Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-00945
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`Issue Date: May 26, 2020
`
`Title: HAPTICALLY ENHANCED INTERACTIVITY WITH INTERACTIVE CONTENT
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JEREMY COOPERSTOCK, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`B.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................. 4
`A. Qualifications and Experience ............................................................. 4
`B. Materials Considered ........................................................................... 6
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 7
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES .................................................. 10
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 10
`B.
`Obviousness ....................................................................................... 12
`IV. THE ’143 PATENT ..................................................................................... 18
`A. Overview of the Specification ........................................................... 18
`B.
`The Challenged Claims ...................................................................... 19
`V. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS....................................................................................................... 21
`A.
`Brief Summary and Overview of the Prior Art ................................. 23
`1.
`Nogami [EX1003] ................................................................... 23
`Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 20 Are Obvious Over
`Nogami............................................................................................... 30
`1.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................... 30
`“a position sensor;” (1[a]) ............................................. 34
`(a)
`“a processor;” (1[b]) ...................................................... 36
`(b)
`“a non-transitory computer-readable medium
`(c)
`comprising program code that is executable by the
`processor to cause the processor to:” (1[c]) .................. 37
`“output first interactive content to a display, the
`first interactive content comprising a virtual
`environment;” (1[d]) ..................................................... 40
`
`(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`“receive one or more sensor signals from the
`position sensor;” (1[e]) .................................................. 48
`“determine a position of a peripheral in real space
`based on the one or more sensor signals, the
`peripheral configured to be worn on a user’s head”
`(1[f]) .............................................................................. 50
`“output second interactive content to the display
`based on the position of the peripheral in real
`space, the second interactive content being
`different from the first interactive content;” (1[g]) ....... 54
`“determine a haptic signal based on the position of
`the peripheral in real space and the second
`interactive content; and” (1[h]) ..................................... 58
`“transmit the haptic signal to a haptic output
`device, the haptic output device being configured
`to receive the haptic signal and output haptic
`feedback.” (1[i]) ............................................................ 63
`Claim 2: “The system of claim 1, wherein the position
`sensor is positioned on the peripheral.” ................................... 67
`Claim 3: “The system of claim 1, wherein the peripheral
`is a wearable device.” .............................................................. 68
`Claim 7: “The system of claim 1, wherein the peripheral
`is a first peripheral, and wherein the haptic output device
`is positioned on a second peripheral that is separate from
`the first peripheral.” ................................................................. 68
`Independent Claim 8................................................................ 70
`5.
`Claims 10 and 14 ..................................................................... 72
`6.
`Independent Claim 15.............................................................. 72
`7.
`Claims 17 and 20 ..................................................................... 74
`8.
`VI. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ....... 75
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 76
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`I, Jeremy Cooperstock, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Qualifications and Experience
`
`1.
`
`I am a professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at McGill University. My Curriculum Vitae is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`2.
`
`I received my B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering (with Honors) from the
`
`University of British Columbia in 1990, my M.Sc. in Computer Science from the
`
`University of Toronto in 1992, and my Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering from the University of Toronto in 1996.
`
`3.
`
`I am a member of the Centre for Intelligent Machines, and a founding
`
`member of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and
`
`Technology at McGill University. I presently direct a group of approximately 50
`
`researchers at the Shared Reality Lab at McGill, which focuses on computer
`
`mediation to facilitate high-fidelity human communication and the synthesis of
`
`perceptually engaging, multimodal, immersive environments. I led the development
`
`of the Intelligent Classroom, the world's first Internet streaming demonstrations of
`
`Dolby Digital 5.1, multiple simultaneous streams of uncompressed high-definition
`
`video, a high-fidelity orchestra rehearsal simulator, a simulation environment that
`
`renders graphic, audio, and vibrotactile effects in response to footsteps, and a mobile
`4
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`game treatment for amblyopia.
`
`4. My work on the Ultra-Videoconferencing system was recognized by an
`
`award for Most Innovative Use of New Technology from ACM/IEEE
`
`Supercomputing and a Distinction Award from the Audio Engineering Society. The
`
`research I supervised on the Autour project earned the Hochhausen Research Award
`
`from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and an Impact Award from the
`
`Canadian Internet Registry Association, and my Real-Time Emergency Response
`
`project won the Gold Prize (brainstorm round) of the Mozilla Ignite Challenge. I
`
`am also a recipient of several “best paper” awards from scholarly societies for my
`
`research.
`
`5.
