`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`IPR2018-01722
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`TracBeam, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,525,484
`
`(CLAIMS 57 AND 59)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. 4
`
`I.  Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................. 5 
`
`A.  Real Party-in-Interest ................................................................................. 5 
`
`B.  Related Matters .......................................................................................... 5 
`
`C.  Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ............................... 5 
`
`II.  Grounds for Standing ......................................................................................... 6 
`
`III.  Requested Relief ................................................................................................ 6 
`
`IV.  Reasons for the Requested Relief ...................................................................... 6 
`
`A.  Summary of the ’484 patent ...................................................................... 7 
`
`B.  Priority Date .............................................................................................. 9 
`
`C.  Summary of the Petition ............................................................................ 9 
`
`D.  Challenged Claims ................................................................................... 10 
`
`V.  Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 10 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`“mobile station location evaluator” ......................................................... 10 
`
`“data indicative of one of: an error and a likelihood” ............................. 12 
`
`VI.  Statutory Grounds for Challenges ................................................................... 13 
`
`VII.  Petitioner’s multiple petitions are not redundant ............................................. 13 
`
`VIII. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 14 
`
`IX.  Note Regarding Page Citations & Emphasis ................................................... 15 
`
`X. 
`
`Identification of How the Claims are Unpatentable ........................................ 15 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`A.  Challenge #1: Claim 57 is obvious over Sheffer in view of Dunn ......... 15 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Summary of Sheffer ........................................................................ 15 
`
`Summary of Dunn ........................................................................... 20 
`
`3.  Reasons to Combine ........................................................................ 20 
`
`4.  Detailed Claim Analysis ................................................................. 23 
`
`B.  Challenge #2: Claim 59 is obvious over Sheffer, Dunn and Singer ....... 54 
`
`1. 
`
`Summary of Singer ......................................................................... 54 
`
`2.  Reasons to Combine ........................................................................ 55 
`
`3.  Detailed Claim Analysis ................................................................. 57 
`
`XI.  Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 61 
`
`XII.  Certificate of Word Count ............................................................................... 62 
`
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 63 
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`September 14, 2018
`
`CSCO-1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 to Dupray et al. (“the ’484 patent”)
`
`CSCO-1002 Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484
`
`CSCO-1003 Declaration of Dr. William Michalson under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`CSCO-1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. William Michalson
`
`CSCO-1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,844,522 to Sheffer et al. (“Sheffer”)
`
`CSCO-1006 Reserved
`
`CSCO-1007 Reserved
`
`CSCO-1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,659,596 to Dunn (“Dunn”)
`
`CSCO-1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,485,163 to Singer et al. (“Singer”)
`
`CSCO-1010 Reserved
`
`CSCO-1011 Preliminary Construction, TracBeam LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`No. 6:17-cv-525.
`
`CSCO-1012 Reserved
`
`CSCO-1013 Reserved
`
`CSCO-1014 Reserved
`
`CSCO-1015 Reserved
`
`CSCO-1016 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, TracBeam LLC
`v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-525, Docket No. 60 (Apr. 18,
`2018).
`
`CSCO-1017 Reserved
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The Petitioner and real party in interest is Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`As of the filing date of this petition and to the best knowledge of the
`
`Petitioner, U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (“the ’484 patent”) is involved in the
`
`following litigation: TracBeam, LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc. (6-17-cv-00525, E.D.
`
`Tex.).
`
`The ’484 patent has been the subject of prior Inter Partes proceedings, for
`
`example, Apple, Inc. v. TracBeam LLC (IPR2015-01696), Apple, Inc. v. TracBeam
`
`LLC (IPR2015-01697), T-Mobile US, Inc. v. TracBeam LLC (IPR2015-01711),
`
`and T-Mobile US, Inc. v. TracBeam LLC (IPR2016-00728) include challenges to at
`
`least some of the claims challenged in this Petition. However, the Petitioner Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc. was not a party in these proceedings, and they are now terminated.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`214-651-5533
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 32,271
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Theodore M. Foster
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Dina Blikshteyn
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`
`
`
`972-739-8649
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 57,456
`
`
`212-835-4809
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`dina.blikshteyn.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 63,962
`
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’484 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board institute a trial for inter partes review of
`
`claims 57 and 59 of the ’484 patent and cancel these claims as unpatentable.
`
`IV. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`As explained below and in the declaration of Cisco Systems’ expert, Dr.
