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 REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. THE PETITION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ESTABLISH THE
`REQUIRED ACTIVATING/DEACTIVATING ................................................ 1
`A. LBT’S ARGUMENTS DO NOT MEANINGFULLY REBUT THE PETITION’S
`MAPPINGS ........................................................................................................... 1
`B. SAKAMOTO’S TEACHINGS ............................................................................... 3
`C. MR. ANDREWS’S OPINIONS ........................................................................... 4
`III. LBT’S ARGUMENTS .................................................................................. 8
`A. LBT’S ARGUMENTS DO NOT RESPOND TO THE PETITION’S MAPPING ............ 8
`B. LBT’S CHARACTERIZATIONS OF THE ’618 PATENT DO NOT DISTINGUISH
`OVER SAKAMOTO ................................................................................................11
`C. LBT MISREPRESENTS MR. ANDREWS’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY .................14
`IV. LBT DOES NOT REBUT THE PETITION’S SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE .........................................................................................................17
`V. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`LBT’s arguments misrepresent Mr. Andrews’s deposition testimony and
`
`ignore Sakamoto’s collective teachings. Sakamoto teaches the GPS receiver 10 is cut
`
`off and position searching is stopped when the GPS signal is below a predetermined
`
`threshold. (Paper 1, Petition, 31-33; Ex. 1004, Sakamoto, [0038], [0050]; Ex. 1003,
`
`Declaration of Mr. Scott Andrews, ¶¶ 119-120). Sakamoto also teaches the satellite
`
`signal level is measured periodically (“at the cycle set in advance”), and when the
`
`signal level is once again above a predetermined threshold level, the GPS receiver
`
`is set in the normal or high sensitivity positioning modes. Sakamoto, [0037-0038];
`
`Paper 1, 33-37; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 138-139. LBT argues that because the GPS receiver is
`
`cut off when the signal level is low, and the GPS receiver receives the satellite signal,
`
`then the GPS receiver cannot activate in response to a signal level above the claimed
`
`receive communication signal level. (Paper 17, Patent Owner Response, 10). LBT’s
`
`theory is incorrect, as it fails to address Sakamoto’s setting a positioning mode based
`
`on a measured signal level above a predetermined threshold level.
`
`II. THE PETITION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ESTABLISH THE
`REQUIRED ACTIVATING/DEACTIVATING
`A. LBT’s Arguments Do Not Meaningfully Rebut the Petition’s
`Mappings
`
`LBT ignores the Petition’s mapping and Mr. Andrews’s declaration opinions.
`
`(Paper 1, 32, 35-37; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 136-139). Sakamoto expressly teaches the satellite
`
`signal level is measured periodically “at the cycle set in advance.” Sakamoto, [0037];
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 137-138. Upon measuring that the signal level is above the
`
`predetermined threshold level, the Sakamoto GPS receiver 10 is set to either the
`
`normal or high sensitivity positioning modes. Sakamoto, [0037-0038]. As mapped
`
`in the Petition, the GPS receiver’s transition from the stop position searching mode
`
`(where no position searching is performed) to either of the normal or high sensitivity
`
`positioning modes (where both modes perform position searching) activates the GPS
`
`receiver. See Paper 1, 35 (“Sakamoto’s transitioning between the stop-position
`
`searching mode and either the normal/high modes results in selective activation and
`
`deactivation of
`
`the GPS
`
`receiver’s signal acquisition and processing
`
`functionalities….”) (emphasis in original), 37-38 (discussing “Sakamoto teaches
`
`transitioning from one mode to another mode depending on signal level, where
`
`signal level detection is performed responsive to the satellite signal level request
`
`message sent ‘at the cycle set in advance’”); Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 119-120 (discussing
`
`deactivating taught by Sakamoto), 133, 136-139 (Mr. Andrews opining “a POSITA
`
`would have recognized that Sakamoto’s system would have been configured to
`
`transition from one of the modes to any other mode (including directly from stop-
`
`position searching mode to normal mode and/or vice-versa) when appropriate”).
