`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251
`)
`
`Issued: September 13, 2016
`)
`
`Application No.: 14/633,804
`)
`
`
`For: Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice
`Networks
`
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,445,251
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................... 3
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 3
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`C.
`Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 3
`D.
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ............................. 4
`E.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review .................................................................. 4
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ..................................... 5
`III.
`IV. Background ...................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`The ’251 Patent (Ex. 1001) ................................................................... 5
`1.
`Brief Description ......................................................................... 5
`2.
`Prosecution History (Ex. 1005 “’251 FH”) ................................ 6
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................ 11
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 11
`1.
`“georeferenced map”................................................................. 12
`The ’251 Patent’s Effective Filing Date Is No Earlier Than October
`31, 2014 ......................................................................................................... 14
`A.
`Legal Background ............................................................................... 15
`1.
`Burden of Production ................................................................ 15
`2.
`Priority to an Earlier-Filed Application .................................... 16
`The ’251 Patent’s Broken Priority Chain ............................................ 17
`The ’410 Application Does Not Incorporate The ’724 patent ............ 21
`
`V.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`D.
`
`The ’251 Patent’s Claims Lack Written Description Support in
`the ’410 Application ............................................................................ 23
`1.
`The ’410 application lacks written description support for
`requesting, retrieving, and using the second
`georeferenced map and its georeferencing data ........................ 25
`The ’410 application lacks written description support for
`the full scope of the “group” feature ......................................... 33
`The ’410 application lacks written description support for
`participating in the group “based on receiving the
`message from the second device” ............................................. 38
`The ’410 application lacks written description support for
`anonymous communications ..................................................... 42
`VI. All Claims of the ’251 Patent are Obvious Over the ’724 Patent ................. 46
`A.
`Independent claims 1 and 24 ............................................................... 46
`1.
`Overview ................................................................................... 46
`2.
`Preambles and initial clause ...................................................... 50
`3.
`1[a] joining a group based on a message from another
`device ........................................................................................ 50
`1[b] participating in the group by exchanging location
`information via a server ............................................................ 51
`1[c] presenting a georeferenced map and symbols ................... 51
`1[d], 1[e] requesting and receiving second georeferenced
`map from a second server ......................................................... 52
`1[f] presenting second georeferenced map and symbols .......... 52
`1[g] selecting symbols and sending data using IP via
`server ......................................................................................... 53
`1[h] first device does not have access to other device’s IP
`addresses ................................................................................... 54
`
`5.
`6.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`4.
`
`7.
`8.
`
`9.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Dependent claims ................................................................................ 56
`1.
`Claims 2 and 25: send SMS, text, image, or video ................... 56
`2.
`Claims 3, 9, 26 and 32: first device is a PDA, PC,
`smartphone ................................................................................ 56
`Claims 4 and 27: second georeferenced map is a satellite
`image ......................................................................................... 56
`Claims 5 and 28: update location based on time or
`distance travelled ....................................................................... 57
`Claims 6 and 29: initiating phone call by selecting
`symbol ....................................................................................... 57
`Claims 7 and 30: message to join is an SMS message ............. 57
`Claims 8 and 31: exchanging status information (battery
`level, etc.) .................................................................................. 59
`Claims 10 and 33: creating a second group using group
`identifiers .................................................................................. 60
`Claims 11 and 34: send voice recording ................................... 60
`9.
`10. Claims 12 and 35: sending GPS location using Internet
`Protocol ..................................................................................... 60
`11. Claim 13: identify user-selected symbol based on spatial
`coordinates corresponding to selected location on display
`and map ..................................................................................... 61
`12. Claim 14: use database to identify symbol by location ............ 61
`13. Claims 15 and 16: adding a new entity with the user-
`specified location and symbol ................................................... 62
`14. Claim 17: specifying information for the new entity ................ 63
`15. Claim 18: add new entity’s spatial coordinates to
`database ..................................................................................... 64
`
`6.
`7.
