`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`)
`
`In the Post Grant Review of:
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`U.S. Patent Nos.: 10,406,432
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For: VIRTUAL IMAGE DISPLAY )
`PROGRAM,
`
`
`
`)
`VIRTUAL IMAGE DISPLAY
`)
`APPARATUS, AND
`
`
`)
`VIRTUAL IMAGE DISPLAY
`)
`METHOD
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSEPH J. LaVIOLA, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,406,432
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 1
`
`
`
`I, Joseph J. LaViola, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I have been asked by the party requesting this review, Supercell Oy
`1.
`
`(“Petitioner”), to provide my expert opinions in support of the above-captioned
`
`petition for post grant review of U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432 (the “‘432 patent”),
`
`challenging the patentability of claims 1-9 of the ‘432 patent.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I currently hold the opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`In summary, it is my opinion that the references cited below render
`
`obvious the challenged claims of the challenged patent. My detailed opinions on
`
`the claims are set forth below.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from
`
`Florida Atlantic University in 1996. I earned Masters of Science degrees in
`
`Computer Science and Applied Mathematics from Brown University in 2000 and
`
`2001, respectively. I earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Brown University
`
`in 2005.
`
`5.
`
`I have over 20 years of experience working in the virtual reality
`
`(“VR”) and augmented reality (“AR”) fields, as well as advancing and studying
`
`three-dimensional (“3D”) interaction techniques and user interfaces for use in both
`
`VR and AR environments.
`
`1
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I have been working as a professor in the computer science
`
`department at the University of Central Florida (UCF) located in Orlando, FL since
`
`January 2007. I am currently the Charles N. Millican Professor of Computer
`
`Science and have held this position since 2018. Between 2012 and 2018 I was an
`
`associate professor with tenure at UCF and was named the Charles N. Millican
`
`Faculty Fellow and Associate Professor from 2015-2018 and the CAE Link
`
`Professor and Associate Professor from 2012 to 2015. From 2007 to 2012 I was an
`
`assistant professor of computer science at UCF and was named an SAIC Faculty
`
`Fellow from 2010 thru 2012.
`
`7.
`
`I am the founding director of the Interactive Computing Experiences
`
`Research Cluster which contains the Interactive Systems and User Experience
`
`research lab that has been in operation since January 2007. As director of this lab, I
`
`supervise over twelve graduate students, undergraduate students, and staff working
`
`on various research projects in the general area of human-computer interaction
`
`with specific interests in 3D user interfaces, 2D and 3D gesture recognition, virtual
`
`and augmented reality, and human robot interaction. In addition, since 2013, I have
`
`served as an Adjunct Associate Professor of Computer Science at Brown
`
`University, located in Providence, Rhode Island and recently named a visiting
`
`scholar in 2019.
`
`2
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I serve as Associate Editor for various journals in the area of human-
`
`computer interaction, including the International Journal of Human-Computer
`
`Studies and the Association for Computing Machinery’s Transactions on
`
`Interactive Intelligent Systems. I served on the editorial board of the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers’
`
`(“IEEE”) Computer Graphics &
`
`Applications. I have also served as Program Chair for the IEEE Virtual Reality
`
`conference and the IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces.
`
`9.
`
`I have contributed to more than 40 peer-reviewed journal publications
`
`and over 100 refereed conferences and workshop papers, the majority of which
`
`deal with virtual and augmented reality and the study of 3D user interfaces. For
`
`instance, I am the lead author of the second edition of the most comprehensive
`
`textbook on 3D user interaction, entitled “3D User Interfaces: Theory and
`
`Practice.” The first edition of this textbook came out in 2004 with the second
`
`edition published in 2017. As part of that work, I analyzed many different types of
`
`input and output hardware, 3D user interface techniques and methodologies, and
`
`general topics related to virtual and augmented reality. Since the spring semester of
`
`2008, I have used this book as the main text for CAP 6121, 3D User Interfaces for
`
`Games and Virtual Reality, a graduate level course on all aspects of 3D user
`
`interfaces. I have taught this course 13 times at UCF. The textbook, course
`
`3
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`instruction, and my research work in 3D user interfaces make me uniquely
`
`qualified to opine on the patentability of the ‘432 patent.
