Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 461
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 17-cv-386-VAC-CJB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TECHNO VIEW IP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`OCULUS VR, LLC, and
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`O’KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
`Sean T. O’Kelly (No. 4349)
`Daniel P. Murray (No. 5785)
`901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 778-4000
`(302) 295-2873 (facsimile)
`sokelly@oelegal.com
`dmurray@oelegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Techno View IP, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HARRY JERNIGAN CPA ATTORNEY, P.C.
`Michael K. Botts (Pro Hac Vice)
`5101 Cleveland Street, Suite 200
`Virginia Beach, VA 23462
`mbotts@hjlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 20, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 462
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“backbuffer” (‘096Patent Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 13; ‘218 Patent Claims 1 and 6) ......... 1
`
`“videogame” (‘096 Patent Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16; ‘218 Patent 1, 2, 7, and 8) ............. 2
`
`“left backbuffer” and “right backbuffer” (‘096 Patent Claims: 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7; ‘218
`3.
`Patent Claims 1 and 6) ................................................................................................................ 4
`
`“storing an image into the left backbuffer; determining if the image is in a two-
`4.
`dimensional format or a three-dimensional format” (‘096 Patent Claim 1), and
`“storing a videogame image in the first buffer; determining when the videogame image is a
`two-dimensional or a three-dimensional image” (‘096 Patent Claims 8 and 16) ....................... 6
`
`“storing a[n] . . . image into the . . . [back]buffer” (‘096 Patent Claims 1, 8, and 16; ‘218
`5.
`Patent Claims 1, 7, and 12) ......................................................................................................... 7
`
`“spatial coordinates;” “spatial coordinates (x,y,z);” “position coordinates;” and,
`6.
`“coordinates of [a/the] . . . view position” (‘096 Patent Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 12, and 16; ‘218
`Patent Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14) ........................................................................... 10
`
`“buffer” (‘096 Patent Claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19; ‘218 Patent Claims
`7.
`7, 8, 11, 12, and 13) ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`8.
`
`“frontbuffer” (‘096 Patent Claim 14) ................................................................................ 15
`
`“calculating, with a processor of the videogame system, second position coordinates of a
`9.
`second eye view of the object in three dimensional space using the calculated first position
`coordinates of the first eye view” (‘218 Patent Claim 1) and
`“calculating, with a processor of the videogame system, second spatial coordinates of a second
`eye view of the virtual object in the videogame in three dimensional space by coordinate
`transformation equations using the calculated first position coordinates of the first eye view
`and the position of the virtual object in the dimensional space by coordinate transformation
`equations using the calculated first position coordinates of the first eye view and the position
`of the virtual object in the videogame” (‘218 Patent Claim 7) ................................................. 16
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 463
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc.,
`423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 12
`
`Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................... 7
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)........................................................................................... 6
`
`Mformation Techs., Inc., v. Research In Motion Limited,
`764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`TALtech Ltd. v. Esquel Apparel, Inc.,
`279 F. App’x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................... 7
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc.,
`232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000)........................................................................................... 18
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................... 18
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................................. 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 122 ............................................................................................................................. 18
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, April 24, 2009 ................................................................ 19
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Ed., Microsoft Press, 2002 ........................................ 14, 16
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 2000 ........................................................ 19, 20
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 464
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In its Complaint, Plaintiff Techno View IP, Inc. (“Techno View”) alleges that Defendants
`
`infringe Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,666,096 (the ‘096 Patent”) and Claims 1-19 of Patent
`
`No. 8,206,218 (the “’218 Patent”). Defendants identified nine terms for construction in this case.
`
`For the reasons below, Plaintiff argues that the Court should adopt its proposed constructions.
`
`1. “backbuffer” (‘096Patent Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 13; ‘218 Patent Claims 1 and 6)
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Term
`
`
`“backbuffer”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The term “back buffer” is specifically defined in the patent specifications and the Parties
`
`agree that the definition in the specification should be used to construe the term. See ‘096
`
`Patent, col. 6: 40-45, and ‘218 Patent, col. 6: 40-45. It should be noted, however, that the agreed
`
`upon construction above pertains only in the case where the backbuffer is not already located on
`
`the video card. Indeed, in the same definitional paragraph cited in support of this construction,
`
`the Specification cites the situation where the backbuffer is already located on the video card:
`
`“This backbuffer is usually located within the physical RAM memory of the video or graphics
`
`acceleration card.”1 So the term backbuffer can also be defined as a memory location where an
`
`image is temporarily stored on a video or graphics acceleration card.