`
`Notably, the Petition maps the GPS receiver’s activation as performed
`
`responsive to the signal level being above the predetermined threshold level. (Paper
`
`1, 37-38; Ex. 1003, ¶ 138). LBT counters the Sakamoto GPS receiver “cannot
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`acquire or process the necessary signal for activation until the GPS receiver…[has]
`
`already been activated in response to some other trigger, such as the position
`
`request….” (Paper 17, 10-11). LBT then cites Sakamoto, [0020] discussing manual
`
`positioning for allegedly supporting its position. LBT’s discussion of Sakamoto’s
`
`manual positioning, however, does not respond to the Petition’s mapping and wholly
`
`ignores Sakamoto’s teachings that the satellite signal level is automatically measured
`
`cyclically. The manual activation method was not mapped for the Petition. See Paper
`
`1, 35-36 (relying on Sakamoto’s teaching of measuring the signal level at the “cycle
`
`set in advance”). LBT solely focuses on the manual-instruction embodiment in
`
`Sakamoto, [0020] without addressing the periodic, cyclical signal level detection at
`
`¶¶ [0037-0038]. See Paper 17, 11.
`
`As discussed herein, both the express teachings in Sakamoto and Mr.
`
`Andrews’s opinions in his original Declaration (Ex. 1003) and deposition establish
`
`that Sakamoto’s GPS receiver activates, such as beginning position searching, in
`
`response to the satellite signal level above the predetermined threshold level as
`
`measured periodically at the cycle set in advance.
`
`Sakamoto’s Teachings
`
`B.
`Sakamoto teaches that “at the cycle set in advance in the position information
`
`database 25,” the positioning mode control unit 22 “sends a positioning control
`
`message (satellite signal level request message).” Sakamoto, [0037]; Paper 1, 35-36
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`(mapping Claim 1(c) and the recited “to selectively activate and deactivate…in
`
`response to a signal level of the at least one portion of the receive communication
`
`signal”); Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 135, 138. The positioning control unit 13 then “causes the
`
`satellite signal level detection unit 15 to monitor the signal level from the GPS
`
`satellite.…” Sakamoto, [0037]. A satellite signal level response message is sent to
`
`the position management / positioning server 2, and the positioning mode control
`
`unit 22 reads out the signal level and determines the required position mode based
`
`on the satellite signal level, including whether the signal level is above “the
`
`predetermined threshold value.” Sakamoto, [0038]. A message “designating the
`
`positioning operation of the GPS receiver” with corresponding mode (e.g., normal
`
`or high sensitivity) is then sent to the terminal. Id.
`
`Therefore, Sakamoto teaches that at the cycle set in advance, the satellite
`
`signal level is measured. Based on the signal level, the positioning mode of normal
`
`or high sensitivity positioning may be set. LBT does not rebut the above-discussed
`
`understanding of Sakamoto or provide any evidence to the contrary.
`
`C. Mr. Andrews’s Opinions
`Mr. Andrews discussed Sakamoto’s teachings at length in his Declaration. Mr.
`
`Andrews discussed Sakamoto’s operation of measuring the satellite signal level,
`
`including that the measurement is automatically performed at the cycle set in
`
`advance: “Sakamoto teaches the position searching may be performed manually or
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`automatically according to a ‘cycle set in advance,’ and that signal level detection is
`
`performed during a set ‘measurement time.’” (Ex. 1003, ¶ 137). Mr. Andrews
`
`explained in his original declaration that position determination begins with
`
`measuring the signal level and setting a positioning mode. Id. at ¶ 138.
`
`LBT quotes a portion of Mr. Andrews’s declaration at ¶ 138 but does not
`
`address the entirety of his opinion at ¶ 138. (Paper 17, 12). Specifically, after quoting
`
`a section of ¶ 138, LBT asserts:
`
`While Mr. Andrews suggests that the resumption of position searching
`by GPS receiver (i.e., ‘activation’) occurs when ‘a subsequently
`received GPS signal level is good,’ he never explains how Sakamoto
`can receive a GPS signal when the GPS receiver is not already
`activated.
`
`(Paper 17, 12). LBT is selectively quoting portions of ¶ 138 to support its assertion
`
`that Mr. Andrews does not explain how Sakamoto can receive a GPS signal when
`
`the GPS receiver is not already activated. Notably, Mr. Andrews begins his opinion
`
`at ¶ 138 explaining just that. Mr. Andrews starts out explaining how the signal level
`
`is detected responsive to a satellite signal level request message automatically sent
`
`at the cycle set in advance:
`
`In response to a position request (whether manually request as
`described at ¶ [0020] or requested at the cycle set in advance as
`described at ¶ [0037]), Sakamoto teaches that the signal level is
`detected, and the operation mode is set. After another cycle (the cycle
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`set in advance), another positioning control message with a satellite
`signal level request is issued, and the terminal 1 again performs
`signal level detection via unit 15. Sakamoto, [0037]. Based on the
`new level detected, an operation mode is again set. This would have
`been the natural, expected operation of the device to a POSITA – a
`POSITA would not have expected that the device would have entered
`a particular mode (in this case, normal mode) and never be able to leave
`it. Rather, a POSITA would have expected that the device would have
`been configured to regularly reselect the appropriate mode of operation
`based on currently-sensed parameters to ensure the most appropriate
`functioning of the device.
