`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`IPR2018-01723
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`TracBeam, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,525,484
`
`(CLAIMS 25 AND 26)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`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. 
`
`“mobile station location evaluator” ......................................................... 10 
`
`VI.  Statutory Grounds for Challenges ................................................................... 12 
`
`VII.  Petitioner’s Multiple Petitions Are Not Redundant ......................................... 13 
`
`VIII. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 13 
`
`IX.  Note Regarding Page Citations & Emphasis ................................................... 14 
`
`X. 
`
`Identification of How the Claims are Unpatentable ........................................ 14 
`
`A.  Challenge #1: Claim 25 is anticipated by Sheffer ................................... 14 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`1. 
`
`Summary of Sheffer ........................................................................ 15 
`
`2.  Detailed Claim Analysis ................................................................. 20 
`
`B.  Challenge #2: Claim 25 is obvious over Sheffer in view of Cisneros .... 57 
`
`1. 
`
`Summary of Cisneros ...................................................................... 58 
`
`2.  Reasons to Combine ........................................................................ 59 
`
`3.  Detailed Claim Analysis ................................................................. 61 
`
`C.  Challenge #3: Claim 26 is obvious over Sheffer, Cisneros and
`Sanderford ............................................................................................... 64 
`
`1. 
`
`Summary of Sanderford .................................................................. 64 
`
`2.  Reasons to Combine ........................................................................ 66 
`
`3.  Detailed Claim Analysis ................................................................. 67 
`
`XI.  Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 75 
`
`XII.  Certificate of Word Count ............................................................................... 76 
`
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 77 
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`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 U.S. Patent No. 5,774,829 to Cisneros et al. (“Cisneros”)
`
`CSCO-1007 U.S. Patent No. 5,717,406 to Sanderford et al. (“Sanderford”)
`
`CSCO-1008 Reserved
`
`CSCO-1009 Reserved
`
`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 25 and 26)
`
`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 25 and 26)
`
`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 25 and 26 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
`
`element is found in the prior art and why the claims would have been obvious to a
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`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
`
`radiolocation intelligent network includes “an area of coverage 169.” CSCO-1001,
`
`25:36-37.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`
`
`CSCO-1001, Figure 4.
`
`The claims of the ’484 patent include methods “for estimating, for each
`
`mobile station M of a plurality of mobile stations, an unknown terrestrial location
`
`(LM) for M using wireless signal measurements obtained via transmissions between
`
`said mobile station M and a plurality of fixed location terrestrial communication
`
`stations.” CSCO-1001, claim 25. The steps of the claimed methods include
`
`“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,” “obtaining a first collection of location information of said
`
`mobile station M, wherein the first collection includes first location information
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`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.” CSCO-1001, claim 25.
`
`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-
`
`1001, 1:40-47; CSCO-1003, ¶ 51. 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
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`estimators,” and “location evaluators” as well as the use of these features in
`
`combination. See generally CSCO-1003. The evidence in this petition
`
`demonstrates that claims 25 and 26 of the ’484 patent merely recite obvious
`
`combinations of known features. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that
`
`claims 25 and 26 of the ’484 patent be held unpatentable.
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 25 and 26 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-
`
`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 25 and 26)
`
`plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. CSCO-1016, pp. 1-2. The court
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`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, 11:11-55.
`
`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.
`
`VI. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES
`
`Challenge #1: Claim 25 is anticipated by Sheffer under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`Sheffer was filed on October 13, 1995 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Challenge #2: Claim 25 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. 5,774,829 to
`
`Cisneros et al. (“Cisneros”) (CSCO-1006).
`
`Cisneros was filed on December 12, 1995 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Challenge #3: Claim 26 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sheffer in
`
`view of Cisneros and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,717,406 to Sanderford et
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`al. (“Sanderford”) (CSCO-1007).
`
`Sanderford was filed on June 7, 1995 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
`
`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-
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`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.
`
`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 25 is anticipated by Sheffer
`
`Claim 25 is anticipated by Sheffer under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). CSCO-1003, ¶
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`60.
`
`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.”
