Filed on behalf of Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`Filed: March 25, 2025
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MULLEN INDUSTRIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2025-00703
`U.S. Patent No. 11,033,821
`
`DECLARATION OF GREGORY WELCH, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 11,033,821
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Cover
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`EXPERIENCE, QUALIFICATIONS, AND STATUS AS AN
`INDEPENDENT EXPERT .......................................................................... 2
`
`MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED ..................................... 5
`
`UNDERSTANDING OF RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................ 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Anticipation .......................................................................................... 7
`
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 7
`
`Priority .................................................................................................. 9
`
`TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW ................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Virtual and Augmented Reality Paradigms ........................................ 10
`
`Location-Based Virtual and Augmented Reality Gaming ................. 18
`
`User Devices in VR and AR Location-Based Games ........................ 23
`
`User Tracking in Location-Based Games .......................................... 31
`
`Navigation and Spatial Awareness ..................................................... 38
`
`BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 44
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’821 Patent .................................................................................. 44
`
`The Challenged Claims ...................................................................... 45
`
`1.
`
`Priority of the Challenged Claims ............................................ 46
`
`C.
`
`The Prosecution History ..................................................................... 49
`
`i
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page i
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART AND PERSPECTIVE APPLIED IN
`THIS DECLARATION .............................................................................. 50
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ......................................................... 51
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Cheok (EX1006) ................................................................................ 51
`
`Nakamura (EX1007) .......................................................................... 59
`
`Foxlin077 (EX1008) .......................................................................... 61
`
`Benini (EX1009) ................................................................................ 64
`
`Rallison (EX1014) ............................................................................. 68
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 69
`
`OPINIONS ON GROUND 1: CHEOK IN VIEW OF FOXLIN077
`RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1, 4, AND 11 ........................................ 69
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine ...................... 69
`
`A POSITA Would have Had a Reasonable Expectation of
`Success ............................................................................................... 71
`
`Independent Claim 1 .......................................................................... 71
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Preamble: “A system comprising:” ......................................... 71
`
`1[a]: “a wireless communication device, wherein said
`wireless communication device comprises:” ........................... 73
`
`1[a]-1: “a display,” .................................................................. 75
`
`1[a]-2: “a locating device operable to determine the
`physical location of said locating device on a physical
`playfield; and,” ........................................................................ 77
`
`1[a]-3: “a processor coupled to said display and said
`locating device, wherein said processor is operable to
`ii
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page ii
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`
`provide a video game comprising a virtual character
`with a virtual location on a virtual playfield, said virtual
`character is displayed on said display, said virtual
`location on said virtual playfield corresponds to said
`physical location on said physical playfield, and a
`direction of gameplay of said videogame is operable to
`be established by recording a manually provided
`direction in response to a prompt requesting said
`manually provided direction.” ................................................. 79
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Teachings of Cheok ....................................................... 79
`
`Teachings of Foxlin077 ................................................. 88
`
`Motivation to Combine Cheok and Foxlin077 .............. 95
`
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ............................... 98
`
`D.
`
`Dependent Claim 11 ......................................................................... 100
`
`1.
`
`Claim 11: “The system of claim 1, wherein said
`communication device further comprises a directional
`device, wherein said directional device is operable to
`determine the physical direction of said directional
`device on said physical playfield.” ........................................ 100
`
`OPINIONS ON GROUND 2: CHEOK IN VIEW OF FOXLIN077 AND
`RALLISON RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 16 AND 30 ................... 101
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 16: “The system of claim 1, wherein said wireless
`communication device further comprise: a speaker; and a
`microphone.” ................................................................................... 101
`
`Claim 30: “The system of claim 1, wherein said wireless
`communications device is operable to provide human-
`communications to a second wireless telephonic device while
`said video game is being played.” .................................................... 104
`
`iii
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page iii
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`
`OPINIONS ON GROUND 3: CHEOK IN VIEW OF NAKAMURA
`RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIM 102 ........................................................ 105
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine .................... 105
`
`A POSITA Would have Had a Reasonable Expectation of
`Success ............................................................................................. 107
`
`Independent Claim 102 .................................................................... 108
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Preamble: “A system comprising:” ....................................... 108
`
`102[a]: “a non-transparent display;” .................................... 108
`
`102[b]: “a locating device operable to determine the
`physical location of said locating device on a physical
`playfield, wherein said locating device comprises a
`movement measuring device operable to be utilized, at
`least in part, to determine said physical location;” .............. 109
`
`102[c]: “a directional device operable to determine the
`physical direction of said directional device on said
`physical playfield; and” ......................................................... 110
`
`102[d]: “a processor coupled to said display and said
`locating device, wherein said processor is operable to
`provide a video game comprising a virtual character
`with a virtual location and facing a virtual direction on a
`virtual playfield said virtual location on said virtual
`playfield corresponds to said physical location on said
`physical playfield, an origin of gameplay of said
`videogame is operable to be established by recording a
`manually provided origin in response to a prompt
`requesting said manually provided origin, and said
`virtual direction on said virtual playfield corresponds to
`said physical direction on said physical playfield.” .............. 110
`
`a.
