`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`APPLE INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SPACETIME3D, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`______________________
`Case IPR2023-00242
`U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048
`
`______________________
`DECLARATION OF EDDIE BAKHASH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 1
`
`
`
`I, E. Eddie Bakhash, declare and state:
`
`the President and founder of SpaceTime3D, Inc.
`I am
`1.
`(“SpaceTime3D”), and I am the sole inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048
`(“the ‘048 Patent”), entitled “System and Method for Providing Three-
`Dimensional Graphical User Interface.” I make this Declaration in support of
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`the ‘048 Patent (“Petition”).
`2.
`In addition to being the inventor of the ‘048 Patent, I am also the
`inventor of several other pending and issued United States patents, including
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,735,018 (“the ‘018 Patent”), 9,304,654, 9,696,868, and
`11,112,931, and U.S. Patent Application Nos. 17/388,948, 17/388,970,
`17/388,937, and 17/888,453, all disclosing and claiming new and novel two-
`dimensional (“2D”) and three-dimensional (“3D”) graphical user interfaces
`(“GUIs”).
`I have a bachelor of science degree from New York University
`3.
`Stern School of Business. I also have over 20 years of work experience in the
`computer industry, during which time I designed and developed several 2D and
`3D GUIs, including GUIs for SpaceTime3D and AmericanPearl.com, Inc. As
`such, I consider myself a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) with
`respect to the subject matter of the ’048 Patent.
`4.
`SpaceTime3D is an application software company incorporated in
`New York, NY. It is also the assignee of the ‘048 Patent, a true and correct
`copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. The ’048 Patent is a continuation of
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 2
`
`
`
`the application resulting in the “’018 Patent,” which claims priority to a
`provisional patent application that was filed on September 13, 2005, Serial No.
`60/717,019.
`Generally speaking, the ‘048 Patent provides “an improved three-
`5.
`dimensional graphical user interface.” According to the specification,
`“[b]ecause the 3D GUI creates the illusion of infinite space in 3D, it can create
`a visual history of the user’s computing session, whereby the user can visit past
`visual computing events (or a snapshot in time) by simply navigating to
`previously recorded states or viewpoints. Accordingly, the 3D GUI can
`function as a visual chronological history of the user’s computing session.”
`Exhibit A at col. 5, ll. 6-21.
`6.
`The ‘048 Patent describes several ways of presenting and
`interacting with information in 3D space. The claimed invention, however,
`focuses on one way, where images of webpages are presented in 3D space, and
`individual webpages are interacted with, one at a time, in 2D space. In
`particular, Claim 1 of the ‘048 Patent provides for a 3D GUI where (1) a user
`provides at least first and second web addresses, (2) corresponding first and
`second webpages are received and rendered, (3) images of the rendered
`webpages are then captured and textured onto first and second objects,
`respectively, and (4) the first and second objects (with images of the first and
`second webpages) are then presented in 3D space, where the first object (image
`of the first webpage) is displayed in the foreground, and the second object
`(image of the second webpage) is displayed in the background. Id. at col. 37, l.
`49 – col. 38, l. 17 (Claim 1).
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 3
`
`
`
`7. When the user interacts with the image of the first webpage, a
`window is presented to the user in 2D space (the GUI switches from 3D space
`to 2D space), where the window in 2D space (a) replaces the plurality of
`objects (or images) in 3D space and (b) includes an active version of the first
`webpage (i.e., corresponding to the image selected in 3D space). Id. The user
`can then interact with (click on) links embedded within the active version of
`the first webpage to acquire additional information, where the additional
`information replaces the first webpage in the window presented in 2D space.
`Id.
`
`In other words, the claimed invention allows a user to navigate
`8.
`through a plurality of webpages presented as images in 3D space and to select a
`particular webpage, which results in the GUI switching from 3D space, where
`the plurality of images are presented, to 2D space, where an active webpage
`(corresponding to the selected image) is presented, thereby allowing the user to
`interact with the active webpage to acquire additional information (e.g., a
`different webpage, etc.). The claimed invention further provides that when
`switching from 3D space to 2D space, the selected webpage replaces the
`plurality of images. Id. And when switching from 2D space to 3D space, the
`plurality of images replaces the selected webpage, with at least one of the
`images being updated with the additional information acquired in 2D space.