`
`I have worked with IBM at the Haifa Research Center, Israel, and the
`
`Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, the Sony Computer
`
`Science Laboratory in Tokyo, Japan, and was a visiting professor at Bang & Olufsen,
`
`Denmark, where I conducted research on telepresence technologies as part of the
`
`World Opera Project. I led the theme of Enabling Technologies for a Networks of
`
`Centres of Excellence on Graphics, Animation, and New Media (GRAND) and I am
`
`an associate editor of the Journal of the AES, the Frontiers Journal in Virtual Reality,
`
`and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Transactions on
`
`Haptics.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I have carried out significant research
`
`involving design and
`
`implementation of haptic feedback systems, virtual and augmented reality, and
`
`mobile computing applications. My work in these areas has been recognized with
`
`several best paper awards. In recognition of my expertise in the domain of haptics, I
`
`was invited to serve as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on Haptics,
`
`Associate Editor for the Frontiers in Virtual Reality, and Associate Editor for the
`
`World Haptics Conference.
`
`7. My experience in academic and practical situations as well as my
`
`hands-on experience with multimedia production systems provides me with an
`
`appreciation of the technology involved with U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2.
`
`8.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner to provide my expert
`
`opinion in connection with the above-captioned proceeding as set forth herein.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`
`9.
`
`The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my education,
`
`research, and experience, as well as the documents I have considered. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have read and considered U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2 (“’143
`
`patent”) [EX1001] and its prosecution history. I have cited to the following
`
`documents in my analysis below:
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1003
`
`Description of Document
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2 to David M. Birnbaum, Danny A.
`Grant, and Robert W. Heubel (filed February 2, 2019 and issued May
`26, 2020) (“’143” or “’143 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0066725 A1 to Atsushi
`Nogami and Naoki Nishimura (filed Sep. 9, 2008 and published March
`12, 2009) (“Nogami”)
`
`1004 Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002)
`
`1005 Excerpts from Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology (2007)
`
`1006
`
`Joint Claim Construction Statement, Immersion Corp. v. Meta
`Platforms, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00541-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (dated Jan. 21,
`2023)
`
`1007 Prosecution history of the ’143 patent
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`10.
`
`I understand that, under the patent laws in effect before the America
`
`Invents Act (“AIA”) of 2011, an assessment of claims of a patent filed before the
`
`AIA took effect should be undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art as of the earliest claimed priority date (i.e., the “time the invention
`
`was made”). For purposes of the ’143 patent, I have assumed that date to be
`
`September 30, 2010, the filing date of the earliest patent application to which the
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`’143 patent claims priority (Appl. Ser. No. 12/895,161). I am also informed that in
`
`the related district court litigation, Patent Owner has asserted that the ’143 patent is
`
`entitled to a July 27, 2009 priority date. I express no opinion on whether the ’143
`
`patent is actually entitled to a priority date as early as July 27, 2009. This issue is
`
`not relevant here because all prior art relied upon pre-dates that date, and my
`
`analysis and conclusions (including POSITA definition) would not change applying
`
`a date as early as July 27, 2009. In the event a priority date before September 30,
`
`2010 may later become relevant, for example based on arguments later presented
`
`by Patent Owner, I reserve my right to provide opinions on that issue at that time.
`
`11.
`
`I have also been advised that to determine the appropriate level of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art, the following factors may be considered: (1)
`
`the types of problems encountered by those working in the field and prior art
`
`solutions thereto; (2) the sophistication of the technology in question, and the
`
`rapidity with which innovations occur in the field; (3) the educational level of
`
`active workers in the field; and (4) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`12.
`
`The ’143 patent states that it relates to “haptically enhanced
`
`interactivity with interactive content being conveyed to a user by a content output
`
`appliance, wherein the content output appliance is under control of one or more
`
`processors that control the output of the interactive content based on one or more
`8
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`position parameters of a peripheral being manipulated by the user.” (’143, 1:25-31.)
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of September 2010
`
`would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`science (or an equivalent degree), and two years of practical or industry experience
`
`in the field of human computer interaction, including implementation of computer-
`
`based systems and software for providing haptic feedback effects to a user and
`
`determining the position and/or orientation of a device used by a user (such as a
`
`device worm on the human body). A person could also have qualified as a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such
`
`as a master’s of science degree or higher) and less practical or industry experience,
`
`or (2) less formal education and more practical or industry experience.
`
`14. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, my decades of experience in the field, my understanding of
`
`the basic qualifications that would be relevant to an engineer or scientist tasked with
`
`investigating methods and systems in the relevant area, and my familiarity with the
`
`backgrounds of colleagues, research associates, and students, both past and present.
`
`15. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ’143 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`9
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of September 2010.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a purpose of claim construction is to determine what
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim terms to mean.
`
`Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`
`as of the effective filing date.
`
`17.
`
`I understand 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. I
`
`understand that the patent specification, under the legal principles, has been
`
`described as the single best guide to the meaning of a claim term, and is thus highly
`
`relevant to the interpretation of claim terms. And I understand for terms that do not
`
`have a customary meaning within the art, the specification usually supplies the best
`
`context of understanding the meaning of those terms.
`
`18.
