Appliance Computing III, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 17, 2021

IPR2021-00937 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 15
571-272-7822 Entered: November 17, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

MATTERPORT, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
APPLIANCE COMPUTING III, INC.,
Patent Owner.

IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2

Before JAMESON LEE, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 314

IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
2
I. INTRODUCTION
Matterport, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–23 of U.S. Patent No.
10,510,111 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’111 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–
319, along with the supporting Declaration of Yasutaka Furukawa, Ph.D.
(Ex. 1004). Appliance Computing III, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization,
Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 13,
“Reply”) and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 14, “Sur-reply”).
We have authority to determine whether to institute review under

35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. 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 the Director determines . . . there
is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and the evidence of
record, we conclude Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing in demonstrating the unpatentability of any challenged claim of
the ’111 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Real Parties-in-Interest
Petitioner identifies itself and Redfin Corporation as the real parties-
in-interest. Pet. 2. Patent Owner names itself as the real party-in-interest.
Paper 4, 2.
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
3
B. Related Matters
Each party identifies a judicial matter that would affect, or be affected
by, a decision in this proceeding. In particular, the parties inform us that the
’111 patent is asserted in the following district court case: Appliance
Computing III, Inc. d/b/a Surefield v. Redfin Corporation, No. 6:20-cv-
00376 (W.D. Tex.) (“parallel district court proceeding”). Pet. 3; Paper 4, 2.
Petitioner also has filed (1) a petition for inter partes review of U.S.
Patent No. 9,836,885 Bl (IPR2021-00936); (2) a petition for inter partes
review of U.S. Patent No. 10,592,973 B1 (IPR2021-00938); and (3) a
petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,102,673 B2 (IPR2021-
00939).
C. The ’111 Patent
The ’111 patent relates to three dimensional (3D) image-based
rendering (IBR) for real estate. Ex. 1001, code (57). Figure 5, reproduced
below, illustrates a flowchart for computer-implemented, image-based
rendering. Id. at 8:38–39.

Figure 5, above, illustrates flowchart for computer-implemented, image-
based rendering 100 for providing a 3D virtual model of real property. Id.
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
4
The flowchart shown in Figure 5 begins with step 502 in which the
system generates the spatial boundaries in a model of the property that
define any one or more of the following: (1) the land, such as a parcel
outline; (2) structure, such as a house, apartment, or office; (3) structure
internals, such as rooms within the structure; and (4) air-space above the
land. Id. at 8:42–47. In step 504, red green blue (RGB) image data is
captured from each of the spatial boundaries. Id. at 8:48–49. In step 506,
panorama images are created from the RGB image data. Id. at 8:62–63.
Processing continues with step 508, in which the camera geometry is
determined by use of first pass feature detection within the panoramas in
order to spatially calibrate the panoramas. Id. at 9:1–3. In step 510, a second
pass feature detection algorithm is applied. Id. at 9:12–13. Conversion is
performed in step 512. Id. at 9:23.
Processing proceeds to step 514, in which the 3D data is used to
generate a parcel map, such as the exterior and aerial views of the real estate,
and a floor plan. Id. at 9:52–54. In step 516, the 3D data is used to generate a
geometric proxy for the 3D model of the real property. Id. at 9:58–59. In
step 518, the results are combined and a 3D scene that has photorealistic
views from within a panorama capture location, as well as semi-
photorealistic views from other locations using a geometric proxy and real
image data are rendered to a viewer. Id. at 9:60–64. In addition to the 3D
views, 2D floor plans are shown to the viewer user as well as descriptive
spatial boundary labels. Id. at 9:65–67.
D. Illustrative Claim
Petitioner challenges claims 1–23 of the ’111 patent. Pet. 1. Claims 1
and 18 are the independent claims. Claims 2–17 depend, directly or
indirectly, from claim 1. Claims 19–23 depend, directly or indirectly, from
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
5
claim 18. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. [1.11] A method, comprising:
receiving image data of a plurality of spaces in a real estate
property, the image data including a plurality of images
captured from a plurality of viewpoints, wherein each of
at least some of the images correspond to a respective one
of a plurality of rooms of the real estate property;
[1.2] creating a plurality of panoramas of the plurality of spaces
by processing and/or compositing the image data;
[1.3] defining a plurality of spatial boundaries of the plurality of
spaces in the real estate property using the image data,
some of the spatial boundaries delineating a volume of one
or more of the plurality of spaces of one or more rooms
within the real estate property, and wherein a defined first
spatial boundary is a further delineation within a second
spatial boundary, the second spatial boundary
corresponding to a parcel outline of the real estate
property;
[1.4] in response to receiving a user indication of a location
within the real estate property, rendering a virtual model
of a selected space of the one or more spaces delineated by
a spatial boundary of the plurality of spatial boundaries
that corresponds to the indicated location, the virtual
model rendered using one or more of the plurality of
panoramas created from the captured images that
correspond to the one or more spaces delineated by the
spatial boundary that corresponds to the indicated
location; and
[1.5] causing a device to display the virtual model with a first
label indicating a location of the selected space in the
spatial boundary that corresponds to the indicated
location.

