Patent No. 10,406,432 —Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`RAJIV P. PATEL, Reg. No 39,327
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No. 50,784
`KEVIN X. McGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER (pro hac vice)
`GUANG Y. ZHANG, Reg. No. 70,901
`GEOFFREY R. MILLER (pro hac vice)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: (650) 988-8500
`Facsimile:
`(650) 938-5200
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Post Grant Review No. ___________________
`Patent 10,406,432 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 10,406,432
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`RAJIV P. PATEL, Reg. No 39,327
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No. 50,784
`KEVIN X. McGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER (pro hac vice)
`GUANG Y. ZHANG, Reg. No. 70,901
`GEOFFREY R. MILLER (pro hac vice)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: (650) 988-8500
`Facsimile:
`(650) 938-5200
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Post Grant Review No. ___________________
`Patent 10,406,432 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 10,406,432
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... xi
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 CFR § 42.8(A)(1)) ....................................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1)) ...................................... 1
`B.
`Notice of Related Matters (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................ 1
`C.
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel
`(37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3)) .......................................................................... 1
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 2
`D.
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 2
`A.
`Timing .................................................................................................. 2
`B.
`Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a)) ....................................... 2
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ‘432 PATENT ....................................................... 3
`A.
`Specification ......................................................................................... 3
`1.
`Functionality ................................................................................ 3
`2.
`System Description ...................................................................... 6
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 8
`B.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 CFR
`§ 42.204(B) AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................... 9
`A.
`Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims .................................. 9
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`VI.
`
`Claims for Which PGR Is Requested, Precise Relief
`Requested, and Specific Statutory Grounds on Which the
`Challenge Is Based [37 CFR § 42.204(b)(1) &
`37 CFR § 42.204(b)(2)] ...................................................................... 10
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 11
`Claim Construction (37 CFR § 42.204(b)(3)) .................................... 11
`1. The Claimed Invention ............................................................... 13
`2. Conditional Limitations ............................................................. 17
`IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE OF
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ‘432 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ....................................................................................... 20
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-9 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. §101 ............... 20
`1.
`Patentable Eligibility Under 35 U.SC. §101 .............................. 20
`2. The 2019 Eligibility Guidance Was Not Addressed
`During Prosecution. ................................................................... 24
`Prong One of Alice Step 1: Claims of the ‘432 Patent
`Recite the Abstract Idea of Providing Information
`Based on Movement of a Player’s Gaze. ................................... 25
`a.
`Providing Information Based on a Movement of
`a Player’s Gaze Is a Mental Process and a
`Longstanding Method of Organizing Human
`Activity .......................................................................... 25
`Providing Information Based on a Player’s
`Gaze is a Manually Achievable Purpose. ...................... 28
`
`3.
`
`b.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`c.
`
`4.
`
`The Conditional Language of the Claims Does
`Not Require Certain Steps to Be Executed and
`Are Impermissibly Broad. ............................................. 31
`Prong Two of Alice Step 1: Claims 1-9 of the ‘432
`Patent Do Not Recite a Practical Application of the
`Abstract Idea .............................................................................. 31
`a.
`The Additional Elements Do No More than
`Implement the Abstract Idea on a Computer ................. 32
`The Claims Are Not Directed to an
`Improvement in Computer Functionality or
`Other Technology. ......................................................... 33
`Contrary to Statements Made in Prosecution,
`the Claims Are Not Similar to those in Thales
`Visionix and Core Wireless, but Rather to
`Those in In re Smith and Electric Power Group. .......... 34
`5. Alice Step 2: Claims 1-9 of the ‘432 Patent Provide No
`“Inventive Concept.” .................................................................. 38
`6. The Dependent Claims Add Nothing Inventive. ....................... 39
`Ground 2: Claims 1-9 of the ‘432 Patent Are Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for Lack of Written Description .......................... 41
`1. Claims 1-9 of the ‘432 patent are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification of the
`‘432 patent fails to provide adequate written
`description of the “first area” and the “second area.” ................ 42
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Claims 1-9 of the ‘432 patent are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. §112(a) for lack of written description
`because the specification of the ‘432 patent fails to
`provide adequate written description of determining a
`“position and direction”, “reference range”, and
`“predetermined movement” of the “body part of the
`player” ........................................................................................ 43
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 of the ‘432 Patent Are
`Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. §102 as Being Anticipated by Ross. .......... 45
`1. Ross Anticipates Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9 ...................... 46
`a.
