Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS,
`T-MOBILE US, INC. and T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. and SPRINT CORPORATION, and
`AT&T MOBILITY, LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ORLANDO COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Patent No. 5,687,196
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,687,196
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 2
`
`A. The Alleged Invention of the Challenged Claims ......................................... 2
`1.
`The ’196 Patent Relies on Using “Conventional Correlation”
`Techniques to Separate Multipath Signal Copies. .............................................. 5
`2.
`The Challenged Claims that Depend from Claim 12 Provide Minor
`Tweaks to the Claimed Method. ......................................................................... 6
`B. State of the Prior Art ..................................................................................... 6
`C. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’196 Patent ............................10
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104 ................................................................................................................11
`
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ....................................11
`B. Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ...........................11
`1. Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................12
`2. How the Challenged Claims Are to be Construed under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104 (b)(3) .....................................................................................................13
`3.
`Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ..........................15
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ..................................................................16
`
`A. Tajima Anticipates Claims 12, 13, 14, and 16 under at least 35 U.S.C.
`102(e). .........................................................................................................16
`B. Sanderford Anticipates Claims 12, 13, 14, and 16 under at least 35 U.S.C.
`102(e). .........................................................................................................30
`C. Fenton in View of the Knowledge of One Skilled in the Art, as Described
`in Dunmore, Renders Claims 12, 13, 14, and 16 Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a). ......................................................................................................39
`D. The Bases Are Not Duplicative, and Petitioners Request the Board to
`Consider all Bases for Invalidity. ................................................................53
`V. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................54
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`VI. NOTICES, STATEMENTS AND PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ...........................................................................................54
`
`A. Real Party in Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ....................................54
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ...........................................57
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ........................58
`D. Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .....................................59
`E. Fees under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ....................................................................59
`VII. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................59
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Pat. No. 5,687,196 (the ‘196 patent)
`
`Exhibit 1002 U.S. Pat. No. 5,381,444 (“Tajima”)
`
`Exhibit 1003 U.S. Pat. No. 5,742,635 (“Sanderford”)
`
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Pat. No. 5,414,729 (“Fenton”)
`
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Pat. No. 2,582,971 (“Dunmore”)
`
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Pat. No. 1,630,689 (“Behm”)
`
`Exhibit 1007 Enge, “Global Positioning System: Signals, Measurements and
`
`Performance,” 1994
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Prosecution History for U.S. Pat. 5,687,196 (as produced by the
`
`patent owner in related litigation)
`
`Exhibit 1009 Engel, Effects of Multipath Transmission on the Measured
`
`Propagation Delay of an FM Signal (published May 1969,
`
`reprinted 1975)
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Price, A Communication Technique for Multipath Channels
`
`(published 1958)
`
`Exhibit 1011 U.S. Pat. No. 5,402,450
`
`Exhibit 1012 U.S. Pat. No. 4,983,980
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`
`Exhibit 1013 Declaration of Dr. Martin Walker
`
`Exhibit 1014 Dixon, A Spread Spectrum Ranging Technique for Aerospace
`
`Vehicles (published 1968) reprinted in Dixon, Spread Spectrum
`
`Techniques (published 1976)
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`Skolnik, Introduction to Radar Systems (1981).
`
`Exhibit 1016 Dixon, Spread Spectrum Systems (published 1984) (Excerpts)
`
`Exhibit 1017 The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Terms, 274 (5th Ed. 1993)
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile US, Inc.
`
`and T-Mobile USA, Inc., Sprint Spectrum, L.P. and Sprint Corporation, and AT&T
`
`Mobility LLC request inter partes review of claims 12, 13, 14, and 16 (the
`
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,687,196 (the “’196 patent”).
`
`The challenged claims are unpatentable because each is directed to an
`
`elementary concept well known in the prior art for years. The challenged claims
`
`are directed to a simple distance-finding method that uses a signal’s travel time (to
`
`a remote object and back) to determine how far away that object is. This method is
`
`the foundation of radar and sonar, which pre-date the ’196 patent by over sixty-five
`
`years. Indeed, the idea of using signal travel time to determine a distance between
`
`objects just applies basic laws of physics: that radio waves travel at the speed of
`
`light, that light travels at a constant speed, and that distance is speed multiplied by
`
`time. Thus, if one knows the time it takes for a signal to travel from point A to
`
`point B, the distance between those points can be easily computed. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1004 U.S. Patent 5,414,729 filed July 19, 1994 6:65-7:1 (“By multiplying the
`
`propagation time by the speed of light. . . .”).
