UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WAVEMARKET, INC. D/B/A/ LOCATION LABS
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-TBD
`
`Patent 6,771,970
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,771,970
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-312 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100-106, 108
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WAVEMARKET, INC. D/B/A/ LOCATION LABS
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-TBD
`
`Patent 6,771,970
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,771,970
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-312 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100-106, 108
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)..........................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)............................1
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .....................................1
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................2
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)...............................2
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES .....................................................................................3
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW......................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Grounds For Standing ...........................................................................3
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested ................................5
`
`The Specific Art and Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge Is
`
`Based .....................................................................................................5
`
`References...............................................................................................5
`
`Grounds based on Fitch in view of Roel-Ng..........................................6
`
`IV.
`
`TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION ...................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`The '970 Patent ......................................................................................7
`
`V.
`
`PRIOR ART LOCATION TRACKING TECHNOLOGIES AND
`
`BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`State of the Art ....................................................................................10
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The '970 Patent File History................................................................13
`
`Prior Art That the Patent Office Did Not Consider ............................14
`
`1.
`
`Fitch, US 6,321,092, "Multiple Input Data Management For Wireless
`
`Location Based Applications................................................................14
`
`2.
`
`Roel-Ng US 6,002,936 "System and Method for Informing Network of
`
`Terminal-Based Positioning Method Capabilities ...............................16
`
`VI.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART...........................................20
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................20
`
`VIII. EXPLANATION OF WHY THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE........22
`
`A.
`
`Fitch in view of Roel-Ng renders obvious claims 1-3, 11-14, 16, and
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`19 .........................................................................................................22
`
`Fitch in view of Roel-Ng and Jones renders obvious claim 4 ............48
`
`Fitch in view of Roel-Ng and Shah renders obvious claim 5 .............49
`
`Fitch in view of Roel-Ng and Elliott renders obvious claims 6-10, 15,
`
`and 17 ..................................................................................................50
`
`IX. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................55
`
`X.
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS......................................................................................56
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No(s).
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102..........................................................................................................4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311, 312..................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103......................................................................................................4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ...................................................................................................56
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)................................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6, 42.8, 42.22, 42.24 and 42.104.....................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 1-3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)...................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100-106..............................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .....................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R.§ 42.108 ......................................................................................................1
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`Wavemarket, Inc. d/b/a Location Labs (collectively, “Petitioner”) request
`
`inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-312 and 37 C.F.R.§ § 42.100-106, 108
`
`of Claims 1-17 and 19 of US Patent No. 6,771,970 (“the ’970 Patent”) (Exhibit
`
`1101). The '970 Patent issued from US Application Serial No. 09/677,827 filed on
`
`October 2, 2000, and purports to claim priority to US Provisional Application No.
`
`60/157,643 filed on October 4, 1999 (Exhibit 1102). The '970 Patent issued on
`
`August 3, 2004 to Meir Dan. According to the assignment records at the USPTO
`
`the ’970 Patent is assigned to LocationNet Systems Ltd. CallWave
`
`Communications, LLC ("CallWave") claims to be the exclusive licensee of
`
`the ’970 Patent, and as admitted by the Patent Owner, is a real party-in-interest.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`As set forth below and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), the following
`
`mandatory notices are provided as part of this Petition:
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Wavemarket, Inc. d/b/a Location Labs is the real party-in interest for
`
`Petitioner and no other party exercised control or could exercise control over
`
`Location Labs' participation in this proceeding, the filing of this petition, or the
`
`conduct of any ensuing trial.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner identifies the following judicial or administrative matters that
`
`would affect, or be affected by, a decision in the proceeding: Inter Partes Review
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`IPR2014-00199 (IPR of claim 18 of the '970 patent, no final written decision
`
`rendered); CallWave Communications, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, and Google,
`
`Inc., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01701-RGA; CallWave Communications, LLC v.
`
`Sprint Nextel Corp. and Google, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01702-RGA;
`
`CallWave Communications, LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc. and Google, Inc., Civil
`
`Action No. 1:12-cv-01703-RGA (D. Del.); CallWave Communication LLC v.
`
`Verizon Communications Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01704 (D. Del.) and
`
`CallWave Communication LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC and Research in Motion,
`
`Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01788 (D. Del.) (hereinafter "The District Court
`
`Actions").
