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 SUR-REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. CLAIMs 25 and 39 ....................................................................................... 1
`A.
`LBT’s Claim Construction Should Be Rejected .............................. 1
`B. Claims 25 and 39 Are Obvious in View of Alberth .......................... 4
`C. Modifying Sakamoto with Alberth Does Not Eliminate
`Sakamoto’s High Sensitivity Mode ................................................... 6
`D. Claims 25 and 39 Are Obvious in View of Gronemeyer .................. 7
`III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Statutes:
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ 1, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................... 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(1) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`Regulations:
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ................................................................................................................... 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) .............................................................................................................. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Claims 25 and 39 (and their dependents) are unpatentable under § 103
`
`applying the plain and ordinary meaning of LBT’s amendment and applying LBT’s
`
`claim construction. LBT’s construction requires the GPS receiver to use at least
`
`some power continuously or constantly while in the low power mode, i.e., to not be
`
`shut off while in the low power mode. (Paper 30, 2-3). Apple disagrees with LBT’s
`
`construction, as it imports a contrived distinction between a low power mode and
`
`disabling entirely a component. Regardless, Sakamoto modified by Alberth
`
`expressly teaches the amended claim limitation applying LBT’s construction.
`
`Alberth expressly states “at least a portion” of the GPS receiver is deactivated when
`
`the signal level is weak; therefore, at least some components of GPS receiver remain
`
`continuously powered. Alberth, 6:60-64. LBT’s arguments regarding Gronemeyer
`
`equally fail. Gronemeyer expressly discloses continuously operating a timing circuit
`
`of a GPS receiver unit while powering down other components to conserve power
`
`resources. Gronemeyer, 4:66–5:5, 3:54-56, 5:8-9.
`
`II. CLAIMS 25 AND 39
`A. LBT’s Claim Construction Should Be Rejected
`Apple proposes a plain and ordinary construction for “consumes at least
`
`reduced power,” namely the component consumes reduced power during operation
`
`in a low power mode. (Paper 26, 2-3). A component that “consumes at least reduced
`
`power” is “met by a component that is periodically activated” during operation in
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`the low power mode because periodic activation for purposes of conserving power
`
`results in reduced power consumption during that period. Id.; Ex. 1080, ¶¶ 18, 30.
`
`LBT proposes “consumes at least reduced power” “requires that the
`
`[component] continues to consume power while in a low power mode.” (Paper 16,
`
`19). LBT further argues “power is not eliminated and [the component] is not shut
`
`off.” Id. LBT thus implicitly construes “consumes at least reduced power” as
`
`requiring power be continually or constantly consumed while the component is in a
`
`low power mode.
`
`LBT relies on the described modes in the priority document to support its
`
`claim construction. (Paper 30, 2-3). LBT argues that because the priority document
`
`describes standby, sleep, low power, and disabling entirely the component, the
`
`priority document draws a “clear distinction between ‘low power’ and ‘disabling
`
`entirely’ as alternative modes.” Id. at 3. LBT continues “it would be illogical for the
`
`component consuming reduced power in a low power mode to be met by a
`
`component that is ultimately disabled entirely and fully activated, neither of which
`
`consumes reduce power.” Id.
`
`LBT’s logic is incorrect. The Specification only describes that in any of these
`
`modes, battery power is conserved. The specification does not describe how power
`
`consumption is reduced for any of the modes. For example, there is no description
`
`that power consumption is reduced because a sub-component is always powered on
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`while in the low power mode (LBT’s argument). Powering on fewer than all sub-
`
`components of a component is not the only option for reduced power consumption.
`
`Alberth discloses cyclically powering on/off a component is a known low power
`
`mode. (Ex. 1080, ¶¶ 18, 30).
`
`There is also no support for LBT’s statement that a low power mode does not
`
`encompass alternately disabling entirely and fully activating the component. (Paper
`
`30, 3). LBT wants to draw a distinction between the described low power mode and
`
`“disabling entirely” the component. But, reducing power consumption by disabling
`
`entirely the component for the entirety of the period of reduced power consumption
`
`is not
`
`the
`
`same
`
`as
`
`reducing power
`
`consumption by periodically
`
`activating/deactivating the component for the period of reduced power consumption.
