`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