Paper No. ____
`Filed: June 1, 2015
`
`Filed on behalf of: Bungie, Inc.
`By: Michael T. Rosato
`Matthew A. Argenti
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`Tel.: 206-883-2529
`Fax: 206-883-2699
`Email: mrosato@wsgr.com
`Email: margenti@wsgr.com
`
`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
`_____________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,082,501
`
`1
`
`MS 1028
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Brief Overview of the ’501 Patent ........................................................ 1
`
`Brief Overview of the Prosecution History ........................................... 2
`
`Brief Overview of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art ................... 3
`
`Level of Skill in the Art ......................................................................... 7
`
`II.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................................................................. 8
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................... 8
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM
`CHALLENGED .................................................................................................... 9
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................... 9
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF NON-REDUNDANCY ............................................................... 12
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ................... 13
`
`A.
`
`[Ground 1] Claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 are Obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 over Funkhouser and Sitrick.......................................... 13
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................. 15
`
`Independent claims 12 and 14................................................... 24
`
`iii. Dependent claims ...................................................................... 27
`
`iv.
`
`Rationale to Combine ............................................................... 30
`
`[Ground 2] Claims 7 and 16 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Funkhouser, Sitrick, and Wexelblat ............................................ 32
`
`[Ground 3] Claims 8 and 10 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Funkhouser, Sitrick, and Funkhouser ’93 ................................... 33
`
`[Ground 4] Claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 are Anticipated under 35
`U.S.C. § 102 by Durward .................................................................... 39
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`-i-
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................. 40
`
`Independent claims 12 and 14................................................... 47
`
`iii. Dependent claims ...................................................................... 50
`
`[Ground 5] Claims 7 and 16 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Durward and Wexelblat .............................................................. 52
`
`[Ground 6] Claims 8 and 10 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Durward and Schneider ............................................................... 54
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 58
`
`IX. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(A) AND 42.103 ....................... 59
`
`X. APPENDIX – LIST OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................ 60
`
`-ii-
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 311 and § 6 of the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act (“AIA”), and to 37 C.F.R. Part 42, Bungie, Inc.,
`
`(“Petitioner”) hereby requests review of U.S. Patent No. 8,082,501 to Leahy et al.
`
`(hereinafter “the ’501 patent,” Ex. 1001) that issued on December 20, 2011, and is
`
`currently assigned to Worlds Inc. (“Patent Owner”). This Petition demonstrates
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-8, 10, 12, and 14-16 of the ’501
`
`patent are unpatentable over the cited prior art. Thus, claims 1-8, 10, 12, and 14-
`
`16 of the ’501 patent should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`A. Brief Overview of the ’501 Patent
`
`The ’501 patent is entitled “System and Method for Enabling Users to
`
`Interact in a Virtual Space.” See also Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 14-27. In a general sense, the
`
`’501 patent is directed to a client-server network system for enabling multiple
`
`users to interact with each other in a virtual world. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract,
`
`claim 1. Each user is represented by an avatar and interacts with a client system
`
`that “is networked to a virtual world server.” Id. at 3:15.
`
`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. The ’501 patent indicates “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 id. at 5:27-35, 3:33-35, 45, fig. 1. The ’501 patent states that
`
`“[i]n order that the view can be updated to reflect the motion of the remote user’s
`
`-1-
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`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 , 2:44-58; see also id. at 5:52-59. As the user avatar moves
`
`throughout the virtual space, the user’s client system sends the server updates. Id.
`
`at 3:39-44.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’501 patent is representative of the claims at issue. See Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶ 18-26. The “receiving” step of claim 1 relates to a central concept of the
`
`’501 patent: server filtering, by which the server filters information to send to a
`
`client so that the client will receive positional information on a subset of users in a
`
`virtual world. Ex. 1002, ¶ 19. This is reflected in claim 1 as a client “receiving . . .
`
`position information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatars.” The
`
`client processes information received from the server to “determin[e] . . . a
`
`displayable set of the other user avatars.” Id. As discussed in more detail below,
`
`both the server-side filtering and client-side processing claimed by the ’501 patent
`
`were described in the prior art. Id. at ¶ 27.
`
`B.
`
`Brief Overview of the Prosecution History
`
`Application No. 12/406,968 was filed on March 19, 2009 and issued on
`
`December 20, 2011 as the ’501 patent. The ’501 patent is a continuation claiming
`
`priority benefit back to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/020,296, filed
`
`on November 13, 1995.
