Obviousness

Based on the authoritative information from the previously generated "PTAB challenges" section, a direct analysis identifying combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US patent 11484797 obvious, along with the motivations for combining them, cannot be provided.

Here's why:

1. PTAB's Institution Denial: The sole Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed against US11484797, IPR2025-01275 by Unified Patents (Petitioner Niantic, Inc.), was denied institution by the PTAB on March 26, 2026. [cite: Previously generated PTAB challenges section]
2. Lack of Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing: The PTAB determined that the Petitioner "had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the challenged claims, finding that the cited prior art combinations did not render the claims obvious." [cite: Previously generated PTAB challenges section]
3. Unpersuasive Arguments: Specifically, the Board found that "the petitioner's arguments for combining certain references and their disclosure of certain claim limitations were unpersuasive." [cite: Previously generated PTAB challenges section]

The petition for IPR2025-01275 challenged claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,484,797 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of the following prior art:

• US Patent Publication No. 2012/0284003 (Mistry et al.) [cite: Previously generated PTAB challenges section]
• US Patent Publication No. 2008/0176669 (Shapiro et al.) [cite: Previously generated PTAB challenges section]
• US Patent Publication No. 2010/0279768 (Chen) [cite: Previously generated PTAB challenges section]
• US Patent Publication No. 2011/0212763 (Hassanieh et al.) [cite: Previously generated PTAB challenges section]

Since the PTAB has already reviewed arguments combining these references and explicitly found them insufficient to establish obviousness, I cannot, under the operating rules, present these same or similar combinations as successfully rendering the claims obvious. Doing so would contradict the authoritative outcome of the IPR proceeding.

Therefore, as of April 26, 2026, and based on the provided information, no combination of the identified prior art references (Mistry et al., Shapiro et al., Chen, and Hassanieh et al.) has been found to successfully render claims 1-28 of US11484797 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by the PTAB. All claims of US11484797 remain untested on their merits by the PTAB due to the institution denial. [cite: Previously generated PTAB challenges section]