PTAB

IPR2019-00669

Niantic Inc v. Barbaro Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Interactive Virtual Thematic Environment
  • Brief Description: The ’377 patent describes systems and methods for integrating real-time information into a virtual thematic environment, such as a gaming environment. The system uses a client-server architecture and comprises a primary application and at least one secondary application, along with specific software modules like a graphics user interface (GUI), a quantum imaging environment (QIE) module, and a digital logic library.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Robarts and Filo - Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-17, 19, and 24-25 are obvious over Robarts in view of Filo.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Robarts (Application # 2004/0002843) and Filo (Patent 6,215,498).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Robarts and Filo disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims.
      • Robarts taught a primary application for an augmented reality game (“Spook”) on a mobile device that integrates real-time information (e.g., the user’s physical GPS location) into a virtual environment. This system, which operates on a client-server architecture, formed the basis for the claimed primary application, the virtual thematic environment, and the use of real-time data from the "world wide web" (interpreted by Petitioner as the Internet). Petitioner contended that Robarts’ “simulation engine” and associated display interfaces met the limitations for a GUI module, a QIE module (for receiving and interpreting content for different devices), and a digital logic library (for storing content and rules via its narrative engine and data repositories).
      • Filo taught a virtual work environment (a military command post) that enhanced its functionality by integrating multiple, independently controllable secondary applications within a primary application. Examples included presentation software (like PowerPoint), video walls, and a “virtual sand table” that could be manipulated separately from the main interface. Petitioner asserted that Filo provided the teaching of providing at least one secondary application within the primary application, downloading real-time information into it, and enabling user access and control through separate user interfaces.
      • For dependent claims, Petitioner argued the combination rendered the further limitations obvious. For instance, Robarts disclosed using GPS data and text/sound for communication (claims 2, 17), user-selectable on-screen buttons (“hot click button”) (claims 3, 5), displaying information within the environment (claim 6), and implementing the system in a game environment (claim 16).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Robarts and Filo to improve the user experience of Robarts’ gaming system. Robarts taught a basic augmented reality game, and Filo taught a known method for enhancing virtual environments by integrating secondary applications to provide additional functionality (e.g., maps, communication tools). Because both references operate in the same field of virtual/augmented reality and address the common goal of creating interactive user experiences, a POSITA would have looked to Filo’s techniques to add desirable features to the system disclosed in Robarts.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Integrating secondary applications into a primary software application was a well-understood and conventional practice in software development at the time. The combination involved applying known software architecture principles from Filo to the specific gaming context of Robarts, which would have been a predictable implementation for a skilled artisan.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that for the purposes of the IPR, it would adopt the Patent Owner's proposed constructions for key disputed terms from a related district court litigation to demonstrate obviousness even under the Patent Owner's interpretations.
    • "quantum imaging environment (QIE) module": Construed as “a software layer which receives and interprets content such that the content is manipulated so as to be accessible on different types of devices for use within the virtual thematic environment.” Petitioner argued Robarts’ simulation engine, which processes sensed real-world values and tailors content for various mobile devices, met this construction.
    • "digital logic library": Construed as “a software layer which contains content and rules for use in the virtual thematic environment.” Petitioner argued that Robarts’ narrative engine and associated data repositories, which store data, event logic, and rules to determine permissible interactions, satisfied this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-17, 19, and 24-25 of the ’377 patent as unpatentable.