1 Petitioner’s designations to reference the elements of claim 1 are set forth
in brackets. Pet. 22–32. Herein we refer to the elements of claim 1 using
Petitioner’s designations.
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
6
Ex. 1001, 16:8–41.
E. Evidence
Petitioner relies on the patent document references summarized in the
table below.
Name Patent Document Exhibit
Cowtan US 2009/0031246 A1 1008
Bell US 2014/0043436 A1 1009

Petitioner relies on the non-patent literature reference summarized in
the table below.
Name Non-Patent Literature Title Author(s) Exhibit
Triggs “Bundle Adjustment – A
Modern Synthesis,” Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
(2000).
Bill Triggs, et al. 1011

F. Asserted Grounds
Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims of the ’111 patent are
unpatentable based on the following grounds summarized in the table below:
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–23 1032 Cowtan, Bell
9 103 Cowtan, Bell, Triggs

2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284
(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the
challenged claims of the ’111 patent have an apparent effective filing date
on or after March 16, 2013, we apply the AIA versions of these statutes. Our
application of the AIA law is not an affirmative ruling on the actual effective
filing date of this patent.
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
7

III. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL OF THE PETITION
Patent Owner contends we should exercise our discretion under
35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review. Prelim. Resp.
11–20 (citing, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11
(PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”)). Patent Owner also asserts
that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny
institution of inter partes review because Cowtan and Bell were included in
an information disclosure statement during prosecution. Prelim. Resp. 9–11.
Because we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that there is a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the
claims challenged in the Petition, we need not address Patent Owner’s
contentions concerning discretionary denial.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standards
“In an [inter partes review], 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) as “requiring [inter partes review]
petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
grounds for the challenge to each claim’”). That burden never shifts to the
patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of
proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re
Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
8
the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person of 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 ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
evidence of nonobviousness.3 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
(1966).
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art the time of
the invention would have had “a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science,
or similar education, an understanding of the various techniques for image-
based rendering, and at least 2 years of experience in their field of study, or
equivalent practical experience in the relevant field.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004
¶ 54). Dr. Furukawa’s testimony provides substantially the same level of
skill as follows: “[t]he person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time,
in October 2013 (‘POSITA’), would have a Bachelor of Science in Electrical
Engineering, Computer Science, or similar education, an understanding of
the various techniques for image-based rendering, and at least 2 years of
experience in their field of study, or equivalent practical experience in the
relevant field.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 54. Regarding the slight difference between the
proposal in the Petition and the one in Dr. Furukawa’s testimony, Dr.
Furukawa testifies that his opinions “do not turn on this precise definition,
and the claims would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable

3 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness.
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
9
POSITA.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 55. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s
proposal. Prelim. Resp. 7.
We find that the phrase “at least” in Petitioner's proposed definition
creates a vague, open-ended upper bound for the level of ordinary skill, and
we therefore do not adopt that aspect of the proposal. With that exception,
considering the subject matter of the ’111 patent, the background technical
field, and the asserted prior art, we otherwise agree with Petitioner’s
proposed qualifications for an ordinary level of skill. Petitioner’s proposed
definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of
the ’111 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v.
Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s
undisputed assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art,
except without the “at least” phrase.
C. Claim Construction
The parties provide contentions regarding construction of certain
claim terms. See, e.g., Pet. 7–8 (asserting that Petitioner applies the district
court’s claim constructions set forth in Exhibit 1005); Prelim. Resp. 20–23
(providing contentions for the term “parcel outline”), 29–30 (providing
contention for the term “space”). To resolve the disputes between the parties,
we need to address only the parties’ claim construction contentions for the
terms “parcel outline” and “space.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan
Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining
“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent
necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
10
1. Legal Standards
We construe the challenged claims by applying the standard used in
federal courts, in other words, “the same claim construction standard that
would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§]
282(b),” which is articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, the
words of a claim generally are given their “ordinary and customary
meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary
skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including
the specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13.
2. “parcel outline”
In the parallel district court proceeding, the parties agreed that the
term “parcel outline” means “a representation of the legal boundary of the
land (i.e., the property lines).” Ex. 1005, 1. We consider whether we should
use that agreed-to construction in the instant proceeding.
The intrinsic record supports that the agreed-to construction is the
ordinary and customary meaning of “parcel outline.” The claim language
recited in claim 1 differentiates between “one or more rooms within the real
estate property” and “a parcel outline of the real estate property.” Ex. 1001,
16:20–22, 16:24–26. Claim 1 further recites a first spatial boundary, such as
a spatial boundary delineating “one or more rooms” that is “within” a second
spatial boundary, which corresponds to the parcel outline of the real
property. Id. at 16:20–26. That further recitation in claim 1 supports the
district court’s claim construction because rooms are within the legal
boundary of the land. The recitation “a parcel outline of the real estate” in
claim 1 (id. at 16:24–26) indicates a relationship between the parcel outline
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
11
and the real estate, which also supports the district court’s claim
construction.
Similarly, the claim language recited in claim 18 differentiates
between a floor of the real estate property and “a parcel outline of the real
estate property.” Id. at 18:21–32 (reciting “a first floor of the real estate
property,” “a second floor of the real estate property,” and “a parcel outline
of the real estate property”). Claim 18 further recites that the “first spatial
boundary” and the “second spatial boundary,” corresponding to the “first
floor” and “second floor,” respectively, “are further delineations within a
third spatial boundary,” which corresponds to the parcel outline of the real
estate property. Id. 18:29–32. Like the similar recitation in claim 1, the
further recitation in claim 18 supports the district court’s claim construction
because floors are within a legal boundary of the land. The recitation “a
parcel outline of the real estate” in claim 18 (id. at 18:32) indicates a
relationship between the parcel outline and the real estate, which also
supports the district court’s claim construction.
Consistently, the ’111 patent Specification describes that the spatial
boundaries define the land, which perhaps is a parcel outline, as one of a few
different alternatives. The relevant portion of the ’111 patent Specification is
below.
In step 502, the system creates or generates the spatial
boundaries in a model of the property that define the land
(perhaps a parcel outline), structure (e.g., house, apartment,
office, etc.), structure internals (e.g., bedrooms, kitchens,
hallways, etc.) and/or air-space above the land (e.g., via
quadcopter or pole-based data capture of aerial views).
Id. at 8:42–47 (emphasis added).
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
12
As set forth above, spatial boundaries that define a parcel outline are
distinguishable from spatial boundaries that define other aspects of real
property, such as structure, structure internals, or air-space above the land.
Id. The ’111 patent Specification, thus, supports that the construction agreed
to by the parties in the parallel district court proceeding is the ordinary and
customary meaning of “parcel outline.”
Other evidence of record also supports adopting the parties’ agreed-to
construction. In particular, Dr. Furukawa testifies that he understands “that
‘parcel outline’ means ‘a representation of the legal boundary of the land
(i.e., the property lines).’” Ex. 1004 ¶ 143 (citing Ex. 1005, 1).4
Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we adopt the construction
that the parties agreed to in the parallel district court proceeding, i.e., that
“parcel outline” means “a representation of the legal boundary of the land
(i.e., the property lines).”
3. “space”
In the parallel district court proceeding, the district court determined
that “space” means “a virtual or real 3D volume.” Ex. 1005, 3. We consider
whether we should use the district court’s claim construction in the instant
proceeding.
Although Petitioner argued for a different claim construction in the
parallel district court proceeding (Ex. 1005, 3), Petitioner does not present

