Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 2343
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SPACETIME3D, INC.
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
` Case No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`On October 21, 2020, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the
`
`disputed claim terms within in United States Patent Nos. 8,881,048 (“the ’048 Patent”); 9,304,654
`
`(“the ’654 Patent”); and 9,696,868 (“the ’868 Patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”).
`
`Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in their claim construction
`
`briefing (Dkt. Nos. 55, 64 & 69), having considered the intrinsic evidence, and having made
`
`subsidiary factual findings about the extrinsic evidence, the Court hereby issues this Claim
`
`Construction Memorandum and Order. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc); see also Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 2344
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`APPLICABLE LAW .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS ........................................................................... 6
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS ..................................................................... 7
`
`A. Three-Dimensional (3D) Space Terms and Two-Dimensional (2D) Space
`Terms ..................................................................................................................... 7
`
`B. “texturing” .................................................................................................... 20
`
`C. “timeline” ..................................................................................................... 23
`
`D. “application-specific data” ........................................................................... 26
`
`E. The preambles of the ’868 Patent’s independent claims .............................. 30
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 2345
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff SpaceTime3D, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively “Defendants” or “Samsung”) infringe the
`
`Asserted Patents. Shortly before the start of the October 21, 2020 hearing, the Court provided the
`
`parties with preliminary constructions with the aim of focusing the parties’ arguments and
`
`facilitating discussion.
`
`All of the Asserted Patents are related to each other and share effectively the same
`
`specification. Plaintiff contends that the Asserted Patents describe systems and methods for easily,
`
`efficiently, and intuitively interacting with and switching between applications operating on a
`
`computing device by switching between individual, active applications in a two-dimensional space
`
`and images of those applications in a stack displayed in three-dimensional space. Dkt. No. 55 at
`
`6.1 Plaintiff further contends that this benefits consumers by saving time when inputting
`
`information into a computer or mobile device to run applications or to navigate to certain
`
`information. Id. at 7. (citing ’048 Patent at 1:38–55, 36:37–52).
`
`The Abstract of the ’048 Patent states the following:
`
`Methods and systems are provided for providing an improved three-dimensional
`graphical user interface. In one embodiment, the method generally comprises:
`receiving an input from an end user, and capturing computing output from at least
`one computer source in response to the received end-user input. The computing
`output can be presented as two or more objects within a three-dimensional virtual
`space displayed to the end user. In one embodiment, the method further comprises
`generating a timeline that includes an icon for each object presented within the
`virtual space. In another embodiment, the method further comprises providing a
`database for storing and categorizing data regarding each object presented within
`the virtual space.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’048 Patent is an illustrative claim and recites the following elements
`
`1 Citations to the parties’ filings are to the filing’s number in the docket (Dkt. No.) and pin cites
`are to the page numbers assigned through ECF.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 2346
`
`(disputed terms in italics):
`
`1. A method for providing a three-dimensional (3D) graphical
`user interface, comprising:
`receiving at least first and second inputs from an end user;
`receiving first and second webpages from at least one server in
`response to said first and second inputs, wherein the first
`and second inputs are website addresses corresponding to
`said first and second webpages, respectively;
`displaying at least a portion of the first webpage on a first object
`within a 3D space, and at least a portion of the second
`webpage on a second object within the 3D space,
`comprising;
`rendering the first and second webpages;
`capturing first and second images of the at least a portion of the
`first webpage and
`the at least a portion of the second webpage, respectively; and
`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; and
`displaying additional information, comprising:
`receiving an interaction by the end user on the first image;
`replacing the first and second objects within the 3D space with a
`window within a two-dimensional (2D) space in response
`to receiving the interaction, wherein the window includes
`the rendered first webpage;
`receiving an interaction by the end user on a link provided in the
`rendered first webpage, the link corresponding to the
`additional information;
`rendering the additional information; and
`displaying the rendered additional information in said window
`within the 2D space.
`
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`II.
`
`This Court’s claim construction analysis is guided by the Federal Circuit’s decision in
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In Phillips, the Federal
`
`Circuit reiterated that “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled
`
`the right to exclude.” Id. at 1312 (citations omitted). The starting point in construing such claims
`
`is their ordinary and customary meaning, which “is the meaning that the term would have to a
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 2347
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective
`
`filing date of the patent application.” Id. at 1312–13 (citations omitted).
