`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251
`)
`
`Issued: September 13, 2016
`)
`
`Application No.: 14/633,804
`)
`
`
`For: Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice
`Networks
`
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,445,251
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................... 3
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 3
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`C.
`Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 4
`D.
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ............................. 5
`E.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review .................................................................. 6
`Identification Of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ..................................... 6
`III.
`IV. Background ...................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`The ’251 Patent (Ex. 1001) ................................................................... 6
`1.
`Brief description .......................................................................... 6
`2.
`Prosecution history (“’251 FH”) (Ex. 1005) ............................... 7
`The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .............................................. 12
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 12
`1.
`“georeferenced map”................................................................. 13
`The ’251 Patent’s Effective Filing Date Is No Earlier Than October
`31, 2014 ......................................................................................................... 13
`A.
`Legal Background ............................................................................... 14
`1.
`Burden of production ................................................................ 14
`2.
`Priority to an earlier-filed application ....................................... 14
`The ’251 Patent’s Broken Priority Chain ............................................ 16
`The ’410 Application Does Not Incorporate the ’724 patent.............. 19
`
`V.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The ’251 Patent’s Claims Lack Written Description Support in
`the ’410 Application ............................................................................ 21
`1.
`The ’410 application lacks written description support for
`participating in the group “based on receiving the
`message from the second device” ............................................. 23
`The ’410 application lacks written description support for
`the full scope of the “group” feature ......................................... 26
`The ’410 application lacks written description support for
`requesting, retrieving, and using the second
`georeferenced map and its georeferencing data ........................ 30
`The ’410 application lacks written description support for
`anonymous communications ..................................................... 36
`VI. AGIS Cannot Swear Behind Because The ’251 Patent Is AIA ..................... 39
`VII. Summary Of The Prior Art ............................................................................ 40
`A.
`Borghei (Ex. 1027) .............................................................................. 40
`B. Weber (Ex. 1028) ................................................................................ 41
`C.
`Liu (Ex. 1031) ..................................................................................... 43
`VIII. Claims Of The ’251 Patent Are Obvious Over Borghei In View Of
`Weber And Liu .............................................................................................. 44
`A. A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine the
`Teachings of Borghei and Weber ........................................................ 44
`A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine the
`Teachings of Borghei and Weber with the Teachings of Liu ............. 46
`Independent Claims 1 and 24 .............................................................. 48
`1.
`Preambles and initial clause ...................................................... 48
`2.
`1[a] joining a group based on a message from another
`device ........................................................................................ 48
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`8.
`
`1[b] participating in the group by exchanging location
`information via a server ............................................................ 49
`1[c] presenting a georeferenced map and symbols ................... 50
`1[d], 1[e] requesting and receiving second georeferenced
`map from a server ..................................................................... 52
`1[f] presenting second georeferenced map and symbols .......... 53
`1[g] selecting symbols and sending data using IP via
`server ......................................................................................... 55
`1[h] first device does not have access to other device’s IP
`addresses ................................................................................... 57
`D. Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 58
`1.
`Claims 2, 25: send SMS, text, image, or video ......................... 59
`2.
`Claims 3, 9, 26, 32: first device is a PDA, PC,
`smartphone ................................................................................ 59
`Claims 5, 28: update location based on time or distance
`travelled ..................................................................................... 60
`Claims 6, 29: initiating phone call by selecting symbol ........... 61
`Claims 7, 30: message to join is an SMS message ................... 61
`Claims 12, 35: sending GPS location using Internet
`Protocol ..................................................................................... 61
`Claim 22: spatial coordinates include latitude and
`longitude .................................................................................... 61
`Claim 23: initiating a VoIP or data call by selecting
`symbol ....................................................................................... 62
`IX. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 62
`X.
`Institution Is Appropriate ............................................................................... 62
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`3.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`A. Discretionary Denial is Unwarranted Under Advanced Bionics ......... 63
`B.
`Discretionary Denial is Unwarranted Under General Plastic ............ 67
`C.
