Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Date: March 4, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLEINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`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 ofInter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting
`
`an inter partes review ofclaims 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”),
`
`Petitionerfiled a Declaration of Scott Andrews (Ex. 1003) with its Petition.
`
`Patent Owner, LBT IP I LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper8,“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`EX2019 p. 1
`
`EX2019 p. 1
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`We haveauthority to determine whetherto 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 “showsthat there is
`a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`
`least 1 of the claims challengedin the petition.” For the reasonsthat follow,
`
`weinstitute 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.
`
`A.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner identifies Apple Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Pet. 72.
`
`Patent Owneridentifies LBT IP I LLC as the real party-in-interest. Paper 3,
`
`2; Paper6, 2.
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`Theparties identify the following proceedingsrelated 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. Weinstitute inter partes reviews in IPR2020-01190,
`
`IPR2020-01191, IPR2020-01192, and IPR2020-01193 in decisions issued
`
`concurrently herewith.
`
`EX2019 p. 2
`
`EX2019 p. 2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`C.
`
`The ’774 patent
`
`The ’774 patentis directed to location and tracking communication
`
`systems. Ex. 1001, 1:33-34. Figure 1 of the °774 patent is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`Monitoring
`Station
`
`110
`
`
`
`
`Signal
`
`
`processing
`
`circuity
`
`
`
`
` . Location
`tracking circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`signa
`[Feros
`
`
`6detecting
`|
`Accelerometer
`
`circuit
`
`|
`
`
` battery
`
`charging
`circuitry
`
`=
`
`
`
`
`100
`
`Figure 1
`
`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 microprocessoror other signallogic circuitry), and
`
`accelerometer 130. Jd. at 4:62—64, 6:54-57. Location tracking circuitry 114
`
`(e.g., global positioning system (GPS)circuitry) calculates location data
`
`received and sendsthe data to signal processing circuitry 104. Jd. at 7:17—
`
`19. Signal detecting circuitry 115 detects and measures signal powerlevel.
`
`Id. at 7:22-23. Battery level monitor 116 detects a battery level of
`
`battery 118. Jd. at 7:25-28.
`
`EX2019 p. 3
`
`EX2019 p. 3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`Tracking device 100 periodically checks availability of a GPS signal
`
`by performing a GPSsignal acquisition to determine if a receive
`communication signal is abovea first signal level. Jd. at 8:7-10. Location
`
`tracking circuitry 114 or transceiver 102 may be placed in a sleep or standby
`
`mode to conservea battery level of battery 118. /d. at 8:4-8. Electronic
`
`tracking device 100 may resume GPSsignal acquisition using GPSsatellites
`
`when the acquired receive communication signal level is above the first
`
`signal level. /d. at 8:10-16.
`
`Accelerometer 130 may also activate if a powerlevel 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. Jd. at 10:53-54. When the
`
`receive communication signal again becomessufficient for processing,
`
`accelerometer 130 is deactivated and location tracking circuitry 114 is
`
`activated. Jd. at 10:58-67. In this case, processing unit 104 resumesthe
`
`calculation of location coordinates from the receive communication signal.
`
`Td.
`
`EX2019 p. 4
`
`EX2019 p. 4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`Figure 4 of the ’774 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`FE Locate By Phoce M9 1-321-441-4254 Ba d4-161600-6085}
`
`(3F Beta Users Pease leave feethack or report abug here
`
`Cony
`-
`.
