PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`
`
`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. PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(a)
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.2071, Patent Owner Gree, Inc. (“Gree”) submits
`
`this Preliminary Response to the above-captioned Petition (“Pet.,” Paper 2) for post-
`
`grant review (PGR) of claims 1-9 of United States Patent No. 10,406,432 (“the ’432
`
`Patent”), which should be denied institution for failure to show a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on any asserted grounds and for all challenged claims.
`
`
`1 Section cites are to 35 U.S.C. or 37 C.F.R., and emphasis is added unless noted.
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`THE INVENTION OF THE ’432 PATENT ................................................ 2
`A.
`Specification ...................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Claims...............................................................................................10
`III. ARGUMENT
` ..........................................................................................11
`Petitioner’s Arguments That Any Claim Lacks Written Description
`A.
`Are Baseless .....................................................................................11
`The Disclosed “Gameable Area” And The Area “Outside The
`1.
`Gameable Area” Correspond To The Claimed “First Area” And
`“Second Area.” .......................................................................12
`The Specification Discloses A “Position And Direction” Of A
`“Body Part Of The Player.” ....................................................13
`The Specification Discloses A “Reference Range” And A
`“Predetermined Movement” Of A “Body Part Of The Player.”
`................................................................................................15
`Section 325(d) Forecloses a Second 101 Challenge. .........................17
`1.
`Prosecution History.................................................................17
`2.
`Petitioner’s § 101 Arguments Were Considered And Rejected
`By The Office. ........................................................................20
`Petitioner’s § 101 Challenge Fails Because Its Proposed Abstract Idea
`Is Fatally Generic And Petitioner Ignores The Technological
`Innovation. ........................................................................................26
`As The Examiner Found, The Claims Are Not “Directed
`1.
`Towards An Abstract Idea Under 2019 PEG.” ........................28
`The Claims Recite A Technological Solution For A
`Technological Problem In The Display Technology Art. ........36
`Petitioner’s Art-Based Challenges Fail. ............................................42
`The Petition Is Improper At Double The Word Count And It
`1.
`Improperly Incorporates Arguments By Reference. ................42
`All Claim Recitations are Limiting. ........................................45
`Petitioner Fails To Demonstrate That Ross Discloses, Inter
`Alia, Displaying Information In Response To “A Gaze Position
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`Moving To The Second Area From The First Area,” As Recited
`By Claims 1, 8, And 9. Accordingly, Grounds 3-7 Fail. .........46
`Petitioner Fails to Demonstrate that Ballard Discloses, Inter
`Alia, “An Image Of A Virtual Space,” As Recited By Claims 1,
`8, and 9. Accordingly, Grounds 8-11 Fail. .............................56
`IV. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................62
`
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte
`GMBH, Case IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (Feb. 13, 2020) ................. 17, 21, 25, 26
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ............................................................................. 17, 25, 29
`Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................ 11
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (Dec. 15, 2017) .................................... 17, 21, 26
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (Aug. 29, 2014) ............................ 42, 43, 44, 53
`Crown Packaging Tech. v. Ball Metal Beverage,
`635 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................ 11
`Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 17, 25
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 39, 40
`Fiserv, Inc. v. Mirror Imaging, LLC,
`Case CBM2018-00016, Paper 29 (Jul. 19, 2018) ....................................... 17, 21
`Gree Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`2019 WL 7790439 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2019) .................................................... 35
`Gree Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`2020 WL 897250 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2020) ....................................................... 35
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 23
`McRo v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 40
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 11
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 18
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS, LLC,
`961 F. Supp.2d 840 (W.D. Mich.) .................................................................... 30
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC,
`576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................... 30, 35
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc.,
`230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................ 11
`Ex parte Schulhauser,
`Appeal No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (Apr. 28, 2016) ........................ 45
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................. 53, 61
`In re Smith,
`815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 17, 30, 32
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 18, 24, 25, 39
`Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 18
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................. passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ 2, 17
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ......................................................................................... passim
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ........................................................................................... 42
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`
`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`US. Patent No. 10,406,432
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ......................................................................................... 42
`37 CPR. § 42.22(a)(2) ......................................................................................... 42
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(ii) .................................................................................... 42
`37 CPR. § 42.24(a)(1)(ii) .................................................................................... 42
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ....................................................................................... 42
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b)(5) ....................................................................................... 42
`MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1) .......................................................................................... 37
`MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1) .......................................................................................... 37
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001
`Declaration of Michael Shamos
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
`Reg. No. 4 Notices (Jan. 7, 2019)
`
`USPTO October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility
`
`USPTO Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining
`to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision
`(Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (April 19, 2018)
`
`USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,021,390 to Pidhajecky
`
`[Reserved]
`
`[Reserved]
`
`Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in
`Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg.
