throbber
I, Mark D. Pesce, make the following Declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
`
`1. I currently reside at 50 Rose Street, Chippendale NSW 2008, Australia.
`
`2. I am providing this Declaration in connection with the six pending Inter
`
`Partes review (IPR) proceedings currently instituted against five U.S.
`
`Patents owned by Worlds, Inc. identified in ¶ 45 below. I have been
`
`retained by Patent Owner Worlds, Inc. to provide my opinions in support of
`
`its Responses to the Petitions for Inter Partes Review.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`3. My career as a software engineer, inventor and entrepreneur began after I
`
`left the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in May 1982. While at MIT I
`
`studied computer science, biology and psychology, three disciplines at the
`
`core of virtual reality.
`
`4. In 1984 I began working as a software engineer for a series of companies
`
`deeply involved in the emerging area of data communications and
`
`networking: GTE Telenet, which specialised in X.25 packet-switched
`
`networks, an immediate forerunner to the Internet; International Data
`
`Sciences, where I developed firmware for modems; Dynatech Corporation,
`
`where I developed firmware for CSU/DSUs, forerunners to today’s DSL
`
` 
`
`1
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 1 of 82
`
`

`
`modems; and Shiva Corporation, where I developed the software for our line
`
`of dial-up networking devices.
`
`5. In 1991 I founded Ono-Sendai Corporation, a technology startup pioneering
`
`the development of consumer virtual reality systems. Before Ono-Sendai,
`
`virtual reality systems cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Using a
`
`combination of off-the-shelf components and our own innovations, we
`
`brought the price of a complete system down to around one thousand dollars.
`
`6. Ono-Sendai’s key innovation was a low-cost sourceless orientation sensor,
`
`which allowed precise measurement of the three axes of rotation - yaw, pitch
`
`and roll - with a component that cost less than $1 in mass production
`
`quantities. Ono-Sendai was granted US patent 5,526,022 for this invention.
`
`7. On the basis of that innovation, in 1992 Ono-Sendai was invited to work
`
`with Sega Corporation on the design of their Sega Virtua VR system, a low-
`
`cost head-mounted display designed to be connected to their Sega Genesis
`
`video gaming platform.
`
`8. Leaving Ono-Sendai in the middle of 1993, I continued to pursue my own
`
`work in networked virtual worlds, and at SIGGRAPH 1993 was first
`
`exposed to the then-emerging global hypertext system known as the World
`
`Wide Web.
`
` 
`
`2
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 2 of 82
`
`

`
`9. Working with Tony Parisi, I developed the first virtual reality interface to
`
`the World Wide Web. Known today as the Virtual Reality Modeling
`
`Language (VRML), I was invited by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the father of the
`
`Web, to demonstrate our work at the First International Conference on the
`
`World Wide Web, at CERN, in May 1994.
`
`10. Within a few months, I had put together a consortium of academic and
`
`commercial organisations interested in moving forward with VRML, and at
`
`the Second International Conference on the World Wide Web, in Chicago in
`
`November 1994, I presented the draft VRML 1.0 specification, co-authored
`
`by myself, Tony Parisi, and Gavin Bell (now Gavin Andresen).
`
`11. In 1995 I formed the VRML Architecture Group (VAG), to serve as a
`
`steering body for the future technical development of VRML, overseeing an
`
`open, competitive standards process that culminated with the introduction of
`
`VRML 2.0, a fully interactive version of the language.
`
`12. VRML 2.0 went through the ISO standards process, becoming VRML97,
`
`ISO/IEC 147772-1:1997. VRML97 was accepted into the MPEG standards
`
`process and became the 3D compositing layer of the MPEG-4 specification.
`
`Between its availability in all major Web browsers and inclusion into
`
`MPEG-4, VRML was until quite recently the most widely deployed
`
`technology for networked virtual worlds ever developed.
`
` 
`
`3
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 3 of 82
`
`