`Fe pocketfinder
`
`y
`
`Mom
`
`Dashsella
`
`S
`
`: © SpeedLimit
`
`)
`
`Pewer
`
`eeeaeUit
`ELLO
`
`Identification
`
`Power Management
`Adjust the power settings for your device, Here youcan see the current batteryfife, how much time & left before a charyeis
`fequired and fine tune your update interval to obtain your optimal battery setting,
`
`All righs reserved. 0 2006-2008 Location Based Techdogies
`
`Adjust Battery Performance
`a Battery Lite Mode|Updates Every |
`
`
`less updaies
`(+ Spsaiee
`
`moreupdaies
`(-5
`
`3 Days
`
`10 min
`
`q
`
`Leave acomment or report abug, Site Cedit Privacy Poley Terms and Conditions
`
`This ste is protected by copyright and
`trademark lavss under US and irtemesbonal aw,
`
`400
`
`Figure 4
`
`Figure 4 depicts screen display 400 of a personal communication device
`
`including a user definable adjustable power level monitor for an electronic
`
`tracking device. Jd. at 5:5—7, 11:24, 11:12-17. Battery level monitor 116
`
`measuresin real-time battery charge level 406 of battery 118 and predicts
`
`estimated remaining battery chargelife 414 in response to battery charge
`
`level 406. Jd. at 11:22—25, 13:52-58. Battery level monitor 116 also adjusts
`
`the powerlevel applied to location tracking circuitry 114 or transceiver 102
`
`responsive to one or more signal levels. Jd. 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. /d. at 11:31-36. Update rate 446 consists of a
`
`EX2019 p. 5
`
`EX2019 p. 5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`request rate of location coordinate packets by the target host and/ora 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-adjustableslider 432! 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
`
`powerofbattery 118. /d. 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 morebattery 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 optimalbattery life,
`
`obtain optimal update rate, [and the] tradeoffs between them.” Jd. at 11:58-
`
`63. This further mayresult in the local battery power adjustment mechanism
`
`communicating a messageto activate or deactivate a portion of the
`
`transceivercircuitry, processor circuitry, or location tracking circuitry. Jd. at
`
`11:44-53.
`
`The ’774 patent issued from an application filed on April 7, 2009,
`
`which wasa continuation-in-part of six other applications; the earliest filing
`
`date amongthese 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.
`
`EX2019 p. 6
`
`EX2019 p. 6
`
`

`

`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 referencesas prior art. See Pet. 3, 7-8.
`
`D.—Illustrative Claim
`
`Ofthe challenged claims of the ’774 patent, claims | and 8 are
`
`independent. Claims 4-6 dependdirectly or indirectly from claim 1, and
`
`claims 10, 13, and 15 depend from claim 8. Claim1isillustrative of the
`
`challenged claims andrecites:
`
`A portable electronic tracking device to monitor location
`1.
`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;
`
`transceivercircuitry;
`
`processorcircuitry;
`a battery power monitor to measurein real-time the
`battery charge level and to makea prediction of an estimated
`remaining battery charge level in résponse 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 andalisten 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 ofthe transceiver
`
`EX2019 p. 7
`
`EX2019 p. 7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`_ Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`circuitry or the processorcircuitry to conserve the battery
`charge level in responseto the value.
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:46—-16:2.
`
`E.
`
`Prior Art
`
`Petitioner relies on the followingpriorart:
`
`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’”’).
`
`EF.
`
`
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 13, and 15 ofthe
`°774 patent on the following grounds(Pet. 6):
`
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C.§
`|--~-~> > References
`
`
`
`
`ny
`
`
`
`
`1, 4-6, 8, 10, 13, 15
`
`
`Sakamoto, AAPA
`
`1, 4-6, 8, 10, 13, 15
`
`
`Sakamoto, Hayasaka
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`WenowconsiderPetitioner’s asserted grounds and Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments in the Preliminary Response to determine whether Petitioner has
`
`* 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 wasfiled before March 16, 2013 (the effective date of the
`relevant amendments), the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply.
`
`EX2019 p. 8
`
`EX2019 p. 8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`metthe “reasonable likelihood” standard for institution under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a).
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter andthepriorart are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obviousat 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 contentofthe prior art; (2) any
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the priorart; (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).
`
`Wealso recognize that prior art references must be “considered together
`
`with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” Jn re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing Jn re Samour, 571 F.2d
`
`559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).
`
`B.
`
`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
`
`EX2019 p. 9
`
`EX2019 p. 9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`49 29-30). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition ofthe 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, weare satisfied that this
`
`definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and
`
`implementthe teachings of the ’774 patent and the asserted priorart.
`
`C.
