Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: January 10, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and
`FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: January 10, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and
`FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Google LLC (“Google”) filed a request for inter partes
`review of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 10, 12, 22–24, 27, 29, 31, 32, and 35 (the
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’251 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner AGIS Software
`Development, LLC (“AGIS”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Google filed a Reply. Paper 9.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review must not be instituted
`“unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon
`considering the evidence presented and the arguments made, we determine
`that Google has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
`prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged
`claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.
`
`A. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), each party identifies various
`judicial or administrative matters that would affect or be affected by a
`decision in this proceeding. Pet. 2–4; Paper 4, 2–4 (“AGIS’s Mandatory
`Notices”).
`
`B. THE ’251 PATENT
`The ’251 patent specification (“Specification”) generally discloses a
`method and communication system to quickly set up and provide ad hoc,
`password protected, digital and voice communication networks among users
`of integrated handheld cellular/PDA/GPS phones (“integrated device” or
`“device”). Ex. 1001, 1:33–46. The Specification discloses that there is a
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`need to be able to set up ad hoc digital and voice networks easily and rapidly
`across different groups of users such as military, first responder, and other
`public and private emergency groups. Ex. 1001, 2:8–19. According to the
`Specification, users’ integrated devices need “to be able to rapidly
`coordinate their activities eliminating the need for pre-entry of data into a
`web and or identifying others by name, phone numbers or email addresses
`so that all intended participants that enter the agreed ad hoc network name
`and password are both digitally and voice interconnected.” Id. at 2:8–17;
`see also id. at 3:48–51 (same). Although previous systems may have
`allowed for voice and data communications among separate first-response
`entities (e.g., police and fire departments), they did not have the ability to
`cross communicate “without a substantial degree of immediate
`coordination.” Id. at 2:20–37. The invention, therefore, endeavors “to
`quickly establish user specific password protected private ad hoc voice and
`data networks to enable both data and voice communications up and down
`[first responders’] chain of command and simultaneously with different, not
`pre-known, organizations responding to a disaster.” Id. at 2:37–44.
`The disclosed system includes a plurality of Internet Protocol (“IP”)
`capable integrated devices each having an Advanced Communication
`Software (“ACS”) application program. Id. at 2:57–59. The plurality of
`integrated devices, in conjunction with a remote Server, provides the ability
`to establish an ad hoc network of devices so that the devices can either
`broadcast to a group or selectively transmit to each other. Id. at 2:57–3:1.
`“The Server is used to establish an ad hoc network within certain groups
`using an ad hoc event name and password.” Id. at 3:43–45, 5:13–24. A user
`of an integrated device establishes the ad hoc communication network or
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`joins an existing ad hoc communication network by entering the remote
`Server’s IP address, an ad hoc event name such as “Katrina,” and a
`password in an appropriate prompt on the user’s device. Id. at 3:52–55,
`10:46–60. The user may also enter the user’s name and phone number. Id.
`Upon establishing or joining an existing communication network, the
`user’s device commences reporting information to the remote server,
`including the user’s IP address and GPS derived location. Ex. 1001, 10:61–
`11:2. Initially, when only one device has joined the network, the remote
`server retains the information reported by the device. Id. at 11:2–4. When
`additional devices join the network by using the same ad hoc event name
`and password and report their information to the remote server, the remote
`server can use the network participant devices’ IP addresses to pass location
`information automatically between the devices. Id. at 11:4–10. “This can
`occur even though the ad hoc network participants have not entered other
`network participant’s names, telephone number or Email addresses and do
`not have the other network participants’ IP addresses, phone numbers or
`Email addresses.” Id. at 11:10–14. Once a user or users leave the network,
`“no data concerning the network participants need be retained.” Ex. 1001,
`2:17–19.
`According to the Specification, the ACS application program also
`provides for a geographical map that displays georeferenced entities on a
`user’s device display. Id. at 6:17–23. The map is displayed on a touch
`screen that the device user may interact with using his/her finger or a stylus.
