Filed on behalf of TRACBEAM, LLC
`By: Sean Luner
`DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
`
`
`201 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 600
`
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`
`Telephone (310) 656-7066
`
`sean@dovel.com
`
`
`
`
`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
`__________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO THE PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,525,484 UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 313 PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`

`
`I.
`II.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`Table of Contents
`Introduction. ..................................................................................................... 1
`The Petitioners fail to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that the
`challenged claims are unpatentable. ................................................................ 1
`A.
`Petitioners’ burden. ............................................................................... 1
`B.
`Claim 1. ................................................................................................. 6
`1.
`“first obtaining” and “second obtaining.” ................................... 7
`2.
`“wherein said steps of first and second obtaining includes
`a step of providing said first and second location inputs
`in a common standardized format” (1.6) .................................... 8
`C. Claim 25. ............................................................................................... 9
`1.
`“A method for estimating, for each mobile station M of a
`plurality of mobile stations” (25.0) ............................................. 9
`“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” (25.2) ...................................................................... 11
`“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” (25.3) ................................. 13
`“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” (25.4) ........................ 16
`“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;” (25.5) ....... 18
`“obtaining a first collection of location information of
`said mobile station M, wherein the first collection
`includes first location information from the first location
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`i
`
`

`
`evaluator, and second location information from the
`second location evaluator” (25.6) ............................................. 20
`“a predetermined destination” (25.8) ........................................ 23
`7.
`D. Claim 51. ............................................................................................. 23
`1.
`“providing access” (51.1) .......................................................... 23
`2.
`“determining, a plurality of consecutive resulting location
`estimates for tracking the mobile station, wherein said
`step of determining includes steps (a) and (c) following”
`(51.2-51.5) ................................................................................. 25
`III. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings,
`IPR2015-00440, Paper 11 (July 13, 2015) ............................................................. 2
`Billy Goat Industries, Inc., v. Schiller Grounds Care, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00742, Paper 8 (November 7, 2014) ....................................................... 5
`Christie Medical Holdings, Inc. v. The Research Foundation of The City College of
`New York,
`IPR2015-00213, Paper 19 (September 18, 2015) .................................................. 4
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (August 29, 2014) ........................................................ 4
`Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. Co.,
`790 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 7
`Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc.,
`793 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .............................................................................. 3
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 8 (Oct. 25, 2012) ................................................. 5, 8, 21
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 26
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`IPR2012-00041, Paper 16 (Feb. 22, 2013) .............................................. 2, 3, 5, 25
`Universal Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00152 Paper 8 (August 19, 2013) .......................................................... 3
`Whole Space Industries Ltd. v. Zipshade Industrial (B.V.I.) Corp.,
`IPR2015-00488, Paper 14 (July 24, 2015) .........................................................4, 6
`Wowza Media Systems, LLC and Coffee Cup Partners, Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 16 (July 13, 2013) ............................................................. 2
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ............................................................................................. 1, 2, 5, 6
