Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: February 17, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRACBEAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, RICHARD E. RICE, BARBARA A. PARVIS,
`and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: February 17, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRACBEAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, RICHARD E. RICE, BARBARA A. PARVIS,
`and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Apple Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`to institute an inter partes review of claims 25–27, 31, 36–40, 45, 49–51, 56,
`57, 60, 61, 63, and 72 of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’484
`patent”). TracBeam, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response
`(Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`conclude, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 51, 56, 57,
`60, 61, and 63. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims
`51, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 63 of the ’484 patent.
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’484 patent is the subject of several lawsuits filed in the United
`States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1–2.
`The ’484 patent also is the subject of Apple Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC,
`Case IPR2015-01696 (PTAB), T-Mobile US, Inc.. v. TracBeam, LLC, Case
`IPR2015-01708 (PTAB), and T-Mobile US, Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC, Case
`IPR2015-01711 (PTAB). Pet. 1; Paper 5, 3.
`Various related patents also are subjects of these and other
`proceedings before the district courts and the Board. Paper 5, 1–3.
`
`
`C. The ’484 Patent
`The ’484 patent describes location systems for wireless
`telecommunication infrastructures. Ex. 1001, Abstract. According to the
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`’484 patent, the location techniques are useful for 911 emergency calls,
`vehicle tracking and routing, and location of people and animals. Id. at
`Abstract, 12:11–17.
`Figure 4, reproduced below, illustrates an embodiment:
`
`
`Figure 4 is an overall view of a wireless radio location network architecture.
`Id. at 21:66–67. The network includes a plurality of mobile stations (“MS”)
`140, a mobile switching center (“MSC”) 112, and a plurality of wireless cell
`sites forming radio coverage area 120, each site including a fixed-location
`base station 122 for voice and data communication with MSs 140. Id. at
`24:41–57. The network also includes location base stations (“LBS”) 152
`with wireless location enablement, e.g., with transponders used primarily in
`communicating MS location related information to location center 142 (via
`base stations 122 and MSC 112). Id. at 24:57–64. LBSs can be placed, for
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`example, in dense urban areas, in remote areas, along highways, or wherever
`more location precision is required than can be obtained using conventional
`wireless infrastructure components. Id. at 28:29–38.
`Location center 142 determines a location of a target MS 140. Id. at
`25:8–10, 37:43–46. The system uses a plurality of techniques for locating
`MSs, including two-way time of arrival (“TOA”), time difference of arrival
`(“TDOA”), and Global Positioning System (“GPS”). Id. at Abstract, 9:5–23,
`11:7–55, 66:45–50. To determine a location for a MS, the system computes
`a first order model (also referred to as a hypothesis or estimate) for one or
`more of the locating techniques, computes a confidence value for each
`model indicating the likelihood that the model is correct, performs additional
`computations on the models to enhance the estimates, and computes from
`the models a “most likely” location for the MS. Id. at 12:62–13:20, 38:9–31.
`The most likely location can be a composite of the estimates. Id. at 13:22–
`30, 66:45–50.
`Location estimates can be provided to location requesting
`applications, such as 911 emergency, police and fire departments, taxi
`services, etc. Id. at 8:52–60, 13:20–22, 38:32–34.
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 25, 27, 45, 49, 51, 57, and 63 are
`
`independent. Claim 25, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
`subject matter:
`25. A method for estimating, for each mobile station M of a
`plurality of mobile stations, an unknown terrestrial
`location (LM) for M using wireless signal measurements
`obtained via transmissions between said mobile station M
`and a plurality of fixed location terrestrial communication
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`stations, wherein each of said communications stations is
`substantially co-located with one or more of a transmitter
`and a receiver for wirelessly communicating with said
`mobile station M, comprising:
` initiating a plurality of requests for information related to the
`location of said mobile station M, the requests provided to
`each of at least two mobile station location evaluators,
`wherein there is at least a first of the requests provided to
`a first of the location evaluators and a second of the
`requests, different from the first request, provided to a
`second of the location evaluators, such that when said
`location evaluators are supplied with corresponding input
`data having values obtained using wireless signal
`measurements
`obtained
`via
`two way wireless
`communication between said mobile station M, and the
`communication stations, each of said first and second
`location evaluators determine corresponding location
`information related to LM, and
`wherein for at least one location L of one of the mobile stations,
`said first location evaluator and said second location
`evaluator output, respectively, first and second position
`information related to the one mobile station being at L
`wherein neither of
`the first and second position
`information is dependent upon the other;
`obtaining a first collection of location information of said mobile
`station M, wherein the first collection includes first
`location information from the first location evaluator, and
`second location information from the second location
`evaluator;
`determining resulting information related to the location LM of
`the mobile station M, wherein the resulting information is
`dependent on geographical information in each of the first
`and second location information; and
`via
`transmitting,
`to
`a
`predetermined
`destination
`communications network, the resulting information.
