Paper No. ____
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________
`
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WORLDS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`Patent No. 8,082,501
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ZYDA, D.SC.
`
`BUNGIE - EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________
`
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WORLDS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`Patent No. 8,082,501
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ZYDA, D.SC.
`
`BUNGIE - EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1
`
`SCOPE OF WORK.......................................................................................... 4
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’501 PATENT ............................................................ 5
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 11
`
`V.
`
`SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART ......................................... 13
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL AND RELEVANT TIME ....................... 22
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 24
`
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY BASED ON FUNKHOUSER ...... 26
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 are obvious in view of
`Funkhouser and Sitrick ........................................................................ 26
`
`Ground 2: Claims 7 and 16 are obvious in view of Funkhouser,
`Sitrick, and Wexelblat ......................................................................... 56
`
`Ground 3: Claims 8 and 10 are obvious in view of Funkhouser,
`Sitrick, and Funkhouser ’93 ................................................................ 59
`
`IX. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY BASED ON DURWARD ............. 66
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1-6, 12, and 14-15 are anticipated by Durward ............ 66
`
`Ground 5: Claims 7 and 16 are obvious in view of Durward and
`Wexelblat ............................................................................................. 90
`
`Ground 6: Claims 8 and 10 are obvious in view of Durward and
`Schneider ............................................................................................. 93
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUDING STATEMENTS ................................................................ 100
`
`XI. APPENDIX – LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................ 101
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Michael Zyda, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`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 D.Sc. in Computer
`
`Science from Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri in 1984.
`
`2.
`
`I am currently 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 six straight years. My
`
`alums have shipped games played by over 880 million players.
`
`3. 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,
`
`computer-generated characters, video production, entertainment/defense
`
`collaboration, modeling and simulation, and serious and entertainment games. I am
`
`considered a pioneer in the fields of computer graphics, networked virtual
`
`environments, modeling and simulation, and serious and entertainment games.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`From 1986 until 2000, I was the Director of the NPSNET Research
`
`Group. 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 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.
`
`5.
`
`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
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Manager across the DSINET to Arlington. We continued to utilize the DSINET in
`
`developing the NPSNET system through the end of 1996.
`
`6.
`
`In 1994, the NPSNET Research Group began to experiment with the
`
`then new Multicast 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-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.
`
`7.
`
`In 1995, I chaired the SIGGRAPH Symposium on Interactive 3D
`
`Graphics. The symposium was the fourth in an ongoing series of conferences
`
`focused on the frontier of real-time interactive 3D graphics. These conferences
`
`grew out of the Workshop on Interactive 3D Graphics, held in 1986. Following
`
`that workshop I decided to found the Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics. I
`
`served as chair of the symposium in 1990, 1995, and 2003. The 1995 conference
`
`came at a time when the widespread usage of 3D graphics, for example 3D games
`
`such as Doom, was exploding. Response to the conference was enthusiastic,
`
`attesting to the wide interest that the field of 3D interactive graphics had garnered.
`
`Among the papers presented at the 1995 Symposium was a paper written by
`
`Thomas Funkhouser, discussed in more detail below.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`9.
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`I have published over 130 technical books, reports, and papers relating
`
`to modeling, simulation, virtual reality, virtual environments, and computing. I also
`
`attach as Exhibit 1003 a recent and complete curriculum vitae, which details my
`
`educational and professional background and publications.
`
`II.
`
`SCOPE OF WORK
`
`11.
`
`I understand that a petition is being filed with the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,082,501 to
`
`Leahy et al. (the “’501 Patent,” attached as Ex. 1001), entitled “System and
`
`Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space.”
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`I have been retained by Bungie Inc. (“Bungie”) to offer an expert
`
`opinion on the validity of the claims of the ’501 patent. I receive $600 per hour for
`
`my services. No part of my compensation is dependent on my opinions or on the
`
`outcome of this proceeding. I do not have any other current or past affiliation as an
`
`expert witness or consultant with Bungie.
`
`13.
`
`I have been specifically asked to provide my opinions on claims 1-8,
`
`10, 12, and 14-16 of the ’501 patent. In connection with this analysis, I have
`
`reviewed the ’501 patent and its file history. I have also reviewed and considered
`
`various other documents in arriving at my opinions, and may cite to them in this
`
`declaration. For convenience, the information considered in arriving at my
`
`opinions is listed in Appendix A.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’501 PATENT
`
`14.