`
`William Michalson, the subject matter claimed in the ’484 patent would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) and is therefore
`
`unpatentable. This Petition and Dr. Michalson’s declaration explain where each
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`element is found in the prior art and why the claims would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA prior to the earliest effective priority date. Accordingly, the challenged
`
`claims of the ’484 patent should be cancelled.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’484 patent
`
`The ’484 patent relates to wireless communications systems, and in
`
`particular, to “locating people and/or objects” with a wireless communication
`
`system. CSCO-1001, 7:66-8:1. The ’484 patent provides “location capabilities
`
`using the measurements from wireless signals communicated between mobile
`
`stations and network base stations.” CSCO-1001, 8:3-5. The system and method
`
`of the ’484 Patent can “be readily incorporated into existing commercial wireless
`
`telephony systems,” “use the native electronics of typical commercially available,
`
`or likely to be available, telephony wireless mobile stations (e.g., handsets) as
`
`location devices,” and “utilize a plurality of wireless location estimators based on
`
`different wireless location technologies.” CSCO-1001, 8:14-19, 8:34-35.
`
`Fig. 4 of the ’484 patent (below) illustrates an exemplary “wireless digital
`
`radiolocation intelligent network” that includes “a (large) plurality of conventional
`
`wireless mobile stations (MSs) 140,” “a mobile switching center (MSC) 112”, “a
`
`plurality of wireless cell sites in a radio coverage area 120,” and “a public switched
`
`telephone network (PSTN) 124.” CSCO-1001, 24:36-25:1. The wireless digital
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`radiolocation intelligent network includes “an area of coverage 169.” CSCO-1001,
`
`25:36-37.
`
`
`
`
`
`CSCO-1001, Fig. 4.
`
`The claims of the ’484 patent include methods “locating a mobile station
`
`using wireless signal measurements obtained from transmissions between said
`
`mobile station and a plurality of fixed location communication stations.” CSCO-
`
`1001, claim 57. The steps of the claimed methods include “providing access to first
`
`and second mobile station location evaluators,” “obtaining, from said first location
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`evaluator, first location related information for identifying a location of the mobile
`
`station,” “obtaining, from said second location evaluator, second location related
`
`information for identifying a location of the mobile station for said same at least
`
`one situation,” and “determining resulting location information of the mobile
`
`station.” CSCO-1001, claim 57.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date
`
`The ’484 patent claims the benefit of U.S Provisional Application No.
`
`60/025,855 (the ‘855 Application), filed on September 9, 1996. CSCO-1001, p.1.
`
`All of the prior art relied upon in this Petition predates the provisional application,
`
`so a detailed priority date analysis is unnecessary.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Petition
`
`Estimating locations of mobile devices based on measurements of wireless
`
`signals was known in the prior art before the ’484 patent’s priority date. CSCO-
`
`1003, p. 20. Specifically, the prior art discloses network communications systems
`
`that determine the locations of mobile devices based on transmitted and received
`
`wireless signals. See CSCO-1003, ¶ 54. Furthermore, the prior art discloses many
`
`examples of claimed features of the patent such as “mobile stations,” “wireless
`
`signal measurements,” “communication stations,” “location estimators,” and
`
`“location evaluators” as well as the use of these features in combination. See
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`generally CSCO-1003. The evidence in this petition demonstrates that claims 57
`
`and 59 of the ’484 patent merely recite obvious combinations of known features.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 57 and 59 of the ’484
`
`patent be held unpatentable.
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 57 and 59 of the ’484 patent in this Petition.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The “Phillips standard,” set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) applies in this case because the ’484 patent expired on
`
`September 9, 2017. See In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The
`
`Phillips standard provides that claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
`
`specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-17.
`
`A.
`
`“mobile station location evaluator”
`
`The term “mobile station location evaluator” is purely functional language,
`
`and the claims do not recite a corresponding structure. In the co-pending
`
`litigation,1 the parties agree that “mobile station location evaluator” is a means-
`
`plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. CSCO-1016, pp. 1-2. The court
`
`1 TracBeam LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-525 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`preliminarily construed its function as “determining [a] mobile station location.”
`
`CSCO-1011, p. 1. The ’484 Specification describes determining a location by
`
`“inputting the generated target MS [mobile station] location data to one or more
`
`MS location estimating models” so that “each such model may use the input target
`
`MS location data for generating a ‘location hypothesis’ providing an estimate of
`
`the location of the target MS 140.” CSCO-1001, 38:9-14.
