UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRACBEAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 8,032,153
`
`
`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. 8,032,153
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. _____________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KEVIN S. JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 1
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`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. 8,032,153 (“the ’153 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 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`GPS software. As part of my role I worked on the navigation Kalman filter and the
`
`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 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`an Internet based back-end server over which a proprietary messaging system was
`
`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 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`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 ’153 patent and its prosecution history; (b) U.S. Patent
`
`No 5,604,765 to Bruno; (c) U.S. Patent No. 5,202,829 to Geier; (d) U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,564,079 to Olsson; (e) U.S. Patent No. 5,936,572 to Loomis et al.; (f) U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,602,903 to LeBlanc et al.; and (g) the Petition for Inter Partes Review of the
`
`’153 patent to which my declaration relates.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 5
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`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
`
`results from the combination of known elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results, the simple substitution of one known element for another
`
`
`
`5
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 6
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`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.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the
`
`’153 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.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the ’153 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. For purposes of this declaration I have not analyzed
`
`whether the ’153 patent is entitled to this filing date, but I have analyzed
`
`obviousness as of that date or somewhat before. I may refer to this time frame as
`
`the “relevant date” or the “relevant time frame.”
`
`
`
`6
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 7
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`21. 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
`
`how one of ordinary skill in the art by the relevant date would have interpreted and
`
`understood the ’153 patent and the prior art discussed below.
`
`V.
`
`THE ’153 PATENT
`
`22. The ’153 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.
`
`23.
`
`In the system and method disclosed in the ’153 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 8
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`models, coverage area first order models, location base station first order models,
`
`stochastic first order models, statistically-based pattern recognition first order
`
`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
`
`24.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion on a phrase by discussing
`
`what one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patent filing would regard as
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In each
`
`case, my opinion agrees with the position taken in the Petitioner’s Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review filed with this declaration.
`
`25. Numerous terms in the claims of the ’153 patent appear to be directed
`
`to the same meaning within the same context, and I am unable to find sufficient
`
`support in the specification to provide these terms distinct meanings. Specifically,
`
`it is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have
`
`understood that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the following terms
`
`consistent with the specification is that they simply mean information that pertains
`
`to location: “information related to likely geographical approximations,” “likely
`
`geographical approximation,” “location estimate,” “location of . . . wireless mobile
`
`station,” “location data,” “geographical location,” and “actual location.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 9
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`26. Claim 6 of the ’153 patent recites, in part:
`
`…the first and second mobile station location estimators
`
`perform different location determining computational
`
`techniques for locating M such that if, for each of the first and
`
`second mobile station location estimators, identical data were
`
`available for providing all input for locating M, then upon
`
`activating each of the first and second location estimators with
`
`their input for locating M obtained from the identical data, (1) a
`
`location related computation is performed by the activation of
`
`the first mobile station location estimator that is not performed
`
`by the activation of the second location estimator, or, (2) a
`
`location related computation is performed by the activation of
`
`the second mobile station location estimator that is not
`
`performed by the activation of the first location estimator
`
`27.
`
`It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing
`
`would have understood that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation
`
`consistent with the specification is that it relates to distinct location estimators
`
`operating independently. In particular, the specification of the ’153 patent does not
`
`disclose multiple location estimators operating differently upon identical data.
`
`Instead, the specification discloses multiple location estimators receiving and
`
`
`
`9
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 10
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`operating on different input data. For example, items 1220 and 1224 in FIGS. 6(1)
`
`and 8(1) show different input data being provided to each first order model.
`
`VII.
`
`ANALYSIS OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. U.S. Patent No 5,604,765 to Bruno (“Bruno”)
`
`28. Bruno discloses combining multiple location-detection techniques to
`
`determine the location of a mobile unit. The different techniques are 1) measuring
`
`a distance from a mobile unit to three base stations using cellular timing
`
`measurements to locate the mobile unit, 2) GPS, and 3) short distance RF
`
`“Signposts.” (See, e.g., 2:17-19, 4:1-36.)
`
`29. The first technique involves a mobile unit determining a range to
`
`multiple base stations. (See, e.g., 4:1-15.) The mobile unit receives a message
`
`from each base station, which includes the time at which the message left the base
`
`station. The mobile unit compares the time the message was sent with the time the
`
`message was received. The time difference enables the mobile unit to determine
`
`the range from the base station. This technique further involves correction data
`
`that in order to ensure that the timings of the base station and mobile unit are
`
`synched.
