Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 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 IPI LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`Before JOHN A. HUDALLA, SHEILA F. McSHANE,and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DIRBA,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`Tel: 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 IPI LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`Before JOHN A. HUDALLA, SHEILA F. McSHANE,and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DIRBA,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`AppleInc.(“Petitioner”) filed a Petition seeking institution of an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1—20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,619 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`
`“the °619 patent’). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). LBT IP I LLC (“Patent Owner’’) filed
`
`a Preliminary Response. Paper8 (“Prelim. Resp.”’).
`
`An inter partes review maynotbeinstituted unless “the information
`
`presented in the petition .
`
`.
`
`. and any response .
`
`.
`
`. showsthat there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having
`
`reviewed the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that
`Petitioner has shown a reasonablelikelihoodit would prevail in establishing
`the unpatentability of all challenged claims. Accordingly, weinstitute an
`
`inter partes review.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties identify a district court proceeding that involves the
`
`°619 patent: LBT IP I LLC v. Apple Inc., 1:19-cv-01245 (D. Del.). Pet. 75;
`
`Paper 3, 2 (Patent Owner Mandatory Notices); Paper 6, 2 (Patent Owner
`
`Amended Mandatory Notices).
`
`In addition, Petitionerfiled petitions challenging the following four
`
`patents, whichare related to the °619 patent: (1) U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`(IPR2020-01189); (2) U.S. Patent No. 8,542,113 (IPR2020-01190); (3) U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,102,256 (IPR2020-01191); and (4) U.S. Patent No. 8,421,618
`
`(IPR2020-01192). See Pet. 75. Contemporaneously with this Decision, the
`
`Board enters decisions granting institution of IPR2020-01189,
`
`IPR2020-01190, IPR2020-01191, and IPR2020-01192.
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`B. The Petition’s Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet.8):
`
`
`
`
`
` 3,4, 12-14
`
`
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`35U.S.C.§|
`
`
`__—-Reference(s)/Basis
`
`1, 5, 6, 8-11, 15-16,
`18-20
`
`103(a)!
`
`Miranda-Knapp,?” Miller?
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`Miranda-Knapp, Miller, Vaganov*
`
`Miranda-Knapp,Miller, Cervinka®
`
`Miranda-Knapp, Miller, Herrero®
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioneralso relies on the testimony of Mr. Scott Andrewsto support its
`
`contentions. Ex. 1003.
`
`C. Summary ofthe ’619 Patent
`
`The 619 patentis titled “Apparatus and Method for Determining
`
`Location and Tracking Coordinates of a Tracking Device.” Ex. 1001, code
`
`(54). The application that led to the °619 patent was filed on January 23,
`
`2012, as a division of an application filed on January 6, 2008. Jd. at codes
`
`(22), (62).
`
`' The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 285-88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013.
`Becausethe challenged patent wasfiled before March 16, 2013, we refer to
`the pre-AJA version of § 103.
`2 US 6,940,407 B2, issued September6, 2005 (Ex. 1004).
`3 US 2006/0119508 A1, published June 8, 2006 (Ex. 1011).
`4 US 2006/0272413 Al, published December 7, 2006 (Ex. 1008).
`> US 7,053,823 B2, issued May 30, 2006 (Ex. 1009).
`® US 2008/0266174 Al, published October 30, 2008 (Ex. 1010).
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`The ’619 patent is directed to an apparatus to monitor location
`
`coordinates of an electronic tracking device. Ex. 1001, Abstract. Figure 1,
`
`reproduced below, depicts a schematic of the electronic tracking device.
`
`110
`
`Monitoring
`Station
`
`Signal
`processl
`‘on circu "8
`
`Location tracking
`
`
`signal detecting
`circutry
`
`
`
`
`
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`battery
`charging
`
`clreuttry
`
`
`
`(22a, 122b
`
`Asdepicted in the schematic of Figure 1, reproduced above,tracking
`
`device 100 contains electronic components 101 such as transceiver 102,
`
`signal processing circuitry 104 (e.g., a microprocessororothersignal logic
`
`circuitry), and accelerometer 130. Ex. 1001, 5:50-53. Tracking device 100
`
`also includeslocation tracking circuitry 114—for example, global
`
`positioning system (GPS)logic circuitry—that “calculates location data
`
`received and sendsthe data to signal processing circuitry.” Jd. at 6:12-14,
`
`6:16—-17; see id. at 5:62-66 (signal processing circuitry 104 determines
`
`location coordinates).
