UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.,
`Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TracBeam, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484
`
`Title: GATEWAY AND HYBRID SOLUTIONS FOR WIRELESS LOCATION
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A. Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................. 1
`B. Related Matters ....................................................................................... 2
`C. Counsel and Service Information ........................................................... 2
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 3
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 3
`A. Petitioners have standing to bring this Petition ...................................... 3
`B. Petitioners are not barred by the prior litigation ..................................... 4
`V. NON-REDUNDANCY OF CONCURRENT PETITIONS............................ 5
`VI.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .......................................................... 6
`VII. THE ’484 PATENT ......................................................................................... 6
`A. Overview ................................................................................................. 6
`B. Prosecution History ................................................................................ 7
`C. Level of ordinary skill in the art ............................................................. 7
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`A.
`“mobile station,” “location technique(s)” (and related terms), “location
`estimating sources” (and related terms), and “geographical extent” ..... 8
`“location information” and related terms ............................................... 8
`B.
`“obtained via transmissions” and related terms ..................................... 9
`C.
`IX. PRIOR ART ................................................................................................... 10
`A. State of the Art ...................................................................................... 10
`B. Loomis .................................................................................................. 11
`C. Wortham ............................................................................................... 11
`D. Combinations of Prior Art .................................................................... 12
`1. Overview ....................................................................................... 12
`2. Two-Way Wireless Communication and Location Functionality 13
`
` 
`
` 
`
`i 
`
`

`
`3. Satellite / Non-Terrestrial GPS Technique ................................... 15
`3.
`Satellite / Non-Terrestrial GPS Technique ................................. ..15
`4. Terrestrial Radio Technique ......................................................... 17
`4.
`Terrestrial Radio Technique ....................................................... ..17
`5. Resulting Location Determination ................................................ 19
`5. Resulting Location Determination .............................................. .. 19
`6. Reasons to Modify and/or Combine ............................................. 21
`6. Reasons to Modify and/or Combine ........................................... ..21
`X. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ........................................................ 26
`A. Claims 1, 2, 6, 24, 25, 51, 71, and 72 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`A.
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 24, 25, 51, 71, and 72 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 in view the Loomis-Wortham combination................................... 26
`103 in View the Loomis-Wortham combination ................................. ..26
`CLAIM 1 .............................................................................................. 26
`CLAIM 2 .............................................................................................. 37
`CLAIM 6 .............................................................................................. 39
`CLAIM 24 ............................................................................................ 40
`CLAIM 25 ............................................................................................ 42
`CLAIM 51 ............................................................................................ 53
`CLAIM 71 ............................................................................................ 59
`CLAIM 72 ............................................................................................ 60
`XI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`X.
`
`GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ...................................................... ..26
`
`CLAIM 1 ............................................................................................ ..26
`
`CLAIM 2 ............................................................................................ ..37
`
`CLAIM 6 ............................................................................................ ..39
`
`CLAIM 24 .......................................................................................... ..4O
`
`CLAIM 25 .......................................................................................... ..42
`
`CLAIM 51 .......................................................................................... ..53
`
`CLAIM 71 .......................................................................................... ..59
`
`CLAIM 72 .......................................................................................... ..6O
`
`XI.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ ..6O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
` 
`
`
`
`

`
`Number
`
`EXHIBITS1
`
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,231 (the “’231 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (the “’484 Patent”)
`(PATENT CHALLENGED IN THIS PETITION)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,032,153 (the “’153 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,298,327 (the “’327 Patent”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. William Michalson
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. William Michalson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,724,660 to Kauser (“Kauser”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,936,572 to Loomis (“Loomis”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,226 to Wortham (“Wortham”)
`
`International PCT Application No. PCT/US93/12179
`Schuchman (“Schuchman”)
`
`to
`
`1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,327,144 to Stilp (“Stilp”)
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`FAA Advisory Circular 20-101C, Airworthiness Approval of
`Omega/VLF Navigation Systems For Use in the U.S. National
`Airspace System (NAS) and Alaska (Sep. 12, 1988)
`
`FAA Advisory Circular 20-130A, Airworthiness Approval of
`Navigation or Flight Management Systems Integrating Multiple
`Navigation Sensors (Jun. 14, 1995)
`
`                                                       
`1 For the Board’s convenience, the same set of exhibits and exhibit numbering are
`
`provided for each of Petitioner’s concurrently filed petitions for the ’484 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Locating Wireless 911
`Callers (Released Oct. 19, 1994)
`
`TR45 Joint Experts Meeting (JEM) for Emergency Services (Aug.
