`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC,
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`TECHNO VIEW IP, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01045
`
`U.S. Patent 8,206,218
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... iv
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................... v
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`Conventional 3D Image Decoding Methods ............................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`The ‘218 Patent: Manuel Rafael Gutierrez Novelo Invents A New
`Compatible Method For Displaying 3D Images In A Videogame. ............. 6
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 7
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................. 7
`
`V.
`
`THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART. .................................. 7
`
`A.
`
`Johnson (Ex. 1008) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Bar-Nahum (Ex. 1005) ................................................................................. 9
`
`Scallie (Ex. 1006) ....................................................................................... 10
`
`D. Meijers (Ex. 1007) ..................................................................................... 11
`
`E. Woo (Ex. 1008) .......................................................................................... 12
`
`VI. PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT IS MORE
`LIKELY THAN NOT TO PREVAIL ON ANY CHALLENGED
`CLAIM OF THE ‘218 PATENT. ................................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`The Petitioner Failed to Demonstrate That The Claims Are Obvious
`Over Johnson in view of Bar-Nahum. ....................................................... 13
`
`1.
`
`The Combination of References Does Not Teach Or
`Suggest “calculating, with a processor of the videogame
`system, second spatial coordinates of a second eye view of
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`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 videogame” As
`Recited in Claim 7. ...................................................................... 14
`
`The Combination of References Does Not Teach Or
`Suggest “wherein calculating the second position
`coordinates of the second eye view comprises obtaining
`spatial coordinates by coordinate transformation equations
`given the location of a first virtual camera corresponding
`the first eye view” As Recited in Claim 5. .................................. 15
`
`The Combination of References Does Not Teach Or
`Suggest “increasing the first and second buffer memory
`prior to generating the first eye view and second eye view
`image in the videogame” As Recited in Claim 8. ....................... 17
`
`The Combination of References Does Not Teach Or
`Suggest “cleaning first and second buffers” As Recited in
`Claim 13. ...................................................................................... 19
`
`Petitioner Failed To Show It Would Be Obvious To
`Combine The References To Achieve The Claimed System ...... 20
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That The Claims Are Obvious
`Over Scallie in view of Meijers, Woo, and Bar-Nahum............................ 23
`
`1.
`
`The Combination of References Does Not Teach Or
`Suggest “calculating, with a processor of the videogame
`system, second position coordinates of a second eye view
`of the object in three dimensional space using the
`calculated first eye position coordinates” As Recited in
`Claim 1 or “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 videogame” As
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`Recited in Claim 7. ...................................................................... 23
`
`Petitioner Failed To Show It Would Be Obvious To
`Combine The References To Achieve The Claimed System
`As Recited in Claims 1 and 7. ..................................................... 26
`
`The Combination of References Does Not Teach Or
`Suggest “wherein calculating the second position
`coordinates of the second eye view comprises obtaining
`spatial coordinates by coordinate transformation equations
`given the location of a first virtual camera corresponding to
`the first eye view” As Recited in Claim 5. .................................. 28
`
`Petitioner Failed To Show It Would Be Obvious To
`Combine The References To Achieve A System That
`Involved “closing the first and second buffers” As Recited
`in Claim 13................................................................................... 29
`
`The Combination of References Does Not Teach Or
`Suggest “increasing the first and second buffer memory
`prior to generating the first eye view and second eye view
`image in the videogame” As Recited in Claim 8. ....................... 30
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`
`383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) ......................................................................... 13
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc.,
`
`701 F.3d 698 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 2, 13
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University,
`
`IPR2013-00298, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103). .............................. 2
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`MPEP § 2141.01 ........................................................................................................... 8
`
`MPEP § 2141.02 ........................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`SIE End User License Agreement (“EULA”)
`
`Declaration of Alan C. Pattillo
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board should deny the present request for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,206,218 (“the ‘218 patent”) because there is not a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the Petitioner would prevail at trial with respect to at least one claim of the ‘218
`
`patent.