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`Accelerometer 130 may determineif tracking device 100 is stationary
`
`for a period of time (Ex. 1001, 8:13—19), and using such a determination,
`
`tracking device 100 maytransmit its last knownlocation withoutactivating
`
`location tracking circuitry 114 (id. at 8:19-29). “Advantageously, in this
`
`embodiment, whenelectronic tracking device 100 does not utilize and
`
`require GPScircuitry,e.g., location tracking circuitry 114, or functionality,
`
`the power resources are preserved of battery 118 in contrast to many
`
`conventional GPS communication systems, which continue powering-on
`
`GPScircuitry.” Id. at 8:29-34.
`
`In addition, tracking device 100 mayincludecircuitry (e.g.,
`
`processingcircuitry 104) that recognizes “programmed motions received by
`
`accelerometer .
`
`.
`
`. and transmits an alert message .
`
`.
`
`. upon receiving a
`
`recognized motion pattern.” Ex. 1001, 8:45-51. For example, tracking
`
`device 100 may detect tapping against the device in an “SOS tap cadence”
`
`(id. at 8:51—-57), spins, turns, or flips of the device (id. at 8:59-67), or
`
`physical impacts that indicate the device has fallen (id. at 9:6—30).
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`
`The Petition challenges claims 1—20 of the °619 patent. Claims 1, 11,
`
`and 20 are independentandrecite similar subject matter. Claims 2-10
`
`depend(directly or indirectly) from claim 1, and claims 12-19 depend
`
`(directly or indirectly) from claim 11.
`
`Independentclaim | isillustrative:
`
`A portable electronic tracking device to monitor
`1.
`location coordinates of one or moreindividuals and objects, the
`device comprising:
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`transceiver circuitry to receive at least one portion of a
`receive communication signal comprising location coordinates
`information;
`
`accelerometer circuitry to measure displacements ofthe
`portable electronic tracking device, wherein the displacements -
`comprise movements of an object or individual associated with
`the device;
`a battery power monitor configured to activate and
`deactivate at least one portion of signaling circuitry in response
`to the accelerometercircuitry detecting a substantially
`stationary position of the electronic tracking device since last
`knownlocation coordinate measurement; and
`
`processorcircuitry configured to process the
`displacements, to associate the displacements with a specified
`pattern, and to generate an alert message in responseto the
`specified pattern.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:21-40.
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`A. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds
`
`to “(i) a Bachelor degree (or higher degree) in Electrical Engineering,
`
`Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent degree and
`
`(ii) at least one year of experience working in the field of with at least two
`
`years of experience in GPS navigation, dead reckoning, portable tracking
`
`devices, or related technologies.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ff 29-31).
`
`At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`The specific language in Petitioner’s definition has two problems.
`
`First, the phrase “at least one year of experience workingin the field of
`
`with” appears to have been addedin error. Wenote that the other portion of
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`Petitioner’s definition requires two years of experience in certain
`
`technologies, which comports with Mr. Andrews’s testimony that an
`
`ordinary artisan would have had two years of experience in these fields. See
`Ex. 1003 9 30. Thus, it appears that Petitioner intended to require two years
`of experience, and weinterpret Petitioner’s definition accordingly for
`
`purposes of this Decision. Second,Petitioner’s use of the qualifier “at least”
`
`and reference to a “higher degree” both introduce vagueness, so we do not
`
`adopt this language.