`
`8.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`16. Claim 19: determine new entity’s spatial coordinates
`based on selected location on displayed map ........................... 64
`17. Claims 20 and 21: entity database on device, server ................ 65
`18. Claim 22: spatial coordinates include latitude and
`longitude .................................................................................... 65
`19. Claim 23: initiating a VoIP or data call by selecting
`symbol ....................................................................................... 65
`VII. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 65
`VIII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 66
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 15, 16
`Harari v. Lee,
`656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 23
`Hollmer v. Harari,
`681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 17, 23
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.,
`838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 23
`ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 35
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................. 15, 18, 34
`Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States,
`535 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 23
`Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS,
`723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................passim
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 16
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 15
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Recro Tech., LLC,
`694 Fed. Appx. 794 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2017) ................................................... 17
`Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 15, 16
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................... 17, 38
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 12
`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 22, 23
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ................................................................................... 15, 18, 46
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................ 8, 14, 17, 29
`35 U.S.C. § 120 .................................................................................................. 16, 17
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (the “’251 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the “’838 FH”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,445, 251 (the “’251 FH”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 (the “’410 application”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (the “’728 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (the “’724 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,126,441 (the “’441 patent”)
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/711,490 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/308,648 (“’724 to ’728 Comparison”)
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/308,648 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/615,472 (“’441 to ’724 Comparison”)
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/615,472 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 12/761,533 (“’129 to ’441 Comparison”)
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, AGIS Software
`Development LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-516 (E.D. Texas
`Sep. 18, 2017)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`Exhibit C to Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions,
`submitted in AGIS Software Development LLC v. Apple Inc., No.
`2:17-cv-00516-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“ʼ251 PICs”)
`
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement, AGIS
`Software Development LLC v. HTC Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-
`00514-JRG (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2017) (“HTC Compl.”)
`
`Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions, submitted in AGIS Software Development LLC v. Apple
`Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00516-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“PICs Pleading”)
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/308,648 (“’410 to 724 Comparison”)
`
`GeoTIFF Format Specification, GeoTIFF Rev. 1.0, Specification
`version 1.8.1, October 31, 1995 (GeoTIFF Specification”)
`
`Hornbaek and Bederson, “Navigation Patterns and Usability of
`Zoomable User Interfaces with and without and Overview,” ACM
`Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 9, No. 4,
`December 2002, pages 362-389.
`
`MapInfo, “Spatially Enhancing Business Data with Geocoding
`Solutions, A MapInfo White Paper (1997) (“MapInfo White Paper”)
`
`MapInfo Professional User’s Guide Version 7.0 (“MapInfo User
`Guide”)
`
`Python Documentation 2.0 Homepage (Oct. 16, 2000), available at
`https://docs.python.org/release/2.0/
`
`Python Documentation 2.0, Section 7.2 Socket, available at
`https://docs.python.org/release/2.0/lib/module-socket.html
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force RFC 1034, Domain Names –
`Concepts and Facilities (November 1987), available at
`https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc1034.
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) requests inter partes review of Claims 1-35 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,445,251, “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital
`
`and Voice Networks,” Ex. 1001 (the “’251 patent”), owned by AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC (“AGIS”).
`
`The ’251 patent claims recite a detailed series of steps: joining a
`
`communication network corresponding to a group, sharing location information
`
`with other participants, presenting an interactive display of a “georeferenced map”
`
`with the participants’ locations represented by symbols on the map, requesting and
`
`retrieving another, different georeferenced map from a server, displaying a second
`
`set of symbols on that second map, and then selecting at least one of those symbols
`
`to send data via a server, where the sending device does not have access to the
`
`recipient’s IP address.
`
`As explained in the Prosecution History section, AGIS obtained these claims
`
`by distinguishing them over prior art that, for example, downloaded “maps” rather
`
`than “georeferenced maps,” and that obtained other maps from a CD or DVD
`
`rather than from a server. For written description support, AGIS did not point to
`
`the express disclosure of the ’251 patent’s application because it lacks sufficient
`
`disclosure. Instead, it pointed to an ancestor patent via a long chain of
`
`continuations-in-part (“CIP”), U.S. Pat. No. 7,630,724. See infra family tree p. 18.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`This might have been sufficient for supporting the disclosure of the ’251
`
`patent as of its filing date. But because AGIS adopted a strategy of filing wholesale
`
`rewrites as CIPs, adding and deleting disclosure to change the focus of the
`
`purported invention, and also failed to incorporate the parent applications by
`
`reference, AGIS cannot claim priority dating back to the ’724 patent.
