UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`UBISOFT, INC. AND UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT SA
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GUITAR APPRENTICE, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent 8,586,849
` ____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL ZYDA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 1
`
`

`

`I, Michael Zyda, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND EDUCATION
`
`1.
`
`I began my career in Computer Graphics in 1973 as part of an
`
`undergraduate research group, the Senses Bureau, at the University of California, San
`
`Diego. I received a BA in Bioengineering from the University of California, San Diego
`
`in La Jolla in 1976, an MS in Computer and Information Science from the University
`
`of Massachusetts, Amherst in 1978 and a DSc in Computer Science from Washington
`
`University, St. Louis, Missouri in 1984.
`
`2.
`
`I am the Founding Director of the University of Southern California
`
`(USC) GamePipe Laboratory, and a Professor of Engineering Practice in the USC
`
`Department of Computer Science. At USC, I founded the USC Games joint
`
`Advanced Games course and took the USC Games program from no program to the
`
`preeminent Games program in the world in five years. The USC Games program has
`
`been rated #1 by the Princeton Review for five straight years. My alums have shipped
`
`games played by over 800 million players. From Fall 2000 to Fall 2004, I was the
`
`Founding Director of the MOVES Institute located at the Naval Postgraduate School,
`
`Monterey and a Professor in the Department of Computer Science at NPS as well.
`
`From 1986 until the formation of the MOVES Institute, I was the Director of the
`
`NPSNET Research Group. My research interests include computer graphics, large-
`
`scale, networked 3D virtual environments and games, agent-based simulation,
`
`modeling human and organizational behavior, interactive computer-generated story,
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 2
`
`

`

`computer-generated
`
`characters,
`
`video
`
`production,
`
`entertainment/defense
`
`collaboration, modeling and simulation, and serious and entertainment games. I am
`
`considered a pioneer in the following fields - computer graphics, networked virtual
`
`environments, modeling and simulation, and serious and entertainment games. I hold
`
`a lifetime appointment as a National Associate of the National Academies, an
`
`appointment made by the Council of the National Academy of Sciences in November
`
`2003, awarded in recognition of “extraordinary service” to the National Academies. I
`
`am a member of the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences. I served as the principal
`
`investigator and development director of the America’s Army PC game funded by the
`
`Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. I took America’s
`
`Army from conception to three million plus registered players and hence, transformed
`
`Army recruiting. The creation of the America’s Army game founded the serious
`
`games field. I also co-hold two patents that form the basis for the 9-axis sensor in the
`
`Nintendo Wii U.
`
`3.
`
`I began working in the networked visual simulation field in 1987. I
`
`received my first large piece of funding in that area from DARPA in 1991 as part of
`
`the Warbreaker Program. My research group’s role in that program was to build a
`
`low-cost, workstation based (Silicon Graphics workstations) visual simulator that
`
`could read SIMNET data packets and SIMNET terrain databases. By 1993, our
`
`NPSNET system could interoperate with SIMNET and the DIS standard and take
`
`part in the large-scale exercises that were part of the Warbreaker Program. As part of
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 3
`
`

`

`Warbreaker, we received a connection to the Defense Simulation Internet, DSINET.
`
`DSINET was a network dedicated to large-scale military simulation exercises. The
`
`DSINET supported the use of SIMNET and DIS (Distributed Interactive Simulation)
`
`network packets as well as simultaneous video teleconferencing. In August 1993,
`
`DARPA funded my program to put on a joint demonstration with the Air Force
`
`Institute of Technology (AFIT) at the annual SIGGRAPH Conference in Anaheim,
`
`California. Our team purchased a T-1 link that connected our Anaheim-based LAN to
`
`the DSINET. We ran a demonstration showing off NPSNET connected to the
`
`AFIT-HOTAS system and had some 50 workstations playing inside of that
`
`demonstration. We put on a special demonstration for the Director of DARPA, who
`
`was in his office in Arlington, VA. During that demonstration, the DARPA Director
`
`could watch what was going on from a workstation on the DSINET in Arlington and
`
`speak to us by video link across the DSINET at the same time. We additionally spoke
`
`to our Program Manager across the DSINET to Arlington. We continued to utilize
`
`the DSINET in developing the NPSNET system through the end of 1996.
`
`4.
`
`In 1994, the NPSNET Research Group began to experiment with the
`
`then new Multicase Backbone of the Internet (Mbone). The Mbone was a virtual
`
`network built on top of the Internet and invented by Van Jacobson, Steve Deering
`
`and Stephen Casner in 1992. The purpose of Mbone was to minimize the amount of
`
`data required for multipoint audio and video conferencing. Mbone was free and it
`
`used a network of routers that supported IP multicast, and it enabled access to real-
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 4
`
`

