`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LBT IP I LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,497,774
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF THE ’774 PATENT .......................................................... 1
`A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’774 PATENT ........................................................ 1
`B.
`SUMMARY OF UNPATENTABILITY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........... 2
`C.
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ...................................... 3
`D.
`LEVEL OF SKILL OF A POSITA .............................................................. 3
`E.
`OPINION OF A POSITA .......................................................................... 3
`III. THE BOARD’S DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(A) ................... 4
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ....................... 5
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ....................... 5
`B.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.104(B)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................................................ 5
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ...................... 6
`C.
`SHOWING OF ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART ............................................ 7
`A.
`SAKAMOTO IS ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART ................................................... 7
`B. HAYASAKA IS ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART .................................................... 8
`VI. GROUND 1: THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER SAKAMOTO ...................................................................................... 8
`A.
`SAKAMOTO’S MULTIPLE EMBODIMENTS AND MOTIVATION TO
`COMBINE THE EMBODIMENTS GENERALLY ............................................ 9
`B. OBVIOUSNESS OF MODIFYING ELECTRONIC HARDWARE AND
`SOFTWARE TO BE CIRCUITRY .............................................................. 11
`CLAIM 1: .............................................................................................. 12
`1.
`Limitation 1[Pre] ...................................................................... 12
`2.
`Limitation 1[a] ......................................................................... 16
`3.
`Limitation 1[b] ......................................................................... 17
`4.
`Limitation 1[c] .......................................................................... 19
`5.
`Limitation 1[d] ......................................................................... 22
`6.
`Limitation 1[e] .......................................................................... 25
`7.
`Limitation 1[f] .......................................................................... 36
`CLAIM 4 ............................................................................................... 38
`CLAIM 5 ............................................................................................... 41
`CLAIM 6 ............................................................................................... 42
`CLAIM 8 ............................................................................................... 44
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`ii
`
`C.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`Limitation 8[pre] ...................................................................... 44
`1.
`Limitation 8[a] ......................................................................... 45
`2.
`Limitation 8[b] ......................................................................... 46
`3.
`Limitation 8[c] .......................................................................... 46
`4.
`Limitation 8[d]. ........................................................................ 47
`5.
`CLAIM 10 ............................................................................................. 54
`H.
`CLAIM 13 ............................................................................................. 54
`I.
`CLAIM 15 ............................................................................................. 54
`J.
`VII. GROUND 2: THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER SAKAMOTO IN VIEW OF AAPA ................................................ 56
`A.
`CLAIM 1 ............................................................................................... 56
`1.
`Limitation 1[Pre] ...................................................................... 56
`2.
`Limitation 1[a] ......................................................................... 56
`3.
`Limitation 1[b] ......................................................................... 56
`4.
`Limitation 1[c] .......................................................................... 56
`5.
`Limitation 1[d] ......................................................................... 57
`6.
`Limitation 1[e] .......................................................................... 59
`7.
`Limitation 1[f] .......................................................................... 59
`CLAIM 4 ............................................................................................... 59
`CLAIM 5 ............................................................................................... 59
`CLAIM 6 ............................................................................................... 59
`CLAIM 8 ............................................................................................... 60
`1.
`Limitation 8[pre] ...................................................................... 60
`2.
`Limitation 8[a] ......................................................................... 60
`3.
`Limitation 8[b] ......................................................................... 60
`4.
`Limitation 8[c] .......................................................................... 60
`5.
`Limitation 8[d] ......................................................................... 60
`CLAIM 10 ............................................................................................. 60
`F.
`CLAIM 13 ............................................................................................. 60
`G.
`CLAIM 15 ............................................................................................. 60
`H.
`VIII. GROUND 3: THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER SAKAMOTO IN VIEW OF HAYASAKA ...................................... 60
`A.
`CLAIM 1 ............................................................................................... 61
`1.
`Limitation 1[Pre] ...................................................................... 61
`2.
`Limitation 1[a] ......................................................................... 61
`3.
`Limitation 1[b] ......................................................................... 61
`4.
`Limitation 1[c] .......................................................................... 61
`5.
`Limitation 1[d] ......................................................................... 61
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`Limitation 1[e] .......................................................................... 65
`6.
