Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 10
`Entered: December 4, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TECHNO VIEW IP, INC.,
`Exclusive Licensee of the Patent Owner.1
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. §314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 TD Vision Corporation S.A. de C.V is the Patent Owner. Paper 4; see also
`infra note 2.
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a petition
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–11, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No.
`8,206,218 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’218 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Techno View
`IP, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)2 filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). We authorized (Paper 8), and Petitioner filed, a Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Reply”).
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in
`the Petition and the Preliminary Response 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314; see also 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Taking
`into account the arguments presented in the Petition and Preliminary
`Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition
`
`
`2 To follow the convention used by the parties and avoid confusion, for the
`purposes of this proceeding we will identify Techno View IP, Inc., the
`exclusive licensee of the ’218 patent, as the “Patent Owner.” See Motorola
`Mobility LLC v. Patent of Michael Arnouse, No. IPR2013-00010 (Paper 27),
`2013 WL 5970127 at *3 (PTAB April 5, 2013) (applying Federal Circuit
`standing analysis to determine who “has the right to participate in
`proceedings at the Office”); see also Sicom Sys. Ltd. v. Agilent Techs., Inc.,
`427 F.3d 971, 976 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[A]n exclusive license may be treated
`like an assignment for purposes of creating standing if it conveys to the
`licensee all substantial rights.”); Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. A-Roo Co., 222 F.3d
`1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that, with a transfer of “all substantial
`rights under the patent, the assignee may be deemed the effective ‘patentee’
`under 35 U.S.C. § 281”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect
`to the challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following matters related to the ’218 patent
`(Pet. 55–60; Paper 6):
`Techno View IP, Inc. v. Sony Interactive Entm’t Am., No. 8:17-cv-
`01268 (N.D. Cal.);
`Techno View IP, Inc. v. Oculus VR, LLC, and Facebook, Inc., No.
`1:17-cv-00386 (D. Del.); and
`Related U.S. Patent No. 7,666,096, of which the ’218 patent is a
`continuation, has been challenged in inter partes review no. IPR2018-01044.
`
`B. Real Parties-In-Interest
`Petitioner identifies Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC as the real
`party-in-interest. Pet. 55. Petitioner further attests that:
`Additional real parties in interest include Sony Interactive
`Entertainment America LLC (SIEA), a California limited
`liability company; Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. (SIEI), a
`Japanese corporation; Sony Corporation of America (SCA), a
`New York corporation; Sony Electronics Inc. (SEL), a Delaware
`corporation; and Sony Corporation, a Japanese corporation. In
`the original Complaint of the above Central District of California
`lawsuit, Petitioner, SIEA, SCA, and a past-dissolved entity
`called Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc., a former Delaware
`corporation, were named as the defendants.
`Id. at 55.
`Patent Owner identifies Techno View IP, Inc. as the real party-
`in-interest. Paper 6. Patent Owner further attests that:
`In 2016, TD VISION CORPORATION S.A. DE C.V., the
`assignee of U.S. Patent No. 8,206,218 (“the ‘218 patent”)
`provided TECHNO VIEW IP, INC. with an exclusive license,
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`including all substantial rights in and to the ‘218 patent. Further,
`TD VISION CORPORATION S.A. DE C.V. has not contended
`it is a required party in litigation surrounding the ‘218 patent. 1
`Therefore, the effective Patent Owner, and the real party-in-
`interest for the purposes of this inter partes review, is TECHNO
`VIEW IP, INC.
`Id. (internal footnote omitted).
`
`C. The ’218 Patent
`The ’218 patent is directed to displaying “three-dimensional (3D)
`images, easily integrated to the existing television, personal computer and
`videogame system equipment.” Ex. 1001, 1:16–20. As explained in the
`’218 patent, problems with existing 3D imaging systems included
`presentation incompatibilities, collateral effects, and a lack of compatibility
`with existing technologies. Id. at 1:45–47. Addressing these problems, the
`’218 patent describes a system for determining whether to present an image
`in a 3D format, and if so, providing corresponding left and right eye images
`to a viewer to create the 3D image, and if not present the image in a 2D
`format. Id. at 8:56–9:2. Specifically, the ’218 patent discloses a “3D
`videogame system capable of displaying . . . left-right sequences through a
`different, independent VGA or video channel, with a display device sharing
`a memory in an immerse manner.” Id. at Abstract. The system uses a
`backbuffer, which is a memory location where an image to be displayed is
`temporarily drawn without outputting it to a video card. Id. at 6:40–43. The
`information from the backbuffer is sent to a frontbuffer for subsequent
`display. Id. at Abstract, Fig. 4b.
