Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MULLEN INDUSTRIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2025-00739
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`Issue Date: January 15, 2019
`
`Title: LOCATION-BASED GAMES AND
`AUGMENTED REALITY SYSTEMS
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,179,277 B2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8(A)(1) ........................................ 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under §42.8.(b)(1) ........................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters under §42.8(b)(2) ..................................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3) ................................... 1
`D.
`Service Information ........................................................................... 2
`FEE PAYMENT .......................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER §§ 42.104 AND 42.108 AND
`CONSIDERATIONS UNDER §§ 314(A) AND 325(D) .............................. 3
`A. Grounds for Standing ......................................................................... 3
`B.
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Precise Relief
`Requested .......................................................................................... 3
`Considerations Under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) ....................................... 3
`C.
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT ................................................................. 4
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ...................................................................... 4
`B.
`Specification Overview ...................................................................... 5
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 8
`V.
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 8
`A. Overview of Grounds ......................................................................... 8
`B.
`Prior Art Status of Relied-Upon References ..................................... 10
`C.
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 8, 13, and 20 Are Obvious Over Jaszlics in
`view of Rallison ............................................................................... 10
`Independent Claim 1: “A non-transitory computer-
`
`readable medium with stored program logic thereon,
`when executed by a processor, cause the processor to
`perform the method comprising:” (1[pre]) ............................ 10
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“providing 3-D video game indicia to a head-
`mounted display of a head-mounted device with
`respect to a physical playfield based on video
`game logic associated with a video game, wherein
`said head-mounted device includes a processor;”
`(1[a]) ............................................................................ 13
`“utilizing a detector to determine landscape
`characteristics of said physical playfield, wherein
`said video game logic utilizes said landscape
`characteristics in providing said video game; and”
`(1[b]) ........................................................................... 25
`“utilizing a locating device to determine the
`physical location of said locating device on said
`physical playfield, wherein said video game logic
`utilizes the physical location of said locating
`device in providing said video game.” (1[c])............... 31
`Claim 8: “The non-transitory computer-readable
`medium of claim 1, further comprising utilizing an
`infrared receiver.” .................................................................. 34
`Claim 13: “The non-transitory computer-readable
`medium of claim 1, further comprising determining a
`pitch of said head-mounted display, determining a roll of
`said head-mounted display, and determining a height of
`said head-mounted display.” .................................................. 36
`Claim 20: “The non-transitory computer-readable
`medium of claim 1, further comprising utilizing manual
`controls, wherein a pitch of said head-mounted display is
`determined and a roll of said head-mounted display is
`determined.” .......................................................................... 40
`VII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 40
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................. 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2 to Jeffrey David Mullen (filed Apr. 27,
`2016, issued Jan. 15, 2019) (“’277” or “’277 patent”)
`1002 Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. (“Cooperstock”)
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,166,744 to Ivan J. Jaszlics and Sheila L. Jaszlics
`(filed Sep. 15, 1998; issued Dec. 26, 2000) (“Jaszlics”)
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,369,952 B1 to Richard Dennis Rallison et al. (filed
`Aug. 17,1999; issued Apr. 9, 2002) (“Rallison”)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,411,266 B1 to Francis J. Maguire, Jr. (filed Nov. 17,
`1995; issued Jun. 25, 2002) (“Maguire”)
`(Reserved)
`
`1006-
`1010
`1011 U.S. Provisional Patent App. No. 60/066,904 (“Jaszlics Provisional”)
`1012 Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002)
`1013
`(Reserved)
`1014 Excerpts from IEEE 100 : The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`Standard Terms (7th ed. 2000)
`1015 Excerpts from Joseph Angelo, Dictionary of Space Technology (1999)
`1016
`’277 Patent File History
`1017
`(Reserved)
`1018 Proof of Service of Complaint
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under §42.8.(b)(1)
`Meta Platforms, Inc. is the real party-in-interest to this IPR petition.
