`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,918,196
`Filing Date: September 27, 2017
`Issue Date: March 13, 2018
`
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`THE ’196 PATENT ......................................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL .......................................................................................... 2
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 2
`V.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 3
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18-20, 22, 24 AND 25
`ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER HANCOCK IN VIEW OF KARP ............... 4
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,202,023 (Hancock) ................................................... 4
`B. U.S. Patent No. 6,591,242 (Karp) ......................................................... 5
`C.
`Independent Claims ............................................................................... 6
`1.
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................ 6
`a.
`Element [1pre] .................................................................. 6
`b.
`Element [1a] ...................................................................... 7
`c.
`Element [1b] ...................................................................10
`d.
`Element [1c] ....................................................................18
`e.
`Element [1d] ...................................................................22
`f.
`Element [1e] ....................................................................25
`Claim 15 ....................................................................................26
`a.
`Element [15 pre] .............................................................26
`b.
`Element [15a] ..................................................................27
`c.
`Element [15b] .................................................................29
`d.
`Elements [15c]-[15g] ......................................................30
`
`2.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`D. Dependent Claims ...............................................................................31
`1.
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................31
`2.
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................32
`3.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................33
`4.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................34
`5.
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................35
`6.
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................37
`7.
`Claims 18-20, 22, and 24-25 .....................................................38
`VII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 2-3, 16-17, AND 29-30 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE OVER HANCOCK IN VIEW OF KARP AND
`RAYBURN ......................................................................................................39
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,937,869 (Rayburn) .................................................39
`B. Dependent Claims ...............................................................................40
`1.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................40
`a.
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Rayburn’s database with Hancock’s system. .................41
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................43
`2.
`Claims 16-17 .............................................................................46
`3.
`Independent Claims .............................................................................47
`1.
`Claim 29 ....................................................................................47
`2.
`Claim 30 ....................................................................................48
`VIII. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 6, 9, 13, 21, 23, AND 27 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE OVER HANCOCK IN VIEW OF KARP AND
`TAKAKI ..........................................................................................................49
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,029,069 (Takaki) ....................................................49
`ii
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`B.
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`Claim 6 ................................................................................................50
`1.
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Takaki
`with Hancock and Karp to further Hancock’s goal of
`providing an easy-to-use location determination feature. .........51
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................52
`C.
`Claim 13 ..............................................................................................52
`D.
`Claims 21, 23, and 27 ..........................................................................53
`E.
`IX. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 12 AND 26 ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER
`HANCOCK IN VIEW OF KARP AND ENZMANN .....................................54
`A. U.S. Patent No. 7,130,630 (Enzmann) ................................................54
`B.
`Claim 12 ..............................................................................................54
`1.
`A POSA would have been motivated to use Enzmann’s
`third-party tracking in Hancock’s system to allow
`supervision of others. ................................................................57
`Claim 26 ..............................................................................................58
`C.
`X. GROUND 5: CLAIMS 14 AND 28 ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER
`HANCOCK IN VIEW OF KARP, TAKAKI, AND ENZMANN ....................59
`A.
`Claim 14 ..............................................................................................59
`B.
`Claim 28 ..............................................................................................59
`XI. GROUND 6: CLAIMS 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-12 15, 18-20, 22, AND 24-26
`ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER BEHR IN VIEW OF KARP .....................60
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,107,944 (Behr) .......................................................60
`B.
`Independent Claims .............................................................................60
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................60
`a.
`Element [1pre] ................................................................60
`b.
`Element [1a] ....................................................................62
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`c.
`Element [1b] ...................................................................64
`Element [1c] ....................................................................71
`d.
`Element [1d] ...................................................................72
`e.
`Element [1e] ....................................................................74
`f.
`Claim 15 ....................................................................................76
`a.
`Element [15 pre] .............................................................76
`b.
`Element [15a] ..................................................................77
`c.
`Element [15b] .................................................................79
`d.
`Elements [15c]-[15g] ......................................................79
`C. Dependent Claims ...............................................................................80
`1.
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................80
`2.
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................80
`3.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................80
`4.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................81
`5.
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................81
`6.
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................82
`7.
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................82
`8.
`Claims 18-20, 22, 24-26 ............................................................84
`XII. GROUND 7: CLAIMS 2, 3, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, AND 27-30
`ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER BEHR IN VIEW OF KARP AND
`RAYBURN ......................................................................................................85
`A. Dependent Claims ...............................................................................85
`1.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................85
`
`2.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Rayburn’s database with Behr’s system. ........................85
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................86
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................87
`a.
