throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`v.
`
`TracBeam, LLC
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484
`
`Issued: April 28, 2009
`
`Title: “Gateway and Hybrid Solutions
`for Wireless Location”
`
`Declaration of Dr. William Michalson
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`I, Dr. William Michalson, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Cisco Systems, Inc., in
`
`the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (“the ’484
`
`Patent”) to Dupray et al.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter. My
`
`compensation in no way depends upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`a) the ’484 Patent, CSCO-1001, and
`
`b) the prosecution history of the ’484 Patent, CSCO-1002, and
`
`c) the prior art references discussed below.
`
`4.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`a) the documents listed above,
`
`b) the additional documents and references cited in the analysis below,
`
`–1–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 1 of 132
`
`

`

`c) the relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness
`
`provided in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398
`
`(2007) and any additional authoritative documents as cited in the body
`
`of this declaration, and
`
`d) my knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area as
`
`described below.
`
`Qualifications and Professional Experience
`
`5.
`
`My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`
`which is submitted as Exhibit CSCO-1004.
`
`6.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the Worcester
`
`Polytechnic Institute (“Worcester”) in 1989. I also received a Master of Science
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering in 1985 from Worcester, and a Bachelor of
`
`Science Degree in Electrical Engineering in 1981 from Syracuse University.
`
`7.
`
`From 1981 to 1991, I worked for Raytheon. At this company, I held a
`
`variety of positions from Engineer in multiple departments to the Engineer of
`
`Design and Development, the highest title available for my level of education and
`
`experience. During that time, I worked on a variety of projects involved with
`
`hardware and software design and debugging. One of those projects was the design
`
`and debugging of vector displays which were used in air traffic control
`
`applications. My other projects involved development and design of real-time
`
`–2–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 2 of 132
`
`

`

`computer systems intended for long-duration spaceborne applications, simulation
`
`models that predicted system performance, and use of neural networks to detect
`
`presence of objects in high clutter environments as well as a number of projects
`
`involving the design of hardware and software for terrestrial and satellite-based
`
`communications systems.
`
`8.
`
`In 1985, I was one of two people awarded an Aldo Miccioli
`
`Fellowship, allowing me to pursue my Ph.D. between 1985 and 1988.
`
`9.
`
`I am currently employed as a professor at the Department of Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. I have worked for
`
`Worcester Polytechnic Institute since 1991, starting as an Adjunct Assistant
`
`Professor and eventually being promoted to full tenured Professor. I also hold
`
`collaborative appointments as a Professor in the Computer Science Department,
`
`the Mechanical Engineering Department, and the Robotics Engineering Program.
`
`10.
`
`I have taught numerous courses in navigation, robotics, computer
`
`architecture, and systems engineering, including a course called “Fundamentals of
`
`Navigation Systems” and a course on mobile robot navigation and localization. In
`
`these courses, students are introduced to the different types of navigation systems
`
`and methods for interpreting sensor data for navigation system errors. We explore
`
`a variety of case studies in this course, including some related to differential and
`
`assisted GPS. Additionally, I have advised many undergraduate and graduate
`
`–3–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 3 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`projects involving the hardware and software design of systems for navigation and
`
`communications.
`
`11. Since 1992, GPS and GPS technologies have constituted the bulk of
`
`my research at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. I directed the Center for Advanced
`
`Integrated Radio Navigation which focused on hybrid techniques for navigation in
`
`both indoor and outdoor environments. This laboratory, currently named the
`
`Robot Communications and Navigation Laboratory continues to focus on
`
`communications and navigation for autonomous air, land and sea vehicles.
`
`12.
`
`In 1994, I co-authored a book chapter called "An Approach for
`
`Implementing a Reconfigurable Optical Interconnection Network for Massively
`
`Parallel Computers," in Optical Interconnection - Foundations and Approaches,
`
`which was published that same year.
`
`13.
`
`In 1995, I started receiving grant funding for my research related to
`
`Global Positioning Systems. This included a $200,000 Supplemental Funding I
`
`grant for research entitled “Integrity of the Global Positioning System,” for which I
`
`served as the co-Principal Investigator.
`
`14.
`
`In 1996, I received the ION Best Paper Award – GPS-96 for my paper
`
`titled “A GPS-Based Hazard Detection and Warning System.” This paper
`
`described a remote hazard detection system that used GPS and radio
`
`communication technologies to identify hazards to an engineer operating a freight
`
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 4 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`train. For the same paper, I came in first place for the Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering Department Major Qualifying Projects Award for my GPS Hazard
`
`Detector.
`
`15.
