UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. BUNGIE, INC., Petitioner, WORLDS INC., Patent Owner.

Transcription

1 Filed on behalf of: Bungie, Inc. By: Michael T. Rosato Matthew A. Argenti WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA Tel.: Fax: Paper No. Filed: June 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD BUNGIE, INC., Petitioner, v. WORLDS INC., Patent Owner. Patent No. 8,082,501 PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,082,501

2 Table of Contents -i- Page I. INTRODUCTION... 1 A. Brief Overview of the 501 Patent... 1 B. Brief Overview of the Prosecution History... 2 C. Brief Overview of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art... 3 D. Level of Skill in the Art... 7 II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING... 8 III. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R IV. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED... 9 V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION... 9 VI. STATEMENT OF NON-REDUNDANCY VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY A. [Ground 1] Claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Funkhouser and Sitrick i. Independent claim ii. Independent claims 12 and iii. Dependent claims iv. Rationale to Combine B. [Ground 2] Claims 7 and 16 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Funkhouser, Sitrick, and Wexelblat C. [Ground 3] Claims 8 and 10 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Funkhouser, Sitrick, and Funkhouser D. [Ground 4] Claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 are Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Durward... 39

3 i. Independent claim ii. Independent claims 12 and iii. Dependent claims E. [Ground 5] Claims 7 and 16 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Durward and Wexelblat F. [Ground 6] Claims 8 and 10 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Durward and Schneider VIII. CONCLUSION IX. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R (A) AND X. APPENDIX LIST OF EXHIBITS ii-

4 I. Introduction Pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 311 and 6 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ( AIA ), and to 37 C.F.R. Part 42, Bungie, Inc., ( Petitioner ) hereby requests review of U.S. Patent No. 8,082,501 to Leahy et al. (hereinafter the 501 patent, Ex. 1001) that issued on December 20, 2011, and is currently assigned to Worlds Inc. ( Patent Owner ). This Petition demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-8, 10, 12, and of the 501 patent are unpatentable over the cited prior art. Thus, claims 1-8, 10, 12, and of the 501 patent should be found unpatentable and canceled. A. Brief Overview of the 501 Patent The 501 patent is entitled System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space. See also Ex. 1002, In a general sense, the 501 patent is directed to a client-server network system for enabling multiple users to interact with each other in a virtual world. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract, claim 1. Each user is represented by an avatar and interacts with a client system that is networked to a virtual world server. Id. at 3:15. A user s movement and viewing of the virtual world includes server-based processing of users virtual world positional information, in addition to client processing techniques similar to previous peer-to-peer systems. Id. at Abstract, 2:3-9. The 501 patent indicates each user executes a client process to view a virtual world from the perspective [or point of view] of that user. Id. at Abstract, 2:41-42; see also id. at 5:27-35, 3:33-35, 45, fig. 1. The 501 patent states that [i]n order that the view can be updated to reflect the motion of the remote user s -1-

5 avatars, motion information is transmitted to a central server process which provides position[al] updates to client processes for neighbors of the user at that client. Id. at Abstract, 2:44-58; see also id. at 5: As the user avatar moves throughout the virtual space, the user s client system sends the server updates. Id. at 3: Claim 1 of the 501 patent is representative of the claims at issue. See Ex. 1002, The receiving step of claim 1 relates to a central concept of the 501 patent: server filtering, by which the server filters information to send to a client so that the client will receive positional information on a subset of users in a virtual world. Ex. 1002, 19. This is reflected in claim 1 as a client receiving... position information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatars. The client processes information received from the server to determin[e]... a displayable set of the other user avatars. Id. As discussed in more detail below, both the server-side filtering and client-side processing claimed by the 501 patent were described in the prior art. Id. at 27. B. Brief Overview of the Prosecution History Application No. 12/406,968 was filed on March 19, 2009 and issued on December 20, 2011 as the 501 patent. The 501 patent is a continuation claiming priority benefit back to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/020,296, filed on November 13, During prosecution, and consistent with the reason for allowance in the parent applications, the claims were amended to clarify that the client device does not receive position information of at least some avatars of the other user avatars -2-

6 in the virtual space. See Ex at In the last applicant response prior to allowance, the sole distinction argued over the prior art as to the independent claims was that the reference relied upon by the Examiner did not disclose this requirement. See Ex at While the server-filtering requirement was thus relied on as a key distinction over the prior art during prosecution, as discussed below this limitation, as well as all other claim elements, was in fact disclosed by multiple references predating the 501 patent. The same purported point of novelty was argued in related patents U.S. Patents Nos. 7,181,690, 7,493,558, 7,945,856, and 8,145,998, which are also subject to IPR challenges. The primary references which form the basis for this Petition, Funkhouser and Durward, along with one of the secondary references, were among over 300 references cited to the Examiner in IDSs. See, e.g., Ex at 0231, Neither reference was ever applied against the claims in an office action, whether in this prosecution or any related prosecution, and it is unclear to what extent the Examiner had an opportunity to substantively consider them. Moreover, the specific arguments presented in this petition were not before the Examiner during prosecution, nor did the Examiner have the benefit of Dr. Zyda s testimony as submitted here. C. Brief Overview of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art This petition is supported by the expert declaration of Dr. Michael Zyda. Ex. 1002; see also, e.g., Ex. 1002, As explained in detail in Dr. Zyda s declaration and addressed in further detail below (Section VII), virtual reality systems utilizing client/server network architecture were known prior to the -3-

7 alleged invention of the 501 patent, as were the server-side filtering and client processing that are the focus of the 501 patent claims. Id. at 35-51, With regard to the subject matter claimed in the 501 patent, virtual reality systems and methods utilizing a client-server network approach, and employing server filtering and client processing in the manner claimed, were known. This is illustrated in the prior art on which the current challenge is based and includes the references briefly discussed below and in further detail in Section VII. Thomas Funkhouser s article RING: A Client-Server System for Multi- User Virtual Environments (hereinafter Funkhouser, Ex. 1005) described a virtual reality system utilizing a client-server architecture, server filtering, and client processing before the application for the 501 patent. Funkhouser appears in a collection entitled PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1995 SYMPOSIUM ON INTERACTIVE 3D GRAPHICS ( 1995 SI3D ). Ex The 1995 SI3D symposium was sponsored by ACM SIGGRAPH, and took place on April 9-12, Id. at Title Page. Funkhouser, in particular, was presented on the morning of April 11, Id. at 2. Dr. Zyda served as the chair of this symposium in 1995 and has personal knowledge that copies of the proceedings, which included Funkhouser, were distributed to the approximately 250 attendees at the symposium. Ex. 1002, Accordingly, Funkhouser was published and distributed no later than April 12, 1995, the final day of the 1995 SI3D symposium, and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). Moreover, the Proceedings publication was provided to ACM members pursuant to its Member Plus program, which means distribution of the -4-

8 proceedings to more than 4,000 individuals. Ex at 4; see also Ex (copy of Funkhouser received by the Univ. of Illinois on June 27, 1995). Funkhouser describes the client-server design, implementation and experimental results for a system that supports real-time visual interaction between a large number of users in a shared 3D virtual environment. Ex at 01 (Abstract). Funkhouser teaches the concept that a virtual reality network s resources can be most efficiently utilized by filtering updates at the server level, explaining that a server may determine that a particular update message is relevant only to a small subset of clients and then propagate the message only to those clients or their servers. Id.; Ex. 1002, 45. Funkhouser also discloses the client processing claimed in the 501 patent, e.g., whereby the client then narrows this information down to produce a field-of-view display from the perspective of the user s avatar. See Ex at 09, Plate II; Ex. 1002, 47. U.S. Patent No. 5,659,691 to Durward, et al. (hereinafter Durward, Ex. 1008), describes a virtual reality system where multiple users located at different remote physical locations may communicate with the system. Ex at Abstract, 1: In the Durward system, all interaction between users passed through a central control unit server rather than directly from user to user. See id. at 2:49-55, 6:13-52, Figs. 1, 2 & 7. Like Funkhouser, Durward discloses the server filtering claimed in the 501 patent, as it describes a system where data communicated to the user typically corresponds to the portion of the virtual space viewed from the perspective of the virtual being. Id. at 1:65-67; Ex. 1002, 44. In Durward visual relevant spaces are defined for various users, and those spaces -5-

