Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 17
`
` Entered: December 3, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WORLDS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`
`____________
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KERRY BEGLEY, and JASON J. CHUNG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Bungie, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`
`review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,181,690 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’690 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Worlds Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be
`instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any
`response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`
`
`BUNGIE - EXHIBIT 1055
`Bungie, Inc. v. Worlds Inc.
`IPR2015-01264, -01319, -01321
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” Having considered the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that claims 1–8, 10–17, and 19 of the ’690 patent are unpatentable.
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. THE ’690 PATENT
`The ’690 patent discloses a “client-server architecture” for a “three-
`dimensional graphical, multi-user, interactive virtual world system.”
`Ex. 1001, [57], 2:63–65. In the preferred embodiment, each user chooses an
`avatar to “represent the user in the virtual world,” id. at 3:15–17, and
`“interacts with a client system,” which “is networked to a virtual world
`server,” id. at 3:4–5. “[E]ach client . . . sends its current location, or changes
`in its current location, to the server.” Id. at 3:31–34; see id. at 2:33–36. The
`server, in turn, sends each client “updated position information” for
`neighbors of the client’s user. Id. at [57], 2:34–36, 3:31–34, 14:43–46.
`The client executes a process to render a “view” of the virtual world
`“from the perspective of the avatar for that . . . user.” Id. at [57], 2:26–30,
`3:23–25, 4:46–48, 7:52–54. This view shows “avatars representing the other
`users who are neighbors of the user.” Id. at [57], 2:30–32.
`B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`Claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 18 of the ’690 patent are
`independent claims. Id. at 19:31–22:46. Claim 1 is illustrative:
`1. A method for enabling a first user to interact with other
`users in a virtual space, wherein the first user and the other
`users each have an avatar and a client process associated
`therewith, and wherein each client process is in communication
`with a server process, wherein the method comprises:
`(a) receiving a position of less than all of the other users’
`avatars from the server process; and
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`(b) determining, from the received positions, a set of the
`other users’ avatars that are to be displayed to the first
`user,
`wherein steps (a) and (b) are performed by the client process
`associated with the first user.
`C. ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`The Petition relies upon the following references:
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,691 (filed Sept. 23, 1993) (issued Aug. 19, 1997)
`(Ex. 1008, “Durward”);
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,777,621 (filed June 7, 1995) (issued July 7, 1998)
`(Ex. 1019, “Schneider”);
`
`
`Thomas A. Funkhouser & Carlo H. Séquin, Adaptive Display Algorithm for
`Interactive Frame Rates During Visualization of Complex Virtual
`Environments, in COMPUTER GRAPHICS PROCEEDINGS: ANNUAL
`CONFERENCE SERIES 247 (1993) (Ex. 1017, “Funkhouser ’93”); and
`
`
`Thomas A. Funkhouser, RING: A Client-Server System for Multi-User
`Virtual Environments, in 1995 SYMPOSIUM ON INTERACTIVE 3D
`GRAPHICS 85 (1995) (Ex. 1005, “Funkhouser”).
`
`
`D. ASSERTED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability. Pet. 8.
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–3, 5–7, 9–12, 14, 15,
`and 17–20
`4, 8, 13, and 16
`1–3, 5–7, 9–12, 14, 15,
`and 17–20
`4, 8, 13, and 16
`
`Basis
`Reference(s)
`§ 102 Funkhouser
`
`§ 103 Funkhouser and Funkhouser ’93
`§ 102 Durward
`
`§ 103 Durward and Schneider
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`We interpret claims in an unexpired patent using the “broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`[they] appear[].”1 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under this standard, we
`presume a claim term carries its “ordinary and customary meaning.” In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`For purposes of this Decision, we must address the construction of
`one term, “synchronously disseminating,” to resolve the issues presented by
`the patentability challenges. In addressing this term, Petitioner, with
`supporting testimony from Dr. Michael Zyda, argues that “the specification
`does not use the term ‘synchronously’” other than in the claims, “nor does it
`provide any description of how synchronous dissemination might occur.”