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–11, 13, and 14 of the ’218 patent.
`Independent claims 1 and 7 are reproduced below.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`1. A method in a videogame system for displaying three
`dimensional images, comprising the computer implemented
`steps of:
`providing left and right backbuffers;
`calculating first position coordinates of a first eye view; 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;
`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 position
`coordinates of the first eye view;
`determining a second eye view image of the object captured
`virtually from the calculated second position coordinates of
`the second eye view;
`storing the second eye view image in the right backbuffer; and
`displaying the first eye view image and the second eye view
`image to the user to provide a three dimensional perspective
`of the object from the videogame system to a user.
`
`
`7. A method in a videogame system for displaying three
`dimensional images, comprising the computer implemented
`steps of:
`providing first and second buffers;
`calculating first position coordinates of a first eye view;
`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;
`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;
`determining a second eye view image of the virtual object based
`on the calculated second spatial coordinates;
`storing the second eye view image in the second buffer; and
`outputting the first eye view image from the first buffer and the
`second eye view image from the second buffer to a display to
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`provide a three dimensional perspective of the virtual object
`from the videogame system to a user.
`
`
`
`E. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–11, 13, and 14 would have been
`obvious on the following grounds.
`References
`Johnson, 3 and Bar-Nahum4
`Scallie, 5 Meijers, 6 and Woo7
`Scallie, Meijers, Woo, and Bar-Nahum
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1–11, 13, and 14
`1–7, 9–11, 13, and 14
`8
`
`Pet. 2–3.
`
`II. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`We interpret the claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b). Under that standard, a claim term generally is given its
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,523,886, iss. June 4, 1996 (Ex. 1004).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,496,183 B1, iss. December 17, 2002 (Ex. 1005).
`5 U.S. Publication No. US 2002/0154214 A1, pub. October 24, 2002 (Ex.
`1006).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,929,859, iss. July 27, 1999 (Ex. 1007).
`7 Mason Woo, Jackie Neider, Tom Davis, Dave Shreiner “OpenGL
`Programming Guide” Third Edition, Version 1.2, 1999 (Ex. 1008).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`Petitioner proposes that two claim terms be construed: “backbuffer”
`and “frontbuffer.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner does not proffer any claim
`terms for construction. See Prelim. Resp. 8. Given that the parties raise no
`explicit claim construction disputes regarding these terms, we do not
`construe them at this time. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms that are in controversy
`need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy).
`We have indicated in one or more sections instances where we believe
`an explicit claim construction could be useful to resolve a potential dispute.
`To the extent the parties believe that a claim construction of one or more
`particular terms would be useful to resolve an issue in this proceeding, the
`parties are encouraged to raise the issue at an appropriate time during the
`trial portion of the proceeding.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
`presumed to know the relevant prior art.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
`1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan
`Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In determining this skill
`level, the court may consider various factors including “type of problems
`encountered in [the] art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with
`which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and
`educational level of active workers in the field.” Custom Accessories, 807
`F.2d at 962. In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or
`more factors may predominate. Id. at 962–963. The prior art itself can
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d. 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`Petitioner proposes the following level of ordinary skill in the art:
`(1) at least an undergraduate degree in computer science,
`computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar
`technical field; (2) a working knowledge of stereoscopic and 3D
`graphics systems; and (3) two or more years of experience (or
`with a graduate degree in the above-stated fields, one or more
`years of experience) in analysis, design, or development related
`to video processing and stereoscopic displays, with additional
`education substituting for experience and vice versa.
`Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 25–27). Patent Owner does not dispute this
`proposed level of ordinary skill at this time.
`
`Reviewing the evidence before us at this time, we find Petitioner’s
`proposed level of ordinary skill in the art reasonable and adopt it as our own
`for purposes of this decision.
`
`C. The Johnson-Bar-Nahum Ground
`(Claims 1–11, 13, and 14)
`The Johnson-Bar-Nahum ground is directed to both independent
`claims challenged in this Petition. Pet. 11–29. Johnson is directed to a
`stereoscopic display device such as a head mounted display that may be
`connected, for example, to a video game console such as the Sega Genesis.
`Ex. 1008, 2:65–3:7. The Johnson device receives left and right eye images
`in designated VRAM (video random access memory) buffers. Id. at 3:8–16.
