UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`APPLE INC. and GOOGLE LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SPACETIME3D, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2023-002421
`Patent No. 8,881,048
`_______________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF SCOTT SCHAEFER, PH.D.
`
`1 Google LLC, which filed a petition in IPR2023-00577, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 1
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`APPLE INC. and GOOGLE LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SPACETIME3D, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2023-002421
`Patent No. 8,881,048
`_______________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF SCOTT SCHAEFER, PH.D.
`
`1 Google LLC, which filed a petition in IPR2023-00577, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING VALIDITY ........................................ 4
`A. Validity Generally ................................................................................. 5
`B.
`Priority Date .......................................................................................... 5
`C.
`Anticipation ........................................................................................... 5
`D. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 6
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 9
`III.
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10
`V. ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S CITED PRIOR ART ............................... 11
`A.
`Chronological Ordering of Objects in 3D Space ................................ 12
`1.
`Claim Interpretation .................................................................. 12
`2.
`Ground 1: Robertson, Gralla and Gettman ............................... 16
`3.
`Ground 2: Sauve and Tsuda ...................................................... 16
`“The Rendered First Webpage” .......................................................... 21
`1.
`Claim Interpretation .................................................................. 21
`2.
`Ground 1: Robertson, Gralla and Gettman ............................... 24
`3.
`Ground 2: Sauve and Tsuda ...................................................... 28
`“Replacing … in Response to Receiving the Interaction” .................. 32
`C.
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 38
`
`B.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 2
`
`
`
`I, Scott Schaefer, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts and opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration, and if called upon to do so, I would testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) and competent to make this
`
`Declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by Patent Owner SpaceTime 3D, Inc. to provide
`
`assistance, analysis, and opinions regarding IPR2023-00242 and U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,881,048 (“the ’048 patent”) as an expert in the field of computer science, and
`
`particularly in the area of 2D and 3D graphics and graphical user interfaces to
`
`evaluate the validity of the ’048 patent in light of the assertions made in Petitioners
`
`Apple Inc. and Google LLC’s (collectively, “Petitioner”) Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048 (“Petition”) (See Paper 2).
`
`4.
`
`I understand that this declaration (“Supplemental Declaration”) will be
`
`submitted in support of Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply to the
`
`Petition for inter partes review of the ’048 patent. This Supplemental Declaration
`
`addresses assertions made by Petitioner in the Reply and its expert in his
`
`supplemental declaration (EX1060). This Supplemental Declaration supplements
`
`certain portions of my prior declaration in support of the Patent Owner’s Response
`
`in this IPR Proceeding (EX2014, “my Prior Declaration”). In my Prior Declaration,
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 3
`
`
`
`I address many topics, including (but not limited to) my background and
`
`qualifications (see e.g., my CV at EX2014, Appendix A), my opinions, and their
`
`underlying bases, regarding the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`claimed inventions (“POSITA”); the fields of graphical user interfaces (“GUI”),
`
`including two dimensional (“2D”) and three dimensional (“3D”) spaces or
`
`environment; the ’048 patent; the construction of claim terms as understood by a
`
`POSITA; the prior art of record; and the validity of the ’048 patent, including a
`
`detailed analysis of the prior art cited by Petitioner, including why it does not render
`
`the ’048 patent obvious and why a POSITA would not have been motivated to make
`
`the prior art combinations asserted by Petitioner.
`
`5.
`
`I maintain all of my earlier analysis and continue to hold the opinions
`
`expressed in my Prior Declaration. This Supplemental Declaration does not replace
`
`my Prior Declaration. These declarations are complementary and should be read in
`
`tandem. Accordingly, this Supplemental Declaration does not cover every topic
`
`addressed in my Prior Declaration. In his supplemental declaration (EX1060), Dr.
`
`Fuchs makes numerous mischaracterizations of my positions and while I have
`
`addressed some of these below, the fact that I do not address every one of them
`
`should not be interpreted as my agreement with Dr. Fuchs’ mischaracterizations.
`
`Similarly, the fact that I did not address every point Dr. Fuchs asserted in his Prior
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 4
`
`
`
`Declaration or Supplemental Declaration should not be interpreted as my agreement
`
`with Dr. Fuchs on those points.
`
`6.