`
`During prosecution, and consistent with the reason for allowance in the
`
`parent applications, the claims were “amended to clarify that the client device does
`
`not receive position information of at least some avatars of the other user avatars
`
`-2-
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`in the virtual space.” See Ex. 1004 at 0271. In the last applicant response prior to
`
`allowance, the sole distinction argued over the prior art as to the independent
`
`claims was that the reference relied upon by the Examiner did not disclose this
`
`requirement. See Ex. 1004 at 0336-37. While the server-filtering requirement was
`
`thus relied on as a key distinction over the prior art during prosecution, as
`
`discussed below this limitation, as well as all other claim elements, was in fact
`
`disclosed by multiple references predating the ’501 patent. The same purported
`
`point of novelty was argued in related patents U.S. Patents Nos. 7,181,690,
`
`7,493,558, 7,945,856, and 8,145,998, which are also subject to IPR challenges.
`
`The primary references which form the basis for this Petition, Funkhouser
`
`and Durward, along with one of the secondary references, were among over 300
`
`references cited to the Examiner in IDSs. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 at 0231, 0252.
`
`Neither reference was ever applied against the claims in an office action, whether
`
`in this prosecution or any related prosecution, and it is unclear to what extent the
`
`Examiner had an opportunity to substantively consider them. Moreover, the
`
`specific arguments presented in this petition were not before the Examiner during
`
`prosecution, nor did the Examiner have the benefit of Dr. Zyda’s testimony as
`
`submitted here.
`
`C. Brief Overview of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`
` This petition is supported by the expert declaration of Dr. Michael Zyda.
`
`Ex. 1002; see also, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 1-10. As explained in detail in Dr. Zyda’s
`
`declaration and addressed in further detail below (Section VII), virtual reality
`
`systems utilizing client/server network architecture were known prior to the
`
`-3-
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`alleged invention of the ’501 patent, as were the server-side filtering and client
`
`processing that are the focus of the ’501 patent claims. Id. at ¶¶ 35-51, 66-272.
`
`With regard to the subject matter claimed in the ’501 patent, virtual reality systems
`
`and methods utilizing a client-server network approach, and employing server
`
`filtering and client processing in the manner claimed, were known. This is
`
`illustrated in the prior art on which the current challenge is based and includes the
`
`references briefly discussed below and in further detail in Section VII.
`
`Thomas Funkhouser’s article “RING: A Client-Server System for Multi-
`
`User Virtual Environments” (hereinafter “Funkhouser,” Ex. 1005) described a
`
`virtual reality system utilizing a client-server architecture, server filtering, and
`
`client processing before the application for the ’501 patent. Funkhouser appears in
`
`a collection entitled PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1995 SYMPOSIUM ON INTERACTIVE 3D
`
`GRAPHICS (“1995 SI3D”). Ex. 1006. The 1995 SI3D symposium was sponsored
`
`by ACM SIGGRAPH, and took place on April 9-12, 1995. Id. at Title Page.
`
`Funkhouser, in particular, was presented on the morning of April 11, 1995. Id. at
`
`2. Dr. Zyda served as the chair of this symposium in 1995 and has personal
`
`knowledge that copies of the proceedings, which included Funkhouser, were
`
`distributed to the approximately 250 attendees at the symposium. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 41-
`
`42. Accordingly, Funkhouser was published and distributed no later than April 12,
`
`1995, the final day of the 1995 SI3D symposium, and qualifies as prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Moreover, the Proceedings publication was provided to ACM
`
`members pursuant to its Member Plus program, “which means distribution of the
`
`-4-
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`proceedings to more than 4,000 individuals.” Ex. 1006 at 4; see also Ex. 1007
`
`(copy of Funkhouser received by the Univ. of Illinois on June 27, 1995).
`
`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). Funkhouser 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 particular update message is
`
`relevant only to a small subset of clients and then propagate the message only to
`
`those clients or their servers.” Id.; Ex. 1002, ¶ 45. Funkhouser also discloses the
`
`client processing claimed in the ’501 patent, e.g., whereby the client then narrows
`
`this information down to produce a field-of-view display from the perspective of
`
`the user’s avatar. See Ex. 1005 at 09, Plate II; Ex. 1002, ¶ 47.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,691 to Durward, et al. (hereinafter “Durward,” Ex.