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Rayburn’s telephone number query with Behr’s
`system to further Behr’s goal of providing a
`versatile location determination feature. ........................87
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................88
`4.
`Claim 13 ....................................................................................89
`5.
`Claim 14 ....................................................................................89
`6.
`Claims 16-17, 21, 23, and 27-28 .........................................................90
`Independent Claims .............................................................................91
`1.
`Claim 29 ....................................................................................91
`2.
`Claim 30 ....................................................................................92
`XIII. DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325 WOULD BE IMPROPER ...................93
`XIV. DENIAL UNDER § 314(a) WOULD BE IMPROPER ................................94
`XV. MANDATORY NOTICES ...........................................................................94
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................94
`B.
`Related Matters ....................................................................................94
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information ........................95
`Lead Counsel .................................................................................................95
`XVI. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ......................................................................96
`XVII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................96
`
`B.
`C.
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ............................................. 94
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ......................................... 93, 94
`Jazz Pharms, Inc. v. Amneal Pharms, LLC,
`895 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 44, 86
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ....................................................... 14, 68
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................. 49, 60
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ......................................................................................... 5, 39, 54
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 94
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ........................................................................................................ 93
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex-1001
`Ex-1002
`Ex-1003
`Ex-1004
`Ex-1005
`Ex-1006
`Ex-1007
`Ex-1008
`Ex-1009
`Ex-1010
`Ex-1011
`Ex-1012
`Ex-1013
`Ex-1014
`Ex-1015
`Ex-1016
`Ex-1017
`Ex-1018
`Ex-1019
`Ex-1020
`
`Ex-1021
`
`Ex-1022
`
`Ex-1023
`
`Ex-1024
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,918,196 (“the ’196 patent”)
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,918,196
`Declaration of William Michalson (“Michalson”)
`Curriculum Vitae of William Michalson
`U.S. Patent No. 6,202,023 (“Hancock”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,591,242 (“Karp”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,029,069 (“Takaki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,130,630 (“Enzmann”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,107,944 (“Behr”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,937,869 (“Rayburn”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0060211
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,174
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,441
`U.S. Patent No. 7,512,098
`U.S. Patent No. 6,236,365
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0168986
`U.S. Patent No. 7,127,493
`U.S. Patent No. 6,839,552
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,727
`Federal Communications Commission Record, 9 FCC Rcd. No. 22,
`FCC 94-237 (Oct. 19, 1994).
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-
`00023 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2021)
`Neil J. Boucher, The Cellular Radio Handbook: A Reference for
`Cellular System Operation (June 1990)
`Marcovici, Jean-Claude, “The electronic directory service.” User-
`Oriented Content-Based Text and Image Handling (1988).
`Henrick Dam, et al., Performance Evaluation of Adaptive Antenna
`Base Stations in Commercial GSM Network, IEEE (1999).
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Google LLC, requests review of claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,918,196 (Ex-1001, ’196 patent), which describes systems and methods for
`
`providing navigation assistance to a user of a communications device. This Petition
`
`presents seven grounds that render all claims of the ’196 patent obvious.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should grant institution and cancel claims 1-30.
`
`II. THE ’196 PATENT
`The ’196 patent was filed September 27, 2017. The earliest priority date listed
`
`on the face of the ’196 patent is October 23, 2001.1
`
`The ’196 patent discloses providing navigation assistance to a user on a
`
`communication device. ’196 Patent, Abstract; Michalson, 30-32. The user submits a
`
`Directional Assistance Network (DAN) query by telephone or Internet using a
`
`landline or wireless communications device. Id., 100:16-23. If the DAN determines
`
`that the query originated from a wireless communications device it determines the
`
`location from the user location database (ULD). Id., 100:32-38. If the query
`
`originated from the PSTN, the user’s location may be determined by a PSTN phone
`
`location database. Id., 101:1-8. Once location is determined, the DAN prompts the
`
`
`1 Petitioner relies on this date for the purpose of this Petition but reserves the right
`
`to challenge it.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`user with a “menu of services” that allow the user to identify a destination based on
`
`
`
`
`the destination’s phone number (id., Fig. 71); business name (id., Fig. 72); business
`
`category (id., Fig. 73); or address (id., Fig. 74).
`
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have been someone
`
`knowledgeable in mobile communication devices and mobile navigation systems.
`
`That person would have at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical
`
`Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent training, in addition to approximately
`
`2 years of experience working on telecommunications navigation and geolocation
`
`systems. Michalson, 33-37.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`No claims need be expressly construed. Michalson, 38-39.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner requests review of claims 1-30 under the following obviousness
`
`grounds. Michalson, 40.