4 In its element-by-element analysis, Petitioner refers to the testimony of
Patent Owner’s expert in the district court proceeding. See, e.g., Pet. 24–25
(citing Ex. 1006 at 32–33; Ex. 1007, 14). Petitioner does not assert that this
evidence should be considered with respect to the construction of “parcel
outline.” Id. at 7–8, 24–25, 28. Also, at least certain of the evidence pertains
to the ordinary and customary meaning of a different term, i.e., “spatial
boundaries.”
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
13
those arguments here and, further, Petitioner states that it has applied the
district court’s claim constructions in the instant proceeding. Pet. 7–8. Like
the construction adopted, Petitioner’s proposed construction in the parallel
district court proceeding is that “space” is a “3D volume.” Ex. 1005, 3.
Petitioner’s proposed construction in the district court proceeding includes
additional limitations that we need not consider here. Id.
The intrinsic record supports that the district court’s claim
construction is the ordinary and customary meaning of “space.” The claim
language supports that the “space” has a relationship to real property.
Ex. 1001, 16:9 (reciting “a plurality of spaces in a real estate property”
(claim 1)), 18:14–15 (“a plurality of spaces in a plurality of rooms in a real
estate property” (claim 18)). The claim language also supports that “space”
is a 3D volume. For instance, claim 1 recites “the spatial boundaries
delineating a volume of one or more of the plurality of spaces.” Id. at 16:20–
21. Additionally, claims 1 and 18 recite rendering “a virtual model of a
selected space.” Id. at 16:28–29, 18:35–36.
Consistently, the ’111 patent Specification describes that the capture
process includes defining spatial boundaries and the processing pipeline that
operates on the data output from the capture process involves 3D
reconstruction. Ex. 1001, 7:41–49. Furthermore, the ’111 patent provides a
description of computer-implemented image-based rendering 100 that
includes as step 502 creating or generating the spatial boundaries in a model
of the property. Id. at 8:42–43. The ’111 patent describes that computer-
implemented image-based rendering 100 provides “a three-dimensional (3D)
virtual model of a real property.” Id. at 8:38–40.
Patent Owner asserts that “the provisional application upon which the
‘111 Patent claims benefit states that the ‘[s]ystem enables the definition of
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
14
one or more, three dimensional spatial boundaries to be defined within a
given real estate environment.’” Prelim. Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 1003, 4). Patent
Owner’s assertion is supported by the disclosure in the provisional
application that the system “enables the definition of one or more, three
dimensional spatial boundaries to be defined within a given real estate
environment.” Ex. 1003, 4.
Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we adopt the district
court’s construction, i.e., that “space” means “a virtual or real 3D volume.”
D. Obviousness of Claims 1–23 over Cowtan and Bell
Petitioner asserts that claims 1–23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Cowtan and Bell. Pet. 4. Patent Owner disputes
Petitioner’s assertion. Prelim. Resp. 20–36.
We begin with an overview of Cowtan and Bell. We then turn to the
parties’ contentions.
1. Cowtan
Cowtan describes providing “multi-media virtual tours in the real
estate industry.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 2. Figure 1 of Cowtan, reproduced below,
illustrates a graphical user interface (GUI) for an Internet-based multi-media
virtual tour presentation system. Id. ¶ 16.
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
15

