UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LBT IP I LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01192
`U.S. Patent No. 8,421,618
`____________
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. THE AMENDED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER § 112 ........... 1
`A. Written Description Support Is Required for the Amended Claims ...... 1
`B. Original Limitation: “Battery Power Monitor” ....................................... 1
`III. LBT’S CONSTRUCTION IMPORTS LIMITATIONS INTO THE
`CLAIMS ................................................................................................................ 2
`IV. SHOWING OF ANALOGOUS, PRIOR ART ............................................ 3
`V. THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS OVER PRIOR ART NOT
`PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THE BOARD .............................................................. 5
`A. Ground 6: Claims 25, 27, 33-35, 38-40, 43-45, and 48 Are Obvious Over
`Sakamoto in View of Levi in Further View of Alberth..................................... 5
`1. Summary of Original Mapping ................................................................. 5
`2. Summary of Ground 6 Mapping Relying on Alberth ................................ 7
`3. Alberth Teaches the Amended Claim Limitation .....................................12
`4. Motivation to Combine ............................................................................15
`B. Ground 7: Claims 25, 27, 33-35, 38-40, 43-45, and 48 Are Obvious Over
`Sakamoto in View of Levi in Further View of Gronemeyer ............................17
`1. Gronemeyer Teaches the New Limitation Applying LBT’s Construction 17
`2. Motivation to Combine ............................................................................19
`C. Remaining Grounds ..................................................................................20
`1. Grounds Relying on Alberth ....................................................................21
`2. Grounds Relying on Gronemeyer ............................................................22
`VI. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................... 1
`
`Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00441, Paper 19 (Oct. 30, 2014) .............................................................. 1
`
`Veeam Software Corp. v. Veritas Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-00090,
`Paper 48 (July 17, 2017) ......................................................................................... 1
`
`
`Statutes:
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .............................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ 1, 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................ 1, 2, 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3) ............................................................................................. 1
`
`
`Regulations:
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 .................................................................................................... 28
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ............................................................................................... 28
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii) .................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`LBT’s Motion to Amend should be denied because the amended claims lack
`
`written description support, are indefinite, and are unpatentable under § 103.
`
`II. THE AMENDED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER § 112
`A. Written Description Support Is Required for the Amended Claims
`
`The specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that
`
`a POSITA can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed
`
`invention as of the filing date. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336,
`
`1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Veeam Software Corp. v. Veritas Technologies, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00090, Paper 48 at 17 (July 17, 2017). A motion to amend may not propose
`
`substitute claims that introduce new subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.121(a)(2)(ii). “[I]t is inadequate to show written description support for just the
`
`feature added by the proposed substitute claim. Instead, the Patent Owner must show
`
`written description support for the entire claim.” Corning Optical Communications
`
`RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00441, Paper 19 at 3 (Oct. 30, 2014).
`
`B. Original Limitation: “Battery Power Monitor”
`There is not adequate written description support for the limitation of a
`
`“battery power monitor” as claimed in Claim 25. Substitute Claim 25 recites a
`
`“battery power monitor,” which is a term not recited in the specification, except for
`
`the abstract and claims. Patent Owner cites ¶ [0029] for support, which states,
`
`“Battery level detection circuitry (e.g. battery level monitor 116) detect a battery
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`level of battery 118….” (Paper 16, Patent Owner Response, 6-7). However, battery
`
`level monitor 116 merely detects the battery level and is not described as performing
`
`any of the claimed functions. None of LBT’s cited sections of the specification
`
`(¶¶ [0031], [0032], and [0036]) provides adequate written description for a battery
`
`power monitor that performs the claimed functions. Although these paragraphs refer
`
`to certain elements being “placed in” a sleep or standby mode or low power mode,
`
`none of these sections, or any other portion of the disclosure, provides adequate
`
`written description for a battery power monitor that is “configured to” do anything
`
`with respect to modes.
`
`For at least the above reasons, substitute Claim 25 and dependent claims
`
`therefrom, are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 1.
`
`III. LBT’S CONSTRUCTION IMPORTS LIMITATIONS INTO THE
`CLAIMS
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of the amended claims requires deactivating
`
`the at least one portion of the transceiver circuitry and the location tracking circuitry
`
`by placing them in a low power mode consuming at least reduced power. The claims
`
`do not require that power to the at least one portion of the transceiver circuitry and
`
`the location tracking circuitry is “not eliminated” or “not shut off,” as LBT contends.