`Ex. 1001, 174:11–63.
`
`
`a
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`E. References Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`Ex. 1007 Bruno
`US 5,604,765
`
`Feb. 18, 1997
`Ex. 1008
`Loomis
`US 5,936,572
`
`Aug. 10, 1999
`Ex. 1009
`LeBlanc
`US 5,602,903
`
`Feb. 11, 1997
`Ex. 1010 Yokouchi US 4,903,212
`
`Feb. 20, 1990
`Petitioner also relies upon a Declaration of Kevin S. Judge. Ex. 1002
`(“Judge Decl.”).
`
`Bruno and LeBlanc
`Loomis
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner argues that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
`the following grounds (Pet. 6):
`Reference(s)
`Basis Claim(s) challenged
`Bruno
`§ 103 25–27, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 56,
`60, 61, and 72
`§ 103 38, 45, 50, 57, and 63
`§ 103 25–27, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 57,
`60, 61, 63, and 72
`§ 103 38, 45, 50
`§ 103 56
`
`Loomis and LeBlanc
`Loomis and Yokouchi
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted, Cuozzo Speed Techs.
`LLC v. Lee, 84 U.S.L.W. 3218 (U.S. 2016). In applying a broadest
`reasonable construction, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`1. “information related to the location,” “position
`information,” “location information,” “geographical
`information,” “location estimate,” “location data,”
`“geographical approximation,” and “geographical location
`approximation”
`Petitioner contends that these terms should all be construed to mean
`“information that pertains to location.” Pet. 10–11. Specifically, Petitioner
`contends that “[t]he written description of the ’484 patent does not support
`ascribing meanings to these similarly-themed terms that are materially
`distinct from each other.” Id. at 11 (citing Judge Decl. ¶ 25). Petitioner’s
`expert, Mr. Judge, testifies that the terms identified “simply mean
`information that pertains to location,” but does not cite to, or explain, the
`underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based, if any. See 37
`C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed
`construction.
`Petitioner has not persuaded us that all of these terms should be
`construed to have the same meaning. Moreover, we are not persuaded that
`Petitioner’s proposed construction adds anything to the plain language of the
`claim terms themselves. Accordingly, on this record, we determine that no
`express construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision.
`2. “granularity”
`Claims 36 and 41 use the term “granularity.” Petitioner contends that
`this term “should be construed to encompass precision in either location or
`time.” Pet. 11 (citing Judge Decl. ¶ 26). Patent Owner does not dispute
`Petitioner’s proposed construction. On this record, we determine that no
`express construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`3. “location technique” / “evaluator”
`Claims 25, 26, 57, and 72 recite “evaluator.” Claims 27, 45, 51, and
`63 recite “location technique.” Petitioner contends that these terms
`“encompass[] reception of satellite signals at the mobile station for purposes
`of location determination” because other claims, such as 39 and 72, recite a
`“non-terrestrial” signal source. Pet. 11–12. Patent Owner does not dispute
`Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`Petitioner does not explain persuasively why its proposed construction
`is correct. Apart from mentioning claims 39 and 72, Petitioner provides
`neither citations to the ’484 patent nor declaration testimony to support its
`proposed construction. On this record, and for purposes of this Decision, we
`determine that this term does not require express construction.
`
`
`B. Claims 25–27, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51,
`56, 60, 61, and 72 – Obviousness over Bruno
`Petitioner argues that claims 25–27, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 56, 60,
`61, and 72 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`Bruno. Pet. 13–26.
`1. Bruno (Ex. 1007)
`Bruno teaches a system for position determination via radio frequency
`(RF) navigation signals. Ex. 1007, 2:14–16. The system comprises three
`elements including (1) a Global Positioning System (GPS), (2) GPS-like
`signals broadcast at a different frequency, and (3) GPS-like RF signposts.
