Filed on behalf of: Google Inc. and LG Electronics, Inc.
`
`By: Naveen Modi (Google_LG-CoreWireless-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Joseph E. Palys (Google_LG-CoreWireless-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Daniel Zeilberger (Google_LG-CoreWireless-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,072,667
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRIS G. BARTONE, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Google_LG Exhibit 1008
`
`Page 1 of 114
`
`
`
`By: Naveen Modi (Google_LG-CoreWireless-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Joseph E. Palys (Google_LG-CoreWireless-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Daniel Zeilberger (Google_LG-CoreWireless-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,072,667
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRIS G. BARTONE, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Google_LG Exhibit 1008
`
`Page 1 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Qualifications .................................................................................................. 1
`II.
`Summary of Opinions ..................................................................................... 3
`III.
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill ................................................................................... 4
`V.
`The ’667 Patent ............................................................................................... 4
`VI. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 6
`VII. The Prior Art Discloses All of the Features of Claims 1-15 the ’667
`Patent .............................................................................................................. 9
`A.
`Claims 1-5 and 8-15 of the ’667 Patent ............................................... 9
`Overview of Johansson .............................................................. 9
`1.
`Overview of Boss ..................................................................... 16
`2.
`The Combination of Johansson and Boss Discloses the
`3.
`Features of Claims 1-5 and 8-15 .............................................. 16
`Claims 6, 7, and 15 of the ’667 Patent ............................................... 74
`Overview of Reed ..................................................................... 74
`1.
`The Combination of Johansson, Boss, and Reed
`2.
`Discloses the Features of Claims 6, 7, and 15 ......................... 76
`VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 87
`
`B.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Chris Bartone, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Google Inc. and LG Electronics, Inc. as an
`
`independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“PTO”) regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,072,667 (“the ’667
`
`patent,” which I understand is Ex. 1001 in this proceeding) based on my
`
`experience, education, and knowledge in the field of wireless telecommunications,
`
`including wireless location systems. I have been asked to consider whether certain
`
`references disclose the features recited in claims 1-15 of the ’667 patent. My
`
`opinions are set forth below.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my rate of $690 per hour for the time I
`
`spend on this matter, and no part of my compensation is dependent on the outcome
`
`of this proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`3.
`I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from
`
`The Pennsylvania State University in 1983. In addition, I earned a Master’s of
`
`Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School in
`
`1987, with an emphasis in communications engineering. I earned a Ph.D. in
`
`Electrical Engineering from Ohio University in 1998, with an emphasis in
`
`electromagnetics, antennas, and navigation systems.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`From 1983 to 1998, prior to my full-time position at Ohio University,
`
`I worked as an electronics engineer at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Patuxent
`
`River, Maryland. In 1998, after being awarded a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, I
`
`joined the faculty of Ohio University as a Visiting Assistant Professor. I was
`
`promoted to Assistant Professor in 1999, to Associate Professor in 2004, and
`
`became a full Professor in 2009.
`
`5. My teaching at Ohio University has covered undergraduate and
`
`graduate level courses in electrical engineering. At the graduate level, I teach
`
`courses in the area of radar systems, navigation systems, microwave and antenna
`
`theory, and communications systems. In addition to my teaching, I have led and
`
`performed various research efforts involving communications systems and
`
`location-based technologies.
`
`6.
`
`Based on my experience and education, I believe that I am qualified to
`
`opine as to knowledge and level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ’667 patent (which I further describe below)
`
`and what such a person would have understood at that time, and the state of the art
`
`during that time.
`
`7. My curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of my
`
`background, experience, and publications, is attached as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`8.
`All of the opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the
`
`documents I reviewed, my knowledge, and professional judgment. In forming the
`
`opinions expressed in this Declaration, I reviewed the ’667 patent (Ex. 1001), the
`
`prosecution file history for the ’667 patent (which I understand is Ex. 1002 in this
`
`proceeding), U.S. Patent No. 6,442,391 (“Johansson”) (which I understand is Ex.
`
`1003 in this proceeding), U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 7,444,156 to Boss et al.
