Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`SPACETIME3D, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1005
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`ASSERTED PATENTS ..................................................................................................... 1
`AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS ......................................................................................... 6
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`“TEXTURING” ..................................................................................................... 7
`B.
`PREAMBLES TO CLAIMS 1, 10, AND 19 OF THE ’868 PATENT ............... 12
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 16
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`C.W. Zumbiel Co. v. Kappos, 702 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................14
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...............14, 16
`
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................14
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...............................15
`
`SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:19-cv-372-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec.
`7, 2020) ................................................................................................................1, 6, 10, 15
`
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...............................................8, 9
`
`
`i
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`The parties dispute the construction of two claim terms in two of the three asserted patents
`
`directed to 3D user interfaces. For both terms, the parties have undertaken notably different
`
`approaches to claim construction. For its proposals, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) has applied well-settled
`
`principles of patent law. That is, where the asserted claims use terms in accordance with their
`
`customary usage, Apple has proposed definitions that reflect that usage. And, where the patentee
`
`defined the scope of their claimed invention in the preamble to the claims, Apple has proposed
`
`that the Court accept the inventor’s own limitation. By contrast, SpaceTime3D, Inc.
`
`(“SpaceTime3D”) seeks overbroad constructions, unsupported by the patents.
`
`In fact, Judge Payne (E.D. Tex.), in a prior litigation involving the same patents, rejected
`
`the very same arguments set forth by SpaceTime3D and adopted Apple’s proposed constructions,
`
`verbatim. SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:19-cv-372-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7,
`
`2020), Dkt. 104 (“Samsung Claim Construction Order”). The Court should do the same here.
`
`II.
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`The Asserted Patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,881,048 (“’048 patent”), 9,304,654 (“’654
`
`patent”), and 9,696,868 (“’868 patent”)—share substantively the same specification and relate
`
`generally to a three-dimensional (“3D”) graphical user interface (“GUI”).1 More specifically, the
`
`patents purport to describe an “improved” GUI wherein objects are presented in a virtual, 3D
`
`Cartesian space. See ’048 patent, Abstract, 2:47-55. According to the patents, “the 3D GUI creates
`
`the illusion of infinite space in 3D.” Id., 5:6-7.
`
`
`1 Apple cites to the specification of the ’048 patent herein, but the same language appears in the
`specification of the other Asserted Patents.
`
`1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`The Asserted Patents contend that, as of the patents’ alleged priority date—September 13,
`
`2005, when SpaceTime3D’s provisional application was filed2—prior art computer systems
`
`included GUIs through which users could interact with windows and applications. ’048 patent,
`
`1:56-67. These prior art GUIs included those incorporated into the widely distributed Mac OS X
`
`and Windows XP computer operating systems, which predated the Asserted Patents’ alleged
`
`priority date by at least two years and, as shown in the figures below, allowed users to open and
`
`interact with multiple windows and applications:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Apple reserves the right to dispute the proper priority date for the Asserted Claims at the
`appropriate time during discovery.
`
`2
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`See Ex. A at 67 (The Robin Williams Mac OS X Book, Jaguar Edition, 2003); Ex. B Windows
`
`XP, Student Edition Complete, 2002); Ex. C (Apple Press Release, dated January 5, 2000,
`
`available at https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2000/01/05Apple-Unveils-Mac-OS-X/); Ex. D
`
`(Microsoft
`
`Press
`
`Release,
`
`dated
`
`October
`
`25,
`
`2001,
`
`available
`
`at
`
`https://news.microsoft.com/2001/10/25/windows-xp-is-here/).
`
`The Asserted Patents explain that prior art GUIs—such as those depicted above from Mac
`
`OS X and Windows XP—were not three-dimensional, but rather utilized only two dimensions
`
`(“2D”). As the patents contend, the prior art virtual displays provided only “height and width.”
`
`’048 patent, 1:67-2:3.