`Limitation 1[f] .......................................................................... 65
`7.
`CLAIM 4 ............................................................................................... 65
`CLAIM 5 ............................................................................................... 65
`CLAIM 6 ............................................................................................... 70
`CLAIM 8 ............................................................................................... 70
`1.
`Limitation 8[pre] ...................................................................... 70
`2.
`Limitation 8[a] ......................................................................... 70
`3.
`Limitation 8[b] ......................................................................... 70
`4.
`Limitation 8[c] .......................................................................... 70
`5.
`Limitation 8[d] ......................................................................... 70
`CLAIM 10 ............................................................................................. 70
`F.
`CLAIM 13 ............................................................................................. 71
`G.
`CLAIM 15 ............................................................................................. 71
`H.
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 71
`X. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................... 72
`A.
`REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST ................................................................... 72
`B.
`RELATED MATTERS ............................................................................. 72
`C.
`LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL ............................................................ 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst., 849 F.3d 1073,
`(Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`Valeo North America, Inc. v. Magna Elec., Inc., IPR2015-00251, Paper
`(PTAB May 26, 2016)
`
`Statutes:
`35 U.S.C. §102
`35 U.S.C. §102(b)
`35 U.S.C. §103
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`Regulations:
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105
`
`
`
`3
`
`4
`
`4
`7, 8
`4,6
`4
`
`80
`79
`72
`72
`72
`73
`73
`79
`5
`5
`5
`5
`5
`6
`6
`6
`80
`
`v
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Apple Inc. requests Inter Partes Review of Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10,
`
`13, and 15 (collectively, the “Challenged Claims”) of USPN 8,497,774 assigned to
`
`LBT IP I LLC. ’774 Patent (Ex. 1001). The purportedly distinguishing feature of the
`
`Challenged Claims—an electronic tracking device adjusting an update rate
`
`responsive to user input and/or a battery power level—was well-known before the
`
`priority date of the ’774 Patent, and the Challenged Claims are obvious over the prior
`
`art as detailed herein. Accordingly, IPR of the Challenged Claims should be
`
`instituted.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’774 PATENT
`A. Description of the ’774 Patent
`The ’774 Patent describes devices and a method to increase the lifetime of a
`
`portable electronic tracking device, such as a GPS receiver. ’774 Patent, Abstract.
`
`The electronic tracking devices discussed in the ’774 Patent and claimed in the
`
`Challenged Claims allow the user to select between modes with higher update rates
`
`but short battery lives, and modes with lower update rates but longer battery lives.
`
`’774 Patent, FIG. 4, 14:1–57. The battery savings are realized by deactivating the
`
`GPS receiver and/or processor. ’774 Patent, 11:44–53. The tracking device may also
`
`intermittently deactivate the GPS receiver in response to a detected low battery level
`
`in order to extend the device’s operating life. ’774 Patent, 13:52–67.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`B.
`Summary of Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims
`Sakamoto teaches a GPS positioning system including a portable terminal
`
`having a GPS receiver for determining a position of the terminal, and a remote server
`
`to which the position information can be transmitted. Sakamoto (Ex. 1004), Abstract,
`
`[0018], [0030]–[0031]. Like the ’774 Patent, Sakamoto recognizes the tradeoff
`
`between keeping the GPS receiver powered to continually update the current
`
`position and saving battery power by powering off the GPS receiver. Sakamoto,
`
`[0003]. Sakamoto thus allows the user to select between “high sensitivity positioning
`
`mode” (where the GPS receiver is continuously powered on) and “normal sensitivity
`
`positioning mode” (where the GPS receiver is only intermittently powered on).
`
`Sakamoto, [0026]; [0043]. Sakamoto can also automatically switch from the high-
`
`sensitivity positioning mode (which updates the location information more
`
`frequently and consumes more battery power) to the normal sensitivity positioning
`
`mode (or even a power-off mode) upon detecting the remaining battery charge has
`
`fallen below a user-specified threshold. Sakamoto, [0029], [0039]. Sakamoto thus
`
`teaches the allegedly inventive concept of the ’774 Patent, that of allowing a user to
`
`choose an update rate while also being able to fall back to a lower power mode to
`
`conserve battery power.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`C.