`

`time interactive multimedia on the Internet, including networked simulation packets,
`
`game packets and video conferencing. The first visual simulation system to play on
`
`the Mbone was NPSNET in 1994.
`
`5.
`
`I have published over 130 technical books, reports, and papers relating
`
`to modeling, simulation, virtual reality, virtual environments, and computing. I also
`
`attach as Appendix A a recent and complete curriculum vitae, which details my
`
`educational and professional background and publications.
`
`6.
`
`I am submitting this declaration to offer my independent expert opinion
`
`concerning certain issues raised in the petition for inter partes review (“Petition”)
`
`regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,586,849 (“the ‘849 Patent”). My compensation is not
`
`based on the substance of the opinions rendered here. As part of my work in
`
`connection with this matter, I have studied the ‘849 Patent, including its written
`
`descriptions, figures, and claims, as well as the prosecution file history of the ‘849
`
`Patent. In addition I reviewed the Petition. I have also carefully considered the
`
`following references discussed in the Petition:
`
`• U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0003638 to Lee et al. (“Lee”), entitled
`“Music Instruction System,” filed on May 7, 2010 and published on
`January 6, 2011 [Exhibit 1003]
`
`• U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0137049 to Epstein (“Epstein”),
`entitled “Interactive Guitar Game Designed for Learning to Play the
`Guitar,” filed on November 20, 2009 and published on June 3, 2010
`[Exhibit 1004]
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 5
`
`

`

`• U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0200224 to Parks (“Parks”), entitled
`“Instrument Game System and Method,” filed October 1, 2007 and
`published on August 21, 2008 [Exhibit 1005]
`II. Legal Framework
`
`7.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which a prior art patent or
`
`printed publication can be used to invalidate a patent. First, the prior art can be
`
`shown to “anticipate” the claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to “render
`
`obvious” the claim. My understanding of the two legal standards is set forth below.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that, in general, for a patent claim to be invalid as
`
`“anticipated” by the prior art, each and every feature of the claim must be found,
`
`expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference or product arranged as in the
`
`claim. Claim limitations that are not expressly found in a prior art reference are
`
`inherent if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claim
`
`limitations.
`
`9.
`
`I further understand that an inventor is not entitled to a patent if his or
`
`her invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`invention at the time the invention was made. I understand that a patent claim is not
`
`patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the patent claim and the
`
`prior art are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`at the time the claimed invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`to which the subject matter pertains. Obviousness, as I understand it, is based on the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claim,
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 6
`
`

`

`the level of ordinary skill in the art, and, to the extent that they exist and have an
`
`appropriate nexus to the claimed invention (as opposed to prior art features),
`
`secondary indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`10.
`
`I have been informed that whether there are any relevant differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention is to be analyzed from the view of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in this case June 30,
`
`2010. As such, my opinions below as to a person of ordinary skill in the art are as of
`
`the time of the invention, even if not expressly stated as such; for example, even if
`
`stated in the present tense.
`
`11.
`
`In analyzing the relevance of the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art, I have been informed that I must consider the impact, if
`
`any, of such differences on the obviousness or non-obviousness of the invention as a
`
`whole, not merely some portion of it. The person of ordinary skill faced with a
`
`problem is able to apply his or her experience and ability to solve the problem and
`
`also look to any available prior art to help solve the problem.
`
`12. An invention is obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art, facing the
`
`wide range of needs created by developments in the field, would have seen an obvious
`
`benefit to the solutions tried by the applicant. When there is a design need or market
`
`pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to try the known options.
`
`If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 7
`
`

