Google LLC v. Rafqa Star LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2023-00812
• Patent #: 11,145,215
• Filed: June 20, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Rafqa Star, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-22

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Directing User Attention Using a Portable Electronic Device
• Brief Description: The ’215 patent describes methods for directing a user to a point of interest (POI) using a portable electronic device (PED). The technology involves detecting the PED’s movement, capturing video, and augmenting the video output with an “attention output,” such as a graphical annotation, to guide the user.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-11 and 14-22 are obvious over Waldman in view of Kankainen.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Waldman (Application # 2011/0199479) and Kankainen (Application # 2011/0141141).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Waldman disclosed the core elements of independent claim 1, including a method of augmenting a video stream on a handheld device with navigational information. Waldman showed a device detecting its movement along a route to a POI, capturing video, and overlaying directional maps and turn indicators. To the extent Waldman did not explicitly disclose that the detected movement results from a user walking, Petitioner contended that Kankainen supplied this teaching. Kankainen explicitly described a system providing "walking directions" where the device's movement was detected by GPS as the user walked along a route.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Waldman's augmented reality navigation with Kankainen's pedestrian-specific movement detection to provide a more useful and complete navigation experience for users on foot. This combination would enhance Waldman's system by tailoring it for walkable cities and destinations (like the parks shown in Waldman), which was a known and desirable application for such technology.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining the teachings was straightforward. It involved using conventional location-tracking techniques (e.g., GPS), as disclosed in both references, to detect user walking movement—a predictable application of known technology to yield an improved, but expected, result.

Ground 2: Claims 1-7 and 14-22 are anticipated or obvious over Kankainen.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kankainen (Application # 2011/0141141).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Kankainen, by itself, disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. Kankainen described a method for providing "walking" directions on a mobile terminal from a current location to a POI. The system detected the user's walking movement in a first direction, received a "live image" from the device's video camera during the movement, and presented the video on the display. This video was augmented with directional information (e.g., "turn right at H St.") to direct the user in a second direction toward the POI (the IMF building). Petitioner argued this mapping satisfied all elements of independent claims 1, 18, and 19.
  • Key Aspects: This ground argued that Kankainen provided a complete blueprint for the claimed invention, from detecting pedestrian movement to overlaying directional cues on a live video feed to guide a user through turns toward a destination.

Ground 3: Claims 12 and 13 are obvious over Waldman and Kankainen, in further view of Ohnishi.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Waldman (Application # 2011/0199479), Kankainen (Application # 2011/0141141), and Ohnishi (Application # 2006/0190168).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Waldman and Kankainen from Ground 1 to address the tactile feedback limitations of claims 12 and 13. Petitioner argued Ohnishi disclosed a pedestrian navigation device that provided tactile feedback (e.g., a "vibration pattern") based on the user's location, such as when approaching a guide point or arriving at a destination. Claim 12 required tactile feedback based on the object's location, and claim 13 required it based on the device's movement. Ohnishi taught both, triggering vibrations as the user moved toward and reached specific locations.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ohnishi's tactile feedback with the augmented reality system of Waldman/Kankainen to enhance user experience and safety. Adding non-visual cues would allow users to receive navigation information without constantly looking at the screen, which is particularly useful when walking. Ohnishi explicitly stated that providing guidance through non-visual means in addition to visual display was "preferable."
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in this combination because integrating vibrating units into mobile devices was a well-known and routine practice. Configuring the existing system to trigger vibrations based on GPS location data (as taught by Ohnishi) was a simple integration of known components for their intended purpose.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Kankainen and Geelen (Application # 2009/0125234) for claims 8-11 to add distance indicia, and combining Kankainen and Ohnishi for claims 12-13 based on a similar tactile feedback theory.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) Arguments: Petitioner argued denial was not warranted because the Examiner did not consider the primary prior art references—Waldman, Kankainen, or Ohnishi—during prosecution. The art and arguments presented in the petition were therefore not the same or substantially the same as those previously before the Office.
• Fintiv Arguments: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the parallel district court case was in its early stages, with no significant investment in merits discovery or claim construction. Furthermore, the trial was scheduled for August 2024, while a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the IPR would issue around December 2024, indicating the IPR would conclude efficiently and with minimal overlap.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-22 of Patent 11,145,215 as unpatentable.