`
`30. By this first technique, the mobile unit determines a range to multiple
`
`base stations, for example three. (See, e.g., FIG. 3.) The mobile unit determines
`
`the known locations of each base station, and then solves a series of equations to
`
`
`
`10
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 11
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`determine its own location. In other words, the mobile unit is able to determine its
`
`own location using the distance to three base stations, as well as the locations of
`
`these base stations. (See, e.g., 4:16-37.)
`
`31. The second technique is GPS. (See, e.g., 2:20-24.) This technique is
`
`well-known and understood in the art of location detection. Using the GPS
`
`technique, the mobile unit communicates with multiple satellites to determine its
`
`location. The mobile unit may experience some difficulty communicating with
`
`satellites that do not have clear line-of-sight—such as downtown and indoor areas.
`
`(See, e.g., 2:41-47.) If a line of sight to a satellite is available, the mobile unit
`
`measures timing information from messages received from satellites to determine
`
`its own location.
`
`32. The third technique is called RF signposting. This technique involves
`
`a short-range broadcast, approximately 100 feet, of a location identifier. (See, e.g.,
`
`2:53-59.) If a mobile unit receives a broadcast with specific location information,
`
`then the mobile unit knows that it is within approximately 100 feet of the location.
`
`For example, the RF signpost may indicate to the mobile device that it is within a
`
`certain store in a shopping mall. (See, e.g., 2:59-63.)
`
`33. Bruno discloses that these three techniques can be used together, or in
`
`combination. This is shown in Fig. 9, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`11
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 12
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`
`
`34. The mobile unit receives cellular signals for location determination
`
`along path A (red), GPS signals along path B (blue), and RF signpost signals along
`
`path C (green). (See, e.g., 8:54-9:2.) Component 9-13 determines a pseudo range
`
`measurement for each technique. Component 9-14 then estimates a position of the
`
`mobile unit based on one or more of the techniques. (See, e.g., 8:55-62, 9:2-14.)
`
`35. Moreover, Bruno states that the cellular ranging and RF signpost
`
`techniques can be used to supplement or replace the GPS technique when the GPS
`
`signal is weak or unavailable. (See, e.g., 2:41-48, 10:8-11; 9:38-56.)
`
`Alternatively, Bruno’s mobile unit will use GPS when the cellular ranging
`
`technique is not available. (See, e.g., 9:8-14.)
`
`36. Once the mobile unit in Bruno determines its location, it outputs the
`
`location to one or more of a variety of applications. (See, e.g., 9:57-10:6.) For
`
`
`
`12
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 13
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`example, the mobile unit can output its location to the communications system,
`
`which can either route the call appropriately based on the location, or provide the
`
`location to a call destination. (See, e.g., 9:57-64.) For example, the
`
`communication system could route the call to a particular E-911 operator that is
`
`closest to the mobile unit, and also provide the E-911 operator with the location.
`
`The mobile unit may also send its location directly to the destination once a call to
`
`the destination is connected. (See, e.g., 9:64-66.) Bruno discloses that the mobile
`
`unit can send its position to any one of a variety of applications, including E-911,
`
`roadside assistance, fleet management, and tracking to reduce theft, fraud and
`
`abuse. (See, e.g., 9:67-10-6.)
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 5,202,829 to Geier (“Geier”)
`
`37. Geier discloses estimating the location of a ship using GPS
`
`techniques. (Abstract.) Geier’s system includes multiple GPS receivers, each of
`
`which calculate pseudo ranges (PRs) for a ship. (Id.) Geier discloses performing
`
`statistical analysis to determine a weight for each of the PRs, weighting each PR,
`
`and combining the weighted PRs to determine an approximation of the ships
`
`location. (2:26-29, 2:36-38, 4:19-26, 7:5-22.) The ship’s location would also be
`
`displayed on a map using an “error ellipse”, as shown in Fig. 14 (below, cropped).
`
`
`
`13
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 14
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 5,564,079 to Olsson (“Olsson”)
`
`38. Olsson discloses using prior wireless signal measurements to identify
`
`the location of a mobile device. In Olsson, a measuring mobile 2 (“MM”)
`
`equipped with GPS traverses various roadways covered by a cellular network of
`
`base stations. (2:31-36, Fig. 1.) This is shown in Fig. 1, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 15
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`39. MM2 collects GPS location and cellular reference data, and supplies
`
`this information to a neural network. The cellular reference data and the GPS
`
`location are used to train the neural network. (3:1-10.) During training, the neural
`
`network calculates the position of MM2 based on the cellular reference data, and
`
`compares the calculated position with a GPS estimate. (3:36-45.) If there is a
`
`difference, the neural network trains itself by adjusting certain weightings that are
`
`used to determine a location from cellular reference data. (3:43-45.)