`
`The ’196 patent applies these age-old concepts to distance-determining in a
`
`multipath environment. A “multipath environment” is a long-standing term of art
`
`for the transmission of radio signals. It refers simply to the fact that a signal will
`
`956888.06
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`reflect off intermediate objects and then arrive at the receiver in multiple copies at
`
`different times. The ‘196 patent was certainly not the first piece of literature to
`
`note or grapple with this phenomenon. Receivers that could discriminate among
`
`various multipath copies of a signal were developed back in the 1950’s and the
`
`’196 patent itself admits they were “conventional” at the time of filing. Ex. 1001
`
`’196 Patent 4:14.
`
`The ’196 patent’s only purported novelty is to (i) determine the time of
`
`arrival of each multipath signal version; and (ii) compensate for multipath by
`
`making a ranging determination (that is determining the distance of the remote
`
`transmitter) based on the first-arriving version of the signal. But neither of these
`
`two points is novel. Rather, they reflect a truism that people (including those
`
`skilled in the art) understood and used for decades before the ‘196 patent: “the
`
`‘shortest distance between two points is a straight line.’” Id. 3:60-61. In fact,
`
`several pieces of prior art disclose using the first-arriving version of the signal to
`
`make a ranging determination in a multipath environment. Because the only
`
`potential points of novelty are disclosed in the prior art, the '196 patent's
`
`challenged claims are invalid.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The Alleged Invention of the Challenged Claims
`
`The ’196 patent is directed to methods of determining the range (distance) or
`
`956888.06
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`bearing (direction) between a base station and a remote unit in an environment
`
`affected by multipath propagation. Id. 1:5-10. The written description admits that
`
`“[s]ystems and method[s] for determining the distance and bearing of an RF signal
`
`[were] well known.” Id. 1:11-12. Some prior-art distance-finding systems
`
`involved sending a signal from the base station and then receiving a response
`
`signal from the remote. Id. 1:12-17. As the patent concedes in connection with
`
`prior art systems, the distance of the remote unit could “be computed by timing the
`
`total transit time between the transmission of the outbound signal and the receipt of
`
`the response signal. By subtracting the estimated time of the delay in the remote
`
`station from the total transit time, the time to traverse twice the distance between
`
`the base and the remote stations can be obtained and the distance readily
`
`computed.” Id. 1:21-29.
`
`As background, the ’196 patent described what the inventors viewed as the
`
`problem with prior-art methods for determining range and bearing: those methods
`
`“experience some difficulty in multipath and other noisy environments typical of
`
`where many such tracking and ranging systems are used.” Id. 1:54-57. In a
`
`multipath environment, “blocking and/or reflecting elements such as buildings,
`
`towers, mountains may exist in the proximity of and in the direct path between the
`
`RF signal source and the base station.” Id. 1:60-63. When a signal is emitted, that
`
`signal may be reflected off these intermediate elements, “such that instead of a
`
`956888.06
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`single signal arriving at the base station, multiple versions of the same or slightly
`
`altered signal arrive at the base station. The different versions of the signals arrive
`
`at different times because they have travelled different paths of different distances
`
`than either the direct version or other indirect versions.” Id. 2:3-8.
`
`The ’196 patent then describes the inventors’ purportedly novel solution to
`
`this problem: using the first-arriving version of the signal to make a ranging
`
`determination because “the signal travelling directly from the transmitter to the
`
`base station will always be the first signal to arrive (assuming that the signal is not
`
`wholly blocked).” Id. 3:63-65. “[T]he first arriving signal is the signal which has
`
`travelled the shortest distance and is most likely the signal corresponding to the
`
`direct path to the transmitter.” Id. 3:67-4:2.
`
`The text of Claim 12 sets out the inventors’ idea of combining the
`
`purportedly novel technique of using the first-arriving version of the signal with
`
`known ranging techniques:
`
`A method for determining the distance between a receiver of a
`radiated radiofrequency (RF) signal and a transmitter of said signal,
`comprising the steps of:
`
`(a) receiving a multipath signal which has been transmitted by a
`remote transmitter;
`
`(b) correlating the received multipath signal into plural path signals;
`
`956888.06
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`
`(c) determining the time of arrival of each of the plural path signals;
`
`(d) determining the distance of the remote transmitter from the path
`signal having the earliest determined time of arrival.