`
`Teachings of Nakamura ............................................... 113
`
`iv
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page iv
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Motivation to Combine Cheok and Nakamura ............ 118
`
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ............................. 124
`
` OPINIONS ON GROUND 4: NAKAMURA IN VIEW OF BENINI
`RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1, 4, 11, 16, AND 30 .......................... 127
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine .................... 127
`
`A POSITA Would have Had a Reasonable Expectation of
`Success ............................................................................................. 129
`
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................ 129
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Preamble: “A system comprising:” ....................................... 129
`
`1[a]: “a wireless communication device, wherein said
`wireless communication device comprises:” ......................... 131
`
`1[a]-1: “a display,” ................................................................ 132
`
`1[a]-2: “a locating device operable to determine the
`physical location of said locating device on a physical
`playfield; and,” ...................................................................... 133
`
`1[a]-3: “a processor coupled to said display and said
`locating device, wherein said processor is operable to
`provide a video game comprising a virtual character
`with a virtual location on a virtual playfield, said virtual
`character is displayed on said display, said virtual
`location on said virtual playfield corresponds to said
`physical location on said physical playfield, and a
`direction of gameplay of said videogame is operable to
`be established by recording a manually provided
`direction in response to a prompt requesting said
`manually provided direction.” ............................................... 137
`
`a.
`
`Teachings of Benini ..................................................... 145
`
`v
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page v
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Motivation to Combine Nakamura and Benini ............ 149
`
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ............................. 156
`
`D.
`
`Dependent Claims ............................................................................ 158
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 4: “The system of claim 1, wherein said video
`game utilizes a perimeter selected by user-inputs.” .............. 158
`
`Claim 11: “The system of claim 1, wherein said
`communication device further comprises a directional
`device, wherein said directional device is operable to
`determine the physical direction of said directional
`device on said physical playfield.” ........................................ 160
`
`Claim 16: “The system of claim 1, wherein said wireless
`communication device further comprise: a speaker; and
`a microphone.” ...................................................................... 161
`
`Claim 30: “The system of claim 1, wherein said wireless
`communications device is operable to provide human-
`communications to a second wireless telephonic device
`while said video game is being played.” ............................... 162
`
` OPINIONS ON GROUND 5: NAKAMURA RENDERS OBVIOUS
`CLAIM 102 ............................................................................................... 164
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 102 .................................................................... 164
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Preamble: “A system comprising:” ....................................... 164
`
`102[a]: “a non-transparent display;” .................................... 164
`
`102[b]: “a locating device operable to determine the
`physical location of said locating device on a physical
`playfield, wherein said locating device comprises a
`movement measuring device operable to be utilized, at
`least in part, to determine said physical location;” .............. 164
`
`vi
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page vi
`
`

`

`4.
`
`5.
`
`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`
`102[c]: “a directional device operable to determine the
`physical direction of said directional device on said
`physical playfield; and” ......................................................... 166
`
`102[d]: “a processor coupled to said display and said
`locating device, wherein said processor is operable to
`provide a video game comprising a virtual character
`with a virtual location and facing a virtual direction on a
`virtual playfield said virtual location on said virtual
`playfield corresponds to said physical location on said
`physical playfield, an origin of gameplay of said
`videogame is operable to be established by recording a
`manually provided origin in response to a prompt
`requesting said manually provided origin, and said
`virtual direction on said virtual playfield corresponds to
`said physical direction on said physical playfield.” .............. 166
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 172
`
`vii
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page vii
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Gregory Welch, have been retained by Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”)
`
`to provide an analysis of the scope and content of U.S. Patent No. 11,033,821 (“the
`
`’821 patent”) relative to the state of the art at the time of the earliest application to
`
`which the ’821 patent claims priority. My analysis relates to claims 1, 4, 11, 16, 30,
`
`and 102. I have also been retained to provide analysis regarding what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have understood at the time of the earliest
`
`application underlying the ’821 patent.
`
`2.