`
`(Ex. 1003, ¶ 138).
`
`LBT’s purposeful reliance solely on Sakamoto’s manual-instruction
`
`embodiment (Paper 17, 11-12), while ignoring the Petition’s mapping of Sakamoto’s
`
`automatic cyclical positioning embodiment, should be rejected as not responding to
`
`the Petition’s mapping or addressing the collective teachings of Sakamoto relied on
`
`in the Petition and supporting evidence.
`
`Regarding Claim 1(c)’s recited selective activation/deactivation of the
`
`circuitry, Mr. Andrews explained that when Sakamoto’s device is operating in the
`
`normal mode, the mapped transceiver circuitry and location tracking circuitry are
`
`activated, and when Sakamoto’s device is operating in the stop-position searching
`
`mode, the circuitry is deactivated. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 132). Mr. Andrews further explained
`
`“[t]he current mode of operation of the terminal 1 is set by the positioning control
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`unit 13 in response to a signal level of the GPS satellite signal received by the GPS
`
`receiver 10.” Id. at ¶ 135. And as discussed above, Mr. Andrews opined the mode of
`
`operation is set responsive to the measured signal level. Id. at ¶¶ 137-138. Finally,
`
`Mr. Andrews opined “a POSITA would have expected that the device would have
`
`been configured to regularly reselect the appropriate mode of operation based on
`
`currently-sensed parameters to ensure the most appropriate functioning of the
`
`device.” Id. at ¶ 138. Thus, Sakamoto teaches that “[b]ased on the new [signal] level
`
`detected, an operation mode is again set.” Id.
`
`Mr. Andrews further supported his opinions during his deposition. Mr.
`
`Andrews opined that based on the understanding of a person of skill in the art, during
`
`the stop-position searching mode, Sakamoto would turn on the GPS receiver
`
`components to measure a satellite signal level cyclically:
`
`[P]resumably he would turn the GPS receiver off and then maybe once
`a minute, once every five minutes, would turn it back on briefly, check
`the power level, and if it was above that level, he would then transition
`to the normal mode or to the high mode, and if he was below, he would
`turn it back off and keep it off until he decided to check the next time.
`
`This is a -- this is based on the understanding that I think is reasonable
`for a person of skill in the art, that without a method like that, Sakamoto
`would turn the GPS receiver off when the signal level went below that
`threshold and it would never come back on again, which would not be
`a practical solution to the problem.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`(Ex. 2003, 23:21–24:10; see also id. at 24:15-25 (opining would “turn on at least the
`
`parts of it [GPS receiver] necessary to check the signal level, and then you turn them
`
`off if it wasn’t above that level, and if it was above that level you would activate the
`
`whole receiver and go back to one of the other positional points”)). During his
`
`deposition, Mr. Andrews gave similar testimony regarding the impracticality of a
`
`device that would turn off after a GPS signal level went below a threshold and never
`
`turn on again, including that Sakamoto does not contemplate such a device:
`
`He [Sakamoto] … doesn’t contemplate that once the -- once the GPS
`signal level went below that threshold, the system would turn off and
`never turn on again. That would be -- that wouldn’t be very practical.
`So clearly he has some ability to detect the level of that signal and turn
`the GPS receiver back on when it’s above that threshold.
`
`(Ex. 2003, 21:7-15).
`
`
`
`Mr. Andrews’s unrebutted opinions support the Petition’s mapping, including
`
`explaining Sakamoto teaches activating the GPS receiver in response to the satellite
`
`signal level measured “at the cycle set in advance.” (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 137-138).