`18, 1994)
`
`C.J. Driscoll & Associates, Survey of Location Technologies to
`Support Mobile 9-1-1, July 1994 (“Driscoll Survey”)
`
`Claim Construction Order (MetroPCS and TCS lawsuits)
`
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order
`
`Complaint against MetroPCS
`
`Complaint filed by TCS
`
`Dismissal Request (MetroPCS and TCS lawsuits)
`
`Dismissal Order (MetroPCS and TCS lawsuits)
`
`MetroPCS Corporate Disclosure Statement (MetroPCS lawsuit)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., TeleCommunication
`
`Systems, Inc., Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively
`
`“Petitioners”) respectfully request inter partes review of Claims 1, 2, 6, 24, 25, 51,
`
`71, and 72 of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (the “’484 Patent,” attached as Ex. 1002)
`
`in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. The
`
`expert declaration of Dr. William Michalson (attached as Ex. 1006) is provided in
`
`support of this Petition and is cited throughout as “Expert Decl.”
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`The real parties-in-interest are Petitioners T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile
`
`USA, Inc. (collectively “T-Mobile”), Petitioner TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
`
`(“TCS”), and Petitioners Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`
`(collectively, “Ericsson”).
`
`For disclosure purposes, the following entities own more than 10% of the
`
`publicly traded shares (either directly or indirectly) of Petitioner T-Mobile:
`
`Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Mobile Global Holding GmbH, T-Mobile Global
`
`Zwischenholding GmbH, and Deutsche Telekom Holding B.V.
`
`Finally, Petitioner T-Mobile acquired MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. and
`
`MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (collectively “MetroPCS”) in April 2013, and
`
`thus the MetroPCS entities no longer exist. (Ex. 1023 (MetroPCS Corporate
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Disclosure Statement).)
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’484 Patent is or was involved in the following lawsuits: (1) TracBeam,
`
`LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00678 (E.D. Tex.); (2) TracBeam, LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00680 (E.D. Tex.); (3) TracBeam, LLC. v. Google, Inc.,
`
`No. 6:13-cv-00093 (E.D. Tex.); (4) TeleComm. Sys., Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC, Nos.
`
`6:12-cv-00058 (E.D. Tex.), 1:11-cv-02519 (D. Colo.); and (5) TracBeam, LLC v.
`
`MetroPCS Commc’ns, Inc. et al., No. 6:11-cv-00096 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Patent Owner TracBeam is currently asserting the ’484 Patent and three
`
`other related patents (attached as Exs. 1001–1004) against Petitioner T-Mobile in
`
`the first lawsuit identified above. In addition to the present Petition for the ’484
`
`Patent, Petitioner is concurrently filing additional inter partes review petitions for
`
`the ’484 Patent (see Section V) and for the three other asserted patents (U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,298,327; 7,764,231; and 8,032,153).
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`Lead Counsel is Brian W. Oaks (Reg. No. 44,981) of Baker Botts LLP;
`
`Back-up Counsel is Douglas M. Kubehl (Reg. No. 41,915), Chad C. Walters (Reg.
`
`No. 48,022), and Ross G. Culpepper (Reg. No. 69,339) of Baker Botts LLP. A
`
`Power of Attorney is filed concurrently herewith under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`Service information is as follows: Baker Botts LLP, 98 San Jacinto Blvd.,
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Suite 1500, Austin, TX 78701; Phone: (512) 322-5470; Fax: (512) 322-3621.
`
`Petitioners consent to service by electronic mail at brian.oaks@bakerbotts.com,
`
`doug.kubehl@bakerbotts.com,
`
`chad.walters@bakerbotts.com,
`
`and
`
`ross.culpepper@bakerbotts.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 02-0384, as well as any
`
`additional fees that might be due in connection with this Petition.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`A.