`
`13. In 1995, I wrote the textbook “VRML: Browsing & Building Cyberspace”,
`
`which sold over 100,000 copies in six languages. As a result of that book, I
`
`was invited to teach casually at San Francisco State University. In 1998 I
`
`received an appointment as Visiting Professor at the USC School of Cinema-
`
`Television, founding their well-regarded Interactive Media program.
`
`14. In 2003, I moved to Sydney, Australia to found the Interactive Media and
`
`Emerging Technologies program at the Australian Film Television and
`
`Radio School. At both AFTRS and at USC I worked with a generation of
`
`media creatives and producers to apply the lessons of interactivity to their
`
`own works.
`
`15. From 2005 to 2011, I served as panelist and judge on the Australian
`
`Broadcasting Corporation’s hit series The New Inventors, celebrating the
`
`best Australian inventors and their innovations.
`
`16. In 2006, I received an appointment as Honorary Associate in the Digital
`
`Cultures Program at the University of Sydney. In that role I teach casually
`
`and advise faculty on course and curriculum development.
`
`17. Over the years I have written several other books, including: VRML: Flying
`
`Through the Web (1996), The Playful World: How Technology is
`
`Transforming the Imagination (2000), and The Next Billion Seconds (2011).
`
`I have published numerous book chapters, the most recent in The Gameful
`
` 
`
`4
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 4 of 82
`
`

`
`World (2015), and have written hundreds of conference presentations, along
`
`with many submissions to academic journals.
`
`18. I run a small consultancy in Sydney - the Digital Growth Partnership - with a
`
`range of clients in education, banking, government, and manufacturing. I
`
`have a thriving business as a public speaker, and host two podcasts, which I
`
`also produce: “This Week in Startups Australia” and “Lenovo ThinkFWD
`
`CIO Series”. I am a sought-after commentator on technology for Australian
`
`print and broadcast media, regularly appearing on “The Project” and ABC
`
`News24.
`
`19. My full curriculum vitae is attached to and is a part of this declaration.
`
`Compensation
`
`20. I am being compensated at my standard consulting rate of $450 per hour of
`
`time. My compensation does not depend on the outcome of this proceeding,
`
`and I have no financial interest in the outcome of this case.
`
`Legal Standards to be Applied
`
`21. I understand that in an inter partes review, the petitioner carries the burden
`
`of proving patent claim invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence on a
`
`claim-by-claim basis, based on either patents or printed publications. Each
`
`claim is analyzed independently. It is my understanding that when a party
`
` 
`
`5
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 5 of 82
`
`

`
`has the burden of proving a claim invalid by the preponderance of the
`
`evidence, the party must show that it is more likely than not that the claim is
`
`invalid.
`
`22. I understand that a patent can be invalid for anticipation or for obviousness.
`
`A patent claim is invalid as anticipated under § 102 of the patent statutes if a
`
`single prior art reference discloses each and every limitation of the
`
`invention. The single reference must disclose each and every limitation of
`
`the asserted claims either expressly or inherently.
`
`23. I understand that a limitation is found inherently within a reference only if
`
`that limitation is necessarily disclosed by the reference. The mere fact that
`
`something may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to
`
`show inherency, as inherency cannot be established by probabilities or
`
`possibilities.
`
`24. I further understand that material not expressly contained in a single prior art
`
`document may still be considered for purposes of anticipation if that material
`
`is incorporated by reference into the prior art document. To incorporate
`
`matter by reference, the prior art document must particularly identify what
`
`specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where the material is
`
`found. Mere reference to another prior art reference is not an incorporation
`
`for purposes of anticipation.
`
` 
`
`6
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 6 of 82
`
`

`
`25. I understand that under § 103 of the patent statutes, a patent claim may be
`
`invalid as obvious in view of a combination of prior art references or in view
`
`of a single prior art reference. Obviousness is determined from the
`
`perspective of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. For the
`
`purposes of obviousness, only analogous references are considered prior art.
`
`Prior art is analogous if it is from the same field as the invention or if it is
`
`reasonably relevant to the particular problem the inventor was trying to
`
`solve.
`
`26. I understand that an obviousness analysis involves three factual inquiries: (1)
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, (2) differences between the prior art
`
`and the claims at issue, and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`27. In addition, I understand that a variety of factors are considered in
`
`determining whether an invention would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. For example, a teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`modify a prior art reference or select multiple prior art references and
`
`combine them in such a fashion as in the claimed invention, may render an
`
`invention obvious. As well, a combination of elements that was obvious to
`
`try, for example, in light of market pressures, may render an invention
`
`obvious if there was a reasonable expectation of success. I understand that
`
` 
`
`7
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 7 of 82
`
`