`
`In forming this Supplemental Declaration, I have considered the
`
`declarations of Petitioner’s expert Dr. Fuchs (EX1003 and EX1060), newly
`
`submitted Exhibits EX1055 and EX1056, the Board’s institution decision (Paper
`
`11), Petitioner’s reply (Paper 26), my knowledge and experience in this field,
`
`including my research and work experience in the field, my experience working with
`
`others involved in the field, and the third-party documents cited throughout my
`
`analysis .
`
`7.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal hourly rate for my time spent on
`
`this proceeding and for expenses incurred as a result of my role as an expert. My
`
`compensation is not in any way contingent on my performance, the result of this
`
`proceeding, or any of the issues involved therein. I have no financial interest in the
`
`outcome of this case.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING VALIDITY
`
`8.
`
`I am not an attorney. For purposes of this report, I have been informed
`
`by counsel of the following legal standards that apply to the issues I address in this
`
`report.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 5
`
`
`
`A. Validity Generally
`
`9.
`
`I understand that in litigation district court judges must presume that
`
`the claims of an issued patent are presumed to be valid. The basis for the
`
`presumption of validity is the fact that the allowed claims went through a rigorous
`
`examination process at the U.S. Patent Office. In this proceeding, I have not applied
`
`an presumption of validity in my analysis of the instituted grounds in the petition.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has the burden of proving invalidity by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, and that the burden of proof never shifts to the
`
`plaintiff to prove the validity of the ’048 patent.
`
`B.
`
`11.
`
`Priority Date
`
`I understand that an inventor establishes priority of an invention by
`
`conceiving of the invention and reducing the invention to practice.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that a patent application may establish priority of invention
`
`when it supports all elements of the asserted claims.
`
`C. Anticipation
`
`13.
`
`I understand from counsel for Patent Owner that invalidation by
`
`anticipation occurs only when a single alleged prior art reference discloses each and
`
`every limitation of the claim at issue, either expressly or inherently. In other words,
`
`every limitation of the claim must identically appear in a single prior art reference
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 6
`
`
`
`for the reference to anticipate that claim. I also understand that all elements of the
`
`claim must be disclosed in the reference as they are arranged in the claim.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that to be considered anticipatory, the prior art reference
`
`must be enabling and must describe the patentee’s claimed invention sufficiently to
`
`have placed it in possession of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner did not assert, and the Board has not
`
`instituted, any grounds of unpatentability pursuant to Section 102.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`16.
`
`It has further been explained to me by counsel for Patent Owner that a
`
`claim is obvious pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
`
`been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. As such, I
`
`understand that a claim is valid unless the differences between the claimed 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 claimed invention pertains.
`
`17.
`
`It has further been explained to me by counsel for Patent Owner that
`
`the following factors are used to make an obviousness determination: (i) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (ii) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (iii) the
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 7
`
`
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (iv) objective or
`
`secondary considerations of nonobviousness. Any relevant objective factors or
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness, which may include commercial
`
`success of a product using the invention, if that commercial success is due to the
`
`invention; long-felt need for the invention; evidence of copying of the claimed
`
`invention; industry acceptance; the taking of licenses under the patent by others;
`
`initial skepticism; failure of others; and praise of the invention.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that when a patentee can demonstrate commercial success,
`
`usually shown by significant sales in a relevant market, and that the successful
`
`product is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent, it is presumed that the
`
`commercial success is due to the patented invention. I also understand that courts
`
`may find the commercial success of the infringer and other members of the industry
`
`persuasive even though the patentee was not successful with a product covered by
`
`the patent.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is not
`
`proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was independently
`
`known in the prior art. But multiple prior art references or elements may, in some
`
`circumstances, be combined to render a patent claim obvious. I understand that I
`
`should consider whether there is an “apparent reason” to combine the prior art
`
`references or elements in the way the patent claims. Requiring a reason for the prior
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 8
`
`
`
`art combination protects against the distortion caused by hindsight. Along the same
`
`lines, one cannot use the asserted patent as a blueprint to piece together the prior art
`
`in order to combine the right ones in the right way as to create the claimed inventions.
`
`To determine whether such an “apparent reason” exists to combine the prior art
`
`references or elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary to look
`
`to the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, to the effects of demands known to
`
`the design community or present in the marketplace, and to the background
`
`knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`20.