`
`However, Phillips made clear that “the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read
`
`the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears,
`
`but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. at 1313. For this reason, the
`
`specification is often “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. at 1315 (citation
`
`omitted). However, it is the claims, not the specification, which set forth the limits of the patentee’s
`
`invention. Id. at 1312 (citations omitted). Thus, “it is improper to read limitations from a preferred
`
`embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the claims
`
`absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so
`
`limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations
`
`omitted). Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining a claim’s meaning. See,
`
`e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (explaining that use of “steel baffles” and “baffles” implied that
`
`“baffles” did not inherently refer to objects made of steel).
`
`The prosecution history also plays an important role in claim interpretation as intrinsic
`
`evidence of how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the inventor understood the
`
`patent. Id. at 1317 (citations omitted); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d
`
`1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “a patentee’s statements during prosecution, whether
`
`relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation”); Aylus Networks, Inc. v.
`
`Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying this principle in the context of inter
`
`partes review proceedings). However, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing
`
`negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it
`
`often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.”
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 2348
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citing Athletic Alts., Inc. v. Prince Mfg., 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1996) (noting that ambiguous prosecution history may be “unhelpful as an interpretive resource”
`
`for claim construction)) (other citation omitted).
`
`Additionally, courts may rely on extrinsic evidence such as “expert and inventor testimony,
`
`dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Id. at 1317 (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996)). As the Supreme Court explained,
`
`“In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic
`
`evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background
`
`science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.” Teva Pharm,
`
`574 U.S. 318, 331 (2015) (citation omitted). However, the Federal Circuit has emphasized that
`
`such extrinsic evidence is subordinate to intrinsic evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (“[W]hile
`
`extrinsic evidence can shed useful light on the relevant art, we have explained that it is less
`
`significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim
`
`language.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS
`
`The parties agreed to the constructions of the following term in their October 7, 2020 P.R.
`
`4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction Chart.
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`“database”
`
`’654 Patent: Claim 4
`’868 Patent: Claim 4
`
`Agreed Construction
`“a collection of stored data”
`
`Dkt. No. 75-1 at 1. In view of the parties’ agreement on the proper construction of the identified
`
`terms, the Court hereby ADOPTS the parties’ agreed constructions.
`
`
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 2349
`
`
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`The parties dispute the meaning of six terms/phrases in this case.
`
`A. Three-Dimensional (3D) Space Terms and Two-Dimensional (2D) Space
`Terms
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“a virtual space in which objects
`have a horizontal position (x), a
`vertical position (y), and a depth
`(z)”
`
`“a virtual space in which objects
`have only a height and width”
`
`Disputed Term
`“three-dimensional (3D)
`[immersive] space”
`
`“three-dimensional
`space”
`
`“3D [immersive] space”
`
`“two-dimensional (2D)
`space”
`
`“two-dimensional
`space”
`
`“2D space”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`No construction necessary;
`plain and ordinary meaning
`applies.
`
`Alternatively: “A simulated (or
`virtual) space that has the
`appearance of an x-axis, y-
`axis, and z-axis displayed to an
`end user on a two-dimensional
`screen”
`No construction necessary;
`plain and ordinary meaning
`applies.
`
`Alternatively: “A space with
`only an x-axis and y-axis on
`which objects or windows can
`be displayed, such as a flat
`screen”
`
`1. The Parties’ Positions
`
`The parties present two disputes for the 2D Space Terms. The parties first dispute whether
`
`the claimed “2D space” refers to a virtual space, such as a GUI created by a computer’s output, as
`
`Defendants propose, or if it refers to a physical device “on which” objects are displayed, as
`
`Plaintiff proposes. The parties also dispute whether a “2D space” is a space “in which objects have
`
`only a height and width,” as Defendants propose, or if it is one “with only an x-axis and a y-axis,”
`
`as Plaintiff proposes. Regarding the 3D Space Terms, the parties dispute whether the claimed “3D
`
`space” should be construed to include objects having depth, as Defendants propose, or if the
`
`claimed “3D space” can include a GUI with the appearance of a z-axis, as Plaintiff proposes.
