`
`
`
`Exhibit 2101
`
`Exhibit 2 1 01
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WAVEMARKET, INC. D/B/A/ LOCATION LABS
`
`Petitioner,
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-00199
`
`Patent 6,771,970
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`US. PATENT NO. 6,771,970
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-312 AND 37 CPR. §§ 42.100-106, 108
`
`81649783W—2
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(l) ......................... l
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(l) ........................... 1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 2
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel Under 37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 2
`
`Service Information Under 37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................. 3
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ..................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Grounds For Standing ........................................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Identification Of Challenge & Relief Requested ................................. 3
`
`The specific art and statutory ground(s) on which the challenge is
`
`based ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Grounds based on Elliot......................................................................... 4
`
`Grounds based on Fitch ......................................................................... 5
`
`IV.
`
`TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`The ’970 Patth..................................................................................... 6
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Location Tracking Technologies ........................................ 10
`
`The '970 Patent File History ............................................................... 12
`
`S l 649783W-2
`
`_ i _
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art That the Patent Office Did Not Consider............................ 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Elliot, US 6,243,039, "Anytime/Anywhere Child Locator System”
`
`13
`
`Fitch, US 6,321,092, "Multiple Input Data Management For Wireless
`
`Location Based Applications ............................................................... 15
`
`VI.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 17
`
`VII. EXPLANATION OF WHY THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....... 17
`
`VIII. ADDITIONAL RATIONALE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED
`
`GROUNDS ................................................................................................... 55
`
`A.
`
`Elliot, or Elliot and Fitch, in View of Jones: Claim 4 ........................ 55
`
`B
`
`Fitch in View of Jones : Claim 4 ........................................................ 56
`
`C.
`
`Elliot, or Elliot and Fitch, in View of Shah: Claim 5 ......................... 56
`
`D
`
`E.
`
`Fitch in View of Shah : Claim 5 ......................................................... 57
`
`Fitch in View of Elliot: Claims 6-10, 15, 17 and 18 ......................... 57
`
`IX.
`
`THE GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY RELY ON NEW PRIOR
`
`ART NEVER CONSIDERED BY THE PATENT OFFICE AND RAISE
`
`ISSUES IN WHICH PETITIONERS WILL LIKELY PREVAIL .............. 59
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60
`
`S l 649783W~l
`
`_ ii _
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`Page No(s).
`
`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. § 42.10003) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`37 C.F.R.§ 42.100—106 ............................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R.§ 42.108 ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`8 i649783W-2
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`Wavernarket, Inc. d/b/a Location Labs
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) request
`
`interpartes review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-312 and 37 C.F.R.§ § 42100-106, 108
`
`of Claims 1-19 of US Patent No. 6,771,970 (“the ”970 Patent”) (Exhibit 1001).
`
`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 1002). 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 2000 Ltd. However, a non-
`
`practicing entity named CallWave Communications, LLC ("CallWave") now
`
`claims to be the assignee or exclusive licensee of all substantial rights, title and
`
`interest in and to the ’970 Patent.
`
`1.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(3111)
`
`As set forth below and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(l), the following
`
`mandatory notices are provided as part of this Petition:
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42-3031!“
`
`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.
`
`31649783W-2
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8]b1121
`
`Petitioner identifies the following judicial or administrative matters that
`
`would affect, or be affected by, a decision in the proceeding: CallWave
`
`Communications, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, and Google, Inc, Civil Action No.
`
`1:12-0V-01701~RGA; CallWave Communications, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp. and
`
`Google, Inc, Civil Action No. 1:12—cv—Ol702-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 611.,
`
`Civil Action No. 1:12-cv—01704 (D. Del.) and 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. § 42.803113)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioner provides the
`
`following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-u n Counsel
`
`
`Mark L. Hogge (Reg. No. 31,622)
`
`mark.hogge@dentons.com
`
`
`Postal/Hand Delive Address:
`
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Tel; (202) 408-6400
`Fax: (202) 408-6399
`
`
`1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`
`8 1649783\V-2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Scott W. Cummings (Reg. No. 41,567)
`scott.cummings@dentons.com
`Postal/Hand-Deliver Address:
`
`
`
`1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel.: (202) 408-6400
`Fax: (202) 408-6399
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`D.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.81bfl4]
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and backup counsel at the
`
`address shown above. Petitioner also consents to electronic service by email to:
`
`mark.hogge@dentons.corn and scott.cummings@dentons.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`The undersigned previously submitted the fee required by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.15(a) for this Petition for inter partes review on November 27, 2013. Review
`
`of all 19 claims is requested. The undersigned further authorizes payment for any
`
`additional fees that might be due in connection with this Corrected Petition to be
`
`charged to Deposit Account No 19—3140.