`
`First, Petitioner’s proposed grounds of rejection are missing one or more
`
`limitations of the claims of the ‘218 patent. See Infra, §§ VI.A.1-3, VI.B.1-2,
`
`VI.B.6-9. For example, none of the references teaches “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 videogame” as recited in claim
`
`7. Further, some of the proposed grounds further fail to indicate “calculating, with a
`
`processor of the videogame system, second position coordinates of a second eye view
`
`of the object in three dimensional space using the calculated first eye position
`
`coordinates,” “increasing the first and second buffer memory prior to generating the
`
`first eye view and second eye view image in the videogame”, “cleaning first and
`
`second buffers,” or a system “wherein calculating the second position coordinates of
`
`the second eye view comprises obtaining spatial coordinates by coordinate
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`transformation equations given the location of a first virtual camera corresponding
`
`to the first eye view” as required.
`
`Second, the Petitioner did not show 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.” OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d
`
`698, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Board has consistently declined to cancel claims in
`
`IPR proceedings when the Petition fails to identify any objective evidence such as
`
`experimental data, tending to establish that two different structures can be combined.
`
`Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Decision Not To
`
`Institute, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103). In this IPR 2018-01044, the
`
`Petitioner did not set forth such objective evidence with respect to Johnson, Bar-
`
`Nahum, Scallie, and Woo. See infra §VI.A.4, VI.B.3. For this additional reason,
`
`none of the challenged claims of the ‘218 patent should be cancelled.
`
`Lastly, Petitioner relies on and repeats the statements of its expert, who made
`
`numerous summary statements but failed to show relevant objective evidence to
`
`support those statements.
`
`For at least the reasons mentioned above, and as explained more fully below,
`
`the Petitioner failed to show that it is reasonably likely to prevail. Accordingly, the
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`Board should deny the Petition.
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A. Conventional 3D Image Decoding Methods
`
`Stereoscopic vision systems are based on the human eye's ability to see the
`
`same object from two different perspectives (left and right). The brain merges both
`
`images, resulting in a depth and volume perception, which is then translated by the
`
`brain into distance, surface and volumes. Over the years, there have been
`
`improvements in computing technology and display hardware that have helped shape
`
`the techniques used to make it appear that 2D videogame images have three
`
`dimensions.
`
`The improvements in videogame technology have their roots in the early
`
`1970’s, when video game companies began experimenting with three dimensional
`
`imagery. This started with games such as “Maze War” and “Spasim”, using simple
`
`lines on a monochrome screen. Over the years, improvements allowed elements like
`
`colors and textures to be included. Typically, the capability of the computers was
`
`limited to the capability of the CPU on the computer motherboard. However, “in
`
`1996, a graphics acceleration system known as ‘hardware acceleration’ was
`
`introduced which included graphics processors capable of making mathematical and
`
`matrix operations at a high speed.” Ex. 1001, 4:33-36. “This reduced the main
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`CPU's load by means of card-specific communications and a programming
`
`language, located in a layer called a “Hardware Abstraction Layer” (HAL).” Id. at
`
`4:36-39. “This layer allows the information handling of data associated to real-time
`
`xyz coordinates, by means of coordinate matrixes and matrix mathematical
`
`operations, such as addition, scalar multiplication and floating point matrix
`
`comparison.” Id. at 4:39-43.
`
`In concert with the computing technologies, various hardware approaches for
`
`displaying or viewing stereoscopic video have been developed, including “Red-blue
`
`polarization,” “Vertical-horizontal polarization,” “Multiplexed images glasses,” “3D
`
`virtual reality systems,” “Volumetric displays,” and “Auto-stereoscopic displays.”
`
`Id. at 1:37-44.
`
`However, all of these technologies were systems dedicated to 3D viewing and
`
`not useable when trying to view 2D video; all had “presentation incompatibilities,
`
`collateral effects and a lack of compatibility with the current existing technology.”
`
`Id. at 1:45-47. For example, to watch video utilizing a red-blue polarization system
`
`would require “a special projector and a large-size white screen; after a few minutes,
`
`collateral effects start appearing, such as headache, dizziness, and other symptoms
`
`associated to images displayed using a three-dimensional effect.” Id. at 1:48-52.
