Apple Inc. and Google LLC
`v.
`SpaceTime3D, Inc.
`
`IPR2023-00242
`(U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048)
`
`Oral Argument: March 18, 2024
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 1
`
`
`v.
`SpaceTime3D, Inc.
`
`IPR2023-00242
`(U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048)
`
`Oral Argument: March 18, 2024
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 1
`
`
`
`The ‘048 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 2
`
`
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 8,881,048, entitled “System and
`Method for Providing Three-Dimensional
`Graphical User Interface.” (EX1001)
`
`• Continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 7,735,018,
`which claims priority to provisional patent
`application, Serial No. 60/717,019.
`
`• The ‘048 Patent describes (1) a novel 3D GUI
`where computer outputs (or images thereof)
`are open simultaneously in both 2D and 3D
`space and (2) a “special system … to insure
`[sic] that the end user can interact with the
`mapped objects in a 3D virtual space with the
`same responsiveness … that one would find in
`a 2D desktop.” EX1001, 23:7-25.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 3
`
`
`
`“the 3D GUI application program will run locally on the computer” (EX1001 at 24:7-9)
`
`‘048 Patent, Figure 11
`
`(EX1001)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 4
`
`
`
`The ‘048 Patent Includes Both a 2D Desktop and a 3D Virtual Space
`
`‘048 Patent, Figure 11
`
`•
`
`Images of computer outputs are captured
`and displayed in the 3D virtual space. See,
`e.g., EX1001, Fig. 11.
`
`• However, the computer outputs remain
`open and are either displayed on the 2D
`desktop or “hidden or drawn off screen.”
`EX1001, 21:45-53.
`
`•
`
`“[T]he output of applications and
`documents need not be closed, hidden or
`filed.” EX1001, 21:59-63.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 5
`
`
`
`Images Displayed in 3D Virtual Space in Chronological Order
`
`• The ‘048 Patent describes a 3D GUI that
`“functions as a visual chronological history of
`the user’s computing session.” EX1001, 5:6-
`13.
`
`• This is done by displaying an image of a first
`requested webpage (510) in a foreground of
`the 3D virtual space, an image of a second
`requested webpage (512) in a background of
`the 3D space, and so forth. EX1001, 29:33-42.
`
`• As such, “the user can visit past visual
`computing events (or snapshots in time) by
`simply navigating to previously recorded
`states or viewpoints.” EX1001, 5:6-21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`‘048 Patent, Figure 11
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 6
`
`
`
`Images Displayed in 3D Virtual Space in Chronological Order
`
`‘048 Patent, Figure 11
`
`(EX1001)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 7
`
`
`
`Requested Webpages Are Opened On Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`• Thus, a request to open a webpage results in
`the request being provided to the 2D desktop
`(or environment) so that the webpage can be
`opened (e.g., received, rendered) off-screen
`on the hidden 2D mirror component. See,
`e.g., EX1001, Fig. 3 (120, 126, 128, 130).
`
`•
`
`“We say off-screen because the 2D desktop
`or operating system control is hidden from
`the end user to focus attention on the 3D
`virtual space.” EX1001, 24:34-40.
`
`• An image of the rendered webpage (e.g.,
`bitmap) is captured and textured onto an
`object in 3D space. EX1001, Fig. 3 (142).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`‘048 Patent, Figure 3
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 8
`
`
`
`Interactions on Images are Passed to the Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`••
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`•
`
`
`If the user interacts with the image (e.g.,If the user interacts with the image (e.g.,
`If the user interacts with the image (e.g.,
`clicks on a hyperlink), the interaction is sent
`clicks on a hyperlink), the interaction is sent
`clicks on a hyperlink), the interaction is sent
`to the hidden 2D mirror component, as there
`to the hidden 2D mirror component, as there
`to the hidden 2D mirror component, as there
`is no active hyperlink in the image. EX1001,
`is no active hyperlink in the image. EX1001,
`is no active hyperlink in the image. EX1001,
`Fig. 3 (152).
`Fig. 3 (152).
`Fig. 3 (152).
`
`“Webpages, unlike pictures that the end user
`“Webpages, unlike pictures that the end user
`“Webpages, unlike pictures that the end user
`simply view, requires interactivity to
`simply view, requires interactivity to
`simply view, requires interactivity to
`function properly in a virtual space.”
`function properly in a virtual space.”