`
`(“Boss”) (which I understand is Ex. 1004 in this proceeding), U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,275,707 to Reed et al. (“Reed”) (which I understand is Ex. 1005 in this
`
`proceeding), PCT Application No. WO 03/056853 (“the ’853 PCT”) (which I
`
`understand is Ex. 1006 in this proceeding), excerpts from the file history for PCT
`
`Application No. WO 03/056853 (which I understand is Ex. 1007 in this
`
`proceeding), and any other materials I refer to in this declaration in support of my
`
`opinions, while drawing on my experience and knowledge of communications
`
`systems and location-based technologies.
`
`9.
`
`Based on my experience and expertise, it is my opinion that certain
`
`references disclose all the features recited in claims 1-15 of the ’667 patent, as I
`
`discuss in detail below.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`10. Based on my knowledge and experience, I understand what a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have known at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`My opinions herein are, where appropriate, based on my understandings as to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at that time.
`
`11.
`
`In my opinion, based on the materials and information I have
`
`reviewed, and on my extensive experience in the technical areas relevant to the
`
`’667 patent in the early 2000s, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`
`an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, physics, or equivalent and a
`
`minimum of two years of professional experience in the relevant field of wireless
`
`telecommunications, including wireless location systems. I apply this
`
`understanding in my analysis herein.
`
`V. THE ’667 PATENT
`12. The ’667 patent, entitled “Location Information Service for a Cellular
`
`Telecommunications Network,” issued on July 4, 2006, from U.S. Application No.
`
`10/029,940, which was filed on December 31, 2001. (Ex. 1001.) I have been asked
`
`to assume for purposes of this proceeding that the effective date of the ’667 patent
`
`is December 31, 2001, which is the filing date of the ’667 patent. I apply this
`
`understanding in my analysis herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13. The’667 patent discloses a location information service for mobile
`
`stations in a cellular telecommunications network that enables mobile stations to
`
`receive information about their location within the network. (Ex. 1001, 1:8-11.)
`
`The ’667 patent alleges that the service is provided without requiring pre-
`
`registration of a subscriber that uses the mobile station for the location information
`
`service. (See e.g., id., 1:52-65.)
`
`14. Fig. 1 illustrates a block diagram of a cellular mobile
`
`telecommunications network that includes a location information service. (Id.,
`
`2:40-42)
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 1.)
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15. The ’667 patent includes four independent claims, claims 1, 10, 12,
`
`and 13. I have been asked to consider claims 8 and 9 as requiring the limitations of
`
`independent claim 1 in addition to the limitations recited in each respective claim
`
`given the ambiguity whether claims 8 and 9 are recited as dependent or
`
`independent claims. In my opinion, my analysis applying the prior art and opinions
`
`relating to claims 8 and 9 are the same regardless of whether these claims are
`
`considered dependent upon claim 1 or are independent claims that include the
`
`limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-7 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and
`
`claims 14 and 15 depend directly or indirectly from claim 13.
`
`16.
`
`In my opinion, as explain further below, the features recited in claims
`
`1-15 characterize conventional location based features used in networking systems
`
`known prior to the time of the alleged invention for the ’667 patent, e.g., as
`
`disclosed in Johansson, Boss, and Reed.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`17.
`I understand that a claim subject to inter partes review receives the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and file history of
`
`the patent in which it appears. I also understand that any term that is not construed
`
`should be given its plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation. I have followed these principles in my analysis. I discuss certain
`
`claim terms below and what I understand to be Petitioners’ construction of these
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`terms, which I apply in my analysis. For the remaining claim terms in the ’667
`
`patent, I apply the plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that Petitioners have proposed that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claimed term “location message server” is “a server
`
`that generates location finding information.” I agree with this construction based
`
`on the claims and specification of the ’667 patent. For example, claim 1 recites that
`
`a request for location finding information be sent to a location message server, and
`
`that data corresponding to the location finding information be sent from the
`
`location message server. (Ex. 1001 at 6:40-42, 6:46-47; see also id., 8:4-23.) While
`
`the ’667 patent specification does not define the term “location message server,” it
`
`does refer to a “location messaging server 11,” which is described as generating
`
`location finding information. (See, e.g., id., 3:36-40, 3:49-52, 4:8-14, 4:35-39.).