`
`This declaration summarizes the opinions I have formed to date. I
`
`reserve the right to modify or amend my opinions, if necessary, based on further
`
`review and analysis of information that I receive subsequent to the filing of this
`
`declaration, including in response to positions taken by Mullen Industries, LLC
`
`(“Mullen”) or its experts that I have not yet seen, including any secondary
`
`considerations evidence that Mullen or its expert may consider and present.
`
`3.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1, 4, 11, 16, 30, and 102 of the ’821 patent
`
`are unpatentable based on the following grounds.
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`Claims 1, 4, and 11 are obvious over Cheok (EX1006) in view of
`Foxlin077 (EX1008)
`
`Claims 16 and 30 are obvious over Cheok in view of Foxlin077 and
`Rallison (EX1014)
`
`Ground 3
`
`Claim 102 is obvious over Cheok in view of Nakamura (EX1007)
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`
`Ground 4
`
`Claims 1, 4, and 11 are obvious over Nakamura in view of Benini
`(EX1009)
`
`Ground 5
`
`Claim 102 is obvious over Nakamura
`
`EXPERIENCE, QUALIFICATIONS, AND STATUS AS AN
`INDEPENDENT EXPERT
`
`4.
`
`My curriculum vitae (“CV”) is Exhibit 1004. I am a Pegasus Professor
`
`and the AdventHealth Endowed Chair in Simulation at the University of Central
`
`Florida (“UCF”) with appointments in the College of Nursing, the Department of
`
`Computer Science, and the Institute for Simulation & Training. I am also the Co-
`
`Director of the IST Synthetic Reality Lab. Prior to my appointment at UCF, I was
`
`an adjunct professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC”),
`
`where I worked on the Voyager Spacecraft Project at NASA’s Jet Propulsion
`
`Laboratory on airborne electronic countermeasures at Northrop-Grumman’s
`
`Defense Systems Division.
`
`5.
`
`In 1986, I was awarded a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering Technology with Highest Distinction from Purdue University.
`
`6.
`
`I was awarded a master’s degree, and then, a Ph.D. in Computer
`
`Science from UNC in 1995 and 1997, respectively.
`
`7.
`
`My research career has focused on human-computer interaction, human
`
`motion tracking, and virtual and augmented reality, with applications such as
`
`2
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`healthcare and defense. Notably, my research includes my highly cited 1995
`
`introductory article on the Kalman Filter, which is an algorithm that provides an
`
`efficient way to estimate the state of a dynamic system from noisy observations (that
`
`is, data or measurements that are influenced by errors and inaccuracies). I maintain
`
`an internationally recognized website dedicated to the Kalman Filter.
`
`8.
`
`I have published over 170 articles in peer-reviewed journals,
`
`conferences, and symposia. A sampling of these papers include “Revisiting Trends
`
`in Augmented Reality Research: A Review of the 2nd Decade of ISMAR (2008–
`
`2017),” “The Office Of The Future: A Unified Approach to Image-Based Modeling
`
`and Spatially Immersive Displays,” “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical
`
`Tracking: The HiBall Tracking System,” and “Motion Tracking: No Silver Bullet,
`
`But a Respectable Arsenal.” Notably, my introductory paper on the Kalman Filter
`
`authored alongside Gary Bishop has been cited over 12,000 times. My work in
`
`Augmented Reality and tracking were cited in my promotion to IEEE Fellow, and a
`
`pair of seminal papers of mine on Spatial Augmented Reality in 1998 earned me and
`
`my co-authors the Long-Lasting Impact Award at the IEEE Virtual Reality
`
`Conference in 2016.
`
`9.
`
`I have served as a peer reviewer and editor for more than 15 journals
`
`and science organizations. I have also written a dozen book chapters and sections,
`
`3
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`including those on, for instance, virtual, mixed, and augmented reality in computer
`
`science.
`
`10.
`
`I am named as an inventor on 28 issued patents and have several others
`
`in various stages of prosecution. Two relevant examples are US Patent. No.
`
`11,467,399, “Augmentation of Relative Pose In Co-located Devices,” which pertains
`
`to the concept of cooperative tracking of two or more individuals in proximity of
`
`each other, and US Patent. No. 9,808,549, “System for Detecting Sterile Field Events
`
`and Related Methods,” which pertains to the concept of establishing and maintaining
`
`bounded volumes around sterile medical procedures, and the detection of unsafe
`
`interactions within.
`
`11. My teaching experience includes undergraduate and graduate level
`
`classes. Example topics include Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality and
`
`computer modeling and animation.