`Id. at col. 38, ll. 18-27 (Claim 2). It is this switching back-and-fourth between
`2D and 3D space, with images in 3D space being updated to where the user last
`left off, that creates “a visual chronological history of the user’s computing
`session.” See, e.g., id. at col. 5, ll. 6-21.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 4
`
`
`
`The claims of the ‘048 Patent are particularly advantageous in
`9.
`ultra-mobile personal computer (“UMPC”) devices (e.g., smartphones) having
`limited screen sizes, reduced processing power, and limited electrical (e.g.,
`battery) power, by allowing a user to interact with a first, active webpage in a
`2D space, and switching to a second, active webpage by (i) replacing the first
`webpage in 2D space with images of a plurality of webpages in 3D space, (ii)
`allowing the user to select an image of the second webpage, and (iii) replacing
`the plurality of images in 3D space with the second, active webpage in a 2D
`space.
`10. By interacting with individual, active webpages in 2D space and
`scrolling through images of a plurality of webpages in 3D space, which is a
`non-conventional technique that exploits the fact that images of webpages can
`be more easily manipulated in 3D space than the active webpages themselves,
`the claimed invention improves the functionality of the computing (e.g.,
`UMPC) devices by requiring less power, minimal (or reduced) processing, and
`smaller screen sizes.
`the
`identifies problems with
`11. The ‘048 Patent specifically
`conventional system of inputting information into a computer to achieve a
`given output, which involves a series of tedious steps—repetitive mouse clicks
`and keyboard inputs—to run applications and documents or navigate to certain
`information. ‘048 Patent at col. 1, ll. 38-55. To switch to a different
`application or document on a computer, the user often has to close her current
`applications and documents, hide them or overlap them on a finite desktop
`display by drawing them on top of each other, and then mine through folder
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 5
`
`
`
`within folder to find them again at a later date. Because the user’s desktop
`screen real estate is finite, she must redo these same tasks over and over again.
`Id.
`
`12. This conventional system wastes the end user’s time by (1)
`requiring many mouse clicks to open and close applications and/or documents,
`(2) requiring the user to remember the combinations of programs and
`documents she may need for a given purpose, and (3) requiring the user to
`create elaborate hierarchical folder systems to aid in the process of storing and
`recalling applications and/or documents. Id.
`13.
`In 2007, SpaceTime3D released a 3D web browser, generally
`referred to as “SpaceTime.” The web browser incorporated features of the
`claimed invention in that it allowed a user to navigate through a plurality of
`webpages by presenting images of the webpages in 3D space. When the user
`double-clicked on a particular image, the corresponding webpage was
`presented in 2D space, allowing the user to interact with the webpage to
`acquire additional information (e.g., another webpage via a link embedded
`therein, etc.). As in the claimed invention, the webpage presented in 2D space
`replaces the plurality of images presented in 3D space, and vice versa.
`14. The web browser received praise by technical journals and
`newspapers, including but not limited to the San Jose Mercury News, The
`Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Popular Science,
`PC World, Tech Digest, TechNewsWorld, and InternetNews.com. A true and
`correct copy of an article from the San Jose Mercury News, entitled “3-D
`Software Shows Promise,” is attached hereto as Exhibit B; a true and correct
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 6
`
`
`
`copy of an article from TechCrunch, entitled “SpaceTime: 3D Browser Eye
`Candy,” is attached hereto as Exhibit C; a true and correct copy of an article
`from TechNewsWorld, discussing the “Product of the Week,” is attached hereto
`as Exhibit D; and another article from TechNewsWorld entitled “SpaceTime
`Browser Adds New Dimension to Search, is attached as Exhibit E.
`15. For instance, reporter Dean Takahashi of the San Jose Mercury
`News exclaimed that SpaceTime3D’s product “is the most advanced 3-D
`navigation system I’ve seen.” See Exhibit B. Greg Kumparak of TechCrunch
`stated that “[i]t’s difficult to describe the user experience … [i]t’s pure eye
`candy” (see Exhibit C), and Rob Enderle of TechNewsWorld stated that “I can
`already image SpaceTime’s tag line: We don’t do searches – we make search
`results amazing” (see Exhibit D).