`Id. at 5:34–44. The map may display symbols depicting permanent
`geographical locations and buildings. Id. at 6:43–45. The map may also
`display symbols, such as a triangle or square, that represent participants of
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`the communication network. Ex. 1001, 6:59–62. The latitude and longitude
`of the device corresponding to a particular symbol displayed on the map are
`related by software to x and y coordinates on the map. Id. at 7:4–8.
`Accordingly, the location of the symbol on the map corresponds to the
`device’s physical location provided by the device’s GPS location data. Id. at
`5:48–58, 7:2–8. In addition, a database may associate the latitude and
`longitude of a particular symbol displayed on the map with a specific cell
`phone number, IP address, and email address. Id. at 6:66–7:2.
`One feature of the disclosed system is that a user may initiate contact
`with another user by selecting with a stylus the symbol on the user’s map
`corresponding to the user to be contacted. Ex. 1001, 8:64–9:8. The device
`of the initiator detects the x and y coordinates of where the stylus touched
`the display screen, and software translates the x and y coordinates to latitude
`and longitude. Id. The software then searches the device database of the
`initiator device for information corresponding to the latitude and longitude,
`such as an associated phone number or IP address. Id. The software then
`initiates appropriate contact, for example, by initiating a phone or Voice
`over IP (“VoIP”) call to the device of the user to be contacted. Id.
`C. CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Google challenges claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 10, 12, 22–24, 27, 29, 31, 32,
`and 35 of the ’251 patent. Claims 1 and 24 are independent and are
`substantially similar. Claim 1 is illustrative.
`1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
`[1a] with a first device, receiving a message from a second
`device, wherein the message relates to joining a group;
`[1b] based on receiving the message from the second device,
`participating in the group, wherein participating in the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`
`group includes sending first location information to a
`server and receiving second location information from
`the server, the first location information comprising a
`location of the first device, the second location
`information comprising a plurality of locations of a
`respective plurality of second devices included in the
`group;
`[1c] presenting, via an interactive display of the first device,
`a first interactive, georeferenced map and a plurality of
`user-selectable symbols corresponding to the plurality of
`second devices, wherein the symbols are positioned on
`the first georeferenced map at respective positions
`corresponding to the locations of the second devices, and
`wherein the first georeferenced map data includes data
`relating positions on the first georeferenced map to
`spatial coordinates;
`[1d] 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;
`[1e] 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;
`[1f] presenting, via the interactive display of the first device,
`the second georeferenced map and the plurality of user-
`selectable symbols corresponding to the plurality of
`second devices, wherein the symbols are positioned on
`the second georeferenced map at respective positions
`corresponding to the locations of the second devices; and
`[1g] identifying user interaction with the interactive display
`selecting one or more of the user-selectable symbols
`corresponding to one or more of the second devices and
`positioned on the second georeferenced map and user
`interaction with the display specifying an action and,
`based thereon, using an Internet Protocol to send data to
`the one or more second devices via the server,
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`
`[1h] wherein the first device does not have access to
`respective Internet Protocol addresses of the second
`devices.
`Ex. 1001, 14:59–15:35 (reference annotations [1a]–[1h] added).
`
`D. REFERENCES AND MATERIALS RELIED UPON
`Google relies on the following references and materials in support of
`the asserted ground of unpatentability:
`
`References and Materials
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,366,782 B1, issued Apr. 2, 2002
`(“Fumarolo–782”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,204,844 B1, issued Mar. 20, 2001
`(“Fumarolo–844”)
`U.S. Application Pub. No. 2002/0173906 A1, published
`Nov. 21, 2002 (“Muramatsu”)
`U.S. Application Pub. No. 2002/0027901 A1, published
`Mar. 7, 2002 (“Liu”)
`Declaration of David Hilliard Williams (“Williams Decl.”)