`
`1008), describes a “virtual reality system” where “multiple users located at
`
`different remote physical locations may communicate with the system.” Ex. 1008
`
`at Abstract, 1:46-48. In the Durward system, all interaction between users passed
`
`through a “central control unit” server rather than directly from user to user. See
`
`id. at 2:49-55, 6:13-52, Figs. 1, 2 & 7. Like Funkhouser, Durward discloses the
`
`server filtering claimed in the ’501 patent, as it describes a system where “data
`
`communicated to the user typically corresponds to the portion of the virtual space
`
`viewed from the perspective of the virtual being.” Id. at 1:65-67; Ex. 1002, ¶ 44.
`
`In Durward “visual relevant spaces” are defined for various users, and those spaces
`
`-5-
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`“determine which state changes are communicated to . . . users.” Ex. 1008 at 4:54-
`
`56; 2:9-12. Durward also discloses the client “determining” aspect of the ’501
`
`patent claims, as even after the server-side filtering was applied, each client would
`
`receive information regarding more remote users than would actually be displayed
`
`to the user. Ex. 1008 at 1:28-31, 5:13-27, Fig. 5; Ex. 1002, ¶ 46.
`
`Additionally, it was also known prior to the ’501 patent that a computer
`
`generating a virtual environment could omit objects such as avatars from display
`
`based on the performance capabilities of the computer, i.e., determining a
`
`maximum number of avatars to display. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 48-49. For example, a 1993
`
`article by Thomas Funkhouser, entitled “Adaptive Display Algorithm for
`
`Interactive Frame Rates During Visualization of Complex Virtual Environments”
`
`(hereafter “Funkhouser ’93,” Ex. 1017), discloses an “optimization algorithm” that
`
`calculates whether objects within a virtual environment should be displayed at a
`
`reduced level of detail, or even not at all, based on a cost/benefit analysis in view
`
`of a target frame rate. Ex. 1017 at, e.g., 251, 253; Ex. 1002, ¶ 48. Funkhouser ’93
`
`was included in a printed collection of presentation materials handed out at an
`
`ACM conference and subsequently publicly available from ACM. Specifically, it
`
`appears at pages 247-254 of the SIGGRAPH ’93 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 20TH
`
`ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER GRAPHICS AND INTERACTIVE TECHNIQUES.
`
`Ex. 1018; Ex. 1002, ¶ 48. Funkhouser ’93 was distributed as a printed publication
`
`no later than August 6, 1993, the final day of the 1993 SIGGRAPH conference,
`
`and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b). Id.
`
`-6-
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Likewise, U.S. Patent No. 5,777,621 to Schneider, et al. (hereinafter
`
`“Schneider,” Ex. 1019), describes a “graphics rendering system” providing “a
`
`mechanism which allows an application or user to select a desired point in the
`
`overall speed/quality rendering trade-off.” Ex. 1019 at Abstract, 1:56-61.
`
`Schneider explains that “a user can hasten the rendering process,” including by, for
`
`example, “culling objects from the scene before rendering.” Id. at 5:31-34;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 49.
`
`Other aspects and features as claimed by the ’501 patent, such as custom
`
`avatars and allowing avatars to teleport between areas of the virtual world were
`
`also well known before the ’501 patent. Ex. 1002, ¶ 50; see also, e.g., Ex. 1013 at
`
`Abstract, 11:41-45 (customizable avatars); Ex. 1008 at 7:26-40 (same); Ex. 1020 at
`
`6:61-7:10 (teleportation). For these reasons, and as explained below and in
`
`Dr. Zyda’s declaration, the methods and system for allowing a plurality of users to
`
`interact with a virtual space as recited in claims 1-8, 10, 12, and 14-16 were
`
`already described in the prior art as of the earliest priority date for the ’501 patent.
`
`D. Level of Skill in the Art
`
`As Dr. Zyda explains, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field prior to
`
`November 13, 1995 would include someone who had, through education or
`
`practical experience, the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a
`
`related field and at least an additional two years of work experience developing or
`
`implementing networked virtual environments. Ex. 1002, ¶ 52-57.
`
`-7-
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`II. Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies that, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), the ’501 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review, and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review of the ’501 patent on the grounds identified.
`
`III. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)): Bungie, Inc. is the real
`
`party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)): Petitioner is aware of the
`
`following matter in which the ’501 patent has been asserted: Worlds, Inc. v.
`
`Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:12-cv-10576-DJC (D. Mass.). Petitioner
`
`is also seeking inter partes review of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,181,690, 7,493,558,
`
`7,945,856, and 8,145,998.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel: Michael T. Rosato (Reg. No. 52,182)
`
`Back-Up Counsel: Matthew A. Argenti (Reg. No. 61,836)
`
`Service Information – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4). Petitioners hereby consent to
`
`electronic service.