`Pet. 12; Ex. 1002 ¶ 65. Petitioner and Dr. Zyda proceed to apply the
`construction that Patent Owner proposed in Worlds, Inc. v. Activision
`Blizzard, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-10576 (D. Mass.) (“the Activision Case”),
`namely “transmitting in a manner that is synchronized or coordinated.”
`Pet. 12; Ex. 1002 ¶ 66. Patent Owner responds to Petitioner’s asserted
`grounds “based on Petitioner’s proposed constructions.” Prelim. Resp. 10.
`Accordingly, neither the Petition nor the Preliminary Response
`provides any explanation for the construction of “synchronously
`
`1 The parties agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation standard
`applies to the ’690 patent. See Paper 14; Paper 15; Ex. 2014 (accepting
`delayed maintenance fee and reinstating ’690 patent as of June 2, 2015).
`Based on our review of the patent, however, the patent may have expired
`recently or may be expiring shortly. See Ex. 1001, [63], Cert. of Corr. For
`expired patents, we apply the claim construction standard in Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Our analysis in this Decision is not
`impacted by whether we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation or the
`Phillips standard. We, however, expect the parties to address, with
`particularity, in their future briefing the expiration date of ’690 patent claims
`on which we institute inter partes review and if necessary to address this
`issue, to file Provisional Application No. 60/020,296 as an exhibit.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`disseminating” that both parties use in addressing the asserted grounds. In
`addition, although Patent Owner filed the claim construction order from the
`Activision Case as an exhibit, neither party referenced that the district court
`rejected this construction and determined that the term is indefinite under
`35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See Ex. 2006, 28–32.
`A patent must “conclude with one or more claims particularly
`pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant
`regards as [the] invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.2 A claim that fails to meet
`this standard is invalid for indefiniteness. See Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89
`USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). In Ex Parte Miyazaki, the
`predecessor to the Board held that “[i]f a claim is amenable to two or more
`plausible claim constructions, the [Office] is justified in requiring [an]
`applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed
`invention by holding the claim unpatentable . . . as indefinite.” Id. at 1211.
`In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a
`claim is invalid for indefiniteness if its language, “viewed in light of the
`specification and prosecution history, [fails to] inform those skilled in the art
`about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” 134 S. Ct. 2120,
`2129 (2014); see id. at 2124. A claim term that does not satisfy the
`definiteness standard outlined in Nautilus likewise fails to satisfy the
`Miyazaki standard.
`Here, independent claim 9 of the ’690 patent recites a “method for
`operating a server” comprising “synchronously disseminating less than all of
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29
`(2011), revised 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103 and 112. Because the ’690 patent has
`a filing date before the effective date of the relevant sections of the AIA, we
`refer to the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102–103 and 112 in this Decision.
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`the positions of the avatars not associated with a particular client process to
`each of the other client processes.” Ex. 1001, 20:33–47 (emphasis added).
`Independent claim 18, which recites a “software program,” includes a
`similar limitation with the term “synchronously disseminating.” Id. at
`22:26–40. This claim language does not shed light on the meaning and
`scope of “synchronously disseminating.” It is unclear what the term
`“synchronously” requires regarding how the server disseminates avatar
`positions to the client processes. Claim 20, which depends from claim 18
`and requires “[a] computer readable medium including the software program
`of claim 18,” adds no clarity. Id. at 22:45–46.
`The written description of the ’690 patent does not use the term
`“synchronously,” as Petitioner points out. Pet. 12. It does, however, use the
`term “asynchronously.” Ex. 1001, 7:47. Specifically, the ’690 patent states
`In rendering a view, client 60 requests the locations,
`orientations and avatar image pointers of neighboring remote
`avatars from server 61 and the server’s responses are stored in
`remote avatar position table 112. Server 61 might also respond
`with entries for short object ID lookup table 110. Alternatively,
`the updates can be done asynchronously, with server 61
`sending periodic updates in response to a client request or
`automatically without request.