`

`the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using
`
`the technique would have been obvious.
`
`13.
`
`It is my understanding that a precise teaching in the prior art directed to
`
`the subject matter of the claimed invention is not needed and that one may take into
`
`account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have employed in reviewing the prior art at the time of the invention. For
`
`example, if the claimed invention combined elements known in the prior art and the
`
`combination yielded results that were predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention, then this evidence would make it more likely that the
`
`claim was obvious. On the other hand, if the combination of known elements yielded
`
`unexpected or unpredictable results, or if the prior art teaches away from combining
`
`the known elements, then this evidence would make it more likely that the claim that
`
`successfully combined those elements was not obvious.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that hindsight must not be used when comparing the prior
`
`art to the invention for obviousness.
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that obviousness may also be shown by
`
`demonstrating that it would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single
`
`piece of prior art to create the subject matter of the patent claim. Obviousness may
`
`be shown by showing that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
`
`more than one item of prior art. In determining whether a piece of prior art could
`
`have been combined with other prior art or combined with or modified in view of
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 8
`
`

`

`other information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, the
`
`following are examples of approaches and rationales that may be considered:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`
`• Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• Applying a technique or approach that would have been "obvious to try"
`(choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with
`a reasonable expectation of success);
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives
`or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to
`one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the rationale for modifying a reference and/or
`
`combining references may come from sources such as explicit statements in the prior
`
`art, or the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, including any need or problem
`
`known in the field at the time, even if different from the specific need or problem
`
`addressed by the inventor of the patent claim.
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 9
`
`

`

`III. OPINION
`
`A.
`
`17.
`
`Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art to which the application
`
`that issued as the ‘849 patent claims priority (June 30, 2010) would have had at
`
`minimum a bachelors degree in electrical engineering, computer science, physics,
`
`mathematics, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working
`
`experience, in addition to one to two years of software programming experience.
`
`18. As demonstrated by my experience listed above, I more than meet the
`
`definition of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`B.
`
`State of the Art
`
`19. Music video games using guitar-shaped controllers have been around
`
`since the late 1990s. For example, in 1998, Konami released an arcade game system
`
`titled Guitar Freaks, which featured two guitar-shaped controllers connected to an
`
`arcade machine (http://www.arcade-museum.com/game_detail.php?game_id=8026).
`
`In 2005 Harmonix released Guitar Hero, the first of a series of music-based video
`
`games. Guitar Hero allowed users at home to connect a plastic guitar-shaped
`
`controller to their game consoles. Additionally, U.S. Patent No. 8,003,872 to
`
`Lopiccolo et al. (“Lopiccolo”), filed December 12, 2006 and assigned to Harmonix
`
`Music Systems Inc., describes using a simulated musical instrument, such as a
`
`simulated guitar controller, to alter the audio of a video game. Appendix B, Lopiccolo.
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 10
`
`

`

`20. These early systems allowed a user to simulate playing a guitar by
`
`connecting a guitar-shaped controller with a computer or gaming system. Instead of
`
`strings, as on a real guitar, the guitar-shaped controllers contained buttons on the neck
`
`and a strum switch on the main body. Images of notes were typically displayed on the
`
`user interface. The color of each note matched the color of the corresponding button
`
`on the guitar-shaped controller. To play a note the user had to activate a button with
`
`one hand as well as the strum switch with the other hand. The user interface usually
`
`included a scrolling timeline (e.g., note highway) that had lanes corresponding to the
`
`buttons on the user’s guitar. Notes would scroll down the lanes and once a note
`
`reached a certain area the user was prompted to play the corresponding button on
`
`their guitar controller. See, e.g., Lopiccolo at 1:13-15, 3:18-30, Figs. 2, 4.
`
`21. A variety of songs were stored in these early systems. Each song had
`
`multiple difficulty levels (e.g., easy, medium, hard). The difficulty level was either
`
`selected by the user or determined automatically by the system based on the score
`
`from their last game, for example. One such system is described in U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,500,559 to Matsumoto et al. (“Matsumoto”), filed on May 7, 2009 and assigned to
`
`Konami Digital Entertainment Co. See, e.g., Appendix C, Matsumoto at 2:61-63, 22:4-
`
`23:22, Figs. 30, 31.
`
`22. U.S. Patent No. 7,521,619 to Salter (“Salter”), filed on April 19, 2007,
`
`describes a system and method of instructing a user to read musical notation using an
`
`input instrument that is representative of a stringed instrument along with a graphical
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 11
`
`