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1003
`
`
`
`E. ASSERTED GROUND OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Challenged Claims Statutory Basis
`
`Reference(s)
`
`1, 2, 4–6, 8, 10, 12,
`22–24, 27, 29, 31,
`32, and 35
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Fumarolo–782, Fumarolo–844,
`Muramatsu, and Liu
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`In the Petition, Google challenges the patentability of the challenged
`claims based on their alleged obviousness in view of the prior art. Pet. 5. A
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if “the differences between
`the subject matter sought to be patented 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.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007)
`(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The question of obviousness
`is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1)
`the level of skill in the art; (2) the scope and content of the prior art; (3) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; and, when
`in evidence, (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In this case, only the first three
`factors are relevant because AGIS does not introduce any objective evidence
`of nonobviousness into the record.
`In an inter partes review, “the petitioner has the burden from the onset
`to show with particularity” why the claims it challenges are unpatentable.
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It
`is incumbent upon Google to identify, in the Petition, “in writing and with
`particularity each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to
`each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the
`challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also Intelligent Bio-
`Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings
`adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’
`the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’ 35
`U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).”). Although the burden of production may shift, the
`burden of persuasion on the issue of patentability remains with Google
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`always and never shifts to AGIS. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We analyze the
`challenges presented in the Petition in accordance with the above-stated
`principles.
`
`A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In this inter partes review, claim terms in the unexpired patent are
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of
`the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016) 1; Cuozzo
`Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under the
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any special
`definition, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context
`of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`“second georeferenced map”
`1.
`Google proposes a construction for only “second georeferenced map”
`in this Petition. Pet. 10–12. AGIS does not dispute Google’s proposed
`construction of this term. See Prelim. Resp. 5–15. Our decision in this case
`does not depend on the meaning of “second georeferenced map.” Therefore,
`in this Decision, we do not reach Google’s contentions about the proper
`construction for this term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
`Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs.,
`
`1 A recent amendment to this rule does not apply here because the Petition
`was filed before November 13, 2018. See Changes to the Claim
`Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to
`be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))
`(explaining that only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`Sufficiency of the Petition
`2.
`AGIS argues that Google’s reliance on the plain and ordinary meaning
`of the term “device” recited in independent claim 24, and the challenged
`claims depending therefrom, is contrary to the positions that identified real
`parties-in-interest to this proceeding, Huawei and LG (“Defendants”), have
`taken in district court. Id. Specifically, AGIS asserts Google’s reliance on
`the plain meaning of “device” is inconsistent with Defendants’ assertion
`before the district court that the claim elements reciting a device are properly
`construed as means-plus-function limitations. Id. at 6–10. AGIS argues that
`this inconsistency demonstrates a failure by Google to comply with its
`obligations under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) to disclose how the challenged
`claims are to be construed. Id. at 10–13. In addition, AGIS contends
`Google has violated its duty of candor under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.11 and
`11.18(b)(2) by knowingly advancing conflicting positions. Id. at 13–15.
`According to AGIS, we should deny this Petition because of Google’s
`alleged inconsistent position. Id. at 12–13, 15.
`We do not agree that the Petition fails to satisfy the requirements of
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). This Rule requires a petition to set forth “how the
`challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). This
`language does not refer to belief in the correctness of the construction, the
`determination of which would involve a subjective inquiry into the belief of,
`in this case, a corporate entity. As recently noted in General Electric Co. v.
`Vestas Wind Systems, A/S, the Office stated that the claim construction
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`requirement in the Rule 104(b)(3) gives the patent owner a more complete
`understanding about the basis for the unpatentability challenge in the
`Petition and assists the Board in analyzing how the cited prior art meets a
`claim limitation. IPR2018-00928, Paper 9, 14–15 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2018)
`(citing Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant
`Review Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business
`Method Patents, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48,688–700 (Aug. 14, 2012)). In fact,
`in response to a public comment raising this very point, the Office made
`clear that “[t]he rules do not preclude providing alternative claim
`constructions in a petition.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,700. Here, we find that the
`Petition sets forth with sufficiency Google’s assertions as to how the claims
`are to be construed in this proceeding. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons,
`we do not agree with AGIS’s contention that Google failed to satisfy the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).