`The display system operates in monoscopic (2D) and stereoscopic (3D)
`modes, controllable by switch or command signals from the video source.
`Id. at 4:34–45. The video is displayed to the user on left and right displays,
`wherein the video signal alternates between displaying left and right images.
`Id. at 4:46–64. A block diagram of this arrangement is provided below.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`
`Figure 1B is a block diagram of the previously-described device of Johnson.
`Petitioner admits that Johnson does not explicitly describe how the
`various images in the left and right VRAMs are calculated, and for that turns
`to Bar-Nahum. See Pet. 15–16. Bar-Nahum operates by intercepting calls to
`a display driver requesting 3D rendering operations and generating left and
`right eye viewpoints for output to a stereoscopic display. Ex. 1005, 2:21–20.
`The mechanism for doing so is called a stereoscopic filter. E.g., id. at 4:46–
`54. Each 3D object is rendered in two scenes, one for each eye. Id. at 6, 8–
`14. To generate the two scenes, in one embodiment, the focal point of the
`original scene is moved to the left and right a distance d to represent the
`views from each eye. Id. at 6:53–56. Based on the location of these two
`points, the filter then recalculates the XYZ location of the 3D object(s) from
`the perspectives of these two points. Id. Then, the scenes are rendered. See
`id. at 6:65–67. Figures 8–10 of Bar-Nahum depict portions of this process:
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`
`
`Figure 8 of Bar-Nahum depicts a circle (representing a user’s eye) h units
`away from the XY plane (representing a display screen) and dashed lines
`tracing rays toward points of the object in XYZ 3D space being viewed via
`the XY plane. See id. at 3:6–7. The figure indicates that the location of the
`eye (relative to the XY plane of the screen) is in the center, i.e., in the
`middle of the width (W/2) and height (H/2) of the screen. Figure 9 depicts
`the same object in XYZ space as Figure 8, but according to a new coordinate
`system X′YZ′ rotated about the Y axis an amount to represent the difference
`in viewpoint between the two eyes (d). See id. at 3:8–9. Figure 10 provides
`a top-down view of the same transformation and relationship between
`Figures 8 and 9, with reference to a single part of the object. See id. at 3:10–
`11.
`
`
`We now turn to the particular grounds.
`
`1. Claim 1
`Claim 1 is independent. Petitioner addresses claim 1 with a chart
`mapping the limitations to the teachings of the various references (Pet. 17–
`22), as well as a section discussing the rationale for combining the various
`elements in the references (id. at 11–17). Turning to the particular
`limitations of claim 1, Petitioner asserts that Johnson teaches the limitations
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`directed to providing backbuffers, storing eye images, and displaying eye
`images. Pet. 18 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 3:10–19), 18–19 (citing, e.g., Ex.
`1004, 3:16–20), 20–22 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 3:8–18, 6:14–25). Petitioner
`asserts that Bar-Nahum teaches the limitations directed to calculating the
`first and second eye view position coordinates. Id. at 18 (citing, e.g., 6:25–
`7:37), 19 (citing, e.g., 7:28–35). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would understand that Johnson’s system would require
`calculations to determine the two viewpoints because it does not specify how
`the calculations are made, and would thus turn to Bar-Nahum. Id. at 15–16
`(citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 59).
`We have considered the ground recited in the Petition, and the
`evidence cited therein, as briefly summarized above, and have also
`considered Patent Owner’s preliminary arguments against this ground
`(Prelim. Resp. 20–23). Patent Owner’s contention against this ground is that
`Petitioner has not established a sufficient rationale for combination. Id.
`First, Patent Owner argues that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertions,
`Johnson does not require calculations and calculations are not inherent. Id.
`at 20. For example, Patent Owner argues that the video source could be a
`CD or DVD. Id. at 21. This argument misses the thrust of the invention in
`Johnson, which is to be used in video games, not pre-rendered movies. E.g.,
`Ex. 1004, 3:3–7. As Patent Owner recognizes, Johnson is focused on the
`display device, where the images are provided from a video source into
`VRAM. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1B. The fact that Johnson is not focused on the
`image generation does not mean that Johnson’s device is incompatible with
`image generation.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`Continuing the argument, Patent Owner asserts that “a substantial
`number of other features would also need to be included,” but this argument
`presumes that instead of connecting Johnson’s device to the video source,
`Petitioner must modify Johnson to include the video source inside the
`specific structures depicted in the figures. See Prelim. Resp. 22 (noting that
`Johnson’s “processor clearly cannot provide the calculations necessary”).
