Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: February 12, 2016
`
`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 IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JAMES A. TARTAL,
`and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 1
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., TeleCommunication
`Systems, Inc., Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an
`inter partes review of claims 25, 26, 36, and 82 of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,231
`B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’231 Patent”). TracBeam, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”). The parties reached
`agreement to remove claims 26 and 36 from the proceeding. Paper 9 (Joint
`Motion to Limit Petition); Paper 10 (Joint Submission of Narrowing
`Agreement). We accepted that agreement and limited this proceeding to
`claims 25 and 82. Paper 11.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`conclude, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 25 and 82.
`Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 25 and 82 of the
`’231 Patent.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’231 Patent is the subject of several lawsuits filed in several
`United States District Courts. Pet. 2; Paper 7, 1–4.
`The ’231 Patent also is the subject of T-Mobile US, Inc. v. TracBeam,
`LLC., Case IPR2015-01687 (PTAB); Apple Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC, Case
`IPR2015-01702 (PTAB); and Apple Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC, Case IPR2015-
`01703 (PTAB). Pet. 2; Paper 7, 2.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`
`Various related patents also are subjects of these and other
`proceedings before the district courts and the Board. Paper 7, 1–4.
`
`C. References Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`Ex. 1007 Kauser
`US 5,724,660
`
`Mar. 3, 1998
`Ex. 1009 Wortham US 6,748,226 B1
`
`June 8, 2004
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner contends that claims 25 and 82 would have been obvious,
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kauser and Wortham. Pet. 8.
`
`E. The ’231 Patent
`The ’231 Patent describes location systems for wireless
`telecommunication infrastructures. Ex. 1001, Abstract. According to the
`’231 Patent, the location techniques are useful for 911 emergency calls,
`vehicle tracking and routing, and location of people and animals. Id. at
`Abstract, 12:17–23.
`Figure 4, reproduced below, illustrates an embodiment:
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is an overall view of a wireless radio location network architecture.
`Id. at 21:34–35. The network includes a plurality of mobile stations (“MS”)
`140, a mobile switching center (“MSC”) 112, and a plurality of wireless cell
`sites forming radio coverage area 120, each site including a fixed-location
`base station 122 for voice and data communication with MSs 140. Id. at
`24:6–42. The network also includes location base stations (“LBS”) 152 with
`wireless location enablement, e.g., with transponders used primarily in
`communicating MS location related information to location center 142 (via
`base stations 122 and MSC 112). Id. LBSs can be placed, for example, in
`dense urban areas, in remote areas, along highways, or wherever more
`location precision is required than can be obtained using conventional
`wireless infrastructure components. Id. at 28:1–10.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`
`Location center 142 determines a location of a target MS 140. Id. at
`25:26–30, 37:16–18. The system uses a plurality of techniques for locating
`MSs, including two-way time of arrival (“TOA”), time difference of arrival
`(“TDOA”), and Global Positioning System (“GPS”). Id. at Abstract, 9:13–
`28, 11:13–62, 66:52–58. To determine a location for a MS, the system
`computes a first order model (also referred to as a hypothesis or estimate) for
`one or more of the locating techniques, computes a confidence value for
`each model indicating the likelihood that the model is correct, performs
`additional computations on the models to enhance the estimates, and
`computes from the models a “most likely” location for the MS. Id. at 12:52–
`13:36, 37:66–38:6. The most likely location can be a composite of the
`estimates. Id. at 13:30–36, 66:20–31.
`Location estimates can be provided to location requesting
`applications, such as 911 emergency, police and fire departments, taxi
`services, etc. Id. at 8:56–64, 13:25–28.