9 determine which state changes are communicated to... users. Ex at 4:54-56; 2:9-12. Durward also discloses the client determining aspect of the 501 patent claims, as even after the server-side filtering was applied, each client would receive information regarding more remote users than would actually be displayed to the user. Ex at 1:28-31, 5:13-27, Fig. 5; Ex. 1002, 46. Additionally, it was also known prior to the 501 patent that a computer generating a virtual environment could omit objects such as avatars from display based on the performance capabilities of the computer, i.e., determining a maximum number of avatars to display. Ex. 1002, For example, a 1993 article by Thomas Funkhouser, entitled Adaptive Display Algorithm for Interactive Frame Rates During Visualization of Complex Virtual Environments (hereafter Funkhouser 93, Ex. 1017), discloses an optimization algorithm that calculates whether objects within a virtual environment should be displayed at a reduced level of detail, or even not at all, based on a cost/benefit analysis in view of a target frame rate. Ex at, e.g., 251, 253; Ex. 1002, 48. Funkhouser 93 was included in a printed collection of presentation materials handed out at an ACM conference and subsequently publicly available from ACM. Specifically, it appears at pages of the SIGGRAPH 93 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 20 TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER GRAPHICS AND INTERACTIVE TECHNIQUES. Ex. 1018; Ex. 1002, 48. Funkhouser 93 was distributed as a printed publication no later than August 6, 1993, the final day of the 1993 SIGGRAPH conference, and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and 102(b). Id. -6-

10 Likewise, U.S. Patent No. 5,777,621 to Schneider, et al. (hereinafter Schneider, Ex. 1019), describes a graphics rendering system providing a mechanism which allows an application or user to select a desired point in the overall speed/quality rendering trade-off. Ex at Abstract, 1: Schneider explains that a user can hasten the rendering process, including by, for example, culling objects from the scene before rendering. Id. at 5:31-34; Ex. 1002, 49. Other aspects and features as claimed by the 501 patent, such as custom avatars and allowing avatars to teleport between areas of the virtual world were also well known before the 501 patent. Ex. 1002, 50; see also, e.g., Ex at Abstract, 11:41-45 (customizable avatars); Ex at 7:26-40 (same); Ex at 6:61-7:10 (teleportation). For these reasons, and as explained below and in Dr. Zyda s declaration, the methods and system for allowing a plurality of users to interact with a virtual space as recited in claims 1-8, 10, 12, and were already described in the prior art as of the earliest priority date for the 501 patent. D. Level of Skill in the Art As Dr. Zyda explains, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field prior to November 13, 1995 would include someone who had, through education or practical experience, the equivalent of a bachelor s degree in computer science or a related field and at least an additional two years of work experience developing or implementing networked virtual environments. Ex. 1002,

11 II. Grounds for Standing Petitioner certifies that, under 37 C.F.R (a), the 501 patent is available for inter partes review, and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the 501 patent on the grounds identified. III. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1)): Bungie, Inc. is the real party-in-interest. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2)): Petitioner is aware of the following matter in which the 501 patent has been asserted: Worlds, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:12-cv DJC (D. Mass.). Petitioner is also seeking inter partes review of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,181,690, 7,493,558, 7,945,856, and 8,145,998. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3)) Lead Counsel: Michael T. Rosato (Reg. No. 52,182) Back-Up Counsel: Matthew A. Argenti (Reg. No. 61,836) Service Information 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(4). Petitioners hereby consent to electronic service. Post: WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100, Seattle, WA Tel.: Fax:

12 IV. Statement of the Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged Petitioners request review of claims 1-8, 10, 12, and of the 501 patent under 35 U.S.C. 311 and AIA 6. The specific grounds for relief are as follows: Ground Claims Description 1 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Funkhouser and Sitrick 2 7 and 16 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Funkhouser, Sitrick, and Wexelblat 3 8 and 10 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Funkhouser, Sitrick, and Funkhouser , 12, 14, Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Durward and and 16 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Durward and Wexelblat 6 8 and 10 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Durward and Schneider V. Claim Construction A claim subject to inter partes review receives the broadest reasonable construction or interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears, because among other reasons, the patent owner has an opportunity to amend the claims. See 37 C.F.R (b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC., 778 F.3d 1271, (Fed. Cir. 2015). A few terms that warrant discussion are identified and discussed below. -9-

13 avatar : Each of the independent claims of the 501 patent recites the term avatar. The 501 patent specification states in the Summary of the Invention that [t]he virtual world shows avatars representing the other users who are neighbors of the user viewing the virtual word [sic]. Ex at 2: The usage of the term avatar in the 501 patent is consistent with the way it would be understood by one of ordinary skill, who would understand it to refer to a graphical representation of a user. Ex. 1002, 59; see also Ex ( avatar: 1. In virtual-reality environments such as certain types of Internet chat rooms, a graphical representation of a user. ). Accordingly, the term avatar should be construed to mean a graphical representation of a user. determining : Each of the independent claims of the 501 patent require determining a set of the other user avatars to display by the client device. Ex. 1002, 60. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, determining as recited in the claims at least includes executing a client process to determine, from user positions received from the server, other users avatar(s) located within a point of view or perspective (e.g., field of view) of the first user. Id. at 61. Such a perspective can then be output for display to the first user. This is consistent with disclosure in the specification. See, e.g., Ex at 2:41-42 ( [e]ach user executes a client process to view a virtual world from the perspective of that user. ); see also id. at 5:33-37 ( Register 114 also provides the current position to rendering engine 120, to inform rendering engine 120 of the correct view point for rendering. Remote avatar position table 112 contains the current positions of the in range avatars near A s avatar. ). -10-

14 The specification further discusses a crowd control function that can be applied in some cases. Id. at 5:36-6:24; see also id. at 6:3-5 ( user A might have a way to filter out avatars on other variables in addition to proximity, such as user ID. ). Executing such a function also falls within the scope of determining in the independent claims. See id., dependent claim 10; Ex. 1002, 62. This proposed construction is also consistent with the position advanced by the Patent Owner in district court litigation involving the 501 patent. Ex at 6; see also id. at 11 (arguing that numerous methods may be used as the basis of the determining, including (among others), proximity, user ID, orientation, strain on computing resources, local user selection, or any other participant condition ). Accordingly, the determining step of the claims can herein reasonably be construed in light of the specification as including executing a client process to determine, from user positions received from the server, other users avatar(s) located within a point of view or perspective (e.g., field of view) of the first user. displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display : Claims 1 and 14 of the 501 patent require that the client device determine and display a displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display. Ex. 1002, 63. Apart from its appearance in the claims, the specification does not use this term, nor does it use the terms displayable set or associated with the client device display. It is not immediately clear from the claim language whether the associat[ion] with the client device display is between the display and the displayable set or between the display and the other user avatars. Id. The specification however, indicates that the association is -11-

15 between the displayable set and the client display. For example, the 501 patent explains that the client also uses position data to select N' avatars from the N avatars provided by the server. Ex at 6: In that example, the client processing determination is not based on any association between the other user avatars and the display, but rather based on their position relative to the user avatar. Ex. 1002, 64. On the other hand, the displayable set is associated with the client display as it defines the other user avatars to be presented on the client display. Id. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill would understand displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display to mean a set of the other user s avatars displayable on the client device display. Ex. 1002, 65. VI. Statement of Non-Redundancy Each ground raised in this Petition is meaningfully distinct. Grounds 1-3 rely on Funkhouser, a conference-presented research paper that constitutes a printed publication qualifying as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). Grounds 3-6 rely on Durward, a U.S. Patent qualifying as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). In addition to their separate and distinct disclosures, should the Patent Owner attempt to disqualify Funkhouser as prior art (e.g., swear behind), the availability of Durward would likely render such an attempt moot considering the latter reference predates the 501 patent by some two years. -12-

