Filed on behalf of: Patent Owner Nant Holdings IP, LLC
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`NIANTIC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NANT HOLDINGS IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case IPR2021 - 01119
`U.S. Patent No. 10,664,518
`_______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER NANT HOLDINGS IP, LLC’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II.
`THE ’518 PATENT ......................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Teachings of the Patent Specification ................................................... 2
`B.
`Patent Claims ......................................................................................... 5
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................... 7
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`V.
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE REJECTED UNDER SECTION
`314(a) BECAUSE THE PETITIONER IS UNLIKELY TO PREVAIL
`WITH RESPECT TO ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM ................................. 10
`A. Ground 1: The Petition Fails to Show the Altman/Langseth
`Combination Renders Obvious All of the Features
`of’518 Patent Claims 1–9, 11–14, 18–20, 23–32, and 34–36 ............. 11
`1.
`Altman and Langseth Fail to Teach or Suggest
`“Augmented Reality (AR)” as in ’518 Patent Claims 1
`and 34 ........................................................................................ 12
`Altman and Langseth Fail to Teach or Suggest
`“Access[ing] an Area Tile Map … Map Represented by a
`Set of Tile Subareas that Includes One or More
`Tessellated Tiles” as in ’518 Patent Claims 1 and 34 ............... 16
`Altman and Langseth Fail to Teach or Suggest
`“Identify[ing] a Tile Subarea” and “One or More
`Tessellated Tiles Within the Identified Tile Subarea are
`Associated with One or More AR content Objects” as in
`’518 Patent Claims 1 and 34 ..................................................... 19
`The Petition Fails to Meet Its Burden of Showing That a
`POSITA Would Have Combined Altman and Langseth .......... 23
`’518 Patent Dependent Claims 2–9, 11–14, 18–20, 23–
`32, 35, and 36 are Valid ............................................................ 28
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Error! Reference source not found.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Ground 2: The Petition Fails to Show the
`Altman/Langseth/Cave-Lie Combination Renders Obvious All
`of the Features of’518 Patent Claims 1–9, 11–14, 18–20, 23–32,
`and 34–36 ............................................................................................ 29
`1.
`Altman, Langseth, and CaveLie Fail to Teach or Suggest
`“Augmented Reality (AR)” as in ’518 Patent Claims 1
`and 34 ........................................................................................ 30
`Altman, Langseth, and CaveLie Fail to Teach or Suggest
`“Access[ing] an Area Tile Map … Map Represented by a
`Set of Tile Subareas that Includes One or More
`Tessellated Tiles” as in ’518 Patent Claims 1 and 34 ............... 31
`Altman, Langseth, and CaveLie Fail to Teach or Suggest
`“Identify[ing] a Tile Subarea” and “One or More
`Tessellated Tiles Within the Identified Tile Subarea are
`Associated with One or More AR content Objects” as in
`’518 Patent Claims 1 and 34 ..................................................... 33
`The Petition Fails to Meet Its Burden of Showing That a
`POSITA Would Have Combined Altman, Langseth, and
`CaveLie ..................................................................................... 35
`’518 Patent Dependent Claims 2–9, 11–14, 18–20, 23–
`32, 35, and 36 are Valid ............................................................ 37
`Ground 3: The Petition Fails to Show the
`Altman/Langseth/CaveLie/Gelfand Combination Disclose or
`Render Obvious All of the Features of ’518 Patent Claims 1–9,
`11–20, 23–32, and 34–36 .................................................................... 38
`D. Ground 4: The Petition Fails to Show Sterkel Discloses or
`Renders Obvious All of the Features of ’518 Patent Claims 1–8,
`11–14, 18–20, 23, 24, 26–32, and 34–36 ............................................ 39
`1.
`Sterkel Fails to Teach or Suggest “Augmented Reality
`(AR)” as in ’518 Patent Claims 1 and 34 .................................. 40
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Error! Reference source not found.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
`
`2.
