`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`IPR2018-01724
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`TracBeam, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,525,484
`
`(CLAIM 49)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`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 estimator” ......................................................... 10 
`
`“at least one of the substeps (B1) through (B2)” .................................... 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 (Claim 49)
`
`A.  Challenge #1: Claim 49 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Sheffer II in view of Cisneros ................................................................. 15 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Summary of Sheffer II .................................................................... 15 
`
`Summary of Cisneros ...................................................................... 17 
`
`3.  Reasons to Combine ........................................................................ 18 
`
`4.  Detailed Analysis ............................................................................ 20 
`
`XI.  Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 43 
`
`XII.  Certificate of Word Count ............................................................................... 44 
`
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 45 
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`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 Reserved
`
`CSCO-1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,774,829 to Cisneros et al. (“Cisneros”)
`
`CSCO-1007 Reserved
`
`CSCO-1008 Reserved
`
`CSCO-1009 Reserved
`
`CSCO-1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,218,367 to Sheffer II et al. (“Sheffer II”)
`
`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 (Claim 49)
`
`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 (Claim 49)
`
`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 claim
`
`49 of the ’484 patent and cancel this claim 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 (Claim 49)
`
`POSITA prior to the earliest effective priority date. Accordingly, the challenged
`
`claim 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 (Claim 49)
`
`
`
`CSCO-1001, Fig. 4.
`
`The claims of the ’484 patent include methods “for locating, from a plurality
`
`of wireless mobile stations, one of the wireless mobile stations using
`
`measurements of wireless signals.” CSCO-1001, claim 49. The steps of the
`
`claimed methods include “receiving, from each of at least first and second mobile
`
`station location estimators, corresponding first and second information related to
`
`likely geographical approximations for a location of said one mobile station,” and
`
`“determining a resulting location estimate of said one mobile station.” CSCO-
`
`1001, claim 49.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`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
`
`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 claim 49 of the ’484 patent merely recite obvious combinations
`
`of known features. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that claim 49 of
`
`the ’484 patent be held unpatentable.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claim 49 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 estimator”
`
`The term “mobile station location estimator” 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 estimator” is a means-
`
`plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. CSCO-1016, p. 2. The court
`
`preliminarily construed its function as “estimating [a] mobile station location.”
`
`CSCO-1011, p. 1. The ’484 Specification describes “estimating” 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
`
`
`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 (Claim 49)
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`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. CSCO-1003, ¶ 44.
`
`B.
`
`“at least one of the substeps (B1) through (B2)”
`
`Claim 49 of the ’484 patent recites:
`
`[D]etermining 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.
`
`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 “at least one of the substeps (B1)
`
`through (B2)” as recited in claim 49. In particular, (B1) and (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). CSCO-1003, ¶ 50.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`VI. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES
`
`Challenge #1: Claim 49 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,218,367 to Sheffer et al. (“Sheffer II”)2 (CSCO-1010) in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,774,829 to Cisneros et al. (“Cisneros”) (CSCO-1006).
`
`Sheffer II issued on June 8, 1993 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`Cisneros was filed on December 12, 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
`
`2 Although “Sheffer II” is the only “Sheffer” prior art reference discussed in this
`
`petition, Petitioner refers to this patent as “Sheffer II” to avoid potential confusion
`
`with another reference (U.S. 5,844,522 to Sheffer) discussed in Petitioner’s other
`
`petitions, filed on date even herewith, challenging other claims of the ’484 patent.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`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 techniques (CSCO-1001,
`
`1:27-28, 3:36-61), signal strength, time of arrival (“TOA”), (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, ¶
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`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 49 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Sheffer II in view of Cisneros
`
`Claim 49 of the ’484 patent is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Sheffer II in view of Cisneros. CSCO-1003, p. 104.
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Sheffer II
`
`Sheffer II discloses a vehicle tracking system that uses “existing nationwide
`
`cellular telephone system consisting of a plurality of transmitters or cell sites.”