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................................................................... passim
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 .............................................................................................. 2, 4, 6
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Exhibit List
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`2002
`
`Description
`The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 575 (3rd ed., 1994)
`Webster’s New World College Dictionary, p. 996 (4th ed., 2010)
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Introduction.
`In this Petition for inter partes review, Petitioners asserts a single ground:
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`that claims 1, 25, and 51 of the ‘484 patent are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
`
`view the Loomis-Wortham combination.
`
`
`
`The Petition fails because the Petitioners fail to satisfy their burden of
`
`demonstrating that the challenged claims are unpatentable under the proposed
`
`combination.1
`
`
`
`II. The Petitioners fail to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that the
`challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`A. Petitioners’ burden.
`
`The controlling statute requires that a petition for inter partes review
`
`“identif[y]…with particularity…the evidence that supports the grounds for the
`
`challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)2; Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard
`
`
`1 The Petition also challenges claims 2, 6, 24, 71, and 72 of the ‘484 patent.
`
`These claims are no longer asserted in the co-pending litigation against T-Mobile
`
`and the Petitioners agreed to file a Joint Motion to Limit Petition under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.71 to remove these claims from this proceeding.
`
`2 Emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Holdings, IPR2015-00440, Paper 11 at 5-6 (July 13, 2015) (“a petition for inter
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`partes review must ‘identif[y], in writing and with particularity, each claim
`
`challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the
`
`evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.”) (quoting 35
`
`U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)).
`
`The corresponding regulation requires that a petition include a “detailed
`
`explanation of the significance of the evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2);
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00041, Paper 16 at 14 (Feb. 22,
`
`2013) (“Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a), each petition must include … a detailed
`
`explanation of the significance of the evidence.”).
`
`To satisfy these requirements, a petition must, for each challenged claim,
`
`“identify… [h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable” (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4))
`
`and “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or
`
`printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). “[F]ailure to point out
`
`where each element is found in the prior art is a deficiency in the substantive
`
`requirements of the petition,” which warrants denial under Section 42.104(b)(4).
`
`Wowza Media Systems, LLC and Coffee Cup Partners, Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 16 at 3 (July 13, 2013).
`
`In addition, a Petition must, for each challenged claim, also identify: “the
`
`relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). “In
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 104 (b)(5), the relevance of the evidence supporting
`
`the challenge must be provided including identification of specific portions of the
`
`evidence that support the challenge.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`
`IPR2012-00041, Paper 16 at 12, 14 (Feb. 22, 2013) (finding that “Petitioner’s
`
`conclusory statements, without more detail, fail to satisfy” 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.104(b)(4) and 42.104(b)(5), among other requirements).
`
`Based on the controlling statute and regulations set forth above, to satisfy its
`
`burden, a petition must:
`
`(1) address “each element” of each challenged claim (37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(4))—if a ground fails to address even a single claim
`
`element, the Petition must be denied as to that ground. See Universal
`
`Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2013-00152
`
`Paper 8 at 17 (August 19, 2013) (“‘[A]bsence from the reference of
`
`any claimed element negates anticipation.’ Kloster Speedsteel AB v.
`
`Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation
`
`omitted), overruled on other grounds by Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer
`
`Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Petitioner has failed to identify any disclosure … that meets all the
`
`requirements of claim 1.”).
`
`3
`
`

