UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________________
`
`IPR2022-00073 (Patent No. 10,820,147)
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 10,820,147
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
`I.
`TRAXCELL AND THE INVENTION OF THE ’147 PATENT ..................................................... 2
`II.
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘147 PATENT (EX. 1001) ........................................................................... 2
`III.
`A. The ’147 Patent File History ............................................................................ 2
`B. Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 4
`IV. PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART ........................................................................................................ 6
`V.
`THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ........................................................................................................ 6
`A. Moles (Ex. 1005) ................................................................................................ 6
`B. Sakarya (Ex. 1006) ............................................................................................ 7
`C. Zellner (Ex. 1008) .............................................................................................. 8
`D. Tanibayashi (Ex. 1009) ...................................................................................... 9
`E． Khavakh (Ex. 1010) ....................................................................................... 10
`VI. PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS
`FOR THE GROUNDS ADVANCED IN THE PETITION ........................................................... 11
`A. Requirements for Showing Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103................... 11
`B. Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground I that Challenged Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-
`14, and 16-18 are Obvious Over Moles in View of Sakarya and Khavakh .. 13
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 13
`2. Claims 2-3, and 5-7 ..................................................................................................................... 29
`3. Claim 11 ...................................................................................................................................... 30
`4. Claims 12-14, and 16-18 ............................................................................................................. 30
`C. Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground II that Challenged Claims 8-9, 19-20,
`and 22-24 are Obvious Over Moles in View of Sakarya, Khavakh and
`Zellner ............................................................................................................. 31
`1. Claims 8 and 9 ............................................................................................................................ 31
`2. Claims 19-20 ............................................................................................................................... 33
`3. Claims 22-24 ............................................................................................................................... 34
`D. Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground III that Challenged Claims 4 and 15
`are Obvious Over Moles in View of Sakarya, Khavakh and Tanibayashi .... 35
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`1. Claim 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 35
`2. Claim 15 ...................................................................................................................................... 37
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................. 11,44
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966)................................................. 10, 26
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................... 11
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) ..................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly Co., 849
`
`F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................... 11
`
`Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................... 10
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......... 26
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Ex. 2001 Declaration of Rob van Essen with Attachment A of Curriculum
`
`
`Description
`
`Vitae
`
`Ex. 2002 Navigation Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
`
`Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/navigation
`
`Ex. 2003 NAVIGATION Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
`
`Source:
`
`https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/navigation
`
`Ex. 2004 An introduction to Client/Server Computing
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On October 22, 2021, Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) submitted a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,820,147 (Ex.
`
`1001, “The ’147 Patent”, “Ex. 1001”), challenging claims 1-9, 11-20 and 22-24
`
`(“Challenged Claims”). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner Traxcell
`
`Technologies, LLC (“Traxcell” or “Patent Owner”) files this Preliminary Patent
`
`Owner Response to the Petition, setting forth reasons the Board should deny
`
`institution.
`
`The ’147 Patent generally discloses a directional navigation system using
`
`mobile devices. Several of the various implementations of the directional navigation
`
`system disclosed in the ’147 Patent are claimed as a mobile device, wireless network
`
`and their method of navigation. Routing according to the navigation system can be
`
`controlled by traffic congestion measurements made by the wireless network that
`
`allow the navigation system to select the optimum route.
`
`Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that the Challenged Claims
`
`are unpatentable. Patent Owner will specifically address each of Petitioners
`
`arguments in the following sections.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`II. TRAXCELL AND THE INVENTION OF THE ’147 PATENT
`
`
`
`Traxcell holds a portfolio of fundamental patents in wireless technology. The
`
`navigational technology first developed by Traxcell helps provide a communication
`
`device with the up-to-date maps it displays as a user of the communication device
`
`travels from one location to the next, as well as live traffic data and more. The United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office has referenced Traxcell's patents and
`
`applications over 500 times. These references are included in patents issued to
`
`wireless equipment manufacturers such as Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent, Samsung,
`
`Huawei, and others. Traxcell owns several patents covering navigation systems and
`
`methods, including the ’147 Patent. The patent family is at the core of Traxcell’s
`
`wireless technology.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘147 PATENT (EX. 1001)
`A.