`
`F. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 25, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
`
`matter:
`
`25. A method for providing a location estimate of a
`wireless mobile station dependent upon measurements of
`wireless signals,
`wherein for receiving a first collection of measurements
`related to signal time delay of wireless signals, the wireless
`signals received by said mobile station and transmitted from one
`or more satellites,
`there is a predetermined corresponding
`location technique for determining first location information of
`the mobile station;
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`
`wherein when provided with the first collection, the
`predetermined corresponding location technique uses the first
`collection to determine a location for the mobile station;
`wherein for receiving a second collection of measurements
`obtained from wireless signals transmitted between said mobile
`station and one or more fixed location terrestrial stations, at least
`when said first collection
`is not available,
`there
`is a
`predetermined corresponding location technique for determining
`second location information of the mobile station;
`wherein said second collection includes signal time delay
`data of wireless signals transmitted between the mobile station
`and the fixed location terrestrial stations, there being at least one
`wireless transmission from the mobile station to the one or more
`fixed location terrestrial stations in order to provide the
`predetermined corresponding location technique for receiving
`the second collection with the second collection;
`wherein said second collection of measurements is used
`by the corresponding location technique for receiving the second
`collection to determine a location estimate of the mobile station
`by determining a locus of locations from at least one of the fixed
`location terrestrial stations, wherein for locations identified by
`said locus of locations, a signal time delay dependent condition
`is satisfied using the signal time delay data, comprising
`performing the following steps by computational equipment:
`first obtaining the first location information of said mobile
`station,
`the
`first
`location
`information determined by
`computational machinery when said corresponding location
`technique for using the first collection is supplied with an
`instance of said first collection;
`second obtaining the second location information of said
`mobile station, the second location information determined by
`computational machinery when said corresponding location
`technique for receiving the second collection is supplied with an
`instance of said second collection; and
`outputting, to a source for accessing location data for said
`mobile station, resulting location information that is dependent
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`
`upon: at least one of said first and second location information,
`and also dependent upon data for indicating a likelihood of the
`mobile station being in a geographical extent represented by of
`at least one of said first location information and said second
`location information.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and then
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`Petitioner points out that the District Court in TracBeam, LLC v.
`AT&T, Inc., Case No. 6:11-CV-96 (E.D. Tex.), construed several terms of
`the challenged claims. Pet. 9–15 (citing Ex. 1017 (District Court’s Claim
`Construction Order)). For the majority of these terms, Petitioner argues that
`no constructions are necessary, but indicates that it would accept the District
`Court’s claim constructions. Id. at 10–15. Patent Owner does not propose
`constructions for these terms. At this stage of the proceeding, we do not find
`it necessary to construe these terms expressly.
`Patent Owner asserts that “[c]laim 25 recites an order.” Prelim. Resp.
`13 (referring to the “first obtaining” and “second obtaining” recited in
`claim 25). Nevertheless, Patent Owner does not advance, in the Preliminary
`Response, an argument based on such an order. Rather, Patent Owner
`foreshadows that it “will demonstrate that the ‘first obtaining’ act and
`‘second obtaining’ act must be performed in that order and will further
`demonstrate that Petitioners’ asserted combination fails to disclose or render
`obvious the ordered ‘obtaining’ steps of claim 25,” if a proceeding is
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`instituted,” but indicates that it “need not do so here” because of its reliance
`on other arguments. Id. at 14. Thus, at this stage, Patent Owner has not put
`forward evidence or argument to support limiting the steps of claim 25 to a
`specific order, or to show that the prior art fails to teach this order. At this
`stage, we decline to construe claim 25 to include claim steps that must be
`performed in a specific order. Nevertheless, Patent Owner is free to raise
`such an argument in its Patent Owner Response.
`For purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded that no claim term
`requires express construction.
`
`
`B. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains.” We resolve the question of obviousness on the basis of
`underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`In an obviousness analysis, some reason must be shown as to why a
`person of ordinary skill would have combined or modified the prior art to
`achieve the patented invention. See Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512
`F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A reason to combine or modify the prior
`art may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives;
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`the “‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents;’” “‘any need or problem
`known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the
`patent;’” and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of
`the person of ordinary skill. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587
`F.3d 1324, 1328–29 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, 418–21 (2007)).