`16.
`It was not just the 3D browsing that was found to be “eye candy,”
`but the incorporation of the claimed invention, where users can switch back
`and forth between 3D and 2D space, where images of webpages are presented
`in 3D space and individual, active webpages are presented in 2D space. For
`example, reporter Jack Germain of TechNewsWorld wrote that “[w]ith
`SpaceTime, I have an unlimited 3-D space. This lets me map out my browsing
`progress in a visual time line, treating each Web site as an object that I can
`manipulate and rearrange within the 3-D environment. SpaceTime also lets me
`alternate between 3-D and 2-D perspectives by double clicking on a 3-D
`display and then clicking the Return button. This process eliminates the hassle
`of reading and closing pop-up windows and clicking on the Back button.” See
`Exhibit E.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 7
`
`
`
`17. Samsung Electronics, the manufacturer of the Galaxy smartphone,
`was also impressed by SpaceTime3D and its technology. For example, on
`February 1, 2008, a Samsung USA employee in charge of purchasing new
`technologies emailed SpaceTime3D: “Hello, my name is Young Choi with
`Samsung Electronics America. It seems like your 3d browser can be at its best
`when it is used in UMPC [mobile devices]. Samsung has a number of UMPC
`products, and I would like to find out if SpaceTime is planning to introduce a
`browser targeted penetrate in UMPC.” See Exhibit F. Attached hereto as
`Exhibits F-J are true and correct copies of emails between SpaceTime3D and
`Samsung.
`I responded to Samsung’s inquiry, explaining that by placing
`18.
`SpaceTime3D on UMPCs, SpaceTime3D offers an advanced, cutting-edge 3D
`graphical user interface that eliminates the restrictions of the 2D Vista
`graphical user interface on small devices (difficult to input information and
`find things) by allowing end users to (1) easily shuffle through information in
`small spaces and (2) interact with their information in 3D by changing
`perspectives when necessary.
`19.
`I was then invited to attend Petitioner’s “2nd Samsung Sourcing
`Conference and Event” in order to “discuss future collaboration with Samsung
`Digital Media Groups.” See Exhibit G. According to Samsung, “[t]his event
`will provide an opportunity for us to get an understanding of Spacetime
`technology and solutions to discuss its applicability to our Digital Media
`Products. Samsung is looking forward to discussing potential collaboration to
`implement Spacetime’s technology to our Digital Media Groups.” See id.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 8
`
`
`
`I attended the event on or around May 19-21, 2008, and provided
`20.
`Samsung with a PowerPoint presentation to facilitate the parties’ discussion of
`a potential
`licensing agreement.
` That presentation made clear
`that
`SpaceTime3D’s technology was (at that time) patent-pending.
`21. Following the Conference, Samsung USA notified me that
`Samsung Electronics, in Korea, would also review SpaceTime3D’s technology,
`and on June 4, 2008, Samsung USA invited me “to travel to Korea to meet
`with [their] UI engineers in Suwon for further technical discussions and
`demos.” See Exhibit H.
`22. While I was unable to travel to South Korea, I did meet with
`Samsung in San Jose, California, and continued to provide Samsung with
`sensitive and confidential information regarding SpaceTime3D’s technology.
`23. Negotiations between the parties continued into 2010. For
`example, on April 16, 2010, Samsung noted “excit[ement] to hear that
`[SpaceTime3D] just released a very powerful new GUI for tablets and
`netbooks,” inquired about the “basic platform,” expressed a “love to see the
`new development of
`[SpaceTime3D’s]
`technology,” and asked
`that
`SpaceTime3D “[p]lease send [them] the changes and improvements you’ve
`make [sic] until now. Samsung’s new tablet runs Android so I’m wondering if
`your browser is compatible.” See Exhibit I. At this time, Samsung offered to
`“start talking about technical collaboration and potential co-development
`agreement,” first “by getting our engineers interested by showing them what
`SpaceTime is offering and how it makes the user experience better.” See
`Exhibit J.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 9
`
`
`
`24. While discussions with Samsung broke down, years later, after
`litigation involving the ‘048 Patent, Samsung acquired licenses to several
`SpaceTime3D patents, including the ‘048 Patent. LG Electronics Inc. has also
`inquired about a license to the ‘048 Patent. See SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. LG
`Electronics Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-00049 (E.D. Tex.) (Order dated March 14,
`2023, staying the litigation to “finalize discussions regarding resolution of the
`case”). The terms of that license are currently being negotiated and should be
`finalized prior to the deadline for the Board’s institution decision on the
`Petition.