`
`III. LBT’S ARGUMENTS
`A. LBT’s Arguments Do Not Respond to the Petition’s Mapping
`LBT’s central argument is that if the Sakamoto GPS receiver is deactivated in
`
`the stop-positioning mode and is the only component in Sakamoto that receives the
`
`GPS satellite signal, “Sakamoto cannot then activate GPS receiver 10 or any
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`component of GPS receiver 10 ‘in response to a single level’ as required by the
`
`claims of the ’618 Patent.” (Paper 17, 10). This argument seems to implicitly require
`
`the claimed “activate” to require activating from a completely powered off state,
`
`which is not required by the claims.
`
`The Petition’s mapping of Sakamoto relies on a two-phase approach to
`
`determining a position. A first phase is measuring the satellite signal. This
`
`measurement is performed at the cycle set in advance. Sakamoto, [0037]. Therefore,
`
`periodically, the GPS receiver and accompanying components (GPS control unit 12,
`
`satellite signal level detection unit 15) measure the signal level. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 137).
`
`Then, the second phase is implemented; based on the measured signal level, the
`
`positioning mode is set. Sakamoto, [0038]. The Petition mapped the setting of the
`
`positioning mode to normal positioning as the claimed activation. (Paper 1, 35-38).
`
`The Petition showed how position determination uses more power to thereby
`
`activate the circuitry, while stopping position searching uses less power to thereby
`
`deactivate the circuitry. (Paper 1, 38-41; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 139-140). Mr. Andrews
`
`explained,
`
`for example,
`
`that portions of
`
`the GPS
`
`receiver 10 are
`
`activated/deactivated when in the respective modes:
`
`Since, 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 these circuitries within Sakamoto’s device
`are activated when the device enters normal mode. Id. Similarly, since
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`the position search is not performed in the stop-position searching
`mode, a POSITA would have understood that the GPS receiver 10
`(again, a portion within both the transceiver circuitry and location
`tracking circuitry) is deactivated when Sakamoto’s device enters this
`mode, as claimed, in order to consume less power relative to when
`position searching is performed. Sakamoto expressly teaches with
`respect to the signal level that ‘power consumption can be reduced by
`stopping the position search when positioning is not possible.’
`Sakamoto, [0050]. A POSITA would have understood that if ‘power
`consumption can be reduced’ then it would have at least been obvious
`that one method by which the power consumption would appropriately
`have been reduced would have been by selectively deactivating sub-
`components of the GPS receiver related to signal acquisition and signal
`processing, as claimed.
`
`(Ex. 1003, ¶ 140). Therefore, when the Sakamoto GPS receiver transitions from a
`
`stop-position searching mode, where no position searching is performed, to a normal
`
`mode where position searching is performed, the Sakamoto GPS receiver is
`
`activating “at least one portion” of the GPS receiver, as claimed.
`
`The Challenged Claims do not require the claimed “activate” be from a
`
`completely powered off state. That is, the claims do not exclude the transition from
`
`the stop-position searching mode to the normal mode in Sakamoto to be activation
`
`of the circuitry. The claims merely require that the selective activation/deactivation
`
`conserves battery power. Because it is undisputed that Sakamoto’s selective
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`transition between the stop-position searching and normal modes based on the signal
`
`level conserves battery power (Paper 1, 40-41), Sakamoto meets the claimed
`
`limitation.
`
`It is noteworthy that LBT does not dispute Mr. Andrews’s opinions at Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 140 that “at least one portion of each of these circuitries within Sakamoto’s
`
`device are [sic, is] activated when the device enters normal mode.” Indeed, LBT
`
`contemplates in its concurrently-filed Motion to Amend (Paper 16, 19) that power is
`
`“not eliminated” or “not shut off,” such that the claimed activation cannot require
`
`powering on from a completely powered off state. LBT should not be allowed to
`
`take inconsistent positions on the same claim language between the Patent Owner
`
`Response and Motion to Amend.
`
`As discussed above, the Petition does not map the periodic measurement of
`
`the satellite signal level “at the cycle set in advance” as the claimed “activate … at
`
`least one portion of the” circuitry. Instead, as noted above, the Petition maps the
`
`transition between the stop-position searching and normal modes as the selective
`
`activation/deactivation. (Paper 1, 35-38). Because LBT does not respond to this
`
`mapping, LBT’s attorney arguments should be accorded no weight.
`
`B.