`Id. at 2:17–19. The first element of the system provides world-wide
`positioning via a receiver that determines its position by using signals
`broadcasted by GPS satellites. Id. at 2:20–24. The second element of the
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`system involves embedding GPS-like signals within the communication
`bandwidth of wireless communication systems. Id. at 2:25–30. The third
`element involves use of GPS-like RF broadcasts that mark the location of
`the broadcast. Id. at 2:53–55.
`2. Analysis
`In light of the arguments and evidence of record, Petitioner has not
`established a reasonable likelihood that any claims are unpatentable as
`obvious over Bruno. Pet. 32–47.
`Claims 25, 26, and 72
`Independent claim 25 recites “said first location evaluator and said
`second location evaluator output, respectively, first and second position
`information related to the one mobile station being at L wherein neither of
`the first and second position information is dependent upon the other”
`(emphasis added). By its terms, the emphasized claim language requires that
`the first position information is independent of the second position
`information, and that the second position information is independent of the
`first position information.
`Petitioner contends that “Bruno discloses receiving estimated location
`information from software instances using GPS, broadcast signals, and RF
`signpost techniques, which are independent.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1007,
`2:17–63, 3:52–56, 4:1–67, 8:48–9:4, 10:8–11, Fig. 2 (17, 18, 20), Fig. 9).
`Petitioner also provides an annotated illustration of Figure 9 of Bruno,
`reproduced below, showing highlighted red, blue, and green components to
`support that “the three techniques can be combined.” Id. at 14.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`Figure 9 illustrates a block diagram of a communication terminal. As
`shown, a communication terminal receives cellular signals along path A
`(red), GPS signals along path B (blue), and RF signpost signals along path C
`(green). Pet. 14.
`On this record, we are not persuaded that Bruno teaches “neither of
`the first and second position information is dependent upon the other.”
`Bruno teaches, for example, that incoming signals—cellular, GPS, and RF
`signpost—“have separate front ends, but share the middle and end stages of
`the GPS receiver.” Ex. 1007, 9:2–4. Specifically, they are all routed to
`Pseudorange Measurements stage 9-13 of the GPS receiver, and then are
`sent to Position Calculation stage 9-14. See Ex. 1007, Fig. 9, 9:21–23. This
`is consistent with Bruno’s teaching that the broadcast signals and signpost
`signals are “GPS-like.” Id. at 2:17–19. Additionally, Bruno teaches that the
`system is “integrated” (id. at 10:34). Bruno also teaches the timing of the
`navigation signal sent over the communication or cellular system
`“preferably, is slaved to the GPS system.” Id. at 3:67–4:1. As a result,
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Bruno teaches “neither of the first
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`and second position information is dependent upon the other,” as required by
`claim 25, and claims 26 and 72, which depend therefrom.
`Claims 27, 31, 36, 37, 39, and 40
`Independent claim 27 recites:
`its
`to
`location data
`first
`transmitting said first output
`corresponding destination via a communications network; and
`second transmitting said second output location data to its
`corresponding destination via a communications network, the
`first and second locations being different.
`Petitioner states only “See above.” Pet. 20. It is not clear, however, what
`Petitioner is referring to because there is no limitation of commensurate
`scope discussed above. To the extent “different” is used in previous
`limitations, it refers not to different locations but to “different” requests
`(claim 25) and to “different” times (claim 26). On this record, Petitioner has
`not adequately identified any teaching in Bruno of a first and second
`location being different. As a result, we are not persuaded that Bruno
`teaches this limitation of independent claim 27, or of claims 31, 36, 27, 39,
`and 40, which depend therefrom.
`Claim 49
`For multiple elements of claim 49, Petitioner states only “See above.”
`or “See below.” Pet. 22–23. It is not clear, however, what portions of Bruno
`Petitioner is referring to as these exact limitations are not found above and
`Petitioner provides no explanation of which other limitation(s) it believes is
`commensurate in scope and why. On this record, Petitioner has not
`adequately identified any teaching in Bruno of these various limitations. As
`a result, we are not persuaded that Bruno teaches these limitations of
`independent claim 49.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`Claims 51 and 56
`For multiple elements of claim 51, Petitioner states only “See above.”
`Pet. 24. It is not clear, however, what portions of Bruno Petitioner is
`referring to as these exact limitations are not found above and Petitioner
`provides no explanation of which other limitation(s) it believes is
`commensurate in scope and why. On this record, Petitioner has not
`adequately identified any teaching in Bruno of these limitations. As a result,
`we are not persuaded that Bruno teaches these limitations of independent
`claim 51, or of claim 56 which depends therefrom.