16 VII. Detailed Explanation Of Grounds For Unpatentability A. [Ground 1] Claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Funkhouser and Sitrick Funkhouser, published no later than April 12, 1995, is qualified as prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). See supra, Section I.C. U.S. Patent No. 4,521,014 to Sitrick (hereinafter Sitrick, Ex. 1013) issued on June 4, 1985 and qualifies as prior art for this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). As described in further detail below, claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 of the 501 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Funkhouser and Sitrick. Ex. 1002, Funkhouser describes a client-server system for multi-user virtual environments. Ex at Title. The system disclosed in Funkhouser supports real-time visual interaction between a large number of users in a shared 3D virtual environment. Id. at 01. As described in Funkhouser, a key feature of the system is that server-based visibility algorithms compute potential visual interactions between entities representing users in order to reduce the number of messages required to maintain the virtual environment across a network. Id. Funkhouser discloses that this message reduction is accomplished by sending avatar update information only to workstations with entities that can potentially perceive the change. Id.; see also Ex. 1002, Funkhouser explains that this server-side filtering is based on computations regarding which users are potentially visible to each other, based on their location in the virtual environment. Ex at 03 (Fig. 6); see also Ex. 1002, 70. Funkhouser further explains that these computations regarding potential visibility -13-

17 are then used to filter distribution of update messages only to those users to which the updates are potentially relevant (i.e., potentially visible). Ex at 04 (Fig. 7); see also Ex. 1002, 71. Funkhouser also discloses the client processing in the manner claimed in the 501 patent. Upon receiving the server-filtered update information, the client workstation then process[es] the update messages and simulat[es] behavior for a small subset of the entities participating in the simulation. Ex at 08. This processing includes a determination of which user avatars should be displayed on the client workstation screen from the point of view of one or more of its entities. Id. at 03; see also Ex. 1002, 72. Funkhouser s Figure 6 (annotated version shown here) provides an example illustrating server-side filtering and client processing as claimed in the 501 patent. Ex. 1002, 73. As Dr. Zyda explains, Funkhouser illustrates a virtual space (marked with Box #1) including all user entities (i.e., avatars) A, B, C and D positioned therein. The shaded area Funkhouser shows in stipple (marked with Box #2) includes users A and B (less than all users), and represents the cells within the virtual space that are potentially visible to A. Client A will only receive positional updates from the server for users which are within this area (Box #2). The cross-hatched region (marked with Box #3) represents A s perspective or field of view. Thus, after receiving the filtered -14-

18 positional updates from the server for less than all users as shown by Box #2 (i.e., the receiving step of claim 1), the client responsible for A will determine which, if any, remote users fall within A s field of view in order to display the perspective from A s avatar as shown by Box #3 (i.e., the determining step of claim 1). Id. Funkhouser also discloses that each avatar has a geometric description and a behavior and that a user can update the geometry of their own entity. Ex at 03. While thus Funkhouser discloses that a user may update the appearance of their avatar, to the extent that it does not expressly disclose avatar customization as claimed in the 501 patent, the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Sitrick. Ex. 1002, Sitrick is entitled Video Game Including User Visual Image, and is directed to a distributed system of video games. Ex at 1:4-5; see also id. at 3:56-57, 4: A key aspect Sitrick describes is the ability for a user to customize their own avatar, whereby [t]he user selects a distinguishable visual image representation by which that user is identified, either by creat[ing] an original image or select[ing] one of a predetermined set of visual images. Id. at Abstract; see also id. at 11: The discussion below further illustrates that each and every element of claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 of the 501 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Funkhouser and Sitrick. The particular citations listed are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. i. Independent claim 1 Assuming that the claim 1 preamble is limiting, Funkhouser discloses the preamble elements. -15-

19 501 Patent Funkhouser 1. A method for This paper describes the client-server design... for a system enabling a first that supports real-time visual interaction between a large user to interact number of users in a shared 3D virtual environment. p. 01; with other users Fig. 1. (Abstract). in a virtual Each user is represented in the shared virtual environment by space, each user an entity [avatar] rendered on every other user s workstation, of the first user and multi-user interaction is supported by matching user and the other actions to entity updates in the shared virtual environment. p. users being 01. associated with a Every RING entity is managed by exactly one client three workstation. Clients execute the programs necessary to dimensional generate behavior for their entities. p. 03. avatar Communication between clients is managed representing said by servers. Clients... send [messages] to each user in the servers which forward them to other client virtual space, the and server workstations participating in the method same distributed simulation (see Figure 5). comprising the p. 03. p. 09, Plate II. steps of: See also Ex. 1002, 78-81, 86. Funkhouser describes enabling interaction between users in a virtual space, as recited in claim 1. Funkhouser describes a system that supports real-time visual interaction between a large number of users in a shared 3D virtual environment. Ex at 01, Fig. 1 and corresponding discussion. Funkhouser describes users as each having an associated avatar e.g., each user is represented in the shared virtual environment by an entity [i.e., avatar] rendered on every other user s workstation. Id.; see also Ex. 1002, 79. The avatars are threedimensional. See, e.g., Ex at 09, Plate II; see also Ex. 1002, 80. Each user avatar/entity is managed by exactly one client workstation. Ex at 03 (emphasis in original). Dr. Zyda explains that each user and avatar has a client process associated with it, in the form of software executed on the client workstation. Ex ; see also Ex at 03 ( Clients execute the programs necessary to generate behavior for their entities. ). Each client process is -16-

20 also in communication with a server process, as Funkhouser explains that [c]ommunication between clients is managed by servers. Ex at 03; Fig. 5 and corresponding discussion; see also Ex. 1002, 86. The combination of Funkhouser and Sitrick teaches or suggests claim 1.1: 501 Patent Sitrick [1.1] The user selects a distinguishable visual image representation by customizing, which that user is identified. For example, color, size, or shape can using a be used to distinguish users.... [T]he user can create an original processor of image or select one of a predetermined set of visual images as the a client user s identification for use in the video game audiovisual device, an presentation. Abstract avatar in [T]he user created visual imagery[] can then represent that user in response to the video game audiovisual presentation... for a multiuser video input by the game... 11: :4-5, 3:56-57, 4: first user; See also Ex at 03, 04; Ex. 1002, As illustrated above and further described below, the combination of Funkhouser and Sitrick teaches or suggests the claimed step of a client customizing an avatar in response to input by a user. Funkhouser discloses basic customization of avatars. Ex at 03, 04 (clients may update[] their own geometry ); Ex. 1002, 82. Sitrick, moreover, expressly discloses user avatar customization, in particular a networked multi-player gaming system (a global game network ) with the ability for a user to customize her own avatar, whereby [t]he user selects a distinguishable visual image representation by which that user is identified. Ex at Abstract, 1:4-5, 3:56-57, 4: The user can create an original image or select one of a predetermined set of visual images as the user s identification for use in the video game. Id. This user created visual display... can then represent the user in the video game, thereby serving as a customized avatar. Id. at 11:41-45.; Ex. 1002, Accordingly, the combination of -17-

21 Funkhouser and Sitrick teaches or suggests a client customizing an avatar in response to input by a user, as recited in claim 1.1. Funkhouser discloses claim 1.2: 501 Patent Funkhouser [1.2] receiving, by When an entity changes state, update messages are sent the client device, only to workstations with entities that can potentially position information perceive the change i.e., ones to which the update is associated with visible. p. 01. See also, similar discussion at p. 02. fewer than all of the In the current implementation, RING servers forward other user avatars in update messages in real-time only to other servers and an interaction room clients managing entities that can possibly see the effects of the virtual space, of the update. Server-based message culling is implemented from a server using precomputed line-of-sight visibility information... process, wherein the Real-time update messages are propagated only to servers client device does and clients containing entities inside some cell visible to the not receive position one containing the updated entity p. 03. information of at If N entities move through a shared virtual environment least some avatars simultaneously, each modifying its position and/or that fail to satisfy a orientation M times per second, then M * N updates are participant generated to a shared database per second. p. 01. condition imposed Clients sent update messages only for changes in... on avatars position and/or orientation. p. 05. displayable on a [U]pdate messages are sent only to the small subset of client device display workstations to which the update is relevant. p. 02. of the client device; If entity A is modified... If entity B is modified... p. 04. Figs. 4 & 6 and corresponding discussion. See also Ex. 1002, As illustrated above and further described below, Funkhouser discloses the claimed step of receiving, by the client device, position information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatars in an interaction room of the virtual space, from a server process, wherein the client device does not receive position information of at least some avatars that fail to satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars displayable on a client device display of the client device. Funkhouser discloses that clients receive updates regarding other entities from the server, including updates regarding the other entities position and/or -18-