`
`LBT’s Characterizations of the ’618 Patent Do Not Distinguish
`Over Sakamoto
`
`LBT characterizes the ’618 Patent’s description, stating “even when the
`
`transceiver circuitry and location tracking circuitry have been deactivated, the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`inventions claimed by the ’618 Patent must still be able to receive and measure the
`
`GPS signal necessary to activate that circuitry.” (Paper 17, 5). Again, Sakamoto
`
`teaches such. Sakamoto teaches the GPS receiver stops position searching when the
`
`signal level is low. Sakamoto, [0038], [0050]; Paper 1, 37; Ex. 1003, ¶ 119. But
`
`because the signal level is measured periodically “at the cycle set in advance,” the
`
`mapped circuitry still has the ability to periodically receive and measure the signal
`
`strength level to thereby determine if the circuitry should be activated for position
`
`determination. Sakamoto, [0037].
`
`Even the disclosure in the ’618 Patent Specification aligns with Sakamoto’s
`
`teachings. The ’618 Patent states “[i]n one variant, the tracking device 100
`
`periodically checks availability of GPS signal, e.g., perform a GPS signal
`
`acquisition to determine if a receive communication signal is above a first signal
`
`level.” (Ex. 1001, ’618 Patent, 7:2-5). The ’618 Patent’s description of periodically
`
`checking the availability of the GPS signal is akin to Sakamoto’s teaching of
`
`monitoring the signal level from the GPS satellites “at the cycle set in advance.” (Ex.
`
`1080, Supp. Dec. of Mr. Scott Andrews, ¶¶ 3-4, 7). Additionally, the ’618 Patent
`
`describes a similar approach as taught in Sakamoto, stating:
`
`In step 312, all or a portion of amplifier block 120 and associated
`circuitry, e.g., location tracking circuitry, are activated at selected time
`intervals to determine if receive communication signal is of sufficient
`signal strength. In one variation of step 312, upon determining receive
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`communication signal of sufficient signal strength, location
`tracking circuitry 114 are activated, and processing unit 104
`determines location coordinates from the receive communication
`signal.
`
`’618 Patent, 10:48-56 (emphasis added), Fig. 3, Step 312. Thus, in the ’618 Patent,
`
`“all or a portion of” the location tracking circuitry is activated at selected time
`
`intervals to measure signal strength. If the signal strength is sufficient, locating
`
`tracking circuitry is activated and processing unit determines location coordinates.
`
`Again, this is similar to Sakamoto’s periodic measurement of the signal level “at the
`
`cycle set in advance,” and upon determining the signal level is sufficient (above a
`
`predetermined threshold), reactivating the GPS receiver to perform positioning.
`
`LBT’s arguments seem to rely on requiring the claims to cover the exact
`
`structure described in the ’618 Patent. LBT contends “the claimed ‘at least one
`
`portion of the transceiver circuitry and location tracking circuitry’ cannot both (1)
`
`include the only ability to receive GPS signals and (2) be turned off completely when
`
`it is deactivated.” (Paper 17, 7). LBT is wrong, however. In a system such as
`
`Sakamoto’s, where at least some portion of the GPS receiver is periodically turned
`
`on to receive (and thereafter measure) satellite signal levels, the “at least one portion
`
`of the transceiver circuitry and the location tracking circuitry” can indeed include
`
`the only ability to receive GPS signals and be deactivated. Note that the claims
`
`merely require selective activation/deactivation to conserve battery power.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Therefore, during the times when the GPS receiver is in the stop-position searching
`
`mode and between cycles for determining the signal level, the GPS receiver is
`
`deactivated. And, even when portions of the GPS receiver are powered on to measure
`
`the signal level per the automatic cycle, at least one portion of the GPS receiver’s
`
`signal acquisition and signal processing sections is deactivated relative to operation
`
`when position determining. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 140).
`
`Because LBT’s arguments do not correctly represent the claimed subject
`
`matter or address Sakamoto’s teachings or the Petition’s mapping, LBT’s arguments
`
`should be rejected.
`
`C. LBT Misrepresents Mr. Andrews’s Deposition Testimony
`LBT’s Patent Owner Response misrepresents Mr. Andrews’s deposition
`
`testimony, including cutting off pertinent portions of his testimony and quoting out
`
`of context.
`
`LBT contends Mr. Andrews “conceded that Sakamoto does not teach
`
`reactivating the GPS receiver 10 from the stop-position mode in response to a signal
`
`level.” (Paper 17, 11). This is an inaccurate description of Mr. Andrews’s testimony.
