Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: February 8, 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,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRACBEAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DAVID C. MCKONE, JAMES A. TARTAL,
`and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 1
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`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 1, 2, 6, 24, 25, 51, 71, and 72 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,525,484 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’484 patent”). TracBeam, LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). The
`parties reached agreement to remove claims 2, 6, 24, 71, and 72 from the
`proceeding. Paper 7 (Joint Motion to Limit Petition); Paper 8 (Joint
`Submission of Narrowing Agreement). We accepted that agreement and
`limited this proceeding to claims 1, 25, and 51. Paper 9.
`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 1 and 51,
`but not as to claim 25. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1 and 51 of the ’484 patent.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’484 patent is the subject of several lawsuits filed in the United
`States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Pet. 2; Paper 5, 1–2.
`The ’484 patent also is the subject of Apple Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC,
`Case IPR2015-01696 (PTAB); Apple Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC, Case
`IPR2015-01697 (PTAB); and T-Mobile US, Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC., Case
`IPR2015-01711 (PTAB). Pet. 1; Paper 5, 3.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`Various related patents also are the subjects of these and other
`proceedings before the district courts and the Board. Paper 5, 1–3.
`
`C. References Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`Ex. 1008
`Loomis
`US 5,936,572
`
`Aug. 10, 1999
`Ex. 1009 Wortham US 6,748,226 B1
`
`June 8, 2004
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 25, and 51 would have been
`obvious, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, over Loomis and Wortham. Pet. 6.
`
`E. The ’484 Patent
`The ’484 patent describes location systems for wireless
`telecommunication infrastructures. Ex. 1002, Abstract. According to the
`’484 patent, the location techniques are useful for 911 emergency calls,
`vehicle tracking and routing, and location of people and animals. Id. at
`Abstract, 12:11–17.
`Figure 4, reproduced below, illustrates an embodiment:
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`Figure 4 is an overall view of a wireless radio location network architecture.
`Id. at 21:66–67. 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
`24:41–57. 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. at 24:57–64. 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 28:29–38.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`Location center 142 determines a location of a target MS 140. Id. at
`25:8–10, 37:43–46. 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, 9:5–23,
`11:7–55, 66:45–50. 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 12:62–13:20, 38:9–31.
`The most likely location can be composite of the estimates. Id. at 13:22–30,
`66:45–50.
`Location estimates can be provided to location requesting
`applications, such as 911 emergency, police and fire departments, taxi
`services, etc. Id. at 8:52–60, 13:20–22, 38:32–34.
`
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
`matter:
`
`location
`requested
`for obtaining
`A method
`1.
`information regarding a first of a plurality of terrestrial wireless
`mobile stations using location information from location
`estimating sources, and to provide the requested location
`information to an application using wireless location, the
`location estimating sources, including a first location estimating
`source and a second location estimating source, the first and
`second location estimating sources providing information
`regarding locations of various of the mobile wireless stations, the
`method comprising the steps of:
`first receiving a location request regarding the first of said
`wireless mobile station from the application, said
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`location request seeking said requested location
`information;
`first obtaining a first location input obtained using an
`instance, I1, of location information from said first
`location estimating source, wherein I1 is indicative
`of one or more locations of said first wireless mobile
`station, and
`second obtaining a second location input obtained using
`an instance, I2, of location information provided
`from said second location estimating source,
`wherein I2 is indicative of one or more locations of
`said first wireless mobile station;
`wherein said first location estimating source employs a
`first location finding technology that provides I1,
`and said second location estimating source employs
`a second location finding technology different than
`said first location finding technology that provides
`I2; and
`wherein said steps of first and second obtaining includes a
`step of providing said first and second location
`inputs in a common standardized format;
`storing data in memory relating to said first location input
`and said second location input;
`third obtaining said requested location information by
`selectively using portions of said data from said
`memory, wherein
`said
`requested
`location
`information is determined according to information
`indicative of a manner in which said application
`prefers said requested location information; and
`outputting said requested location information to said
`application.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In applying a broadest reasonable
`construction, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`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. 8–10 (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 8–9. 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.