`
`B. Related Matters under §42.8(b)(2)
`The ’277 patent is the subject of pending litigation involving Petitioner:
`
`Mullen Industries LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00354-DAE (W.D.
`
`Tex.). Petitioner was served on April 5, 2024. (EX1018, p.003.)
`
`Petitioner is filing IPR petitions against twelve related patents asserted by
`
`Patent Owner in the pending litigation involving Petitioner:
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`8,585,476 B2
`9,744,448 B2
`10,179,277 B2
`10,828,559 B2
`10,967,270 B2
`11,033,821 B2
`11,376,493 B2
`11,904,243 B2
`11,947,716 B2
`12,019,791 B2
`9,662,582 B2
`10,974,151 B2
`
`IPR Case
`IPR2025-00737
`IPR2025-00738
`IPR2025-00739
`IPR2025-00740
`IPR2025-00702
`IPR2025-00703
`IPR2025-00741
`IPR2025-00742
`IPR2025-00743
`IPR2025-00744
`IPR2025-00745
`IPR2025-00746
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`-1-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`Phillip E. Morton (Reg. No. 57,835)
`pmorton@cooley.com
`
`Andrew C. Mace (Reg. No. 63,342)
`amace@cooley.com
`
`Mark R. Weinstein (Admission pro hac
`vice to be requested)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`Lowell D. Mead (Admission pro hac vice
`to be requested)
`lmead@cooley.com
`
`Patrick Lauppe (Admission pro hac vice to
`be requested)
`plauppe@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`
`
`
`Service Information
`D.
`This Petition is being served by Federal Express to the attorney of record for
`
`the ’277 patent, 32733 - JEFFREY D. MULLEN, 2212 Hassinger Lane, Glenshaw,
`
`PA 15116. Petitioner consents to electronic service at the addresses provided above
`
`for lead and back-up counsel.
`
`FEE PAYMENT
`Petitioner requests review of 4 claims, with a $51,875 payment.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`42.104 AND
`§§
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER
`CONSIDERATIONS UNDER §§ 314(A) AND 325(D)
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’277 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`42.108 AND
`
`is not barred or otherwise estopped.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Precise Relief
`Requested
`Petitioner requests IPR institution based on:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis for Challenge under §103
`
`1
`
`1, 8, 13, 20
`
`Jaszlics (EX1003) in view of Rallison (EX1004)
`
`Submitted with this Petition is the Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`
`(EX1002) (“Cooperstock”), a qualified technical expert. (EX1002, ¶¶1-18,
`
`Appendix A.)
`
`C. Considerations Under §§ 314(a) and 325(d)
`§314(a): The General Plastic factors are not relevant as this is the first and
`
`only IPR petition filed by Petitioner with respect to the ’277 patent.
`
`Nor do the Fintiv factors support discretionary denial under §314(a). The
`
`pending litigation against Petitioner is in relatively early stage, with little substantive
`
`discovery having taken place to date and claim construction proceedings ongoing.
`
`Trial is scheduled to start October 5, 2026—over eighteen months from now—and
`
`a motion to transfer the case by Petitioner to the Northern District of California is
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`currently pending, which if granted would likely result in an even later trial date.
`
`Petitioner also intends to move to stay the litigation pending resolution of the IPRs.
`
`Additionally, to allay concerns over duplication of efforts, Petitioner represents that,
`
`in the event of institution, it will not pursue in litigation any invalidity defense that
`
`was or could have been raised in IPR.
`
`§325(d): This Petition does not raise a § 325(d) issue because neither Jaszlics
`
`(EX1003) nor Rallison (EX1004) was cited or otherwise identified during
`
`prosecution.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill
`A person of ordinary skill would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined
`
`experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer
`
`systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location
`
`information (such as GPS information associated with a user’s physical location),
`
`and in designing and/or developing computer systems/software involving graphical
`
`virtual and/or augmented reality. A person could also have qualified as a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such
`
`as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal
`
`education and more technical or professional experience. (EX1002, ¶¶21-25.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`Specification Overview
`B.