`
`Plaintiff contends that jurors will readily understand the meaning of “3D” and “2D.” Dkt.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 2350
`
`No. 55 at 9. Plaintiff also contends that each independent claim puts the terms “3D space” and
`
`“2D space” in the context of a graphical user interface in which objects or windows are displayed
`
`within a 3D or 2D space. Id. at 10 (citing ’048 Patent at claim 1; ’654 Patent at claim 1; ’868 Patent
`
`at claim 1). Plaintiff further argues that Defendants’ constructions do not define 3D or 2D space
`
`at all. Id. at 11. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ constructions define a 3D or 2D object, which
`
`it contends is inconsistent with the claim language, and would read out numerous embodiments
`
`disclosed by the specification. Id.
`
`Plaintiff next argues that the specification confirms that “3D space” concerns a virtual
`
`space with the appearance of an x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis that is displayed on a screen. Id. (citing
`
`’048 Patent at 4:59–5:8, 7:66–67, 8:13–16, 2:64–3:4, 31:48–59). According to Plaintiff, the
`
`specification confirms that it is not the object displayed in a window that must be 3D, but instead
`
`is a virtual space that must have the appearance of 3D. Id. at 12. Plaintiff argues that the figures
`
`included in the specification further confirm that the space is what must have the appearance of
`
`having an x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis. Id. (citing ’048 Patent at Figures 11 and 13A).
`
`Plaintiff contends that the objects within the 3D space can appear as 2D or 3D depending
`
`on the “user’s viewpoint . . . , where ‘viewpoint is defined as a specific location or perspective in
`
`the local coordinate system (3D space) from which the user can view the scene or file.” Id. at 13-
`
`14 (citing ’048 Patent at 9:62–65, 23:9–12). Plaintiff argues that the user’s viewpoint within the
`
`3D space dictates whether the displayed objects themselves appear 2D or 3D, but does not change
`
`the fact that the space itself has the appearance of depth, width, and height. Id. at 14 (citing ’048
`
`Patent at 9:62–65, 23:9–12).
`
`Plaintiff also argues that Defendants improperly read out all the 3D space embodiments
`
`disclosed in the specification in which the user’s viewpoint is head on. Id. at 14 (citing ’048 Patent
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 2351
`
`at Figures. 9, 10, 13A, 15, 16A, 16B, 17A, 17B, 17C, 21, 22). Plaintiff contends that Defendants’
`
`construction would render nonsensical the claim language of the ’654 and ’868 Patents. Id. at 15.
`
`Plaintiff further contends that the “objects” are displayed in 2D space, and not 3D space, in the
`
`claims of the ’654 and ’868 Patents. Id. (citing ’868 Patent at 38:53, 40:58–59, 39:40–44, 41:10–
`
`14; ’654 Patent at 38:25–29, 40:8–12).
`
`Regarding the 2D space term, Defendants respond that the claims make clear that the
`
`recited “2D space” is a type of GUI created by the computer’s output within which something is
`
`displayed and is not a physical device. Dkt. No. 64 at 8. Defendants argue that the claims recite
`
`displaying objects “within” or “in” the 2D space rather than “on” the 2D space. Id. at 8-9 (citing
`
`’048 Patent at claims 1-3, 5; ’868 Patent at claim 1; ’654 Patent at claim 1). Defendants next argue
`
`that the claims separately recite the “2D space” and the physical screen. Id. at 9. Defendants
`
`contend that the physical display screen is neither the 2D space nor the 3D space, but instead is
`
`hardware used to display both virtual spaces. Id.
`
`Defendants also contend that the specification introduces a “2D (two-dimensional) visual
`
`display” as a GUI. Id. (citing ’048 Patent at 1:56–2:3). Defendants argue that the specification then
`
`describes many 2D graphics and other 2D computer-generated output that may make up the 2D
`
`GUI. Id. at 10. Finally, Defendants contend that the specification indicates that “2D” and “3D” are
`
`two variants of GUIs. Id. (citing ’048 Patent at 21:53–58, 24:27–34, 31:50–57, 33:26–32, 33:50–
`
`57). Defendants argue that Plaintiff never explains why “3D space” should be construed as a virtual
`
`space while “2D space” should not, because both are virtual spaces. Id.