`Claim 25 (emphasis added) recites “obtained using wireless signal
`measurements obtained via two way wireless communication between said
`mobile station M, and the communication stations.” Petitioner argues that
`we should construe “obtained via two way wireless communication” the
`same as the District Court construed a similar term, “obtained by
`transmission,” recited in a claim of a related patent. Pet. 9–10. Specifically,
`the District Court, accepting Patent Owner’s argument and rejecting
`Petitioner’s, construed “obtained by transmission” to cover either
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`“(A) transmitting the actual wireless signal measurements; or (B) measuring
`the characteristics of the transmitted wireless signals.” Ex. 1017, 27–28.
`Patent Owner does not propose a construction of “obtained via two way
`wireless communication” in this proceeding. For purposes of this Decision,
`we accept Petitioner’s proposed construction of “obtained via two way
`wireless communication.”
`Patent Owner asserts that “Claim 1 recites an order.” Prelim. Resp. 7
`(referring to the “first obtaining” and “second obtaining” recited in claim 1).
`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 Petitioner’s asserted combination fails to disclose or
`render obvious the ordered ‘obtaining’ steps of claim 1, if a proceeding is
`instituted,” but indicates that it “need not do so here” because of its reliance
`on other arguments. Id. Thus, at this stage, Patent Owner has not put
`forward evidence or argument to support limiting the steps of claim 1 to a
`specific order, or to show that the prior art fails to teach this order. At this
`stage, we decline to construe claim 1 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, no other claim term requires express
`construction.
`
`
`B. Asserted Grounds 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
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`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;
`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 Loomis
`Loomis describes an apparatus for determining a location of a mobile
`user, both inside and outside of buildings and structures, using two different
`location determining techniques. Ex. 1008, Abstract. Loomis observes that
`location technology such as GPS, Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite
`System (“GLONASS”), and Long Range Navigation (“LORAN”) “provide
`object location estimates over regions with diameters of hundreds of
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`kilometers (km) but do not work well where some of the signal sources are
`obscured by structures outdoors, or when the object to be located is
`positioned indoors.” Id. at 1:19–34. In contrast, “[frequency modulation
`(“FM”)] subcarrier signals can be used over smaller regions to estimate the
`location of an object inside or outside a building or other structure,” but such
`systems “tend[] to be limited to smaller regions, with diameters of the order
`of 20–50 km.” Id. at 38–46. To take advantage of both types of
`technologies, Loomis’s system “provides an integrated, mobile or portable
`system for location determination that combines beneficial features of two or
`more LD systems.” Id. at 4:39–42.
`Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates an example:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic illustrating user 12 operating hybrid location
`determining (“LD”) system 11. Id. at 6:21–29. Hybrid LD system 11
`includes two different technologies for receiving location information.
`
`10
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`Specifically, radio LD unit 13 (renumbered 71 in Figure 6) receives FM
`signals from radio LD signal sources 21, 23, and 25, and outdoor LD unit 31
`(renumbered 81 in Figure 6) receives GPS or GLONASS signals from
`satellites 41, 43, and 45. Id. at 6:20–29, 7:9–22.
`A controller receives location coordinates (in x, y, z format) from the
`radio LD unit and from the outdoor LD unit, along with indicia resulting
`from the comparison of the FM and outdoor signals to thresholds (i.e.,
`indicia indicating the accuracy of the respective location coordinates). Id. at
`12:21–27. In Figure 6, the controller is depicted as part of hybrid LD unit
`11, although, in an alternative embodiment, “information from the radio LD
`signals and/or the outdoor LD signals may be transmitted, unprocessed or
`partly processed or fully processed, to a central processing station 29
`(optional), located at or near the site R, to allow determination of the present
`location of the user 12 at selected times.” Id. at 8:29–34; accord id. at
`20:29–36. The controller can choose the radio coordinates or satellite
`coordinates, depending on which is the most accurate (or choose neither, if
`both are determined to be too inaccurate). Id. at 12:47–13:4. “[H]ybrid LD
`system 11 then processes the LD signals further, or transmits or stores or
`displays the location of the hybrid LD system.” Id. at 19:53–55.