`Claims 60 and 61
`Claim 60 depends from independent claim 57, and claim 61 depends
`from claim 60. Petitioner provides no analysis for independent claim 57.
`Pet. 25. On this record, Petitioner has not adequately identified teachings in
`Bruno of each and every limitation of independent claim 57. As a result, we
`are not persuaded that Bruno renders obvious claim 57, or claims 60 and 61,
`which depend therefrom.
`3. Conclusion
`We have considered Petitioner’s evidence in light of Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response and, on this record, we are not persuaded that
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with
`respect to any claim as obvious over Bruno.
`
`
`C. Claims 38, 45, 50, and 63 –
`Obviousness over Bruno and LeBlanc
`Petitioner argues that claims 38, 45, 50, and 63 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bruno and LeBlanc. Pet. 26–32.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`1. Analysis
`In light of the arguments and evidence of record, Petitioner has not
`established a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 38, 45 and 50 are
`unpatentable as obvious over Bruno and LeBlanc. Pet. 26–32. However, as
`discussed further below, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claim 63 as
`obvious over Bruno and LeBlanc.
`Claims 38 and 50
`Claim 38 depends from independent claim 27. Claim 50 depends
`from independent claim 49. As discussed above, we are not persuaded that
`independent claims 27 and 49 are obvious over Bruno. In this ground,
`Petitioner relies upon LeBlanc only for the additional limitations recited in
`dependent claims 38 and 50. Pet. 47–50. Petitioner does not allege that
`LeBlanc teaches the limitations that we determined were not taught by
`Bruno. As a result, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood
`that claims 38 and 50 are obvious over Bruno and LeBlanc.
`Claim 45
`Independent claim 45 recites:
`wherein for at least one location L of the mobile station, said first
`mobile station location technique and said second mobile station
`location technique output location information instances having,
`respectively, first and second position information for the mobile
`station being at L, wherein neither of the first and second position
`information varies substantially as a result in a change in the other
`Emphasis added. Petitioner contends that “Bruno discloses receiving
`estimated location information from software instances using GPS,
`broadcast signals, and RF signpost techniques, which are independent.”
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1007, 2:17–63, 3:52–56, 4:1–67, 8:48–9:4, 10:8–11, Fig.
`2, (17, 18, 20), Fig. 9).
`As discussed above, we are not persuaded that Bruno teaches “neither
`of the first and second position information varies substantially as a result in
`a change in the other.” Bruno teaches, for example, that incoming signals—
`cellular, GPS, and RF signpost—“have separate front ends, but share the
`middle and end stages of the GPS receiver.” Ex. 1007, 9:2–4. Specifically,
`they are all routed to Pseudorange Measurements stage 9-13 of the GPS
`receiver, and then are sent to Position Calculation stage 9-14. See Ex. 1007,
`Fig. 9, 9:21–23. This is consistent with Bruno’s teaching that the broadcast
`signals and signpost signals are “GPS-like.” Id. at 2:17–19. Additionally,
`Bruno teaches that the system is “integrated” (id. at 10:34). Bruno also
`teaches the timing of the navigation signal sent over the communication or
`cellular system “preferably, is slaved to the GPS system.” Id. at 3:67–4:1.
`As a result, we are not persuaded that Bruno teaches “neither of the first and
`second position information varies substantially as a result in a change in the
`other,” as required by claim 45.
`Claim 63
`Independent claim 63 is directed to a method of locating a MS.
`Petitioner provides an element-by-element analysis of where each limitation
`is taught by Bruno and LeBlanc. Pet. 31–32. For example, claim 63 recites
`“providing access to at least two location techniques.” Petitioner cites
`generally to Bruno’s teaching of using three different types of signals—GPS,
`broadcast, and RF signpost—to determine location. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1007,
`2:17–63, 3:52–56, 4:1–67, 8:48–9:4, 10:8–11, Fig. 7 (elements 7-17, 7-18,
`7-20), Fig. 9). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s citations support its
`contentions. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`would have combined Bruno and LeBlanc because “doing so would simply
`be use of known technique to improve similar devices.” Pet. 25 (citing
`Judge Decl. ¶ 44). On the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner
`has provided an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
`sufficient to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co.
`v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
`988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner suggests that ‘obtaining’ is
`met by ‘determining’ but provides no explanation or analysis to support this
`contention.” Prelim. Resp. 23. Patent Owner does not provide any
`argument or evidence that Bruno fails to teach this limitation—Patent Owner
`simply argues that Petitioner’s argument and evidence are insufficient. Id.