`
`Defendants further argue that Plaintiff’s construction falls short because it fails to
`
`distinguish a 2D space from what Plaintiff contends is a 3D space. Id. According to Defendants,
`
`the specification teaches that a 2D GUI can have an x-axis and a y-axis, and also have the
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 2352
`
`appearance of a z-axis. Id. at 11 (citing ’048 Patent at 2:6–12). Defendants argue that a construction
`
`that results in a GUI being both a 2D and 3D space should be rejected, because the 2D and 3D
`
`spaces are different things. Id. Defendants also argue that the specification explains that a 2D space
`
`displays 2D objects, and the specification only discusses a 2D space displaying 2D objects. Id.
`
`Defendants contend that the claimed 3D space must display 3D objects. Id. According to
`
`Defendants, the claimed 2D and 3D spaces are defined at least in part by the type of objects (3D
`
`or 2D) displayed in the respective spaces. Id.
`
`Regarding the 3D space term, Defendants argue that the specification acknowledged the
`
`prior art’s shortcomings. Id. at 12 (citing ’048 Patent at 1:37–2:43, 2:47–48). Defendants contend
`
`that the specification teaches that a 3D space differs from a 2D space because the 3D space’s
`
`objects have depth, and that such depth is “important” in creating the “new virtual space.” Id. at
`
`13 (citing ’048 Patent at 2:47–55). According to Defendants, the specification distinguishes prior
`
`art 2D spaces from the 3D spaces defined by 3D objects that “have depth.” Id.
`
`Defendants also argue that the specification repeatedly shows windows of 3D spaces with
`
`objects that are not limited to “height and width only,” but “also have depth.” Id. (citing ’048
`
`Patent at Figures 10-12, 19). Defendants contend that the specification teaches that although the
`
`system may display a “2D version” of a 3D object, it does so outside of the 3D space. Id. at 14
`
`(citing ’048 Patent at 21:20–49). According to Defendants, their construction is derived from the
`
`specification’s teaching that “[w]e live in a 3D (three-dimensional) world where we see that
`
`objects that not only have a horizontal position (x) and vertical position (y) but also have depth
`
`(z).” Id. (citing ’048 Patent at 2:14–18, 2:51–55).
`
`Defendants next contend that Plaintiff’s argument that their construction defines 3D objects
`
`rather than 3D spaces is wrong. Id. Defendants argue that the specification describes “the 3D GUI”
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 2353
`
`“creat[ing]” “the 3D immersive space.” Id. (citing ’048 Patent at 9:62–66, 4:59–63, 5:6–10).
`
`Defendants further argue that the only passage cited by Plaintiff teaches using 3D objects in a 3D
`
`space and, at most, teaches that a 3D space could include both “2D and 3D objects.” Id. at 16.
`
`Defendants also contend that the specification shows that the objects in Figure 13A do in fact have
`
`depth, and all three dimensions of the window are seen in Figure 19 because the window has been
`
`rotated. Id. at 16-17 (citing ’048 Patent at Figures 13A, 19). According to Defendants, there is no
`
`3D space/2D object embodiment in the specification that is being read out of the claims by
`
`Defendants’ construction. Id. at 17 (citing ’048 Patent at 28:53–57, Figures 9, 10). Finally,
`
`Defendants argue that their construction does not equate the word “object” with “3D.” Id. at 17-
`
`18.
`
`Regarding Plaintiff’s construction, Defendants argue that it is incorrect because the
`
`construction reads on the prior art 2D windows that are described in the specification that have
`
`height and width, and also “appear as if they have depth.” Id. at 19 (citing ’048 Patent at 1:67–
`
`2:12). Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s construction of 2D space reads on the prior art 2D
`
`windows that are described in the specification that actually have height and width, but only are
`
`made to “appear as if they have depth” by using shadows. Id. Defendants contend that two different
`
`spaces (3D and 2D) cannot read on the same windows. Id.
`
`Plaintiff replies that in order to create a 3D space on a display device, the 3D space must
`
`be “simulated” or “virtual,” and have “the appearance of a[] . . . z-axis.” Dkt. No. 69 at 5 (citing
`
`’048 Patent at 7:66–67). Plaintiff argues that any “3D space” is necessarily a simulated space or
`
`environment, because the objects are being virtually displayed on a GUI of a flat 2D surface. Id.