`
`The court identified the corresponding structure in the specification as a
`
`“location hypothesizing model (FOM) implemented on or by a location center or
`
`mobile base station.” CSCO-1011, p. 1. The ’484 patent discloses “location
`
`hypothesizing computational models (also denoted herein as ‘first order models’
`
`and also ‘location estimating models’), wherein each such model subsequently
`
`determines one or more initial estimates of the location of the target [mobile
`
`station] MS.” CSCO-1001, 13:33-35. Example FOMs for making this estimation
`
`include “[a] GPS location technique,” “[a] technique for computing a mobile
`
`station location that is dependent upon geographical offsets of the mobile station
`
`from one or more terrestrial transceivers,” “[v]arious wireless signal pattern
`
`matching, associative and/or stochastic techniques,” “[i]ndoor location
`
`techniques,” techniques where fixed location transceivers “are utilized for
`
`determining the mobile station’s location (e.g., intersecting such coverage areas for
`
`determining a location,” “[l]ocation techniques that use communications from low
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`power, low functionality base stations,” and “[a]ny other location techniques that
`
`may be deemed worthwhile to incorporate into an embodiment of the present
`
`invention.” CSCO-1001, 11:11-55.
`
`Accordingly, for the purposes of this IPR proceeding, the term “mobile
`
`station location evaluator” should be construed under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6, with the
`
`function being determining [a] mobile station location, and the structure being a
`
`location hypothesizing model (FOM) implemented on or by a location center or
`
`mobile base station. CSCO-1003, ¶ 47.
`
`B.
`
`“data indicative of one of: an error and a likelihood”
`
`Claim 57 recites in part, “data indicative of one of: an error and a likelihood
`
`of the mobile station being at a location represented by said resulting location
`
`information.” CSCO-1001, 181:19-20.
`
`In some instances, the Federal Circuit has ruled that it is appropriate to
`
`construe phrasing such as “at least one of A and B” to mean “at least one of A and
`
`at least one of B.” See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,
`
`885-86 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`However, such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of “data indicative of one of: an error and a likelihood” as
`
`recited in claim 1. For example, the ’484 specification states that “the location
`
`hypothesis may include an estimated error… as a substitute for the confidence
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`field.” CSCO-1001, 49:4-7. The ’484 specification also states that “confidence” is
`
`a value “indicating a likelihood.” CSCO-1001, Fig. 9B. Accordingly, the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning of the term “data indicative of one of: an error and a
`
`likelihood” is data indicative of an error or a likelihood.
`
`VI. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES
`
`Challenge #1: Claim 57 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S.
`
`5,844,522 to Sheffer et al. (“Sheffer”) (CSCO-1005) in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,659,596 to Dunn et al. (“Dunn”) (CSCO-1008).
`
`Sheffer was filed on October 13, 1995 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Dunn was filed on April 12, 1995 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`Challenge #2: Claim 59 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sheffer in
`
`view of Dunn and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,485,163 to Singer et al.
`
`(“Singer”) (CSCO-1009).
`
`Singer was filed on March 30, 1994 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`PETITIONER’S MULTIPLE PETITIONS ARE NOT
`VII.
`REDUNDANT
`
`Along with the present petition, Cisco Systems is filing two additional
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`Petitions for inter partes review regarding the ’484 patent. The three petitions are
`
`not redundant, however, as the three petitions challenge different claims of the
`
`’484 patent. All of the challenged claims are asserted by the Patent Owner in co-
`
`pending litigation. Due to the unusual length of the claims themselves and the rule
`
`limiting petitions to 14,000 words, Cisco was unable to consolidate all of its
`
`challenges into a single petition. Accordingly, Cisco requests the institution of
`
`trial on all three petitions.