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioner provides the
`
`following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Mark L. Hogge (Reg. No. 31,622)
`mark.hogge@dentons.com
`Postal/Hand Delivery Address:
`1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel.: (202) 408-6400
`Fax: (202) 408-6399
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Scott W. Cummings (Reg. No. 41,567)
`scott.cummings@dentons.com
`Postal/Hand-Delivery Address:
`1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel.: (202) 408-6400
`Fax: (202) 408-6399
`
`D.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and backup counsel at
`
`mark.hogge@dentons.com and scott.cummings@dentons.com.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`The undersigned submits the fee required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this
`
`Petition for inter partes review of claims 1-17 and 19. The undersigned further
`
`authorizes payment for any additional fees that might be due in connection with
`
`this Petition to be charged to Deposit Account No 19-3140.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`As set forth below and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6, 42.8, 42.22, 42.24 and
`
`42.104, each requirement for inter partes review of the ’970 Patent is satisfied.
`
`A.
`
`Grounds For Standing
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’970 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the '970 patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this petition.
`
`Although the '970 patent was asserted against various defendants more than
`
`one year ago, the Petitioner is not a named defendant in any past or current
`
`litigation claiming infringement of the '970 patent (see section I.B. above).
`
`Moreover, none of the named defendants exercised control, or could exercise
`
`control, over Location Labs' participation in this proceeding, the filing of this
`
`petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial.
`
`The Patent Owner has alleged in related proceeding IPR2014-00199 that
`
`Petitioner is a real-party-in-interest, or privy, with respect to some of the
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`abovementioned defendants (Sprint and T-Mobile) based upon representation by
`
`common counsel and an indemnification relationship, See, Patent Owner's
`
`Preliminary Response filed March 17, 2014, pp. 2-5 (Exhibit 1103). However, as
`
`noted by the Board in its "Decision - Institution of Inter Partes Review - 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.108" dated May 9, 2014 ("Decision"; Exhibit 1104), there is no evidence that
`
`defendants Sprint or T-Mobile exercised or could exercise control over Petitioner
`
`in connection with its current or future participation in IPR2014-00199, or that
`
`Sprint or T-Mobile has funded or directed the Petitioner in connection with the
`
`filing of IPR2014-00199. Decision, pp. 28-29. The same remains true in
`
`connection with this proceeding; no other party exercised control or could exercise
`
`control over Location Labs' participation in this proceeding, the filing of this
`
`petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial. The defendants named in the prior
`
`litigation asserting the '970 patent filed over one year ago (see, section I.B. above)
`
`are not real parties in interest, and those defendants are not in privity with
`
`Petitioner, Location Labs. Thus, Location Labs is not barred by 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(b) from bringing this proceeding, as Location Labs has sole control over this
`
`petition and proceeding.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner is not estopped as IPR2014-00199 and this
`
`proceeding involve different claims of the '970 patent, different proposed grounds
`
`for rejection, and there has been no final written decision in IPR2014-00199. Thus,
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`Petitioner is not estopped from bringing this proceeding by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), the precise relief requested by Petitioner
`
`is that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") invalidate claims 1-17 and 19
`
`of the ’970 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the specific grounds set forth below.
`
`This Petition requests inter partes review of claims 1-17 and 19 of the ’970 Patent.
`
`C.
`
`The Specific Art and Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge
`Is Based
`Inter partes review of the ’970 Patent is requested based on the following
`
`references and grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`References
`1.
`Fitch: US 6,321,092 issued to Fitch ("Fitch"; Exhibit 1105) on November
`
`20, 2001, and is based on US non-provisional application no. 09/396,235 filed
`
`September 15, 1999, claiming priority to US provisional application no.
`
`60/106,816 filed November 3, 1998 (Exhibit 1106). Fitch is prior art to the '970
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103.
`
`Roel-Ng: US 6,002,936 issued to Roel-Ng ("Roel-Ng"; Exhibit 1107) on
`
`December 14, 1999, based on a US non-provisional application no. 09/037,071
`
`filed March 9, 1998. Roel-Ng is prior art to the '970 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`102(e) and 103.
`
`Jones: US 6,741,927 issued to Jones ("Jones"; Exhibit 1108) on May 25,
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`2004, based on non-provisional US patent application serial no. 10/436,119 filed
`
`on May 12, 2003, which in turn is a divisional application of US non-provisional
`
`application serial no. 08/852,119 filed May 6, 1997. Jones is prior art to the '970
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103.