`
`Based on a recent conversation between parties concerning the terms “buffer” and
`
`“backbuffer,” it is apparent that although the parties had previously agreed on words that define
`
`
`1 See ’096 Patent: col 6, 45-47.
`
`1
`
`Parties’ Agreed-Upon Construction
`
` A
`
` memory location where the image to be displayed is temporarily
`“drawn” without outputting it to the video card.
`
`Newly Proposed:
`
` A
`
` memory location for the temporary storage of an image.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 465
`
`
`
`
`“backbuffer,” there is a fundamental disagreement as to the actual meaning of those words. In
`
`order to clarify that distinction, Plaintiff offers the following construction of “backbuffer” as
`
`follows: “A memory location for the temporary storage of an image.” This construction, which
`
`identifies that the “backbuffers” pertain to the temporary storage of “images,” distinguishes the
`
`“backbuffers” (and “frontbuffers” as discussed later) from the “buffers” which temporarily store
`
`“data.” This newly proposed construction is offered in the interest of seeking an agreement
`
`between the parties.2
`
`2. “videogame” (‘096 Patent Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 16; ‘218 Patent 1, 2, 7, and 8)
`
`Defendants’ Constructions
`
` a
`
` process which starts by providing
`a plurality of independently related
`logical states which include a set
`of programming options, where
`each programming option
`corresponds to different image
`characteristics
`
`Plaintiff Techno View
`Construction
`
`
`A software program written in
`some computer language, with
`its objective to simulate a non-
`existent world and take a player
`or user into this world.
`
`Alternatively, Plaintiff
`respectfully asserts that the
`term, in context in the claim
`language, is readily understood
`by laypersons so no
`construction is necessary.
`
`
`Techno View respectfully submits that construction of the term “videogame,” by itself,
`
`misrepresents key claim limitations. All Independent claims of both the ‘096 and ‘218 Patents
`
`specify a “videogame system,”3 which element is then inherited by all dependent claims in both
`
`
`2 For purposes of clarity, Plaintiff will refer to constructions offered in the interest of seeking
`agreement as “Newly Proposed” constructions.
`3 See ‘096 Patent Claim 1: “A method of displaying images in a videogame system ...”; Claim 8:
`“A method in a videogame system ...”; Claim 15: “A videogame system for displaying
`videogame images ...”; and, Claim 16: “A videogame system comprising a processor configured
`to run instructions ...”. See also ‘218 Patent Claims 1 and 7: “A method in a videogame system
`
`2
`
`Term
`
`
`“videogame”
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 466
`
`
`
`
`patents. A “videogame” is merely the descriptor of the type of “system” specified in the claims.
`
`The Specifications describe, depending on its context, a videogame system and the more generic
`
`idea of a videogame, the latter of which would be commonly known by a layperson at the time of
`
`the invention.4 The first two sentences from this description appropriately summarize the fuller
`
`definition, stating: “Any videogame is a software program written in some computer language.
`
`Its objective is to simulate a non-existent world and take a player or user into this world.”5
`
`Plaintiff therefore construes the “videogame” by these two sentences.
`
`
`
`Alternatively, Plaintiff respectfully submits that the term “videogame” is commonly
`
`known to mean, a game that is played on an electronic system that allows the user to play the
`
`videogame, and for which no construction is necessary. Any person at the time of the invention
`
`knew what it was to buy a videogame, to play a videogame, and the difference between the
`
`videogame and the videogame system that he or she used to play the videogame.
`
`
`
`In contrast, Defendants’ proposed construction is more akin to a “videogame structure,”
`
`or “videogame elements,” but not a videogame itself. Defendants’ proposed construction ignores
`
`the context of the term in the claims – that of “videogame system,” not just a generic videogame,
`
`or videogame elements.
`
`
`
`The Court should reject Defendants’ proposed construction of “videogame” as a
`
`
`...”, and Claim 16: “A videogame system for displaying three-dimensional images ...”.