`
`Email: mrosato@wsgr.com; margenti@wsgr.com
`
`Post: WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100,
`
`
`
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`
`Tel.: 206-883-2529
`
`
`
`Fax: 206-883-2699
`
`-8-
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`IV. Statement of the Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged
`
`Petitioners request review of claims 1-8, 10, 12, and 14-16 of the ’501 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 311 and AIA § 6. The specific grounds for relief are as follows:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Description
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`1-6, 12, 14,
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Funkhouser and
`
`and 15
`
`Sitrick
`
`7 and 16
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Funkhouser,
`
`Sitrick, and Wexelblat
`
`8 and 10
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Funkhouser,
`
`Sitrick, and Funkhouser ’93
`
`1-6, 12, 14,
`
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Durward
`
`and 15
`
`7 and 16
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Durward and
`
`Wexelblat
`
`8 and 10
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Durward and
`
`Schneider
`
`V. Claim Construction
`
`A claim subject to inter partes review receives the broadest reasonable
`
`construction or interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears, because among other reasons, the patent owner has an opportunity to
`
`amend the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC.,
`
`778 F.3d 1271, 1279-82 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A few terms that warrant discussion are
`
`identified and discussed below.
`
`-9-
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`“avatar”: Each of the independent claims of the ’501 patent recites the
`
`term “avatar.” The ’501 patent specification states in the “Summary of the
`
`Invention” that “[t]he virtual world shows avatars representing the other users who
`
`are neighbors of the user viewing the virtual word [sic].” Ex. 1001 at 2:42-44.
`
`The usage of the term “avatar” in the ’501 patent is consistent with the way it
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill, who would understand it to refer to a
`
`graphical representation of a user. Ex. 1002, ¶ 59; see also Ex. 1010 (“avatar: 1.
`
`In virtual-reality environments such as certain types of Internet chat rooms, a
`
`graphical representation of a user.”). Accordingly, the term “avatar” should be
`
`construed to mean “a graphical representation of a user.”
`
`“determining”: Each of the independent claims of the ’501 patent require
`
`“determining” a set of the other user avatars to display by the client device.
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 60. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “determining” as
`
`recited in the claims at least includes executing a client process to determine, from
`
`user positions received from the server, other users’ avatar(s) located within a point
`
`of view or perspective (e.g., field of view) of the first user. Id. at ¶ 61. Such a
`
`perspective can then be output for display to the first user. This is consistent with
`
`disclosure in the specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 2:41-42 (“[e]ach user
`
`executes a client process to view a virtual world from the perspective of that
`
`user.”); see also id. at 5:33-37 (“Register 114 also provides the current position to
`
`rendering engine 120, to inform rendering engine 120 of the correct view point for
`
`rendering. Remote avatar position table 112 contains the current positions of the
`
`‘in range’ avatars near A’s avatar.”).
`
`-10-
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`The specification further discusses a “crowd control” function that can be
`
`applied “in some cases.” Id. at 5:36-6:24; see also id. at 6:3-5 (“user A might have
`
`a way to filter out avatars on other variables in addition to proximity, such as user
`
`ID.”). Executing such a function also falls within the scope of “determining” in
`
`the independent claims. See id., dependent claim 10; Ex. 1002, ¶ 62.
`
`This proposed construction is also consistent with the position advanced by
`
`the Patent Owner in district court litigation involving the ’501 patent. Ex. 1009 at
`
`6; see also id. at 11 (arguing that numerous methods may be used as the basis of
`
`the “determining,” including “(among others), proximity, user ID, orientation,
`
`strain on computing resources, local user selection, or any other participant
`
`condition”). Accordingly, the determining step of the claims can herein reasonably
`
`be construed in light of the specification as including executing a client process to
`
`determine, from user positions received from the server, other users’ avatar(s)
`
`located within a point of view or perspective (e.g., field of view) of the first user.