`
`It has further been explained to me by counsel for Patent Owner that
`
`the motivation to combine must be more than mere conclusory statements and that
`
`a generic motivation to combine known elements is insufficient to establish
`
`obviousness. I understand that the motivation to combine prior art references must
`
`be identified in the Petition.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that when the prior art “teaches away” from combining
`
`prior art references or certain known elements, discovery of a successful means of
`
`combining them is less likely to be obvious. A prior art reference may be said to
`
`“teach away” from a patent when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
`
`reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the patent or
`
`would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the patent.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 9
`
`
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in developing opinions as to whether or not certain
`
`claimed subject matter would have been obvious, each claim of a given patent should
`
`be considered in its entirety and separately from any other claims. In so doing, it is
`
`my further understanding that while I should consider any differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art, I should also assess the obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness of the entirety of a claim covering an alleged invention, not merely
`
`some portion of it.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`23.
`
`I understand that my interpretation of the patent claims and my validity
`
`analysis must be undertaken from the perspective of a hypothetical person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed inventions or POSITA. In
`
`determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art of the asserted patents at the time of the claimed inventions, I considered several
`
`things, including the type of problems encountered in the art, the solutions to those
`
`problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the education level and experience of people working in the field.
`
`It has further been explained to me by counsel for Patent Owner that the relevant
`
`timeframe is in or around September 13, 2005.
`
`24. Based on my experience, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention of the Asserted Patent would have had a
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 10
`
`
`
`Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science or a related field, and two years of
`
`experience working in the field of computer graphics or graphical user interfaces or
`
`GUIs. An individual with less technical education but more experience, or vice
`
`versa, could also qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`25. Given my education and professional experience described in my initial
`
`declaration (EX2014) and in my curriculum vitae, I am in a position to opine on the
`
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’048 patent.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`26.
`
`I am informed that claim terms are construed under the standard
`
`provided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); 35 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I am
`
`informed that under this standard claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning in light of the patent’s specification as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, unless (1) the patentee
`
`acts as its own lexicographer by setting out a definition in the specification, or (2)
`
`the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term in either the specification or
`
`during the prosecution of the patent.
`
`27. The parties agreed upon the following constructions, which I
`
`understand are derived from the Markman Order issued by the District Court in
`
`SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 11
`
`
`
`Tex.). EX2010. As I noted in my Prior Declaration, I have applied these
`
`constructions in my analysis below. As stated in my Prior Declaration, for the
`
`purposes of this IPR, the remaining terms should be interpreted as they would have
`
`been understood by a POSITA considering the context of the claims themselves, the
`
`specifications, the figures, the prior art, and the prosecution history and consistent
`
`with my experience in the relevant field.
`
`Term or Phrase
`“3D space”
`
`“2D space”
`
`“texturing”
`“replacing”
`
`Claim Construction
`“a virtual space defined by a three-dimensional coordinate
`system” (agreed upon)
`“a finite graphical area defined by a two-dimensional
`coordinate system” (agreed upon)
`No construction required (agreed upon)
`No construction required; ordinary meaning is “take the
`place of” (Patent Owner’s construction)
`
`
`V. ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S CITED PRIOR ART
`
`28. The analysis and opinions expressed in my Prior Declaration fully
`
`explain why the prior art cited by Petitioner in its Petition fails to disclose or render
`
`obvious each and every feature of the ’048 patent’s claims and explains in detail why
`
`a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine the cited prior art elements in
`
`a manner that the claimed invention. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Fuchs, has considered
`
`my opinions and responded, or purported to respond to them, in his supplemental
`
`declaration. As noted below, in doing so in many instances Dr. Fuchs either
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 12
`
`
`
`misinterprets or misunderstands my positions, takes positions that are contrary to
`
`what the understanding of a POSITA would have been or inconsistent with his prior
`
`opinions, and introduces new arguments and prior art in an attempt to fill in gaps
`
`with respect to certain claim limitations that I pointed out were not disclosed in the
`
`cited prior art. While I understand that new arguments are not permitted in a reply
`
`and that Patent Owner argues that they should be excluded, below I analyze this new
`
`prior art and explain that even if it were to be considered, it fails to disclose the
`
`missing limitations identified out in my Prior Declaration. While I address certain of
`
`Dr. Fuchs’ position below, the fact that I have not addressed all of them should not
`
`be interpreted as agreement with them.
