UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`GOOGLE INC. and LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2015-01715
`Patent 7,072,667 B2
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION. .................................................................................. 1
`
`INTRODUCTION. ................................................................................ .. 1
`
`A. Overview. ............................................................................................. 1
`
`A. Overview. ........................................................................................... ..1
`
`B. Overview of the ‘667 Patent. ................................................................ 3
`
`B. Overview of the ‘667 Patent. .............................................................. ..3
`
`C. Overview of Staack. ............................................................................. 6
`
`C. Overview of Staack. ........................................................................... ..6
`
`D. Overview of Reed. .............................................................................. 11
`
`D. Overview of Reed. ............................................................................ ..11
`
`E. Overview of Johansson. ...................................................................... 12
`
`E. Overview of Johansson ..................................................................... .. 12
`
`A. Claim Construction. ............................................................................ 15
`
`A. Claim Construction ........................................................................... .. 15
`
`1. Location Finding Information is Information Concerning a Location
`1. Location Finding Information is Information Concerning a Location
`at Which a Mobile Station is Located. ................................................... 18
`at Which a Mobile Station is Located. ................................................. .. 18
`
`2. The “Data” Recited in Claim 1 Corresponds to the Location Finding
`2. The “Data” Recited in Claim 1 Corresponds to the Location Finding
`Information. ............................................................................................ 20
`Information ........................................................................................... .
`. 20
`
`3. The Location Finding information is “Based on the Cell Occupied
`3. The Location Finding information is “Based on the Cell Occupied
`by at Least One Mobile Station.” ........................................................... 21
`by at Least One Mobile Station.” ......................................................... ..21
`
`B. Claim 1 and its Dependent Claims Are Patentable Over Staack’s
`B. Claim 1 and its Dependent Claims Are Patentable Over Staack’s
`Figure 2 Embodiment. ............................................................................... 23
`Figure 2 Embodiment. ............................................................................. ..23
`
`C. Claims 10 and 11 are Patentable Over Staack’s Figure 2
`C. Claims 10 and 11 are Patentable Over Staack’s Figure 2
`Embodiment. ............................................................................................. 28
`Embodiment. ........................................................................................... .
`
`. 28
`
`D. Claims 12-14 are Patentable Over Staack’s Figure 2 Embodiment. .. 29
`D. Claims 12-14 are Patentable Over Staack’s Figure 2 Embodiment. ..29
`
`E. Claim 1 and its Dependent Claims Are Patentable Over Staack’s
`E. Claim 1 and its Dependent Claims Are Patentable Over Staack’s
`Figure 7 Embodiment. ............................................................................... 30
`Figure 7 Embodiment. ............................................................................. ..30
`
`1. Claim 1 Specifies a Positive Requirement of Performing the Recited
`1. Claim 1 Specifies a Positive Requirement of Performing the Recited
`Method. .................................................................................................. 31
`Method. ................................................................................................ .. 3 1
`
`ii
`
`II. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 15
`
`II. ARGU1\/[ENT ....................................................................................... .