`
`To the extent there is a distinction, disabling entirely a component is for the entirety
`
`of the reduced power consumption period. Regardless, it is legally incorrect to
`
`construe the claimed “consumes at least reduced power” to mean a specific means
`
`of reducing power, i.e., LBT’s proffered continually consuming power and not
`
`shutting off, without more written description support or other evidence.
`
`Finally, it is common sense that a device that moves from continuous
`
`activation or activation at a high frequency rate to activation at a decreased frequency
`
`rate (i.e., activating less frequently than the high frequency rate) will have reduced
`
`power consumption, as discussed by Mr. Andrews for Alberth. (Ex. 1080, ¶ 16).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Because the priority document does not describe the characteristics and/or
`
`differences between the described low power mode and disabling entirely the
`
`component, and because a component that is periodically activated/deactivated
`
`reduces power consumption, LBT’s exclusion of periodically powering on/off the
`
`component during the low power mode lacks § 112(1) support.
`
`To the extent LBT’s construction implicitly requires that “consumes at least
`
`reduced power” be continually consuming at least reduced power, there is also no
`
`support. Indeed, in the IPR for the related ’113 Patent, LBT previously submitted
`
`substitute Claim 27 that recited “continues to consume at least reduced power.”
`
`(IPR2020-01190, Paper 16, 28). Apple argued a lack of written description support
`
`(Paper 26, 1-2), and the Board agreed in its Preliminary Guidance (Paper 28, 4-6).
`
`In its Revised Motion to Amend (rMTA) in the ’190 IPR, LBT further amended
`
`Claim 27 to remove the “continues to consume” language. LBT should not now be
`
`allowed to inject a new limitation through an implicit construction, especially as it
`
`had the opportunity and knew how to do so via the Motion to Amend to expressly
`
`narrow its claims.
`
`B. Claims 25 and 39 Are Obvious in View of Alberth
`The grounds applying Alberth teach the new limitation in the substitute
`
`claims, both under the plain meaning of “consumes at least reduced power” and
`
`LBT’s construction. LBT admits in its Reply that “Alberth arguably discloses a low
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`power mode” but disagrees that Alberth teaches deactivating at least a portion of the
`
`GPS receiver during the low power mode (i.e., during periodic detection of the
`
`position location signaling while activating at the second frequency rate). (Paper 30,
`
`4-5; Alberth, 4:31-35, 4:50-58). LBT argues Alberth, 4:50-52 “discloses only that
`
`the GPS receiver, as a whole unit, is powered on and powered off….” (Paper 30, 5).
`
`Apple disagrees with LBT’s characterization of Alberth, 4:51-52. (Paper 26,
`
`14; Ex. 1080, ¶ 19). Regardless, Alberth elsewhere expressly discloses that at least
`
`a portion of the GPS receiver is deactivated when the GPS signal is weak. Claim 1
`
`recites determining that a position location signal is too weak for position location
`
`calculation and “deactivating at least a portion of a global positioning system
`
`(GPS) receiver responsive to determining.” Alberth, 6:60-64; id. at Claim 16, 8:61-
`
`64. (Note Alberth is a § 102(b) (Pre-AIA) reference; therefore, the claims can be
`
`relied on to render obvious LBT’s substitute claims). Therefore, Alberth expressly
`
`discloses that deactivation of the GPS receiver does not eliminate or shut off power
`
`to the entire GPS receiver, applying LBT’s construction.
`
`As discussed in Apple’s Opposition (Paper 26), Alberth teaches “[i]f the short
`
`term signal strength is still too weak for processing, the GPS receiver 42 deactivates
`
`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; Paper 26, 13-14;
`
`Ex. 1080, ¶ 19. Here, Alberth is explaining the periodic activation/deactivation to
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`determine the signal strength. Alberth, 5:34-42 (discussing increasing the frequency
`
`of activating the GPS receiver to the first rate and continuing “normal operation[]”
`
`if the signal strength is of “sufficient strength”). Alberth states that if the signal
`
`strength “is still too weak for processing,” then the GPS receiver deactivates and
`
`“operation in the lower power mode continues.” Alberth thus describes its low
`
`power mode as the period during which the GPS receiver is alternatingly
`
`activating/deactivating to measure signal strength periodically. (Ex. 1080, ¶ 19).