Figure 1, above, illustrates GUI 100 for an Internet-based multi-media
virtual tour presentation system having (1) image navigation section 110–
190, (2) image display section 200–260, and (3) hierarchical information
organization and navigation section 270–440. Id. ¶¶ 110–113.
Image navigation section 110-190 comprises one or more of the
following: left select button 110, slide bar 120, right select button 130, first
thumbnail 140, second thumbnail 150, third thumbnail 160, fourth thumbnail
170, fifth thumbnail 180, and sixth thumbnail 190. Id. ¶ 111. Image display
section 200–260 comprises, among other things, photographic or panoramic
image or streaming video display section 250. Id. ¶ 112. In image navigation
section 110–190, a user may select one of the thumbnails to display a
corresponding full size image in photographic or panoramic image or
streaming video display section 250. Id. ¶ 117.
Hierarchical information organization and navigation section 270–440
includes, among other things, plan-based navigation system 370 comprising
a plurality of photograph, panorama, or video point of origin and orientation
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
16
icons 380. Id. ¶ 113. Plan-based navigation system 370 displays an image
corresponding with a floor plan for the subject property. Id. ¶ 123. Each
photograph, panorama, or video point of origin and orientation icons 380
corresponds with one of the photographs or videos from the thumbnails in
image navigation section 110–190. Id.
2. Bell
Bell describes capturing and aligning multiple 3D scenes with one
another. Ex. 1009 ¶ 3. Figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates a graphical
user interface with windows with view of the capture process. Id. ¶ 56.

Figure 2, above, illustrates primary 3D rendering 202 of successfully aligned
captured 3D data 208 shown on display 201. Id. ¶ 61.
As shown in Figure 2, primary 3D rendering 202 allows the user to
see what areas have been captured. Id. Data 208 shown in primary 3D
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
17
rendering 202 includes sets of points captured at various times by a 3D
capture device with the different sets aligned into a common coordinate
system for display. Id. ¶ 63. A user selects a location, area, or previous
capture position on primary 3D rendering 202 or map view 205. Id. ¶ 75.
Map view 205 is displayed in two dimensions and gives users a larger
context for their position. Id. ¶ 81.The graphical user interface illustrated in
Figure 2 includes set of controls 206 for the scan process. Id. ¶ 82.
3. Independent Claim 1
a) Element 1.3
Petitioner relies on the combined teachings of Cowtan and Bell for
element 1.3. We consider whether Petitioner has provided sufficient
explanation showing how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined the teachings of Cowtan and Bell so as to meet the subject matter
recited in element 1.3. Element 1.3 is reproduced below.
defining a plurality of spatial boundaries of the plurality of
spaces in the real estate property using the image data,
some of the spatial boundaries delineating a volume of one
or more of the plurality of spaces of one or more rooms
within the real estate property, and wherein a defined first
spatial boundary is a further delineation within a second
spatial boundary, the second spatial boundary
corresponding to a parcel outline of the real estate
property.
Ex. 1001, 16:18–26.
For the reasons given above with respect to claim construction (see
§§ IV.C.2, IV.C.3), for purposes of this decision, we adopt the constructions
that are being used in the parallel district court proceeding. In particular, we
use the parties’ agreed-to construction that “parcel outline” means “a
representation of the legal boundary of the land (i.e., the property lines).”
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
18
Ex. 1005, 1. Also, we use the district court’s determination that “space”
means “a virtual or real 3D volume.” Id. at 3.
We start with a portion of the Petition having the title “Motivation to
combine Cowtan and Bell436.” Pet. 20. Petitioner asserts that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Bell’s 3D modeling
technology and techniques for rendering 3D scenes to use with Cowtan’s
virtual tours of real estate. Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 107) (“A person of
ordinary skill in the art reading Cowtan naturally would look to existing
techniques for generating 3D models and rendering 3D scenes, such as that
described in Bell436.”), 21 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 107–108) (concluding “it
would have been obvious to a POSITA[5] to use the 3D modeling technology
disclosed in Bell436 for the 3D walkthroughs, floorplans, visualizations or
renderings disclosed in Cowtan for providing Internet-based virtual tours of
real estate.”)
The aforementioned contention is too conclusory and vague with
respect to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
teachings of the asserted art to meet element 1.3. For instance, Petitioner
does not identify differences between either Cowtan and Bell and element
1.3 or how Petitioner proposes to combine or modify the asserted prior art to
meet element 1.3. Also, Petitioner’s contention does not address the ordinary
and customary meaning of the terms “parcel outline” and “space” with
sufficient specificity.
Furthermore, Petitioner’s contention does not take into account that
Cowtan also teaches 3D modeling technology and 3D rendering techniques.
Indeed, Petitioner relies on both Bell’s teachings and Cowtan’s teachings of