`
`Below is the full excerpt, with only LBT’s quoted section bolded:
`
`Q. Okay. And your opinion with regard to claim 3 is that Sakamoto
`teaches this reactivating limitation by moving out of the stop-position
`mode into either what Sakamoto calls normal mode or high mode; is
`that correct?
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Let me check something in my declaration here. Yeah, so I
`A.
`respond to this in paragraph 212 of my declaration.
`
`You would need to -- Sakamoto clearly turns the thing back on
`when the signal is recovered or is back up on the threshold, which
`means that at some point he has to turn the receiver on briefly enough
`to at least measure the signal level. He may not be positioning with it,
`but he's at least turning on the radio part to actually check the level of
`the GPS signals, otherwise, he would turn the GPS off and it would
`never come back on, right?
`
`In that case, however, when Sakamoto turns on GPS receiver
`Q.
`10, it does not do so in response to a signal level, correct?
`
`That's correct. He turns on -- and he may not actually turn on
`A.
`the entire GPS receiver. Remember, the GPS receiver has a radio that
`receives radio signals and it has a processor which consumes a great
`deal of power that actually processes those radio signals to determine a
`position.
`
`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.
`
`So in that example, what is the trigger that Sakamoto uses to
`Q.
`reactivate the GPS receiver when in stop-position mode?
`
`The trigger would be that the level of the received GPS radio
`A.
`signals would be above the stop-positioning threshold.
`
`(Ex. 2003, 19:8–20:22).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`The above testimony, when reviewed fully and in context, does not support
`
`LBT’s contention. Instead, Mr. Andrews explained that the reactivation of the GPS
`
`receiver occurs when the GPS signal level is measured “above that stop-position
`
`threshold.” (Ex. 2003, 20:12-13). Mr. Andrews also 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.
`
`LBT resorts to misrepresenting Mr. Andrews’s deposition testimony because
`
`Mr. Andrews’s opinions do not support LBT’s theories. During his deposition, Mr.
`
`Andrews was repeatedly questioned regarding whether and how Sakamoto taught
`
`activation/reactivation of the GPS receiver in response to a receive communication
`
`signal level. See generally Ex. 2003, 18:14–37:21. Mr. Andrews consistently opined
`
`that Sakamoto teaches (and must otherwise include) the ability to periodically check
`
`the signal level, and that upon the signal level being above the predetermined
`
`threshold
`
`level, activating/reactivating
`
`the
`
`receiver
`
`to perform position
`
`measurement. See, e.g., Ex. 2003, 21:7-15.
`
`Because Sakamoto teaches the mapped circuitry measures the satellite signal
`
`level, the GPS receiver is activated by transitioning from a stop-position searching
`
`mode to a normal mode upon a sufficient signal strength, and the GPS receiver is
`
`deactivated upon a weak GPS signal to conserve battery power, Apple has
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Challenged Claims are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`IV. LBT DOES NOT REBUT THE PETITION’S SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`
`LBT does not present any POSITA opinion evidence supporting its theories.
`
`Additionally, LBT does not rebut the Petition’s characterization of Sakamoto’s
`
`operation or Mr. Andrews’s opinions regarding the prior art, the Petition’s mappings,
`
`or how a POSITA would have understood GPS systems to operate. Instead, LBT’s
`
`arguments are premised on ignoring Sakamoto’s teachings regarding periodically
`
`checking the signal level and then activating the GPS receiver when the signal level
`
`is sufficiently high.
