UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRACBEAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 7,525,484
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. _____________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KEVIN S. JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 1
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRACBEAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 7,525,484
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. _____________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KEVIN S. JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 1
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`I, Kevin S. Judge, make this declaration in connection with the proceeding
`
`identified above.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) as a
`
`technical expert in connection with the proceeding identified above. I submit this
`
`declaration in support of Apple, Inc.’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of United
`
`States Patent No. 7,525,484 (“the ’484 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being paid at an hourly rate for my work on this matter. I have
`
`no personal or financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I am currently employed as a senior engineer at John Deere in the
`
`Advanced Engineering group designing the next generation of Global Navigation
`
`Satellite System (GNSS) receivers for precision farming. I hold a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in Mathematics, and I am the owner of Judge Software Systems,
`
`Inc., which provides consulting services for wireless communication and location.
`
`4.
`
`I have been designing and implementing systems for wireless
`
`communication and location for the past 25 years.
`
`5.
`
`In particular, from 1987 to 1993 I was a programmer and analyst at
`
`Magnavox Advanced Products Division designing and implementing 1990’s core
`
`1
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 2
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`GPS software. As part of my role I worked on the navigation Kalman filter and the
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`receiver tracking control system.
`
`6.
`
`From 1993 to 1995, I was a software engineer and analyst at Interstate
`
`Electronics Corporation, where I was responsible for the design and development
`
`of the navigation processor for an aircraft navigation management system. My
`
`responsibilities included writing the requirements for and participating in the
`
`design, coding, and testing of all aspects of the GPS navigation code.
`
`7.
`
`From 2000 to 2004, I was the Senior Vice President of Software and
`
`Systems at In-Sync Interactive management Company, where I designed and
`
`managed the creation of a complete wireless TDMA data network, including
`
`Internet client/server software and the base station and endpoint modems. I also
`
`designed the wireless protocol for robust communication.
`
`8.
`
`From 1996 to 2009, at Greenfield Associates, I designed and managed
`
`the development of a GPS traffic preemption system, including the development of
`
`a low cost differential base station and a TDMA scheme for data transfer. I also
`
`implemented a precise golf ranging system using locally broadcast differential
`
`corrections.
`
`9.
`
`From 2004 to 2009, I was an Engineering Manager at NorBelle, LLC,
`
`where I designed and contributed to the implementation of a real time mobile-to-
`
`mobile tracking application for assisted GPS mobile phones. The system included
`
`2
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 3
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`an Internet based back-end server over which a proprietary messaging system was
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`hosted. I designed the accuracy enhancing technology using GPS and cellular
`
`trilateration critical to the usability of the application.
`
`10. From 1999 to 2012, I represented SiRF Technology, Inc. in the 3GPP
`
`and 3GPP2 standards committees helping to shape the standards for location
`
`services in CDMA and GSM/UMTS. I also served as the chairman for CDMA
`
`location services standards committee. The 3GPP2 standards body, a sub-working
`
`group for Location Services, is an international consortium of individuals
`
`representing companies interested in developing standards for mobile location
`
`technology. As chairman I oversaw the development of the IS-801 A-1
`
`specification used today by all CDMA mobile phones to receive location assistance
`
`for both regulatory and commercial systems.
`
`11. From 2008 to 2012, I was one of the three founding members of
`
`Integrated Positioning, LLC, where I designed, built, and integrated a location
`
`platform for a WiMax Network. I designed the backend systems to facilitate the
`
`needs of the location platform to seed AGPS solutions for E-911 integration.
`
`12. From 2011 to 2013, at Level8, I designed, implemented, and
`
`administered a Rails 3 server to facilitate a mobile-to-mobile tracking application.
`
`3
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 4
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`13. From 2012 to 2014, I represented Broadcom in the Indoor Location
`
`Alliance (ILA), 3GPP, and OMA, drafting the architecture for indoor location
`
`standardization. I was elected to the board of directors for the ILA.