`The ’147 Patent File History
`The application that issued as the ’147 Patent was filed on February 12, 2020.
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001 at ¶17. The priority date of the ’147 Patent is October 4, 2001. The ’147
`
`Patent is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/557,277, filed Aug. 30,
`
`2019 and Published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200015039 on Jan.
`
`9, 2020, which is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/116,215 filed
`
`on Aug. 29, 2018 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 10,448,209 on Oct. 15, 2019, which is
`
`a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/880,852 filed on Jan. 26, 2018
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 10,390,175 on Aug. 20, 2019, which is a Continuation
`
`of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/717,138 filed on Sep. 27, 2017 and issued as
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,918,196 on Mar. 13, 2018, which is a Continuation of U.S. patent
`
`application Ser. No. 15/468,265 filed on Mar. 24, 2017 and issued as U.S. Pat. No.
`
`9,888,353 on Feb. 6, 2018, which is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser.
`
`No. 15/297,222, filed on Oct. 19, 2016, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,642,024 on
`
`May 2, 2017, which is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/642,408,
`
`filed Mar. 9, 2015 and issued as Pat. 9,510,320 on Nov. 29, 2016, which is a
`
`Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/505,578, filed Aug. 17, 2006 and
`
`issued as Pat. 8,977,284 on Mar. 10, 2015, which is a Continuation-in-part of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 10/255,552, filed Sep. 24, 2002 and published as U.S. Patent
`
`Publication No. 20030134648 on Jul. 17, 2003, and claims priority to U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/327,327 filed on Oct. 4, 2001, U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/383,528 filed on May 28, 2002, U.S. Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/352,761 filed on Jan. 29, 2002, U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/335,203
`
`filed on Oct. 23, 2001, U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/383,529 filed on May
`
`28, 2002, U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/391,469 filed on Jun. 26, 2002, U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/353,379 filed on Jan. 30, 2002 and U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/381,249 filed on May 16, 2002.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`References cited by the applicant and considered by the Examiner include
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,492,944 (Stilp). On May 26, 2020, “A Notice of Allowance” was
`
`mailed allowing claims 1-24. Ex. 1002 at 43-62.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`According to 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b), in an inter partes review, claim terms are
`
`
`
`construed using the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b),
`
`including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the
`
`prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety
`
`of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification,
`
`drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a
`
`claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the
`
`specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The words of the claim must be given their plain
`
`meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz,
`
`893 F.2d 319, 321, 13USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Chef America, Inc. v.
`
`Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir.2004).
`
`In accordance with these principles, Patent Owner submits that the terms of
`
`the ’147 Patent are clear on their face, except the following claim term which should
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`be construed as follows: Requester states that the ’147 Patent does not define the
`
`term “navigation information”. The ’147 patent describes different terms such as
`
`“mobile location,” “travel direction,” and “speed” which are used to calculate a
`
`route. Req. at 5. Requester asserts that “based on the description, the term
`
`“navigation information” should be construed to include “one or more of a route,
`
`travel direction, speed, and mobile location”. Req. at 5, 6.
`
`An ordinary meaning of the term “navigation”, as known in the art, is defined
`
`in Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Ex. 2002) as “the science of getting ships, aircraft,
`
`or spacecraft from place to place especially : the method of determining position,
`
`course, and distance traveled”, or defined in the Cambridge English dictionary (Ex.
`
`2003) as “the act of directing a ship, aircraft, etc. from one place to another, or the
`
`science of finding a way from one place to another”. Thus term “navigation
`
`information” includes at least “a course or way (route) from one place to another”.