`
`Shah: US 5,758,313 issued to Shah et al. ("Shah"; Exhibit 1109) on May 26,
`
`1998. Shah is prior art to the '970 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103.
`
`Elliot: US 6,243,039 issued to Elliot ("Elliot"; Exhibit 1110) on June 5,
`
`2001, based on a US non-provisional application serial no. 09/063,544 filed April
`
`21, 1998, and issued on June 5, 2001. Elliot is prior art to the '970 Patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103.
`
`2.
`
`a.
`
`Grounds based on Fitch in view of Roel-Ng
`
`Claims 1-3, 11-14, 16 and 19 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over Fitch in view of Roel-Ng
`
`b.
`
`Claim 4 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fitch in view of
`
`Roel-Ng and Jones
`
`c.
`
`Claim 5 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fitch in view of
`
`Roel-Ng and Shah
`
`d.
`
`Claims 6-10, 15, and 17 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Fitch in view of Roel-Ng and Elliot
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`IV. TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`The '970 Patent
`
`This is a conceptual level patent having three columns of specification
`
`directed to tracking mobile devices and the like and displaying their location. The
`
`'970 patent discloses the various elements of the system described therein only at a
`
`very high level. There is no disclosure in the '970 patent of any specific hardware
`
`or software components used to implement the system, or any detail as to how the
`
`system elements are configured to cooperate with one another in a manner that
`
`achieves their stated functions. There is no mention in the '970 patent that any of
`
`the elements of its system are inventive. Rather, it is represented that the
`
`combined functionality of the system elements is the subject of invention. A
`
`provisional application was filed on October 4, 1999, for which priority is claimed.
`
`Claim 1 reads as follows:
`
`1. A system for location tracking of mobile platforms, each
`mobile platform having a tracking unit; the system including:
`
`a location determination system communicating through a user
`interface with at least one subscriber; said communication including
`inputs that include the subscriber identity and the identity of the
`mobile platform to be located;
`
`a communication system communicating with said location
`determination system for receiving said mobile platform identity;
`
`and, a plurality of remote tracking systems communicating with
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`said communication system each of the remote tracking systems being
`adapted to determine the location of a respective mobile platform
`according to a property that is predetermined for each mobile
`platform for determining the location of the mobile platform;
`
`wherein said location determination system is arranged to
`determine an appropriate one of the plurality of remote tracking
`systems, the appropriate remote tracking system receiving said mobile
`platform identity from said communication system and returning
`mobile platform location information,
`
`said communication system being arranged to pass said mobile
`platform location information to said location determination system;
`said location determination system being arranged to receive said
`mobile platform location information and to forward it to said
`subscriber.
`
`The elements of claim 1 are shown in the annotated version of Fig. 1 below:
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`Plurality
`of remote
`tracking
`systems
`
`Mobile
`platforms
`
`Location
`determination
`system
`As shown above, the alleged invention merely consists of a centralized
`
`Communication
`system
`
`"location determination system" (1), which is connected to a "subscriber's
`
`computer" (60) over a network, shown here as "Internet" (30), which mediates
`
`communications between various "location tracking systems" (11-14) through a
`
`"communication sub-system" (3) to obtain the location of "mobile platforms" (21-
`
`24). (col 4, ll. 12-22). In some embodiments, the subscriber can interact with the
`
`location determination system through a "Website" (5) and a "map server" (4) to
`
`display the location on a web browser running on the subscriber's computer. (col.
`
`5, ll. 3-24). The Patentee does not claim to have invented any of these elements
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`and has merely combined conventional technology. (col 1, ll. 10-67).
`
`According to the Patent Owner, the system described in the '970 patent
`
`provides:
`
`. . . a user with location information about a mobile entity without
`necessitating the user to directly interact with the system of the
`location tracking provider (i.e. the remote tracking system). The
`location determination and communication systems of the invention
`function as middleware, determining the appropriate remote tracking
`system for the mobile entity which a user wishes to locate and/or
`communicating with the appropriate remote tracking system as an
`intermediary for the user . . .
`
`File History of the '970 Patent (Exhibit 1111), p. 91; emphasis added.
`
`V.