`function properly in a virtual space.”
`EX1001, 23:7-25.1
`EX1001, 23:7-25.1
`EX1001, 23:7-25.1
`
`• Thus, “a special system must be created to
`• Thus, “a special system must be created to
`• Thus, “a special system must be created to
`insure [sic] that the end user can interact with
`insure [sic] that the end user can interact with
`insure [sic] that the end user can interact with
`the mapped object in a 3D virtual space with
`the mapped object in a 3D virtual space with
`the mapped object in a 3D virtual space with
`the same responsiveness of input and output
`the same responsiveness of input and output
`the same responsiveness of input and output
`that one would find in a 2D desktop.” Id.
`that one would find in a 2D desktop.” Id.
`that one would find in a 2D desktop.” Id.
`
`‘048 Patent, Figure 3
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 9
`
`1
`
`Emphasis in quotes are added unless otherwise stated
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Interactions on Images are Passed to the Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`• The hidden 2D mirror component processes
`this interaction, where an image is captured,
`replacing the image on the object in 3D space.
`EX1001, Fig. 3 (146, 148, 142).
`
`• This circular back-and-forth between images
`in 3D space and webpages in 2D space results
`in a “mirror” (i.e., total continuity) between
`what is displayed in 3D space and what is
`actively running on the hidden 2D desktop.
`EX2014, [20]-[26].
`
`• This allows the user to interact with images in
`3D space “while retaining the functionality of
`the 2D programs and documents.” EX1001,
`5:43-47.
`
`10
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‘048 Patent, Figure 3
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 10
`
`
`
`‘048 Patent Describes Two Embodiments for Interacting with Images
`
`• The ‘048 Patent describes two embodiments
`for such “functionality.”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`In a first embodiment, interactions in 3D
`space are sent to the hidden 2D mirror
`components on the 2D desktop (shown in
`Figure 3). This is what was claimed in the
`‘018 Patent. See EX2003, 52-80.
`
`In the second embodiment, an interaction
`with an image results in “revealing the 2D
`version of the webpage that was initially
`hidden or drawn off screen and positioning it
`in a layer that is in front of the 3D virtual
`space such that the end user can interact with
`this layer in 2D.” EX1001, 21:39-58.
`
`11
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‘048 Patent, Figure 3
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 11
`
`
`
`The ‘048 Patent Includes Both a 2D Desktop and a 3D Virtual Space
`
`Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`Mirroring
`
`12
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 12
`
`
`
`The ‘048 Patent Includes Both a 2D Desktop and a 3D Virtual Space
`
`Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`13
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 13
`
`
`
`The ‘048 Patent Includes Both a 2D Desktop and a 3D Virtual Space
`
`Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`Mirroring
`
`Claim 2 provides capturing a third image
`of the rendered additional information and
`replacing the first image in 3D space
`
`14
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 14
`
`
`
`Rendered Version of Each Webpage Exists on the Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`• Thus, for each image displayed in 3D space
`there is a rendered version of a webpage open
`on the 2D desktop (or hidden 2D desktop).
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“[I]n order for a webpage on the World Wide
`Web to function properly in the operating
`system in a typical window on the 2-D desktop
`… the language of that webpage (HTML)
`must be read by an operating system program
`or CONTROL.” EX1001, 22:54-66.
`
`“[O]ne such control is called MSHTML/web-
`browser control for rendering HTML
`webpages and other content on the Windows
`desktop within a window.” EX1001, 23:2-6.
`
`15
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 15
`
`
`
`Rendered Version of Each Webpage Exists on the Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`• Non-conventional as it requires too much memory.
`
`• The ‘048 Patent provides for “using virtual
`memory whereby a portion of the hard disk is used
`to swap out this data when insufficient RAM
`exists to hold all such data.” EX1001, 36:53-61.
`
`• Both experts agree that in 2005, storing rendered
`versions of each webpage imaged in 3D space
`would be “unmanageable and extremely
`expensive” as “maintaining a large number of off-
`screen webpages would require an extensive
`amount of memory” EX1060, [80]; EX2014, [93].
`
`16
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 16
`
`
`
`Rendered Versions are Critical to Reduce Latency and Ensure Mirroring
`
`Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`• The ‘048 Patent identifies “this method or cyclical
`process of capturing system output and drawing it
`into a 3D virtual space,” where rendered versions
`remain open, “is a workaround … implemented in
`order to overcome a shortcoming of the operating
`system to the problem at hand.” EX1001, 25:1-8.