`
`The construction is also consistent with my review of the file history, the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and I have applied this understanding
`
`in my analysis.
`
`19.
`
`I also understand that Petitioners have proposed that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claimed “without pre-registering the mobile station
`
`[for / with] the location finding service” is “without recording that a mobile station
`
`can take part in a location finding service prior to a request for location finding
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`information.” I agree with this construction based on the claims and specification
`
`of the ’667 patent. For instance, considering the “pre” aspect of the “pre-
`
`registering,” the claims promote a temporal or reference-based requirement relative
`
`to something in the claims. (See also Ex. 1001 at 1:46-48, 1:66-2:5, 5:28-30, 6:31-
`
`35.) In addition one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the term
`
`“register” was known at the time of the alleged invention for the ’667 patent to be
`
`consistent with entering data in a record, which was a common understanding of
`
`the term. (See, e.g., Ex. 1009 at 3.) And the claims and specification explain that
`
`any pre-registering of the mobile station is “for” or “with” the location finding
`
`service. (See e.g., Ex. 1001 at 6:50-51, 8:25-26.) The construction is also consistent
`
`with my review of the file history, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`and I have applied this understanding in my analysis.
`
`20.
`
`I have also been asked to assume that the “circuitry operable to”
`
`perform functions in claims 13 and 15 is “a mobile station (MS), or equivalents
`
`thereof,” which I have applied in my analysis.
`
`21.
`
`I have further been asked to analyze claims 8, 9, and 13 under the
`
`assumption that the recited apparatuses are configured to, or perform, the recited
`
`method steps. As I discuss below, the prior art is configured to, and performs, these
`
`features.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES ALL OF THE FEATURES OF
`CLAIMS 1-15 THE ’667 PATENT
`22.
`
`I have reviewed several references, discussed further below, that I
`
`understand are prior art to the ’667 patent. In my opinion, these references disclose
`
`all features of claims 1-15 of the ’667 patent.
`
`A. Claims 1-5 and 8-15 of the ’667 Patent
`23.
`In my opinion, the combination of Johansson and Boss discloses all of
`
`the features recited in claims 1-5 and 8-15 of the ’667 patent.
`
`1. Overview of Johansson
`Johansson is directed to a “cellular mobile communications system,”
`
`24.
`
`such as the one depicted in Figure 1, reproduced below:
`
`(Johansson, Fig. 1.) The system in Johansson includes “a number of mobile
`
`stations MS, MS1-MS3.” (Id., 4:18-20, 13:24-25.) The system also includes “a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mobile locating node MPC connected to the GMSC P,” where the “mobile locating
`
`node MPC provides a mobile locating service.” (Id., 4:54-56.)
`
`25. The system in Johansson may be used, for example, “where a second
`
`party A2 desires information concerning the location of the mobile station MS.”
`
`(Id., 5:36-37.) Figures 4 and 5 depict example processes consistent with such a
`
`scenario.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 4.)
`(Id., Fig. 4.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page13of114
`
`11
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 5.)
`
`26. The system in Johansson may also be used “when the user A1 of the
`
`mobile station MS contacts a service provide[r] A2 and requests a service
`
`therefrom,” which “may involve a route description or the whereabouts of the
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`nearest hamburger restaurant.” (Id., 9:21-27.) Figures 6-8 depict example processes
`
`consistent with such a scenario.
`
`(Id., Fig. 6.)
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 7.)
`(Id., Fig. 7.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page16of114
`
`14
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 8.)
`(Id., Fig. 8.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page17of114
`
`15
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 114
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Boss
`
`27.