`
`(Paper 17, 19-20). Components maintaining a low power mode where the GPS
`
`receiver is periodically activated, such that the low power mode consumes at least
`
`reduced power relative to a mode of operation that activates at a higher frequency,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`satisfies the amended claim limitation. Cf. Alberth, 3:60-63, 4:47-49 (both sections
`
`discussing that more frequent activation of a GPS receiver allows for more up-to-
`
`date position location information but has the design tradeoff that higher frequencies
`
`of activation have a corresponding higher battery drain). That is, a component
`
`consuming reduced power is met by a component that is periodically activated
`
`relative to a normal positioning mode where positioning is at a higher frequency,
`
`i.e., every one second or every ten seconds. Therefore, LBT’s construction conflicts
`
`with the plain and ordinary meaning of the limitations, improperly imports
`
`limitations into the claims, and should be rejected.
`
`IV. SHOWING OF ANALOGOUS, PRIOR ART
`Alberth and Gronemeyer were neither cited nor considered during the
`
`prosecution of the ’618 Patent. The earliest claimed priority date for the ’618 Patent
`
`is January 6, 2008.
`
`Alberth is a U.S. patent issued August 20, 2002, qualifying as prior art to the
`
`’618 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (Pre-AIA). Alberth teaches a mobile
`
`station with a GPS receiver for communication with GPS satellites. Alberth, 1:6-8,
`
`2:10-12. Alberth recognizes that sometimes GPS “signals are not suitable for
`
`processing (e.g., too weak)” and, consequently, decreases the frequency at which the
`
`GPS receiver activates to detect position location signaling and deactivates at least
`
`a portion of said receiver to save battery power. Id. at 4:32-36, 4:50-52. Because
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Alberth, like the ’618 Patent, discloses a portable electronic tracking device
`
`employing a GPS receiver, reduces applied power to the GPS receiver by decreasing
`
`the frequency at which the GPS receiver activates, and deactivates at least a portion
`
`of the GPS receiver, Alberth is in the same field of endeavor and is pertinent to a
`
`problem to be solved by the claimed invention in the ’618 Patent. (Ex. 1080, ¶¶ 9-
`
`11). Alberth is thus analogous art.
`
`Gronemeyer is a U.S. patent issued January 10, 2006, qualifying as prior art
`
`to the ’618 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (Pre-AIA). Gronemeyer teaches
`
`a GPS receiver for location tracking. Gronemeyer, 1:14-15, 3:3-28, 5:9-21, 6:20-48.
`
`Gronemeyer teaches conserving power in GPS receiver unit 100 by shutting down
`
`selected components but keeping a low power time keeping circuit powered on for
`
`determining a position from GPS satellites more quickly due to more accurate time
`
`keeping. Id. at 6:41-48, 5:14-19, 6:45-48, 7:9-12, 7:34-45. Because Gronemeyer,
`
`like the ’618 Patent, discloses a portable electronic tracking device employing a GPS
`
`receiver and reduces applied power to the GPS receiver by shutting off selected
`
`components but leaving other components powered on when the GPS is not actively
`
`acquiring satellite information, Gronemeyer is in the same field of endeavor and is
`
`pertinent to a problem to be solved by the claimed invention in the ’618 Patent. (Ex.
`
`1080, ¶¶ 13-14). Gronemeyer is thus analogous art.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`V. THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS OVER PRIOR ART
`NOT PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THE BOARD
`A. Ground 6: Claims 25, 27, 33-35, 38-40, 43-45, and 48 Are Obvious
`Over Sakamoto in View of Levi in Further View of Alberth
`1.
`As discussed in the Petition, the combination of Sakamoto and Levi renders
`
`Summary of Original Mapping
`
`obvious independent Claims 1 and 15, upon which substitute Claims 25 and 39, are
`
`based, and dependent Claims 3, 9-11, 14, 16, 19-21, and 24, upon which substitute
`
`Claims 27, 33-35, 38, 40, 43-45, and 48 are based. The proposed substitute Claims
`
`25, 27, 33-35, 38-40, 43-45, and 48 are obvious over Sakamoto in view of Levi and
`
`further in view of Alberth. The combination of Sakamoto and Alberth teaches the
`
`additional new limitation proposed in the substitute claims. To the extent LBT
`
`argues the combination of Sakamoto, Levi, and Alberth does not render obvious the
`
`substitute claims, Ground 7 relying on Gronemeyer teaches that at least some
`
`components of the GPS receiver are powered on at all times.
