UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case PGR2020-00063
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,406,432
`
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL SHAMOS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gree Exhibit 2001
`Supercell Oy v. Gree, Inc.
`PGR2020-00063
`Page 00001
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Contents
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Engagement............................................................................................ 1
`B.
`Background and Qualifications .............................................................. 2
`C.
`Basis of My Opinion and Materials Considered ..................................... 5
`D.
`Legal Standards ...................................................................................... 5
`II. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT FIELD IN
`THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME .........................................................................15
`III. THE ’432 PATENT .......................................................................................17
`IV. THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE CLAIMS BY A POSITA ......................28
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...........................................................................29
`VI. A POSITA REVIEWING THE CLAIMS AND SPECIFICATION WOULD
`HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SPECIFICATION PROVIDES WRITTEN
`DESCRIPTION FOR EACH CLAIM TERM .......................................................30
`The specification provides written description of the “First Area” and the
`A.
`“Second Area” recited in the claims ..................................................................31
`The specification provides written description of determining a “Position
`B.
`and Direction,” “Reference Range,” and “Predetermined Movement” of the
`“Body Part of the Player” ..................................................................................32
`VII. THE CLAIMS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO AN ABSTRACT IDEA .............34
`The claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity as
`A.
`they are not directed to managing or playing a game. ........................................34
`The claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity as
`B.
`they are not directed to a “social activity.”.........................................................35
`The claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity by
`C.
`simply automating a manual process. ................................................................35
`D.
`The claims are not directed to a mental process. ....................................36
`VIII. THE CLAIMS RECITE AN IMPROVEMENT IN DISPLAY
`TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................39
`IX. PROPOSED GROUNDS 3-7 .........................................................................40
`X. PROPOSED GROUNDS 8-11 .......................................................................47
`XI. CONCLUDING STATEMENT .....................................................................50
`
`ii
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00002
`
`

`

`I, Dr. Michael Shamos, a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
`
`hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`
`America:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Engagement
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Gree, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “Gree”) to
`
`review and to provide my opinions on the scope and content of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,406,432 (“’432 patent,” Ex. 1001). I understand that this Declaration relates to a
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response in the above-captioned post-grant review
`
`(“PGR”) of the ’432 patent, challenging claims 1-9 (the “Claims” or the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) on the following 11 Grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Basis
`§ 101
`
`§ 112
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`Relied-On Reference
`
`Claims
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Ross
`
`Ross
`
`Ross in view of Lankford
`
`Ross in view of Rimon
`
`Ross in view of ObjectLabel
`
`1-9
`
`1-9
`
`1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9
`
`3
`
`3
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Ballard
`
`1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9
`
`Ballard in view of Lankford
`
`3
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00003
`
`

`

`10
`
`11
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Ballard in view of Rimon
`
`Ballard in view of ObjectLabel
`
`6
`
`7
`
`
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $600 per hour for my work performed
`
`in connection with this matter. My compensation is in no way contingent on the
`
`results of these or any other proceedings relating to the above-captioned patent. I
`
`have no expectation or promise of additional business with Patent Owner in
`
`exchange for the positions explained herein. I do not have any financial interest in
`
`any of the parties.
`
`3.
`
`I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge and experience, and
`
`I am competent to testify about the matters set forth herein.
`
`B.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`A detailed description of my professional qualifications, including a listing of
`
`my specialties, expertise and professional activities, and a list of cases in which I
`
`have testified in the last ten years, is contained in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`
`which is attached as Appendix A. Below is a short summary of my professional
`
`qualifications.
`
`5.
`
`I hold the title of Distinguished Career Professor in the School of Computer
`
`Science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I am a member
`
`of two departments in that School, the Institute for Software Research and the
`
`2
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00004
`
`