`As to AGIS’s contentions regarding the duty of candor, we are not
`persuaded, on this record, that Google has violated its duty of candor by
`presenting claim constructions to the Board that differ from those
`Defendants have presented to the district court. The standards used for
`claim construction and the burdens of proof are different in the district court
`than they are in this AIA proceeding, such that different constructions may
`be appropriate depending on the context. In district court proceedings,
`claims in issued patents are construed using the framework set forth in
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., which emphasizes considering the plain meaning of
`the claim terms in light of the intrinsic record. In re CSB-Sys. Int’l, Inc., 832
`F.3d 1335, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1312–15 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). In this AIA proceeding,
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`however, we must apply the broadest reasonable construction consistent
`with the specification, otherwise known as “BRI.” See Cuozzo Speed Tech.,
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) (affirming the use of broadest reasonable
`construction standard in AIA proceedings despite the possibility of
`inconsistent results in district court litigation).
`Under the circumstances presented here, we do not find that Google
`acted contrary to its duty of candor under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.11 and
`11.18(b)(2). Therefore, we decline to deny the Petition for failure to comply
`with 37 C.F.R. §§ 104(b)(3), 42.11, and 11.18(b)(2) on the grounds
`requested by AGIS.
`B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`Google asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of
`the ’251 patent would have had either: 1) a bachelor of science degree in
`electrical engineering, computer science or an equivalent field, with three to
`five years of academic or industry experience in the wireless/mobile location
`industry or comparable industry experience; or 2) a master of science degree
`in electrical engineering, computer science, or an equivalent field, with two
`to four years of academic or industry experience in the same field. Pet. 9.
`Google further asserts that experience could take the place of some formal
`training, as relevant knowledge and skills could be learned on the job, and
`that a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience,
`and vice versa. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). AGIS does not provide an
`assessment of the appropriate level of skill in the art; nor does AGIS suggest
`Google’s characterization of the ordinary skill level would lead to an
`improper understanding of the claimed technology or about what the prior
`art demonstrates was known. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`
`On this record, we adopt Google’s uncontested representation of the
`level of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that the prior art itself
`demonstrates a level of skill in the art at the time of the invention, which is
`consistent with Google’s position. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350,
`1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary
`skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate
`level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods.,
`Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
`C. THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
`Scope of the Prior Art
`1.
`Google contends that the publication dates of Fumarolo–782,
`Fumarolo–844, Muramatsu, and Liu qualify them under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
`prior art references available against the ’251 patent. Pet. 5–6. AGIS does
`not dispute these contentions in its Preliminary Response.
`AGIS does contend, however, that the Fumarolo references are “not
`directed to the same technological field as the ’251 Patent or the secondary
`references, i.e., Muramatsu, and Liu.” Prelim. Resp. 18. To the extent
`AGIS is contending that the Fumarolo references are outside the scope of
`available prior art because they are non-analogous art, we do not agree.
`The ’251 patent describes “related art” as encompassing
`communication systems that enable the transmission of messages from a
`source, located at one point, to user destination(s), located at other point(s)
`some distance away. Ex. 1001, 1:53–55. A particular problem the ’251
`patent seeks to address is the coordination of communications between
`different organizations at the scene of a disaster, such as police and
`firefighters responding to a disaster. Id. at 2:20–44. The Fumarolo
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`references relate to a communication system that would allow for the
`coordination of communications between different organizations at the scene
`of a disaster, such as police and firefighters responding to a disaster. See
`e.g., Ex. 1005, 6:28–39; Ex. 1006, 2:1–16. Therefore, the Fumarolo
`references are analogous art and within the scope of available prior art
`because they are at least reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the
`inventors of the ’251 patent were concerned. See Sci. Plastic Prods., Inc. v.
`Biotage AB, 766 F.3d 1355, 1359–60 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`Content of the Prior Art
`2.
`The following are general descriptions of Fumarolo–782, Fumarolo–
`844, Muramatsu, and Liu.