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Hancock in view of Karp
`
`1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18-
`20, 22, 24, and 25
`
`Hancock in view of Karp and Rayburn
`
`2-3, 16-17, and 29-30
`
`Hancock in view of Karp and Takaki
`
`6, 9, 13, 21, 23 and 27
`
`Hancock in view of Karp and Enzmann
`
`12 and 26
`
`Hancock in view of Karp, Takaki and
`Enzmann
`
`14 and 28
`
`Behr in view of Karp
`
`Behr in view of Karp and Rayburn
`
`1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 18-
`20, 22, and 24-26
`
`2, 3, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17,
`21, 23, and 27-30
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18-20, 22, 24 AND 25
`ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER HANCOCK IN VIEW OF KARP
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,202,023 (Hancock)
`Hancock, issued March 3, 2001, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`Hancock discloses providing navigation assistance on a portable or non-
`
`portable computing device. Hancock, 17:34-39, 23:41-50; Michalson, 41. The user
`
`submits an Internet query from the computing device and receives navigation
`
`instructions to a target destination based on the device’s current location. Id., 3:7-8,
`
`17:34-60.
`
`Internet-initiated query
`
`Server receives query
`and provides
`navigation
`
`Computing device
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 13.2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 6,591,242 (Karp)
`Karp, filed April 15, 1999 and issued July 8, 2003, is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`Karp discloses a computer 120 that determines the location of a
`
`communications device. Karp, 2:14, 12:20-30, 12:37-40; Michalson, 42. To
`
`determine the location, Karp first determines whether the device is fixed or
`
`wireless. Id., 12:44-46, Figs. 7A-B. This allows the system to efficiently locate the
`
`communications device.
`
`
`2 Color text and color markings on the drawings herein are annotations added by
`
`Petitioner, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Communication
`devices
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`
`Computer
`determining
`location
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 1.
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claims
`Claim 1
`1.
`Element [1pre]3
`a.
`Hancock discloses “a method of providing navigation assistance to a user of
`
`a communications device.” Michalson, 43-44. 4
`
`
`3 Petitioner treats preambles as limiting in this Petition but reserves the right to
`
`challenge this assessment.
`
`4 Quoted text herein in bold and italicized typeface provides claim language.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`Hancock discloses an “Internet based automatic location system.” Hancock,
`
`
`
`
`23:26-28. Hancock’s system performs a method for “automatically providing
`
`services over a computer network” to users “based on their geographic location” (id.,
`
`Abstract) such as “vehicular navigation” (id., 17:35-39).
`
`Element [1a] 5
`b.
`Hancock discloses “receiving, by a directional assistance service, an
`
`Internet query initiated at the communications device and directed via the
`
`Internet to initiate a request for navigational assistance to a destination.”
`
`Michalson, 45-50.
`
`Hancock discloses a navigational system including “Go2 grid” and “Go2
`
`Application” (e.g., Hancock, 23:31-40, 26:23-29) that provides the location of a
`
`desired destination and routing information for a user to navigate from a present
`
`location to a desired destination. Id., 17:26-18:3.
`
`Computing device 1302 is a communications device capable of “wireless
`
`communications,” and may be a “portable computing device” installed in a mobile
`
`unit or carried by a user, or a “non-portable computing device such as a general-
`
`
`5 All claim abbreviations herein, such as [1a], are mapped to the full text of the
`
`claims in the cited portions of the Michalson Declaration. See, e.g., Michalson,
`
`Sections IX-XIII.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`purpose desktop computer.” Hancock, 23:41-65, 24:5-23, 24:39-41. Hancock refers
`
`
`
`
`to the device as “portable” for simplicity but explains that the description applies to
`
`non-portable devices as well. Id., 23:51-52.
`
`Hancock discloses
`
`the claimed “Internet query
`
`initiated at
`
`the
`
`communications device and directed via the Internet” by disclosing that the
`
`computing device “connects to the primary server 1314” via the Internet to transmit
`
`a query. Id., 28:1-11; Michalson, 48. Server 1314 thus receives the Internet query
`
`initiated at the communication device, as shown in Fig. 13. Hancock, 3:7-8, 25:1-3.
`
`Internet-initiated query
`
`Server receives query
`
`Computing device
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 13.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hancock discloses that the query “initiate[s] a request for navigational
`
`assistance to a destination” because the system facilitates requests for navigational
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`guidance and permits a destination to be specified. Hancock, 5:58-60, 27:28-37,
`
`
`
`
`26:24-29; Michalson, 49-50. For example, a user can facilitate navigation guidance
`
`by specifying a predefined address (e.g., a “universal locational address (ULA)) or
`
`a tradename (e.g., a proprietary locational address (PLA)) of the destination as
`
`shown in Figs. 12a and 12c.” Hancock, 5:58-60, 27:28-37, 26:24-29.