`
`The Asserted Patents contend that there were significant limitations to these prior art 2D
`
`GUIs. For example, the patents assert that the prior art 2D GUIs had a “finite-sized desktop,”
`
`meaning the number of windows that could fit on the screen was limited. Due to the finite nature
`
`of the 2D GUI, windows would have to be rendered on top of each other and the user could only
`
`view the windows in the front and the windows in the back would get lost. Id., 2:4-13 (“When the
`
`computer’s output exceeds this finite working graphical area, elements of the GUI (the windows)
`
`are typically drawn on top of each other such that the GUI components overlap one another other
`
`[sic].”). The Asserted Patents make clear that GUIs of this sort were 2D, not 3D. See id.
`
`To address these alleged shortcomings of two-dimensional GUIs and their finite display
`
`areas, the Asserted Patents purport to describe a GUI that operates in three dimensions rather than
`
`two. More specifically, the alleged invention “uses the two-dimensional [] display of a user’s
`
`computer to display three-dimensional [] objects in a simulated real-time 3D immersive Cartesian
`
`space.” ’048 patent, 2:52-55. In the claimed 3D GUI, as in the real world, “objects not only have
`
`a horizontal position (x) and vertical position (y) but also have depth (z) that is also known as time,
`
`3
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`according to the three-dimensional coordinate system of mathematics.” Id., 2:15-18 (emphasis
`
`added); see also id., 20:18-24 (“Since 3D virtual spaces have a (i) horizontal position known as
`
`(x), (ii) vertical position known as (y) and (iii) a position of depth (z) which is also known as time,
`
`one can see how it is possible to create a visual history of the end user’s computing session by
`
`plotting new output in a new position further along the (z) axis and date and, time stamp it (e.g.,
`
`entry 670 which reads Aug. 8, 2006—6:00 p.m.)[.]”).
`
`The 3D space of the alleged invention is shown, for example, in Figure 10 of the patents,
`
`reproduced below. As can be seen in the figure, the 3D space contains several window objects
`
`that are arranged not only horizontally and vertically (as they could be in a 2D GUI), but also at
`
`depths that reach toward the “back” of the display (i.e., along the z-axis):
`
`
`Certain of these windows, such as item 362, are located in the foreground of the 3D space,
`
`while other windows, such as item 368, are located in the background. See id., 18:16-36; see also,
`
`4
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`e.g., id. at cl. 1 (reciting objects being displayed in the foreground or background of the 3D space).
`
`The patents further describe arranging these windows in a certain order and allowing the user to
`
`navigate between different windows. See id.
`
`The alleged invention purportedly solves the shortcomings of prior art 2D GUIs because
`
`the claimed 3D interface adds a third dimension in which to locate windows or other objects.
`
`According to the Asserted Patents, whereas windows in 2D GUIs could become too easily hidden,
`
`overlapped, or substituted as a result of the limited display area, more windows may be arranged
`
`in the claimed 3D space and still be visible to the user. Id., 2:20-24 (“By plotting new output of
`
`the computer (instead of replacing) in a virtual space that does not overlap or substitute what exists
`
`on the finite desktop, a new virtual space through depth and time is created.”), 25:59-62 (“This
`
`can be accomplished because new information expressed graphically in a virtual space does not
`
`replace old information by replacing it or overlapping it. Instead, it is drawn in new virtual
`
`space.”).
`
`The Asserted Patents also describe functionality whereby the display may switch back and
`
`forth between certain 3D and 2D views depending on the choice of the user. Id., 22:53-58 (“As
`
`such, an end user can toggle or switch between 2D and 3D for any selectively captured computing
`
`output and information (webpages, applications, documents, desktops or anything that can be
`
`visualized on a computer) that was drawn within a 3D virtual space at will by using this
`
`technique.”). The patents describe that multiple open applications or windows may be shown
`
`simultaneously in the 3D space. Id., 18:16-36. The user may select one of those windows or
`
`applications in the 3D space for interaction with that selected window or application. Id., 18:16-
`
`36. According to the patents, the display may change from the 3D space to a 2D interface focused
`
`5
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`on the selected window or application, and the user would be allowed to interact with the selected
`
`window or application. Id., 22:53-58, 18:16-36.