`
`Boss discloses a “cellular telephone location information method 180
`
`by which a cellular telephone system operator can provide a location information
`
`service to a cellular telephone user.” (Boss at 7:29-32, Fig. 7.) Boss utilizes mobile
`
`or wireless cellular telephone technology for its location services because it
`
`recognizes that the “mobility of cellular telephones has provided a versatile,
`
`affordable, and convenient communication tool for large numbers of people.” (See
`
`id., 1:9-1 1.) In Boss, a “user indicates on [a] cellular telephone a location service
`
`command for selecting a location service, such as from the cellular telephone
`
`system operator or another service provider.” (Id., 7:45-48.) The “requested
`
`location service information is [ultimately] transmitted to the cellular telephone”
`
`and “displayed on the cellular telephone.” (Id., 8: 13-16.)
`
`3.
`
`The Combination of Johansson and Bass Discloses the
`
`Features of Claims 1-5 and 8-15
`
`28. As described below, the combination of Johansson and Bass discloses
`
`the features of claim 1:
`
`Claim Language
`
`Johansson and Bass
`
`1'3‘ A method of
`
`Johansson discloses a method of providing a location
`
`providing a location
`
`finding service to mobile stations in a cellular
`
`finding service to mobile telecommunications network-
`
`Page 18 of 114
`
`16
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`Johansson and Boss
`
`stations in a cellular
`
`For example, Figures 4-5 of Johansson depict methods
`
`telecommunications
`
`in which a second party A2 requests location finding
`
`network, comprising:
`
`information regarding a mobile station MS, and
`
`Figures 6-8 depict methods in which a user A1 of a
`
`mobile station MS requests location finding
`
`information regarding the mobile station MS.
`
`(Johansson, Figs. 4, 5, 6-8-) As I discuss in more detail
`
`for claim elements 1.b-e, both sets of processes map to
`
`all of the limitations of claim 1.
`
`The methods of Johansson are implemented in a
`
`“cellular mobile communications system” that includes
`
`“a number of mobile stations MS, MS1-MS3.”
`
`(Johansson at 4:18-20, 13:24-25.) “The system shown
`
`in FIG. 1 includes a mobile locating node MPC
`
`connected to the GMSC P,” whereby the “mobile
`
`locating node MPC provides a mobile locating
`
`service.” (Id., 4:54-60 (emphasis added).) (See also
`
`citations and analysis below for claim elements 1.b-e;
`
`Page 19 of 114
`
`17
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`Johansson and Bass
`
` discussion ofJohansson above inparagraphs 24-26.)
`Lb‘ Sending 3 request for
`In my opinion the prior art discloses sending a request
`
`location finding
`
`for location finding information from a mobile station
`
`mformatlon from 3
`
`as a message through the network to a location
`
`moblle Statlon as a
`
`message server, in at least two ways.
`
`message through the
`
`_
`_
`_
`_
`Regarding the first way that the prior art discloses this
`
`network to a location
`
`_
`_
`_
`_
`_
`_
`limitation (which I refer to throughout this Declaration
`
`message server;
`
`_
`_
`_
`as “Disclosure 1”), and consistent with Figures 6-8,
`
`Johansson discloses that a user A1 of a mobile station
`
`MS can send a request for location finding information
`
`as a message through the network to a location
`
`message server. For example, Johansson discloses that
`
`the “user A1 [of the mobile station MS] initially
`
`contacts the service provider A2 and requests a service
`
`for which the geographical location of the user Al is a
`
`necessary integral.” (Johansson at 9:21-32, Fig. 6 (step
`
`E1).) This service may involve “a route description or
`
`the whereabouts of the nearest hamburger restaurant.”
`
`Page 20 of 114
`
`18
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`Johansson and Bass
`
`(Id., 9:21-27.) In other words, user A1 of a mobile
`
`station MS may request, for example, a route
`
`description or the whereabouts of the nearest
`
`hamburger restaurant.