5 POSITA is person of ordinary skill in the art.
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
19
3D modeling technology and 3D rendering techniques. See, e.g., id. at 20
(asserting that Cowtan discloses “3D rendering[s]”), 29 (asserting that
Cowtan teaches “‘multi-media dual-paned virtual tour presentation system
having orientational capabilities’ which provides ‘a digital representation of
a 3D space’ (i.e., virtual model)”).
The portion of the Petition having the title “Motivation to combine
Cowtan and Bell436” (Pet. 20) does not include sufficient explanation as to
whether Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have substituted Bell’s technology and techniques for those of Cowtan or
whether Petitioner proposes combining the 3D modeling technologies and
3D rendering techniques of the two references in some manner. To the
extent that Petitioner intends that Bell’s technology and techniques would
have been substituted for those of Cowtan, Petitioner does not explain
sufficiently Petitioner’s reliance on Cowtan’s techniques in its element-by-
element analysis. For all these reasons, Petitioner’s contention in the portion
of the Petition having the title “Motivation to combine Cowtan and Bell436”
(Pet. 20) is deficient.
Petitioner does not remedy the deficiency in its analysis of element
1.3. Petitioner relies on Bell for the first portion of element 1.3, i.e.,
“defining a plurality of spatial boundaries of the plurality of spaces in the
real estate property using the image data.” Pet. 26 (asserting that Bell’s
techniques teach “spatial boundaries of the plurality of spaces”). Petitioner
points to teachings in both Bell and Cowtan for the next portion of element
1.3., i.e., “some of the spatial boundaries delineating a volume of one or
more of the plurality of spaces of one or more rooms within the real estate
property.” Id. at 26–27 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 113, 122–123, 189, Figs. 7–10,
13; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 81, 162–168). To the extent that we can discern, the last
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
20
paragraph of the Petition is the only portion that pertains to “parcel outline”
and the remainder of the recitation in element 1.3., i.e., “wherein a defined
first spatial boundary is a further delineation within a second spatial
boundary, the second spatial boundary corresponding to a parcel outline of
the real estate property.” That discussion is deficient for the reasons given
below. For completeness, we provide detailed discussion of each of
Petitioner’s assertions made with respect to element 1.3 in turn.
Petitioner begins by pointing to Bell’s teachings regarding a
technique for 3D modeling and rendering 3D scenes that involves using
assumptions about planes and defining plane objects. Id. at 25–26 (citing Ex.
1009 ¶¶ 133, 134). In the portions of Bell relied on by Petitioner, Bell
describes that “assumptions about planes being flat and potentially
perpendicular may be used to reduce the potential for drift.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 133.
Bell also teaches identifying planes and using their position and orientation
“to define plane objects,” such as “boundaries, edges, corners, adjacent
planes, location,” and visual appearance information. Id. ¶ 134. As indicated
above, Petitioner appears to be relying on the aforementioned teachings in
Bell for “defining a plurality of spatial boundaries of the plurality of spaces
in the real estate property using the image data.” Pet. 26 (asserting that
Bell’s techniques teach “spatial boundaries of the plurality of spaces”).
Petitioner next points to Bell’s disclosure that its 3D models may be
used for “generation of floorplans, which may provide a top-down view of
the aligned 3D data” and “generation of an exploded view, in which
segments of a captured object or environment (e.g., floors of a building) may
be separated.” Pet 26 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 162–168). Petitioner asserts that
Bell’s data may be displayed in a variety of ways including the primary 3D
rendering 202 and map view 205. Id. (citing 1009 ¶ 81). Petitioner appears
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
21
to be relying on those portions of Bell for the next portion of element 1.3.,
i.e., “some of the spatial boundaries delineating a volume of one or more of
the plurality of spaces of one or more rooms within the real estate property.”
Petitioner then asserts that Bell “can be combined with techniques,
such as those disclosed in Cowtan, for defining rooms, floors, and floorplans
in a real property.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 189, Figs. 7–10, 13). Figure 7
of Cowtan relied on by Petitioner is reproduced below.