`
`Further, the system requires wearing red-blue glasses; “[i]f the user is not wearing
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`red-blue glasses, the three-dimensional effect cannot be watched, but instead only
`
`double blurry images” can be seen. Id. at 1:62-64. Similarly, the horizontal-vertical
`
`polarization system requires very expensive production systems only found in select
`
`movie theaters and is restricted to a dedicated and selected audience, thus reducing
`
`the market and field of action. Id. at 1:66-2:14. “Systems using multiplexed-image
`
`shutting glasses technology toggle left and right images by blocking one of these
`
`images, so it cannot get to the corresponding eye for a short time. This blocking is
`
`synchronized with the image's display (in a monitor or TV set). If the user is not
`
`wearing the glasses, only blurred images are seen, and collateral effects become
`
`apparent after a few minutes.” Id. at 2:15-26. As of 2003, there was “a technology
`
`called I-O SYSTEMS, which displays multiplexed images in binocular screens by
`
`means of a left-right multiplexion system and toggling the images at an 80 to 100 Hz
`
`frequency, but even then the flicker is perceived.” Id. at 2:46-49. Volumetric
`
`display systems take advantage of “the human eye capability to retain an image for a
`
`few milliseconds” and by turning pixels’ colors on and off while rotating the display
`
`at a very high speed, the eye can receive a “floating image.” Id. at 2:50-60. Lastly,
`
`auto-stereoscopic displays “are monitors with semi-cylindrical lines running from top
`
`to bottom and are applied only to front and back images; this is not a real third
`
`dimension, but only a simulation in two perspective planes.” Id. at 2:61-64. “[T]he
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`technology is not compatible with the present technological infrastructure and
`
`requires total replacement of the user's monitor,” and “to watch a 3D image, the
`
`viewer needs to be placed at an approximate distance of 16” (40.64 cm), which
`
`varies according to the monitor's size, and the viewer must look at the center of the
`
`screen perpendicularly and fix his/her sight in a focal point beyond the real screen.
`
`With just a little deviation of the sight or a change in the angle of vision, the three-
`
`dimensional effect is lost.” Id. at 2:67-3:12; p. 24..
`
`B.
`
`The ‘218 Patent: Manuel Rafael Gutierrez Novelo Invents A New
`Compatible Method For Displaying 3D Images In A Videogame.
`
`To solve the problems associated with the prior art systems, the inventor of the
`
`‘218 patent created a new “a hardware and software design for viewing three-
`
`dimensional (3D) images, easy to be integrated to the existing television, personal
`
`computer and videogame system equipment.” Id. at 1:15-18. The system and
`
`method rely on a novel, efficient method for simply and rapidly finding viewpoints
`
`for the left and right eyes in order to generate images unique for each eye.
`
`The claimed invention begins by clearing left and right backbuffers. There
`
`are two paths that are followed, depending on the format of the image. If the image
`
`is in a 2D format, the image is stored in the left backbuffer, and then the image is
`
`displayed. Essentially, no major processing needs to happen when the image is 2D.
`
`However, if the image in a 3D format, the image is stored in the left backbuffer, the
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`view position of the right eye is calculated, the image that will be displayed to the
`
`right eye is generated based on that view position and then stored in the right
`
`backbuffer. Then, the left and right backbuffers may be displayed simultaneously to
`
`the left and right eyes, respectively.
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`REVIEW
`
`For the Board’s convenience, below is a summary as understood by Patent Owner of
`
`the claim rejections proposed by the Petitioner:
`
`1. Ground 1: Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are obvious over Johnson in view of
`
`Bar-Nahum.
`
`2. Ground 2: Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-14 are obvious over Scallie in view of
`
`Meijers and Woo.
`
`3. Ground 3: Claim 8 is obvious over Scallie in view of Meijers, Woo, and
`
`Bar-Nahum.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Patent Owner need not set forth any claim construction because there is
`
`not a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail on any proposed ground of
`
`rejection against any claim even under the Petitioner’s own claim construction.