`
`12.
`
`I am a Fellow of the National Academy of Inventors (NAI) and a Fellow
`
`of the Institute and Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). I was inducted into
`
`the IEEE Virtual Reality Academy in 2022.
`
`13.
`
`I have received a number of awards, including the Virtual Simulation
`
`Innovation Award in 2025 (UCF CON STIM Center), IEEE Virtual Reality
`
`Technical Achievement Award in 2018, and the Long Lasting Impact Paper Award
`
`from the IEEE VR Conference as mentioned above. I have also been designated a
`
`4
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`Pioneer of the Association for Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on
`
`Graphics and Interactive Techniques (“ACM SIGGRAPH”), which is a recognition
`
`of long-time contributions in the computer graphics space. I currently serve as a
`
`technical expert for the IEEE for its virtual, augmented, and mixed reality Public
`
`Visibility Initiative.
`
`14.
`
`I have been a keynote speaker at 20 scientific conferences, workshops,
`
`and colloquiums throughout the world. I have similarly been invited to give talks
`
`at, participate in, or serve on dozens of scientific committees for conferences,
`
`workshops, and panels worldwide.
`
`15. A detailed list of my professional activities, memberships, and speaking
`
`engagements is included in my CV (EX1004).
`
`16.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $600 per hour for my work on
`
`this declaration. My fee is not contingent on the outcome of any matter or on any of
`
`the technical positions I explain in this declaration.
`
`17.
`
`I have no financial interest in Meta. I have been informed that Mullen
`
`claims ownership of the ’821 patent. I have no financial interest in Mullen.
`
` MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`
`18. My opinions in this declaration are based on working in the field of
`
`computer science and engineering, particularly in virtual, augmented, and mixed
`
`reality, including my teaching, research, and consulting. I have an established
`
`5
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`understanding of the relevant field at the relevant time frame and I have an
`
`understanding of the skill set, capabilities, and knowledge of a POSITA as of
`
`September 2, 2003.
`
`19. My opinions are also based on investigation and study of the patent at
`
`issue, its file history, and the prior art. In the course of forming my opinions, I have
`
`reviewed the exhibits submitted with the Petition, which are specifically identified
`
`in Appendix A.
`
`20.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to rebut
`
`arguments raised by Mullen. Further, I may also consider additional documents and
`
`information in formatting any necessary opinions including documents that may not
`
`yet have been provided to me.
`
` UNDERSTANDING OF RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`21.
`
`I understand that statutory and judicially created standards must be
`
`considered to determine the validity of a patent claim. I am not an attorney and,
`
`consequently, will offer no opinion on the law itself. My understanding of the
`
`pertinent law is described in this section and is the result of explanations provided
`
`by counsel. I have applied this understanding in my analysis.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if it is anticipated by, or
`
`obvious in view of, the prior art. I further understand that the time frame of reference
`
`6
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`for determining whether a claim is unpatentable is from the perspective of a POSITA
`
`at the time of invention.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that for a patent claim to be anticipated by the
`
`prior art, each and every limitation of the claim must be found, expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference as recited in the claim. I have been
`
`informed that a claim limitation not expressly found in a prior art reference is
`
`inherent if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the
`
`claim limitation. Mere probability that a limitation is included is not sufficient to
`
`establish inherency.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`24.
`
`In analyzing obviousness in light of the prior art I have been informed
`
`that it is important to understand the scope of the claims, the level of skill in the
`
`relevant art, the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior
`
`art and the claims, and any objective indicia of non-obviousness (also called
`
`secondary considerations).
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is unpatentable for obviousness
`
`if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
`
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a POSITA to which said subject matter pertains. I have been
`
`7
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`informed that obviousness may be based on one reference or a combination of
`
`references. I have been informed that the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that when a patented invention is a combination
`
`of known elements, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) must determine
`
`whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
`
`claimed by the patent at issue by considering the teachings of prior art references,
`
`the effects of demands known to people working in a field or present in the
`
`marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a POSITA.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of the claimed subject matter. I understand that several of these rationales are:
`
`(1) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; (2) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; (3) use of a known technique to improve a similar device (method
`
`or product) in the same way; (4) applying a known technique to a known device
`
`(method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (5) choosing
`
`from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success; (6) and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`8
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that in order to prove that a claimed invention is
`
`not patentable for obviousness, a petitioner must (1) identify the differences between
`
`the claim and particular disclosures in the prior art references, singly or in
`
`combination, (2) specifically explain how the prior art references could have been
`
`combined in order to arrive at the subject matter of the claimed invention, and (3)
`
`specifically explain why a POSITA would have had reasons to so combine the prior
`
`art references.