`
`
`1. Overview of Kauser
`Kauser describes a technique for determining the location of a mobile
`telephone within a serving area of a mobile telephone system. Ex. 1007,
`Abstract. Figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates an example:
`
`Figure 2 is a diagram of mobile telephone system 200. Id. at 3:25–26.
`Cell 7 is shown containing antenna 107 connected to radio base station
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`(“RBS”) 214. Id. at 3:59–60. RBS 214 (as well as other RBSs) is connected
`to mobile switching center (“MSC”) 220. Id. at 4:15–16.
`Mobile telephone 120 is also within cell 7, and is shown in
`communication with mobile telephone system 200 via air interface 202.
`Id. at 3:57–62. Mobile telephone 120 includes GPS receiver/processor unit
`125. Id. at 4:8–11. To assist in handing off communication from one cell to
`another, mobile telephone 120 maintains a list of strengths of the signals it is
`receiving from various base stations in adjacent cells. Id. at 4:60–5:12.
`Mobile telephone 120 periodically sends this list to MSC 220. Id. at 5:17–
`22.
`
`Mobile telephone system 200 also includes mobile location module
`(“MLM”) 230 (which, in turn, includes processor 232 and memory 234) for
`determining the specific geographic location of mobile telephone 120. Id. at
`5:23–32. MSC 220 performs an analysis on the telephone numbers of the
`caller and recipient and, based on that analysis, decides whether MLM 230
`will determine the location of mobile telephone 120. Id. at 5:37–49. For
`example, if mobile telephone 120 dials 911, MLM 230 will determine the
`location of mobile telephone 120. Id. at 5:40–41. In another example, a
`company managing a fleet of vehicles may want a location determination
`performed each time a call is initiated from one of its cellular telephones.
`Id. at 5:40–42.
`MLM 230 determines the best estimation of mobile telephone 120’s
`location by analyzing several pieces of information. Figure 10, reproduced
`below, illustrates an example:
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 10 is a flow diagram of the steps for calculating the location of a
`mobile telephone. Id. at 3:42–43.
`First, MLM 230 computes “zone 1” and “zone 2” location
`estimations. Id. at Fig. 10 (box 1002). Zone 1 is defined by the geographic
`coverage area of the cell currently serving mobile telephone 120 (e.g., cell 7
`in Figure 2). Id. at 6:16–22, 11:43–45. Zone 2 is an area calculated by
`estimating the distance of mobile telephone 120 from the three strongest
`signals received from adjacent cells. Id. at 6:21–36, 11:45–47. Next, MLM
`230 compares calculated error values of the current GPS coordinates to
`thresholds to determine the accuracy of the GPS coordinates. Id. at 11:5–16,
`11:48–54, Figure 10, box 1004. If the GPS coordinates are accurate enough
`to be acceptable (box 1004, “YES” branch), MLM 230 compares the GPS
`coordinates to zone 1 and zone 2 information and determines whether to use
`
`11
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`the GPS coordinates (boxes 1018, 1024) or, alternatively, to use zone 2 (box
`1010) as the current location. Id. at 11:51–67. If the GPS coordinates are
`not accurate enough (box 1004, “NO” branch”), MLM 230 compares zone 1
`and zone 2 information to previously stored GPS coordinates and determines
`whether to use the stored coordinates (boxes 1016, 1022) or zone 2 (box
`1008) as the current location. Id. at 12:1–21.
`Once MLM 230 determines the geographic location area of mobile
`phone 120, it routes the information to the appropriate end user (e.g., in the
`examples above, the appropriate service provider associated with 911, or to
`the appropriate fleet company). Id. at 12:22–35.
`
`
`2. Overview of Wortham
`Wortham describes integrating a differential positioning system, such
`as a satellite-based or land-based positioning system, with a mobile
`communications network. Ex. 1009, Abstract. Figure 1, reproduced below,
`illustrates an example:
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a drawing of differential positioning system 10. Id. at 2:44.