`
`. 1 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`2. Staack Fails to Teach or Suggest Performing a Method of Providing
`Location Finding Service to Mobile Stations in a Cellular
`Telecommunications Network Without Pre-registering the Mobile
`Station for the Location Finding Service. .............................................. 35
`
`F. Claim 2 is Separately Patentable Over Staack’s Figure 7
`Embodiment. ............................................................................................. 42
`
`G. Claims 10-14 are Patentable Over Staack’s Figure 7 Embodiment. .. 43
`
`H. Claims 5-7 and 15 are Patentable Over Staack and Reed. .................. 43
`
`I. Claim 4 is Patentable Over Staack and Johansson. ............................ 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION. ................................................................................. 52
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................... 53
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................ 54
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Bell Communications Research v. Vitalink Communications Corporation,
`55 F. 3d 615 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................................... 32
`
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................. 17
`
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................... 44, 45
`
`
`CLIO USA, Inc. v. The Procter and Gamble Company,
`Case No. IPR2013-00448 (PTAB Feb. 4, 2014) ....................................... 39
`
`
`Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.,
`868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................. 32
`
`
`Google Inc. v. Jongerious Panoramic Techs., LLC,
`Case No. IPR2013-00191 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2014) ..................................... 16
`
`
`Hartness Int’l. Inc. v. Simplimatic Engineering Co.,
`819 F.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................................................. 46
`
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 16
`
`
`In re Cortright,
`165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................... 17, 18
`
`
`In re Keller,
`642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) ....................................................................... 51
`
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 17
`
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974) ....................................................................... 51
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`In re Schechter,
`205 F.2d 185 (CCPA 1953) ....................................................................... 31
`
`
`In re Skvorecz,
`580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................... 15, 17
`
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................... 16, 17, 18
`
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) ..................................................................... 51
`
`
`Innova/Pura Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 16
`
`
`Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 16
`
`
`Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`808 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................... 34
`
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2013-00466 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2014) ...................................... 40
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................. 16
`
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998), ................................................................ 16
`
`
`Rhine v. Casio, Inc.,
`183 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................. 16
`
`
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ..................................................... 25, 39, 43
`
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Va. Innov. Scis., Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2013-00569 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2013) ..................................... 15
`
`
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm.,
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................. 39
`
`
`Tempo Lighting Inc. v. Tivoli LLC,
`742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... 17
`
`
`Trintec Industries, Inc. v.TOP-USA Corp.,
`295 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................... 23, 25
`
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................. 25, 29
`
`
`
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................... 15
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................... 15
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`Transcript of deposition of Chris G. Bartone, Ph.D. (May
`4, 2016).
`
`Declaration of Alon Konchitsky.
`
`TS 101 724 v7.0.0 (1999-08) (GSM 03.71 version 7.0.0
`Release 1998).
`
`TS 101 723 v.7.0.0 (1998-08) (GSM 02.71v7.0.0
`(Release 1998)).
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2001
`
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`
`2004
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I. INTRODUCTION.
`A. Overview.
`Trial was instituted with respect to claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent
`
`7,072,667 (the “’667 Patent”) to consider:
`
`(a) whether claims 1-3 and 8-14 are patentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) over International Publication No. WO 00/36430 of Staack
`
`et al. (“Staack”) (Ex. 1003);
`
`(b) whether claims 5, 6, 7, and 15 are patentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over Staack in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,275,707 to Reed et
`
`al. (“Reed”) (Ex. 1004); and
`
`(c) whether claim 4 is patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Staack
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 6,442,391 to Johansson et al. (“Johansson”)
`
`(Ex. 1005).
`
`Paper No. 8 at 20. The Board should resolve all of these questions in favor
`
`of Patent Owner, Core Wireless Licensing, because Staack is deficient in
`
`several regards. For example:
`
`(a) In Staack’s Fig. 2 embodiment, an MLU sends the location of a
`
`subject mobile device, not the information it obtained from a data
`
`store, as required by claim 1 and its dependent claims. Claim 1
`
`
`
`requires “sending the data through the network from the location
`
`1
`
`

`
`message server as a message to the mobile station that requested
`
`the location finding information.” This is the same data that is
`
`retrieved from the data store. In Staack, however, what is retrieved
`
`from the data store by the MLU is information as to whether or
`
`not, for the subject cell, timing advance and bearing data should be
`
`used to estimate the locations of mobile devices in that cell.
`
`(b) Further, unlike the challenged claims, both of Staack’s Fig. 2 and
`
`Fig. 7 embodiments require pre-registration of a mobile device
`
`with the location service. The pre-registration requirement is
`
`emphasized by Staack’s discussion of modified network
`
`components to accommodate location services and by reference to
`
`GSM 03.71, which prescribes pre-registration of mobile stations as
`
`a condition for using location service.
`
`(c) Moreover, with respect to claim 2, the Fig. 7 embodiment does not
`
`teach or even suggest a request from a mobile station for
`
`information concerning its own location, and instead concerns “a
`
`signalling scheme whereby one mobile station may request and
`
`receive information on the location of another mobile station.”
`
`Further reasons for the patentability of the claims over Staack, Staack and
`
`Reed, and Staack and Johansson are discussed in detail below.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`B. Overview of the ‘667 Patent.