`
`Indeed, the ’251 patent’s immediate parent is the first in its family to
`
`incorporate all of its ancestors, including the ’724 patent. So while AGIS told the
`
`Examiner that its claims had written description support in the ’724 patent which
`
`“was incorporated by reference in the present application at the time of the present
`
`application’s filing” (Ex. 1005 at 170, 236-37, 302) (emphasis added), it failed to
`
`note that the ’251 patent’s grandparent did not incorporate the ’724 patent by
`
`reference. Because the ’251 patent’s grandparent also lacked the necessary express
`
`disclosure, the ’251 patent’s claims are entitled to an effective filing date no earlier
`
`than its immediate parent’s actual filing date—rendering the ’724 patent
`
`invalidating prior art by AGIS’s own admissions.
`
` This petition sets forth in detail the lack of written description support for
`
`the ’251 patent’s claims in the ’251 patent’s grandparent. It also details how the
`
`prior art ’724 patent invalidates the ’251 patent claims. The Board should therefore
`
`institute review of all claims of the ’251 patent, and find them unpatentable.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`II. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`The real party in interest is Apple Inc. No other parties exercised or could
`
`have exercised control over this petition, or funded or directed this petition.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’251 patent is asserted in the following case that may be affected by a
`
`decision in this proceeding: AGIS Software Development LLC v. Apple Inc., No.
`
`2:17-cv-00516-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`
`In addition, the ’251 patent is asserted against third parties in four litigations:
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al., No. 2:17-cv-
`
`00513 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., No.
`
`2:17-cv-00515 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. ZTE Corporation
`
`et al., No. 2:17-cv-00517 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. HTC
`
`Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-00514 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Apple is also filing IPR petitions challenging U.S. Patent Nos. 9,408,055,
`
`8,213,970, and 9,467,838, which are asserted in the above litigations.
`
`C. Grounds for Standing
`Apple certifies that the ’251 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Apple is not barred from requesting this proceeding.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`D. Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), Apple
`
`designates the following lead counsel:
`
`• Matthew J. Moore (Reg. No. 42,012), matthew.moore@lw.com,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000;
`
`Washington, DC 20004-1304; 202.637.2278
`
`Apple also designates the following backup counsel:
`
`• Robert Steinberg (Reg. No. 33,144), bob.steinberg@lw.com, Latham
`
`& Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000; Washington,
`
`DC 20004-1304; 202.637.2301
`
`• Lisa K. Nguyen (Reg. No. 58,018), lisa.nguyen@lw.com, Latham &
`
`Watkins LLP; 140 Scott Drive; Menlo Park, CA 94025; 650.470.4848
`
`• Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724), jonathan.strang@lw.com,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000;
`
`Washington, DC 20004-1304; 202.637.2362.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney from Apple is attached.
`
`Apple consents to electronic service.
`
`E.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 506269.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`III.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-35 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724.
`
`IV. Background
`A. The ’251 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`1.
`Brief Description
`The ’251 patent specification is directed to rapidly establishing an ad hoc
`
`network of devices (e.g., smartphones, PDAs, or personal computers) with users,
`
`such as first responders, logging onto a network using the network’s name and
`
`security key (a common “password” for everyone). ’251 patent Title, Abstract, 4:4-
`
`15 (signing in with “the same ad hoc event name and password”). Once logged on,
`
`the user’s devices exchange each other’s location information via a remote server,
`
`and each participant’s location is displayed as a user-selectable symbol correctly
`
`positioned on an interactive display of a georeferenced map. ’251 patent 6:40-7:30;
`
`Fig. 1. Users communicate or send data to another user by selecting the user’s
`
`symbol and the desired action. Id.
`
`In sharp contrast with its specification, the ’251 patent’s claims are directed
`
`to a particular sequence of steps relating to sharing location information and
`
`requesting and receiving georeferenced maps: joining a group based on a message
`
`received from another device, exchanging location information with others in the
`
`group and displaying symbols representing the those other devices correctly
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`positioned on a first georeferenced map, requesting and receiving from a server a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`second, different georeferenced map, displaying the second georeferenced map
`
`with the other devices’ correctly positioned symbols, selecting at least one of those
`
`symbols, and sending data to the corresponding device via a server without having
`
`access to the device’s IP address. E.g., ’251 patent claim 1.
`
`2.