`On the present record, we do not agree with the distinction Patent Owner
`draws. Calculating GPS coordinates is one way of “obtaining” those
`coordinates. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner is reasonably
`likely to show that Bruno teaches the “obtaining” limitation of claim 63.
`2. Conclusion
`We have considered Petitioner’s evidence in light of Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response and, on this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner
`has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claim
`63 as obvious over Bruno and LeBlanc.
`
`
`D. Claims 25–27, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51,
`57, 60, 61, 63, and 72 – Obviousness over Loomis
`Petitioner argues that claims 25, 26, 27, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 56,
`57, 60, 61, and 72 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`over Loomis. Pet. 32–47.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`1. Loomis (Ex. 1008)
`Loomis describes an apparatus for determining a location of a mobile
`user, both inside and outside of buildings and structures, using two different
`location determining techniques. Ex. 1008, Abstract. Loomis observes that
`location technology such as GPS, Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite
`System (“GLONASS”), and Long Range Navigation (“LORAN”) “provide
`object location estimates over regions with diameters of hundreds of
`kilometers (km) but do not work well where some of the signal sources are
`obscured by structures outdoors, or when the object to be located is
`positioned indoors.” Id. at 1:19–34. In contrast, “[frequency modulation
`(“FM”)] subcarrier signals can be used over smaller regions to estimate the
`location of an object inside or outside a building or other structure,” but such
`systems “tend[] to be limited to smaller regions, with diameters of the order
`of 20–50 km.” Id. at 1:38–46. To take advantage of both types of
`technologies, Loomis’s system “provides an integrated, mobile or portable
`system for location determination that combines beneficial features of two or
`more LD systems.” Id. at 4:39–42.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates an example:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic illustrating user 12 operating hybrid location
`determining (“LD”) system 11. Id. at 6:21–29. Hybrid LD system 11
`includes two different technologies for receiving location information.
`Specifically, radio LD unit 13 (renumbered 71 in Figure 6) receives FM
`signals from radio LD signal sources 21, 23, and 25, and outdoor LD unit 31
`(renumbered 81 in Figure 6) receives GPS or GLONASS signals from
`satellites 41, 43, and 45. Id. at 6:20–29, 7:9–22.
`A controller receives location coordinates (in x, y, z format) from the
`radio LD unit and from the outdoor LD unit, along with indicia resulting
`from the comparison of the FM and outdoor signals to thresholds (i.e.,
`indicia indicating the accuracy of the respective location coordinates). Id. at
`12:21–27. In Figure 6, the controller is depicted as part of hybrid LD unit
`11, although, in an alternative embodiment, “information from the radio LD
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`signals and/or the outdoor LD signals may be transmitted, unprocessed or
`partly processed or fully processed, to a central processing station 29
`(optional), located at or near the site R, to allow determination of the present
`location of the user 12 at selected times.” Id. at 8:29–34; accord id. at
`20:29–36. The controller can choose the radio coordinates or satellite
`coordinates, depending on which is the most accurate (or choose neither, if
`both are determined to be too inaccurate). Id. at 12:47–13:4. “[H]ybrid LD
`system 11 then processes the LD signals further, or transmits or stores or
`displays the location of the hybrid LD system.” Id. at 19:53–55.
`For the radio LD unit to make a location determination, it must first
`know the relative phases of the FM signals from the radio LD signal sources.
`Id. at 4:9–14. To that end:
`The outdoor LD unit 31 in FIG. 1 includes a radio LD signal
`antenna and receiver/processor 37 and controller/interface 39
`that also receives radio LD signals from the radio LD sources 21,
`23 and 25, determines the relative phases of these radio LD
`signals, and provides this relative phase information with little or
`no time delay for use by the radio LD unit 13.
`Id. at 7:23–29; accord id. at 11:66–12:8:
`The outdoor LD unit 81 includes an FM subcarrier signal antenna
`83, an outdoor signal receiver/processor 85 associated with and
`connected to the outdoor antenna 83, and a phase information
`antenna 87. The phase information antenna and receiver 87
`receives the radio LD signals from the radio LD signal sources
`and passes
`these signals
`to
`the outdoor LD signal
`receiver/processor 85 for determination of the relative phases of
`the radio LD signal sources. This relative phase information is
`then passed to the radio LD unit 71 through the controller
`interface 91.