`51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. Part 42)
`
`Yaman Terzioglu, Immersion and Identity in Video Games, PURDUE
`UNIVERSITY (Spring 2015)
`
`Örtqvist et al, Immersion and Gameplay Experience: A Contingency
`Framework, HINDAWI PUBLISHING CORP. (2010)
`
`Song et al., Continuous Body and Hand Gesture Recognition for Natural
`Human-Computer Interaction, ACM TRANSACTIONS ON INTERACTIVE
`INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2012)
`
`2013 Manetta et al, Glossary of Virtual Reality Technology, INT’L. J. OF
`VIRTUAL REALITY (1995)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`Gree, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Case No. 2:19-cv-00070 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6,
`2020)
`
`2014
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner’s arguments against the ’432 patent find no basis in law or act.
`
`Petitioner effectively argues that the claims of the ’432 lack written description
`
`because the terms “first area” and “second area” find no ipsis verbis support in the
`
`specification—this is not the law. Even a cursory review of the specification would
`
`lead any reader to understand that the disclosure of at least an “area including [a]
`
`target object” and another area “outside the area [that has the target object]” are first
`
`and second areas. Additionally, Petitioner incorrectly argues that certain dependent
`
`claims lack written description, some of which are original claims and are self-
`
`supporting, others are more of the same word matching exercise that finds no basis
`
`in the law. These arguments simply cannot be taken seriously.
`
`Further, petitioner argues the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`without even acknowledging that the earlier prosecution already considered this very
`
`same 101 argument and dispatched it. Petitioner offers no explanation of why that
`
`agency determination was erroneous, or why the Board should revisit this
`
`determination under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)—this rehashed argument fails out of the
`
`gate. In any event, as the examiner found the Claims are directed to a statutory man-
`
`machine interface, and further provide a direct technical improvement to a virtual
`
`reality system that does not even exist outside of the technical realm. Petitioner’s
`
`far-fetched analogies, such as a parking attendant directing a driver to an open
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`parking space, are untethered from the reality of the ’432 Claims and the emergence
`
`of this new frontier of interface technologies.2
`
` Petitioner’s art-based attacks fare no better. Petitioner fails to demonstrate
`
`that U.S. Patent No. 9,392,212 (“Ross,” Ex. 1004) and U.S. Pat. Pub. No.
`
`2015/0153913 (“Ballard,” Ex. 1008) disclose the limitations for which they are cited,
`
`and thus all of Petitioner’s § 102—along with the § 103 grounds that rely upon these
`
`positions—fail. Petitioner fails to demonstrate that, inter alia, Ross or Ballard
`
`disclose “providing . . . to-be-provided information in [a] second area.” Ex. 1001,
`
`cls. 1, 8, 9.
`
`Accordingly, since each ground presented in the Petition fails, Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests that the Petition be denied.
`
`II. THE INVENTION OF THE ’432 PATENT
`Specification
`A.
`Head-Mounted Displays (“HMD”) create immersive virtual spaces that may
`
`be used in a wide variety of applications. See Ex. 1001, 16:16-28. HMDs strive to
`
`immerse users in these applications in several ways, including by changing the
`
`
`2 Indeed, petitioner has amassed its own patent portfolio directed to these same
`technologies. It does not submit a declaration under § 101 here, presumably to avoid
`complications in litigating these patents against others, including the Patent Owner.