`
`PRIOR ART LOCATION TRACKING TECHNOLOGIES AND
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`State of the Art
`
`Wireless mobile device tracking technologies were available many years
`
`before the filing of the ’970 Patent's earliest priority date, viz. October 4, 1999 and
`
`have been used in a wide range of applications, including aviation, military,
`
`automotive, and mobile phone services.
`
`The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began using wireless location
`
`technology for air traffic control and navigation purposes at least as early as 1944.1
`
`1 See, e.g., FAA Historical Chronology 1926-1996 at 32 (“In 1944, incorporating
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`Similarly, the automotive industry developed various vehicle navigation, fleet
`
`management, and intelligent vehicle highway systems (IVHS) using wireless
`
`location technology in the 1980s.2
`
`All of the concepts alleged to be the "invention" set forth in the '970 patent
`
`had been previously developed by, for example, Ericsson Telefonaktiebolaget LM
`
`("Ericsson") , as evidenced at least in part by its 1999 publication Ericsson Review,
`
`No. 4, 1999 - The Telecommunications Technology Journal -- "Ericsson's Mobile
`
`Location Solution" ("Ericsson Publication"; Exhibit 1115). The Ericsson system
`
`is disclosed as a location system that determines the geographic position of mobile
`
`subscribers and provides them with relational information and services. Ericsson
`
`Publication, p. 214. Two examples of this system are depicted in the publication in
`
`Figures 1 and 6, reproduced below.
`
`wartime radio advances, CAA began testing an improved, static-free, very high
`
`frequency omnidirectional radio range (VOR) at its Experimental Station in
`
`Indianapolis”) (Exhibit 1112).
`
`2 See R.L. French & Associates, “A Comparison of IVHS Progress in the United
`
`States, Europe, and Japan,” December 31, 1993 (Exhibit 1113); and R.L. French,
`
`“The Evolving Roles of Vehicular Navigation,” 1987 (Exhibit 1114).
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`As illustrated above, the location system and techniques described by
`
`Ericsson were designed to handle a variety of positioning methods and application
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`interfaces. The system is described as having three main components: (1) a
`
`positioning subsystem (e.g., GPS, cellular, etc.), (2) a positioning gateway
`
`subsystem called a Mobile Positioning Center or "MPC" that functions as a
`
`mediation device between the location subsystems and a location service client
`
`(see, e.g. Figure 1) and retrieves data from positioning subsystems and converts it
`
`into positioning information for the client, and (3) location client subsystem,
`
`including applications that make use of positioning information, such applications
`
`can be either internal or external. Ericsson Publication, pp. 219-220.
`
`B.
`
`The '970 Patent File History
`
`There were 28 originally filed claims with application claims 1, 14, 18, and
`
`22 being independent. Dependent claim 13 was allowed in the first office action
`
`subject to being rewritten in independent form. (Exhibit 1111 at p. 78). The
`
`current claims were allowed after limitations were added in a first amendment to
`
`the independent claims to escape an anticipation rejection. (Exhibit 1111 at pp.
`
`81-98). A new claim was added in the second amendment. Application claims 16-
`
`17, 20-21 and 23-27 were cancelled. The application was then allowed.
`
`The Patent Owner represented that the claimed invention was patentable
`
`because:
`
`The current invention addresses these needs in part by providing a
`user with location information about a mobile entity without
`necessitating the user to directly interact with the system of the
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`location tracking provider (i.e. the remote tracking system). The
`location determination and communication systems of the invention
`function as middleware, determining the appropriate remote
`tracking system for the mobile entity which a user wishes to locate
`and/or communicating with the appropriate remote tracking system as
`an intermediary for the user, in a manner which is transparent to the
`user. More particularly, the invention allows multiple remote tracking
`systems, each operating according to a respective and different
`protocol, to determine the location of a mobile platform and each
`being selected by the communication system so that only one suitable
`remote tracking system is employed in a manner that is wholly
`transparent to the end-user (i.e., the client).
`
`File History of the '970 Patent (Exhibit 1111), p. 91; emphasis added.
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art That the Patent Office Did Not Consider
`
`There were several patents filed before the earliest effective priority date of
`
`the '970 Patent that disclose and claim systems that render obvious claims 1-17 and
`
`19 of the ’970 Patent. At least two references (Fitch and Roel-Ng) which form the
`
`basis for this inter partes review petition were not made of record during
`
`prosecution of the '970 patent. As discussed below, had the Patent Office
`
`considered these prior art references, claims 1-17 and 19 would have been found to
`
`be fully anticipated and/or rendered obvious in light thereof.
