UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`———————
`
`IPR2022-00073
`U.S. Patent No. 10,820,147
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Mandatory notices ........................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real party-in-interest ............................................................................ 1
`
`Related matters ..................................................................................... 1
`
`Lead and back-up counsel and service information ............................. 2
`
`III. Grounds for standing ....................................................................................... 2
`
`IV. Background ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The ’147 Patent .................................................................................... 3
`
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 4
`
`Priority Date ......................................................................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art ...................................................................... 5
`
`VI. Claim construction ........................................................................................... 5
`
`VII. Relief requested ............................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Challenged claims ................................................................................ 6
`
`Statutory grounds for challenges .......................................................... 6
`
`VIII. Identification of how the claims are unpatentable ........................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Ground I: Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-14, and 16-18 are obvious over
`Moles, Sakarya and Khavakh ............................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Moles .......................................................................................... 7
`
`Sakarya ....................................................................................... 9
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Khavakh ................................................................................... 10
`
`Reasons to Combine Moles and Sakarya ................................. 10
`
`Reasons to Combine Moles, Sakarya and Khavakh ................ 13
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 17
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 37
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 43
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 44
`
`10. Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 46
`
`11. Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 49
`
`12. Claims 11-14, and 16-18 .......................................................... 52
`
`B.
`
`Ground II: Claims 8-9, 19-20, and 22-24 are obvious over Moles,
`Sakarya, Khavakh and Zellner ........................................................... 53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Zellner ...................................................................................... 53
`
`Reasons to Combine Moles, Sakarya, Khavakh and
`Zellner ...................................................................................... 53
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 58
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 60
`
`Claims 19 and 20...................................................................... 65
`
`Claims 22-24 ............................................................................ 66
`
`C.
`
`Ground III: Claims 4 and 15 are obvious over Moles, Sakarya,
`Khavakh and Tanibayashi .................................................................. 66
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Tanibayashi ......................................................... 66
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Reasons to Combine Moles, Sakarya, Khavakh and
`Tanibayashi .............................................................................. 66
`
`Claims 4 and 15 ........................................................................ 68
`
`IX. Discretionary denial is inappropriate ............................................................. 69
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`No basis for 35 U.S.C. §325(d) denial ............................................... 69
`
`Discretionary denial under the Fintiv is inappropriate ....................... 69
`
`1. Whether Evidence Exists that a Stay May be Granted if
`a Proceeding is Instituted ......................................................... 70
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Proximity of the Court’s Trial Date to the Board’s
`Projected Statutory Deadline for a Final Written
`Decision ................................................................................... 70
`
`Investment in the Parallel Proceeding by the Court and
`the Parties ................................................................................. 71
`
`Overlap Between Issues Raised in the Petition and in
`the Parallel Proceeding ............................................................ 71
`
`5. Whether the Petitioner and the Defendant in the Parallel
`Proceeding are the Same Party ................................................ 72
`
`6.
`
`Other Circumstances that Impact the Board’s Exercise
`of Discretion, Including the Merits .......................................... 73
`
`C.
`
`Discretionary denial under General Plastic is inappropriate ............. 73
`
`X.
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 74
`
`Certificate of Word Count ....................................................................................... 75
`
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 76
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) ..................................... 69
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020)
`(precedential) ........................................................................................... 69, 72, 73
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................... 7
`Dish Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc., IPR2020-01359, Paper 15
`(Feb. 12, 2021) ..................................................................................................... 70
`Facebook, Inc. v. Onstream Media Corp., IPR2020-01525, Paper 11, 15-16
`(April 5, 2021) ...................................................................................................... 72
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper
`19, 16 (Sept. 6, 2016) (precedential) .................................................................... 73
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................ 7
`K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir.
`2014)....................................................................................................................... 7
`PEAG LLC v. Varta Microbattery GMBH, IPR2020-01214, Paper 8, 17 (Jan.