` The ’277 patent states that it provides “a location-based game system in
`
`which the physical location (or physical movement) of a user on a physical playfield”
`
`obtained by, for example, a GPS device, “determines the virtual location (or virtual
`
`movement) of a virtual character on a virtual playfield.” (’277, 7:22-28.) The
`
`system may include a head-mounted display so that “video game indicia may be
`
`overlaid onto the user’s physical playfield,” such as the user’s “physical
`
`environment.” (’277, 3:50-52; see also id., 1:55-59 (listing “the physical world, a
`
`physical environment, or a defined physical playfield” as examples of a “physical
`
`playfield”).) “The physical environment can then be manipulated by a processor
`
`such that, for example, virtual indicia (e.g., a video game character or component is
`
`added) is added to the physical environment.” (’277, 3:60-63.)
`
`The ’277 patent further states that “[a] landscape detector may be provided
`
`with a location-based game system such that information on the physical terrain of
`
`the user’s physical environment may be utilized by the gaming system.” (’277, 4:18-
`
`21.) Figure 4, reproduced below, “is an illustration of landscape detection
`
`constructed in accordance with the principles of the present invention”:
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`
`(’277, Fig. 4, 6:13-14.) Referring to Figure 4, the ’277 patent states that “[l]andscape
`
`detector 451 may take multiple forms”:
`
`
`
`For example, landscape detector 451 may measure the distance to
`objects and the shape of the object. This may be done for example by
`sound/light sensing (e.g., reflective sensing such as sound/light echoing
`or color sensing with respect to light source) or any type of
`object/distance sensing (e.g., infrared). A camera may be utilized to
`take a picture/video of the environment. Video processing features may
`be utilized to determine landscape as, for example, a user moves around
`the landscape.
`
`(’277, 15:18-27.) “The information provided by the landscape detector may be
`
`utilized, for example, to position where portions of a video game playfield, objects,
`
`and characters may be positioned on a display (e.g., on a head-mounted display).”
`
`(’277, 4:24-27.) “Such information may also be used, for example, to control the
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`movement characteristics of computer-controlled video game characters and
`
`indicia.” (’277, 4:27-30.) For example, Figure 6, reproduced below, “is an
`
`illustration of computer-controlled character positioning and movement based on
`
`detected landscape objects constructed in accordance with the principles of the
`
`present invention”:
`
`
`
`(’277, Fig. 6, 6:20-23.) Referring to Figure 6, the ’277 patent states that “[i]n
`
`environment 650, actual environmental object may be present and stored in memory
`
`as virtual objects 651 and 652.” (’277, 18:14-16.) “If the stored location of virtual
`
`objects 651 impedes on the planned movement of virtual characters, then program
`
`logic (e.g., game code) may manipulate the movement path of virtual characters
`
`around these virtual objects.” (’277, 18:21-25.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner does not believe express claim construction is necessary at this
`
`time. The prior art cited herein, as demonstrated below, renders the challenged
`
`claims obvious under any reasonable construction. Petitioner therefore respectfully
`
`submits that, for purposes of this IPR, express constructions are not required.
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Overview of Grounds
`The challenged claims attempt to lay claim to techniques for location-based
`
`video games in which a user sees their real-world surroundings combined with
`
`virtual objects . But these techniques were well-known before the ’277 patent.