`
`In the original Petition, the claimed “at least one portion of the transceiver
`
`circuitry and the location tracking circuitry” was mapped as including at least one
`
`portion of the signal acquisition section and signal processing section of the
`
`Sakamoto GPS receiver 10. (Paper 1, Petition, 38, 33, 26). As noted by Mr. Andrews
`
`in his original declaration, “[s]ince, as discussed, the GPS receiver 10 is
`
`appropriately included within both the transceiver circuitry and location tracking
`
`circuitry, at least one portion of each of the circuitries within Sakamoto’s device [is]
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`activated when the device enters normal mode.” (Ex. 1003, ¶ 140) (also similarly
`
`noting deactivation); see also id. at ¶ 139 (opining “battery power would have been
`
`conserved while the location determining is not being attempted when a viable GPS
`
`signal is not available”). Therefore, portions of the Sakamoto GPS receiver 10 satisfy
`
`the claimed “at least one portion of the transceiver circuitry and the location tracking
`
`circuitry,” and LBT does not dispute this in its Patent Owner Response (Paper 17).
`
`As also mapped in the Petition, the “at least one portion of the transceiver
`
`circuitry and the location tracking circuitry” is deactivated. (Paper 1, 38-39; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶ 138-140). While in the stop-position search mode, power to GPS receiver
`
`10 is reduced or cut off but cyclical satellite signal level detection continues
`
`automatically, thereby satisfying the deactivating the GPS receiver. (Paper 1, 35-38;
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 138-140). Per Mr. Andrews, if GPS receiver 10 is not position
`
`searching, at least the signal acquisition and signal processing sub-components of
`
`GPS receiver are deactivated because they are using less power relative to when
`
`position searching is performed. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 139 (citing Sakamoto, [0050])). Mr.
`
`Andrews opined that to reduce power consumption in electronic devices, electronic
`
`components are deactivated or otherwise not provisioned. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 140). Thus,
`
`when position searching is stopped, as taught by Sakamoto, a POSITA would have
`
`understood or otherwise found it obvious that sub-components of GPS receiver
`
`related to signal acquisition (transceiver circuitry) and signal processing (location
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`tracking circuitry) are selectively deactivated, i.e., “at least one portion of the
`
`transceiver circuitry and the location tracking circuitry” is deactivated. (Paper 1, 39).
`
`Mr. Andrews explained in his deposition testimony that during stop-position
`
`searching mode, Sakamoto continues measuring satellite signal levels by using only
`
`a portion of the GPS receiver 10. He opined that Sakamoto “may not actually turn
`
`on the entire GPS receiver. …. All he has to do is detect the radio signal to determine
`
`whether the signal is now above that stop-position threshold, and if it is, he would
`
`then reactivate the entire receiver so that he would receive the GPS signals or be able
`
`to determine position from the GPS signals.” (Ex. 2003, 20:4-16). “[I]t has to at least
`
`turn on a portion of the receiver to detect the radio signals. You don’t have to turn
`
`on the entire receiver, you have to detect the level of the signals after the logo [sic,
`
`signal] is amplified, essentially, to see what level they are, and that could be that that
`
`portion of the receiver stays on all the time.” Id. at 20:25–21:6. Mr. Andrews further
`
`opined that given Sakamoto’s goal of reducing power consumption, “it would not
`
`make any sense that he would turn on the entire GPS receiver to do that because you
`
`don’t need the whole GPS receiver to do that.” Id. at 21:16-20.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Ground 6 Mapping Relying on Alberth
`
`Sakamoto teaches measuring a GPS signal level at the cycle set in advance.
`
`Sakamoto, [0037]. At the start of each period of the cycle, Sakamoto measures the
`
`GPS signal level via the satellite signal level detecting unit 15 and sets a positioning
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`mode for the GPS receiver 10 based on the signal level. Sakamoto, [0037-0038]. If
`
`the signal level is sufficient for GPS positioning (e.g., above a predetermined
`
`threshold value), either the normal or high-sensitivity positioning modes is set.