`
`• This “is important as it reduces latency … since
`‘the rendered image’ can be displayed right away
`and does not require the user to wait for a newly
`rendered webpage to be produced.” EX2014, [93].
`
`•
`
`‘048 Patent provides that “changes to the objects
`drawn must happen quickly … [so] the experience
`fees truly interactive.” EX1001, 14:8-14.
`
`17
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 17
`
`
`
`Rendered Versions are Critical to Reduce Latency and Ensure Mirroring
`
`Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`(EX1001)
`
`18
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 18
`
`
`
`Rendered Versions are Critical to Reduce Latency and Ensure Mirroring
`
`Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`• By keeping the rendered webpages open on the
`hidden 2D desktop and displaying images in 3D
`space, “the output of applications and documents
`need not be closed, hidden, or filed.” EX1001,
`21:59-63.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Instead, “[t]hey are staged and can permanently
`exist visually open (by recording their output in a
`3D virtual space) where they are and how the
`user last left them.” Id.
`
`Interacting with an image results in the rendered
`webpage being “revealed” (EX1001, 21:45-49)
`“present[ing] the webpage where the user last left
`off.” EX2014, [134].
`
`19
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 19
`
`
`
`The Foregoing Features are Recited in Claim 1 of the ‘048 Patent
`
`20
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 20
`
`
`
`The Claimed “Replacing” Steps
`
`•
`
`•
`
`In Claim 1, the “replacing” step involves
`replacing objects (or images textured thereon)
`displayed in 3D space with a window within a
`2D space (3D to 2D).
`
`In Claims 2 and 3, the “replacing” step
`involves replacing the window within 2D
`space with the objects (or images textured
`thereon) displayed in 3D space (2D to 3D).
`
`21
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 21
`
`
`
`The Claimed “Replacing” Steps
`
`• The “replacing’ step of Claim 1 is accomplished by
`“revealing the 2D version of the webpage that was
`initially hidden … and positioning it in a layer that is
`in front of the 3D virtual space” (EX1001, 21:45-49),
`i.e., on the 2D desktop. See id., 31:33-38 (“Internet
`Explorer window will open in front of the 3D virtual
`space in a 2D window as part of the desktop.”).
`
`• The “replacing” step of Claims 2 and 3 is
`accomplished by “clicking the appropriate button …
`analogous to the minimize button in the windows
`operating system environment … an end user can
`toggle or switch between 2D and 3D for any
`selectively captured computing output.” EX1001,
`21:49-58.
`
`22
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 22
`
`
`
`Images of Webpage are Displayed in the Order the Webpages Were Requested
`
`23
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 23
`
`
`
`Chronological Order is Consistent with the Language of Claim 1
`
`Claim language itself provides that the image of the first
`requested webpage is displayed in the foreground of the
`3D space and the image of the second requested
`webpage is displayed in the background of the 3D space
`
`24
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 24
`
`
`
`Chronological Order is Consistent with the Language of Claim 6
`
`25
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 25
`
`
`
`Chronological Order is Consistent With The Specification
`
`• The ‘048 Patent describes a 3D GUI that
`“functions as a visual chronological history of
`the user’s computing session.” EX1001, 5:6-
`13.
`
`• This is done by displaying an image of a first
`requested webpage (510) in a foreground of the
`3D virtual space, an image of a second
`requested webpage (512) in a background of
`the 3D space, and so forth. EX1001, 29:33-42.
`
`• As such, “the user can visit past visual
`computing events (or snapshots in time) by
`simply navigating to previously recorded states
`or viewpoints.” EX1001, 5:6-21.
`
`26
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‘048 Patent, Figure 11
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 26
`
`
`
`Chronological Order is Consistent With The File History
`
`• Petitioner cites to the cancellation of “icons
`are organized in linear chronological order”
`from the claims during prosecution of the
`‘048 Patent. Reply, 9
`
`•
`
`Icons (502, 504, 506, 508) are different from
`the claimed images of computing outputs
`(510, 512, 514) which the original claims
`provided were “within a three-dimensional
`virtual space” and were later amended to
`recite a specific order in the 3D space, where
`the first requested one was displayed in the
`foreground, and so forth. Sur-Reply, 6.