`
`A. Chronological Ordering of Objects in 3D Space
`
`29. For Ground 1, as previously noted, Petitioner relies on the combination
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,414,677 (“Robertson”) (EX1004), a book entitled “How the
`
`Internet Works,” by Preston Gralla (“Gralla”) (EX1005) and U.S. Patent Publication
`
`No. 2005/0086612 (“Gettman”) (EX1006). For Ground 2, Petitioner relies on the
`
`combination of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0230356 (“Sauve”) (EX1007) and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,577,330 (“Tsuda”) (EX1008).
`
`1.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`30. Claim 1 is a method claim (not a system claim) and the claims
`
`themselves clearly recited an order to the claimed steps. It does so using the terms
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 13
`
`
`
`“first” and “second” and antecedent bases. For example, Claim 1 requires (i)
`
`receiving a first input (first website address) and a second input (second website
`
`address), (ii) receiving a first webpage in response to said first input and a second
`
`webpage in response to said second input, (iii) capturing a first image of said first
`
`webpage and a second image of said second webpage, and (iv) displaying a first
`
`object (including said first image) in the “foreground” and a second object (including
`
`said second image) in the “background.” EX1001, 37:49-38:3. A POSITA would
`
`have understood that this claim language recites a specific arrangement where the
`
`first requested webpage (or image thereof) is displayed in the foreground and the
`
`second requested webpage (or image thereof) is displayed in the background.
`
`31. This specific order is confirmed by Claim 6, where after both images
`
`are displayed in 3D space, a third input (third website address) is received from the
`
`user, resulting in receiving a third webpage, capturing a third image of the third
`
`webpage, and displaying a third object (including the third image) “in a further
`
`background of the 3D space, behind the second object.” EX1001, 38:43-54.
`
`32. A POSITA would have understood that this interpretation is not only
`
`explicit in the claim language and consistent with the specification but required to
`
`create a “3D GUI [that] can function as a visual chronological history of the user’s
`
`computing session.” EX1001 at 2:14-20, 5:6-21; see also id. at 29:23-38, Figure 11,
`
`and Figure 4B at 202 and 206. This can be seen in Figure 11 of the ‘048 Patent
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 14
`
`
`
`(reproduced below), where “an end user types http://www.yahoo.com … [and] the
`
`application then draws the HTML page through the proper web browser control into
`
`the 3D virtual space as depicted” (i.e., 510). Id. at 29:23-38. “This process can be
`
`repeated indefinitely, entering additional URLs … to have them filed in a 3D stack.”
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`33. This construction is also consistent with the prosecution history of the
`
`‘048 Patent. The “chronological order” discussed in the prosecution history that
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Fuchs refer to is how “icons are organized in linear chronological
`
`order”—not the claimed captured first and second images textured on first and
`
`second objects, respectively, wherein “the first object being displayed in a
`
`foreground of the 3D space and the second object being displayed in a background
`
`of the 3D space.” EX1002 at 329 (“generating a timeline that includes an icon for
`
`each object presented within the virtual space, wherein each of the icons are
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 15
`
`
`
`organized in linear chronological order according to when the objects were presented
`
`within the virtual space”). In substituting new claims for the original claims, several
`
`features were added and others deleted. For example, the “icon” feature was
`
`removed and the “at least two objects [displayed] within a three-dimensional virtual
`
`space” was amended to provide that “the first object [is] displayed in a foreground
`
`of the 3D space and the second object [is] displayed in a background of the 3D
`
`space.” Id. at 55-56.
`
`34. Dr. Fuchs contends that “[f]rom a POSITA’s perspective, the claims’
`
`reference to a ‘background’ and a ‘foreground’ implicates the relative position in the
`
`3D space and has no temporal or chronological relevance” and that “the numerical
`
`claim terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ also lack temporal or chronological relevance”
`
`because they are “just generic labels to keep track of the multiple webpages, inputs,
`
`and objects recited throughout the claims.” EX1060 at [82]-[83]. I disagree with
`
`Dr. Fuchs’ unsupported conjecture. First, this ignores the specific, ordered steps in
`
`the method claims, which I understand should be considered in interpreting method
`
`claims. Second, Dr. Fuchs ignores the specification’s disclosure that a “3D GUI can
`
`function as a visual chronological history of the user’s computing session” as
`
`illustrated in Figure 11. EX1001 at 2:14-20, 5:6-21; FIG. 11. Finally, his comment
`
`that the “Patent Owner surely would have used the word ‘chronological’” if it
`
`intended to arrange objects chronologically in 3D space is nothing but gratuitous
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 16
`
`
`
`speculation and a baseless assertion. A POSITA would have understood that there
`
`are many ways to describe and claim a chronological ordering of objects in 3D space.