`See e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 8,448,095; 8,636,594; 8,782,546; 8,814,674; 8,954,890;
`9,308,454; 9,308,456; 9,830,765; 9,836,195; 10,152,844; 10,198,157; 10,296,188;
`10,350,500; 10,413,814; 10,576,372; 10,685,529; and 10,702,777.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`image displayed on the HMD in response to physiological user movements. Id.,
`
`1:21-27. However, when such applications must provide responsive information to
`
`users, prior art displays failed to do so without disrupting the user’s immersive
`
`experience. See Ex. 1001, 1:28-38, 9:46-52. For example, some prior art systems
`
`provided selectable “buttons” on the virtual space that a user could select to obtain
`
`information. Id. However, displaying a “button” over a virtual reality environment
`
`disrupted the user’s sense of immersion. Id. To retain the user’s immersion, it
`
`therefor would have been advantageous to avoid such intrusive alert mechanisms
`
`with a more immersive way to provide information by integrating it into the
`
`displayed virtual space image. Id., 1:42-46, 1:67-2:5, 9:46-52.
`
`The ’432 Patent claims a particular solution to this technological problem
`
`arising in the context of HMDs: display technology that integrates user feedback via
`
`gaze (i.e., eye) tracking technology to maintain an immersive image of a virtual
`
`space while providing immersively integrated information to users. In the disclosed
`
`display, immersion-reducing features, such as “buttons,” are no longer needed to
`
`provide information, and the system is able to maintain an immersive state while
`
`providing information. Id., 1:31-38; 1:67-2:5; 3:1-5; 9:46-62
`
`As an initial matter, the ’432 Patent describes specialized hardware integral to
`
`implementation of the claimed virtual display, including HMD 10 and game
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`processing apparatus 20, as shown below in Figure 1. Ex. 1001, 3:45-47; Ex. 2001,
`
`¶¶ 51-56.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1. The specification provides specific details regarding the hardware
`
`components required for implementing embodiments of the claimed invention,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`including HMD controller 11 (Ex. 1001, 3:51-55), sensor 12 (Ex. 1001, 3:50-51),
`
`display 14 (Ex. 1001, 4:1-2), and controller 21 (Ex. 1001, 4:18-23). Controller 21
`
`further includes “a central processing unit (CPU), random-access memory (RAM),
`
`and read-only memory (ROM).” Id., 4:18-20. The specification also describes
`
`specific relationships between components; for example, “[t]he HMD controller 11
`
`may display on the display 14 an image in accordance with an image signal received
`
`from the game processing apparatus 20 via the input/output I/F unit 13.” Ex. 1001,
`
`4:8-14; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 51-56. These specialized components implement the display
`
`technology realized on HMD 10, and recited in the Claims of the ’432 patent. Id.
`
`As mentioned above, the display technology is directed to virtual reality
`
`systems for a variety of applications, including “simulations for driving, job training,
`
`or the like, trainings in medical fields, monitoring products, and movie or music
`
`appreciation.”
`
` Ex. 1001, 16:16-24.
`
` The ’432 specification’s exemplary
`
`embodiments apply to virtual reality video games. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:35-44; Ex.
`
`2001 ¶¶ 57-62. For example, Figure 5 depicts a virtual space image displayed on
`
`HMD 10’s display 14. Ex. 1001, 3:19-21; 8:64-9:4. The image includes a first area,
`
`annotated in blue, and a second area, annotated in orange. Ex. 1001, 8:64-9:4; Fig.