`
`Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that a
`
`person ofordinary skill in the art would have: (1) a bachelor’s degree in
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, computerscience, or an
`equivalent degree, and (2) two years of experience in or with GPS
`
`navigation, dead reckoning, portable tracking devices,or related
`
`technologies. Weare satisfied that this definition generally comports with
`the level ofskill necessary to understand and implement the teachings ofthe
`’619 patent and the asserted prior art. This definition is also supported by
`
`the testimony of Mr. Andrews. To the extent the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art is in dispute or makes a material difference in the obviousness
`
`analysis, the parties should brief their respective positions in this regard
`
`duringtrial.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`Weinterpret claim terms using “the same claim construction standard
`
`that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
`
`282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Underthe principles set forth by
`our reviewing court, the “words ofa claim ‘are generally given their
`ordinary and customary meaning,’” as would be understood by a person of
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`Petitioner submits that “no claim terms require express construction to
`
`resolve the grounds presented.” Pet. 9. At this stage, Patent Owner argues
`
`that Petitioner misconstrues the scope of the claim phrase “an object or
`
`_ individual associated with the device,” which appears in independentclaims
`1 and 11 (Prelim. Resp. 7-9), and Patent Owner distinguishes the meaning
`of the term “displacements,” which appearsin all three independent claims
`
`(id. at 3-4, 11). But Patent Owner does not propose an explicit construction
`
`for either.
`
`For clarity, we analyze Patent Owner’s arguments relating to claim
`
`scope in connection with our discussion of the associated claim limitation in
`
`Section II.E.1.c, infra. Ultimately, our determination whetherto institute
`
`does not depend on a construction of any claim terms or phrases, and thus
`
`we do not expressly construe any termsat this preliminary stage. 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))).
`
`C. Law on Obviousness
`
`The legal question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
`
`underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the
`
`priorart; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) whenin evidence,
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`objective evidence of nonobviousness.’ Graham v. John Deere Co. ofKan.
`
`City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). One seeking to establish obviousness based
`
`on more than one reference also mustarticulate sufficient reasoning with
`
`rational underpinnings to combine teachings. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`
`D. Summary ofPrior Art
`
`1. Miranda-Knapp (Ex. 1004)
`
`Miranda-Knappdescribes a method of detecting when a portable
`
`communication device (such as a cell phone) has been dropped or misplaced
`
`and then notifying the user of the device’s location. Ex. 1004, 1:12—32,
`
`2:33-51, Title, Abstract. Miranda-Knapp’s exemplary device 10 is
`
`illustrated in Figure 1, shown here:
`
`MEMORY
`
`SAFE ZONES
`
`
`
`BATTERY
`
`
`
`THRESHOLDS
`
`
`PROFILE
`DATABASE
`
`Beer ee em essen
`
`_.lam
`‘DISPLAY:
`
`:
`1 COMPARISON f----------f-------a
`
`
`
`JF 802.11
`: Transceiver <
`Location
`lececs
`Sewn een ewe ent
`~:Determination:
`
`24
`
`23
`
`JACCELERATION
`|
`SENSOR
`Lt720
`
`7 The current record doesnot include allegations or evidence of objective
`indicia of nonobviousness.
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`As shownabove, Figure 1 is a block diagram of device 10 (e.g., a phone)
`
`that showsits basic components. Ex. 1004, 2:16—-18, 2:52—55, Fig. 1.
`
`Device 10 includesa transceiver(i.e., receiver/decoder 12 and
`
`transmitter/encoder 14) and may optionally include a secondtransceiverfor
`
`shorter range communications(i.e., 802.11 transceiver 24). Id. at 2:57-63.
`
`It also includes processor 16 (and associated logic module 17), memory 18,
`
`and acceleration sensor 20 (e.g., an accelerometer). fd. at 2:56—-57, 3:4-16.
`
`Device 10 further includes location module 23, which can use GPS
`
`technology to determinethe location of device 10 (id. at 3:21—23, 4:47-50),
`
`and power managementintegrated circuit (IC) 27 to monitor battery voltage
`
`(id. at 2:67-3:2).