`
`1.
`
`The ’196 Patent Relies on Using “Conventional Correlation”
`Techniques to Separate Multipath Signal Copies.
`
`In claim 12, after “receiving a multipath signal,” the receiver “correlate[es]
`
`the received multipath signal into plural path signals” and then “determine[s] the
`
`time of arrival of each of the plural path signals.” The written description similarly
`
`described using “correlation” to distinguish among the arrival times of various
`
`versions of a signal. But there is no novelty to this correlation. Indeed, the written
`
`description concedes as much, stating in the preferred embodiment that the
`
`receiver is a “conventional correlation receiver in which the power level of the
`
`arriving signal is correlated in time.” Id. 4:14-16 (emphasis added). The patent
`
`does not provide details on the operation of a correlation receiver, thus apparently
`
`relying on the knowledge of persons of skill in the art about how such a
`
`“conventional” receiver would work.
`
`The '196 Patent provides an illustration of the correlation receiver’s output:
`
`956888.06
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`
`Id. 3:41-43 & Fig. 2. Figure 2 “depicts the correlated power level of the
`
`signal received plotted against time starting from the time of transmission of the
`
`signal.” According to the ’196 patent, “the signal arriving directly from the
`
`transmitter is the first signal having a significant peak, the signal traveling along
`
`the first signal path 20 [i.e. the direct path].” Id. 3:55-57. In other words, the
`
`earliest peak on the time axis of figure 2 indicates the travel time of the first
`
`arriving signal version, i.e. the direct path, and thus is the one used to determine
`
`the distance travelled.
`
`The ‘196 patent does not require any specific method of determining the
`
`distance based on the first-arriving signal. The patent acknowledges that several
`
`such methods were known. See id. 1:21-22.
`
`2.
`
`The Challenged Claims that Depend from Claim 12 Provide Minor
`Tweaks to the Claimed Method.
`
`Claim 13 further describes the “correlating” step as comprising “determining
`
`the signal power level of each path signal.” Claim 14 further describes the
`
`“distance determining” step as “a measurement of the time period for the signal to
`
`travel from the transmitter to the receiver.” Claim 16 is the method of claim 12
`
`wherein the received signal is a “spread spectrum signal.”
`
`B. State of the Prior Art
`
`As discussed above, the ’196 patent admits that ranging systems that used
`
`the travel time of radio waves to determine distance were well known. Id. 1:21-26.
`
`956888.06
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`One such type of system was an echo-type ranging system. In 1927, sixty-seven
`
`years before the ’196 patent, Alexander Behm obtained a U.S. patent entitled
`
`“Method for Ascertaining the Flying Height of Flying Machines.” Ex. 1006 U.S.
`
`Patent 1,630,689 filed June 2, 1922 (“Behm”). Behm describes a method of
`
`ascertaining the height of an airplane by measuring the round trip of a signal sent
`
`from the airplane and reflected back by the earth. It expressly discloses “sending a
`
`sound wave from the flying machine and the relative altitude above the earth or sea
`
`will be found by observing the time or intensity at the return of the echo.” Id.
`
`1:30-34. The ’196 patent similarly discloses the same basic principle—
`
`determining distance by timing the round trip of a signal—which Behm described
`
`over half a century earlier.
`
`Another prior-art application of the ranging concept is the Global
`
`Positioning System, or GPS. GPS is a satellite-based navigation and time transfer
`
`system created by the U.S. Department of Defense. Ex. 1007 Enge, “Global
`
`Positioning System: Signals, Measurements and Performance,” 1994. The system
`
`was initiated in 1973 (known at that time as the Navstar Global Positioning
`
`System). GPS satellites broadcast “spread spectrum signals on which passive
`
`receivers can perform precise ranging measurements.” Id. The GPS signals
`
`include timing information and are synchronized to a common clock. A GPS
`
`receiver uses the time elapsed between when the signal was broadcast and when it
`
`956888.06
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`was received to compute the distance between the receiver and the satellite. Id.
`
`This measurement is repeated for multiple satellites to obtain a position. Id.
`
`Multipath signal propagation’s influence on position measurements was also
`
`well known in the prior art. As the ’196 patent admits, “[t]he influences of
`
`multipath signals on distance and angle location has been recognized in the prior
`
`art.” Ex. 1001 ’196 patent 2:58-59 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1003 U.S.