`
`Query by address (ULA)
`
`Query by tradename (PLA)
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`Id., Figs 12a, 12c, 16; see also id., 17:35-18:3 (user may query with an address to
`
`
`
`
`receive navigational guidance to the grand canyon visitor center, or query with a
`
`tradename to receive directions to the nearest fast food); 11:66-12:7 (explaining the
`
`physical manifestation of navigational system is flexible); 30:58-64 (explaining
`
`primary server 1314 provides services directly to users); Michalson, 50.
`
`Element [1b]
`c.
`Hancock in view of Karp teaches responsive to receiving the Internet query,
`
`determining whether or not the communications device is a mobile wireless
`
`communications device. Michalson, 51-57.
`
`Hancock teaches the claimed “responsive to receiving the Internet query”
`
`because Hancock’s server 1314 receives an Internet query from the communications
`
`device as an information packet, and performs responsive processing. Section
`
`VI.C.1.b; Hancock, 3:15-22; Michalson, 52. Hancock also recognizes that the type
`
`of device (mobile or fixed) alters the method for determining the device’s location.
`
`Hancock, 23:41-24:4; Michalson, 53. For example, Hancock explains that
`
`“automatic location identification” (ALI) includes identifying “signals commonly
`
`used in landline telephonic devices (‘ANI’ and the like),” which are “used in
`
`conjunction with a database lookup table to identify a caller’s fixed location.” Id.,
`
`24:1-4; see also id., 28:16-22 (using GPS when identifying the location of a mobile
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`device). Hancock, however, does not expressly disclose first determining whether
`
`
`
`
`the communications device is mobile, but Karp does. Michalson, 53.
`
`Karp teaches a system and method in which “a determination is made as to
`
`whether a wireless or fixed call is being received.” Karp, 12:21-22. As shown in
`
`Fig. 1, Karp’s system can be used to locate users of both a “wireless phone 112” and
`
`a “standard plain old telephone service (POTS) phone 114.” Id., 3:40-44; Michalson,
`
`54.
`
`
`
`Karp, Fig. 1.
`
`Karp discloses that “[i]f a determination in the affirmative is reached, that
`
`the call is wireless, then control is passed to a subroutine for translating position to
`
`address of call origin,” and “if the call is not wireless [i]n origin, control is passed
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`to processes for translating an ANI directly to an address associated with the origin
`
`
`
`
`of the call.” Id., 12:40-46; Michalson, 55.
`
`Karp teaches determining the type of device based on whether the associated
`
`ANI corresponds to a record in the PSTN database or a unique identifier identifying
`
`the call as wireless. Karp, 12:22-27, 37-40. This determination allows the system to
`
`determine how to locate the device making the call. Michalson, 56. For example, if
`
`the device is a landline, the ANI may be translated “directly to an address associated
`
`with the origin of the call.” Karp, 12:44-46. If the device is wireless, the position
`
`may be calculated using triangulation techniques based on the location of cellular
`
`receiving stations. Id., 7:62-63, 10:16-41, 13:60-14:11.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`
`Determining whether device is a mobile
`device
`
`If fixed, address
`is looked up
`based on number
`
`Id., Fig. 11B.
`
`If mobile, coordinates
`for location are
`translated to address
`
`
`
`The ’196 patent discloses a similar process for determining location of a
`
`device submitting a query. Michalson, 57. It discloses that a user submits a DAN
`
`query by dialing a specific number using a landline or wireless communications
`
`device. ’196 patent, 100:16-22. Upon receiving the call, if the DAN determines that
`
`the device is a wireless communications device, it determines the wireless device’s
`
`location using the wireless network. Id., 100:32-38. If the user’s call is not from a
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`mobile device, the user’s location is determined from a PSTN database. Id., 101:1-
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`i.
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Karp’s determination of whether a
`communication device is mobile with Hancock’s
`navigational system.
`It would have been obvious to a POSA to improve Hancock’s system with
`
`Karp’s determination of whether the communications device is wireless. Michalson,
`
`58-76. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a [POSA] would
`
`recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique
`
`is obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, (2007).