`
`1.
`
`Fitch, US 6,321,092, "Multiple Input Data Management For
`Wireless Location Based Applications
`
`Fitch discloses systems and methods that employ multiple location finding
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`equipment (LFE's), corresponding to the "remote tracking systems" of the '970
`
`patent, for communicating with a centralized Location Finding System, to
`
`determine the location of mobile platforms, and provide the location information to
`
`subscribers or users of the system in a common format. Fitch teaches the alleged
`
`point of novelty of the '970 Patent, which is a system that includes "middleware"
`
`interfacing between multiple remote tracking systems (e.g., LFEs) and location
`
`requests from a user/subscriber made through applications (e.g., 226, 228, 230):
`
`. . . a processing system is interposed between the LFEs and the
`wireless location applications such that the applications can access
`location information in a manner that is independent of the location
`finding technology employed by the LFEs.
`
`Fitch, 3:4-9.
`For example, Figures 1 and 2 of Fitch highlight major elements of the '970
`
`Patent, and more specifically discloses systems having the above-described
`
`functionality. For instance, Fitch discloses a platform (114; Figure 1), Location
`
`Finding System (LFS, 116; Figure 1), Wireless Location Interface (WLI, 224),
`
`Location Manger (LM, 214), and "LFCs3" interfacing between the location
`
`requests initiated by a user or subscriber through the applications (118, 226, 228,
`
`230), and the multiple location tracking systems or LFEs (104, 106, 108, 202, 204,
`
`206). Figure 2 is representative and reproduced below.
`
`3 The meaning of the acronym "LFC" is not provided in the '970 Patent.
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`2.
`
`Roel-Ng US 6,002,936 "System and Method for Informing
`Network
`of
`Terminal-Based
`Positioning Method
`Capabilities
`
`Roel-Ng is assigned on its face to Ericsson, Inc., and is directed to
`
`telecommunications systems and methods for determining the location of mobile
`
`terminals or mobile stations (MS) that may utilize one or more network-based (e.g.,
`
`cellular network telecommunications based location systems) or terminal-based
`
`(e.g., global positioning system (GPS)-based) positioning systems or techniques.
`
`An illustrative system is shown in Figure 3, and an illustrative technique in Figure
`
`4, reproduced below.
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`As illustrated therein, and disclosed by Roel-Ng:
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`With reference now to FIG. 3 of the drawings, when a Requesting
`Application (RA) 380 sends a positioning request for a particular
`Mobile Station (MS) 300 to a Mobile Positioning Center (MPC) 370
`serving the Location Area (LA) 305 that the MS 300 is currently
`located in, the RA 380 can also include quality of service information,
`such as the data rate and/or the reliability of the positioning
`information returned by the cellular network (MPC 370) performing
`the positioning. In order to meet these quality of service demands, the
`MPC 370 must choose the optimum positioning method available.
`Positioning methods can be network-based, e.g., Timing Advance
`(TA) method, Time of Arrival (TOA) method, or Angle of Arrival
`(AOA) method, or terminal-based, e.g., Global Positioning System
`(GPS) method, Observed Time Difference (OTD) method, or
`Enhanced OTD method. In order for the MPC 370 to have
`knowledge of the terminal-based positioning methods, this
`information must be sent to the MPC 370 prior to receiving a
`positioning request.
`
`4:41-59; emphasis added.
`With reference now to FIG. 4 of the drawings, after the classmark
`information 310, including the MS 300 positioning capabilities, has
`been sent to the MSC/VLR 350 (step 400) and forwarded to the MPC
`370 (step 410), when a positioning request comes in to the MPC 370
`(step 420), the MPC 370 must then determine the optimum
`positioning method based upon the available network-based and
`terminal-based positioning methods and the quality of service
`requested by the RA 380 (step 425). Once the positioning method has
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`been chosen, e.g., either a network-based or a terminal-based
`method (step 425), the positioning request, along with the
`positioning method, is sent to the serving MSC/VLR 350 (steps 430
`and 440). The serving MSC/VLR 350 then forwards the positioning
`request to a serving Base Station Controller (BSC) 340 (steps 435 and
`445).
`
`5:30-44; emphasis added.
