UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BILLJCO LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`CASE: IPR2022-00310
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,088,868
`
`_______________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 316(a)(8)
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`I.
`PETITIONER'S UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS.................................. 1
`II.
`III. THE '868 PATENT ...................................................................................... 2
`IV. THE CITED PRIOR ART ............................................................................ 9
`
`A. Haberman ........................................................................................... 9
`
`B.
`Boger ................................................................................................ 12
`
`C.
`Evans ................................................................................................ 13
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 13
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 14
`
`A.
`"Accepting User Input, From A User Of A Mobile Application
`User Interface Of A User Carried Mobile Data Processing
`System, For Configuring A User Specified Location Based
`Event Configuration To Be Monitored And Triggered By The
`Mobile Data Processing System Wherein The Mobile Data
`Processing System Uses The User Specified Location Based
`Event Configuration To Perform Mobile Data Processing
`System Operations…" ...................................................................... 16
`"Identifier Data … For A Wireless Data Record" ........................... 22
`B.
`
`VII. PETITIONER'S CITED PRIOR ART IS MERELY CUMULATIVE
`
`OR LESS RELEVANT THAN THAT CONSIDERED DURING
`
`PROSECUTION OF THE '868 PATENT ................................................. 23
`
`VIII. NONE OF PETITIONER'S GROUNDS 1 – 4 RENDER THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS ............... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Haberman, By Itself, Fails To Render Any
`
`Challenged Claim Obvious ............................................................. 26
`
`1.
`
`
`Haberman Fails To Disclose The "Accepting
`User Input … For Configuring A User
`
`40551002.1 
`
`i 
`
`

`

`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`Specified Location Based Event
`Configuration … " Limitation ................................................ 26
`
`Haberman Fails To Disclose Or Make Obvious
`Limitations Related To The Claimed "Identifier
`Data … For A Wireless Data Record" ................................... 30
`
`Haberman Fails To Disclose Or Make Obvious
`The Claimed "First Identifier" ............................................... 32
`
`4.
`
`Haberman Fails To Disclose Or Make Obvious
`The Claimed "Second Identifier"
`And "Third Identifier" ............................................................ 34
`
`Combining Haberman With Boger Does Not
`Render The Challenged Claims Obvious ......................................... 35
`
`Petitioner's Basis For Its Grounds 3 and 4 Is Inapplicable .............. 38
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`D.
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS
`
`DEMONSTRATES THE PATENTABILITY OF
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ................................................................ 39
`A.
`Copying ............................................................................................ 40
`1.
`Petitioner's Access to the '868 Patented Technology ............. 40
`2.
`Petitioner's Devices Embody The Challenged Claims .......... 42
`Commercial Success......................................................................... 45
`Licensing .......................................................................................... 46
`The Nexus Between The Challenged Claims And
`The Objective Evidence of Non-Obviousness ................................ 47
`
`
`X.
`
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 49
`
`40551002.1 
`
`ii 
`
`

`

` 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`AbbVie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.,
`
`759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 24
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinische Gerate GmbH,
`
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 7 (Feb. 13, 2020) ........................................... 24
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17 (Dec. 15, 2017) ......................................... 24
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................ 36, 38
`
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,
`
`944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................. 47
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City,
`
`383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684 (1966) ................................................................. 25
`
`In re Gartside,
`
`203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................. 25
`
`In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.,
`
`832 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 25
`
`Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................. 46
`
`J.T. Eaton & Co. v. ATl. Paste & Glue Co.,
`
`106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................. 48
`
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 at 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) ............................ 47
`
`Liqwd, Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.,
`
`941 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................. 40
`
`
`40551002.1 
`
`iii 
`
`

`

` 
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership,
`
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) ...................................................................................... 23
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`
`774 F.2d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................................................. 40
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ........................................... 14, 15
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC,
`
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 14
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.,
`
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................. 39
`
`Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.,
`
`717 F.2d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .................................................................. 24
`
`United States v. Adams,
`
`383 U.S. 39, 86 S.Ct. 708 (1966) ............................................................... 25
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................... 39, 40, 45, 48
`
`
`Other Authority:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ........................................................................................... 14
`
`
`All emphasis supplied unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40551002.1 
`
`iv 
`
`