`
`14. As discussed, I was recently a charter board member of the Indoor
`
`Location Alliance, and in the early 2000’s, I was the Chairman of the location
`
`services sub-committee of the 3GPP2 telecommunications organization during the
`
`drafting of the IS-801A-1 specification that defines how GPS and cellular location
`
`operate on CDMA networks. I have also spent years as a contributing member of
`
`location standards in the 3GPP organization that largely parallels 3GPP2, but for
`
`GSM, UMTS, and now LTE networks. Attached as Appendix A is a copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`15.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed, among other things, the
`
`following materials: (a) the ’484 patent (Ex. 1001 to the Petition) and its
`
`prosecution history; (b) parent U.S. Patent Application No. 09/194,367, which was
`
`filed as PCT Application No. PCT/US97/15892 and published as WO 98/10307
`
`(Ex. 1003 to the Petition); (c) the filing papers for Application No. 09/194,367;
`
`(d) PCT Application No. PCT/US97/15933 (Ex. 1008 to the Petition); (e) Federal
`
`Communications Commission, Third Report and Order, CC Docket No. 94-102
`
`(FCC 99-245) (Ex. 1012 to the Petition); (f) U.S. Patent No. 5,327,144 to Stilp et
`
`4
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 5
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`al. (Ex. 1032 to the Petition); and (g) the Petition for Inter Partes Review of the
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`’484 patent to which my declaration relates.
`
`IV. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed and understand that claims are construed from
`
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention, and that during inter partes review, claims are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction consistent with the specification and the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention.
`
`17.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that the subject matter of a
`
`patent claim is obvious if the differences between the subject matter of the claim
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which the subject matter pertains. I have also been informed that the
`
`framework for determining obviousness involves considering the following
`
`factors: (i) the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claimed subject matter; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`and (iv) any objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the claimed subject matter
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if, for example, it
`
`5
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 6
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`results from the combination of known elements according to known methods to
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`yield predictable results, the simple substitution of one known element for another
`
`to obtain predictable results, use of a known technique to improve similar devices
`
`in the same way, applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results, or pursuing known options within one’s
`
`technical grasp in response to a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
`
`I have also been informed that the analysis of obviousness may include recourse to
`
`logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art that does not necessarily require explication in any particular reference.
`
`19.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that to obtain the benefit of
`
`a parent application’s filing date, the invention claimed in the later-filed
`
`application must be disclosed in the parent application in the manner provided by
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112. I have also been informed and understand that to satisfy this
`
`requirement, the claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the
`
`written description in the parent in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art could
`
`have clearly concluded that the inventor invented and was in possession of the
`
`claimed invention as of the filing date sought. I have also been informed and
`
`understand that entitlement to a filing date extends only to subject matter that is
`
`disclosed, not to that which may have been obvious.
`
`6
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 7
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`20.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the
`
`’484 patent at the relevant date discussed below would have been a person with a
`
`bachelor’s degree in mathematics, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or
`
`computer science, and 3-5 years of experience with wireless location and/or
`
`navigation systems. However, I recognize that someone with less technical
`
`education but more experience, or more technical education but less experience,
`
`could have also met this standard.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the ’484 patent is a continuation of and claims
`
`priority to Application No. 09/194,367, filed as Application No. PCT/US97/15892
`
`on September 8, 1997 (the “parent ’892 application”). I have also been informed
`
`and understand that, based in part on my opinions set forth below, the ’484 patent
`
`is not entitled to priority of the parent ’892 application. Accordingly, I have been
`
`informed that the relevant date for considering the patentability of the claims of the
`
`’484 patent is January 26, 2001, which was the actual filing date of the ’484 patent.
`
`I have analyzed obviousness as of the 2001 date or somewhat before, and I have
`
`analyzed the disclosure in the parent ’892 application as of the 1997 date on which
`
`it was filed. Depending on the context, I may refer to either time frame as the
`
`“relevant date” or the “relevant time frame.”
`
`22. Based on my education and experience in the field of wireless
`
`location systems set forth above, I believe I am qualified to provide opinions about
`
`7
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 8
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`how one of ordinary skill in the art by the relevant dates would have interpreted
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`and understood the ’484 patent, the parent ’892 application, and the prior art
`
`discussed below.