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/419,451 (“the ’451 Application”), from which
`
`the ’774 Patent issued, was filed on April 9, 2009. The ’451 Application is a
`
`continuation-in-part of six U.S. Patent Applications with filing dates between April
`
`5, 2007 and January 6, 2008. ’774 Patent, (21), (22), (63). For purposes of this
`
`Petition only, Apple applies April 5, 2007, as the priority date for the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`D. Level of Skill of a POSITA
`A POSITA at the time of the ’774 Patent—which, for purposes of this Petition
`
`is April 5, 2007—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. Additional education may substitute for lesser work experience and
`
`vice-versa. Dec., 29–30.1
`
`E. Opinion of a POSITA
`Petitioner submits Exhibit 1003, Declaration of Scott Andrews, as evidence
`
`supporting its arguments. A proper unpatentability analysis entails considering Mr.
`
`Andrews’s reasonable understanding or appreciation of the discussed references. Eli
`
`Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074-75
`
`
`1 All citations to “Dec.” are to Ex. 1003, Declaration of Scott Andrews.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`(Fed. Cir. 2017); Valeo North America, Inc. v. Magna Elec., Inc., IPR2015-00251,
`
`Paper 18 at 18 (PTAB May 26, 2016); MPEP 2112 (“The express, implicit, and
`
`inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of
`
`claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.”). Mr. Andrews’s understanding of what would
`
`be understood from a reference as of the ’774 Patent’s priority date should be
`
`considered.
`
`III. THE BOARD’S DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(A)
`The Board should decline to exercise its discretion to deny institution under
`
`§ 314(a) because trial in the co-pending litigation will begin approximately 3-4
`
`months after the Final Written Decision, and the court will not invest resources in
`
`an invalidity analysis of the patent until at least post-institution. A Final Written
`
`Decision is due approximately January 2022, whereas trial is currently scheduled for
`
`May 9, 2022, approximately 3-4 months after the Final Written Decision.
`
`(Fintiv Factor 3). The parties’ joint claim construction brief is due March 17, 2021,
`
`and a Markman hearing is currently scheduled for April 5, 2021. Thus, the court is
`
`at least 9 months from even beginning to invest resources in an invalidity analysis.
`
`(Fintiv Factor 3). The parties have not yet served preliminary invalidity and
`
`infringement contentions, and dispositive motions are not due until October 29,
`
`2021. Therefore, the parties are at the early stages of the invalidity analysis.
`
`(Fintiv Factor 3). And because the parties have not even served preliminary
`
`4
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`contentions, the ability to evaluate the overlap between issues raised in the petition
`
`and the litigation is at a nascent stage. (Fintiv Factor 4). At the least, there is likely
`
`going to be no complete overlap between the asserted and challenged claims, as this
`
`Petition challenges more and different claims than asserted in the Complaint. (Ex.
`
`1036, LBT Complaint). The Petition also presents a strong showing of
`
`unpatentability. (Fintiv Factor 6). These factors favor not exercising discretionary
`
`denial under § 314(a).
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Apple certifies the ’774 Patent is available for IPR and Apple is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of the ’774 Patent. Apple is
`
`not the owner of the ’774 Patent, has not filed a civil action challenging the validity
`
`of any claim of the ’774 Patent, and this Petition is not filed more than one year after
`
`Apple was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’774 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenged Under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`In view of the prior art and evidence presented, the Challenged Claims of the
`
`’774 Patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1).
`
`Based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged Claims
`
`should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: Sakamoto renders claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 15 obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`Ground 2: Sakamoto in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art renders claims 1,
`4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 15 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`Ground 2: Sakamoto in view of Hayasaka renders claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13,
`and 15 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Sections VI–VIII identify where each element of the Challenged Claims is
`
`found in the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the
`
`supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and
`
`the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Sections V–
`
`VIII. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). Exhibits 1001–1044 are also attached.