`
`The words of claim 1 recite “the first processor further sends the user
`
`navigation information to the network as a number of segments”. the specification
`
`of the ’147 Patent states that “Each segment of a route could be analyzed and
`
`assigned a numerical figure representing the expected amount of time to travel
`
`through the segment”. Ex.1001 at 118: 18-21. Thus, a POSITA would have
`
`understood from the ’147 Patent and an ordinary meaning that the term “navigation
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`information” includes at least a route from one place to another composed of a
`
`number of segments.
`
`Patent Owner reserves all rights to raise claim construction arguments in
`
`district court and in this proceeding should the Board grant institution.
`
`IV. PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the filing would
`
`have at least a Master of Science (“MS”) Degree in Computer Science, Computer
`
`Engineering, Cartography, or equivalent work experience in the field of computer
`
`networks, along with knowledge of
`
`the general structure of networked
`
`communication systems, its hardware and software components and underlying
`
`communications technologies. In addition, a POSITA would be familiar with the
`
`latest communications standards.
`
`THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`V.
`A. Moles (Ex. 1005)
`Moles is directed to providing a wireless mobile station of the type having a
`
`position locating system capable of determining the location of the wireless mobile
`
`station. Ex. 1005 at Abstract. The wireless mobile station includes a “base
`
`transceiver station” and antennas. Moles states “Wireless mobile station 112
`
`comprises radio frequency (RF) transceiver 210 coupled to antenna 205 for receiving
`
`a forward channel signal from wireless network base station BS 103 and for sending
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`a reverse channel signal to wireless network base station BS 103”. Ex. 1005 at 5:57-
`
`61.
`
`Moles discloses that determining the location of the wireless mobile station
`
`“(1) requires the wireless mobile station to determine its position, or (2) requires the
`
`wireless mobile station to send at least some information to the wireless network in
`
`order for the wireless network to be able to determine the position of the wireless
`
`mobile station.” Ex. 1005 at 6:41-46.
`
`Moles also discloses that the wireless mobile station comprises a “controller
`
`and a memory unit having a location privacy flag in which a value set in the location
`
`privacy flag determines whether information concerning the location of the wireless
`
`mobile station is to be transmitted”. Ex. 1005 at 2:65-3:2.
`
`B. Sakarya (Ex. 1006)
`Sakarya describes a mobile station of a mobile communication network
`
`system comprising a geographical position localising module for localising a
`
`geographical position of the mobile station, storage means for storing geographical
`
`related base data, and display means for displaying geographical related data as a
`
`map and/or as a text string. Ex. 1006 at Abstract. The mobile station provides
`
`“directional information based on destination information and information
`
`concerning its present location.” Ex. 1006 at 11:15-17. The directional information
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`can be updated based on “information concerning [traffic] jam, rerouting, speed
`
`limits etc.,” received from the network. Ex. 1006 at 18:16-19.
`
`The “display 25 of the mobile station 1 display[s] an extract of the city map
`
`24,” “names and locations of streets and characteristic buildings,” and the mobile
`
`station’s “geographical position 24c.” Ex. 1006 at 15:17-26, Figure 2. The
`
`geographical position 24c can be determined using the “global positioning system
`
`GPS module” or a “GSM/UMTS localising system for mobile stations.” Ex. 1006 at
`
`4:1-9. The method comprises signal strength measurements, for example, of own
`
`and/or neighbor cell signal strength, and/or base stations antenna position
`
`information, and/or base stations to mobile stations distance information, for
`
`example, based on timing advance (TA) measurements, and/or other position
`
`characteristic measurements. Ex. 1006 at 4:1-9.
`
`
`
`C. Zellner (Ex. 1008)
`Zellner provides an anonymous location wireless network service for use in a
`
`wireless network that tracks the location and identity of network users, the service
`
`provides content providers with the location of network users without revealing their
`
`identities. Ex. 1008 at Abstract. The system includes “a location system. The
`
`location system provides the wireless network with position coordinates of a
`
`handheld device that indicate where a network user is located. The location system
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`can be a part of the wireless network, can be contained in the handheld devices, or
`
`can be a combination of the two.” Ex. 1008 at 2:46-51.