`
`‘048 Patent, Figure 11
`
`27
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 27
`
`
`
`Chronological Order is Consistent With The File History
`
`• Petitioner cites to the cancellation of “icons
`are organized in linear chronological order”
`from the claims during prosecution of the
`‘048 Patent. Reply, 9
`
`The proper construction of the Challenged Claims is that the
`•
`Icons (502, 504, 506, 508) are different from
`image are displayed in the 3D space in chronological order,
`the claimed images of computing outputs
`where the image of the first requested webpage is displayed
`(510, 512, 514) which the original claims
`in the foreground of the 3D space and the second requested
`provided were “within a three-dimensional
`webpage is displayed in the background of the 3D space.
`virtual space” and were later amended to
`recite a specific order in the 3D space, where
`the first requested one was displayed in the
`foreground, and so forth. Sur-Reply, 6.
`
`‘048 Patent, Figure 11
`
`28
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 28
`
`
`
`“The Rendered First Webpage” is the Result of “Rendering the First Webpage
`
`29
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 29
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Consistent with the Language of Claim 1
`
`Claim language itself provides that the window in 2D
`space, which replaces the objects in 2D space, includes
`“the rendered first webpage,” i.e., the rendered version
`of the webpage from which the first image was captured
`
`30
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 30
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Consistent with the Specification
`
`Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`(EX1001)
`
`31
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 31
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Construction Reads the Term “Rendered” Out of the Claims
`
`Petitioner’s argument that “the rendered first webpage”
`should be construed to mean “the first webpage” is improper
`as it reads out term “rendered” from the claim and ignores the
`recited antecedent language recited therein.
`
`32
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 32
`
`
`
`“The Rendered First Webpage” is the Result of “Rendering the First Webpage
`
`The proper construction of “the rendered first webpage” is the
`one that gives weight to each term in the claimed phrase,
`including “the” and “rendered,” i.e., the result of “rendering
`the first … webpage,” from which the first image is captured.
`
`33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 33
`
`
`
`“The Rendered First Webpage” is the Result of “Rendering the First Webpage
`
`The proper construction of “the rendered first webpage” is the
`one that gives weight to each term in the claimed phrase,
`including “the” and “rendered,” i.e., the result of “rendering
`the first … webpage,” from which the first image is captured.
`
`Petitioner’s expert stated that “it would have been obvious to
`a POSITA that rendering is a prerequisite step to obtaining
`‘screen snapshots of actual web pages” and that “the ‘048
`patent supports my view about a POSITA’s knowledge on
`rendering webpages.” EX1003, [105] (emphasis in original).
`
`34
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 34
`
`
`
`The Phrase “In Response To” Should be Given its Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`35
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 35
`
`
`
`The Phrase “In Response To” Should be Given its Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`Claim language itself provides that the “replacing” step
`is performed “in response to” receiving the interaction
`on the first image, or a “reaction” to the interaction on
`the first image. EX1057.
`
`36
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 36
`
`
`
`The Phrase “In Response To” Should be Given its Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`Claim language itself provides that the “replacing” step
`is performed “in response to” receiving the interaction
`on the first image, or a “reaction” to the interaction on
`the first image. EX1057.
`
`Petitioner’s construction of “causal relationship” which
`can be “direct or indirect” and would include “multiple
`intervening steps” is not only improper but would read
`out the cause-and-effect relationship denoted in Claim 1
`
`37
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 37
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Patentable Over Grounds 1 and 2
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`• Robertson – U.S. Pat. No. 6,414,677
`(EX1004)
`
`• Suave – U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0230356
`(EX1007)
`
`• Gettman – U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0086612
`(EX1006)
`
`• Gralla – book entitled “How the Internet
`Works” (EX1005)
`
`• Tsuda – U.S. Pat. No. 6,577,330 (EX1008)
`
`38
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 38
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Patentable Over Grounds 1 and 2
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`• Robertson – U.S. Pat. No. 6,414,677
`(EX1004)
`
`• Suave – U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0230356
`(EX1007)
`
`• Gettman – U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0086612
`(EX1006)
`
`• Gralla – book entitled “How the Internet
`Works” (EX1005)
`
`• Tsuda – U.S. Pat. No. 6,577,330 (EX1008)
`
`39
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 39
`
`
`
`Gralla – “How the Internet Works” (EX1005)
`
`• Gralla does not disclose any graphical user interface (“GUI”), let
`alone a 3D GUI, but does describe how conventional 2D browsers,
`such as Internet Explorer, receive, render, and display webpages.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“Pages on the Web are built using a markup language called
`Hypertext Markup Language (HTML)” and that “[t]he language
`contains commands that tell your browser how to display text,
`graphics, and multimedia files.” EX1005, 133.