`a. Fumarolo–782
`Fumarolo–782, titled “Method And Apparatus For Allowing A User
`Of A Display-Based Terminal To Communicate With Communication Units
`In A Communication System,” describes a dispatch system with a display-
`based terminal, such as a CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) terminal, having
`an integrated mapping program to communicate directly with
`communication units from a single map environment. Ex. 1005, [54], [57],
`1:18–22, 2:52–56. Fumarolo–782 explains that when such a system receives
`incident information from a 911 system that is coupled to the CAD system, a
`dispatcher “can quickly determine which communication unit users (e.g.,
`policemen, firemen, paramedics, and so forth) would be in the best situation
`to respond to the incident.” Id. at 1:43–45.
`Figure 1 of Fumarolo–782 is shown below.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 above depicts a block diagram of a communication system 100,
`which “may be either a conventional system or trunked system and each
`communication resource 114 may comprise a frequency carrier, one or more
`time slots of a frequency carrier, or an orthogonal code implemented by a
`respective frequency hopping pattern or by a pseudo-random noise sequence
`spread over a wide bandwidth (e.g., 3 MHZ).” Ex. 1005, 2:59–61, 3:66–4:5.
`As the above diagram shows, a display-based terminal 101, which controls
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`communications with the communication units 105–113 in the
`communication system, is connected by a communication link 116 to a
`wireless infrastructure 103 through an interface 129. See id. at 3:21–43,
`4:23–38. The wireless infrastructure 103 permits communication 114 with a
`plurality of mobile wireless units 105–113. Id. at 4:6–22.
`Fumarolo–782 explains that, prior to making any communication
`control determinations, terminal 101’s processor 121 “receives location
`coordinates of the communication units 105–113 on a periodic basis from
`the AVL [automated vehicle location] system 115, from the communication
`units 105–113 themselves, or from the wireless infrastructure 103 in
`accordance with known techniques.” Id. at 8:37–43. Processor 121 then
`instructs GUI 119 to “display the locations of the communication units 105–
`113 on the map . . . or a pulldown menu identifying the types of
`communications and/or the modes of transmission supported by the system
`100.” Id. at 8:43–48.
`Terminal 101 “displays a map to the user indicating locations of
`communication units in at least a portion of the communication system.” Id.
`at 3:23–26. Terminal 101 then “receives a selection from the map [from the
`user] . . . of at least one communication unit and an indication of the user’s
`desire to communicate with the selected communication unit or units.” Ex.
`1005, 3:26–31. Based on the selection, terminal 101 can further control the
`type of communication to have with the selected communication units via
`the communication system 100, the different types of communications being
`“individual or private communication,” “group communication,” “voice
`communication,” “data communication,” or some combination thereof. Id.
`at 5:53–60. “Responsive to receipt of the user’s selection of the
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`communication unit and indication of a desire to communicate, the terminal
`automatically initiates a communication with the selected communication
`unit.” Id. at [57], 3:39–43, 10:10–14.
`b. Fumarolo–844
`Fumarolo–844, titled “Method And Apparatus For Dynamically
`Grouping Communication Units In A Communication System,” was filed on
`the same day and by the same inventors as Fumarolo–782. Ex. 1006, [54],
`[75], [22]; see also Ex. 1005, [75], [22]. Also similarly to Fumarolo–782,
`Fumarolo–844 describes a dispatch system with a display-based terminal,
`such as a CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) terminal, having an integrated
`mapping program to communicate directly with communication units from a
`single map environment. Ex. 1006, [57], 3:29–32, 4:43–46. Moreover,
`Fumarolo–844 includes the same Figure 1 (shown above) as Fumarolo–782
`and provides a similar explanation about what the illustration shows and
`how components of the display-based terminal 101 operate within the
`communication system 100. See, e.g., id. at 4:9–5:16, 8:53–9:4, Fig. 1.