`Petitioners have standing to bring this Petition
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioners hereby certify that the ’484
`
`Patent is available for inter partes review and that the Petitioners are not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’484
`
`Patent.
`
`Petitioner T-Mobile has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of
`
`any claims of the ’484 Patent, and the complaint served on T-Mobile in the
`
`litigation referenced above in Section II.B was served within the last 12 months.
`
`Petitioner Ericsson has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any
`
`claims of the ’484 Patent, nor has it been served with a complaint for infringement
`
`of the ’484 Patent.
`
`Further, as explained below, Petitioners are not barred based on the prior
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`TracBeam lawsuits involving MetroPCS and TCS (see Section II.B (Related
`
`Matters)) because those lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice.
`
`Petitioners are not barred by the prior litigation
`
`B.
`Petitioner T-Mobile (which acquired MetroPCS in 2013) is not barred by
`
`Patent Owner TracBeam’s prior litigation against MetroPCS, and Petitioner TCS is
`
`not barred by its prior litigation with Patent Owner TracBeam. (See Section II.B
`
`(Related Matters).) Those lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice, and thus are
`
`treated as if they had never been filed.
`
`Specifically, on February 25, 2011, TracBeam filed a civil action against
`
`MetroPCS alleging infringement of the ’231 Patent. (Ex. 1019 (Complaint against
`
`MetroPCS).) On September 27, 2011, TCS filed a declaratory judgment action
`
`against TracBeam with respect to the ’231 Patent (in response to TracBeam’s
`
`lawsuit against TCS’s customers, including MetroPCS). The TCS lawsuit and the
`
`MetroPCS lawsuit were eventually consolidated. On June 17, 2013, both the
`
`MetroPCS and TCS lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice after the parties
`
`filed an agreed dismissal request. (Ex. 1021 (Dismissal Request); Ex. 1022
`
`(Dismissal Order).) The Board has held that a civil action—including a
`
`declaratory judgment action—dismissed without prejudice does not bar a petition
`
`for inter partes review (“IPR”), as such dismissals are treated as if the lawsuit had
`
`never been brought. “[A] prior action that is voluntarily dismissed without
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`prejudice does not give rise to 35 U.S.C. §§ 315 (a)(1) or (b) statutory bars.”
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing LLC, IPR2015-00486, Paper 10 at
`
`14 (PTAB Jul. 15, 2015). Thus, Petitioners cannot be barred from bringing this
`
`Petition based on the prior litigation.
`
`V. NON-REDUNDANCY OF CONCURRENT PETITIONS
`Due to the many lengthy asserted claims, and page limits for IPR petitions,
`
`Petitioners are concurrently filing the following petitions for the ’484 Patent:
`
`Petition #
`1
`2
`3
`(THIS PETITION)
`
`PETITIONS FOR ’484 PATENT
`Challenged Claims
`Primary Prior Art Reference
`Kauser (Ex. 1007)
`64, 67
`Kauser (Ex. 1007)
`27, 39, 62
`
`1, 2, 6, 24, 25, 51, 71, 72
`
`Loomis (Ex. 1008)
`
`
`
`There is no redundancy of challenged claims as each of the petitions
`
`addresses separate and distinct claims. While certain prior art relied on in this
`
`Petition was disclosed to the Patent Office during prosecution, that prior art was
`
`buried within 400+ prior art references disclosed by the applicants during
`
`prosecution and was never addressed substantively by the Examiner. See, e.g.,
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing LLC, IPR2015-00486, Paper 10 at
`
`15 (PTAB Jul. 15, 2015) (declining to exercise discretion to deny petition under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 325(d) for prior art disclosed during prosecution but never applied to the
`
`claims by the Examiner).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`Petitioners challenge the following claims of the ’484 Patent on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Challenged Claims
`1, 2, 6, 24, 25, 51, 71, 72
`
`Statutory Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Prior Art References
`Loomis and Wortham
`
`
`Section VIII identifies how the challenged claims are to be construed. Section X
`
`identifies (1) the specific statutory grounds on which the challenge to each claim is
`
`based and how each challenged claim is unpatentable for each ground, and (2) the
`
`exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence and the relevance of that evidence.