`
`The sole ground in this Petition relies on Jaszlics (EX1003), which as its title
`
`demonstrates, describes a “system for combining virtual images with real-world
`
`scenes.” The augmented reality gaming and simulation system it describes is
`
`remarkably similar to the ’277 patent. (Cooperstock, ¶52.) Jaszlics is a strong
`
`reference that discloses the majority of the claim limitations. Focusing on war
`
`gaming applications, but also making clear that the system is broadly applicable to
`
`outdoor location-based augmented reality gaming, Jaszlics provides a “combined
`
`reality” experience for a user by combining real-time, real-world imagery of a user’s
`
`physical surroundings with images of virtual entities, such as tanks. (Id. (citing
`
`Jaszlics, 1:64-67, 2:60-63).) For example, Jaszlics describes how, using data
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`collected with a range scanning device (such as a modified infrared surveyor’s
`
`ranging laser), the distance and shape of real-world physical features around the user
`
`are detected and used to more realistically overlay virtual entities in the real-world
`
`scene. (Id. (citing Jaszlics, Fig. 1, 4:12-23).) The combined imagery—for example,
`
`as shown by Figure 1d below—can then be presented via head-mounted display to
`
`the user.
`
`
`
`(Id. (citing Jaszlics, 9:36, 9:48-57, 2:10-13).)
`
`The Petition also cites Rallison (EX1004) in connection with two minor points
`
`that are arguably disclosed by or at least obvious over Jaszlics alone—(1) a head-
`
`mounted device that “includes a processor” and (2) determining “pitch” and “roll”
`
`of a head-mounted display. (Cooperstock, ¶¶56-57.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`Prior Art Status of Relied-Upon References
`B.
`Pre-AIA law applies to the challenged claims, and each reference cited in the
`
`grounds listed in Part III.B qualifies as prior art to the ’277 patent. Jaszlics and
`
`Rallison qualify as prior art under § 102(b) because they issued more than one year
`
`before the priority date.1
`
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1, 8, 13, and 20 Are Obvious Over Jaszlics in
`view of Rallison
`Independent Claim 1: “A non-transitory computer-readable
`
`medium with stored program logic thereon, when executed
`by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method
`comprising:” (1[pre])
`Assuming the preamble provides a claim limitation, it is disclosed by and
`
`obvious over Jaszlics. (Cooperstock, ¶¶59-63.)
`
`As explained in more detail for the limitations that follow, Jaszlics discloses
`
`a “combined reality” computer system in which virtual images, such as images of a
`
`
`1 The ’277 patent claims priority to a provisional application (no. 60/628,475) filed
`
`November 16, 2004. For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner has assumed a priority
`
`date of November 16, 2004. Petitioner at this time expresses no opinion on whether
`
`the ’277 patent is actually entitled to the benefit of the provisional application filing
`
`date. This issue is not relevant here because both prior art references relied upon are
`
`§ 102(b) statutory-bar references with respect to the ’277 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`virtual tank or other animated virtual entities, are combined with real-world scenes
`
`and displayed together to a user. (Jaszlics, 2:40-56 (“This invention provides a
`
`system for combining virtual images with images of the real world…. The resulting
`
`combined image is presented in an electronic or optical display.”), 1:13-15, 3:13-16,
`
`Table 7 (col. 21) (defining “combined reality” as “Apparent reality, with virtual
`
`elements projected into the image of the real world. Virtual and live elements may
`
`interact through simulation.”); Cooperstock, ¶60.)
`
`Turning to the language of the preamble, Jaszlics discloses, and a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood and found it obvious, that its
`
`computer system comprises “a non-transitory computer-readable medium with
`
`stored program logic thereon.” (Cooperstock, ¶61.) Jaszlics describes its system
`
`as using a conventional computing system, such as “a personal workstation running
`
`two 266 MHz Pentium II processors,” to execute software including “virtual
`
`simulation and control software” for providing a virtual simulation (or “scenario”).
`
`(Jaszlics, 14:13-18, 14:66-15:1; see also id., 15:53-56 (“The virtual entities
`
`implemented by the virtual simulation and control software are capable of engaging
`
`the avatar of the observer’s vehicle, depending on the scenario loaded in.”), 17:11-
`
`12 (describing “scenario” “executed by the virtual simulation and control
`
`software”).)