`
`10. My professional background and technical qualifications also are
`
`reflected in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached.
`
`III. COMPENSATION AND RELATIONSHIP WITH PARTIES
`11.
`I am being compensated for my
`time
`in
`this matter. This
`
`compensation is not contingent upon my performance, the outcome of this matter,
`
`or any issues involved in or related to this matter.
`
`12.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioner or any related parties. I have
`
`been informed that GREE, Inc. (“GREE”) owns the challenged patent. I have no
`
`financial interest in and have no contact with GREE beyond the kinds of cursory
`
`interactions I often have with game industry professionals at conferences. I
`
`similarly have no financial interest in the challenged patent and have not had any
`
`contact with the named inventors.
`
`IV. MATERIAL CONSIDERED
`13.
`I have reviewed and considered, in the preparation of this declaration,
`
`the following related to the challenged patents:
`
`a.
`
`The ‘432 patent (Ex. 1001) and the prosecution file history for
`
`the ‘432 patent (Ex. 1002).
`
`4
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`I understand that, for purposes of determining whether a reference
`
`will qualify as prior art, the challenged claims of the challenged patent are entitled
`
`to an effective filing date of no earlier than September 16, 2015.
`
`15.
`
`I have also reviewed and understand various references as discussed
`
`herein, including the following:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,392,212 to Ross (Ex. 1004, “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).
`
`Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
`
`23–27. (Ex. 1005, “Lankford")
`
`c.
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20160093105 to Rimon et al. (Ex. 1006,
`
`“Rimon”).
`
`d.
`
`“Unify Community” – Unity Game Engine Wiki – “Object
`
`Label” Article (Ex. 1007, “ObjectLabel”).
`
`e.
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150153913 to Ballard et al. (Ex. 1008,
`
`“Ballard”).
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the above references form the basis for the ground
`
`for invalidity set forth in the Petition for Post Grant Review of the challenged
`
`patent.
`
`5
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`17. Additionally, I am aware of information generally available to, and
`
`relied upon by, persons of ordinary skill in the art (POSITAs) as of the effective
`
`filing date of the challenged patents, including computer games, technical
`
`dictionaries and technical reference materials (including, for example, textbooks,
`
`manuals, technical papers, articles, and relevant technical standards); some of my
`
`statements below are expressly based on such awareness.
`
`18.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions to address any
`
`information obtained, or positions taken, based on any new information that comes
`
`to light throughout this proceeding.
`
`V. BASIS OF OPINIONS FORMED
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`19.
`It is my understanding that the challenged patents are to be interpreted
`
`based on how they would be read by a person of “ordinary skill in the art”
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the effective filing date of the application. It is my
`
`understanding that factors such as the education level of those working in the field,
`
`the sophistication of the technology, the types of problems encountered in the art,
`
`the prior art solutions to those problems, and the speed at which innovations are
`
`made may help establish the level of skill in the art.
`
`20.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue and the state of the art at the
`
`effective filing date of the challenged patents, September 16, 2015.
`
`6
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`In my opinion, the level of ordinary skill in the art of the challenged
`
`patents at the time of the effective filing date is a person with a bachelor’s degree
`
`in game design/development, interactive media, computer science, computer
`
`engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of professional experience
`
`working in 3D user interfaces, virtual reality, or augmented reality. With more
`
`education, such as additional graduate degrees or study, less professional
`
`experience is needed to attain the ordinary level of skill. Similarly, with more
`
`experiential knowledge of 3D user interfaces, such as experience developed while
`
`creating human-computer interfaces, virtual reality interfaces, augmented reality
`
`interfaces , immersive computer games, less professional experience is needed to
`
`attain the ordinary level of skill.
`
`22.
`
`I consider myself to have at least such ordinary skill in the art with
`
`respect to the subject matter of the challenged patents at the time of the effective
`
`filing date.
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED PATENT
`23. The challenged patent is entitled “Virtual Image Display Program,
`
`Virtual Image Display Apparatus, and Virtual Image Display Method.” The
`
`challenged patent includes 9 claims, all of which are challenged in the Petition for
`
`Post Grant Review of the challenged patent.