`Vehicle 16, depicted as an automobile, includes a person carrying
`portable or hand-held mobile unit 17. Id. at 4:26–33. Mobile unit 17
`receives position signals over message data streams 26, 28, 30 from satellites
`18, 20, 22, respectively, and determines the mobile unit’s position from
`those signals. Id. at 5:6–23. Satellites 18, 20, 22 also send message data
`streams 32, 34, and 36, respectively, to a transmitter site 40. Id. at 5:29–33.
`Reference positioning receiver 38 at transmitter site 40 determines a position
`fix from position signals received from satellites 18, 20, 22. Id. at 5:34–36.
`Traditional surveying techniques can be used to determine the actual
`coordinates of transmitter site 40. Id. at 5:42–43. Reference positioning
`receiver 38 compares the computed position fix to the known (e.g.,
`
`13
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`surveyed) position coordinates and generates correction data, which are
`transmitted over correction data stream 44 to mobile unit 17. Id. at 5:37–41.
`
`
`3. Combination of Kauser and Wortham
`Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have been motivated to modify and/or combine Kauser’s mobile telephone
`location system with aspects of the positioning systems disclosed in
`Wortham. Pet. 17–18, 29–34. Petitioner contends that design incentives and
`market forces would have motivated such a change, giving the Federal
`Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) proposed rules for locating
`wireless callers (Ex. 1014) as an example. Id. at 29. According to
`Petitioner, the FCC’s proposed rules requiring cellular providers to locate
`wireless 911 callers both inside and outside of buildings would have
`motivated the combination. Id. at 30. Dr. Michalson testifies that such
`modification would have been within the level of skill in the art. Ex. 1006
`§ X.B; Pet. 29–30.
`Petitioner also asserts that it would have been obvious to modify
`Kauser’s geometric technique to use time-of-arrival (TOA) measurements
`instead of signal strength measurements, as described in Wortham. Pet. 30.
`Petitioner continues that Kauser explicitly teaches that its invention can be
`implemented “‘using a geometric location technique other than that
`described.’” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1007 12:46–48). As well, Petitioner
`contends that the combination could have also been motivated based on the
`extremely similar nature of the problem solved. Id. at 32. Additionally,
`Petitioner asserts that it also would have been obvious to modify Kauser’s
`location system such that the mobile telephone sends the GPS signal
`
`14
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`measurements to the network so that the network can perform the GPS
`calculations instead of the mobile telephone because this was a well-known
`implementation of GPS. Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1006 § X.B.4).
`Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s reasons to combine
`Kauser and Wortham in the Preliminary Response, instead focusing on claim
`elements alleged to not be taught or suggested by the combination. Prelim.
`Resp. 7. On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner is reasonably likely
`to show that a skilled artisan would have combined Kauser and Wortham as
`provided in the Petition.
`
`
`4. Claim 25
`Petitioner provides a detailed mapping of Kauser and Wortham to
`claim 25 with support from the testimony of William R. Michalson, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1006), which we have considered. Pet. 35–47. To summarize,
`Petitioner contends, inter alia, that:
`1) Kauser’s GPS technique satisfies the claim element of the
`predetermined corresponding location technique using the first
`collection to determine a location for the mobile station (id. at 36–
`37);
`2) Kauser’s geometric location technique satisfies the claim element
`of the predetermined corresponding location technique for
`determining second location information of the mobile station
`based on the second collection of measurements, “at least when
`said first collection is not available,” and that the terrestrial
`technique and associated signal measurements are used to generate
`a location estimate even when the GPS satellite signal
`
`15
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`
`measurements are unavailable, for example, due to a
`blockage/outage (id. at 38–40);
`3) That it would have been obvious to have modified Kauser’s
`geometric technique to use cell site signal measurements (i.e.,
`“said second collection”) determined from the time-of-arrival
`(TOA) measurements described in Wortham (i.e., “signal time
`delay data”) instead of signal strength measurements, as discussed
`above (id. at 40–41);
`4) Kauser, modified in view of Wortham, would provide TOA
`measurements to the MLM, thereby satisfying the claim element of
`there being at least one wireless transmission from the mobile
`station to the one or more fixed location terrestrial stations (id. at
`41–42);
`5) Kauser’s determination of a location area estimate based on its
`relative distance to each cell site satisfies the claim element of
`determining a location estimate of the mobile station by
`determining a locus of locations from at least one of the fixed
`location terrestrial stations (id. at 42–43);
`6) Kauser’s processors in the MLM, MSC, and cell sites satisfy
`having the claimed steps be performed on computational
`equipment (id. at 43);
`7) Kauser’s GPS receiver/processor determining GPS location
`information when supplied with the GPS signal measurements
`satisfies the claim element of first obtaining the first location
`information (id. at 43–44);
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`
`8) Kauser’s MLM obtaining a location estimate by performing the
`geometric location technique satisfies second obtaining the second
`location information (id. at 44–45); and
`9) Kauser’s resulting location determination, along with a confidence
`value, being returned satisfies the claim element of outputting, to a
`source for accessing location data for said mobile station, resulting
`location information (id. at 45–47).
`Patent Owner generally argues that Petitioner has not met its burden
`through the Petition (Prelim. Resp. 2–7), and argues specifically that
`elements of claim 25, discussed above as 2), 5), 8) and 9), have not been
`shown to be disclosed or met by the combination of Kauser and Wortham.
`Prelim. Resp. 7–17. We consider each below, in turn.
`Patent Owner argues that claim 25 requires that the second technique
`must be available when the first technique cannot be used because the
`necessary first collection of measurements for that first technique is not
`available. Id. at 8. Patent Owner continues that to demonstrate that Kauser
`discloses the specified claim element, “Petitioners must show the geometric
`technique (i.e., second ‘predetermined corresponding location technique’) is
`used at least when GPS signal measurements (i.e., the claimed ‘first
`collection’) are not available,” and Petitioner has failed to so demonstrate.
`Id. at 9. Patent Owner also adds that even in situations where only the last
`GPS coordinates are used in Kauser, i.e., when “the current GPS coordinates
`are either unavailable or unreliable,” Kauser is still relying on an available
`first collection, contrary to claim 25. Id. at 10. On the present record, we do
`not agree.
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`
`The recitation in claim 25 provides, in part, that the location technique
`determines second location information from a second collection of
`measurements “at least when said first collection is not available.” We are
`persuaded at this stage of the proceeding that this requires that this second
`location technique could be used when the GPS signal measurements are not
`available, not that Kauser must demonstrate this specific behavior. In other
`words, the recitation of “at least when” does not mean it is performed only
`when the first collection is not available; rather, it could be performed when
`the first collection is not available, or in other circumstances. We find
`persuasive Petitioner’s assertion that claim 25 is directed to the availability
`of “current GPS coordinates” (Pet. 39–40), and that the availability of
`“stale” GPS coordinates, from some time ago, is not what one of ordinary
`skill in the art would have considered in interpreting claim 25. Further, the
`Specification of the ’231 Patent does not discuss being “available” in such a
`manner, but rather discusses its techniques “which can be used to establish
`motion, speed, and an extrapolated next location in cases where the MS
`signal subsequently becomes unavailable.” Ex. 1001, 9:30–32. Patent
`Owner’s argument notwithstanding, we are persuaded that Petitioner is
`reasonably likely to show that Kauser and Wortham teach or suggest the
`cited element of claim 25
`In addition, Patent Owner argues that the Petition fails to identify
`what “a signal time delay dependent condition” is or how it “is satisfied
`using the signal time delay data,” or how that requirement is present in the
`asserted combination, per the element discussed in (5) above. Prelim. Resp.
`12–13. We do not agree. The Petition directs attention to sections of
`columns 13 and 14 of Wortham (Pet. 42–43), where it describes that TOA
`
`18
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 18
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`data may be used to compute pseudoranges, which are then used to compute
`a position fix of the mobile unit. Ex. 1009, 14:5–12. We are persuaded on
`the present record that the use of this computation constitutes a “signal time
`delay dependent condition,” and how that condition is satisfied. As such, we
`are persuaded that Petitioner is reasonably likely to show that Kauser and
`Wortham teach or suggest the cited element of claim 25.
`Patent Owner also argues that, given the explicit recitation of “first
`obtaining” and “second obtaining” in claim 25, there must be a second act of
`obtaining, which Petitioner has failed to demonstrate. Prelim. Resp. 13–15.
`More specifically, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has failed to identify
`“computational machinery” that obtains (acquires or gains possession of) the
`“second location information,” because “[n]o attempt is made to show or
`explain how ‘performing’ a location technique should be considered to be
`the same thing as ‘obtaining’ location information created by the technique.”
`Id. at 15. We do not agree. Petitioner is not alleging such equivalence and
`need not show the same; Kauser’s MLM obtains a location estimate through
`computation. Calculating GPS and radio coordinates is one way of
`acquiring or gaining possession of those coordinates. Accordingly, we are
`persuaded that Petitioner is reasonably likely to show that Kauser and
`Wortham teach or suggest the “first obtaining” and “second obtaining”
`limitations of claim 25.
`Lastly, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has failed to show a
`“source for accessing location data,” as recited in claim 25. Id. at 16–17.
`Rather, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner argues that Kauser routes the
`resulting location estimate and confidence value to an end user, where that
`end user would not be a “source for accessing location data.” Id. at 16
`
`19
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 19
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`(citing Pet. 47). We do not agree. Petitioner clearly cites to Kauser as
`teaching that the MLM routes the location information to the public service
`provider or fleet company (Pet. 47; Ex. 1007, 12:25–32), where,
`presumably, the actual end user will be able to access that information. As
`such, we are persuaded that Petitioner is reasonably likely to show that
`Kauser and Wortham teach or suggest the cited element of claim 25.
`On the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claim 25 as
`obvious over Kauser and Wortham.
`
`
`5. Claim 82
`Claim 82 depends from claim 25 and further requires the outputting
`step to include one of five recited functions, specifically including
`“responding to a user of said mobile station request for location” and
`“providing said resulting location information for . . . performing a routing
`function for routing the mobile station.” Petitioner asserts that Kauser
`discloses both of the functions specifically recited above. Pet. 60 (citing
`Ex. 1007, 1:51–55, 12:22–35). Patent Owner relies on its arguments made
`with respect to claim 25, discussed above, which we do not find persuasive.
`Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner has sufficiently identified how Kauser discloses
`the recited functions, and we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claim 82 as
`obvious over Kauser and Wortham.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 20
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`We institute an inter partes review of claims 25 and 82. We have not
`yet made a final determination of the patentability of these claims or the
`construction of any claim term.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the reasons given, it is:
`ORDERED that inter partes review is instituted on the following
`ground:
`Claims 25 and 82, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Kauser
`and Wortham;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the ground identified
`above, and no other ground is authorized; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,231 B1 is hereby instituted
`commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a
`trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 21
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01681
`Patent 7,764,231 B1
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Brian W. Oaks
`Douglas M. Kubehl
`Chad C. Walters
`Ross G. Culpepper
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`brian.oaks@bakerbotts.com
`doug.kubehl@bakerbotts.com
`chad.walters@bakerbotts.com
`ross.culpepper@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Sean A. Luner
`DOVEL AND LUNER, LLP
`sean@dovellaw.com
`
`Steven C. Sereboff
`SOCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP.
`ssereboff@socalip.com
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1024
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 22