`6, 2021) ................................................................................................................ 71
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ........................... 5
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group–Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24, 7 (June 16, 2020) (informative) ........................ 70, 72
`Verizon v. Huawei, IPR2020-01079, Paper 10, 38 (Jan. 14, 2021) ......................... 72
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999)....................................................................................................................... 5
`Yeda Research v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1041-1042 (Fed. Cir.
`2018)....................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................... 69
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`October 22, 2021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,820,147 to Reed
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,820,147
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael Braasch, Ph.D.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Michael Braasch, Ph.D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,505,048 to Moles et al. (“Moles”)
`
`WO 2001/28270 to Sakarya et al. (“Sakarya”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,716,101 to Meadows et al. (“Meadows”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,738,808 to Zellner et al. (“Zellner”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,010,306 by Tanibayashi et al. (“Tanibayashi”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,192,314 to Khavakh et al. (“Khavakh”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,202,023 to Hancock et al. (“Hancock”)
`Reserved
`
`Complaint Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., WDTX-6-21-
`cv-00074.
`
`Agreed Scheduling Order, Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Apple,
`Inc., WDTX-6-21-cv-00074.
`
`Opposed Motion to Stay Case Pending the Final Disposition of
`Related Proceedings Before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals,
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., WDTX-6-21-cv-00074
`(filed July 15, 2021). 
`Plaintiff’s Corrected Asserted Claims, Traxcell Technologies, LLC
`v. Apple, Inc., WDTX-6-21-cv-00074 (served August 15, 2021).
`
`vi
`
`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 
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`Ex.1017 
`
`Ex.1018
`
`Opposed Motion to Amend Complaint, Traxcell Technologies, LLC
`v. Apple, Inc., WDTX-6-21-cv-00074 (filed August 6, 2021).
`
`Apple’s Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,820,147, Apple Inc. v. Traxcell Technologies
`LLC, NDCA-3-21-cv-06059 (filed August 5, 2021).
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§311, 314(a), and 37 C.F.R. §42.100, Apple Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that the Board review and cancelas
`
`unpatentable under(pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. §103(a) claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22-24 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. 10,820,147 (the “’147 patent,” Ex.1001).
`
`The ’147 Patent describes navigation using a mobile device. Ex.1001,
`
`Abstract. As shown below and confirmedin the Declaration of Dr. Michael
`
`Braasch (Ex.1003) these concepts were well known andthe references presented in
`
`this Petition render obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
`Il. MANDATORYNOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Real party-in-interest
`
`Thereal party-in-interest is Apple Inc.
`
`B.
`
`Related matters
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), to the best knowledgeofPetitioner, the
`
`°147 Patent has been involvedin the following:
`
`
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLCv. 6-20-cv-01175|WDTX|Dec. 21, 2020
`
`Verizon Communications, Inc. et al. Apple Inc. v. Traxcell Technologies|3-21-cv-06059
`
`|NDCA|Aug. 5, 2021
`LLC
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`C.
`
`Lead and back-up counsel and service information
`
`Lead Counsel
`David O’Brien
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`600 Congress Ave., Suite 1300
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Dina Blikshteyn
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 26th Floor
`New York, NY 10112
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Phone: (512) 867-8457
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 40,107
`
`Phone: (212) 834-4809
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`dina.blikshteyn.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 63,962
`Phone: (214) 651-5116
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,271
`
`Please address all correspondence in this proceeding to lead and back-up
`
`counsel. Petitioner consents to service in this proceeding by email at the addresses
`
`above.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’147 patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the patent claims. 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.104(a).
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`
`By early 2000, there were more than 300,000,000 cellular users world-wide.
`
`Ex.1005, 1:13-14. Because wireless networks offered bandwidths that were only a
`
`few tens of kilobits per second (Kbps), users primarily used their mobile devices
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`for voice conversations. Ex.1005, 1:25-26. Applications for the mobile devices
`
`were relatively limited. Ex.1005, 1:29-33; Ex.1003, ¶28.