`Ross Anticipates the Preamble of Claims 1, 8,
`and 9. .............................................................................. 46
`Ross Anticipates “detecting, with a sensor
`operationally linked to the virtual image display
`apparatus, a movement of a body part of a
`player, the body part comprising…, and the
`sensor being…” as Recited in Claims 1, 8, and
`9. .................................................................................... 48
`Ross Anticipates “determining…a position and
`direction of the body part of a player” as
`Recited in Claims 1, 8, and 9. ........................................ 49
`Ross Anticipates “displaying, on a display…in
`accordance with the position and direction of
`the body part of the player, an image of a
`virtual space including a first area and a second
`area” as Recited in Claims 1, 8, and 9. .......................... 50
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`b.
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Ross Anticipates “with the virtual image
`display apparatus, providing, when the
`information providing condition is satisfied, the
`to-be-provided information to the player by
`displaying the to-be-provided information in
`the second area” as Recited in Claims 1, 8,
`and 9. .............................................................................. 51
`Ross Anticipates “wherein the information
`providing condition is a condition of a gaze
`position moving to the second area from the
`first area, the gaze position being specified by
`at least one of the body part of the player…”
`as Recited in Claims 1, 8, and 9. ................................... 52
`2. Ross Anticipates Dependent Claims 2, 4, and 5. ....................... 54
`a.
`Ross Anticipates Dependent Claim 2. ........................... 54
`b.
`Ross Anticipates Dependent Claim 4. ........................... 56
`c.
`Ross Anticipates Dependent Claim 5. ........................... 58
`D. Ground 4: Claim 3 of the ‘432 Patent is Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as Obvious Over Ross. ............................................ 59
`Ground 5: Claim 3 of the ‘432 Patent is Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as Obvious Over Ross in View of Lankford. .......... 62
`1. Ross In View of Lankford Teaches Claim 3. ............................. 62
`2. A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Ross and Lankford. .................................................................... 64
`Ground 6: Claim 6 of the ‘432 Patent is Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as Obvious Over Ross in view of Rimon. ............... 65
`
`
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`1. Ross In View of Rimon Teaches Claim 6. ................................. 65
`2. A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Ross and Rimon ......................................................................... 66
`G. Ground 7: Claim 7 of the ‘432 Patent is Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as Obvious Over Ross in View of
`ObjectLabel. ....................................................................................... 67
`1. Ross in View of ObjectLabel Teaches Claim 7 ......................... 67
`2. A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Ross and ObjectLabel ................................................................ 68
`H. Ground 8: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 of the ‘432 Patent Are
`Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being Anticipated by
`Ballard. ............................................................................................... 69
`1. Ballard Anticipates Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9.................. 69
`a.
`Ballard Anticipates the Preamble of Claims 1,
`8, and 9. .......................................................................... 69
`Ballard Anticipates “detecting, with a
`sensor…a movement of a body part of a
`player…” as Recited in Claims 1, 8, and 9.................... 71
`Ballard Anticipates “determining…a position
`and direction of the body part of a player” as
`Recited in Claims 1, 8, and 9. ........................................ 72
`Ballard Anticipates “displaying…an image of a
`virtual space including a first area and a second
`area” as Recited in Claims 1, 8, and 9. .......................... 72
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Ballard Anticipates “…providing, when the
`information providing condition is satisfied, the
`to-be-provided information to the player…in
`the second area” as Recited in Claims 1, 8,
`and 9. .............................................................................. 73
`Ballard Anticipates “wherein the information
`providing condition is a condition of a gaze
`position moving to the second area from the
`first area…” as Recited in Claims 1, 8, and 9. .............. 74
`2. Ballard Anticipates Dependent Claims 2, 4, and 5 .................... 74
`a.
`Ballard Anticipates Dependent Claim 2. ....................... 74
`b.
`Ballard Anticipates Dependent Claim 4. ....................... 75
`c.