`
`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”)
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`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, 17:33-36.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`Area A
`
`
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶ 55; CSCO-1005, Fig. 9 (annotated).
`
`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.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`Area B
`
`
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶ 56; CSCO-1005, Fig. 11 (annotated).
`
`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 25 and 26)
`
`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 25 and 26)
`
`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.
`
`Detailed Claim Analysis
`
`Claim 25
`
`[25.0.0] A method for estimating, for each mobile station M of a plurality of
`mobile stations, an unknown terrestrial location (LM) for M using wireless signal
`measurements obtained via transmissions between said mobile station M and a
`plurality of fixed location terrestrial communication stations,
`
`To the extent that the Patent Owner argues that the preamble is limiting,
`
`Sheffer discloses this limitation. CSCO-1003, p. 26.
`
`First, Sheffer discloses “a method for estimating, for each mobile station M
`
`of a plurality of mobile stations, an unknown terrestrial location (LM) for M” by
`
`disclosing a method for using a wireless communication network to locate a
`
`position (“estimat[e] ... an unknown terrestrial location (LM)”) of any active phone
`
`or transceiver unit (“mobile station M”):
`
`A wireless network based location system and method uses an
`existing wireless communication network to locate the position
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`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. Sheffer discloses “a plurality of mobile stations” by
`
`disclosing “portable phones in the cellular network.” CSCO-1005, 4:36-37.
`
`Second, Sheffer discloses “using wireless signal measurements to
`
`estimat[e]” the location of the portable phone (“mobile station”) by disclosing the
`
`azimuth, and signal strength or RSSI data (“measurements”) that are determined
`
`from the reverse channel signals (“wireless signal”) transmitted from the
`
`transceiver of the portable phone to a cell site’s agile vector sensor (AVS):
`
`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. 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, p. 28. A
`
`cell site including its mounted AVS is a “fixed terrestrial communication station”
`
`and multiple such sites are “a plurality of fixed location terrestrial communication
`
`stations.” CSCO-1003, p. 28; see also CSCO-1005, 22:17 (“fixed antenna sites”).
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`Fourth, Sheffer discloses “wireless signal measurements obtained via
`
`transmissions between said mobile station M and a plurality of fixed location
`
`terrestrial communication stations” because the “the reverse voice channel signal
`
`transmitted by the transceiver unit” of the portable phone is received by the AVS
`
`mounted on the cell sites (“the fixed terrestrial communication stations”) and used
`
`for obtaining wireless signal measurements. CSCO-1005, Abstract. 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] and stor[ing] the
`
`azimuth and RSSI (signal strength).” CSCO-1005, Abstract, 9:44-45; CSCO-1003,
`
`p. 28.
`
`[25.0.1] 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:
`
`To the extent the Patent Owner argues that the preamble is limiting, Sheffer
`
`discloses this limitation. CSCO-1003, p. 29.
`
`As discussed in section [25.0.0], a POSITA would have understood that
`
`Sheffer’s cell sites, each with a mounted AVS, are the claimed “communications
`
`stations.” CSCO-1003, p. 29. These cell sites in Sheffer include one or more
`
`transmitters and receivers as provided in the claim’s preamble. CSCO-1005, 6:42-
`
`44, 9:16-19; CSCO-1003, p. 29.
`
`Regarding transmitters, Sheffer discloses that the cell sites (“communication
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`stations”) include “a plurality of radio transmitters.” CSCO-1005, 6:42-44.
`
`Because the radio transmitters are part of each cell site, the cell sites are “co-
`
`located with one or more of a transmitter.” CSCO-1003, p. 29. Accordingly,
`
`Sheffer discloses “wherein each of said communications stations is substantially
`
`co-located with one or more of a transmitter.” CSCO-1003, p. 29.
`
`Further, Sheffer discloses that an “initial voice channel assignment is
`
`transmitted to the calling phone.” CSCO-1005, 7:20-21. Accordingly, Sheffer
`
`discloses “one or more of a transmitter... for wirelessly communicating with said
`
`mobile station M” as recited. CSCO-1003, p. 29.