`

`Language Technologies Institute. I was a founder and Co-Director of the Institute
`
`for eCommerce at Carnegie Mellon from 1998-2004 and from 2004-2018 was
`
`Director of the eBusiness Technology graduate program in the Carnegie Mellon
`
`University School of Computer Science. I am now the Director of the M.S. in
`
`Artificial Intelligence and Innovation program at Carnegie Mellon.
`
`6.
`
`I received an A.B. (1968) from Princeton University in Physics; an M.A.
`
`(1970) from Vassar College in Physics; an M.S. (1972) from American University
`
`in Technology of Management, a field that covers quantitative tools used in
`
`managing organizations, such as statistics, operations research and cost-benefit
`
`analysis; an M.S. (1973), an M.Phil. (1974) and a Ph.D. (1978) from Yale University
`
`in Computer Science; and a J.D. (1981) from Duquesne University.
`
`7.
`
`I have taught graduate courses at Carnegie Mellon in Electronic Commerce,
`
`including eCommerce Technology, Electronic Payment Systems, Electronic Voting
`
`and eCommerce Law and Regulation, as well as Analysis of Algorithms. Since
`
`2007, I have taught an annual course in Law of Computer Technology. I currently
`
`also teach Artificial Intelligence and Future Markets.
`
`8.
`
`I am also Visiting Professor at the University of Hong Kong. Since 2001, I
`
`have taught an annual course there entitled Electronic Payment Systems.
`
`3
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00005
`
`

`

`9.
`
`I am the author and lecturer in a 24-hour video course on Internet protocols
`
`and have taught computer networking, wireless communication and Internet
`
`architecture since 1999.
`
`10. From 1979-1987, I was the founder and president of two computer software
`
`development companies in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Unilogic, Ltd. and Lexeme
`
`Corporation.
`
`11.
`
`I am an attorney admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and have been admitted
`
`to the Bar of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office since 1981. I have not been
`
`asked to offer any opinions on patent law in this review.
`
`12. My Ph.D. thesis in 1978 established a field of computer science known as
`
`Computational Geometry, which deals with computations on geometric objects. My
`
`work in geometry has been cited over 16,000 times. Since 1991, extending through
`
`July 2020, my work has been referenced in scientific papers an average of at least
`
`once per day. This is relevant because the subject matter of the ’432 patent involves
`
`displaying on a flat display virtual objects that are arranged in three-dimensional
`
`space from a direction determined by a user gesture. This is a problem in
`
`Computational Geometry. I have extensive experience in specifying graphical user
`
`interfaces for computer systems, primarily in connection with my responsibilities at
`
`Carnegie Mellon. I have also served as an expert witness in multiple cases involving
`
`computer gaming technology and visualization of virtual scenes.
`
`4
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00006
`
`

`

`C. Basis of My Opinion and Materials Considered
`In preparing this declaration, I have considered all Exhibits and documents
`
`13.
`
`cited to date in this PGR, including the ’432 patent and other documents and
`
`materials cited herein. For ease of reference, the full list of documents that I have
`
`considered is included in Appendix B. My opinions in this declaration are based on
`
`my review of these documents, as well as upon my education, training, research,
`
`knowledge, and experience.
`
`14. Throughout this Declaration, all emphasis and annotations are added unless
`
`otherwise noted.
`
`D. Legal Standards
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed that an issue in dispute in this PGR is whether the
`
`Challenged Claims are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. I have not been asked
`
`to provide legal opinions in this matter. My understanding of the relevant legal
`
`principles in this section is based on information provided to me by counsel.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the Board must apply a two-step framework for
`
`distinguishing patent-eligible applications of ideas and concepts, including for
`
`example patents that are directed to solving problems that are rooted in technology,
`
`from those patents that merely claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
`
`mathematical concepts, or simply use a computer to implement a known business
`
`method or mental process. I also understand that the Board need not reach step two
`
`5
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00007
`
`