`The ‘667 patent discloses a location information service for mobile
`
`stations in a cellular telecommunications network. In accordance with
`
`embodiments of the invention, a request for location finding information is
`
`sent as a message through the network to a location message server. The
`
`location message server has an associated data store that contains location
`
`finding information based on cells of the network within which mobile
`
`stations may be located. Location finding information based on the cell
`
`occupied by at least one mobile station is derived from the data store and
`
`sent through the network from the location message server as a message to
`
`the mobile station that requested the information. According to the
`
`invention, the service is provided without requiring pre-registration of the
`
`subscriber that uses the mobile station with the location finding service. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001 at 8:1-13; 1:52 – 2:2; 3:36 – 4:14; 5:24-27.
`
`An example of the process is illustrated in Figure 3, which refers to
`
`network elements shown in Figure 1. These illustrations are reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`At step S3.1, a mobile station MS1 sends a request 15 in the form of a
`
`message via base station controller BTS1 to the network PLMN 1. The
`
`request 15 includes the telephone number of MS1 together with category
`
`data D1, D2, or D3. Id. at 3:36-46. The category data includes information
`
`concerning landmarks, etc. within individual network cells. Id. at 3:51 – 4:7.
`
`
`
`The message from MS1 is passed from the network (PLMN 1) to an
`
`4
`
`

`
`SMS message center (SMSC) 10 at step S3.2, as request 16. Request 16
`
`contains the data from request 15 (which identifies the requesting mobile
`
`station (MS1) and the data being sought) as well as the cell identity. Id. at
`
`3:36-48. The SMSC 10 refers the request to a location message server 11,
`
`which refers to the database 12 in order to fetch stored data corresponding to
`
`the cell in which a mobile station for which location finding information is
`
`sought is located. Id. at 3:49-52.
`
`At step S3.4, the location message server provides the requested data
`
`18 as a message to the SMSC 10 in response to the request. The SMSC 10
`
`then creates a message 19 containing the retrieved data from the location
`
`message server 11 and the resulting message is sent, at step S3.5, to PLMN1,
`
`and thence, as message 20, to mobile station MS1, at step S3.6. The message
`
`can be then displayed by MS1 and, if appropriate, stored therein for future
`
`use. Id. at 3:49 – 4:14.
`
`An important feature of this process is that it is performed without the
`
`need to form pre-registered groups of users. Id. at 1:66-67. That is, “each
`
`individual mobile station can make use of the location information service
`
`without having to pre-register” with the location finding service. Id. at 1:67
`
`– 2:2.
`
`
`
`As noted in the Background of the ‘667 patent, prior location finding
`
`5
`
`

`
`services required a user to subscribe to a location finding service, for
`
`example to define (with the location finding service) lists of individual
`
`subscribers that the user wanted to be able to locate. Id. at 1:34-38. “This
`
`involves a pre-registration procedure with the vendor of the [location
`
`finding] service.” Id. at 1:37-39. “A disadvantage of this system is that the
`
`user needs to pre-register with the system and only has access to the location
`
`of members of the relevant group.” Id. at 1:46-48. In accordance with the
`
`invention of the ‘667 patent, however, this requirement is eliminated.
`
`“The invention provides a location information service for mobile
`
`stations in a cellular telecommunications network that is provided
`
`independently of an aforesaid vendor.” Id. at 1:52-54 (emphasis added).
`
`Therefore, “there is no need to form pre-registered groups of users and each
`
`individual mobile station can make use of the location information service
`
`without having to pre-register [for the location finding service].” Id. at 1:66
`
`– 2:2 (emphasis added); and see id. at 5:24-27 (“[T]here is no need to pre-
`
`register with the location service that may be provided free of charge by the
`
`network operator, or at the usual tariff for SMS messages.”).
`
`
`
`C. Overview of Staack.
`Staack describes a “system for estimating locations of mobile stations
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`in a cellular radio system.” Ex. 1003 at 1. In instituting this trial, the Board
`
`noted that, “Petitioners make two separate anticipation arguments—one
`
`based on an embodiment associated with Staack Figure 2, and the other
`
`based on an embodiment associated with Staack Figure 7.” Paper No. 8 at 8.
`
`Therefore, it is appropriate to discuss both of these embodiments.