`
`During this low power mode, the GPS receiver being periodically activated
`
`consumes at least some power such that power is not eliminated or turned off during
`
`the entirety of the low power mode, applying LBT’s construction. Id.
`
`Because Alberth expressly teaches that “at least a portion” of the GPS receiver
`
`is deactivated based on the GPS signal strength (Alberth, Claims 1 and 16), and
`
`deactivation occurs during a low power mode to conserve battery power (Alberth,
`
`4:32-35, 5:34-45), Claims 25 and 39 are rendered obvious.
`
`C. Modifying Sakamoto with Alberth Does Not Eliminate Sakamoto’s
`High Sensitivity Mode
`
`LBT argues
`
`the “proposed combination would effectively eliminate
`
`Sakamoto’s high sensitivity positioning mode, altering the fundamental operation of
`
`Sakamoto in an impermissible fashion.” (Paper 30, 6). LBT is incorrect, as
`
`modifying Sakamoto to include Alberth’s periodically activating/deactivating at a
`
`second frequency while in the stop-position searching mode does not eliminate
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Sakamoto’s high sensitivity positioning mode. Alberth’s “first activation rate is used
`
`when the GPS satellite signal level is high and positioning can be performed.” (Paper
`
`26, 12-13; Alberth 3:55-57). As previously discussed, this is akin to Sakamoto’s
`
`normal positioning mode. (Paper 26, 13). Sakamoto’s high sensitivity mode is
`
`selected when the GPS satellite signal level is poor but positioning can be performed.
`
`(Paper 1, 31-33; Sakamoto [0045], [0050]). Sakamoto’s stop-position searching
`
`mode is selected when GPS positioning cannot be performed. (Paper 1, 31-33;
`
`Sakamoto, [0038]). Likewise, Alberth’s second rate is in response to a GPS signal
`
`level “below a predetermined threshold” where GPS positioning cannot be
`
`performed. (Paper 26, 11-14; Alberth, 3:53-60, 4:3-7, 4:31-52, 5:41-45). 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.” (Paper 26, 15-16; Alberth 3:67-
`
`4:7, 4:25-41, 5:41-45). The modified Sakamoto maintains three modes, but modifies
`
`the “cycle set in advance” in the stop-position searching mode, and therefore does
`
`not eliminate Sakamoto’s high sensitivity mode or “alter[] the fundamental operation
`
`of Sakamoto in an impermissible fashion,” as LBT argues. (Paper 30, 6).
`
`D. Claims 25 and 39 Are Obvious in View of Gronemeyer
`Gronemeyer teaches at least one portion of its GPS receiver operates
`
`continuously. In the proposed ground relying on Gronemeyer, Sakamoto’s GPS
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`receiver is modified to include Gronemeyer’s low power time keeping circuit 200,
`
`which remains continuously on, even when the GPS receiver is placed in a low
`
`power mode, as further discussed below. (Paper 26, 17-19). The Petition mapped the
`
`claimed transceiver circuitry and location tracking circuitry as including Sakamoto’s
`
`GPS receiver 10. (Paper 1, 26, 29). Thus, in the modified Sakamoto relying on
`
`Gronemeyer, the “at least one portion” of the transceiver circuitry and the location
`
`tracking circuitry that is deactivated (per Claims 25 and 39) includes the Sakamoto
`
`GPS receiver modified to include the Gronemeyer LPTK circuit 200. (Paper 26, 17-
`
`20). Because at least a portion of the modified Sakamoto GPS receiver including
`
`Gronemeyer’s LPTK circuit 200 operates continuously, the “at least one portion that
`
`is deactivated [i.e., the modified Sakamoto’s GPS receiver including LPTK circuit
`
`200 operating continuously] is also the at least one portion that consumes at least
`
`reduced power,” per LBT. (Paper 30, 7).