`
`Indeed, using the terms “first” and “second” is a prime example of chronological
`
`ordering. Contrary to Dr. Fuchs’ assertion, a POSITA would not have understood
`
`that a chronological ordering can only be described using the word “chronological.”
`
`2. Ground 1: Robertson, Gralla and Gettman
`
`35. Aside from the claim interpretation argument, Dr. Fuchs does not
`
`otherwise opine that Robertson, Gralla or Gettman disclose the chronological
`
`placement of the objects as discussed above. I also agree that, properly construed,
`
`this prior art does not disclose a specific arrangement where the first requested
`
`webpage (or image thereof) is displayed in the foreground, the second requested
`
`webpage (or image thereof) is displayed in the background, and a subsequent (e.g.,
`
`third) requested webpage (or image thereof) is displayed further in the background.
`
`36. Reserved.
`
`3. Ground 2: Sauve and Tsuda
`
`37. As I previously explained, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`Sauve describes a traditional 2D, tabbed web browser, operating only in 2D space,
`
`with the addition of a “quick-pick user interface” for easily switching between a
`
`plurality of “content windows” (e.g., different web pages). Id. at [0025]. The quick-
`
`pick user interface includes “a graphical representation (e.g., thumbnails 402-411)
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 17
`
`
`
`for each of the open tabs” (e.g., different web pages). Id. at [0042]. This can best
`
`be seen in Figure 4 of Sauve, reproduced below. EX2014 at [111].
`
`
`
`38. As Figure 4 makes clear, Sauve operates exclusively in 2D space and
`
`therefore does not disclose anything displayed in 3D space, let alone the foreground
`
`or background.
`
`39. Contrary to Petitioner and Dr. Fuchs’ assertion, Sauve does not disclose
`
`that the thumbnails are arranged “chronologically.” To be sure, as shown in FIG. 4
`
`and described in the specification, the thumbnails are arranged numerically.
`
`EX1007 at [0042]-[0043]. However, a POSITA would understand that the numbers
`
`are used to identify different “Thumbnail Sites X” and do not reflect the order in
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 18
`
`
`
`which the sites were opened. While Dr. Fuchs’ baldly asserts this, critically he does
`
`not provide any citations to Sauve disclosing that the site numbers actually refer to
`
`the chronology when the webpage was opened.
`
`40. Petitioner relies on U.S. Patent No. 6,577,330 (“Tsuda”) (EX1008) for
`
`describing a 3D GUI where objects are rendered in a simulated 3D space in order to
`
`increase the amount of information that can be presented on a given screen. Tsuda
`
`presenting at least a portion of each window in the foreground of the 3D space. This
`
`can be seen in Figure 5, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`41. According to Tsuda, windows are displayed in the foreground, either in
`
`their entirety or “inclined in a depth direction, so that the key part of the display
`
`content is near the front of the 3D space [i.e., in the foreground]. Therefore, even if
`
`a plurality of windows are being displayed, the user can grasp the type and display
`
`content of each window at a glance.” Id. at 2:13-26.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 19
`
`
`
`42. While Tsuda discloses objects in 3D space, it does not disclose any
`
`chronological ordering of the images. Dr. Fuchs does not dispute this in his
`
`declarations.
`
`43. Reserved.
`
`44. Reserved.
`
`45. The proposed combination of Sauve and Tsuda would not result in the
`
`claimed chronological ordering of the images because neither Sauve nor Tsuda
`
`disclose a chronological ordering of the images.
`
`46. Even assuming that Sauve’s FIG. 4 site identifier numbers refer to a
`
`specific chronology (they do not) and that Tsuda’ FIG. 11B discloses that the
`
`rightmost window is in a foreground and windows to the left are in the background
`
`(which it does not), the claimed order does not exist in the combination proposed by
`
`Petitioner. According to the claims, the first requested website (or image thereof) is
`
`displayed in the foreground, with subsequently requested websites (or images
`
`thereof) displayed further in the background. This is the exact opposite of the order
`
`of Petitioner’s proposed combination. According to Dr. Fuchs, “a POSITA would
`
`have known that tabs are arranged chronologically [with] [t]he initial tab [being] on
`
`the far left, with each subsequently opened tab to the right of the one that came
`
`before.” EX1006 at [96]. Combining this with Tsuda would result in the first opened
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 20
`
`
`
`tab in the background and the most recently opened tab in the foreground, which is
`
`the opposite of that which is claimed.