`
`In Fig. 2, “a schematic
`
`diagram of a cellular telephone
`
`system” is shown. Ex. 1003 at 6.
`
`The system includes a mobile
`
`locating unit (MLU) 30 connected
`
`to base-stations 1-9 via mobile
`
`service centers (MSCs) 31 – 34. Id. “The MLU has access to information
`
`from the base-stations and data stored in a coverage database 35a and uses
`
`them to estimate the geographic location of mobile stations 36, 37, (e.g.,
`
`cellular telephone handsets) in the system.” Id. at 6-7.
`
`The process used by the MLU to estimate the location of a mobile
`
`station is illustrated in Fig. 3. Id. at 7. According to Staack,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`to estimate the location of a mobile station the MLU
`determines via the MSCs which cell the mobile is
`currently in. The MLU consults the information on that
`cell that is stored in the
`database 35a. If the database
`indicates that timing
`advance (and bearing data)
`should not be used to
`estimate the locations of
`mobiles in that cell then the
`MLU estimates the mobile
`station's location to be the
`location of the base-station
`associated with that cell. If
`the database indicates that timing advance (and bearing
`data) should be used for locating mobiles in that cell then
`the MLU obtains from the database the bearing data for
`that cell and obtains from the base-station associated with
`that cell the mobile station's timing delay. The timing
`advance is converted to a distance using the known speed
`of propagation of the radio signals, and the location of
`the mobile station is estimated as being at a position
`offset from the base-station by that distance in the
`direction defined by the bearing information.
`
`Id.; and see Ex. 2001 at 44:20 - 47:9.
`
`
`
`Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Staack would
`
`8
`
`

`
`understand that in the Fig. 2 embodiment, once the cell occupied by the
`
`mobile station is known, the MLU checks the database 35a and the
`
`information obtained from the database indicates whether or not timing
`
`advance and bearing data should or should not be used to estimate the
`
`location of the mobile station. Ex. 2001 at 47:11 – 49:7. If it is to be used,
`
`the bearing data is obtained from the database, while the timing data is
`
`obtained from the base-station. Id. at 49:17-25. Once the location of the
`
`mobile station has been determined, the MLU can transmit that information
`
`to the mobile station or another unit. Id. at 50:17 – 51:23.
`
`With respect to the Figure 7 embodiment, Staack “illustrates a
`
`signalling scheme whereby one mobile station may request and receive
`
`information on the location of another mobile station.” Ex. 1003 at 12.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`The user of MS 1 inputs the identity of MS2, which can
`for example be the MSISDN of MS2. The WAP deck
`issues a request for a URL for the same location
`description service; this time the URL including the
`identity of MS2. MS1 sends the request to the WAP
`gateway 53, which forwards that request to the WTA
`server 54. The WTA server extracts the identity of MS2
`from the URL.
`
`Thereafter, the WTA server contacts a GMLC (gateway
`mobile location centre). The GMLC contacts the HLR of
`MS2 (not shown in figure 7) in order to determine which
`network and visitor MSCNLR MS2 is currently operating
`in. The GMLC then requests the position of MS2 from
`the visitor MSCNLR. The visitor MSCNLR determines
`the location of MS2 and returns the result to the GMLC.
`The GMLC returns the result to the WTA server. The
`result may, for instance be given in coordinate form or as
`the identity of the cell in which MS2 lies. The WTA then
`consults location information server 56 in order to
`establish a description of that location – for example a
`place name or a street name. The WTA server returns
`that description to the WAP gateway, which transfers it
`back to MS1 to answer the position request from MS 1.
`MS 1 then displays the information to its user.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Id. at 13 – 14. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading Staack would
`
`understand that the mobile station requesting the location information is a
`
`different mobile station than the one about which the information is
`
`requested. Ex. 2001 at 52:11-23.
`
`
`
`Staack further indicates that, “For reasons of confidentiality, it is
`
`preferred that a list of entities that are permitted to be given location
`
`information on a mobile station such as MS2 is stored.” Ex. 1003 at 14. That
`
`list may be stored at the respective HLR, and “when the WTA contacts the
`
`HLR of MS2, the HLR may check that MS1 is permitted to receive location
`
`information about MS2 and otherwise causes the request from MS1 to be
`
`rejected.” Id.
