computer system,” As
`Recited In Each Of The Challenged Independent Claims ...................41
`
`The Combination of Thalmann and Williams Does Not Teach or
`Suggest “(a) prerecording a control track having audio and/or control
`information corresponding to an audio signal; and (b) operating the
`virtual reality computer system in response to said prerecorded control
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 3 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`track to generate said virtual environment,” As Recited in Independent
`Claim 5, And As Similarly Recited in Independent Claims 1, 12, 16,
`and 21 ...................................................................................................43
`
`2.
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Show That A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The
`Art Would Have Been Motivated To Combine The Teachings Of (i)
`Tsumura and Williams, (ii) Lytle and Adachi, or (iii) Thalmann and
`Williams To Achieve The Invention Claimed in the ‘129 Patent And
`Would Have Had A Reasonable Expectation Of Success In Doing So .....46
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Scope and content of prior art. .............................................................48
`
`State of the art and level of ordinary skill. ...........................................50
`
`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. .............52
`
`F.
`
`The Petition Fails to Identify Any Compelling Rationale for Adopting
`Redundant Grounds of Rejection. ....................................................................56
`
`VI. CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 4 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`Ex. 2001 IEEE VGTC Virtual Reality Technical Achievement Award 2005.
`
`Description
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Page 5 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`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) ................ 48
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir.
`2002) ..................................................................................................................... 12
`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).. ................................................................................................. 11
`Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enterprises, Inc., 302 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.
`2002). .............................................................................................................. 12, 14
`Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) ..................................................................................................................... 11
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) ............................... 37,47,48
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................... 11
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc),
`aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). ................................................................................... 10
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................. 47
`OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir.
`2012). .................................................................................................................... 38
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 130, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............. 10,11,12,14
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
` ............................................................................................................................... 12
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed. Cir.
`2009) ..................................................................................................................... 47
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................ 17
`Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.
`Cir. 1991). ............................................................................................................. 17
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.
`1987) ..................................................................................................................... 17
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ......... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Page 6 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ......................................................................................... 4
`
`RULES
`37 C.F.R § 42.1(b) ....................................................................................... 59
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc., IPR2013-00183, Paper 12
`(P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) ........................................................................... 48
`Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., IPR2012-00006, Paper 43 (P.T.A.B.
`May 10, 2013). ......................................................................................... 59
`Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B.
`November 15, 2013). ................................................................................ 45
`MPEP § 2131.02. ........................................................................................ 17
`MPEP §§ 2141.01, 2141.02. ......................................................................... 49
`MPEP § 2258.I.G .................................................................................... 10,11
`MPEP § 2666.01 ......................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Page 7 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`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 there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail at trial with respect to any challenged
`
`claim of the ’129 patent. In particular, the Petitioner failed to show that any
`
`challenged claim is anticipated by any prior art reference and failed to set forth
`
`a prima facia case of obviousness for the proposed grounds of rejection, as
`
`shown by five independent and different groups of reasons.
`
` First, each of the proposed anticipation grounds of rejection is missing
`
`at least one limitation from each challenged claim. For example, neither
`
`Tsumura, Lytle, nor Adachi discloses “generating said virtual environment,”
`
`or “operating the virtual reality computer system,” as recited in independent
`
`claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 5, 12, 16 and 21.1 In
`
`addition, Williams does not disclose “(a) prerecording a control track having
`
`audio and/or control information corresponding to an audio signal and (b)
`
`operating the computer system in response to said prerecorded control track,”
`
`as recited in independent claim 10, and as similarly recited in independent
`
`
`1 Infra, §§ V.A, B, and C.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 8 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`claim 22.2 Williams also does not disclose “operating the computer system in
`
`response to both the audio signal and the prerecorded control track,” as recited
`
`in claim 11, and as similarly recited in claim 23.3
`
`Second, the Federal Circuit has stated that to anticipate a claim “[T]he
`
`prior art reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed
`
`invention or direct those skilled in the art to the invention without any need for
`
`picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to
`
`each other by the teachings of the cited reference."4 The Petitioner did exactly
`
`that which is prohibited by the Federal Circuit in its proposed anticipation
`
`grounds using Lytle by picking and choosing parts from i) a system that did not
`
`even exist (i.e., an ideal music graphics production environment) and ii) one of
`
`the embodiments from Lytle.
`
`Third, as explained in the specification of the ’129 Patent, Virtual Reality
`
`(VR) systems are much more complex than simple video animation systems
`
`
`2 Id. at § V.D.
`
`3 Id.
`
`4 Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008),
`
`quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586 (CCPA 1972).