`
`The purpose of Zellner’s wireless network is to “provide enough information
`
`to content providers to promote effective content delivery and advertising, but at the
`
`same time must limit such information to guard the network users’ privacy”. Ex.
`
`1008 at 2:7-11. To accomplish this, the proxy server of Zellner performs the identity
`
`blocking function, “the proxy server reads the location and identity information of
`
`network users, generates a dummy identification, relates the dummy identification
`
`to the identity information, stores the relationship in the memory storage, and
`
`forwards the location information and dummy identification to the content provider
`
`in the global computer”. Ex. 1008 at 2:62-3: 1.
`
`D. Tanibayashi (Ex. 1009)
`Tanibayashi provides a common platform
`
`for providing
`
`location
`
`information. Ex. 2001 at ¶33. A location information providing unit of a gateway
`
`server obtains from a position measuring center location information of mobile
`
`communication terminals. The location information of each mobile communication
`
`terminal may be generated in different representational formats. Ex. 2001 at ¶33. A
`
`location information providing unit converts the obtained location information into
`
`representational formats that are capable of being handled by IP servers. Ex. 2001 at
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`¶33. Following conversion, the location information providing unit transmits the
`
`location information the IP servers. Ex. 1009 at Abstract.
`
`Tanibayashi discloses “reference numeral 50 denotes a position measurement
`
`center (first location information generating unit), which obtains and stores location
`
`information for the cellular telephones 10, 20, and 30”. Ex. 1009 at 5:32-35.
`
`Tanibayashi also states “notifying the location information of the cellular telephone
`
`30 to the IP Server 80B”. Ex. 1009 at 8:8-9.
`
`E． Khavakh (Ex. 1010)
`Khavakh discloses a program and method for route calculation for use with a
`
`navigation system and used with a map database that represents a road network in
`
`a geographic region. Ex. 1010 at Abstract.
`
` The navigation system 10 of Khavakh is installed in a vehicle 11. Ex. 1010
`
`at 3:28-29. The navigation system 10 may also include a positioning system 24. The
`
`positioning system 24 may utilize GPS-type technology, a dead reckoning-type
`
`system, or combinations of these, or other systems, all of which are known in the art.
`
`The positioning system 24 may include suitable sensing devices 25 that measure the
`
`speed, direction, and so on, of the vehicle. The positioning system 24 may also
`
`include appropriate wireless communication technology to obtain a GPS signal, in a
`
`manner which is known in the art. The positioning system 24 outputs a signal 26 to
`
`the processor 12. The signal 26 may be used by the navigation software program 18
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`that is run on the processor 12 to determine the location, direction, speed, etc., of the
`
`navigation system 10. Ex. 1010 at 3:52-64.
`
`VI. PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS FOR THE GROUNDS ADVANCED IN THE
`PETITION
` A. Requirements for Showing Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`
`determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill
`
`in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so called secondary considerations. Graham v.
`
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Ex. 2001 at ¶72. The Board has held that
`
`a failure to identify the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior
`
`art is fatal to an obviousness challenge. See, Apple, Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings,
`
`Inc., IPR2015-00355, Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper 9
`
`at 9-10 (P.T.A.B. June 26, 2015 (denying institution for failure to identify the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art).
`
`
`
`In arriving at an obviousness determination, the Board must sufficiently
`
`explain and support the conclusions that the prior art references disclose all the
`
`elements recited in the Challenged Claims and a relevant skilled artisan not only
`
`could have made but would have been motivated to combine all the prior-art
`
`references in the way the patent claims. Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017). That is, even if all the claim elements are found
`
`across a number of references, an obviousness determination must consider whether
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine those
`
`references. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359,
`
`1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr.
