`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: December 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NANT HOLDINGS IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2021-01080
`Patent 8,463,030 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01080
`Patent 8,463,030 B2
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`In our Institution Decision (Paper 14), we adopted the district court’s
`
`construction for the “recognize” limitation appearing in all challenged
`claims. Id. at 10. Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we
`construed the “recognize” limitation in the challenged claims of the
`’030 patent as “recognize the object as a target object based on the acquired
`data by comparing the acquired data to image data of objects stored in a
`database.” Id.
`
`Recently, we were advised that the district court has granted
`Petitioner’s request and entered an order clarifying the construction of the
`term “recognize.” With our authorization, Petitioner submitted that order as
`Exhibit 1042.
`
`The district court’s order revises the construction for the
`“recognizing” claim terms in the ’030 patent to include the phrase “to find a
`match” at the end of the construction. Id. at 2.1 Thus, the district court
`construes the term “recognize the object as a target object based on the
`acquired data” in the claims of the ’030 patent as “recognize the object as a
`target object based on the acquired data by comparing the acquired data to
`image data of objects stored in a data base to find a match.” Id. We agree
`with the district court’s clarification and therefore conclude that the
`recognize limitation should be given the same construction as that
`determined by the district court.
`
`
`In our analysis of the cited references in our Institution Decision, we
`applied the construction for “recognize” originally adopted by the district
`
`
`1 Citations to this exhibit refer to page numbers assigned by Petitioner.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01080
`Patent 8,463,030 B2
`
`court. Paper 14, 22. However, in describing the Bolle reference, we
`observed that “Bolle further describes comparison/matching of the target
`characterization to the reference characterizations that is performed
`according to one or more matching algorithms, such as a nearest neighbor
`classification.” Id. at 15. And in addressing Patent Owner’s argument that
`Ogasawara fails to disclose matching, we observed that “[a]s discussed
`supra, Petitioner relies on Bolle for its teachings of object recognition and
`matching stored images in a database.” Id. at 26 (citing Pet. 24 (“Bolle uses
`image segmentation technology in conjunction with object recognition
`techniques and a database that stores image characteristics of reference
`objects to match the object in the captured image with a reference object.”)).
`
`Thus, our analysis in the Institution Decision would be the same under
`the district court’s original or revised constructions of the “recognize”
`limitation.
`
`II. ORDER
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`ORDERED that we hereby adopt the district court’s revised
`construction of “recognize the object as a target object based on the acquired
`data” in the claims of the ’030 patent as “recognize the object as a target
`object based on the acquired data by comparing the acquired data to image
`data of objects stored in a data base to find a match;” and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the analysis of this limitation in our
`Institution Decision (Paper 14) is applicable under either construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01080
`Patent 8,463,030 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Dustin J. Edwards
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`dedwards@winston.com
`mtomasulo@winston.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`James M. Glass
`Todd M. Briggs
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN LLP
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`toddbriggs@quinnemanuel.com
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