`
`LBT also argues Gronemeyer does not teach a portion of its GPS receiver
`
`operates continuously. (Paper 30, 7-9). LBT is incorrect. Gronemeyer expressly
`
`teaches that a portion of its GPS receiver unit 100 remains continuously on—even
`
`while other components of the GPS receiver unit 100 are powered off to conserve
`
`power: “Selected components residing on the GPS receiver unit, including the GPS
`
`oscillator, are then shut down (deactivated) to conserve power. The low power time
`
`keeping circuit remains on.” Gronemeyer, 7:9-12. The low power clock remains
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`on continuously: “A low power real time clock (RTC) operates continuously to
`
`keep time in a global positioning system (GPS) receiver while some receiver
`
`components are powered down.” Gronemeyer, Abstract.
`
`
`
`Gronemeyer’s GPS receiver unit 100 includes a GPS oscillator 204 and a low
`
`power time keeping circuit 200 (LPTK circuit 200), amongst other components.
`
`See also Paper 26, 17-20 (discussing same).
`
`
`
`Gronemeyer, FIG.
`3 (GPS receiver)
`(annotated).
`
`
`Gronemeyer, FIG.
`4 (GPS receiver)
`(annotated).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The LPTK circuit 200 includes a K32 oscillator powered on continuously:
`
`Power is conserved in GPS receiver unit 100 by shutting down selected
`components, including the GPS oscillator 204, during periods when the
`GPS receiver unit is not actively acquiring satellite information used to
`calculate the location of the GPS receiver unit. A K32 (typically a
`nominal 32,768 Hz) oscillator residing in a low power time keeping
`circuit accurately preserves GPS time when the selected components
`are shut off.
`
`Gronemeyer, 6:41-48. The LPTK circuit 200 operates continuously, such that the
`
`K32 oscillator in LPTK circuit 200 accurately preserves time even when other GPS
`
`components are shut off: “A low power real time clock (RTC) is operated
`
`continuously.… A K32 (typically a nominal 32,768 Hz) oscillator residing in a low
`
`power time keeping circuit accurately preserves GPS time when the selected
`
`components are shut off.” Gronemeyer, 5:9-16.
`
`LBT incorrectly argues “[a]though the GPS oscillator and K32 oscillator are
`
`both located in a GPS receiving unit, the K32 oscillator is not part of the GPS
`
`circuitry.” (Paper 30, 8). The Gronemeyer GPS receiver unit 100 includes the LPTK
`
`circuit 200, which includes the K32 oscillator. Gronemeyer, FIGs. 3-4, 6:45-48, 8:3-
`
`5. Thus, the GPS receiver unit 100 includes the K32 oscillator. (Ex. 1080, ¶¶ 34-36).
`
`The Gronemeyer GPS receiver unit 100 includes components that shut off
`
`periodically (e.g., GPS oscillator 204), and components that remain powered on
`
`(e.g., low power time keeping circuit 200 including K32 oscillator). Because at least
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`a portion of the GPS receiver unit 100 (LPTK circuit 200 including K32 oscillator)
`
`remains powered on continuously, the GPS receiver unit 100 “consumes at least
`
`reduced power” when some of the components (e.g., GPS oscillator 204) are
`
`powered off. (Ex. 1080, ¶¶ 35-36; Paper 26, 18-19).
`
`LBT argues “[s]ince Gronemeyer clearly discloses that the deactivated portion
`
`(i.e., GPS circuitry) is ‘shut off’, Gronemeyer cannot disclose that such deactivated
`
`portion ‘consumes at least reduced power’ as recited in substitute claims 25 and 39.”