`
`other factors that may be considered in an obviousness analysis include the
`
`following:
`
`a. A combination of known elements using known methods may be
`
`obvious when it does no more than create predictable results.
`
`b. The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results.
`
`c. The use of a known technique to improve similar device in the same
`
`way.
`
`d. Applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results.
`
`e. 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
`
`28. I understand that an invention may not be obvious if the prior art
`
`reference(s) teaches away from the proposed modification or combination of
`
`prior art references. In addition, an invention may not obvious if the
`
`proposed combination creates “unpredictable results.” Finally, an invention
`
`may not obvious if the proposed modification or combination would render
`
`the prior art device inoperable.
`
` 
`
`8
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 8 of 82
`
`

`
`29. I further understand that a patent composed of several elements is not proved
`
`obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was
`
`independently known in the prior art.
`
`30. I also understand that secondary considerations can be taken into account
`
`when analyzing whether a claim is obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`Secondary considerations can include long-felt need, failure of others,
`
`success by others, commercial success, commercial acquiescence
`
`(licensing), professional approval, industry skepticism, teaching away,
`
`unexpected results, copying, and laudatory statements by the infringer. I also
`
`understand that the nexus between the secondary considerations and the
`
`merits of the claimed invention should be considered in an obviousness
`
`analysis. However, I further understand that evidence of non-obviousness
`
`need only be reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims. Each of
`
`these secondary considerations weighs against a finding of obviousness.
`
`The Technology at Issue and the Standard of a Person Of Ordinary Skill in
`
`the Art (POSITA)
`
`31. The five Worlds patents, which each share a common specification, relate to
`
`methods, systems, and architecture for a three-dimensional, multiple-user,
`
`interactive virtual world displaying avatars (which are three-dimensional
`
`representations of users per the Worlds patents). In this architecture,
`9
`
` 
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 9 of 82
`
`

`
`workstations (or clients) communicate with one or more virtual world
`
`servers via a network (like a local area network or the internet). The clients
`
`may also communicate with each other, such as in a peer-to-peer
`
`architecture. Further, each client controls an avatar existing in the shared
`
`virtual world, and can interact visually and/or through a chat function with
`
`other users’ avatars. However, at the time of the earliest date of filing,
`
`November 13, 1995 (corresponding to the filing date of U.S. provisional
`
`patent application No. 60/020,296), the acknowledged rate for network
`
`communications was 14.4 kbps (kilobits/second). This rate is identified in
`
`each Worlds patent, including column 3, line 55 of the ‘690 patent. Though
`
`not mentioned in the specification, 28.8 kbps modems were available in late
`
`1995, though the actual transmission rate with a 28.8 kbps modem was
`
`usually not 28.8 kbps due to other limitations, including those limitations
`
`associated with the telephone lines in place and used for data transmission.
`
`Further, the processing power of a client, such as a Windows-based PC, in
`
`an average household was insufficient to receive positional updates for many
`
`other avatars in the virtual world while maintaining an acceptable frame rate.
`
`32. For this reason, the Worlds patents implemented forms of “crowd control”
`
`on the server side and also on the client side. While there are a few different
`
`implementations of “crowd control” discussed in the Worlds patents, one
`
` 
`
`10
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 10 of 82
`
`