`
`VII. THE ’484 PATENT
`A. Overview
`The ’484 Patent was filed on January 26, 2001 as a continuation of the ’231
`
`Patent, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Nos. 60/025,855 (filed
`
`September 9, 1996), 60/044,821 (filed April 25, 1997), and 60/056,590 (filed
`
`August 20, 1997).
`
`The ’484 Patent relates to a system and method for locating mobile stations
`
`using a combination of wireless location techniques, including satellite (e.g., GPS)
`
`and terrestrial (e.g., cell-tower triangulation) techniques. (Ex. 1002 (’484 Patent)
`
`at Abs.) For example, certain claims require (1) using multiple location techniques
`
`to obtain location information for a mobile station, and (2) determining a resulting
`
`estimate using the location information from each technique. (See, e.g., Claim 1
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`(Ex. 1002 (’484 Patent) at 171:16-56.) A more detailed description of the patented
`
`technology is provided in Dr. Michalson’s expert declaration. (Expert Decl. § III.)
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The ’484 Patent was prosecuted for over 8 years. Notably, despite the
`
`extraordinary length of prosecution, there were no substantive rejections based on
`
`prior art. Accordingly, the prosecution history of the ’484 Patent provides limited
`
`guidance as to the understanding and interpretation of the claims for the purposes
`
`of this proceeding.
`
`C. Level of ordinary skill in the art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’484 Patent would
`
`typically have (1) a degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science, or a related field, and (2) one to four years of experience and/or
`
`postgraduate study relating to wireless communication systems and/or wireless
`
`location and navigation technologies. (Expert Decl. § V.) However, someone with
`
`less technical education but more practical experience, or vice versa, could also
`
`meet that standard. (Id.)
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Some of the challenged claims were construed in connection with a prior
`
`lawsuit filed by Patent Owner TracBeam, using the applicable claim construction
`
`standards for district court proceedings. (Ex. 1017 (Claim Construction Order).)
`
`The following claim construction analysis in this Petition, however, is based on the
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the specification. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`A.
`
` “mobile station,” “location technique(s)” (and related terms),
`“location
`estimating
`sources”
`(and
`related
`terms), and
`“geographical extent”
`The terms “mobile station,” “location technique(s)” (and/or variations
`
`thereof), “location estimating sources”
`
`(and/or variations
`
`therefor), and
`
`“geographical extent” are recited by certain challenged claims. The prior district
`
`court proceeding adopted the following constructions: (1) mobile station: “a
`
`mobile wireless device that is at least a transmitting device and may include a
`
`receiving device”; (2) mobile station
`
`location
`
`technique: “technique
`
`for
`
`determining mobile station locations”; (3) mobile station location estimating
`
`sources: “source (such as a computer system, device, or component) for estimating
`
`mobile station locations”; and (4) geographical extent: “geographical area or
`
`range.” (Ex. 1017 (Claim Construction Order) at 37-38.) Petitioners do not
`
`believe that these terms require construction in this inter partes review proceeding,
`
`but nonetheless Petitioners do not otherwise object to the prior district court
`
`constructions for purposes of this proceeding.
`
` “location information” and related terms
`
`B.
`Challenged Claims 1, 25, and 51 recite the term “location information.” The
`
`context of the challenged claims requires the “location information” to contain
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`information that identifies or indicates a location (as opposed to, for example,
`
`solely containing an error or failure message). For example, Claim 25 requires that
`
`“the resulting information is dependent on geographical information in each of the
`
`first and second location information . . . .” (Ex. 1002 (’484 Patent) at 174:45-49.)