`Prosecution History (Ex. 1005 “’251 FH”)
`AGIS obtained allowance by sequentially adding three limitations, parts of
`
`which do not appear in the ’251 patent application’s express disclosure. They are
`
`only disclosed in the ’724 patent. (Ex. 1008). Because the necessary disclosure
`
`from the ’724 patent was not incorporated into the ’251 patent’s grandparent
`
`application, the priority chain back to the ’724 patent is broken. See infra family
`
`tree p. 18.
`
`AGIS filed the ’251 patent’s application on February 27, 2015. After two
`
`preliminary amendments, the examiner rejected all pending claims—including the
`
`independent claims as anticipated by Melen, U.S. Pat. Publ. 2004/0148090. ’251
`
`FH 399-439 (application as filed), 391-96, 367-74 (preliminary amendments), 315-
`
`24 (August 13, 2015, Office Action).
`
`In response, AGIS rewrote its claims. It replaced all of the text of the
`
`independent claims, amended its dependent claims, and adding a dozen new
`
`dependent claims, some of which recite limitations that eventually made it into the
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`independent claims. ’251 FH 293-309 (Nov. 13, 2015). AGIS’s new independent
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`claims now recited several features that eventually issued in some form: (i) joining
`
`the group based on a message received from a second device, (ii) participating in
`
`the group by exchanging location information via a server, and (iii) the user
`
`selecting a symbol on the display and specifying an action, and based on that user
`
`interaction, sending data via the server to the device corresponding to the selected
`
`symbol. ’251 FH 295-301
`
`As support for its extensive amendments, AGIS pointed to the ’724 patent,
`
`stating was “incorporated by reference into the present application at the time of
`
`the present application’s filing.” ’251 FH 302 (emphasis added). This is a true
`
`statement, but only because AGIS first began incorporating it by reference in the
`
`’251 patent’s immediate parent. The ’724 patent and the relevant disclosure is not
`
`present in the ’251 patent’s grandparent, U.S. Application No. 14/027,410, the
`
`specification of which is substantively identical (other than the added incorporation
`
`statement) to the ’251 patent specification.
`
`AGIS also argued that the prior art Melen reference did not teach (i),
`
`“receiving a message from a second device, wherein the message relates to joining
`
`a group;” and “based on receiving the message from the second device,
`
`participating in the group.” ’251 FH 303-07. This claim language survived further
`
`amendment and appears in the issued independent claims.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`The Examiner disagreed with AGIS, maintaining the anticipation rejection
`
`over Melen. ’251 FH 257-73 (Dec. 10, 2015). The examiner also rejected some
`
`dependent claims for lack of written description support—most importantly
`
`dependent claims 9, and 21, which were amended to recite requesting and
`
`receiving from a server a second map, albeit not a georeferenced one as recited in
`
`the issued claims. ’251 FH 261, 296. The examiner correctly stated that “The
`
`Applicant’s specification did not mention anything about second or different map,
`
`therefore it is unclear how the first device request at least a different or second
`
`map.” Id. at 261.
`
`In response to the § 112 rejection, AGIS again looked to the ’724 patent for
`
`support, stating again that it was “incorporated by reference into the present
`
`application at the time of the present application’s filing.” ’251 FH 237-38 (Jan.
`
`26, 2016) (emphasis added). For dependent claims 9 and 21, AGIS pointed to ’724
`
`patent 18:57-19:7, which states that a georeferenced map is “loaded on to the
`
`cellular phone CPU database” and the phone “can also provide to a user the ability
`
`to request a specific geo-referenced map or chart, aerial photograph or satellite
`
`image from a remote image server by pointing at the specific location desired for
`
`the map.” Id.
`
`AGIS also amended the independent claims, adding a negative limitation
`
`essentially requiring anonymous communications: “the first device does not have
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`access to respective Internet Protocol addresses of the second devices,” which was
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`previously found in a dependent claim. ’251 FH 226 (claim 1). This claim element
`
`also made it into the issued claims.
`
`AGIS argued that Melen and a secondary reference, Hymes (U.S. Pat. No.
`
`8,014,763) did not specifically teach this feature (’251 FH 241-42), but the
`
`Examiner disagreed, rejecting the claims over Melen and Hymes in the next Office
`
`Action. ’251 FH 192-204 (Feb. 19, 2016).