`Discretionary Denial is Unwarranted Under Fintiv ............................ 68
`XI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 69
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Advanced Bionics, LLC. v. Med-El Elektronimeizinishce Gerate GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) ...................................... 63, 66
`Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. v. Oyster Optics, LLC,
`IPR2018-00070, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. May 10, 2018) ......................................... 68
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ......................................... 68
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 14
`Flash-Control, LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 2020-2141, 2021 WL 2944592 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021) ........................... 63
`Harari v. Lee,
`656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 21
`Hollmer v. Harari,
`681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 15, 21
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.,
`838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 21
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) ........................................... 67
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 26, 27
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 14
`Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................passim
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`Modine Mfg. Co. v. ITC,
`75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 25
`Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States,
`535 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 21
`Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS,
`723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................passim
`Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`881 F.3d 894 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 25
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 12
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 14
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Recro Tech., LLC,
`694 F. App’x 794 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2017) ................................................. 15, 63
`Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 14
`Samsung Elec. Co. v. Iron Oak Techs., LLC,
`IPR2018-01554, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2019) ............................................ 68
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................ 15, 29, 30, 64
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2019) ........................................... 67
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00064, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 1, 2019) ........................................... 67
`W. Digit. Corp. v. SPEX Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00084, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2018) ......................................... 68
`X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. ITC,
`757 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 25
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`Zenon Env’t, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 19, 20
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 100 (2015) ............................................................................................ 39
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ................................................................................... 40, 41, 43
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) ................................................................................... 40, 41, 43
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................. 13, 65
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ............................................................................................ 14, 15, 65
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit List
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (the “’251 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson (“Bederson”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the “’838 FH”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,445, 251 (the “’251 FH”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 (the “’410 application”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (the “’728 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (the “’724 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,126,441 (the “’441 patent”)
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/711,490 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/308,648 (“’724 to ’728 Comparison”)
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/308,648 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/615,472 (“’441 to ’724 Comparison”)
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/615,472 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 12/761,533 (“’129 to ’441 Comparison”)
`
`1013-1016 RESERVED
`
`1017
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/308,648 (“’410 to 724 Comparison”)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`GeoTIFF Format Specification, GeoTIFF Rev. 1.0, Specification
`version 1.8.1, October 31, 1995 (“GeoTIFF Specification”)
`
`Hornbaek and Bederson, “Navigation Patterns and Usability of
`Zoomable User Interfaces with and without and Overview,” ACM
`Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Dec.
`2002) (excerpt)
`
`MapInfo, “Spatially Enhancing Business Data with Geocoding
`Solutions, A MapInfo White Paper (1997) (“MapInfo White Paper”)
`
`MapInfo Professional User’s Guide Version 7.0 (“MapInfo User
`Guide”)
`
`Python Documentation 2.0 Homepage (Oct. 16, 2000), available at
`https://docs.python.org/release/2.0/
`
`Python Documentation 2.0, Section 7.2 Socket, available at
`https://docs.python.org/release/2.0/lib/module-socket.html
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force RFC 1034, Domain Names –
`Concepts and Facilities (November 1987), available at
`https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc1034
`
`RESERVED
`
`Excerpts from Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/014,629 for U.S.
`Patent No. 9,445,251 (the “’251 Reexam”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0008526 to Borghei
`(“Borghei”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,450,003 to Weber (“Weber”)
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., C.A.
`No. 2:17-cv-513, Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Oct.
`10, 2018)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC, C.A. No. 2:19-cv-
`361, Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Dec. 8, 2020)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0027901 to Liu, et al.
`(“Liu”)
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`WhatsApp LLC (“WhatsApp”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-3, 5-
`
`7, 9, 12, 22-26, 28-30, 32, and 35 (“Challeged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,445,251, “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice
`
`Networks” (“’251 patent”) (Ex. 1001). Patent Office records indicate that the ’251
`
`patent is assigned to AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”).
`
`The ’251 patent claims recite steps that include: joining a group based on a
`
`message, sharing location information with other participants in the group,
`
`presenting an interactive display of a “georeferenced map” with the participants’
`
`locations represented by symbols on the map, requesting and retrieving another,
`
`different georeferenced map from a server, displaying a second set of symbols on
`
`that second map, and selecting at least one of those symbols to send data via a server,
`
`where the sending device does not have access to the recipient’s IP address.