22 orientation. Ex at 01; see also Ex. 1002, 87. Funkhouser discloses that a virtual space may comprise multiple regions of the virtual environment (i.e., interaction rooms). Ex at 07; see also id. (Each region may be managed by a different server and most real-time updates affect only entities managed by the same server so periodic updates must be passed only to the servers whose region is visible to the updated entity. ); Ex. 1002, 88. Funkhouser discloses that a particular client receives less than all of the positional updates from the server, because [w]hen an entity changes state, update messages are sent only to workstations with entities that can potentially perceive the change i.e., ones to which the update is visible. Ex at 01. Upon computing the clients for which the positional update is relevant (i.e., entities that can possibly see the change), update messages are sent only to the small subset of workstations to which the update is relevant. Id.; see also Ex. 1002, Funkhouser refers to this filtering as server-based message culling. Ex at 03. Funkhouser provides examples illustrating its server-based message culling with respect to the four entities (A, B, C, and D) depicted in Figures 4 and 6. See, e.g., annotated Figure 6 above (e.g., Box #2). As illustrative examples: If entity A is modified: client a send an update message to server X. Server X propagates that message to server Y, but not to server Z because entities C and D are not inside cells in the cell-to-cell visibility of the cell containing entity A. Server Y forwards the message to Client B which updates the local surrogate for entity A. Id. at 04; see also Fig. 6; Ex. 1002, As the examples illustrate, Funkhouser discloses that when users A and B, represented by their respective -19-

23 avatars, provide updated positional information (i.e., move), avatar C receives the positional update for B but not for A, because A is not in a cell/room potentially visible to C and therefore A does not satisfy the condition necessary for its update message to be sent to C. Ex. 1002, Accordingly, Funkhouser discloses receiving position information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatar, as recited in claim 1.2. Funkhouser discloses claim 1.3: 501 Patent Funkhouser [1.3] A visibility precomputation is performed in which the set of cells determining, potentially visible to each cell is determined by tracing beams of by the client possible sight-lines through transparent cell boundaries.... Since an device, a entity s visibility is conservatively over-estimated by the displayable precomputed visibility of its containing cell, this algorithm allows set of the servers to process update messages quickly using cell visibility other user look-ups rather than more exact real-time entity visibility avatars computations which would be too expensive on currently available associated workstations. p. 03. with the If entity A is modified: client a send an update message... to server client Y, but not to server Z because entities C and D are not inside cells in display the cell-to-cell visibility of the cell containing entity A. Server Y device; and forwards the message to Client B. If entity B is modified... p. 04. Figs. 4 & 6. Client workstations must store, simulate, and process update messages only for the subset of entities visible to one of the client s local entities. p. 04. Each client workstation must... process update messages... for only a small subset of the entities. p. 08. Every RING entity is managed by exactly one client workstation. Clients... may include viewing capabilities in which the virtual environment is displayed on the client workstation screen from the point of view of one or more of its entities. In addition to managing their own entities (local entities), clients maintain surrogates for some entities managed by other clients (remote entities).... When a client receives an update message for an entity managed by another client, it updates the geometric and behavioral models for the entity's local surrogate. p. 03. [U]sers run an interactive interface program on (usually distinct) workstations connected to each other via a network. The interface program simulates the experience of immersion in a virtual -20-

24 501 Patent Funkhouser environment by rendering images of the environment as perceived from the user s simulated viewpoint. p. 01. Clients... may include viewing capabilities in which the virtual environment is displayed on the client workstation screen from the point of view of one or more of its entities. p. 03. By allowing clients to choose a behavior model to simulate for each remote entity dynamically based on its perceptible importance to local entities, we can further reduce the processing requirements of client workstations. p. 07. Client managing this entity must process updates... for only 14 remote entities (2.7% of all entities) due to message processing in RING servers. p. 09. Plate II. See also Ex. 1002, Funkhouser discloses determining, by the client device, a displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client display device. This includes determining other users within the field of view of the first user (see, e.g., Box #3 of annotated Fig. 6 above). First, Funkhouser discloses that the set of entities for which a given client receives updated positional information is conservatively over-estimated using the concepts of cells and a precomputed visibility determination, such that it is broader than just those entities that are presently within the client s field of view. Id. at 03; Ex. 1002, 93. This conservative overestimation provides clients with updates for other avatars that are potentially visible to the client, rather than a narrower set of updates that are actually visible based on the client s line of sight. Id. As Dr. Zyda explains, this can be seen in the example discussed above regarding annotated Fig. 6. Ex. 1002, 93. Client A receives positional information from the server of less than all users and determines the avatar of client B is within A s field of view and available for display to A. As another example, client C receives a positional update when client B moves, even though -21-

25 client C is facing away from client B and will not actually see the changed position. See Ex at 04; Ex. 1002, 93. This is further illustrated in Figure 4 (shown) of Funkhouser, in which each client s cone-shaped field of view is shown (see, e.g., User C Visibility ). Ex. 1002, 93; see also Ex at Fig. 4. Funkhouser further discloses that upon receiving the position information from the server, the client processes the information, for example explaining that [c]lient workstations must store, simulate, and process update messages. Ex at 04; see also Ex. 1002, 94. As Dr. Zyda discusses, this client processing includes identifying which of the received positions fall within the client s field of view to determine a set of the other avatars to display to the user, based on update[d] geometric and behavioral models calculated by the client when updates are received. Ex at 03; Ex. 1002, In addition to maintaining and updating surrogates of other users at the client workstation, the interface program run by users on (usually distinct) workstations... simulates the experience of immersion in a virtual environment by rendering images of the environment as perceived from the user s simulated viewpoint. Ex at 01, 03. In doing so, the virtual environment is displayed on the client workstation screen from the point of view of one or more of its entities. Id. at 03. In other words, as Dr. Zyda explains, after receiving the filtered positional updates from the server, the client performs its own calculations, including updating the surrogates of the remote entities, in order to determine -22-

26 which of the remote entities to display within the client s field of view. Ex. 1002, 96. Dr. Zyda further explains that this is further illustrated by Funkhouser s Plate II (showing a user s viewpoint) and the corresponding caption, which describes that the client received and processed updates for 14 remote entities but, as shown in the picture, determined a set of four entities to display based on the user s field of view. Ex at 09 (Plate II); Ex. 1002, 96. In addition, Funkhouser teaches client processing in the context of multiresolution simulation determination. Ex at 07; Ex. 1002, 97. For example, Funkhouser describes [b]y allowing clients to choose a behavior model to simulate for each remote entity dynamically based on its perceptible importance to local entities, we can further reduce the processing requirements of client workstations. Ex at 07. Funkhouser therefore discloses determining, by the client device, a displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client display device, as recited in claim 1.3. Funkhouser discloses claim 1.4: 501 Patent Funkhouser [1.4] displaying, Clients... may include viewing capabilities in which the on the client virtual environment is displayed on the client workstation device display, screen from the point of view of one or more of its entities. the displayable p. 03 set of the other Client managing this entity must process updates simulate user avatars behavior, and store surrogates for only 14 remote entities associated with (2.7% of all entities) due to message processing in RING the client device servers. p. 09. Plate II. display. See also Ex. 1002, Funkhouser discloses the claimed step of displaying, on the client device display, the displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client -23-