`Ballard Anticipates Dependent Claim 5. ....................... 77
`Ground 9: Claim 3 of the ‘432 Patent is Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as Obvious Over Ballard in view of
`Lankford. ............................................................................................ 78
`Ground 10: Claim 6 of the ‘432 Patent is Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as Obvious Over Ballard in view of Rimon. ........... 79
`K. Ground 11: Claim 7 of the ‘432 Patent is Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as Obvious Over Ballard in view of
`ObjectLabel. ....................................................................................... 80
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 81
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .....................................................................................passim
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 24
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ............................................................................................ 23
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 34, 36
`Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 23, 25, 26, 39
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 22, 28, 33
`Ex Parte Schulhauser,
`Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) .................................. 17, 18, 19
`Ex Parte White,
`Appeal 2018-002863 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2019) ...................................................... 19
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 60
`In re Curtis,
`354 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 44
`In re Smith
`(815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) .................................................................... 34, 36
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................passim
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 29
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 29, 30, 31
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 26
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 59
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 41
`MPHJ Tech. Invs., LLC v. Ricoh Ams. Corp.,
`847 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 19
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 12, 13
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC,
`576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................. 25, 26
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 34, 35
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.), Inc. ..................................................................... 28
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .......................................................................... 41
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 45
`Wang Labs. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 42
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 .......................................................................................... 1, 82
`Rule 42.204(a) ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 CFR § 42.204 ...................................................................................................... 10
`Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims
`in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`83 FR 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) .............................................................................. 12
`USPTO 2019 Reviszed Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
`84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) .....................................................................passim
`USPTO October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update,
`84 Fed. Reg 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019) .............................................................. 21, 27
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432 to Watanabe
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`
`Declaration of Joseph LaViola, Ph.D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,392,212 to Ross
`
`Chris Lankford., Nov. 2000, “Effective eye-gaze input into
`Windows.” In Proceedings of the 2000 symposium on Eye tracking
`research & applications, (ETRA ’00, Nov. 6-8, 2000, Palm Beach
`Gardens, FL), Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
`NY, USA, 23–27, ISBN: 1-58113-280-8
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20160093105 to Rimon
`
`“Unify Community” – Unity Game Engine Wiki – “Object Label”
`Article (“ObjectLabel”), available at
`http://wiki.unity3d.com/index.php?title=ObjectLabel (last updated
`Nov. 23, 2014)
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20150153913 to Ballard
`
`Bowman, D. A., Poupyrev, I., Kruijff, E., LaViola, J. J. (2005),
`3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice, Germany:
`Addison-Wesley
`
`Robert Jacob, April 1990, “Eye Movement-Based Interaction
`Techniques,” Proceedings of the SIGCHI ’90 Conference on Human
`Factors in Computing Systems, (CHI ’90, April 1-5, 1990, Seattle,
`WA, USA), ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 11-18
`
`Linda Sibert et al., April 2000, “Evaluation of Eye Gaze Interaction”
`Proceedings of the SIGCHI ’00 Conference on Human Factors in
`Computing Systems, (CHI ’00, April 1-6, 2000, The Hauge,
`Netherlands), ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 281-288
`
`xi
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,597,594 — PGR Petition Challenging Validity
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`
`
`
`LaViola, J., “3D Gestural Interaction: The State of the Field,”
`ISRN Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2013, Article ID 514641,
`18 pages, 2013
`
`Invalidity Chart – Primary Reference: Ross
`
`Invalidity Chart – Primary Reference: Ballard
`
`Internet Archive Copy of Ex. 1007 Dated Feb. 16, 2015
`
`Declaration of Guang Y Zhang for Exhibit 1015
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Joseph J. LaViola, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 CFR §§ 42.200 et seq.,
`
`Petitioner requests Post Grant Review of claims 1-9 of United States Patent
`
`No. 10,406,432 to Watanabe, titled “Virtual image display program, virtual image
`
`display apparatus, and virtual image display method” (the “‘432 patent”;
`
`“Ex. 1001”), owned by GREE, Inc. (“GREE” or “Patent Owner”). This Petition
`
`demonstrates that Petitioner is more likely than not to prevail in invalidating at
`
`least one of the challenged claims. The challenged claims of the ‘432 patent should
`
`be canceled as unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 CFR § 42.8(a)(1))
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1))
`The sole real party-in-interest for this Petition is the Supercell Oy, Petitioner.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2))
`There are no known related matters.
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3))
`Petitioner designates Rajiv P. Patel (Reg. No. 39,327) as lead counsel, and as
`
`back-up counsel: Jennifer R. Bush (Reg. No. 50,784), Kevin X. McGann
`
`(Reg. No. 48,793), Michael J. Sacksteder (pro hac vice to be filed), Guang Y.
`
`Zhang (Reg. No. 70,901), and Geoffrey Miller (pro hac vice to be filed).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`D.
`
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4))
`Service of any documents via hand-delivery may be made at the postal
`
`mailing address of Fenwick & West LLP, 801 California Street, Mountain View,
`
`CA 94041 (Tel: (650) 988-8500 and Fax: (650) 988-5200), with courtesy copies to
`
`the email address RPatel-ptab@fenwick.com. Petitioner consents to electronic
`
`service to RPatel-ptab@fenwick.com.