`
`C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`Patent Owner has submitted a Complaint in a co-pending litigation, but has
`
`not provided detailed infringement contentions. In view of Patent Owner’s apparent
`
`contentions and the prior art and evidence provided herein, no claim terms require
`
`express construction to resolve the grounds presented. Where appropriate, Petitioner
`
`provides support for the meaning of claim terms in its analysis of how the prior art
`
`renders the challenged claims obvious, as detailed below.
`
`6
`
`

`

`V.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`SHOWING OF ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART
`Sakamoto and Hayasaka were neither cited nor considered during the
`
`prosecution of the ’774 Patent. The earliest claimed priority date for the ’774 Patent
`
`is April 5, 2007.
`
`A.
`Sakamoto Is Analogous Prior Art
`Sakamoto published February 5, 2004, and therefore qualifies as prior art to
`
`the ’774 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (Pre-AIA). Sakamoto teaches a
`
`GPS positioning system including at least one position information communication
`
`terminal (terminal) having a GPS receiver. Sakamoto, Abstract, [0018]. Sakamoto
`
`recognizes keeping a GPS receiver always operating produces a “highly sensitive
`
`positioning operation,” but, particularly when applied to portable devices with
`
`limited battery capacity, this mode must be judiciously applied to extend battery
`
`lifetime. Sakamoto, [0003]. Sakamoto thus discloses techniques to “flexibly control
`
`the operation mode of the GPS receiver” and only “selectively use the highly
`
`sensitive positioning operation.” Id.
`
`Because Sakamoto, like the ’774 Patent, discloses a battery-powered portable
`
`electronic tracking device employing a GPS receiver and manages power
`
`consumption by deactivating the GPS receiver when the battery power is low,
`
`Sakamoto is in the same field of endeavor and is pertinent to a problem to be solved
`
`7
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`by the claimed invention in the ’774 Patent. Dec., 55–61. Therefore, Sakamoto is
`
`analogous art to the claimed invention in the ’774 Patent.
`
`B. Hayasaka is Analogous Prior Art
`Hayasaka issued December 1, 1998, and therefore qualifies as prior art to the
`
`’774 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (Pre-AIA). Hayasaka teaches a
`
`portable, battery-powered communication terminal. Hayasaka (Ex. 1011), Abst.
`
`Hayasaka discloses a system whereby communication is suppressed in response to
`
`a low battery capacity, and resumed once battery capacity is sufficient to support
`
`communication. Hayasaka, Abst.; 4:19–27.
`
`Because, like the ’774 Patent, Hayasaka teaches monitoring the battery level
`
`of the portable communication terminal and putting the communication terminal into
`
`a sleep mode until the battery has sufficient power to process a communication,
`
`Hayasaka is in the same field of endeavor and is pertinent to a problem to be solved
`
`by the claimed invention in the ’774 Patent. Dec., 62–63. Therefore, Hayasaka is
`
`analogous art to the claimed invention in the ’774 Patent.
`
`VI. GROUND 1: THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`SAKAMOTO
`The proposed combination relies on a combination of the two embodiments
`
`of Sakamoto.
`
`8
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`Sakamoto’s Multiple Embodiments and Motivation to Combine
`the Embodiments Generally
`Sakamoto teaches two embodiments, identified as Embodiment 1 and
`
`Embodiment 2. Sakamoto, [0018]; [0030]. In referring to Embodiment 1, Sakamoto
`
`states: “In this embodiment, the position information communication terminal 1 will
`
`be described.” Sakamoto, [0019]. Embodiment 2 describes
`
`the position
`
`management/positioning server 2. Sakamoto, [0030]. Regarding Embodiment 2,
`
`Sakamoto states “the configurations of the position information communication
`
`terminal 1 and the GPS positioning system of the present embodiment are the same
`
`as those in FIGS. 1 and 2; the same configurations are denoted by the same reference
`
`numerals and the description thereof will be omitted.” Sakamoto, [0030], [0034].
`
`Both embodiments teach determining a satellite signal level and specifying a
`
`positioning mode based on the strength of the received satellite signal level.
`
`Sakamoto, [0027] (Embodiment 1), [0037]–[0038], [0045], [0050] (Embodiment 2).
