`
`
`
`Exhibit 2103
`
`Exhibit 2 1 O3
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WAVEMARKET, INC. D/B/A/ LOCATION LABS
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LOCATIONET SYSTEMS, LTD.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00199
`
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(c)–(d) FOR PARTIAL
`RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION TO INSTITUTE
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................1
`
`Standard of Review for Rehearing....................................................1
`
`The Board Misapprehended or Overlooked the Fact that the Petition
`
`Pled Facts Demonstrating that LFS/LM (116/214) Cooperates with Other
`
`Components of Platform 114 to Teach the “location determination system” of
`
`Claim 1
`
`2
`
`IV.
`
`The Decision Misconstrued or Overlooked the Fact that Method
`
`Claims 14, 16, and 19, Do Not Recite Any Particular Structure that Determines
`
`“for each mobile platform one of the remote tracking systems that is capable of
`
`locating said mobile platform” ..................................................................................8
`
`V.
`
`Claims 2–13, 15, and 17, Are Unpatentable over Fitch Alone or in
`
`Combination with Other References........................................................................11
`
`VI.
`
`Conclusion.......................................................................................12
`
`2
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests rehearing of the Board’s Decision of May 9,
`
`2014 (Paper No. 18; “Decision”), to not review claims 1–17 and 19, as anticipated
`
`or rendered obvious by U.S. Patent No. 6,321,092 to Fitch (“Fitch”) alone or in
`
`combination with other references.1 First, the Decision overlooked or
`
`misapprehended the fact that the Petition mapped the recited “location
`
`determination system” to several components in “platform 114,” not just a single
`
`one of the components in platform 114. Second, with respect to claims 14, 16 and
`
`19, the Board additionally overlooked or misapprehended the fact that those claims
`
`recite methods detached from any particular structure.
`
`II. Standard of Review for Rehearing
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a
`
`panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” The Federal Circuit has
`
`held that “[a]n abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based on an
`
`1 Although Petitioner believes that each of proposed grounds presents a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing, Petitioner limits this request to the grounds
`
`relying on Fitch alone or in combination with Jones, Shah, or Elliot. Petitioner
`
`does not concede that the Elliot-based grounds fail to establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claims or are redundant.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`erroneous interpretation of the law, on factual findings that are not supported by
`
`substantial evidence, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant
`
`factors.” Gose v. United States Postal Service, 451 F.3d 831, 836 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(internal quotations omitted); see also, O’Keefe v. U.S. Postal Service, 318 F.3d
`
`1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The Board necessarily abuses its discretion when it
`
`rests its decision on factual findings unsupported by substantial evidence.”)
`
`(internal quotations omitted).
`
`III. The Board Misapprehended or Overlooked the Fact that the Petition
`Pled Facts Demonstrating that LFS/LM (116/214) Cooperates with
`Other Components of Platform 114 to Teach the “location
`determination system” of Claim 1
`
`The Decision alleged,
`
`Petitioner does not direct us to evidence sufficient to demonstrate that
`Fitch describes the LFS 116, LM 116, or LM 214, LFS 214 (Fig. 2)
`(i.e., location determination system) is arranged to perform the
`function of determining which of LFEs 104, 106, 108, 110, 202, 204,
`and 206 is appropriate for use and to cause that system to be used.
`Instead, Fitch describes that wireless location applications 226, 228,
`and 230 … selectively prompt one or more LFEs to initiate a location
`determination (i.e., are arranged to perform the function of
`determining an appropriate one of LFEs). Ex. 1004, col. 10, ll. 59–63;
`Fig. 2. In other words, Fitch does not describe that LFS 116, LM 116,
`or LM 214, LFS 214 selectively prompt one or more LFEs.
`Furthermore, Petitioner does not assert that Fitch’s LFS 116, LM 116,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`LM 214, or LFS 214 includes the functionality of wireless location
`applications 226, 228, and 230.
`Decision, pp. 21–22 (emphasis added). The Decision to only apply LFS/LM
`
`(116/214) to the “location determination system” is not based on substantial
`
`evidence. The Decision erroneously misapprehended or overlooked the fact that
`
`the Petition did, in fact, assert that Fitch teaches a “location determination system”
`
`as platform 114, which includes, inter alia, LFS/LM (116/214) and wireless
`
`location applications (118 and 226–230). Therefore, the Decision’s finding that
`
`only the LFS/LM (116/214) maps to the “location determination system” is
`
`unsupported by substantial evidence. Decision, pp. 21–22.
`
`The claim chart from the Petition demonstrates how platform 114, and each
`
`of its components, teaches a “location determination system”:
`
`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
`
`Fitch discloses systems and methods for location
`tracking of mobile platforms with tracking units. Figs.