Figure 7 of Cowtan, above, shows an example where seven sub
tabs are provided for loading a floor plan before content is
loaded into the system. Ex. 1008 ¶ 23.
Cowtan describes Figure 7 as “an example where seven sub tabs are
provided for loading a floor plan” into the system. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 23, 136.
Cowtan describes that the screen may comprise certain tabs, icons, and
indicators. Id. ¶ 136. The terms “Plotplan” and “Landscape” are found in a
column identified by “1005,” which Cowtan describes as “floor plan sub tab
names 1005.” Id. ¶ 136, Fig. 7. The column identified by “1005” also
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
22
includes “2D Floorplan” and “3D Floorplan.” Id. Petitioner’s reliance on
Figure 7 of Cowtan appears at least in part to pertain to the same portion of
element 1.3 discussed with respect to Bell, i.e., “some of the spatial
boundaries delineating a volume of one or more of the plurality of spaces of
one or more rooms within the real estate property.” Pet 26 (citing Ex. 1009
¶¶ 81, 162–168). Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why it relies on
both Bell’s and Cowtan’s teachings for this recitation.
Petitioner’s relies on other teachings in Cowtan that also appear to
pertain to the same portion of element 1.3 discussed with respect to Bell, i.e.,
“some of the spatial boundaries delineating a volume of one or more of the
plurality of spaces of one or more rooms within the real estate property.”
Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 113, 122–123, 189, Figs. 7–10, 13). For
instance, Petitioner relies on Figures 8–10 of Cowtan. Id. Cowtan’s Figures
8–10 indicate that they pertain to 2D floorplans. Ex. 1008, Figs. 8–10. In
contrast, the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “space” is “a
virtual or real 3D volume.” Ex. 1005, 3. That teaching is at best duplicative
of Figure 7.
We turn to Petitioner’s reliance on paragraphs 113 and 122–123 of
Cowtan. Pet. 27 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 113, 122–123). Paragraph 113 of
Cowtan describes navigation section 270–440 in graphical user interface 100
for providing a hierarchical organization of ways to navigate a virtual tour.
Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 110, 113. Paragraphs 122 and 123 provide further details
regarding navigation section 270–440 relating to sub-tabs in the second tier
of the hierarchy and plan-based navigation system 370, which displays an
image corresponding with a floor plan. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 122–123. Petitioner’s
reliance on paragraphs 113 and 122–123 also appears to pertain to the same
portion of element 1.3 discussed with respect to Bell, i.e., “some of the
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
23
spatial boundaries delineating a volume of one or more of the plurality of
spaces of one or more rooms within the real estate property.” Nothing in the
Petition indicates that paragraphs 113 and 122–123 are relied on to meet
element 1.3’s requirement that the second spatial boundary correspond to a
parcel outline, i.e., “a representation of the legal boundary of the land (i.e.,
the property lines).” See § IV.C.2 (emphasis added).
We now turn to Petitioner’s reliance on Figure 13 and paragraph 189
of Cowtan. Pet. 26 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶ 189, Fig. 13). Cowtan’s Figure
13 is described as “similar to FIG. 7” (Ex. 1008 ¶ 29) and appears similar to
Figure 7. Compare id. at Fig. 13, with id. at Fig. 7. Paragraph 189 of Cowtan
is described as an “[e]xample XML file” and appears to be a computer
software file. Id. ¶ 189. Paragraph 189 spans from page 12 to page 21 of
Cowtan. See generally id. Petitioner does not specify sufficiently what
portions of paragraph 189 it relies on or how this computer software file
supports Petitioner’s position.
Petitioner then asserts that “the generation of boundaries for the
spaces of a property, e.g., a floorplan, define the parcel outline for the
property.” Pet. 28 (emphasis added). We agree with Patent Owner (Prelim.
Resp. 24) that on this record Petitioner has not shown that simply providing
a floorplan is enough to satisfy the entirety of element 1.3. Petitioner
attempts to support its assertion by repeating one sentence of testimony of
Patent Owner’s expert in the district court proceeding. Pet. 28 (citing Ex.
1006, 33). Petitioner has not explained sufficiently the evidence in the
district court relating to claim construction. Id. at 24–25, 28 (citing Ex. 1005,
1, 3; Ex. 1006, 32–33; Ex. 1007, 14). Petitioner’s reliance on testimony of
Patent Owner’s expert in the district court proceeding does not eliminate the
need for the Petition to address the ordinary and customary meaning of the
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
24
terms “parcel outline” and “space” with sufficient specificity. Petitioner has
not argued for a broader construction or explained sufficiently its reliance on
the expert testimony in connection with the constructions adopted by the
district court. See, e.g., Pet. 7–8, 24–25, 28.
Petitioner also asserts “[f]or example, in Cowtan the boundaries of the
rooms in a 2D floorplan (generated as described above) along with the ‘2D
landscape’ and/or ‘2D plotplan’ define the parcel boundary for a given
property.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1008, Fig. 7). As explained throughout, the
analysis in the Petition of element 1.3 includes reliance on both Bell’s and
Cowtan’s teachings of modeling technology and rendering techniques
without sufficient clarity as to why the Petition points to teachings in both
references.
As also discussed above, Petitioner begins by pointing to Bell’s
teachings regarding a technique for 3D modeling and rendering 3D scenes
that involves using assumptions about planes and defining plane objects. Id.
at 25–26 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 133, 134). Those portions of Bell pertain to
“defining a plurality of spatial boundaries of the plurality of spaces in the
real estate property using the image data.” Pet. 26 (asserting that Bell’s
techniques teach “spatial boundaries of the plurality of spaces”). For
completeness, we discuss those teachings in Bell (Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 133, 134) in
connection with Cowtan’s description of the screen shown in Figure 7
comprising tabs, icons, and indicators, including the terms “Plotplan” and
“Landscape,” which are found in a column identified by “1005.” Ex. 1008
¶ 136, Fig. 7.
Upon consideration, we determine that the Petition does not take into
account that Bell’s teachings pertain to spaces of man-made structures. See,
e.g., Ex. 1009 ¶ 133 (describing that Bell’s technique “can be useful in
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
25
situations for which the environment being scanned is a man-made structure
that is supposed to have flat floors, walls, or other surfaces” (emphases
added)). Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how Bell’s identification of
planes and definition of plane objects of man-made structures would have
been combined with Cowtan’s sub tab names “Plotplan” and “Landscape” to
teach element 1.3. Also, the Petition does not address sufficiently the
ordinary and customary meaning of “parcel outline,” which is “a
representation of the legal boundary of the land (i.e., the property lines).”
See § IV.C.2 (emphasis added). Additionally, Petitioner’s argument relating
to teachings of a two dimensional plotplan and a two dimensional landscape
does not address the ordinary and customary meaning of “space” with
sufficient specificity. See § IV.C.3. Furthermore, we note that Petitioner uses
the term “parcel boundary,” not parcel outline, which is recited in the claim
without sufficient explanation as to why two different terms are used. Pet.
28.
In its Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Petitioner
provides arguments responding to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response.
Reply 5–7. Petitioner’s arguments should have been presented in the
Petition. As an additional, independent reason for our denial, even upon
consideration, Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply do not remedy the
aforementioned deficiency. For instance, Petitioner asserts that Patent
Owner’s infringement contentions in the parallel district court proceeding
support Petitioner’s position. Id. Petitioner’s argument appears to imply that
we should adopt a broader construction such that Bell’s floorplan would
suffice as the parcel outline. Id. Petitioner, however, does not provide with
sufficient specificity a broader construction or sufficient additional
explanation regarding why we now should adopt any broader construction.
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
26
See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner’s Reply is not consistent with the
Petition’s assertion that Petitioner has applied the district court’s claim
constructions. Pet. 7.
In summary, Petitioner does not explain with sufficient specificity in
what manner a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
Bell’s modeling technology or rendering techniques with Cowtan’s
teachings to meet element 1.3 recited in claim 1.
b) Does the Petition provide sufficient articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined the teachings of Cowtan and Bell?
We turn to whether Petitioner provided sufficient articulated
reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have combined the teachings of Cowtan and Bell in the manner
recited in claim 1. We again consider Petitioner’s contentions provided
under the title “Motivation to combine Cowtan and Bell436,” as well as
contentions provided in Petitioner’s element-by-element analysis. Pet. 20–
21, 26, 28.
In its contentions, Petitioner points to similarities in Cowtan and Bell.
Id. For instance, Petitioner asserts “Cowtan and Bell436 both disclose the
use of images (e.g., panoramas) to generate 3D scenes for various types of
spaces, including rooms and other spaces on properties.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex.
1004 ¶¶ 105–106) (emphasis added). As discussed above (see § IV.D.3.a),
Petitioner relies on both Bell and Cowtan for teaching a portion of element
1.3. Also, Petitioner asserts that both Cowtan and Bell teach elements 1,1,
1.4 and 1.5. Id. at 22 (referring to element 1.1, “Cowtan and Bell436 both
disclose this limitation”), 30 (referring to element 1.4, “[t]hus, this limitation
is disclosed by Cowtan and Bell” and referring to element 1.5 “Cowtan and
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
27
Bell436 both disclose this limitation of claim 1, individually and in
combination”).
Petitioner’s contentions pointing to similarities in Cowtan and Bell do
not suffice as an articulated reason with rational underpinning to combine
their respective teachings––more is required to support the legal conclusion
of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Federal Circuit has
concluded that merely asserting that two references were drawn from the
same field of art is “simply too conclusory” to show that the skilled artisan
would have combined these references in the way of the claimed invention.
Securus Techs., Inc. v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp., 701 F. App’x 971, 976 (Fed.
Cir. 2017); see Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC, 662 F. App’x 981, 990 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (determining that “the Board correctly concluded” that a
petitioner “did not articulate a sufficient motivation to combine” where the
only reason given was “that the references were directed to the same art or
same techniques”). In the same way, Petitioner’s contentions here that the
references are similar, even if true, are insufficient to show why the skilled
artisan would have combined Cowtan and Bell in the manner recited in the
claims.
Relying on the testimony of Dr. Furukawa, Petitioner also contends
that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Cowtan “naturally would
look to” Bell’s techniques. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 107). Dr.
Furukawa’s testimony, however, pertains to similarities in the teachings of
web-based technologies of Cowtan and Bell (Ex. 1004 ¶ 107), which is not
enough as discussed above. Dr. Furukawa also testifies that Petitioner
intended its system to be used by “property owners and real estate
management companies.” Ex, 1004 ¶ 107 (citing Ex. 1025, 3). That,
however, does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
28
have combined teachings in the manner recited in claim 1, which requires
“the second spatial boundary corresponding to a parcel outline of the real
estate property.” The Petition, also states that the named inventors asserted
that Petitioner’s technology “could ‘generate significant artifacts.’” Pet. 21
(citing Ex. 1003, 9). That is a reason a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have looked to make the proposed combination. Under the
circumstances here, Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in
the art reading Cowtan “naturally would look to” Bell’s techniques (Pet. 20–
21) is conclusory and does not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational
underpinning to combine the respective teachings of the references. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.6
Petitioner also asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
have combined the references. Pet. 21, (asserting that the named inventors
acknowledged that Petitioner’s technology “could be used in real estate
environments”), 26 (asserting Bell’s generation of floorplans and views “can
be combined with techniques, such as those disclosed in Cowtan”)
(emphasis added). Those contentions, however, do not explain sufficiently
why one of ordinary skill in the art reading Cowtan would have applied
specifically Bell’s particular teachings. Petitioner also does not identify a
persuasive reason why a skilled artisan, viewing the teachings of Bell, would
have been motivated to modify Cowtan. That a person of ordinary skill in
the art could have done so is not enough. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805