`
` The ’501 patent describes a client-server network system for enabling
`
`multiple users to interact with each other in a virtual world. The patent explains
`
`that a “client-server network is a network where one or more servers are coupled to
`
`one or more clients over a communications channel.” Ex. 1001 at 1:29-31.
`
`15. The specification of the ’501 patent explains that “[t]he present
`
`invention provides a highly scalable architecture for a three-dimensional graphical,
`
`multi-user, interactive virtual world system.” Id. at Abstract. The term “highly
`
`scalable” means that the system has the ability to allow a very large number of
`
`users to connect to and interact in the virtual world at the same time. In the system
`
`disclosed in the ’501 patent, each user is represented visually in the virtual space
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`by an avatar and interacts with a client system that “is networked to a virtual world
`
`server.” Id. at 3:14-15.
`
`16.
`
`“Each user is free to move his or her avatar around in the virtual
`
`world. In order that each user see[s] the correct location of each of the other
`
`avatars, each client machine sends its current location, or changes in its current
`
`location, to the server and receives updated position information of the other
`
`clients.” Id. at 3:39-44. A user’s movement and viewing of the virtual world
`
`includes server-based processing of users’ virtual world positional information, in
`
`addition to client processing techniques similar to previous peer-to-peer systems.
`
`Id. at Abstract; 2:3-9. In further regard to the client-server aspect of the claimed
`
`system, the ’501 patent indicates that “each user executes a client process to view a
`
`virtual world from the perspective [or point of view] of that user.” Id. at Abstract,
`
`2:41-42; see also 5:27-35. Describing the role of the server as an intermediary
`
`between clients, the ’501 patent states “[i]n order that the view can be updated to
`
`reflect the motion of the remote user’s avatars, motion information is transmitted to
`
`a central server process which provides position[al] updates to client processes for
`
`neighbors of the user at that client.” Id. at Abstract, 2:44-48; see also id. at 5:42-59.
`
`17. Figure 1 of the ’501 patent below provides a depiction of one user’s
`
`field of view, or perspective, showing two other users that are each represented in a
`
`virtual world by a penguin avatar. Id. at 3:33-35, 3:45.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18. Claim 1 of the ’501 patent is representative of the claims at issue and
`
`recites the following:
`1. A method for enabling a first user to interact with other users in a
`virtual space, each user of the first user and the other users being
`associated with a three dimensional avatar representing said each user
`in the virtual space, the method comprising the steps of:
` customizing, using a processor of a client device, an avatar in
`response to input by the first user;
` receiving, by the client device, position information associated with
`fewer than all of the other user avatars in an interaction room of the
`virtual space, from a server process, wherein the client device does
`not receive position information of at least some avatars that fail to
`satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars displayable on a
`client device display of the client device;
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
` determining, by the client device, a displayable set of the other user
`avatars associated with the client device display; and
` displaying, on the client device display, the displayable set of the
`other user avatars associated with the client device display.
`
`19. The “receiving” step of claim 1 relates to a central concept of the ’501
`
`patent: server filtering, by which the server filters which information to send to a
`
`client so that the client will “receiv[e] . . . position information associated with
`
`fewer than all of the other user avatars.” The client processes the information
`
`received from the server to “determin[e] . . . a displayable set of the other user
`
`avatars,” as in the “determining” step of claim 1.
`
`20. Each independent claim of the ’501 patent recites substantively
`
`similar requirements. Other requirements recited in the dependent claims relate to
`
`minor variations or common features of virtual reality systems.
`
`21. With regard to the server filtering claimed in the ’501 patent, the
`
`specification states that in order for “the virtual world [to be] scalable to a large
`
`number of clients, the virtual world server must be much more discriminating as to
`
`what data is provided to each client[].” Id. at 3:51-53. The patent refers to this need
`
`for the server to be selective as “crowd control.” Id. at 13:12-13. According to
`
`the ’501 patent, “‘crowd control’ . . . is needed in some cases to ensure that neither
`
`client 60 nor user A get[s] overwhelmed by the crowds of avatars likely to occur in
`
`a popular virtual world.” Id. at 5:38-41. That is, to allow a user to interact
`
`effectively with a large number of other users in a virtual space, the server limits
`
`how much information about the other users it sends to each client. At the time of
`
`the filing of the ultimate parent of the ’501 patent in the 1990s, limiting the amount
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`of data sent by the server to each client was motivated by constraints on network
`
`capacity and the processing power of client computers at that time. If a server sent
`
`data about a large number of users to a client, either the network or the client might
`
`be “overwhelmed” if it could not handle all of the data.