`
`V. THE ’484 PATENT
`
`23. The ’484 patent generally discloses a network-based system and
`
`method for locating a wireless mobile station (e.g., a handset / mobile phone). The
`
`system is intended to be readily incorporated into existing commercial wireless
`
`telephony systems with few, if any, modifications to a typical infrastructure. As
`
`described by the patent, the wireless network infrastructure includes a plurality of
`
`mobile stations and a plurality of base stations. The system provides the mobile
`
`station location capabilities using the measurements from wireless signals
`
`communicated between mobile stations and a network of base stations. The
`
`communication standard or protocol used for location is the same as that used by
`
`the network of base stations for providing wireless communications with mobile
`
`stations for other purposes such as voice communication.
`
`24.
`
`In the system and method disclosed in the ’484 patent, multiple
`
`location estimates are obtained using different techniques, which the patent refers
`
`to as “location hypothesizing first order models” or “FOMs.” The patent includes
`
`descriptions of various types of first order models, including distance first order
`
`models, coverage area first order models, location base station first order models,
`
`8
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 9
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`stochastic first order models, statistically-based pattern recognition first order
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`models, and adaptive/trainable first order models. Using the multiple location
`
`estimates obtained using the various first order models, a most likely mobile
`
`station position estimate is determined.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`25.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion about whether the
`
`challenged claims, when accorded their broadest reasonable interpretation as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the disclosure in
`
`the specification, encompass the use of GPS receivers in handsets in making
`
`location determinations. I have reviewed the claims of the ’484 patent challenged
`
`in the Petition, and it is my opinion that at least one location technique of every
`
`claim is sufficiently broad that it could be met by the use of GPS in a handset.
`
`26. This is unlike the claims in the parent ’892 application, which contain
`
`limitations that cannot be met by use of GPS in handsets. For example, many
`
`claims of the ’892 application recite a method for locating mobile stations using
`
`“measurements of wireless signals transmitted between said wireless mobile
`
`stations and a network of base stations.” (See, e.g., parent ’892 application claim
`
`1.)
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that GPS cannot satisfy this claim, as GPS is not measurements of
`
`9
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 10
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`wireless signals transmitted between the base station and the mobile stations. The
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`claims of the ’484 patent, on the other hand, more broadly recite, for example,
`
`“measurements obtained via transmissions between said mobile station M and a
`
`plurality of fixed location terrestrial communication stations.” (See, e.g., ’484
`
`patent claim 25.) Here, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`that this limitation does not exclude GPS used in handsets, because, for example,
`
`the measurements of GPS signals received and measured at the handset could be
`
`sent to a base station and therefore “obtained via” transmissions between the
`
`mobile station and communication stations.
`
`VII. GPS IN THE PARENT ’892 APPLICATION
`
`28.
`
`I have been asked my opinion as to whether a person of skill in the art
`
`would have understood from the parent ’892 application1 that the inventors, at the
`
`time the ’892 application was filed, had invented and were in possession of an
`
`
`1 Any reference to the parent ’892 application includes the ’892 application itself
`
`and Application No. PCT/US97/15933, which the ’892 application incorporates by
`
`reference. Further my analysis of the parent ’892 application applies equally to
`
`Application No. 09/194,367 (“the ’367 application”), which I understand to have
`
`been filed as the national stage of the parent ’892 application, which was an
`
`international PCT application.
`
`10
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 11
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`invention that encompassed the use of a GPS receiver in the handset in making
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`location determinations. As discussed below, it is my opinion that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not have such an understanding. The parent ’892
`
`application makes it abundantly clear that the mobile station location estimates are
`
`based on measurements of wireless signal communications between the mobile
`
`station and the base stations of a wireless telephony infrastructure, and that the
`
`invention described in the ’892 application (and possessed by the inventors) does
`
`not encompass using GPS receivers in the handsets.
`
`29. The summary discussion in the ’892 application states that the
`
`invention uses an “ensemble of wireless signal measurements characterizing the
`
`wireless signal communications between a particular MS and a networked wireless
`
`base station infrastructure” to determine a most likely location estimate of a mobile
`
`station. (’892 application at 12:11-18.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood from the ’892 application that these wireless signal
`
`communications between a mobile station and the base station infrastructure do not
`
`include GPS, but instead include only communications in a wireless telephony
`
`system.