`
`Sakamoto, [0038]. If the signal level is not sufficient for GPS positioning, the stop-
`
`positioning mode is set. Sakamoto, [0038]. As mapped in the Petition, pp. 35-38, the
`
`transition from a stop-position searching mode to the normal mode is activation of
`
`the signal acquisition and processing functionalities of the GPS receiver, i.e.,
`
`activating at least one portion of the transceiver circuitry and the location tracking
`
`circuitry. LBT does not dispute these teachings. See, e.g., Paper 17, 10-11.
`
`Sakamoto’s “high-sensitivity positioning mode” is not relied on for the mapping.
`
`LBT’s amended Claims 25 and 39 introduce a “low power mode.” (Paper 16,
`
`26, 30). The claimed at least one portion of the transceiver circuitry and the location
`
`tracking circuitry is deactivated by placing in the low power mode in which the
`
`circuitry consumes at least reduced power. To the extent Sakamoto does not already
`
`teach such, Alberth teaches such.
`
`Alberth teaches operating at two different activation frequencies dependent on
`
`GPS signal level strength. Alberth (Ex. 1076), 4:32-35, 5:38-41. When the signal
`
`level is good such that GPS positioning is performed, the GPS receiver is activated
`
`more frequently, e.g., every few seconds or minute. Alberth, 5:38-41, 3:53-60. When
`
`the signal level is poor such that GPS positioning is not performed, the GPS receiver
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`is activated less frequently, e.g., every twenty minutes. Alberth, 4:31-58. Alberth
`
`refers to this mode of measuring the signal level less frequently, e.g., every twenty
`
`minutes, as a “low power” mode. Alberth, 5:41-45.
`
`Alberth’s high-frequency and low-frequency (i.e., low power) activation rates
`
`are similar to Sakamoto’s normal positioning mode and stop-position searching
`
`mode, respectively. Recall Sakamoto teaches that in the normal mode when the
`
`signal level is good, the GPS receiver turns on/off for position determination.
`
`Sakamoto, [0024]. When the signal level is poor and GPS positioning cannot be
`
`performed, the GPS receiver stops position searching. Sakamoto, [0038]. Sakamoto
`
`also teaches automatically measuring the signal level (not position searching)
`
`periodically at the cycle set in advance. Sakamoto, [0037]. Based on the measured
`
`signal level, the positioning mode is set (i.e., normal, high, or stop-position
`
`searching). Sakamoto, [0038].
`
` Sakamoto’s normal positioning mode is akin to Alberth’s normal mode. That
`
`is, when the signal level is good, both references teach cyclically activating the GPS
`
`receiver to determine position at regular intervals (e.g., Sakamoto’s normal
`
`positioning mode and Alberth’s “first rate”). Sakamoto, [0024], [0038]; Alberth,
`
`3:56-60. Sakamoto’s stop-position searching mode is akin to Alberth’s low power
`
`mode. That is, in both modes, no position searching is performed because the GPS
`
`signal level is poor (i.e., “too weak” to perform position searching), such that
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`position determination does not resume until the GPS signal level is sufficient.
`
`Sakamoto, [0038]; Alberth, 4:57-58 and 5:35-41 (both sections discussing
`
`attempting to detect position location signaling and increasing the frequency of
`
`activating the GPS receiver only when the position signals are of sufficient strength).
`
`The two modes are different in that Sakamoto determines the latest GPS signal level
`
`measurement at the cycle set in advance (one cycle/rate used for all three modes:
`
`normal, high-sensitivity, and stop-position searching), whereas Alberth determines
`
`the latest GPS signal level measurement at the time set for the particular mode in
`
`which the device is operating: a “first rate” is used during “normal” operations and
`
`a second rate is used in the low power mode, e.g., every twenty minutes. Sakamoto
`
`is silent as to changing the cycle time for measuring the signal level based on a
`
`recently-measured signal level. Therefore, if the last-measured signal level was poor,
`
`there is no teaching in Sakamoto discussing adjusting (i.e., extending) the time to the
`
`next signal-level check based on the last-measured signal level being poor. In other
`
`words, Sakamoto teaches measuring the signal level at the cycle set in advance but
`
`is silent on changing the time between measurements based on a recently-measured
`
`signal level.