`
`“In a Web browser, you type the URL for a location that you want to
`visit.” EX1005, 134. “When Web browsers contact servers, they’re
`asking to be sent pages build with [HTML].” Id., 141.
`
`• Browsers “interpret those pages and display[s] them on your
`computer.” EX2014, [97]. This “interpretation” is commonly referred
`to as “rendering.” Id.; EX2014, [97].
`
`40
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 40
`
`
`
`Gralla – “How the Internet Works” (EX1005)
`
`• Gralla does not disclose any graphical user interface (“GUI”), let
`alone a 3D GUI, but does describe how conventional 2D browsers,
`Thus, displaying a webpage is a two-step process:
`such as Internet Explorer, receive, render, and display webpages.
`
`1) receiving HTML code for the webpage from a server on the Internet;
`•
`“Pages on the Web are built using a markup language called
`Hypertext Markup Language (HTML)” and that “[t]he language
`2) rendering the HTML code so that the webpage can be displayed on the computer
`contains commands that tell your browser how to display text,
`graphics, and multimedia files.” EX1005, 133.
`As Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Fuchs, stated “the POSITA would have known that webpage
`rendering was a ubiquitous process for converting raw HTML code received from a web
`•
`“In a Web browser, you type the URL for a location that you want to
`visit.” EX1005, 134. “When Web browsers contact servers, they’re
`server into visible content.” EX1003, [104] (emphasis in original).
`asking to be sent pages build with [HTML].” Id., 141.
`
`Dr. Fuchs further stated that “Web browsers render information by interpreting HTML
`• Browsers “interpret those pages and display[s] them on your
`code and displaying the corresponding content.” Id., [129] (emphasis in original).
`computer.” EX2014, [97]. This “interpretation” is commonly referred
`to as “rendering.” Id.
`
`41
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 41
`
`
`
`Robertson – U.S. Pat. No. 6,414,677 (EX1004)
`
`• Robertson describes a 3D GUI where everything takes place
`in 3D space, i.e., there is no 2D space.
`
`•
`
`“The present invention permits a user to view and organize
`all objects and to edit or otherwise work on a selected object
`by, for example, representing, graphically, objects or content
`with a low resolution image which can be added, moved, or
`deleted from a simulated three-dimensional environment.”
`EX1004, 6:32-40. This can be seen in Figure 8A.
`
`42
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 42
`
`
`
`Robertson – U.S. Pat. No. 6,414,677 (EX1004)
`
`• Robertson describes a 3D GUI where everything takes place
`in 3D space, i.e., there is no 2D space.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“The present invention permits a user to view and organize
`all objects and to edit or otherwise work on a selected object
`by, for example, representing, graphically, objects or content
`with a low resolution image which can be added, moved, or
`deleted from a simulated three-dimensional environment.”
`EX1004, 6:32-40. This can be seen in Figure 8A.
`
`If you select an image, “[t]he selected object thumbnail 902
`is displayed in a preferred viewing position … at the center
`foreground in the three-dimensional environment.” Id.,
`13:55-62 (emphasis added). This can be seen in Figure 9.
`
`43
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 43
`
`
`
`Robertson – U.S. Pat. No. 6,414,677 (EX1004)
`
`• Things to note about Robertson.
`
`1. There is no order in which the objects are displayed in 3D space,
`and certainly no chronological order.
`
`2. While the selected object (902) is either a high-resolution image of
`the object or a “live” object within an associated application (e.g.,
`web browser), it is always “displayed in a preferred viewing
`position … at the center foreground in the three-dimensional
`environment.” Id., 13:55-6. As such, the images in 3D space are not
`“replaced” with a window in 2D space.
`
`3. Because the “live” objects are “loaded within an associated
`application,” which results in “rendering a web page” when the
`application is a web browser, even if the window is in 2D space, it
`does not include “the rendered first webpage.” Id., 13:64-14:4.
`
`44
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 44
`
`
`
`Gettman – U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0086612 (EX1006)
`
`• Gettman, like Robertson, describes a 3D GUI where
`everything takes place in 3D space, i.e., there is no 2D space.