`The outdoor LD unit determines its own location and uses that location
`estimate to determine the relative phases. Id. at 7:31–38, 19:37–47.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`2. Analysis
`In light of the arguments and evidence of record, Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that claims 51 and 63 are unpatentable as
`obvious over Loomis. Pet. 32–47.
`Claims 25, 26, and 72
`Independent claim 25 recites “said first location evaluator and said
`second location evaluator output, respectively, first and second position
`information related to the one mobile station being at L wherein neither of
`the first and second position information is dependent upon the other”
`(emphasis added). By its terms, the emphasized claim language requires that
`the first position information is independent of the second position
`information, and that the second position information is independent of the
`first position information.
`Petitioner cites to Loomis’s teachings of an outdoor LD module that
`determines GPS location coordinates, and a radio LD module that
`determines radio coordinates. Pet. 36–37. Petitioner cites (without further
`explanation) to Loomis’s description that “[t]he outdoor LD system operates
`independently of the radio LD signal system,” as teaching “wherein neither
`of the first and second position information is dependent upon the other.”
`Id. at 37 (quoting Ex. 1008, 5:7–9).
`While the passage cited by Petitioner arguably shows that the
`coordinates provided by Loomis’s outdoor LD unit do not depend on those
`provided by the radio LD unit, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the
`coordinates from the radio LD unit do not depend on those from the outdoor
`LD unit. Based on our review of Loomis, we determine that radio LD unit
`coordinates in fact do depend on the GPS coordinates. Specifically, the
`radio LD unit relies on FM signal phase measurements from the outdoor LD
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`unit to generate radio LD coordinates and that those phase measurements, in
`turn, depend on a location estimate by the outdoor LD unit. Ex. 1008, 7:31–
`38, Fig. 9. According to Loomis:
`The relative phases of the radio signals transmitted by the sources
`21, 23 and 25 may change from time to time. When the radio
`LD unit 13 is provided with a recent measurement of these
`relative phases, the radio LD unit can determine the location of
`its antenna 15, using intersections of three or more hyperboloids
`that are defined by the relative times of arrival of the three radio
`LD signals at the antenna.
`Ex. 1008, 6:46–52. Thus, to interpret the radio signals and generate
`coordinates from those signals, radio LD unit 13 must first be provided by a
`measurement of the phases of those radio signals. Loomis describes the
`outdoor LD unit as providing this phase information. For example,
`The outdoor LD unit 31 in FIG. 1 includes a radio LD signal
`antenna and receiver/processor 37 and controller/interface 39
`that also receives radio LD signals from the radio LD sources 21,
`23 and 25, determines the relative phases of these radio LD
`signals, and provides this relative phase information with little or
`no time delay for use by the radio LD unit 13.
`Id. at 7:23–29; accord id. at 11:66–12:8, 19:42–47. The outdoor LD unit’s
`phase determination is, in turn, dependent on a computation of the location
`of the outdoor LD unit: “The outdoor LD unit 31 determines the
`(approximate) location of itself and of the adjacent radio LD unit 13 and
`uses this information in determining the relative phases of the radio LD
`signals transmitted by the sources 21, 23 and 25.” Id. at 7:29–35. Thus,
`these passages of Loomis describe the coordinates (second position
`information) generated by the radio LD unit as dependent on a determination
`of the phases of the radio signals—a determination that is dependent on the
`outdoor LD unit’s computation of GPS coordinates (first position
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01697
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`information). Loomis describes this as “an important feature of the
`invention.” Id. at 7:35–38. As a result, we read Loomis to teach that second
`position information is dependent on the first.
`On this record, we are not persuaded that Loomis teaches “wherein
`neither of the first and second position information is dependent upon the
`other,” as recited in independent claim 25, and claims 26 and 72, which
`depend therefrom.
`Claims 27, 31, 36, 37, 39, and 40
`Independent claim 27 recites:
`its
`to
`location data
`first
`transmitting said first output
`corresponding destination via a communications network; and
`second transmitting said second output location data to its
`corresponding destination via a communications network, the
`first and second locations being different.
`Petitioner relies upon Loomis’s teaching that the LD system transmits its
`location. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1008, 19:60–65, Fig. 9, step 187). With respect
`to “the first and second locations being different,” Petitioner relies upon
`Loomis’s teaching that “the controller module notifies any interested person
`or facility that the methods used for location determination have an
`unacceptably high errors associated with them and should not be used, or
`should be used with caution.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 12:65–66). This portion
`of Loomis, however, teaches only that both the indicium representing the
`signal str
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