`25. The back and forth between SpaceTime3D and Samsung, the
`articles in trade journals and newspapers touting SpaceTime3D’s web browser,
`and the Samsung and LG licenses, are evidence of commercial success and
`praise by others in the industry.
`26.
`I have reviewed the Petition and the Exhibits filed therewith
`(EX1001-1052), including the Declaration of Dr. Henry Fuchs (EX1003). I
`respectfully disagree with Petitioner’s and Dr. Fuchs’ conclusions that the
`claims of the ‘048 Patent are invalid over U.S. Patent No. 6,414,677
`(“Robertson”), a book entitled “How the Internet Works,” by Preston Gralla
`(“Gralla”), and U.S. Publication No. 2005/0086612 (“Gettman”) (Ground 1) or
`U.S. Publication No. 2006/0230356 (“Suave”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,577,330
`(“Tsuda”) (Ground 2).
`27. First, the Petition relies on prior art that is identical or cumulative
`to prior art that was considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ‘048
`Patent. During prosecution, SpaceTime3D distinguished its invention from
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 10
`
`
`
`several prior art references, including U.S. Publication No. 2003/0164827
`(“Gottesman”), U.S. Patent No. 6,725,427 (“Freeman”), U.S. Patent No.
`6,768,999 (“Prager”), Tsuda (Ground 2 of the Petition), U.S. Publication No.
`2004/0268451 (“Robbin”), and U.S. Patent No. (“Kahl”).
`28.
`In Robertson and Gettman, there is no switching between 3D and
`2D space. Instead, everything is presented in 3D space, with images in the
`background and an active, “live” window in the foreground. This is identical
`to Gottesman, Freeman, and Prager (prior art cited by the Examiner during
`prosecution), where everything takes place in 3D space. The Examiner also
`considered prior art that is very similar to Suave, where everything remains in
`2D space. For example, both Robbin and Kahl disclose a GUI where a
`plurality of thumbnails are presented to a user in 2D space, and the selection of
`a particular thumbnail results in a particular webpage being presented to the
`user in the same 2D space. As such, Petitioner presents no new grounds of
`rejection and is merely rehashing prior art and arguments already considered
`by the Examiner during prosecution of the ‘048 Patent.
`29. Second, the references cited by Petitioner are deficient in that they
`do not disclose or suggest each and every limitation of the claimed invention.
`In Ground 1, Petitioner is only relying on Gralla for “foundational principles
`regarding the Internet” (Pet. at 16) and not for switching from 3D to 2D or
`replacing a plurality of inactive images in a 3D space with an active webpage
`in a 2D space. Thus, Petitioner’s entire argument boils down to whether
`Robertson and Gettman (when combined) teaches or suggests the 2D/3D
`features recited in the claims of the ‘048 Patent.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 11
`
`
`
`30. While Robertson discloses presenting a plurality of images in 3D
`space, interacting with one does not result in “replacing” the images in 3D
`space with an active window in 2D space. Instead, interacting with an image
`results in the image being “displayed in a preferred viewing position, in this
`case, at the center foreground of the three-dimensional environment.” EX1004
`at col. 13, ll. 55-62.
`31. Petitioner relies on the fact that a webpage can be presented to the
`user via a web browser in “the preferred viewing position,” and that the web
`browser “can be maximized … to substantially fill the screen.” Pet. at 16.
`First, regardless of whether the web browser is enlarged or not, it is still
`presented in 3D space. See, e.g., EX1004 at col. 13, l. 55 – col. 14, l. 10
`(providing that the selected object is displayed “in the three-dimensional
`environment in the preferred viewing position” and the unselected objects are
`displayed “in the background.”); see also id. at Fig. 13B and col. 13, l. 55 –
`col. 14, l. 10 (illustrating an embodiment where the selected object (enlarged or
`otherwise) is in the background, and the unselected objects are in the
`foreground).