`
`server-side example of crowd control includes limiting the number N of
`
`other avatars that a particular client will see and/or hear. The server therefore
`
`limits the updates sent to that particular client to N other avatars. An
`
`example of client-side crowd control includes the client setting a variable
`
`N’, which indicates the number of other avatars that a client will see or hear.
`
`The variable N’ may be less than N, in which case the client can select N’
`
`avatars to see or hear from among the N avatars sent from the server. These
`
`N or N’ avatars are selected by the server or client, respectively, based on
`
`proximity, or may be selected on other variables. For example, avatars may
`
`be filtered out from the display by user ID in combination with proximity.
`
`On this background, I evaluated what I believe to be the proper standard for
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.
`
`33. I understand that the factors considered in determining the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art include education and experience of persons working in the
`
`art, and the types of problems encountered in the art. Based on these factors,
`
`in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art of the Worlds
`
`patents as of late 1995 has at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in
`
`computer science, with two or more years of experience in coding related to
`
`both virtual environments and computer networking. For example, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have education and/or
`
` 
`
`11
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 11 of 82
`
`

`
`experience sufficient to understand the coding necessary to implement a
`
`virtual world, including the message-based interactions between clients and
`
`servers, bandwidth and processing limitations (for both servers and clients),
`
`and graphics pipelines of a client for drawing entities in a virtual
`
`environment.
`
`34. My opinions contained in this declaration are given from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the November 13, 1995 filing
`
`of the U.S. provisional patent application No. 60/020,296, even if an opinion
`
`is expressed in the present tense. I understand that the earliest related U.S.
`
`non-provisional patent application No. 08/747,420 was filed on November
`
`12, 1996. The standard for a POSITA as of November 12, 1996 is consistent
`
`with the standard for a POSITA expressed in ¶ 33.
`
`35. As of both November 13, 1995 and November 12, 1996, I satisfied the
`
`standard of a person of ordinary skill in the art described above. Though I do
`
`not possess a university degree, I have founded two postgraduate programs.
`
`Further, as of 1995, I possessed more than 5 years of experience in the
`
`computer graphics industry with an emphasis on virtual reality, 10 years of
`
`experience in computer networking, had founded and been CEO of a
`
`technology startup, invented VRML, and I had written a textbook on VRML
`
`(with the foreword written by Sir Tim Berners-Lee). Thus, by 1995, I
`
` 
`
`12
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 12 of 82
`
`

`
`possessed at least than the equivalent of a university degree in the field of
`
`computer graphics, computer networking, and computer science.
`
`36. I would like to provide further context for the state of the relevant art in late
`
`1995.
`
`37. When I started working in virtual reality - this would have been early 1991 -
`
`there were very few solutions for real-time three dimensional graphics on
`
`PC-class devices. Two exceptions were Virtus Walkthrough, an
`
`architectural modeling and visualisation package published by the Virtus
`
`Corporation of Cary, NC, and the networked tank game SPECTRE. Virtus
`
`featured richly detailed virtual environments, while SPECTRE had a very
`
`simplified world suitable for low-power computers.
`
`38. In early 1992 a post to the USENET group sci.virtual-worlds announced a
`
`breakthrough in computer graphics, with a simple 486-class PC able to
`
`render tens of thousands of correctly lit and shaded polygons per second. At
`
`the time, graphics professionals found these figures so unbelievable, some
`
`took the opportunity to insult the researchers reporting these results. One
`
`critic went so far as to suggest that someone had left a computer on, so that a
`
`mischievous person could post that message to the entire group.
`
`39. I was CEO of Ono-Sendai Corporation at the time, and deeply interested in
`
`any technology that could make consumer VR a reality. I reached out to the
`
` 
`
`13
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 13 of 82
`
`

`
`team responsible for the post. This team was from Canon Research Lab in
`
`the UK. When they visited Silicon Valley a few months later, I secured both
`
`a demo and one of the first licenses for their Renderware software package.
`
`Ono-Sendai used Renderware to demonstrate the functionality of our
`
`‘Sourceless Orientation Sensor’ (US Patent 5,022,526).
`
`40. The transition to software based rendering for low-power computers cannot
`
`be understated. Real time 3D graphics were - except for the examples given
`
`above - essentially impossible to achieve on PC-class computers. There were
`
`no 3D games (even Wolfenstein 3D wouldn’t be released until later in 1992,
`
`and it used a variety of mathematical cheats to produce the illusion of a full
`
`3D environment without having to go to the computational expense of
`
`rendering that environment through a standard 3D graphics pipeline) and
`
`there were certainly no networked 3D virtual worlds available to consumers.
`
`The technological barriers at that time were insurmountable.
`
`41. In December 1993, after I had left Ono-Sendai, I was working on what
`
`would become the Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) - a platform
`
`for networked virtual worlds within the Web browser. Through a mutual
`
`associate, I was introduced to Servan Keondjian and Kate Seekings, co-
`
`founders of UK-based RealityLab, who had also developed a high-
`
` 
`
`14
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 14 of 82
`
`