`
`After receiving the request from mobile station MS,
`
`the service provider A2 “sends to the mobile locating
`
`node MPC a request M1 asking for the location of the
`
`mobile station, in accordance with a following step
`
`E2.” (Id., 9:29-33, Fig. 6 (step E2); see also id., 10:9-
`
`l3 (disclosing similar operations with respect to Figure
`
`7), 10:57-60 (disclosing similar operations with respect
`
`to Figure 8).) Therefore, in Figures 6-8 of Johansson, a
`
`request for a service for which the geographical
`
`location of the user A] is a necessary integral (e.g., a
`
`request for “location finding information”) is sent from
`
`mobile station MS (eg, “a mobile station”) as a
`
`message through the network to mobile locating node
`
`MPC (e_g., “a location message server”)-
`
`Page 21 of 114
`
`19
`
`
`
`Johansson and Bass
`Claim Language
`
`
`The prior art also discloses this claim element in a
`
`second way (which I refer to throughout this
`
`Declaration as “Disclosure 2”), for the reasons I
`
`discuss in the paragraphs below.
`
`29. With respect to Disclosure 2, Johansson discloses that a second party
`
`A2 can send a request for location finding information as a message through the
`
`network to a location message server. For example, as shown in Figure 4,
`
`Johansson discloses that “[i]n the first step B1, the second party A2 sends a request
`
`M1 to the mobile locating node MPC asking to be informed of the whereabouts of
`
`the mobile station MS.” (Johansson at 5:37-40, Fig. 4; see also id., 6:33-37 (“The
`
`procedure followed in accordance with FIG. 5 is commenced with a step B1,
`
`similar to the procedure described in FIG. 4, in which the second party A2 sends a
`
`message Ml requesting the geographical location of the mobile station MS.”).)
`
`Therefore, in Figures 4-5 ofJohansson, a request for the whereabouts of a mobile
`
`station MS (e. g., “location finding information”) is sent from the second party A2
`
`as a message through the network to mobile locating node MPC (e-g-, “a location
`
`message server”). Johansson discloses that user A1 may be associated with a
`
`mobile station MS, but does not explicitly disclose that the second party A2 may
`
`Page 22 of 114
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`also be associated with a mobile station. (See, e.g., id., 4:20-23, 9:21-27, Fig. 1.)
`
`However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`’667 patent would have been motivated to modify the system and processes of
`
`Johansson to implement the second party A2 as a mobile station, in view of Boss.
`
`30. Boss discloses a “cellular telephone location information method 180
`
`by which a cellular telephone system operator can provide a location information
`
`service to a cellular telephone user.” (Boss at 7:29-32, Fig. 7.) Boss utilizes mobile
`
`or wireless cellular telephone technology for its location services because it
`
`recognizes that the “mobility of cellular telephones has provided a versatile,
`
`affordable, and convenient communication tool for large numbers of people.” (See
`
`id., 1:9-11; see also id., 1:15-20 (“As cellular telephones have improved and
`
`incorporated digital processing capabilities, such as in GSM-style digital cellular
`
`telephones, other communication capabilities have been added, such as text
`
`messaging of the type referred to as short message service (SMS) messaging that is
`
`commonly used in GSM cellular telephones.”).) Indeed, Boss’s disclosure is
`
`consistent with my understanding that it was well known at the time of the alleged
`
`invention to use mobile devices for location information services. In Boss, a “user
`
`indicates on [a] cellular telephone a location service command for selecting a
`
`location service, such as from the cellular telephone system operator or another
`
`service provider.” (Id., 7:45-48.) The “requested location service information is
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Page 23 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[ultimately] transmitted to the cellular telephone” and “displayed on the cellular
`
`telephone.” (Id., 8:13-16.) (See also discussion of Boss above in paragraph 27.)
`
`31. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`implement second party A2 of Johansson as a mobile station, such as a cellular
`
`telephone, similar to the cellular telephone disclosed in Boss. Johansson itself
`
`suggests that devices requesting location finding information can be mobile
`
`stations (see Johansson at 4:20-23, 9:21-27, Fig. 1), and Boss further discloses the
`
`benefits of utilizing mobile stations such as cellular telephones for issuing requests
`
`for location services, including versatility, mobility, convenience, and access to
`
`popular messaging technologies such as SMS (see Boss at 1:9-20, 7:45-48). One of
`
`ordinary skill would have found implementing second party A2 as a mobile station
`
`to be a foreseeable modification of Johansson that would not have had any effect
`
`on the functionality of Johansson’s mobile communications system. Indeed
`
`Johansson itself recognizes that multiple mobile stations may be a part of its
`
`system (Johansson at 4:16-19), and while Johansson is not explicit as to whether
`
`second party A2 may be implemented as a mobile station, this would have been a
`
`common sense and predictable extension of Johansson, which one of ordinary skill
`
`would have readily known how to implement. Indeed, to the extent Johansson does
`
`not disclose that second party A2 may be implemented as a mobile station,
`
`Johansson’s system would have been ready for improvement.