`
`Regarding a receiver, Sheffer discloses that each cell site includes a
`
`“receiver,” because the cell site detects a “received” signal strength:
`
`When a call for help is made from a mobile phone unit, the
`cellular network automatically assigns the call to the cell site 10
`detecting the highest received signal strength (RSSI), known as
`the active cell.
`CSCO-1005, 9:16-19; CSCO-1003, pp. 29-30.
`
`A POSITA would have understood that detecting RSSI would require the
`
`cell site to include a receiver communicating wirelessly with the mobile phone.
`
`CSCO-1003, p. 30. Similarly, Sheffer discloses that the AVS, which is mounted on
`
`a cell site (as discussed in section [25.0.0]), includes “an analysis receiver” which
`
`functions “similar[ly] to a conventional cellular phone receiver.” CSCO-1005,
`
`9:56-59, 10:23-27; CSCO-1003, p. 30. Therefore, Sheffer discloses “wherein each
`
`23
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`of said communications stations is substantially co-located with one or more of ...
`
`a receiver” as recited. CSCO 1003, p. 30.
`
`Finally, Sheffer discloses that the “one or more of ... a receiver are for
`
`wirelessly communicating with said mobile station M” because the reverse channel
`
`signal is transmitted from the portable phone and received by the analysis receiver
`
`included in the AVS. CSCO-1005, 7:21-23, 10:29-34. Accordingly, Sheffer
`
`discloses “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” as claimed. CSCO-1003, p. 30.
`
`[25.1.0] initiating a plurality of requests for information related to the location of
`said mobile station M,
`
`Sheffer discloses this limitation because requests are sent to Sheffer’s CDC
`
`workstation to implement two different techniques for estimating the location of a
`
`portable phone (“mobile station M”). See Sheffer, 17:31-36, 18:15-31, CSCO-
`
`1003, p. 30.
`
`First, Sheffer provides for requests that are sent to a CDC workstation to
`
`perform an azimuth triangulation technique that evaluates azimuth data “to
`
`triangulate and find the smallest intersection area, i.e., the most likely location of
`
`the cellular phone.” CSCO-1005, 17:33-36. This estimated location is referred to
`
`as “area A” or “position A” throughout Sheffer. See CSCO-1005, 17:47-48.
`
`Sheffer’s Figure 8B shows a step to “compute position A from azimuth data” as
`
`24
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`annotated below:
`
`Request to determine
`position A using azimuth data
`
`
`
`CSCO-1003, pp. 30-31; CSCO-1005, Fig. 8B (annotated).
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have understood that the step to “compute position A
`
`25
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`from azimuth data” in Figure 8B includes a programmatic invocation or “request”
`
`to implement the azimuth triangulation technique and estimate the position of the
`
`mobile phone. CSCO-1003, p. 31. Therefore, Sheffer teaches a first “request for
`
`information related to the location of said mobile station M.” CSCO-1003, p. 31.
`
`
`
`Second, Sheffer also describes a request for the CDC workstation to perform
`
`a locating technique using RSSI data “to provide a rough approximation of
`
`distance from the cell site to the approximate location of the cellular phone.”
`
`CSCO-1005, 18:15-17. The resulting estimated location is referred to as “area B”
`
`or “position B” throughout Sheffer. See CSCO-1005, 18:15-29. Sheffer’s Figure
`
`8C shows a step 105 to “compute position B from RSSI” as annotated below:
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`Request to determine area B
`using RSSI data
`
`CSCO-1003, p. 33; CSCO-1005, Fig. 8C (annotated).
`
`
`
`Similar to the discussion above, a POSITA would have understood that step
`
`105 to “compute position B from RSSi” in Figure 8C includes a programmatic
`
`
`
`27
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claims 25 and 26)
`
`invocation or “request” to implement the RSSI technique and estimate the position
`
`of the mobile phone. Therefore, Sheffer teaches initiating first and second requests
`
`(i.e., “a plurality of requests”) “for information related to the location of said
`
`mobile station M,” as recited. CSCO-1003, pp. 33-34.
`
`[25.1.1] the requests provided to each of at least two