`In operation, Miranda-Knapp’s device monitors the accelerometer’s
`output: if the acceleration remains belowathreshold fora period of time
`
`(such as 48 hours), then Miranda-Knapp concludesthat “the phone has not
`
`been moved andthuslikely [has been] misplaced.” Ex. 1004, 4:57-65,
`Fig. 3 (steps 32-36). In this situation, the phone determines and recordsits
`location and a time stamp.
`/d. at 5:1—-3, Fig. 3 (steps 40, 42). If the device is
`
`not in a “safe zone” (such as the user’s home), the device sends analert
`
`messageto the user with the recorded location and time stamp when: (1) the
`battery level is below a threshold, or (2) an inactivity period has expired. Id.
`
`at 5:3-39, Fig. 3 (subroutine A, step 44), Fig. 5 (steps 202-208); see id. at
`5:11—14 (explaining that battery could drain while waiting for the rest period
`
`to expire).
`
`If, on the other hand, the phone detects motion exceeding the
`
`threshold, then the accelerometer’s data is processed to determineif the data
`
`matchesa dropprofile or signature. Ex. 1004, 5:44—-47, Fig. 3 (steps 32-34,
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`46); see id. at Fig. 2, 4:4-32 (explaining that accelerometer data indicates
`
`when a phoneis dropped,stationary, or picked up). “If the acceleration
`
`profile is indicative of the phone being dropped”andthe phoneis not
`
`promptly picked up, “then the phone can immediately alert the user.” Id. at
`
`5:50—58, Fig. 3 (steps 48-58); see also id. at 5:59-63 (phone can emit an
`
`alert ringtone and/or send an alert message to the user with its location).
`
`2. Miller (Ex. 1011)
`
`Miller discloses a method for reducing power consumption in a
`
`mobile device by halting the scanning of its receivers when the device is
`
`stationary. Ex. 1011 412, Abstract. A block diagram of Millers’ exemplary
`
`apparatus is shownin Figure 1, reproduced below:
`
`ah
`
`(J
`
`WiFi
`Receiver
`102
`
`motion/non-motion
`signal
`
`
`signal strength
`
`
`
`
`GPS
`
`
` position and velocity
`Receiver
`
`
`104
`
`Cellular
`
`
`signal strength
`Receiver
`
`
`
`
`106
`
`
`
`Accelerometer
`114
`
`
`
`
`
`Scan
`Controller
`112
`
`
`As shownabove, apparatus 100 includes Wi-Fi receiver 102, GPS receiver
`
`104, cellular receiver 106, and accelerometer 114. Ex. 1011913. The
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`receivers scan for radio signals to determine the mobile device’s location:
`
`GPSreceiver 104 “receive[s] GPS satellite data to compute and track the
`
`mobile device’s current location”; Wi-Fi receiver 102 identifies nearby
`
`access points; and cellular receiver 106 identifies nearby cell towers. Jd.
`
`{| 13-16. Accelerometer 114 measures the acceleration of the mobile
`
`device. Id. [J 17-18. This data is sent to a motion model, which “utilizes
`all signals from receivers 102, 104, 106, and accelerometer 114 to determine
`
`the velocity of the mobile device.” Jd. J] 20-21; see also id. { 26.
`
`A scanningrate for receivers 102, 104, and/or 106 is determined
`
`based on the velocity of the mobile device. Ex. 1011 22. In particular, if
`
`“the mobile device is not in motion, then the scanning rate may beset at zero
`
`... halt[ing] the scanning of receivers 102, 104, and/or 106,” so these
`
`components “utilize little or no power.” Jd.; see alsoid. at Fig. 2 (steps 210,
`
`214). But see id. J 28 (describing another embodiment wherethe receivers
`
`“continue scanning, but at a much lower scanning rate’). Moreover, when
`
`the mobile device starts to move, “accelerometer 114 knows
`
`instantaneously” and provides an appropriate signal to motion model, which
`
`resumesthe receivers’ scanning operations. Jd. FJ 18, 29; see also id. at
`
`Fig. 2 (steps 216, 204).