`
`Patent 5,742,635 filed May 5, 1994 1:38-39 (“A long time goal in the prior art has
`
`been to reduce the effects of multipath on time-of-arrival systems.”).
`
`Practitioners also recognized that, in a multipath environment, the direct-
`
`path signal would travel a shorter distance than any reflected (multipath) signals.
`
`A 1981 radar textbook noted that a “surface reflected signal travels a longer path
`
`than the direct signal so that it may be possible in some cases to separate the two in
`
`time (range).” Ex. 1015 Skolnik, Introduction to Radar Systems (1981) at 174.
`
`Practitioners understood these basic principles of physics and recognized
`
`that the most accurate ranging determination would be one made using the earliest-
`
`arriving signal. For example, in 1952, F.W. Dunmore obtained a patent titled
`
`“Pulse Echo Distance and Direction Finding.” Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent 2,582,971
`
`filed November 10, 1939 (“Dunmore”). Dunmore’s system made a bearing
`
`measurement based on the first arriving signal to “eliminate[ ] the errors in
`
`bearings due to spurious reflected, refracted and diffracted waves which may come
`
`956888.06
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`over indirect paths from the mobile object.” Id. 8:47-50. The first-arriving signal
`
`was used because “it has traveled over the straight path.” Id. 8:51-54. Similarly,
`
`in 1969, Engel observed that “[s]ince the multipath signals must always traverse a
`
`path which is longer than the direct line-of-sight path, they must always arrive later
`
`than the direct signal.” Ex. 1009 Engel, Effects of Multipath Transmission on the
`
`Measured Propagation Delay of an FM Signal (published May 1969, reprinted
`
`1975) at 44. The problem of multipath propagation as applied to GPS ranging
`
`estimates was also well-known at the time the ’196 patent application was filed.
`
`“[B]ecause GPS systems depend upon direct line of sight for communication
`
`propagation, any multipath fading can further distort received signal timing
`
`estimates. Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent 5,414,729 filed July 19, 1994 2:17-20. “[A]
`
`multipath signal takes a slightly different and longer router [sic] and thus arrives at
`
`the receiver at a different time.” Id. 2:28-30.
`
`Finally, correlation receivers were well-known ways of distinguishing
`
`among multiple reflections of the same signal. As the written description states,
`
`the correlation receiver that would perform at least step 12(b) was “conventional”
`
`at the time of the patent application. Ex. 1001 ’196 patent 4:14-16. The prior art is
`
`replete with examples of correlation receivers. Almost forty years before the ’196
`
`application was filed, practitioners described “rake” receivers that “use[d]
`
`correlation detection techniques” to “isolate those portions of the transmitted signal
`
`956888.06
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`arriving with different delays.” Ex. 1010 Price, A Communication Technique for
`
`Multipath Channels (published 1958). In GPS systems, “[r]adio receivers for the
`
`GPS navigation data bit stream are commonly referred to as correlation receivers.”
`
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent 5,402,450, filed Jan. 22, 1992 at 1:35-37.
`
`C. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’196 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 315,345, which resulted in the ’196 patent, was filed
`
`on September 30, 1994. Ex. 1008 at 0005 - 0026. The as-filed application
`
`contained 16 claims, including each of the challenged claims. The prosecution
`
`history contains no finding or arguments that the prior art failed to disclose
`
`determining the distance of a remote transmitter from the path signal having the
`
`earliest determined time of arrival. Rather, the inventor’s responses and the
`
`examiner’s rejections were focused on the directional language in claim 1 –
`
`language which is entirely absent from claim 12. See Ex. 1008 at 0055-0059
`
`(March 25, 1996 Office Action in which the Examiner rejected claims 1 and 12
`
`because “Sterzer recites a difference in-time-of-arrival direction finders and signal
`
`sorters comprising a time-of-arrival direction finder which determine the direction
`
`with respect to the transmitter …”); id. 0064-0068 (June 25, 1996 Amendment at
`
`5 in which the inventor contested rejection because Sterzer allegedly “does not
`
`‘determin[e] the direct[ion] of the remote transmitter from the path signal having
`
`the earliest determined time of arrival’ (claim 11) and, accordingly, fails to
`
`956888.06
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`anticipate one of the express elements of each of the rejected claims.”). Even the
`
`Examiner’s Notice of Allowance states that “[t]he prior art fails to show or suggest
`
`determining the direction of the remote transmitter from the path signal having the
`
`earliest determined time of arrival.” Ex. 1008 at 0094 (February 25, 1997 Notice
`
`of Allowability and Examiner’s Amendment (emphasis added)). The Examiner
`
`does not appear to have focused on the extent to which prior art distance-
`
`determining systems disclosed the elements of claim 12 and its dependent claims.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`
`
`Petitioners certify pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) that the ’196 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting inter partes review based on the grounds herein. Specifically,
`
`Petitioners certify that (i) no Petitioner owns the ’196 patent; (ii) no Petitioner has
`
`filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’196 patent, and (iii)
`
`this petition is filed less than one year after the date that each Petitioner was first
`
`served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’196 patent.