`Id. at 7:42–49 (emphasis added). The two listed categories of asynchronous
`updates do not provide sufficient guidance regarding how synchronous
`dissemination would occur (e.g., whether synchronous dissemination would
`be dissimilar to an asynchronous update such that synchronous
`dissemination is not periodic and/or not automatic). See Ex. 2006, 32.
`In addition, technical dictionaries fail to bring clarity to the meaning
`“synchronously disseminating” would have to a person of ordinary skill.
`For example, the IBM DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING (George McDaniel ed.,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`10th ed. 1994) defines “synchronous” as follows: “(I) Pertaining to two or
`more processes that depend upon the occurrence of specific events such as
`common timing signals. (T) (2) Occurring with a regular or predictable time
`relationship.” Ex. 3002, 668; Ex. 2006, 30. The MICROSOFT PRESS
`COMPUTER DICTIONARY (2d. ed. 1994), in turn, explains that “synchronous
`transmission” is “[d]ata transfer in which information is transmitted in
`blocks (frames) of bits separated by equal time intervals. To work,
`synchronous transmission relies on finely controlled timing based on the
`clocks of the sending and receiving devices.” Ex. 3003, 379; Ex. 2006, 30.
`THE COMPUTER DESKTOP ENCYCLOPEDIA (1996), by Alan Freedman,
`provides the following definition of “synchronous”—“(1) A sequence of
`fixed or concurrent events. See synchronous transmission. (2) Completing
`the current I/O operation before the next one is started. (3) In SCSI, the
`transfer of data without immediate acknowledgment of each byte.
`(4) Contrast with asynchronous.” Ex. 3004, 834.
`From these definitions alone, “synchronously disseminating” could
`mean that the dissemination of positions to the client processes occurs:
`(1) at regular or predictable times, (2) at equal time intervals, (3) at the
`occurrence of a specific event, or (4) concurrently, i.e., at the same time.
`See Ex. 2006, 30. Therefore, “synchronously disseminating” does not
`appear to have a single reasonably certain meaning within the relevant art.
`Thus, “synchronously disseminating” in claims 9, 18, and 20 is
`amenable to more than one plausible construction and fails to inform a
`skilled artisan about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.
`B. ASSERTED GROUNDS CHALLENGING CLAIMS 9, 18, AND 20
`Petitioner argues claims 9, 18, and 20 of the ’690 patent are
`
`anticipated by Funkhouser and by Durward. Pet. 22–32, 47–55. As
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`explained above, Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently the meaning
`and scope of the term “synchronously disseminating” in these claims.3
`Without an adequate demonstration of the proper scope of claims 9, 18,
`and 20, we do not attempt to apply the asserted prior art to these claims,
`because any such comparison would be speculative. See United Carbon Co.
`v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236–37 (1942) (“[T]he claims must be
`reasonably clearcut to enable courts to determine whether novelty and
`invention are genuine”); In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962)
`(holding that where a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
`paragraph, a rejection over prior art is improperly based on speculation as to
`the meaning and scope of the claim); Blackberry Corp. v. MobileMedia
`Ideas, LLC, Case IPR2013-00036, slip op. at 8, 20–21 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2014)
`(Paper 65) (terminating inter partes review, without addressing the merits of
`the instituted grounds relying on prior art, because the claim scope could not
`be determined without speculation). Thus, the Petition does not show a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that
`claims 9, 18, and 20 are anticipated by Funkhouser and by Durward.