`
` (2) provide a “detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) and “the relevance of the evidence” (37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)) rather than conclusory assertions as to how
`
`each element is found in the reference. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-
`
`Cation Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 11 (August
`
`29, 2014) (“The Petition before us does not… include a detailed
`
`explanation of the significance of the quotations and citations from the
`
`applied references.”) (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4)), 42.22(a)(2));
`
`Christie Medical Holdings, Inc. v. The Research Foundation of The
`
`City College of New York, IPR2015-00213, Paper 19 at 7 (September
`
`18, 2015) (“We found Petitioner’s argument conclusory, lacking
`
`sufficient explanation for how the cited evidence… support the
`
`anticipation of the challenged claims.”). “As explained in the Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, parties requesting inter partes review
`
`should ‘….focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow
`
`arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.’”
`
`Whole Space Industries Ltd. v. Zipshade Industrial (B.V.I.) Corp.,
`
`IPR2015-00488, Paper 14 at 9 (July 24, 2015) (quoting 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012)).
`
`4
`
`

`
`(3) point “with particularity” (35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)) to specific language
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`in the reference that anticipates each element—a petition must
`
`“identify[] specific portions of the evidence” (37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(5)) rather than block cite multiple paragraphs or pages from
`
`a reference. “Because the petition does not clearly point to specific
`
`language in [a reference] that anticipates each element of [the
`
`challenged claims], we decline to institute an inter partes review on
`
`the basis of anticipation by [the reference].” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
`
`Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00041, Paper 16 at 16 (Feb. 22, 2013).
`
`A Petition should be denied if the Petition forces the Patent Owner and the
`
`Board to piece together the evidence to attempt to establish Petitioner’s ground:
`
`It is Petitioner’s responsibility to explain specific evidence that
`supports its arguments, not the Board’s responsibility to search the
`record and piece together what may support Petitioner’s arguments.
`
`Billy Goat Industries, Inc., v. Schiller Grounds Care, Inc., IPR2014-00742, Paper 8
`
`at 28 n. 4 (November 7, 2014).
`
`[W]e will address only the basis, rationale, and reasoning put forth by
`the Petitioner in the petition, and resolve all vagueness and ambiguity
`in Petitioner’s arguments against the Petitioner.
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2012-
`
`00003, Paper 8 at 10 (October 25, 2012).
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`The Petition improperly shifts the burden of deciphering Petitioner’s
`arguments onto Patent Owner and the Board, which, as we discussed
`above, is contrary to the statutory and regulatory provisions governing
`inter partes review proceedings, as well as the best practices outlined
`in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide.
`
`Whole Space Industries Ltd. v. Zipshade Industrial (B.V.I.) Corp., IPR2015-00488,
`
`Paper 14 at 18 (July 24, 2015) (citing § 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4)–(5)).
`
`Here, the Petitioners fail to satisfy this burden for each challenged claim.
`
`Each claim is addressed in turn.
`
`
`
`B. Claim 1.
`
`
`
`The Petition asserts that the combination of Loomis and Wortham renders
`
`claim 1 obvious. The Petition’s analysis of Loomis and Wortham contains several
`
`errors, omissions, and internal inconsistencies. Many of these cannot be
`
`demonstrated with sufficient clarity at this stage and would require deposition
`
`testimony to unravel. However, because the Petition fails to satisfy its burden of
`
`demonstrating that each limitation in claim 1 is disclosed in the proposed
`
`6
`
`combination, the Petition fails.
`
`
`
`

`
`“first obtaining” and “second obtaining.”
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`“Where the steps of a method claim actually recite an order, we ordinarily
`
`construe the claim to require order.” Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp.
`
`Co., 790 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claim 1 recites an order. The “first
`
`obtaining” act (col. 171:30-33) and “second obtaining” act (col. 171:34-38) must
`
`be performed in that order. This is because “first” and “second” are used as
`
`adverbs to describe the manner in which the recited acts are performed (one before
`
`the other), not as “numeric modifiers” used to simply distinguish between the two
`
`steps, as Petitioners assert. Pet. 32.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner will demonstrate that Petitioners’ asserted combination fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious the ordered “obtaining” steps of claim 1, if a proceeding
`
`is instituted. But Patent Owner need not do so here because Petitioners fail to meet
`
`their burden for the simple reason that they fail to actually identify any acts of
`
`“obtaining.”
`
`
`
`The act of “obtaining” something (in this case the instances of “location
`
`information”) requires acquiring or gaining possession of that thing. See, e.g., Exs.
`
`2001-2002, The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 575 (3rd ed. 1994) (obtain: “v.
`
`1. To succeed in gaining possession of; acquire.”); Webster’s New World College
`
`Dictionary, p. 996 (4th ed. 2010) (“1 to get possession of, esp. by some effort;
`
`procure”).
`
`7
`
`

`
`The Petition asserts that the “obtaining” limitations are met by determining
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`
`
`location input. Pet. at 31-32 (“the GPS and radio location coordinates/signal
`
`indicium (i.e., the first and second ‘location input’) can be determined (i.e.,
`
`‘obtained’) by either the mobile station itself or the central station.”).
`
`
`
`Petitioners implicitly equate the act of “determining” the location inputs
`
`with the act of “obtaining” those inputs. No attempt is made, however, to show or
`
`explain why “determining” should be considered the same thing as “obtaining” the
`
`inputs in the context of the ‘484 claims, or how determining would necessarily
`
`result in the recited act of obtaining. Accordingly, Petitioners’ assertion is
`
`insufficient to satisfy their burden. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive
`
`Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 8 at 10 (Oct. 25, 2012) (“[W]e
`
`will address only the basis, rationale, and reasoning put forth by the Petitioner in
`
`the petition, and resolve all vagueness and ambiguity in Petitioner’s arguments
`
`against the Petitioner.”).
`
`
`
`2.
`
`“wherein said steps of first and second obtaining includes a
`step of providing said first and second location inputs in a
`common standardized format” (1.6)
`
`Claim element 1.6 (using the numbering used by Petitioners) states:
`
`“wherein said steps of first and second obtaining includes a step of providing said
`
`first and second location inputs in a common standardized format.” ‘484 col.
`
`8
`
`