`
`I further understand that other claims of the patent in question, both
`
`asserted and unasserted, can be valuable sources of information as to the meaning of
`
`a claim term. Because the claim terms are normally used consistently throughout
`10
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0010
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the
`
`same term in other claims. Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in
`
`understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history can further inform the meaning
`
`of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventors understood the invention
`
`and whether the inventors limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making
`
`the claim scope narrower than it otherwise would be. Extrinsic evidence, such as
`
`dictionaries, may also be consulted in construing the claim terms.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, a claim of
`
`a patent shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be
`
`used to construe the claim in a civil action filed in a U.S. district court (which I
`
`understand is called the “Phillips” claim construction standard), including
`
`construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such
`
`claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`
`pertaining to the patent.
`
`21.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel to apply the “Phillips” claim
`
`construction standard for purposes of interpreting the claims in this proceeding, to
`
`the extent they require an explicit construction. The description of the legal
`
`principles set forth above thus provides my understanding of the “Phillips” standard
`11
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0011
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`as provided to me by counsel.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in the related district court litigation, the parties
`
`dispute the meaning of one term appearing in the challenged claims: “real space.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that “real space” as used in the ’143 patent means “a three-
`
`dimensional area in the real world,” while Patent Owner asserts that the term should
`
`be given its “plain and ordinary meaning” but “to the extent that the Court believes
`
`that any further construction is necessary, the plain and ordinary meaning includes
`
`‘the three-dimensional real world user surroundings.’” (EX1006 (Joint Claim
`
`Construction Statement), p.002.) For purposes of my analysis here, I do not believe
`
`express claim constructions are necessary because the prior art renders the claims
`
`obvious under these competing claim constructions or any other reasonable
`
`construction.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if, as of the effective filing
`
`date, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`technology (the “art”) to which the claimed subject matter belongs.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the following factors should be considered in
`
`analyzing obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`12
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0012
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`art. I also understand that certain other facts known as “secondary considerations”
`
`such as commercial success, unexplained results, long felt but unsolved need,
`
`industry acclaim, simultaneous invention, copying by others, skepticism by experts
`
`in the field, and failure of others may be utilized as indicia of nonobviousness. I
`
`understand, however, that secondary considerations should be connected, or have a
`
`“nexus,” with the invention claimed in the patent at issue.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a reference qualifies as prior art for obviousness
`
`purposes when it is analogous to the claimed invention. The test for determining
`
`what art is analogous is: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
`
`regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field
`
`of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is assumed to have
`
`knowledge of all prior art. I understand that one skilled in the art can combine
`
`various prior art references based on the teachings of those prior art references, the
`
`general knowledge present in the art, or common sense. I understand that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be implicit in the prior art, and there is no
`
`requirement that there be an actual or explicit teaching to combine two references.
`
`Thus, one may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`13
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0013
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ to combine the known elements in the prior
`
`art in the manner claimed by the patent at issue. I understand that one should avoid
`
`“hindsight bias” and ex post reasoning in performing an obviousness analysis. But
`
`this does not mean that a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the
`
`obviousness inquiry does not have recourse to common sense.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that when determining whether a patent claim is obvious
`
`in light of the prior art, neither the particular motivation for the patent nor the stated
`
`purpose of the patentee is controlling. The primary inquiry has to do with the
`
`objective reach of the claims, and that if those claims extend to something that is
`
`obvious, then the entire patent claim is invalid.
`
`28.
`
`I understand one way that a patent can be found obvious is if there
`
`existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious
`
`solution encompassed by the patent’s claims. I understand that a motivation to
`
`combine various prior art references to solve a particular problem may come from a
`
`variety of sources, including market demand or scientific literature. I understand
`
`that a need or problem known in the field at the time of the invention can also provide
`
`a reason to combine prior art references and render a patent claim invalid for
`
`obviousness. I understand that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purpose, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the
`14
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0014
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`teachings of multiple prior art references together like the pieces of a puzzle. I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of at least ordinary
`
`creativity. I understand when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person
`
`of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`
`technical grasp. If this finite number of predictable solutions leads to the anticipated
`
`success, I understand that the invention is likely the product of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense, and not of any sort of innovation. I understand that the fact that a
`
`combination was obvious to try might also show that it was obvious, and hence
`
`invalid, under the patent laws. I understand that if a patent claims a combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods, the combination is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results. Thus, if a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, an invention is likely
`
`obvious. I understand that combining embodiments disclosed near each other in a
`
`prior art reference would not ordinarily require a leap of inventiveness.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by demonstrating that it
`
`would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to
`
`create the patented invention. Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating
`
`that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of
`15
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0015
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`prior art. I understand that a claimed invention may be obvious if some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation exists that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to combine the invalidating references. I also understand that this suggestion or
`
`motivation may come from the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, or from sources such as explicit statements in the prior art. I understand that
`
`when there is a design need or market pressure, and there are a finite number of
`
`predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill may be motivated to apply common
`
`sense and his skill to combine the known options in order to solve the problem.