`
`To display objects in 3D spaces, the patents also describe a process referred to as “texture
`
`mapping.” Texture mapping relates to drawing or mapping a 2D image onto a 3D object in a 3D
`
`space. See ’048 patent, 23:17-25 (texture mapping to the “3-D interactive Cartesian space”),
`
`22:34-40 (“texture mapping . . . into . . . 3D Cartesian space”). This is further explained in
`
`connection with the disputed “texturing” claim term below.
`
`III. AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`The parties agree on the definition of two terms—those relating to 3D space and 2D space.
`
`These agreed-to constructions are identical to the constructions adopted by Judge Payne. See
`
`Samsung Claim Construction Order, slip op. at 19. These agreed constructions are set forth in the
`
`table below:
`
`Terms
`“3D space”
`’048 patent, claims 1, 8, 14
`
`“three-dimensional space”
`’654 patent, claims 1, 10, 19
`
`“3D [immersive] space”
`’868 patent, claims 1, 10, 19
`“two-dimensional (2D) space”
`’048 patent, claims 1, 8, 14
`’868 patent, claims 1, 10, 19
`
`“two-dimensional space”
`’654 patent, claims 1, 10, 19
`
`Agreed Construction
`“a virtual space defined by a
`dimensional coordinate system”
`
`three-
`
`“a finite graphical area defined by a two-
`dimensional coordinate system”
`
`For the other two claim terms, however, SpaceTime3D’s proposals are inconsistent with
`
`both the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. Indeed, Judge Payne already rejected SpaceTime3D’s
`
`proposals in the prior litigation. These disputed terms are discussed below.
`
`6
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`Two claim construction issues remain in dispute: (1) the construction of the claim term
`
`“texturing” and (2) whether the preambles of the independent claims of the ’868 patent are limiting.
`
`For both issues, only Apple’s proposed constructions are consistent with the intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`records, and identical to what Judge Payne already found in the prior Samsung litigation.
`
`A.
`
`“texturing”
`
`Term
`“texturing”
`’048 patent, claims 1, 8
`
`Apple’s Proposal
`“drawing or mapping an
`image onto a 3D object”
`
`SpaceTime3D’s Proposal
`No construction necessary;
`plain and ordinary meaning
`applies.
`
` drawing or
`Alternatively:
`mapping [the first image on
`the first object and the second
`image on the second object].
`
`The term “texturing” appears in claims 1 and 8 of the ’048 patent, which describes
`
`“texturing the first image on the first object and the second image on the second object, the first
`
`object being displayed in a foreground of the 3D space and the second object being displayed in a
`
`background of the 3D space.” E.g., ’048 patent, cl. 1 (emphasis added). The parties agree that the
`
`technical term “texturing” refers to “drawing or mapping” images onto certain objects, but disagree
`
`over what those objects should be. More specifically, the parties dispute whether the object onto
`
`which the image is drawn or mapped must be three-dimensional. Because Apple’s proposed
`
`construction is consistent with the intrinsic evidence and customary usage, it should be adopted.
`
`Specifically, Apple’s proposed construction appropriately reflects that the object being
`
`“textured” onto must be 3D. Apple’s proposed construction is fully supported by the claim
`
`language, the specification, and extrinsic evidence, and is identical to the construction previously
`
`adopted by Judge Payne in the aforementioned prior litigation involving the Asserted Patents.
`
`SpaceTime3D’s proposed construction, by contrast, is overly broad because it does not limit the
`
`7
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`claimed “texturing” to 3D objects. SpaceTime3D’s proposal is contrary to the evidence and was
`
`already rejected by Judge Payne in the prior litigation.
