throbber
Paper 9
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Date: March 4, 2021
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LBT IP I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOHN A. HUDALLA, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting
`an inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, 8, 10, 13, and 15 (“the challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’774 patent”).
`Petitioner filed a Declaration of Scott Andrews (Ex. 1003) with its Petition.
`Patent Owner, LBT IP I LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). Under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the
`information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is
`a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow,
`we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 4–6, 8, 10, 13, and 15 of
`the ’774 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`A.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies Apple Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Pet. 72.
`Patent Owner identifies LBT IP I LLC as the real party-in-interest. Paper 3,
`2; Paper 6, 2.
`
`Related Proceedings
`The parties identify the following proceedings related to the
`’774 patent (Pet. 72; Paper 3, 2; Paper 6, 2):
`LBT IP I LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01245-UNA (D. Del. filed
`July 1, 2019); and
`IPR2020-01190, IPR2020-01191, IPR2020-01192, and
`IPR2020-01193, in which Petitioner challenges other patents owned by
`Patent Owner. We institute inter partes reviews in IPR2020-01190,
`IPR2020-01191, IPR2020-01192, and IPR2020-01193 in decisions issued
`concurrently herewith.
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`The ’774 patent
`C.
`The ’774 patent is directed to location and tracking communication
`systems. Ex. 1001, 1:33–34. Figure 1 of the ’774 patent is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a schematic of tracking device 100, which contains
`electronic components 101 such as transceiver 102, signal processing
`circuitry 104 (e.g., a microprocessor or other signal logic circuitry), and
`accelerometer 130. Id. at 4:62–64, 6:54–57. Location tracking circuitry 114
`(e.g., global positioning system (GPS) circuitry) calculates location data
`received and sends the data to signal processing circuitry 104. Id. at 7:17–
`19. Signal detecting circuitry 115 detects and measures signal power level.
`Id. at 7:22–23. Battery level monitor 116 detects a battery level of
`battery 118. Id. at 7:25–28.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`Tracking device 100 periodically checks availability of a GPS signal
`by performing a GPS signal acquisition to determine if a receive
`communication signal is above a first signal level. Id. at 8:7–10. Location
`tracking circuitry 114 or transceiver 102 may be placed in a sleep or standby
`mode to conserve a battery level of battery 118. Id. at 8:4–8. Electronic
`tracking device 100 may resume GPS signal acquisition using GPS satellites
`when the acquired receive communication signal level is above the first
`signal level. Id. at 8:10–16.
`Accelerometer 130 may also activate if a power level of the receive
`communication signal (e.g., GPS signal) is insufficient for processing. Id. at
`10:47–49. In this case, processing unit 104 computes current location
`coordinates using acceleration measurements. Id. at 10:53–54. When the
`receive communication signal again becomes sufficient for processing,
`accelerometer 130 is deactivated and location tracking circuitry 114 is
`activated. Id. at 10:58–67. In this case, processing unit 104 resumes the
`calculation of location coordinates from the receive communication signal.
`Id.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`Figure 4 of the ’774 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts screen display 400 of a personal communication device
`including a user definable adjustable power level monitor for an electronic
`tracking device. Id. at 5:5–7, 11:2–4, 11:12–17. Battery level monitor 116
`measures in real-time battery charge level 406 of battery 118 and predicts
`estimated remaining battery charge life 414 in response to battery charge
`level 406. Id. at 11:22–25, 13:52–58. Battery level monitor 116 also adjusts
`the power level applied to location tracking circuitry 114 or transceiver 102
`responsive to one or more signal levels. Id. at 13:52–58.
`A local battery power adjustment mechanism generates in
`substantially real-time an updated set of network communication signaling
`protocols including, for example, update rate 446 (e.g., refresh rate) of
`location coordinate packets. Id. at 11:31–36. Update rate 446 consists of a
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`request rate of location coordinate packets by the target host and/or a listen
`rate of location coordinate packets by the portable electronic tracking device.