`C. ANTICIPATION BY FUNKHOUSER
`1. Printed Publication
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Funkhouser qualifies as prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), because Funkhouser was a printed publication by
`April 12, 1995—before the earliest priority date of the ’690 patent,
`November 13, 1995. Pet. 4; Ex. 1001, [63], Cert. of Corr. In determining
`
`
`3 We recognize this conclusion implicates 35 U.S.C. § 112, but we do not
`address whether claims 9, 18, and 20 are unpatentable under that section
`because an inter partes review is limited to grounds of unpatentability under
`§§ 102 and 103. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`whether a reference is a “printed publication,” “the key inquiry is whether or
`not [the] reference has been made ‘publicly accessible.’” In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is “publicly accessible”
`if the reference “has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the
`extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter . . .
`exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend
`therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further
`research or experimentation.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445
`F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
`Funkhouser (Ex. 1005) is an article that appears in a collection of
`articles, titled 1995 SYMPOSIUM ON INTERACTIVE 3D GRAPHICS (Ex. 1006)
`(“1995 Symposium Book”). Ex. 1005; Ex. 1006, cover, 1–3, 85; Ex. 1002
`¶ 41. The 1995 Symposium Book was compiled for a symposium sponsored
`by the Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”), held on April 9–12,
`1995 (“1995 Symposium”). Ex. 1006, cover, 1–3, 85; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–42.
`Dr. Zyda—who was the chairperson of the 1995 Symposium—testifies that
`the symposium gathered “many of the top researchers in the fields of virtual
`reality systems, computer graphics, and real-time interactive 3D.” Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 41–42; Ex. 1006, cover. According to Dr. Zyda, “[o]ver 250 participants
`attended the 1995 [S]ymposium and each was provided with a copy of the
`1995 [Symposium Book].” Ex. 1002 ¶ 42. In addition, Dr. Zyda testifies
`that copies of the book were available from the ACM. Id.; see Ex. 1006,
`copyright page (“A limited number of copies are available at the ACM
`member discount.”). The 1995 Symposium Book and Funkhouser feature a
`1995 copyright date and permit copying, generally without a fee and with “a
`fee and/or specific permission” if for “direct commercial advantage.”
`Ex. 1006, copyright page, 85; Ex. 1005, 85.
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`In light of this evidence of Funkhouser’s distribution and accessibility,
`Petitioner has proffered adequate evidence that an interested ordinarily
`skilled artisan, “exercising reasonable diligence,” could have obtained
`Funkhouser no later than April 12, 1995—the last day of the 1995
`Symposium. See Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Ab Fortia, 774 F.2d 1104, 1109
`(Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding paper to be a prior art printed publication where
`the paper was “disseminated without restriction to at least six persons” and
`“between 50 and 500” ordinary artisans were “informed of its contents by
`[an] oral presentation” before the critical date).
`Patent Owner “denies that Funkhouser was published” before the date
`of invention of the challenged claims of the ’690 patent, as it must have been
`to qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Prelim. Resp. 15 & n.3.
`Patent Owner appears to take the position that the subject matter recited in
`the ’690 patent claims was conceived and reduced to practice before
`Funkhouser was published, arguing that by April 12, 1995, its Worlds Chat
`“was released to the public and [was] already drawing . . . attention,” with a
`supporting citation to two articles. Id. (citing Ex. 2008, 2009). These
`articles, however, were published in May 1995 and June 1995—after
`April 12, 1995. Ex. 2008; Ex. 2009, 3. In addition, Patent Owner fails to
`make any showing regarding how these articles or Worlds Chat connect to
`the claim language. Thus, on the present record, there is insufficient
`evidence that the subject matter recited in the challenged claims of the ’690
`patent was invented before April 12, 1995.
`2. Funkhouser
`Funkhouser discloses a system, with a “client-server design,” that
`“supports real-time visual interaction between a large number of users in a
`shared 3D virtual environment.” Ex. 1005, 85. In the system, each user is
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`represented “by an entity,” and each entity is managed by a client
`workstation. Id. at 85, 87. Servers manage the communication between
`clients. Id. at 87. Specifically, “[c]lients do not send messages directly to
`other clients, but instead send [messages] to servers[,] which forward them
`to other client and server workstations.” Id.