`
`171:44-46. Petitioners assert: “the GPS and radio location coordinates/signal
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`indicium (i.e., ‘first and second location inputs’) are each represented as
`
`‘coordinate triples (x, y, z)’ along with an associated signal indicium value, and
`
`accordingly, they are both provided in the same format.” Pet. at 34. Petitioners’
`
`assertion fails for two reasons.
`
`First, the Petition provides no analysis of the “standardized” limitation and
`
`fails to show that any standardized format is disclosed in Loomis. Second, the
`
`Petition fails to show that the first and second location inputs in Loomis are
`
`provided in any particular format, much less the same (i.e., a “common”) format.
`
`Showing that the inputs both include “coordinate triples” and signal indicium
`
`values merely indicates that the first and second location inputs contain the same
`
`type of contents; it does not show that those contents are instantiated into a data
`
`structure having the same format (standardized or otherwise). Accordingly,
`
`Petitioners fail to satisfy their burden as to this claim element.
`
`
`
`C. Claim 25.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`“A method for estimating, for each mobile station M of a
`plurality of mobile stations” (25.0)
`
`Claim element 25.0 recites a “method for estimating, for each mobile station
`
`M of a plurality of mobile stations, an unknown terrestrial location (LM) for
`
`9
`
`

`
`M…comprising,” and then recites several requirements of the claimed method,
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`including:
`
`• 25.2: “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,” and
`
`• 25.3: “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.”
`
`‘484 col. 174:11-12; 174:20-26. Therefore, to satisfy its burden for these claim
`
`limitations, the Petition must demonstrate that the Loomis-Wortham combination
`
`discloses:
`
`(1) providing requests to each of at least two mobile station location
`
`evaluators,
`
`(2) that the requests provided to the first and second location evaluators are
`
`different, and
`
`(3) that these different requests are provided to the first and second location
`
`evaluators for each of the mobile stations to be located.
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate that the Loomis-Wortham combination discloses
`
`these elements.
`
`10
`
`

`
`In fact, the Petition does not address the limitation requiring that the recited
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`steps (and their various limitations) be performed “for each mobile station.” The
`
`Petition’s analysis of claim 25 does not mention the phrase “for each mobile
`
`station” at all, much less provide any analysis or discussion of this claim limitation.
`
`For example, the Petition’s analysis of claim element 25.0 skips over this
`
`limitation with an ellipsis. Pet. at 42 (asserting that the Petition meets the
`
`requirement “a method for estimating . . . an unknown terrestrial location (LM) for
`
`M” (ellipsis in original)).
`
`In addition, as explained below, in its discussion of claim elements 25.2 and
`
`25.3, the Petition also fails to assert that these steps are taken “for each mobile
`
`station” to be located and makes no attempt to show that this requirement would be
`
`obvious in light of the asserted combination. Accordingly, the Petition fails to
`
`satisfy its burden for element 25.0 and for claim 25 as a whole.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`“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”
`(25.2)
`
`
`
`As mentioned above, claim element 25.2 requires “initiating a plurality of
`
`requests for information related to the location of said mobile station M, the
`
`11
`
`

`
`requests provided to each of at least two mobile station location evaluators.” ‘484
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`col. 174:20-23; Pet. at 44.
`
`The Petition relies on Loomis alone as disclosing this claim limitation. Pet.
`
`at 44-45 (citing only Loomis for element 25.2). The Petition asserts that the “two
`
`mobile station location evaluators” are the “outdoor (GPS) LD module and the
`
`radio LD module,” Pet. at 45; and that the “plurality of requests for information”
`
`are the “command[s] by radiowave signals or telecommunications signals” in
`
`Loomis; Pet. at 44-45 (citing Loomis 12:34-40). Thus, to show that Loomis
`
`discloses element 25.2, the Petition would need to demonstrate that the “command
`
`by radiowave signals or telecommunication signals” (the Petition’s “plurality of
`
`requests”) is provided to each of the outdoor LD module and radio module (the
`
`Petition’s two mobile station location evaluators). The Petition does not do this.
`
`The Petition cites a single passage in Loomis that describes the “command.”
`
`That passage states that the “command by radiowave signals or telecommunication
`
`signals” is received by the controller—not the outdoor LD module or radio LD
`
`module:
`
`At one or more selected times, or upon receipt by the controller
`module 93 of a command by radiowave signals or telecommunication
`signals, the controller module causes the cellular communication
`means 101 to send information on the present or recent location of the
`LD unit 11 to a person or facility spaced apart from this LD unit.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Loomis 12:34-40.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`Moreover, there is no teaching in Loomis that the “command by radiowave
`
`signals or telecommunications signals” is provided to the outdoor LD module or
`
`radio module. Thus, Loomis does not teach this claim element. The Petition also
`
`fails to assert that it would be obvious to modify Loomis such that this command is
`
`sent to the outdoor and radio modules (rather than the controller module, which is
`
`what Loomis teaches). Thus, the Petition does not satisfy its burden for this claim
`
`element.
`
`Further, Loomis does not teach providing the “command by radiowave
`
`signals or telecommunications” to the outdoor and radio modules for each mobile
`
`station being located. As discussed above, claim element 25.0 requires that this
`
`step be taken “for each mobile station.” The Petition makes no attempt to show
`
`that this element is disclosed in Loomis for each of the mobile stations. Thus, the
`
`Petition does not satisfy its burden for this independent reason.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`“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” (25.3)
`
`
`The Petition’s analysis of this element fails because it contains internal
`
`inconsistencies in trying to identify the claimed first and second request.
`
`13
`
`

`
`The antecedent basis for the “first of the requests” and the “second of the
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`requests” in this claim element is the “plurality of requests” in element 25.2. Thus,
`
`to meet this claim limitation, the Petition must rely on a “first” and “second”
`
`request that is among the plurality of requests identified above. The Petition fails
`
`to do so.
`
`In its analysis of claim 25.2, the Petition asserts that the “plurality of
`
`requests” are the “command[s] by radiowave signals or telecommunication signals
`
`(i.e., ‘initiating a plurality of requests for information related to the location of
`
`said mobile station M’)).” Pet. at 44-45. In its analysis of element 25.3, however,
`
`the Petition changes course and asserts that the request is the selection of the
`
`outdoor or radio unit: “selecting the outdoor LD unit constitutes ‘at least a first of
`
`the requests provided to a first of the location evaluators,’” and “selecting the
`
`radio LD unit constitutes ‘a second of the requests, different from the first request,
`
`provided to a second of the location estimators.’” Pet. at 45-46. This approach to
`
`mapping the elements of claim 25 against Loomis fails. The Petition does not
`
`show that the “selecting” relied upon here is the same as the “command of
`
`radiowave signals or telecommunication signals” sent to the controller in claim
`
`element 25.2 or that the selecting necessarily requires the use of “first” and
`
`“second” requests that are different from each other.
`
`14
`
`

`
`Moreover, had the Petition continued to rely upon the “command” signal in
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`Loomis as the “requests,” its analysis would have still failed since there is no
`
`disclosure or teaching in Loomis that different commands are sent to the different
`
`modules in the hybrid unit. Accordingly, the Petition fails to show that element
`
`25.3 is met by Loomis or the asserted combination.
`
`Finally, the Petition fails to show that Loomis discloses element 25.3 “for
`
`each mobile station.” As explained above, claim element 25.0 requires that this
`
`step be taken “for each mobile station.” Thus, the claim requires (1) that the first
`
`request be provided to the first location evaluator, and (2) that the second request
`
`be provided to the second evaluator—for each mobile station. The Petition fails to
`
`show that this is disclosed in Loomis.
`
`The Petition asserts that “selecting the outdoor LD unit” is the first request,
`
`and “selecting the radio LD unit” is the second request. Pet. at 45-46. Thus, to
`
`meet this limitation, the Petition would have to show that Loomis discloses that (1)
`
`the outdoor LD unit is selected, and (2) the radio LD unit is selected, for each
`
`mobile station being located. The Petition fails to assert or demonstrate that this is
`
`disclosed in Loomis.
`
`Further, Loomis does not disclose selecting both the outdoor and radio
`
`modules for each mobile station. If “the outdoor LD unit is selected, in step 181,
`
`to determine the location, the system (or controller) uses the outdoor LD unit
`
`15
`
`

`
`information to determine the present location of the user.” Loomis 19:52-56. If
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`“radio LD unit is selected, in step 183, to determine the location, the system (or
`
`controller) uses the radio LD unit information to determine the present location of
`
`the user.” Loomis 19:56-60. Loomis expressly states that “at most one of the
`
`radio LD module location and the outdoor LD module location is selected”—not
`
`both. Loomis Abstract. Thus, Loomis teaches away from this element of claim 25.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`“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” (25.4)
`
`
`
`This claim element requires that the location evaluators be supplied with
`
`“corresponding input data having values” that are “obtained using wireless signal
`
`measurements obtained via two way wireless communication between said mobile
`
`station M, and the communication stations.”
`
`The antecedent bases of the “location evaluators” are “two mobile station
`
`location evaluators” in claim element 25.2. In its discussion of that element, the
`
`Petition identified the outdoor LD module as the first location evaluator and the
`
`radio module as the second location evaluator. See Pet. at 45 (“outdoor (GPS) LD
`
`16
`
`

`
`module and the radio LD module” are the “two mobile station location
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`evaluators”). But in its discussion of this element (element 25.4), the Petition
`
`inexplicably changes course and asserts that the “GPS signal processor” “at the
`
`central station” is “the first…location evaluator.” Pet. at 47. This approach fails
`
`because there is no showing that the GPS signal processor at the central station is
`
`the same thing as the outdoor LD module.
`
`Moreover, as the Petition acknowledges, the relied upon outdoor LD module
`
`is included in the mobile station—not at the central station. “Loomis discloses that
`
`the mobile station includes a GPS signal receiver/processor (referred to in Loomis
`
`as the ‘outdoor LD unit’).” Pet. at 16. Because the Petition fails to show that the
`
`relied upon location evaluators (e.g., outdoor LD unit and radio unit) 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,” it does not meet its burden.
`
`Further, had the Petition continued to rely on the “outdoor LD module” as
`
`the first location evaluator, its analysis would have still failed since there is no
`
`disclosure or teaching in Loomis to supply the outdoor LD module “with
`
`corresponding input data having values obtained using wireless signal
`
`measurements obtained via two way wireless communication between said mobile
`
`17
`
`

`
`station M, and the communication stations” as required by the claim. Thus, the
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`Petition does not meet its burden.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`“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;” (25.5)
`
`
`
`This claim element requires that neither the first nor second position
`
`information be dependent on the other. The Petition asserts that the GPS location
`
`coordinates and the radio location coordinates are the first and second position
`
`information. Pet. at 49-50. The Petition further asserts that this element is met
`
`because “‘the outdoor LD unit 31 also complements the radio LD unit 13 by
`
`providing an independent determination of location of the hybrid LD unit 11.’”
`
`Pet. at 51 (quoting Loomis 7:41-44). This analysis fails because the claim requires
`
`showing that neither the GPS location coordinates nor the radio coordinates depend
`
`on each other. Thus, to meet this limitation, the Petition must demonstrate that the
`
`GPS coordinate