UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`EIGHT KHZ, LLC,
`8KHZ.
`________________________
`
`Case IPR2023-01021
`Patent 10,917,737
`________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`37 C.F.R. §§42.62, and 42.64
`
`
`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`EIGHT KHZ, LLC,
`8KHZ.
`________________________
`
`Case IPR2023-01021
`Patent 10,917,737
`________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`37 C.F.R. §§42.62, and 42.64
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§42.62, and 42.64, and the Federal Rules of Evidence,
`
`Patent Owner Eight kHz, LLC (“8KHZ”) provides the following objections to
`
`evidence submitted by Petitioner Meta Platforms, Inc. These objections are timely
`
`served within ten (10) business days of the institution of the trial. The fact that 8KHZ
`
`has not objected below to certain pieces of evidence or certain portions of certain
`
`evidence provides no indication that 8KHZ agrees to the positions asserted therein.
`
`In addition, 8KHZ reserves the right to present further objections to this or additional
`
`evidence submitted by Meta Platforms, Inc., as allowed by the applicable rules or
`
`other authority.
`
`I.
`
`8KHZ’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`Exhibit 1003 – Declaration of Dr. Gregory Welch
`
`8KHZ objects to the declaration of Dr. Gregory Welch (the “Declarant”),
`
`Exhibit 1003, under Fed. R. Evid. 106, 401-403, 702-703, 705, and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.65(a) and § 42.104(b)(5). These evidentiary failures cannot be cured because
`
`Petitioner is time-barred from filing another petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`8KHZ specifically objects to:
`
`(1)
`
`Paragraphs 90, 447, 450, 452, 453, 474, 484, 526, and 539 of Exhibit
`
`1003 on the ground that they are irrelevant, misleading, unduly
`
`prejudicial, and confusing under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 and speculation
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703, and 705;
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`(2)
`
`Paragraphs 152, 158, 199, 232-234, 281, 327, 446, 534, 537, and 614
`
`of Exhibit 1003 on the grounds that the probative value of the testimony
`
`contained therein is outweighed by a danger of prejudice and confusion
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 and to the extent that at least some of these
`
`paragraphs fail to include all related parts “that in fairness ought to be
`
`considered at the same time” under Fed. R. Evid. 106;
`
`(3)
`
`Paragraphs 18-26 and 36 of Exhibit 1003 on the grounds that they
`
`contain purported expert testimony by a Declarant who is not qualified
`
`as an expert on these issues in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 702-703;
`
`(4)
`
`Paragraphs 90, 232-234, 281, 327, 446, 447, 450, 451, 452, 453, 474,
`
`484, 526, 537, and 539 of Exhibit 1003 on the grounds that they contain
`
`“[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data
`
`on which the opinion is based” in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) and
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702-703;
`
`(5)
`
`Paragraphs 1-26, 41-71, 145-47, 209, 315-17, 369, 382-84, 398, 407-
`
`09, 441-42, 506-08, 551, 561, 565-67, 581, and 591-92 of Exhibit 1003
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`on the grounds that they are not cited to, or relied upon, by the Petition
`
`(Paper 2) in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).1
`
`The fact that 8KHZ has not objected to certain paragraphs of Exhibit 1003
`
`provides no indication that 8KHZ agrees to the positions asserted therein.
`
`A.
`
`Objections to Irrelevant, Misleading, Unduly Prejudicial and Confusing
`
`Testimony
`
`8KHZ objects to Exhibit 1003 as unsupported and conclusory testimony that
`
`is irrelevant, misleading, unduly prejudicial, and confusing under Fed. R. Evid. 401-
`
`403 and purported expert opinion that is pure speculation under Fed. R. Evid. 702,
`
`703, and 705.
`
`Specifically, and without limitation, 8KHZ objects to any such paragraph in
`
`which the Declarant speculates as to a POSITA’s understanding and state of mind,
`
`including without limitation, paragraphs 90, 447, 450, 452, 453, 474, 484, 526, and
`
`539 for relying on conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence
`
`and which is pure speculation and/or unsupported by facts or data of a type
`
`1 For completeness, 8KHZ includes objections under categories (1)-(4) to
`
`paragraphs that are not cited in the Petition and also objected to on that basis under
`
`category (5).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in order to form the opinion or
`
`inferences made therein.