`“The key feature of [Funkhouser’s] system” is its “[s]erver-based
`message culling,” which is based on “precomputed” “[c]ell-to-cell
`visibility.” Id. at 85, 87. Before the simulation, the virtual environment “is
`partitioned into a spatial subdivision of cells” and “[a] visibility
`precomputation is performed in which the set of cells potentially visible to
`each cell is determined.” Id. at 87 (emphasis omitted). Figure 6 of
`Funkhouser is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 6 depicts a source cell, in a dark box, and shows, in stipple, the
`“[c]ell-to-cell visibility” of the source cell, i.e., the “set of cells reached by
`some sight-line from anywhere in the source cell.”4 Id. As shown in
`Figure 6, this cell-to-cell visibility “overestimate[s] . . . the visibility of any
`entity resident in the source cell.” Id.
`Then, during the simulation, servers use the precomputed cell-to-cell
`visibility to process update messages, using “cell visibility ‘look-ups,’”
`
`
`4 We have reproduced Figure 6 from Exhibit 1006, the 1995 Symposium
`Book. In Exhibit 1005, Funkhouser, the stipple is not visible.
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`“rather than more exact real-time entity visibility computations.” Id. The
`servers “forward” update messages “only to servers and clients containing
`entities inside some cell visible to the one containing the updated entity.” Id.
`Clients, in turn, use the update messages to maintain and update
`surrogates for “remote entities visible to at least one entity local to the
`client.” Id. at 87–88; see id. at 92, 209. “Surrogates contain (often
`simplified) representations for the entity’s geometry and behavior.” Id.
`at 87. “When a client receives an update message for an entity managed by
`another client, it updates the geometric and behavioral models for the
`entity’s local surrogate.” Id. Between update messages, each client
`simulates the behavior of its surrogates. Id.
`In addition, “[c]lients execute the programs necessary to generate
`behavior for their entities” and “[t]hey may . . . include viewing capabilities
`in which the virtual environment is displayed on the client workstation
`screen from the point of view of one or more of its entities.” Id.; see id.
`at 85, 209.
`Figures 4 and 7 of Funkhouser are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4
`Figure 7
`Figure 4 shows the visual interactions of entities A, B, C, and D in a virtual
`environment. Id. at 86, Fig. 4. Figure 7 depicts clients A, B, C, and D for
`these entities, as arranged in Figure 4, with arrows to show the “flow of
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`update messages” and “small squares” to depict surrogates of these clients.
`Id. at 87, Fig. 7. As Figure 4 depicts, “only one visual interaction is possible
`– entity A can see entity B.” Id. at 86. Figure 7 shows that the forwarding
`of update messages to clients is not limited by the visibility of the entities
`managed by the clients. See id. at 86–88, Figs. 4, 7. As shown in Figure 7,
`“[i]f entity A is modified,” the servers forward the update message to
`client B; “[i]f entity B is modified,” the servers forward the update message
`to clients A and C; “[i]f entity C is modified,” the servers forward the update
`message to client B; and “[i]f entity D is modified,” server Z does not
`forward the message to any other server or client “because no other entity
`can potentially see entity D.” Id. at 88, Fig. 7 (emphases omitted).
`3. Claim 1
`a. “Determining” Step
`Turning to claim 1 of the ’690 patent, the parties dispute whether
`Funkhouser discloses step (b), “determining, from the received positions, a
`set of the other users’ avatars that are to be displayed to the first user” (“the
`‘determining’ step”), which claim 1 requires to be “performed by the client
`process associated with the first user.” Ex. 1001, 19:38–42. Based on our
`review of the record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Funkhouser
`discloses these limitations. See Pet. 18–22; Prelim. Resp. 14–24.
`As Petitioner points out, in Funkhouser’s “[s]erver-based message
`culling,” servers cull update messages based on precomputed “[c]ell-to-cell
`visibility,” which determines the “set of cells potentially visible to each
`cell.” Ex. 1005, 87 (emphases added). Thus, servers forward an update
`message, received from another client, to a client if that client contains an
`entity “inside some cell visible to the [cell] containing the updated entity.”