`
`The 3G wireless technology offered bandwidths of 125kpbs or greater. Prior
`
`to 3G technology, navigation, location, and map applications were pre-installed on
`
`mobile devices. With 3G technology, these applications became accessible to
`
`mobile devices over a wireless network and the Internet. Ex.1005, 1:37-45;
`
`Ex.1003, ¶29. The applications provided users with real-time data, including user
`
`location, navigation, traffic, and tracking information. See Ex.1005; Ex.1006;
`
`Ex.1011; Ex.1003, ¶29.
`
`To provide data to users, applications requested access to user and location
`
`information. See Ex.1008. Permission flags and similar settings allowed users to
`
`control access to this information. Ex.1005; Figure 3, Ex.1008; Ex.1003, ¶30.
`
`All these concepts were well-known in the art before the ’147 patent was
`
`filed. Ex.1003, ¶31.
`
`A.
`
`The ’147 Patent
`
`The ’147 patent relates to “providing navigation using mobile wireless
`
`devices.” Ex.1001, 1:49-50. A directional assistance network (DAN) receives “a
`
`starting location and a destination location.” Ex.1001, 63:18-19. The starting
`
`location, which is a “wireless devices current location,” is determined by a wireless
`
`network. Ex.1001, 115:18-30. The DAN “calculates the route” from the starting
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`location to the destination and sends the route to the mobile device. Ex.1001,
`
`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`115:22-24.
`
`The ’147 patent also relates to preference flags that control access to user
`
`and location information. Ex.1001, 61:47-49. A privacy flag “allow[s] the user to
`
`choose whether or not his/her location can be monitored.” Ex.1001, 23:17-19. An
`
`“Anonymous Privacy Flag” allows the user’s location, but not “user information”
`
`to “be accessed by external applications.” Ex.1001, 23:23-27.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`U.S. Application No. 16/788,498 that became the ’147 patent was filed on
`
`Feb. 12, 2020. Notice of Allowance and Examiner’s Amendment amending the
`
`independent claims with the subject matter in sections [1.2.3]-[1.2.4] followed on
`
`May 26, 2020. Ex.1002, 85-107.
`
`C.
`
`Priority Date
`
`The earliest application to which the ’147 patent claims priority is U.S.
`
`Appl. No. 60/383,528, filed October 4, 2001.1
`
`
`1 Although grounds herein antedate, Petitioner does not concede that any particular
`
`claim of the ’147 patent is supported in this or any other alleged priority document.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art (“POSITA”) in October 2001 would
`
`have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or an
`
`equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to locating
`
`technologies, mobile devices and wireless networks. Ex.1003, ¶22. Lack of
`
`professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶22.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`During IPR, claims are construed according to the standard as set forth in
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.100(b) (Nov. 13, 2018). Petitioner believes that, for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding and the analysis presented herein, other than the term below, no claim
`
`term requires express construction. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Accordingly, this Petition analyzes the claims
`
`consistent with ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by
`
`POSITA in light of the specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d, 1314-17.
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3, 6-13, 16-18, and 19-23 recite “navigation information,” which
`
`is not defined in the ’147 patent. The ’147 patent describes different terms such as
`
`“mobile location,” “travel direction,” and “speed” which are used to calculate a
`
`route. Ex.1003, ¶26; Ex.1001, 63:34-40. Based on the description, the term
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`“navigation information” should be construed to include “one or moreofa route,
`
`travel direction, speed, and mobile location.” Ex.1003, 427.
`
`Vil. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner asks that the Boardinstitute a trial for inter partes review and
`
`cancel the Challenged Claimsin view ofthe analysis below.
`
`A.
`
`Challenged claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22-24 of the claimsof the ’147
`
`patent. A finding that the Challenged Claimsare unpatentable in this proceeding
`
`will resolve the parties’ dispute, substantially reducing the time and expense of
`
`litigation.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory groundsfor challenges
`
`Basis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Pre-AIA)
`
`14, 16-18 8-9, 19-20
`
`1-3, 5-7, 11-
`
`Moles, Sakarya, Khavakh
`
`Moles, Sakarya, Khavakh, Zellner
`
`Moles granted on an application filed Dec. 30, 1999. Sakarya wasfiled Aug.
`
`3, 2000 and published on April 19, 2001. Khavakh granted on an application filed
`
`Mar. 25, 1998 and published Feb. 20, 2001. Zellner granted on an application filed
`
`Jun. 30, 2000. Tanibayashi granted on an application filed Mar. 9, 2001. Moles,
`
`

`

`
`Khavakh, Zellner, and Tanibayashi, are prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
`
`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`Sakarya and Khavakh are prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §102(a).
`
`Petitioner’s §103 obviousness grounds rely on the combined teachings of the
`
`prior art and not on a physical incorporation of elements. See In re Mouttet, 686
`
`F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Petitioner also cites to additional prior art as evidence of the background
`
`knowledge of a POSITA and to provide contemporaneous context to support
`
`Petitioner’s assertions regarding what a POSITA would have understood from the
`
`prior art in the grounds. See Yeda Research v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 906 F.3d 1031,
`
`1041-1042 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (affirming the use of “supporting evidence relied upon
`
`to support the challenge”); 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b); see also K/S HIMPP v. Hear-
`
`Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Arendi S.A.R.L. v.
`
`Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-14, and 16-18 are obvious over
`Moles, Sakarya and Khavakh
`1. Moles
`
`Moles is directed to “wireless telephone network 100” with “base stations.”
`
`Ex.1005, 4:45-47. The base stations “communicate with a plurality of wireless
`
`mobile stations.” Ex.1005, 4:47-49. The mobile stations comprise “radio frequency
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`(RF) transceiver 210 coupled to antenna 205” for communicating with the base
`
`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`stations according to well-known principles. Ex.1005, 5:57-63. Moles also
`
`discloses a mobile switching center (MSC) for communicating between “a wireless
`
`network and external networks, such as the public telephone system and/or the
`
`Internet.” Ex.1005, 5:15-21, Figure 1 (below):
`
`
`
`Ex.1005, Figure 1.
`
`Moles discloses “a position locating system” for “locating a wireless mobile
`
`station.” Ex.1005, 6:26-28. The position locating system “requires the wireless
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`mobile station to determine its position” or “send at least some information to the
`
`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`wireless network in order for the wireless network to be able to determine the
`
`position.” Ex.1005, 6:41-46.
`
`Moles also discloses “selectively disabling the transmission of information
`
`concerning the location of the wireless mobile station” using “selectively set”
`
`flags, including “location privacy flag 272” and “code authorization unit 276”
`
`code. Ex.1005, 3:42-44, 6:57-60, 8:65-66.
`
`2.
`
`Sakarya
`
`Sakarya relates to a “mobile station” operating in “a mobile communication
`
`network.” Ex.1006, 3:15-16. 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, 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.” Ex.1006,
`
`4:1-9.
`
`The mobile station provides “directional information based on destination
`
`information and information concerning its present location.” Ex.1006, 11:15-17.
`
`The directional information can be updated based on “information concerning
`
`[traffic] jam, rerouting, speed limits etc.,” received from the network. Ex.1006,
`
`18:16-19.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`3. Khavakh
`
`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`Khavakh is directed to a navigation system implemented on a hand-held
`
`portable system or “a networked environment or a client-server platform.”
`
`Ex.1010, 3:32-37. Khavakh discloses a “route calculation tool” that “determines
`
`routes between specified locations.” Ex.1010, 5:30-31. The “route is comprised of
`
`a list 60(1) of road segment data records” that “represent portions of roadways that
`
`together comprise the calculated route.” Ex.1010, 6:64-67.
`
`4.
`
`Reasons to Combine Moles and Sakarya
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to combine Moles and Sakarya to
`
`display the location of a wireless device on a map and provide navigation
`
`capabilities as taught by Sakarya, and doing so would have been within the
`
`POSITA’s skillset and would produce beneficial, predictable results. Ex.1003, ¶49.
`
`When considering Moles, POSITA would have considered the teachings of
`
`Sakarya since they are analogous prior art in the same field of endeavor as the ’147
`
`patent—wireless communication systems and devices receiving location-based
`
`services. Ex.1001, Abstract, 111:57-112:5; Ex.1005, 4:42-50, 6:12-46; Ex.1006,
`
`3:15-20, 11:15-23; Ex.1003, ¶50.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`a) Generate and display a location of a mobile device on
`a map.
`
`POSITA when considering Moles, would have found it obvious to consider
`
`other references detailing how a mobile device can usefully display its location.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶200. Moles describes a display unit displaying the location of a mobile
`
`station. Ex.1005, 6:17-19. Moles explains that displaying the location is beneficial
`
`when a user is lost or is in an unknown area. Ex.1005, 1:57-2:4. When considering
`
`Moles, POSITA would have looked to art that described how location can be
`
`beneficially displayed. Sakarya provides these teachings. Sakarya teaches context
`
`for usefully displaying the location together with map information, including in
`
`“an extract of the city map,” and with “names and locations of streets and
`
`characteristic buildings.” Ex.1006, 15:18-20. POSITA would have found it useful
`
`to generate and display the location of the mobile device together with the map
`
`information for the users to easily identify their location based on street names,
`
`landmarks, etc., find their way to a destination, or describe their location to a 911
`
`operator. Ex.1003, ¶51.
`
`The combination of Moles and Sakarya would have been combining prior art
`
`elements (displaying the location taught in Moles with map information taught in
`
`Sakarya) according to known methods (a display of a mobile device) to yield
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`predictable results (a useful and comprehensive way to display the location).
`
`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`Ex.1003, ¶52.
`
`b) Provide directions to a destination.
`
`POSITA when considering Moles’ locating technology, would have found it
`
`obvious to consider other references that provide useful location-based
`
`applications, e.g., navigation applications, to a mobile device. Ex.1003, ¶53.
`
`Advances in 3G technology resulted in “[h]igher data rates” which made
`
`“applications for wireless mobile stations much more common.” Ex.1005, 1:38-40.
`
`Although mobile devices equipped with navigation systems were well-known in
`
`the art, 3G technology allowed mobile devices to access navigation systems over a
`
`wireless network. Ex.1006, 18:6-19. Ex.1003, ¶53.
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to use Sakarya’s navigation system that
`
`uses locating technology taught in Moles to provide directions, navigation
`
`information, and real-time traffic updates to a user based on the user’s location.
`
`The results would have been predictable because location and navigation
`
`technologies were well-known and understood. Ex.1006, 17:14-18:1. There would
`
`have been a reasonable expectation of success in the combination given that both
`
`Moles and Sakarya use (1) locating technology to determine location of the mobile
`
`device and (2) increased bandwidth capabilities of the wireless networks. Ex.1003,
`
`¶54.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`The combination of Moles and Sakarya would simply have been
`
`
`
`combination of prior art elements (location-based navigation systems taught by
`
`Sakarya in the mobile device with location technology of Moles) according to
`
`known methods (disclosed in Sakarya) to yield predictable results (allowing
`
`navigation capability in Mole’s mobile devices). Ex.1003, ¶55.
`
`5.
`
`Reasons to Combine Moles, Sakarya and Khavakh
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to combine Moles and Sakarya with
`
`Khavakh to efficiently determine direction information as taught in Khavakh and
`
`doing so would have been within the POSITA’s skillset and would produce
`
`beneficial, predictable results. Ex.1003, ¶56.
`
`When considering the teachings of Moles and Sakarya, POSITA would have
`
`considered the teachings of Khavakh because they are analogous prior art
`
`pertaining to the same field of endeavor as the ’147 patent—wireless
`
`communication systems and devices receiving location-based services. Ex.1001,
`
`Abstract, 111:57-112:5; Ex.1005, 4:42-50, 6:12-46; Ex.1006, 3:15-20, 11:15-23;
`
`Ex.1010, Abstract, 3:27-37, 3:52-3:13; Ex.1003, ¶57.
`
`a) Efficiently determine direction information
`
`POSITA considering Moles and Sakarya would have found it obvious to
`
`consider other references describing in detail various aspects for determining
`
`directions to a destination, e.g., a navigation route. See Ex.1010, 5:25-8:25;
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`Ex.1003, ¶58. Khavakh provides these further details and therefore would be an
`
`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`obvious source of such information to a POSITA. For example, while Sakarya
`
`generally describes a navigation algorithm, Khavakh provides details for how the
`
`navigation algorithm works using the “navigation software program 18,” “route
`
`calculation tool 40” and “road segment data records.” Ex.1006, 17:25-18:1,
`
`Ex.1010, 5:26-28, 6:60-67; Ex.1003, ¶58.
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to apply Khavakh’s navigation
`
`software to Moles combined with Sakarya because the combination already
`
`contemplates a navigation system that uses location of the mobile device. Ex.1006,
`
`17:25-18:1. The results would have been predictable because navigation systems
`
`for mobile devices were well-known technology, and there would have been a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in the combination given that Moles, Sakarya,
`
`and Khavakh provide location based and navigation services to mobile devices.
`
`Ex.1005, 4:43-53, Figure 1; Ex.1006, 17:25-18:1; Ex.1010, 3:52-64; Ex.1003, ¶59.
`
`The combination of Moles, Sakarya, and Khavakh is simply a combination
`
`of prior art elements (employing a navigation software taught in Khavakh to
`
`determine navigation directions for the mobile device that uses location based
`
`navigation algorithms taught in Moles and Sakarya) according to known methods
`
`(locating and navigation techniques) to yield predictable results (providing
`
`directions to a mobile device). Ex.1003, ¶60.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`b) Access resources available in a network external to
`the wireless network.
`
`POSITA when considering location-based navigation systems taught in
`
`Moles combined with Sakarya, would have found it obvious to consider other
`
`references that describe different networks available for hosting navigation
`
`systems. 3G technology provided “[h]igher data rates” and made “Internet
`
`applications for wireless mobile stations much more common.” Ex.1005, 1:38-40.
`
`For example, 3G technology allowed mobile devices to access navigation systems
`
`over a wireless network, as well as other networks connected to the wireless
`
`network, such as the Internet. Ex.1006, 18:6-19; see also Ex.1011, 2:62-67, 32:32-
`
`41; Ex.1003, ¶61.
`
`POSITA would have recognized that hosting applications in a client-server
`
`platform or another network environment, such as the Internet, was advantageous
`
`because of the virtually unlimited storage and processing capabilities available in
`
`the network that were not available on the mobile devices or even in wireless
`
`networks. Ex.1003, ¶62. These resources allowed the navigation systems to store
`
`current maps and traffic information, and determine driving directions without
`
`draining the battery power of the mobile device or tying up resources of the
`
`wireless network. Because the 3G technology increased bandwidths available to
`
`the mobile devices and the wireless network, data stored and processed by the
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`client-server platforms and networks environments became accessible to the
`
`IPR2022-00073 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of US 10,820,147
`
`mobile devices. POSITA would have been motivated to take advantage of the 3G
`
`technology and considered references that described hosting the navigation system
`
`in the client-server network connected to the wireless network. Ex.1003, ¶62.
`
`The results would have been predictable because navigation systems for
`
`mobile devices were a well-known technology. Ex.1003, ¶63. Further, the mobile
`
`devices and the wireless netw