`
`5; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 57-60.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 5; Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 57-60. Figure 5’s image illustrates the virtual space
`
`image information stored in HMD 10’s storage unit 22. Ex. 1001, 4:29-33. The
`
`virtual space image includes target objects 103 displayed within gameable area 105,
`
`i.e., a first area. Ex. 1001, 8:64-9:4; Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 57-60. The virtual space image
`
`further includes an area outside of the gameable area, i.e., a second area. Ex. 1001,
`
`9:5-9; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 57-60. When sensor 12 detects that a user’s gaze moved from
`
`the first area to the second area, it sends a detection signal to gaze position
`
`identifying unit 24, which then updates gaze position information 33 with the user’s
`
`new gaze position. Ex. 1001, 5:8-16. Game manager 25 uses gaze position
`
`information 33 to determine that the gaze position is in the second area, and “an
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`information provision display 111 may be output,” onto display 14, as shown below
`
`in Figure 6. Ex. 1001, 9:5-9; Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 57-60.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 depicts a close-up view of the bird and cloud located in Figure 5’s
`
`second area. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 57-60. Information provision display 111 may provide a
`
`hint to the user indicating the next step the user should take to advance in the
`
`immersive environment, and it is rendered “such that [its] image attributes, such as
`
`[its] lightness and tone, fit the virtual space image 110,” thereby creating an
`
`immersive hint integrated into the virtual space. Ex. 1001, 9:9-11; 9:31-35; Ex.
`
`2001, ¶¶ 57-60. In some embodiments, information provision display 111 may move
`
`with moving object 112. Ex. 1001, 9:29-39; Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 57-60. For example,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`Figure 6 depicts moving object 112 as a bird holding a note, i.e. information
`
`provision display 111, thereby naturally incorporating information into the virtual
`
`space. Ex. 1001, 9:25-28; Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 57-60. Accordingly, “information can be
`
`provided without reducing the loss of a sense of immersion in the virtual space.” Ex.
`
`1001, 9:35-39; Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 57-60.
`
`When the user receives the hint from information provision display 111, the
`
`user may then use that information to progress through the virtual environment. Ex.
`
`1001, 9:66-10:3; Ex. 2001, ¶ 59. In Figure 6’s example, the hint indicates that the
`
`user may progress by paying attention to, or “selecting,” with his gaze the column
`
`located in Figure 5. Ex. 1001, 9:9-11, 10:14-19; Ex. 2001 ¶ 59.
`
`
`
`Figures 7A and 7B depict a similar example where target object 103, located
`
`within the first area, includes gauge 120. Ex. 1001, 10:59-64; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 60-62.
`
`A user may select a target object by “continuously gazing at the target object for a
`
`certain period of time.” Ex. 1001, 4:38-40; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 60-62. As shown in Figure
`
`7A, when sensor 12 detects that the user is gazing at target object 103, space image
`
`output unit 26 may display gauge 120, which indicates the amount of time remaining
`
`until the user has successfully selected object 103. Ex. 1001, 10:62-64; Ex. 2001 ¶¶
`
`60-62.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 7B (similar to Figure 6) depicts a situation where the user has averted
`
`his gaze before selecting object 103. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 60-62. Specifically, the user’s
`
`gaze shifted from the first area to the second area. Ex. 1001, 10:65-67, Ex. 2001
`
`¶¶ 60-62. When the HMD detects that the user’s gaze is directed to the second area,
`
`the HMD may generate information provision display 111. Ex. 1001, 10:65-67, Ex.
`
`2001 ¶¶ 60-62. As in the example depicted in Figure 6, information provision
`
`display 111 may be displayed and move in the same direction as a moving body (in
`
`Figure 7B, the bird). Ex. 1001, 11:1-6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 60-62. Displaying information
`
`provision display 111 ahead of the moving object “may make it easier for the player
`
`to recognize the information provision display 111” because users “tend to pay more
`
`attention to the moving body [ ] than to a still object.” Ex. 1001, 11:4-11; Ex. 2001
`
`¶¶ 60-62.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`
`B. Claims
`The ’432 Patent Claims are directed to novel display technology that
`
`integrates user feedback via gaze tracking technology to maintain an immersive
`
`experience for the user viewing a virtual space while providing information to the
`
`user. Ex. 1001, 1:28-38; 9:46-52; cls. 1-9; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48, 66. Claim 13 in particular
`
`states:
`
`1. A computer program product embodied on a nontransitory computer-
`readable medium, comprising code executable by a virtual image display
`apparatus having at least a processor and a memory, the memory being
`configured to store an information providing condition of the virtual image
`display apparatus and being further configured to store to-be-provided
`information, to cause the virtual image display apparatus to carry out the
`following steps:
`
`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 at least one of a head of the player and an eye of the player,
`and the sensor being at least one of the set of: a gyro sensor configured
`to measure movement of the head of the player, an acceleration sensor
`configured to measure movement of the head of the player, a
`geomagnetic sensor configured to measure movement of the head of the
`player and a line-of-sight sensor configured to measure movement of
`the eye of the player; and
`
`determining, based on the movement of the body part of the player, a
`position and direction of the body part of a player;
`
`displaying, on a display operationally linked to the virtual image
`display apparatus, 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; and
`
`
`3 Claims 8 (apparatus claim) and 9 (method claim) correspond to the nontransitory
`computer-readable medium of Claim 1 and share substantially the same limitations.