`

`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Amended Memorandum Opinion & Order Denying Apple
`Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue (Public Version)
`(W.D. Tex
`LegalMetric District Report Texas Western District Court in
`Patent Cases, January
`2017-September 2021
`Claim Construction Order (W.D. Tex.
`Complaint
`(W.D. Tex.
`(W.D. Tex.
`SummonsReturned by Apple, Inc.
`Apple Inc.'s Preliminary
`Invalidity Contentions (W.D. Tex.
`Affidavit of Courtland C. Merrill in Support of Pro Hac Vice
`Admission Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 (c
`Declaration of Istvan Jonyer '868 Patent
`Deposition of Thomas F. La Porta dated July 29, 2022 in
`IPR2022-00131 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent 8,639,267
`Deposition of ThomasF. La Porta dated September 1, 2022
`in IPR2022-00310 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent 9,088,868
`Technical Dictionary Excerpts
`Amended Complaint and Select Exhibits [Northern District
`
`
`of California]
`(SEALED
`
`(SEALED)
`
`
` SEALED
`
`
`
`
`
`(SEALED)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`40551002.1
`
`

`

` 
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple, Inc. ("Petitioner") filed its Petition (Paper 2, "Pet.") requesting inter
`
`partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 20, 24, 25, 28 and 43 ("the Challenged Claims") of
`
`U.S. Patent 9,088,868 (EX1001, "'868 Patent"). BillJCo, LLC ("Patent Owner") filed
`
`a Preliminary Response (Paper 5, "Prelim. Resp.") to the Petition. The Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board ("Board") issued a decision granting institution on July 1, 2022.
`
`(Paper 8, "Institution Decision").
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that none of the Challenged Claims are
`
`unpatentable as obvious. First, the prior art of record fails to disclose all of the
`
`claimed limitations of the Challenged Claims. Next, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art ("POSITA") would have had no reason to modify or combine the prior art relied
`
`on by Petitioner to arrive at the inventions set forth in the Challenged Claims. Also,
`
`objective factors, including copying by Petitioner, licensing of the patented
`
`technology, and commercial success, demonstrate the Challenged Claims are not
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER'S UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`
`Petitioner raises four grounds for unpatentability. Each of Petitioner's grounds
`
`is based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 claiming obviousness. Ground 1 asserts each of the
`
`Challenged Claims is obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2005/0096044 ("Haberman") (EX1004). Ground 2 asserts each of the Challenged
`
`40551002.1 
`
`1 
`
`

`

` 
`
`Claims is obvious in view of Haberman, further in view of U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2002/0159401 ("Boger") (EX1005). Petitioner asserts in Ground 3
`
`that each of the Challenged Claims is obvious in view of Haberman in combination
`
`with U.S. Patent 6,327,535 ("Evans") (EX1006). Lastly, in Ground 4, Petitioner
`
`asserts that each of the Challenged Claims is obvious in view of Haberman, in
`
`combination with Boger and Evans. Patent Owner contests each of these grounds.
`
`Based on the evidence of record, Patent Owner respectfully submits that none of
`
`Petitioner's grounds demonstrates that any of the Challenged Claims are obvious.
`
`III. THE '868 PATENT
`
`
`
`The '868 Patent was issued on July 21, 2015. The '868 Patent is entitled
`
`"Location Based Exchange Permissions." Consistent with the '868 Patent's title, the
`
`'868 Patent specification describes, in part, "location based exchanges of data
`
`between distributed mobile data processing systems for locational applications." Ex.
`
`1001, 1:20-24.
`
`
`
`The '868 Patent describes an advance over earlier computer device
`
`architectures, which the patent specification calls Location Based Services (LBS).
`
`These advances leverage the computing capabilities of mobile devices (MSs) in a
`
`different arrangement, which it calls Location Based Exchanges (LBX). According
`
`to the '868 Patent, "LBS … is a term which has gained in popularity over the years
`
`as MSs incorporate various location capability. … This disclosure introduces a new
`
`40551002.1 
`
`2 
`
`