`
`47. The claimed order would also not be obvious as doing so would bury
`
`the most recently opened webpage in the background. The ‘048 Patent can function
`
`in this way as the 3D space is “immersive,” allowing “the end user … to achieve
`
`multiple, unique viewpoints in the virtual space by moving closer to ro way from an
`
`object in the virtual space.” EX1001 at 15:43-54. This movement along the z-axis
`
`can be accomplished, for example, by interacting with the navigator 320, timeline
`
`340, or compass 440. See, e.g., EX1001 at Fig. 11. Such features are not disclosed
`
`in either Sauve or Tsuda. As such, a POSITA would not have been motivated to
`
`“bury” the most recently opened webpage in the background of the 3D space. In
`
`fact, Tsuda teaches the exact opposite, where the webpage currently being interacted
`
`is presented in the foreground, “rotated to face the front.” See, e.g., EX1008 at Fig.
`
`12B at 18:46-53.
`
`48. A POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Tsuda and
`
`Sauve as suggested by Petitioner as doing so would not only fail to address the
`
`problems presented in Sauve but would do so in a way that is contrary to the
`
`teachings of Tsuda. For example, as I discuss in greater detail below, the Petitioner’s
`
`proposed combination, which buries webpages deep within the 3D space, would not
`
`allow the user to distinguish one webpage (or tab) from another (i.e., the purpose of
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 21
`
`
`
`Sauve) and would be contrary to the teachings of Tsuda, which criticizes objects
`
`being “positioned deep within the 3D space” as “all the window display content
`
`[becomes] unreadable.” citing EX1008 at 1:56-60.
`
`49. Reserved.
`
`B.
`
`“The Rendered First Webpage”
`
`1.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`50. Claim 1 provides that, after “receiving first and second webpages from
`
`at least one server in response to said first and second inputs, wherein the first and
`
`second inputs are website addresses corresponding to said first and second
`
`webpages, respectively,” the claimed method requires “rendering the first and
`
`second webpages.” EX1001, 37:51-61. Subsequently, upon interacting with the
`
`first image, the claims recite “replacing the first and second objects within the 3D
`
`space with a window within a two-dimensional (2D) space in response to receiving
`
`the interaction, wherein the window includes the rendered first webpage.” Id., 38:4-
`
`10 (emphasis added).
`
`51. The 3D GUI disclosed in the ‘048 Patent provides “a visual history of
`
`the user’s computing session” (EX1001 at 5:6-11) where images in 3D space are
`
`updated to reflect interactions with the active webpage in 2D space. This is
`
`accomplished by capturing images. See, e.g., Claims 1 and 6. However, it is also
`
`important that the webpages presented in 2D space mirror the images in 3D space.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 22
`
`
`
`This is accomplished by “replacing the first and second objects within 3D space with
`
`a window within two-dimensional space in response to receiving the interaction,
`
`wherein the window includes the rendered first webpage” (id. at 38:7-10) (emphasis
`
`added), where “the rendered first webpage” is the webpage that was requested by
`
`the user via the “first input” from which the “first image” was captured. By replacing
`
`the images with the previously rendered webpage, the user is presented with a
`
`webpage that matches (or is identical to) the one that is visually depicted in 3D
`
`space, and does so with minimal delay.
`
`52. Petitioner argues that Patent Owner is attempting to inject language into
`
`the claims and that “[t]he claims [only] require that the ‘first webpage’ of the
`
`‘replacing’ step is the same ‘first webpage” from the earlier recited ‘receiving,’
`
`‘rendering,’ and ‘displaying’ steps. Nothing more.” Reply at 6-7. Those skilled in
`
`the art would find that Petitioner’s interpretation is incorrect. Petitioner’s
`
`interpretation actually results in reading the term “rendered” out of the “replacing”
`
`step. The claims do not recite “the first webpage” but “the rendered first webpage.”
`
`Thus, those skilled in the art would understand that the claims are not referring to
`
`the webpage in general, but the rendered version from which the corresponding
`
`image was captured.
`
`53. Petitioner’s next argument is that this feature is “absent from the
`
`specification.” Reply at 7. Again, this is not true. The specification provides that
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EX2023 - PAGE 23
`
`
`
`the Bind to the HUD feature is accomplished by “revealing the 2D version of t
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