`
`Plaintiff contends that Defendants improperly conflate “space” with “objects” by insisting that a
`
`“2D space” is a virtual space in which displayed objects have only height and width, while a “3D
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 2354
`
`space” is a virtual space in which displayed objects have height, width, and depth. Id. at 6.
`
`Plaintiff further argues that the claim language describes a “2D space” and “3D space, not
`
`“2D object” or “3D object.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff also argues that the claim language makes clear that
`
`objects (’048 Patent) and images (’654 and ’868 Patents) are displayed in a foreground and
`
`background of the 3D space, indicating that it is the space, not the objects/images within it, that
`
`has the appearance of a z-axis. Id. (citing ’048 Patent at 38:35–37; ’654 Patent at 39:15–16).
`
`Plaintiff further argues that the claims also distinguish between “space” and “objects.” Id. at 7
`
`(citing ’048 Patent at 37:57–58; ’654 Patent at 38:25–28; ’868 Patent at 38:53–54).
`
`Plaintiff next argues that the specification makes clear that both 2D and 3D objects can
`
`exist in 3D space. Id. (citing ’048 Patent at 31:52–57, 33:26–29, 33:50–55, 2:28–34). Plaintiff
`
`contends that a space with an appearance of width (x), height (y), and depth (z) is a 3D space, not
`
`a 2D space. Id. at 8. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants’ “illustration” on page 14 shows a 3D
`
`space, not a 2D space, and their assertion that the specification supports their position is incorrect.
`
`Id. at 8. Plaintiff argues that during prosecution of the ’048 Patent, the examiner found that figures
`
`from U.S. Pat. No. 6,768,999 (Prager) featuring overlapping windows disclosed a 3D space. Id. at
`
`8 (citing Dkt. No. 69-1 at 6-7).
`
`
`
`2. Analysis
`
`The terms “three-dimensional (3D) [immersive] space,” “three-dimensional space,” and
`
`“3D [immersive] space” (collectively the “3D Terms”) appear in asserted claims 1, 8, and 14 of
`
`the ’048 Patent; claims 1, 10, and 19 of the ’654 Patent; and claims 1, 10, and 19 of the ’868 Patent.
`
`The Court finds that the terms are used consistently in the claims and are intended to have the
`
`same general meaning in each claim. The terms “two-dimensional (2D) space,” “two-dimensional
`
`space,” and “2D space” (collectively the “2D Terms”) appear in asserted claims 1, 8, and 14 of the
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 2355
`
`’048 Patent; claims 1, 10, and 19 of the ’654 Patent; and claims 1, 10, and 19 of the ’868 Patent.
`
`The Court finds that the terms are used consistently in the claims and are intended to have the
`
`same general meaning in each claim.
`
`A review of the intrinsic evidence indicates that the 2D terms and 3D terms should be
`
`considered together given that they operate within the same display. See, e.g., ’048 Patent at 7:59–
`
`63 (“The invention provides a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that uses the two-dimensional
`
`display of an end user's computer to display information (e.g., webpages and other information
`
`mapped onto 3D objects) in a simulated real-time 3-D immersive Cartesian space.”), 21:54–58
`
`(“[A]n 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 2D Terms relate to and describe the prior art, and the 3D Terms relate to the heart of
`
`the invention as indicated by the statement that “[t]he present invention is directed toward
`
`graphical user interfaces for operating and accessing information on a computer, and more
`
`particularly, to a three-dimensional (‘3D’) interactive computing interface and sorting interface .
`
`. . .” Id. at 1:28–31 (emphasis added). Regarding the prior art and the 2D Terms, the specification
`
`states the following:
`
`People currently compute within operating systems that present computer output,
`such as documents, applications, and operating system’s interface in a 2D (two-
`dimensional) visual display. After initially being loaded into the computer by the
`boot program, the operating system controls all the other programs in a computer.
`Typically, the component of the operating system that summons the style in which
`this output is displayed is called the GUI or graphical user interface. A successful
`GUI will use screen presentations including metaphors that utilize graphic elements
`such as icons to make an operating system’s input and output easier to manage.
`Most computer operating systems incorporate a GUI that utilizes two-dimensional
`graphics to capture, process, and output all input from an end user in a 2D form–
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 2356
`
`having height and width only.