`
`• The graphical user interface provides a flexible and intuitive
`way to navigate a complex three-dimensional virtual space in
`which web pages or other interactive content are mapped to
`virtual display windows of virtual buildings in a virtual
`three-dimensional space.” EX1006, Abstract. This can be
`seen in Figure 1.
`
`• While windows far away are “bitmap screenshots,” this
`changes as a user approaches─“[w]hen a window first
`becomes visible in the viewer’s screen, the corresponding
`cached HTML page is copied by the program from the
`internal memory and rendered in the window.” Id., [0121].
`
`45
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 45
`
`
`
`Gettman – U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0086612 (EX1006)
`
`• Gettman does discuss a “conventional two-dimensional web
`browser,” but this browser “forms another ‘view’ within the
`virtual [3D] space browser.” EX1006, [0164]. This is similar
`to Figure 4, where “the viewer is facing a display window
`and could potentially interact with the window in a manner
`of a conventional two-dimensional browser.” Id., [0128].
`
`46
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 46
`
`
`
`Gettman – U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0086612 (EX1006)
`
`• Gettman also discusses a separate 2D browser, which can be
`seen in Figure 13. However, this browser is not presented “in
`response to” an interaction with a window in 3D space but
`“by clicking on web button area 1204” on the toolbar (1202),
`where the system “passes the browser the appropriate
`hyperlink or web address to display in another application
`window.” Id., [0200].
`
`47
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 47
`
`
`
`Gettman – U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0086612 (EX1006)
`
`• Things to note about Gettman.
`
`1. The images in 3D space are not displayed in chronological order.
`
`2. While there are two “conventional two-dimensional web browsers”
`discussed in Gettman, the first one illustrated in Figure 13 does not
`“replace” the images “in response to” an interaction with an image
`(id., [0200]), and the other one is not presented in 2D space, but
`“within the virtual [3D] space browser” (id., [0164]).
`
`3.
`
`In both embodiments, the 2D browser must render the webpage
`before it can be displayed. Thus, even if the 2D browser is in 2D
`space, and even if it is activated in response to an interaction with
`an image, it does not include “the rendered first webpage.”
`
`48
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 48
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – No “Replacing” Objects in 3D Space with a Window in a 2D Space
`
`Robertson
`
`Gettman – Fig. 4
`
`Gettman – Fig. 13
`
`49
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 49
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – No “Replacing” Objects in 3D Space with a Window in a 2D Space
`
`Robertson
`
`Gettman – Fig. 4
`
`•
`
`In Robertson, interacting with an image results in
`“[the] selected object thumbnail 902 is displayed
`in a preferred viewing position, in this case, at the
`center foreground of the three-dimensional
`environment.” EX1004, 13:55-14:1
`
`• The “selected object” can be a “live” object
`loaded within an associated application, such as
`“Internet Explorer™ Internet browser.” Id.
`
`•
`
` Either way, the “selected object” is within the
`3D space, “at the center foreground.”
`
`Gettman – Fig. 13
`
`50
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 50
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – No “Replacing” Objects in 3D Space with a Window in a 2D Space
`
`Robertson
`
`Gettman – Fig. 4
`
`Gettman – Fig. 13
`
`(EX1004)
`
`51
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 51
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – No “Replacing” Objects in 3D Space with a Window in a 2D Space
`
`Robertson
`
`Gettman – Fig. 4
`
`Gettman – Fig. 13
`
`(EX1004)
`
`52
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 52
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – No “Replacing” Objects in 3D Space with a Window in a 2D Space
`
`Robertson
`
`Gettman – Fig. 4
`
`Still in 3D space; no 2D
`space in Robertson
`
`Gettman – Fig. 13
`
`(EX1004)
`
`53
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 53
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – No “Replacing” Objects in 3D Space with a Window in a 2D Space
`
`Robertson
`
`Gettman – Fig. 4
`
`• Same is true in Gettman, where “the result of the
`interaction may cause the target Web site to open
`in a conventional two-dimensional web browser
`which forms another ‘view’ within the virtual
`space browser.” EX1006, [0164].
`
`• Again, the “conventional two-dimensional web
`browser” is “within the virtual space browser.”
`
`•
`
`“In Fig. 4 the viewer is facing a display window
`and could potentially interact with the window in
`the manner of a conventional two-dimensional
`browser.” Id., [0128].
