`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE 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.
`
`Case No. IPR2021-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,031,278
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS
`1 AND 3–5 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,031,278
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... ii
`Table of Abbreviations and Conventions ................................................................ iv
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................... v
`Exhibit List .............................................................................................................. vii
`I.
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
`II. Requirements for Inter Partes Review .............................................................. 7
`A. Grounds for Standing ..................................................................................... 7
`B.
`Identification of challenge ............................................................................. 8
`III. The ’278 Patent and the State of the Art ............................................................ 9
`A. Overview of the ’278 Patent .......................................................................... 9
`B. November 6, 2000 is the Earliest Effective Filing Date of the ’278 Patent 14
`C. Overview of the Prior Art ............................................................................15
`1. Rhoads is Prior Art ...................................................................................15
`2. Rhoads ......................................................................................................16
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................29
`IV. Claim Construction ..........................................................................................29
`V. Detailed Discussion of the Grounds for Unpatentability .................................30
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 3–5 Are Anticipated by Rhoads ...........................30
`1. Claim 1 .....................................................................................................30
`a. Preamble: “A computer-assisted method, comprising:” .......................30
`b. “receiving, via a mobile device, an image comprising a representation
`of at least a portion of a document;” ............................................................31
`c. “determining that symbolic content is on the at least the portion of the
`document based on the image;” ...................................................................32
`d. “extracting symbol information based on the symbolic content
`according to symbol type;” ..........................................................................33
`e. “determining a validity of the document based at least in part on the
`image and the symbol information; and” .....................................................34
`f.
`“recognizing the document as a first target object based at least in part
`on the image, the symbol information, and a query of a database storing
`target object information associated with a plurality of target objects
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`including the first target object;” .................................................................36
`g. “receiving, via an address, first target object information associated
`with the first target object, wherein the first target object information
`comprises a response regarding the validity of the document.” ..................40
`2. Claims 3 and 4 ..........................................................................................44
`3. Claim 5 .....................................................................................................46
`B. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................52
`VI. The NHK/Fintiv Factors Strongly Favor Institution ........................................52
`A. Factor 4 ........................................................................................................53
`B. Factors 2 and 3 .............................................................................................55
`C. Factor 1 ........................................................................................................56
`D. Factor 5 ........................................................................................................57
`E. Factor 6 ........................................................................................................57
`VII. Mandatory Notices ...........................................................................................59
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest .................................................................................59
`B. Related Proceedings .....................................................................................59
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel ...........................................................................60
`D. Electronic Service ........................................................................................61
`VIII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................61
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
`
`Bank of America
`or Petitioner
`Board
`Bolle
`
`IPR
`NantWorks or
`Patent Owner
`Ogasawara
`
`POSITA
`
`Rhoads
`
`Bank of America. N.A.
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Ex. 1006: U.S. Patent No. 5,546,475, entitled “Produce
`Recognition System” to Rudolf M. Bolle, et al.
`inter partes review
`Nant Holdings IP, LLC
`
`Ex. 1005: U.S. Patent No. 6,512,919, entitled “Electronic
`Shopping System Utilizing a Program Downloadable
`Wireless Videophone” to Nobuo Ogasawara
`person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`Ex. 1022: U.S. Patent No. 6,947,571, entitled “Cell Phones
`With Optical Capabilities, and Related Applications” to
`Geoffrey B. Rhoads, et al.
`
`the ’260 patent
`
`Ex. 1032: U.S. Patent No. 5,862,260, entitled “Methods for
`Surveying Dissemination of Proprietary Empirical Data” to
`Geoffrey B. Rhoads
`
`the ’278 patent
`USPTO or
`Office
`
`
`xx:yy–zz
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001: U.S. Patent No. 9,031,278
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`
`column xx, lines yy to zz
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ancora Technologies, Inc v. TCT Mobile (US), Inc.,
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW(ADSx), Doc. 65, 6 (C.D. Cal. Nov.