`1, 2, and 6-9; Abstract (“In one implementation, the
`invention is implemented in a wireless network
`including an MSC (112) for use in routing
`communications to or from wireless stations (102), a
`network platform (114) associated with the MSC
`(112), and a variety of LFE systems (104, 106, 108
`and 110). A Location Finding System (LFS) (116) in
`accordance with the present invention is resident on
`the platform (114). The LFS (116) receives location
`information from the LFEs (104, 106, 108 and 110)
`and provides location information to wireless location
`based applications (118)).
`Fitch discloses: “A Location Finding System (LFS)
`(116) in accordance with the present invention is
`resident on the platform (114). The LFS (116) . . .
`
`3
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`with at least one
`subscriber;
`
`a communication system
`communicating with said
`location determination
`system for receiving said
`mobile platform identity;
`and
`
`wherein said location
`determination system is
`arranged to determine an
`appropriate one of the
`plurality of remote
`tracking systems,
`
`provides location information to wireless location
`based applications (118). see also, Fig. 2 (214, 222,
`224, 226–230); and col. 5, ll. 1–4 (“… a network
`platform 114 associated with the MSC 112 for
`implementing a variety of subscriber or network
`service functions…”).
`Fitch discloses a number of aspects that satisfy this
`limitation. For example, Fitch discloses one of more
`“LFC” (Fig. 2; 208, 210, 212). The LFC(s) acts as a
`communications system between the LFS and the
`LFE's, including receiving mobile platform
`identification information: “FIG. 7 illustrates a
`sequence of messages associated with a forced LFE
`access. The illustrated sequence is initiated by a
`WLARequestLocationlnvoke as described above. In
`response, the LM transmits a QueryLocationInvoke
`message to the LFC to force an LFE determination,
`and the LFC confirms receipt of this message with a
`QueryLocationRetumResult message. The parameters
`of the QueryLocationlnvoke message may include
`Wireless Station ID...” (col. 11,ll. 58-65).
`*
`*
`*
`Fitch discloses: “… An important aspect of the
`present invention relates to the operation of the LM
`214 to receive inputs from multiple LFEs 202, 204
`and 206 … may be based on different technologies,
`and may therefore provide different types of location
`information, in different data formats, with different
`accuracies based on different signals.” (col. 6, ll. 30–
`39); and “. . . a wireless location interface (WLI) 224
`that allows wireless location applications 226, 228,
`and 230 to selectively . . . prompt one or more of
`LFEs 202, 204 and/or 206 to initiate a location
`determination” (col. 10, ll. 59–63); and col. 10, ln.
`66–col. 11, ln. 3 (“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.”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`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.
`
`Fitch discloses one of more “LFC” (Fig. 2; 208, 210,
`212). The LFC(s) acts as a communications system
`between the LFS and the LFE's, including receiving
`mobile platform identification information: “FIG. 7
`illustrates a sequence of messages associated with a
`forced LFE access. The illustrated sequence is
`initiated by a WLARequestLocationlnvoke as
`described above. In response, the LM transmits a
`QueryLocationlnvoke message to the LFC to force an
`LFE determination, and the LFC confirms receipt of
`this message with a QueryLocationReturnResult
`message. The parameters of the QueryLocationlnvoke
`message may include Wireless Station ID...” (col. 11,
`ll. 58-65). Each LFC stores location information
`received from the LFEs into a memory or location
`cache (LC) of the system (LFS): “This standardized
`location information is then stored in a database in
`LC 220. Specifically, the location coordinates for a
`wireless station and corresponding uncertainties can
`be stored in a field, and a relational database, or can
`otherwise be indexed to a wireless station identifier . .
`.” (col. 8, ll. 23-27).
`Fitch discloses: “generally, however, such
`information is processed by the LM 116 to provide
`location outputs for use by any of various wireless
`location applications 118 in response to location
`requests from the application 118. Such applications
`may include any wireless location services
`applications such as 911, vehicle tracking and
`location-based billing programs.” (col. 6, ll. 22-29);
`“the illustrated system 200 includes a wireless
`location interface (WLI) 224 . . . receiving responses
`from the LM 214 independent of the location finding
`technology(ies) employed.” (col. 10, ll. 58-66); and “a
`wireless location interface (WLI) 224 that allows
`wireless location applications 226, 228 and 230 to
`selectively access information . . “ (col. 10, ll. 59-62).