`

`of the analysis if the patent is found eligible under step one. I have been informed
`
`that the Patent Office issued the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
`
`Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), subject matter eligibility examples, as well
`
`as the October 2019 Update. Exs. 2002, 2003, 2005.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that, under step one of the patent eligibility analysis,
`
`claims are patent-eligible if the claims at issue are not directed to a patent-ineligible
`
`concepts such as laws of nature, natural phenomena, mathematical concepts, certain
`
`methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles, or
`
`mental processes performed entirely in the human mind. I understand that all
`
`inventions at some level, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural
`
`phenomena, or are based on, abstract ideas. I understand that the claims must be
`
`looked at as a whole, in view of the specification, to determine if they are directed
`
`to patent-eligible subject matter. I also understand that it is improper to oversimplify
`
`the claims by looking at them generally and not accounting for the specific
`
`requirements of the claims and the teachings of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is patent-eligible under step one, even if it
`
`is directed to an abstract idea, if the claim contains additional elements that integrate
`
`the abstract idea into a practical application. I have been informed that claims are
`
`not directed to an abstract idea if the patent as a whole provides specific means or
`
`methods to improve a technology, and are directed to more than just the results or
`
`6
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00008
`
`

`

`effects of an idea. I also understand that, in the context of virtual displays realized
`
`on a head-mounted display, a claim is not directed to an abstract idea if, when read
`
`as a whole and in light of the specification, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`the claim is directed to a specific feature of the virtual display paired with a
`
`prescribed functionality directly related to the virtual display that addresses and
`
`resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior art. I further understand that a
`
`claim is not abstract if there is a particular machine or manufacture that is integral
`
`to the claim, if the additional elements effect a transformation or reduction of a
`
`particular article to a different state or thing, or if the additional element applies or
`
`uses the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the
`
`use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim
`
`as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
`
`19. Thus, I recognize that in computer-implemented inventions, novel display
`
`technology that integrates user feedback via gaze tracking technology to maintain an
`
`immersive experience in a virtual space while providing information to users
`
`operating on conventional hardware can introduce new functionality and can solve
`
`technical problems. I understand that such an invention would not be directed
`
`merely to an abstract idea, and therefore patent-eligibility under step one would be
`
`satisfied.
`
`7
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00009
`
`

`

`20.
`
`I have been informed that, under step two of the patent-eligibility analysis, the
`
`elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, must be
`
`analyzed to determine whether the additional elements transform the claim into a
`
`patent-eligible application. I understand that the second step will be satisfied (that
`
`is, the claims found patent-eligible) if the claim limitations involve more than the
`
`performance of well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously
`
`known to the industry as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. I have
`
`been informed by counsel that a “person of ordinary skill in the relevant field” or
`
`“person of ordinary skill in the art” (“POSITA”) is a hypothetical person assumed
`
`to be familiar with all relevant prior art and to whom one could assign a routine (i.e.,
`
`non-inventive) task in the field with reasonable confidence that the task would be
`
`successfully carried out.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the second step of the patent-eligibility test is a fact-based
`
`inquiry, and a claim element will be found to be well-understood, routine and
`
`conventional only if it is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, as
`
`understood by a POSITA. I also understand that the Petition offers attorney
`
`argument to the effect that the claim elements are “well-understood, routine and
`
`conventional,” but does not offer factual evidence to support conventionality. I am
`
`informed that conventionality is a matter of fact on which expert testimony is
`
`8
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00010
`
`

`

`relevant and am further informed that the fact that a limitation was known in the
`
`prior art does not by itself mean that it was conventional.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed an issue in dispute in this PGR is whether the Challenged
`
`Claims satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). I have
`
`been informed that a patent is not invalid for lack of written description if the patent’s
`
`specification describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that a POSITA
`
`can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the USPTO published 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). Ex. 2009. These changes adopted the Phillips standard, under which the words
`
`of a claim are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning. I understand that
`
`patent claims are construed from the viewpoint of a POSITA of the patent at the time
`
`of the invention. I also understand that the most important evidence to consider in
`
`construing the claims is the intrinsic record, which I understand includes the claim
`
`language, the patent specification, and the prosecution history of the particular patent
`
`and any related patents.
`
`24.
`
`I further understand that a POSITA must read the claim terms in the context
`
`of the claim itself, as well as in the context of the entire patent specification and
`
`prosecution history of the patent. I understand that in the specification and
`
`9
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00011
`
`