`
`(Paper 30, 8-9). This argument does not accurately represent Gronemeyer’s
`
`teachings, however. There is only one reference to “GPS circuitry” in Gronemeyer
`
`at 3:54-56 in discussing prior art GPS units, and this reference supports Apple’s
`
`position that GPS units commonly continuously power on at least some components
`
`(e.g., a clock) while other components are powered down. Gronemeyer, 3:54-56
`
`(“Typically, a conventional real time clock (RTC) circuit may be used to maintain
`
`rough GPS time while the rest of the GPS circuitry is off.”). LBT’s statement that
`
`“Gronemeyer explicitly discloses that GPS circuitry, as one portion of Gronemeyer’s
`
`GPS receiver, is powered off…” cites to “FIGS 3-4, col. 6, ll. 36-48,” none of which
`
`recites the phrase “GPS circuitry.” (Paper 30, 8). The substitute claims also do not
`
`recite “GPS circuitry.” LBT’s attempt to redefine GPS circuitry as something other
`
`than Gronemeyer’s GPS receiver unit 100 is not supported by Gronemeyer and
`
`should be rejected.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`In substitute Claims 25 and 39, the “at least one portion of the transceiver
`
`circuitry and location tracking circuitry” is mapped as including at least GPS
`
`receiver 10. See Paper 1, 26, 29, 32-34, 38-39; Paper 26, 5 (discussing how the
`
`Petition establishes the combination of Sakamoto and Levi renders obvious original
`
`Claims 1 and 15). In the proposed ground Sakamoto’s GPS receiver is modified to
`
`include Gronemeyer’s LPTK circuit 200 that remains powered on during operation
`
`to accurately preserve GPS time. See Paper 26, 17-20; Ex. 1080, ¶¶ 32-39. In the
`
`modified Sakamoto GPS receiver, the Gronemeyer LPTK circuit 200 is powered on
`
`continuously to accurately preserve time, as expressly suggested by Gronemeyer,
`
`6:45-48. (Paper 26, 18-20; Ex. 1080, ¶¶ 37-38).
`
`Because Gronemeyer teaches a GPS receiver unit 100 where at least some
`
`components of the GPS receiver unit remain powered on continuously, the proposed
`
`combination of Sakamoto, Levi, and Gronemeyer renders obvious the claimed “at
`
`least one portion of the transceiver circuitry and location tracking circuitry [i.e., the
`
`Sakamoto GPS receiver modified with the Gronemeyer LPTK circuit 200] is
`
`deactivated,” as claimed.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`LBT’s substitute claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 103.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,102,256 to Scalisi et al. entitled “Apparatus and
`Method for Determining Location and Tracking Coordinates of a
`Tracking Device,” filed on January 6, 2008 and issued on January
`24, 2012
`Exhibit 1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,102,256
`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 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0208544A1 to
`Kulach, et al., filed March 1, 2007 and published September 6,
`2007 (“Kulach”)
`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”)
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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”)
`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”)
`Exhibit 1050
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1051 U.S. Patent No. 6,961,019 to McConnell et al. (“McConnell”)
`Exhibit 1052
`Intentionally Left Blank
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1053
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1054
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1055
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1056
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1057
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1058
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1059
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1060
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1061
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1062
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1063
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1064 U.S. Patent No. 3,906,166 to Cooper et al. (“Cooper”)
`Exhibit 1065 U.S. Patent No. 6,085,109 to Koga (“Koga”)
`Exhibit 1066 U.S. Patent No. 6,304,748 to Li et al. (“Li”)
`Exhibit 1067 District Court Complaint DDE-1-19-cv-01245-1
`Exhibit 1068 Scott Andrews Deposition Transcript
`Exhibit 1069 Email Regarding Motion to Amend
`Exhibit 1070 Email from Board Re Hearing
`Exhibit 1071 Attorneys for LBT IP I LLC v. Apple Inc. DDE-1-19-cv-01245
`Exhibit 1072 Annotated NOTICE OF SERVICE of Apples Production of Core
`Technical Documents
`Exhibit 1073 2020-05-01 DI-29 Agreed Protective Order Regarding
`Disclosure and Use of Discovery Materials
`Exhibit 1074 Transcripts of Proceedings - May 20, 2021 Hearing
`Exhibit 1075 Butzel Long Website
`Exhibit 1076 U.S. Patent No. 6,438,381 B1 to Alberth, Jr., et al.
`Exhibit 1077 U.S. Patent No. 6,985,811 B2 to Gronemeyer
`Exhibit 1078
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1079
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1080 Supplemental Declaration of Scott Andrews
`
`the
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on November
`19, 2021 the foregoing Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion
`to Amend was served via electronic filing with the Board and via Electronic Mail on
`the following practitioners of record for Patent Owner:
`
`
`Mitchell S. Zajac (zajac@butzel.com)
`Shaun D. Gregory (gregorysd@butzel.com)
`Brian S. Seal (seal@butzel.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jennifer C. Bailey
`
`
`Jennifer C. Bailey, Reg. No. 52,583
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
`
`17
`
`