`12, 2020) ....................................................................................................... 56, 57
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ..................................passim
`Apple, Inc. v. SEVEN Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 15, 2020) ............................. 54, 58, 59
`BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW(KSx), Doc. 652 (C.D. Cal. Feb 13,
`2020) ................................................................................................................... 57
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 15, 47
`Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`946 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 39
`Google LLC v. Pers. Audio, LLC,
`743 F. App’x 978 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... 38
`Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Rsch. in Motion Ltd.,
`764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 39
`Nantworks, LLC and Nant Holdings IP, LLC v. Bank of America
`Corporation and Bank of America, N.A.,
`2-20-cv-07872 (C.D. Cal.) ............................................................................ 59, 60
`Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) .......................... 39
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking
`LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) ................................... 53, 54
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Sotera Wireless, Inc., v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020–01019, Paper 12, 17 (P.T.A.B Dec. 1, 2020) ............................... 55, 56
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................ 8, 15, 30, 54
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................. 8, 15, 54
`35 U.S.C. §315(a)(1) .................................................................................................. 7
`35 U.S.C. §315(b) ...................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) .................................................................................................. 7
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §42.15 ........................................................................................................ 7
`37 C.F.R. §42.22 ........................................................................................................ 8
`37 C.F.R. §42.73(d)(1) ............................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. §42.101 ...................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. §42.102 ...................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. §42.104 ...................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) .................................................................................................. 7
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) ................................................................................................. 8
`37 C.F.R. §42.105 ...................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. §42.106 ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST1
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,031,278, entitled “Image Capture and Identification
`System and Process” to Wayne C. Boncyk, et al.
`
`1002
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 9,031,278
`
`1003 Declaration of Jeffrey Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`
`1004 Curriculum vitae of Jeffrey Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,512,919, entitled “Electronic Shopping System
`Utilizing a Program Downloadable Wireless Videophone” to Nobuo
`Ogasawara
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,546,475, entitled “Produce Recognition System” to
`Rudolf M. Bolle, et al.
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`L. O’Gorman and R. Kasturi, Document Image Analysis, IEEE Computer
`Society Executive Briefing (IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997)
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/246,295
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, NantWorks, LLC
`and Nant Holdings IP, LLC v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of
`
`
`1 Citation convention: Where an exhibit contains original page numbering that
`
`uniquely identifies each page in the exhibit, this Petition uses the original page
`
`numbers to refer to the pages in the exhibit; where an exhibit contains original page
`
`numbering that does not clearly and uniquely identify each page in the exhibit (such
`
`as in the ʼ278 patent’s file history (Ex. 1002)), or does not contain any page
`
`numbering, the unique page numbering added to the bottom of the exhibit will be
`
`used.
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`1010
`
`1011
`
`America, N.A., 2:20-CV-7872-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2021), ECF
`No. 103
`
`Plaintiffs NantWorks, LLC and Nant Holdings IP, LLC Preliminary
`Infringement Contentions, NantWorks, LLC and Nant Holdings IP, LLC
`v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A., 2:20-CV-
`7872-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal. March 4, 2021)
`
`Stipulation Regarding Asserted Prior Art, NantWorks, LLC and Nant
`Holdings IP, LLC v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America,
`N.A., 2:20-CV-7872-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal. August 21, 2021), ECF No.
`112
`
`1012 Defendants’ Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, NantWorks, LLC and
`Nant Holdings IP, LLC v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of
`America, N.A., 2:20-CV-7872-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal. April 8, 2021)
`
`1013 Complaint For Patent Infringement, NantWorks, LLC and Nant Holdings
`IP, LLC v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A.,
`2:20-CV-7872-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal. August 27, 2020), ECF No. 1
`
`1014
`
`First Amended Complaint For Patent Infringement, NantWorks, LLC and
`Nant Holdings IP, LLC v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of
`America, N.A., 2:20-CV-7872-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2020), ECF
`No. 40
`
`1015 Defendants Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A.’s
`Answer to First Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, and
`Counterclaims, NantWorks, LLC and Nant Holdings IP, LLC v. Bank of
`America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A., 2:20-CV-7872-GW-
`PVC (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2021), ECF No. 99
`
`1016 Civil Minutes (Scheduling Order), NantWorks, LLC and Nant Holdings
`IP, LLC v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A.,
`2:20-CV-7872-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2021), ECF No. 91
`
`1017
`
`Plaintiffs NantWorks, LLC and Nant Holdings IP, LLC Preliminary
`Election of Asserted Claims, NantWorks, LLC and Nant Holdings IP,
`LLC v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A., 2:20-
`CV-7872-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2021)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`1018 Defendants’ Preliminary Election of Asserted Prior Art, NantWorks, LLC
`and Nant Holdings IP, LLC v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of
`America, N.A., 2:20-CV-7872-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal. May 27, 2021)
`
`1019 Declaration of Silvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D. and accompanying Attachments
`1a–1f and 2
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc v. TCT Mobile (US), Inc., et al., Case No. 8:19-
`cv-02192-GW(ADSx), ECF No. 65 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020)
`
`BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-
`GW(KSx), ECF No. 652 (C.D. Cal. Feb 13, 2020)
`
`1022 U.S. Patent No. 6,947,571, entitled “Cell Phones With Optical
`Capabilities, and Related Applications” to Geoffrey B. Rhoads, et al.