`
`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 standardis the
`
`sameasthat 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 contextof the entire patent
`
`disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(en banc). “There are only two exceptionsto this general rule: 1) when a
`
`patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when
`
`the patentee disavowsthe full scope of a claim term eitherin 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 argumentsrelative to the term
`
`“multitude” in the recited “multitude of threshold values”of claim 8. See
`
`10
`
`EX2019 p. 10
`
`EX2019 p. 10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`Prelim. Resp. 15-17. In addition, Petitioner’s Sakamoto—-AAPA and
`
`Sakamoto—Hayasakagroundsturn 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.
`
`1.
`
`“Multitude”
`
`Patent Owner contendsthat Petitioner’s showing of two threshold
`
`valuesin 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 Ownercites 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.” /d. (citing Ex. 1001, 13:61-62, Fig. 4).
`
`Patent Ownercontendsactive display 432 (i.e., slider 432) in Figure 4 of the
`
`°774 patent “includes between five and seven thresholds, depending on
`
`whetherone includes the endpoints as thresholds.” /d. Patent Owneralso
`
`cites a dictionary definition for multitude as being “a great number.” Jd. at
`
`16.
`
`Although Patent Owneris correct that the exemplary embodimentin
`
`Figure 4 of the ’774 patent depicts 5S—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 contemporaneousdictionary definitions of “multitude”
`
`11
`
`EX2019 p. 11
`
`EX2019 p. 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 ofthis
`
`Decision, we construe “multitude” to include two. We encourage the parties
`
`to address the interpretation of this claim limitation duringtrial if they do not
`
`agree with ourinterpretation.
`
`2.
`
`“Make a Prediction ofan Estimated Remaining Battery Charge
`Level”
`
`In the Sakamoto-AAPA and Sakamoto—Hayasaka grounds(see infra
`
`§§ ILE,ILF), 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 responseto the battery charge level, or contendsthat
`“predicting an estimated remaining battery charge levelin
`responseto the battery charge level” (as claimed) requires
`predicting an estimated remaining battery charge /ife.
`Pet. 57, 61. Patent Ownerdoes nottake a position on this interpretation in
`
`its Preliminary Response.*
`
`3 Patent Owner does argue, however, that Petitioner’s proposed
`combinations with the AAPA and Hayasakaare impermissible because they
`are redundant ofPetitioner’s Sakamoto ground, whichrelies on Sakamoto
`alone for teaching the recited “battery power monitor.” See Prelim.
`
`12
`
`EX2019 p. 12
`
`EX2019 p. 12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`Wenowconsider 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. Andrewstestifies 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 amountof battery time remaining (e.g., one hour). Ex. 1003
`
`4 114. We note that the plain language of claim 1 requires predicting
`
`remaining charge /evel in responseto the battery charge level. As such, the
`
`plain language of the claim does not require a prediction ofbattery life.
`
`Moreover, we are not persuadedthat 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 nojustification to rewrite the claim
`
`language. See ChefAm., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373-74
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004) (determining that plain language of claim applies, even
`
`whenyielding a nonsensical result, because “courts may notredraft
`
`claims”); cf: Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 779 F.3d 1360,
`
`1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Determining how a person ofordinary skill in
`
`the art would understandthe limitation, however, is different from rewriting
`
`the limitation.”).
`
`Thus, we determineat 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 §§ ILE, II.F), we do not agree with Patent Ownerthat
`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
`
`EX2019 p. 13
`
`EX2019 p. 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 duringtrial if they do not agree
`
`with our interpretation.
`
`3.
`
`Other Terms
`
`Wedetermine 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
`
`‘AS would have been obvious over Sakamoto. Pet. 8-55. Patent Owner
`disputes Petitioner’s contentions. Prelim. Resp. 8-17.
`
`1.
`
`Sakamoto
`
`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), J 18. Figure 1, reproduced below,is a diagram
`
`showinga position information communication terminal.
`
`14
`
`EX2019 p. 14
`
`EX2019 p. 14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`GPS RECEIVER
`
`FIG. 1
`
`
`
`POSTION
`te
`13
`REQUEST
`
`
`
`MANMACHINE |
`.