`

` 
`
`terminology, system, and method referred to as Location Based eXchanges (LBX).
`
`… LBX describes leveraging the distributed nature of connectivity between MSs in
`
`lieu of leveraging a common centralized service nature of connectivity between
`
`MSs. … The underlying architectural shift differentiates LBX from LBS for
`
`depending less on centralized services, and more on distributed interactions between
`
`MSs. LBX provide server-free and server-less location dependent features and
`
`functionality." EX1001; 3:53 –4:8.
`
`
`
`With respect to LBS systems, the '868 Patent explains that it has certain
`
`advantages, such as "having a service as the intermediary point between clients,
`
`users, and systems, and their associated services, include[] centralized processing,
`
`centralized maintaining of data,. . . [and] having a supervisory point of control." Id.
`
`at 1:39-46. However, the '868 Patent further explains that this LBS architecture, also
`
`has disadvantages. Id. at 1:66-67. For example, a centralized service may "suffer
`
`from performance and maintenance overhead." Id. at 2:6-7. Importantly, the '868
`
`Patent recognizes concerns of users with respect to "their privacy as internet services
`
`proliferate." Id. at 2:43-44. "Most people are concerned with preventing personal
`
`information of any type being kept in a centralized database which may potentially
`
`become compromised from a security standpoint. Location based services are of
`
`even more concern, in particular when the locations of the user are to be known to
`
`a centralized service. A method and system is needed for making users comfortable
`
`40551002.1 
`
`3 
`
`

`

` 
`
`with knowing that their personal information is at less risk of being compromised."
`
`Id. at 2:50-58.
`
`
`
`In order to address the concerns with privacy and to safeguard personal
`
`information, the '868 Patent Abstract explains that with the present invention
`
`"[i]nformation which is transmitted inbound to, transmitted outbound from, or is in
`
`process at, a mobile data processing system, is used to trigger processing of actions
`
`in accordance with user configured permissions,1 charters, and other configurations.
`
`Id. at p. 1, Abstract. The '868 Patent further explains that, consistent with its title of
`
`"Location Based Exchange Permissions," the LBX system provides "peer to peer
`
`permissions, authentication, and access control." Id. at 10:45-46. The '868 Patent
`
`explains that "permissions are maintained in a peer to peer manner prior to lookup
`
`for proper service sharing. In another embodiment, permissions are specified and
`
`used at the time of granting access to the shared services." EX1001, 10:30-33.
`
`
`
`Further to the objective of protecting user's private information, the '868
`
`Patent specifies that whereabouts information may be communicated between MSs
`
` 
`"Permissions" are a well understood concept in computer science, and are
`1  
`described throughout the '868 Patent specification. A conceptually similar term also
`found in the computer science arts and described in the '868 Patent is "privileges."
`Each relates to rights granted to perform certain functions.
` 
`
`40551002.1 
`
`4 
`
`

`

` 
`
`"provided there are privileges2 and/or charters in place making such whereabouts
`
`information relevant for the MS. Whereabouts information of others will not be
`
`maintained unless there are privileges in place to maintain it. Whereabouts
`
`information may not be shared with others if there have been no privileges granted
`
`to a potential receiving MS. Privileges can provide relevance to what whereabouts
`
`(WDR) information is of use, or should be processed, maintained, or acted upon."
`
`Id. at 12:53-64. The '868 Patent explains "[i]t is another advantage to support a
`
`countless number of privileges that can be configured, managed, and processed in
`
`peer to peer manner between MSs. Any peer to peer feature or set of functionality
`
`can have a privilege associated to it for being granted from one user to another. It
`
`is also an advantage for providing a variety of embodiments for how to manage and
`
`maintain privileges in a network of MSs." Id. at 12:28-34.
`
`
`
`The independent Challenged Claims, claims 1 and 25 are set forth below:
`
`1. A method, comprising:
`
`accepting user input, from a user of a mobile application user interface of a
`user carried mobile data processing system, for configuring a user specified
`location based event configuration to be monitored and triggered by the
`mobile data processing system wherein the mobile data processing system
`uses the user specified location based event configuration to perform mobile
`data processing system operations comprising:
`
`
` 
`In the context of the '868 Patent it is stated that "[t]he terminology
`2   
`'permissions' and 'privileges' are used interchangeably in this disclosure." EX1001,
`123:59-61. 
`
`40551002.1 
`
`5 
`
`