`
`1023 Agreement of the Parties Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§42.6(e) and 42.105(b)
`for Electronic Service of Petition
`
`1024 Reserved
`
`1025
`
`Plaintiffs Nantworks, LLC, and Nant Holdings IP, LLC, Opening Claim
`Construction Brief, NantWorks, LLC and Nant Holdings IP, LLC v. Bank
`of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A., 2:20-CV-7872-GW-
`PVC (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2021), ECF No. 108
`
`1026–
`1031
`
`Reserved
`
`for Surveying
`1032 U.S. Patent No. 5,862,260, entitled “Methods
`Dissemination of Proprietary Empirical Data” to Geoffrey B. Rhoads
`
`1033–
`1036
`
`Reserved
`
`1037 Defendants Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A.’s
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief, NantWorks, LLC and Nant
`Holdings IP, LLC v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America,
`N.A., 2:20-CV-7872-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2021), ECF No. 111
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Petitioner Bank of America, N.A respectfully requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 1 and 3–5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,031,278 (the ’278 patent).
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The ’278 patent claims a method of validating and recognizing documents.
`
`This claimed method, which is challenged independent claim 1, requires the use of
`
`symbol information in the validation and recognition process, unlike the claims of
`
`the other challenged patents that cover recognizing images without using symbols.
`
`The ’278 patent concedes the use of symbols in this process was already known in
`
`the prior art. Indeed, well before the claimed priority date Rhoads disclosed each of
`
`the steps claimed in the ’278 patent.
`
`The ’278 patent acknowledges that capturing images containing “symbols,”
`
`which it defines to include “barcodes, matrix codes, or alphameric characters” and
`
`“text” (Ex. 1001, 6:1–5, 14:47–48), and identifying information pertaining to those
`
`symbols was known in the art. For example, the patent explains that “linking objects
`
`to digital information [by] applying a barcode … or some other means of
`
`identification to the object, or modifying the image or object so as to encode
`
`detectable information in it” were “[t]raditional methods.” Id., 3:42–47. Indeed, the
`
`patent acknowledges that “detect[ing] and decod[ing] symbols, such as barcodes or
`
`text, in the input image” could be “accomplished via algorithms, software, and/or
`
`hardware components” that were “commercially available.” Id., 14:54–59.
`
`
`
`

`

`The ’278 patent’s specification describes a system that provides information
`
`about images without using symbols. The specification explains that “the present
`
`invention provides technology and processes that can accommodate linking objects
`
`and images to information via a network such as the Internet, which requires no
`
`modification to the linked object.” Id., 3:39–42 (emphasis added). According to the
`
`’278 patent, “applying a barcode … or modifying the image or object so as to encode
`
`detectable information in it, are not required because the image or object can be
`
`identified solely by its visual appearance.” Id., 3:42–48 (emphases added).
`
`Claim 1 of the ’278 patent, however, does not claim recognizing an object
`
`“solely by its visual appearance.” Instead, the claim is directed to using symbol
`
`information captured in a digital image to validate and recognize a document, which
`
`appears to be embodied in the specification by only a single example: “identification,
`
`screening, or validation of documents, such as passports, by a security officer
`
`‘pointing and clicking’ a camera-equipped device at the document and receiving a
`
`response from a remote computer.” See id., 2:22–39. With reference to this example
`
`in the overall context of the specification, claim 1 of the ’278 patent describes a
`
`particular set of steps for performing the claimed method. First, the system of the
`
`’278 patent receives, via a mobile device, an image of at least a portion of a
`
`document. Id., 4:8–20, 5:41–67, 13:28–14:40, 24:22–24. For example, a security
`
`officer may “point[] and click[]” a device equipped with a camera at a passport to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`be validated to capture an image of the passport. Id., 2:33–36; see also id., 4:8–12,
`
`13:22–24. Second, the system determines that symbolic content is on the at least the
`
`portion of the document in the image and extracts symbol information based on the
`
`symbolic content in the image according to symbol type. Id., 3:25–38, 6:1–35,
`
`14:45–65, 16:23–39, 20:35–59, 24:25–28. “The image is analyzed to determine the
`
`location, size, and nature of the symbols …. The symbols are analyzed according to
`
`their type, and their content information is extracted.” Id., 6:17–21. “For example,
`
`barcodes and alphanumeric characters will result in numerical and/or text
`
`information.” Id., 6:21–22. Third, the system determines a validity of the document
`
`based at least in part on the image and the symbol information. Id., 2:33–36, 24:29–
`
`30. For example, symbol information extracted from the image captured by the
`
`security officer is used by a remote computer to determine if the passport is valid.