`
`In paragraph 90, Declarant purely speculates, without providing any
`
`supporting evidence, that “Persons of ordinary skill would be very familiar with
`
`these principles [of tracking a user's head] and understand the same principles apply
`
`to tracking other parts of a user's body (e.g., hands and feet) and other objects.”
`
`In paragraph 447, Declarant purely speculates, without providing any
`
`supporting evidence, that “[e]ven as an Augmented Reality (AR) system,
`
`McCulloch’s system is susceptible to safety issues stemming from the user’s
`
`impeded ability to sense the real, physical environment, which necessitates
`
`Pedrotti’s “safe area” or boundaries. Persons of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`known and understood that virtual objects and effects in an AR paradigm can
`
`occlude the user’s view of the real world—indeed such occlusions are intentional.”
`
`In paragraph 450, Declarant purely speculates, without providing any
`
`supporting evidence, that “[p]ersons of ordinary skill in the art would therefore
`
`understand that both optical see-through and video see-through (“video-see”) AR
`
`displays are susceptible to the same safety issues that VR displays are, stemming
`
`from the user’s inability to see real world objects that are partially or fully occluded
`
`by virtual objects in the see-through AR display.”
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`In paragraph 452, Declarant purely speculates, without providing any
`
`supporting evidence, that “[i]mplementing a “safe area” or boundaries in
`
`McCulloch’s AR environment would allow a user to more fully enjoy the immersive
`
`experience while counteracting the user’s compromised ability to sense physical
`
`surroundings.”
`
`In paragraph 453, Declarant purely speculates, without providing any
`
`supporting evidence, that “[f]inally, because the systems of McCulloch and Pedrotti
`
`have essentially the same underlying functionality, including HMDs and full
`
`position and orientation tracking, persons of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that there was a reasonable expectation of success for applying Pedrotti’s
`
`“safe area” to McCulloch’s system.”
`
`In paragraph 474, Declarant purely speculates, without providing any
`
`supporting evidence, that “[p]ersons of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`and understood that Pedrotti’s method, which uses HMD-tracked handheld
`
`controllers to draw a boundary, is advantageous, efficient, and accurate, including in
`
`comparison to other known tracking and/or boundary-drawing methods, such as
`
`gaze tracking and voice commands, and thus would have been motivated to use it.”
`
`In paragraph 484, Declarant purely speculates, without providing any
`
`supporting evidence, that “[a]nd those virtual objects would be in Pedrotti’s “safe
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`area” (the claimed zone), which extends from the physical floor, as well as above
`
`the physical floor.”
`
`In paragraph 526, Declarant purely speculates, without providing any
`
`supporting evidence, that “[p]ersons of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`and been motivated to move sound associated with one of McCulloch’s or Pedrotti’s
`
`virtual objects in the same arc trajectory of those objects. And as such objects move
`
`in an arc, they show the user the trajectory of their associated binaural sounds.”
`
`In paragraph 539, Declarant purely speculates, without providing any
`
`supporting evidence, that “[i]n view of these McCulloch teachings, persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to store coordinate locations of
`
`a customized zone along with maps, particularly because a zone can be considered
`
`its own object with a 3D space position and position volume.”
`
`Accordingly, such unsupported and conclusory testimony is objected to as
`
`irrelevant, misleading, unduly prejudicial, and confusing under Fed. R. Evid. 401-
`
`403 and pure speculation under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703, and 705.