`

`prosecution history, the patentee may specifically define a claim term in a way that
`
`differs from the plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`25.
`
`In interpreting the meaning of the claim language, I understand that a POSITA
`
`may also consider extrinsic evidence, which is all evidence other than the intrinsic
`
`evidence. I understand that the extrinsic evidence includes expert testimony,
`
`inventor testimony, dictionaries, technical treatises, other patents, and scholarly
`
`publications. I understand this evidence is considered to ensure that a claim is
`
`construed in a way that is consistent with the understanding of a POSITA at the time
`
`of the claimed invention. Such evidence may be useful in understanding technical
`
`terms whose meaning may differ from their ordinary English meanings. I
`
`understand that extrinsic evidence may not be relied on if it contradicts or varies the
`
`meaning of claim language provided by the intrinsic evidence, particularly when the
`
`applicant has explicitly defined a term in the intrinsic record.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that claims originally filed in an application become part
`
`of the specification of the patent that issues from that application, and that such
`
`originally filed claims provide written description support for the claims that issue.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that another issue in dispute in this PGR is whether the
`
`Challenged Claims are valid under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that if each and every element or step of a claim is
`
`disclosed within the “four corners” of a prior art reference, that claim is said to be
`
`10
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00012
`
`

`

`“anticipated” by that single prior art reference and is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`because the alleged invention is not, in fact, new or novel. I have been informed that
`
`the standard for anticipation in an inter partes review proceeding is by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`29.
`
`I have also been informed that a prior art reference can disclose a claim feature
`
`if that feature is expressly described by that reference, or inherent from its disclosure.
`
`I have been informed that something is inherent from a prior art reference, if the
`
`missing descriptive matter must necessarily be present, and it would be so
`
`recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art. I also have been informed that
`
`inherency cannot be established by probabilities or possibilities, and that the mere
`
`fact that something may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to
`
`show inherency.
`
`30.
`
`I have further been informed that where a reference discloses multiple
`
`embodiments, the reference should not be limited to a preferred embodiment.
`
`Instead, each disclosed embodiment may anticipate.
`
`31. Moreover, I have been informed that as part of an anticipation analysis, it is
`
`proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference, but also the
`
`inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
`
`therefrom. A reference can anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out
`
`all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art,
`
`11
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00013
`
`

`

`reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or
`
`combination.
`
`32.
`
`I have been informed that a prior art document can disclose a claim feature,
`
`and anticipate an alleged invention, if that feature is described in another document
`
`that has been incorporated by reference. I have also been informed that, to
`
`incorporate by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity
`
`what specific material it incorporates, and clearly indicate where that material is
`
`found in the incorporated document. I have also been informed that, in making the
`
`determination of the extent to which material is incorporated into a host document,
`
`the standard of a person of ordinary skill in the art should be used to determine
`
`whether the host document describes the material to be incorporated by reference
`
`with sufficient particularity.
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed that another issue in dispute in this PGR is whether the
`
`Challenged Claims are valid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed and understand that subject matter claimed in a patent
`
`is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the alleged invention was made would have had reason to combine or modify the
`
`disclosures of one or more prior art references to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed and understand that, under the doctrine of obviousness,
`
`a claim is unpatentable if the differences between the invention and the prior art are
`
`12
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00014
`
`

`

`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. A person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have knowledge
`
`of the relevant prior art at the time of the invention.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed and understand that obviousness is based on the scope
`
`and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claim, the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art and secondary indicia of obviousness and non-
`
`obviousness to the extent such indicia exist.
`
`37.
`
`I have been informed and understand the determination of whether the
`
`asserted claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and,
`
`therefore, invalid, is not governed by any rigid test or formula. A determination that
`
`a claim is obvious is, instead, based on a common-sense determination that the
`
`claimed invention is merely a combination of known limitations to achieve
`
`predictable results. Any of the following rationales are acceptable justifications to
`
`conclude that a claim would have been obvious: (1) the claimed invention is simply
`
`a combination of known prior art methods to yield predictable results; (2) the
`
`claimed invention is a simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (3) the claimed invention uses known techniques to
`
`improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (4) the claimed
`
`invention applies a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready
`
`13
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00015
`
`