`32. Second, there is no switching back-and-forth, where an active
`window in 2D space replaces a plurality of inactive images in 3D space and
`vice versa. In Robertson, when an object has been selected, it becomes active
`“for editing or otherwise working on a selected object” in 3D space. Id. at col.
`13, ll. 55 – col. 14, l. 20. Thus, it is active both prior to and after the object has
`been “maximized.” Third, the “maximize” function is not “in response to …
`an interaction by the end user on the first image,” as claimed, but by interacting
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 12
`
`
`
` Even Petitioner
`(e.g., “Internet Explorer”).
`the “application”
`with
`acknowledges that it is the “browser” that is interacted with and maximized
`(Pet. at 40), as the webpage is “live” and interacting with the webpage in 3D
`would result in editing the webpage, not switching to a 2D space as claimed.
`33. Finally, because both inactive windows (or images thereof) and an
`active window are presented in 3D space (just like Freeman and Prager—prior
`art cited during prosecution), it also would not have been obvious to do the
`opposite. In other words, Robertson’s use of a single 3D space actually teaches
`away from the claimed invention, which requires switching back-and-forth
`between two different spaces, and between active and inactive windows.
`34. The same is true for Gettman. As a user approaches a window,
`the window switches from a bitmap screenshot to a “live” (e.g., interactable)
`window. EX1006 at Para 0083; see also id. at Para. 0121. In one embodiment,
`the “live” web page is displayed on the wall in the 3D space. Id. at Para. 0164.
`In an alternate embodiment, the “live” webpage is presented in a conventional,
`two-dimensional browser in the 3D space. See, e.g., Figure 4 and id. at Para.
`0128. While a “live” webpage can be displayed in a two-dimensional browser,
`the two-dimensional browser is presented in the 3D space. See also id. at Para.
`0164. Thus, like Robertson, interacting with an image does not result in
`“replacing” the plurality of images in 3D space with an active webpage in 2D
`space, where the webpage corresponds to the selected image.
`35.
`In arguing that Gettman switches from 3D to 2D, Petitioner
`references Figure 13. Pet. at 18. However, Figure 13 is not the 2D browser
`that is presented when the user clicks on a window in a 3D space. That
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 13
`
`
`
`browser is shown in Figure 4, in 3D space. Instead, Figures 12-15B are
`implementations of Gettman where the user can interact with a toolbar at the
`top of a window to launch other applications, including route directions (Figure
`15B), city map (Figure 15A), district map (Figure 14), and traditional web
`browser (Figure 13). These different applications are launched by clicking on
`the appropriate button on the toolbar (1202)—not by clicking on an image in
`3D space as Petitioner contends. To launch the traditional web browser
`(Figure 13), the user clicks on the “web button area” (1204) on the toolbar
`(1202). See id. at Figure 12 and Para. 0200.
`36. Further evidence that Gettman does not switch back-and-forth is
`the fact that once you launch a traditional web browser (Figure 13), switching
`back to the 3D GUI, which is accomplished by clicking on the 3B button
`(1222) on the toolbar, does not result in “capturing a third image of … the
`rendered additional information” and “texturing the third image on the first
`object, the third image thereby replacing the first image on the first object” in
`the foreground of the 3D space, as required by Claims 2, 9, and 16 of the ‘048
`Patent. This is because Gettman does not switch back-and-forth between 3D
`and 2D, where additional information acquired in 2D space is captured and
`presented on objects in 3D space.
`37. Thus, Gettman does not switch between a 3D space where inactive
`windows (or images thereof) are presented and a 2D space where an active
`window is presented. Instead, active windows are presented in 3D space—just
`like Freeman and Prager (prior art cited by the Examiner). As such, Gettman’s
`use of a single 3D space actually teaches away from the claimed invention.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 14
`
`
`
`38. Petitioner acknowledges that Robertson does not disclose the
`claimed switching from 3D to 2D space in response to a user interacting with
`an image, and that Robertson describes a “specific series of steps that the user
`must perform to obtain the ‘maximized’ view of the 2D browser.” Pet. at 24.