`
`(1)Objections to Testimony Whose Probative Value is Substantially Outweighed by
`
`a Danger of Prejudice and Confusion
`
`8KHZ objects to paragraphs 152, 158, 199, 232-234, 281, 327, 446, 534, 537,
`
`and 614 of Exhibit 1003 to the extent that the probative value of the testimony
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`contained therein is substantially outweighed by a danger of prejudice and confusion
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`Specifically, 8KHZ objects to the misleading statement in paragraph 152 that
`
`“Pedrotti discloses as parts of its system ‘a head mounted display (HMD) that … has
`
`a tracker allow[ing] a processor to track the position and orientation of the HMD’
`
`and ‘physical controllers that a user may use to control certain actions or events in
`
`the virtual world.’” Declarant does not provide the full text in this quote of Pedrotti,
`
`which also includes the “physical base station” as part of the system: “A method
`
`and apparatus is disclosed for assisting a user in locating physical objects while the
`
`user is wearing a head mounted display (HMD) that covers a user’s field of vision
`
`and has a tracker allows a processor to track the position and orientation of the HMD,
`
`the objects being specifically one or more physical controllers that a user may use to
`
`control certain actions or events in the virtual world and which are located on a
`
`physical base station.” Pedrotti (Ex. 1005) at 4:4-11. Thus, Declarant provides an
`
`out-of-context, incomplete picture of Pedrotti (Ex. 1005), and pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 106 fails to include all related parts “that in fairness out to be considered at the
`
`same time.”
`
`8KHZ similarly objects to the misleading characterization in paragraph 158
`
`that “Pedrotti further discloses that the type of warning may be altered, such as ‘with
`
`directional arrows indicating the direction of the boundary in relation to the user’s
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`view,’ ‘text or auditory warnings,’ or ‘an additional visual warning, that persists until
`
`the user returns to the selected area within the boundary’” but fails to consider the
`
`disclosure in Pedrotti that the type of warning is altered from a virtual fence, which
`
`is used when the user is approaching the boundary, to something else like directional
`
`arrows, text or auditory warnings, “[i]f the user’s head or hands go beyond the
`
`boundary.” Pedrotti (Ex. 1005) at 13:63-67. Thus, Declarant provides an out-of-
`
`context, incomplete picture of Pedrotti (Ex. 1005), and pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 106
`
`fails to include all related parts “that in fairness out to be considered at the same
`
`time.”
`
`8KHZ similarly objects to the misleading characterization in paragraph 199
`
`that “McCulloch also discloses creating user-defined, 3D zones for gameplay.” This
`
`statement and the selected quotes from McCulloch included in paragraph 197 do not
`
`consider the disclosure of McCulloch providing that the user-defined playspace is
`
`based only on the user’s field of view. See McCulloch (Es.. 1008) at 4:4-14 (“The
`
`term ‘display field of view’ refers to the field of view of the display portion of the
`
`display device system as the display portion is what the user looks through. In other
`
`words, the display field of view approximates a user field of view as seen from a
`
`user perspective. In some embodiments, the display field of view may be mapped
`
`by a view dependent coordinate system, having orthogonal X, Y and Z axes in which
`
`a Z-axis represents a depth position from a reference point, for example a reference
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`point on or near the display portion of the device.”). The “playspace” in McCulloch
`
`is thus defined by the user's field of view: “For example, a gaming application may
`
`receive user input identifying boundaries for a playspace in which virtual objects can
`
`be positioned. For example, the user input data may be image and depth data from
`
`a capture device on the display device captured while the user is turning his head,
`
`gaze data captured while a user is gazing at boundary points and perhaps audio data
`
`captured by the microphone of the user speaking a command like ‘boundary’.”
`
`McCulloch (Ex. 1008) at 20:11-18.
`
`Further, in paragraphs 232-234, 281, and 327, Declarant misconstrues
`
`Pedrotti’s tracking processor, as being disclosed as in the HMD. However, Pedrotti
`
`does not disclose that the processor used to determine position of the HMD via a
`
`tracker of the HMD is in the HMD. Instead, Pedrotti discloses a processor that is
`
`external to the HMD, which determines position and orientation with respect to fixed
`
`point (e.g., a base station) using trackers of the HMD. Pedrotti, column 5, lines 29-
`
`36. The portion of Pedrotti allegedly supporting the disclosure of the tracking
`
`processor being “in the WED”, Pedrotti, column 16, lines 20-24, does not actually
`
`disclose this, but instead merely discloses that “[t]here may be a single processor, or
`
`multiple processors performing different functions of the functions described herein.