`
`Page
`
`Sterkel Fails to Teach or Suggest “Obtain[ing] Sensor
`Data From the at Least One Sensor” and “the Sensor
`Data Includes a Device Location” That was “Obtained
`From the Location Sensor” as in ’518 Patent Claims 1
`and 34 ........................................................................................ 42
`Sterkel Fails to Teach or Suggest “Access[ing] an Area
`Tile Map … Map Represented by a Set of Tile Subareas
`that Includes One or More Tessellated Tiles” as in
`’518 Patent Claims 1 and 34 ..................................................... 44
`Sterkel Fails to Teach or Suggest “Identify[ing] a Tile
`Subarea” and “One or More Tessellated Tiles Within the
`Identified Tile Subarea are Associated with One or More
`AR content Objects” as in ’518 Patent Claims 1 and 34 .......... 47
`The Petition Fails to Meet Its Burden to Show Proper
`Motivation to Modify Sterkel ................................................... 49
`’518 Patent Dependent Claims 1–8, 11–14, 18–20, 23,
`24, 26–32, and 34–36 are Valid ................................................ 50
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 50
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 25, 39
`Albany Int’l Corp. v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.,
`PGR2021-00019, Paper 22 (PTAB Jun. 22, 2021) .............................................. 24
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 24, 35
`Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc.,
`967 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 9
`Black & Decker, Inc. v. Positec USA, Inc.,
`646 Fed. App’x. 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (nonprecedential) ............................ 36, 37
`Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedia Ideas LLC,
`IPR2013-00016, Paper 32 (Feb. 25, 2014) ........................................................... 44
`Carnes v. Seaboard Int’l Inc.,
`IPR2019-00133, Paper 10 (May 8, 2019) ............................................................ 25
`Cisco Sys., Inc., v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, 2014 WL 4352301 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) .............................. 43
`Cont'l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ..................................................................... 17, 47
`Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Robert Bosch LLC,
`IPR2016-00035, Paper 23 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2016) .............................................. 36
`Fid. Nat'l Info. Servs., Inc. v. DataTreasury Corp.,
`IPR2014-00489, 2014 WL 4059220 (PTAB Aug. 13, 2014) .............................. 43
`Hughes Network Sys., LLC v. Cal. Inst. of Tech.,
`IPR2015-00061, Paper 18 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2015) ........................................ 18, 47
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Error! Reference source not found.
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORIES (Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Fought,
`941 F.3d 1175 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................................. 9
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 24
`In re NuVasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 23
`Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. Rockwool Int’l A/S,
`680 F. App’x 956 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 18
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 23
`LG Elecs. Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.,
`IPR2016-00986, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2016) ....................................... 13, 41
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 23
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 28
`Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 28
`Sandoz Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.,
`IPR2017-01987, 2018 WL 1230583 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2018) .................................. 9
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 18
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00092, Paper 21 (PTAB May 24, 2013) ............................................... 23
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Error! Reference source not found.
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORIES (Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd. v. Dataquill Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00745, 2020 WL 5592712 (PTAB Sept. 18, 2020) ....................... 13, 41
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................................... 26, 37
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................. 10
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 10
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 10
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................................................................................... 13, 41
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................... 40, 43
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) .......................................................................................... 1, 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ..................................................................................... 40, 43
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(i) ...................................................................................... 43, 44
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ...................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner Nant
`
`
`
`Holdings IP, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “Nant”) 1 submits its Preliminary Response
`
`to Petitioner Niantic, Inc. (“Petitioner”) petition for inter partes review (“Petition,”
`
`Paper 2) challenging claims 1–9, 11–20, 23–32, and 34–36 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,664,5182 (the “’518 Patent”). The Board should deny institution because the
`
`Petition does not prove a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability of any
`
`challenged claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Petition is flawed on the merits and does not call for institution. Each of
`
`the four separate obviousness grounds asserted in the Petition fails. First, the
`
`
`1 The Petition erroneously asserts a lack of clarity about the ’518 Patent’s
`
`ownership based on the recorded assignments. Pet., 3 n.1. These assignments show
`
`(1) inventors McKinnon, Winuk, Siddiqui, and Sudol assigned to Nant Vision,
`
`Inc., (2) inventors Witchey and Song assigned to NantWorks, LLC, (3) inventor
`
`Wiacek assigned to NantMobile, LLC, and (4) Nant Vision, Inc., NantWorks,
`
`LLC, and NantMobile, LLC assigned to the current Patent Owner, Nant Holdings
`
`IP, LLC.