`This is a bodily incorporation argument. Petitioner does not need to modify
`Johnson’s processor; Petitioner needs merely to demonstrate that it would
`have been obvious to provide the images used by Johnson’s device
`according to the claimed method. Because the modifications here are to
`steps specifying how the images appear in the VRAM, we see no
`incompatibility on this record.
`We have reviewed the record before us and addressed the issues
`raised by the parties. We determine that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood of success in showing that claim 1 of the ’218 patent is
`unpatentable.
`
`2. Claim 5
`Claim 5 specifies that calculating the second eye view coordinates are
`done with transformation equations based on the location of a first eye view.
`Petitioner asserts that Bar-Nahum describes this calculation. Pet. 22–23
`(citing, e.g., 6:48–59, 7:28–33). Patent Owner argues that because Bar-
`Nahum provides only a single frame of reference and coordinate system it is
`merely “mirroring the results” of one eye onto another. Prelim. Resp. 16;
`see also id. at 15–18 (setting out the whole argument). On this record, we
`consider Petitioner to have the better position.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`Bar-Nahum states that “every 3D object is separated into two
`instances, or viewpoints, i.e., a left viewpoint and a right viewpoint.” Ex.
`1005, 6:8–10. This appears to refute Patent Owner’s statements that Bar-
`Nahum does not reference individual camera views of an object. As to the
`discussion of “mirroring,” on this record we understand this to be one option
`for calculating the viewpoints. Specifically, Bar-Nahum suggests taking the
`original focal point h and “relocat[ing it] to the left and right” “to create a
`separate left and right view.” Id. at 6:52–56. This makes sense—given that
`the original point is between the eyes, the location of the right eye is
`mirrored over this mid-point-origin relative to the left eye. Bar-Nahum is
`talking about mirroring the location of the camera—not images, which are
`instead calculated based upon the location of the cameras. Id. at 7:51–57
`(stating that, after performing the mirroring, the separate left and right
`viewpoint data are rendered). Further, Bar-Nahum states that instead of
`performing the above mirroring, one could simply take the original view as
`one eye and translate it over to the left eye viewpoint. Id. at 9:34–37. In
`either case, we are persuaded on this record that one eye view is calculated
`based on the location of the other eye view.
`
`3. Claim 7
`Independent claim 7 has similar scope as claim 1. Petitioner’s ground
`is effectively the same (Pet. 24–25), except that the additional specificity
`regarding coordinate calculations (e.g., in claim 5) are recited in claim 7.
`Patent Owner’s argument that Bar-Nahum does not teach the requisite
`calculation in claim 7 is unpersuasive on this record for the same reasons
`expressed above with claim 5.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`
`4. Claim 8
`Claim 8 depends from independent claim 7 and requires increasing the
`buffer memory prior to generating the eye images. Petitioner asserts that
`Johnson teaches using two buffers and that Bar-Nahum teaches a double-
`size buffer. Pet. 26 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 3:16–20; Ex. 1005, 4:55–5:5; Ex.
`1010 ¶ 60). Patent Owner argues that Bar-Nahum teaches “the frame buffer
`is double the length of the conventional frame buffer” but “[t]his is not
`‘increasing the first and second buffer memory.’” Prelim. Resp. 17–18.
`It is not clear to us how having a double-sized buffer relative to the
`standard-sized buffer fails to meet the claim limitation—the buffer is
`increased in size over the conventional size. Patent Owner appears to have a
`particular claim construction in mind, but has not articulated any such
`construction, and we are unable to discern it. We would find briefing of this
`claim construction issue during the trial portion of this proceeding useful.
`
`5. Claim 13
`Claim 13 depends from independent claim 7 and includes limitations
`directed to cleaning and closing the buffers. Petitioner asserts that Johnson
`teaches revising and refreshing the buffers (VRAM). Pet. 27–28 (citing,
`e.g., Ex. 1004, 3:8–23, 3:33–47). Patent Owner argues that revising and
`refreshing the buffers is not the same as cleaning and closing them. Prelim.