`

` 
`
`accessing at least one memory storing a first identifier and a second
`
`identifier and a third identifier wherein each identifier is determined by the
`mobile data processing system for at least one location based condition
`monitored by the mobile data processing system for the mobile data
`processing system triggering a location based action, the location based action
`performed by the mobile data processing system upon the mobile data
`processing system determining the at least one location based condition
`including whether identifier data determined by the mobile data processing
`system for a wireless data record received for processing by the mobile data
`processing system matches the third identifier and at least one of the first
`identifier and the second identifier, the wireless data record corresponding to
`a beaconed broadcast wireless data transmission that is beaconed outbound
`from an originating data processing system to a destination data processing
`system, the first identifier indicative of the mobile data processing system of
`the mobile application user interface for use by the mobile data processing
`system in comparing the first identifier to the identifier data determined by
`the mobile data processing system for the wireless data record received for
`processing by the mobile data processing system, the second identifier
`indicative of originating data processing system identity data of the wireless
`data record received for processing for use by the mobile data processing
`system in comparing the second identifier to the identifier data determined by
`the mobile data processing system for the wireless data record received for
`processing by the mobile data processing system, the third identifier indicative
`of the originating data processing system of the wireless data record received
`for processing wherein the third identifier is monitored by the mobile data
`processing system for use by the mobile data processing system in comparing
`the third identifier to the wireless data record received for processing by the
`mobile data processing system;
`
`receiving for processing the wireless data record corresponding to the
`
`beaconed broadcast wireless data transmission that is beaconed outbound
`from the originating data processing system to the destination data processing
`system; determining the identifier data for the wireless data record received
`for processing by the mobile data processing system;
`
`comparing the identifier data for the wireless data record received for
`
`processing by the mobile data processing system with the third identifier and
`the at least one of the first identifier and the second identifier; determining the
`at least one location based condition of the user specified location based event
`configuration including whether the identifier data for the wireless data record
`
`40551002.1 
`
`6 
`
`

`

` 
`
`received for processing by the mobile data processing system matches the
`third identifier and the at least one of the first identifier and the second
`identifier; and
`
`performing, upon the determining the at least one location based
`
`condition, the location based action in accordance with the determining the at
`least one location based condition of the user specified location based event
`configuration including whether the identifier data for the wireless data record
`received for processing by the mobile data processing system matches the
`third identifier and the at least one of the first identifier and the second
`identifier.
`
`24. A user carried mobile data processing system, comprising:
`
`
`
`memory coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the memory
`
`includes executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more
`processors, results in the mobile data processing system accepting user input,
`from a user of a mobile application user interface of the mobile data
`processing system, for configuring a user specified location based event
`configuration to be monitored and triggered by the mobile data processing
`system wherein the mobile data processing system uses the user specified
`location based event configuration to perform mobile data processing system
`operations comprising:
`
`
`one or more processors; and
`
`accessing at least one memory storing a first identifier and a
`
`second identifier and a third identifier wherein each identifier is
`determined by the mobile data processing system for at least one
`location based condition monitored by the mobile data processing
`system for the mobile data processing system triggering a location
`based action, the location based action performed by the mobile data
`processing system upon the mobile data processing system determining
`the at least one location based condition including whether identifier
`data determined by the mobile data processing system for a wireless
`data record received for processing by the mobile data processing
`system matches the third identifier and at least one of the first identifier
`and the second identifier, the wireless data record corresponding to a
`beaconed broadcast wireless data transmission that is beaconed
`outbound from an originating data processing system to a destination
`
`40551002.1 
`
`7 
`
`

`

` 
`
`data processing system, the first identifier indicative of the mobile data
`processing system of the mobile application user interface for use by
`the mobile data processing system in comparing the first identifier to
`the identifier data determined by the mobile data processing system for
`the wireless data record received for processing by the mobile data
`processing system, the second identifier indicative of originating data
`processing system identity data of the wireless data record received for
`processing for use by the mobile data processing system in comparing
`the second identifier to the identifier data determined by the mobile data
`processing system for the wireless data record received for processing
`by the mobile data processing system, the third identifier indicative of
`the originating data processing system of the wireless data record
`received for processing wherein the third identifier is monitored by the
`mobile data processing system for use by the mobile data processing
`system in comparing the third identifier to the wireless data record
`received for processing by the mobile data processing system;
`
`receiving for processing the wireless data record corresponding
`
`to the beaconed broadcast wireless data transmission that is beaconed
`outbound from the originating data processing system to the destination
`data processing system;
`
`determining the identifier data for the wireless data record
`
`received for processing by the mobile data processing system;
`comparing the identifier data for the wireless data record received for
`processing by the mobile data processing system with the third
`identifier and the at least one of the first identifier and the second
`identifier;
`
`determining the at least one location based condition of the user
`
`specified location based event configuration including whether the
`identifier data for the wireless data record received for processing by
`the mobile data processing system matches the third identifier and the
`at least one of the first identifier and the second identifier; and
`
`performing, upon the determining the at least one location based
`
`condition, the location based action in accordance with the determining
`the at least one location based condition of the user specified location
`based event configuration including whether the identifier data for the
`wireless data record received for processing by the mobile data
`
`40551002.1 
`
`8 
`
`

`

` 
`
`processing system matches the third identifier and the at least one of
`the first identifier and the second identifier.
`
`IV. PETITIONER'S CITED PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`Petitioner raises four grounds for unpatentability, each of which is based on
`
`obviousness. The sole reference in Ground 1 is Haberman. (EX1004). Haberman is
`
`also the primary reference for remaining Grounds 2-4. Grounds 2 and 4 further rely
`
`on Boger (EX1005) for a teaching of a piconet, which is a network of computers
`
`comprising a master device and several slave devices. Grounds 3 and 4 are further
`
`based on Evans (EX1006), which Petitioner states is included to the extent that
`
`Patent Owner argues a particular meaning for "wireless data record," which Patent
`
`Owner does not. Each of the relied-on prior art references are discussed briefly
`
`herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Haberman
`
`Haberman (EX1004) is directed to a method and system for presenting
`
`information content, such as advertisements, to all mobile devices in the vicinity of
`
`the transmitter. Haberman describes a "method for presenting to a person using a
`
`mobile device informational content pertaining to a specific address when the mobile
`
`device is within proximity to the specific address includes the step of transmitting
`
`from the specific address a transmission containing a broadcast, wherein the
`
`broadcast includes informational content that pertains to the specific address for
`
`presenting to a person using the mobile device." Id., Abstract. The method in
`9 
`
`40551002.1 
`
`

`

` 
`
`Haberman "includes the steps of unilaterally transmitting, with a wireless
`
`transmitter, a transmission containing a broadcast for receipt by mobile devices that
`
`are within a transmission range of the transmitter, wherein the broadcast includes
`
`informational content for presentation to people using the mobile devices; receiving,
`
`with a mobile device, the transmission when the mobile device is within the
`
`transmission range; and storing, within the mobile device, the informational content
`
`for presentation to a person using the mobile device." Id. at [0008].
`
`
`
`Haberman further explains that no networking of devices is intended with its
`
`system. "[T]he transmitter 102 unilaterally transmits the transmission 104 without
`
`regard to whether the mobile device 108 has been detected within the transmission
`
`range of the transmitter, and, without regard to whether any communication has been
`
`received from the mobile device 108. Nor does the informational content 106 pertain
`
`to communications between the transmitter 102 and the mobile device 108, in that
`
`no handshaking or other two-way communication occurs between the transmitter
`
`102 and the mobile device 108 in order for the transmitter 102 to transmit the
`
`transmission 104 of the broadcast containing the informational content 106. For
`
`example, no IP address is assigned to the mobile device 108 by the transmitter 102
`
`as occurs when a wireless device registers with a WAN computer network. Id. at
`
`[0119].
`
`40551002.1 
`
`10 
`
`

