Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-14 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 3
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-14 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`EXHIBIT ZZ
`EXHIBIT ZZ
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-14 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`Exhibit A-26
`
`
`
`Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,068 (“’068 Patent”)1 under Pre-AIA Section 102 or Section 103 in view of
`Virtual Research Systems VR4 (“VR4”)2
`
`VR4 was publicly available by 1994. Plaintiffs assert a priority date of January 28, 2000 for the ’068 Patent. Even assuming that the
`’068 Patent is entitled to this priority date, VR4 qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (b).
`
`As described herein, the asserted claims of the ’068 Patent are invalid (a) under one or more sections of 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated
`expressly or inherently by VR4 (including the documents incorporated into VR4 by reference) and (b) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
`view of VR4 standing alone and, additionally, in combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and/or other prior art,
`including but not limited to the prior art identified in Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions and the prior art described in the claim charts attached
`in Exhibits A-1 – A-27. With respect to the proposed modifications to VR4, as of the priority date of the ’068 Patent, such modification would
`have been obvious to try, an obvious combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, a simple
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, a use of known techniques to improve a similar devices or method
`in the same way, an application of a known technique to a known device or method ready for improvement to yield predictable results, a
`variation of a known work in one field of endeavor for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market
`forces with variations that are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and/or obvious in view of teachings, suggestions, and motivations
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify or combine the prior art references.
`
`All cross-references should be understood to include material that is cross-referenced within the cross-reference. Where a particular
`figure is cited, the citation should be understood to encompass the caption and description of the figure as well as any text relating to or
`
`
`1 Discovery in this case is ongoing and, accordingly, this invalidity chart is not to be considered final. Defendants have conducted the invalidity analysis herein without
`having fully undergone claim construction and a Markman hearing. By charting the prior art against the claim(s) herein, Defendants are not admitting nor agreeing to
`Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the claims at issue in this case. Additionally, these charts provide representative examples of portions of the charted references that disclose
`the indicated limitations under Plaintiffs’ application of the claims; additional portions of these references other than the representative examples provided herein may
`also disclose the indicated limitation(s) and Defendants contend that the asserted claim(s) are invalid in light of the charted reference(s) as a whole. Defendants reserve
`the right to rely on additional citations or sources of evidence that also may be applicable, or that may become applicable in light of claim construction, changes in
`Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions, and/or information obtained during discovery as the case progresses. Further, by submitting these invalidity contentions,
`Defendants do not waive and hereby expressly reserve their right to raise other invalidity defenses, including but not limited to defenses under Sections 101 and 112.
`Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement this claim chart at a later date, including after the Court’s order construing disputed claim terms.
`
`2 The claim limitations described herein were disclosed by VR4 as of the earliest priority date of the ’068 Patent. For instance: Tor Berg, Virtual Reality Resource Guide
`(May 1995) (“Berg”); Chappell Brown, Test Bed Seeks Basic Principles of VR, Electronic Engineering Times (Aug. 4, 1997) (“Brown”); W. Barfield & T. Caudell,
`FUNDAMENTALS OF WEARABLE COMPUTERS AND AUGMENTED REALITY (2001) (“Barfield”); VR4 User’s Guide, Virtual Research Systems, Inc. (1994) (“VR4 User
`Guide”)
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-14 Filed 06/10/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`Exhibit B-26
`
`Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,301,648 (“’648 Patent”)1 under Pre-AIA Section 102 or Section 103 in view of
`Virtual Research Systems VR4 (“VR4”)2
`
`VR4 was publicly available by 1994. Plaintiffs assert a priority date of January 28, 2000 for the ’648 Patent. Even assuming that the
`’648 Patent is entitled to this priority date, VR4 qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (b).
`
`As described herein, the asserted claims of the ’648 Patent are invalid (a) under one or more sections of 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated
`expressly or inherently by VR4 (including the documents incorporated into VR4 by reference) and (b) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
`view of VR4 standing alone and, additionally, in combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and/or other prior art,
`including but not limited to the prior art identified in Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions and the prior art described in the claim charts attached
`in Exhibits B-1 – B-27. With respect to the proposed modifications to VR4, as of the priority date of the ’648 Patent, such modification would
`have been obvious to try, an obvious combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, a simple
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, a use of known techniques to improve a similar devices or method
`in the same way, an application of a known technique to a known device or method ready for improvement to yield predictable results, a
`variation of a known work in one field of endeavor for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market
`forces with variations that are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and/or obvious in view of teachings, suggestions, and motivations
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify or combine the prior art references.
`
`All cross-references should be understood to include material that is cross-referenced within the cross-reference. Where a particular
`figure is cited, the citation should be understood to encompass the caption and description of the figure as well as any text relating to or
`
`1 Discovery in this case is ongoing and, accordingly, this invalidity chart is not to be considered final. Defendants have conducted the invalidity analysis herein without
`having fully undergone claim construction briefing and a Markman hearing. By charting the prior art against the claim(s) herein, Defendants are not admitting nor
`agreeing to Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the claims at issue in this case. Additionally, these charts provide representative examples of portions of the charted references
`that disclose the indicated limitations under Plaintiffs’ application of the claims; additional portions of these references other than the representative examples provided
`herein may also disclose the indicated limitation(s) and Defendants contend that the asserted claim(s) are invalid in light of the charted reference(s) as a whole.
`Defendants reserve the right to rely on additional citations or sources of evidence that also may be applicable, or that may become applicable in light of claim
`construction, changes in Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions, and/or information obtained during discovery as the case progresses. Further, by submitting these
`invalidity contentions, Defendants do not waive and hereby expressly reserve their right to raise other invalidity defenses, including but not limited to defenses under
`Sections 101 and 112. Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement this claim chart at a later date, including after the Court’s order construing disputed claim
`terms.
`
`2
`
`The claim limitations described herein were disclosed by VR4 as of the earliest priority date of the ’648 Patent. For instance: Tor Berg, Virtual Reality Resource Guide
`(May 1995) (“Berg”); Chappell Brown, Test Bed Seeks Basic Principles of VR, Electronic Engineering Times (Aug. 4, 1997) (“Brown”); W. Barfield & T. Caudell,
`FUNDAMENTALS OF WEARABLE COMPUTERS AND AUGMENTED REALITY (2001) (“Barfield”); VR4 User’s Guide, Virtual Research Systems, Inc. (1994) (“VR4 User
`Guide”)
`
`1
`
`