`
`In the prior district court proceeding, the court corroborated the above
`
`interpretation, concluding that although no express construction was necessary for
`
`the term “location information,” nevertheless “the concept of identifying a location
`
`is found in other clauses in the claims.” (Ex. 1017 (Claim Construction Order) at
`
`14, 37.) Thus, the requirement for the term “location information” to identify or
`
`indicate a location can be found in the surrounding claim language. Consequently,
`
`for purposes of this proceeding, Petitioners do not object to interpreting the term
`
`“location information” according to its plain and ordinary meaning under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
`
`C.
`“obtained via transmissions” and related terms
`Claim 25 requires that certain values are “obtained using wireless signal
`
`measurements obtained via two way wireless communication between said mobile
`
`station M, and the communication stations” (see e.g., Claim Element 25.4).
`
`
`
`This phrase in Claim 25 could be interpreted to cover two possible
`
`scenarios: (1) the wireless signal data itself is transmitted between the
`
`communication stations and the mobile station (e.g., GPS satellite signal
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`measurements are transmitted from the mobile station to the communication
`
`stations), or (2) the wireless signal data is simply generated using the transmissions
`
`between the communication stations and mobile station (e.g., the mobile station
`
`measures the signals transmitted from communication stations).
`
`In the prior district court proceeding, Patent Owner argued that both of the
`
`above scenarios were covered by a substantially similar phrase in a different claim:
`
`“wireless signal measurements obtained by transmissions between said mobile
`
`station M and the communication stations.” (Ex. 1017 (Claim Construction Order)
`
`at 27-28.) The district court agreed with the Patent Owner and ruled that both of
`
`the above scenarios were covered by this language. (Id.) For purposes of this
`
`proceeding, Petitioners agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`substantially similar language in Claim 25 also covers both of the above scenarios.
`
`IX. PRIOR ART
`A.
`State of the Art
`As acknowledged by the ’484 Patent, various location determining
`
`technologies were widely known, understood, and implemented by those of skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention. (See, e.g., Ex. 1002 (’484 Patent) at
`
`1:43–2:29.)
`
`Examples of preexisting location determining technologies include GPS,
`
`GLONASS, Loran-C, Omega, and various other ground-based positioning
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`technologies, such as signal strength, time-of-arrival (TOA), and time-difference-
`
`of-arrival (TDOA) techniques. (See, e.g., Ex. 1009 (Wortham) at 2:63–3:5; Ex.
`
`1007 (Kauser) at 1:61-2:40, 2:62-66; Ex. 1011 (Stilp) at Abs., 5:5-26, 6:41-55,
`
`14:31-39; Ex. 1012 (FAA Advisory Circular 20-101C) at 1.) Hybrid location
`
`systems that used multiple location techniques were also widely known and
`
`understood by those of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. (See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1008 (Loomis) at Abs.; Ex. 1007 (Kauser) at 2:62-66; Ex. 1010
`
`(Schuchman) at 1:1-12, 5:22-33, 7:19-26, Ex. 1012 (FAA Advisory Circular 20-
`
`101C) at 1, 3; Ex. 1013 (FAA Advisory Circular 20-130A) at 1.) A more detailed
`
`description of the state of the art is provided in Dr. Michalson’s expert declaration.
`
`(Expert Decl. § VII.)
`
`B.
`Loomis
`U.S. Patent No. 5,936,572 to Loomis et al. (“Loomis”) (Ex. 1008), issued
`
`August 10, 1999 as a continuation of an application filed February 4, 1994, and
`
`thus qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Loomis is described below in
`
`Section IX.D, and in Dr. Michalson’s expert declaration (Expert Decl. § VIII.B).
`
`C. Wortham
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,226 to Wortham (“Wortham”) (Ex. 1009), issued June
`
`8, 2004 as a continuation of an application filed November 16, 1994, and thus
`
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Wortham is described in
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Section IX.D and also in Dr. Michalson’s expert declaration. (Expert Decl. §
`
`VIII.C.)
`
`D. Combinations of Prior Art
`1. Overview
`The grounds of invalidity presented in Section X demonstrate that the
`
`challenged claims are obvious in view of Loomis in combination with Wortham.