`COMMUNICATION LINE
`
`INTERFACE CONTROL }¢7———}
`POSITIONING CONTROLUNIT
`INFORMATION
`STATUS CONTROL
`
`
`UNIT
`UNT
`
`
`COMMUNICATION
`POSITIONING
`Ads
`dN
`MODE
`TR
`INZORMATION
`ORTEXT‘Ot
`
`
`UNREADABLE]
`POSITION RESPONSE
`
`
`
`BATTERY REMAINING=soeimigy«=POWER=|SATELLITE SIGNAL | oe
`
`
`
`AMOUNT SURVERLANT=neroiapion SUPPLY|LEVELDETECTING| APPLICATION DATA CIRCUIT CONNECTION
`
`BATTERYRENAINING
`="
`CONTROL
`UNIT
`OR GPS SATELLITE
`CUTTING
`
`AMOUNT WARNING
`INFORMATION
`
`SIGNAL LEVEL,
`
`
`
`ACQUISITION
`pM
`
`GPS CONTROL UNIT
`BATTERY
`
`
`
`CONTROL UNIT
`
`12 POSITION INFORMATION
`POSITION INFORMATION
`y
`
`COMMUNICATION TERMINAL
`POWER SUPSLY CONTROL
`INFORMATION
`10: GPS RECENER
`
`11: COMMUNICATION CONTROL UNIT
`18
`12: GPS CONTROL UNIT
`
`13: POSITIONING CONTROL UNIT
`14: MAN-MACHINE INTERFACE CONTROE UNIT
`15: SATELLITE SIGNAL LEVEL DETECTING UNIT
`16; BATIERY CONTROL UNIT
`17; CONMUNICATION LINE STATUS CONTROL
`UNIT
`
`COMMUNICATION
`CONTROL UNF
`
`
`
`
`~
`
`Figure 1, above, depicts position information communication terminal1,
`
`which includes GPS receiver 10, communication control unit 11 for mobile
`
`communications, GPS control unit 12, positioning control unit 13, man-
`
`machineinterface control unit 14, satellite signal level detection unit 15,
`
`battery control unit 16, and communication line status control unit 17. Jd.
`
`4 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 amountfalls
`
`belowapreset threshold value. Id. { 19.
`
`Satellite signal level detector 15 detects a level of the GPSsignal
`
`received by GPSreceiver 10 via GPS control unit 12. Jd. Whenthe signal
`
`level value is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value,
`
`positioning mode control unit 22 initiates a normal sensitivity positioning
`
`mode. Jd. | 38. Normalsensitivity positioning mode is a mode in which the
`
`15
`
`EX2019 p. 15
`
`EX2019 p. 15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`GPSreceiver is operated only when necessary. Jd. J 4-5, 19. When the
`
`signal level value is equal to or lower than a predetermined threshold value,
`
`positioning mode controlunit 22initiates a high sensitivity positioning
`mode. Jd. { 38. High sensitivity positioning mode is a mode in which the
`
`GPSreceiveris operated constantly. Jd. §] 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 normalsensitivity positioning
`
`mode,high sensitivity positioning mode, and the power-off of terminal 1 via
`
`man-machine interface control unit 14. Jd. {{ 26, 28.
`
`Petitioner contends Sakamoto qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) based onits publication date. Pet. 7. Patent Owner does not
`
`contestthe 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
`
`yearbefore the earliest effective filing date of the challenged claims, which
`
`is April 5, 2007. Ex. 1001, code (63); Ex. 1004, code (43).
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] portable electronic tracking
`device to monitor location coordinates of one or more individuals and
`objects usingasatellite navigation system.” Ex. 1001, 15:46—-48. Petitioner
`
`cites Sakamoto’s position information communication terminal 1, which
`
`comprises GPSreceiver 10, communication control unit 11, GPS control
`
`unit 12, position control unit 13, man-machineinterface control unit 14,
`satellite signal level detecting unit 15, battery control unit 16 and battery,
`
`16
`
`EX2019 p. 16
`
`EX2019 p. 16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`and communication line status controlling unit 17. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1004
`
`q 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. /d. at 14-15
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 J 76; Ex. 1004 99 3, 11, 14, 30, 31, 46). Regarding
`
`“monitor[ing] location coordinates of .