`Id. at 11:36–41. The local battery power adjustment mechanism includes
`user-adjustable slider 4321 to graphically display in substantially real-time
`the trade-off relationships between remaining battery charge level 414 and
`update rate 446 of location coordinate packets. Id. at 11:53–57. The user
`may select a multitude of threshold values via slider 432 to intermittently
`activate or deactivate location tracking circuitry 114 in order to conserve the
`power of battery 118. Id. at 13:58–67. For example, the user may adjust
`slider 432 to choose a range of values between a lower update rate 446 (and
`less battery usage) and a higher update rate 446 (and more battery usage).
`Id. at 11:53–57, Fig. 4. This results in “an appropriate update[d] set of
`network communication signaling protocols to achieve a desired user
`defined battery operating environment, e.g., obtain optimal battery life,
`obtain optimal update rate, [and the] tradeoffs between them.” Id. at 11:58–
`63. This further may result in the local battery power adjustment mechanism
`communicating a message to activate or deactivate a portion of the
`transceiver circuitry, processor circuitry, or location tracking circuitry. Id. at
`11:44–53.
`The ’774 patent issued from an application filed on April 7, 2009,
`which was a continuation-in-part of six other applications; the earliest filing
`date among these six other applications is April 5, 2007. Ex. 1001,
`codes (22), (63). As discussed below, Petitioner applies the April 5, 2007,
`
`
`1 Slider 432 is also called “user adjustable screen icon 432,” “on-line user
`adjustable cursor display 432,” and “active display 432” in the specification
`of the ’774 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 11:53–57, 13:13–18, 13:58–67.
`
`6
`
`

`

`D.
`
`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`filing date of the earliest application (i.e., the earliest possible effective filing
`date) for qualifying the asserted references as prior art. See Pet. 3, 7–8.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims of the ’774 patent, claims 1 and 8 are
`independent. Claims 4–6 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and
`claims 10, 13, and 15 depend from claim 8. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
`challenged claims and recites:
`1.
`A portable electronic tracking device to monitor location
`coordinates of one or more individuals and objects using a
`satellite navigation system, the portable electronic tracking
`device comprising:
`a battery having a battery charge level;
`transceiver circuitry;
`processor circuitry;
`a battery power monitor to measure in real-time the
`battery charge level and to make a prediction of an estimated
`remaining battery charge level in response to the battery charge
`level;
`
`local battery power adjustment mechanism to generate in
`substantially real-time an updated set of network
`communication signaling protocols associated with at least one
`of a request rate of location coordinate packets to be
`communicated to a target host and a listen rate of the location
`coordinate packets from a satellite navigation system, the
`updated set of network communication signaling protocols
`having a value that is responsive to a user input request;
`wherein the local battery power adjustment mechanism
`actives or deactivates at least one portion of the transceiver
`
`7
`
`

`

`E.
`
`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`circuitry or the processor circuitry to conserve the battery
`charge level in response to the value.
`Ex. 1001, 15:46–16:2.
`
`Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No.
`JP 2004-37116A, published Feb. 5, 2004
`(Ex. 1004,
`“Sakamoto”);
`Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (Ex. 1001, 11:22–30,
`“AAPA”); and
`U.S. Patent No. 5,845,142, filed Aug. 29, 1997, issued
`Dec. 1, 1998 (Ex. 1011, “Hayasaka”).
`
`
`F.
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4–6, 8, 10, 13, and 15 of the
`’774 patent on the following grounds (Pet. 6):
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`1, 4–6, 8, 10, 13, 15
`103(a)2
`1, 4–6, 8, 10, 13, 15
`103(a)
`1, 4–6, 8, 10, 13, 15
`103(a)
`
`References
`Sakamoto
`Sakamoto, AAPA
`Sakamoto, Hayasaka
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`We now consider Petitioner’s asserted grounds and Patent Owner’s
`arguments in the Preliminary Response to determine whether Petitioner has
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the
`’774 patent was filed before March 16, 2013 (the effective date of the
`relevant amendments), the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply.
`
`8
`
`

`

`A.
`
`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`met the “reasonable likelihood” standard for institution under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a).