`
`3. Vaganov (Ex. 1008)
`
`Vaganovdescribes a three dimensional (3D) three-axis accelerometer
`
`for measuring three components of acceleration with respect to an
`
`orthogonal coordinate system. Ex. 1008 {J 3, 20, Abstract. The
`
`accelerometer includes four beams, which are each attached to a different
`
`side of a central proof mass and a surrounding frame. Jd. J 150; see id. at
`
`Fig. 6 (illustrating mechanical microstructure of the accelerometer).
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`Vaganov contemplates use of the accelerometerin portable devices such as
`
`cell phones. Jd. § 40.
`
`4. Cervinka (Ex. 1009)
`
`Cervinka teaches a device for tracking cargo. Ex. 1009, Abstract.
`
`Cervinka’s tracking device receives GPSposition data from an access point;
`
`if that data is not received, the tracking device starts acquiring data from its
`
`internal dead reckoning sensors (including a 3D accelerometer). Jd. at 4:41—
`
`55, 7:1-9; see id. at 3:53-61, Fig. 3. The tracking device sends “the last
`
`received GPSposition data and the acquired dead reckoning data” to a
`
`central server so that the central server can determinethe current location of
`
`the tracking device. Jd. at 7:22-30, 7:50—-55; see id. at 9:33-50 (suggesting
`“pre-process[ing] the dead reckoning data directly in the controller 24 of the
`
`tracking device before sending it to the central server 10”).
`
`According to Cervinka, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understoodthat the current position of the tracking device (andits
`
`associated cargo) could be determined using the most recent GPSposition
`
`data and the acquired dead reckoning data. Jd. at 7:50-55; see id. at 3:62—-64
`
`(explaining that dead reckoning techniques are not described in detail
`
`becausethey “are believed well known inthe art”), 7:56—62 (explaining that
`
`“many methodsfor the determination of the current position of the cargo
`
`exist and generally dependat least on the type of dead reckoning data
`
`received”).
`
`5. Herrero (Ex. 1010)
`
`Herrero discloses a method oflocating a portable device using
`
`“Assisted GPS”(or “A-GPS”) technology. Ex. 1010912. According to
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`Herrero, A-GPS technology improvesthe sensitivity, speed, and power
`
`consumption of a GPSreceiver. Jd. 95, 7; see id. at {{ 2—7 (explaining that
`
`conventional GPS systems generally have limited efficiency in interior
`
`spaces, wheresatellite signals may be not be received). Specifically,
`
`Herrero’s device calculates its location using both a GPS signal received
`
`from a satellite as well as “GPS assistance information” received via a
`
`“wireless communication network”from a server. Jd. J 13, Abstract; see id.
`
`{ 50 (wireless communication network may be WiFi). The device includes a
`
`transmission/receiving module and an A-GPSpositioning module that
`
`receives these signals. Id. J] 51-52, Figs. 1-2.
`
`E. Obviousness Grounds Based on Miranda-Knapp and Miller
`
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of independentclaims 1,
`
`11, and 20 and dependent claims 5, 6, 8-10, 15, 16, 18, and 19 would have
`
`been obvious over the combination of Miranda-Knapp and Miller. Pet. 12—
`
`58. Petitioner further contends that the subject matter of dependent claims
`
`2-4, 7, 12-14, and 17 would have been obviousover the combination of
`
`Miranda-Knapp and Miller with Vaganov, Cervinka, or Herrero. Jd. at 58—
`
`_ 74; see also id. at 8 (listing grounds).
`
`Patent Owner contendsthat the proposed combination of Miranda-
`
`Knapp and Miller is improper. Prelim. Resp. 4-7. In addition, Patent
`
`Ownercontendsthat Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing in its contention that Miranda-Knappdiscloses certain limitations
`
`of claim 1, which are also present in all other challenged claims. /d. at 7-14.
`
`Atthis stage, Patent Ownerdoes not otherwise dispute Petitioner’s
`
`contentions. See id. at 14.
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`1. Independent Claim 1
`
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of independent claim 1
`
`would have been obvious over the combination of Miranda-Knapp and
`
`Miller. Pet. 13-50. Patent Ownerdisputes this contention. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 4-14.
`
`a.