`
`This section describes relevant features disclosed by these prior art references and
`
`explains how these references could be combined and/or modified to invalidate the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`For example, Loomis’ hybrid location system includes a method and
`
`apparatus for determining and outputting a resulting location estimate for a mobile
`
`user carrying a hybrid LD device (also referred to in Loomis as a “mobile station”)
`
`using multiple location techniques that generate location estimates using wireless
`
`signal measurements. (Ex. 1008 (Loomis) at Abs., 4:39-5:13, 11:49-13:4, 19:32-
`
`20:5; see also id. at 18:27-32, FIG. 1.) The location techniques in Loomis’ hybrid
`
`location system include satellite-based techniques (e.g., GPS) and terrestrial-based
`
`techniques (e.g., a radio technique). (Id.) As described throughout this section, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Loomis’
`
`hybrid location system with aspects of the positioning system disclosed in
`
`Wortham. (Expert Decl. §§ X.A, X.I.) As one example, Loomis’ location system
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`can be integrated into an existing mobile communications infrastructure, such as a
`
`cellular telephone network, as described in Wortham. (Section IX.D.2 (Two-Way
`
`Communication); Ex. 1009 (Wortham) at 1:46-2:12; Expert Decl. § X.B.)
`
`Section IX.D.6 (Reasons to Modify and/or Combine) addresses the reasons why
`
`these prior art combinations and/or modifications would have been obvious to
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`2.
`
`Two-Way Wireless Communication
`Functionality
`Loomis’ hybrid LD device (i.e., mobile station) includes an FM radio
`
`and Location
`
`receiver/processor for locating the mobile station using FM radio signal
`
`measurements, and a cellular communications transmitter/receiver (“transceiver”)
`
`for communicating with another person or facility using telecommunication
`
`signals. (Ex. 1008 (Loomis) at 6:20-29, 6:46-55, 11:52-65, 12:16-20, 12:27-40,
`
`FIG. 6.) It would have been obvious to modify Loomis’ hybrid LD device to use
`
`the cellular transceiver to provide both the location capabilities (i.e., instead of the
`
`FM radio receiver) and the communications capabilities, as described in Wortham.
`
`(Ex. 1009 (Wortham) at 1:46-2:12, 7:48-55, 7:67–8:4; Expert Decl. § X.B.)
`
`For example, under the proposed combination, Loomis’ hybrid LD device
`
`would use its transceiver and associated cellular towers (which would be present
`
`for use with any transceiver) for both locating the mobile station and wirelessly
`
`communicating with another person or facility. In particular, Loomis’ hybrid
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`location system could be modified to implement its terrestrial location capabilities
`
`using (1) the same cell towers of Loomis that provide cellular communication
`
`capabilities (as described in Wortham), instead of Loomis’ FM radio towers, and
`
`(2) Loomis’ cellular transceiver, instead of its FM radio transceiver. (Expert Decl.
`
`§ X.B; see also Ex. 1009 (Wortham) at 1:46–2:12, 7:48-55, 7:67–8:4.)
`
`For example, Loomis’ mobile station could obtain wireless signal
`
`measurements by measuring the signals transmitted from the cell towers, and/or
`
`transmit wireless signal measurements (such as satellite signal measurements
`
`and/or cell tower signal measurements) to a central station via the network of cell
`
`towers to allow the central station to perform the location calculations (and/or to
`
`allow the central station to provide the calculated location estimate to a particular
`
`person or facility). (Expert Decl. § X.B; see also Ex. 1008 (Loomis) at 8:29-34,
`
`12:27-40, 20:29-42; Ex. 1009 (Wortham) at 1:46-2:12, 7:48-55, 7:67–8:4.)
`
`Under the combination of Loomis and Wortham, Loomis’ location system
`
`could be used to locate any of the cellular devices in the cellular network described
`
`by Wortham. (Expert Decl. § X.H.4; see also Ex. 1008 (Loomis) at 20:29-34, Ex.
`
`1009 (Wortham) at 1:19-39.) Furthermore, under the combination of Loomis and
`
`Wortham, Loomis’ location system could be used to provide location estimates to
`
`the various different applications that may request location information (as in
`
`Wortham),
`
`including “trucking applications,
`
`in-vehicle navigation systems,
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`surveying applications, collision avoidance, emergency location using mobile 911
`
`services, or any other application requiring accurate positioning information.” (Ex.
