• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 129-143 of 169 results

1008 Exhibit: Petitioners Exhibit 1008

Document IPR2015-00271, No. 1008 Exhibit - Petitioners Exhibit 1008 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2014)
The Board should construe this term as “a computer system programmed with software, and including peripheral devices, for producing a virtual environment.” Princeton Digital’s proposed construction is supported by the specification of the ’129 patent:
Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any challenged claim would have been obvious because — as explained in detail below — the Petition did not show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Pocock-Williams and Pimentel, and that the
Petitioner Failed To Show That A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Have Been Motivated To Combine The Teachings Of Pimentel and Pocock-Williams And Would Have Had A Reasonable Expectation Of Success In Doing So A party seeking to invalidate a patent as obvious must demonstrate that a “skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”101 This is determined at the time the invention was made.102 This temporal requirement prevents the “forbidden use of hindsight.”103 Rejections for
For example, one such system, described in NewMedia magazine published shortly before the filing date of the ‘129 patent, altered “the appearance of colored visual representations of sound waves (displayed on a
U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129 When a Petitioner fails to identify any objective evidence such as experimental data to support an assertion that a claimed invention is a predictable result of a known technique — as Petitioner has done here — this Board will decline to institute an IPR.122 Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed obviousness ground of unpatentability relies on the unproven assumption that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could easily generate a virtual environment from a user’s first person perspective from audio signals or a control track generated from audio signals.
cite Cite Document

2002 Exhibit: 2002

Document IPR2015-00271, No. 2002 Exhibit - 2002 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2015)
A Prior to moving to Vienna, I was an undergraduate student at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, where I studied electrical engineering and computer science and had a minor in music.
Could you tell me what the phrase in Claim 13 that reads processing said music signal to produce control information for modification of objects would mean to one of ordinary skill in the art, in your opinion?
Q (By Dr. Gonsalves) Would you include any other components on Figure 6 as being part of the structure that performs the function producing the virtual environment in response to said prerecorded control track?
A If you interpret prerecording to mean also capturing the control information, then the box in Figure 2 of the '835 patent labeled as 15 is described in column three as saying in step 50 the actions can be associated with time, positions or locations in the sound recording, either manually or automatically.
DR. GONSALVES: Typically I don't think it's a requirement that's always in force, but I think the best thing to do is to have the witness read and sign the transcript and then provide the signature page to me so I can put it as an exhibit in the record for this IPR.
cite Cite Document

1023 Exhibit: Exhibit 1023

Document IPR2014-00155, No. 1023 Exhibit - Exhibit 1023 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014)
"73 In Net MoneyIN, Inc., for example, the Federal Circuit found that the district court had improperly combined parts of the two different models of the prior art reference to find that a claim was anticipated.74
Rather, Williams discloses that different actions such as “actions such as face changes, arm movements, a bird flying, or a candlestick appearing out of nowhere … can be associated with the time, positions or locations in the sound recording either manually or Page 41 of 68
The Petitioner Failed To Show That A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Have Been Motivated To Combine The Teachings Of (i) Tsumura and Williams, (ii) Lytle and Adachi, or (iii) Thalmann and Williams To Achieve The Invention Claimed in the ‘129 Patent And Would Have Had A Reasonable Expectation Of Success In Doing So A party seeking to invalidate a patent as obvious must demonstrate that a “skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled
129 See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).
For example, one such system, described in NewMedia magazine published shortly before the filing date of the ‘129 patent, altered “the appearance of colored visual representations of sound waves (displayed on a large screen in a concert hall) in response to crowd noise (picked up by a microphone during a concert) and live music in MIDI format (generated by musicians during the concert).”142 Another earlier system described in U.S. Patent 4,257,062 (“the ’062 Patent”) controlled a set of lamps mounted on eyeware “by switching individual ones of the lamps on and off in response to music.”143 That is, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, a person of ordinary skill in the art (i.e. having two years of practical or post-graduate work in the area of computer-generated animations and/or graphics but no experience in virtual reality systems) would not have known how to generate a virtual environment (i.e., a graphic display from a user’s first person perspective) from audio signals or a control track generated from audio signals.
cite Cite Document