`
`Hancock discloses locating the communications device to provide navigation
`
`assistance and, like Karp, discloses that techniques for locating the communications
`
`device depend on whether the device is portable or non-portable. Michalson, 59. For
`
`example, Hancock discloses that “automatic identification signals commonly used
`
`in land-line telephonic devices (‘ANI’ and the like), can be used in conjunction with
`
`a database lookup table to identify a caller’s fixed location.” Hancock, 23:59-24:4,
`
`26:19-22 (“telephone number identification systems (ANI) can be used in
`
`conjunction with a database lookup table to determine predefined fixed positions of
`
`users based on an assigned telephone number”). Hancock also discloses that
`
`triangulation techniques and cellular base stations (“ALI Example II”) may be used
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`to locate mobile devices. Id., 23:59-24:4 (“typically uses triangulation techniques in
`
`
`
`
`conjunction with at least two cellular base stations”); see also id., 3:56-61. A
`
`predicate to either identification technique disclosed in Hancock necessarily
`
`includes a determination of whether the device type is fixed or mobile. Michalson,
`
`60.
`
`Nevertheless, even where Hancock describes a variety of location-
`
`determination techniques based on whether the communication device is a mobile
`
`device or a fixed landline telephone, there is no express disclosure that the Hancock
`
`system first determines whether a communications device is mobile (e.g., cellular
`
`device on a cellular network) or fixed (e.g., a landline or desktop operating over a
`
`dial-up connection) as a threshold matter. Michalson, 61.
`
`Karp, which discloses a location-determination system similar to Hancock,
`
`describes the efficiencies gained in identifying and tracking client locations by first
`
`determining whether the requesting device is mobile. Karp, 12:21-22. Karp teaches
`
`that this determination, along with identifying the location of the requesting device,
`
`can be done at the server, which would realize efficiency gains by first performing
`
`Karp’s threshold determination of whether the requesting device is mobile.
`
`Michalson, 62.
`
`A POSA would have understood that the combination of Hancock and Karp,
`
`to accomplish determining whether a device is mobile and identifying the location
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`of the device at the server would reduce power consumption and processing power
`
`
`
`
`at the mobile device. Michalson, 63. A POSA would have understood that there were
`
`two primary means to determine location—at the device or at a remote server— and
`
`that these two options come with engineering tradeoffs. Id. A POSA would have
`
`understood that performing the determination on the mobile device would consume
`
`power resources. Id., 64. Offloading the location determination to servers, as taught
`
`by Karp, would reduce the amount of battery and processing power consumed at the
`
`mobile device. Id.
`
`A POSA would have also had a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`modifying Hancock to include Karp’s determining whether a device is mobile and
`
`determining the location of the device at a server. Michalson, 65. Such a
`
`modification would have required only routine skill in the art, as it was one of two
`
`fundamental tradeoffs in system design (perform location determination on the
`
`mobile device or at the server). Id. For example, a query submitted from the portable
`
`device may be routed through the cellular network to Hancock’s server 1314.
`
`Michalson, 66. The query may include a unique identifier identifying the device as
`
`wireless (Karp, 12:37-40). Once determined to be mobile, the server could then
`
`determine the device’s location using triangulation techniques (Id., 13:60-14:11).
`
`Michalson, 66.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`In view of Karp’s location determination at the server, a POSA would have
`
`
`
`
`understood that Hancock’s system would be improved by first determining the type
`
`of device to efficiently determine the location of that device. Michalson, 67. For
`
`example, Karp teaches that the location of the communication device can be easily
`
`determined for a fixed location device, such as a landline phone, by translating
`
`“directly to an address associated with the origin of the call.” Karp, 12:44-46. A
`
`POSA would have understood that a simple table lookup, as taught by both Karp
`
`and Hancock, for a fixed location device would require less processing power, time,
`
`and cost than the triangulation method for a mobile device. Michalson, 68-69.
`
`Accordingly, a POSA would have been motivated to modify Hancock’s system to
`
`determine whether the remote unit sending the request “is a mobile wireless
`
`communications device.” Michalson, 70.
`
`Moreover, determining whether a device is mobile to properly track its
`
`location was a common problem readily recognized in the art as early as the mid-
`
`90s when cellular devices began growing in popularity. Michalson, 71. For example,
`
`in 1994, the FCC introduced proposed rulemaking recognizing the issue of
`
`traditional locating methods for emergency calls. See generally Ex-1020. In its
`
`proposal, the FCC recognized that using ANI (as disclosed in both Hancock and
`
`Karp) is ineffective for mobile callers and instead required ALI (as also disclosed in
`
`Hancock, 23:59-24:4) to process “911 calls provided over wireless mobile units.”
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-01004 Petition
`U.S. Patent 9,918,196
`
`Id., 2. The threshold issue, therefore, of whether a device is mobile or not—e.g., to
`
`
`
`
`determine whether ALI should be used, was known. Michalson, 72. To make this
`
`threshold determination, wireless communication de