Apple Inc. and Google LLC
`v.
`SpaceTime3D, Inc.
`------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`IPR2023-00343 (U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654)
`
`IPR2023-00344 (U.S. Patent No. 9,696,868)
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Oral Argument: March 18, 2024
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 1
`
`
`v.
`SpaceTime3D, Inc.
`------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`IPR2023-00343 (U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654)
`
`IPR2023-00344 (U.S. Patent No. 9,696,868)
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Oral Argument: March 18, 2024
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 1
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’654 and ’868 Patents
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 9,304,654, entitled “System and Method for
`Providing Three-Dimensional Graphical User Interface.”
`(-343 IPR, EX1001)
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 9,696,868, entitled “System and Method for
`Providing Three-Dimensional Graphical User Interface.”
`(-344 IPR, EX1001)
`
`• The ’654 and ’868 Patents 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, 23:10-15.
`
`*Unless otherwise indicated citations refer to the -343 IPR and ’654 Patent but apply
`equally to the -344 IPR and ’868 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 2
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’654 and ’868 Patents
`
`“the 3D GUI application program will run locally on the computer” (EX1001 at 24:5-7)
`
`‘654 Patent, Figure 11
`
`EX1001 at 5:22-33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 3
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’654 and ’868 Patents
`
`The ’654 and ’868 Patents Include Both a 2D Desktop and a 3D Virtual Space
`
`’654 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, 21:34-47.
`
`•
`
`“[T]he output of applications and
`documents need not be closed, hidden or
`filed.” EX1001, 21:57-59.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 4
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’654 and ’868 Patents
`
`The ’654 and ’868 Patents Include Both a 2D Desktop and a 3D Virtual Space
`
`Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`Mirroring
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 5
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’654 and ’868 Patents
`
`Rendered (Open) Versions are Critical to Reduce Latency and Ensure Mirroring
`
`Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`• The ’654 and ’868 Patents identify “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, 24:65-25:2.
`
`• The ‘654 and ‘868 Patents provides that “changes
`to the objects drawn must happen quickly … [so]
`the experience feels truly interactive.” EX1001,
`14:8-15. “The 3D GUI application runs in real
`time … without any time delay among the virtual
`space and the 2D map or operating system API
`output. This synchronous communication
`is
`advantageous as too much delay would make the
`system lag.” EX1001, 25:14-19.
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 6
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’654 and ’868 Patents
`
`Rendered (Open) Versions are Critical to Reduce Latency and Ensure Mirroring
`
`Hidden 2D Desktop
`
`• By keeping the applications 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, 21:57-
`67.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`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 open
`application being “revealed” (EX1001, 21:43-47)
`“allow[ing] the user to resume ‘where the user
`last left off.’” EX2015, [92].
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 7
`
`
`
`’654 and ’868 Patent Disclosures – Importance of Visual History
`
`EX1001, FIGS. 16B and 20
`
`By capturing and displaying images of open applications in 3D space
`the ’654 and ’868 Patents provide “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.” EX1001 at 5:6-11; see also EX2001 at
`[42-43]; POR, 9-15; EX2015, [39]-[48].
`
`To this end, the specification provides that “depth (z) ... is also known
`as time” and that “[t]his notion of expressing depth or time in a visual
`computing metaphor is important for the creation of a visual history of
`the end user’s computer sessions.” EX1001 at 2:14-24.
`
`By plotting images of applications in 3D space, where the application
`that was last opened or interacted with is displayed in the foreground,
`the application that was previously opened or interacted with is
`displayed in a background, and so forth, “the 3D GUI can function as a
`visual chronological history of the user’s computing session.” EX1001
`at 5:6-13; EX2015, [40].
