United States Patent and Trademark Office Before
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ELECTRONIC ARTS INC. and EA DIGITAL ILLUSIONS CE AB, Petitioner v. TERMINAL REALITY, INC., Patent Owner ____________________ Case IPR2016-00929 Patent 7,061,488 ____________________ EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC’S PATENT OWNER REPSONSE Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD” Patent Trial and Appeal Board U.S. Patent & Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL IPR2016-00929 U.S. Patent No. 7,061,488 Table of Contents I. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 II. Technical Background .................................................................................... 2 III. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 6 A. light accumulation buffer. .....................................................................6 B. precalculated matrix transformation look-up table. .............................. 9 IV. The challenged claims are patentable because Petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for each instituted ground. ........................ 11 A. A POSITA would not have identified or had the skills to correct the errors and omissions in Segal. ...........................................13 1. The level of ordinary skill in the art for the ’488 patent. ....................................................................................... 14 2. Segal requires a level of skill beyond that of a POSITA. ................................................................................... 16 3. Segal provides limited, incomplete details regarding its applications. ......................................................................... 17 a) Slide Projector ............................................................... 17 b) Spotlight ......................................................................... 20 c) Shadow Determination .................................................. 21 B. A POSITA would not have combined the Segal’s applications as proposed by Petitioners. .............................................25 1. Petitioners’ knowledge of combination would have only been reached through an expert in the field. .................... 26 2. Petitioners’ proposed combination lacks the requisite rational underpinnings and goes beyond the level of skill in the art. ........................................................................... 28 V. Independent Claims 1, 11, and 39 are patentable. ........................................ 32 A. Petitioners do not establish that Segal alone or in combination with Foley and/or McReynolds teaches or suggests the “comparing” step. ...........................................................32 1. Petitioners’ reliance on Segal is misplaced because Segal does not compare “observer data” with “lighting data.” ........................................................................................ 33 - i - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL IPR2016-00929 U.S. Patent No. 7,061,488 2. Reliance on the transformation matrices, Mc and Ml, is misplaced. ................................................................................ 36 B. Petitioners failed to establish that Segal alone or in combination with Foley and/or McReynolds teaches or suggests a “light accumulation buffer.” ..............................................40 1. Segal does not disclose a light accumulation buffer. ............... 40 2. Petitioners never show that a POSITA would have combined Segal and McReynolds to accumulate light in a separate buffer. .................................................................. 41 VI. Dependent claims 7-9, 17-19, and 45-47 are patentable. ............................. 45 A. Claims 7, 17, and 45. ...........................................................................45 B. Claims 8, 18, and 46. ...........................................................................47 VII. Petitioners failed to establish that Foley is a prior art publication therefore, Grounds 2 and 4 relying on Foley fail. ......................................................... 49 VIII. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness Confirm that the Claimed Invention is Not Obvious .............................................................................. 50 A. The Claimed Invention Satisfied a Long-Felt Need ...........................52 B. The Claimed Invention Received Industry Praise ...............................55 C. Video Games Practicing the Claimed Invention Enjoyed Substantial Commercial Success .........................................................57 1. EA Incorporated the Claimed Invention of the Patents in its Frostbite 2 and Frostbite 3 Game Engines ...................... 58 2. The EA Games Using the Claimed Invention Have Been Commercially Successful Due, in large Part to the Use of the Invention ........................................................... 61 - ii - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL IPR2016-00929 U.S. Patent No. 7,061,488 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...........................................................................15 Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985)..............................................................................51 Asyst Tech’n., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d 1310 (Fed.Cir.2008)..............................................................................54 Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allen Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986)........................................................................ 11,12 Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ..................................................................... 50-51 Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................49 Ex Parte Kabra, 2011 WL 2491033, No. 2010-005035 (B.P.A.I. June 20, 2011) .........................42 Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...........................................................................57 Geo. M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Intern. LLC, 618 F.3d 1294 (Fed.Cir.2010)..............................................................................54 Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................... 11, 15, 50 In re Cavanaugh, 436 F.2d 491 (CCPA 1971) .................................................................................51 In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535 (CCPA 1967) .................................................................................51 - iii - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL IPR2016-00929 U.S. Patent No. 7,061,488 In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)....................................................................... 14, 50 In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...........................................................................50 In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996)........................................................................ 49-50 In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..............................................................................41 In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................50 In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ...........................................................................42 In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 38, 49 In re Nuvasive, 842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................41 In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 1971) .................................................................................50 Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................38 J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...........................................................................56 KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 12, 28 Leo Pharm. Products, Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................50 - iv - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL IPR2016-00929 U.S. Patent No. 7,061,488 Newell Cos., Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..............................................................................51 Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...........................................................................15 Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...........................................................................57 Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309 (Fed. Cir. 1985)..............................................................................50 Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................57 Ryko Mfg. Co. v.