`
`2 Petitioner had also challenged an unrelated patent also owned by Nant
`
`Holdings in Case IPR2021-1133.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`Petition is incomplete. It seeks to challenge various “augmented reality” claims of
`
`the ’518 Patent without construing the term “augmented reality” and by relying
`
`largely on references concerning computer-based mapping unrelated to the
`
`
`
`augmented reality claimed subject matter. Second, a key feature of the challenged
`
`claims is the use of tessellated tiles within identified tile subareas that cover
`
`particular areas of interest and are associated with AR content objects. Yet, none of
`
`the references relied on by the Petition even mentions tessellated tiles and the
`
`Petition relies on icons linked to specific physical locations instead of being
`
`associated with tessellated tiles. Third, even if the Petition’s references did disclose
`
`all of the limitations (and they do not), Petitioner has not shown that a person of
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have combined them to arrive at the particular
`
`claimed inventions of the ’518 Patent. These deficiencies undermine all four
`
`proposed grounds of unpatentability in the Petition. Given these fatal flaws
`
`permeating each ground, the Board should deny institution.
`
`II. THE ’518 PATENT
`
`A. Teachings of the Patent Specification
`
`The ’518 Patent describes methods and devices for providing AR content to
`
`mobile devices and solves the problem of how to map AR objects in a scene with
`
`real-world elements in a manner that is efficient for limited mobile devices. In
`
`particular, the ’518 Patent describes associating virtual AR objects with tessellated
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`tiles, and then placing those AR objects using the tessellated tiles alongside of real-
`
`
`
`world elements in scenes that are viewable on a mobile device.
`
`Figure 5 shows how to make a tessellated area map:
`
`
`
`’518 Patent, 4:11–12.
`
`The AR Management engine 530 has “an initial map 518A, view(s) of
`
`interest 532 (e.g., point of view origin data, field of interest data, etc.), descriptors
`
`associated with view(s) of interest 533, and AR content object(s) 534.” Id., 17:58–
`
`62. Then, the AR Management engine 530 sets up “AR experience clusters A, B, C
`
`and D within the initial map 518A as a function of the set of AR content objects
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`534 and the views of interest 532.” Id., 17:62–67. For example, cluster A is an AR
`
`experience for a first point of view origin having a first field of interest leading to
`
`
`
`view A, and clusters B, C, and D are AR experiences for different fields of interest.
`
`Id., 18:1–20. Based on the AR experience clusters, area tile maps 538 and 538T
`
`(perspective view and top view) are generated. Id., 18:36–38. The area tile maps
`
`shown above have “a plurality of tessellated tiles covering at least some of the area
`
`of interest “ and AR content objects 534. Id., 18:38–42.
`
`Figure 6 shows an area tile map, again based on view of interest clusters.
`
`
`
`Id., 4:13–14.
`
`In this figure, AR content objects are tied to each point of view origin of
`
`views of interest. Id., 19:45–47. “When a user navigating the real world area of
`
`interest gets close enough to a portion represented by Tile A … the user's device
`
`could be auto-populated with the 7 AR content objects bound to view of
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`interest W.” Id., 19:55–60.
`
`Alternatively, the system may be triggered by a user device being located in
`
`an area of interest (instead of views of interest), which causes the user device to
`
`store AR content objects associated with one or more tiles that correspond to the
`
`area of interest. Id., 20:13–16. For example, when the user device is within five
`
`feet of a location corresponding to a tile or an area map, the user device stores
`
`AR content objects associated with that tile. Id., 20:16–19.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Claims
`
`The Petition challenges only claims 1–9, 11–20, 23–32, and 34–36 of
`
`the ’518 Patent. Pet., 4. Claims 1 and 34 are independent claims and are
`
`reproduced below:
`
`Claim 1
`1. A device capable of rendering
`augmented reality (AR), the device
`comprising:
`at least one sensor, including a
`location sensor;
`a display;
`a non-transitory computer readable
`memory storing software instructions;
`and
`at least one processor coupled with the
`non-transitory computer readable
`memory, the at least one sensor, and
`the display; and,
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 34
`34. A method of presenting augmented
`reality (AR) with a computing device,
`the method comprising:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`Claim 1
`upon execution of the software
`instructions, is configurable to:
`obtain sensor data from the at least
`one sensor
`
`wherein the sensor data includes a