`
`I have published extensively in the fields of GPS, geolocation and
`
`navigation. Below is a list of my papers that were published in the 1995 timeframe,
`
`a year prior to the earliest priority date of the ’484 Patent:
`
` J. Bernick and W. R. Michalson, “UDSRAIM: An Innovative
`Approach to Increasing RAIM Availability,” ION GPS 95, 8th
`International Meeting of the Satellite Division of the Institute of
`Navigation, Sep 12-15, Palm Springs, CA., pp. 1965-1973, 1995; 
` W. R. Michalson, D. B. Cox, and H. Hua, “GPS Carrier-Phase
`RAIM,” ION GPS 95, 8th International Meeting of the Satellite
`Division of the Institute of Navigation, Palm Springs, CA., pp. 1975-
`1984, Sep 12-15, 1995;
` D. B. Cox and W. R. Michalson, “Use of Uncorrected GPS Carrier
`Phase Measurements for Incremental RAIM with WAAS,” ION 51st
`Annual Meeting, Jun 5-7, Colorado Springs, CO., pp. 515-520, 1995;
` W. Michalson, et. al., “RAIM Availability for Augmented GPS-Based
`Navigation Systems,” ION GPS-94, 7th International Meeting of the
`Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation, pp. 587-95, Sep 20-
`23, 1994; and
` V. G. Virball, W. Michalson, et. al., “A GPS Integrity Channel Based
`Fault Detection and Exclusion Algorithm Using Maximum Solution
`Separation,” Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE Position Location and
`Navigation Symposium (PLANS-94), pp. 747-54, Las Vegas, Apr 11-
`15, 1994.
`
`16.
`
`In 1995 I founded a company called Research Associates, LLC.
`
`Through Research Associates, I perform engineering and litigation related
`
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 5 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`consulting services, including services in the computer systems, communication,
`
`and navigation areas.
`
`17.
`
`I also have extensive experience in computer software languages,
`
`including C/C++, Java, JavaScript, PHP, HTML, and MySQL among others. I
`
`used these languages to develop software applications for my various computer
`
`related projects, including those in the field of telecommunication and navigation.
`
`18.
`
`I have been awarded several United States patents, and I have several
`
`patent applications pending in the fields of hand-held GPS mapping, indoor geo-
`
`location, device tracking, etc. I include the following examples of patents and
`
`patent applications:
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0322629, “Haptic glove as a
`
`wearable force feedback user interface”,
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,928,459, “Precision location methods and systems”,
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0274115, “Tracking device and
`
`remote monitoring system”,
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,284,711, “Multi-channel electrophysiologic signal
`
`data acquisition system on an integrated circuit”,
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,896,807, “Methods and apparatus for high
`
`resolution positioning”,
`
`
`
`
`–6–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 6 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,079,025, “A Reconfigurable Indoor Geolocation
`
`System”,
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,158,643, “Auto-Calibrating Surround System”,
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,987,380, “Hand-held GPS-mapping device”, and
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,902,347, “Hand-held GPS-mapping device”.
`
`Relevant Legal Standards
`
`19.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims of the ’484 Patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the
`
`prior art. It is my understanding that, to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
`
`a reference must teach every element of the claim. Further, it is my understanding
`
`that a claimed invention is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`
`between the invention 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 the subject matter pertains. I also understand that
`
`the obviousness analysis takes into account factual inquiries including the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed subject matter.
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 7 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the following:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; use of a known technique to improve a similar device (method, or product)
`
`in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior
`
`art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`The ’484 Patent
`
`21. The ’484 Patent relates to “locating people and/or objects” in a
`
`wireless communication system. CSCO-1001, 7:66-8:1. This system and method
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 8 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`location estimators based on different wireless location technologies.” CSCO-
`
`1001, 8:14-19, 8:34-35.
`
`22. Fig. 4 illustrates the wireless location network of the ’484 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`CSCO-1001, Figure 4.