`
`v. Eli Lilly Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (vacating and remanding an
`
`obviousness determination, in part, because the Board did not make factual findings
`
`as to whether there was an apparent reason to combine all three prior art references
`
`to achieve the claimed invention and whether a POSITA would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success from such a combination). This combination
`
`determination, as supported by an articulated motivation to combine, requires a
`
`plausible rationale as to why those prior art references would have worked together.
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Absent
`
`some articulated rationale, a “common sense” finding is no different than the
`
`conclusory statement “would have been obvious.” In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017). Of additional importance, “knowledge of a problem and motivation
`
`to solve it are entirely different from motivation to combine particular references.”
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`B. Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground I that Challenged Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-
`14, and 16-18 are Obvious Over Moles in View of Sakarya and Khavakh
`1. Claim 1
` The Petitioner has divided claim 1 into elements for consideration as follows:
`
`[1.0] A wireless communications system including:
`
`[1.1] a first radio-frequency transceiver within a wireless mobile communications
`
`device and an associated first antenna to which the first radio-frequency transceiver
`
`is coupled, wherein the first radio-frequency transceiver is configured for radio-
`
`frequency communication with a wireless communications network;
`
`[1.2.0] a first processor within the wireless mobile communications device coupled
`
`to the at least one first radio-frequency transceiver programmed to receive
`
`information indicative of a location of the wireless mobile communications
`
`device and
`
`[1.2.1] generate an indication of a location of the wireless mobile communications
`
`device with respect to geographic features according to mapping information stored
`
`within the wireless mobile communications device, and
`
`[1.2.2] wherein the first processor determines user navigation information and
`
`displays the user navigation information according to the location of the wireless
`
`mobile communications device with respect to the geographic features and a
`
`destination specified at the wireless mobile communications device;
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`[1.2.3] wherein the first processor further sends the user navigation information to
`
`the network as a number of segments,
`
`[1.2.4] wherein at least one other processor outside the network updates the user
`
`navigation information in conformity with traffic congestion information accessible
`
`to the at least one other processor outside the network by computing a numerical
`
`value for the segments corresponding to the expected time to travel through the
`
`segments, updates the user navigation information in conformity with the numerical
`
`values for the segments, and sends the updated user navigation information to the
`
`wireless mobile communications device;
`
`[1.3] at least one second radio-frequency transceiver and an associated at least one
`
`second antenna of the wireless communications network to which the second radio-
`
`frequency transceiver is coupled; and
`
`[1.4.0] a second processor coupled to the at least one second radio-frequency
`
`transceiver programmed to acquire the information indicative of a location of the
`
`wireless mobile communications device,
`
`[1.4.1] wherein the second processor selectively acquires the information indicative
`
`of a location of the wireless mobile communications device dependent on the setting
`
`of preference flags, wherein the second processor acquires the information indicative
`
`of a location of the wireless mobile communications device if the preference flags
`
`are set to a state that permits tracking of the wireless mobile communications device,
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`and wherein the second processor does not acquire the information indicative of the
`
`location of the wireless mobile communications device if the preference flags are set
`
`to a state that prohibits tracking of the wireless mobile communications device.
`
`a.
`
`Element [1.2.3]
`Moles in view of Sakarya and Khavakh does not teach the limitation “wherein
`
`the first processor further sends the user navigation information to the network as a
`
`number of segments”.
`
`As to the limitation “the first processor further sends the user navigation
`
`information to the network as a number of segments”, Petitioner proffers that “Moles
`
`discloses “the main controller 240 as the first processor”. The main controller sends
`
`information because “[m]ain controller 240 controls the reception of forward
`
`channel signals and the transmission of reverse channel signals” to and from the
`
`“wireless network base station BS 103 in accordance to well known principles.”