`
`V. THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`Any obviousness analysis requires a consideration of the scope and content of
`
`the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the claims. See MPEP §
`
`2141.01, 2141.02. The Petitioner proposed six grounds for rejection as obvious, two
`
`based on combinations of Scallie, Kirkland, Woo, and Bar-Nahum, and four based on
`
`combinations of Johnson, Shinichi, Duluk, Bar-Nahum, and Garcia. All are briefly
`
`summarized below.
`
`A.
`
`Johnson (Ex. 1008)
`
`Johnson teaches a headset system using a technique described by the ‘218
`
`patent as being an inferior design – shutter glasses. See Ex. 1001, 2:15-26.
`
`Specifically, Johnson teaches a system involving images being sent from video ram
`
`(VRAM) through an adapter, to a driver circuit that sends images first to a display for
`
`one eye, then to a display for the other eye, alternating eyes after every image.
`
`Notably, Johnson fails to disclose a headset capable of simultaneously
`
`displaying left and right eye images, or a means for determining whether or not an
`
`image is 2D or 3D. As shown in annotated Fig. 1A, below, Johnson does not
`
`actually process the image to determine whether they are 2D or 3D, but rather
`
`utilizes a view control circuit (shown in red) to control the stereoscopic headset by,
`
`e.g., “enable[ing] or disable[ing] display 136 or 138” (shown in yellow). See Ex.
`
`1008, 4:47-65.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`B.
`
`Bar-Nahum (Ex. 1005)
`
`Bar-Nahum teaches a system that uses a stereoscopic filter, which is a
`
`
`
`“Software module integrated in the operating System of a computer System and is
`
`configured to intercept function calls to a 3D hardware acceleration driver. The filter
`
`generates left eye and right eye viewpoint data for a graphics object and outputs the
`
`data to a display driver for storage in a frame buffer.” Ex. 1007, 3:18-23.
`
`Bar-Nahum’s process involves creating a frame buffer, which can either be a
`
`conventional frame buffer having a single image (See Ex. 1007, 4:66-67; Fig. 4A), a
`
`double-size frame buffer that has both left and right image views (See Ex. 1007,
`
`4:67-5:5; 7:41-45; Fig. 4B), or a conventional frame buffer where the left and right
`
`images have been compressed in order to fit into a single frame buffer (Ex. 1007,
`
`5:5-9; Fig. 4C). Notably, Bar-Nahum fails to disclose increasing the size of both the
`
`left and right buffers.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`Further, Bar-Nahum teaches an approach to calculating viewpoints, by
`
`calculating a first camera viewpoint and then “mirroring the results from the left
`
`view” in order to determine the right eye view. Ex. 1007, 7:28-29. Notably, Bar-
`
`Nahum fails to teach a method that utilizes both the first camera position and an
`
`object in the videogame.
`
`C.
`
`Scallie (Ex. 1006)
`
`Scallie teaches a system that “uses pseudo drivers” to intercept function calls
`
`to APIs in order “to generate stereo vision outputs for a 3D stereoscopic display from
`
`game software normally intended for output to a 2D display.” See Ex. 1006,
`
`Abstract. Specifically, by replacing existing API drivers with the invented pseudo
`
`drivers, Scallie teaches a system that provides stereoscopic – and only stereoscopic –
`
`images to a display. See id. at ¶¶ [0022]-[0026]. As shown in annotated Fig. 1A,
`
`below, Scallie simply intercepts any call to a display driver (shown in red), and
`
`passes that along to a pseudo API driver (shown in blue) where the images are
`
`rendered and sent to the display cards (yellow). See id. at ¶¶ [0027].
`
`Notably, Scallie functions by replacing 2D displays with 3D displays; at no
`
`time is 2D rendering or playback contemplated. Scallie teaches users to modify and
`
`delete the existing, functioning 2D software modules, replace them with unapproved
`
`3D modules and rename the new 3D modules with the 2D module names.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`
`
`D. Meijers (Ex. 1007)
`
`
`
`Meijers teaches a means for generating an image for display by “parallactically
`
`transforming” an input image. See Ex. 1007, Abstract. Notably, Meijers teaches that
`
`rather than determining changing viewpoints about an image, a coordinate system is
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`selected such that the viewpoints are fixed at particular coordinates ((D, 0, 0) and (-
`
`D, 0, 0)) and the output image is “generate[d] … ‘on the fly’ … by shifting the input
`
`pixels” to fit the selected coordinate system. See Ex. 1007, Abstract, 7:43-54.