`
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`A. Timing
`The ‘432 patent was granted on September 10, 2019, and the present petition
`
`is being filed on or before the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of
`
`the patent, or June 10, 2020. See Ex. 1001.
`
`B. Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a))
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.204(a) that the ‘432 patent is
`
`available for Post Grant Review (“PGR”) and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting a Post Grant Review challenging the validity of the
`
`above-referenced claims of the ‘432 patent on the grounds identified in the
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ‘432 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Specification
`1.
`Functionality
`The ‘432 patent discloses providing to-be-provided information within a
`
`display area in a head mounted display (HMD) when the position and direction of
`
`a body part of the player satisfies a condition. The Background section describes
`
`an HMD that changes a displayed image to follow the movement of the head.
`
`Information may be provided to the user, e.g., hints or menu items. This is often
`
`accomplished by displaying a menu button, which reduces the sense of immersion.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:14-38. Ex. 1003, ¶ 24.
`
`To solve this purported problem, the specification of the ‘432 patent
`
`purports to disclose a virtual image display apparatus that can provide information
`
`while reducing a sense of immersion in the virtual space. Ex. 1001, 1:42-46. This
`
`is arguably done with a virtual image display apparatus displaying an image of a
`
`virtual space and a detector for identifying a position and direction of a body part
`
`of the player. Ex. 1003, ¶ 25. The virtual image display apparatus includes a
`
`controller that “output[s] the to-be-provided information when the information
`
`providing condition regarding the position and direction of the certain body part of
`
`the player is satisfied.” The “information providing condition” is when “the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`movement of the gaze position of the player is satisfied.” Ex. 1001, 1:47-2:5.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 25.
`
`The specification discloses that the virtual space has a gameable area that
`
`can have a selectable target object. In addition, the multiple information
`
`conditions include 1) when the gaze position of the player becomes outside the
`
`gameable area; 2) when the movement range of the certain body part becomes
`
`outside a reference range; 3) when the gaze position moves outside a target object
`
`before the player completes selection of the target object; or 4) when a movement
`
`of the certain body part of the player corresponds with a predetermined movement
`
`recorded in a storage unit. Ex. 1001, 2:6-18, 32-44, 19-31, 45-57. Ex. 1003, ¶ 26.
`
`The to-be-provided information may be presented: 1) in an area outside the
`
`gameable area; 2) displayed on an object; or 3) displayed in a direction of the
`
`moving body of an object. Ex. 1001, 9:5-10, 2:58-67. Ex. 1003, ¶ 26.
`
`Figures (FIGS.) 5 and 6, reproduced below, are illustrative of this process.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIGS. 5-6.
`
`In referencing these figures, the specification states that “when the gaze
`
`position is moved to a position outside the gameable area 105, an information
`
`provision display 111 may be output, which may overlap the virtual space image
`
`110 outside the gameable area 105.” Ex. 1001, 9:5-9. Thus, when the player’s
`
`gaze position moves outside the area denoted by the dotted line in FIG. 5, a hint
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`(111) is provided to the user in a space outside the dotted line area, as shown in
`
`FIG. 6.
`
`2.
`System Description
`FIG. 1 of the ‘432 patent (below) is a block diagram showing the game
`
`server and communication terminal. This figure is the only diagram of the system
`
`architecture in the ‘432 patent.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`The specification describes a series of generic components to implement an
`
`HMD for a virtual reality gaming environment. Specifically, “[t]he HMD
`
`controller 11 may output various types of information to the game processing
`
`apparatus 20 and may receive various types of information from the game
`
`processing apparatus 20 via the input/output I/F unit 13.” Ex. 1001, 3:51-55. In
`
`addition, “[t]he sensor 12 may be or may include a detector for identifying the
`
`position and direction of the head of the player” and “[t]he HMD 10 may include a
`
`display 14 that displays an image, and a loudspeaker 15 that outputs sound.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:55-57 and 4:1-2. Finally, “[t]he controller 21 may include hardware
`
`elements including a central processing unit (CPU), random-access memory
`
`(RAM), and read-only memory (ROM).” Ex. 1001, 4:18-20.