`Id. (emphasis added). Because this culling is based on pre-computed
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`visibility of the cell in which the entity resides—rather than more “exact
`real-time entity visibility computations”—it “conservatively over-
`estimate[s]” the “visibility of any entity resident in the . . . cell.” Id.
`(emphases added).
`As a result, as Petitioner argues and Dr. Zyda testifies, the servers
`may send update messages to clients for more entities than are “presently”
`visible to, and “within the . . . field of view” of, any entity managed by the
`client. Pet. 19–20; Ex. 1002 ¶ 83. For example, entity B in Figures 4 and 6
`is not visible to entity C, because entity C is facing away from entity B.
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 83; Ex. 1005, 86, Figs. 4, 6. Thus, entity C will not “actually
`see” any change in position of entity B. Ex. 1002 ¶ 83. Nonetheless, when
`“entity B is modified,” the server “forward[s]” an “update message” to
`client C, because entity C is in a cell “potentially visible” to the cell where
`entity B is located. Ex. 1005, 87–88, Fig. 7 (emphasis omitted).
`The client—after receiving update messages that may relate to entities
`outside the field of view of any entity it manages—processes the messages
`for remote entities visible to any of the client’s entities and executes
`programs to display the environment from a particular entity’s point of view.
`Each client “maintain[s] surrogates” for “remote entities visible to at least
`one entity local to the client,” id. at 88, and uses the messages it receives to
`“update[] the geometric and behavioral models for the entity’s local
`surrogate,” id. at 87; see id. at 209. Funkhouser explains that its clients
`“execute . . . programs necessary to generate behavior for their entities” and
`that “[t]hey . . . may include viewing capabilities in which the virtual
`environment is displayed on the client workstation screen from the point of
`view of one or more of its entities.” Id. at 87; see id. at 85 (“[U]sers run an
`interactive interface program . . . [that] simulates the experience of
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`immersion in a virtual environment by rendering images of the environment
`as perceived from the user’s . . . viewpoint.”). Funkhouser also includes
`Plate II, which shows an “environment rendered from [the] viewpoint of one
`entity,” omitting many other entities in the environment.5 Ex. 1005, 209.
`Dr. Zyda testifies that “after receiving the filtered positional updates from
`the server, the client performs its own calculations, including updating the
`surrogates of the remote entities, in order to determine which of the remote
`entities to display within the client’s field of view.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 86.
`At this stage of the proceeding, we are not persuaded by Patent
`Owner’s arguments disputing Petitioner’s showing. Patent Owner asserts
`that Petitioner relies on an inherency theory because Funkhouser “fails to
`expressly disclose” “client-side ‘determining,’” including how or whether
`the client workstation determines which entities to display on the
`workstation. Prelim. Resp. 15, 19, 23. Patent Owner argues that this theory
`is deficient because Petitioner has not shown that Funkhouser necessarily
`discloses the client performing the “determining” step. Id. at 15–17, 23–24.
`Moreover, Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s arguments relying on
`Funkhouser’s update messages to support the client performing the
`“determining” step, asserting that Funkhouser “does not disclose a client
`using an ‘update message’ for anything other than updating the ‘geometric
`and behavioral models for the entity’s local surrogate.’” Id. at 17. Patent
`Owner also contends that Funkhouser could “use the updated ‘geometric and
`behavioral models’ of the surrogate stored by the client, rather than
`
`5 We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition and Dr. Zyda’s testimony
`lack persuasive support regarding the precise number of remote entities for
`which the entity from whose viewpoint Plate II depicts the environment
`receives updates. See Pet. 19, 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 86; Prelim. Resp. 17–18, 22–
`23. In this Decision, we do not rely on these numbers.
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`‘received positions’”—as required by claim 1 of the ’690 patent—to
`determine which entities to display. Id. at 24.