`
`8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 8
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Patentable Over All Instituted Grounds
`
`-343 IPR
`
`-344 IPR
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 9
`
`
`
`Summary of PO’s Key Contentions for Patentability
`
`• The HAC Combination Does Not Teach or Suggest Displaying Images In 3D Space
`Based On “A Last Time That Said User One Of Opened [An] Application And
`Interacted With [A Corresponding] Object”
`
`• The HAC Combination Does Not “Replace Said Plurality Of Images In 3D Space With
`An Object In 2D Space In Response To Said First Interaction [With One Of Said
`Plurality Of Images]”
`
`• There is No Motivation to Combine Hanggie and Anthony as Proposed
`
`• The HAC Combination Does Not “Receive a Request From Said User to Switch From
`Said 2D Space to Said 3D Space” or Perform the “Replacing” Step in Response
`Thereto (Claim 13 of ‘868 Patent).
`
`Applies to all Grounds in the -343 and -344 IPRs: That is, Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding
`Anthony in view of Hanggie are the same as Hanggie in view of Anthony
`
`10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 10
`
`
`
`HAC Does Not Teach or Suggest the Claimed Ordering of Applications
`
`The HAC Combination Does Not Teach or Suggest Displaying Images In
`3D Space Based On “A Last Time That Said User One Of Opened [An]
`Application And Interacted With [A Corresponding] Object”
`
`Applies to all Grounds in the -343 and -344 IPRs: That is, Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding
`Anthony in view of Hanggie are the same as Hanggie in view of Anthony
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 11
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Dispute – “last time that said user one of”
`
`Claim language
`
`Petitioner’s position
`
`Patent Owner’s position
`
`“last time that said user one
`of” refers to the last time a
`user opened and interacted
`with (i) said first
`application, (ii) said second
`application, or (iii) said
`third application
`
`That is, the last time said
`user one of “(i), (ii) or (iii)”
`
`EX2019, 47:18-49:9
`
`“displaying said plurality of
`images in a three-
`dimensional space on said
`display device in an order
`based on a last time that
`said user one of (i) opened
`said first application and
`interacted with said first
`object, (ii) opened said
`second application and
`interacted with said second
`object, and (iii) opened said
`third application and
`interacted with said third
`object,…”
`
`EX1001, 38:5-11
`
`“last time that said user one
`of” refers to the last time a
`user (i) opened a first
`application or interacted
`with a first object, (ii)
`opened a second
`application or interacted
`with a second object, and
`(iii) opened a third
`application or interacted
`with a third object
`
`That is, the last time said
`user one of “opened or
`interacted with” each of the
`first, second and third
`applications
`
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 12
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – Well-settled Authority re Construing “one of…”
`
`It is well settled that the phrase “one of” followed by two options (opening, interacting), as
`opposed to a list of more than two terms, is disjunctive, i.e., one of option A or option B
`
`• NFC Tech., LLC v. Samsung Elecs., Co., 2016 WL 1704770, at *15-16 (E.D.
`Tex. 2016) (construing “one of a bit and a flag” to mean “a bit or a flag”
`and noting that “the phrase ‘a bit and a flag’ simply defines the set from
`which ‘one of’ must be selected.”)
`
`• 3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. United States, 2018 WL 4579926, at *69 (Fed.
`Cl. 2018) (construing “one of the additional information and imagery
`data” as disjunctive because “the content here is not a list, but rather an
`option of two” and “[t]he duality of the term makes it a binary choice
`between two options.”)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 13
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – Construing “one of…”: Specification’s support
`
`Order based on opening an application:
`
`Initially, “an end user selects the helper application called
`Yahoo! Search ... [which] plots the search result in a
`unique 3D stack 560, which is represented by in the
`timeline 340 by an icon 562.” EX1001 at 12:42-53.
`
`Then, “[a]n end user can select another helper application
`called Yahoo! Image Search ... [which] plots the search
`results in its own unique 3D stack 570 ... whereby another
`icon 572 representing stack 570 is added to the timeline
`(to the right of the last icon 562).” EX1001 at 12:54-65.