`
`As above, a processor may be located in the base station or in a separate location, or
`
`even in the HMD or one of the controllers if desired.” (Emphasis added.) Thus,
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`Declarant’s cited support provides no support for the obviousness assertions made
`
`in paragraphs 232-234, 281, and 327. Thus, Declarant provides an out-of-context,
`
`incomplete picture of Pedrotti (Ex. 1005), and pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 106 fails to
`
`include all related parts “that in fairness out to be considered at the same time.”
`
`8KHZ also objects to the misleading characterization in paragraph 446 that
`
`“[i]n such environments, the user risks personal injury and property damage from
`
`collisions, tripping hazards, etc. For example, if a user of McCulloch’s system is
`
`flying a virtual helicopter, the user can be focused on the virtual helicopter and trip
`
`over a sofa.” However, McCulloch only describes a playspace that is in the user’s
`
`front view and the user does not risk trip over furniture because McCulloch’s
`
`controller controls the position of the virtual object without the user’s movement.
`
`See McCulloch, FIGS. 3A-3F. Thus, Declarant provides an out-of-context,
`
`incomplete picture of Pedrotti (Ex. 1005), and pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 106 fails to
`
`include all related parts “that in fairness out to be considered at the same time.”
`
`8KHZ also objects to the misleading characterization in paragraph 534 that
`
`“[p]ersons of ordinary skill in the art would have known that McCulloch’s system
`
`could and would generate, store, and display Pedrotti’s virtual fence because
`
`McCulloch discloses an HMD with a virtual data engine that displays virtual objects
`
`and further discloses that object data can include “[a] polygon mesh… to represent
`
`[an] object’s boundary.” Indeed, the polygon mesh of McCulloch refers to the
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`virtual object – not the boundary. See McCulloch, 17:14-27. Thus, Declarant
`
`provides an out-of-context, incomplete picture of Pedrotti (Ex. 1005), and pursuant
`
`to Fed. R. Evid. 106 fails to include all related parts “that in fairness out to be
`
`considered at the same time.”
`
`8KHZ also objects to the misleading characterization in paragraph 537 that
`
`“[p]ersons of ordinary skill in the art would have known that McCulloch’s playspace
`
`boundaries, which are identified via “user input,” could and would be any shape
`
`drawn by a user.” Indeed, the user input referred to in McCulloch is a gaze – not a
`
`handheld controller. See McCulloch, 20:13-27. Thus, Declarant provides an out-
`
`of-context, incomplete picture of Pedrotti (Ex. 1005), and pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.
`
`106 fails to include all related parts “that in fairness out to be considered at the same
`
`time.”
`
`8KHZ also objects to the misleading characterization in paragraph 614 that
`
`“McCulloch discloses using capture devices (e.g., cameras) as well as infrared
`
`(“IR”) transceivers in an HMD to detect and track infrared light, which may be
`
`emitted by a controller.” However, the emitted light does not track a boundary as
`
`recited by the respective claim, instead the infrared light provides a relative position
`
`of the controller with respect to the HMD. Thus, Declarant provides an out-of-
`
`context, incomplete picture of Pedrotti (Ex. 1005), and pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 106
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`fails to include all related parts “that in fairness out to be considered at the same
`
`time.”
`
`(2)Objections to Purported Expert Testimony by a Declarant Who is Not Qualified
`
`as an Expert
`
`8KHZ objects to paragraphs 18-26 and 36 of Exhibit 1003 under Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence 702-703 as the paragraphs contain purported expert testimony by
`
`a Declarant who is not qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
`
`training, or education to provide an expert opinion on these issues.
`
`Specifically, 8KHZ objects to the testimony of paragraphs 18-26 and 36
`
`containing improper opinion testimony by Declarant on legal concepts, subject
`
`matter on which Declarant is not an expert. All of these paragraphs fall under the
`
`heading of “legal understanding” in the Exhibit and include statements regarding
`
`legal concepts.