`Fumarolo–844, however, addresses more specifically the need for a
`user of the display-based terminal to be able “to dynamically group and
`ungroup communication units from a single map environment.” Id. at 2:37–
`42. Previous dispatch systems required “the user to first determine from the
`map which communication units to regroup or ungroup and then use a
`separate regrouping program to actually select the units to be grouped or
`ungrouped and perform the regrouping.” Id. at 2:37–42, 3:60–4:1. To
`overcome this drawback, Fumarolo–844 discloses “link[ing] the regrouping
`functionality directly into the map display to enable the terminal user to
`simply ‘point and click’, ‘click and drag’, or the equivalent to quickly
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`regroup communication units being monitored by the terminal user as such
`regrouping may be necessary to accomplish system-related tasks, such as
`responding to emergency incidents.” Id. at 4:1–8.
`Fumarolo–844 explains the operation of a preferred embodiment that
`provides this solution as follows. While the locations of the communication
`units 105–113 are displayed on the map, the user of the terminal 101 may
`desire to dynamically regroup communication units 105–113 to handle an
`incident. Ex. 1006, 9:5–8. In such a case, the terminal user uses a selection
`device 127 to select the communication units to be regrouped and the
`talkgroup associated with the regrouping. Id. at 9:14–17. For example, the
`user may use a computer mouse to “point and click” on the communication
`units 105, 107–109, and 113 to identify to terminal processor 121 that these
`are the selected units and then “point and click” on a displayed “talkgroup
`button” to indicate to processor 121 the user’s intent to regroup the selected
`units. Id. at 9:17–20, 9:27–30. The GUI may then provide a list of available
`talkgroups from which a user may select. Id. at 9:42–47, Fig. 3. Once the
`desired talkgroup is selected, processor 121 automatically accesses a
`communication resource 114 and sends a group command to the selected
`communication units 105, 107–109, and 113 in accordance with the access
`scheme and communication protocols of communication system 100. Id. at
`9:53–65. “The group command preferably includes grouping information,
`such as the identification of the target talkgroup.” Id. at 9:65–67. Once
`regrouping has been completed, the regrouped communication units 105,
`107–109, and 113 can communicate quickly and simply via communication
`system 100 in accordance with known techniques. Id. at 10:8–11. “Thus,
`the terminal user, upon making his or her selections, need only continue
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`monitoring the map . . . to determine if any other action is necessary to
`handle the incident . . . .” Id. at 10:51–54.
`c. Muramatsu
`Muramatsu, titled “Portable Navigation Device And System, And
`Online Navigation Service In Wireless Communication Network,” states the
`object is to “to provide a portable communication device that is easy to
`operate for users of all ages and that can display a clear and recognizable
`navigation image on the screen without using ‘expensive’ graphic
`processing.” Ex. 1007, [54], ¶ 11. Muramatsu asserts the problem with the
`prior art devices was that they required complicated and expensive graphic
`processing in order to electronically ensure rotation of the map displayed on
`the screen by the prescribed image processing and/or complicated and
`expensive mechanisms in order to ensure mechanical rotation of the display.
`Id. ¶ 10.
`In Muramatsu, a portable communication device, such as a cellular
`phone, has a GPS module to determine the current position, and an
`electronic compass module for detecting an azimuth, a display, and a
`wireless communicator. Id. [57]. This device is in communication, via the
`Internet, with a navigation server, which has access to various databases
`including a customer verification database, a map database, and a destination
`database. Id. ¶¶ 35, 39–41. The navigation server receives the customer
`data, present position data, and GPS data provided by the cellular phone (id.
`¶ 43) and performs the following functions: it uses the customer data to
`determine whether the device is registered (id. ¶ 44); it uses the position data
`to create a map including the present position of the phone (id. ¶ 45); and it
`uses the GPS data to perform measurement calculations (id. ¶ 46). The
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018–01083
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`navigation server sends the new information generated to the customer’s
`phone, which then displays the map including the phone’s location thereon.
`Id. ¶¶ 76–77. The phone then activates the electronic compass module to
`detect the azimuth and a symbol is generated on the map to represent the
`detec
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