`
`Legal Standards
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
`considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together
`with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d
`559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Citing testimony from Mr. Andrews, Petitioner contends a person of
`ordinary skill in the art (or “POSITA”) “would have had a bachelor’s degree
`in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an
`equivalent degree, with at least two years of experience in GPS navigation,
`portable tracking devices, or related technologies.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`B.
`
`9
`
`

`

`C.
`
`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`¶¶ 29–30). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level
`of ordinary skill at this time.
`For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the
`level of ordinary skill in the art without the qualifier “at least,” which
`introduces ambiguity. On the present record, we are satisfied that this
`definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and
`implement the teachings of the ’774 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, we construe each claim “in accordance with
`the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Accordingly, our claim construction standard is the
`same as that of a district court. See id. Under the standard applied by
`district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary
`meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a
`patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when
`the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the
`specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am.
`LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`Neither party puts forth any terms for construction. See Pet. 6.
`Nonetheless, Patent Owner makes arguments relative to the term
`“multitude” in the recited “multitude of threshold values” of claim 8. See
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`Prelim. Resp. 15–17. In addition, Petitioner’s Sakamoto–AAPA and
`Sakamoto–Hayasaka grounds turn on an alternate interpretation of the
`limitation “make a prediction of an estimated remaining battery charge
`level” in claim 1 and similar limitations in other claims. Pet. 57, 61. We
`address these claim construction issues in turn.
`
`“Multitude”
`1.
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s showing of two threshold
`values in the prior art does not represent a “multitude” in the recited
`“multitude of threshold values” of claim 8. Prelim. Resp. 16–17. In support
`of its interpretation, Patent Owner cites the reference to a “multitude of
`threshold values” in the specification of the ’774 patent, which is linked to
`“active display 432 in Fig. 4.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 13:61–62, Fig. 4).
`Patent Owner contends active display 432 (i.e., slider 432) in Figure 4 of the
`’774 patent “includes between five and seven thresholds, depending on
`whether one includes the endpoints as thresholds.” Id. Patent Owner also
`cites a dictionary definition for multitude as being “a great number.” Id. at
`16.
`
`Although Patent Owner is correct that the exemplary embodiment in
`Figure 4 of the ’774 patent depicts 5–7 thresholds (see Ex. 1001, Fig. 4
`(432)), “we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the
`specification into the claims.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v.
`Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). As such, we do not view
`5 or 7 as a benchmark for what constitutes a “multitude” in claim 8. And,
`although certain contemporaneous dictionary definitions of “multitude”
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`include “very great number” and “large number” (see, e.g., Ex. 3001, 3;
`Ex. 3002, 3), we do not view these definitions as excluding two from what
`constitutes a “multitude.” We note, for example, that the word “plurality”
`also is defined in these same dictionaries as a “large number” and that one
`dictionary even defines “plurality” as “a multitude.” See, e.g., Ex. 3001, 4;
`Ex. 3002, 4. And, in patent law, “plurality” is universally construed to mean
`“at least two.” See SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network
`Tech. Ltd., 983 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Thus, for purposes of this
`Decision, we construe “multitude” to include two. We encourage the parties
`to address the interpretation of this claim limitation during trial if they do not
`agree with our interpretation.
`
`2.
`
`“Make a Prediction of an Estimated Remaining Battery Charge
`Level”
`In the Sakamoto–AAPA and Sakamoto–Hayasaka grounds (see infra
`§§ II.E, II.F), Petitioner cites AAPA or Hayasaka for teaching the recited
`“battery power monitor” of claim 1
`[t]o the extent that Patent Owner contends that Sakamoto does
`not teach predicting an estimated remaining battery charge level
`in response to the battery charge level, or contends that
`“predicting an estimated remaining battery charge level in
`response to the battery charge level” (as claimed) requires
`predicting an estimated remaining battery charge life.