`Petitioner then argues that a POSITA would have applied the “single
`interaction” technique disclosed in Gettman to reduce the number of
`interactions in Robertson from four to one to achieve the “maximized” view.
`Id. As a POSITA, I disagree.
`39. First, Gettman does not teach “that the interface should be
`designed to facilitate switching between 3D and 2D with a minimal number of
`user interactions,” as Petitioner contends. As discussed above, Gettman
`teaches an implementation where a toolbar at the top of the window can be
`used to open other applications, including a traditional web browser (Figure
`13). Thus, the “single interaction” referred to by Petitioner is not an interaction
`on a webpage image in 3D space to switch to an active version in 2D space.
`The same is true for Robertson where the maximize function is achieved by
`interacting with the web browser application (e.g., Internet Explorer), not an
`image of a webpage.
`40. Second, Robertson teaches that while its 3D GUI is advantageous
`in that “more objects can be represented, at one time, on a single display
`screen” (EX1004 at col. 6, ll. 20-23 and 65-67), it should also address the
`problem of “object occlusion.” See, e.g., id. at col. 5, ll. 62-67; see also id. at
`col. 7, ll. 13-16 (“The present invention may also prevent one object thumbnail
`(or landscape feature) from totally occluding another object thumbnail so that
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 15
`
`
`
`the latter is not totally hidden from the user.”). When an object is “selected”
`(e.g., for editing) it is positioned at a “preferred viewing location.” Robertson
`stresses that this location “will not occlude the collection of thumbnails on the
`information landscape.” Id. at col. 22, ll. 32-34. In fact, Robertson provides
`several flow charts on “object occlusion avoidance.” See id. at Figures 20A-B.
`This is because “total object (thumbnail) occlusion should be avoided.” Id. at
`col. 25, l. 20.
`41. Petitioner argues that “[b]olstering Robertson’s 2D browser
`technique based on Gettman’s teachings would not have disturbed the other
`aspects of Robertson’s 3D-GUI, and it would have produced substantially
`similar functionality to what Robertson described.” Pet. at 24. Not true.
`Modifying Robertson as Petitioner suggest, where a single interaction would
`result in the occlusion of each and every object in 3D space, would undermine
`a primary objective of Robertson. As such, Robertson actually teaches away
`from such a combination.
`42. The references cited in Ground 2 are also deficient. As stated
`above, Tsuda was cited by the Examiner during prosecution and therefore, in
`and of itself, cannot raise a substantial question of patentability. Tsuda is like
`Robertson, Gettman, Prager, and Freeman (prior art cited by the Examiner),
`where all objects are presented in 3D space.
`43. Tsuda was trying to solve a problem with prior art 3D GUIs where
`“a window placed deep within the 3D space is displayed reduced in size,
`making it impossible to distinguish any of the display content of the window.”
`EX1008 at col. 1, ll. 23-32 and id. at Figure 69. Tsuda solves this problem by
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 16
`
`
`
`presenting all windows (or at least a portion thereof) in the foreground of the
`3D space. According to Tsuda, windows are either displayed in the foreground
`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 col. 2, ll. 13-26.
`44.
`It is clear why the claims were allowed over Tsuda. First, there is
`no mention of 2D space in Tsuda. The windows in Tsuda are all located in 3D
`space. Second, Tsuda teaches away from any window being “displayed in a
`background of the 3D space.” Finally, the windows in Tsuda are all “live” in
`that they can be interacted with to alter the content. See, e.g., Id. at Figure
`19A-B and col. 3, ll. 31-37) (discussing scrolling), Figure 25 and col. 3, ll. 48-
`51 (discussing highlighting), and Figures 28A-29B and col. 4, ll. 22-32
`(discussing copying and pasting). Thus, not only does Tsuda not switch from
`3D to 2D, but it does not switch from a plurality of inactive images to an
`individual active window.
`45. This feature is also not disclosed in or suggested by Suave. Suave
`describes a traditional 2D, tabbed web browser, operating 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). EX1007 at Para.