`
`A POSITA would have found it obvious and been motivated to combine the
`
`embodiments taught in Sakamoto or otherwise modify one embodiment with
`
`teachings of the other embodiment. Dec., 72–74. Given the similarities between the
`
`embodiments, and further given that Embodiment 2 expressly includes the hardware
`
`of Embodiment 1 (e.g., the configurations of terminal 1 and server 2), it would have
`
`been obvious to employ the methods and techniques of Embodiment 2 in the GPS
`
`system of Embodiment 1 and vice-versa. Dec., 73. Such a modification would entail
`
`9
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`using similar components from both embodiments to perform the disclosed methods
`
`and techniques of the other embodiment. As opined by Mr. Andrews, Sakamoto’s
`
`disclosure is the same GPS system used for both embodiments. Dec., 72. Thus, to
`
`the extent any modification of Sakamoto’s system is required, it would be a routine
`
`programming of the GPS system (including terminals 1 and server 2) to perform
`
`various methods disclosed in the two embodiments to further reduce power usage.
`
`Such a combination would be met with a reasonable expectation of success given
`
`Sakamoto’s express statement the same hardware is used in both embodiments. Dec.,
`
`73.
`
`In Embodiment 1, terminal 1 (and specifically, positioning control unit 13)
`
`sets the mode dependent on the detected satellite signal level. Sakamoto, [0027]. In
`
`Embodiment 2, the terminal sends position information to server 2 ([0035]), and the
`
`server uses a satellite signal level response message to set the mode and instruct
`
`terminal 1 as to the positioning mode. Sakamoto, [0037]–[0038]. Embodiment 2
`
`expressly teaches when the signal level value is equal to or lower than a
`
`predetermined threshold value, position searching may be stopped. Sakamoto,
`
`[0038], [0050]. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to perform position
`
`detection and satellite signal strength detection at the terminal, as taught for
`
`Embodiment 1, while still stopping position searching when the satellite signal level
`
`is equal to or lower than a predetermined threshold value, as taught for Embodiment
`
`10
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`2. Dec., 74. Such a modification would allow for the terminal to perform all position
`
`searching and mode setting without being instructed by server 2, which would be
`
`advantageous in the event wireless communication with the server was limited
`
`through the mobile communication network. Dec., 74; Sakamoto, [0005], Claims 7–
`
`8 (disclosing mobile communication network).
`
`B. Obviousness of Modifying Electronic Hardware and Software to Be
`Circuitry
`To the extent Patent Owner argues the various electronic components
`
`disclosed in Sakamoto must be embodied as circuitry, it would have been obvious to
`
`a POSITA to substitute any of the hardware or software components in the references
`
`performing similar functions to the ’774 Patent’s claims as components with
`
`circuitry. Dec., 66–71. At a high level, a POSITA would have readily recognized
`
`circuitry for performing a particular function may be easily substituted with
`
`hardware, software, and/or firmware components. Dec., 70. An electronics designer
`
`would have found it obvious and a matter of mere design choice to choose to obtain
`
`a desired functionality using circuitry, which commonly includes hardware or
`
`firmware components, to perform the functionality or, alternatively or additionally,
`
`using processors, controllers, integrated circuits, programmable logic devices, or
`
`other data and signal processing devices for carrying out particular functions and
`
`further
`
`including memory storage devices,
`
`transmitters, receivers, and/or
`
`communication busses for communicating with the various electronic components
`
`11
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`of the system. Dec., 70. In electronics design, desired functionality is commonly
`
`performed using hardware, software, firmware, and/or combinations thereof. Id.
`
`Therefore, a POSITA would have found it obvious and been motivated to embody
`
`the various electronic components disclosed in Sakamoto as circuitry. Id.
`
`C. Claim 1:2
`1.
`Limitation 1[Pre]: 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
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, Sakamoto’s teachings disclose “a
`
`portable electronic tracking device to monitor location coordinates of one or more
`
`individuals and objects using a satellite navigation system,” as claimed.
`
`a)
`The ’774 Patent describes a “tracking device 100 containing various
`
`“portable electronic tracking device”
`
`electronic components 101 such as transceiver 102, signal processing circuitry 104
`
`(e.g., a microprocessor or other signal logic circuitry), and accelerometer 130.” ’774
`
`Patent, 6:54–57. A POSITA would have understood the ’774 Patent’s description of
`
`an electronic tracking device as a set of electronic components that collectively
`
`enable monitoring and/or tracking of the position of an object or individual. Dec.,
`
`75 (citing ’774 Patent, 6:30–52, 5:26–44).