`
`7
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`Purported Invention of the Challenged Patents
`24. 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 virtual reality games played by displaying an image of a virtual space on
`
`an HMD. When the player moves his/her head, the HMD changes the image
`
`displayed to follow the movement of the head. Information may be provided to the
`
`user, e.g., hints or menu items. However, this is often accomplished by displaying
`
`a menu button, which reduces the sense of immersion. Ex. 1001, 1:14-38.
`
`25. To solve this apparent problem, the specification of the ‘432 patent
`
`purports to disclose a virtual image display program, apparatus, and method
`
`“capable of providing information while reducing the loss of a sense of immersion
`
`in virtual space may all be provided.” Ex. 1001, 1:42-46. This arguably is done by
`
`providing a virtual image display program to display an image of a virtual space
`
`using a virtual image display apparatus and a detector for identifying a position and
`
`direction of a body part of the player. 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
`
`8
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`movement of the gaze position of the player is satisfied.” This may remove the
`
`need to display a button, reducing the loss of immersion. Ex. 1001, 1:47-2:5.
`
`26. The specification discloses that the virtual space has a gameable area.
`
`The gameable area has a selectable target object. The specification discloses
`
`multiple information providing conditions, which include 1) when the gaze
`
`position of the player becomes outside the gameable area (Ex. 1001, 2:6-18); 2)
`
`when the movement range of the certain body part becomes outside a reference
`
`range (Ex. 1001, 2:32-44); 3) when the gaze position moves outside a target object
`
`before the player complete selection of the target object (Ex. 1001, 2:19-31); 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, 2:45-57). The
`
`specification describes multiple ways to present the to-be-provided information: 1)
`
`in an area outside the gameable area (Ex. 1001, 9:5-10); 2) displayed on an object
`
`in the virtual space (Ex. 1001, 2:58-67); or 3) displayed in a direction of the
`
`moving body of an object in the virtual space (Ex. 1001, 2:58-67).
`
`27. The independent claims of the challenged patent recite variations of
`
`the same three basic elements noted below.
`
`28. The first element is detecting “a movement of a body part of a
`
`player.” This is performed by a “sensor operationally linked to the virtual image
`
`display apparatus.” The body part is “at least one of” a head or eye of the player.
`
`9
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 10
`
`
`
`29.
`
`The second element is determining “a position and direction of the
`
`body part of a player.”
`
`30.
`
`The third element is providing “to-be-provided information to the
`
`player” when the “information providing condition” of user’s position/direction
`
`indicates an “gaze position moving to the second area from the first area” in a
`
`virtual space is satisfied. The “to-be-provided information” is displayed in the
`
`second area. See Ex. 1001, 16:30-18:63, Claims 1, 8, 9.
`
`31. Claim 1 recites a “computer program product” comprising code
`
`executable by a processor of a virtual image display apparatus to perform the
`
`elements noted above. Claim 8 recites the same elements one through three but in
`
`the form of an apparatus claim. Claim 9 also recites the same elements one through
`
`three, but in the form of a method claim. See Ex. 1001, 16:30-18:63, Claims 1, 8,
`
`9.
`
`32.
`
`In addition, the ‘432 patent include claims 2-7 which depend from
`
`claim 1. Claims 8 and 9 do not have any dependent claims. See Ex. 1001, 16:30-
`
`18:63, Claims 2-9.
`
`33. Claims 2-5 recite additional conditions for the information providing
`
`condition in the third element (“providing”) noted above.
`
`34. Claim 2 recites that the information providing condition includes a
`
`condition where the gaze position of the player becomes directed outside an area
`
`10
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 11
`
`
`
`“wherein [the] area includes [a] target object” that is “selectable by a gaze of the
`
`player.” See Ex. 1001, 16:30-18:63, Claim 2.
`
`35. Claim 3 recites the same “target object” as claim 2 and has a condition
`
`similar to claim 2, but with the addition that the user’s gaze position “moves
`
`outside the target object before the player completes selecting the target object.”
`
`See Ex. 1001, 16:30-18:63, Claim 3.