`Resp. 19–20. We agree with Patent Owner, on this record, that Petitioner
`has not shown how revising and refreshing is the same as cleaning and
`closing—Petitioner does not offer a claim construction equating the terms
`and, on this record, it is not apparent to us how they are the same.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`
`6. Claims 2–4, 6, 9–11, and 14
`Claim 2 specifies that the first image corresponds to a first virtual
`object. Petitioner asserts that Bar-Nahum teaches that views are of
`“graphics objects.” Pet. 22 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 3:21–23). Claims 3 and 9
`state that there is no deviation in the height of the eye views when
`calculating the x and z coordinates; Petitioner asserts that Bar-Nahum uses a
`transformation that holds the y coordinates constant. Id. (citing, e.g., Ex.
`1005, 6:65–7:7). Claims 4 and 10 require calculating coordinates of a right
`eye camera view; Petitioner asserts that Bar-Nahum teaches that either view
`can be left or right. Id. (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 9:34–37). Claim 6 states that
`the left and right images are on different video channels; Petitioner asserts
`that Johnson teaches using separate VRAMs which output to separate video
`ports. Id. at 23–24 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 7:18–27). Claim 11 states that the
`buffers are in the memory of a video game graphics card; Petitioner asserts
`that Johnson does not describe what the VRAM is physically located in, but
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that VRAM could
`be implemented in a graphics card. Id. at 26–27 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 55).
`Claim 14 states that the second eye view is 6.5 to 7.0 cm apart from the
`other eye; Petitioner asserts that Bar-Nahum teaches to displace the frames
`by the distance between the eyes. Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:63–67; Ex.
`1010 ¶¶ 50, 57).
`Patent Owner does not raise any arguments specific to these claims.
`Reviewing the Petitioner and the evidence cited therein, we are not
`apprised of any particular issues and note that Petitioner’s positions, on this
`record, appear sufficiently reasonable for purposes of institution.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`
`D. The Scallie-Meijers-Woo Ground
`(Claims 1–7, 9–11, 13, and 14)
`The Scallie-Meijers-Woo ground is directed to both of the
`independent claims challenged in this Petition, as well as a number of claims
`depending therefrom. See generally Pet. 29–53. Like the ’218 patent,
`Scallie was concerned with displaying 3D games in 3D rather than 2D. Ex.
`1006 ¶ 21. Scallie operates by intercepting the game’s API function calls to
`the 2D display, using pseudo drivers that have the same name as the original
`2D drivers. Id. ¶ 25. Figure 1A of Scallie provides a functional overview:
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`
`Figure 1A of Scallie is a block diagram illustrating the method of
`intercepting 3D game data and using pseudo drivers to generate a 3D image
`on a 3D display. Figure 1A is modified with additional coloration, with red
`depicting the original path of data and green depicting Scallie’s proposed
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`modified path of data.
`
`Scallie takes the data sent to the API and generates left and right
`viewpoints according to “conventional” and “well known” methods for
`doing so. Id. ¶ 28. The two viewpoints are then displayed simultaneously
`on a 3D display device. Id. ¶ 38.
`
`In Petitioner’s ground, Scallie is not specifically relied on to teach
`how to calculate a second eye image—Meijers is provided for that
`limitation. See, e.g., Pet. 34–35. Meijers is directed to pixel shifting in
`order to provide on-the-fly stereoscopic display. Ex. 1007, Abstract. In
`Meijers, each pixel is assigned a z-value to represent its depth in the scene.
`Id. at 7:41–43. The XY plane is taken as the focus plane, where the eyes
`look (i.e., the display screen). See id. at 7:47–50. The origin O is the point
`(0, 0, 0) corresponding to the spot between the eyes, with O1 and O2 being
`the location of each eye, spaced D units to either side of O. See id. at 7:43–
`54, 8:7–10. Using this set up, Meijers explains that the location of each
`pixel can be shifted from its original location (corresponding to its observed
`location from O1) to its new location (corresponding to its observed location
`from O2) based on the known distance D and known depth z. Id. at 8:10–29.
`Because Meijers is pixel shifting, rather than re-rendering the scene using a
`3D API, Meijers discusses additional provisions for how to handle overlap
`and hole artifacts. See, e.g., id. at 9:12–43.
`
`Petitioner’s ground relies on Woo for specific programming to
`manipulate left and right front- and backbuffers using OpenGL. Pet. 38.
`Woo is a book that explains how to use OpenGL, a particular API used to
`draw in 3D. Ex. 1008, 18, 438; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 24 (noting that Scallie
`
`8 To remain consistent with citations in the Petition, for this exhibit (Ex.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`uses the OpenGL API). Woo explains that to draw an image, you first clear
`the buffer. Ex. 1008, 70–71; see also id. at 489–491 (describing the various
`buffers). If drawing a 3D image viewed stereoscopically, Woo explains that
`you must draw in separate buffers for each eye. Id. at 490.