`

`user interface. The input instrument is a guitar shaped interface including a multitude
`
`of buttons each corresponding to a different fret position. See, e.g., Appendix D, Salter.
`
`23. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0200224 to Parks (“Parks”), filed
`
`October 1, 2007, describes a game system where a real guitar is connected to a game
`
`console. Exhibit 1005, Parks. The game console receives input signals from an
`
`instrument and converts the signals into a form that can be compared with the
`
`expected notes of the arrangement. The user is scored based on how accurately the
`
`user can play the song compared to the exemplary song. The game system
`
`accomplishes the conversion by determining the periodicity component of the pitch
`
`of the signal so that the periodicity component can be converted into a frequency
`
`which is then converted into a note:
`
`“FIGS. 12A and 12B illustrate a ‘hit’ scoring event and a ‘miss’ scoring
`event, respectively. As shown in FIG. 12A, the arrangement note ‘G’ has
`been cued (1202) accompanied by a time window that is shown (1204).
`A ‘Hit’ is scored in FIG. 12A because the performance by the user
`contains the note ‘G’ (1206) within the time window (1204). In FIG.
`12B, the arrangement note ‘G’ has also been cued (1208) with a time
`window (1210). However, a ‘Miss’ is scored in FIG. 12B because no
`note ‘G’ is played in the user performance in the time window.
`Generally, the live instrument performance of the player will be a
`continuous signal (with pitches) that therefore is converted in a known
`manner into notes with time tags so that the game system is able to
`compare the notes of the arrangement with the notes of the live
`instrument performance. To accomplish this conversion, the system
`(such as the analysis module described with reference to FIG. 24 below)
`may determine the periodicity component of the pitch so that the
`periodicity component can be converted into a frequency which can
`then be converted into a note.” Parks at [0045]; see also Parks at [0056].
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 12
`
`

`

`24.
`
`Parks also teaches a game system that allows users to learn to play a song
`
`by playing the same song at different levels of difficulty. Each increasing level of
`
`difficulty of the song adds more notes that the user is required to play. For example,
`
`an easy arrangement requires the user to play every fourth note, while a more difficult
`
`arrangement requires the user to only play every second note.
`
`“The game system may also adjust the difficulty of each level of the
`game. For example, as shown in FIG. 15, the same song may be played
`with several different level difficulties using a select difficulty screen
`1500.
`
`In the game system, different arrangements of musical pieces can be
`used to give more difficult and challenging experiences of playing the
`same musical piece, as shown by FIG. 16. The piece shown, “Mary Had
`a Little Lamb”, has its rhythmic components shown by 1602. An “Easy”
`arrangement of the piece 1604 may be composed by cueing only every
`4th note. An arrangement more difficult than the Easy arrangement,
`denoted as “Normal” 1606, cues only every 2 note. An arrangement
`more difficult than Normal, denoted as “Hard” 1608, cues the player to
`play every note in the melody. An arrangement more difficult than Hard,
`denoted as “Expert” 1610, cues the player to add grace notes 1612 and
`other extra note runs 1614 to the original musical piece.” Parks at [0050]-
`[0051].
`
`
`Parks at Fig. 16.
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 13
`
`

`

`C.
`
`25.
`
`Lee
`
`I was asked to consider whether Lee discloses a music instruction system
`
`that would have been capable of setting the difficulty level of a session based on the
`
`user’s performance during a previous session. It is my opinion that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of July 30, 2010 would understand that the music
`
`instruction system disclosed by Lee would have been capable of automatically
`
`selecting a difficulty level at the start of a session based on the user’s performance in a
`
`previous session.
`
`26.
`
`In particular, Lee discloses a music instruction system that defines the
`
`number of notes a user will be required to play based on the difficulty level of the
`
`session. Ex. 1003, Lee at [0105], [0106], [0173]. Lee discloses that the difficulty level
`
`of a session can be static and remain unchanged throughout a session or can be
`
`dynamic such that the system dynamically adjusts the difficulty level of the session
`
`based on the user’s performance.
`
`“[A]ccording to an exemplary implementation, the difficulty level of a
`session may be static throughout the session. However, according to
`another implementation, the difficulty level of the session may be
`dynamic during the session. For example, the difficulty level of the
`session may change during the session based on an evaluation of the
`user's performance. According to such an implementation, the difficulty
`level of the session may increase or decrease, and correspondingly, the
`difficulty level of the performance cues may reflect these changes.”
`Lee at [0106].
`
`27.
`
`In one embodiment, Lee discloses providing a user interface to allow the
`
`user to select the difficulty level for a session.
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 14
`
`