`
`Patent Owner does not persuasively respond to or address the
`disclosures in Funkhouser to which Petitioner cites, particularly those
`referring to the clients executing programs and including viewing
`capabilities to display the environment from an entity’s point of view:
`“[c]lients execute the programs necessary to generate behavior for their
`entities” and “[t]hey . . . may include viewing capabilities in which the
`virtual environment is displayed on the client workstation screen from the
`point of view of one or more of its entities.” Ex. 1005, 87; see id. at 85;
`Pet. 18–22; Prelim. Resp. 14–24. As outlined above, we are persuaded that
`this discussion in Funkhouser—combined with Funkhouser’s disclosures
`that the servers send positional update messages to clients based on an
`“overestimate” of the visibility of the clients’ entities and that the clients
`process the messages to maintain and update their surrogates of remote
`entities—sufficiently discloses that the client in Funkhouser determines
`which remote entities to display to the user.
`
`Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s speculation that
`Funkhouser could “use the updated ‘geometric and behavioral models’ of
`the surrogate stored by the client, rather than ‘received positions,’” to
`determine entities to display. Prelim. Resp. 24. In Funkhouser, the update
`messages, which the server forwards to clients, include positional updates.
`See Ex. 1005, 87, 89. The clients use these messages to “update[] the
`geometric and behavioral models” for the surrogates they maintain. Id.
`at 87. Thus, even if Funkhouser’s clients use these models to determine
`which entities to display, as Patent Owner posits, this determining still
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`would be “from the received positions” from the server, as the claim
`requires.
`
`b. Undisputed Limitations
`On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Funkhouser
`
`discloses the remaining limitations of claim 1, which Patent Owner does not
`contest. See Pet. 13–22; Prelim. Resp. 14–24. In particular, Petitioner has
`made an adequate showing that Funkhouser discloses step (a) “receiving a
`position of less than all of the other users’ avatars from the server process”
`(“the ‘receiving’ step”), being “performed by the client process associated
`with the first user,” as recited in claim 1. Funkhouser’s clients send
`messages, with positional information, to servers, which “forward” them to
`other client and server workstations. Ex. 1005, 87, 89. Under Funkhouser’s
`server-based message culling, the servers do not send the positional updates
`to all clients but only to clients “with entities that can potentially perceive”
`“the effects of the update.” Id. at 85, 87. For instance, in Figures 4 and 7,
`there are four clients A, B, C, and D, yet client A only receives updates on
`entity B. Id. at 87–88, Figs. 4, 7.
`4. Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 10–12, 14, 15, 17, and 19
`For independent claims 6, 10, 11, and 15, the Petition addresses
`similarities and differences between these claims and independent claim 1.
`The Petition also features a claim chart, with citations to Funkhouser, the
`Petition’s analysis of the limitations of claim 1, and Dr. Zyda’s testimony, to
`support Petitioner’s position that Funkhouser anticipates these claims.
`Pet. 22–28. For dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 19, the
`Petition includes a limitation-by-limitation analysis addressing where
`Funkhouser allegedly discloses each claim limitation. Id. at 27–32. Based
`on our review of the Petition and its supporting evidence, we are persuaded,
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01268
`Patent 7,181,690 B1
`on this record, that the Petition sufficiently supports Petitioner’s position that
`Durward anticipates claims 2, 3, 5–7, 10–12, 14, 15, 17, and 19. See id.
`at 22–32.
`On this record, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s assertions
`disputing Petitioner’s showing regarding these claims. Prelim. Resp. 25–27.
`For claim 6, Patent Owner contests that Petitioner has not shown how
`Funkhouser discloses step (c), “transmitting, by the server process to each
`client process, the positions of less than all of the avatars that are not
`associated with the client process,” because client D in Funkhouser’s Figure
`7 does not receive an update message. Id. at 25. Figure 7 displays the flow
`of update messages for four entities based on their