`
`“displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client
`
`device display”: Claims 1 and 14 of the ’501 patent require that the client device
`
`determine and display a “displayable set of the other user avatars associated with
`
`the client device display.” Ex. 1002, ¶ 63. Apart from its appearance in the claims,
`
`the specification does not use this term, nor does it use the terms “displayable set”
`
`or “associated with the client device display.” It is not immediately clear from the
`
`claim language whether the “associat[ion] with the client device display” is
`
`between the display and the “displayable set” or between the display and the “other
`
`user avatars.” Id. The specification however, indicates that the association is
`
`-11-
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`between the “displayable set” and the client display. For example, the ’501 patent
`
`explains that “the client also uses position data to select N' avatars from the N
`
`avatars provided by the server.” Ex. 1001 at 6:12-13. In that example, the client
`
`processing determination is not based on any association between the other user
`
`avatars and the display, but rather based on their position relative to the user
`
`avatar. Ex. 1002, ¶ 64. On the other hand, the “displayable set” is associated with
`
`the client display as it defines the other user avatars to be presented on the client
`
`display. Id. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill would understand “displayable
`
`set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display” to mean a set
`
`of the other user’s avatars displayable on the client device display. Ex. 1002, ¶ 65.
`
`VI. Statement of Non-Redundancy
`
`Each ground raised in this Petition is meaningfully distinct. Grounds 1-3
`
`rely on Funkhouser, a conference-presented research paper that constitutes a
`
`printed publication qualifying as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Grounds 3-6
`
`rely on Durward, a U.S. Patent qualifying as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). In
`
`addition to their separate and distinct disclosures, should the Patent Owner attempt
`
`to disqualify Funkhouser as prior art (e.g., swear behind), the availability of
`
`Durward would likely render such an attempt moot considering the latter reference
`
`predates the ’501 patent by some two years.
`
`-12-
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`VII. Detailed Explanation Of Grounds For Unpatentability
`
`A.
`
`[Ground 1] Claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 are Obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 over Funkhouser and Sitrick
`
`Funkhouser, published no later than April 12, 1995, is qualified as prior art
`
`printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). See supra, Section I.C. U.S. Patent
`
`No. 4,521,014 to Sitrick (hereinafter “Sitrick,” Ex. 1013) issued on June 4, 1985
`
`and qualifies as prior art for this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). As
`
`described in further detail below, claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 of the ’501 patent
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Funkhouser
`
`and Sitrick. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 68-133.
`
`Funkhouser describes a client-server system for multi-user virtual
`
`environments. Ex. 1005 at Title. The system disclosed in Funkhouser “supports
`
`real-time visual interaction between a large number of users in a shared 3D virtual
`
`environment.” Id. at 01. As described in Funkhouser, a “key feature of the system
`
`is that server-based visibility algorithms compute potential visual interactions
`
`between entities representing users in order to reduce the number of messages
`
`required” to maintain the virtual environment across a network. Id. Funkhouser
`
`discloses that this message reduction is accomplished by sending avatar update
`
`information “only to workstations with entities that can potentially perceive the
`
`change.” Id.; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 69-70.
`
`Funkhouser explains that this server-side filtering is based on computations
`
`regarding which users are potentially visible to each other, based on their location
`
`in the virtual environment. Ex. 1005 at 03 (Fig. 6); see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 70.
`
`Funkhouser further explains that these computations regarding potential visibility
`
`-13-
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`are then used to filter distribution of update messages only to those users to which
`
`the updates are potentially relevant (i.e., potentially visible). Ex. 1005 at 04 (Fig.
`
`7); see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 71.
`
`Funkhouser also discloses the client processing in the manner claimed in the
`
`’501 patent. Upon receiving the server-filtered update information, the client
`
`workstation then “process[es] the update messages” and “simulat[es] behavior for
`
`a small subset of the entities participating in the simulation.” Ex. 1005 at 08. This
`
`processing includes a determination of which user avatars should be “displayed on
`
`the client workstation screen from the point of view of one or more of its entities.”
`
`Id. at 03; see also Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`72.
`
`Funkhouser’s Figure 6
`
`(annotated version shown
`
`here) provides an example
`
`illustrating server-side filtering
`
`and client processing as claimed in the ’501 patent. Ex. 1002, ¶ 73. As Dr. Zyda
`
`explains, Funkhouser illustrates a virtual space (marked with Box #1) including all
`
`user entities (i.e., avatars) A, B, C and D positioned therein. The shaded area
`
`Funkhouser shows in “stipple” (marked with Box #2) includes users A and B (less
`
`than all users), and represents the cells within the virtual space that are potentially
`
`visible to A. Client A will only receive positional updates from the server for users
`
`which are within this area (Box #2). The cross-hatched region (marked with Box
`
`#3) represents A’s perspective or field of view. Thus, after receiving the filtered
`
`-14-
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`positional updates from the server for less than all users as shown by Box #2 (i.e.,
`
`the “receiving” step of claim 1), the client responsible for A will determine which,
`
`if any, remote users fall within A’s field of view in order to display the perspective
`
`from A’s avatar as shown by Box #3 (i.e., the “determining” step of claim 1). Id.