`
`“A portable electronic tracking device to monitor
`location coordinates ofone or more individuals and
`objects, the device comprising”
`
`Petitioner asserts that, if the preamble is limiting,® Miranda-Knapp
`teaches it. Pet. 13-16 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:12—-15, 2:33-39,? 2:52-3:27, 3:37-
`46, 3:55—-57, 3:61-4:6, 4:33-56, 5:6-29, 5:54-60, 6:24—30,Fig. 3 (step 40),
`
`Fig. 4 (step 108); citing Ex. 1003 J] 112-120). Accordingto Petitioner,
`Miranda-Knapp’s device 10 (the claimed “portable electronic tracking
`device”) determines whether a phone has been dropped or misplaced and
`determines the phone’s location by attempting a GPSfix so that the owner
`
`can be notified of the status of the phone. Jd.
`Patent Ownerdoesnot dispute Petitioner’s arguments, analysis, or |
`evidence for the preamble. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`Petitioner’s assertions and explanations are consistent with and
`
`supported by the evidencecited by Petitioner. Accordingly, Petitioner has
`
`shown sufficiently that Miranda-Knappteaches the preamble.
`
`8 “Generally, the preamble does notlimit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp.v.
`Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`® This citation includes a typographicalerror(see Pet. 14 (citing “2:33-3”)),
`and instead a correct reference would appeartorefer to lines 33 to 39.
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`b. “transceiver circuitry to receive at least one portion
`ofa receive communication signal comprising
`location coordinates information”
`
`Petitioner contends that Miranda-Knappteachesor suggests this
`
`limitation, and in the alternative, Petitioner contends that it would have been
`
`obvious to combine Miller’s GPS receiver 104 with Miranda-Knapp to teach
`
`this claim limitation. Pet. 16-20.
`
`In particular, Petitioner first contends that Miranda-Knappteaches the
`claimed “transceiver circuitry” and provides an annotated version of
`
`Miranda-Knapp’s Figure 1 in support ofits analysis. Pet. 16-17 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004, 2:52-63, 3:21-4:3; Ex. 1003 Ff 121-132; Ex. 1001, 8:2-4).
`
`Petitioner’s annotated version of Miranda-Knapp’s Figure 1 is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`10
`
`FIG. 1
`
`id,
`
`
`an 4
`
`MEMORY
`| USER
`we Vy
`
` fearreny THRESHOLDS3 {RNeRreansiiren,| BATTERYRANCODERD
`SAFE ZONES
`‘ OUTPUT!
`
`
`
`|
`
`INPUTS
`
`.
`
`rie
`
`ae
`
`CCGFons
`02.17 _— Looe
`
`24“!transceiver{*""""|PROCESSOR/CONTROLLER isrlarr
`Fission
`ooBRORTET
`:
`'Oetermination!
`1 COMPARISON f----------f--Jo--2 =!
`|ACCELERATION
`: KL
`SENSOR
`
`23)"
`
`22
`
`20
`
`In this annotated version of Figure 1, Petitioner outlines
`
`transmitter/encoder 14, receiver/decoder 12, transceiver 24, location
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`module 23, and processor/controller 16 in red to identify “transceiver
`
`circuitry.” Pet. 17. Petitioner contends that Miranda-Knapp’s location
`
`module 23 determinesits location using GPS technology. Jd. (citing
`
`Ex. 1004, 3:21-27, 3:64-67, 4:41-50, 7:53-57 (claim 12), Fig. 3 (step 40),
`
`Fig. 4 (step 108)). Petitioner argues that it would have been obviousthat
`
`location module 23 receives the claimed “at least one portion of a receive
`
`communication signal.” Jd. (citing Ex. 1003 ff 123-124). Petitioner
`
`contendsthat an ordinary artisan would have understood that module 23
`
`“determinesits position with the location coordinates information from a
`
`GPSsatellite signal including location coordinates information, as well-
`
`knownin the art.” Jd. at 17-18 (citing Ex. 1003 Jf 124, 126; Ex. 1004,
`
`1:62-66).