`
`CSCO-1010, 3:60-62. A cellular signal processing unit (also referred to as a
`
`processing unit or a cellular unit) is “mounted in a vehicle.” CSCO-1010, 3:55-56.
`
`A monitoring station computer receives “alarm signals emitted from the processing
`
`unit” and computes “approximate vehicle positions from the signals.” CSCO-1010,
`
`3:57-60.
`
`The monitoring station computer of Sheffer II “compute[s] an approximate
`
`vehicle location” using two different techniques. CSCO-1010, 7:25-39. The first
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`technique is a cell triangulation calculation “based on the fact that the approximate
`
`distance of the vehicle from any cell site can be calculated from the signal strength
`
`of the signal received by the vehicle from that site.” Sheffer II, 7:58-61. Area A,
`
`shown in Figure 6 (annotated below), is an approximation of the vehicle location
`
`using the cell triangulation technique where “the vehicle will be in a circle of
`
`radius equal to the distance calculated based on the received signal strength” at
`
`each cell site. CSCO-1010, 7:63-64.
`
`Area A
`
`
`
`CSCO-1003, p. 106; CSCO-1010, Fig. 6 (annotated).
`
`The second technique uses sector information to “approximate vehicle
`
`location.” CSCO-1010, 8:13-14. Sheffer II explains that the “[t]ransmitted data
`
`from the vehicle unit includes identification of the voice channel frequency of each
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`detected cell site” from which actual cell sites can be determined. CSCO-1010,
`
`8:15-18. Using the active cell sites and sector information included in the
`
`“information transmitted from the vehicle,” Sheffer II identifies “the particular
`
`sector of that cell in which the vehicle is located” and uses the “relative signal
`
`strengths from different sectors surrounding the victim vehicle to further refine the
`
`vehicle position.” CSCO-1010, 8:22-31. Area A1, shown shaded in Figure 7
`
`(annotated below), shows an approximation of the vehicle location using the sector
`
`triangulation technique.
`
`Area A1
`
`
`
`CSCO-1003, p. 107; CSCO-1010, Fig. 7 (annotated).
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Cisneros
`
`Cisneros is directed to “navigation and positioning systems” and describes
`
`how “an object or a user at an unknown location receives broadcast signals from
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`several sources.” CSCO-1006, 1:8-10. The navigation and positioning system uses
`
`information derived from the signals “to determine the object’s or user’s current
`
`position.” CSCO-1006, 1:10-11.
`
`Similar to that of Sheffer II, Cisneros’s navigation and positioning system
`
`includes various independent location techniques for mobile devices that
`
`communicate wirelessly and methods to determine the accuracy of determined
`
`locations. See CSCO-1006, 1:14-16, 30:13-16.
`
`In terms of location techniques, Cisneros uses a first technique to estimate an
`
`object’s position using “uncoordinated beacon signals from commercial radio
`
`broadcasts” and a second technique to determine a GPS position estimate using
`
`“synchronized signals from an absolute positioning system.” CSCO-1006, 1:12-16.
`
`Like Sheffer, the two techniques of Cisneros can be performed independently (i.e.,
`
`neither technique requires output data from the other). See CSCO-1006, 5:28-65,
`
`34:19-32.
`
`Cisneros discusses selecting data from a certain technique by taking an
`
`“average of the two position solutions” or weighing “each position solution in
`
`accordance with its estimated quality.” CSCO-1006, 30:13-16.
`
`3.
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Cisneros’s technique
`
`that combines weighted location estimates from different location techniques into
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`Sheffer II to generate an accurate location estimate from area A and area A1.
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶ 109. A POSITA would have realized that area A may be a more
`
`accurate location estimate in certain environments where the cellular network is
`
`located, while area A1 may be a more accurate location in other environments
`
`(such as urban or rural environments). CSCO-1003, ¶ 109. To adapt the accuracy
`
`of the resulting location estimate to the location of the cellular network, a POSITA
`
`would have been motivated to weigh area A and area A1 as taught in Cisneros.