`
`AGIS obtained these claims by distinguishing them over prior art that, for
`
`example, downloaded “maps” rather than “georeferenced maps,” and obtained other
`
`maps from a CD or DVD rather than from a server. For written description support,
`
`AGIS did not point to an express disclosure in the ’251 patent’s application because
`
`it lacks sufficient disclosure. Instead, it pointed to an ancestor patent via a long chain
`
`of continuations-in-part (“CIP”), U.S. Pat. No. 7,630,724 (the “’724 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1008). See infra family tree p. 17.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`This might have been sufficient for supporting the disclosure of the ’251
`
`patent as of its filing date. But AGIS adopted a strategy of filing wholesale rewrites
`
`as CIPs (adding and deleting disclosure to change the focus of the purported
`
`invention), also failing to incorporate the parent applications by reference.
`
`Consequently, there is no continuity of disclosure, and AGIS cannot claim priority
`
`dating back to the ’724 patent.
`
`This petition sets forth in detail the lack of written description support for the
`
`Challenged Claims in the ’251 patent’s grandparent. Thus, the Challenged Claims
`
`are entitled to an effective filing date of no earlier than October 31, 2014, well after
`
`the advent of smartphones and numerous mobile applications that allowed friends
`
`and family to join groups to communicate and share their location on different maps
`
`while maintaining some privacy by preventing other participants in the group from
`
`accessing their IP address. Indeed, U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2012/0008526 to Borghei (“Borghei”) (Ex. 1027) and U.S. Patent No. 7,450,003 to
`
`Weber (“Weber”) (Ex. 1028), describe two such systems. Borghei discloses
`
`“forming and tracking a location-sharing group” and Weber discloses “a platform to
`
`allow…friends to declare themselves as a community, and provides the ability to
`
`communicate with each other through a shared map.” Borghei Abstract; Weber
`
`5:10-14. And though neither expressly disclose that the devices in the group did not
`
`have access to the IP addresses of the other devices in the group, this was a natural
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`consequence of both systems’ objective to prevent the disclosure of information
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`about a device outside what was authorized. Borghei ¶0061; Weber 8:56-69. To
`
`point, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0027901 to Liu (“Liu”) (Ex.
`
`1031), disclosing methods of anonymous communication, confirms that shielding IP
`
`addresses was a well-known design option at the relevant time.
`
`The Board should therefore institute review of Challenged Claims of the ’251
`
`patent, and find them unpatentable.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`The real parties in interest are WhatsApp LLC and its parent, Facebook Inc.
`
`No other parties exercised or could have exercised control over this petition, or
`
`funded or directed this petition.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’251 patent is asserted in the following case that may be affected by a
`
`decision in this proceeding: AGIS Software Development LLC v. WhatsApp Inc.,
`
`2:21-cv-00029 (E.D. Tex.); WhatsApp LLC v. AGIS Software Development LLC,
`
`5:21-cv-03076 (N.D. Cal.).
`
`In the related litigation against WhatsApp pending in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas, WhatsApp filed a motion to dismiss based on improper venue, concurrently
`
`filing a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California. In the
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Eastern District of Texas case, the claim construction hearing has been set for
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`October 26, 2021 and trial has been set for March 7, 2022. A schedule has not yet
`
`been set in the Northern District of California case.
`
`In addition, the ’251 patent is asserted against third parties in four litigations:
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. & T-Mobile US, Inc., 2:21-
`
`cv-00072 (E.D. Tex.); Smith Micro Software, Inc. v. AGIS Software Development,
`
`LLC, 3:21-cv-03677 (N.D. Cal.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC,
`
`2:19-cv-00361 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The ’251 patent was asserted in the following district court cases that are no
`
`longer pending: AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc.,
`
`2:17-cv-00513 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. LG Electronics,
`
`Inc., 2:17-cv-00515 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`
`2:17-cv-00517 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. HTC Corp., 2:17-
`
`cv-00514 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`WhatsApp has also filed IPR petitions challenging U.S. Patent Nos. 7,031,728
`
`(IPR2021-01177), 7,630,724 (IPR2021-01178), 9,467,838 (IPR2021-01327), and
`
`9,749,829 (IPR2021-01357), which are also asserted in the related litigations.
`
`C. Grounds for Standing
`WhatsApp certifies that the ’251 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that WhatsApp is not barred from requesting this proceeding.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`D. Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), WhatsApp
`
`designates the following lead counsel:
`
`• Lisa K. Nguyen (Reg. No. 58,018): lisa.nguyen@lw.com; Latham &
`
`Watkins LLP, 140 Scott Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025; 650.470.4848
`
`(Tel.); 650.463.2600 (Fax).
