Court Opinion

ID: 9890502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 14:00:45.759088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:20.147551
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2118   Document: 31     Page: 1    Filed: 10/13/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

    SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC,
                  Appellant

                            v.

         INTELLECTUAL PIXELS LIMITED,
                     Appellee
              ______________________

                       2022-2118
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-
 00237.
                  ______________________

                Decided: October 13, 2023
                 ______________________

     JAMES MURPHY DOWD, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
 and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also
 represented by HENRY NIKOGOSYAN; MARK DONNELL
 FLANAGAN, JOSEPH F. HAAG, Palo Alto, CA.

     DOUGLAS R. WILSON, Armond Wilson LLP, Austin, TX,
 argued for appellee. Also represented by MICHELLE
 ARMOND, JOSEPHER LI, PATRICK MALONEY, Newport Beach,
 CA.
                ______________________
Case: 22-2118     Document: 31     Page: 2    Filed: 10/13/2023

 2                   SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC v.
                               INTELLECTUAL PIXELS LIMITED

     Before DYK, PROST, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 DYK, Circuit Judge.
     Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC (“Sony”) appeals
 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) final
 written decision declining to find claims of U.S. Patent No.
 10,681,109 (“the ’109 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. We
 vacate and remand.
                        BACKGROUND
      Intellectual Pixels Limited (“IPL”) owns the ’109 pa-
 tent, entitled “Image Display System with Visual Server,”
 which concerns “an image display system and method of
 displaying images on a client through the use of the re-
 sources of a remote visual server.” ’109 patent, col. 3, ll.
 41–43. Each client generates image-modifying data and
 transmits that data to the visual server. “[T]he server se-
 lectively receives image-modifying data from one or more
 clients corresponding to a generated image, and the server
 generates a modified image based on the image-modifying
 data, and then transmits the modified image as com-
 pressed data back to the client.” ’109 patent, col. 3, ll. 52–
 57. The client is capable of uncompressing the data and
 displaying the new image.
     Independent claim 1 of the ’109 patent is representa-
 tive:
     1. A method of hosting an interactive software ap-
     plication comprising:
         running at a server the interactive soft-
         ware application;
         receiving at the server user input signals
         from a client device, wherein the user input
         signals are used to control updating of the
         state of the interactive software applica-
         tion;
Case: 22-2118     Document: 31     Page: 3    Filed: 10/13/2023

 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC v.                       3
 INTELLECTUAL PIXELS LIMITED

         generating at least one updated image at
         the server in response to updating the state
         of the interactive software application; and
         compressing the at least one updated im-
         age and transmitting the compressed up-
         dated image to the client device, wherein
         the server transmits the updated image as
         a compressed frame that can be decom-
         pressed and displayed as an updated image
         at the client device.
 ’109 patent, col. 9, l. 55–col. 10, l. 2 (emphasis added). In-
 dependent claim 8 recites the same “generating” limitation.
     On December 4, 2020, Sony filed a petition for inter
 partes review with the Board, challenging claims 1–18 of
 the ’109 patent. In its preliminary response, IPL dis-
 claimed claims 13–18. Sony argued that claims 1–12 were
 obvious over several different combinations of prior art ref-
 erences. As to each combination, Sony argued that U.S.
 Patent No. 6,409,602 (“Wiltshire”) disclosed the “generat-
 ing” limitation. The Board instituted review on claims 1–
 12 in IPR2021-00237.
     In its final written decision, the Board ruled that “gen-
 erating an updated image, as claimed, requires creation of
 a new image in response to updating the state of the inter-
 active software application.” Sony Interactive Ent. LLC v.
 Intell. Pixels Ltd., No. IPR2021-00237, 2022 WL 2124910,
 at *8 (P.T.A.B. June 8, 2022) (“’109 Patent Decision”). The
 Board found that “modifying what is displayed on the client
 device merely by selecting a pre-existing image does not
 meet the ‘generating’ limitation.” Id. The Board deter-
 mined that Wiltshire only disclosed selecting an already
 available image to display on the client, rather than creat-
 ing a new image. Because all of Sony’s prior art combina-
 tions relied on Wiltshire to disclose the “generating”
 limitation, the Board concluded that claims 1–12 were not
 shown to have been obvious.
Case: 22-2118    Document: 31      Page: 4    Filed: 10/13/2023

