PTAB

IPR2015-01269

Bungie Inc v. Worlds Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space
  • Brief Description: The ’558 patent discloses a client-server system for multi-user virtual environments. The system aims to reduce network traffic by having a server filter avatar positional data, sending each client a subset of data for only some of the other users ("less than all"), which the client then processes to determine which avatars to display.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 4, 6, 8, and 9 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Funkhouser.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Funkhouser ("RING: A Client-Server System for Multi-User Virtual Environments," a 1995 symposium article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Funkhouser described a client-server architecture for a shared 3D virtual environment that disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. Specifically, Funkhouser taught that to reduce the number of required messages, the server performs "server-based message culling" by sending avatar update information "only to workstations with entities that can potentially perceive the change." This server-side filtering, based on precomputed line-of-sight visibility, taught the key limitation of providing a client with positional data for less than all other users. Funkhouser further disclosed that upon receiving this filtered data, the client workstation processes the messages and determines which avatars should be displayed from its specific point of view.
    • Key Aspects: This ground directly challenged the feature of server-side filtering, which Petitioner asserted was the primary basis for the patent's allowance during prosecution.

Ground 2: Claims 5 and 7 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Funkhouser in view of Funkhouser '93.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Funkhouser (the 1995 article) and Funkhouser '93 ("Adaptive Display Algorithm for Interactive Frame Rates During Visualization of Complex Virtual Environments," a 1993 article by the same author).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Dependent claims 5 and 7 add limitations to the "determining" step, requiring the client to determine an "actual number" of avatars from the received data, determine a "maximum number" to be displayed, and compare the two. Petitioner contended Funkhouser disclosed determining the "actual number" by counting the received update messages. Funkhouser '93 taught an "optimization algorithm" to maintain a target frame rate by adaptively adjusting image quality, which included omitting objects from the display entirely (e.g., "omission of books on bookshelves") if they exceeded performance capabilities. This taught the concept of determining and applying a "maximum number" of objects to render.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings because both references addressed the problem of performance optimization in virtual environments. Funkhouser '93 provided a known client-side technique (object culling) to improve a system like that in Funkhouser, particularly for low-cost workstations. Petitioner noted that Funkhouser expressly contemplated extensions for applying different processing based on an entity's "perceptible importance," aligning with the cost/benefit analysis in Funkhouser '93.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because combining the references involved applying a known optimization technique to a similar system to achieve the predictable result of improved client-side rendering performance.

Ground 3: Claims 4, 6, 8, and 9 are anticipated under § 102 by Durward.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Durward (Patent 5,659,691).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Durward, like Funkhouser, disclosed a client-server virtual reality system with the key claimed features. Durward's server (a "central control unit") provided selective data distribution by assigning each user a "visual relevant space," which determined which state changes (i.e., position updates) were communicated to them. This selective communication taught the "less than all" limitation. Durward further disclosed that after receiving this server-filtered data, the client would determine which avatars to display by identifying which ones fell within the user's narrower "field of vision."
    • Key Aspects: Durward provided an independent, earlier-filed prior art patent that corroborated the teachings of Funkhouser and allegedly disclosed all limitations of the independent claims.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 5 and 7 over Durward in view of Schneider (Patent 5,777,621), which taught a graphics rendering system that could improve performance by "culling objects from the scene before rendering," relying on a similar design modification theory as Ground 2.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "avatar": Petitioner argued the term should be construed as "a graphical representation of a user," consistent with its use in the specification and its common meaning in the art.
  • "determining": For the step of "determining from the positions received... avatars that are to be displayed," Petitioner argued this included the client-side process of selecting which avatars to render from the server-filtered set. This could be based on whether an avatar is within the user's field of view or, as in dependent claims 5 and 7, on "crowd control" logic that limits the number of avatars displayed based on performance constraints.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 4-9 of the ’558 patent as unpatentable.