`Pet. 57, 61. Patent Owner does not take a position on this interpretation in
`its Preliminary Response.3
`
`
`3 Patent Owner does argue, however, that Petitioner’s proposed
`combinations with the AAPA and Hayasaka are impermissible because they
`are redundant of Petitioner’s Sakamoto ground, which relies on Sakamoto
`alone for teaching the recited “battery power monitor.” See Prelim.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`We now consider whether the “make a prediction of an estimated
`remaining battery charge level” requires making a prediction of remaining
`battery charge life. By way of explanation, Mr. Andrews testifies that
`predicted remaining charge level might be expressed a percentage of battery
`remaining (e.g., 18%), whereas predicted remaining charge life might be
`expressed an amount of battery time remaining (e.g., one hour). Ex. 1003
`¶ 114. We note that the plain language of claim 1 requires predicting
`remaining charge level in response to the battery charge level. As such, the
`plain language of the claim does not require a prediction of battery life.
`Moreover, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood the claim language to require a prediction of battery
`life. On the present record, we see no justification to rewrite the claim
`language. See Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–74
`(Fed. Cir. 2004) (determining that plain language of claim applies, even
`when yielding a nonsensical result, because “courts may not redraft
`claims”); cf. Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 779 F.3d 1360,
`1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Determining how a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would understand the limitation, however, is different from rewriting
`the limitation.”).
`Thus, we determine at this juncture that the limitation “make a
`prediction of an estimated remaining battery charge level” in claim 1 (and
`
`
`Resp. 6–7. Although we do not fully analyze these alternative grounds
`below (see infra §§ II.E, II.F), we do not agree with Patent Owner that
`Petitioner’s proposed combinations are improper simply because the
`references being combined teach similar components and functionality.
`Rather, the propriety of these combinations—and any combination—turns
`on the rationale for combining the references.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`similar limitations in other claims) does not require making a prediction of
`remaining battery charge life. Again, we encourage the parties to address
`the interpretation of this claim limitation during trial if they do not agree
`with our interpretation.
`
`Other Terms
`3.
`We determine that no other terms require explicit construction. See,
`e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’
`. . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`D. Obviousness Ground Based on Sakamoto
`Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 1, 4–6, 8, 10, 13, and
`15 would have been obvious over Sakamoto. Pet. 8–55. Patent Owner
`disputes Petitioner’s contentions. Prelim. Resp. 8–17.
`
`Sakamoto
`1.
`Sakamoto is a Japanese patent application publication directed to the
`use of a GPS positioning system that includes a portable terminal and remote
`server. Ex. 1004, code (57), ¶ 18. Figure 1, reproduced below, is a diagram
`showing a position information communication terminal.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1, above, depicts position information communication terminal 1,
`which includes GPS receiver 10, communication control unit 11 for mobile
`communications, GPS control unit 12, positioning control unit 13, man-
`machine interface control unit 14, satellite signal level detection unit 15,
`battery control unit 16, and communication line status control unit 17. Id.
`¶ 19. Battery control unit 16 constantly monitors the remaining battery
`level. Id. ¶ 28. Battery control unit 16 provides positioning control unit 13 a
`remaining battery life warning when the remaining battery amount falls
`below a preset threshold value. Id. ¶ 19.
`Satellite signal level detector 15 detects a level of the GPS signal
`received by GPS receiver 10 via GPS control unit 12. Id. When the signal
`level value is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value,
`positioning mode control unit 22 initiates a normal sensitivity positioning
`mode. Id. ¶ 38. Normal sensitivity positioning mode is a mode in which the
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`GPS receiver is operated only when necessary. Id. ¶¶ 4–5, 19. When the
`signal level value is equal to or lower than a predetermined threshold value,
`positioning mode control unit 22 initiates a high sensitivity positioning
`mode. Id. ¶ 38. High sensitivity positioning mode is a mode in which the
`GPS receiver is operated constantly. Id. ¶¶ 4–5, 19. When the signal level
`value is equal to or lower than a threshold value associated with the inability
`to perform positioning, positioning mode control unit 22 stops the position
`search. Id. ¶ 38. A user may select among normal sensitivity positioning
`mode, high sensitivity positioning mode, and the power-off of terminal 1 via
`man-machine interface control unit 14. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28.