`
`111. 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 patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`Identification 01' Challenge & Relief Reguested
`
`Pursuant to 37 CPR. § 42.10403), the precise relief requested by Petitioner
`
`is that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") invalidate claims 1—19 of
`
`8i649783w-2
`
`_ 3 _
`
`

`

`lPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`the ’970 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. This Petition requests inter
`
`partes review of claims 1~19 of the ’970 Patent.
`
`C.
`
`The specific art and statutory groundgs) 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. §§ 102 and 103, which can be grouped
`
`according to grounds based on two primary references:
`
`1.
`
`Grounds based on Elliot — US 6,243,039 issued to Elliot (hereafter
`
`"Elliot") (Exhibit 1003), based on a US non-provisional application
`
`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.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19
`
`are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) by Elliot.
`
`b.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11, 12,13, 14,15, 16,17, 18,19
`
`are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Elliot
`
`in View of US
`
`6,321,092 to Fitch et a1. (hereafter "Fitch") (Exhibit 1004);
`
`c.
`
`Claim 4 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Elliot in view of
`
`US 6,741,927 to Jones (hereafter Hones") (Exhibit 1005);
`
`(1.
`
`Claim 4 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Elliot in view of
`
`Fitch and Jones;
`
`8 1649783W-2
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`6.
`
`Claim 5 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Elliot in view of
`
`US 5,758,313 to Shah et a1. (hereafter "Shah") (Exhibit 1006) ; and
`
`f.
`
`Claim 5 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Elliot in view of
`
`Fitch and Shah.
`
`2.
`
`Grounds based on Fitch - US 6,321,092 issued to Fitch, based on a
`
`US non-provisional application filed September 15, 1999, claiming
`
`priority to US provisional application no. 60/106,816 filed November
`
`3, 1998 (Exhibit 1007), and issued on November 20, 2001. Elliot is
`
`prior art to the '970 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(6) and 103.
`
`g.
`
`Claims 1-3, 11—14, 16 and 19 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(6) by Fitch.
`
`h.
`
`Claim 4 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fitch in view of
`
`Jones;
`
`1.
`
`Claim 5 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fitch in view of
`
`Shah; and
`
`j.
`
`Claims 6-10, 15, 17 and 18 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Fitch in view of Elliot.
`
`The proposed grounds for rejection are not redundant. For example, both
`
`references qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(6), and have different priority
`
`dates for the various subject matter relied upon and disclosed therein. Thus, it is
`
`81649783W-2
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`possible that if the patent owner attempts to disqualify the references by submitting
`
`evidence of prior invention, it is possible that one reference, but not the other,
`
`could be disqualified by such evidence, dependent upon the content of the evidence
`
`with respect to subject matter, and the date of any prospective earlier allegedly
`
`inventive activity. Moreover, while both references clearly describe the
`
`fundamenta
`
`"invention" associated with the '970 Patent, and recited in the
`
`majority of the claims, each reference has slightly different areas of emphasis with
`
`respect to the subject matter claimed in the '970 patent. For example, Fitch is
`
`relatively more focused on the back-end of the system with respect
`
`to the
`
`management of data received from mobile devices or platforms. Eiliot, on the
`
`other hand, is relatively more focused on the front—end of the system with respect
`
`to the interface with an end user or subscriber.
`
`IV. TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`The ’97!) 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
`
`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 inciuding:
`
`81649783W-2
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`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 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.
`
`8 E649733W-2
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`The elements of claim 1 are shown in Fig. 1:
`
`Plurality
`of remote
`
`tracking
`
`svstems
`
`Location
`determination
`system
`
`Communication
`system
`
`As shown above,
`
`the alleged invention merely consists of a centralized
`
`"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, 11. 12-22).
`
`In some embodiments, the subscriber can interact with the
`
`location determination system through a "Website" (5) and a "map server" (4) to
`
`dis 1a
`P Y
`
`the location on a web browser runnin on the subscriber‘s com uter.
`g
`P
`
`coi.
`
`81649783W-2
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for US}J 6,771,970
`
`5, 11. 3-24).
`
`The Patentee does not claim to have invented any of these elements
`
`and has merely combined existing technology from the piior art.
`
`(col 1, 11. 10-67).
`
`V.
`
`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.
`
`(col. 3, ll. 58-001. 4, ll. 5);
`
`"a location determination system" means a centralized computer
`
`system that connects to remote tracking systems and subscribers of location
`
`information. (col. 4, 11. 12-61);
`
`"a communication system” means communication hardware, software
`
`or protocols for receiving and transmitting location information and requests
`
`for location information. (col. 4, 11. 46—62);
`
`"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.