`
`For example, in paragraph 21, Declarant provides, “I also understand that in
`
`assessing whether a claim is obvious, one must consider whether the claimed
`
`improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
`
`established functions. I understand that there need not be a precise teaching in the
`
`prior art directed to the specific subject matter of a claim because one can take
`
`account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`would employ.” And in paragraph 22, Declarant states, “I understand that in an
`
`obviousness analysis, neither the motivation nor the avowed purpose of inventors
`
`controls the inquiry. Any need or problem known in the field at the time of the
`
`invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining
`
`elements…. I understand that known techniques can have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purposes, and that in many cases a person of ordinary skill in the art can fit
`
`the teachings of multiple pieces of prior art together.” In paragraph 25, Declarant
`
`states, “I understand that, when there is a reason to solve a problem and there are a
`
`finite number of identified, predicable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. I
`
`further understand that, if this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product
`
`not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, which bears on whether
`
`the claim would have been obvious.” And in paragraph 36, Declarant states, “[i]n
`
`my view, more education can supplement relevant experience and vice versa” when
`
`describing the nature of a POSA. Declarant himself acknowledges that he is not a
`
`lawyer (see Exhibit 1003, paragraph 17) and thus is not qualified to testify on these
`
`legal concepts.
`
`In addition, these statements in paragraphs 18-26 and 36 are conclusory
`
`statements that are unsupported by factual evidence and which are pure speculation,
`
`and thus 8KHZ objects to these paragraphs as unsupported and conclusory testimony
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`that is irrelevant, misleading, unduly prejudicial, and confusing under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`401-403 and purported expert opinion that is pure speculation under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`702, 703, and 705.
`
`(3)Objections to Purported Expert Testimony That Does Not Disclose the
`
`Underlying Facts or Data on Which the Opinion is Based
`
`8KHZ further objects to Exhibit 1003 as including “[e]xpert testimony that
`
`does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based” in
`
`violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) and Fed. R. Evid. 702-703, and 705.
`
`Specifically, each of paragraphs 90, 232-234, 281, 327, 446, 447, 450, 451,
`
`452, 453, 474, 484, 526, 537, and 539 contain sentences that do not cite to any
`
`evidence or facts to support the assertions made therein, and these uncited sentences
`
`are unsupported testimony that are accordingly objected to for failing to provide the
`
`underlying facts or data on which such opinion is based, as shown in more detail in
`
`Section (1) above.
`
`Further, sentences in paragraphs 232-234, 281, 327, 446, 451, 453, and 537
`
`cite to references that fail to provide support for the statements and/or opinions being
`
`proffered, and this testimony is accordingly objected to for failing to provide the
`
`underlying facts or data on which such opinion is based.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`Specifically, paragraphs 232-234, 281, and 327 cite to portions of Pedrotti that
`
`do not support the statements made with respect to a tracking processing being
`
`within the HMD. Indeed, the cited support provided in these paragraphs does not
`
`indicate that the processor that tracks the HMD and/or Controller is in the HMD.
`
`Instead, Pedrotti discloses a processor that is external to the HMD, which determines
`
`position and orientation with respect to fixed point (e.g., a base station) using
`
`trackers of the HMD. Pedrotti, column 5, lines 29-36. The portion of Pedrotti
`
`allegedly supporting the disclosure of the tracking processor being “in the WED”,
`
`Pedrotti, column 16, lines 20-24, does not actually disclose this, but instead merely
`
`discloses that “[t]here may be a single processor, or multiple processors performing
`
`different functions of the functions described herein. As above, a processor may be
`
`located in the base station or in a separate location, or even in the HMD or one of
`
`the controllers if desired.” Thus, Declarant’s cited support provides no support for
`
`the obviousness assertions made in paragraphs 232-234, 281, and 327.
`
`Specifically, paragraph 446 fails to provide underlying facts or data on which
`
`statements and/or the opinion is based by citing to a reference that fails to provide
`
`support for the statement and/or opinion proffered. For example, Declarant states
`
`that “[i]n such environments, the user risks personal injury and property damage
`
`from collisions, tripping hazards, etc. For example, if a user of McCulloch’s system
`
`is flying a virtual helicopter, the user can be focused on the virtual helicopter and
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`trip over a sofa.” However, McCulloch only describes a playspace that is in the
`
`user’s front view and the user does not risk trip over furniture because McCulloch’s
`
`controller controls the position of the virtual object without the user’s movement.