`
`Finally, “should an end user create a web-browser page
`within the virtual space ... the new webpage would be
`drawn in its own 3D stack 580 ... [and] would add another
`icon 582 to the timeline (to the right of the last icon
`572).” EX1001 at 12:66-13:8.
`
`EX1001, Fig. 16B
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 14
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – Construing “one of…”: Specification’s support
`
`Order based on interacting with an application:
`
`The ordering in 3D space can then be changed based on input from the end user, referred to as a “visual event.”
`“[E]ach new action, initiated as a result of input from the end user or otherwise initiated by programmatic access,
`that results in a visual event, is ... plotted as an icon on the dynamic timeline linear map 340,” where “[a] ‘visual
`event’ refers to a change in appearance in the 3D virtual space.” EX1001 at 11:50-66.
`
`This can be seen in Figures 13A and 13B. The “input from the end user” on, or the “programmatic access” of, the
`Yahoo! Search application (492) moves the application to the foreground of the 3D space. Id. at 11:50-66.
`
`EX1001, Fig. 13A
`
`EX1001, Fig. 13B
`
`15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 15
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – Construing “one of…”: Specification’s support
`
`Order based on interacting with an application:
`
`The ordering in 3D space can then be changed based on input from the end user, referred to as a “visual event.”
`Thus, the correct construction of “a last time that said
`“[E]ach new action, initiated as a result of input from the end user or otherwise initiated by programmatic access,
`user one of opened said application and interacted with
`that results in a visual event, is ... plotted as an icon on the dynamic timeline linear map 340,” where “[a] ‘visual
`said object” is “a last time that said user opened said
`event’ refers to a change in appearance in the 3D virtual space.” EX1001 at 11:50-66.
`application or interacted with said object.”
`This can be seen in Figures 13A and 13B. The “input from the end user” on, or the “programmatic access” of, the
`Yahoo! Search application (492) moves the application to the foreground of the 3D space. Id. at 11:50-66.
`
`EX1001, Fig. 13A
`
`EX1001, Fig. 13B
`
`16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 16
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – Petitioner’s Construction is Wrong
`
`Petitioner’s and Dr. Fuchs interpretation to mean “a last time” the user (i), (ii) or (iii)
`leads to displaying only the last application of the three, reading out “displaying said
`plurality of images” and the claimed order.
`
`EX2019, 47:18-49:9
`
`“displaying said plurality of images in a three-
`dimensional space on said display device in an
`order based on a last time that said user one of (i)
`opened said first application and interacted with
`said
`first object,
`(ii) opened said second
`application and interacted with said second object,
`and [or] (iii) opened said third application and
`interacted with said third object, such that a first
`one in said order is displayed in a foreground of
`said three-dimensional space, a second one in said
`order is displayed in a background of said three-
`dimensional space, behind at least said first one in
`said order, and a third one in said order is
`displayed
`in a background of said
`three-
`dimensional space, behind at least said second one
`in said order…”
`EX1001 at 38:5-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 17
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – Petitioner’s Construction Reads Out Claim Elements
`
`First application
`
`Second application
`
`Third application
`
`Image of a last time
`that said user opened
`and interacted with
`either the first, second
`or third application
`
`“displaying said plurality of images in a three-
`dimensional space on said display device in an
`order based on a last time that said user one of (i)
`opened said first application and interacted with
`said
`first object,
`(ii) opened said second
`application and interacted with said second object,
`and [or] (iii) opened said third application and
`interacted with said third object, such that a first
`one in said order is displayed in a foreground of
`said three-dimensional space, a second one in said
`order is displayed in a background of said three-
`dimensional space, behind at least said first one in
`said order, and a third one in said order is
`displayed
`in a background of said
`three-
`dimensional space, behind at least said second one
`in said order…” EX1001 at 38:5-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 18
`
`
`
`Anthony Discloses Ordering of Files and Folders
`
`• There is no dispute that Hanggie does not disclose
`any ordering.