`
`(col. 1, 11. 12—26; col 3, 11. 47-57;
`
`col. 4, 11. 6-11);
`
`"said communication including inputs that
`
`include the subscriber
`
`identity and the identity of the mobile platform to be located" appears in
`
`claim 1. A corresponding limitation appears in claim 18, subpart (a).
`
`8 i649?83\V—2
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`Claims 1 and 18 are directed to "[a] system for location tracking of mobile
`
`platforms.’ The content of communications that pass through the system
`
`does not finther 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, i4, 16, 18 and 19. This phrase constitutes functional
`
`language, and should be weighed accordingly; and
`
`"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.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Location Tracking Technologies
`
`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.
`
`81649783W-2
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began using wireless location
`
`technology for air traffic control and navigation purposes at least as early as 1944.1
`
`Similarly,
`
`the automotive industry developed various vehicle navigation, fleet
`
`management, and intelligent vehicle highway systems (IVHS) using wireless
`
`location technology in the 19805;.2
`
`All of the concepts set forth in the '970 patent were disclosed in Labell et
`
`al.‘s report of April 1992 (Exhibit 1011).3 Disclosed for example are: buses with
`
`GPS (p. xiv); wireless communication links (p. 24); real time location data for
`
`vehicle monitoring (p. 42); GPS and ground—based signal triangulation (p. 46);
`
`automatic vehicle location subsystem with data connections between drivers and
`
`dispatcher(s) (p. 56); and use of maps to display location (p. 76). The only thing
`
`I See, e.g., FAA Historical Chronology 1926-1996 at 32 (“In 1944, incorporating
`
`wartime radio advances, CAA began testing an improved, static-free, very high
`
`frequency omnidirectional radio range (VOR) at its Experimental Station in
`
`Indianapolis”) (Exhibit 1008).
`
`2 See R.L. French & Associates, “A Comparison of IVHS Progress in the United
`
`States, Europe, and Japan,” December 31, 1993 (Exhibit 1009); and R.L. French,
`
`“The Evolving Roles of Vehicular Navigation,” 1987 (Exhibit 1010).
`
`3 Lawrence N. Labell, et 61]., "Advanced Public Transportation Systems: The State
`
`the Art Update '92," April 1992 (report date).
`
`31649733W~2
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`missing in Labeil et al. is express mention of the Internet. As discussed in detail
`
`below, multiple prior art
`
`references expressly disclose the use of Internet
`
`technologies to integrate and access location based systems, and were filed or
`
`published before the earliest priority date of the '970 patent and expressly disclose
`
`the core claimed concepts of the '970 patent.
`
`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 1012 at p. 77). The
`
`current claims were allowed after limitations were added in a first amendment to
`
`the independent claims to escape an anticipation rejection.
`
`(Exhibit 1012 at pp.
`
`80-98). A new claim was added in the second amendment. Application claims
`
`16-17, 20—21 and 23—27 were cancelled. The added limitations were argued as
`
`distinguishing the claims over US Patent 6,131,067 to Girerd et a1. because "there
`
`appears to be no suggestion in Girerd et al. to employ multiple remote tracking
`
`systems each having its proprietary technology and software." (Emphasis in the
`
`original).
`
`(Exhibit 1012 at pp. 106-115).
`
`Prior art submitted herewith, not
`
`considered by the patent office, clearly shows the employ of multiple remote
`
`tracking systems in the prior art.
`
`81649783W-Z
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`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 anticipate and render obvious
`
`claims 1-19 of the ”970 Patent. At least two references (Elliot and Fitch) 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 149 would have been found to be
`
`fully anticipated and/or rendered obvious in light thereof.
`
`1.
