PTAB

IPR2019-00672

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 ’325 patent describes a computer system for integrating real-time information, including a user's real-world geographic location retrieved from external internet sources, into a three-dimensional virtual environment. The system allows a user to interact with this environment in a manner that simulates real-world interaction based on their geographical movement.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over March-097 and Robarts - Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are obvious over March-097 in view of Robarts.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: March-097 (Application # 2005/0043097) and Robarts (Application # 2004/0002843).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that March-097 discloses a three-dimensional "virtual game world" that retrieves real-time information (e.g., weather, news) from external data sources over the internet and integrates it into the game. March-097's environment also includes mini-applications in the form of sub-games. Robarts discloses a system for interacting with "simulated phenomena" (e.g., an augmented reality game) where the interaction is based on the user's actual physical location, which can be sensed by a remote sensor distinct from the user's mobile device. Petitioner contended the combination teaches all elements of the challenged claims, with March-097 providing the core 3D thematic environment and Robarts teaching the retrieval of a user's geographic location from an external source to drive the interaction.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine March-097 and Robarts because both relate to virtual or augmented reality games that incorporate a user's real-world location. A POSITA seeking to improve the location-based features of March-097's virtual world would have looked to Robarts' disclosure of using remote sensors for location data. Conversely, to enhance Robarts' simpler augmented reality display, a POSITA would have incorporated the more detailed 3D virtual environment and mini-application architecture taught by March-097. The combination was presented as a predictable application of known techniques in the same field to achieve improved functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these systems. Integrating an external location data source (from Robarts) into a location-aware virtual world (from March-097) was a straightforward and predictable design choice to enhance the system's immersion and responsiveness.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Robarts and Filo - Claim 6 is 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: This ground focused on the "mini-application" limitation of claim 6. Petitioner asserted that Robarts teaches the core augmented reality system based on user location but does not explicitly detail displaying information within a distinct mini-application inside the main virtual environment. Filo, which describes a virtual military command post, remedies this by teaching the integration of secondary applications within the primary virtual environment. Filo's examples include a "virtual sand table" and PowerPoint presentations, which function as mini-applications that can display real-time, three-dimensional data (including GPS information) and can be manipulated independently within the larger virtual space.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Robarts and Filo to add more sophisticated features and data displays to Robarts' augmented reality system. Robarts explicitly suggests its simulation engine can work with "other program code," creating a clear motivation to look for examples of how to integrate such code. Filo provides a well-defined blueprint for integrating mini-applications to display complex data within a virtual environment. A POSITA would have been motivated to adopt Filo’s approach to enhance Robarts' gaming experience with more structured and feature-rich information displays, which was a known method for improving software applications.
    • Expectation of Success: The integration of modular software components or "mini-applications" into a larger software framework was a common and well-understood practice. A POSITA would have reasonably expected to successfully implement the mini-application concept from Filo within the architecture of Robarts' system to yield the predictable result of a more interactive and graphically rich user experience.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner also asserted that claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are obvious over March-097 alone (Ground 1) and Robarts alone (Ground 2), arguing each reference either explicitly or inherently taught all claim limitations.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner noted that for the purposes of the petition, it adopted the constructions agreed upon in a related district court litigation for two key terms:
    • "simulated real-world interaction": means "a situation found in the physical world that is closely mimicked."
    • "real-world geographic location": means "the non-relative, actual location in the physical world."
  • For the disputed term "virtual thematic environment," Petitioner demonstrated that the prior art meets the claim limitations even under the Patent Owner's proposed construction ("a theme-based virtual computer interface which may take the form of a game"). Petitioner reserved the right to argue the term is indefinite in litigation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 3, and 5-6 of the ’325 patent as unpatentable.