`
`B. Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`In view of the prior art detailed in the claim charts below, claims 12, 13, 14,
`
`and 16 of the ’196 patent should be found unpatentable and cancelled. None of the
`
`prior art references relied upon herein was considered during prosecution.
`
`956888.06
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`
`1. Grounds for Challenge
`
`
`
`Petitioners request inter partes review of the challenged claims in view of
`
`the references, and on the grounds described, below:
`
`1.
`
`Claims 12, 13, 14, and 16 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,381,444 to Tajima (“Tajima”) (filed Oct. 30, 1992 and issued Jan.
`
`10, 1995) entitled “Radio Environment Measuring System.” [Ex. 1002].
`
`2.
`
`Claims 12, 13, 14, and 16 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,742,635 to Sanderford, Jr. (“Sanderford”) (filed May 5, 1994 and
`
`issued April 21, 1998) entitled “Enhanced Time of Arrival Method.” [Ex. 1003].
`
`3.
`
`Claims 12, 13, 14 and 16 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 by the
`
`combination of (i) U.S. Patent No. 5,414,729 to Fenton (“Fenton”) (filed Nov.
`
`29, 1993 and issued May 9, 1995) entitled “Pseudorandom Noise Ranging
`
`Receiver which Compensates for Multipath Distortion by making use of Multiple
`
`Correlator Time Delay Spacing” [Ex. 1004]; and (ii) the knowledge of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, as specifically described in references such as U.S. Patent
`
`No. 2,582,971 to Dunmore (“Dunmore”) (filed Nov. 10, 1939 and issued Jan.
`
`22, 1952) entitled “Pulse Echo Distance and Direction Finding” [Ex. 1005].
`
`
`
`Section IV identifies where each element of the challenged claims is found
`
`in the prior art references. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the
`
`supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and
`
`956888.06
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised are in a table at p. iii and in
`
`Section III.B. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).
`
`2.
`
`How the Challenged Claims Are to be Construed under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104 (b)(3)
`
`The ’196 patent expired on November 11, 2014, and is therefore not subject
`
`to amendment. Thus, for purposes of this Petition, the claims are construed under
`
`the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005):
`
`claims are “generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the
`
`specification. Id. at 1312. Claim terms that are not addressed below are believed to
`
`require no additional clarification for purposes of the present IPR.1
`
`a. “time of arrival”
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this term to mean
`
`“when a signal is received in relation to the time when it was transmitted.” Ex.
`
`1013 Declaration of Dr. Martin Walker ¶¶ 43-49. The specification does not use
`
`the phrase “time of arrival.” It describes the timing of the arrival of the plural path
`
`signals exclusively in relation to the time the transmitted signal was sent. As the
`
`
`1 Inasmuch as 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2) defines a narrow scope of inquiry in this
`
`petition, Petitioners do not acknowledge that any claim complies with 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112, through their construction for terms that follow, or otherwise.
`
`956888.06
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`patent explains, in a multipath environment, “multiple version of the same or
`
`slightly altered signal arrive at the base station 12. The different versions of the
`
`signals arrive at different times because they have travelled different paths of
`
`different distances.” Ex. 1001 ’196 patent 2:4-8. Figure 2 illustrates the
`
`correlation output depicting those different paths plotted over time. The
`
`corresponding text clarifies how the time plotted in the graph of Figure 2 is
`
`measured: “The graph of FIG. 2 depicts the correlated power level of the signal
`
`plotted against time starting from the time of transmission of the signal.” Id.