`
`In the proposed modification, Sakamoto’s GPS system is modified to have
`
`two activation cycles, as taught by Alberth. In a high-frequency activation cycle, the
`
`GPS receiver is activated every few seconds or minute to determine position. Again,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`this is akin to Sakamoto’s normal positioning mode that cyclically turns on/off the
`
`GPS receiver when the GPS signal level is good. Sakamoto’s GPS system is
`
`modified to include Alberth’s low power mode that “attempts to detect position
`
`location signaling” at a lower frequency, e.g., every twenty minutes. Alberth, 4:57-
`
`58. Alberth teaches the low power mode is entered responsive to a poor signal level.
`
`Alberth, 5:41-45. Therefore, Sakamoto’s “cycle set in advance” is modified to be a
`
`longer cycle when a recently-measured GPS signal is weak, per Alberth. Because
`
`the GPS receiver is not activating as frequently in the low power mode, the GPS
`
`receiver is deactivated to conserve battery power, as taught by Alberth. And, this
`
`deactivation by placing in the low power mode is performed because the signal level
`
`is weak, as also taught by Alberth.
`
`The activation of the GPS receiver in the modified Sakamoto system is the
`
`same as mapped for the original Challenged Claims. That is, the activation occurs
`
`responsive to the measured signal level by transitioning from a stop-position
`
`searching mode where no GPS position determination is performed to a normal
`
`mode where the GPS receiver performs GPS position determination. As discussed
`
`in the Petition, position determination activates the GPS receiver because more
`
`power is used relative to the stop-position searching mode where no position
`
`determination is performed. (Paper 1, 35-39). Similarly, in the modified Sakamoto
`
`system employing Alberth’s two frequency activation rates, transitioning from
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Alberth’s low power mode where the GPS receiver is activated less frequently (e.g.,
`
`every twenty minutes) and where GPS position determination does not occur, to
`
`Alberth’s high-frequency activation rate, where the GPS receiver is activated
`
`frequently (e.g., every few seconds or a minute) and GPS position determination
`
`does occur, activates the GPS receiver, as claimed. Alberth expressly teaches the
`
`transition from the low power mode to a more frequent activation rate is responsive
`
`to the signal level. Alberth, 5:38-41.
`
`Alberth Teaches the Amended Claim Limitation
`
`3.
`Alberth teaches the new limitation that the “at least one portion of the
`
`transceiver circuitry and the location tracking circuitry” is deactivated by placing in
`
`a low power mode in which the circuitry consumes at least reduced power. Alberth
`
`teaches a mobile station receiver comprising a GPS receiver 42 and a cellular
`
`receiver 31. Alberth, 3:51-52, 2:9-17, 2:66-67, 3:12-13. The GPS receiver 42
`
`operates at two activation rates, also referred to as a “rate of activation” (4:47-48)
`
`and “frequenc[y] of activation” (3:58-60). Alberth, 3:53-60, 4:31-58. A first
`
`activation rate is used when the GPS satellite signal level is high and positioning can
`
`be performed, such that the “GPS receiver can periodically activate at a rate of
`
`substantially every five seconds, thirty seconds or minute.” Alberth, 3:55-57. The
`
`second rate is used when the signal level is weak, and positioning cannot be
`
`performed. Alberth, 3:53-60, 4:32-49. “This second predetermined rate can be on
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`the order of every five minutes, ten minutes, twenty minutes, or more. In the
`
`illustrated embodiment, the rate of activation is reduced to once every twenty
`
`minutes.” Alberth, 4:44-47.
`
`When the signal level is high, Alberth teaches that “[i]f the position location
`
`signals are suitable for processing, normal operation continues and the position
`
`signals are used for geographic location as is known in the art. The GPS receiver 42
`
`continues to periodically activate at the first predetermined rate to detect and
`
`process new position location signaling.” Alberth, 4:25-30.1 Thus, when the GPS
`
`signal level is high so that processing and positioning can be performed, Alberth
`
`teaches the GPS receiver 42 operating at a first frequency rate where the GPS
`
`receiver 42 periodically activates to receive the GPS signals and process the position.
`
`This “normal operation” (Alberth, 4:26) is akin to Sakamoto’s “normal positioning
`
`mode,” where the Sakamoto GPS receiver 10 periodically turns on/off according to
`
`a predetermined schedule when the signal level is high. (Ex. 1080, ¶ 15, citing
`
`Sakamoto, [0004]-[0005], [0027], [0036], [0038]-[0039], [0042], [0045], [0050]).