`4 See ‘096 Patent: col 3: 53-67; ‘218 Patent col 3: 53-67. “Any videogame is a software program
`written in some computer language. Its objective is to simulate a non-existent world and take a
`player or user into this world. Most videogames are focused in enhancing the visual and manual
`dexterity, pattern analysis and decision taking, in a competitive and improvement (difficulty
`level) environment, and are presented in large scenarios with a high artistic content. As a game
`engine, most videogames are divided into the following structure: videogame, game library with
`graphics and audio engines associated, the graphical engine contains the 2D source code and the
`3D source code, and the audio engine contains the effects and music code.”
`5 See ‘096 Patent col. 3:53-55; ‘218 Patent col. 3:53-55.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 467
`
`
`
`
`misrepresentation of the context of the term in the claims claiming a “videogame system” not a
`
`mere videogame.
`
`3. “left backbuffer” and “right backbuffer” (‘096 Patent Claims: 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7; ‘218
`Patent Claims 1 and 6)
`
`Term
`
`
`
`“left backbuffer”
`and “right
`backbuffer”
`
`
`Defendants’ Constructions
`
`
`backbuffers that are separate from
`each other such that left and right
`independent images could be
`generated and stored therein
`
`
`Plaintiff Techno View
`Construction
`
`“left backbuffer”
`A memory location where the left
`image to be displayed is
`temporarily stored.
`
`“right backbuffer”
`A memory location where the
`right image to be displayed is
`temporarily stored.
`
`Alternatively, Plaintiff
`respectfully asserts that the
`phrases, in context in the claim
`language, are readily understood
`by laypersons so no construction
`is necessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s construction is consistent with the distinction between “backbuffers (left or
`
`right) and “buffers,” wherein “backbuffers” temporarily store images, and “buffers” temporarily
`
`store data – not just images.
`
`
`
`Defendants propose to limit the backbuffers, and all “buffers,” by imposing that the
`
`images are not only stored in the backbuffer, but also that they be “generated [in the backbuffers]
`
`and stored therein.” See Defendants’ Proposed Construction, above.
`
`
`
`The term “generated” does not exist in the claims. The further limiting term “generating”
`
`appears in ‘096 Patent only in Claims 6 and 7, and both times in the context of “generating (the)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 468
`
`
`
`
`left and right images on different video channels.”6
`
`
`
`Defendants’ designate Claim 6 of the ‘218 Patent as requiring construction of the terms
`
`left and right backbuffers. However, the term “generating” in Claim 6 is drawn not to what is
`
`stored on a backbuffer, but rather to what is generated onto video channels. Claim 6 of the ‘218
`
`Patent, specifies the step of “generating the left and right images on different video channels.”7
`
`
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction to impose the “generating” or “generated” element on
`
`the identified claims in both patents is an unwarranted and improper limitation.
`
`
`
`In addition, there is no intrinsic support for Defendants’ additional limitation that the
`
`backbuffers be “separate from each other.” Plaintiff is concerned that although the right and left
`
`backbuffers are separate memory locations, a person on the jury may read the “separate from
`
`each other” limitation as requiring that buffer components be located on separate parts of the
`
`videogame system. This proposed limitation is an unnecessary, unfounded limitation and should
`
`therefore be denied.
`
`
`
`This Court should reject Defendants’ proposed construction for baselessly limiting the
`
`“left backbuffer” and “right backbuffer,” to “generated” images, and also for adding the
`
`unnecessary and potentially jury-confusing limitation of “separate from each other.”
`
`
`6 See ‘096 Patent, Claim 6: “The method according to claim 1, wherein simultaneously
`displaying the images in the left and right backbuffers comprises generating left and right images
`on different video channels.” See also, ‘096 Patent Claim 7: “The method according to claim 6,
`further comprising increasing the left and right backbuffer memory prior to generating the left
`and right images on different video channels.”
`
` See ‘218 Patent, Claim 6: “The method according to claim 1, wherein displaying the images in
`the left and right backbuffers comprises generating left and right images on different video
`channels.”
`
` 7
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 469
`
`
`
`
`4. “storing an image into the left backbuffer; determining if the image is in a two-
`dimensional format or a three-dimensional format” (‘096 Patent Claim 1), and
` “storing a videogame image in the first buffer; determining when the videogame image
`is a two-dimensional or a three-dimensional image” (‘096 Patent Claims 8 and 16)
`
`Defendants’ Constructions
`
`
`The steps must be performed in the
`order recited.
`
`
`Plaintiff Techno View
`Construction
`
`The steps do not have to be
`performed in the order recited.