`
`Elliot, US 6,243,039, "Anytime/Anywhere Child Locator
`System"
`
`As described in the "summary of the invention,” Elliot discloses systems and
`
`methods which provide a centralized means
`
`to access location information on
`
`mobile platforms (e.g., location of child) over the Internet using multiple location
`
`tracking technologies communicating with a location determination system and
`
`then communicating this information to subscribers in the form of a map display:
`
`the system provides multiple interface means such that the current
`
`and historical location of a child or any other individual wearing or
`
`carrying the device may be observed at anytime by another person or
`
`persons. These interfaces are made available via a web server and a
`
`call center. With the use and convenience of the Web and the
`
`Internet, the observation of a child ’s or other person 's movements
`
`may be conducted from anywhere accessible by a computer with a
`
`Web browser and Internet access. A web server with its associated
`
`S {649783\V-2
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`files provides graphical maps capable of showing the current and
`
`historical locations of the device. With the use and convenience of a
`
`VRU, a determination of the location may be conducted from any
`
`telephone. Therefore,
`
`the present
`
`invention provides multiple
`
`mechanisms for determining and viewing remotely, the current and
`
`historical locations of the device in various display formats. (Exhibit
`
`1003, at col. 2, in. 60 - col. 3, 1n. 9). (emphasis added)
`
`Figure 1, shown below, highlights major elements of the '970 Patent,
`
`including "mobile platforms"
`
`(cg, device worn by child 12),
`
`"location
`
`determination system" (e.g., central control system 20), "remote tracking system"
`
`(e.g., GPS 14 and/or base station 15), "communication system" (cg. central
`
`receiver transmitter 16) and "subscribers" (parent).
`
`4
`
`
`central
`receiver-
`
`
`transmitter
`anywhere
`
`
`child localor
`
`
`coverage area
`
`
`
`S l 6497S3W-2’.
`
`-14-
`
`1
`
`Global Positioning
`System sateliile
`
`I
`
`anytime anywhere
`chrid locator
`coverage area
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`Elliot also explicitly teaches the alleged point of novelty of the '97() Patent, which
`
`is use of multiple remote tracking systems depending on the type of mobile
`
`platform involved:
`
`More particularly, the present invention utilizes a GPS device for
`
`providing reference coordinates of a person 's current location. In
`
`addition, a ground based system could ride on a sub carrier in the
`
`cellular bandwidth inside the cells. The ground based system may be
`
`used either as a primary locator with GPS as a backup, or as a
`
`backup when the GPS is used as a primary locator.
`
`(Exhibit 1003,
`
`at col. 4, 11. 4763). (emphasis added)
`
`2.
`
`Fitch, US 6,321,092, "Multiple Input Data Management For
`Wireless Location Based Applications
`
`Fitch discloses systems and methods that employ multiple location finding
`
`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. Figure 2 is representative
`
`of the concepts taught by Fitch and is reproduced below.
`
`81649783W-2
`
`-15_
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`202
`
`" e
`
`268
`
`[£01
`
`“"L'FSMHH'
`5
`:
`
`vetocm’
`
`...‘\
`
`4
`
`2’
`216
`
`zoo
`
`,5
`
`LFE1
`
`204
`
`'
`mum.
`.
`
`l = rit C
`Psocessmc '
`
`17
`
`2
`
`TRACKENG
`
`LC
`
`1
`: 2 8
`
`220
`
`'
`:
`,
`
`256
`
`212
`
`>i AFPLICATIONI
`
`228
`
`APPLICAEDN
`
`
`
`230
`
`! APPLICATiON i
`
`
`
` L
`
`Y |
`
`222
`3 WG
`
`FIG.2
`
`Figure 2 of Fitch, highlights major elements of the '970 Patent, and also
`
`explicitly teaches the alleged point of novelty of the ‘970 Patent, which is
`
`interfacing with, and selection from amongst, multiple remote tracking systems :
`
`Referring again to FIG. 2,
`
`the illustrated system 200 includes a
`
`wireless location interface (WLI) 224 that allows wireless location
`
`applications 226, 228 and 230 to selectively access information stored
`
`in the LC 220 or prompt one or more ofLFEs 202, 204 and/or 206 to
`
`initiate a location determination. The WLI 224 provides a standard
`
`format for submitting location requests to the LM 214 and receiving
`
`responses from the LM 214 independent of the location finding
`
`technology(ies) employed. In this manner, the applications can make
`
`use of the best or most appropriate location information available
`
`originating from any available LFE source without concern for LFE
`
`dependent data formats or compatibility issues. Moreover, new
`
`S l 649783W-2
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`location finding technologies can be readily incorporated into the
`
`system 200 and used by the applications 226, 228 and 230 without
`
`significant accommodations for the existing applications 226, 228 and
`
`230, as long as provision is made for providing data to the LC 220 in
`
`the form described above.
`
`(Exhibit 1004, at col. 10, In. 58 - coi. ll,
`
`ln. 8) (emphasis added)
`
`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
`
`Declaration of Scott Hotes, Ph.D (hereafter "Hotes Deci."). (Exhibit 1013, 11 9).
`
`VII. EXPLANATION OF WHY THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Each of the grounds for invalidity noted in section HI(C) are discussed
`
`below. Evidentiary support for the disclosures and teachings, and a discussion of
`
`how each claim element is satisfied by the reference or combination of references
`
`is detailed below. Additional evidence and rationale supporting the proposed
`
`grounds appears in the Hotes Decl., in particular, see W 27-31 therein with respect
`
`to the grounds based in Elliot, and 1111 32-46 therein with respect to the grounds
`
`based on Fitch.