`
`30. The ’892 application defines the term “infrastructure” as “the network
`
`of telephony communication services, and more particularly, that portion of such a
`
`network that receives and processes wireless communications with wireless mobile
`
`11
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 12
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`stations. In particular, this infrastructure includes telephony wireless base stations
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`(BS) such as those for radio mobile communication systems based on CDMA,
`
`AMPS, NAMPS, TDMA, and GSM wherein the base stations provide a network of
`
`cooperative communication channels with an air interface with the MS, and a
`
`conventional telecommunications interface with a Mobile Switch Center (MSC).”
`
`(Id. at 11:15-19 (emphasis added).) It is clear from this description that the
`
`infrastructure in the described invention includes wireless telephony
`
`communication services and does not disclose location estimates using GPS in the
`
`handset. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered GPS a wireless
`
`telephony communication service, GPS is not otherwise included amongst the
`
`listed communication systems, and GPS does not interface with a Mobile Switch
`
`Center, as required by the disclosed infrastructure.
`
`31. Similarly, the ’892 application defines the term “wireless” as “digital
`
`radio signaling using one of standard digital protocols such as CDMA, NAMPS,
`
`AMPS, TDMA and GSM, as one skilled in the art will understand.” (Id. at 11:7-
`
`9.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this definition does
`
`not include GPS, as it is clearly a recitation of well-known wireless telephony
`
`standards, which GPS is not. This understanding is further supported by the fact
`
`the ’892 application lists the same standards when referring to telephony base
`
`stations, as discussed above. (Id. at 11:15-19.) Moreover, if GPS were to be
`
`12
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 13
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`considered among the wireless signals contemplated in the ’892 application, one of
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have expected it to be listed, as it was and remains
`
`the most popular wireless signal for location determination.
`
`32. Further, there is simply no disclosure of including a GPS in the
`
`handset. The details of a mobile station are disclosed in PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/US/15933 (published as WO 98/10538) (“PCT ’538”), which was filed on the
`
`same day as the parent ’892 application and is incorporated by reference in the
`
`’892 application.
`
`33.
`
`In the “mobile station description” in PCT ’538, an example of a
`
`mobile station is described using CDMA technology. (PCT ’538 at 21:6-7.)
`
`FIG. 15 in PCT ’538 illustrates a typical block diagram of the functional
`
`components of a CDMA mobile station based on U.S. Patent No. 5,109,390, titled
`
`“Diversity Receiver in a CDMA Cellular Telephone System.” (Id. at 21:7-9
`
`(emphasis added).) PCT ’538 also discloses that, in another embodiment of a
`
`CDMA mobile station, the architecture may be modified in minor, cost-effective
`
`ways so that additional information may be transmitted from a mobile station to the
`
`base station. (Id. at 23:28-31.) A block diagram for the modified mobile station is
`
`shown in FIG. 15. Nothing in the description of mobile stations in the ’892
`
`application or PCT ’538 discloses including a GPS receiver in a mobile station, but
`
`13
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 14
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`instead further illustrates that the system and method disclosed in the ’892
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`application does not contemplate or show possession of use of GPS in handsets.
`
`34. Further, the disclosure in the parent ’892 application that does relate
`
`to GPS only bolsters that the ’892 application does not disclose or contemplate
`
`GPS in the handset and that the inventors did not possess such an invention. In
`
`discussing prior attempts to develop a mobile station location system, the ’892
`
`application first indicates that GPS is “impractical in many applications” and
`
`discusses the “fundamental problems” of a GPS-enabled mobile station or handset.
`
`(’892 application at 1:26-2:13.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have read
`
`this as further support for an understanding that the invention described in the ’892
`
`application does not use GPS in the handset, but instead provides for a location
`
`estimation system based on measurements of wireless telephony signals.
`
`35. The ’892 application discloses use of a GPS receiver in a mobile base
`
`station, but a mobile base station is a base station, not a mobile station. The ’892
`
`application makes this clear when it states that “[t]he MBS 148 acts as a low cost,
`
`partially-functional, moving base station, and is, in one embodiment, situated in a
`
`vehicle where an operator may engage in MS 140 searching and tracking
`
`activities.” (Id. at 28:9-10.) Similarly, the ’892 application explains that the
`
`mobile base station’s location is determined using the included GPS so that
`
`14
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 15
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`“consequently an estimate of the location of the target MS may also be
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`determined.” (Id. at 102:10-12.)