`
`Plaintiff respectfully asserts that
`the phrase, in context in the claim
`language, is readily understood
`by laypersons so no construction
`is necessary.
`
`
`Term
`
`
`“storing an image into
`the left backbuffer;
`determining if the
`image is in a two-
`dimensional format or
`a three-dimensional
`format” (’096, cl. 1)
`and,
`“storing a videogame
`image in the first
`buffer; determining
`when the videogame
`image is a two-
`dimensional or a
`three-dimensional
`image” (’096, cls. 8,
`16)
`
`
`
`
`The two steps at issue are summarized by Plaintiff as: 1) store an image into a [left or
`
`first] buffer (the “storing” step), and 2) determine whether the videogame is a 2D or 3D game
`
`(the “determining” step). The order of the steps is neither specified nor implied. Although the
`
`“storing” step is written before the “determining” step, there is nothing in the claims ordering the
`
`steps, and there is nothing inherent in the steps themselves that requires one to be completed
`
`before the other.
`
`
`
`Case law is clear on whether method claim steps are required to be completed in a
`
`particular order. As summarized by the Federal Circuit: “As a general rule, ‘[u]nless the steps of
`
`a method [claim] actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.”8
`
`
`8 Mformation Techs., Inc., v. Research In Motion Limited, 764 F.3d 1392, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 470
`
`
`
`
`If the claims do not recite a particular order of steps, the Federal Circuit holds that an ordering of
`
`steps may still be required, stating the rule as follows: “However, a claim ‘requires an ordering
`
`of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be
`
`performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires’ an order of
`
`steps.”9
`
`
`
`The claims themselves do not recite an order of the “storing” and “determining” steps.
`
`Further, there is also no “logic or grammar” in the claims that would require a specific order of
`
`the steps. It is apparent from the claims themselves that not only can “determining” be done
`
`before “storing,” there are apparent advantages from doing so. For example, it is advantageous
`
`to save a significant amount of processing time if the type of videogame, either 2D or 3D, is
`
`identified to the processor earlier than after it is stored. Substantial processing time is inherently
`
`lost if the processor has to run a separate determining step after each storage step for each image.
`
`Performing the determining step before storing might allow the processor to process the images
`
`sequentially, without the delay of individual determination processing.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction that the “storing” step must always come before the
`
`“determining” step should be denied at least because there is no specific ordering of the steps
`
`stated in the claims and there is no ordering of the two steps implied by grammar or logic.
`
`5. “storing a[n] . . . image into the . . . [back]buffer” (‘096 Patent Claims 1, 8, and 16; ‘218
`Patent Claims 1, 7, and 12)
`
`Term
`
`Defendants’ Constructions
`
`Plaintiff Techno View
`Construction
`
`
`
`
`(quoting Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`(citation omitted)).
`9 Mformation, 764 F.3d at 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting TALtech Ltd. v. Esquel Apparel, Inc.,
`279 F. App’x 974, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2008)); see also Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., 708
`F.3d 1310, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 471
`
`
`
`
`“storing a[n] . . . image
`into the . . .
`[back]buffer”
`
`
`temporarily ‘drawing’ an image
`into the backbuffer.
`
`
`Storing an image at a memory
`location where the image to be
`displayed is temporarily “drawn.”
`
`Newly Proposed:
`
`Temporarily storing claimed data
`or an image into a memory
`location identified in the claim as
`either a backbuffer or a buffer.
`
`Alternatively, Plaintiff
`respectfully asserts that the
`phrase, in context in the claim
`language, is readily understood
`by laypersons so no construction
`is necessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff ‘s construction addresses the two different types of buffer - “buffer” and
`
`“backbuffer” - solely because Defendants combined them in its identification of a term requiring
`
`construction. Combining a buffer storing data with a backbuffer storing an image is at the base
`
`of Defendants’ apparent confusion of the claim elements. If this Court deems a construction of
`
`essentially “storing an image to a backbuffer” to be helpful, Plaintiff’s Newly Proposed
`
`construction reflects the act of “storing” with a general definition of a “buffer” or a “backbuffer”
`
`that fits the context of all relevant claims. Plaintiff proposes its new construction in the interest
`
`of seeking agreement of the parties.
`
`
`
`Alternatively, Plaintiff submits that the action of storing an image in a “buffer” or a
`
`“backbuffer” is clearly stated in the claims themselves and would have been readily understood
`
`by a layperson at the time of the invention to be a memory location to store the image identified
`
`in the claim and, therefore, no claim construction of this term is required.