`For the radio LD unit to make a location determination, it must first
`know the relative phases of the FM signals from the radio LD signal sources.
`Id. at 4:9–14. To that end:
`The outdoor LD unit 31 in FIG. 1 includes a radio LD signal
`antenna and receiver/processor 37 and controller/interface 39
`that also receives radio LD signals from the radio LD sources 21,
`23 and 25, determines the relative phases of these radio LD
`signals, and provides this relative phase information with little or
`no time delay for use by the radio LD unit 13.
`
`11
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`Id. at 7:23–29; accord id. at 11:66–12:8:
`The outdoor LD unit 81 includes an FM subcarrier signal antenna
`83, an outdoor signal receiver/processor 85 associated with and
`connected to the outdoor antenna 83, and a phase information
`antenna 87. The phase information antenna and receiver 87
`receives the radio LD signals from the radio LD signal sources
`and passes
`these signals
`to
`the outdoor LD signal
`receiver/processor 85 for determination of the relative phases of
`the radio LD signal sources. This relative phase information is
`then passed to the radio LD unit 71 through the controller
`interface 91.
`The outdoor LD unit determines its own location and uses that location
`estimate to determine the relative phases. Id. at 7:31–38; 19:37–47.
`
`
`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 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`
`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 42–43. Reference positioning
`receiver 38 compares the computed position fix to the known (e.g.,
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`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. Petitioner’s Proposed Combination
`Petitioner proposes incorporating Loomis’s location technology into a
`cellular telephone network, such as described in Wortham and, in the
`process, modifying the system of Loomis to replace its FM terrestrial
`location capabilities with cellular-based signals, such as would be
`transmitted by the transmitter sites in Wortham. Pet. 12–13, 21. 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
`21. 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 22. Dr. Michalson testifies
`that such modification would have been within the level of skill in the art.
`Ex. 1006 § X.B; Pet. 24–25. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s
`reasons to combine Loomis and Wortham in the Preliminary Response. On
`this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner is reasonably likely to show that
`a skilled artisan would have combined Loomis and Wortham.
`
`
`4. Claim 1
`Petitioner argues that Loomis’s outdoor LD unit is “a first location
`estimating source” and Loomis’s radio LD unit is “a second location
`estimating source,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 28. Petitioner argues that,
`used in a wireless network such as Wortham’s, the resulting system would
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`provide location information for claim 1’s “plurality of wireless mobile
`stations.” Id. at 26–27, 29. As to “first receiving a location request,” as
`recited in claim 1, Petitioner argues that the location request described in
`Loomis could come from an application described in Wortham. Id. at 29.
`Petitioner argues that pseudorange measurements from GPS satellites
`correspond to “an instance, I1, of location information from said first
`location estimating source”; GPS coordinates and signal indicium
`correspond to “first location input”; phase measurements of radio signals
`correspond to “an instance, I2, of location information provided from said
`second location estimating source”; and radio coordinates and signal
`indicium correspond to “second location input.” Pet. 30–31. Petitioner
`contends that these aspects of Loomis teach the “first obtaining” and
`“second obtaining” limitations of claim 1. Id.
`Patent Owner responds that “[t]he act of ‘obtaining’” location
`information requires “acquiring or gaining possession of” that information.
`Prelim. Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2002 (a definition from Webster’s New World
`College Dictionary)). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner has not shown
`that “determining” location information constitutes “obtaining” location
`information. Id. at 8. On the present record, we do not agree with the
`distinction Patent Owner draws. 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 Loomis and Wortham teach the “first obtaining” and “second obtaining”
`limitations of claim 1.