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`Because memory and software are basic components of a conventional
`
`computing system, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood and
`
`found it obvious that Jaszlics’ system would have included a “a non-transitory
`
`computer-readable medium” (such as a hard drive and/or RAM) having “stored
`
`program logic thereon,” including the logic associated with the system’s “virtual
`
`simulation and control software” and virtual simulations executed by the software,
`
`such as various “scenarios” providing war game simulations. (Cooperstock, ¶62
`
`(citing EX1012, pp.007-008 (entry for “microprocessor”)).)2
`
`For the same reasons, Jaszlics discloses, and a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood and found it obvious, that its computer system comprises
`
`“a processor” (such as a “Pentium II processor[]” (Jaszlics, 14:13-18)) to execute
`
`
`2 In addition, Jaszlics’ provisional application includes exemplary source code
`
`excerpts for military war game simulation software that repeatedly refers to
`
`“memory,” thus further confirming the understanding of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art that Jaszlics’ system would comprise “a non-transitory computer-
`
`readable medium with stored program logic thereon.” (Cooperstock, ¶62 n.4
`
`(citing EX1011 (Jaszlics Provisional), 0048, 0052, 0090); see generally EX1011,
`
`0047-00142.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`the “stored program logic” and “cause the processor to perform” the operations
`
`for providing a combined reality simulation. (Cooperstock, ¶63.)
`
`(a)
`
`“providing 3-D video game indicia to a head-mounted
`display of a head-mounted device with respect to a
`physical playfield based on video game logic associated
`with a video game, wherein said head-mounted device
`includes a processor;” (1[a])
`Starting first with “a head-mounted display of a head-mounted device,”
`
`Jaszlics’ combined reality system includes “a head-mounted display of a head-
`
`mounted device,” such as “electronic display goggles,” “virtual reality goggles or
`
`visors worn by the observer [i.e., the user of the system3].” (Jaszlics, 9:48-57; see
`
`also id., 2:10-13 (“The present invention can be used with electronic display goggles
`
`to greatly extend this entertainment medium by injecting, in real time, three-
`
`dimensional virtual elements into the view of the real world.”), 9:34-39 (“The
`
`display 111 may be any display system capable of displaying the combined image,
`
`such as…an electronic goggle or visor….”), 10:52-57 (“The position and orientation
`
`of the observer (including the movement and attitude of the vehicle, if any, housing
`
`the observer) is sensed by observer sensors and controls 115 such as a magnetic or
`
`
`3 Jaszlics describes a player/user of its system as an “observer.” (See Jaszlics, 10:11-
`
`17 (“The observer 113 of the display is assumed to be the user of the invention for
`
`various purposes, such as military training, or entertainment.…”).)
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`infrared head tracker system used in conjunction with virtual reality goggles.”).)4
`
`Jaszlics therefore discloses “a head-mounted display of a head-mounted device,”
`
`as claimed, such as the display included as part of a head-worn visor/goggle device.
`
`(Cooperstock, ¶64.)
`
`
`
`Jaszlics also teaches that its computer system “provid[es] 3-D video game
`
`indicia” “with respect to a physical playfield” to the head-mounted display.
`
`(Cooperstock, ¶65.) Petitioner notes that the ’277 patent describes “physical
`
`playfield” as broadly including “the physical world, a physical environment, or a
`
`defined physical playfield[.]” (’277, 1:55-59.)
`
`
`
`Jaszlics teaches that the “electronic display goggles” or “visors” (“head-
`
`mounted display of a head-mounted device”) are used to display, for example,
`
`virtual tanks and other virtual objects (“3-D video game indicia”) overlaid within a
`
`physical landscape surrounding the user (“physical playfield”). Figure 1 of Jaszlics
`
`illustrates, with Fig. 1d in particular showing how a virtual tank (exemplary “3-D
`
`video game indicia”) is displayed within a real world scene (“display[ed]…with
`
`respect to a physical playfield”):
`
`
`4 All underlining added to quoted material unless noted.