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, a
`
`POSITA is someone knowledgeable of and familiar with computer programming,
`
`network communications, and location determination techniques. CSCO-1003, ¶
`
`38. For example, a POSITA would have been familiar with topics such as wireless
`
`cellular communication systems including navigation (CSCO-1001, 1:27-28, 3:36-
`
`61), signal strength and time of arrival (CSCO-1001, 1:44 & 1:58), terrestrial base
`
`stations (CSCO-1001, 10:53-56), radio frequency propagation (CSCO-1001, 2:21-
`
`63), and location estimation techniques using signal strength, time-of-arrival
`
`(“TOA”), global positioning satellite (“GPS”), triangulation (CSCO-1001, 8:24-27,
`
`8:36-37, 11:21-24), and pattern matching (CSCO-1001, 11:29-41). CSCO-1003, ¶
`
`38.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`A POSITA would have had (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Computer or
`
`Electrical Engineering or Computer Science, with an emphasis on communication
`
`systems, and (ii) at least three years of experience working in the field of radio
`
`communications and/or navigation. CSCO-1003, ¶ 38. Lack of work experience
`
`can be remedied by additional education or training, and vice versa. CSCO-1003,
`
`¶ 38.
`
`IX. NOTE REGARDING PAGE CITATIONS & EMPHASIS
`
`Petitioner’s citations to the exhibits use the page numbers in their original
`
`publication. Unless otherwise noted, all underline emphasis in any quoted material
`
`has been added.
`
`X.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Challenge #1: Claim 57 is obvious over Sheffer in view of Dunn
`
`Claim 57 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sheffer in view of Dunn.
`
`CSCO-1003, p. 70.
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Sheffer
`
`Sheffer is directed to a wireless network-based location system “to locate the
`
`position of any active phone or transceiver unit in the network.” CSCO-1005,
`
`Abstract. Figure 1 of Sheffer (below) shows an exemplary network “incorporating
`
`a location system.”
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`
`
`CSCO-1005, Fig. 1.
`
`The wireless network location system of Sheffer includes a “plurality of
`
`agile vector sensor units” that may be installed at each of a plurality of antenna
`
`sites in the network. CSCO-1005, Abstract. The agile vector sensor units (“AVSs”)
`
`lock onto reverse voice channel signals transmitted from an active phone or a
`
`transceiver and determine the “azimuth and signal strength in the reverse channel.”
`
`CSCO-1005, Abstract. The AVSs transmit this determined azimuth and the
`
`received signal strength information (RSSI) data with an identification code called
`
`a number assignment module (NAM) to a communication and dispatch center
`
`(CDC). CSCO-1005, 2:8-9, 9:45, 16:8-14. At the CDC, a CDC workstation uses at
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`least three techniques to estimate the location of the cellular phone. CSCO-1005,
`
`17:31-36, 18:15-31, 18:46-56. These estimation techniques are independent and
`
`use different input data (i.e., azimuth, RSSI, and cell tower data) to estimate
`
`locations. See CSCO-1005, 17:31-36, 18:15-31, 18:32-45. Furthermore, none of
`
`the techniques relies on output data from the other techniques. See CSCO-1005,
`
`17:31-36, 18:15-31, 18:32-45.
`
`In a first example, the CDC workstation uses azimuth readings “to
`
`triangulate and find the smallest intersection area, i.e., the most likely location of
`
`the cellular phone,” shown as area A in Figure 9 (annotated below). CSCO-1005,
`
`17:31-36.
`
`Area A
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶ 55; CSCO-1005, Fig. 9 (annotated).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`In a second example, the CDC workstation uses the received RSSI data from
`
`the AVS that detected the call to determine the approximate location area, shown
`
`shaded in Figure 11 (annotated below) and referred to as area B. CSCO-1005,
`
`18:15-31.
`
`Area B
`
`
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶ 56; CSCO-1005, Fig. 11 (annotated).
`
`In a third example, the CDC workstation uses cell site and sector data
`
`received from the originating cellphone to calculate area C in Figure 12 (annotated
`
`below). CSCO-1005, 18:32-45.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`Area C
`
`
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶ 57; CSCO-1005, Fig. 12 (annotated).
`
`Sheffer also discusses methods to compare the various area approximations
`
`to determine the accuracy and an associated “confidence level” of the location
`
`area. CSCO-1005, 18:57-59. For example, if an area does not agree with the others
`
`that were independently estimated, it is assigned a lower confidence level. CSCO-
`
`1005, 18:68-19:2. For example, if a majority of triplet azimuth positions agree, but
`
`area A “does not agree with B or C, the azimuth determined position is used as the
`
`location and is assigned a lower confidence level.” CSCO-1005, 18:67-19:2. In
`
`another example, if “there is no majority agreement in the azimuth positions” then
`
`areas B and C are compared and “the result is used as the location and assigned a
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`confidence level” but if areas B and C do not agree, the “RSSI position B is used
`
`for the location and assigned a lower confidence level.” CSCO-1005, 19:3-10.
`
`Sheffer also discloses that “the latitude and longitude coordinates for the
`
`most likely location are transmitted to an output port 52” on a map computer.
`
`CSCO-1005, 19:27-30. The map computer displays “a red dot corresponding to
`
`the coordinates” that varies in size according to the confidence level to indicate
`
`relative accuracy of the location data. CSCO-1005, 19:30-37.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Dunn
`
`Dunn relates to “locating mobile end users” in a cellular mobile radio system
`
`network. CSCO-1008, 1:7-8. In Dunn, a remote subscriber unit (“RSU”) roams
`
`between a home location and other locations. CSCO-1008, 1:57. The RSU can be a
`
`mobile communication device. CSCO-1008, 17:33-35. As the device roams
`
`between different locations, Dunn “stores the user’s device and location
`
`information, along with corresponding timestamp.” CSCO-1008, 17:29-30. The
`
`timestamp may indicate the “the location of the RSU or most recent location of the
`
`RSU.” CSCO-1008, 8:22-23.
`
`3.
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate a timestamp taught in
`
`Dunn into the system in Sheffer. CSCO-1003, ¶ 86. The analysis receiver of the
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`AVS in Sheffer already stores a timestamp with the RSSI and azimuth information
`
`as it periodically scans the reverse channels. CSCO-1005, 10:35-50. Dunn explains
`
`the benefit of including a timestamp with the determined location of an RSU in
`
`order to know “the location of the RSU or most recent location of the RSU,” and a
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to include the timestamp from the AVS with
`
`the approximate location of the portable device for the following reasons. CSCO-
`
`1008, 8:22-23; CSCO-1003, ¶ 86.
`
`First, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate a timestamp
`
`taught in Dunn into the system in Sheffer to assess the timing of the estimated
`
`location information. CSCO-1003, ¶ 87. For example, a first responder trying to
`
`find the location of a portable phone would be able to check the timestamp of any
`
`estimated location data to ensure that the data is current and avoid problems
`
`associated with outdated data. See CSCO-1008, 8:22-23, CSCO-1003, ¶ 87. The
`
`incorporation of this timestamp would allow first responders to more accurately
`
`prioritize location data by time and thereby use the most accurate location data
`
`available. CSCO-1003, ¶ 87.
`
`Second, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate a timestamp
`
`taught in Dunn into the system in Sheffer to track the amount of time an
`
`emergency vehicle took to find the portable phone. CSCO-1003, ¶ 88. A POSITA
`
`would realize that the timestamp corresponds to a location of a portable phone.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶ 88. Accordingly, if a call has been disconnected, an operator may
`
`indicate to the emergency response vehicle that is trying to find the portable phone
`
`the last time that the portable phone was at a corresponding location. CSCO-1003,
`
`¶ 88. The emergency vehicle responders and the operator may use the timestamp
`
`that has the last time to determine the amount of time the responder vehicle took to
`
`find the portable phone after the phone was disconnected. CSCO-1003, ¶ 88.
`
`Third, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate a timestamp
`
`taught in Dunn into the system in Sheffer to approximate a further location of the
`
`portable phone. CSCO-1003, ¶ 89. A POSITA would realize that a correspondence
`
`between the timestamps and the corresponding locations may be used to track a
`
`portable phone that is in motion. CSCO-1003, ¶ 89. For example, an operator can
`
`use the differences in timestamps and the corresponding locations to calculate a
`
`velocity of the portable phone and predict the future location and the approximate
`
`time that the portable phone would arrive at that location. CSCO-1003, ¶ 89. This
`
`information may be useful when a person making an emergency call is kidnapped
`
`or carjacked and the emergency responders are able to predict the perpetrator at the
`
`next location. CSCO-1003, ¶ 89.
`
`Fourth, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate a timestamp
`
`taught in Dunn into the system in Sheffer to track the performance of the
`
`emergency response system. CSCO-1003, ¶ 90. A POSITA would have understood
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`that a timestamp that corresponds to an approximate location of the portable phone
`
`may be used to track performance of the emergency response. CSCO-1003, ¶ 90.