`
`Petitioner next contendsthat, “[t]o the extent Patent Owner argues
`
`Miranda-Knapp doesnotteach or render obvious”this limitation, Miller
`
`teaches it. Pet. 18. Petitioner contends that Miller’s GPS receiver 104
`
`receives radio signals from GPSsatellites in order to determine the device’s
`
`current location. Jd. at 18-19 (citing Ex. 1011 Jf 13, 15; Ex. 1003 Jf 128—
`
`129). Petitioner arguesthat it would have been obvious to combine Miller’s
`
`GPSreceiver 104 with Miranda-Knapp’s disclosure by adding or
`
`substituting Miller’s GPS receiver 104 and Miranda-Knapp’s location
`
`module 23. Jd. at 19-20 (citing Ex. 1003 ff 130-132).
`
`Patent Ownercontendsthat Petitioner’s proposed combination of
`
`Miranda-Knapp and Miller is improper. Prelim. Resp. 4-7. According to
`
`Patent Owner, “Miranda-Knapp explicitly discloses a location module
`
`which may be a GPSreceiver.” Jd. at 6 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:21-23). Patent
`
`Ownerstates, “Miller discloses a GPS receiver that receives radio signals
`
`17
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`from GPS satellites used to determine a mobile device’s current location.”
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1011 9§ 13, 15, Fig, 1). Patent Ownerarguesthat “the GPS
`
`receiver of Miller does not add any additional functionality to Miranda-
`
`Knapp,” so it would not have been obvious to modify these references. Id.
`at 6-7. Patent Ownerfurther argues that the combinationis improper
`
`because Miller “impermissibly add[s] an elementor functionality already
`
`present in the primary reference.” Jd. at 7; see id. at 5 (“The Petitioner must
`
`show that a proposed combination does not impermissibly add an element or
`
`functionality already present in the primary reference.”).
`
`On this record, we are persuaded that Miranda-Knappteachesthis
`
`limitation. Petitioner’s assertions and explanations are consistent with and
`
`supported by the evidence cited by Petitioner. Indeed, Patent Owner
`
`acknowledges that Miranda-Knapp discloses a GPSreceiver (Prelim. Resp.
`6), and Patent Ownerappearsalso to agree that Miranda-Knapp’s receiver
`receives radio signals from GPSsatellites to determine a mobile device’s
`
`location (see id.). On this record, and for purposes of this Decision, we are
`
`persuadedthat a person ofordinary skill in the art would have expected that
`Miranda-Knapp’s location module 23 receives a signal that includes
`
`information about location coordinates. Consequently, on this record and
`
`for purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded that Miranda-Knappteaches
`
`this limitation.
`
`Rather than identifying any deficiencies in Miranda-Knapp,Patent
`
`Ownerarguesthat Petitioner’s alternative argument(whichrelies on Miller
`to address Miranda-Knapp’s deficiencies) is improper. See Prelim. Resp. 4—
`
`7. We neednot reachthis alternative—or Patent Owner’s critique of it—
`
`because weperceive no deficiencies in Miranda-Knappitself.
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has shownsufficiently that Miranda-Knapp
`
`teachesthis limitation, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s counterarguments.
`
`c.
`
`“accelerometer circuitry to measure displacements of
`the portable electronic tracking device, wherein the
`displacements comprise movements ofan object or
`individual associated with the device”
`
`Petitioner asserts that Miranda-Knappteachesthis limitation. Pet. 20—
`
`23. According to Petitioner, Miranda-Knapp’s accelerometer(i.e.,
`
`acceleration sensor 20) teaches the claimed “accelerometer circuitry.” Jd. at
`
`20-21 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:52-57, Abstract, Fig. 1). Petitioner contendsthat
`
`a person ofordinary skill in the art would have understood Miranda-Knapp’s
`
`accelerometer “to measure displacements of the portable electronic
`
`tracking device” because an accelerometer measuresthe accelerations
`
`associated with the phone’s movement. Jd. at 21-23 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`q 133-138; Ex. 1004, 4:4-33, 5:44-47, Fig. 2; comparing Ex. 1001, 8:47—
`
`51 with Ex. 1004, 2:52-57, 3:2-3). Petitioner explains that, “by measuring
`
`acceleration with an accelerometer, the displacementofthe object,i.e., the
`
`movementofthe object, is also measured.” Jd. at 21-22. Petitioner also
`
`contends that Miranda-Knapp’s “device 10 may be includedin a cell phone,
`
`[so] the accelerometer 20 is measuring the movementsofthe cell phone
`
`associated with the portable communication device (e.g., carrying the
`
`portable communication device).” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1003 {{] 137-138).