`
`The intrinsic record confirms that “texturing” refers to drawing or mapping an image onto
`
`a 3D object for two reasons: (1) “texturing” in the claims is synonymous with “texture mapping”
`
`in the specification, and the patents describe “texture mapping” only as being performed onto 3D
`
`objects and (2) the parties agree that “texturing” means certain “drawing or mapping,” and the
`
`patents describe drawing or mapping of 2D images to be onto 3D objects.
`
`First, in the patents, “texturing” in the claims is synonymous with “texture mapping” in
`
`the specification. Notably, the specification does not use the word “texturing,” but it does refer
`
`repeatedly to forms of the phrase “texture mapping.” E.g., ’048 patent at 6:8-11 (“texture
`
`mapping”), 18:46-56 (“texture map”), 22:34-40 (“texture mapping”), 23:17-25 (“texture
`
`mapping”), 23:44-48 (“texture mapped”), 23:52-56 (“texture-mapped”), 23:57-61 (“texture
`
`mapping”), Fig. 7 (block 260) (“Texture Map”). It should therefore be understood that “texturing”
`
`in the claims is synonymous with “texture mapping” in the specification. See Wi-LAN USA, Inc.
`
`v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Consistent use of a term in a particular way
`
`in the specification can inform the proper construction of that term.”). Apple’s expert confirms
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this equivalence between
`
`“texturing” in the claims and “texture mapping” in the specification. See Ex. E (Wolfe Decl.), ¶¶
`
`25, 33-35, 37.
`
`With respect to the phrase “texture mapping,” the specification repeatedly and exclusively
`
`refers to it as an operation performed onto a 3D object. For example, the specification explains
`
`that an image may be “texture mapped onto 3D geometry (e.g., a cube, pyramid, etc.).” Id., 23:44-
`
`48. Likewise, the specification recites that images are “texture-mapped onto the 3D Geometry.”
`
`8
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`Id., 23:52-56. Similarly, the specification states that “the two-dimensional graphics are drawn or
`
`mapped onto three-dimensional objects.” Id., 23:17-34; see also id., 6:8-11 (Figure 3 is a flowchart
`
`for texture mapping), 23:57-61 (Figure 3 shows the process of “texture mapping”), Fig. 3 (“Map
`
`Visual Output . . . onto Arbitrary 3D Geometry”), 18:46-56 (“close button 420 on [a] texture map”
`
`in Figure 10), Fig. 10 (showing close button 420 on a 3D object), 23:17-25 (texture mapping to
`
`the “3-D interactive Cartesian space”), 22:34-40 (“texture mapping . . . into . . . 3D Cartesian
`
`space”). By contrast, nowhere do the patents refer to texture mapping being performed onto 2D
`
`objects, as SpaceTime3D’s construction would allow. See Wi-LAN USA, 830 F.3d at 1382.
`
`Second, as SpaceTime3D agrees, “texturing” refers to certain “drawing or mapping.”
`
`Furthermore, the specification consistently describes the drawing or mapping (of 2D images or
`
`graphics) as being performed onto 3D objects. See Wi-LAN USA, 830 F.3d at 1382. For example,
`
`the specification states that “the 3D GUI provides full functionality and interactivity of the 2D
`
`display of a user’s computer . . . redrawn into a novel simulated real-time 3D immersive Cartesian
`
`space, whereby the 2D graphics are drawn or mapped onto 3D objects.” ’048 patent, 22:17-24
`
`(emphasis added). The specification further discloses that “the 3D GUI is adapted to create a
`
`visual computing history, whereby normal changes to a 2D computer display output are drawn or
`
`mapped onto new 3D objects, rather than replace the current output or 2D display once a change
`
`is made.” Id., 26:20-24 (emphasis added). Thus, the specification consistently refers to “texture
`
`mapping” (which, as explained above, is synonymous with “texturing”) as the drawing or mapping
`
`onto 3D objects.
`
`As such, the intrinsic record confirms that Apple’s proposed construction of “texturing”
`
`should be adopted, and SpaceTime3D’s proposed construction should be rejected.