2003 Exhibit: Exhibit2003

Document IPR2014-00155, No. 2003 Exhibit - Exhibit2003 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2014)
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows: THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
Partitioning relieves stress on the weakened wall tissue and reduces chamber volume, thereby improving the heart function measurement known as ejection fraction.
Petitioner asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the relevant teachings of Murphy, Khairkhahan, and Lane to reach the claimed subject matter because these references “are related to the repair of a human heart.” Pet. 5; see also Pet. 9.
That the references relied upon all relate to human heart repair does not amount to “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See id. (internal quotations omitted).
Petitioner excerpts from Khairkhahan the same portions as in the challenges discussed supra, and similarly gives no explanation as to how the cited passages meet the claim limitation.
cite Cite Document

2004 Exhibit: Exhibit2004

Document IPR2014-00155, No. 2004 Exhibit - Exhibit2004 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2014)
Biography Mark Bolas is a research scientist, artist, and designer of perceptually focused computer systems used to augment per- ception, agency, and intelligence.
This effort provided the founda- tion for a number of seminal observations which led Mark toward a basic model for immersive experience design, con- cluding that the medium’s power to deeply transport a user is closely tied to finding an appropriate balance between realism and abstraction.
Mark co-founded Fakespace Inc. to build instrumenta- tion for research labs to explore virtual reality and grow the emerging field.
Fakespace products have been used to design cars at Chrysler, bring immersion to software environments like Catia, allow our national laboratories and research centers around the world to dig a bit deeper in visualizing their data, and educate patrons at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry.
These projects have explored context sensitive audio interfaces, socially interactive toys, augmented reality, confocal illumination, and mobile phone web logging.
cite Cite Document

1014 Exhibit: Harmonix Exhibit 1014

Document IPR2014-00155, No. 1014 Exhibit - Harmonix Exhibit 1014 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2013)
O The drawings filed on are acceptable 5 O Acknowledgment is made of the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119.
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE to comply with the requirements noted below is set to EXPIRE THREE MONTHS
O Note the attached EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT or NOTICE OF INFORMAL APPLICATION, PTO-152, which discloses that the oath or declaration is deficient.
d,_ _ormal drawings are now REQUIRED has been approved by the examiner CORRECTION IS information from the NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE Any response to this letter should include In the upper right hand corner, the following
It has been determined that content identified on this document is missing from the original file history record.
cite Cite Document

1003 Exhibit: Harmonix Exhibit 1003

Document IPR2014-00155, No. 1003 Exhibit - Harmonix Exhibit 1003 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2013)

cite Cite Document

2005 Exhibit: Exhibit 2005

Document IPR2014-00155, No. 2005 Exhibit - Exhibit 2005 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2014)

cite Cite Document

1015 Exhibit: Harmonix Exhibit 1015

Document IPR2014-00155, No. 1015 Exhibit - Harmonix Exhibit 1015 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2013)

cite Cite Document

1019 Exhibit: Harmonix Exhibit 1019

Document IPR2014-00155, No. 1019 Exhibit - Harmonix Exhibit 1019 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2013)

cite Cite Document

2001 Exhibit: Exhibit2001

Document IPR2014-00155, No. 2001 Exhibit - Exhibit2001 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2014)

cite Cite Document

1012 Exhibit: Harmonix Exhibit 1012

Document IPR2014-00155, No. 1012 Exhibit - Harmonix Exhibit 1012 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2013)

cite Cite Document

1007 Exhibit: Harmonix Exhibit 1007

Document IPR2014-00155, No. 1007 Exhibit - Harmonix Exhibit 1007 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2013)

cite Cite Document

1011 Exhibit: Harmonix Exhibit 1011

Document IPR2014-00155, No. 1011 Exhibit - Harmonix Exhibit 1011 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2013)

cite Cite Document

1024 Exhibit: Exhibit 1024

Document IPR2014-00155, No. 1024 Exhibit - Exhibit 1024 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014)

cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 11 12 >>