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`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;
`
`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 being in a
`specified position or the direction of the body part of the player being
`at least a specified direction.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Arguments That Any Claim Lacks Written
`Description Are Baseless.
`For written description, “the disclosure as originally filed does not have to
`
`provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Purdue
`
`Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Rather, “the
`
`test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon
`
`reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had ‘possession’ of
`
`the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly &
`
`Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Further, claims originally filed
`
`“in many cases will satisfy the written description requirement,” such as where the
`
`original claims show “‘that the applicants had in mind the invention as claimed’ and
`
`described it.” Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1297 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017) (citing Crown Packaging Tech. v. Ball Metal Beverage, 635 F.3d 1373,
`
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`1.
`
`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`The Disclosed “Gameable Area” And The Area “Outside
`The Gameable Area” Correspond To The Claimed “First
`Area” And “Second Area.”
`Petitioner argues that the specification “describe a single gameable ‘area’”
`
`and thus does not support the claims that recite two “areas.” Pet. 42-43.
`
`The recited “first area” and “second area” are expressly described and
`
`illustrated in the specification. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 57-62, 80. Claims 1, 8, and 9 recite a
`
`“virtual space including a first area and a second area,” which requires, simply, a
`
`description of a virtual space that has two areas.
`
`The specification plainly describes a virtual space with two exemplary
`
`areas—“the virtual space may include a target object selectable by a gaze of the
`
`player, an area including the target object may be recorded in the storage unit, the
`
`information providing condition may include the fact that a gaze position identified
`
`from the position and direction of the certain body part of the player becomes outside
`
`the area…” Ex. 1001, 2:6-14; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 57-62, 80. In this embodiment, the virtual
`
`space has two areas—“an area including the target object” and another area “outside
`
`the area [that has the target object].” Ex. 1001, 2:6-18; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 57-62, 80.
`
`A gaming embodiment is illustrated in Figure 5. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 57-62, 80.
`
`Figure 5 shows a virtual space that includes a first area, i.e. “a gameable area 105”
`
`that includes “target objects 103,” and a second area, i.e. the area “outside the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`gameable 105” that includes “a moving body 112, which may appear as a bird.” Ex.
`
`1001, 9:1-29; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 57-62, 80.
`
`
`
`The specification describes a virtual space that includes two areas, and that a
`
`gaze position can move from a first area to a second area outside of the first area—
`
`“when the gaze position on the target object 103 [that is in the gameable area] is
`
`moved to outside the gameable area.” Ex. 1001, 9:5-9, 10:65-67; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 57-
`
`62, 80.
`
`Accordingly, the recited “first area” and “second area” are adequately
`
`supported by the written description of the specification.
`
`2.
`
`The Specification Discloses A “Position And Direction” Of
`A “Body Part Of The Player.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`Claim 1 recites “determining, based on the movement of the body part of the
`
`player, a position and direction of the body part of a player,” and Claims 8 and 9
`
`recite substantially similar limitations. Petitioner’s argument cannot even get out of
`
`the starter’s block because this exact term is in the Claims as originally filed. Ex.