`
`Id., 2:33–36, 3:25–30, 6:1–35, 14:23–65, 20:35–59. Fourth, the system recognizes
`
`the document as a first target object based at least in part on the image, the symbol
`
`information, and a query of a database storing target object information (associated
`
`with a plurality of target objects including the first target object). Id., 1:30–33, 3:25–
`
`38, 6:1–35, 11:37–56, 12:11–16, 14:45–65, 15:16–20, 16:1–39, 20:35–59, 24:31–
`
`35. In conjunction with using “unique characteristics of the image,” the system can
`
`use symbolic information decoded from symbolic content to assist in recognizing an
`
`object. Id., 3:25–38. “[T]he symbol is decoded and communication is opened with
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`the proper database … wherein the best match for the symbol is returned.” Id.; see
`
`also id., Abstract (“A digital image of the object is captured and the object is
`
`recognized from plurality of objects in a database.”), 3:25–30, 3:61–65, 14:45–48,
`
`16:1–4, 16:23–38 (symbol information, such as a barcode, “can be decoded and used
`
`to identify or help identify the target object 100 in the database 108”). Fifth, the
`
`system receives, via an address, first target object information, including a response
`
`regarding the validity of the document, associated with the first target object. Id.,
`
`1:38–45, 2:33–36, 3:39–56, 5:4–22, 14:50–53, 20:35–21:1, 24:36–39. The security
`
`officer, for instance, “receiv[es] a response from a remote computer” that validates
`
`the passport. Id., 2:33–36. For example, the system may provide a URL or other
`
`address for providing information to the security officer information related to the
`
`passport, including information (e.g., name of the person on the passport) that
`
`confirms the validity of the passport. Id., 2:33–36, 20:35–21:24, 23:44–46, 23:51–
`
`67.
`
`But this method was well-known in the prior art before the ’278 patent’s
`
`alleged November 6, 2000 priority date. Indeed, almost two years before, Rhoads
`
`disclosed precisely the same technique of capturing an image of a document and
`
`then validating and recognizing the document using the image and the symbol
`
`information captured therein. Rhoads describes a system in which a user using a
`
`camera-equipped mobile device can recognize and interact with physical objects
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`containing “1D and 2D barcodes.” Ex. 1022, Abstract, 7:3–11. For example,
`
`Rhoads describes how a “security guard” can use a camera-equipped cell phone to
`
`validate and recognize a document, such as a printed ID badge. Id., 16:14–18:7,
`
`45:25–55. Like the ’278 patent, Rhoads describes specific steps to accomplish this.
`
`First, Rhoads’s system receives, via a mobile device, an image (e.g., an image
`
`captured by the mobile device’s camera) of at least a portion of a document (e.g., a
`
`printed ID badge). Id., 1:46–2:8, 2:45–53, 4:19–26, 7:19–24, 16:14–18:7, 22:27–
`
`33, 29:52–30:64, 40:18–31, 45:24–46:12, 49:22–47. Rhoads describes using a
`
`camera-equipped cell phone to capture a representation of a document, such as an
`
`ID badge. Id., 4:19–26, 16:14–18:7, 40:18–31, 45:24–46:12, 49:22–47. Second, the
`
`system determines that symbolic content (e.g., a barcode) is on the at least a portion
`
`of the document (e.g., the printed ID badge) in the image and extracts symbol
`
`information (e.g., an identifier or badge ID) based on the symbolic content in the
`
`image according to symbol type (e.g., barcodes are decoded into a plural-bit
`
`identifier, such as the badge ID). Id., 2:54–63, 7:3–15, 8:52–63, 9:34–11:38, 16:14–
`
`18:7, 44:66–46:12, 48:37–49:16. Rhoads describes how a camera-equipped cell
`
`phone can capture various types of symbolic content, such as barcodes, characters,
`
`and marks, and extract corresponding symbol information. Id., 7:3–15; see also id.,
`
`44:66–46:12. An ID badge can include a photo and/or barcode that is encoded with
`
`a badge ID that can be decoded and extracted. Id., 16:14–18:7. Third, the system
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`determines a validity of the document (e.g., whether the ID badge is authentic or
`
`valid) based at least in part on the image (e.g., the image captured by the mobile
`
`device’s camera) and the symbol information (e.g., a badge ID). Id., 16:14–18:7,
`
`33:49–34:25, 45:24–12, 79:7–16. The system decodes the symbolic content (e.g., a
`
`barcode) to produce a badge ID and compares the decoded information (e.g., the
`
`badge ID) to identifiers stored in a database in order to validate or “authenticat[e]”
`
`the document. Id. Fourth, the system recognizes the document (e.g., the printed ID