`
`9
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`Notably, Judge Payne reached this same conclusion in the Samsung case. Samsung Claim
`
`Construction Order, 23. Judge Payne found, for example, that the specification associates the term
`
`“texture” with “drawing and mapping.” Id. at 22 (citing ’048 patent, 22:17-24). Judge Payne
`
`further explained that the specification recites, in multiple places, that “2D graphics are drawn or
`
`mapped onto 3D objects.” Id. at 23 (quoting ’048 patent, 22:17-24) (emphasis added by Judge
`
`Payne); see also id. at 22 (quoting ’048 patent, 26:20-24). Accordingly, Judge Payne adopted the
`
`claim construction proposed by Apple here, and rejected the construction being proposed again by
`
`SpaceTime3D. Id. at 23.
`
`Apple’s proposed construction is also consistent with the customary usage for the term as
`
`set forth in not only the intrinsic record as set forth above, but also the contemporaneous written
`
`references. For example, consistent with the intrinsic record as explained above, the Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002) defines “texture mapping” as a process in “3-D graphics”
`
`whereby a picture or pattern is “‘wrapped’ around the object.” Ex. F, SpaceTime3D v. Samsung,
`
`Dkt. 64-1 at 5. For the picture or pattern to be “wrapped” around an object, that object must be
`
`three-dimensional; it would not make sense to “wrap” a picture or pattern around a 2D surface.
`
`Indeed, the example given by that reference is that “a texture map of stones might be wrapped
`
`around a pyramid shape.” Id. A pyramid shape is, of course, three-dimensional. Thus, according
`
`to the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, texture mapping in 3D graphics involves an image (e.g.,
`
`picture or pattern) being wrapped (drawn or mapped) around a 3D object (e.g., pyramid). Apple’s
`
`expert, Dr. Wolfe, confirms that the Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines “texture mapping” as
`
`necessarily occurring onto 3D objects. Ex. E (Wolfe Decl.), ¶ 39.
`
`As Dr. Wolfe further explains, “texturing” is a term of art in the computer graphics field,
`
`and that term of art is consistent only with Apple’s proposed construction. Ex. E (Wolfe Decl.),
`
`10
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
`¶¶ 37, 39, 44. According to Dr. Wolfe, there is a limitation to 3D models in computer graphics in
`
`that they are essentially limited to a single color per surface, while objects in the real world have
`
`more detailed and varied appearances. Id., ¶¶ 25-26. Texturing refers to a technique in the art
`
`whereby images may be placed onto the surfaces of 3D objects in order to give those 3D surfaces
`
`the appearance of a texture. Id., ¶ 25. Dr. Wolfe notes that he has never heard of “texturing” as
`
`referring to drawing or mapping an image onto a 2D figure. Id., ¶ 27. To a person of skill in the
`
`art, therefore, “texturing” as used in the claims of the ’048 patent refers to drawing or mapping an
`
`image onto a 3D object as Apple proposes, not onto a 2D object as SpaceTime3D’s construction
`
`would allow. Id., ¶¶ 34-35. Dr. Wolfe also explains that the extrinsic references identified by
`
`SpaceTime3D do not counsel for any different a conclusion. Id., ¶¶ 40-43. For example, Dr.
`
`Wolfe explains that none of SpaceTime3D’s references suggest a different meaning for texturing
`
`other than the common usage in the field of “drawing or mapping an image onto a 3D object.” Id.,
`
`¶¶ 40-43.
`
`In sum, Apple’s proposed construction for “texturing” is supported by the intrinsic record
`
`and the extrinsic evidence, and is identical to the construction ordered by Judge Payne in the
`
`Samsung case. SpaceTime3D’s proposed construction, by contrast, is inconsistent with the
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, and was already rejected by Judge Payne in the prior lawsuit. Yet,
`
`SpaceTime3D recycles its same failed construction here in an effort to get a broader construction
`
`from this Court. Apple’s construction, which would require the object being drawn or mapped
`
`onto a 3D object, should be adopted.