`
`
`2 A Listing of the Claims is provided in the Claims Appendix.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`Sakamoto’s terminal (alone or modified as described below) includes
`
`electronic components comprising an “electronic tracking device,” as claimed.
`
`Sakamoto is directed to a “position information communication terminal and GPS
`
`positioning system.” Sakamoto, Title. Sakamoto teaches terminal 1 includes several
`
`electronic components collectively operating to enable monitoring a location of
`
`terminal 1 using GPS. Sakamoto, [0019], FIG. 1; Dec., 75. Specifically, the
`
`collective 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, and communication line status
`
`controlling unit 17 (the “Sakamoto Electronic Components”) comprise components
`
`enabling monitoring and tracking of terminal 1:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`Sakamoto, FIG. 1 (red annotations added throughout)3; Dec., 75.
`
`Similar to the ’774 Patent, the Sakamoto Electronic Components are provided
`
`in a mobile terminal, which a POSITA would have understood is “portable.”
`
`Compare ’774 Patent, 6:40–31 (describing the electronic tracking device for use in
`
`various mobile devices, such as watches and mobile phones), with Sakamoto, [0019]
`
`(disclosing the components housed in terminal 1), [0003] (disclosing portable
`
`terminals as devices having limited battery capacity), [0031] (disclosing the mobile
`
`communication network as a mobile phone), [0046] (disclosing battery supplies
`
`operating power to the terminal); Dec., 76.
`
`A POSITA would have understood Sakamoto teaches its terminal (which
`
`includes the Sakamoto Electronic Components), is portable. Dec., 76. The Sakamoto
`
`terminal communicates across a mobile communication network, includes a mobile
`
`communication means, and includes a battery that is monitored to reduce power
`
`consumption. Sakamoto, [0030], [0011], [0014]; Dec., 76 (opining Sakamoto’s
`
`concerns with reducing power consumption, including battery level monitoring,
`
`indicates the terminal is portable). Sakamoto additionally includes disclosure that
`
`
`3 The Sakamoto figures herein are reproductions of Sakamoto’s figures prepared by
`
`Petitioner’s counsel for clarity and are accurate representations of Sakamoto’s
`
`translated figures. Affidavit for Sakamoto Figures Translation (Ex. 1004).
`
`14
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`the invention is necessary “when applied to devices with limited battery capacity
`
`such as portable terminals.” Sakamoto, [0003]. A POSITA would thus have
`
`understood these collective teachings of Sakamoto indicate terminal 1 (which
`
`includes the Sakamoto Electronic Components) is a “portable” terminal, as claimed.
`
`Dec., 76.
`
`a)
`“to monitor location coordinates of one or more
`individuals and objects using a satellite navigation system”
`The Sakamoto Electronic Components enable monitoring
`location
`
`coordinates of
`
`terminal 1. Sakamoto discloses a “position
`
`information
`
`communication terminal capable of position measurement using a GPS receiver, and
`
`a GPS positioning system.” Sakamoto, [0001]. Sakamoto teaches a position searcher
`
`B may issue a position search request of the terminal. Sakamoto, [0018]. In response,
`
`terminal 1 determines its position, which is subsequently sent to searcher B by
`
`position management/positioning server 2. Sakamoto, [0018], [0020], [0023], FIG.
`
`2 (illustrating terminal user A and position searcher B).
`
`As explained in Sakamoto, the GPS receiver 10 and GPS control unit 12 (both
`
`of which are included in the Sakamoto Electronic Components) receive and
`
`determine terminal user A’s (an individual’s) and terminal 1’s (an object’s) position.
`
`Sakamoto, [0020]–[0024]. The position of the terminal in Sakamoto includes
`
`location coordinates as claimed. Dec., 77. Furthermore, as described above, these
`
`location coordinates are calculated using “GPS signal[s] from the GPS satellite,”
`
`15
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`which are elsewhere character