`

`for improvement to yield predictable results; (5) the claimed invention was “obvious
`
`to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; (6) there is known work in one field of endeavor
`
`that may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one
`
`based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or, (7) there is some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to modify the prior art reference to combine prior art teachings to arrive at the
`
`claimed inventions.
`
`38.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim may be obvious in light of
`
`a single reference, without the need to combine references, if the elements of the
`
`claim that are not found in the reference can be supplied by the common sense or
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art or taught in different areas of the single
`
`reference.
`
`39.
`
`I have been informed and understand that an analysis of whether a claimed
`
`invention is obvious must not rely on a hindsight combination of prior art. The
`
`analysis must proceed in the context of the time of the invention or claimed priority
`
`date and consider whether the invention as a whole would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, taking into consideration any interrelated teachings
`
`of the prior art, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in
`
`14
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00016
`
`

`

`the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
`
`reason to combine any known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that certain objective indicia can be important evidence regarding
`
`whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious. Such indicia include: commercial
`
`success of products covered by the patent claims; a long-felt need for the invention;
`
`failed attempts by others to make the invention; copying of the invention by others
`
`in the field; unexpected results achieved by the invention as compared to the closest
`
`prior art; praise of the invention by the infringer or others in the field; the taking of
`
`licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by experts and those
`
`skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee proceeded contrary
`
`to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`II. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT FIELD IN
`THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`
`41. The ’432 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 15/196,410 (“the
`
`’432 patent application”), and claims the benefit of Japanese Patent Application No.
`
`2015-183379, filed on September 16, 2015. Ex. 1001.
`
`42.
`
`I have been informed that a “person of ordinary skill in the relevant field” or
`
`“person of ordinary skill in the art” (“POSITA”) is a hypothetical person to whom
`
`one could assign a routine task with reasonable confidence that the task would be
`
`successfully carried out. I am informed that a POSITA must be sufficiently skilled
`
`15
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00017
`
`

`

`to understand the specification and to make and use the invention without undue
`
`experimentation.
`
`43. The specification discloses a system comprising a head-mounted virtual
`
`reality display in communication with a processing apparatus that controls the
`
`presentation of a virtual reality application (e.g., video games; simulations for
`
`driving, job training, or the like; trainings in medical fields; monitoring products;
`
`and movie or music appreciation) used by a person wearing the HMD. It discloses
`
`providing information to a user, but in such a way as to not disturb the user’s sense
`
`of immersion in the application. See, e.g. Ex. 1001, Fig. 1; 1:42-2:5, 16:16-28. The
`
`claims are directed to determining the direction of gaze of a user in a virtual space,
`
`determining motion of a body part of the user, and modifying the display based on
`
`detected changes in gaze and the motion of a body part of user. Id., cls. 1-9.
`
`44.
`
`In order to understand the specification and make and use the invention
`
`without undue experimentation, a POSITA would need to be familiar with HMDs
`
`and their sensors, software for communication with HMDs, and virtual reality
`
`application software.
`
`45. Accordingly, in my opinion, a POSITA, at the earliest possible priority date
`
`of the ’432 patent, would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical or Computer
`
`Engineering or Computer Science, or equivalent experience and, in addition, two
`
`16
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00018
`
`