`
`Funkhouser also discloses that each avatar “has a geometric description and
`
`a behavior” and that a user can update the “geometry” of their own entity. Ex. 1005
`
`at 03. While thus Funkhouser discloses that a user may update the appearance of
`
`their avatar, to the extent that it does not expressly disclose avatar customization as
`
`claimed in the ’501 patent, the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in view of Sitrick. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 74-77. Sitrick is entitled “Video
`
`Game Including User Visual Image,” and is directed to a “distributed system of
`
`video games.” Ex. 1013 at 1:4-5; see also id. at 3:56-57, 4:48-51. A key aspect
`
`Sitrick describes is the ability for a user to customize their own avatar, whereby
`
`“[t]he user selects a distinguishable visual image representation by which that user
`
`is identified,” either by “creat[ing] an original image or select[ing] one of a
`
`predetermined set of visual images.” Id. at Abstract; see also id. at 11:41-45.
`
`The discussion below further illustrates that each and every element of
`
`claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 of the ’501 patent would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in view of Funkhouser and Sitrick. The particular citations
`
`listed are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
`
`i.
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`Assuming that the claim 1 preamble is limiting, Funkhouser discloses the
`
`preamble elements.
`
`-15-
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`’501 Patent
`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:
`
`Funkhouser
`“This paper describes the client-server design ... for a system
`that supports real-time visual interaction between a large
`number of users in a shared 3D virtual environment.” p. 01;
`Fig. 1. (Abstract).
`“Each user is represented in the shared virtual environment by
`an entity [avatar] rendered on every other user’s workstation,
`and multi-user interaction is supported by matching user
`actions to entity updates in the shared virtual environment.” p.
`01.
`“Every RING entity is managed by exactly one client
`workstation. Clients execute the programs necessary to
`generate behavior for their entities.” p. 03.
`“Communication between clients is managed
`by servers. Clients ... send [messages] to
`servers which forward them to other client
`and server workstations participating in the
`same distributed simulation (see Figure 5).”
`p. 03. p. 09, Plate II.
`See also Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 78-81, 86.
`
`Funkhouser describes enabling interaction between users in a virtual space,
`
`as recited in claim 1. Funkhouser describes “a system that supports real-time
`
`visual interaction between a large number of users in a shared 3D virtual
`
`environment.” Ex. 1005 at 01, Fig. 1 and corresponding discussion. Funkhouser
`
`describes users as each having an associated avatar—e.g., “each user is represented
`
`in the shared virtual environment by an entity [i.e., avatar] rendered on every other
`
`user’s workstation.” Id.; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 79. The avatars are three-
`
`dimensional. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at 09, Plate II; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 80. Each user
`
`avatar/entity “is managed by exactly one client workstation.” Ex. 1005 at 03
`
`(emphasis in original). Dr. Zyda explains that each user and avatar has a client
`
`process associated with it, in the form of software executed on the client
`
`workstation. Ex. 1002 ¶ 81; see also Ex. 1005 at 03 (“Clients execute the
`
`programs necessary to generate behavior for their entities.”). Each client process is
`
`-16-
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`also in communication with a server process, as Funkhouser explains that
`
`“[c]ommunication between clients is managed by servers.” Ex. 1005 at 03; Fig. 5
`
`and corresponding discussion; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 86.
`
`The combination of Funkhouser and Sitrick teaches or suggests claim 1.1:
`’501 Patent
`Sitrick
`[1.1]
`“The user selects a distinguishable visual image representation by
`customizing,
`which that user is identified. For example, color, size, or shape can
`using a
`be used to distinguish users. ... [T]he user can create an original
`processor of
`image or select one of a predetermined set of visual images as the
`a client
`user’s identification for use in the video game audiovisual
`device, an
`presentation.” Abstract
`avatar in
`“[T]he user created visual imagery[] can then represent that user in
`response to
`the video game audiovisual presentation ... for a multiuser video
`input by the
`game....” 11:35-61. 1:4-5, 3:56-57, 4:48-51.
`first user;
`See also Ex. 1005 at 03, 04; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 81-86.
`
`As illustrated above and further described below, the combination of
`
`Funkhouser and Sitrick