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Page 24 of 114
`
`
`
`32. As described below, the combination of Johansson and Boss discloses
`
`the remaining limitations of claim 1:
`
`Claim Language
`
`Johansson and Boss
`
`LC‘ remevmg data from Johansson discloses retrieving data from a data store
`
`a data store
`
`corresponding to the location finding information
`
`corresponding to the
`
`based on the cell occupied by at least one mobile
`
`location finding
`
`station
`
`information based on the
`
`_
`_
`For example, Johansson discloses that the “mob1le
`
`cell occupied by at least
`
`_
`locating node MPC .
`
`.
`
`. sends a command K1 to the
`
`one mobile station; and
`
`mobile switching center MSC that serves the mobile
`
`station MS at that moment in time. The purport of the
`
`command K1 is for the switching center MSC to
`
`collect locational data relating to the mobile station
`
`MS and send it to the mobile locating node l\/IPC, in
`
`accordance B2 in FIG. 4.” (Johansson at 5:41-47
`
`(emphasis added), Fig. 4.) The command K1 is
`
`forwarded to the mobile switching center MSC, which
`
`“begins to collect locational data relating to the mobile
`
`station MS, upon receipt of the command K]. The
`
`Page 25 of 114
`
`23
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`Johansson and Bass
`
`collected locational data is then sent to the mobile
`
`locating node MPC, in accordance with step B4.” (Id.,
`
`5266-622, Fig. 4; see also id., 7:11-14 (“The switching
`
`center MSC collects mobile station MS locational data.
`
`The obtained mobile station MS locational data is then
`
`sent to the mobile locating node MPC, in accordance
`
`with step C7.”), 11:15-19 (“In step G6, the mobile
`
`locating node MPC sends to the mobile switching
`
`center MSC a command K1 to determine the location
`
`of the mobile station MS. Mobile station MS location
`
`data is sent in a following step G7 to the mobile
`
`locating node MPC, which establishes the location of
`
`the mobile station MS[_]”), Figs. 5-8.) One of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood that switching
`
`center MSC includes a data store from which data is
`
`retrieved by mobile locating node MPC- (See
`
`Johansson, 4:40-42 (“[t]he home location register
`
`HLR contains data as to the whereabouts of the mobile
`
`stations MS, MS1-MS3 as well as visiting mobile
`
`Page 26 of 114
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`Johansson and Bass
`
`stations), 4:45-46 (“a visitor location register VLR,
`
`containing data relating to the mobile station MS”),
`
`Fig. 1.)
`
`Since the mobile switching center MSC is selected
`
`based on that it “serves the mobile station MS at that
`
`moment in time,” one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that Johansson necessarily discloses
`
`that the MSC must be selected based on the cell
`
`occupied by the mobile station MS. In fact, the MSC is
`
`responsible for collecting locational data by
`
`“measuring the wave propagation delay between the
`
`mobile station MS and one or more of the base stations
`
`BTSl—BTS3” or determining “the traffic area within
`
`which the mobile station MS is located,” where a
`
`“traffic area is comprised of one or more cells CL1—
`
`CL3_” (Johansson at 12:5-16.) Thus, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood that Johansson
`
`necessarily discloses that the MSC is responsible for
`
`Page 27 of 114
`
`25
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`Johansson and Bass
`
`collecting data based on the cell occupied by the
`
`mobile station MS. In my opinion, without such
`
`features, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that the processes and system disclosed by
`
`Johansson would not be able to select and utilize an
`
`MSC in the way disclosed by Johansson.