`
`Petitioner also designates the following backup counsel:
`
`• Richard G. Frenkel (Reg. No. 47,578): rick.frenkel@lw.com; Latham
`
`& Watkins LLP, 140 Scott Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
`
`650.463.3080 (Tel.); 650.463.2600 (Fax).
`
`• Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724): jonathan.strang@lw.com,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000;
`
`Washington, DC 20004-1304; 202.637.2362 (Tel.); 202.637.2201
`
`(Fax).
`
`• Alan M. Billharz (Reg. No. 79,532): alan.billharz@lw.com; Latham &
`
`Watkins LLP, 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000, Washington, D.C.
`
`20004-1304; 202.637.2226 (Tel.); 202.637.2201 (Fax).
`
`• Tiffany C. Weston (Reg. No. 79,469): tiffany.weston@lw.com; Latham
`
`& Watkins LLP, 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000, Washington,
`
`D.C. 20004-1304; 202.637.2197 (Tel.); 202.637.2201 (Fax).
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney from WhatsApp is
`
`attached. WhatsApp consents to electronic service.
`
`E.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`
`to Deposit Account No. 506269.
`
`III.
`
`Identification Of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12, 22-26, 28-30, 32, and 35 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Borghei in view of Weber and Liu.
`
`IV. Background
`A. The ’251 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`1.
`Brief description
`The ’251 patent specification is directed to rapidly establishing an ad hoc
`
`network of devices with users. ’251 patent Title, Abstract, 4:4-14 (signing in with
`
`“the same ad hoc event name and password”). Once logged on, the users’ devices
`
`exchange each other’s location information via a remote server, and each
`
`participant’s location is displayed as a user-selectable symbol correctly positioned
`
`on an interactive display of a georeferenced map. Id. 6:41-7:31, Fig. 1. Users
`
`communicate or send data to another user by selecting the user’s symbol and the
`
`desired action. Id.
`
`Although the specification provides numerous different embodiments for this
`
`system, the ’251 patent’s claims are directed to a particular sequence of steps: joining
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`a group based on a message received from another device, exchanging location
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`information with others in the group and displaying symbols representing the other
`
`devices correctly positioned on a first georeferenced map, requesting and receiving
`
`from a server a second, different georeferenced map, displaying the second
`
`georeferenced map with the other devices’ correctly positioned symbols, selecting
`
`at least one of those symbols, and sending data to the corresponding device via a
`
`server without having access to the device’s IP address. E.g., ’251 patent cl. 1.
`
`2.
`Prosecution history (“’251 FH”) (Ex. 1005)
`AGIS obtained allowance by sequentially adding three limitations, parts of
`
`which do not appear in the ’251 patent application’s express disclosure. They are
`
`only disclosed in the ’724 patent, a distant ancestor of the ’251 patent. Because the
`
`necessary disclosure from the ’724 patent was not incorporated into the ’251 patent’s
`
`grandparent application, the priority chain back to the ’724 patent is broken. See
`
`infra family tree p. 17.
`
`AGIS filed the ’251 patent’s application on February 27, 2015. After two
`
`preliminary amendments, the Examiner rejected all pending claims—including the
`
`independent claims as anticipated by Melen, U.S. Pat. Publ. 2004/0148090. ’251
`
`FH 399-439 (application as filed), 391-96 & 367-74 (preliminary amendments), 315-
`
`24 (Aug. 13, 2015 Office Action).
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`In response, AGIS rewrote its claims. It replaced all the independent claims,
`
`amended its dependent claims, and added a dozen new dependent claims, some of
`
`which recite limitations that eventually made it into the independent claims. Id. 293-
`
`309 (Nov. 13, 2015). AGIS’s new independent claims recited several features that
`
`eventually issued in some form: (i) joining the group based on a message received
`
`from a second device, (ii) participating in the group by exchanging location
`
`information via a server, and (iii) the user selecting a symbol on the display and
`
`specifying an action, and based on that user interaction, sending data via the server
`
`to the device corresponding to the selected symbol. Id. 295-301.
`
`As support for its extensive amendments, AGIS pointed to the ’724 patent,
`
`stating it was “incorporated by reference into the present application at the time of
`
`the present application’s filing.” Id. 3021. This is a true statement, but only because
`
`AGIS first began incorporating it by reference in the ’251 patent’s immediate parent.