 4                   SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC v.
                               INTELLECTUAL PIXELS LIMITED

     Sony appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                         DISCUSSION
      “In reviewing the Board’s determination on the ques-
 tion of obviousness, we review the Board’s legal conclusions
 de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.”
 Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Baxter Corp. Englewood, 998
 F.3d 1337, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks,
 citation, and alterations omitted). “What a reference
 teaches and the differences between the claimed invention
 and the prior art are questions of fact which we review for
 substantial evidence.” In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793
 F.3d 1268, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
     The sole issue on appeal is whether the Board properly
 determined that Wiltshire does not teach the “generating”
 limitation. The Board determined “that generating an up-
 dated image, as claimed, requires creation of a new image
 in response to updating the state of the interactive soft-
 ware application.” ’109 Patent Decision, 2022 WL 2124910,
 at *8. The Board further clarified “modifying what is dis-
 played on the client device merely by selecting a pre-exist-
 ing image does not meet the ‘generating’ limitation.” Id.
 For purposes of deciding this case, we assume the Board’s
 construction of the “generating” limitation is correct but
 conclude there is not substantial evidence to support the
 Board’s determination that Wiltshire does not disclose the
 “generating” limitation under the Board’s construction.
     Wiltshire teaches a system that “execut[es] gaming
 programs on a server/host computer” played on client ter-
 minals. Wiltshire, J.A. 1320, at abstract. Wiltshire defines
 “games” and “gaming” to “include all types of electronic,
 electromechanical or mechanical gambling and casino
 game facsimiles . . . video based games such as Doom,
 Pong, Packman, Myst; [and] video games based on sports,”
 among other types of games. Wiltshire, J.A. 1340, col. 1, ll.
 26–44. The parties agree that executing Doom requires
Case: 22-2118     Document: 31      Page: 5     Filed: 10/13/2023

 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC v.                         5
 INTELLECTUAL PIXELS LIMITED

 generating new images. See ’109 Patent Decision, 2022 WL
 2124910, at *10 (noting petitioner’s expert’s testimony that
 using pre-loaded images for Doom would “make no sense”);
 Oral Argument at 33:30–33:40 (IPL conceding that Doom
 requires generating new images).
      In Wiltshire, the system “execute[s] [the] game pro-
 gram on [the] server.” Wiltshire, J.A. 1324; J.A. 1343, col.
 7, ll. 8–9. The system then determines whether to
 “[d]isplay/update image?” Wiltshire, J.A. 1324; Wiltshire,
 J.A. 1343, col. 7, ll. 8–12. “The image is generated by [the]
 game computer program [] and passed to [the] server/host
 interface program . . . .” Wiltshire, J.A. 1343, col. 7, ll. 18–
 19. “In turn, the image is transferred over communication
 pathways [] to [the] client/terminal computer [] via the net-
 work services provided by [the] server operating system [].”
 Id. at col. 7, ll. 20–22. The “[c]lient/terminal program []
 then causes the image to be displayed on a screen of cli-
 ent/terminal computer.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 25–27. If the client
 sends back input commands, the process repeats itself and
 the system will update the image on the screen. Figure 2
 of Wiltshire is a flow diagram illustrating this process.
      The Board interpreted Wiltshire’s Figure 2 to just state
 “display/update image?” without “explain[ing] what ‘dis-
 play/update image?’ means.” ’109 Patent Decision, 2022
 WL 2124910, at *8. The Board, therefore, determined that
 Wiltshire’s Figure 2 only disclosed asking the question of
 updating the image and not how the image was to be mod-
 ified. The Board erred in reaching this conclusion by ignor-
 ing a portion of the specification which explains that if the
 answer is yes, “[t]he image is generated by game computer
 program 112,” i.e., a program on the server. Wiltshire, J.A.
 1343, col. 7, ll. 18–19 (emphasis added).
     There is nothing in Wiltshire that suggests that the
 term “generated” has a different meaning than the term
 “generating” in the ’109 Patent. To the contrary, Figure 2,
 and the text in Wiltshire describing it, J.A. 1343, col. 7, ll.
Case: 22-2118    Document: 31      Page: 6    Filed: 10/13/2023

 6                   SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC v.
                               INTELLECTUAL PIXELS LIMITED

 7–45, and descriptions of other embodiments in Wiltshire,
 J.A. 1343, col. 8, ll. 2–7 (disclosing in some embodiments
 only parts of an image are updated or modified), demon-
 strate that Wiltshire discloses generation of a new image,
 contrary to the Board’s conclusions.
     The Board, however, concluded the expert testimony of
 Dr. Hart, the patent owner’s expert, supported its conclu-
 sion that Wiltshire does not disclose creating a new image.
 As the Board noted, Dr. Hart testified “that a person of or-
 dinary skill in the art would have understood Wiltshire’s
 disclosure ‘that the “image [] generated by the game com-
 puter program” could include the contents of a pre-existing
 compressed image file,’ rather than requiring the image be
 updated.” ’109 Patent Decision, 2022 WL 2124910, at *10
 (emphasis added).
     The Board’s conclusions based on Dr. Hart’s testimony
 that Wiltshire does not disclose generating a new image
 are incorrect. The record shows Dr. Hart merely testified
 that the updating or modifying images could be through se-
 lecting pre-existing images, but he said nothing about
 whether Wiltshire also discloses the creation of new im-
 ages. Nowhere did Dr. Hart testify that Wiltshire does not
 disclose “generating images” under the Board’s construc-
 tion. Dr. Hart’s testimony does not support the Board’s
 finding that Wiltshire only discloses selecting pre-existing
 images.
     Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Fuchs, testified that “Wiltshire
 discloses that the decision to ‘update’ or ‘modify’ an image
 at the server is in response to the updated game state run-
 ning on the server, meaning that the server will, at times,
 update or modify the image in response to the updated game
 state. . . .” Id. at *9 (emphasis in original). The Board re-
 jected Dr. Fuchs’ testimony because it found Wiltshire’s
 disclosure did “not support that ‘updating’ or ‘modifying’
 the image displayed on the client necessarily requires gen-
 erating an updated image in response to the updated game
Case: 22-2118     Document: 31      Page: 7    Filed: 10/13/2023

 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC v.                        7
 INTELLECTUAL PIXELS LIMITED

 state instead of simply selecting a pre-existing image to
 display.” Id. (first emphasis added). But the Board made
 the same mistake with respect to Dr. Fuchs’ testimony as
 it did with respect to Dr. Hart’s. The Board’s claim con-
 struction does not require Wiltshire to disclose that images
 must be generated only through creating a new image; it
 requires the ability to generate new images in some in-
 stances. The Board’s construction would not exclude a sys-
 tem that both generates images by creating new images
 and pre-selecting existing images. That Wiltshire discloses
 that selecting pre-existing images can be used as a method
 of generating images in some instances does not mean that
 Wiltshire does not also disclose creating a new image as
 another way of generating images. Dr. Fuchs’ testimony
 that Wiltshire discloses the “generating” limitation under
 the Board’s construction is uncontradicted.
     The Board similarly erred by focusing on embodiments
 in Wiltshire where images are pre-loaded. The existence of
 those examples does not exclude other examples where new
 images are created. Although both parties agree the game
 Doom requires creating new images, the Board determined
 that listing Doom in the specification was not a sufficient
 disclosure because “Wiltshire does not teach using the op-
 eration disclosed in Figure 2 with Doom” and it found
 “nothing in Wiltshire to suggest that a person of ordinary
 skill in the art would have understood that Wiltshire’s sys-
 tem could possibly have supported that game in the man-
 ner.” Id. at *10; see id. at *11 (“Wiltshire’s disclosure only
 provides details as to how its system is used to implement
 casino games . . . .”). The Board understood the signifi-
 cance of Doom to be just one game in a “lengthy list of
 games that Wiltshire states as included in the definition of
 the term ‘game’ or ‘gaming.’” Id. at *10.
     The Board erred in its interpretation of Wiltshire as
 Wiltshire specifically recites “[t]he terms ‘game’ and ‘gam-
 ing,’ as used herein, include all types of electronic, electro-
 mechanical or mechanical gambling and casino game
Case: 22-2118      Document: 31      Page: 8     Filed: 10/13/2023

 8                    SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC v.
                                INTELLECTUAL PIXELS LIMITED

 facsimiles . . . video based games such as Doom, Pong,
 Packman, Myst; [and] video games based on sports . . . .”
 Wiltshire, J.A. 1340, col. 1, ll. 26–44. The use of the phrase
 “as used herein” signals that this sentence is definitional.
 See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
 22 F.4th 1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (finding lexicography
 by use of the phrase “referred to herein”); Abbott Lab’ys v.
 Andrx Pharms., Inc., 473 F.3d 1196, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
 (finding the patent “unambiguously provides definitions of
 other claim terms” by using the phrase “as used herein”).
 The terms “computer gaming program” or “computer gam-
 ing system,” covers Doom, and Wiltshire recites that “FIG.
 2 is a flow diagram of operation 200 of computer gaming
 system 100,” Wiltshire, J.A. 1343, col. 7, ll. 7–8 (emphasis
 added). Therefore, as discussed earlier, Wiltshire explicitly
 discloses that Figure 2 is to be applied to games like Doom.
      The Board’s exclusion of Doom seems to have been
 based on finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art
 would not be enabled to practice Wiltshire with a game like
 Doom. ’109 Patent Decision, 2022 WL 2124910, at *10
 (“[W]e find nothing in Wiltshire to suggest that a person of
 ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Wilt-
 shire's system could possibly have supported that game in
 the manner proposed by [p]etitioner.”). But that does not
 mean that Wiltshire does not disclose applying the system
 of Wiltshire to a game like Doom. See Raytheon Techs.
 Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 993 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
 (“In general, a prior art reference asserted under [35
 U.S.C.] § 103 does not necessarily have to enable its own
 disclosure, i.e., be ‘self-enabling,’ to be relevant to the obvi-
 ousness inquiry.”); Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB
 Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Even
 if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art
 for all that it teaches.”). The Board erred when it narrowed
 the disclosure of Wiltshire to exclude Doom and only fo-
 cused on the more detailed examples. See CRFD Rsch., Inc.
 v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“A reference
Case: 22-2118     Document: 31     Page: 9   Filed: 10/13/2023

 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC v.                     9
 INTELLECTUAL PIXELS LIMITED

 must be considered for everything that it teaches, not
 simply the described invention or a preferred embodi-
 ment.” (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d
 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012))). Therefore, the Board erred
 by not crediting Wiltshire’s disclosure of applying its sys-
 tem to video games like Doom, which require “generating”
 new images under the Board’s construction.
                        CONCLUSION
     The Board’s determination that Wiltshire does not dis-
 close the “generating” limitation under the Board’s con-
 struction is not supported by substantial evidence. We
 need not reach the issues of whether the Board’s construc-
 tion is correct or whether the Board committed an Admin-
 istrative Procedure Act violation here in adopting a new
 claim construction without providing an opportunity to re-
 spond.
     Because the Board’s finding was not supported by sub-
 stantial evidence and was central to its non-obviousness
 determination, we vacate the Board’s final written deci-
 sion, and remand for further proceedings consistent with
 this opinion.
                VACATED AND REMANDED
                           COSTS
 Costs to Appellant.