`
`The specification is devoid of any technical improvement to these generic
`
`components, and does not limit them in any way. Instead, the other components
`
`within the game processing apparatus are purely functional black boxes. For
`
`example, the storage unit 22 is described as simply storing information, such as to-
`
`be-provided information 35. Other components, which are in the controller 21, are
`
`described solely in terms of functionality. The gaze position identifying unit 24
`
`“may identify the gaze position, in terms of coordinates, in the virtual space.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:12-13. The game manager 25 “may compare the gaze position
`
`information 33 with the object information 31 and may determine whether the gaze
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`position is on a target object.” Ex. 1001, 5:17-19. The space image output unit 26
`
`“extract[s] the virtual space image information 30…and may transmit the extracted
`
`virtual space image information 30 as an image signal to the HMD 10.” Ex. 1001,
`
`5:61-65. The information provider 27 “may output a display corresponding to the
`
`to-be-provided information…” Ex. 1001, 6:8-11.
`
`The specification provides no details regarding whether gaze detection
`
`methods are improved for the gaze position identifying unit 24. There are no
`
`details regarding whether there is an improved technical process for determining
`
`whether gaze position is on a target object for the game manager 25. There are no
`
`details regarding any improvement or technical details in the extraction or
`
`generation of the so called virtual space image information for the space image
`
`output unit 26. Similarly, there are no technical details regarding any improvement
`
`in the transmission of signals for the to-be-provided information for display. The
`
`only information descriptions convey are conventional operations.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`The ‘432 patent was filed on June 29, 2016 as Application Serial
`
`No. 15/196,410 (“the ‘410 application”), and claims priority to Japanese Patent
`
`Application No. JP2015183379A, filed September 16, 2015. The ‘410 application
`
`was assigned to art unit 3714. Ex. 1002, p. 165. It was originally filed with claims
`
`1-9. Ex. 1002, pp. 246-251. Ex. 1003, ¶ 39.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`On July 25, 2018, a non-final Office Action was issued in the ‘410
`
`application, rejecting claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an
`
`abstract idea (“idea of itself”) and under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
`
`Rimon et al (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2016/0093105). Ex. 1002, pp. 69-83.
`
`An examiner interview was conducted on October 22, 2018, during which
`
`no agreement was reached on either subject matter eligibility or novelty between
`
`Applicant and Examiner on a set of proposed amendments. Applicant submitted
`
`an amendment and response on December 26, 2018. The difference in
`
`independent claims proposed during the interview and the amended claims in the
`
`amendment primarily included added limitations stating the specific body parts of
`
`the user as being the head or eye of the player, and that the sensor could be one of
`
`a “gyro sensor,” “acceleration sensor,” “geomagnetic sensor,” or “line-of-sight
`
`sensor.” Ex. 1002, pp. 30-35.
`
`A Notice of Allowance was issued in the ‘410 application on May 2, 2019.
`
`The Reasons for Allowance only provided generic language indicating that the
`
`claims were allowable. Ex. 1002, pp. 7-14.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.204(b)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims
`The ‘432 patent was filed on June 29, 2016 as Application Serial
`
`No. 15/196,410 (“the ‘410 application”), and claims foreign priority to Japanese
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Patent Application No. JP2015183379A, filed September 16, 2015. Thus, the
`
`effective filing date of the challenged claims is no earlier than September 16, 2015.
`
`The ‘432 patent is subject to the post-AIA provisions of the Patent Statute; all
`
`statutory references in this Petition are to the applicable post-AIA provision.
`
`B. Claims for Which PGR Is Requested, Precise Relief Requested, and
`Specific Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge Is Based [37 CFR §
`42.204(b)(1) & 37 CFR § 42.204(b)(2)]
`Petitioner requests Post Grant Review of claims 1-9 of the ‘432 patent.
`
`Claims 1-9 are challenged on the following grounds:
`
`#
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Claims
`
`Ground
`
`1-9
`
`1-9
`
`1, 2, 4, 5,
`8, and 9
`3
`
`3
`
`6
`
`7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`Unpatentable subject matter
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
`Lack of written description
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`Anticipated by Ross
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`Obvious over Ross
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`Obvious over Ross and Lankford
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`Obvious over Ross and Rimon
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`Obvious over Ross and ObjectLabel
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,406,432 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`1, 2, 4, 5,
`8, and 9
`3
`
`6
`
`7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`Anticipated by Ballard
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`Obvious over Ballard and Lankford
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`Obvious over Ballard and Rimon
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`Obvious over Ballard and ObjectLabel
`
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`alleged invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in with a bachelor’s degree
`
`in game design/development, interactive design/media, computer science,
`
`computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of professional
`
`experience working in
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