`
`
`
`D. Overview of Reed.
`Reed describes “[a] method and apparatus for assigning location
`
`estimates from a first transceiver of a plurality of wireless transceivers to a
`
`second transceiver.” Ex. 1004 at Abst. There is no mention of the first
`
`transceiver having received the location estimate from any other source.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`E. Overview of Johansson.
`Johansson describes systems and methods for determining the
`
`geographical location of a terminal in a telecommunications network.
`
`Johansson provides an illustration of such a communications system in
`
`Figure 1:
`
`
`
`“The mobile locating node MPC provides a mobile locating service, which
`
`means that the node MPC will establish the location of a mobile station MS,
`
`MS1-MS3 in response to a request from a second party A2 in this respect
`
`and inform this second party of the geographical position of the mobile
`
`station.” Ex. 1005 at 4:55-60.
`
`
`
`Johansson discusses several examples in connection with the
`
`disclosed locating service. In connection with an example discussed with
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`reference to Fig. 4, A2 seeks the whereabouts of mobile station MS. Id. at
`
`5:35 et seq. According to Johansson, a command K1 is sent from the mobile
`
`locating node MPC to the mobile switching center MSC for the MSC to
`
`collect locational data relating to the mobile station MS and send it to the
`
`MPC. The MSC collects locational data relating to MS and sends it to the
`
`MPC. The MPC then establishes the geographical location of MS with the
`
`aid of the received locational data and presents the result to A2 in a message
`
`M2. Id. at 5:41-46; 5:55 – 6:6. In other words, in this example A2 requests
`
`and receives the location of mobile station MS.
`
`In an example discussed in connection with Fig. 5, A2 sends a
`
`message M1 requesting the geographical location of mobile station MS. Id.
`
`at 6:26 et seq. This is essentially the same as the Figure 4 example, except
`
`for an optional step concerning a check to determine if A2 is authorized to
`
`receive the requested information (i.e., a check to see if A2 is registered with
`
`the MPC). Id. at 6:29-33; 11:31-35. Regardless of whether such a check is
`
`made or not, A2 requests and receives the location of MS. Id. at 7:11-19.
`
`In a further example, discussed in connection with Fig. 6, A1 contacts
`
`service provider A2 and requests a service for which the location of A1 is
`
`necessary. Id. at 9:28 et seq. In this scenario, the service being requested by
`
`A1 and provided by A2 “may involve a route description or the whereabouts
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`of the nearest hamburger restaurant.” Id. at 9:25-27. In this process, “the
`
`location of the mobile station MS is determined . . . by sending a command
`
`K1 [from the MPC] to the mobile switching center that collects mobile
`
`station MS location data, and sends this data back to the mobile locating
`
`node MPC.” Id.at 9:54-58. The MPC then sends the location of MS to A2.
`
`Id.at 9:58-60.
`
`In another example, described in connection with Fig. 7, A1 requests
`
`“a mobile station MS-location related service from A2.” Id. at 10:9 et seq.
`
`“[T]he service provider contacts the mobile locating node MPC to find out
`
`the location of the user A1 and the mobile locating node MPC checks that
`
`the service provider A2 is registered.” Id. at 10:15-18. This authorization
`
`check is later said to be optional. Id. at 11:31-35. In either case, the steps
`
`concerning obtaining the location of A1 are the same as those used in the
`
`Fig. 6 example. Id. at 10:45-47.
`
`One further example is discussed in connection with Fig. 8. Similar to
`
`the examples described in connection with Figs. 6 and 7, user A1 requests
`
`mobile station MS location dependent services from A2, but in this example,
`
`A1 need not give explicit permission to disclose its location. Still, an
`
`optional check may be made to see if A2 is “known.” Id. at 10:48 et seq.;
`
`11:31-35. In either case, the request and response concern the location of
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`mobile station MS. Id. at 11:12-18.
`
`
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. Claim Construction.
`In the arguments below,1 Patent Owner distinguishes the claims over
`
`the art cited by Petitioner and, in doing so, adopts certain constructions of
`
`various claim terms. Patent Owner notes that the Board has indicated that it
`
`will interpret the claims of a challenged patent using a “broadest reasonable
`
`construction” approach. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); and see 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). However,
`
`this standard is an examination expedient, not a rule of claim construction.