`
`We now turn to the particular grounds.
`
`1. Claims 1 and 7
`Claims 1 and 7 are independent. Petitioner addresses claim 1 with a
`chart mapping the limitations to the teachings of the various references (Pet.
`39–43), as well as a section discussing the rationale for combining the
`various elements in the references (id. at 29–39). Turning to the particular
`limitations of claim 1, Petitioner asserts that Scallie teaches the limitations
`directed to providing backbuffers, storing eye images, and displaying eye
`images. Pet. 39–40 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶ 25), 40 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1006
`¶¶ 59–60), 42–43 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶ 24). Petitioner asserts that Meijers
`teaches the limitations directed to calculating the first and second eye view
`position coordinates. Id. at 41 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1007, 7:50–63), 19 (citing,
`e.g., 7:28–35), 42 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1007, 8:21–29). Petitioner asserts that
`Woo teaches the limitations directed to buffer implementation. Pet. 39, 40,
`42 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1008, 490–493). Petitioner asserts that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious “to apply
`Meijer[s]’s specific teachings of calculating and generating a second (i.e.,
`right) eye image by offsetting the viewpoint of a source (i.e., left) eye
`image.” Pet. 34–35. The reasons being that Scallie suggests using
`
`
`1008), our citations herein correspond to Petitioner’s stamped-on page
`numbers in the lower right-hand corner.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`“conventional mathematics” and that using Meijers’s pixel-shifting approach
`“reduces the number of images that need to be generated.” Id. at 35 (citing
`Ex. 1010 ¶ 67). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have considered it obvious to look to Woo’s teachings regarding
`specific buffer manipulations using OpenGL because Scallie suggests using
`OpenGL. Id. at 38.
`We have considered the ground recited in the Petition, and the
`evidence cited therein, as briefly summarized above, and have also
`considered Patent Owner’s preliminary arguments against this ground
`(Prelim. Resp. 23–32). The main points of contention are addressed below.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not address the requirement
`of claims 1 and 7 directed to calculating coordinates of the second eye view
`using the coordinates of the first eye view. Prelim. Resp. 24–26. In
`particular, Patent Owner argues that Meijers describes how an image can be
`derived, not a viewpoint. Id. at 24. As we explained in our overview of
`Meijers above, Meijers describes two eye views O1 and O2, which have
`coordinates of (D, 0, 0) and (-D, 0, 0). Ex. 1007, Fig. 2A. Meijers explains
`that the assignment of these points around the origin is “[f]or explaining the
`parallactic shifting of pixel[s],” i.e., to make the example easier to follow.
`Id. at 7:43–44. Thus, Meijers does appear to derive two separate viewpoints
`representing two separate coordinate positions of eye views, in a manner
`similar to the ’218 patent. See Ex. 1001, 12:53–13:25.
`Patent Owner further argues that the coordinates of O1 and O2 are
`chosen, not calculated. Prelim. Resp. 25–26. In Meijers, however, O2 is
`determined to be a distance 2D apart from O1 (“2D” here not to be confused
`with “two-dimensional”). Ex. 1007, 8:5–10, Fig. 2A. Although this
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01045
`Patent 8,206,218 B2
`calculation is trivial, it is not less trivial than Patent Owner’s, which also
`merely places the location of the second camera by shifting the first based on
`the distance between the eyes (analogous to Meijers’s “2D”). See Ex. 1001,
`12:53–58, 13:16–17.
`Patent Owner next argues that the combination would not have been
`obvious because it violates Petitioner’s End User License Agreement
`(EULA). Prelim. Resp. 26–28. Patent Owner specifically offers a EULA
`from Petitioner. Ex. 2002. This argument is not persuasive on this record
`because there is no indication that the particular EULA presented here in
`Exhibit 2002 has any relevance to the particular combination, which does
`not involve Petitioner’s hardware, but rather that of Scallie, Meijers, and
`Woo. Further, the appropriate measure of obviousness is from the
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, not the end user; Patent
`Owner has not bridged its theory here to the applicable standard.
`We have reviewed the record before us and addressed the issues
`raised by the parties. On this record, we determine that Petitioner’s ground
`has a reasonable likelihood of success with resp