`
`performance software rendering engine. (The Canon and RealityLab
`
`technical leads had been friends at university.)
`
`42. I secured the first RealityLab license, and with this software library quickly
`
`wrote the first VRML browser, finishing the work in early February 1994.
`
`At this point, software-based 3D rendering was still not a commonly
`
`accepted technique - it was only available in very few applications, most of
`
`which used the Renderware software library.
`
`43. Within a year, Microsoft Corporation had purchased RealityLab,
`
`incorporating the technology into Direct3D, their high-performance software
`
`architecture for 3D gaming and visualisation. Until the rise of the
`
`smartphone, Direct3D was the most commonly used platform for real-time
`
`3D computer graphics, because it brought those graphics to PCs with a very
`
`wide range of capacities.
`
`44. Before Direct3D - and before Renderware - 3D graphics were slow, hard,
`
`expensive, and led to a poor user experience on consumer PCs. The
`
`watershed years of 1994-1996 represent a fulcrum, as the entire world of
`
`real-time computer graphics switched from 2D to 3D techniques, enabled by
`
`this software rendering revolution.
`
`Materials Considered
`
` 
`
`15
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 15 of 82
`
`

`
`45. In forming my opinions, in addition to my knowledge and experience, I have
`
`considered the following documents and things that I have obtained, or that
`
`have been provided to me, as well as any other references cited herein that
`
`may not be listed below:
`
`a. The Worlds patents:
`
`i. U.S. Patent No. 7,945,856 (the ‘856 patent)
`
`ii. U.S. Patent No. 7,181,690 (the ‘690 patent)
`
`iii. U.S. Patent No. 7,493,558 (the ‘558 patent)
`
`iv. U.S. Patent No. 8,082,501 (the ‘501 patent)
`
`v. U.S. Patent No. 8,145,998 (the ‘998 patent)
`
`b. “RING: A Client-Server System for Multi-User Virtual
`
`Environments” authored by Thomas A. Funkhouser (“Funkhouser” or
`
`“Funkhouser ‘95”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`c. Thomas A. Funkhouser, Adaptive Display Algorithm for Interactive
`
`Frame Rates During Visualization of Complex Virtual Environments
`
`(“Funkhouser ‘93”) (Ex. 1017)
`
`d. U.S. Patent No. 5,659,691 issued to Durward et al. (“Durward”) (Ex.
`
`1008)
`
`e. U.S. Patent No. 5,021,976 to Wexelblat et al. (“Wexelblat”) (Ex.
`
`1020)
`
` 
`
`16
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 16 of 82
`
`

`
`f. A manual for the computer game Marathon (“Marathon”) (Ex. 1021)
`
`g. U.S. Patent No. 5,777,621 to Schneider (“Schneider”) (Ex. 1019)
`
`h. U.S. Patent No. 4,521,014 to Sitrick (“Sitrick”) (Ex. 1013)
`
`i. David Tracey, Touring Virtual Reality Arcades, Int’l Herald Trib.
`
`(Paris), May 7, 1993, at 8-9 (“Tracey”) (Ex. 1025)
`
`j. Deposition Transcript of Dr. Michael Zyda of February 11-12, 2016
`
`k. Portions of the Petitions for inter partes review in IPR2015-01264, -
`
`01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, and -01325, the declarations of Dr.
`
`Zyda (each labeled Ex. 1002) in support of the Petitions, and the
`
`Institution Decisions issued by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB” or “Board”) in these cases.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`46. I understand that for an unexpired patent, the Board will interpret claims
`
`using the broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the disclosure, including the
`
`specification and drawings.
`
`47. However, for expired patents, I understand that the claim construction
`
`standard is not according to the broadest reasonable interpretation. Rather, in
`
`this situation, I understand that the Board’s review of the claims of an
`
`expired patent is consistent with a district court’s standard; there, the words
`17
`
` 
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 17 of 82
`
`