`
`22.
`
`In its specification, the ’501 patent describes an example of server
`
`filtering. That is, providing a “[s]erver 61 [that] maintains a variable, N, which sets
`
`the maximum number of other avatars A will see.” Id. at 5:42-43; see also id. at
`
`13:14-21 (“In a typical situation, the number of avatars in a room is too large to be
`
`handled by client 60 and displayed on display 122 . . . . Server 61 addresses this
`
`problem by maintaining, for each user, a list of the N avatars nearest to the location
`
`of that user’s avatar.”).
`
`23. Thus, the patent discloses a client-server architecture where the server
`
`maintains a set maximum number of the other users’ avatars that it will send to
`
`each client. The patent explains, “[o]nce the number of avatars to be shown is
`
`determined, server 61 determines which N avatars are closest to A’s avatar, based
`
`on which room of the world A’s avatar is in and the coordinates of the avatars.” Id.
`
`at 5:50-54. Thus, if a virtual space has 100 users, and the value of N is set at eight,
`
`the server identifies the eight users who are closest to a particular client and sends
`
`positions for only those eight users’ avatars to that client. The client would not
`
`receive any information at all for the other 92 users in the virtual space. Identifying
`
`no more than some maximum number of the other users’ avatars to send to each
`
`client ensures that each client is able to handle the processing of the data it
`
`receives.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`24. While some of the claims, such as claim 1, are written from the client
`
`perspective in that the recited steps are performed “by the client device,” the plain
`
`language of the claims, as well as the specification, illustrates that the server
`
`filtering takes place on the server side of the network, and the client then
`
`“receiv[es]” the result of the server filtering “from a server process.”
`
`25.
`
`In addition to server filtering, the patent also discloses that each client
`
`may further process the received data to determine a set of avatars to display. For
`
`example, the specification discloses that the client may “maintain[] a variable, N′,
`
`which might be less than N, which indicates the maximum number of avatars client
`
`60 wants to see/or hear.” Id. at 5:43-46. If N′ is less than N, the client then “uses
`
`position data to select N′ avatars from the N avatars provided by the server.” Id. at
`
`6:11-13. The patent discloses that “[o]ne reason for setting N′ less than N is where
`
`client 60 is executed by a computer with less computing power than an average
`
`machine and tracking N avatars would make processing and rendering of the
`
`virtual world too slow.” Id. at 5:46-50. Thus, in a system where N is 8 at the server
`
`and N′ is 6 at the client, a client would receive data for eight of the other users in
`
`the virtual space but might process and display data for only six avatars because it
`
`has “less computing power than an average machine.”
`
`26. While the specification provides an example where the server-side
`
`filtering and client-side processing are both tied to a maximum number of avatars,
`
`the claims do not recite such a requirement. Instead, as can be seen in exemplary
`
`claim 1 above, the claims merely require that the server-side filtering results in
`
`transmission of information regarding “less than all” of the other avatars, and that
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`the client-side processing results in determination of “a displayable set of the other
`
`user avatars” that are to be displayed.
`
`27. As discussed in more detail below, the field of virtual reality systems
`
`saw many developments in the years leading up to the ’501 patent, many of which
`
`were directed to improving the efficiency and performance of such systems in view
`
`of processing and network transmission constraints at the time. Both the server-
`
`side filtering and client-side processing claimed by the ’501 patent were well
`
`known to those in this field.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a claim is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. §102, for
`
`lack of novelty, if each and every element of the claim is found, either expressly or
`
`inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103, for obviousness, if the differences between the invention and the
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`the subject matter pertains.
`
`30.
`
`It is further my understanding that a determination of obviousness
`
`requires inquiries into: (1) the scope and contents of the art when the invention was
`
`made; (2) the differences between the art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art when the invention was made; and, to the extent
`
`they exist, (4) secondary indicia of obviousness.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a claim can be found to be obvious if all the claimed
`
`elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have
`
`combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their
`
`respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than
`
`predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that hindsight must not be used when comparing the
`
`prior art to the invention for obviousness. Thus, a conclusion of obviousness must
`
`be firmly based on knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the invention was made without the use of post-filing knowledge.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that in order for a claimed invention to be considered
`
`obvious, there must be some rational underpinning for combining cited references
`
`as proposed.
`
`34.
`
`I understand 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 patented invention. 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 with 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:
`
`(a) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(c) Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(e) 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);
`
`(f) 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
`
`(g)
`
`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.