`
`36. From the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that a mobile base station is a base station that, like other base stations,
`
`is used to locate mobile stations. Further, though the mobile base station may
`
`include a mobile station and a separate GPS receiver, one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood that the GPS receiver and mobile station are separate
`
`components in the mobile base station. (Id. at 17:33-18:3; 102:6-12.) This is still
`
`disclosure of GPS in a mobile base station, not GPS in a mobile station.
`
`37. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`the disclosure of GPS in the ’892 application as applying to use of GPS only in
`
`base stations, not GPS in mobile stations or handsets. To the contrary, if the
`
`inventors had contemplated and were in possession of GPS in a mobile station or
`
`handset, one of skill in the art would have expected them to have similarly
`
`included such disclosure in the application as was included for GPS in the mobile
`
`base station.
`
`38. Finally, I have reviewed every reference to GPS in the ’892
`
`application, and there is no disclosure of providing a GPS-equipped mobile station
`
`or handset. In particular, the references to GPS relate to: background information
`
`about failed location systems (pages 1-2), a GPS receiver in a mobile base station
`
`15
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 16
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`(pages 18, 28, 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112, 115, 116, 120, 128, and FIGS. 11
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`and 13), a GPS receiver in a base station (page 29), or a GPS receiver to measure
`
`positions of location signatures (page 49).
`
`39. Based on the above, one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time
`
`would have understood from the parent ’892 application that the inventors did not
`
`have possession of an invention using GPS-enabled handsets, and, in fact,
`
`intentionally did not include GPS in the handset because of perceived problems
`
`with GPS.
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`40. On October 6, 1999, the FCC released its “Third Report and Order,”
`
`in which “the Commission [took] another significant step towards enabling
`
`wireless callers to obtain emergency assistance more rapidly and efficiently by
`
`dialing 911.” (CC Docket No. 94-102 (FCC 99-245) ¶ 1.) FCC 99-245 was one of
`
`a series of Reports from the FCC directed to providing location information of
`
`cellular telephones for the purpose of supporting enhanced 911 (“E911”).
`
`41. As explained in FCC 99-245, the FCC had previously established a
`
`schedule for deployment of E911 features by wireless carriers that dictated when
`
`E911 location estimate functionality must be provided. (FCC 99-245 ¶ 5.) The
`
`report further explained that “[w]hen the Commission adopted its Phase II rules in
`
`1996, it was believed that location information could only be effectively provided
`
`16
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 17
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`by technologies based in or overlaid on carrier networks, using approaches such as
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`triangulation of the handset's signal,” and that “at the time of the adoption of the
`
`E911 First Report and Order, the record indicated that handset-based [location]
`
`technologies were subject to several deficiencies that made them impractical for
`
`E911 deployment.” (Id. ¶¶ 6, 17.)
`
`42. However, since the Phase II rules were adopted in 1996,
`
`advancements in handset-based location technologies (e.g., GPS enabled handsets)
`
`demonstrated that such systems could be effective alternatives to network-based
`
`approaches. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 18.) FCC 99-245 was issued to address these developments
`
`and to discuss revision of the Phase II rules to allow handset-based and hybrid
`
`solutions. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 19.)
`
`43. FCC 99-245 further stated that “[n]etwork-based, handset-based,
`
`hybrid, or some other new or combined ALI technology may prove to be most
`
`effective generally or in specific situations.” (Id. ¶ 32.) FCC 99-245 clarified that
`
`“hybrid” systems means location systems that “require both upgrades or
`
`replacement of handsets and assistance from hardware or software in the wireless
`
`network or from some separate facilities.” (Id. at 9 n.23.) As examples of hybrid
`
`solutions, FCC 99-245 identified systems with “upgraded handsets with GPS
`
`capability and information provided by a network infrastructure.” (Id.)
`
`Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that FCC 99-
`
`17
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 18
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`245 clearly disclosed GPS handset-based, hybrid, and combination techniques for
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`handset location determination.