`
`23. Claim 25 is an example independent claim and provides an overview
`
`of the claimed subject matter:
`
`A method for estimating, for each mobile station M of a
`
`plurality of mobile stations, an unknown terrestrial location (LM) for
`
`–9–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`
`
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 9 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`
`
`
`M using wireless signal measurements obtained via transmissions
`
`between said mobile station M and a plurality of fixed location
`
`terrestrial communication stations,
`
`wherein each of said communications stations is substantially
`
`co-located with one or more of a transmitter and a receiver for
`
`wirelessly communicating with said mobile station M, comprising:
`
`initiating a plurality of requests for information related to the
`
`location of said mobile station M, the requests provided to each of at
`
`least two mobile station location evaluators,
`
`wherein there is at least a first of the requests provided to a first
`
`of the location evaluators and a second of the requests, different from
`
`the first request, provided to a second of the location evaluators, such
`
`that when said location evaluators are supplied with corresponding
`
`input data having values obtained using wireless signal measurements
`
`obtained via two way wireless communication between said mobile
`
`station M, and the communication stations, each of said first and
`
`second location evaluators determine corresponding location
`
`information related to LM, and
`
`wherein for at least one location L of one of the mobile stations,
`
`said first location evaluator and said second location evaluator output,
`
`–10–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 10 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`respectively, first and second position information related to the one
`
`mobile station being at L wherein neither of the first and second
`
`position information is dependent upon the other;
`
`obtaining a first collection of location information of said
`
`mobile station M, wherein the first collection includes first location
`
`information from the first location evaluator, and second location
`
`information from the second location evaluator;
`
`determining resulting information related to the location LM of
`
`the mobile station M, wherein the resulting information is dependent
`
`on geographical information in each of the first and second location
`
`information; and
`
`transmitting, to a predetermined destination via a
`
`communications network, the resulting information.
`
`File History – U.S. Provisional App. No. 09/770,838
`
`24. The ’484 Patent was filed on January 26, 2001 as a utility Application
`
`No. 09/770,838 (the ’838 Application). The ’838 Application is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 09/194,367 (the ’367 Application), filed as Application No.
`
`PCT/US97/15892 on Sep. 8, 1997. The ’838 Application claims priority to a
`
`provisional Application No. 60/056,590 (the ’590 Application) filed on August 20,
`
`1997, provisional Application No. 60/044,821 (the ’821 Application) filed on April
`
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 11 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`25, 1997, and provisional Application No. 60/025,855 (the ’855 Application) filed
`
`on September 9, 1996.
`
`25. The ’838 Application was filed with 124 claims (numbered one
`
`through 124). Together with the ’838 Application, a preliminary amendment was
`
`filed making syntax related amendments to the specification, cancelling claims one
`
`through 124 and adding new claims 125-220. CSCO-1002 at 2369-2390.
`
`26. On July 12, 2005, the Examiner issued a non-final Office Action
`
`indicating that the specification and the previously presented claims were lost.
`
`CSCO-1002 at 1175. In a Response filed on December 12, 2005, Applicant re-
`
`submitted a copy of the response filed on July 2, 2002 that included the ’838
`
`Application with the claims filed in the ’367 Application. CSCO-1002 at 863-864.
`
`27. On February 8, 2006, the Examiner issued a non-final Office Action
`
`indicating the claims have been lost and requesting a copy of the last currently
`
`amended claims. CSCO-1002 at 772-773. In a Response filed on March 22, 2006,
`
`Applicant re-submitted a copy of the Preliminary Amendment initially filed on
`
`February 20, 2002 cancelling claims 1-124 and adding new claims 125 to 220.
`
`CSCO-1002 at 679-753.
`
`28.
`
`In a response to an Office Action filed on March 31, 2006, the
`
`Applicant cancelled claims 125-220 and added claims 221-295. CSCO-1002 at
`
`651-674.
`
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 12 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`29. On June 15, 2006, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowability,
`
`allowing claims 221-295, renumbered as claims 1-75. CSCO-1002 at 633-635.
`
`Applicant paid the issue fee on April 28, 2007. CSCO-1002 at 590.
`
`30. On May 23, 2007, the Examiner issued another Notice of
`
`Allowability. CSCO-1002 at 555. In response, Applicant filed an amendment after
`
`the Notice of Allowance on August 23, 2007, amending independent claims 221,
`
`245, 247, 268, 278, 292, and 295, adding 10 new dependent claims and deleting 8
`
`dependent claims. CSCO-1002 at 457-482. Claims 245, 265, 285 of the ’838
`
`Application are claims 25, 49, and 57 of the ’484 Patent that are challenged in this
`
`IPR.
`
`31. On December 12, 2008, the Examiner issued another Notice of
`
`Allowability, allowing claims 221-251, 253-256, 258, 259, 262-272, 276-280 and
`
`282-305. CSCO-1002 at 170-173.
`
`32. On March 16, 2009, the Applicant paid an issue fee and on April 28,
`
`2009 and on December 14, 2010 the ’838 Application issued as the ’484 Patent.
`
`CSCO-1002 at 164.
`
`33. On April 21, 2011 Applicant filed terminal disclaimers shortening the
`
`term of the ’484 Patent to extend no further than the terms of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,764,231, 6,249,252, 7,298,327, and 7,274,332. CSCO-1002 at 152, 158-162.
