• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
137 results

Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 5,513,129

Docket IPR2015-00271, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Nov. 17, 2014)
Benjamin Wood, Michelle Osinski, Trenton Ward, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
5513129
Petitioner Harmonix Music Systems, Inc.
Patent Owner Princeton Digital Image Corporation
Petitioner Konami Digital Entertainment
cite Cite Docket

Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 5,513,129

Docket IPR2014-00635, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Apr. 15, 2014)
Benjamin Wood, Beth Shaw, Michelle Osinski, Trenton Ward, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
5513129
Petitioner Ubisoft Entertainment SA
Patent Owner Princeton Digital Image Corporation
cite Cite Docket

Harmonix Music Systems, Inc v. Princeton Digital Image Corporation

Docket IPR2014-00155, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Nov. 15, 2013)
Benjamin Wood, Michelle Osinski, Trenton Ward, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
5513129
Petitioner Harmonix Music Systems, Inc
Patent Owner Princeton Digital Image Corporation
cite Cite Docket

24 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2014-00635, No. 24 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2015)
As the Federal Circuit has noted, “the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis,” and, in fact, “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Kesan explains why generating and displaying messages to a user based on the comparison of stored music data and the user’s actual voice does not constitute ”operating the computer system in response to said prerecorded control track,” as recited in claim 10.
Finally, Patent Owner argues that Lytle does not disclose structure corresponding to the function recited in the “means for producing a virtual environment in response to the prerecorded control track” limitation of claim 16.
In any event, we agree with Petitioner that Lytle does disclose corresponding structure, i.e., a supercomputer programmed to read the MIDI files and create, move, and modify the virtual musical instruments accordingly.
Petitioner also contends that Adachi teaches an apparatus for extracting information from the music signal for modification of objects in a virtual environment, relying on essentially the same disclosure as for the required structure of the “supplying” means-plus- function limitation of claim 12.
cite Cite Document

23 Notice: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2014-00635, No. 23 Notice - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2015)
I mean, you're looking at things and I think the specific reference for Thalmann is, you know, you're seeing characters on the screens and their faces are moving with the words that are coming out of their mouth as if you were talking to them or listening to them, I guess would be the more appropriate way to characterize that.
Patent Owner I understand their argument to be that Lytle in order to meet the claim limitations would be to disclose a sound processor, a tape IF converter, audio source, digitizer, etcetera.
And for the reasons I just went through, we think it does and we don't think the Board should change its position because Lytle has these aspects of depth and sound and reflection that are meant to draw the user into the scene and make them feel like they're a part of it Case IPR2014-00635 Patent 5,513,129 as if they were banging the mallets on the xylophone or the marimba or whatever may be in there.
Case IPR2014-00635 Patent 5,513,129 They have a system that has musically-driven objects and I would note that in one of the references that was asserted in one of these other IPRs, it explicitly indicates that the Intel's former chairman, Gordon Moore, complimented the inventor, Mark Bolas, as a virtual reality trailblazer.
If you were to assume that we did not adopt your proposal with respect Case IPR2014-00635 Patent 5,513,129 to the construction of means for supplying a first signal to include the tape IF converter, digitizer, etcetera, does Lytle disclose the elements for Claim 12?
cite Cite Document

17 Notice: Notice of Refund

Document IPR2015-00271, No. 17 Notice - Notice of Refund (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2015)
Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on 11/17/2014 in the above proceeding is hereby granted.
The amount of $17,200 has been refunded to the Petitioner’s credit card.
Case IRP201-00271 Patent 5,513,129 The parties are reminded that unless otherwise permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(2), all filings in this proceeding must be made electronically in the Patent Review Processing System (PRPS), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
cite Cite Document

14 Institution Decision: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2015-00271, No. 14 Institution Decision - Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2015)

cite Cite Document

15 Notice: Decision Motion for Joinder

Document IPR2015-00271, No. 15 Notice - Decision Motion for Joinder (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2015)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10 >>