`
`For example, a system may compare the timestamps between when the
`
`approximate location of the portable phone was calculated and when the response
`
`vehicle has found the portable phone. CSCO-1003, ¶ 90. This would help the
`
`emergency response system to identify problematic areas that have consistently
`
`high response times and help the system to determine ways for the response
`
`vehicle to arrive at the determined location faster because it “is extremely
`
`important in an emergency medical or crime situation” to locate the caller. CSCO-
`
`1005, 3:59-62; CSCO-1003, ¶ 90.
`
`Because Sheffer and Dunn both describe similar types of cellular
`
`communication technology and both include location techniques relating to mobile
`
`phones as well, a POSITA would have found their combination to be predictable
`
`and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in their combination.
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶ 91.
`
`The combination of Sheffer and Dunn permits but does not require physical
`
`incorporation of elements. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322; Ex. 1003, ¶ 92.
`
`4.
`
`Detailed Claim Analysis
`
`Claim 57
`
`[57.0.0] A method for locating a mobile station using wireless signal
`
`23
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`measurements obtained from transmissions between said mobile station and a
`plurality of fixed location communication stations,
`
`To the extent that the Patent Owner argues that the preamble is limiting,
`
`Sheffer discloses this limitation. CSCO-1003, pp. 82, 26.
`
`First, Sheffer discloses “a method for locating a mobile station” by
`
`disclosing a method for using a wireless communication network to locate an
`
`active phone or a transceiver unit (“mobile station”):
`
`A wireless network based location system and method uses an
`existing wireless communication network to locate the position
`of any active phone or transceiver unit in the network. The
`system includes a plurality of agile vector sensor units, one each
`installed at each antenna site in the network, and a remote central
`monitoring station to which wireless network users can call for
`assistance in the event of an emergency.
`
`
`CSCO-1005, Abstract; CSCO-1003, pp. 82, 26-27. Sheffer discloses “a plurality of
`
`mobile stations” by disclosing “portable phones in the cellular network.” CSCO-
`
`1005, 4:36-37; CSCO-1003, pp. 82, 27.
`
`Second, Sheffer discloses “using wireless signal measurements obtained
`
`from transmissions between said mobile station and a plurality of fixed location
`
`communication stations” by disclosing the azimuth and received signal strength
`
`(RSSI) data (“measurements”) that are determined from the reverse channel signals
`
`(“wireless signal”) transmitted from the portable phone to a cell site’s agile vector
`
`sensor (AVS):
`
`24
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`The system is designed to locate a portable phone transceiver
`unit using the reverse voice channel signal transmitted by the
`transceiver unit. Each agile vector sensor unit locks onto the
`reverse voice channel to determine azimuth and signal strength
`in the reverse voice channel.
`CSCO-1005, Abstract; CSCO-1003, p. 82, 27.
`
`
`Third, Sheffer discloses “a plurality of fixed location terrestrial
`
`communication stations” by disclosing “a plurality of radio transmitters or cell
`
`sites 10” that each have a mounted AVS in a wireless communication network that
`
`cover a predetermined area. CSCO-1005, 6:42-44, 7:40-41; CSCO-1003, pp. 82,
`
`28. A cell site including its mounted AVS is a “fixed location communication
`
`station” and multiple such sites are “a plurality of fixed location communication
`
`station.” CSCO-1003, p. 75; see also CSCO-1005, 22:17 (“fixed antenna sites”);
`
`CSCO-1003, pp. 82, 28.
`
`Fourth, Sheffer discloses the “wireless signal measurements obtained via
`
`transmissions between said mobile station M and a plurality of fixed location
`
`terrestrial communication stations” because a “the reverse voice channel signal
`
`transmitted by the [portable phone’s] transceiver unit” is received by the AVS’s
`
`mounted on the cell sites (“the fixed location communication stations”) and used
`
`for obtaining “wireless signal measurements”. CSCO-1005, Abstract; CSCO-1003,
`
`pp. 82, 28. As Sheffer discloses, the cell site’s AVS obtain[s] the azimuth and
`
`RSSI measurements by “lock[ing] onto the reverse voice channel” and “detect[ing]
`
`25
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 57 and 59)
`
`and stor[ing] the azimuth and RSSI (signal strength).” CSCO-1005, Abstract, 9:43-
`
`44; CSCO-1003, p. 82, 28.
`
`Accordingly, Sheffer discloses “a method for locating a mobile station using
`
`wireless signal measurements obtained from transmissions between said mobile
`
`station and a plural