`
`11
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Preambles to claims 1, 10, and 19 of the ’868 patent
`
`Apple’s Proposal
`The preambles are limiting.
`
`SpaceTime3D’s Proposal
`No construction necessary;
`plain and ordinary meaning
`applies.
`
`Alternatively: Preamble is not
`limiting.
`
`Terms
`Preambles to the independent
`claims of the ’868 patent
`
`’868 patent, claims 1, 10, 19
`
`E.g.: 1.
`A method for using a two-
`dimensional (2D) space to
`selectively
`interact with a
`plurality of applications open
`on a device and a three-
`dimensional (3D) immersive
`space to switch between said
`plurality of application, said
`device
`having
`a
`fixed
`resolution display, comprising
`
`The parties’ other dispute concerns whether or not the preambles to the independent claims
`
`in the ’868 patent are limiting. Judge Payne already held in the prior suit that the preambles are
`
`limiting, and Apple seeks the same construction here.
`
`More specifically, the independent claims of the ’868 patent contain lengthy preambles
`
`that provide the antecedent basis for multiple terms in the body of the claim as illustrated below,
`
`using claim 1 as an example.
`
`1. A method for using a two-dimensional (2D) space to selectively interact with a plurality
`of applications open on a device and a three-dimensional (3D) immersive space to switch
`between said plurality of application, said device having a fixed resolution display,
`comprising:
`
`receiving a plurality of inputs from a user, said plurality of inputs comprising at least
`first, second, and third inputs;
`
`opening said plurality of applications in response to said plurality of inputs, said
`plurality of applications comprising at least first, second, and third applications,
`wherein for each one of said plurality of applications (i) an object is generated having
`application-specific data, (ii) said object is displayed in said 2D space on said fixed
`resolution display, and (iii) said user is allowed to modify at least a portion of said
`application-specific data by interacting with said object;
`
`12
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 16 of 21
`
`
`
`allowing a user to switch between said plurality of application, comprising;
`
`generating at least a plurality of images, said plurality of images comprising at least
`first, second, and third images, wherein said first image is an image of at least a
`portion of a first object generated by said first application and having first
`application-specific data, said second image is an image of at least a portion of a
`second object generated by said second application and having second application-
`specific data, and said third image is an image of at least a portion of a third object
`generated by said third application and having third application-specific data;
`
`replacing all objects corresponding to said plurality of applications that are visible
`in said 2D space with said plurality of images, said plurality of images being
`displayed in said 3D immersive space and 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, wherein a first
`one in said order is displayed in a foreground of said 3D immersive space, a second
`one in said order is displayed in a background of said 3D immersive space behind
`at least said first one in said order, and a third one in said order is displayed in said
`background of said 3D immersive space behind at least said second one in said
`order;
`
`allowing said user to move said plurality of images, wherein (i) movement of one
`of said plurality of images results in movement of all of said plurality of images,
`and (ii) continued movement in one direction of one of said plurality of images
`results in a perception to said user that said one of said plurality of images is moved
`off of said fixed resolution display; and
`
`allowing said user to delete at least one of said plurality of images from said 3D
`immersive space, wherein deletion of said second one in said order results in said
`third one in said order being moved to a location in said 3D immersive space where
`said second one in said order was located prior to said deletion; and
`
`allowing said user to interact with one of said first, second, and third applications,
`comprising:
`
`receiving a selection from said user of one of said plurality of images corresponding
`to one of said plurality of applications;
`
`replacing said plurality of images within said 3D immersive space with one of said
`first, second, and third objects corresponding to said one of said plurality of
`applications within said 2D space in response to said selection;
`
`receiving at least one interaction by said user with said one of said first, second,
`and third objects within said 2D space; and
`
`modifying said one of said first, second, and third application-specific data in
`response to said at least one interaction.