`

`years of experience implementing HMD virtual reality software, including
`
`familiarity with virtual reality video applications.
`
`46. Petitioner has characterized the level of skill of a POSITA as “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 computer game design/development.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶ 19-22; Ex. 1017). I do not fully agree with this characterization because it
`
`omits familiarity with HMDs and their sensors.
`
`47. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant field at the earliest possible priority date of
`
`the ’432 patent (i.e., the filing date of the Japanese priority application, Sept. 16,
`
`2015).
`
`III. THE ’432 PATENT
`48. The ’432 patent is 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, 1:7-
`
`10; 1: 14-27; 1:42-46. The ’432 patent explains the problems associated with prior
`
`art virtual spaces created by HMDs that provided information to users through non-
`
`immersive methods, such as by requiring the user to select a displayed “button.” Id.,
`
`17
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00019
`
`

`

`1:28-34. Accordingly, the prior art virtual reality applications resulted in the user’s
`
`sense of immersion being reduced when seeking information. Id., 1:34-38.
`
`49. The need for maintaining an immersive experience without interruption in
`
`video games was known in the prior art and was the subject of scholarly publications,
`
`including, e.g., “Immersion and identity in video games,” by Terzioglu (2012). Ex.
`
`2010. Terzioglu focuses “on the elements that make a game immersive, an
`
`experience that makes the players forget about all of their real-life endeavors and be
`
`one with the game without interruption.” Ex. 2010, 1. See also “Immersion and
`
`Gameplay Experience: A Contingency Framework,” By Örtqvist et al, International
`
`Journal of Computer Games Technology (2010), Ex. 2011. Örtqvist writes, “The
`
`strong link between immersion and flow comes from the shared similarities in that
`
`both are interrupted when the task at hand is distracted; consequently, both require
`
`attention, alter one’s sense of time, and lead to the sense of self being lost.” Ex.
`
`2011, 3.
`
`50. The ’432 patent solves the problems in the art identified by the applicant by
`
`eliminating the need to display a button or other distracting object by making use of
`
`movement of a user’s gaze. Ex. 1001, 1:65-2:5; 2:62-67.
`
`51. Figure 1 of the patent, below, shows a schematic diagram of a virtual image
`
`display system according to one embodiment. Ex. 1001, 3:9-10, 3:45-6:11, Fig 1.
`
`18
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00020
`
`

`

`
`
`52. Fig. 1 is described in detail at Ex. 1001, 3:45-6:11. The HMD worn by the
`
`user is shown in block 10. It comprises sensor 12, which may sense the position and
`
`direction of the player’s head. Ex. 1001, 3:49-67. HMD controller 11 controls what
`
`is displayed to the user on display 14 and what is heard by the user through
`
`19
`
`
`PGR2020-00063 Page 00021
`
`

`

`loudspeaker 15. Ex. 1001, 4:1-14. HMD controller 11 receives inputs from sensor
`
`12 and communicates with game processing apparatus 20 via an input/output
`
`interface unit (I/F unit) 13. Ex. 1001, 49-55.
`
`53. Game processing apparatus 20 includes input/output unit 23, which
`
`communicates with I/F unit 13, as shown by the two-way arrow between 13 and 23
`
`in Fig. 1. Controller 21 is specialized hardware that may include a CPU, random-
`
`access memory (RAM) and read-only memory (ROM), not shown in Fig. 1 but
`
`described in Ex. 1001, 4:16-20. Controller 21 may also include a gaze position
`
`identifying unit 24, a game manager 25, a space image output unit 26 and an
`
`information provider 27. Ex. 1001, 4:20-29.
`
`54. A POSITA reading the specification and viewing Fig. 1 would have
`
`understood that gaze position identifying unit 24 determines a direction of the user’s
`
`gaze from sensory information obtained by sensor 12, the game manager 25 controls
`
`the progress of the application, the space image output unit 26 arranges the virtual
`
`space viewed by the user through display 14, and information provider 27 obtains
`
`to-be-provided information 35 from the storage unit 22. The to-be-provided
`
`information 35 will be displayed to the user. Ex. 1001, 6:5-11.
`
`55. Storage unit 22 is accessed by game controller 21 and provides information
`
`necessary to execute the application. In an embodiment, storage unit 22 may stor