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`
`
`(Jaszlics, Fig. 1; see also id., 4:19-23 (“The masked virtual image and the image of
`
`
`
`the real world are then combined in such a manner that in the resulting combined
`
`image (FIG. 1d) the virtual object will appear to exist and move in the real world at
`
`its virtual position.”), 8:53-56 (“In this step 110 of FIG. 2, the virtual images
`
`constructed in the virtual image generation step 109 are combined with the real-
`
`world image 114 originating from the video camera 100.”), 23:56-59 (claim 4,
`
`reciting “wherein said display means comprises an electronically-controlled visor
`
`and wherein the field of view comprises the field of view visible through said visor”),
`
`25:3-6 (claim 15, reciting “wherein said combined image is displayed through an
`
`electronically-controlled visor and wherein the field of view comprises the field of
`
`view visible through said visor”); Cooperstock, ¶66.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`As another example, Figure 14 of Jaszlics, below, illustrates virtual tanks 162
`
`
`(“3-D video game indicia”) overlaid on hills 160 of the user’s physical environment
`
`(“physical playfield”):
`
`
`(Jaszlics, Fig. 14; see also id., 3:49-51, 9:60-62 (describing Fig. 14); EX1011
`
`
`
`(Jaszlics Provisional), 00152, Fig. 14 (identifying 160 as “Hills” and 162 as “Virtual
`
`Entities”); Cooperstock, ¶67.)
`
`
`
`As a third illustration, referring to Figure 15 (below), Jaszlics explains how
`
`the overlaid “3-D video game indicia” can be a variety of virtual elements, such as
`
`a path marker 172, a unit boundary 173, a navigational marker 174, and a phase line
`
`175, which are overlaid on terrain 170:
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`
`
`(Jaszlics, Fig. 15; see also id., 9:64-10:9 (“The virtual entities generated by a virtual
`
`
`
`entity simulation do not necessarily represent a real-world object. For example, they
`
`may represent fictional characters or entities, or views of conceptual objects. An
`
`example of conceptual virtual entities is shown in FIG. 15. In FIG. 15, the real-
`
`world objects 170 include the terrain, a tree, and a battle tank, in which the observer
`
`or observers 171 of a combined reality view presented to them are located. The
`
`conceptual virtual entities in the figure are conceptual objects: a path marker 172, a
`
`unit boundary 173, a navigational marker 174, and a phase line 175. The present
`
`system positions the conceptual virtual entities in the display in such a manner that
`
`they appear to be present in the landscape visible to the observer(s).”); Cooperstock,
`
`¶68.)
`
`
`
`Turning more specifically to the phrase “3-D video game indicia,” Jaszlics
`
`teaches that the virtual entities, such as virtual tanks and other characters, entities or
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`conceptual objects, are both “3-D” and “video game” indicia. (Cooperstock, ¶69.)
`
`With respect to “3-D,” the figures from Jaszlics shown above include 3-D virtual
`
`elements, most clearly shown by unit boundary 173 and navigational marker 174 in
`
`Figure 15. More generally, Jaszlics explains that the virtual entities can be generated
`
`and rendered using the “Virtual Reality Modeling Language” (“VRML”) or “any
`
`rendering system capable of rendering three-dimensional objects, or two-
`
`dimensional projections of three-dimensional objects.” (Jaszlics, e.g., 8:7-16, 6:34-
`
`41.) VRML was a standard language for modeling three-dimensional interactive
`
`objects. (Cooperstock, ¶69 (citing EX1012, p.009 (entry for “VRML”)).) Jaszlics
`
`therefore discloses and renders obvious “3-D” indicia. (Cooperstock, ¶69.)