`
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 13 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`File History – Effective Priority Date
`34. As noted above, the ’484 Patent claims priority to the ’367
`
`Application (filed as PCT/US97/15892), on September 8, 1997, ’590 Application
`
`filed on August 20, 1997, ’821 Application filed on April 25, 1997, and ’855
`
`Application filed on September 9, 1996. Because all of the prior art relied upon in
`
`my analysis below predates even this provisional filing date, I have not evaluated
`
`whether any of the claims of the ’484 Patent are entitled to the benefit of the earlier
`
`filed applications’ filing dates.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`35.
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the
`
`prior art of record, and that a POSITA to which the claimed subject matter pertains
`
`would have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering
`
`principles applicable to the pertinent art. I understand that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art has ordinary creativity, and is not a robot.
`
`36.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems. There are likely a wide range of
`
`educational backgrounds in the technology field pertinent to the ’484 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 14 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`37.
`
`I am familiar with the knowledge and capabilities that a POSITA in
`
`the computer programming and communications arts would have possessed in the
`
`period around 1996. For example, my research and teaching during that period
`
`allowed me to become personally familiar with the level of skill of individuals and
`
`the general state of the art. Unless otherwise stated, my testimony below refers to
`
`the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the computing programming and
`
`communications arts in the period around 1996, the period that includes the earliest
`
`claimed priority date of the ’484 Patent.
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA is someone knowledgeable of and familiar
`
`with computer programming, network communications, and location determination
`
`techniques. In particular, the level of ordinary skill in the art needed to have the
`
`capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to
`
`the ’484 Patent is (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. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education or
`
`training, and vice versa. Such academic and industry experience would be
`
`necessary to appreciate what was obvious and/or anticipated in the industry and
`
`what a POSITA would have thought and understood at the time. For example, the
`
`’484 Patent describes in its background section topics such as wireless cellular
`
`
`
`
`–15–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 15 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`communication systems including navigation techniques (CSCO-1001, 1:27-28,
`
`3:36-61), signal strength and time of arrival (“TOA”), (CSCO-1001, 1:44, 58),
`
`terrestrial base stations (CSCO-1001, 10:26-27), radio frequency propagation
`
`(CSCO-1001, 1:44, 1:58-59, 2:21-63),and various location estimation techniques
`
`that use signal strength, time-of-arrival (“TOA”), global positioning satellite
`
`(“GPS”), triangulation (CSCO-1001, 11:21-24, 8:24-27, 8:36-37), and pattern
`
`matching (CSCO-1001, 11:29-41). A POSITA would have been familiar with
`
`such technologies and would have understood how they work. As a consequence
`
`of my commercial and academic work I believe I possessed such experience and
`
`knowledge well before 1996, and therefore believe I am qualified to opine on the
`
`’484 Patent.
`
`39. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of around 1996.
`
`Claim Construction
`40.
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’484
`
`Patent, the terms in the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`the ’484 Patent has expired. Accordingly, the claims are to be given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`
`–16–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 16 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`41.
`
`In order to construe the claims, I have reviewed the entirety of the
`
`’484 Patent and its prosecution history.
`
`mobile station location estimator
`
`42.
`
`It is my understanding that the term mobile station location estimator
`
`is purely functional language, and the claims do not recite a corresponding
`
`structure. For that reason, the term was construed as a means-plus-function term
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 by the court in TracBeam LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`
`No. 6:17-cv-525 (CSCO-1011). CSCO-1016, p. 2. In the litigation, the Petitioner
`
`and the Patent Owner agreed that the mobile station location estimator should be
`
`construed under § 112, ¶ 6. The corresponding function of this term was
`
`preliminarily construed as “estimating [a] mobile station location.” CSCO-1011, p.
`
`1. The ’484 Specification describes the “estimating” as “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.
`
`43. The court preliminarily construed the structure of the “mobile station
`
`location estimator” 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 models (denoted First Order Models, or FOMs),
`
`
`
`
`–17–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 17 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`each of which yields a location estimate or location hypothesis related to 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 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,
`
`11:14-16, 11:29-30, 11:43-49, 11:50-55.
`
`44. Accordingly, for the purposes of this IPR proceeding, the term
`
`“mobile station location estimator” should be construed under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6,
`
`with the function being estimating [a] mobile station location, and the structure
`
`being a location hypothesizing model (FOM) implemented on or by a location
`
`center or mobile base station.
`
`mobile station location evaluator
`
`
`
`
`–18–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 18 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`45.