`Petitioner further argues that Loomis’s GPS technique is “a first
`location finding technology,” that “provides I1” (the GPS pseudorange
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`measurements), and that Loomis’s FM radio location technique is “a second
`location finding technology” that “provides I2” (phase differences of the
`signals arriving from each radio LD signal source1) and is “different than
`said first location finding technology,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 32–33.
`According to Petitioner, the (x, y, z) format in which Loomis provides GPS
`location coordinates and radio location coordinates is “a common
`standardized format.” Id. at 33–34. Dr. Michalson testifies that “[a] person
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing the coordinates
`in a coordinate triple format and indicia using a common metric” meets this
`limitation. Ex. 1006 ¶ 254.
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner has not shown that coordinate
`triples constitutes a standardized format and that “[s]howing that the inputs
`both include ‘coordinate triples’ and signal indicium values merely indicates
`that the first and second location inputs contain the same type of contents; it
`does not show that those contents are instantiated into a data structure
`having the same format (standardized or otherwise).” Prelim Resp. 8–9.
`Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why a coordinate triple is not a
`common standardized format. In any case, Loomis describes instantiating
`data into structures having that format:
`The controller 93 receives the present location coordinates
`(xu,yu,zu)rad of
`the user 12 from
`the radio LD signal
`
`1 The Petition refers to radio coordinates “calculated using phase
`measurements of the radio signals (i.e., “an instance, I2, of location
`information”). Pet. 31. Nevertheless, the Petition’s citations to Loomis
`refer to the determinable phase differences of the signals arriving from the
`FM sources. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 9:62–65. We do not understand Petitioner
`to be referring to the phase measurements performed by the outdoor LD unit.
`See, e.g., id. at 7:31–38.
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`receiver/processor 75, receives the present location coordinates
`(xu,yu,zu)out of the user 12 from the outdoor LD signal
`receiver/processor 85, and receives the indicia Irad and Iout, for
`comparison with the respective indicia thresholds Irad,thr and
`Iout,thr.
`Ex. 1008, 12:21–27. We are persuaded that Petitioner is reasonably likely to
`show that Loomis and Wortham teach providing the location inputs in a
`“common standardized format.”
`Petitioner, in reliance on Dr. Michalson’s testimony, further contends
`that Loomis’s location coordinates and signal indicium would need to be
`stored in memory while performing comparisons and computations.
`Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1006 § X.H.1). Petitioner further argues that
`Loomis’s description of comparing signal indicium to thresholds teaches the
`“third obtaining” step of claim 1. Id. at 35–36. Finally, Petitioner contends
`that Loomis’s description of providing location information to “an interested
`person or facility” and Wortham’s description of providing location
`information to “applications” are examples of “outputting said requested
`location information to said application,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 36–37
`(quoting Ex. 1008, 12:30–40; Ex. 1009, 4:26–39).
`On the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claim 1 as
`obvious over Loomis and Wortham.
`
`
`5. Claim 25
`Claim 25 is similar, in many respects, to claim 1. Claim 25 (emphasis
`added), however, recites “said first location evaluator and said second
`location evaluator output, respectively, first and second position information
`related to the one mobile station being at L wherein neither of the first and
`
`17
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`second position information is dependent upon the other.” By its terms, the
`emphasized claim language requires that the first position information is
`independent of the second position information, and that the second position
`information is independent of the first position information. Patent Owner
`argues that, contrary to the claim language, Loomis teaches that the second
`position information (radio coordinates) depends on the first position
`information (GPS coordinates). Prelim. Resp. 18.
`Petitioner maps the GPS signal processor of Loomis’s outdoor LD
`module to claim 25’s “first location evaluator,” the GPS location coordinates
`to the “first position information,” the radio LD module to the “second
`location evaluator,” and the radio coordinates to the “second position
`information.” Pet. 49–50. Petitioner cites (without further explanation) to
`Loomis’s description that “[t]he outdoor LD system operates independently
`of the radio LD signal system,” and “the outdoor LD unit 31 also
`complements the radio LD unit 13 by providing an independent
`determination of location of the hybrid LD unit 11,” as a teaching of claim
`25’s “wherein neither of the first and second position information is
`dependent upon the other.” Id. at 50 (quoting Ex. 1008, 5:7–9, 7:41–44).
`While the passages cited by Petitioner arguably show that the
`coordinates provided by Loomis’s outdoor LD unit do not depend on those
`provided by the radio LD unit, the passages fail to address whether the
`coordinates from the radio LD unit depend on those from the outdoor LD
`unit. Patent Owner argues that the coordinates from the radio LD unit in fact
`do depend on the GPS coordinates. Prelim. Resp. 18–20. According to
`Patent Owner, the radio LD unit relies on FM signal phase measurements
`from the outdoor LD unit to generate radio LD coordinates and that those
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 18
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`phase measurements, in turn, depend on a location estimate by the outdoor
`LD unit. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1008, 7:31–38, Fig. 9).
`We agree with Patent Owner. According to Loomis:
`The relative phases of the radio signals transmitted by the sources
`21, 23 and 25 may change from time to time. When the radio
`LD unit 13 is provided with a recent measurement of these
`relative phases, the radio LD unit can determine the location of
`its antenna 15, using intersections of three or more hyperboloids
`that are defined by the relative times of arrival of the three radio
`LD signals at the antenna.
`Ex. 1008, 6:46–52. Thus, to interpret the radio signals and generate
`coordinates from those signals, radio LD unit 13 must first be provided by a
`measurement of the phases of those radio signals. Loomis describes the
`outdoor LD unit as providing this phase information. For example,
`The outdoor LD unit 31 in FIG. 1 includes a radio LD signal
`antenna and receiver/processor 37 and controller/interface 39
`that also receives radio LD signals from the radio LD sources 21,
`23 and 25, determines the relative phases of these radio LD
`signals, and provides this relative phase information with little or
`no time delay for use by the radio LD unit 13.
`Id. at 7:23–29; accord id. at 11:66–12:8, 19:42–47. The outdoor LD unit’s
`phase determination is, in turn, dependent on a computation of the location
`of the outdoor LD unit: “The outdoor LD unit 31 determines the
`(approximate) location of itself and of the adjacent radio LD unit 13 and
`uses this information in determining the relative phases of the radio LD
`signals transmitted by the sources 21, 23 and 25.” Id. at 7:29–35. Thus, the
`coordinates (second position information) generated by the radio LD unit are
`dependent on a determination of the phases of the radio signals, a
`determination that is dependent on the outdoor LD unit’s computation of
`GPS coordinates (first position information). As Patent Owner notes
`
`19
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 19
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01708
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`(Prelim. Resp. 20), Loomis describes this as “an important feature of the
`invention.” Id. at 7:35–38.
`We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s citations to Loomis. We read
`Loomis to teach that second position information is dependent on the first.
`While Petitioner has argued that the first position information is not
`dependent on the second, Petitioner has not provided adequate argument or
`evidence to show the converse. We note that Petitioner does not cite to
`testimony from Dr. Michalson on this point. Nevertheless, we have
`considered paragraphs 243–45 of his declaration (Ex. 1006), which present
`argument substantially the same as in the Petition, which we find deficient.
`Petitioner does not cite any teaching from Wortham on this point.
`On this record, Petitioner cannot show that Loomis and Wortham
`teach “wherein neither of the first and second position information is
`dependent upon the other.” Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claim 25 as
`obvious over Loomis and Wortham.
`
`
`6. Claim 51
`Claim 51 is directed to a method of tracking a MS over time. Similar
`to claim 1, it recites a plurality of mobile station location estimating
`techniques, which Petitioner maps to Loomis’s GPS and radio LD
`techniques. Pet. 53–55. Specifically, claim 51 recites “providing access to a
`plurality of mobile station location estimating techniques.” Petitioner argues
`that this limitation is met by Loomis’s teaching of radio LD and outdoor LD
`modules generating location estimates using measurements of wireless
`signals as inputs. Id. at 54.
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1025
`T-Mobile /