`
`
`
`Defendants apparently seek a construction of “storing” at a “backbuffer” location to
`
`include storing in a “buffer” location. However, a “backbuffer” is only originally claimed in
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 472
`
`
`
`
`independent Claim 1 of both the ‘096 and ‘218 Patents, claimed as follows:
`
` ‘096 Patent Claim 1: “storing an image into the left backbuffer” *** “storing a second view
`
`
`
`
` position image into the right backbuffer”
`
` ‘218 Patent, Claim 1: “storing a first eye view image captured virtually from the calculated
`
`
`
`
`first position coordinates of the first eye view of an object in the
`
`
`
`
`videogame into the left backbuffer” *** “storing the second eye
`
`
`
`
`view image in the right backbuffer”
`
`The remainder of the independent claims in the ‘096 Patent and the ‘218 Patent, and their
`
`dependent claims, are drawn expressly to “buffers.”10
`
`
`
`The claims themselves distinguish the terms “buffer” from “backbuffer.” “Buffers” can
`
`be “backbuffers,” but not all “backbuffers” are “buffers.” (Similar to the well-known rule: “All
`
`squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.”) For example, Dependent Claim 13 of
`
`the ‘096 Patent clearly shows that the term “buffers” are to be distinguished from the term
`
`“backbuffers,” stating: “The method of claim 8, wherein the first and second buffers are
`
`backbuffers.”11 Claim 13 depends from Claim 8, it is further limiting on Claim 8,12 therefore,
`
`neither of the “first” or “second” “buffers” of independent Claim 8, is a “backbuffer” until Claim
`
`13 modifies the “buffers” to make them “backbuffers.”
`
`
`
`Claim 14 of the ‘096 Patent also distinguishes “buffers” from “backbuffers” by further
`
`limiting Claim 13 and claiming: “storing the images in the first and second buffers to first and
`
`
`10 Plaintiff notes that dependent Claims 13 and 14 of the ‘096 Patent use the terms “backbuffer”
`and “frontbuffer”, but only in context where the originally claimed “buffers” become
`“backbuffers” or “frontbuffers.”
`11 See the ‘096 Patent, Claim 13, col. 14:50-51.
`12 See 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 4: “[A] claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a
`claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A
`claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the
`particular claim in relation to which it is being considered.”
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 473
`
`
`
`
`second frontbuffers.”13 Images from the “buffers” are stored in the “frontbuffers.” Accordingly,
`
`“buffers” cannot be limited to “backbuffers.”
`
`
`
`Further, Defendants draw from one embodiment in the specification14 and propose to
`
`limit both a buffer and a backbuffer with the requirement that an image be “drawn” into either of
`
`them. In addition to the fact that only “backbuffers” are claimed to store images, no claims in
`
`either patent include a limitation of “drawing” an image into either a backbuffer or a buffer. The
`
`Claims themselves claim no such limitation and this Court should deny Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction at least on that basis.
`
`
`
`Defendants attempt to construe claims to “buffers” the same as “backbuffers.” Again,
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction is contrary to the doctrine of claim differentiation by
`
`conflating “backbuffers” with “buffers.”15
`
`
`
`The Court should reject Defendants’ proposed construction of “backbuffers” being the
`
`same as “buffers,” without distinction, contrary to the doctrine of claim differentiation.
`
`6. “spatial coordinates;” “spatial coordinates (x,y,z);” “position coordinates;” and,
`“coordinates of [a/the] . . . view position” (‘096 Patent Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 12, and 16; ‘218
`Patent Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14)
`
`Defendants’ Constructions
`
`
`Points in space that are located by
`
`Plaintiff Techno View
`Construction
`
`
`Coordinates are the set of values
`“spatial coordinates”
`
`13 See ‘096 Patent, Claim 14: “The method of claim 8, wherein simultaneously displaying the
`images in the first and second buffers comprises storing the images in the first and second
`buffers to first and second frontbuffers, and wherein the images in the first and second
`frontbuffers are simultaneously displayed to the user.”
`14 See ‘096 Patent, col. 6: 40-42, and ‘218 Patent, col. 6: 40-42.