`

`“According to an exemplary embodiment, a user may perform a musical
`piece during a session. Music instruction system 115 may provide user
`interfaces to allow the user to select, among other things, the musical
`piece, a session difficulty level (e.g., beginner, novice, skilled, advanced,
`prodigy, or the like), the type of performance cues (e.g., a tablature, a
`standard music notation, etc.), and the musical instrument.”
`Lee at [0195].
`
`Lee also discloses that the user’s performance during previous sessions, and
`
`specifically a determined “user level,” may assist the user in selecting a level of
`
`difficulty for a subsequent session.
`
`“User level 1830 may indicate a level of the user based on the scores and
`statistics associated with the user's performance. For example, user level
`1830 may include a range of levels, such as, novice, skilled, advanced,
`and prodigy. User level 1830 may assist the user in selecting a difficulty
`level for a subsequent session. As previously described, the user may
`select a particular difficulty level for any given session.”
`Lee at [0183].
`
`
`According to Lee, the difficulty levels and user skill levels are the same levels (e.g.,
`
`beginner, easy, novice, skilled, difficult, advanced, prodigy, or the like). Lee at [0065],
`
`[0106], [0195].
`
`28. Where the system dynamically adjusts the difficulty level during a
`
`session, Lee discloses that the determination to adjust the difficulty level is based on
`
`the user’s performance and/or feedback, such as score.
`
`“Additionally, as previously described, according to an exemplary
`embodiment, the difficulty level of the session may be static throughout
`the session. According to another implementation, the difficulty level of
`the session may be dynamic. For example, music instruction system 115
`may automatically increase the difficulty level of the session or
`automatically decrease the difficulty level of the session during the
`session. According to an exemplary implementation, music instruction
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 15
`
`

`

`system 115 may adjust the difficulty level of session based on the user's
`performance and/or feedback (e.g., score, etc.). For example, when the
`user's performance is evaluated to be positive and/or the user's score or
`other performance related statistics, etc. exceeds a threshold value, music
`instruction system 115 may automatically increase the difficulty level of
`the session. Conversely, when the user's performance is evaluated to be
`negative and/or the user's score or other performance related statistics,
`etc., is below a threshold value, music instruction system 115 may
`automatically decrease the difficulty level of the session.”
`Lee at [0161].
`
`29. Lee also suggests that the system is capable of automatically increasing
`
`the difficulty level “from session to session,” where the difficulty level of subsequent
`
`sessions is based on the user’s performance in previous sessions.
`
`“[W]hen the difficulty level of a musical piece is set to a low level, the
`user may be required to play only one out of every N musical events,
`where N>1. If that single musical event is played correctly, the user may
`experience the other N-1 notes being played perfectly, by hearing the
`expert performance. In another example, when the difficulty level is set
`to a high level (e.g., an expert level), the user may be required to
`correctly play each of N musical events. …
`
`According to such an instructional approach, music instruction system
`115 may allow the user to be introduced to his/her musical instrument
`in a stepwise and progressive manner, which may begin with the user
`playing some musical events of a musical piece and guiding the user to
`ultimately play all of the musical events of the musical piece. In this way,
`an expert proficiency level is not immediately required, and the user may
`gradually become familiar with his/her musical instrument, the musical
`piece, and improve their musical ability. In such an approach, music
`instruction system 115 may provide a highly enjoyable
`learning
`experience for the user. As the user progresses and gains skill from
`session to session, the value of N may be gradually reduced to 1.”
`Lee at [0173]-[0174].
`
`30. Upon reading the disclosure of Lee, a skilled artisan would recognize
`
`that the disclosed music instruction system, which was expressly capable of setting the
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 16
`
`

`

`difficulty level during a user performance based on the how well the user was
`
`performing, would also have been capable of setting the difficulty level at the outset
`
`of a session.
`
`31.
`
`Further, it is my opinion that it would have been obvious to modify the
`
`system to automatically set the difficulty level at the start of a session based on the
`
`user’s previous performance. Given the expressly disclosed capabilities of the system,
`
`such a modification could simply involve modifying a user interface to, in addition to
`
`including selection options for allowing the user to manually select the difficulty level,
`
`include an additional selection option for setting the difficulty level of the session at
`
`the user’s current skill level for that song (i.e., based on the user’s previous
`
`performance). A skilled artisan would recognize that providing such functionality
`
`could have been beneficial. Namely, such an automated approach would assist the
`
`user in selecting an appropriate difficulty level based on the user’s skill level
`
`progression for a particular song. Incorporating a selection option at the start of each
`
`session to allow the user to have the system set the difficulty level at the user’s current
`
`skill level for that song would not have required undue experimentation, but rather
`
`would have only required modifying the user interface. Programming a user interface
`
`to include such a selection option is well within the knowledge that would have been
`
`possessed by one of skill in the art. One of skill in the art would have a high degree of
`
`success in modifying the user interface in this manner to develop the claimed
`
`technology.
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 17
`
`