`
`In response, AGIS amended the independent claims by importing and further
`
`amending the “second map” subject matter of previously discussed dependent
`
`claims 9 and 12. ’251 FH 160-78 (June 3, 2016). Specifically claim 9 previously
`
`recited requesting receiving a generic “second map:”
`
`sending, from the first device, a request for a second map, wherein the
`request specifies a map location; and
`
`receiving, from the server, the second map.
`
`’251 FH 227. When importing that feature into the independent claims, AGIS
`
`added additional limitations that it later used to obtain allowance over the art.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Specifically, the second map must be a different map and it must be georeferenced,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`arriving with data relating positions on the map to spatial coordinates:1
`
`sending, from the first device to the server, a request for a second
`georeferenced map different from the first georeferenced map, wherein
`the request specifies a map location;
`
`receiving, from the server, the second georeferenced map, wherein the
`second georeferenced map includes the requested location and data
`relating positions on the second georeferenced map to spatial
`coordinates.
`
`’251 FH 161 (emphasis added). In addition to receiving the map, AGIS further
`
`added limitations requiring (i) displaying a plurality of symbols corresponding to
`
`other devices at their correct locations on the second georeferenced map, and (ii)
`
`selecting a symbol to send data to the corresponding device. ’251 FH 161-62.
`
`For written description support, AGIS again pointed to the ’724 patent
`
`(including the section at 18:57-19:7 discussing georeferenced maps), stating that it
`
`was “incorporated by reference into the present application at the time of the
`
`present application’s filing,” again without mentioning that the ’724 patent was not
`
`incorporated into the grandparent ’410 application. ’251 FH 170.
`
`
`1 An example of spatial coordinates are latitude and longitude. See ’251 patent claim
`
`22.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`AGIS obtained allowance on the basis of these final amendments by
`
`contending that Melen retrieves its new maps from a CD, DVD, or hard drive
`
`rather than a server, and that Hymes retrieves its maps from a server, but does not
`
`teach that the new maps are georeferenced. Id. at 174-77. The Examiner
`
`subsequently allowed the claims, agreeing they were patentable over Hymes and
`
`Melen. Id. at 46-47 (July 7, 2016).
`
`B.
` The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the purported
`
`invention would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical or
`
`computer engineering, or a related field, and at least two to three years’ experience
`
`in mobile development, including designing and implementing software
`
`applications for mobile communications systems. The POSA would have been
`
`capable of implementing mobile applications, including those that displayed maps.
`
`This description is approximate, and a higher level of education or skill may
`
`make up for less experience, and vice-versa. For example, a M.S. in the above
`
`fields and a substantial amount of relevant experience would also qualify.
`
`Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 23-28 (Ex. 1002).
`
`C. Claim Construction
`Because the ’251 patent has not expired, the Board applies the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This claim construction standard is different
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`from—and broader than—that applied in district court. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v.
`
`SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2015).2
`
`All claim terms, including those not specifically addressed in this section,
`
`have been accorded their broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`1.
`“georeferenced map”
`Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited “georeferenced
`
`map” is a map that includes data relating positions on the map (e.g., x/y
`
`coordinates) to spatial coordinates (e.g., latitude and longitude).
`
`This construction arises directly from the claims, which all recite that a
`
`georeferenced map “includes data relating positions on the first georeferenced map
`
`to spatial coordinates.” Claims 1 and 24.
`
`
`2 Apple does not contend that the meaning of any claim term is necessarily as
`
`broad under Phillips as they are under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`Apple reserves the right to argue alternative and narrower definitions before a
`
`district court. This includes arguing that certain terms not construed in this petition
`
`should be construed in the district court, as well as arguing that certain terms are
`
`governed by § 112(f) and/or are indefinite.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`During the prosecution, AGIS amended its pending claims to overcome the
`
`prior art. In doing so, AGIS specifically distinguished “georeferenced maps” from
`
`other maps because they include “data relating positions on the [] georeferenced
`
`map to spatial coordinates”:
`
`[In] Hymes, a user views a “floor map” sent from a data processing
`system (DPS), which displays the positions of other users such that
`each user is represented by a symbol (col. 67, lines 7-17). However,
`Hymes does not teach or suggest that the floor map is a georeferenced
`map that includes data relating positions on the second georeferenced
`map to spatial coordinates.