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶ 109. Accordingly, when the cellular network is located in an
`
`environment where area A may be a more accurate estimate of the probable
`
`location of the vehicle, the system would assign area A more weight than area A1,
`
`or vice versa. CSCO-1003, ¶ 109. In this way, the resulting location estimate
`
`would be weighted in favor of the location estimation technique that is likely to be
`
`more accurate. CSCO-1003, ¶ 109.
`
`Petitioner notes that claim 49 in section [49.2.0] recites elements (B1) and
`
`(B2) in the alternative. As explained below, Sheffer II and Cisneros teach every
`
`element of claim 49, including the B1 alternative for portion [49.2.0]. CSCO-1003,
`
`¶ 110.
`
`Because Sheffer II and Cisneros 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
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in their combination.
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶ 111.
`
`The combination of Sheffer II and Cisneros permits but does not require
`
`physical incorporation of elements. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322; CSCO-1003,
`
`¶ 112.
`
`Claim 49
`
`4.
`
`Detailed Analysis
`
`[49.0.0] A method for locating, from a plurality of wireless mobile stations, one
`of the wireless mobile stations using measurements of wireless signals,
`
`Sheffer II discloses this limitation. CSCO-1003, p. 107. First, Sheffer II
`
`discloses “[a] method of locating and tracking a vehicle.” CSCO-1010, 12:20.
`
`Second, Sheffer II discloses “locating, from a plurality of wireless mobile
`
`stations” by disclosing a vehicle processing system that monitors multiple vehicles
`
`equipped with cellular processing units (“wireless mobile stations”):
`
`A vehicle tracking system makes use of a conventional cellular
`telephone network ... [that] includes a plurality of cellular signal
`processing units for installation at hidden locations in vehicles to
`be monitored.
`CSCO-1010, Abstract; CSCO-1003, p. 109.
`
`The cellular signal processing unit installed in a vehicle (also referred to as a
`
`cellular unit) is a “wireless mobile station” because it is “similar to a conventional
`
`cellular telephone unit and includes all the circuitry necessary for operation as a
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`conventional cellular phone.” CSCO-1010, 2:40-42; CSCO-1003, p. 109. Sheffer
`
`II also discloses that after the position of a target vehicle (e.g., a “victim vehicle”)
`
`is initially estimated by cell towers, one or more field response units (FRU)
`
`equipped with similar cellular capabilities is dispatched and “[t]he distance
`
`discrepancy between the FRU vehicle actual and computed positions 90 and 94 is
`
`used to adjust the victim vehicle position.” CSCO-1010, 8:63-9:20; CSCO-1003,
`
`pp. 109-110.
`
`Third, Sheffer II discloses “one of the wireless mobile stations using
`
`measurements of wireless signals,” by disclosing that the transceiver of the cellular
`
`unit obtains signal strength “measurements” from the signal transmissions
`
`(“wireless signals”) continuously transmitted from the cell sites to the cellular unit:
`
`In the modified cellular unit 10 of this invention, the transceiver
`is programmed to scan all control and voice channels of the
`adjacent cellular sites for their signal transmissions to obtain
`frequency channel identification, sectoring information, and
`signal strength, whenever an emergency sensor is activated.
`CSCO-1010, 5:36-42; CSCO-1003, p. 110.
`
`Sheffer II further discloses “using measurements of wireless signals” by
`
`disclosing that the transceiver stores, compares, and selects signal strength
`
`measurements for transmission:
`
` The two antennas are hidden at different locations in the vehicle,
`and the transceiver is programmed to take signal strength
`readings alternately from the two antennas. These readings are
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`stored and subsequently compared, and the highest value
`readings are selected for transmission.
`CSCO-1010, 5:42-48; CSCO-1003, p. 110.
`
`
`
`Sheffer II explains that the signal strength information is processed
`
`(“us[ed]”) to locate the vehicle (“wireless mobile station”):
`
`The cell and active cell sector determined from the database are
`input along with the signal strength levels to a temporary input
`buffer memory 83, and then the information is processed at 85 in
`accordance to stored program instructions to determine the
`vehicle location as a longitude and latitude.