`
`V.
`
`SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, and as explained in further detail below, the claims of
`
`the ’501 patent fail to identify anything new or significantly different from what
`
`was already known to individuals of skill in the field prior to the filing of the ’501
`
`patent, including prior to November 13, 1995. The term “virtual world” was
`
`introduced by Ivan Sutherland, one of the founders of the field of computer
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`graphics, in 1966 to describe his invention of the head-mounted display – a
`
`window into a virtual world:
`
`
`This picture was taken from the website for the Association for Computing
`
`Machinery’s A. M. Turing Award, given for major contributions of lasting
`
`importance to computing. Ex. 1011. Ivan Sutherland won the award in 1988 for
`
`numerous pioneering and visionary contributions to computer graphics.
`
`36. Virtual reality systems, also called virtual worlds or virtual spaces,
`
`enabling interaction between multiple users were well-known prior to the ’501
`
`patent. The ’501 patent says as much, describing “a distributed virtual reality
`
`network where users at client machines visually and aurally interact with other
`
`users at other client machines” in the Background of the Invention section
`
`discussing previous technology. Ex. 1001 at 1:57-59. Some of the earliest such
`
`systems were developed in the 1970s, presenting users with simple displays
`
`representing a common space where they could interact. One such example is
`
`MazeWar, which in the mid-1970s introduced the first networked, multi-user 3D
`
`game environment. Information regarding MazeWars is maintained by the
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`DigiBarn online computer museum. See Ex. 1012 (http://www.digibarn.com/
`
`collections/games/xerox-maze-war/).
`
`37. Another example of an early networked multiplayer video game
`
`system is seen in U.S. Patent No. 4,521,014 for Sitrick (hereinafter “Sitrick,” Ex.
`
`1013). Filed in 1982 and entitled “Video game including user visual image,”
`
`Sitrick discloses a “video game apparatus [that] can function either as a stand alone
`
`single entity game or . . . [w]here multiple users are playing a single identity
`
`(global) game,” i.e., “a distributed system of video games.” Id. at Abstract, 1:4-5.
`
`Sitrick describes well-known elements of such a networked system, including
`
`multiple computers containing common components such as “a central processing
`
`unit, memory manager, memory, storage means such as disk or tape, user control
`
`input-output interface, [and] display apparatus.” Id. at 9:3-9. These basic
`
`components, along with some form of software stored and executed on them,
`
`would have been necessary aspects of any networked computer system.
`
`38. As computer networks became more sophisticated throughout the
`
`1980s, the type of networks used to implement virtual reality systems likewise
`
`evolved. For example, I was personally involved with the development of a series
`
`of well-known military war-game simulators at the Naval Postgraduate School.
`
`One of the earliest versions of this simulator, developed in 1987, utilized a peer-to-
`
`peer network in which user’s client computers communicated directly with each
`
`other through point-to-point messages. Ex. 1014 (Smith, Douglas B. and Streyle,
`
`Dale "An Inexpensive Real-Time Interactive Three-Dimensional Flight Simulation
`
`System," Joint Master's Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California,
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`June 1987 (NPS52-87-034). Thesis originally available from DTIC.). In 1990, the
`
`first version known by the moniker Naval Postgraduate School Network Vehicle
`
`Simulator, specifically NPSNET-1, was developed, utilizing a broadcast network
`
`where a client workstation sent updates to all other participating workstations at
`
`once. Ex. 1015 (Zyda, Michael J. and Pratt, David R. “NPSNET: A 3D Visual
`
`Simulator for Virtual World Exploration and Experience,” short paper in
`
`Tomorrow’s Realities, July 1991). By 1993, NPSNET-IV utilized a hybrid
`
`approach, combining aspects of a broadcast network approach and wide area
`
`networking with tunnel server processes. For example, DARPA’s Synthetic
`
`Theater of War (STOW) architecture used server-filtering to process packets
`
`collected on the east coast of the US prior to transmitting them across the less
`
`reliable trans-Atlantic backbone. Ex. 1016 (Calvin, James O., Joshua Seeger,
`
`Gregory D. Troxel, Daniel J. Van Hook, "STOW Realtime Information Transfer
`
`and Networking System Architecture," 95-12-061, Twelfth Workshop on
`
`Standards for the Interoperability of Distributed Simulations, March 13-17, 1995).