`device location obtained from the
`location sensor;
`
`obtain an area of interest via an area
`database based on at least the device
`location within the sensor data;
`access an area tile map of the area of
`interest,
`the area tile map represented by a set
`of tile subareas that includes one or
`more tessellated tiles from a
`tessellated tile map;
`identify a tile subarea from the set of
`tile subareas based at least in part on
`the device location relative to one or
`more locations of tile subareas from
`the set of tile subareas,
`wherein the identified tile subarea
`covers at least a portion of the area of
`interest, and
`wherein one or more tessellated tiles
`within the identified tile subarea are
`associated with one or more
`AR content objects;
`
`Claim 34
`
`
`
`
`
`obtaining sensor data from at least one
`sensor, the at least one sensor including
`a location sensor,
`wherein the sensor data includes a
`device location of the computing
`device obtained from the location
`sensor;
`obtaining an area of interest via an area
`database based on at least the device
`location within the sensor data;
`accessing an area tile map of the area
`of interest,
`the area tile map represented by a set of
`tile subareas that includes one or more
`tessellated tiles from a tessellated tile
`map;
`identifying a tile subarea from the set
`of tile subareas based at least in part on
`the device location relative to one or
`more locations of tile subareas from the
`set of tile subareas,
`wherein the identified tile subarea
`covers at least a portion of the area of
`interest, and
`wherein one or more tessellated tiles
`within the identified tile subarea are
`associated with one or more
`AR content objects;
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`Claim 1
`populate the non-transitory computer
`readable memory with at least one of
`the one or more AR content objects
`associated with the one or more
`tessellated tiles corresponding with the
`identified tile subarea; and
`
`render the at least one of the one or
`more AR content objects that is
`associated with the identified tile
`subarea on the display based on a view
`of interest.
`
`Claim 34
`populating a non-transitory computer
`readable memory of the computing
`device with at least one of the one or
`more AR content objects associated
`with the one or more tessellated tiles
`corresponding with the identified tile
`subarea; and
`rendering the at least one of the one or
`more AR content objects that is
`associated with the identified tile
`subarea on a display of the computing
`device based on a view of interest.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 26:41–27:8, 29:1–29.
`
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`For the purposes of this preliminary response to this Petition only, Patent
`
`Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s statement (Pet., 7) of the proposed level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of a POSITA. Patent Owner reserves the right to dispute
`
`the POSITA level of skill in a more developed record if the Board institutes a
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`For purposes of this preliminary response only, Patent Owner supplies the
`
`
`
`following construction.3
`
`The preamble of claim 1 of the ’518 Patent recites “[a] device capable of
`
`rendering augmented reality (AR).” ’518 Patent, 26:41–42. Similarly, the preamble
`
`of claim 34 recites “[a] method of presenting augmented reality (AR) with a
`
`computing device.” Id., 29:1–2. The Petition does not offer a construction for the
`
`term “augmented reality” in either of these claims. The Board should construe the
`
`phrase “augmented reality” to mean the presentation of virtual objects in a scene
`
`alongside of real-world elements. This construction is compelled by the
`
`specification, which describes the presentation of virtual objects alongside of real-
`
`world elements. See, e.g., ’518 Patent, 7:20–23 (“This can involve overlaying the
`
`content on real-world imagery (preferably in real-time) via the computing device,
`
`such that the user of the computing device sees a combination of the real-world
`
`imagery with the AR content seamlessly.”); 10:35–37 (“A view of interest 132 is a
`
`digital representation of a physical location in real-world space that is to be
`
`enabled with AR content”); 22:15–17; 22:24–27; 24:52–55; 27:30–32. This is also
`
`
`3 For any terms Petitioner purports to construe, Patent Owner reserves the right
`
`to argue alternative and additional constructions here and elsewhere.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`consistent with the plain language of the claim, with “reality” referring to the real
`
`world and “augment” referring to making that real-world scene greater or more
`
`intense. The balance of claims 1 and 34 describes “render[ing] the at least one of
`
`the one or more AR content objects that is associated with the identified tile
`
`
`
`subarea on the display based on a view of interest.” ’518 Patent, 27:6–8, 29:26–29.