`0025. The quick-pick user interface includes “a graphical representation (e.g.,
`thumbnails 402-411) for each of the open tabs” (e.g., different web pages). Id.
`at Para. 0042. By clicking on a particular graphical representation, a
`corresponding web page is presented to the user.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 17
`
`
`
`46. According to Suave, this solves a problem in the prior art where
`“after opening several web pages … it [becomes] difficult to re-locate a
`particular web page.” Id. at Para. 0003. First, it should be noted that in Suave,
`both the graphical representations of web pages and the selected web page are
`presented to the user in a 2D space. There is no 3D space discussed in Suave.
`47. Second, it would not be obvious to combine Tsuda and Suave as
`Petitioner contends. Petitioner argues that Suave’s quick-pick interface could
`be replaced with Tsuda’s 3D GUI, thereby teaching the claimed invention. Pet.
`At 57-58. First, the combination argued by Petitioner would not result in the
`claimed invention. In Tsuda, interacting with a window in 3D space does not
`transport the user (i.e., switch) to a different (e.g., active) window. Instead, the
`windows in Tsuda are already active and interacting with one merely results in
`the window being displayed “facing the front.” EX1008 at col. 2, ll. 57-67.
`48. To this end, Tsuda teaches a “position determining means” which
`“enables a[n] operation, in which a window faces the front when it is being
`operated on, and returns to the alignment position once it is no longer being
`operated on.” Id., see also id. at col. 18, ll. 25-40. This can be seen in Figures
`12A-C. “FIG. 12 A shows a display screen after automatic alignment has been
`performed, and corresponds to FIG. 11B,” which is the figure cited by
`Petitioner. See id. at col. 18, ll. 41-57 and Pet. at 58. “FIG. 12B shows a
`display screen immediately after a window 5241 in FIG. 12A has been selected
`by the input unit 5103.” Id. “Here, the 3D position calculating unit 5104
`calculates a new position so that the selected window 5241 is rotated to face
`the front with the edge that was near the front of the 3D space in perspective
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 18
`
`
`
`(the left edge) remaining in a fixed position.” Id. Figure 12C shows the
`display screen after the window has been returned to its default position (e.g.,
`after editing is finished).
`49. Thus, the combination suggested by Petitioner would not result in
`an active window in 2D space “replacing” a plurality of images in 3D space.
`Instead, it would result in an active window in 3D space being rotated to face
`the front (e.g., for editing). According to Tsuda, this feature is “particularly
`useful in small portable information terminals, where it makes windows easier
`to manipulate.” Id. at col. 18, l. 65 – col. 19, l. 2.
`50. Second, there is no motivation to combine Suave and Tsuda as
`Petitioner contends. Tsuda describes a GUI that functions exclusively in 3D,
`so that “more windows can be displayed, making the screen appear larger than
`it actually is.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 26-28. Switching to 2D would be
`counterintuitive to the teachings of Tsuda, and therefore nonobvious.
`Petitioner argues that motivation to combine can be found in Tsuda’s statement
`that “[t]his invention may also be effective for desktop computers, if a user is
`browsing various homepages on the Internet.” Pet. at 58. However, Petitioner
`takes this passage out of context. The entire paragraph provides that, while it
`may be true that Tsuda could be used to browse the Internet, it does so by
`staying in 3D space and allowing windows to move from perspective to front
`facing and vice versa. EX1008 at col. 14, ll. 16-27.
`51. Petitioner argues that because the objects in Suave and Tsuda are
`“graphical representations reflecting the content of an underlying application,”
`it would have been obvious to replace one with the other. Pet. at 59. This is an
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2001 - PAGE 19
`
`
`
`oversimplification of the two references, which actually teach away from one
`another. Both references provide solutions to the same problem, i.e., how to
`interact with windows that are otherwise hidden in 2D space. In Suave,
`thumbnails are used as shortcuts to the hidden windows. In Tsuda, the
`windows are presented in 3D space, so that the windows are no longer hidden.
`Thus, while both references provide solutions for moving from one active
`window to another, they do so in drastically different ways.
`52.
`If a POSITA were to combine Suave and Tsuda, the motivation
`would be to present the hidden webpages (tabs)
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