`
`badge) as a first target object (e.g., a specific ID badge) based at least in part on the
`
`image (e.g., using visual clues such as color in the image captured by the mobile
`
`device’s camera), the symbol information (e.g., the badge ID), and a query of a
`
`database (e.g., the DMV’s DNS server database) storing target object information
`
`(e.g., names) associated with a plurality of target objects (e.g., ID badges and driver’s
`
`licenses) including information about the first target object (e.g., the name
`
`associated with the ID badge). Id., 9:47–10:7, 16:14–18:7, 22:9–12, 30:13–27,
`
`30:52–64, 48:37–49:14, 79:7–16. Rhoads describes recognizing an ID badge as a
`
`specific ID badge by (1) using visual characteristics such as color or shape to locate
`
`the document in the image, (2) decoding the identifier encoded therein, and (3)
`
`comparing that decoded identifier (e.g., the badge ID) to data (e.g., identifiers
`
`corresponding to badge ID’s and associated names) stored in database (e.g., the
`
`DMV’s DNS server database). Id., 9:47–10:7, 16:14–18:7, 22:9–12. Fifth, the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`system receives, via an address (e.g., e-mail, URL, or DNS server address), first
`
`target object information (e.g., a name associated with the ID badge) associated with
`
`the first target object (e.g., the ID badge), wherein the first target object information
`
`(e.g., the name) comprises a response regarding the validity of the document. Id.,
`
`16:14–18:7, 48:31–53. For example, Rhoads’s system interrogates a DMV’s DNS
`
`server via the server’s address to procure information to validate the ID badge, such
`
`as a name associated with the ID badge, which is received by the system and
`
`presented on a display, such as a telephone’s LCD display. Id., 16:66–17:10, 14:21–
`
`43.
`
`Thus, Petitioner requests the Board institute inter partes review of the ’278
`
`patent and cancel claims 1 and 3–5.
`
`II. Requirements for Inter Partes Review
`This Petition complies with all statutory requirements, as well as 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§42.104, 42.105, and 42.15, and should be accorded a filing date pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.106. The required fee is being paid electronically through PTAB E2E.
`
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies under Rule 42.104(a) that the ’278 patent is available for
`
`IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the
`
`identified grounds. Petitioner meets all requirements under 35 U.S.C. §§315(a)(1),
`
`315(b), and 315(e)(1), and under 37 C.F.R. §§42.73(d)(1), 42.101, and 42.102.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`B. Identification of challenge
`Under 37 C.F.R. §§42.104(b) and 42.22, Petitioner requests that the Board
`
`institute IPR on claims 1 and 3–5 of the ’278 patent (the “Challenged Claims”) and
`
`cancel those claims as unpatentable on the following grounds:
`
`Ground Claim(s)
`1
`1 and 3–5
`
`Basis for Unpatentability
`§ 102 – Anticipated by Rhoads (incorporating the
`’260 patent)2
`
`
`2 While Rhoads properly incorporates by reference the ’260 patent for purposes of
`
`anticipation, as described below in §§III.C.1 and V.A.3, alternatively claim 5 is
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of Rhoads and the
`
`’260 patent. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 130, 177–188. A POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`combine Rhoads with the ’260 patent because Rhoads specifically directs a POSITA
`
`to the ’260 patent for applicable decoding techniques. Ex. 1022, 11:19–22; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 130. The encoding and decoding techniques taught by the ’260 patent would
`
`benefit decoding in Rhoads because those techniques would provide a level of
`
`statistical reliability that the Rhoads system decodes information on an object or in
`
`an image within a particular confidence threshold. Ex. 1032, 19:35–53, 20:7–34,
`
`16:35–38, 5:41–44, 58:45–60, 56:14–62:17; Ex. 1022, 11:9–38; Ex. 1003, ¶ 130. In
`
`view of these considerations, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`III. The ’278 Patent and the State of the Art
`A. Overview of the ’278 Patent
`The ’278 patent is directed towards validating and recognizing documents
`
`captured in digital images. Although the specification describes a system that can
`
`identify an image “solely by its visual appearance” without modifying an object with
`
`symbols such as barcodes (Ex. 1001, 1:48–57, 3:39–51, 14:54–59), challenged
`
`independent claim 1 of the ’278 patent is not directed to this allegedly novel feature.
`
`Instead, claim 1, with reference to Figure 2 below, is merely directed to using symbol
`
`information captured in an image to validate and recognize a document.
`
`Id., Fig. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`
`success using the confidence thresholds in the ’260 patent in Rhoads’s decoding
`
`process. Ex. 1003, ¶ 130.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`First, the claim 1 method receives, via a mobile device, an image of at least a
`
`portion of a document. Id., 2:33–36, 4:9–21, 5:41–67, 13:28–14:40, 24:22–24.
`
`“[D]evice 14” (red) can be a “computer, mobile telephone, personal digital assistant,
`
`or other similar device … equipped with an image sensor (such as a CCD or CMOS
`
`digital camera).” Id., 5:41–44. When “incorporated into a mobile device,” the user
`
`of the device can point and click to “capture an image” of an object or document.
`
`Id., 4:8–12. The image can then be transferred to another computer or server (blue)
`
`where “the image is analyzed and the object or image of interest is detected and
`
`recognized.” Id., 4:12–15. For example, a security officer may validate and
`
`recognize a document, such as a passport or driver’s license, by “pointing and
`
`clicking” a device with a camera and sending the captured information to a remote
`
`computer to be validated and recognized. Id., 2:33–36, 13:22–24.
`
`Second, the method determines that symbolic content (e.g., barcode) is on the
`
`at least the portion of the document in the image and extracts symbol information
`
`(e.g., decoded number) based on the symbolic content in the image according to
`
`symbol type. Id., 3:25–38, 6:1–35, 14:45–65, 16:23–39, 20:35–59, 24:25–28. The
`
`’278 patent uses “symbol” and “symbolic content” interchangeably and describes
`
`“barcodes” as a type of symbol. See, e.g., id., 3:25–30, 3:61–65 (“traditional
`
`symbols” includes “barcodes”). After the image is captured, “a search of the image
`
`determines whether symbolic content is included in the image.” Id., 3:25–27. The
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`symbolic content is decoded and information from the symbols is extracted
`
`according to their type, i.e., “barcodes and alphanumeric characters will result in
`
`numerical and/or text information.” Id., 6:18–22. The symbol information may
`
`comprise “identifying marks” on the object or document, which can facilitate
`
`identification of the object or document. Id., 16:23–26.
`
`Third, the method determines a validity of the document based at least in part
`
`on the image and the symbol information. Id., 2:33–36, 6:1–35, 14:23–65, 20:35–
`
`59, 24:29–30. After extracting symbol information from the symbolic content in the
`
`image, the system searches a database containing information pertaining to target
`
`objects, which can include “[i]nformation decoded from and/or referenced by
`
`symbols (e.g., information coded in a barcode…)” and/or “status” information. Id.,
`
`20:35–55. The decoded symbol from the image captured by the security officer is
`
`used by a remote computer to provide a response regarding a document’s validity.
`
`Id., 2:33–36, 24:29–30. This response, such as the “status” of the document,
`
`facilitates the validation of the document by the security officer. See id., 2:33–36,
`
`20:42–55.
`
`Fourth, the method recognizes the document as a first target object based at
`
`least in part on the image (e.g., image characteristics, such as color), the symbol
`
`information (e.g., decoded barcode number), and a query of a database storing target
`
`object information (e.g., information pertaining to target objects) (associated with a
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`plurality of target objects including the first target object). Id., 1:30–33, 3:25–38,
`
`6:1–35, 11:37–56, 12:11–16, 14:45–65, 15:16–20, 16:1–39, 20:25–59, 24:31–35.
`
`While the alleged invention of the ’278 patent is identifying an object “solely by its
`
`visual appearance,” the patent indicates that identification of an object may in some
`
`cases be assisted by symbolic information. Id., 3:25–48. The system may derive
`
`and use “characteristics of the image” (e.g., color) to “provide the best match or
`
`matches in th