`
`C.
`
`29.
`
`Priority
`
`I have been informed that to claim priority to a prior application, each
`
`application in the chain that leads to an earlier application must comply with the
`
`written description requirement. I have been informed that in order to satisfy the
`
`written description requirement, the specification of the provisional application must
`
`contain a written description of the invention and the manner and process of making
`
`and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms, that it would enable a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention claimed in the non-provisional
`
`application. I have been informed that the provisional application must describe the
`
`invention claimed in the non-provisional application such that a person of skill in
`
`9
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`the art can clearly conclude that the inventor had invented the claimed invention by
`
`the provisional application filing date.
`
` TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`
`30.
`
`In this section I provide overviews of technologies and prior art
`
`pertinent to the ’821 patent and to the state of the art as of 2003. See Sec. VI.B.1
`
`(addressing priority of the ’821 patent). In later sections I address in detail how the
`
`prior art discloses and renders obvious the recitations of the challenged claims.
`
`31. The prior art references described below and discussions of what was
`
`known to a person of ordinary skill in the art provide a general description of the
`
`state of the art at the time of the invention, provide additional motivation to modify
`
`the primary references evaluated in the grounds of invalidity with the knowledge of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art or other references cited herein, and provide
`
`support for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in combining the teachings of the references. The additional
`
`prior art references identified in this section are exemplary in nature and are included
`
`to provide factual support for my opinions.
`
`A. Virtual and Augmented Reality Paradigms
`32. The development and use of
`
`interactive computer-generated
`
`simulations of virtual environments and entities have been around for many decades
`
`— long before September of 2003. Such simulations have long been used for
`
`10
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`applications such as training, education, science, and entertainment. What began as
`
`targeted, virtual simulations have grown into more comprehensive virtual
`
`“experiences,” with the common goal of cognitive and sometimes sensory
`
`immersion driving these developments through the early 2000s.
`
`33. A seminal example of such work is that of Ivan Sutherland and his
`
`students at the University of Utah in the 1960s, including Sutherland’s “head-
`
`mounted three-dimensional display” paper, which is among the most well-known in
`
`the field. I reproduce some of the figures from that paper here:
`
`11
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`
`Sutherland, A Head-Mounted Three Dimensional Display (1968) (“Sutherland
`
`1968”) EX1015, Fig. 1 (Sutherland’s three-dimensional display system); see also id.
`
`at Figs. 2-4 (photographs of Sutherland’s prototype system, showing for example a
`
`custom graphics computer, a head tracking system, and a head-mounted display):
`
`12
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`
`
`34. Sutherland’s work above offers one of the earliest examples of
`
`wearable electronic devices for displaying computer-generated “virtual” content to
`
`users. Such systems continuously estimated or “tracked” the position and orientation
`
`(“pose”) of a user’s head in a coordinate system corresponding to real, physical
`
`space, mathematically transforming pose estimates into a coordinate system
`
`corresponding to virtual space, rendering the virtual environment, and displaying it
`
`in a head-worn device, e.g., with a head-mounted display (“HMD”).
`
`13
`
`Mullen Industries, LLC - Ex. 1003
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Gregory Welch, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review USP No. 11,033,821
`35. The notion of Virtual Reality on a handheld device originated at least
`
`as early as 1993. For example, in that year George Fitzmaurice et al. published two
`
`relevant articles: “Virtual Reality for Palmtop Computers” (“Fitzmaurice”) EX1016,
`
`197 and “Situated Information Spaces and Spatially Aware Palmtop Computers”
`
`(“FitzmauriceB”) EX1017, 39.
`
`36. The first article, “Virtual Reality for Palmtop Computers,” appeared in
`
`the July edition of the ACM Transactions on Information Systems. In that article,
`
`Fitzmaurice et al. described how they were “exploring how virtual reality theories
`
`can be applied toward palmtop computers.” EX1016, 197. They introduced a
`
`prototype, called the “Chameleon,” which comprised a hand-held “palmtop”
`
`computer with a 4-inch monitor and six degree-of-freedom (6 DOF) tracking to
`
`“detect user gestures and input selections for issuing commands.” Id., 197. They
`
`also discussed how their “palmtop VR” fit in the general context of Virtual Reality,
`
`such as the work that originated with Ivan Sutherland et al. above. For example,
`
`they wrote that:
`
`“[T]here are a set of head-mounted display (HMD) systems [Sutherland