`
`See McCulloch, FIGS. 3A-3F. Thus, Declarant’s cited support provides no support
`
`for the obviousness assertion made in paragraph 446.
`
`Additionally, paragraph 451 fails to provide underlying facts or data on which
`
`statements and/or the opinion is based by citing to a reference that fails to provide
`
`support for the statement and/or opinion proffered. For example, Declarant states
`
`that McCulloch’s system is directed to creating an immersive experience for the
`
`user, which causes the user to “unintentionally ignore the hazards of navigating in
`
`the real world,” an effect that is compounded because AR is intended to blend real
`
`and virtual objects into one environment. However, McCulloch never mentions the
`
`quoted phrase in the cited portion and does not describe the user being concerned
`
`regarding his surrounds while using the AR headset. Thus, Declarant’s cited support
`
`provides no support for the obviousness assertion made in paragraph 451.
`
`Moreover, paragraph 453 fails to provide underlying facts or data on which
`
`statements and/or the opinion is based by citing to a reference that fails to provide
`
`support for the statement and/or opinion proffered. For example, Declarant states
`
`that because the systems of McCulloch and Pedrotti have essentially the same
`
`underlying functionality, including HMDs and full position and orientation tracking,
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a reasonable
`
`expectation of success for applying Pedrotti’s “safe area” to McCulloch’s system.
`
`However, McCulloch’s playspace is in the user’s view and never within an area that
`
`the user operates. Thus, Declarant’s cited support provides no support for the
`
`obviousness assertion made in paragraph 453.
`
`Moreover, paragraph 537 fails to provide underlying facts or data on which
`
`statements and/or the opinion is based by citing to a reference that fails to provide
`
`support for the statement and/or opinion proffered. For example, Declarant states
`
`that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have known that McCulloch’s
`
`playspace boundaries, which are identified via “user input,” could and would be any
`
`shape drawn by a user.. However, McCulloch’s user input is a gaze by way of the
`
`user’s eyes – not the position of the controller. Thus, Declarant’s cited support
`
`provides no support for the obviousness assertion made in paragraph 537.
`
`(4)Objections to Testimony Not Cited to or Relied Upon by the Petition
`
`8KHZ further objects to Exhibit 1003 as to the extent the testimony provided
`
`by Declarant in paragraphs 1-26, 41-71, 145-47, 209, 315-17, 369, 382-84, 398, 407-
`
`09, 441-42, 506-08, 551, 561, 565-67, 581, and 591-92 is not cited to or relied upon
`
`by the Petition (Paper 2) in violation of 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5). Accordingly, this
`
`testimony is also irrelevant, misleading, and confusing under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`Exhibit 1012 – International Patent Publication No. WO 2016/064435 (“Fei”)
`
`8KHZ objects to Exhibit 1012 under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(5).
`
`8KHZ objects to Exhibit 1012 under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 as this
`
`Exhibit has no bearing on any issue in this proceeding. Furthermore, 8KHZ objects
`
`to this Exhibit under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) because it is not cited to or relied upon
`
`by the Petition in this proceeding, and, accordingly, it lacks relevance and fails to
`
`support a patentability challenge. Petitioner does not explain how this Exhibit is
`
`relevant to the proceeding (i.e., the Petitioner fails to provide the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the challenge raised), and the Board may exclude evidence where a party
`
`has failed to state its relevance. Further, 8KHZ objects to this Exhibit because it has
`
`no bearing on the patentability of any of the claims of the Patent.
`
`For these reasons, 8KHZ further objects to this Exhibit as irrelevant,
`
`misleading, unduly prejudicial, and confusing under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Exhibit 1013 – U.S. Patent No. 8,884,984
`
`8KHZ objects to Exhibit 1013 under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(5).