`
`Gettman – Fig. 13
`
`54
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 54
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – No “Replacing” Objects in 3D Space with a Window in a 2D Space
`
`Robertson
`
`Gettman – Fig. 4
`
`Gettman – Fig. 13
`
`(EX1006)
`
`55
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 55
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – No “Replacing” Objects in 3D Space with a Window in a 2D Space
`
`Robertson
`
`Gettman – Fig. 4
`
`Gettman – Fig. 13
`
`• Even if maximizing the “live” object in
`Robertson or the opening the conventional two-
`dimensional web browser in Gettman constitutes
`a window within a 2D space, it is not done “in
`response to” “an interaction by the end user on
`the first image [in 3D space].” The same is true
`for Figure 13 of Gettman, where a button on the
`toolbar is used to activate the browser.
`
`• Petitioner argues that “the POSITA would have
`gleaned that Gettman’s browser-window
`technique provides the ability of the user─with a
`single interaction─to switch efficiently between
`the 2D browser and the 3D space.” Pet., 24.
`
`56
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 56
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – No “Replacing” Objects in 3D Space with a Window in a 2D Space
`
`Robertson
`
`Gettman – Fig. 4
`
`Gettman – Fig. 13
`
`• Such a combination is contrary to the teachings
`of Robertson to prevent “total object occlusion”
`PO’s Response, 49-50.
`
`• Robertson emphasizes that “total object
`(thumbnail) occlusion should be avoided”
`(EX1004, 5:62-67, 7:13-16, 25:20) and provides
`several figures illustrating “object occlusion
`avoidance processes” (id., Fig. 20A-B).
`
`• Thus, a POSITA would not have been motivated
`to implement a “single interaction” feature that
`provides total object occlusion each and every
`time an object (thumbnail) is selected.
`
`57
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 57
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – No “Replacing” Objects in 3D Space with a Window in a 2D Space
`
`Robertson
`
`Gettman – Fig. 4
`
`Gettman – Fig. 13
`
`• Regardless, even a maximized “live” object in
`Robertson (or Gettman) is still within the 3D
`space─not “a window within a two-dimensional
`space” as claimed.
`
`•
`
`In granting institution, the Board stated that
`“Robertson and Gettman satisfy [1dii] by
`teaching ‘a GUI where both active (‘live’) and
`inactive (images) webpages are presented to the
`user exclusively in 3D space.” Decision, 42-43.
`
`• And “[t]he fact that Robertson’s selected
`webpage is presented within a larger 3D space
`does not undermine Petitioner’s position.” Id.
`
`58
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 58
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – No “Replacing” Objects in 3D Space with a Window in a 2D Space
`
`Robertson
`
`• Regardless, even a maximized “live” object in
`Robertson (or Gettman) is still within the 3D
`space─not “a window within a two-dimensional
`A POSITA would have understood that the claims require both a 3D
`space” as claimed.
`space and a 2D space, where:
`
`Gettman – Fig. 4
`
`•
`
`•
`In granting institution, the Board stated that
`• objects (textured with images) are displayed in 3D space and
`“Robertson and Gettman satisfy [1dii] by
`teaching ‘a GUI where both active (‘live’) and
`a window (with an active webpage) is displayed in 2D space
`inactive (images) webpages are presented to the
`user exclusively in 3D space.” Decision, 42-43.
`Understanding that while the window replaces the objects, the
`“window [is] within a two-dimensional (2D) space, and the nature of
`• And “[t]he fact that Robertson’s selected
`the window (2D or 3D) does not define the space in which it resides
`webpage is presented within a larger 3D space
`does not undermine Petitioner’s position.” Id.
`
`Gettman – Fig. 13
`
`59
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2024 - PAGE 59
`
`
`
`Ground 1 (Robertson, Gralla, Gettman) Does Not Render Obvious Claim 1
`
`“Replacing” Objects Within 3D Space with a Window within a 2D Space
`
`Robertson
`
`• Regardless, even a maximized “live” object in
`Robertson (or Gettman) is still within the 3D
`space─not “a window within a two-dimensional
`space” as claimed.
`
`•
`
`In granting institution, the Board stated that
`“Robertson and Gettman satisfy [1dii] by
`teaching ‘a GUI where both active (‘live’) and
`inactive (
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