`
`of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of
`
`the invention.
`
`48. Further, I understand that some of the Worlds patents being challenged may
`
`expire before the Board is required to issue its final decisions in these cases,
`
`and some of the Worlds patents are likely to expire after the Board issues its
`
`final decisions. I provide my opinions on claim construction below, and will
`
`identify if I believe that different constructions may result depending on
`
`which claim construction standard is applied.
`
`49. I reviewed Dr. Zyda’s proposed constructions for the following terms and
`
`provide my opinions for his proposed construction below:
`
`a. “avatar”
`
`i. This term appears in each challenged Worlds patent, and
`
`appears in many of the Worlds patents’ claims.
`
`ii. I understand that Dr. Zyda has proposed a construction of “a
`
`graphical representation of a user.” See Zyda, pg. 259, ll. 13-22.
`
`iii. I agree in part with this proposed construction under either
`
`claim construction standard discussed above. I specifically
`
`disagree with Dr. Zyda’s decision to exclude “three-
`
`dimensional” from his proposed construction, however.
`
` 
`
`18
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 18 of 82
`
`

`
`iv. According to the Worlds patents, the “avatar” is a three-
`
`dimensional representation of a user. The Worlds patents are
`
`consistent in this description and explain that “[e]ach avatar 18
`
`is a three dimensional figure chosen by a user to represent the
`
`user in the virtual world.” This quotation is in each Worlds
`
`patent, and can be found, for example, at the ‘690 patent at
`
`3:15-17. The Worlds patents also explain that “orientation is
`
`needed for rendering because the avatar images are three-
`
`dimensional and look different (in most cases) from different
`
`angles.” This quotation can be found at 6:9-11 of the ‘690
`
`patent. And the avatar databases 71 and 108 include “N two-
`
`dimensional panels, where the i-th panel is the view of the
`
`avatar from an angle of 360*i/N degrees.” This quotation comes
`
`from 7:38-40 of the ‘690 patent. By reading the Worlds patents
`
`in the context of 2D-vs-3D technology of 1993-1995, including
`
`those events that I have explained above in ¶¶ 36-44, it is clear
`
`that the “avatar” term used in the Worlds patents is a three-
`
`dimensional graphical representation of a user under either
`
`claim construction standard.
`
` 
`
`19
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 19 of 82
`
`

`
`v. In the District Court’s claim construction order, the District
`
`Court interpreted “avatar” as a “graphical representation of a
`
`user in three-dimensional form.” Ex. 2006 at 20-24. I agree
`
`with the District Court’s interpretation of this term, as
`
`explained above. I also understand and agree with the District
`
`Court’s statement that “the ‘crowd control’ issue at the heart of
`
`this patent is an issue implicated by the more complex three-
`
`dimensional system, as opposed to the two-dimensional
`
`systems that did not require as much strain on computing
`
`resources.” Ex. 2006 at 21.
`
`vi. I also understand Dr. Zyda’s testimony that an “avatar” did not
`
`refer to a Non-playing entity (NPE) or Non-playing character
`
`(NPC) as of 1995 or 1996. See Zyda, pg. 259, ln. 16 to pg. 260,
`
`ln. 16. Per Dr. Zyda, an avatar corresponds specifically to a
`
`person, and not to an AI character or to an object that does not
`
`correspond to a user/person. As of 1995 or 1996, I had not
`
`heard the term “avatar” used to refer to an NPC/NPE, and so I
`
`do not disagree with Dr. Zyda’s testimony.
`
`b. “determining”
`
` 
`
`20
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 20 of 82
`
`