`
`The ’724 patent and its relevant disclosure is not present in the ’251 patent’s
`
`grandparent, U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 (“’410 application”) (Ex.
`
`1006), the specification of which is substantively identical (other than the added
`
`incorporation statement) to the ’251 patent specification.
`
`
`1 All emphases are added and citations omitted, unless otherwise indicated.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`AGIS also argued that Melen did not teach (i), “receiving a message from a
`
`second device, wherein the message relates to joining a group;” and “based on
`
`receiving the message from the second device, participating in the group.” ’251 FH
`
`303-07. This claim language appears in the issued independent claims.
`
`The Examiner disagreed with AGIS, maintaining the anticipation rejection
`
`over Melen. Id. 257-73 (Dec. 10, 2015). The Examiner also rejected some
`
`dependent claims for lack of written description support—importantly dependent
`
`claims 9, and 21, which were amended to recite requesting and receiving from a
`
`server a second map, albeit not a georeferenced one as recited in the issued claims.
`
`Id. 261, 296. The Examiner correctly stated: “The Applicant’s specification did not
`
`mention anything about second or different map, therefore it is unclear [] how the
`
`first device request at least a different or second map.” Id. 261.
`
`In response to the § 112 rejection, AGIS again looked to the ’724 patent for
`
`support, stating again that it was “incorporated by reference into the present
`
`application at the time of the present application’s filing.” Id. 237-38 (Jan. 26,
`
`2016). For dependent claims 9 and 21, AGIS pointed to the ’724 patent 18:57-19:7,
`
`which states that a georeferenced map is “loaded on to the cellular phone CPU
`
`database” and the phone “can also provide to a user the ability to request a specific
`
`geo-referenced map or chart, aerial photograph or satellite image from a remote
`
`image server by pointing at the specific location desired for the map.” Id.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`AGIS also amended the independent claims, adding a negative limitation
`
`essentially requiring anonymous communications: “the first device does not have
`
`access to respective Internet Protocol addresses of the second devices,” which was
`
`previously found in a dependent claim. ’251 FH 226 (cl. 1). This claim element
`
`also made it into the issued claims.
`
`AGIS argued that Melen and Hymes (U.S. Patent No. 8,014,763) did not
`
`specifically teach this feature (id. 241-42), but the Examiner disagreed, rejecting the
`
`claims over Melen and Hymes. Id. 192-204 (Feb. 19, 2016).
`
`In response, AGIS amended the independent claims by importing and further
`
`amending the “second map” subject matter of previously discussed dependent claims
`
`9 and 12. Id. 160-78 (June 3, 2016). Specifically, claim 9 previously recited
`
`requesting receiving a generic “second map”:
`
`sending, from the first device, a request for a second map, wherein the
`request specifies a map location; and
`
`receiving, from the server, the second map.
`
`Id. 227. When importing that feature into the independent claims, AGIS added
`
`limitations that it later used to obtain allowance over the art. Specifically, the second
`
`map must be a different map and it must be georeferenced, arriving with data relating
`
`positions on the map to spatial coordinates:
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`sending, from the first device to the server, a request for a second
`georeferenced map different from the first georeferenced map, wherein
`the request specifies a map location;
`
`receiving, from the server, the second georeferenced map, wherein the
`second georeferenced map includes the requested location and data
`relating positions on the second georeferenced map to spatial
`coordinates.
`
`’251 FH 161. AGIS further added limitations requiring (i) displaying a plurality of
`
`symbols corresponding to other devices at their correct locations on the second
`
`georeferenced map, and (ii) selecting a symbol to send data to the corresponding
`
`device. Id. 161-62.
`
`For written description support, AGIS again pointed to the ’724 patent (18:57-
`
`19:7 discussing georeferenced maps), stating that it was “incorporated by reference
`
`into the present application at the time of the present application’s filing,” again
`
`without mentioning that the ’724 patent was not incorporated into the grandparent
`
`’410 application. Id. 170.
`
`AGIS obtained allowance on the basis of these final amendments by
`
`contending that Melen retrieves its new maps from a CD, DVD, or hard drive rather
`
`than a server, and that Hymes retrieves its maps from a server, but does not teach
`
`that the new maps are georeferenced. Id. 174-77. The Examiner subs