`
`• Petitioner relies only on Anthony for the Claimed
`Ordering. Pet. 48-49.
`
`• Anthony does not teach ordering of applications or
`when individual applications were opened.
`
`• As shown in Figure 4, Anthony discloses files or
`folders are presented in a “dynamic timeline” in a
`3D environment, where the items are placed “in
`some logical order using an attribute shared by
`each of the items.” EX1007 at [0011].
`
`EX1007
`
`• One item in the group (e.g., a file or a folder) is designated by the user (e.g., by clicking on it) as “a focal
`group” and “the focal group 509 may be placed in the front and center of the GUI view.” “The remainder
`of the groups are displayed on either side of the focal group based on their ordering ... such that ... [they]
`appear to be less prominent to the user than the focal group.” EX1007 at [0011] and [0012].
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 19
`
`
`
`Anthony Teaches Ordering by an Items’ Attributes
`
`“Attributes or properties of items include attributes
`or properties of the files, folders, or virtual folders,
`etc., that they represent and may further include
`aspects of the Visual representation itself. For
`example, item properties may include, but are not
`limited to, name, file size, date of creation,
`modified date, author, title, read-only, archived,
`hidden, personal, type, and the like. Any item
`property may be used as an ordering attribute
`according
`to various aspects of
`the present
`invention…For example, a user may wish to group
`items by item type, or author, or some other
`attribute. In one embodiment of
`the present
`invention, the ordering attribute may be based on
`time, thus arranging the items chronologically,
`e.g., by using a date of creation or date of edit
`attribute as the ordering attribute.” EX1007 at
`[0042]
`
`EX1007,
`FIG. 2
`(prior art)
`
`EX1007,
`FIG. 3
`(prior art)
`
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 20
`
`
`
`Anthony’s Items Do Not Include Applications
`
`“As hard disk space becomes less expensive,
`users are able to store increasing numbers of
`photographic images (and other types of
`computer image files) on the hard drive of
`their computers. Because of the increased
`number of images, it has become more
`difficult for users to manage and organize
`the graphics files that contain the images.
`For example, in a folder with hundreds of
`picture files it can be difficult to find a
`particular image file. This is especially the
`case where the filename is not indicative of
`the contents of the picture file.” EX1007 at
`[0004].
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`Items
`
`EX1007
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 21
`
`
`
`First Reason: Anthony Teaches Organizing By File Type
`
`First Reason why Petitioner’s argument doesn’t work: Anthony discloses that it is “data objects” (e.g.,
`digital photographic images, etc.) that are arranged based on the ordering attribute, not applications.
`
`• Anthony is for displaying “files and folders.” EX1007, Abstract (“[a] three-dimensional (3D) view of a
`data collection based on an attribute is disclosed. A timeline is provided for displaying files and folders.”)
`
`• Anthony does provide that “file type” allows the user to locate “files or folders” for a particular
`application. EX1007, [0042], [0049]
`
`• As Dr. Schaefer illustrates, a more accurate annotation
`of Figure 4 would be this illustration, thereby allowing
`a user to more easily locate files or folders for a
`particular application. EX2015 at [95]
`
`• But this does not take into account when a particular
`application (e.g., Excel) was last opened (as opposed to
`Word, etc.).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 22
`
`
`
`First Reason: Anthony Teaches Organizing By File Type
`
`First Reason why Petitioner’s argument doesn’t work: Anthony discloses that it is “data objects” (e.g.,
`digital photographic images, etc.) that are arranged based on the ordering attribute, not applications.
`
`• Anthony is for displaying “files and folders.” EX1007, Abstract (“[a] three-dimensional (3D) view of a
`data collection based on an attribute is disclosed. A timeline is provided for displaying files and folders.”)
`
`As such, the resulting arrangement is not indicative of when an
`• Anthony does provide that “file type” allows the user to locate “files or folders” for a particular
`application was opened and when the object (content) was
`application. EX1007, [0042], [0049]
`subsequently interacted with.
`• As Dr. Schaefer illustrates, a more accurate annotation
`of Figure 4 would be the illustration above, thereby
`allowing a user to more easily locate files or folders for
`a particular application.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 23
`
`
`
`Second Reason: Anthony Does Not Teach When the Application Was Opened
`or an Object Was Interacted With
`Second Reason why Petitioner’s argument doesn’t work: Ordering according to Anthony’s
`attributes is not the claimed ordering of applications based on a last time that each application
`was opened or interacted with by the user.
`
`• Petitioner’s argument that an interaction with a file or window is an interaction with the
`application misses the point as a user can open an application without interacting with a file
`or window. Reply at 13 (“PO fails to explain how a user’s interaction with an application
`window (e.g., Excel or Word window)…is not an interaction with the application itself.”).
`
`• Petitioner
`Schaefer
`that Dr.
`claims
`“interacting with
`an
`that
`corroborated
`application window (file) is also interacting
`with the application.” Not true.
`
`• Dr. Schaefer
`that opening an
`testified
`application
`is separate and distinct from
`interacting with a file.
`
`EX1031 at 63:10-23
`
`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 24
`
`
`
`Second Reason: Anthony Does Not Teach When the Application Was Opened
`or an Object Was Interacted With
`Second Reason why Petitioner’s argument doesn’t work: Ordering according to Anthony’s
`attributes is not the claimed ordering of applications based on a last time that each application
`was opened or interacted with by the user.
`
`• Petitioner’s argument that an interaction with a file or window is an interaction with the
`application misses the point as a user can open an application without interacting with a file
`or window. Reply at 13 (“PO fails to explain how a user’s interaction with an application
`window (e.g., Excel or Word window)…is not an interaction with the application itself.”).
`
`Petitioner’s assumption does not take into account when an
`• Petitioner
`claims
`that Dr.
`Schaefer
`application is merely opened.
`corroborated
`that
`“interacting with
`an
`application window (file) is also interacting
`with the application.” Not true.
`
`• Dr. Schaefer
`that opening an
`testified
`application
`is separate and distinct from
`interacting with a file.
`
`EX1031 at 63:10-23
`
`25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 25
`
`
`
`HAC Does Not Teach or Suggest the Claimed Ordering of Applications
`
`Petitioner’s proposed combination illustrates that the items are arranged based on the
`attributes of data file (created, edited, file type, etc.), not when applications were opened
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination
`
`• The order in which applications are opened
`are presented on the taskbar in both Anthony
`and Petitioner’s proposed combination.
`
`• As Dr. Schaefer explained, “[t]his is because
`the number of open applications is negligible
`compared to the number of files stored on the
`computer.” EX2015, [70].
`
`Taskbar
`
`EX1007
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 26
`
`
`
`HAC Does Not Teach or Suggest the Claimed Ordering of Applications
`
`Petitioner’s response to this is that in the ‘654 Patent, the open applications are not
`presented on the taskbar. Reply, 17-18 (citing to Figure 13A).
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination
`
`EX1001
`
`• This is exactly the point─in the ‘654 Patent,
`images are arranged in 3D space based (in
`part) on when each individual application
`was opened. As such, there is no need to list
`open applications on the taskbar.
`
`•
`
`the proposed combination, however,
`In
`images are arranged in 3D space based on
`when individual data files were opened,
`edited, etc. The timeline does not take into
`account when individual applications were
`opened as that is the traditional purpose of the
`taskbar, as confirmed by Anthony.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`Taskbar
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 27
`
`
`
`HAC Does Not Teach or Suggest the Claimed Ordering of Applications
`
`Petitioner’s response to this is that in the ‘654 Patent, the open applications are not
`presented on the taskbar. Reply, 17-18 (citing to Figure 13A).
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination
`
`• This is exactly the point─in the ‘654 Patent,
`images are arranged in 3D space based (in
`part) on when each individual application
`was opened. As such, there is no need to list
`The ‘654 Patent does this so that the most
`recently used or opened applications are
`open applications on the taskbar.
`presented in the foreground of 3D space.
`
`•
`the proposed combination, however,
`In
`In Anthony and the proposed combination, the
`images are arranged in 3D space based on
`open applications are presented on the
`when individual data files were opened,
`EX1001
`taskbar─not in 3D space. This is because the 3D
`edited, etc. The timeline does not take into
`timeline is used to locate recently created or
`account when opened applications were
`edited data files.
`opened as that is the traditional purpose of the
`taskbar.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`Taskbar
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 28
`
`
`
`Summary Why HAC Does Not Teach or Suggest the Claimed Ordering
`
`• “a last time that said user one of” refers to a last time of “opening an application” or
`“interacting with an object”
`• Case law supports PO’s construction
`• Specification supports PO’s construction
`• Petitioner’s construction impermissibly reads out claim limitations
`
`• Anthony’s “items” are files or folders, not applications.
`
`• Anthony’s file and folder attributes do not take into account when an application was
`last opened.
`
`• Dr. Schaefer explained that interacting with an application window (file) is distinct
`from when an application is opened. Petitioner’s interpretation reads out “opening an
`application” and wrongly reduces the claim to “interacting with an object”
`
`In short, the HAC combination does not teach or suggest the claimed ordering of
`applications limitation.
`
`29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 29
`
`
`
`Summary Why HAC Does Not Teach or Suggest the Claimed Ordering
`
`• “a last time that said user one of” refers to “opening an application” or “interacting
`with an object”
`• Case law supports PO’s construction
`• Specification supports PO’s construction
`• Petitioner’s construction impermissibly reads out claim terms
`
`• Anthony’s “items” are files or folders, not applications.
`For this reason alone the Board should find the Challenged
`Claims not obvious over All Grounds
`• Anthony’s file and folder attributes do not include when an application was last
`opened.
`
`• Dr. Schaefer explained that interacting with an application window (file) is distinct
`from when an application is opened. Petitioner’s interpretation reads out “opening an
`application” and wrongly reduces the claim to “interacting with an object”
`
`In short, the HAC combination does not teach or suggest the claimed ordering of
`applications limitation.
`
`30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 30
`
`
`
`HAC Does Not Teach or Suggest the Claimed Replacing Images
`
`The HAC Combination Does Not “Replace Said Plurality Of Images In 3D
`Space With An Object In 2D Space In Response To Said First Interaction
`[With One Of Said Plurality Of Images]”
`
`Applies to all Grounds in the -343 and -344 IPRs: That is, Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding
`Anthony in view of Hanggie are the same as Hanggie in view of Anthony
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 31
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Dispute – “image”
`
`Claim language
`
`Petitioner’s position
`
`Patent Owner’s position
`
`“replacing said plurality of
`images within said three-
`dimensional space with one
`of said first, second, and
`third objects corresponding
`to said one of said plurality
`of applications within a two-
`dimensional space in
`response to said first
`interaction [with one of said
`plurality of images]”
`
`EX1001, 37:61-38:4
`
`“[T]he images in 3D are
`fully interactive and
`function the same or similar
`manner as the
`corresponding objects in 2D
`space”
`
`Reply at 4.
`
`The plain and ordinary
`meaning of an image in the
`context of computers, e.g.,
`bitmap, JPEG, screenshot,
`thumbnail, etc.─in essence
`“an optical counterpart of an
`object produced by … an
`electronic device.”
`
`Sur-reply at 14-15 (citing
`EX1029).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 32
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Dispute – “image”
`
`Claim language
`
`Petitioner’s position
`
`Patent Owner’s position
`
`The plain and ordinary
`“[T]he images in 3D are
`“replacing said plurality of
`meaning of an image in the
`fully interactive and
`images within said three-
`context of computers, e.g.,
`function the same or similar
`dimensional space with one
`bitmap, JPEG, screenshot,
`manner as the
`of said first, second, and
`Petitioner’s construction is based on statements
`third objects corresponding
`corresponding objects in 2D
`thumbnail, etc.─in essence
`in the ‘654 Patent that images are “fully
`to said one of said plurality
`space”
`“an optical counterpart of an
`interactive and functional.” Reply, 2-4.
`of applications within a two-
`object produced by … an
`dimensional space in
`Reply at 4.
`electronic device.”
`What Petitioner fails to address is how this
`response to said first
`“functionality” is accomplished.
`interaction [with one of said
`Sur-reply at 14-15 (citing
`plurality of images]”
`EX1029).
`
`EX1001, 37:61-38:4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 33
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – “image”: Specification supports PO’s construction
`
`First way of providing functionality: mapping interactions to the off-screen 2D output
`
`“Webpages, unlike pictures that the end user
`simply view, require interactivity to function
`properly
`in a virtual space. Because
`the
`viewpoint of an end user within a 3D
`interactive virtual space can change, so to do
`the shapes and sizes of the objects being drawn
`change based on the end user's navigation
`within the virtual space. If the objects being
`drawn within a 3D virtual space having
`operating system output such as controls
`mapped onto them, a special system must be
`created to insure that the end user can
`interact with the mapped object in a 3D virtual
`space with the same responsiveness of input
`and output that one would find in a 2D
`desktop.” EX1001 at 23:5-23.
`
`“Thus, for example, if the user is presented with
`an image of a first page (or home page) of a
`website on the first window, and the user
`interacted with the image in an effort to interact
`with (or click) a link to a second page of the
`website, the processor module will map the
`interaction to the location on the rendered
`website to identify the corresponding link. The
`processor module will then use that link to request
`the second page of the website. The processor
`module will then render the second page (e.g.,
`using a web browser, etc.), capture an image (e.g.,
`bitmap, etc.) of the rendered second page, and
`texture the image of the second page on the first
`window, thereby replacing the image of the first
`page.” EX2003 at 76.
`
`34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 34
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – “image”: Specification supports PO’s construction
`
`First way of providing functionality: mapping interactions to the off-screen 2D output
`
`The specification goes on to describe a “visual
`bridge of information” that is reflected in Figure
`3, where the system “periodically capture[s] the
`on screen output of [a] window … as a bit map
`image.” EX1001, Fig. 3, 146. The “bit map” is
`then stored (148) and mapped “onto arbitrary 3D
`geometry (142). Id., 148, 142. If the image is
`interacted with, the system “pass[es] mouse
`clicks, cursor position, keyboard
`input and
`movements from control map on 3D geometry to
`the mirror control running in 2D environment.”
`Id., 152.
`
`EX1001
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 35
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Dispute – “image”: Specification support
`
`Second way of providing functionality : reveal the off-screen 2D version of the application
`
`“[T]he 3D GUI system utilizes the Bind to the HUD
`feature whereby clicking an
`icon or bottom
`(analogous to the minimize in windows operating
`system environment)
`triggers a change
`to
`the
`viewpoint of the end user within the virtual space so
`that the webpage is directly in an end user's visual
`field, thereby making it easier to interact with. In one
`embodiment, this is accomplished by 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 at
`21:37-47.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2021 - PAGE 36
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Dispute – Petitioner’s Construction is Wrong
`
`Petitioner’s construction that “images” include “application windows” is not supported.
`
`• Petitioner’s construction that “the images in 3D are fully interactive and function the same
`or similar manner as the corresponding objects in 2D space” is not the correct construction.
`
`• Arguing that “images” and “objects’ are the same violates the presumption that “[d]ifferent
`claim terms … have different meanings.” Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ
`Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`• Petitioner argues that “[a]ny characterization of the functionality of images corresponding to
`applications in the 3D space necessarily being different from objects in 2D space is not
`s
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