`
`E. Woo (Ex. 1008)
`
`Woo is a guide for learning OpenGL, “a software interface to graphics
`
`hardware … that you use to specify the objects and operations needed to produce
`
`interactive three-dimensional applications.” Ex. 1006, p. 43. It discloses the
`
`commands and function calls needed to utilize OpenGL effectively.
`
`
`
`VI. PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT IS MORE
`LIKELY THAN NOT TO PREVAIL ON ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM
`OF THE ‘218 PATENT.
`
`Inter partes review cannot be instituted unless the Board determines that the
`
`Petition demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner will succeed in
`
`establishing that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Here, the Petitioner has set forth multiple obviousness
`
`grounds for rejection.
`
`As set forth by the Supreme Court, the question of obviousness is resolved on
`
`the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art,
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148
`
`USPQ 459, 467 (1966); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399
`
`(2007) (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular
`
`case, the [Graham] factors define the controlling inquiry.”). A petitioner 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.” OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs.,
`
`Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Petition’s evidence must also address
`
`every limitation of every challenged claim.
`
`Here, the Board should decline to institute an inter partes review on the three
`
`proposed obviousness grounds because (i) the Petition failed to demonstrate that any
`
`of the various combinations purported by Petitioner teaches every element of the
`
`challenged claims, and (ii) the Petitioner failed to show it would be obvious to
`
`combine the references in the manner claimed.
`
`A. The Petitioner Failed to Demonstrate That The Claims Are Obvious
`Over Johnson in view of Bar-Nahum.
`
`The proposed combination of Johnson and Bar-Nahum fails to teach or suggest
`
`at least three claimed limitations - “calculating, with a processor of the videogame
`
`system, second spatial coordinates of a second eye view of the virtual object in the
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`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 videogame,” “increasing the first and second buffer memory
`
`prior to generating the first eye view and second eye view image in the videogame,”
`
`and “cleaning first and second buffers.” Further, Petitioner fails to provide sufficient
`
`evidence that a PHOSITA would find the proposed combination obvious.
`
`1.
`
`The Combination of References Does Not Teach Or Suggest
`“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 videogame” As Recited in Claim 7.
`
`Petitioner relies solely on Bar-Nahum to teach these limitations. Petition, pp.
`
`19-20, 24-25. However, Bar-Nahum’s description never describes determining a
`
`position of a second camera as a function of both a position of a first camera and a
`
`position of an object.
`
`Petitioner cites to a portion of Bar-Nahum discussing Fig. 10. See Petition, pp.
`
`19-20, 24-25. However, Bar-Nahum explicitly states that it only bases the right view
`
`on the left view: “The stereoscopic filter 26 then calculates the right view for the
`
`same point by mirroring the results from the left view.” Ex. 1007, 7:28-29 (emphasis
`
`added). The calculation in Bar-Nahum only involves, at best, the left eye
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`coordinates, and does not involve the position of the virtual object as required by
`
`claim 7.
`
`Thus, the proposed combination of references fails to teach “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 videogame” as recited in claim
`
`7.
`
`2.
`
`The Combination of References Does Not Teach Or Suggest
`“wherein calculating the second position coordinates of the
`second eye view comprises obtaining spatial coordinates by
`coordinate transformation equations given the location of a
`first virtual camera corresponding the first eye view” As
`Recited in Claim 5.
`
`Petitioner relies on Bar-Nahum to teach this above-referenced limitation.