`
`30.
`
`I understand the following are examples of approaches and rationales
`
`that may be considered in determining whether a piece of prior art could have been
`
`combined with other prior art or with other information within the knowledge of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art:
`
`(1)
`
`Some teaching, motivation, or suggestion in the prior art that would
`
`have led a person of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention;
`
`(2) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations would have been predictable to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art;
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0016
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`
`(3) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(4) Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(5) Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to
`
`try” (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with
`
`a reasonable expectation of success);
`
`(6)
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; or
`
`(7) Use of a known technique to improve similar products, devices, or
`
`methods in the same way.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that, when determining whether a claimed combination is
`
`obvious, the correct analysis is not whether one of ordinary skill in the art, writing
`
`on a blank slate, would have chosen the particular combination of elements
`
`described in the claim. Instead, I understand the correct analysis considers whether
`
`one of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the
`
`field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to selecting the combination claimed.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of
`
`a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
`17
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0017
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`reference. The test for obviousness, in other words, is not whether the references
`
`could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered
`
`obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.
`
`IV. THE ’143 PATENT
`A. Overview of the Specification
`
`33. The ’143 patent, entitled “Haptically Enhanced Interactivity With
`
`Interactive Content,” states that it “relates to haptically enhanced interactivity with
`
`interactive content being conveyed to a user by a content output appliance, wherein
`
`the content output appliance is under control of one or more processors that control
`
`the output of the interactive content based on one or more position parameters of a
`
`peripheral being manipulated by the user.” (’143, 1:25-31.)
`
`34.
`
`In the “Background of the Invention” section, the ’143 patent
`
`acknowledges the existence of systems where “[u]sers may interact with virtual
`
`objects within a virtual environment in a number of manners,” which may include
`
`that “users may manipulate a physical object in the real world in order to interact
`
`with a virtual object.” (’143, 1:35-38.) The patent states that such interactions “may
`
`involve augmented reality technology” and that “visual and/or audio feedback may
`
`provide a sense of interaction with virtual objects to users.” (’143, 1:38-45.) The
`
`patent asserts that “[i]n existing systems, however, no physical sense of interaction
`18
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0018
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`with virtual objects is provided to users.” (’143, 1:48-50.)
`
`35. The patent purports to describe “a system configured to present
`
`interactive content to a user that is manipulating a peripheral.” (’143, 1:54-56.) The
`
`system may include a “haptics module” that may be “configured to determine haptic
`
`feedback to be provided to the user,” where the haptic feedback may be determined
`
`based on an “identification of the peripheral” and “one or more position parameters”
`
`that are “related to the position of the peripheral.” (’143, 1:59-2:5.) The patent states
`
`that “[h]aptics may include tactile and/or kinesthetic (force) feedback technology
`
`that takes advantage of a user’s sense of touch by applying forces, vibrations,
`
`motions, and/or other touch feedback to the user.” (’143, 3:9-12.)
`
`36.
`
`I discuss additional aspects of the ’143 patent as needed in my analysis
`
`below.
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`37. This Declaration addresses claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 20 of
`
`the ’143 patent. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. Independent claim 1
`
`recites:
`
`1.
`
`A system comprising:
`
`[a]
`
`a position sensor;
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0019
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`
`[b]
`
`a processor; and
`
`[c]
`
`[d]
`
`[e]
`
`[f]
`
`[g]
`
`[h]
`
`[i]
`
`a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code
`that is executable by the processor to cause the processor to:
`
`output first interactive content to a display, the first interactive content
`comprising a virtual environment;
`
`receive one or more sensor signals from the position sensor;
`
`determine a position of a peripheral in real space based on the one or
`more sensor signals, the peripheral configured to be worn on a user’s
`head;
`
`output second interactive content to the display based on the position
`of the peripheral in real space, the second interactive content being
`different from the first interactive content;
`
`determine a haptic signal based on the position of the peripheral in real
`space and the second interactive content; and
`
`transmit the haptic signal to a haptic output device, the haptic output
`device being configured to receive the haptic signal and output haptic
`feedback.
`
`(’143, claim 1 (bracketed notation added).) Claim 8 recites a method with steps
`
`analogous to the functions recited in claim 1. (’143, claim 8.) Claim 15 recites a
`
`non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code that is
`20
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0020
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 B2
`
`
`executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform functions analogous to
`
`those recited in claim 1. (’143, claim 15.) I address the claims further in my detailed
`
`analysis in Part V below.
`
`V. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`38.
`
`I have reviewed and analyzed the prior art references and materials
`
`listed in Part I.B above. In my opinion the claims of the ’143 paten