`Petitioner contends Sakamoto qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) based on its publication date. Pet. 7. Patent Owner does not
`contest the prior art status of Sakamoto. For purposes of this Decision, we
`determine that Sakamoto qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`because Sakamoto’s publication date of February 5, 2004, is more than one
`year before the earliest effective filing date of the challenged claims, which
`is April 5, 2007. Ex. 1001, code (63); Ex. 1004, code (43).
`
`Claim 1
`2.
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] portable electronic tracking
`device to monitor location coordinates of one or more individuals and
`objects using a satellite navigation system.” Ex. 1001, 15:46–48. Petitioner
`cites Sakamoto’s position information communication terminal 1, which
`comprises GPS receiver 10, communication control unit 11, GPS control
`unit 12, position control unit 13, man-machine interface control unit 14,
`satellite signal level detecting unit 15, battery control unit 16 and battery,
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`and communication line status controlling unit 17. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1004
`¶ 19, Fig. 1). Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`considered terminal 1 to be portable based on Sakamoto’s teaching of using
`terminal 1 with a battery and a mobile communication network. Id. at 14–15
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 76; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 11, 14, 30, 31, 46). Regarding
`“monitor[ing] location coordinates of . . . individuals and objects using a
`satellite navigation system,” Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s GPS receiver 10
`and GPS control unit 12, which allegedly “determine terminal user A’s (an
`individual’s) and terminal 1’s (an object’s) position.” Id. at 15 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 18, 20–24, Fig. 2).
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s analysis of the preamble at
`this time. Neither party addresses whether the preamble is limiting.
`Because Petitioner has shown that Sakamoto teaches the preamble, we need
`not determine whether the preamble is limiting. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at
`1017.
`
`Claim 1 further recites “a battery having a battery charge level.”
`Ex. 1001, 15:50. Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s teachings of battery control
`unit 16 in terminal 1 that notifies “positioning control unit 13 of a remaining
`battery amount warning when the remaining amount value of a battery (not
`shown) that supplies operating power falls below a preset threshold value.”
`Pet. 16 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 19) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner also notes
`Sakamoto’s reference that battery control unit 16 monitors “remaining
`battery level.” Id. at 17 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 28) (emphasis omitted). At this
`stage, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s analysis of this limitation.
`Based on the present record, we are persuaded that Sakamoto teaches “a
`battery with a battery charge level.” See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19, 28.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`Claim 1 further recites “transceiver circuitry.” Ex. 1001, 15:51.
`Petitioner cites, inter alia, Sakamoto’s teaching of “communication control
`unit 11” including “mobile communication means.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1004
`¶¶ 19, 30). Petitioner further cites Sakamoto’s teachings that
`communications control unit 11 transmits positioning control messages and
`remaining battery amount warning messages and receives positioning
`control messages. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34, 35). In light of these
`teachings, Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`known Sakamoto’s communication control unit 11 to be a transceiver. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 80). At this stage, Patent Owner does not contest
`Petitioner’s analysis of this limitation. Based on the present record, we are
`persuaded that Sakamoto teaches transceiver circuitry. See, e.g., Ex. 1003
`¶ 80; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34, 35.
`Claim 1 further recites “processor circuitry.” Ex. 1001, 15:52.
`Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s teaching of GPS receiver 10 performing
`“positioning operations” when it determines location coordinates from a
`received communication signal. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 19, Fig. 1).
`Petitioner further cites Sakamoto’s teaching of satellite level detecting
`unit 15 detecting the level of the GPS satellite signal and performing
`calculations based on the received signal level. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 83; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19, 37). At this stage, Patent Owner does not contest
`Petitioner’s analysis of this limitation. Based on the present record, we are
`persuaded that Sakamoto teaches processor circuitry. See, e.g., Ex. 1004
`¶¶ 19, 37.
`Claim 1 further recites “a battery power monitor to measure in real-
`time the battery charge level and to make a prediction of an estimated
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`remaining battery charge level in response to the battery charge level.”