`CSCO-1010, 7:14-19; CSCO-1003, p. 110-111.
`
`Thus, Sheffer II discloses a “method for locating, from a plurality of
`
`wireless mobile stations, one of the wireless mobile stations using measurements of
`
`wireless signals,” as claimed. CSCO-1003, p. 111.
`
`[49.0.1] wherein at least one of: (i) said measurements and (ii) said wireless
`signals are transmitted between said one mobile station and at least one of a
`plurality of fixed location communication stations,
`
`Sheffer II discloses this limitation. CSCO-1003, p. 111. First, as discussed in
`
`section [49.0.0], Sheffer II’s vehicle equipped with a cellular unit is the claimed
`
`“mobile station.” CSCO-1003, p. 111.
`
`Second, Sheffer II discloses “at least one of a plurality of fixed location
`
`communication stations” by disclosing “a vehicle tracking system makes use of a
`
`conventional cellular telephone network including a plurality of fixed cellular
`
`transmitter sites each covering a predetermined area.” CSCO-1010, Abstract;
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`CSCO-1003, p. 111.
`
`Third, Sheffer II discloses “at least one of: (i) said measurements and (ii)
`
`said wireless signals” by disclosing that the cellular unit obtains signal strength
`
`measurements (“said measurements”) from the signal transmissions (“said
`
`wireless signals”):
`
`the transceiver is programmed to scan all control and voice
`their signal
`channels of
`the adjacent cellular sites for
`transmissions
`to obtain
`frequency channel
`identification,
`sectoring
`information, and signal strength, whenever an
`emergency sensor is activated.
`CSCO-1010, 5:37-48; CSCO-1003, pp. 111-112.
`
`Fourth, Sheffer II discloses that the cellular sites’ signal transmissions (“said
`
`wireless signals”) are “are transmitted between said one mobile station and at
`
`least one of a plurality of fixed location communication stations” by disclosing that
`
`the signal transmissions (“wireless signals”) are transmitted from the cell sites (“a
`
`plurality of fixed location communication stations”) to the vehicle’s cellular unit
`
`(“said one mobile station”):
`
`In the modified cellular unit 10 of this invention, the transceiver
`is programmed to scan all control and voice channels of the
`adjacent cellular sites for their signal transmissions to obtain
`frequency channel identification, sectoring information, and
`signal strength, whenever an emergency sensor is activated.
`CSCO-1010, 5:36-48; CSCO-1003, p. 112.
`
`Similarly, Sheffer II discloses that the signal strength measurements (“said
`
`23
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 (Claim 49)
`
`measurements”) are “transmitted between said one mobile station and at least one
`
`of a plurality of fixed location communication stations” by disclosing that the
`
`signal strength measurements, as sensed by a vehicle’s cellular unit, are
`
`continuously transmitted between cell sites and a vehicle’s cellular unit:
`
`In a conventional cellular telephone network, all cell sites
`continuously transmit identifying signals 62 (see FIG. 1)
`containing information on the cell I.D., the control channel
`frequency, and the voice channel frequency and signal strength
`measurements of cell sites as sensed by a vehicle cellular phone.
`CSCO-1010, 5:28-33; CSCO-1003, p. 112-113.
`
`Sheffer II also describes how the vehicle’s cellular unit, when triggered,
`
`makes a cellular phone call and transmits the signal strength information:
`
`In the event that one of the sensors is activated, the controller
`determines which sensor the signal is received from, and obtains
`an alarm code corresponding to this sensor from memory 60. At
`the same time, the in-built modem or DTMF transmitter 54
`automatically goes "Off-Hook" and the transceiver commences
`scanning all adjacent cellular sites, for their signal strength
`readings, selecting the highest value readings from readings from
`the two antennas. At this time, the controller initiates a dialing
`sequence to the appropriate telephone number, per the numbers
`stored in memory 60, to link up with the computer at the central
`monitoring station. In conjunction with the controller, the
`transceiver transmits an alarm message or packet of information
`to the central computer. This packet is continuously updated and
`transmitted at periodic intervals to the telephone numb