6 Although Dr. Furukawa’s testimony does not remedy the deficiency in the
Petition, we further determine that Petitioner’s reliance on that testimony is
improper incorporation by reference. See 37 C.F.R. 42.6 (a) (3) (“Arguments
must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another
document.”)
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
29
F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a
skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to
make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention.”); In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he
mere capability of pulling the handles is not the inquiry that the Board
should have made; it should have determined whether it would have been
obvious to modify the prior art apparatus to arrive at the claimed rowing
machine.”).
Even if prior art references disclose all of the limitations in a claim
when combined, which is not the case here, the Petition still must explain
why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references
to arrive at the claimed invention. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew,
Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Innogenetics, N.V. v.
Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that post-KSR
“some kind of motivation must be shown from some source, so that the [trier
of fact] can understand why a person of ordinary skill would have thought of
either combining two or more references or modifying one to achieve the
patented [invention]”)). Under the circumstances here, we determine that
Petitioner has not provided sufficient articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
the teachings of Cowtan and Bell in the manner recited in claim 1.
c) Conclusion
After consideration of the contentions and the evidence, we determine
that Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation to show how a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Cowtan
and Bell so as to meet the claimed subject matter. Also, Petitioner has not
provided sufficient articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
30
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of
Cowtan and Bell in the manner recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude
that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Cowtan and Bell.
4. Independent Claim 18
Independent claim 18 is similar to independent claim 1, except claim
element 18.37 recites “wherein the volume delineated by a first spatial
boundary corresponds to a first floor of the real estate property and the
volume delineated by a second spatial boundary corresponds to a second
floor of the real estate property” (emphasis added). Element 18.3 also recites
that those first and second spatial boundaries “are further delineations within
a third spatial boundary corresponding to a parcel outline of the real estate
property” (emphasis added). Petitioner references its assertions for claims 1,
4, and 7, and provides additional contentions. Pet. 52–56. Petitioner’s
contentions for claim 18, however, do not remedy the deficiencies discussed
with respect to claim 1. See supra §§ IV.D.3.a, IV.D.3.b.
Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the floors of a building, and thus the spatial boundaries for
those floors, would be within the parcel outline of the property. Pet. 54
(citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 359). Petitioner, however, relies on both Bell and Cowtan
for teaching floors of a building without sufficient explanation as to why
Petitioner points to the teachings of both references. Id. at 53–54 (citing Ex.
1009 ¶¶ 81, 162–168; Ex. 1009 ¶ 189, Figs. 7–10, 13).

7 Like we did for claim 1, we use Petitioner’s designation for element 18.3
recited in claim 18. Pet. 52.
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
31
The Petition does not provide sufficient explanation as to how the
teachings of Bell and Cowtan would have been combined to meet the
requirement in element 18.3 that the first and second spatial boundaries
corresponding to floors “are further delineations within a third spatial
boundary corresponding to a parcel outline of the real estate property”
(emphasis added). Pet. 52–56. In its additional discussion for element 18.3,
Petitioner relies on the same teachings discussed with respect to claim 1.
Compare Pet. 53–56 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 133, 134, 162–168; Ex. 1008
¶¶ 113, 122–123, 189, Figs. 7–10, 13) with id. at 25–26 (citing Ex. 1009
¶¶ 133, 134, 162–168; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 113, 122–123, 189, Figs. 7–10, 13). The
reasons given for element 1.3 (see supra § IV.D.3) apply to the discussion in
the Petition for element 18.3.
Also, a contention in the Petition for element 18.3 is inconsistent with
a similar, but different contention for element 1.3. In particular, for element
18.3, Petitioner asserts “in Cowtan the boundaries of the rooms in a 2D
floorplan (generated as described above) along with the ‘2D landscape’
and/or ‘2D plotplan’ are all within the parcel boundary for a given property.”
Pet. 55–56 (citing Ex. 1008, Fig. 7) (emphasis added). For element 1.3,
however, Petitioner asserts that “in Cowtan the boundaries of the rooms in a
2D floorplan (generated as described above) along with the ‘2D landscape’
and/or ‘2D plotplan’ define the parcel boundary for a given property.” Id. at
28 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how Cowtan’s
boundaries are both within the parcel outline and define the parcel outline.
Also, Petitioner’s different contention for 18.3 does not remedy the
deficiency noted for element 1.3 that the Petition lacks sufficient explanation
as to how Bell’s identification of planes and definition of plane objects of
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
32
man-made structures would have been combined with Cowtan’s sub tab
names “Plotplan” and “Landscape” to teach element 18.3.
Like Petitioner’s reasoning to combine for claim 1, Petitioner again
points to similarities in Cowtan and Bell and asserts that a person of ordinary
skill in the art “would understand” that the teachings “can be combined.”
Pet. 52–56 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 360). Those assertions are deficient for
the same reasons provided for claim 1. See supra § IV.D.3.b. Petitioner does
not provide additional contentions that remedy the earlier-noted deficiencies.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, as well
as those discussed with respect to claim 18, we conclude that Petitioner has
not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
that claim 18 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cowtan
and Bell.
5. Dependent Claims 2–17 and 19–23
We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for
dependent claims 2–17 and 19–23. Petitioner does not provide contentions
for claims 2–17 and 19–23 that remedy the deficiency discussed with respect
to claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1,
we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
that it would prevail in showing that claims 2–17 and 19–23 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cowtan and Bell.
E. Obviousness of Claim 9 over Cowtan, Bell, and Triggs
Petitioner alternatively asserts that claim 9 is unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cowtan, Bell, and Triggs. Pet. 4, 60–64. We
considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for obviousness of
dependent claim 9 over the combination of Cowtan, Bell, and Triggs. Id.
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
33
Petitioner does not provide contentions that remedy the deficiency discussed
with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed with respect
to claim 1, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 9 is unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cowtan, Bell, and Triggs.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the information presented
in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
would prevail in showing that any of claims 1–23 of the ’111 patent is
unpatentable.
VI. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and we do not institute inter
partes review of any claim of the ’111 patent based on the grounds asserted
in this Petition.
IPR2021-00937
Patent 10,510,111 B2
34
FOR PETITIONER:

Hector Ribera
Chien Ju Chuang
MARTON RIBERA SCHUMANN & CHANG LLP
hector@martonribera.com
cjalice@martonribera.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:

Gregory S. Donahue
Andrew DiNovo
DINOVO PRICE LLP
gdonahue@dinovoprice.com
adinovo@dinovoprice.com