`
`44. As previously discussed, the ’892 application, which was published as
`
`WO 98/10307 (“PCT ’307”) on March 24, 1998, does not disclose use of GPS
`
`receivers in the handset in making location determinations. The developments in
`
`handset-based location techniques discussed in FCC 99-245 would have made it
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to include handsets
`
`with GPS receivers, as disclosed in FCC 99-245, as one of the plural location
`
`determination technologies in PCT ’307.
`
`45. As also discussed above, FCC 99-245 specifically contemplated and
`
`suggested a combined system incorporating GPS technology in handsets. Further,
`
`FCC 99-245 discussed that CDMA handset and network manufacturers were
`
`already developing and “planning to incorporate GPS-based location technology in
`
`handsets.” (Id. ¶ 27.)
`
`46. As mentioned in Section VII, supra, CDMA is heavily discussed in
`
`PCT ’307 as a protocol on which the system’s infrastructure can be based, thus
`
`making it even more obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the GPS-
`
`handset improvements disclosed in FCC 99-245 to the system in PCT ’307.
`
`Accordingly, in addition to FCC 99-245 explicitly suggesting and motivating the
`
`inclusion of GPS handsets as one of the various location estimation techniques
`
`18
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 19
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`(either by itself or as a hybrid or combination solution) in a combined system such
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`as in the PCT ’307 system, doing so is simply the use of a known technique to
`
`improve very similar systems in the same way.
`
`47. Further, FCC 99-245 would have made it abundantly clear to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art that, while using GPS in handsets was not believed to be a
`
`viable option when the FCC’s initial report came out in 1996, that was no longer
`
`the case due to developments in handset-based technologies. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 6, 8,
`
`28.) FCC 99-245 even provided clear examples of where GPS-enabled handsets,
`
`hybrid, or combination systems may be the best solution, such as in rural areas or
`
`use in CDMA networks. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 23-27.)
`
`48. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from
`
`FCC 99-245 that there was a great deal of development in GPS-enabled handsets
`
`and that the market was moving in the direction of including GPS in a handset,
`
`particularly in certain applications. This would have made it obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to include GPS-enabled handsets as one of the plural
`
`location determination techniques in PCT ’307, because of the advantages it
`
`promotes in certain applications, such as in rural areas. Accordingly, as FCC 99-
`
`245 makes clear, at the time of the filing date of the ’484 patent in 2001, many
`
`perceived problems with the use of GPS in handsets had been overcome, and one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately recognized that it would be
`
`19
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 20
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 7,525,484
`
`advantageous to use GPS in handsets as one of the plural technologies disclosed in
`
`Docket No.: 106840000508
`
`
`
`PCT ’307.
`
`49. U.S. Patent No. 5,327,144 to Stilp et al. generally discloses a cellular
`
`telephone location system. The Stilp system includes disclosure of a cellular
`
`telephone with a map display to display the location of the telephone. (See, e.g.,
`
`Stilp at 9:31-38.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`include this map display feature, as disclosed in Stilp, in the handset of the PCT
`
`’307/FCC 99-245 system.
`
`50. One of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately recognized
`
`that the Stilp and PCT ’307/FCC 99-245 systems both concern location of
`
`handsets, and that the handsets in each system are intended to be typical
`
`commercial handsets. (See Stilp at 4:42-45; PCT ’307 at 10:10-13.) Thus,
`
`including the Stilp map display feature in the PCT ’307/FCC 99-245 system would
`
`simply combine prior art elements and apply a known improvement to similar
`
`systems to achieve a predictable result. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that this combination was desirable, because it would have improved
`
`the system by allowing users of the handset to view their location, which, as Stilp
`
`implies and a person of skill in the art would have understood, may have been
`
`desirable to the user.
`
`* * *
`
`20
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 21
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kevin S. Judge
`
`4028 Via Gavilan
`
`Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
`
`(310) 850-5936 - kjudge@judgesoftwaresystems.com
`
`Kevin S. Judge
`• Over twentyfive years experience in systems design, management and implementation of
`
`wireless location systems.
`
`• Over ten years experience architecting, managing and implementing software systems in a
`
`variety of fields and languages including C, C++, Java, and Ruby.
`
`• Holder of multiple patents in positioning and wireless technologies.
`
`
`
`Judge Software Syst
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