`

`32.
`
`I was also asked to consider whether the music instruction system of Lee
`
`was capable of determining whether the difficulty level of a subsequent session for a
`
`particular song should be maintained, such that the number of notes the user is
`
`required to play remains the same.
`
`33. Lee discloses that the music instruction system provides varying levels of
`
`feedback relating to the user’s ability to play a musical piece correctly. For example,
`
`the system can display the word “OK” as opposed to words “Excellent” or
`
`“Horrible” based on how well the user plays a song.
`
`“As previously described, music instruction system 115 (e.g., feedback
`manager 325) may provide varying levels of positive feedback or varying
`levels of negative feedback to the user. According to an exemplary
`implementation, the positive feedback and the negative feedback may
`relate to the success or to the failure of the user's ability to play a musical
`event/musical piece correctly.”
`Lee at [0164].
`
`“Additionally, music instruction system 115 may display positive words
`in correspondence to the level of positive feedback. By way of example,
`but not limited thereto, positive words, such as “OK,” “Good, “Great,”
`and “Excellent,” may represent varying levels of positive feedback.”
`Lee at [0165]; see generally id. at [0173]-[0174], [0209]-[0210].
`
`“Additionally, music instruction system 115 may display negative words
`in correspondence to the level of negative feedback. By way of example,
`but not limited thereto, negative words, such as “Poor,” “Bad,
`“Terrible,” and “Horrible,” may represent varying levels of negative
`feedback. Additionally, or alternatively, music instruction system 115
`may decrement the user's score 1770, the extent of which may depend
`on the extent of the incorrectness of the user-performed musical
`events.”
`Lee at [0169].
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 18
`
`

`

`34. Upon reading the disclosure of Lee, a skilled artisan would recognize
`
`that, where the disclosed music instruction system determined that the user’s
`
`performance of a song was “OK,” the system would have displayed a “user level”
`
`upon completion of the song that was the same as the static difficulty level of the
`
`completed session.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`35.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true
`
`to the best of my knowledge and recollection, and further that these statements were
`
`made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are
`
`punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under section 1001 of Title 18 of the
`
`United States Code.
`
`Date:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: ____________________________
`Michael Zyda
`
`
`
`24 Nov 2014
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 19
`
`

`

`Home Address (two homes):
`Torres 5 SW of First
`P.O. Box 5774
`Carmel, California 93921
`(310) 463-5774 (cell)
`610 S Main St, Apt 435
`Los Angeles, California 90014-2073
`
`1978-1984
`
`
`
`1972-1976
`
`Michael Zyda
`Work Address:
`Director, USC GamePipe Laboratory
`Department of Computer Science
`746 West Adams Blvd, EGG Building
`Los Angeles, California 90089-7727
`(310) 463-5774
`
`E-mail: zyda@usc.edu
`Web: http://gamepipe.usc.edu/~zyda
`Research Interests: computer graphics, large-scale, networked 3D virtual environments, agent-based simulation,
`modeling human and organizational behavior, interactive computer-generated story, computer-generated characters,
`video production, entertainment/defense collaboration, serious and entertainment games, and modeling and
`simulation.
`Pioneer in the following fields: computer graphics, networked virtual reality, modeling and simulation, serious and
`entertainment games.
`Education
`Washington Unversity - St. Louis, Missouri
`
`D.Sc. Computer Science - Awarded January, 1984
`
`School of Engineering and Applied Science
`
`“Algorithm Directed Architectures for Real-Time Surface Display Generation”
`
`University of Massachusetts, Amherst - Amherst, MA
`
`1976-1978
` M.S. Computer and Information Science Awarded September 1978
`
`University of California, San Diego, Revelle College - La Jolla, California
`
`B.A. Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences/Bioengineering - Awarded 1976
` Minor in Spanish Literature
`
`Languages – Spanish (6 years),