`Ex. 1001, 15:53–56. Petitioner again cites Sakamoto’s battery control
`unit 16 and notes that it “constantly” monitors a remaining battery amount in
`order to determine when battery power falls below a predetermined
`threshold. Pet. 22–24 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19, 28, 39). Petitioner further
`contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that monitoring the
`remaining battery charge amount necessarily requires an estimate based on
`“conditions such as temperature and battery age.” Id. at 24–25 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 85). At this stage, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s
`analysis of this limitation. Based on the present record, we are persuaded
`that Sakamoto’s battery control unit 16 teaches the recited “battery power
`monitor.” See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 85; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19, 28, 39.
`Claim 1 further recites:
`local battery power adjustment mechanism to generate in
`substantially real-time an updated set of network
`communication signaling protocols associated with at least one
`of a request rate of location coordinate packets to be
`communicated to a target host and a listen rate of the location
`coordinate packets from a satellite navigation system, the
`updated set of network communication signaling protocols
`having a value that is responsive to a user input request.
`Ex. 1001, 15:57–65. For the recited “local battery power adjustment
`mechanism,” Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s man-machine interface control
`unit 14 and positioning control unit 13. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1).
`Petitioner contends these elements “act in concert to reduce (i.e., ‘adjust’)
`the battery usage of Sakamoto’s terminal.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 46).
`Petitioner explains that a user sets a “preset threshold value” using man-
`machine interface control unit 14 “to specify the battery level below which
`the terminal will automatically switch from high sensitivity positioning
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`mode to normal sensitivity positioning mode.” Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1004
`¶¶ 29, 46). Based on this threshold value, positioning control unit 13
`switches between the high sensitivity positioning mode and the normal
`sensitivity positioning mode by turning on and off the GPS receiver
`according to the current positioning mode. Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 87;
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 20, 24). Petitioner contends modes are changed “substantially
`[in] real-time” based on Sakamoto’s real-time battery monitoring and
`Sakamoto’s teaching of “automatically” switching modes at a preset
`threshold battery level. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 88; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19,
`29, 46).
`Petitioner maps the recited “communication signal protocols” to
`Sakamoto’s normal sensitivity positioning mode, high sensitivity positioning
`mode, and power-off mode. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 5–10, 28). As
`discussed below, Petitioner focuses on the listen rate for each of these
`modes.4 For example, Petitioner notes that, after an initial position request,
`“high-sensitivity positioning mode keeps the GPS continuously powered on,
`‘constantly’ updating the position of the terminal,” so an ordinarily skilled
`artisan would have known the GPS receiver to have “an associated refresh
`rate of location coordinates (commonly 1Hz).” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90;
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 20, 25, 31, 36). Petitioner further notes that, in normal
`sensitivity positioning mode, GPS receiver 10 is powered on and off in
`response to requests at man-machine interface control unit 14, which
`Petitioner characterizes as regular or irregular. Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`
`4 We note that the recited “request rate” and “listen rate” in this limitation
`are alternatives based on the language “at least one of,” so we focus on the
`“listen rate.”
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`¶ 92; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 24, 34). Petitioner additionally notes that Sakamoto
`discloses search requests made during a regular “short cycle.” Id. at 33
`(citing, inter alia, Ex. 1004 ¶ 40). Furthermore, Petitioner notes that even
`when no positioning request is pending, the server may periodically (i.e., at a
`“cycle set in advance”) send a satellite signal level request message, which
`“causes the terminal to monitor the satellite signal level for a specified
`length of time and send a ‘satellite signal level response message’ with
`signal strength data to the server.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 37). As such,
`Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that
`the periodic satellite signal request message cycle is “a minimum value for
`the listen rate of the GPS receiver in normal sensitivity position.” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 92). Finally, Petitioner asserts that the listen rate for GPS signals
`is zero when the GPS receiver is in power-off mode. Id. at 33–34 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 94; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 39, 51).
`For the limitation that “the updated set of network communication
`signaling protocols hav[e] a value that is responsive to a user input request,”
`Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s teaching that “terminal user A can select the
`positioning mode (and therefore the value of the communication signaling
`protocol) using man-machine interface control unit 14.” Pet. 34–35 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 26). Petitioner contends the “value of the communication
`signaling protocol” is responsive to the user’s selection of either normal
`sensitivity positioni

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