`
`1_d. sending the data
`
`Consistent with my discussion above for claim element
`
`through the network
`
`l.b of Disclosure 1 and Disclosure 2, the prior art also
`
`from the location
`
`discloses sending the data through the network from
`
`message server as a
`
`the location message server as a message to the mobile
`
`message to the mobile
`
`station that requested the location finding information.
`
`station that requested the
`
`I first address the prior art consistent with Disclosure
`
`location finding
`
`2.
`
`information; and
`
`In particular, with respect to Disclosure 2, Johansson
`
`wherein
`
`discloses that “[t]he mobile locating node MPC
`
`establishes the location of the mobile station MS with
`
`the aid of the locational data received, and presents the
`
`result to the second party A2 in a message M2, in
`
`Page 28 of 114
`
`26
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`Johansson and Bass
`
`accordance with step B5.” (Johansson at 6:3—6, Fig. 4;
`
`see also id., 7: 15-19 (“The mobile station MS location
`
`data may optionally be further processed in the mobile
`
`locating node MPC, whereafter the location of the
`
`mobile station MS is established and presented to the
`
`second party A2 in a message M2, in accordance with
`
`step C8 in Fig. 5.”), Fig. 4.) As discussed above for
`
`claim element 1.b, in Figures 4-5, second party A2
`
`requests the location finding information, and one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`implement second party A2 ofJohansson as a mobile
`
`station, such as a cellular telephone, similar to the
`
`cellular telephone disclosed in Boss. Thus, for at least
`
`those reasons, and the disclosures and reasons
`
`identified above, Johansson in combination with Boss
`
`discloses the limitations of claim element 1.d.
`
`The prior art also discloses this claim element in a
`
`manner consistent with Disclosure 1, for the reasons I
`
`discuss in the paragraphs below.
`
`Page 29 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`In particular, with respect to Disclosure 1, Johansson discloses that a
`
`message M2 is sent to service provider A2 “in which the location of the mobile
`
`station MS is revealed.” (Johansson at 9:58-60, Fig. 6; see also id., 10:32-35,
`
`11:15-19, Figs. 7-8.) Johansson suggests that location finding information would
`
`be sent back to the mobile station MS of the user A1. (See id., 9:21-27 (“[W]hen
`
`the user A1 of the mobile station MS contacts a service provide[r] A2 and request a
`
`service therefrom . . . the service provider A2 needs to know of the geographical
`
`whereabouts of the user A1 . . . . This service may involve a route description or
`
`the whereabouts of the nearest hamburger restaurant.”).) In particular, one of
`
`ordinary skill would have understood that the route information and/or hamburger
`
`restaurant information requested by the user A1 would logically be returned to the
`
`user A1 to make use of the information (e.g., it would be common sense to display
`
`the route information to the user A1 so as to route the user A1 to the desired
`
`location). While Johansson does not explicitly disclose that the service provider
`
`A2 sends the location finding information requested by the user A1 of the mobile
`
`station MS back to the mobile station MS, one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ’667 patent would have been motivated to
`
`implement the system in Johansson such that the information is sent to the mobile
`
`station MS, in view of Boss.
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`Page 30 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`34. As discussed above in paragraphs 27 and 30, Boss discloses a
`
`“cellular telephone location information method 180 by which a cellular telephone
`
`system operator can provide a location information service to a cellular telephone
`
`user.” (Boss at 7:29-32, Fig. 7.) Boss explains that after a “user indicates on [a]
`
`cellular telephone a location service command for selecting a location service, such
`
`as from the cellular telephone system operator or another service provider,” (id.,
`
`7:45-48), the “requested location service information is transmitted to the cellular
`
`telephone” and “displayed on the cellular telephone” (id., 8:13-16). By providing
`
`the requested information back to the mobile station, e.g., the cellular telephone in
`
`Boss, a user that indicates “I am lost” will benefit from a “description or name of a
`
`current location of the cellular telephone,” a user that indicates “I need instructions
`
`to get to my destination” will benefit from such “directions from a current location
`
`of the cellular telephone to a destination location entered by the user,” etc. (Id.,
`
`7:45-57, 8:13-16.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
`
`route/location information in Boss is analogous to that disclosed in Johansson.
`
`Indeed, one of ordinary skill
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