`
`3:41-43 (emphasis added). Significantly, the peaks in Figure 2 each “correspond[ ]
`
`to the arrival of a signal which has taken a different route.” Id. 3:43-47 (emphasis
`
`added). Thus, in the ’196 patent, each peak in the correlation output represents a
`
`signal’s arrival plotted relative to the time the transmitted signal was transmitted.
`
`
`
`The claim language and structure confirm that “time of arrival” means
`
`“when a signal is received in relation to the time when it was transmitted.” After
`
`correlating the received multipath signal into plural path signals, the time of arrival
`
`956888.06
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`of each of those path signals is determined. See id. Claim 12(b) and (c). As
`
`explained above, the graph of Fig. 2 is the output of the correlation. Id. 3:28-29.
`
`Each of the peaks in the correlation graph corresponds to the arrival, at a point in
`
`time relative to the transmission of the signal. Id. 3:41-43.
`
`Further, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have understood
`
`that a “conventional correlation receiver” as described in the ’196 patent would
`
`have determined the time of arrival of a signal by determining the delay between
`
`when the signal was transmitted and when it was received. Ex. 1013 ¶ ¶ 47-49. In
`
`a basic pseudonoise (i.e., spread-spectrum) ranging system: “The receiver
`
`‘decodes’ a received signal by matching an internally generated sequence to the
`
`incoming signal. For ranging, the important point is that the receiver matches its
`
`internal sequence to the signal that it sees, and this signal is delayed by an amount
`
`of time equal to the propagation time from transmitter to receiver.” Ex. 1014
`
`Dixon, A Spread Spectrum Ranging Technique for Aerospace Vehicles (published
`
`1968) reprinted in Dixon, Spread Spectrum Techniques (published 1976), at 278
`
`(emphasis added). The delay time (from which the range is determined) is
`
`calculated by counting the number of bits that the reference signal must be delayed
`
`for the received and local codes to match. See id.; see also Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 47-48.
`
`3.
`
`Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the field of systems and methods for
`
`956888.06
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`determining the range of a source of a radiofrequency signal in 1994 would have a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering or a
`
`closely related field, or at least three years of professional experience in the
`
`development and analysis of wireless communication systems. See Ex. 1013 ¶ 22.
`
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`IV. THERE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4) and (b)(5), Petitioners set forth an
`
`explanation below of why the challenged claims are unpatentable under the
`
`statutory grounds identified above, including the identification of where each
`
`element is found in the prior art patents or printed publications. The claim charts
`
`identify the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge by exhibit
`
`number and set forth the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised,
`
`including an identification of those specific portions of the evidence that support
`
`the challenge. An Exhibit List (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e)) identifying the exhibits is
`
`also included, supra, at p. iii.
`
`A. Tajima Anticipates Claims 12, 13, 14, and 16 under at least 35 U.S.C.
`102(e).
`
`Tajima was filed on October 30, 1992 and issued on January 10, 1995, and
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(e). Ex. 1002 Tajima. Tajima
`
`discloses a radio environment measuring system for measuring the propagation
`
`distance of radio waves. Id. 1:6-12. Like the ’196 patent, Tajima discloses a fixed
`
`956888.06
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01567
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,687,196
`
`radio apparatus or base station that sends a signal to a mobile radio apparatus or
`
`remote transmitter, which returns the signal to the fixed radio apparatus or base
`
`station. Compare Ex. 1001 ’196 patent 4:5-8, Fig. 3 with Ex. 1002 Tajima 1:45-53,
`
`5:6-12, Fig. 3. Like the ’196 patent, Tajima discloses use of a correlation receiver
`
`to distinguish among the received path signals and determine the time of arrival of
`
`each. Compare Ex. 1001 ’196 patent Fig. 2 with Ex. 1002 Tajima Fig. 2:
`
`
`
`
`
`Tajima further discloses determining the distance between the fixed radio
`
`apparatus and the mobile radio apparatus from the signal arriving first in time. Ex.
`
`1002 Tajima 9:11-18 (“In FIG. 2, the propagation distance of the direct radio wave
`
`is shown by the “R0” which indicates the distance between the fixed radio
`
`apparatus and the mobile radio apparatus. . . . [T]his distance R0 denotes the
`
`maximum point of the correlation output of the direct radio wave.”). Ex. 1013 ¶¶
`
`52-55.
`
`Claim