`
`When the signal level is weak, Alberth teaches the GPS receiver 42 operates
`
`at the second activation rate “to save battery power.” Alberth, 3:67–4:7, 4:25-41.
`
`Operation at the second activation rate is a “low power mode”: “If the short term
`
`signal strength is still too weak for processing, the GPS receiver 42 deactivates
`
`
`1 All emphases added unless otherwise noted.
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`and operation in the low power mode continues- the controller continues to
`
`activate the GPS receiver 42 at the decreased frequency.” Alberth, 5:41-45; Ex.
`
`1080, ¶¶ 10, 16-17, 25. Alberth teaches: “[t]he more frequently the activation, the
`
`more up-to-date the position location information will be. The tradeoff for higher
`
`frequencies for the first rate of activation is battery drain.” Alberth, 3:60-63. Alberth
`
`emphasizes activating at the second rate conserves power: “[d]uring each twenty
`
`minute period, at least a portion of the receiver, here GPS receiver 42, is deactivated
`
`to conserve power.” Alberth, 4:42-43. Therefore, a POSITA would have understood
`
`Alberth’s operation of the GPS receiver 42 in a low power mode having a decreased
`
`frequency would “consume[] at least reduced power” relative to “normal operation,”
`
`per the plain language of the claim. Alberth, 4:26; Ex. 1080, ¶¶ 10, 16, 18.
`
`Applying LBT’s claim construction, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`if “at least a portion of the [GPS] receiver” (Alberth, 4:50-52) is deactivated during
`
`the twenty-minute period comprising the second activation rate, then this means that
`
`there are at least some circumstances where the GPS receiver’s power is not shut off
`
`or eliminated. (Ex. 1080, ¶ 19). Conversely, when at least a portion of the GPS
`
`receiver is deactivated, this means at least a portion of the GPS receiver is using
`
`power. Thus, Alberth teaches that while in the low power mode, “at least a portion”
`
`of—but not necessarily all of—the GPS receiver is deactivated, thereby meeting the
`
`amended claims per LBT’s construction. Id.; Alberth, 4:50-52.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`4. Motivation to Combine
`
`A POSITA would have found it obvious and been motivated to modify
`
`Sakamoto’s system to include the low power mode of Alberth. (Ex. 1080, ¶¶ 27-31).
`
`It would have been obvious to modify Sakamoto’s GPS receiver 10 to perform the
`
`deactivation at the second rate as taught by Alberth to conserve power.
`
`Sakamoto already teaches similar modes of operation as disclosed in Alberth.
`
`Sakamoto teaches a normal positioning mode where the GPS receiver 10 is
`
`periodically turned on/off to perform positioning. Sakamoto, [0035-0036].
`
`Similarly, Alberth teaches “normal operation” where the GPS receiver 42 is
`
`activated at pre-determined increments, e.g., “five seconds, thirty seconds or
`
`minute,” to perform positioning. Alberth, 3:53-63. Sakamoto also already teaches
`
`periodically checking the satellite signal level at predetermined times (i.e., according
`
`to the “cycle set in advance”). Sakamoto, [0037]. Similarly, Alberth teaches
`
`checking the GPS signal level at the second rate (e.g., every twenty minutes) or when
`
`the cellular signal level is good. Alberth, 4:50-58. A POSITA would have readily
`
`recognized the similarities between the GPS systems of Sakamoto and Alberth and
`
`appreciated that certain features of Alberth were readily implementable in Sakamoto,
`
`as discussed further below. (Ex. 1080, ¶¶ 27-28).
`
`Sakamoto teaches transitioning to a stop-position searching mode when GPS
`
`signal levels are poor (i.e., positioning is not possible). Sakamoto, [0038]; Paper 1,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`35. Likewise, Alberth teaches transitioning to the second rate when position location
`
`signals are not suitable for processing. Alberth, 4:31-35. Modifying Sakamoto to use
`
`a second cycle set in advance (i.e., Alberth’s second rate) in the stop-position
`
`searching mode instead of Sakamoto’s single “cycle set in advance” would have
`
`advantageously saved battery power, as taught by Alberth, 4:31-36, 4:41-49, 6:30-
`
`33. When the signal level is weak, it would have been advantageous and desirable
`
`to increase the time between each GPS receiver activation (e.g., increase from one
`
`minute to twenty minutes) for checking of the GPS signal level to increase the
`
`efficiency of Sakamoto’s power usage. (Ex. 1080, ¶¶ 29-30).