`
`Petition, pp. 36–39 (emphasis added).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`The Petition expressly mapped the “location determination system” to
`
`several system components “resident on” the platform 114:
`
`1) “Location Finding System (LFS)” (116/214)
`
`2) “wireless location-based applications” (118 and 226–230)
`
`3) “wireless location interface (WLI)” 224
`
`Id. The Petition made clear that neither the LFS/LM (116/214) nor the wireless
`
`location-based applications (118 and 226–230) alone selectively prompts the
`
`LFEs. Petition, p. 16. Instead, as pointed out in the Petition, the LFS/LM (116/214)
`
`works together with wireless location-based applications (118 and 226–230) and
`
`WLI (224) (as part of platform 114) to selectively prompt the LFEs:
`
`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 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 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.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`Id. (quoting Fitch, 10:58–66) (emphasis added). The Petition further clearly
`
`demonstrated Fitch’s teaching of using components of platform 114 to “determine
`
`an appropriate one of the plurality of remote tracking systems”:
`
`a wireless location interface (WLI) 224 that allows wireless location
`applications 226, 228 and 230 to selectively … prompt one or more of
`LFEs 202, 204 and/or 206 to initiate a location determination…. 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.
`Petition, pp. 38, 44, 47, and 54 (citing Fitch, 10:59–63 and 10:66–11:3).
`
`Indeed, the Decision’s analysis made no reference to, i.e., overlooked and did not
`
`address, platform 114, except in the summary of Fitch. Thus, the Decision
`
`misapprehended or overlooked the arguments in the Petition collectively mapping
`
`each of the components of platform 114 to the “location determination system.”
`
`Petitioner understands the need to “spoon-feed” information and that claim
`
`charts are not sufficient by themselves. PTAB roundtable slides at 16 (www.uspto.
`
`gov/ip/boards/bpai/ptab_roundtable__slides_may_update__20140503.pdf). The
`
`Petition demonstrates how Fitch teaches a “location determination system” and
`
`contains a brief analysis because 1) it clearly encompasses the components
`
`“resident on” platform 114, and 2) the Board admonishes petitioners to avoid
`
`“extensive usage of claim charts in a petition.” PRPS FAQ D12. The Petition
`
`7
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`provided sufficiently clear facts presenting a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
`
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked the entirety of the facts presented and
`
`made the erroneous conclusion, unsupported by substantial evidence, that only
`
`LFS/LM (116/214) mapped to the “location determination system,” despite the
`
`Petition having also mapped other components of platform 114, e.g., wireless
`
`location-based applications (118 and 226–230) and WLI (224), to this limitation.
`
`For at least the reasons set forth above, the finding that Fitch does not
`
`present a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating the unpatentability of claim 1 is
`
`not based on substantial evidence because it misapprehends or overlooks the facts
`
`pled in the Petition that platform 114 teaches a “location determination system.”
`
`IV. The Decision Misconstrued or Overlooked the Fact that Method Claims
`14, 16, and 19, Do Not Recite Any Particular Structure that Determines
`“for each mobile platform one of the remote tracking systems that is
`capable of locating said mobile platform”
`
`The Decision refused to adopt the proposed grounds, stating,
`
`Petitioner’s mapping of Fitch’s description to the claim elements, and
`for reasons similar to the reasons addressing claim 1, previously
`discussed, Petitioner does not direct us to evidence sufficient to
`demonstrate that Fitch describes determining for each wireless station
`102 (i.e., mobile platform) one of the LFEs 104, 106, 108, 110, 202,
`204, and 206, that is capable of locating wireless station 102.
`Moreover, Petitioner does not assert that Fitch’s wireless station 102
`includes the functionality of wireless location applications 226, 228
`and 230.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`Decision, p. 23 (emphasis added).
`
`The Decision misapprehended three facts. First, the rationale given in the
`
`Decision refusing to adopt the proposed grounds of the unpatentability of claims
`
`14, 16, and 19, as being anticipated by Fitch is similar to those discussed above in
`
`§ III. Decision, pp. 22–23. Therefore, the discussion in § III, above, similarly
`
`applies. Second, denying review of claims 14, 16, and 19, as anticipated by Fitch,
`
`misapprehends or overlooks the fact that these are method claims untethered to any
`
`specific structure. Third, the Decision erroneously assumed that Fitch’s wireless
`
`station 102 must include the functionality of wireless location applications 226–
`
`230. Decision, p. 23.
`
`First, just as the case with claim 1, the charts for claims 14, 16, and 19, not
`
`only map LFS/LM (116/214) to the “location determination system,” but also map
`
`other components of platform 114 to this limitation, e.g., wireless location-based
`
`applications (118 and 226–230) and WLI 224. Petition, pp. 44, 47, and 54.
`
`Therefore, it is erroneous to assume that the Petition only map LFS/LM (116/214)
`
`to the “location determination system.”
`
`Second, the Decision improperly imported limitations into claims 14, 16,
`
`and 19 that tied the determining steps to specific hardware. Claims 14, 16, and 19
`
`are method claims that do not require that any specific hardware perform the
`
`“determining” step. Compare the limitations below:
`
`9
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`Claim 1
`said location
`determination system is
`arranged to determine an
`appropriate one of the
`plurality of remote
`tracking systems
`
`Claims 14 and 19
`determining for each
`mobile platform one of
`the remote tracking
`systems that is capable of
`locating said mobile
`platform
`
`Claim 16
`computer readable
`program code for
`causing the computer to
`determine for each
`mobile platform one of
`the remote tracking
`systems that is capable of
`locating said remote [sic -
`mobile] platform;
`
`Therefore, it is irrelevant whether LFS/LM (116/214) or wireless location-based
`
`applications (118 and 226–230) (i.e., components of platform 114), either alone or
`
`together, performs this step, just as long as Fitch teaches the “determining” step,
`
`which, as explained above and throughout the Petition, Fitch teaches:
`
`a wireless location interface (WLI) 224 that allows wireless location
`applications 226, 228 and 230 to selectively … prompt one or more of
`LFEs 202, 204 and/or 206 to initiate a location determination…. 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.
`Petition, p. 38 (citing Fitch, 10:59–63 and 10:66–11:3); see also, pp. 44, 47, and
`
`54. The Petitioner could not have reasonably anticipated this as it is impossible to
`
`predict effectively what limitations might be improperly imported into the claims.
`
`Third, the Decision erroneously assumed that Fitch’s wireless station 102
`
`must include the functionality of wireless location applications 226–230. Decision,
`
`10
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`p. 23 (“Petitioner does not assert that Fitch’s wireless station 102 includes the
`
`functionality of wireless location applications 226, 228 and 230.”) Petitioner does
`
`not understand why the Decision would assume that the wireless station 102 must
`
`include functionality to determine its own location. Perhaps, as previously
`
`discussed on p. 3, above, the Decision meant to say that “Petitioner does not assert
`
`that Fitch’s LFS 116, LM 116, LM 214, or LFS 214 includes the functionality of
`
`wireless location applications 226, 228, and 230.” Decision, p. 22 (emphasis
`
`added). Assuming that is what the Decision meant, the Decision contained a clear
`
`error in misapprehending that LFS/LM (116/214) is separate and distinct form
`
`wireless location applications (118 and 226–239), as each is a component of
`
`platform 114.
`
`In summary, the Decision finding that Fitch does not present a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 14, 16, and 19, not only
`
`misapprehended or overlooked the fact that Fitch teaches the “determining” step,
`
`but misapprehended or overlooked the fact that the claims do not require that
`
`Fitch’s LFS/LM (116/214) performs the step. Therefore, the Decision is not based
`
`on substantial evidence, and misapprehends or overlooks facts pled in the Petition.
`
`V. Claims 2–13, 15, and 17, Are Unpatentable over Fitch Alone or in
`Combination with Other References
`
`The only reason the Decision gave for not instituting on claims 2–13, 15,
`
`and 17 was there dependence from their respective independent claims. Because
`
`11
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`the Board misapprehended or overlooked the arguments in the Petition (discussed
`
`above) the Board should institute review of these claims.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`In view of the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`reconsider the Fitch-based grounds proposed in the Petition, and issue a revised
`
`Order finding that the Petition presented facts demonstrating a reasonable
`
`likelihood that claims 1–17 and 19 are unpatentable over Fitch alone or in
`
`combination with other references.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Scott Cummings/
`
`Mark L. Hogge, Reg. No. 31,622
`Email: mark.hogge@dentons.com
`
`Scott W. Cummings, Reg. No. 41,567
`Email: scott.cummings@dentons.com
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`DENTONS US LLP
`1301 K. St., NW
`Suite 600, East Tower
`Washington, DC 20005-3364
`Telephone: 202-408-6400
`Facsimile: 202-408-6399
`
`12
`
`

`

`Request for Rehearing – IPR2014-00199
`
`Certificate of Service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.71(c)–(d) FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION
`
`TO INSTITUTE was served electronically via e-mail and on a CD via U.S. first
`
`class mail on May 23, 2014, in its entirety on counsel of record for the involved
`
`patent at the address below:
`
`Thomas Engellenner (Lead Counsel) - engellennert@pepperlaw.com
`
`Reza Mollaaghababa (Back-up Counsel) - mollaaghababar@pepperlaw.com
`
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`___/Nona Durham/__________________________
`Nona Durham
`Paralegal
`
`13
`
`