`
`8KHZ objects to Exhibit 1013 under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 as this
`
`Exhibit has no bearing on any issue in this proceeding. Furthermore, 8KHZ objects
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`to this Exhibit under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) because it is not cited to or relied upon
`
`by the Petition in this proceeding, and, accordingly, it lacks relevance and fails to
`
`support a patentability challenge. Petitioner does not explain how this Exhibit is
`
`relevant to the proceeding (i.e., the Petitioner fails to provide the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the challenge raised), and the Board may exclude evidence where a party
`
`has failed to state its relevance. Further, 8KHZ objects to this Exhibit because it has
`
`no bearing on the patentability of any of the claims of the Patent.
`
`For these reasons, 8KHZ further objects to this Exhibit as irrelevant,
`
`misleading, unduly prejudicial, and confusing under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Exhibit 1014 – U.S. Patent No. 5,900,849
`
`8KHZ objects to Exhibit 1014 under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(5).
`
`8KHZ objects to Exhibit 1014 under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 as this
`
`Exhibit has no bearing on any issue in this proceeding. Furthermore, 8KHZ objects
`
`to this Exhibit under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) because it is not cited to or relied upon
`
`by the Petition in this proceeding, and, accordingly, it lacks relevance and fails to
`
`support a patentability challenge. Petitioner does not explain how this Exhibit is
`
`relevant to the proceeding (i.e., the Petitioner fails to provide the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the challenge raised), and the Board may exclude evidence where a party
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`has failed to state its relevance. Further, 8KHZ objects to this Exhibit because it has
`
`no bearing on the patentability of any of the claims of the Patent.
`
`For these reasons, 8KHZ further objects to this Exhibit as irrelevant,
`
`misleading, unduly prejudicial, and confusing under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Exhibit 1015 – U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0173265
`
`8KHZ objects to Exhibit 1015 under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(5).
`
`8KHZ objects to Exhibit 1015 under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 as this
`
`Exhibit has no bearing on any issue in this proceeding. Furthermore, 8KHZ objects
`
`to this Exhibit under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) because it is not cited to or relied upon
`
`by the Petition in this proceeding, and, accordingly, it lacks relevance and fails to
`
`support a patentability challenge. Petitioner does not explain how this Exhibit is
`
`relevant to the proceeding (i.e., the Petitioner fails to provide the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the challenge raised), and the Board may exclude evidence where a party
`
`has failed to state its relevance. Further, 8KHZ objects to this Exhibit because it has
`
`no bearing on the patentability of any of the claims of the Patent.
`
`For these reasons, 8KHZ further objects to this Exhibit as irrelevant,
`
`misleading, unduly prejudicial, and confusing under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`Exhibit 1016 – U.S. Patent No. 2,955,156
`
`8KHZ objects to Exhibit 1016 under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(5).
`
`8KHZ objects to Exhibit 1016 under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 as this
`
`Exhibit has no bearing on any issue in this proceeding. Furthermore, 8KHZ objects
`
`to this Exhibit under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) because it is not cited to or relied upon
`
`by the Petition in this proceeding, and, accordingly, it lacks relevance and fails to
`
`support a patentability challenge. Petitioner does not explain how this Exhibit is
`
`relevant to the proceeding (i.e., the Petitioner fails to provide the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the challenge raised), and the Board may exclude evidence where a party
`
`has failed to state its relevance. Further, 8KHZ objects to this Exhibit because it has
`
`no bearing on the patentability of any of the claims of the Patent.
`
`For these reasons, 8KHZ further objects to this Exhibit as irrelevant,
`
`misleading, unduly prejudicial, and confusing under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Exhibit 1017 – U.S. Patent No. 9,544,706
`
`8KHZ objects to Exhibit 1017 under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(5).
`
`8KHZ objects to Exhibit 1017 under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 as this
`
`Exhibit has no bearing on any issue in this proceeding. Furthermore, 8KHZ objects
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01021
`Patent No. 10,917,737
`
`to this Exhibit under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) because it is not cited to or relied upon
`
`by the Petition in this proceeding, and, accordingly, it lacks relevance and fails to
`
`support a patentability challenge. Petitioner does not explain how this Exhibit is
`
`relevant to the proceeding (i.e., the Petitioner fails to provide the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the challenge raised), a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