`
`1002 at 246 (Claim 1 recites “determining, with a sensor operationally linked to the
`
`virtual image display apparatus, a position and direction of a body part of a
`
`player”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 76. As such, the originally filed Claims provide a written
`
`description for Claims 1, 8, and 9. But even if the originally filed Claims do not
`
`provide written description for this claim term, which they do, Petitioner’s
`
`arguments also fail.
`
`Petitioner argues that the “specification has only disclosed detection methods
`
`related to the head and eyes,” and that the specification does not disclose “whether
`
`other sensors are needed for other body parts, and how the position and direction of
`
`these body parts would be determined.” Pet. 44. Petitioner does not dispute that the
`
`head and eyes are body parts, rather, it argues that an exhaustive list of other body
`
`parts are necessary to support the claim—the law requires no such thing.
`
`The teaching examples of the specification are not limited to a specific body
`
`part. For example, the specification describes “using a sensor for identifying the
`
`position and direction of a certain body part of a player…” Ex. 1001, Abstract; see
`
`also, id. 1:51-52, 2:32-57, 11:43-47, 13:5-7; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 82-84. Therefore, support
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`exists for a “position and direction” and a “body part,” and Petitioner’s unsupported
`
`attorney arguments should be denied.
`
`Accordingly, the recited determination of a “position and direction” of a
`
`“body part of the player” satisfies the written description requirement.
`
`3.
`
`The Specification Discloses A “Reference Range” And A
`“Predetermined Movement” Of A “Body Part Of The
`Player.”
`Claim 4 recites “wherein the movement of the body part of the player has
`
`gone outside the reference range,” and Claim 5 recites “wherein movement of the
`
`body part of the player corresponds to the predetermined movement recorded in the
`
`memory.” Similar to the term discussed above, supra at § III.A.2., Petitioner’s
`
`argument fails because these same claim terms are in the Claims as originally filed.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 248 (Claim 4 recites “wherein the movement of the body part of the
`
`player has gone outside the reference range,” and Claim 5 recites “wherein
`
`movement of the body part of the player corresponds to the predetermined
`
`movement recorded in the memory”); Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77-78. The originally filed
`
`Claims provide written description for Claims 4 and 5. But even if the originally
`
`filed Claims do not provide written description for this claim term, which they do,
`
`Petitioner’s arguments also fail.
`
`Petitioner argues that “[t]he determination of the ‘reference range’ and
`
`‘predetermined movement’ are disclosed in the specification only with relation to
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`the user’s head.” Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:54-61). Similar to the argument made
`
`supra at § III.A.2., Petitioner asserts that “determination of the ‘reference range’ and
`
`‘predetermined movement’ of the ‘body part,’ as with the determination of the body
`
`part, would be even more ambiguous given the disclosed methods.” Id. 44-45.
`
`Petitioner’s argument fails for the same reasons as those stated above in §
`
`III.A.2. Once again, such determinations are not limited to a specific body part. Ex.
`
`2001 ¶¶ 81-86. And, in any event petitioner presents no evidence that a POSITA
`
`would not have understood, based on the teaching examples of the specification, that
`
`they inventor did not have possession of such as they cannot. Id. The specification
`
`discloses displaying “to-be-provided information when the movement of [a] certain
`
`body part of the player becomes outside [a] reference range.” Ex. 1001, 2:38-40.
`
`And similarly, the specification discloses “a predetermined movement of [a] certain
`
`body part of the player.” Id., 2:45-46. Therefore, support exists for both of these
`
`elements, and further, Petitioner’s unsupported attorney argument that it would be
`
`“much more complicated” to determine a “reference range” or “predetermined
`
`movement” with regard to a user’s legs rather than head is baseless. Pet. 45.
`
`Accordingly, the recited determinations of a “reference range” and a
`
`“predetermined movement” of a “body party of the player” satisfy the written
`
`description requirement.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`Section 325(d) Forecloses a Second 101 Challenge.
`B.
`As an initial matter, this Ground should not be considered because Petitioner
`
`is asking the Board to rehash issues already considered and decided by the Office.
`
`Under § 325(d), such arguments are prohibited. See Advanced Bionics, LLC