`
`It is my understanding that the term “mobile station location
`
`evaluator” is purely functional language, and the claims do not recite a
`
`corresponding structure. For that reason, the term was construed as a means-plus-
`
`function term under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6 by the court in TracBeam LLC v. Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-525 (CSCO-1011). In the litigation, the Petitioner and
`
`the Patent Owner agreed that the term “mobile station location evaluator” should
`
`be construed under § 112, ¶ 6. CSCO-1016, p. 2. The corresponding function of
`
`this term was preliminarily construed as “determining [a] mobile station location.”
`
`CSCO-1011, p. 1. The ’484 Specification describes the “determining” as “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, 37:44-45, 38:9-14.
`
`46. The court preliminarily construed the structure of the “mobile station
`
`location evaluator” 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 models (denoted First Order Models, or FOMs),
`
`each of which yields a location estimate or location hypothesis related to the
`
`location of the target [mobile station] MS.” CSCO-1001, 13:33-35. Example
`
`FOMs for making this determination include “[a] GPS location technique,” [a]
`
`
`
`
`–19–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 19 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`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 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,
`
`11:14-16, 11:29-30, 11:43-49, 11:50-55.
`
`47. 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.
`
`at least one of the substeps (B1) through (B2)
`
`48. This term appears in claim 47.
`
`49. Claim 47 recites determining a resulting location estimate of said one
`
`mobile station, wherein said step of determining includes at least one of the
`
`substeps (B1) through (B2) following:. CSCO-1001, 179:30-33.
`
`
`
`
`–20–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 20 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`50.
`
`It is my opinion that (B1) and (B2) of at least one of the substeps (B1)
`
`through (B2) recite two different ways that determine the “resulting location
`
`estimate” from the first and second information. Accordingly, the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the term at least one of the substeps (B1) through (B2) is at
`
`least substep (B1) or at least substep (B2).
`
`Challenge #1: Claim 25 is anticipated by Sheffer under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`Summary of Sheffer
` 
`
`51.
`
`“Sheffer” is a U.S. Patent No. 5,844,522 titled “Mobile Telephone
`
`Location System and Method.” Sheffer was filed on October 13, 1995 and
`
`published on December 1, 1998. Accordingly, it is my understanding that Sheffer
`
`is prior art to the ’484 Patent.
`
`52. Sheffer is exhibit CSCO-1005.
`
`53. Sheffer discloses a wireless network based location system. Sheffer,
`
`Abstract. This location system is configured “to locate the position of any active
`
`phone or transceiver unit in the network.” Sheffer, Abstract. Figure 1 of Sheffer
`
`(below) shows an exemplary network “incorporating a location system.”
`
`
`
`
`–21–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 21 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`
`
`Sheffer, Figure 1.
`
`54.
`
` The wireless network location system includes a “plurality of agile
`
`vector sensor units” (AVSs) that may be installed at each of a plurality of antenna
`
`sites in the network. Sheffer, Abstract. The AVSs lock onto a reverse voice
`
`channel signal transmitted from an active phone or a transceiver. Sheffer, 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). Sheffer, 2:8-9,
`
`9:45, 16:8-14. At the CDC, a workstation uses at least three techniques to estimate
`
`the location of the cellular phone. Sheffer, 17:31-36, 18:15-31, 18:46-56. These
`
`estimation techniques are independent and use different input (i.e., azimuth, RSSI,
`
`and cell tower data). See Sheffer, 17:31-36, 18:15-31, 18:32-45. Furthermore, none
`
`
`
`
`–22–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 22 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`of the techniques relies on output data from the other techniques. See Sheffer,
`
`17:31-36, 18:15-31, 18:32-45.
`
`55.
`
`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). Sheffer, 17:33-
`
`36.
`
`Area A
`
`
`
`Sheffer, Figure 9, annotated.
`
`
`
`56.
`
`In a second example, the CDC workstation uses the RSSI readings
`
`from the AVS that detected the call to determine the approximate location area,
`
`shown shaded in Figure 11 as annotated below and referred to as area B. Sheffer,
`
`18:15-31.
`
`
`
`
`–23–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 23 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`Area B
`
`
`
`Sheffer, Figure 11, annotated.
`
`57.
`
`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). Sheffer, 18:32-45.
`
`
`
`
`–24–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 24 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`Area C
`
`
`
`Sheffer, Figure 12, annotated.
`
`58. Sheffer also discusses methods to compare the various area
`
`approximations to determine the accuracy and an associated “confidence level” of
`
`the location area. Sheffer, 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. Sheffer, 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.” Sheffer, 18:67-19:2.
`
`As 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
`
`
`
`
`–25–
`
`CSCO-1003
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam
`Page 25 of 132
`
`

`

` 
`
`assigned a 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.” Sheff

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket