PTAB
IPR2014-00155
Harmonix Music Systems Inc v. Princeton Digital Image Corp
Key Events
Petition
1. Case Identification
- Case #: IPR2014-00155
- Patent #: 5,513,129
- Filed: November 15, 2013
- Petitioner(s): Harmonix Music Systems, Inc.
- Patent Owner(s): Princeton Digital Image Corporation
- Challenged Claims: 1, 5-6, 8-13, 15-19, and 21-23
2. Patent Overview
- Title: Controlling a Computer System in Response to Music Signals
- Brief Description: The ’129 patent discloses methods and systems for controlling a computer system, including virtual reality (VR) systems, in response to music signals. The technology centers on either extracting control signals directly from live music or using prerecorded control tracks corresponding to audio signals to generate, modify, or influence actions within a virtual environment.
3. Grounds for Unpatentability
Ground 1: Anticipation over Pocock-Williams - Claims 10-11 and 22-23 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by Pocock-Williams.
- Prior Art Relied Upon: Pocock-Williams (Lynn Pocock-Williams, Toward the Automatic Generation of Visual Music, Leonardo 25, No. 1 (1992)).
- Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pocock-Williams, which describes creating "visual music" through computer animations generated from music signals, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Independent claim 10 requires (a) prerecording a control track corresponding to an audio signal and (b) operating a computer system in response to that track. Petitioner contended that Pocock-Williams teaches this by describing a process where music is input to a computer, analyzed to create a "GenAni file" (the control track) containing animation commands ("subroutine call statements"), and then executing this file on a computer system to "realize" the animation synchronized with the original music.
- Key Aspects: This ground targets the non-VR claims, asserting that the fundamental concept of creating and using a music-derived control track to operate a computer was already disclosed.
Ground 2: Anticipation over Fallacaro - Claims 1, 5-6, 8-13, 15-19, and 21-23 are anticipated under §102(b) by Fallacaro.
- Prior Art Relied Upon: Fallacaro (Patent 4,771,344).
- Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Fallacaro, which teaches a system for enhancing an audio/visual presentation by stimulating a user, anticipates the broader set of claims, including those reciting a VR system. Fallacaro discloses processing music signals (from a concert) to generate "control tones" that can trigger tactile, audible, or visual stimulation. Petitioner argued this meets the limitation of processing music to generate control signals. Fallacaro also explicitly discloses that these control tones can be prerecorded on media like a videocassette and used later. The system operates in response to these control signals to provide stimulation, which Fallacaro states can include visual effects in "video games and other audiovisual presentations of the type displayed on a video monitor," thereby meeting the "virtual environment" limitation.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner argued that even if the Board determined Fallacaro does not explicitly disclose a "virtual reality computer system," the ’129 patent admits such systems were well known. Applying Fallacaro's sensory stimulation teachings to a known VR system to enhance immersion would have been obvious and yields predictable results.
Ground 3: Obviousness over Pimentel in view of Pocock-Williams - Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 15-19, and 21 are obvious under §103 over Pimentel in view of Pocock-Williams.
- Prior Art Relied Upon: Pimentel (Ken Pimentel and Kevin Teixeira, Virtual Reality: Through the New Looking Glass (1993)) and Pocock-Williams.
- Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Pimentel, a book describing the state of VR technology in 1993, discloses the use of music to control a VR system. For example, Pimentel describes a user "playing an electronic flute to select particular industry segments" in a 3-D stock market visualization. This teaches processing a music signal to generate control signals for a VR system. However, Pimentel does not explicitly teach prerecording a control track. Petitioner argued that Pocock-Williams supplies this missing element by teaching the specific method of analyzing music to create a prerecorded animation file ("GenAni file") that controls computer graphics.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement the music-controlled VR system suggested by Pimentel would combine its teachings with the specific, known method for generating control tracks from music disclosed in Pocock-Williams. Both references are in the field of computer graphics, and Pocock-Williams provides a known technique to achieve the goal described in Pimentel.
- Expectation of Success: Combining Pimentel’s VR system with Pocock-Williams's method for creating music-derived control tracks would predictably result in a VR environment controlled by a prerecorded audio track, achieving the claimed invention.
4. Key Claim Construction Positions
- "Control Track" / "Prerecorded Control Track": Petitioner proposed these terms be construed according to their plain meaning in light of the specification as a "series of information or data that controls operation of an apparatus or system," with "prerecorded" meaning generated and recorded in advance. This construction is broad enough to encompass the "control tones" of Fallacaro and the "GenAni file" of Pocock-Williams.
- "Virtual Environment" / "Virtual Reality Computer System": Petitioner argued these terms should be construed to include computer-simulated environments intended to be immersive, including those on a standard flat-screen display, and that a "VR computer system" can include video games. This construction was based on the patent specification and the Patent Owner's infringement contentions in related litigation, and it allows prior art like Fallacaro (describing video games on a monitor) to meet these limitations.
5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 5-6, 8-13, 15-19, and 21-23 of the ’129 patent as unpatentable.