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 9 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`like the system taught by Williams because “VR systems must generate a much
`
`greater amount of content data (image data and audio data simulating
`
`environmental appearance and sounds) than must be generated in most other
`
`electronic media.”5 The Petitioner failed to present any experimental data or
`
`other evidence indicating — in light of the complexities of virtual reality
`
`systems — that the generation of a virtual environment from a user’s first
`
`person perspective from audio signals as required by the claims of the ‘129
`
`patent would have been a predictable result of prior art systems that are not
`
`directed to virtual reality such as Tsumura, Lytle, Adachi, and Williams.6
`
`Fourth, each of the Petitioner’s proposed obviousness grounds of
`
`rejections is missing one or more limitations recited in the challenged claims of
`
`the ’129 patent.7 Fifth the Petition contains many redundant grounds of
`
`rejection.8 Indeed, the Petitioner proposed between two and five grounds of
`
`rejections for each of the challenged claims and did not set forth a compelling
`
`
`5 Exhibit 1001, ‘129 Patent, col. 1, ll. 56-61.
`
`6 Infra, § V.E.2.
`
`7 Infra, § V.E.1.
`
`8 Infra, § V.F.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 10 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`reason for why the Board should institute this proceeding on multiple,
`
`redundant grounds.9
`
`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
`
`respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition.10 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.11 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
`
`
`9 Id.
`
`10 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`11 See e.g., Exhibit 1001, ’129 Patent, col. 1, ll. 22-33.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 11 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`environment.12 In addition, the user can interact with the virtual reality system
`
`to alter the virtual environment.13
`
`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.14 The virtual reality system may
`
`further include a device to track the head movements for use in generating
`
`“images along the area of viewing interest of the user.”15 A virtual reality
`
`system may also include an input device for enabling the user to interact and
`
`alter the virtual environment.16
`
`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.17 The system then used the
`
`
`12 Id.
`
`13 Id. at col. 1, ll. 34-42.
`
`14 Id.
`
`15 Id. at col. 1, ll. 42-45.
`
`16 Id. at col. 1, ll. 36-42.
`
`17 Id. at col. 2, ll. 36-42.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 12 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`determined movement of the glove to create sound.18 That is, in these types of
`
`virtual reality systems, “manipulation of a virtual object causes the sound or
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`music to change.”19
`
`
`
`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.”20 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.21 Ironically, Intel’s former chairman Gordon Moore (of “Moore’s
`
`
`18 Id. at col. 2, ll. 54-56.
`
`19 Id. at col. 2, ll. 64-65.
`
`20 Id. at col. 3, ll. 43-46.
`
`21 Exhibit 2001.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 13 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`Law”), in the foreword of Pimentel, one of the three prior art references cited
`
`in the only other IPR filed against the ‘129 Patent, complimented inventor
`
`Mark Bolas as a “VR trailblazer.”22
`
`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
`
`in the virtual world.”23 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.”24 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).”25
`
`In addition, “control tracks can be generated automatically (e.g., by
`
`electronic signal processing circuitry) in response to a music signal and then
`
`
`22 IPR2013-00155, Exhibit 1006, p. 331.
`
`23 Id. at col. 4, ll. 63-67.
`
`24 Id. at col. 5, ll. 4-7.
`
`25 Id. at col. 5, ll. 7-10.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 14 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`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.”26 “The placement and rhythm of dancers could be encoded in
`
`prerecorded control tracks, for example.”27 Next, the invention can supply to
`
`the VR system one or more prerecorded control tracks corresponding to the
`
`music, or can generate control signals from prerecorded control tracks and
`
`then supply such control signals to the VR system for processing.”28 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:
`
`
`26 Id. at col. 5, ll. 22-27.
`
`27 Id. at col. 5, ll. 32-33.
`
`28 Id. at col. 5, ll. 11-16.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 15 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`1. Claims 1, 5-7, 10-15, and 21: Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)
`
`by U.S. Patent No. 5,208,413 to Tsumura, et al. (“Tsumura”) [Ex.
`
`1002].
`
`2. Claims 5-7, 9-12, 16-18, and 22-23: Anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b) by “Driving Computer Graphics Animation From a
`
`Musical Score” by Lytle (“Lytle”) [Ex. 1003].
`
`3. Claims 1, 12, 13, 15, and 21: Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
`
`by U.S. Patent No. 5,048,390 to Adachi, et al. (“Adachi”) [Ex.
`
`1004].
`
`4. Claims 10, 11, 22 and 23: Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) by
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,430,835 to Williams, et al. (“Williams”) [Ex.
`
`1005].
`
`5. Claims 16-20: Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Tsumura
`
`[Ex. 1002] in view of Williams [Ex. 1005].