`
`
`
`With respect to “3-D video game indicia,” Jaszlics makes clear that its
`
`combined reality system is for “video games.” (Cooperstock, ¶70.) For starters,
`
`Jaszlics specifically describes using its system for virtual war games, and related
`
`game play, such as engaging in a virtual tank battle. (Jaszlics, e.g., 10:15-25, 11:4-
`
`6, 15:15-30.) This is just like the ’277 patent, which similarly states that “an AR
`
`game system may be utilized in the military training of soldiers” and specifically
`
`recognizes this sort of military simulation as “game play.” (’277, 5:23-24; see also
`
`id., 5:24-27 (“To accommodate such an application the landscape of a pre-
`
`determined area (e.g., a particular square area of a military based [sic]) may be
`
`scanned at a point before a game is played.”), 15:40-42 (“For example, if the military
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`desires an AR system for special operations warfare then a particular field may be
`
`utilized for game play.”).)
`
`
`
`More specifically, Jaszlics explains that “[t]he present invention can be used
`
`in these war games to generate virtual tanks that appear to move about the terrain.
`
`This can completely eliminate the need, for example, for live tanks representing the
`
`enemy force in a war gaming exercise. Virtual vehicles and real vehicles can appear
`
`in the same scene.” (Jaszlics, 1:53-58.) Jaszlics describes military simulation game
`
`play that includes a player/user (which Jaszlics refers to as an “observer”) engaging
`
`a virtual combat vehicle and taking damage or getting “killed.” (Jaszlics, 10:15-25
`
`(“An example of such direct interaction is the engagement of a virtual opponent from
`
`a combat vehicle, such as a battle tank.”), 11:59-63 (“For example, if one of the
`
`virtual tanks represented in this simulation engage the avatar of the observer’s tank,
`
`the resulting damage information will activate damage displays, or a ‘killed’
`
`indicator in the observer’s sensors and controls suite.”); see also id., 11:4-6 (“virtual
`
`battle damage”), 15:53-56 (“The virtual entities implemented by the virtual
`
`simulation and control software are capable of engaging the avatar of the observer’s
`
`vehicle, depending on the scenario loaded in.”), 15:25-30 (“engaging the virtual T-
`
`80s operated by the virtual simulation”), 10:39-44 (engaging virtual tank).) Jaszlics’
`
`disclosure of using its combined reality system for simulated war games therefore
`
`discloses “3-D video game indicia.” (Cooperstock, ¶71.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`
`Putting aside its military-specific gaming applications, Jaszlics expressly
`
`teaches that its system can be used as “an interactive, recreational device,” and is
`
`broadly applicable to gaming generally, explaining that, for example, “[a]nother
`
`possible field of use is in games, such as laser tag, so that virtual players, objects,
`
`and special effects can be combined with real players and real objects in the playing
`
`field.” (Jaszlics, 1:64-67, 18:48-55; see also id., 15:21-25 (“Other scenarios not
`
`related to tanks, or military training, can be selected by a user….”).) Jaszlics
`
`therefore clearly discloses and renders obvious “3-D video game indicia.”
`
`(Cooperstock, ¶72.)
`
`
`
`Jaszlics also discloses, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood and found it obvious, that Jaszlics’ virtual entities (“3-D video game
`
`indicia”) would be provided to the head-mounted display with respect to a physical
`
`playfield “based on video game logic associated with a video game.”
`
`(Cooperstock, ¶73.) As explained above in the discussion of the preamble, that
`
`“video game logic” would include the logic associated with the system’s “virtual
`
`simulation and control software” and virtual simulations executed by the software,
`
`such as various “scenarios” providing war game simulations. (Jaszlics, 14:13-18,
`
`14:66-15:1, 15:53-56, 17:11-14.)
`
`Lastly, with respect to “said head-mounted device includes a processor,”
`
`this would have been obvious. (Cooperstock, ¶74.) For starters, such a processor
`
`
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,179,277 B2
`
`would have been obvious over Jaszlics alone in at least two different ways. In the
`
`first way, Petitioner notes that the claim does not require