`
`36. Claim 4 recites a “reference range regarding movement of the body
`
`part of the player” with no further explanation and has as a condition “the
`
`movement of the body part of the player has gone outside the reference range.” See
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:30-18:63, Claim 4.
`
`37. Claim 5 recites “a recording of a predetermined movement of the
`
`body part of the player” and states that the condition is wherein a “movement of
`
`the body part of the player corresponds to the predetermined movement.” See Ex.
`
`1001, 16:30-18:63, Claim 5.
`
`38. Claims 6 and 7 state that the “to-be-provided information” can be “on
`
`an object in the virtual space” or that the “to-be-provided information” is “in a
`
`direction in which a moving body is moving.” See Ex. 1001, 16:30-18:63, Claims
`
`6-7.
`
`11
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 12
`
`
`
`B.
`39.
`
`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. I understand for the
`
`purposes of this Post Grant Review proceeding that the challenged patent has an
`
`effective filing date no earlier than September 16, 2015.
`
`40.
`
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the challenged patent and
`
`the ‘432 patent. I understand that comments made during prosecution of a
`
`particular patent may influence the meaning of terms in the claims of that patent, as
`
`well as terms in other claims in the same patent family.
`
`VII. LEGAL STANDARD FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`41.
`It is my understanding that “[i]n a post-grant review proceeding, a
`
`claim of a patent…shall be construed using the same claim construction standard
`
`that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b),
`
`including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the
`
`prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b).
`
`42.
`
`I am not a patent attorney and my opinions are limited to what I
`
`believe a POSITA would have understood the meaning of certain claim terms to
`
`be, based on the patent specifications and prosecution histories.
`
`12
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`43.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would have no difficulty applying the plain
`
`and ordinary meanings of the majority of terms used in the claims. However, in
`
`view of the disclosures in the specification of the ‘432 patent and the prosecution
`
`history of the patent family, the claim terms 1) “a first area” and “a second area”
`
`and 2) “to-be-provided information” requires further explanation in order to
`
`understand the claims.
`
`44. Regarding “a first area” and “a second area”, a POSITA would have
`
`to understand that these terms refer to two separate areas, each of which may be
`
`any size. In the context of the claims, each of these areas can be gazed at by the
`
`player. While the claims refer to the terms “a first area” and “a second area,” these
`
`terms are not used explicitly in the specification. The claims recite that the “first
`
`area” and the “second area” are included in a “an image of a virtual space”
`
`displayed to the player. The specification refers to a “virtual space” having a
`
`“gameable area” and a “position outside the gameable area,” but does not refer to a
`
`“first area” or a “second area.” Ex. 1001, 9:6-8. The specification further states that
`
`“[i]n the virtual space image 110, target objects 103 may be displayed in the
`
`gameable area 105….[o]bjects 106 other than the target objects 103 may be
`
`displayed in the gameable area 105.” Ex. 1001, 9:1-4. Aside from indicating that
`
`the “gameable area” can contain “target objects” of undefined character, no other
`
`constraints are made on the definition of the “gameable area” or the “position
`
`13
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`outside the gameable area.” As the specification does not explicitly refer to “first
`
`area” and “second area,” a POSITA may take the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`these terms as each being an area of any size. Even if the specification were to be
`
`considered, and if “gameable area” were interpreted as being the “first area” and
`
`“position outside the gameable area” were interpreted as being the “second area,”
`
`this interpretation would not change the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms,
`
`because as shown above, the specification does not provide any further constraints
`
`on the size of the “gameable area” or the “position outside the gameable area,”
`
`aside from the fact that objects of unspecified dimensions may be displayed within
`
`the “gameable area.”
`
`45. Regarding the term “to-be-provided information”, a POSITA would
`
`have understood that this would refer to any indication, suggestion, or statement,
`
`for accomplishing any task or assignment. This is because the specification only
`
`goes so far as to state that “to-be-provided information 35 may include information
`
`that indicates the details of a hint for accomplishing a mission of the game.” Ex.