`
`This output is usually confined within a window that is drawn on a finite-sized
`desktop, i.e., the working area of a computer, that has a given length and width.
`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. In some operating systems, a shadow
`is drawn beneath these overlapping windows on the desktop to make them appear
`as if they have depth. This technique allows an end user to identify the overlapping
`windows more easily.
`
`Id. at 1:56–2:14. Similarly, the specification states that “the present invention displays graphics
`
`from the user’s 2D finite desktop in 3D infinite space while retaining the functionality of the 2D
`
`programs and documents.” Id. at 5:43–46. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the 2D Terms mean “a finite graphical area defined by a two-dimensional
`
`coordinate system.”
`
`Regarding the 3D Terms, the intrinsic evidence indicates that they should be construed to
`
`mean “a virtual space defined by a three-dimensional coordinate system.” Specifically, the
`
`specification describes this virtual or simulated space as follows:
`
`This system or 3D interactive computing interface will create what is known as a
`virtual space on the computer desktop for which it runs through the browser
`program. A virtual space is simply a program (running within the run-time
`environment/3D-rendering browser) simulating a 3D space within a flat 2D display
`by redrawing objects in the virtual space relative to one another as determined by
`their perceived distance from the viewer, FIG. 2. Objects that are supposed to be
`further away are drawn smaller whereas objects that are supposed to be closer are
`drawn larger.
`
`Id. at 13:65–14:5, see also id. at 21:17–21.
`
`Figure 10 illustrates the virtual 3D space displayed within a 2D finite graphical area.
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 2357
`
`
`
`Id. at Figure 10. The specification further contrasts and distinguishes the “seemingly unlimited”
`
`or “infinite” virtual space of the 3D GUI to the finite graphical working area of the desktop. Id. at
`
`15:43–47 (“In general, the present invention displays graphics from the user’s 2D finite desktop
`
`in 3D infinite space while retaining the functionality of the 2D programs and documents. Users
`
`will be able to use these files and applications, without restrictions, within 3D spaces.”). Similarly,
`
`the specification states that the 3D graphical user interface “takes a user from one computing place
`
`to another while creating the illusion of infinite space in three dimensions (‘3D’).” Id. at 4:60–63.
`
`Thus, the virtual space is critical to the 3D Terms.
`
`The specification further states that “[w]ithin the 3D immersive space that the 3D GUI
`
`creates, the user’s viewpoint can be changed, where ‘viewpoint’ is defined as a specific location
`
`or perspective in the local coordinate system (3D space) from which the user can view the scene
`
`SPACETIME3D
`EXHIBIT 2010 - PAGE 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 16 of 33 PageID #: 2358
`
`or file.” Id. at 9:63–66. In one embodiment, the specification describes the viewpoint as having an
`
`x, y, and z position within the virtual space. Id. at 13:8–13, see also id. at 15:55–16:4, 12:21–28.
`
`Accordingly, the Court construes the 3D Terms to mean “a virtual space defined by a three-
`
`dimensional coordinate system.”
`
`Turning to the parties’ constructions, the Court rejects Defendants’ constructions because
`
`they include the term “objects.” It is true that “objects” may be displayed in the 3D space, but the
`
`term at issue is “spaces,” and not the term “objects.” Indeed, “objects” is a separately recited
`
`element in the claims. See, e.g., ’048 Patent at 37:57–58 (“displaying at least a portion of the first
`
`webpage on a first object within a 3D space”) (emphasis added); ’654 Patent at 38:25–28
`
`(“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”) (emphasis added); ’868 Patent at 38:53–54 (“said object is displayed in said
`
`2D space on said fixed resolution display”) (emphasis added).
`
`It is well understood that “different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus,
`
`Defendants’ construction improperly conflates “space” with “objects” by requiring that a “2D
`
`space” is a virtual space in which displayed objects (not the space) have only height and width,
`
`while a “3D space” is a virtual space in which displayed objects (again not the space) have height,
`
`width, and depth. Defendants’ construction does not define the “space,” but instead reads an
`
`“object” limitation into the disputed terms.
`
`Moreover, Defendants’ construction is problematic as it relates to the claim language of
`
`the ’654 and ’868 Patents. Claims 1 and 10 of the ’868 Patent specify that the