`
`Petition, pp. 22-23. Coordinate transformation equations are used to transform
`
`coordinates of a point from one frame of reference to another. An example of
`
`coordinate transformation equations is described in the ‘218 patent, which states:
`
`An additional 3D modeling and animation characteristic is added to the
`
`previous programs by means of the coordinate transformation equations,
`
`namely:
`
`𝑥 = 𝑥′ cos 𝜙 − 𝑦′ sin 𝜙
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`𝑦 = 𝑥′ sin 𝜙 + 𝑦′ cos 𝜙
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:33-40. However, as noted previously (see supra § VI.A.1), Bar-
`
`Nahum does not use coordinate transformation equations to calculate the second
`
`position coordinates as required. Instead, as noted by Petitioner, Bar-Nahum teaches
`
`“calculating the right view” by merely “mirroring the results from the left view …
`
`from (x,y,z) to (W-x,y,z).” Ex. 1005, 7:28-31. There is only a single frame of
`
`reference here, with a single coordinate system – the width and height of the target
`
`2D plane. Bar-Nahum defines “W” as the width of the target 2D plane. See id. at
`
`6:49-50. Thus, Bar-Nahum does not actually use coordinate transformation
`
`equations to calculate the second position coordinates given the first position
`
`coordinates as required. Instead of transforming from one frame of reference to
`
`another, Bar-Nahum simply subtracts the “x” coordinate of the first position from the
`
`width of the plane (W) in order to “mirror” the coordinates around the center of the
`
`plane. There is no coordinate transformation based on the position of the first
`
`coordinates.
`
`Thus, the proposed combination of references fails to teach a system “wherein
`
`calculating the second position coordinates of the second eye view comprises
`
`obtaining spatial coordinates by coordinate transformation equations given the
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`location of a first virtual camera corresponding the first eye view” as recited in claim
`
`5.
`
`3.
`
`The Combination of References Does Not Teach Or Suggest
`“increasing the first and second buffer memory prior to
`generating the first eye view and second eye view image in the
`videogame” As Recited in Claim 8.
`
`Petitioner relies on Johnson to teach the use of two frame buffers, and asserts
`
`that Bar-Nahum discloses increasing the size of the buffers. See Petition, p. 26.
`
`However, Petitioner greatly mischaracterizes what Bar-Nahum teaches.
`
`Petitioner highlights a single sentence in Bar-Nahum to support the doubling
`
`of a frame buffer: “FIG. 4B represents a mode in which the frame buffer is double
`
`the length of the conventional frame buffer.” See Petition, p. 40 (citing Ex. 1007,
`
`4:66-5:9). However, as readily seen in reproduced Fig. 4B, below, the frame buffer
`
`is double the length of the conventional frame buffer in order to contain both a left
`
`and right image.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`
`
`This is not “increasing the first and second buffer memory” as recited. As
`
`seen in Fig. 4B above, the frame buffer memory is simply double the width of a
`
`normal frame buffer in order to hold both left and right frames side by side within a
`
`single buffer. In this configuration, there would be no separate first (left) and second
`
`(right) buffer memory – there would just be a single buffer memory that was double
`
`the size in order to handle both left and right images.
`
`Bar-Nahum never describes actually increasing the size of the memory. Bar-
`
`Nahum simply describes various buffer configurations that could be used as
`
`alternatives to conventional buffer approaches.
`
`Thus, Bar-Nahum does not teach “increasing the first and second buffer
`
`memory prior to generating the first eye view and second eye view image in the
`
`videogame” as recited in Claim 8.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218
`
`
`4.
`
`The Combination of References Does Not Teach Or Suggest
`“cleaning first and second buffers” As Recited in Claim 13.
`
`Petitioner relies solely on Johnson to teach this limitation. Petition, p. 27.
`
`Contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning of terms, Petitioner tries to assert that
`
`revising an image is the same as cleaning a buffer. See Petition, p. 27 (“Johnson
`
`teaches … that the data within the buffers are revised (i.e., cleaned)”).
`
`The ‘218 Patent spells this step out clearly: “Clean all elements from memory
`
`….” Ex. 1001, 6:58. To support the assertion that Johnson teaches this limitation,
`
`Petitioner quotes a portion of Johnson that describes storing an image in VRAM.
`
`The quoted section of text ends with “The views are stored in VRAM 116 and 118
`
`for future revision ….” Petition, p. 27. Clearly, storing an image into memory and
`
`revising it at a later time is not cleaning all elements from memory.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of the words quoted by Petitioner (“data
`
`within the buffers are revised”) indic