Case 1:11-cv-00586-RGA-CJB Document 314 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 5354

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Impulse Technology Ltd.,

Plaintiff;

v.
Microsoft Corporation, et al.,

Civil Action No. 11-586-RGA

Defendants.

ORDER

The Court, having considered the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding claim construction (D.I. 300), as well as Defendants' objections (D.I. 303), and Plaintiff's response (D.I. 305), hereby adopts the Report's constructions with the following clarifications:
I. "overall physical location"

The Report's recommended construction for the term "overall physical location" is "the location of the player's body as a whole, which may be the location of some part of the player's body, but may not be a location on a player's extremity." The Court agrees with this construction. To the extent that the Report implied that there may be simultaneously more than one "overall physical location" per player, the Court disagrees. The very use of the term "overall" requires a single point. Indeed, the specification describes the overall position of the player as "the position ofthe player's body as a whole." ('565 patent at 8:48-52, emphasis added). However, while there can be only one "overall physical location," it does not follow that only one point may be used to determine the overall physical location. The specification goes on to

Case 1:11-cv-00586-RGA-CJB Document 314 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 5355

define the overall physical location as "the position of the player's center of mass, or... the position of some part of the player's body." ('565 patent at 8:48-52). While "center of mass" implies a singular point, body parts do not have a singular position. Furthermore, in the embodiments where tracking is via sound or light waves, the system would necessarily track multiple individual points in reaching a determination ofthe "overall physical location."
II. "positioning the representation of the user" and "moving the representation of the user to reflect movement of the user"

The Report's recommended construction for the term "positioning the representation of the user" is "positioning the representation of the user in a location that relates to the actual location of the user." 1 The Report's recommended construction for the term "moving the representation of the user to reflect movement of the user" is "changing the location of the representation of the user to a location relating to the actual location of the user." The Court agrees with these constructions. The Defendants object that the Court's construction is too broad. (D.I. 303 at 6-7). To the extent that the Report implied that a visualization of the user running around a track is a reflection of the user running in place within the meaning of the claim (D.I. 300 at 33), the Court disagrees. The Report's recommended construction requires "changing the location of the representation ... to a location relating to the actual location." Inasmuch as the construed claims require a change of location, then running in place cannot be reflected by a virtual representation of the user running around a track. Similarly, a virtual representation moving forward in response to the user pushing a joystick would not "reflect movement ofthe user" according to the Report's

While the Report's construction included the term "on the monitor," the inclusion of this term is unnecessary. Neither party disputes the meaning of the term "on the monitor."

Case 1:11-cv-00586-RGA-CJB Document 314 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 5356

proposed claim construction.

Entered this {

9 ~ of September, 2013.

l t I
~

I
f

I I
f
f