`15 See the ‘096 Patent Claims 8 and 16: “storing a videogame image in the first buffer ... second
`buffer;” the ‘218 Patent, Claim 7: “storing a first eye view image captured virtually from the
`calculated first position of the first eye view of a virtual object in the videogame into the first
`buffer ... second buffer;” and, the ‘218 Patent, Claim 12: “The method according to claim 7,
`wherein storing the first eye view image to the first buffer ... second buffer.”
`
`Term
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 474
`
`
`
`
`
`“spatial coordinates
`(x,y,z)”
`
`“position coordinates”
`
`and
`
`“coordinates of [a/the]
`. . . view position”
`
`
`
`
`
`their positions in relation to
`intersecting x, y, and z axes.
`
`in an (x, y, z) coordinate system.
`
`Newly Proposed:
`
`The set(s) of coordinate values
`calculated for each claimed
`coordinate type (“spatial,”
`“position,” “view position,” etc.).
`
`Plaintiff’s Comment
`Plaintiff understands Defendants’
`term to be construed as
`“coordinates,” and proposes its
`counter-construction based on
`that belief. Plaintiff respectfully
`submits that the various modifiers
`of the term “coordinates,” are
`different terms that require
`different constructions based on
`the intrinsic evidence and the
`context of use in the claims.
`Since Defendants’ propose a
`construction is of what appears to
`be just the term “coordinates,”
`Plaintiff is responding to that
`construction, but respectfully
`reserves the right to propose
`counter-constructions to the full
`phrases in its brief, if necessitated
`by Defendants’ position and
`arguments.
`
`Alternatively, Plaintiff
`respectfully asserts that the
`phrase, in context in the claim
`language, is readily understood
`by laypersons so no construction
`is necessary.
`
`
`Plaintiff originally proposes a construction consistent with that proposed by Defendants,
`
`but more directly related to the system of coordinates rather than to a single point. Upon
`
`consideration of Defendants’ apparent misunderstanding of data versus images, Plaintiff believes
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 475
`
`
`
`
`that further refinement of its proposed constructions may resolve that misunderstanding and lead
`
`to a consensus of the parties. Plaintiff proposes this new construction in hopes of reaching a
`
`consensus with Defendants.
`
`
`
`Defendants appear to propose to construe solely the term “coordinates” in a Cartesian
`
`coordinate system (x, y, z). More precisely, Defendants’ proposed construction is to points
`
`identified by the Cartesian coordinate values, “points in space,” at the intersection of the “x, y,
`
`and z axes” rather than to the term “coordinate” or the different claimed types of coordinates.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction again runs afoul of the doctrine of claim
`
`differentiation, the presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope. The difference
`
`in meaning and scope between claims is presumed to be significant.16
`
`
`
`Further, by construing just the term “coordinates,” rather than the claim coordinate types
`
`in the context of their claims17, Defendants implicitly define all systems that include the term
`
`“coordinates” to be Cartesian coordinates to a point. However, the claims steps of “calculating”
`
`may also include “vectorial coordinates.”18 Defendants’ proposed construction fails with respect
`
`to “view position” coordinates, such as in ‘096 Patent, Claim 1: “calculating the coordinates of a
`
`second view position of the image.”19 See also, ‘218 Patent, Claim 4: “The method according to
`
`claim 1, wherein calculating the second position coordinates of the second view image comprises
`
`
`16 “The doctrine of claim differentiation creates a presumption that each claim in a patent has a
`different scope . . . . The difference in meaning and scope between claims is presumed to be
`significant to the extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a
`claim superfluous.” Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
`17 See “spatial coordinates,” “position coordinates,” and “view position coordinates.”
`18 See ‘096 Patent, col. 11:37-42. See also, ‘218 Patent, col. 11:42-47.
`19 See ‘096 Patent, Claim 1, col. 13: 48-49.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 52 Filed 04/20/18 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 476
`
`
`
`
`calculating the coordinates of a right eye camera view position.” 20
`
`
`
`Although not specifically claimed, “vectorial coordinates” may be used as the
`
`“coordinates of [a/the] . . . view position.”21, 22 Defendants’ proposed construction fails to
`
`distinguish the “vectorial [vector] coordinates” (expressed in one way as vector OP = v1i + v2j +
`
`v3k) from the Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z). See ‘218 Patent Figure 3, which is identified in the
`
`Brief Description of the Drawings of the Specification as: “FIG. 3 shows the one embodiment of
`
`a t