`
`Because the preambles in these claims supply antecedent basis for later-
`
`recited claim language (i.e., “AR content objects”), the preambles are limiting. See,
`
`e.g., In re Fought, 941 F.3d 1175, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“preamble limiting when
`
`it serves as antecedent basis for a term appearing in the body of a claim.”) and Bio-
`
`Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc., 967 F.3d 1353, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (claim
`
`body’s reliance on preamble for antecedent basis “is a strong indication that the
`
`preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention” (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted)).
`
`For all other terms, the plain and ordinary meaning of those terms is
`
`sufficient for the Board to analyze Petitioner’s grounds at this preliminary stage.
`
`While Patent Owner notes that construction of other terms in the challenged claims
`
`may be proper if the Board chooses to institute a proceeding, such constructions
`
`are not necessary now. See, e.g., Sandoz Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.,
`
`IPR2017-01987, 2018 WL 1230583, at *5 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2018) (“[B]ecause
`
`neither of those phrases requires construction for us to resolve the instant dispute,
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`we decline to construe them. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (‘only those terms need be construed that are in
`
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’).”).
`
`V. THE PETITION SHOULD BE REJECTED UNDER SECTION 314(a)
`
`BECAUSE THE PETITIONER IS UNLIKELY TO PREVAIL WITH
`
`RESPECT TO ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`Despite the Petition’s use of five references across four obviousness
`
`grounds, the Petition has not carried its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood
`
`that any of the challenged claims is unpatentable. The grounds for challenging the
`
`patentability under Section 103 of the Patent Statutes are:
`
`• Ground 1 asserts obviousness of claims 1–9, 11–14, 18–20, 23–32,
`
`and 34–36 over Altman U.S. Pat. Publ. 2008/0132251 (“Altman,”
`
`Ex. 1003) in view of Langseth U.S. Pat. Publ. 2013/0178257
`
`(“Langseth,” Ex. 1006).
`
`• Ground 2 asserts obviousness of claims 1–9, 11–14, 18–20, 23–32,
`
`and 34–36 over Altman in light of Langseth and CaveLie U.S. Pat.
`
`Publ. 2013/0124563 (“CaveLie,” Ex. 1004).
`
`• Ground 3 asserts obviousness of claims 1–9, 11–20, 23–32, and 34–36
`
`over Altman in light of Langseth, CaveLie, and Gelfand U.S. Pat.
`
`Publ. 2008/0268876 (“Gelfand,” Ex. 1005).
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`
`• Ground 4 asserted single-reference obviousness of claims 1–8, 11–14,
`
`18–20, 23, 24, 26–32, and 34–36 over Sterkel U.S. Pat. No. 8,762,047
`
`(“Sterkel,” Ex. 1007).
`
`Pet., 4.
`
`As discussed below, the Petition has not showed that any of its proposed
`
`combinations teaches every element of the challenged claims. Also, the Petition
`
`does not prove motivations to combine for its alleged combinations to arrive at the
`
`inventions in the challenged claims. Accordingly, the Petition does not meet its
`
`initial burden to show a reasonable likelihood that “at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition is unpatentable” with respect to any of the proposed
`
`grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The Board should deny institution.
`
`A. Ground 1: The Petition Fails to Show the Altman/Langseth
`
`Combination Renders Obvious All of the Features of’518 Patent
`
`Claims 1–9, 11–14, 18–20, 23–32, and 34–36
`
`Neither of the two references relied on by ground 1 (Altman with Langseth)
`
`discloses the ’518 Patent’s inventions when considered individually. The Petition
`
`attempts to cobble together aspects of each reference and urges the Board to
`
`combine Altman with Langseth to remedy deficiencies in Altman’s disclosure.
`
`There are several problems with ground 1.
`
`First, Altman does not disclose “augmented reality” as is ’518 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`claims 1 and 34 and the Petition does not ever construe “augmented reality” or
`
`properly explain why it is proper to combine Altman with Langseth to achieve
`
`
`
`such an augmented reality device or method. Second, neither Altman nor Langseth
`
`discloses the use of tessellated tiles and the proposed combination cannot disclose
`
`or render obvious “access[ing] an area tile map of the area of interest, the area tile
`
`map represented by a set of tile subareas that includes one or more tessellated tiles
`
`from a tessellated tile map” as in ’518 Patent claims 1 and 34. Third, the
`
`Altman/Langseth combination does not disclose or render obvious “identify[ing] a
`
`tile subarea from the set of tile subareas” that “covers at least a portion of the area
`
`of interest” and “one or more tessellated tiles within the identified tile subarea are
`
`associated with one or more AR content objects” as in ’518 Patent claims 1 and 34.