`
`Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to leave at least a
`
`portion of Sakamoto’s GPS receiver 10 powered on to avoid performing a cold start
`
`every time a GPS signal level measurement is taken. (Ex. 1080, ¶ 31; Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 140). A POSITA would have understood that performing a cold start wastes battery
`
`power. Id. Deactivating only at least a portion of Sakamoto’s GPS receiver 10, as
`
`expressly taught by Alberth, 4:50-52, would have advantageously achieved
`
`additional battery savings and improved signal detection operations. Alberth, 4:50-
`
`51; Ex. 1080, ¶ 31.
`
`A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because
`
`leaving at least a portion of a GPS receiver on is already taught by Alberth, within
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`the skillset of a POSITA, and would have required only simple programming
`
`changes to powering the hardware in the similar system of Sakamoto. Id.
`
`B. Ground 7: Claims 25, 27, 33-35, 38-40, 43-45, and 48 Are Obvious
`Over Sakamoto in View of Levi in Further View of Gronemeyer
`
`To the extent LBT argues Alberth does not teach the new limitation in Claims
`
`25 and 39, Gronemeyer teaches such. Therefore, the combination of Sakamoto, Levi,
`
`and Gronemeyer renders obvious proposed substitute Claims 25, 27, 33-35, 38-40,
`
`43-45, and 48. Gronemeyer teaches at least some components of the GPS receiver
`
`are powered on continuously.
`
`1.
`
`Gronemeyer Teaches the New Limitation Applying LBT’s
`Construction
`
`Gronemeyer teaches conserving power in a GPS receiver unit 100 by shutting
`
`down only select components “during periods when the GPS receiver unit is not
`
`actively acquiring satellite information used to calculate the location of the GPS
`
`receiver unit.” Gronemeyer (Ex. 1077), 6:41-45, 5:11-14, 14:13-23. Gronemeyer
`
`discloses “powering down these components is very desirable in a portable GPS
`
`receiver unit to conserve power resources.” Gronemeyer, 4:1-5, 4:66–5:3, 14:16-21.
`
`The power conservation is described as “the sleeping period or the sleep mode,”
`
`which a POSITA would have understood is a “low power mode,” as claimed.
`
`Gronemeyer, 14:3-5; Ex. 1080, ¶ 33.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Gronemeyer also teaches the GPS receiver unit consumes “at least reduced
`
`power” in the low power mode, as claimed. Selected components that are shut off
`
`during Gronemeyer’s sleep mode include oscillator 204, radio 202, clocks generator
`
`216, and GPS signal processors 208. Gronemeyer, 14:13-23. At least some
`
`components of GPS receiver unit 100 remain on and consume power even during
`
`sleep mode. For example, Gronemeyer teaches a low power time keeping circuit 200
`
`“remains on” even when “[s]elected components residing on the GPS receiver unit”
`
`are “shut down (deactivated) to conserve power.” Gronemeyer, 7:8-11, Figs. 3-4
`
`(low power time keeping circuit 200 depicted as part of GPS receiver 100); Ex. 1080,
`
`¶¶ 34-36. A POSITA would have understood that timing circuit 200 “remains on,”
`
`indicating the circuit 200 consumes power. (Ex. 1080, ¶¶ 35-36).
`
`Gronemeyer teaches low power time keeping circuit 200 includes “at least a
`
`K32 oscillator 302” that “resid[es] in a low power time keeping circuit [and]
`
`accurately preserves GPS time when the selected components are shut off.”
`
`Gronemeyer, 5:14-17, 6:45-48, 12:9-13. The components of the low power time
`
`keeping circuit 200 that remain on during sleep mode (e.g., K32 oscillator 302, low
`
`power clock 306) continue to consume power but are “very low-power consuming
`
`devices, particularly when compared to the selected components residing in the GPS
`
`receiver unit 100 that are powered down[.]” Gronemeyer, 12:58-61; Ex. 1080, ¶¶
`
`34-36. Gronemeyer thus teaches at least a portion of the GPS receiver 100, namely
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`oscillator 302 and low power clock 306, continuously consumes power during a low
`
`power mode with reduced power.
`
`Because Gronemeyer teaches at least one portion of the GPS receiver is