`

` 
`
`
`
`Haberman further teaches establishing user "preference profiles" so as to
`
`select the type of information the user receives. A "preferences profile represents the
`
`types of informational content with which the person using the mobile device desires
`
`to be presented…." Id. at [0025]. "[A] mobile device is configured to present
`
`informational content that is preferred by a person using the mobile device.
`
`Informational content which the person does not prefer is not presented using the
`
`mobile device." Id. at [0163]. "[A] plurality of transmissions from wireless
`
`transmitters is received in step 904 by the mobile device, wherein each such
`
`transmission includes at least one broadcast. In step 906, each respective broadcast
`
`is scanned
`
`to determine
`
`if
`
`the
`
`informational content
`
`thereof matches
`
`informational content identified as being preferred in step 902. Subsequently, in
`
`step 908 the informational content of a broadcast is presented if the informational
`
`content is a preferred informational content." Id. at [0168]. As such, Haberman
`
`discloses filtering types of information delivered based on what the user indicates he
`
`or she has an interest in receiving.
`
`
`
`While Petitioner relies on Haberman's disclosure related to user preferences,
`
`Petitioner points to no disclosure in Haberman where "permissions" or "privileges"
`
`are established such that only by granting a sender rights is information from the
`
`sender permitted to be received.
`
`
`
`40551002.1 
`
`
`
`11 
`
`

`

` 
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Boger
`
`Boger (EX1005) discloses a method for establishing a network of devices
`
`utilizing transmissions made using a Bluetooth protocol. Boger states "[t]he present
`
`invention relates to hierarchy designation within a Bluetooth piconet, and more
`
`specifically to selection of a master when the Master/Slave switch is impossible due
`
`to master disappearance. The present invention also relates to the re-establishment
`
`of point-to-multipoint communications within a Bluetooth piconet after master
`
`disappearance." Id. at [0001]. Boger further explains "Bluetooth is a computing and
`
`telecommunications industry specification that describes how various electronic
`
`devices such as mobile phones, computers, and personal digital assistants can
`
`interconnect and communicate with each other. Ericsson Mobile Communications
`
`(Stockholm, Sweden) conceived Bluetooth in 1994 as a protocol enabling wireless
`
`communication to peripheral devices." Id. at [0002]. Boger further states "[a] piconet
`
`is defined as a network of one master and one or more slaves." Id. at [0004].
`
`
`
`"The master acts as the hub of the piconet. The master initiates a
`
`communication to a specific slave and allocates a slot or slots during which that slave
`
`can reply. During the allocated slot or slots, the slave replies. Slaves communicate
`
`only in slots allocated by the master." Id. at [0008]. "Transmission is done in packets.
`
`Each packet is made up of three parts: an access code, a packet header and a payload.
`
`The access code includes synchronization information and a code for identifying the
`
`40551002.1 
`
`12 
`
`

`

` 
`
`transmission as belonging to a piconet or as being a step in the piconet formation
`
`process. The packet header includes information for packet acknowledgement and
`
`the AM_ADDR of the device for which the packet is intended. The payload contains
`
`the transmitted data and, optionally, a data header." Id. at [0009].
`
`
`
`Unlike Haberman, which expressly states that networking of transmitting
`
`devices and mobile devices is not done, the express purpose of Boger is to reestablish
`
`a master and slave network by assigning transmission addresses with particular
`
`devices to allow two-way communications.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Evans
`
`Petitioner relies on Evans' disclosure of confidence information related to the
`
`location of the mobile device. For both Grounds 3 and 4, Petitioner only relies on
`
`Evans "[t]o the extent that Patent Owner argues 'wireless data record' should be
`
`construed to require: (1) a date/time stamp field; (2) a location field; and (3) a
`
`confidence field, the combination of Haberman and Evans discloses this
`
`construction." See e.g., Pet. at 51-52. Patent Owner does not contend that "wireless
`
`data record" includes such requirements. As such, Evans is immaterial.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") would
`
`have "at least a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an
`
`40551002.1 
`
`13 
`
`

`

` 
`
`equivalent, and two years of experience relating to wireless communications." Pet.
`
`at 5. Patent Owner does not contest this proposal.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`In an IPR, patent claims are interpreted as they would be in a civil action. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are generally given "their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning" — i.e., "the meaning that the terms would have to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`
`
`There are only two exceptions to this rule: "1) when a patentee sets out a
`
`definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the pat