`
`39. By the early to mid-1990s, the client-server network approach was
`
`also commonplace among virtual reality systems. In fact, the ’501 patent refers to a
`
`client-server network as a “typical computer network” and describes known use of
`
`client-server networks for distributed virtual reality networks, explaining that
`
`“[o]ne application of such a client-server system is for game playing, where the
`
`positions and actions of each user need to be communicated between all the
`
`players.” Ex. 1001 at 1:51-65.
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`40. As an example of known use of client-server networks for virtual
`
`reality systems, U.S. Patent No. 5,659,691 to Durward, et al. (hereinafter
`
`“Durward,” Ex. 1008), describes a “virtual reality system” with a central “database
`
`for defining one or more three dimensional virtual spaces,” where “multiple users
`
`located at different remote physical locations may communicate with the system.”
`
`Ex. 1008 at Abstract, 1:46-48. In the Durward virtual reality system, all interaction
`
`between users passed through the “central control unit” rather than directly from
`
`user to user. See id. at 2:49-55, Figs. 1 & 7. This central control unit was a server,
`
`processing updates received from individual users and passing messages and other
`
`information along to the appropriate other users. See, e.g. id. at 6:13-52, Figs. 2 &
`
`7.
`
`41.
`
`In addition, Thomas Funkhouser’s article “RING: A Client-Server
`
`System for Multi-User Virtual Environments” (hereinafter “Funkhouser,” Ex.
`
`1005) also described a virtual reality system utilizing a client-server architecture
`
`before the application for the ’501 patent. Funkhouser appears in a collection of
`
`papers entitled “Proceedings of the 1995 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics”
`
`(“1995 SI3D”). Ex. 1006. The 1995 SI3D symposium was sponsored by the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Computer
`
`Graphics. As discussed above, I co-founded this symposium and served as its chair
`
`in 1990, 1995, and 2003 while at the Naval Postgraduate School. The symposium
`
`brought together researchers from the military, academia, and industry, including
`
`Apple Computer, Silicon Graphics, Sun Microsystems, and Hewlett-Packard.
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`Thomas Funkhouser was a well-known researcher who held a position at AT&T
`
`Bell Laboratories at the time his paper was published. Ex. 1006 at 2, 85.
`
`42. The 1995 SI3D symposium was a gathering of many of the top
`
`researchers in the fields of virtual reality systems, computer graphics, and real-time
`
`interactive 3D. The symposium was held April 9-12, 1995 in Monterey California.
`
`Id. at Title Page. Over 250 participants attended the 1995 symposium and each was
`
`provided with a copy of the 1995 SI3D publication. I remember the printed copies
`
`of the publication arriving at the hotel prior to the symposium to be distributed to
`
`the symposium participants. In addition, copies were also available from the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”). Id. at Copyright Page, 4.
`
`43. Funkhouser “describes the client-server design, implementation and
`
`experimental results for a system that supports real-time visual interaction between
`
`a large number of users in a shared 3D virtual environment.” Ex. 1005 at 01
`
`(Abstract). As in Durward, and as was becoming increasingly common at the time,
`
`Funkhouser describes communication passing through a server managing a virtual
`
`reality network, rather than between two clients directly. For example,
`
`Funkhouser’s Figure 5 depicts “RING servers [that] manage communication
`
`between clients, possibly culling, augmenting, or altering messages.” Id. at 03.
`
`44.
`
`In addition to the basic client-server architecture for networked virtual
`
`reality systems, it was also known by the time of the ’501 patent that the
`
`performance of such systems could be improved by having the server filter out
`
`some of the client messaging data rather than universally distribute this data to all
`
`clients. For example, Durward discloses a system where “data communicated to
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`the user typically corresponds to the portion of the virtual space viewed from the
`
`perspective of the virtual being.” Ex. 1008 at 1:65-67. The server in Durward
`
`defines “visual relevant spaces” for various users, and those spaces “determine
`
`which state changes are communicated to . . . users.” Id. at 4:54-56. Durward
`
`teaches that this server-side update filtering helped “reduce the amount of data
`
`communicated between the [central] computer and each user.” Id. at 2:9-12. As
`
`Durward explains, limiting the data sent from the server to a particular client only
`
`the most necessary and relevant update messages for that client “dramatically
`
`reduces bandwidth requirements and allows the system to operate with many
`
`concurrent users without sacrificing real-time realism.”
`
`45. Similarly, Funkhouser also teaches the concept that a virtual reality
`
`network’s resources can be most efficiently utilized by filtering updates at the
`
`server level, explaining that “a server may determine that a particul
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still 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.
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.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
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.
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.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
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