`
`Ex.1005, 5:55-62, 5:67-6:3, The base stations “transfer voice and data signals
`
`between each other and
`
`the public
`
`telephone system (not shown) via
`
`communications line 131 and mobile switching center (MSC) 140,” which is well
`
`known to those skilled in the art. Ex.1005, 5:13-17. Pet., 26. Based on the disclosure
`
`of Moles, Petitioner asserts that “Moles discloses the first processor further sends
`
`information from the wireless network to external network(s). Ex.1003, ¶90, Pet.,
`
`26.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`The Petitioner argues that the main controller 240 of Moles can send
`
`information to the network. However “information” of Moles is distinct from
`
`“navigation information as a number of segments” in ’147 patent.
`
`The wireless communication system of Moles is not used in a navigation
`
`system as recited in claim 1 of the ’147 Patent. The location of the mobile station of
`
`Moles can report to the operator of the wireless network. Moles discloses that “If the
`
`user were to be involved in an accident or emergency, the user could call an
`
`emergency number such as 911 and the GPS unit in the wireless mobile station
`
`would give the exact location of the mobile station”. Ex. 2001 at ¶44. Moles further
`
`discloses “The location of a wireless mobile station may also be of interest to the
`
`operator of the wireless network. …, to obtain this information the operator could
`
`send a signal to each individual wireless mobile station to ask each GPS unit to
`
`transmit to the operator the exact location of the wireless mobile station in which the
`
`GPS unit is located”. Ex. 1005 at 2:1-15.
`
`Moles discloses that the mobile station itself or the wireless network can
`
`determine the location of the wireless mobile station as “The present invention may
`
`be used in a wireless mobile station having any type of position locating system that
`
`(1) requires the wireless mobile station to determine its position, or (2) requires the
`
`wireless mobile station to send at least some information to the wireless network in
`
`order for the wireless network to be able to determine the position of the wireless
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`mobile station”. Ex. 1005 at 6:40-46. The location of the mobile station of Moles
`
`needs to report to the operator of the wireless network or to any other party. If the
`
`location of the mobile station is determined by itself, the mobile station should send
`
`its location information to the wireless network; if the location of the mobile station
`
`is determined by the wireless network, since the wireless network has already
`
`obtained the location information of the mobile station, the wireless network can
`
`report the location information of the mobile station to any other party. Therefore,
`
`the main controller 240 of Moles can send information about the location of the
`
`wireless network base station to the network but cannot send “navigation
`
`information as a number of segments” to the network.
`
`Like Moles, Sakarya does not teach the limitation “the first processor further
`
`sends the user navigation information to the network as a number of segments”.
`
`Sakarya describes a mobile station of a mobile communication network
`
`system comprising a geographical position localising module for localising a
`
`geographical position of the mobile station. Ex. 1006 at Abstract.
`
`Fig. 4 of Sakarya shows the mobile station 1 operated in a vehicle 50 and
`
`displaying destination information together with jam and rerouting traffic
`
`information. Mobile station 1 receives with its antenna 1 a GPS information from
`
`satellites 51 according to the known GPS system. From a possibly dedicated network
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`antenna 52 controlled by a possibly dedicated substation 53 of the network system 2
`
`the mobile station 1 receives information 54 not only concerning jam and rerouting
`
`traffic information but also concerning a present speed limit 55. Antennas 52 can
`
`broadcast all information, e. g. all speed limit information 55, 56 presently valid in
`
`its cell and the mobile station 1 itself selects from all this information the relevant
`
`information according to its present location. Additionally or alternatively mobile
`
`station 1 can send its present location to the antennas 52 and receive from
`
`antennas 52 subsequently only the relevant information concerning jam,
`
`rerouting, speed limits etc. Mobile station 1 can control the engine of vehicle 50
`
`according to the received speed limit information 55, 56. Ex. 1006, 18: 6-20.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Ex., 1006, Fig. 4
`
`The written description of Sakarya shows the mobile station 1 can send its
`
`present location to the network, but “its present location” of Sakarya is distinct from
`
`“navigation information as a number of segments” in ’147 patent. As set forth above,
`
`although “present location” is a part of navigation information, “pr