`
`Because LBT presents no rebuttal evidence and only attorney argument,
`
`LBT’s arguments should be given little weight.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons provided above and in the Petition and supporting evidence,
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
`BY: /s/ Jennifer C. Bailey
`Jennifer C. Bailey Reg. No. 52,583
`Adam P. Seitz, Reg. No. 52,206
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`P: (913) 777-5600
`F: (913) 777-5601
`jennifer.bailey@eriseip.com
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,421,618 to Scalisi et al. entitled “Apparatus and
`Method for Determining Location and Tracking Coordinates of a
`Tracking Device,” filed on January 23, 2012 and issued on April
`16, 2013
`Exhibit 1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,618
`Exhibit 1003 Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Exhibit 1004 Certified English Translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent
`Application Publication No. JP 2004-37116A
`to Sakamoto
`(“Sakamoto”); Certified English Translation of Figures of Japanese
`Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. JP 2004-37116A
`to Sakamoto; Affidavit for Sakamoto Translation; Affidavit for
`Sakamoto Figures Translation
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0217070A1 to
`Gotoh, et al., filed April 11, 2003 and published November 20, 2003
`(“Gotoh”)
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,583,776 to Levi et al. filed March 16, 1995 and
`published December 10, 1996 (“Levi”)
`Exhibit 1007
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1008 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0272413A1 to
`Vaganov, et al., filed June 4, 2005 and published December 7, 2006
`(“Vaganov”)
`Exhibit 1009 U.S. Patent No. 7,053,823 to Cervinka et al., filed July 3, 2003 and
`published May 30, 2006 (“Cervinka”)
`Exhibit 1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,799,050 to Krasner, filed June 4, 2001 and
`published September 28, 2004 (“Krasner”)
`Exhibit 1011
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1012
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,902,347 to Backman et al. (“Backman”)
`Exhibit 1014 U.S. Patent No. 7,106,189 to Burneske et al. (“Burneske”)
`Exhibit 1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,308,134 to Croyle et al. (“Croyle”)
`Exhibit 1016 U.S. Patent No. 7,024,321 to Deninger et al. (“Deninger”)
`Exhibit 1017 U.S. Patent No. 7,196,661 to Harvey (“Harvey”)
`Exhibit 1018 U.S. Patent No. 5,257,195 to Hirata (“Hirata”)
`Exhibit 1019 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0167647A1 to
`Krumm et al. (“Krumm”)
`Exhibit 1020 U.S. Patent No. 5,592,173 to Lau et al. (“Lau”)
`Exhibit 1021 U.S. Patent No. 7,430,675 to Lee (“Lee”)
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1022 U.S. Patent No. 8,467,804 to Lindquist (“Lindquist”)
`Exhibit 1023 U.S. Patent No. 7,760,137 to Martucci et al. (“Martucci”)
`Exhibit 1024 U.S. Patent No. 7,181,192 to Panasik et al. (“Panasik”)
`Exhibit 1025 U.S. Patent No. 7,126,536 to Rabinowitz et al. (“Rabinowitz”)
`Exhibit 1026 U.S. Patent No. 8,797,214 to Taylor et al. (“Taylor”)
`Exhibit 1027 U.S. Patent No. 7,239,271 to Vyas et al. (“Vyas”)
`Exhibit 1028 U.S. Patent No. 6,850,844 to Walters et al. (“Walters”)
`Exhibit 1029 U.S. Patent No. 7,439,907 to Wang et al. (“Wang”)
`Exhibit 1030 U.S. Patent No. 5,491,486 to Welles, II et al. (“Welles”)
`Exhibit 1031 Analog Devices ADXL320 Data Sheet (“ADXL320”)
`Exhibit 1032 Vehicle Location and Navigation Systems, pp. 43-81 (“Zhao”)
`Exhibit 1033
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1034
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1035 Curriculum Vitae of Scott Andrews
`Exhibit 1036 LBT IP I LLC v. Apple Inc., 1:19-cv-01245, No. 1 (D. Del. July 1,
`2019) (“LBT Complaint”)
`Exhibit 1037 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/109988A1 to
`Geissler et al. (“Geissler”)
`Exhibit 1038 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/136173A1 to Case,
`JR. et al. (“Case”)
`Exhibit 1039 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/005243A1 to
`Horvitz et al. (“Horvitz”)
`Exhibit 1040 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0005363A1 to
`Cucerzan et al. (“Cucerzan”)
`Exhibit 1041 U.S. Patent No. 6,067,046 to Nichols (“Nichols”)
`Exhibit 1042 U.S. Patent No. 6,522,266 to Soehren et al. (“Soehren”)
`Exhibit 1043 U.S. Patent No. 6,546,336 to Matsuoka et al. (“Matsuoka”)
`Exhibit 1044 U.S. Patent No. 6,657,587 to Mohan et al. (“Mohan”)
`Exhibit 1045 U.S. Patent No. 6,853,909 to Scherzinger et al. (“Scherzinger”)
`Exhibit 1046 U.S. Patent No. 7,953,327 to Pereira et al. (“Pereira”)
`Exhibit 1047 U.S. Patent No. 7,970,412 to Pande et al. (“Pande”)
`Exhibit 1048 U.S. Patent No. 8,068,984 to Smith et al. (“Smith”)
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO2007/101724
`Exhibit 1049
`to Deurwaarder (“Deurwaarder”)
`E