`Thus Roel-Ng also discloses systems and techniques which include an
`
`interface comprising at least a Mobile Positioning Center (MPC 370) between
`
`multiple location tracking systems (e.g., network-based and terminal-based
`
`systems/methods) and positioning requests submitted through one or more
`
`applications (e.g., RA, 380).
`
`In the arrangement described by Roel-Ng, the described "Mobile Positioning
`
`Center (MPC)" is a gateway between a network, such as a mobile network, and a
`
`location-dependent or requesting application, it receives location data from
`
`positioning subsystems, converts the data into location information and serves the
`
`location information to the client (e.g., location requesting application). See,
`
`Ericsson, Publication, p. 219. Thus, at least the MSC of Roel-Ng is analogous to
`
`the claimed location determination system of the '970 patent, as well as one or
`
`more aspects of the interface disclosed by Fitch discussed above (e.g., platform
`
`(114; Figure 1), Location Finding System (LFS, 116; Figure 1), Wireless Location
`
`Interface (WLI 224) and Location Manger (LM, 214)). See also, Hotes Decl., ¶ 32.
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`In the field of the alleged invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a
`
`bachelor of science degree in computer science, electrical engineering, physics,
`
`mathematics or a comparable degree and at least two years of experience working
`
`with location based services or GPS and telecommunications technologies. See,
`
`Hotes Decl., ¶ 9).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The following claim construction is pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) and
`
`42.104(b)(3). All rights are reserved concerning claim construction under district
`
`court proceedings. The following limitations should be construed to understand
`
`the scope of the claims for review:
`
`"mobile platforms" means a mobile device with a tracking unit, e.g.,
`cell phones, and motor vehicles. (’970 patent, Exhibit 1101, col. 3, ll.
`58-col. 4, ll. 5);
`
`"a location determination system" means a centralized computer
`system that connects to remote tracking systems and subscribers of
`location information. (Id., col. 4, ll. 12-61);
`
`"a communication system" means communication hardware, software
`or protocols for receiving and transmitting location information and
`requests for location information. (Id., col. 4, ll. 46-62). The location
`determination system and communication system "may be
`accommodated in the same web site." (Id., col. 2, ll. 61-63).
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`"a plurality of remote tracking systems" means more than one system
`for determining the location of a mobile device, e.g., GPS (Global
`Positioning System) or cellular networks. (Id., col. 1, ll. 12-26; col 3,
`ll. 47-57; col. 4, ll. 6-11);
`
`"said location determination system is arranged to determine an
`appropriate one of the plurality of remote tracking systems" means the
`location determination system is arranged to perform the function of
`determining which one of the remote tracking systems is appropriate
`for use and to cause that system to be used. See, Decision (Exhibit
`1104), p. 12;
`
`"said communication including inputs that include the subscriber
`identity and the identity of the mobile platform to be located" appears
`in claim 1. Claims 1 is directed to "[a] system for location tracking of
`mobile platforms." The content of communications that pass through
`the system does not further limit the system;
`
`"[accepting inputs from a subscriber] identifying one or more mobile
`platforms to be located" appears in claim 19, subpart (a). Claim 19 is
`directed to "[a] program storage device readable by a machine,
`tangibly embodying a program of instructions." The content of the
`inputs from a subscriber does not further limit the system of storage
`device and code of claim 19;
`
`"adapted to determine the location of a respective mobile platform
`according to a property that is predetermined for each mobile
`platform" appears in claims 1, 14, 16, and 19. This phrase
`constitutes functional language, and should be weighed accordingly;
`and
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`"supervises a different group of mobile platforms" appears in claim 13.
`Claim 13 depends from claim 1, and is thus directed to the same
`system as claim 1. This language is purely functional and should be
`weighed accordingly.
`
`VIII. EXPLANATION OF WHY THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A.
`
`Fitch in view of Roel-Ng renders obvious claims 1-3, 11-14, 16,
`and 19
`
`Claims
`1. A system for
`location tracking of
`mobile platforms,
`each mobile platform
`having a tracking
`unit; the system
`including:
`
`a location
`determination system
`communicating
`through a user
`interface with at least
`one subscriber;
`
`Grounds Based on Fitch in view of Roel-Ng
`Fitch discloses systems and methods for location tracking
`of mobile platforms: "The present invention is directed to a
`method and apparatus for using multiple LFE inputs to
`enhance the location information made available to wireless
`location-based applications. The invention allows wireless
`location-based applications access to information based
`inputs from LFEs of different types, thereby e
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