`
`.
`
`. individuals and objects using a
`
`satellite navigation system,” Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s GPSreceiver 10
`
`and GPScontrol unit 12, which allegedly “determine terminal user A’s (an
`
`individual’s) and terminal 1’s (an object’s) position.” /d. at 15 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004 ff 18, 20-24, Fig. 2).
`
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s analysis of the preamble at
`
`this time. Neither party addresses whether the preambleis limiting.
`
`BecausePetitioner has shown that Sakamoto teaches the preamble, we need
`
`not determine whether the preambleis limiting. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at .
`
`1017.
`
`Claim 1 furtherrecites “‘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 amountvalue ofa battery (not
`
`shown)that supplies operating powerfalls 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.” /d. at 17 (quoting Ex. 1004 § 28) (emphasis omitted). At this
`
`stage, Patent Ownerdoes 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 Jf 19, 28.
`
`17
`
`EX2019 p. 17
`
`EX2019 p. 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
`
`J{ 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. /d. (citing Ex. 1004 Jf 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 J 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 transceivercircuitry. See, e.g., Ex. 1003
`
`q 80; Ex. 1004 9 7, 34, 35.
`
`Claim 1 further recites “processorcircuitry.” 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 ofsatellite level detecting
`
`unit 15 detecting the level of the GPSsatellite signal and performing
`
`calculations based on the received signal level. /d. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`4 83; Ex. 1004 Jf 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 processorcircuitry. See, e.g., Ex. 1004
`
`{4 19, 37.
`
`Claim 1 further recites “a battery power monitor to measure inreal-
`
`time the battery charge level and to make a prediction of an estimated
`
`18
`
`EX2019 p. 18
`
`EX2019 p. 18
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`remaining battery charge level in responseto the battery charge level.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:53-56. Petitioner again cites Sakamoto’s battery control
`unit 16 and notesthat it “constantly” monitors a remaining battery amount in
`
`order to determine when battery powerfalls below a predetermined
`
`threshold. Pet. 22—24 (citing Ex. 1004 J 19, 28, 39). Petitioner further
`
`contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that monitoring the
`
`remaining battery charge amountnecessarily requires an estimate based on
`
`“conditions such as temperature and battery age.” Jd. 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 ff 19, 28, 39.
`
`Claim 1 furtherrecites:
`
`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-
`
`machineinterface control unit 14 “to specify the battery level below which
`
`the terminal will automatically switch from high sensitivity positioning
`
`19
`
`EX2019 p. 19
`
`EX2019 p. 19
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01189
`Patent 8,497,774 B2
`
`mode to normal sensitivity positioning mode.” Jd. at 27—28 (citing Ex. 1004
`
`{7 29, 46). Based on this threshold value, positioning control unit 13
`
`switches betweenthe highsensitivity positioning mode and the normal
`
`sensitivity positioning mode by turning on and off the GPS receiver
`
`according to the current positioning mode. /d. at 28 (citing Ex. 1003 { 87;
`
`Ex. 1004 420, 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. Jd. at 29-30 (citing Ex. 1003 7 88; Ex. 1004 4 19,
`
`29, 46).
`
`Petitioner maps the recited “communication signal protocols” to
`
`Sakamoto’s normalsensitivity positioning mode, high sensitivity positioning
`
`mode, and power-off mode. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1004 4] 5-10, 28). As
`
`discussed below,Petitioner focuses on the listen rate for each of these
`
`modes.’ 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 knownthe GPS receiver to have “an associated refresh
`
`rate of location coordinates (commonly 1Hz).” Jd. (citing Ex. 1003 4 90;
`
`Ex. 1004 §f 20, 25, 31, 36). Petitioner further notes that, in normal
`
`sensitivity positioning mode, GPS receiver 10 is powered on andoff in
`
`response to requests at man-machineinterface control unit 14, which
`
`Petitioner characterizes as regularor irregular. Jd. at 32-33 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`“ Wenote 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
`
`EX2019 p. 20
`
`EX201