`
`The Board should therefore determine that the Petition fails to show a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to any of the claims challenged
`
`in ground 1.
`
`1.
`
`Altman and Langseth Fail to Teach or Suggest “Augmented
`
`Reality (AR)” as in ’518 Patent Claims 1 and 34
`
`The Petition has not demonstrated how Altman or Langseth teach or suggest
`
`the preambles of ’518 Patent claims 1 and 34, which require “augmented reality”
`
`devices or methods. The Petition does not construe the term “augmented reality”
`
`and Petitioner’s Zyda declaration states that augmented reality has “no single
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`accepted definition.” Zyda, ¶28. Under these circumstances, it was incumbent on
`
`Petitioner to offer a construction in the Petition for “augmented reality” in the
`
`context of the ’518 Patent, especially because the phrase “augmented reality” does
`
`not appear in Altman. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (petition must set forth “[h]ow
`
`the challenged claim is to be construed.”); and LG Elecs. Inc. v. Core Wireless
`
`Licensing S.A.R.L., IPR2016-00986, Paper 12 at 12 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2016)
`
`(“Whatever is Patent Owner’s proposed construction elsewhere, Petitioner is
`
`responsible to assert in its own petitions before the Board … the claim construction
`
`that it desires and urges the Board to adopt.”). This failure alone is grounds for the
`
`Board to reject the proposed grounds of unpatentability. See, e.g., TCL Commc’n
`
`Tech. Holdings Ltd. v. Dataquill Ltd., IPR2020-00745, 2020 WL 5592712, at *6–
`
`*7 (PTAB Sept. 18, 2020).
`
`As discussed in Section IV (above), the phrase “augmented reality” in the
`
`context of the ’518 Patent means the presentation of virtual objects in a scene
`
`alongside of real-world elements.
`
`The Petition simply has not demonstrated how the Altman/Langseth
`
`combination teaches or suggests the “augmented reality” devices or methods
`
`required by ’518 Patent claims 1 and 34. In terms of mapping Altman to these
`
`portions of ’518 Patent claims 1 and 34, the Petition cites to only the Abstract and
`
`paragraph 0108. Pet., 11–12. Altman’s Abstract describes “a location sharing
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`network manager process” that “determines the geographic location of a mobile
`
`communication device …, displays a map representation of the area around the
`
`mobile communication device on a graphical user interface of the mobile
`
`communication device, and superimposes on the map the respective locations of
`
`one or more other trusted users of mobile communication devices” as well as
`
`“user-generated content” that is “automatically tagged with location information.”
`
`Paragraph 0108 relates to Figure 14B (reproduced below) and describes a map
`
`with superimposed icons showing “the user's location” (circular icon 1407) as well
`
`as “[v]arious places of interest, such as businesses, friend's homes, locations of
`
`journal entries and other user generated content” (specialized icons 1409).
`
`
`This is not augmented reality. The depicted map is not a real-world scene.
`
`There are no real-world elements shown.
`
`The Petition cannot properly rely on Langseth to supply this missing
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01119 (USP 10,664,518)
`
`Nant Holding IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`element. The Petition says Langseth discloses “virtual objects ‘may include any
`
`text, pictures, graphics, audio, video, icons, games….” Pet., 17 (citing Langseth
`
`¶¶0001, 0008). Putting these objects on a map does not create an augmented
`
`reality. For example, the depicted map still is not a scene but merely a map. There
`
`are no real-world elements. Langseth is merely annotating a map; not creating an
`
`augmented reality enhanced scene with the real-world elements alongside of AR
`
`objects.
`
`While the Petition points to additional disclosures in Langseth relating to a
`
`“’live view,’ over a ‘physical reality image’ from a mobile device’s camera,”
`
`(Pet., 19, citing Langseth, ¶¶0011–12, 0032, 0035–37, 0043–44, Fig. 4B), the
`
`Petition fails to put forward a proper reason or motivation to modify Altman (the
`
`primary reference) to include that feature as discussed in Section V.A.4 (below).
`
`Accordingly, the Petition has failed to carry its burden of showing how the
`
`Altman and Langseth combination discloses or renders obvious “