`
`81649783W-2
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771 ,970
`
`Ground Based on Elliot
`
`device carried by a person .
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Claims
`
`
`
`1. A system for location
`Elliot discloses systems and methods for location
`tracking of mobile platforms,
`tracking of mobile platforms with tracking units;
`
`
`
`each mobile platform having a
`See e.g., Abstract (”A system that tracks the
`
`
`
`current and historical locations of a GPS locator
`tracking unit; the system
`
`including:
`. .").
`
`
`
`
`a location determination
`Elliot discloses "a Web interface for the central
`system communicating
`control system to enable web access to the central
`
`
`through a user interface with
`control system; an operator service call center 36;
`
`at least one subscriber;
`and a VRU. The web server 34 provides a
`
`
`
`subscriber parent with the location data .
`.
`. " (col.
`
`7, ll. 1-7).
`
`
`
`
`
`said communication including
`Elliot discloses: ”In order for a parent to access the
`inputs that include the
`web server 34, an authentication procedure is
`
`
`
`subscriber identity and the
`performed first to validate the parent's identity and
`
`
`
`identity of the mobile
`authorization to access the location data. The
`
`
`platform to be located;
`parent may be authenticated with a valid user lD
`
`
`and/or a valid PIN number or password, for
`example. Next, the parent enters a code
`
`representing the child's device identification code
`for their child's device. . .."Fig. 3 (parent inputs);
`
`and col. 7, 11. 16—27.
`
`
`
`
`
`a communication system
`Elliot discloses several communication nodes
`
`communicating with said
`including the central receiver-transmitter (16),
`
`
`
`location determination system
`which is in two-way communication with the
`
`
`
`for receiving said mobile
`"central control system" (20) via the Internet,
`
`
`platform identity; and,
`PSTN, etc., as well as the tracking device (12).
`
`
`
`Other components of the central control system
`such as a "data receiving module," receives
`
`information from the tracking device including
`”the device identification code," and can exist in a
`
`distributed computing environment. Figs. 1, 3, col.
`6, ll. 17-35; and col. 8. 11. 44-62.
`
`
`a plurality of remote tracking Elliot discloses GPS and ground-based tracking
`
`systems communicating with systems in communication with the
`said communication system
`communication system, as illustrated for example,
`each of the remote tracking
`in Fig. 1 (12(device), 14(GPS), 15(ground tracking
`
`
`
`
`
`51649783Wc2
`
`~18-
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771,970
`
`determination system is
`arranged to determine an
`appropriate one of the
`plurality of remote tracking
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systems being adapted to
`system), 16 (central receiver—transmitter). see
`
`determine the location of a
`also col. 4, 11. 52—65; and col. 5, 11. 1-12 (location
`
`
`according to a predetermined property is satisfied
`
`
`
`based whether device has a GPS receiver or
`
`
`
`transmitter or cellular radio chip set).
`
`
`
`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
`Anticipated by Elliot:
`Either GPS or ground based cellular systems can
`
`
`
`be used or combined to locate a device depending
`
`
`
`upon which is appropriate to use (primary/backup
`
`
`
`roles) and can be based on the properties of the
`
`
`
`device tracking unit (GPS receiver
`systems,
`
`
`installed/cellular chipset included). col. 4, 11. 52»
`65; see also Fig. 1, Ref. 14 (GPS); also col. 4, ll.
`48~51("In the present invention, the GPS system is
`the geographical locator system of choice.
`
`However other systems that use broadcast
`
`technologies may be used").
`
`
` Obvious in View of Fitch:
`
`Fitch teaches a system (200) configured and
`arranged to select or prompt one of a plurality of
`
`location finding equipment (LFEs) in order to
`make use of the best or most appropriate location
`
`information from any available LFE:
`
`"[T]he illustrated system 200 includes a wireless
`
`location interface (WLI) 224 that allows wireless
`
`location applications 226, 228 and 230 to
`
`selectively access information stored in the LC
`
`220 or prompt one or more of LFEs 202, 204
`
`and/or 206 to initiate a location determination. The
`
`WLI 224 provides a standard format for
`
`submitting location requests to the LM 214 and
`
`receiving responses from the LM 214 independent
`
`of the location finding technologyfies) employed.
`
`In this manner, the applications can make use of
`
`the best or most appropriate location information
`
`31549783W-2
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`IPR Petition for USP 6,771