`
`1001, 5:4-7. The specification further states that the recited system can be used in
`
`applications other than games including “simulations for driving, job training, or
`
`the like, trainings in medical fields, monitoring products, and movie or music
`
`appreciation,” and thus does not limit the application to games only. Ex. 1001,
`
`16:16-28. Aside from this, the term “to-be-provided information” is not further
`
`14
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`defined, and the terms “hint” or “mission” are not further clarified. This “to-be-
`
`provided information” is further similar to well-known methods of feedback and/or
`
`wayfinding aids in 3D user interfaces. See, e.g., Ex. 1009, Ch. 7, for discussion of
`
`wayfinding aids, such as “compasses, signs, reference objects, artificial landmarks,
`
`trails, audio and olfactory cues” in 3D user interfaces to provide knowledge to a
`
`user. Id. at 242.
`
`VIII. ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS STANDARDS
`46.
`I understand that a prior art reference is a reference that, standing
`
`alone, anticipates each and every limitation of a claim, under the conditions of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102. I also understand that a prior art reference may be combined with
`
`additional extrinsic information or additional prior art references such that the
`
`combination makes obvious the limitations of the claim, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`47.
`
`It is my understanding that a prior art reference is anticipatory only if
`
`it discloses each and every limitation of the claim (as properly construed) at issue.
`
`In other words, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior
`
`art reference for it to anticipate a claim.
`
`48.
`
`It is further my understanding that in some instances a reference may
`
`not anticipate every element of the claim. In those situations a claimed invention is
`
`unpatentable if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`15
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains (i.e., a POSITA).
`
`49.
`
`It is my understanding that to analyze obviousness one should
`
`understand (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between
`
`the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations such as commercial success,
`
`long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`50.
`
`I understand that for a single reference or a combination of references
`
`to render obvious the claimed invention, a POSITA must have been able to arrive
`
`at the claims by altering or combining the applied references.
`
`51.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine,
`
`but other times the nexus linking two or more prior art references is simple
`
`common sense. I further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`52.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device
`
`or product, and a POSITA would recognize that it would improve similar devices
`
`16
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`or products in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
`
`application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`53.
`
`I also understand that practical and common sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a POSITA
`
`looking to overcome a problem will often be able to fit together the teaching of
`
`multiple publications. I understand that obviousness analysis therefore takes into
`
`account the inferences and creative steps that a POSITA would employ under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`54.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious
`
`merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a POSITA has good reason to pursue
`
`the known options within his or her technical grasp because the result is likely the
`
`product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`55.
`
`I also understand that the combination of familiar elements according
`
`to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variation of it, either in the same
`
`17
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`field or a different one. If a POSITA can implement a predictable variation, the
`
`patent claims are likely obvious.
`
`56.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis
`
`focuses on what was known or obvious to a POSITA, not just the patentee.
`
`Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem known in the field of endeavor
`
`at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
`
`combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`57.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`58.
`
`I understand that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include
`
`(1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the invention of
`
`the patent; (2) commercial success of processes covered by the patent;
`
`(3) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise of the invention by
`
`others skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others;
`
`(6) deliberate copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to find a solution to the
`
`long felt need; and (8) skepticism by experts.
`
`59.
`
`I also understand that there must be a relationship between any such
`
`secondary considerations and
`
`the
`
`invention.
`
`I
`
`further understand
`
`that
`
`18
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 19
`
`
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration
`
`supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`60.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a POSITA having the understanding and knowledge reflected in
`
`the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have
`
`been led to make the combination of elements recited in the claims. Under this
`
`analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or problem known in the
`
`field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a reason for combining
`
`the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed manner.
`
`61.
`
`It also is my understanding that a statement by an applicant in the
`
`specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as “prior
`
`art” is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obvious
`
`determinations, regardless of whether the applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”)
`
`would otherwise qualify as prior art.
`
`IX. ANALYSIS OF THE TECHNICAL BASIS UNDERLYING THE
`GROUNDS OF REJECTION SET FORTH IN THE PETITIONS FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A.
`State of the Art
`62.
`The ability to provide information to a user based on where the user is
`
`gazing is a well-known method in many human computer interface technologies.