27 device display. In particular, Funkhouser discloses that the client process include[s] viewing capabilities in which the virtual environment is displayed on the client workstation screen from the point of view of one or more of its entities. Ex at 03; Ex. 1002, 99. This point of view display includes the set of other user s avatars that is viewable, and therefore associated with the client device display, based on the user s orientation. Ex at 09, Plate II. Ex. 1002, Funkhouser therefore discloses each aspect of claim 1.4. Accordingly, the combination of Funkhouser and Sitrick renders obvious claim 1. Ex. 1002, 101. ii. Independent claims 12 and 14 As Dr. Zyda explains, independent 12 and 14 are rendered obvious by the combination of Funkhouser and Sitrick for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1. Ex. 1002, , These claims contain requirements nearly identical to those in claim 1, and the few differences they present, discussed below, are not significant. Claim 12 claims a client device containing a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing those instructions. The instructions are for performing a method essentially identical to the method of claim 1, except omitting the displaying step. Claim 14 claims a memory storing computer code... the computer code comprising instructions for the method of claim 1. As Dr. Zyda explains in his overview of the relevant technology, use of memory and a processor is a necessary and commonplace aspect of any computer system, including the system disclosed by Funkhouser. Ex. 1002, 37. Indeed, -24-

28 Funkhouser explains that [i]n a multi-user visual simulation system, users run an interactive interface program on (usually distinct) workstations connected to each other via a network. Id. at 01; see also id. at 03 ( [c]lients execute the programs necessary to generate behavior for their entities ). As Dr. Zyda explains, this software is readable to a machine (i.e., workstation) and enables the functionality, as Funkhouser states for example that [e]ach client workstation must store in memory, process update messages, and simulate behavior for only a small subset of the entities participating in the entire distributed simulation - i.e., the ones visible to its entities. Id. at 08; Ex. 1002, , 126. As explained above, including discussion addressing claim 1, and further illustrated in the below claim chart, the combination of Funkhouser and Sitrick renders obvious claims 12 and Patent Funkhouser 12. A client device for enabling a first user to interact with other users in a virtual space, each user being associated with a three dimensional avatar representing the user in the virtual space, the device comprising: [12.1]a memory storing instructions; and [12.2]a processor programmed using the instructions to: -25- Funkhouser pp. 01, 03, 04, Figs. 1 & 5. See Ex. 1002, 119; see also discussion of claim 1 preamble. In a multi-user visual simulation system, users run an interactive interface program on (usually distinct) workstations connected to each other via a network. p. 01 Clients execute the programs necessary to generate behavior for their entities. p. 03 Each client workstation must store in memory, process update messages, and simulate behavior for only a small subset of the entities participating in the entire distributed simulation - i.e., the ones visible to its entities. p. 08 See also Ex. 1002,

29 501 Patent Sitrick [12.3] create a custom avatar in response to input by the first user; Abstract; 11:35-61 See also Ex at 03, 04; Ex. 1002, 122; discussion of claim Patent Funkhouser [12.4] receive position information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatars in an interaction room of the virtual space, wherein the processor does not receive position information of at least some avatars of the other user avatars in the virtual space that fail to satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars displayable on a display of the client device; and [12.5] determine a set of the other users avatars displayable on a screen associated with the client device. 14. An article of manufacture comprising at least one memory storing computer code for enabling a first user to interact with other users in a virtual space, each user of the first user and the other users being associated with a three dimensional avatar representing said each user in the virtual space, the computer code comprising instructions for: Funkhouser pp. 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, Figs. 4, 6, 7 and corresponding discussion. See Ex. 1002, 123; see also discussion of claim 1.2. Funkhouser pp. 01, 03, 04, 06, 08, 09, Fig. 4, Plate II. See Ex. 1002, 124; see also discussion of claim 1.3. Funkhouser pp. 01, 03, 04, Figs. 1 & 5. See Ex. 1002, 126; see also discussion of claim 1 preamble. 501 Patent Sitrick [14.1] customizing, using a processor of a client device, an avatar in response to input by the first user; Abstract; 11:35-61 See also Ex at 03, 04; Ex. 1002, 127; discussion of claim Patent Funkhouser [14.2] receiving, by the client device, position information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatars in an interaction room of the virtual space, from a server process, wherein the client device does not receive position information of at least some avatars that fail to satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars displayable on a client device display of Funkhouser pp. 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, Figs. 4, 6, 7 and corresponding discussion. See Ex. 1002, 128; see also discussion of claim

30 501 Patent Funkhouser the client device; [14.3] determining, by the client device, a displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display; and [14.4] displaying, on the client device display, the displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display. Funkhouser pp. 01, 03, 04, 06, 08, 09, Fig. 4, Plate II. See Ex. 1002, 129; see also discussion of claim 1.3. Funkhouser pp. 03, 09, Plate II. See Ex. 1002, 130; see also discussion of claim 1.4. Accordingly, the combination of Funkhouser and Sitrick renders obvious claims 12 and 14. iii. Dependent claims Claims 2, 5, and 15: Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, further requires that the client process (a) monitor an orientation of the first user s avatar, and (b) determine avatars to display by filtering the other user avatars based on the monitored orientation of the first user s avatar. Funkhouser discloses monitoring the position and orientation of each user avatar, by the client process associated with that avatar. See, e.g., Ex at 05 ( [C]lients sent update messages only for... position and/or orientation ); see also Ex. 1002, 102; Ex. 1005, Figs. 4 & 6, and corresponding discussion. Orientation information is not only sent to the server, but also used by the client to generate a point-of-view display based on the user s orientation. See Ex at 03 ( [T]he virtual environment is displayed on the client workstation screen from the point of view of one or more of its entities. ); see also id. at 09, Plate II (depicting an image of the virtual environment from the viewpoint of one entity, including a set of other users avatars). Funkhouser discloses the client monitors the position and orientation of its own avatar to determine the set of avatars to be displayed, based on the user s -27-

31 point-of-view. Ex at 03, 09; Ex. 1002, 103. Accordingly, claim 2 would have been obvious in view of Funkhouser and Sitrick. Ex. 1002, 104. Claims 5 and 15, which depend from claims 1 and 14 respectively, each require that the client device receive orientation information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatars, wherein the client device does not receive orientation information of at least some avatars of the other user avatars in a virtual space. Funkhouser discloses this limitation, explaining that user orientation is part of the positional information sent from client to server and vice versa. See, e.g., Ex at 05 ( Clients sent update messages only for changes in derivatives of entity position and/or orientation. ); Ex. 1002, 113. Moreover, as discussed above with respect to claim 1.2, a client receives positional and orientation updates for less than all other user avatars from the server process, because [w]hen an entity changes state, update messages are sent only to workstations with entities that can potentially perceive the change i.e., ones to which the update is visible. Ex at 01; see also Ex. 1002, 114; Ex. 1005, Fig. 6 and corresponding discussion. Funkhouser s Plates I and II plainly illustrate that the filtered updates received from the server include orientation information, as they depict avatars with green orientation vectors showing the direction each avatar faces. Ex at 09; Ex. 1002, 115. In particular, Plate II shows these green orientation vectors from the perspective of a user entity, demonstrating that orientation of the filtered set of other user avatars is among the information sent by the server to the client. Id. Accordingly, claims 5 and 15 would have been obvious in view of Funkhouser and Sitrick. Ex. 1002, 115,

32 Claims 3, 4, and 6: Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further requires the step of customizing include accessing a first database containing custom avatar images. Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further requires selecting from the first database information that is used to render the avatars in the displayable set. As discussed above with respect to claim 1.1, Sitrick discloses allowing a user to create customized avatars. Ex. 1002, 105; Ex at 11:35-40, 11: As explained by Dr. Zyda, Sitrick teaches that custom avatar image components are stored in system memory. Ex. 1002, 106; Ex at 9:3-9, 12: Sitrick further discloses use of a database to store these and other aspects of the system. Ex. 1002, 107; Ex at 10: Similarly, Funkhouser also discloses the use of a database to store and monitor the virtual world, including the avatars within it. Ex. 1002, 108; Ex at 01, 04. As Dr. Zyda explains, the information stored in the database is used to render the avatars. See Ex. 1002, 111; Ex at 11:41-51, 12:11; Ex at 04. Accordingly, claims 3 and 4 would have been obvious in view of Funkhouser and Sitrick. Ex. 1002, 110, 112. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further requires storing an entry including a pointer to an image associated with the other user avatars for which position information has been received. As discussed above with respect to claims 3 and 4, Sitrick discloses the use of one or more databases to store components of the video game system it discloses, including custom avatar images as well as customized avatars. As explained by Dr. Zyda, Sitrick also discloses storing an entry including a pointer to an image associated with the other user avatars for which position information has been received. Ex. 1002, 117; Ex at 10:23-28, 11:

33 Accordingly, claim 6 would have been obvious in view of Funkhouser and Sitrick. Ex. 1002, 118. iv. Rationale to Combine As discussed above and in Dr. Zyda s declaration, it would have been obvious to combine Funkhouser and Sitrick to achieve a virtual reality system offering the server filtering and avatar customization claimed in the 501 patent. Ex. 1002, Both Funkhouser and Sitrick describe networked systems through which multiple users interact with each other in a virtual environment such as a multiplayer game, through the use of in-world avatars. Id. at Funkhouser describes a virtual reality system utilizing server filtering to reduce the amount of data transmitted to and processed by individual client workstations. Sitrick similarly describes a networked multi-player gaming system, and in particular describes a consumer-friendly user avatar customization feature. Combining the Sitrick avatar-customization feature with the RING system described in Funkhouser would result in a networked virtual environment system combining the optimization benefits of Funkhouser, providing a design that scales affordably to very large numbers of users, with Sitrick s consumer-friendly gaming features. Id. at 76-77; Ex at 08. Such a combination would provide a design that scales affordably to very large numbers of users as well as one that increases consumer enjoyment and use, and therefore revenue, due to the avatar customization feature. Ex. 1002, As explained by Dr. Zyda, avatar customization was a commonplace feature of virtual reality systems and -30-

34 there was no reason it could not have been implemented in Funkhouser. Id. Funkhouser, in fact, already describes some avatar customization and including other types of known avatar customization would represent a logical improvement to the system. Id. at 74. Accordingly, the combination of Funkhouser and Sitrick would represent using a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way, or a combination of familiar elements according to known methods... [which] does no more than yield predictable results. See, e.g., KSR Int l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In addition, Funkhouser expressly suggests the combination of its RING system with a video game system game such as described in Sitrick, stating that [a]pplications for these systems include... multiplayer games. Ex at 01; see also id. at 02 ( Numerous experimental virtual reality systems and multiplayer ames have been developed for real time interaction in shared virtual environments. ). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the RING system described in Funkhouser, and its serverbased message culling, with known aspects of video game systems such as the avatar customization feature of Sitrick. Ex. 1002, Accordingly, claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in view of Funkhouser and Sitrick as of the 501 patent priority date. Ex. 1002,

35 B. [Ground 2] Claims 7 and 16 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Funkhouser, Sitrick, and Wexelblat Claims 7 and 16, which depend from claims 1 and 15 respectively, further require that the virtual space comprise multiple virtual rooms and an avatar teleporting from a first virtual room to a second virtual room. As Dr. Zyda explains, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combination of Funkhouser, Sitrick, and Wexelblat. Ex. 1002, Wexelblat issued June 4, 1991 and qualifies as prior art for this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Ex Wexelblat is directed to generating dynamic, interactive visual representations of information structures within a computer, which the reference refers to as a cyberspace. Ex at Abstract; 1: Wexelblat explains that representation of these cyberspace information structures can take the form of a virtual reality to be navigated by human users, describing an artificial reality world showing the location of the user in a three-dimensional space. Id. at 6:31-46; Ex. 1002, 136. Wexelblat goes on to explain that users can move directly from one virtual room to another through teleportation, stating that: [T]eleportation allows the user to pick up a recent cyberspace contact location... and instantly move back there. Ex at 6:61-7:10; Ex Rationale to Combine: Dr. Zyda explains that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the virtual reality teleportation disclosed in Wexelblat with the RING system disclosed in Funkhouser, with or without the addition of the avatar customization feature disclosed in Sitrick. Ex. 1002, 138. Such a combination would have represented including a known virtual world -32-

36 feature in a known system, and allowed users to navigate from room to room in the virtual environment with greater ease, particularly rooms separated by a long distance. Id. As Wexelblat explains, such a feature was beneficial to users of virtual reality systems as it allowed them to quickly return to a location of interest after an initial visit. Ex at 6:67-7:5. Such a feature would have been equally desirable in a virtual reality system such as disclosed in Funkhouser, and would have would have represented using a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way, or a combination of familiar elements according to known methods... yield[ing] predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Accordingly, every limitation of claims 7 and 16 is taught or suggested by the combination of Funkhouser, Sitrick, and Wexelblat, such that the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. Ex. 1002, C. [Ground 3] Claims 8 and 10 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Funkhouser, Sitrick, and Funkhouser 93 Claims 8 and 10 each depend from claim 1. Claim 8 requires monitoring an orientation of the first user avatar, which is disclosed by Funkhouser as discussed above with respect to dependent claims 2, 5, and 15. Supra Section VII.A.iii. These claims further require determining the other user avatars to display based on at least one variable other than (1) positions of the other user avatars, and (2) orientation of the first user avatar (claim 8) or a limit of the other user avatars that may be displayed on the client device display, the limit being set at the client device (claim 10). As Dr. Zyda explains, each of these requirements -33-

37 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combination of Funkhouser, Sitrick, and Funkhouser 93. Ex. 1002, Funkhouser 93 describes an adaptive display algorithm for interactive frame rates during visualization of very complex virtual environments. Ex at 247; see also supra Section I.C. As the reference explains, [t]he idea behind the algorithm is to adjust image quality adaptively to maintain a uniform, userspecified target frame rate. Ex at 247. This optimization process involved choosing a level of detail and rendering algorithm for each potentially visible object within the virtual environment in order to generate the best image possible within the target frame time. Id. Thus, Dr. Zyda explains that Funkhouser 93 recognizes the trade-off between the complexity and detail included in a virtual environment and the speed with which the virtual environment can be displayed, where both of those variables are dependent upon the processing power of the computer used to generate and display the virtual space. Ex. 1002, 143. As Dr. Zyda explains, the computer generating the virtual environment display applies the optimization algorithm to determine a set of objects to display in the virtual environment, and the level of detail for each independent object. See Ex at 249; Ex. 1002, 144. Funkhouser 93 teaches that, in addition to reducing the level of detail in various objects within the virtual environment, the optimization algorithm may also determine to exclude some objects from the display entirely if they exceed the maximum number the computer is capable of displaying at the desired frame rate. Ex. 1002, 145; Ex at 253, 254 (Fig. 11). The reference explains that when -34-

38 the optimization algorithm was applied and target frame rates specified, the display included lower levels of detail for many objects and, at the highest target frame rate, the omission of books on bookshelves. Ex at 253. Dr. Zyda explains that this omission of objects from the virtual world can be seen in a comparison of Funkhouser 93 s Figures 11a 1, 11b 1, and 11c 1, where books have been omitted from the virtual environment in Figure 11c 1 based on the specified performance parameters. Id. at 254 (Fig. 11); Ex. 1002, 145. As described above in Ground 1, Funkhouser teaches enhancing performance capabilities using server-filtered positional information to determine which avatars to display to the client user, and further teaches multiresolution simulation. Funkhouser, however, does not specifically disclose object omission beyond field of view determination. Funkhouser 93, however, teaches an optimization algorithm for generating and displaying virtual environments that may result in the omission of some objects within the environment if they exceed a maximum number determined based on the result of a cost/benefit analysis and the performance capabilities of the computer generating and displaying the virtual environment. As discussed below, it would have been obvious to apply the Funkhouser 93 optimization algorithm, utilizing object omission to enhance performance on low-cost workstations, to the RING system disclosed in Funkhouser. Ex. 1002, Such a combination would have resulted in the client determining which objects, including other user avatars, to display based not only on the orientation of the client avatar but also on a maximum number of -35-