`
`6. Claims 1, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 21: Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`over Lytle [Ex. 1003] in view of Adachi [Ex. 1004].
`
`7. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 19, and 21: Obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) over “Using Virtual Reality Techniques in the Animation
`
`Process” by Thalmann (“Thalmann”) [Ex. 1006] in view of
`
`Williams [Ex. 1005].
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 16 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`
`
`IV. PRINCETON DIGITAL’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Claim construction is generally an issue law.29 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.”30 31 The PTO expressly acknowledges
`
`that the principles set forth in Phillips will result in narrower claim
`
`
`29 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc),
`
`aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`30 MPEP § 2258 I G, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75
`
`USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`31 The Petitioner asserted that its “claim construction analysis is not, and
`
`should not be viewed as, a concession by Petitioners as to the proper scope of
`
`any claim term in any litigation.” Petition 3. But the Petition’s positions in
`
`this IPR proceeding are concessions in the litigation because the claim
`
`construction standard in the IPR and litigation proceedings are the same
`
`because the ‘129 patent is expired.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 17 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`constructions: “Once the patent expires, a narrow claim construction is
`
`applied.”32
`
`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.33 The specification is the single best
`
`source for claim interpretation.34 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.35 The customary meaning
`
`applies unless the specification reveals a special definition given to the claim
`
`
`32 MPEP 2666.01, citing MPEP § 2258, subsection I.G.
`
`33 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.
`
`Cir. 1999); Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`34 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`35 Id. at 1313; Research in Motion v. Wi-Lan, Case IPR2013-00126, Paper 10 at 7
`
`(P.T.A.B. June 20, 2013).
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 18 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`term by the patentee, in which case the inventor’s lexicography governs.36
`
`When the specification sets forth an explicit definition of a term, that definition
`
`governs.37 In addition, a claim preamble may be construed as limiting “if it
`
`recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning,
`
`and vitality’ to the claim.”38
`
`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.
`
`
`36 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.”).
`
`37 Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enterprises, Inc., 302 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002).
`
`38 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).
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 19 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`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.”
`
`The Board adopted this claim construction in the other pending IPR for the
`
`‘129 patent (i.e., IPR2014-00155).39 In addition, 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
`
`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.40
`
`Princeton Digital’s proposed construction of virtual environment is identical to
`
`the emphasized portion from the specification reproduced above.
`
`The Petitioner’s argument with respect to the construction of “virtual
`
`environment” are unsupported by the law. After acknowledging the definition
`
`
`39 IPR2014-00155, Paper 11, pp. 7-8.
`
`40 Exhibit 1001, ’129 Patent, col. 1, ll. 22-33 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 20 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`of “virtual environment” in the Specification, “Petitioner’s [sic] contend such
`
`parenthetical statements of ‘intent’ find no place in a proper claim construction
`
`analysis.”41 But the Petitioner failed to cite any legal authority whatsoever to
`
`support its argument that the portions of the Specification appearing within the
`
`parenthesis should not be considered in construing the claims.42 It is little
`
`wonder why; the Federal Circuit made it crystal clear in Philips that the
`
`specification is the single best source for claim interpretation.43 Nowhere does
`
`Philips say that portions of the specification appearing within parenthesis
`
`should be disregarded.44 Moreover, when the specification sets forth an
`
`explicit definition of a term as the Specification of the ‘129 patent did for the
`
`term “virtual environment,” that definition governs.45
`
`
`41 Petition, p. 4.
`
`42 Id.
`
`43 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`44 See id.
`
`45 Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enterprises, Inc., 302 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002).
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 21 of 68
`
`HARMONIX EXHIBIT 1023
`HARMONIX v. PDIC
`IPR2014-00155
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129
`
`
`
`The Board should adopt Princeton Digital’s proposed construction of
`
`“virtual environment” because it is supported by the specification and because
`
`Petitioner’s argument is not supported by the law.
`
`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.” The Board adopted this claim construction in the other
`
`pending IPR for the ’129 patent (i.e., IPR2014-00155)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d16a5/d16a564ec0b89408f5c33b70f6cd1b112a90c740" alt=""
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7cc3/c7cc3db45841a589e07bef14164b37297599bc5f" alt=""
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7cc3/c7cc3db45841a589e07bef14164b37297599bc5f" alt=""
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7cc3/c7cc3db45841a589e07bef14164b37297599bc5f" alt=""
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d16a5/d16a564ec0b89408f5c33b70f6cd1b112a90c740" alt=""
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d16a5/d16a564ec0b89408f5c33b70f6cd1b112a90c740" alt=""
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7cc3/c7cc3db45841a589e07bef14164b37297599bc5f" alt=""
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site