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 - 01133
`U.S. Patent No. 10,403,051
`_______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER NANT HOLDINGS IP, LLC’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II.
`THE ’051 PATENT ......................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Teachings of the Patent Specification ................................................... 3
`B.
`Patent Claims ......................................................................................... 6
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................... 8
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`V.
`THE PETITION’S REFERENCES ............................................................... 10
`A. Yu (Ex. 1003) ...................................................................................... 10
`B.
`Sanz-Pastor (Ex. 1004) ........................................................................ 11
`C. Mullen (Ex. 1005) ............................................................................... 12
`VI. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`THE PETITION FOR VIOLATING BOARD RULES. ............................... 13
`A.
`The Petition Fails to Provide Required Claim Constructions or
`Support Therefor in Violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............... 13
`The Petition Improperly Incorporates the Zyda Declaration to
`Evade the Board’s 14,000-Word Limit on IPR Petitions in
`Violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................ 16
`VII. THE PETITION SHOULD BE REJECTED UNDER SECTION
`314(a) BECAUSE THE PETITIONER IS UNLIKELY TO PREVAIL
`WITH RESPECT TO ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM ................................. 18
`A. Grounds 1–3: The Elements of the ’051 Patent’s Claims 1 and
`43 are Not Taught by Yu, Sanz-Pastor, or Mullen, and Are Not
`Inherent Based on Yu .......................................................................... 20
`1.
`The Petition Does Not Identify a “Virtual Element
`Attribute” in Yu, Sanz-Pastor, or Mullen ................................. 20
`The Petition Does Not Show that Yu, Sanz-Pastor, or
`Mullen Teach to “Determine Whether to Alter Presence
`of a Relevant AR Object” ......................................................... 25
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Grounds 1–3: The Petition Has Not Shown the Unpatentability
`of the ’051 Patent’s Dependent Claims 5–11, 15, 18, 22–29, 34,
`36, and 38 ............................................................................................ 29
`1.
`Claim 15: The Petition Does Not Show that Sanz-Pastor
`Discloses or Renders Obvious “the Relevant AR Objects
`is Caused to be Rendered According to a Haptic Format” ....... 31
`Claim 18: The Petition Does Not Show that Yu Teaches
`“the Presence of the Relevant AR Object is Altered to
`Include a Non-Visible Presence” .............................................. 33
`Grounds 1–3: The Petition Fails to Provide Proper Motivation
`to Combine Yu and Sanz-Pastor ......................................................... 36
`D. Grounds 1–3: The Petition Fails to Consider the Required
`Graham Factors ................................................................................... 42
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 44
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`3Shape A/S v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2020-00173, Paper 14 (June 12, 2020) .......................................................... 30
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 40
`Albany Int’l Corp. v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.,
`PGR2021-00019, Paper 22 (PTAB Jun. 22, 2021) .............................................. 37
`Apple, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00355, Paper 9 (PTAB Jun. 26, 2015) .................................................. 43
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 36
`Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedia Ideas LLC,
`IPR2013-00016, Paper 32 (Feb. 25, 2014) ........................................................... 18
`Cisco Sys., Inc., v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (Aug. 29, 2014) ................................................... 18, 42
`Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC. v. Autoalert, Inc.,
`IPR2013–00225, Paper 15 (Oct. 10, 2013) .......................................................... 30
`Fid. Nat'l Info. Servs., Inc. v. DataTreasury Corp.,
`IPR2014-00489, 2014 WL 4059220 (PTAB Aug. 13, 2014) .............................. 17
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ..................................................................................... 42, 43, 44
`Hon Hai Precision Indus. Co. v. Asia Vital Components Co.,
`No. 03-cv-0093-SVW(MCX), 2004 WL 5806997 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12,
`2004) ..................................................................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORIES (Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent
`Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 42
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 37
`In re NuVasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 36, 37
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 36
`In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 36
`Infinera Corp. v. Core Optical Techs. LLC,
`IPR2018-01259, 2019 WL 3059846 (PTAB July 11, 2019) ............................... 15
`Intri-Plex Techs. v. St. Gobain,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB March 23, 2014) ............................................ 42
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 37
`LG Elecs. Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.,
`IPR2016-00986, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2016) .............................................. 13
`Liberty Mut. Ins, Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ............................................... 44
`Moses Lake Indus., Inc. v. Enthone, Inc.,
`IPR2014- 00243, Paper 6 (PTAB Jun. 18, 2014) ................................................. 44
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 36
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORIES (Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Sandoz Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.,
`IPR2017-01987, 2018 WL 1230583 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2018) ................................ 10
`Shopkick Inc. v. Novitaz, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00279, Paper 7 (PTAB May 29, 2015) ................................................. 44
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00092, Paper 21 (PTAB May 24, 2013) ............................................... 37
`Spears v. Holland,
`Interf. No. 104,681, Paper 30 (BPAI Mar. 13, 2002)........................................... 30
`TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd. v. Dataquill Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00745, 2020 WL 5592712 (PTAB Sept. 18, 2020) .............................. 14
`Travelocity.com L.P. et al v. Cronos Techs., LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 10 (PTAB Sept. 15, 2014)............................................ 42
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Elects., Inc.,
`IPR2014-01082, Paper 9 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2014) ................................................. 44
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................. 10
`Warner Chilcott Labs. Ireland Ltd. v. Impax Labs., Inc.,
`No. 2:08-cv-06304 WJM, 2012 WL 1551709 (D.N.J. Apr. 30,
`2012), aff'd sub nom. Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Impax Labs., Inc., 478
`F. App'x 672 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 39
`Wonderland NurseryGoods Co. v. Thorley Indus., LLC,
`988 F. Supp. 2d 479 (W.D. Pa. 2013), aff'd, 644 F. App'x 1011 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) ..................................................................................................................... 40
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 43
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORIES (Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................................................................................ 3, 18, 44
`Other Authorities
`November 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice Guide ................................................ 13
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................... 1, 13, 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................... 16, 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .......................................................................................... 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) .......................................................................................... 1, 19
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1) ....................................................................................... 2, 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ................................................................................... 2, 17, 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner Nant Holdings IP, LLC
`
`
`
`(“Patent Owner” or “Nant”) submits its Preliminary Response to the petition for
`
`inter partes review (“Petition”) of claims 1, 5–11, 15, 18, 22–29, 34–36, 38, and 43
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,403,0511 (the “’051 Patent”) filed by Niantic, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) setting forth the reasons why no inter partes review (“IPR”) should
`
`be instituted under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Patent Owner requests that the Board deny
`
`institution because the Petitioner did not meet its burden to show a reasonable
`
`likelihood of unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108(c).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner makes significant missteps that require denial of institution. The
`
`Petition submitted fails to provide the Board with basic evidence and analysis
`
`required in an IPR petition, including (1) the Petition’s failure to construe any
`
`claim terms (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)), (2) the Petition’s failure to demonstrate
`
`that various elements of the challenged claims of the ’051 Patent are actually
`
`taught, disclosed, or suggested in the references relied on by the Petition (Yu et al.
`
`U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2010/0066750 (“Yu,” Ex. 1003); Sanz-Pastor et al. U.S.
`
`
`1 Petitioner also challenges an unrelated patent also owned by NantHoldings in
`
`Case IPR2021-01119.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`Patent Publ. No. 2007/0242131 (“Sanz-Pastor,” Ex. 1004); and Mullen U.S. Patent
`
`Publ. No. 2006/0105838 (“Mullen,” Ex. 1005)), (3) the Petition’s improper
`
`reliance on conclusory statements and extensive incorporation of expert opinion in
`
`contravention of 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3) and 42.24(a)(1)(i), and (4) the Petition’s
`
`failure to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine, Yu and
`
`Sanz-Pastor, two incongruous pieces of technology, to achieve the ’051 Patent’s
`
`invention.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’051 Patent contains the term “virtual element
`
`attribute.” Ex. 1001 at 21:58.2 The Petition does not construe this term and instead
`
`asserts without explanation that various real-world features (such as terrain and
`
`ambient light) allegedly read on the claim’s requirement for a “virtual element
`
`attribute.” See Pet., 26–30, 35–42, 59–63.
`
`As a further example, the Petition posits that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”) would have combined various aspects of Yu with other aspects of
`
`Sanz-Pastor on the sole basis of conclusory arguments. Directing the reader to 139
`
`paragraphs in the statement of Petitioner’s declarant is unhelpful and ignores the
`
`requirement that the Petition itself support the proposed ground of unpatentability.
`
`
`2 References to patents in this paper rely on column and line notation. For
`
`example, “21:58” refers to column 21, line 58 of the cited patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`Accordingly, the Petition fails to establish that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in proving any challenged claim is
`
`
`
`unpatentable. The Petitioner should be denied, and no IPR should be instated under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`II. THE ’051 PATENT
`A. Teachings of the Patent Specification
`The ’051 Patent proposes novel augmented reality (“AR”) systems and
`
`methods. Although augmented reality (the presentation of virtual objects in a scene
`
`alongside real-world elements) has now become more common, the ’051 Patent
`
`dates back a decade. At that time, technical limitations made it quite challenging to
`
`integrate virtual AR objects into scenes with real - world objects in a convincing
`
`manner so that users could seamlessly access or interact with AR content as
`
`naturally as they would interact with real - world elements. ’051 Patent, 1:63– 67.
`
`The ’051 Patent accomplishes this goal by considering context(s) related to a
`
`mobile device (e.g., cell phone) and pertinent to its location; using the context(s) to
`
`identify relevant AR objects for a set of available AR objects; and also determining
`
`whether to alter presence of a relevant AR object based on at least the device
`
`location and the attributes or metadata of a virtual element in the scene.
`
`This approach differs dramatically from prior AR systems, which had sought
`
`to avoid interference among elements in AR scenes by forcing users to manually
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`select the features to experience or by overlaying AR objects overtop scenes
`
`without regard for other elements within the scene. Id. at 1:53–61. Objects within
`
`the AR scenes of these prior AR systems could not interfere with each other in
`
`order to provide a more realistic augmented reality experience. Id. at 2:37–41; 3:8–
`
`
`
`11.
`
`For example, in the ARQuake game described in ARQuake: An
`
`Outdoor/Indoor Augmented Reality First Person Application, the virtual objects
`
`and characters were overlayed on the screen of a head-mounted device and
`
`appeared to move through and around objects and locations.3 But in fact, the
`
`virtual objects were responding and interacting with a previously constructed
`
`computer model of the location. The virtual objects did not account for real-world
`
`objects or virtual objects within the scene, nor were the virtual objects altered due
`
`to the elements or contexts of the scene.
`
`The ’051 Patent contributes to the state-of-the-art by teaching local, real-
`
`world elements determine context for an AR experience. The ’051 Patent’s system
`
`“determine[s] a relevant AR context from environment data representing a real-
`
`world environment local to an AR-capable device[.]” Id. at 5:10 – 17. The system
`
`
`3 Bruce Thomas et al, ARQuake: An Outdoor/Indoor Augmented Reality First
`Person Application, IEEE Int’l Symposium on Wearable Comput., pp. 139–46
`(2000)(Ex. 1029).
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`links the AR object’s presentation within a scene to the context of the local
`
`environment or situation so that changing location of the mobile device alters the
`
`presence of the AR object within the scene. Id. at 9:44 – 47; 15:64 – 67. Also,
`
`interaction between real-world elements and AR objects within the scene itself
`
`enhances or suppresses the presence of the AR object within the scene. Id. at 3:58 –
`
` 62; 14:20; 17:61 – 66; 18:2 – 6. For example, Figure 4 (reproduced below) shows
`
`how the same AR object (checkered flag) has different appearances on two mobile
`
`devices:
`
`In the top image, device 410A shows the checkered flag superimposed onto the
`
`real-world scene with an enhanced presence, or prominence, that affects its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`prominence in the scene (e.g., is opaque, and/or covers the real-world elements in
`
`that scene). Id. at 18:25 – 27. By contrast, in the lower image, device 410B
`
`suppresses the presence of the AR object (e.g., has shades of transparency as well
`
`
`
`as a smaller size relative to the top image).
`
`This is not simply a filtering that either makes an AR object present or
`
`absent. Id. at 16:45 – 51; 3:30 (“Interference is more than mere a [sic] filtering
`
`mechanism.”). The ’051 Patent alters presence along a full spectrum from “opaque
`
`and cover[ing] images,” to having “shades of transparency,” and to not being
`
`visible at all. Id. at 18:21 – 29. The degree of alteration of the AR object’s presence
`
`can be based on an interference function that quantifies “how elements [] of a
`
`scene interfere with each other.” Id. at 15:58 – 62.
`
`Patent Claims
`B.
`The Petition challenges only claims 1, 5 – 11, 15, 18, 22 – 29, 34 – 36, 38, and
`
`43 of the ’051 patent. Pet., 4. Claims 1 and 43 are independent claims and are
`
`listed below:
`
`Claim 1
`1. An augmented reality (AR)
`platform system comprising:
`
`an AR object repository storing
`available AR objects in a first non-
`transitory computer readable memory;
`and
`
`Claim 43
`43. An Augmented Reality
`(AR) server coupled with an
`AR object repository and
`configured to:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 43
`
`
`
`an AR server
`coupled with the AR object
`repository and,
`upon execution of software
`instructions stored in a second non-
`transitory computer readable
`memory by a processor, is
`configured to:
`obtain digital data representative of
`an environment of an AR capable
`mobile device,
`
`the digital data including a device
`location of the AR capable device
`and a virtual element attribute;
`
`determine at least one context
`related to the AR capable device
`and pertinent to the environment
`based at least on the device
`location;
`identify relevant AR objects from
`the AR object repository
`representing available AR objects
`corresponding to the at least one
`context;
`determine whether to alter presence
`of a relevant AR object based on at
`least the device location and the
`virtual element attribute; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`obtain digital data
`representative of an
`environment of an AR capable
`mobile device,
`the digital data including a
`device location of the AR
`capable device and a virtual
`element attribute;
`determine at least one context
`related to the AR capable
`device and pertinent to the
`environment based at least on
`the device location;
`identify relevant AR objects
`from the AR object repository
`representing available AR
`objects corresponding to the at
`least one context;
`determine whether to make
`present relevant AR objects
`based on at least the device
`location and the virtual element
`attribute; and
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`Claim 1
`cause the AR capable device to
`render the relevant AR object
`according to its altered presence.
`
`
`
`Claim 43
`cause the AR capable device to
`render one or more of the
`relevant AR objects if they have
`been determined to be made
`present.
`
`’051 Patent at 21:47 – 22:2; 24:5 – 22 and Cert. of Correction, pp. 1 – 2.
`
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`Petitioner argues that a POSITA at the time of the earliest priority
`
`application for the ’051 Patent (April 2011) “would have possessed at least a
`
`Master of Science in the areas of electrical engineering or computer science (or
`
`equivalent degree), with some working knowledge of augmented reality, mobile
`
`gaming, and the associated technologies; or, alternatively, a Bachelor of Science in
`
`computer science (or equivalent degree) with at least two years of experience in the
`
`aforementioned areas.” Pet., 6. For the purposes of this preliminary response to this
`
`Petition only, Patent Owner accepts this proposed level of skill in the art.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For purposes of this preliminary response only, Patent Owner supplies the
`
`following construction.4
`
`
`4 Petitioner does not purport to construe any claim terms. Patent Owner reserves
`
`the right to argue alternative and additional constructions here and elsewhere.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`The claim 1 of the ’051 Patent recites “determine[ing] whether to alter
`
`presence of a relevant AR object” and “render[ing] the relevant AR object
`
`
`
`according to its altered presence.” 21:65–67; 22:1–2. The Petition does not offer a
`
`construction for the term “alter[ed] presence” and appears to rely on plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. The Board should construe the phrase “altered presence” to
`
`mean “the degree of at least a relevant AR object’s visual presentation based on a
`
`spectrum.” This construction is compelled by the claim language and specification.
`
`The claim describes the AR object as being rendered, indicating a visual
`
`representation. The ’051 Patent specification further teaches that determining an
`
`AR object’s presence entails finding “to what degree each of the relevant AR
`
`objects [] has a presence in the augmented reality.” 16:47–60. The ’051 Patent also
`
`says that the AR object’s “presence can cover a full spectrum of experiences,”
`
`from “opaque and cover[ing] images” to having “shades of transparency” to not
`
`visible at all. Id. at 18:18–25. By doing so, the ’051 Patent indicates that it is
`
`describing something other than merely making an object present or absent, but a
`
`presence that can be adjusted by degrees. In fact, from the outset, the specification
`
`explains that the process of determining presence is “more than a mere filtering
`
`mechanism.” Id. at 3:30. As Figure 4 (presented above) of the ’051 Patent
`
`confirms, changing the AR object’s presence alters its prominence in a scene along
`
`a spectrum rather than simply deciding whether it is there or not.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`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,
`
`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’S REFERENCES
`The Petition relies on three references: Yu, Sanz-Pastor, and Mullen. It
`
`applies Yu and Sanz-Pastor to the challenged independent claims 1 and 43 and
`
`applies Mullen only with respect to the dependent claims involving gaming and
`
`economic exchange. Below we briefly summarize these references.
`
`A. Yu (Ex. 1003)
`Yu describes a “virtual graffiti” messaging system that links messages to
`
`specific locations for a specific device to view as part of a social messaging
`
`system. Yu, Abstract. A network server stores the graffiti message with
`
`information on the location and the individuals authorized to see it. Id. When the
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`authorized individual is at the location, the virtual message is overlaid onto a real-
`
`world scene to produce an image of the device’s actual surroundings with the
`
`virtual message. Id. at ¶¶0015, 0033. The image is superimposed without regard
`
`for the other objects, real or virtual, in the scene. Id. at ¶0033.
`
`
`
`Yu also teaches the modification of the graffiti image based on the real-
`
`world ambient lighting conditions to integrate it better into the scene. Based on the
`
`time of day or ambient light the image may be changed in its shadowing,
`
`brightness, contrast, color, specular highlights, or texture. Id. at ¶¶0026, 0027,
`
`0048. Because the Yu graffiti image is superimposed over the real-world scene it
`
`does not teach occluding the image, covering the image, or making the image
`
`transparent in any way to show that it is occluded by the surrounding objects. Nor
`
`does Yu teach making the image larger or smaller in any way to change its
`
`prominence in the scene. Therefore, Yu does not teach, and the Petition does not
`
`explain how it teaches, changing the prominence of an AR object by degrees as
`
`would be required to alter the object’s presence in accordance with the ’051 Patent.
`
`Sanz-Pastor (Ex. 1004)
`B.
`Sanz-Pastor teaches the use of a messaging system as part of an immediate
`
`messaging system for a team collaboration system. Sanz-Pastor, ¶0005 (used in the
`
`field for “rescue teams, military operations, law enforcement, infrastructure repair
`
`crews, and other teams that need to get a job done quickly and with efficient
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`coordination.”) Geographically tagged information can appear on a view screen of
`
`a handheld device. Id. at ¶0016. To decide if the message can be seen, the system
`
`determines the line of sight, terrain elevation, structures, and vegetation relative to
`
`the message coordinates. Id. at ¶0037. If the position is occluded, then so is the
`
`
`
`message. Id. at ¶¶0037, 0051.
`
`Sanz-Pastor does not teach the partial occlusion of a message based on the
`
`message distance or obstructions and only teaches them as being transparent or
`
`fully occluded and therefore only provides changes to the image as a binary effect,
`
`rather than along a spectrum that alters the presence of the image as taught by the
`
`’051 Patent. Id. at ¶0029.
`
`C. Mullen (Ex. 1005)
`Mullen teaches a handheld video game in which the user’s location
`
`corresponds to a virtual character on a playfield. Mullen, Abstract. The playfield
`
`correlates to a playmat upon which the player’s movement corresponds to the
`
`position on the game screen. Id. at ¶¶0009–0011. Video game “indicia,” (e.g., such
`
`as characters and objects), may be overlaid onto the user’s playfield, but Mullen
`
`does not teach changing these objects in response to any elements of the
`
`surrounding scene. Id. at ¶¶0015–0016. Mullen teaches that a location-based game
`
`may have its own virtual currency system for the exchange of virtual currency for
`
`real money, which can be used to buy or sell items as part of an advertising scheme
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`in which advertisers buy advertising space at a specific location to lure users into
`
`
`
`stores. Id. at ¶¶0056.
`
`VI. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`THE PETITION FOR VIOLATING BOARD RULES.
`A. The Petition Fails to Provide Required Claim Constructions or
`Support Therefor in Violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`A petitioner bears the fundamental burden of setting forth “[h]ow the
`
`challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). For each claim
`
`term that it contends requires construction, the Petitioner must set out and explain
`
`in the petition the construction that it urges the Board to adopt. See 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.”). Additionally, if
`
`Petitioner believes that a claim term requires a construction, Petitioner “must
`
`include” not only a “statement identifying a proposed construction,” but also
`
`“where the intrinsic and/or extrinsic evidence supports that meaning.” November
`
`2019 Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 44; see also id. at 46 (“[T]he parties
`
`should point out the specific portions of the specification, prosecution history, and
`
`relevant extrinsic evidence they want considered, and explain the relevancy of any
`
`such evidence to the arguments they advance. Each party bears the burden of
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`providing sufficient support for any construction advanced by that party.”). Failure
`
`
`
`to provide supporting evidence for proffered constructions indicates that the
`
`Petition lacks sufficient particularity for the Board to institute review. See TCL
`
`Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd. v. Dataquill Ltd., IPR2020-00745, 2020 WL
`
`5592712, at *6–*7 (PTAB Sept. 18, 2020).
`
`Here, despite acknowledging the existence of claim construction disputes
`
`(Pet., 10 – 11, citing Ex. 1042), the Petition asserts that the phrases “require[] no
`
`express construction” and does not set forth the intrinsic and/or extrinsic evidence
`
`that the Petitioner believes supports any meaning or interpretation to support the
`
`claim that the limitations are found in the referenced art. Pet., 32–33 (Claim
`
`1[d]),_Pet., 35 (Claim 1[e]), Pet., 41–.42 (Claim 1[f]). The Petition does not
`
`articulate any position about the construction of Claim elements 1[a], 1[b], 1[c], or
`
`1[g], even where Petitioner’s declaration from Dr. Zyda (“Zyda,” Ex. 1002)
`
`acknowledges that Petitioner had previously asserted a specific construction for
`
`these terms. Zyda, ¶73. This leaves the Board and Patent Owner to guess at how
`
`the Petition has construed the claims in and what support allegedly exists for such
`
`constructions. For example, the Petition does not to construe the phrase “virtual
`
`element attribute,” which appears in independent claim 1 (Claim elements 1[c] and
`
`[f]) and claim 43 (Claim elements 43[a] and [e]) or “alter presence,” which appears
`
`in claim 1 (Claim elements 1[f] and [g]). And yet, the Petition implicitly assumes
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-01133 (USP 10,403,051)
`
`NantHoldings IP, LLC Preliminary Response
`
`that attributes of real-world elements fall within the boundaries of virtual element
`
`attributes without providing any clear construction or support. See Pet., 29–30. It
`
`also assumes that altering presence amounts to changing anything about an AR
`
`object’s appearance or even just