`
`i. This term appears in the challenged claims of the ‘856 patent,
`
`the ‘690 patent, the ‘558 patent, and the ‘501 patent. These
`
`claims include:
`
`1. ‘856 patent: claim 1
`
`2. ‘690 patent: claims 1 and 11 (Dr. Zyda contends that
`
`claims 6, 10, and 15 include limitations with similar
`
`meaning)
`
`3. ‘558 patent: claims 4 and 6
`
`4. ‘501 patent: claims 1, 12, and 14 (claim 12 recites
`
`“determine” rather than “determining”)
`
`5. As one example of how the “determining” term appears
`
`in the claims, the ‘690 patent claim 1 recites a step of
`
`“determining, from the received positions, a set of the
`
`other users’ avatars that are to be displayed to the first
`
`user … .” The use of the “determining” term in the ‘856
`
`patent and the ‘558 patent is very similar to the use in the
`
`‘690 patent, in that the “determining” is expressly based
`
`on positions or received positions in order to determine
`
`other avatars “to be displayed” in the claim language.
`
` 
`
`21
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 21 of 82
`
`

`
`6. As a different example, the ‘501 patent claim 1 recites a
`
`step of “determining, by the client device, the displayable
`
`set of the other user avatars associated with the client
`
`device display.” Unlike in the ‘856, ‘690, and ‘558
`
`patents, the “determining” step here is not expressly
`
`based on positions or received positions, and is not for
`
`determining other avatars that are “to be displayed.”
`
`These changes in usage of “determining” indicate to me
`
`that Petitioner and Dr. Zyda have erred in trying to
`
`construe “determining” without further context of the
`
`language surrounding the “determining” terms. I believe
`
`a POSITA would have construed the full “determining”
`
`steps, rather than just this isolated term.
`
`ii. As I read Dr. Zyda’s declarations in each of these cases, it
`
`appears to me that he is proposing a common interpretation for
`
`“determining” in each of these cases, for each of the ‘856
`
`patent, the ‘690 patent, the ‘558 patent, and the ‘501 patent.
`
`Specifically, in ¶61 of Ex. 1002 in IPR2015-01264, he states
`
`that under the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard,
`
`“determining” “at least includes executing a client process to
`
` 
`
`22
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 22 of 82
`
`

`
`determine, from user positions received from the server, other
`
`users’ avatar(s) located within a point of view or perspective of
`
`the first user.”
`
`iii. I disagree that a POSITA would have reached this same
`
`interpretation. From a technical perspective, Dr. Zyda’s
`
`proposed construction does not make sense. Dr. Zyda appears
`
`to be using point of view and perspective to mean the same
`
`thing. To a POSITA, a “point of view” refers to the
`
`combination of position and orientation in a 3-dimensional
`
`space. This describes placement or coordinates of the virtual
`
`camera, the direction vector or look at value of the camera, and
`
`the orientation (pitch, yaw, and roll) relative to the direction
`
`vector. However, these values are insufficient to establish the
`
`portion of the virtual scene to be rendered. What is also
`
`necessary to render a virtual scene is a field of view, in
`
`combination with point of view.
`
`iv. Effectively, Dr. Zyda is characterizing the “determining” term
`
`as a client-based process of establishing a point of view (or
`
`perspective) of the first user, and then determining other
`
` 
`
`23
`
`IPR2015-01264, -01268, -01269, -01319, -01321, -01325
`Corrected EX. 2017
`Page 23 of 82
`
`

`
`avatar(s) located within that point of view or perspective.
`
`Without a field of view, this determination cannot be achieved.
`
`v. Further, I disagree that “determining,” according to its use in
`
`the challenged patents, includes a point-of-view or a point-of-
`
`view plus field-of-view analysis performed at the client. I
`
`disagree with Dr. Zyda’s interpretation regardless of which
`
`claim construction standard applies to the Worlds patents. I also
`
`disagree that the “determining” term should be construed
`
`separately from the full context in which it appears in the
`
`claims.
`
`vi. I note that in Dr. Zyda’s discussion of the specification of the
`
`Worlds patents, he does not identify any instance in whi

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket