Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11
`571-272-7822 Date: November 21, 2025
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`CELLULAR SOUTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of /nter Partes Review
`35US.C 5314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`[. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background and Summary
`
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting
`an inter partes review of claims 1-11 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 11,126,853 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the *853 patent”). Cellular South,
`Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”).
`
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for
`instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided
`below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood that at least one claim of the 853 patent is unpatentable, and we
`
`do not institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies itself as the sole real party in interest. Pet. 1.
`Patent Owner identifies itself and Telapex, Inc. Paper 3, 1 (Patent Owner’s
`
`Mandatory Notice).
`
`C. Related Matters
`Patent Owner asserted the 853 patent against Petition in Case No.
`6:24-cv00245-DAE in the Western District of Texas. Paper 3, 2. The case
`
`has been transferred and is now styled: Cellular South, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`Case No. 4:25-cv-01487-YGR (N.D. Cal.). See id.; Pet. 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`D. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner’s grounds rely on the following prior art references:
`
`Name Reference Exhibit
`No.
`Steinberg US 7,574,016 B2, iss. Aug. 11, 2009 1005
`Trivedi US Pat. App. Pub. 2006/0187305 Al, 1009
`pub. Aug. 24, 2006
`Zhao US Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0141940 A1, 1003
`pub. June 4, 2009
`Singer US Pat. App. Pub. 2011/0305394, 1010
`pub. Dec. 15, 2011
`Kritt US Pat. App. Pub. 2014/0181668, 1004
`pub. June 26, 2014
`Kouzani | “Fractal Face Representation and Recognition,” in | 1006
`
`Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
`
`on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp.1609—1613
`(IEEE, 1997)
`
`Yang “Detecting Faces in Images: A Survey,” in [EEE 1007
`Transactions On Pattern Analysis And Machine
`Intelligence, Vol. 24, No. 1 (2002)
`
`Romdhani | “Face Identification by Fitting a 3D Morphable 1008
`Model using Linear Shape and Texture Error
`
`Functions,” European Conf. on Computer Vision
`(2002)
`
`Unless otherwise noted, citations to Exhibits 1006, 1007, and 1008 are to the
`stamped pagination in the exhibit, not the original pagination.
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims would have been
`
`unpatentable on the following grounds:
`
`Claim(s) Challenged | 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
`1-4 103 Zhao, Kritt, Steinberg, Kouzani
`5.7 103 Zhao, Kritt, Steinberg, Kouzani,
`
`Yang, Romdhani
`Zhao, Kritt, Steinberg, Kouzani,
`Trivedi
`
`8,9 103
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`Claim(s) Challenged | 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
`
`Zhao, Kritt, Steinberg, Kouzani,
`
`10, 11 103 .
`Singer
`
`E. Overview of the ‘853 Patent
`The ’853 patent describes a system to generate data from video
`content, for example a contextual description of the video. Ex. 1001, 1:34—
`39. The system uses an image detector that detects images of objects in still
`frame images of the video. Id. at 1:47-49. Then, an object recognizer
`
`recognizes the objects. Id. at 1:49-51.
`
`F. Challenged Claims
`Claims 1-11 are challenged. Claim 1 is independent and is
`reproduced below.
`1. A system for generating data from a video, comprising
`
`a coordinator communicatively coupled to a splitter and to
`a plurality of demultiplexer nodes, wherein the splitter is
`configured to segment the video, wherein the demultiplexer
`nodes are configured to extract audio files from the video and to
`extract still frame images from the video;
`
`an image detector configured to detect an image of an
`object in the still frame images, wherein the image detector is
`adjustable to increase detection of nonprimary images in the
`video; and
`
`an object recognizer configured to compare the image of
`the object to a fractal, wherein the fractal includes a
`representation of the object based on landmarks associated with
`the object, wherein the recognizer is further configured to update
`the fractal with the image.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Legal Standards Used in the Merits Analysis
`
`“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v.
`Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with
`particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to
`each claim”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d
`1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes
`review).
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner asserts that:
`
`A person of ordinary skill would have possessed a
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or
`similar field, with two years of experience in developing and
`implementing computer software for processing and/or
`analyzing multimedia content, such as audio, video, or image
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`data. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary
`skill with some combination of (1) more formal education (such
`as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or
`(2) less formal education and more technical or professional
`experience.
`
`Pet. 5. Patent Owner “does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art” at this time. Prelim. Resp. 5. We adopt the agreed-
`
`upon level of skill for purposes of this Decision.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we apply the claim construction
`standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 131213 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). That is, “the words of a claim ‘are generally given
`their ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . that the term would have to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.”
`Id. at 1312—13 (quoting in Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
`1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`We do not need to construe any claim terms to reach a decision in this
`proceeding. Realtime, LLC v. lancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`(“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”)
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness Over Zhao, Kritt, Steinberg, and Kouzani
`(Claims 1-4)
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1-4 would have been obvious in view of
`
`Zhao, Kritt, Steinberg, and Kouzani. Pet. 11-48. An analysis of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[PR2025-00877
`
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`independent claim 1 illustrates a dispositive issue in this case; we focus our
`analysis there.
`
`Independent claim 1 is directed to a system for generating data from a
`video, comprising a coordinator, an image detector, and an object
`recognizer. Ex. 1001, 25:21-26:3. The image detector detects images of
`objects. Id. at 25:29-32. The object recognizer compares the image of the
`object to a fractal. Id. at 25:33-26:3. In particular, the fractal is “a
`representation of the object based on landmarks associated with the object.”
`Id. at 25:34-26:2.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Zhao discloses an object recognizer to compare
`the image of the object to an “object model,” which Petitioner acknowledges
`is “possibly” not a fractal. Pet. 39; see also id. at 36—43 (entire argument).
`Petitioner asserts that Zhao’s “object model” could be a fractal under an
`“apparent interpretation” of the word “fractal” by Patent Owner in the co-
`pending litigation. Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1017, 7). Petitioner also asserts that
`Kouzani teaches a fractal. Id. at 4143 (citing Ex. 1006). We address both
`
`assertions in turn.
`
`1. Zhao’s Alleged Fractal
`Petitioner’s assertion that Zhao discloses a fractal is based on Patent
`
`Owner’s statements in district court in an opposition to a motion to dismiss.
`Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1017). There, Patent Owner argued that Petitioner’s
`purported construction of fractal was “overly restrictive.” Ex. 1017, 6.
`Although we are not told explicitly what Petitioner’s alleged construction
`was, Patent Owner asserted that Petitioner’s proposed construction involves
`“the type of self-repeating, periodic patterns discussed in the broad fields of
`
`mathematics and geometry.” Id. Patent Owner contrasted that with the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[PR2025-00877
`
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`allegedly more expansive usage of “fractal” in the 853 patent, which is
`“never in the context of geometric ‘repeating patterns.”” Id. (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, 21:2-13, 15:39-47, 18:38-40, 18:48-50). Patent Owner asserted
`that “[a] human face . . . is not a self-repeating pattern similar to a Serpinski
`triangle. As a result, [Petitioner’s] interpretation cannot be correct.” /d.
`
`Petitioner asserts that these arguments by Patent Owner before the
`district court evince an interpretation where “‘fractal’ is nothing more than a
`shape or polygon, or potentially a shape or polygon used to identify objects
`or faces.” Pet. 40. Patent Owner responds that it “did not put forth any
`[such] construction” before the district court, and instead characterizes
`Petitioner’s argument as a “misunderstanding or misinterpretation” of Patent
`Owner’s arguments. Prelim. Resp. 18, n.2. Patent Owner asserts it is “not
`putting forth any construction now other than plain and ordinary meaning.”
`1d.
`
`We will consider the parties’ arguments in another forum regarding
`claim construction, and we disfavor parties taking alternative claim
`construction positions here. See 35 U.S.C. § 301(a)(2) (any person may cite
`to the Office “statements of the patent owner . . . in which the patent owner
`took a position on the scope of any claim of a particular patent”); Tesla, Inc.
`v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025-00340, Paper 18 (Director, Nov. 5,
`2025) (precedential) (denying review where a petitioner did not justify its
`alternative claim construction before the Board). However, we do not
`consider Patent Owner’s arguments before the district court in its opposition
`to a motion to dismiss to sufficiently set out a claim construction position.
`In other words, due to the nature of the argument and the procedural posture
`
`of the brief in which the argument was made, we discern little useful
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[PR2025-00877
`
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`information in Exhibit 1017 as to Patent Owner’s position (in district court)
`on claim construction. Further, Petitioner’s brief analysis is insufficient, in
`and of itself, to support the broad construction Petitioner asserts to be Patent
`Owner’s position, as it amounts to little more than a mere allegation. See
`Pet. 40. In sum, we do not construe “fractal” to mean “one or more shapes”
`in the absence of a reasoned analysis supporting such a position. Thus, we
`find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a fractal is merely a
`
`shape or polygon.
`
`2. Kouzani’s Alleged Fractals
`
`We turn to Petitioner’s chief position regarding fractals, where
`Petitioner alleges that Kouzani teaches fractals and that it would have been
`obvious, therefore, to use fractals as Zhou’s “object model.” See generally
`Pet. 41-43. Petitioner points out that Kouzani teaches “a face representation
`and recognition scheme based on the theory of fractals.” Id. at 41 (quoting
`Ex. 1006, 7). Kouzani teaches that, although fractals are “a fragmented
`geometric shape that can be subdivided in parts, each of which is a reduced-
`size copy of the whole,” such objects nevertheless model “real-world objects
`that do not correspond to simple geometric shapes, e.g. clouds, mountains,
`turbulence and coastlines.” Ex. 1006, 7. The reason this works in Kouzani
`is because the fractals used are in the form of many small blocks, which are
`shapes that can be found in an image of a person’s face. Id. Figure 3 of
`
`Kouzani is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`|
`
`e
`——
`
`Ex. 1006, 10. As shown in Figure 3 of Kouzani, the image of this person’s
`
`face can be broken down into a series of repeatable block patterns, such as a
`lighter patch (skin) below a darker patch (hair) (“PIFS 1”) or a dark triangle
`in the corner (neck-to-shoulder transition) (“PIFS 2°). This can be stylized
`
`more generally, as shown in Figure 4 of Kouzani, reproduced below:
`
`Domain Pool —t
`.———/
`;‘-/
`
`Ran bo Blgcks
`
`Id. Figure 4 of Kouzani depicts the mapping of some blocks from a domain
`pool onto a range. Id. at 8. As shown in Figure 4, the repeatable block
`patterns (“Domain Pool” blocks) are fitted according to how well they match
`patterns appearing in a grid representing an image (“Range Blocks™). 1d.
`Rotating, scaling, and aggregating many of these simple blocks leads to a
`facial image. Id. (“a search is done though the [shape] pool to find a [shape]
`block whose contractive transformation best approximates [a portion of the
`
`image]”). The image is improved by repeating the process, because
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[PR2025-00877
`
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`repeating the process of matching blocks (such as shown in Figure 4) leads
`to progressively sharper images. 1d.; see also id. at Fig. 5.
`
`Petitioner asserts that fractal models for facial recognition were
`generally known in the art, and that this is acknowledged by the *853 patent.
`Pet. 40-41 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:40-44). Petitioner asserts that Kouzani
`touts the benefits of fractal models and that it would have been obvious to
`use Kouzani’s fractal model as the object model in Zhou. Pet 44 (asserting
`that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have therefore been motivated to
`implement Kouzani’s techniques in Zhao’s system”); see also id. 42—45.
`(entire argument). Patent Owner argues that Kouzani’s fractals would not
`result in the claimed limitation. Prelim. Resp. 21-23. In particular, Patent
`Owner points out that Kouzani’s fractals use a block-based fractal system,
`which do not include “a representation of the object based on landmarks
`associated with the object” as required by claim 1. Id. at 21-22.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Even if Kouzani teaches
`fractals, claim 1 is not broadly claiming any fractal, but rather one that is
`“based on landmarks” (e.g., eyes, nose, etc.). See Ex. 1001, 13:53-57. The
`block-based system of Kouzani is based on abstract, repeated patterns of
`pixels, without regard to what the pixels represent. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 8
`(describing a “search . . . through the domain pool to find a domain block
`whose contractive transformation best approximates the range block™ and
`then storing all of the transformations that, together, “represent the
`compressed image of a person’s face”), Fig. 4 (showing example blocks).
`This is in contrast to looking for particular landmarks in the image. Thus,
`we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Kouzani’s fractal
`
`1s based on landmarks.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[PR2025-00877
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`In Petitioner’s ground, Petitioner asserts that Zhao already teaches the
`claimed landmarks (Pet. 39, citing Ex. 1003 99 58, 65), but Petitioner’s
`ground replaces or modifies the object model of Zhao with the fractals of
`Kouzani, which are not based on landmarks. Petitioner does not explain
`how Zhao’s modified model, now using a block-based fractal system, would
`still have the landmarks of Zhao’s original model. Even if it were obvious to
`include fractals, we are persuaded that the fractals included by Kouzani are
`not based on landmarks. Alternatively, if Petitioner is asserting merely to
`use fractals in Zhao’s models, then Petitioner has not sufficiently accounted
`for the particular fractals claimed and explained persuasively how merely
`using fractals in Zhao would lead to the claimed subject matter, i.e., fractals
`based on landmarks. In either event, Petitioner has not sufficiently
`established that the proposed combination satisfies the “fractal includes a
`representation of the object based on landmarks” limitation of claim 1.
`
`Because claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and each of
`Petitioner’s grounds builds upon the Zhao-Kouzani combination, which does
`not sufficiently show the limitation requiring “the fractal includes a
`
`representation of the object based on landmarks,” all of Petitioner’s grounds
`
`fail.
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons given above, we determine that Petitioner has not
`established a reasonable likelithood of success in showing that any claim of
`the 853 patent would have been obvious in view of the prior art cited.
`
`Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the
`
`Petition for inter partes review of claims 1-11 of the 853 patent is denied.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Heidi Keefe
`Andrew Mace
`COOLEY LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`amace(@cooley.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Amy Simpson
`
`Robert Jain
`
`HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
`amy.simpson@hklaw.com
`robert.jain@hklaw.com
`clientteam-cellular@hklaw.com
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`