`
`13
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 17 of 21
`
`
`
`Where, as here, the preambles provide multiple antecedent bases for limitations in the
`
`bodies of the claims, they are limiting. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`
`289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[D]ependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for
`
`antecedent basis . . . indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed
`
`invention.”); see also Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 778 F.3d 1021, 1023-24 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) (finding a preamble limiting because it provides the antecedent basis for two terms in the
`
`claims’ bodies); C.W. Zumbiel Co. v. Kappos, 702 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding
`
`preambles limiting because they contain an antecedent basis).
`
`For example, the preamble of claim 1 provides the antecedent basis for four different terms
`
`that also appear in the body of the claim:
`
`Claim 1 Preamble (’868 patent at 38:40-44) Body
`“a two-dimensional (2D) space”
`“said 2D space” (’868 patent, 38:53-54)
`“a plurality of applications”
`“said plurality of applications” (’868 patent,
`38:48)
`“said 3D immersive space” (’868 patent, 39:6)
`“said fixed resolution display” (’868 patent,
`38:53-54)
`
`“a three-dimensional (3D) immersive space”
`“a fixed resolution display”
`
`Claim 10 Preamble (’868 patent at 40:40-44) Body
`“a two-dimensional (2D) space”
`“said 2D space” (’868 patent, 40:59)
`“a plurality of applications”
`“said plurality of applications” (’868 patent,
`40:53)
`“said 3D immersive space” (’868 patent,
`41:14)
`
`“a three-dimensional (3D) immersive space”
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 19 Preamble (’868 patent at 42:52-55) Body
`“a two-dimensional (2D) space”
`“said 2D space” (’868 patent, 42:64)
`“a plurality of applications”
`“said plurality of applications” (’868 patent,
`42:59)
`“said 3D immersive space” (’868 patent,
`43:19)
`
`“a three-dimensional (3D) immersive space”
`
`14
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 18 of 21
`
`
`
`Because the preambles provide the antecedent basis for multiple terms and are therefore
`
`necessary to give life and meaning to the claims, the preambles should be construed as limiting.
`
`See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Judge Payne reached the same conclusion in the Samsung case. There, Judge Payne held
`
`that the preambles of the claims of the ’868 patent are limiting at least because the bodies of the
`
`claims rely upon the preambles to provide antecedent basis. Samsung Claim Construction Order,
`
`32-33. The preambles are limiting on this basis alone.
`
`Additionally, the preambles are necessary to give “life, meaning, and vitality to the claims.”
`
`Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at 1305. As explained, the specification describes presenting a 3D space
`
`having multiple windows or applications, and allowing the user to select one of those windows or
`
`applications in the 3D space in order to allow the user to interact with the selected window or
`
`application in a 2D view. ’868 patent, 18:16-36, 22:53-58. The preambles set forth this very
`
`concept. E.g., id., cl. 1. Judge Payne likewise found that the preambles are necessary to give life,
`
`meaning, and vitality to the claims. Samsung Claim Construction Order, 32 (citing Pitney Bowes,
`
`182 F.3d at 1298). Judge Payne reasoned that the specification emphasizes the importance of
`
`“using a two-dimensional (2D) space to selectively interact with a plurality of applications open
`
`on a device and a three-dimensional (3D) immersive space . . . said device having a fixed
`
`resolution display.” Id. at 32. As Judge Payne found, this critical aspect of the alleged invention
`
`is found in the preamble of claim 1. Id. Likewise, the specification emphasizes the importance of
`
`“using a two-dimensional (2D) space to selectively interact with at least one of a plurality of
`
`applications open on a computing device and a three-dimensional (3D) space,” which is found in
`
`the preamble of claim 10. And the specification emphasizes the importance of “using a two-
`
`15
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 19 of 21
`
`
`
`dimensional (2D) space to selectively interact with at least one of a plurality of applications open
`
`on a device and a three-dimensional (3D) space,” which is in the preamble of claim 19.
`
`SpaceTime3D may argue that the preamble simply provides intended use or that the bodies
`
`of the claims provide structurally complete inventions. But that argument is contradicted by the
`
`fact that the preambles p