`
`1009 (Wortham) at 4:33-39; Ex. 1008 (Loomis) at 12:30-40; Expert Decl. §
`
`X.H.7.) Additionally, the location functionality described by Loomis may be used
`
`to “locate or track” movable objects according to the preferences of the
`
`application, as in Wortham. (Ex. 1009 (Wortham) at 4:26-31, 12:39-41, 13:3-5.)
`
`For instance, some applications, such as “in-vehicle navigation,” may require “high
`
`frequency updates in near real-time” while other applications may simply request
`
`location estimates “at fixed time intervals, on-demand, or as a result of a
`
`predetermined reporting event.” (Ex. 1009 (Wortham) at 4:40-55.)
`
` Section IX.D.6 (Reasons to Modify and/or Combine) explains why it would
`
`have been obvious to combine the prior art in this manner.
`
`Satellite / Non-Terrestrial GPS Technique
`
`3.
`This section addresses claim elements relating to a satellite or non-terrestrial
`
`location technique.
`
`Satellite (non-terrestrial) technique:
`
`Loomis’ location system includes a GPS technique (i.e., the outdoor LD
`
`module), which satisfies the claim elements that require a satellite or non-terrestrial
`
`location technique. (Ex. 1008 (Loomis) at Abs., 7:9-22; see also id. at 4:66-5:9,
`
`6:55-58, 11:66-12:15; see also Expert Decl. § X.C.) As explained in the following
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`paragraphs, Loomis’ GPS
`
`technique calculates
`
`location estimates using
`
`measurements of wireless signals transmitted between a hybrid LD device (i.e., a
`
`mobile station) carried by a mobile user and three or more satellites.
`
`Satellite signal time delay measurements:
`
`Loomis discloses
`
`that
`
`the mobile station
`
`includes a GPS signal
`
`receiver/processor (referred to in Loomis as the “outdoor LD unit”) that receives
`
`wireless signals from satellites and uses those signals to estimate a location of the
`
`mobile station. (Ex. 1008 (Loomis) at 7:9-22; see also id. at Abs., 4:66-5:9, 6:55-
`
`58, 11:66-12:15, 12:21-27.)
`
`As explained by Dr. Michalson and acknowledged by the ’484 Patent, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that the present location is determined
`
`from the GPS signals by measuring the signal travel time delay of the received
`
`GPS signals. (Expert Decl. § X.C.2; Ex. 1002 (’484 Patent) at 1:54-2:2.) This is
`
`also confirmed by Wortham and Loomis, which explain that GPS calculations
`
`involve “pseudorange” measurements corresponding to the range of the GPS
`
`receiver from each satellite
`
`in space which are determined using
`
`the
`
`travel/propagation time, or time of arrival, of the satellite signals. (Ex. 1009
`
`(Wortham) at 3:21-25, 5:18-23; Ex. 1008 (Loomis) at 16:52-55, 22:57–23:13,
`
`17:1-7; Expert Decl. § X.C.2.)
`
`Satellite location information:
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`In Loomis’ location system, the GPS location information generated by
`
`Loomis’ GPS technique satisfies the claim elements that require “location
`
`information” (and variations thereof) obtained from a satellite technique. (Ex. 1008
`
`(Loomis) at 15:54-59, 19:42-47, FIG. 9; see also id. at Abs., 12:21-27, 21:48-57;
`
`Expert Decl. § X.C.3.) For example, Loomis’ GPS technique provides the
`
`following GPS location information: (1) the present GPS location coordinates
`
`(xu,yu,zu)out of the mobile station, and (2) GPS signal indicium Iout (i.e., a measure
`
`of signal quality and/or signal strength). (Id. at FIG. 9, Abs., 12:21-27, 19:42-47,
`
`20:14-16, 21:48-57.)
`
`Terrestrial Radio Technique
`
`4.
`This section addresses claim relating to terrestrial location techniques.
`
`Terrestrial communication stations at fixed locations:
`
`Loomis’ location system is implemented using radio to