`
`In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Inasmuch as the
`
`present proceeding is adjudicatory in nature, and is not an examination or
`
`even a reexamination of the challenged claims, see, e.g., Google Inc. v.
`
`Jongerious Panoramic Techs., LLC, Case No. IPR2013-00191, Paper No.
`
`
`
`1 Patent Owner reserves the right to pursue claim constructions in a district
`
`court according to the standards applicable in that venue. See Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Va. Innov. Scis., Inc., Case No. IPR2013-00569, Paper 9,
`
`slip op. at 2 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2013).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`50, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2014), the claims should be construed as in
`
`other adjudicatory proceedings: to give the claims the meaning they would
`
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention,
`
`Innova/Pura Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111,
`
`1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004), to cover what was actually invented and what the
`
`inventor intended them to cover, Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’per
`
`Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and, where possible, to preserve
`
`their validity. Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350,
`
`1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999); and see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc).
`
`Even if the Board applies the broadest reasonable construction
`
`standard, it is important to recognize that such an interpretation of a claim’s
`
`language is not one that permits any reading thereof. Instead, it is one that
`
`must be made “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
`
`1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
`
`1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The broadest-construction rubric coupled with
`
`the term ‘comprising’ does not give the PTO an unfettered license to
`
`interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`invention.”), and In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d at 1267 (“The protocol of giving
`
`claims their broadest reasonable interpretation . . . does not include giving
`
`claims a legally incorrect interpretation.”). The focus of the inquiry
`
`regarding the meaning of a claim should be what would be reasonable from
`
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`
`603 F.3d at 1260, and an interpretation that is inconsistent with the express
`
`disclosure and objectives of the patent is not “reasonable.” See, e.g., In re
`
`Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, unless the patentee
`
`has clearly demonstrated an intention to stray, there is a “heavy
`
`presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`In proceedings such as this, in which the patent has been brought back
`
`to the agency for a second review, the Board should also consult the patent's
`
`prosecution history when determining the meaning of the claims. See Tempo
`
`Lighting Inc. v. Tivoli LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This is in
`
`addition to reading the claims in light of the specification and teachings in
`
`the underlying patent, as even under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`the Board's construction “cannot be divorced from the specification and the
`
`record evidence,” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011), and
`
`“must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.” In
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`re Cortright, 165 F.3d at 1358. A construction that is “unreasonably broad”
`
`and which does not “reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure”
`
`will not pass muster. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d at 1260.
`
`
`
`1. Location Finding Information is Information Concerning a Location
`at Which a Mobile Station is Located.
`
`Claim 1 is an independent claim and recites:
`
`1. A method of providing a location finding service to
`mobile stations in a cellular telecommunications network,
`comprising:
`sending a request for location finding information
`from a mobile station as a message through the
`network to a location message server;
`retrieving data from a data store corresponding to
`the location finding information based on the cell
`occupied by at least one mobile station; and
`sending the data through the network from the
`location message server as a message to the mobile
`station that requested the location finding information;
`and
`wherein the method is performed without pre-
`registering the mobile station for the location finding
`service.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 6:38-51.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`During prosecution of the application that became the ‘667 patent, the
`
`term “location information” in the body of the claim was changed to
`
`“location finding information.” Ex. 1002 at 33. In discussing this revision,
`
`the applicant distinguished the claims over Lehikoinen, which was said to
`
`disclose a mobile device transmitting a general location to a service
`
`provider. Id. at 40. However, according to the applicant, “the transmission of
`
`location information is not a request involving a location finding service in
`
`conjunction with location finding information . . . .” Id. at 40 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Moreover, in discussing the example shown in Fig. 3, the
`
`Specification provides that, “The
`
`request 15 contains the telephone
`
`number (MISDN) of MS1 together
`
`with category data D1, D2 or D3 discussed in more detail below. The
`
`request 16 contains the data from request 15 and the cell identity, cell C1 in
`
`this example, obtained from network PLMN1.” Ex. 1001 at 3:44-48.
`
`Petitioner’s declarant agrees that request 15 is an example of the request
`
`recited in cla