`
`Wefind that Petitioner’s assertions and explanations are consistent
`
`with and supported by the evidence cited by Petitioner. Miranda-Knapp
`
`discloses an accelerometer 20, and on this record, we are persuaded that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understoodthat this
`
`accelerometer measuresaccelerations associated with movement and
`
`19
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`displacements of device 10 and its associated cell phone. E.g., Ex. 1004,
`
`3:2-10, 4:4-32, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 J 135-137.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments do not reveal any deficiencies in
`
`Petitioner’s showing. See Prelim. Resp. 7-13. Patent Ownerfirst argues
`
`that Petitioner fails to show that Miranda-Knapp discloses both the “portable
`
`electronic tracking device” and an “object or individual associated with the
`device,” as required by the claim. Jd. at 7-9, 11-12. Patent Owner contends
`
`that these two elements “must necessarily be different.” Jd. at 7. Patent
`
`Ownerthenstates that “the Petitioner appears to assert that Miranda-
`Knapp’s device 10 is somehowdistinct from a cell phone in which device 10
`is located and, as such, the measurementsofthecell phonefalling are
`
`displacements of an object distinct from the device measuring the
`displacements.” Jd. at 12 (citing Pet. 22-23). But, according to Patent
`Owner, Miranda-Knappcontradicts this position because “Miranda-Knapp
`
`clearly discloses that device10 is the cell phone.” Jd. (citing Ex. 1004,
`3:37-46); !° see also id. at 7-9 (citing Pet. 16; Ex. 1004, 2:54-55, 3:37-46).
`Although we agree with Patent Ownerthatthe “object or individual
`associated with the device”is “different” than the “tracking device”recited
`
`in the claim (Prelim. Resp. 7), the Petition separately accountsfor these
`limitations. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the claimed “electronic
`device”is taught by Miranda-Knapp’s device 10 andthe associated “object”
`is taught by the cell phone associated with device 10. Pet. 23 (asserting that
`
`10 On page 8 of the Preliminary Response, Patent Ownercites column 4,
`lines 37-46 of Exhibit 1004, but quotes from column 3 of that exhibit. We
`have corrected this apparent typographicalerror throughout, and we have
`considered both the originally cited and the corrected passages.
`
`20
`
`Exhibit 2012
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01193
`Patent 8,421,619 B2
`
`“the displacements comprise movements(i.e., motions) of the object(e.g.,
`
`the phone being dropped) associated with the device(i.e., the portable
`
`communication device [10] carried by the phone)”); see also id. at 15-16
`
`(“Thus, the portable communication device [10] can be a phone or can be
`
`included or implemented with any two-way communicator.”(citing
`
`Ex. 1003 §§ 119-120)). We understand Petitioner’s contention to be that the
`
`claimed “electronic device” is taught by the circuitry in device 10 and the
`
`associated “object” is taught by the associated cell phone.
`
`Onthis record, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argumentthat
`
`the cell phone described by Miranda-Knappis the same thing as device 10.
`
`See Prelim. Resp. 8-9, 12 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:54—-55, 3:37—46).
`
`Mr. Andrewstestifies that “Miranda-Knapp teaches portable communication
`
`device 10 may be included in a cellular phone and detects movements
`
`associated with the phone, such as the phone dropping to the ground.”
`
`Ex. 1003 ¢ 137 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1004, 2:52-57); see alsoid.
`
`{{ 120 (testifying that an ordinary artisan would have understood Mi
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