39 avatars to be displayed based on the performance capabilities of the client computer and desired frame rate of the displayed environment. Id. With respect to the specific requirement of claim 8, the combination of these references discloses limiting the number of remote avatars displayed based on at least one variable other than (1) positions of the other user avatars, and (2) orientation of the first user avatar. Ex. 1002, 154. For example, Funkhouser 93 discloses that its optimization algorithm is designed to limit the detail in, and number of, objects in a virtual environment based on a user-specified target frame rate. Ex at 247. The user-specified target frame is a variable other than the positions of the other user avatars and the orientation of the first user avatar. Ex. 1002, 154. Similarly, with respect to the specific requirement of claim 10, the combination of these references discloses a limit of the other user avatars that may be displayed on the client device display, the limit being set at the client device. Ex. 1002, 156. Specifically, Funkhouser 93 discloses that its optimization algorithm is designed to limit the detail in, and number of, objects in a virtual environment based on a user-specified target frame rate. Ex at 247. As explained by Dr. Zyda, the user-specified target frame results in a limit of the other user avatars to be displayed being set at the client. Ex. 1002, 156. Rationale to Combine: As discussed above and in Dr. Zyda s declaration, Funkhouser discloses a virtual reality system utilizing server filtering to reduce the amount of data transmitted to and processed by individual client workstations. Ex. 1002, 146. Funkhouser 93 similarly teaches an optimization algorithm for -36-

40 displaying virtual environments that may result in the omission of some objects within the environment based on an optimization algorithm balancing processing cost and benefit to achieve a desired frame rate. Id. It would have been obvious to combine the earlier Funkhouser 93 optimization approach to the RING system disclosed in Funkhouser, with or without the avatar customization of Sitrick, resulting in the client determining which objects, including other user avatars, to display based not only on the orientation of the client avatar but also on the performance capabilities of the client computer and desired frame rate of the displayed environment as selected by the user. Id; see also supra. Both Funkhouser and Funkhouser 93 describe ways to minimize the amount of data that must be processed by a virtual reality system, at least in part to reduce the burden on the computer displaying the virtual environment. Ex. 1002, 147. Funkhouser describes a network infrastructure for such a system, including ways to optimize the system to shift some of the processing burden away from the client workstations and enable more affordable, multi-user visual simulation systems [that] can be built using primarily low-cost client workstations. Ex at 03; Ex. 1002, 147. In Funkhouser, the burden on client workstations is reduced by filtering data at the server level, reducing the amount of data that the client receives and must process. Ex. 1002, 147. Funkhouser 93 provides a similar technique to reduce client workstation burden, teaching a way to process virtual environment data to determine the appropriate qualitative and quantitative restrictions to apply to the display of that data in order to achieve a desired frame rate. Id. -37-

41 As Dr. Zyda explains, the Funkhouser 93 optimization algorithm would be viewed a logical addition to Funkhouser, and would be consistent with concept of reducing client processing burden expressed in both references. Id. at 148. The teachings of these two references would have been viewed as complementary to each other, as Funkhouser is focused on optimization techniques applied at the server level while Funkhouser 93 shares the similar goal of enabling visualization of very complex virtual environments at an interactive frame rate on available workstations and provides an optimization technique applied at the user computer/client level. Id.; Ex at 247. That is, the application of the Funkhouser 93 optimization algorithm would not affect the server-based message culling described in Funkhouser, because that message culling could still be applied prior to the client determining which avatars to display and at what level of detail. Ex. 1002, 148. The combination of Funkhouser, Sitrick, and Funkhouser 93 would represent using a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way, or a combination of familiar elements according to known methods... [which] does no more than yield predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. In fact, Funkhouser expressly teaches that optimization methods like the one disclosed in the earlier Funkhouser 93 article are applicable to the RING system, discussing an extension to RING currently being investigated where a client may apply different behavioral simulation processing to different entities based on perceptible importance to local entities. Ex at 07. This technique allows the client to process data for each avatar differently in order to further reduce the processing requirements of the client workstations, and Funkhouser explicitly -38-

42 suggests that this might be done in a manner similar to that used in [Funkhouser 93]. Id.; Ex. 1002, 149. Accordingly, each element of claims 8 and 10 is taught or suggested by the combination of Funkhouser, Sitrick, and Funkhouser 93, such that those claims would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill. Ex. 1002, D. [Ground 4] Claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 are Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Durward Durward, filed on September 23, 1993, is qualified as prior art for this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). As described in further detail below, Durward discloses each and every requirement of claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 15 of the 501 patent. Ex. 1002, Durward describes a virtual reality network with selective distribution and updating of data to reduce bandwidth requirements. Ex at Title; see also id. at 1:7-11; 4:17-23; Ex. 1002, 161; supra Section I.C. Durward discloses the server filtering as claimed in the 501 patent. Ex. 1002, 162. For example, Durward describes that each user[] is assigned a visual relevant space which determines which data defining the virtual space may be perceived by the user. Ex at 4: [V]isual relevant spaces determine which state changes are communicated to... the users. Id. at 4: Accordingly, the server of Durward sends position information regarding less than all of the other users to any given client i.e., users in the relevant space, rather than all system users. Durward also discloses the client processing as claimed in the 501 patent. Ex. 1002, 163. Upon receiving updated data, the client workstation may update -39-

43 the images viewed and sounds heard with the new positional and sound data. Ex at 6: This update includes a determination of which of the other user avatars to display in order to display the portion of the virtual space viewed from the perspective of the virtual being defined for user 18 together with all other defined virtual beings and objects within its field of vision. Id. at 3: As explained by Dr. Zyda, Figure 5 (annotated Fig. 5 shown) of Durward illustrates these concepts. Ex. 1002, 164; see also Ex at 4:43-5:22. Server filtering is evident because the area for which virtual being 184 receives position updates (virtual space 204) is smaller than the entire visual space (169). Ex. 1002, 164. Client processing is evident because the virtual being 184 s field of vision (represented by the dashed lines) is narrower than the area for which it receives position updates. Id. The argument and claim charts provided below further illustrates that Durward discloses each and every element of the 501 patent claims. i. Independent claim 1 Assuming without conceding that the claim 1 preamble is limiting, Durward discloses the preamble elements. 501 Patent Durward 1. A method for This invention relates to... a virtual reality network wherein enabling a first multiple users at remote locations may... participate in a user to interact virtual reality experience. 1:7-11 with other users The communications unit also receives data corresponding to in a virtual space, the position, orientation, and/or movement of the user relative -40-

44 each user of the first user and the other users being associated with a three dimensional avatar representing said each user in the virtual space, the method comprising the steps of: to a reference point and uses the data to define a virtual being within the virtual space., wherein the position, orientation, and/or movements of the virtual being are correlated to the received data 1:59-64 The system defines other virtual beings within the database in response to position, orientation, and/or movement data received from other users 2:1-3 Network 10 includes a central control unit 14 for communicating with a plurality of users. 2:51-52; see also fig. 1 The virtual being may take the form of another human being, an animal,... etc.,... visible or invisible with the virtual space. 3: :52-54, 7: See also Ex. 1002, Durward, as exemplified by the cited portions above, discloses each element of the preamble. Durward discloses interaction between users in a virtual space, as specifically recited in claim 1 (e.g., virtual reality network wherein multiple users... participate in a virtual reality experience. ). Ex at 1:7-11. Durward discloses users have an avatar... associated therewith as in claim 1, including describing that the virtual reality system uses data received from each user to define a virtual being [or avatar] within the virtual space for that user. Id. at 1:59-64; see also id. at 2:1-3. The avatars are three-dimensional. Id. at 1:52-54, 7:29-34; Ex. 1002, 167. Durward discloses a client-server architecture, such that each user/client has a client process associated therewith and the client processes are in communication with a server process, as recited in claim 1. See, e.g., id. at 2:51-52 & fig. 1; see also Ex. 1002, Durward discloses claim 1.1: 501 Patent Durward [1.1] customizing, The virtual being may take the form of another human being, using a processor an animal, machine, tool, inanimate object, etc., all of which of a client device, may be visible or invisible with the virtual space. 3: an avatar in Of course, as noted above, the virtual being defined or response to input maintained by virtual object control unit 144 need not be by the first user; humanoid and it may be specified by the user using primitives -41-