`
`Aside from such a process being performed by humans in a non-technological
`
`19
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 20
`
`
`
`application, the idea has also been well practiced when applied to various technical
`
`fields.
`
`63. Before the effective filing date of the ‘432 patent it was well known to
`
`provide information to a user based on where the user is gazing. These techniques
`
`were well known before virtual reality or gaming. For example, a catcher in a
`
`baseball game can indicate information via hand signals to a pitcher instructing the
`
`pitcher to make a specific throw. The catcher provides these hand signals between
`
`the knees when the pitcher gazes towards the catcher in that area.
`
`64. Gaze-based computer interfaces have also been well known since at
`
`least the 1990s, long before the effective filing date of the ‘432 patent. For
`
`example, Jacob in April 1990 describes methods for “Eye Movement-Based
`
`Interaction Techniques” whereby a task is described to “select one object from
`
`among several displayed on the screen” by using “dwell time-if the user continues
`
`to look at the object for a sufficiently long time, it is selected without further
`
`operations.” Ex. 1010, p. 15. Another interaction method described by Jacob is “[a]
`
`window of text is shown, but not all of the material to be displayed can fit….[if]
`
`the user looks at an arrow, the text itself starts to scroll.” Ex. 1010, p. 16. Thus,
`
`when the user moves his or her gaze to an arrow, new information is shown to the
`
`user.
`
`20
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 21
`
`
`
`65.
`
`Sibert et al. also describes such gaze-based interaction. Figure 1 of
`
`Sibert shows a user interface, and has the description
`
`Display from eye tracker demonstration system. Whenever a user
`looks at a ship in the right window, the ship (highlighted) is selected
`and information about it is displayed in the left window.
`
`Ex. 1011, Figure 1, p. 283
`
`66.
`
`The referenced Exhibits 1004-1008 also illustrate how the idea of
`
`providing information based on where the user is gazing was well known before
`
`the effective filing date of the ‘432 patent.
`
`67.
`
`For example, Exhibit 1004, U.S. Patent No. 9,392,212 to Ross,
`
`discloses a “virtual reality headset worn by the user” to “present the virtual reality
`
`content to the user” which presents a sensory cue in response to the user moving
`
`from a primary to a secondary virtual reality content area. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 3:38-
`
`45 and 6:46-60.
`
`68. Gesture recognition, such as the “movement of the body part of the
`
`player corresponds to the predetermined movement” recited in claim 5, is also
`
`well-known in in the art. For example, LaViola describes an interface using a 3D
`
`gesture recognizer to trigger commands for a user interface. See Ex. 1012, p. 2.
`
`69.
`
`Furthermore, the checking of a condition, such as “the movement of
`
`the body part of the player has gone outside the reference range” as recited in claim
`
`4 of the ‘432 patent, is in the ordinary art of checking a condition and presenting
`
`21
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`information to the user when the condition fails, e.g., as in a contextual menu,
`
`presented when a user looks up or down at their arm, etc. See e.g., Ex. 1009, Ch. 8.
`
`70.
`
`In another example, Exhibit 1008, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150153913
`
`to Ballard, a device to “cause the virtual menu to be shown on the display if the
`
`user is determined to be looking upward or downward with respect to a
`
`predetermined horizontal threshold.” Ex. 1008, [0006].
`
`71. Hence, it was prevalent and well known for virtual reality (VR) or
`
`augmented reality (AR) systems to provide information to the user in response to a
`
`movement of the user’s gaze (which would necessarily move between two areas
`
`displayed to the user).
`
`B. Relevant Prior Art References that Anticipate Claims and Render
`Claims Obvious
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,392,212 to Ross
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent No. 9,392,212 to Ross (“Ross”), entitled
`
`72.
`
`“System and method for presenting virtual reality content to a user.” Ross was
`
`filed on April 17, 2014. Therefore, the earliest priority date of Ross predates the
`
`effective filing date of the challenged patents. Ross is assigned to Visionary VR
`
`Inc. Ex. 1004. Below I provide my further understanding of Ross and a summary
`
`of why Ross anticipates the claims or show the claims to be obvious. A further and
`
`more detailed analysis for my conclusion is provided in the attached claim chart,
`which is referenced in the individ
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