`
`40. At some later point in time, a mobile device may seek to determine its
`
`own location. When the mobile station establishes a call, it connects to a base
`
`station, and sends cellular reference data, as a measurement report. (3:27-33.) The
`
`neural network accesses the data from the measurement report, and applies its
`
`weightings to solve patterns in the report and to estimate a location of the mobile
`
`device. (3:45-4:2.)
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 5,936,572 to Loomis et al. (“Loomis”)
`
`41. Loomis discloses a hybrid location system for locating a mobile or
`
`portable device that uses two or more location determination (“LD”) systems
`
`embodied in the mobile device. (See, e.g., 4:39-5:13.) One location determination
`
`system, which Loomis calls the “outdoor LD unit,” may be “a GPS, GLONASS or
`
`other satellite-based positioning system (SATPS) or a ground-based system such as
`
`Loran, Omega, Tacan, Decca, JTIDS Relnav or PLRS.” The other location
`
`
`
`15
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 16
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`determination system, which Loomis calls the “radio LD system,” uses analysis of
`
`radio signals transmitted between terrestrial transmitter and the mobile device to
`
`determine the location of the mobile device. (See, e.g., Loomis at Abstract, 4:39-
`
`5:13; and Figs. 1-3, 6, 8, 9.)
`
`42.
`
`In the Loomis system, the location determination processing can be
`
`done at the mobile device or, alternatively, the wireless signal measurements
`
`received at the mobile device can be transmitted to a central processing station,
`
`which uses the signals to determine the mobile station location, including at
`
`different time intervals. (See, e.g., 8:26-42.) Further, the Loomis system can use
`
`threshold error and accuracy indicators to select which location determination from
`
`the multiple systems it will use to determine the location estimate. (See, e.g.,
`
`12:47-58). The Loomis system can also combine measurements from the different
`
`location determination system using, for example, a Kalman filter to determine a
`
`location estimate. (See, e.g., 15:39-46).
`
`E. U.S. Patent No. 5,602,903 to LeBlanc et al. (“LeBlanc”)
`
`43. LeBlanc discloses determining the position of a mobile device using
`
`pattern recognition techniques of wireless signal measurements. (See, e.g., 7:26-
`
`39.) In particular, LeBlanc models RF signal measurements from base stations as a
`
`scaled contour shape having minimum and maximum coverage boundaries around
`
`each base station. (See, e.g., 23:48-54.) Then, the base stations neighboring a
`
`
`
`16
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 17
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`mobile station are identified, and an intersection of the modeled contours
`
`associated with those base stations is determined. (See, e.g., 23:54-61.) The
`
`intersection of the contours defines a position estimate of the mobile station with a
`
`minimum and maximum error estimate. (See, e.g., 23:57-61, see also Fig. 27
`
`(bounding triangle at the intersection).) LeBlanc discloses displaying the
`
`intersection of the contours on a map, including a representation of the position
`
`estimate and the accuracy of the position estimate. (See, e.g., 7:62-8:19, 31:63-
`
`32:10, 32:55-33:29, Figs. 27-28.) In addition, LeBlanc discloses transmitting
`
`location information via a broadband network using a protocol such as TCP/IP.
`
`(See, e.g., 20:43-53, 18:30-40.)
`
`F. Obviousness of Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 15, 20, 27, and 29 Based on
`Bruno
`
`44. Bruno discloses all elements of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 15, 20, 27, and 29 of
`
`the ’153 patent, as set forth in the claim charts in the Petition. However, the claim
`
`recitations are generally lengthy and include specifics of various location
`
`techniques that Bruno does not explicitly disclose. For example, claim 1 describes
`
`location estimators being independent in terms of “said first mobile station location
`
`estimator generates GAA without requiring a prior likely geographical location
`
`approximation generated by said second mobile station location estimator for
`
`locating the second wireless mobile station at substantially the location LA at
`
`substantially the time TA.” Although Bruno discloses independent location
`
`
`
`17
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 18
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`estimators, it does not describe in detail all well-known techniques for
`
`implementing independent location estimators as recited in the claims. It is my
`
`opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would be very familiar with the
`
`techniques recited in these claims, and that Bruno renders each of the claims
`
`obvious when considered with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that the claims of the
`
`’153 patent are directed to commonly known techniques.
`
`G. Obviousness of Claims 2, 23, and 24 Based on Bruno and Geier
`
`45.