45 501 Patent Durward 199A-F in any desired combination. 7: Control data received from the users may be used to establish the telephonic communication with central control unit 14, to specify a desired virtual space to specify the type of virtual being the user wishes to assume, and possibly how the positional data is to be mapped to the selected virtual being, to create virtual objects (using graphics primitives 199A-F), to specify visual and sound relevant spaces and their corresponding priority spaces, etc. 6: See also Ex. 1002, Durward, as exemplified by the cited portions above, discloses customizing, using a processor of a client device, an avatar in response to input by the first user as claimed. For example, Durward discloses that the virtual being can take any form including the form of another human being, an animal, machine, tool, inanimate object, etc. Ex at 3: Durward discloses that the user can create a custom avatar of any form. Id. at 7:34-37 ( [T]he virtual being... may be specified by the user using primitives 199A-F in any desired combination. ); see also id. at 6:27-24; Ex. 1002, claim 1.1. Accordingly, Durward discloses a user customizing an avatar, as recited in Durward discloses claim 1.2: 501 Patent Durward [1.2] receiving, VIRTUAL REALITY NETWORK WITH SELECTIVE by the client DISTRIBUTION AND UPDATING OF DATA TO REDUCE device, position BANDWIDTH REQUIREMENTS ; Durward Title information The system defines other virtual beings within the database in associated with response to position, orientation, and/or movement data fewer than all of received from other users, and the portions of the virtual space the other user communicated to the other users may correspond to the avatars in an perspectives of their associated virtual beings. The system interaction room periodically... communicates the updated portions of the of the virtual virtual space to the users to reflect changes in the position of space, from a moving objects within the virtual space. 2:1-9 server process, The number of users supported by network 10 is not limited -42-

46 501 Patent Durward wherein the client... Any number of users... may be supported. 2:63-65 device does not Each user may talk to and interact with other virtual beings receive position and objects in the virtual space as the user desires, subject to information of at constraints... of relevant spaces. 3:54-57 least some avatars [V]isual relevant spaces determine which state changes are that fail to satisfy communicated to (or perceivable by) the users. 4:54-56 a participant In the preferred embodiment... [t]he visual relevant space condition may be fixed as shown for virtual being 182. Alternatively, imposed on the user s visual relevant space may be defined by the field of avatars view of the virtual being and areas in close proximity to it (as displayable on a with virtual being 184), in which case the visual relevant space client device may move about the virtual space. 5:5-18 display of the Virtual being 182 is assigned a visual relevant space 200, and client device; virtual being 184 is assigned a visual relevant space 204. Virtual beings 182 and 184 may view only those elements... which are disposed within their visual relevant spaces... 4:61-5:5 & fig. 5 At the same time central control unit 14 searches for other users in the same universe. If other users are found, central control unit 14 calculates the proximity of the other users... [L]ocations of the other users and their defined virtual objects within and without the relevant and priority spaces may be determined and used to ascertain which position, motion and sound data is transmitted to which user in a step 314. In this manner position, motion and sound data is not transmitted to users that would not be able to use that data at that point in time. 8: See also Ex. 1002, As exemplified by the cited portions above, Durward discloses a client receiving position information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatars in an interaction room of the virtual space, from a server process, wherein the client device does not receive position information of at least some avatars that fail to satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars displayable on a client device display of the client device, as specifically recited in claim 1. Durward describes multiple virtual spaces, or interaction rooms, wherein each virtual space allows a user to engage in a different activity either alone or in collaboration with other users. Ex at 4:30-42; Ex. 1002, 173. Further, -43-

47 user avatars are associated with position data: [t]he system defines other virtual beings within the database in response to position, orientation, and/or movement data received from other users. Ex at 2:1-3; see also Ex. 1002, 174. That position data is sent to the other users: [t]he system periodically... communicates the updated portions of the virtual space to the users to reflect changes in the position of moving objects within the virtual space. Ex at 2:5-9. A given client, however, only receives position data for other users avatars within its visual relevant space. Ex. 1002, 175. That is, visual relevant spaces determine which state changes are communicated to... the users. Ex at 4: Each user may talk to and interact with other virtual beings and objects in the virtual space as the user desires, subject to [the] constraints... of relevant spaces. Id. at 3: By using the locations of the other users and their defined virtual objects within and without the relevant... spaces to ascertain which position, motion and sound data is transmitted to which user[,] the system disclosed by Durward ensures that position, motion and sound data is not transmitted to users that would not be able to use that data at that point in time. Id. at 8: This server filtering is reflected in the title of Durward as selective distribution. Id. at Title. The remote users which are not within the client s visual relevant space do not satisfy the condition required for the client to receive updates for those users. Ex. 1002, 181. Thus, Durward s disclosure regarding visual relevant spaces and server-based filtering satisfies claim 1 regarding receiving a position information associated with fewer than all of the other users avatars. Ex. 1002,

48 Moreover, as described by Dr. Zyda, Durward Figure 5 (annotated Fig. 5 above showing visual relevant space) illustrates aspects of selective distribution (e.g., less than all user position information). Ex. 1002, 182. Element 183 is a virtual being. Ex at 4: Virtual being 184 does not receive position information regarding virtual being 183, because virtual being 183 is not within virtual being 184 s visual relevant space (labeled 204). Ex. 1002, 182; see also id. at 4:61-5:5. Therefore, virtual being 184 receives a position of less than all of the other users avatars from the server. Ex. 1002, 182. Accordingly, Durward discloses receiving a position of less than all of the other users avatars from the server process, as recited in claim 1.1. Accordingly, Durward discloses receiving position information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatars, as recited in claim 1.2. Durward discloses claim 1.3: 501 Patent Durward [1.3] determining, [H]ead mounted display 46 displays the portion of the virtual by the client space viewed from the perspective of the virtual being... device, a together with all other defined virtual beings and objects displayable set of within its field of vision. 3:50-54 the other user [E]ach user's computer has a copy of the entire virtual space avatars associated (e.g., background, objects and primitives), and the data... with the client communicated to the users comprises only position, motion, display device; control, and sound data. After initial... data is communicated and to the users, only changes in the position, motion, control and sound data is communicated thereafter. This dramatically reduces bandwidth requirements and allows... many concurrent users without sacrificing real-time realism. 4:17-29 [T]he user's visual relevant space may be defined by the field of view of the virtual being and areas in close proximity to it (as with virtual being 184), in which case the visual relevant space may move about the virtual space as the perspective or position of the virtual being changes. 5:

49 501 Patent Durward [E]ach user has a copy of the selected virtual space in his or her computer, and processor 100 periodically sends only the positional and sound data assigned to... the user's relevant space... so that the user's computer may update the images viewed and sounds heard with the new... data. 6: See also Ex. 1002, As exemplified by the cited portions above, Durward discloses a client determining a displayable set of the other users avatars. First, Durward discloses that each each user s computer has a copy of the entire virtual space. Ex at 4:17-29; see also id. at 6: As discussed above with respect to claim 1.1, Durward discloses that a client receives position information for avatars within the client s visual relevant space, which may be broader than the client s field of view (e.g., as shown in Fig. 5). For example, Durward describes that the user's visual relevant space may be defined by the field of view of the virtual being and areas in close proximity to it[.] Id. at 5:12-20 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1002, Then, after receipt of the position information from the server, the client determines a set of other users avatars to be displayed to the first user, by identifying which of the received positions of the other defined virtual beings are within the field of vision of the user. Id. at 3:50-54; see also Ex. 1002, 186. Again, this client processing is apparent at least from Figure 5 (annotated Fig. 5 here, above). Ex. 1002, Virtual being 184 s visual relevant space 204 is broader than virtual being 184 s field of vision (represented by dashed lines). Id. Accordingly, the client associated with -46-