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`combine the disclosures of weighting various estimates and showing an error
`
`ellipse in Geier with the hybrid system of Bruno. Geier’s weighting technique
`
`increases accuracy of a location estimate (Geier, 4:31-35), and the error ellipses
`
`have the advantage of “rapidly convey[ing] statistical information to users about
`
`the quality of the position information being viewed.” (Id, 2:32-35.) Similarly,
`
`Bruno discloses a hybrid approach to increase the accuracy of location detection
`
`techniques. (Bruno, 3:52-56, 10:8-11.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill to modify Bruno in view of Geier to improve the accuracy
`
`of a location estimate, and to allow a user to quickly and easily understand the
`
`level of accuracy of a location estimate. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`further understand that both systems take measures to increase the accuracy of the
`
`
`
`18
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 19
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`location estimate, and thus it would have been obvious to improve the Bruno
`
`system by further including the weighting technique and error ellipses from Geier.
`
`This is the simple use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the
`
`same way and achieve predictable results.
`
`46. Moreover, both Bruno and Geier are in the same field. They both
`
`relate to location detection by combining multiple techniques. Geier’s technique
`
`of weighting multiple measurements of GPS signals would be readily applicable to
`
`Bruno, because Bruno employs a GPS back-end for estimating a location based on
`
`either GPS-like measurements on a cellular frequency, or actual GPS
`
`measurements as transmitted directly from GPS satellites; applying a weight to the
`
`measurements of GPS or GPS like signals would have been obvious. (Bruno, 9:2-
`
`8.) Thus, although Geier is directed to ship-based applications, its technique of
`
`weighting and combining location estimates can be used by Bruno’s system.
`
`Therefore, the combination of Bruno with Geier would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill, and would have yielded predictable results.
`
`H. Obviousness of Claims 17, 18, 35, 37-39, and 42 Based on Bruno
`and Olsson
`
`47.
`
`In my opinion, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill to add the neural network and pattern recognition technique of Olsson to
`
`Bruno. Bruno discusses employing a hybrid approach by “supplementing” and
`
`“augment[ing]” GPS solutions to increase the accuracy of location determination.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 20
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`(Bruno, 3:52-56, 10:8-11.) Using the the neural network and pattern recognition
`
`technique features in Olsson as one of the hybrid techniques of Bruno would allow
`
`for increased accuracy for Bruno’s system. (Olsson, 1:61-67) Thus, it would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Olsson’s neural network
`
`and pattern recognition with Bruno’s hybrid approach to further improve accuracy.
`
`Doing so is simply use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the
`
`same way, as well as applying a known technique to a known system ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results.
`
`I.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 36 Based on Bruno, Olsson, and Geier
`
`48. For the reasons discussed in the previous sections, claim 36 of the
`
`’153 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on
`
`Bruno in view of Olsson and Geier.
`
`J. Obviousness of Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 15, 23, 27, 29, and 35-39 Based on
`Loomis
`
`49. Loomis discloses each element of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 15, 23, 27, 29, and
`
`35-39 of the ’153 patent, as set forth in the claim charts in the Petition. However,
`
`the claim recitations are lengthy and include specifics of various location
`
`techniques that Bruno does not explicitly disclose. It is my opinion that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would be very familiar with the techniques recited in these
`
`claims, and that Loomis renders each of the claims obvious when considered with
`
`the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`20
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 21
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`would immediately recognize that the claims of the ’153 patent are directed to
`
`commonly known techniques. For some limitations that are not present in Loomis,
`
`it would be obvious to modify and/or supplement Loomis, as set forth in the
`
`remainder of this section.
`
`50.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use
`
`the cellular communication infrastructure disclosed in Loomis for positioning
`
`purposes, given that FM carrier or subcarrier signals, as used in Loomis for
`
`positioning purposes (see 4:44-51), can also be transmitted from a cellular
`
`communication station. Loomis itself discloses a cellular communication system
`
`(see 12:30-40.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that cellular
`
`communication infrastructures were widely used at the time, and that use of an
`
`existing cellular communication infrastructure instead of a dedicated FM
`
`transmission infrastructure would provide an immediately recognizable and
`
`predictable benefit of not having to build a costly, completely separate and
`
`dedicated infrastructure for positioning purposes. This would also be a simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
`
`K. Obviousness of Claims 2, 17, 18, and 20 Based on Loomis and
`LeBlanc
`
`51.
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`include the display features of LeBlanc in the Loomis system. Loomis already
`
`discloses outputting resulting location estimate for display. (See, e.g., 5:21-22;
`
`
`
`21
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 22
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,032,153
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 106840000515
`
`
`
`Fig. 9 (step 187).) One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that it
`
`would be beneficial to provide the user with additional information about the
`
`location determination and its accuracy, such as the polygon area display disclosed
`
`in LeBlanc. Doing so allows the user to easily determine the position as well as
`
`how reliable the location estimate is. Further a person of
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
