`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE CO.,
`ARUBA NETWORKS, LLC,
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`APPLE INC.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`- vs. -
`
`BillJCo, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,477,994
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 4 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 4 
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 4 
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ........................... 4 
`
`II. 
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 6 
`
`III.  REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................... 6 
`
`IV.  REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF .............................................. 6 
`
`  Device-Locating Concepts, Including Periodically Beaconing
`Data to Locate Mobile Devices, Were Well-Known Long Before
`the ’994 Patent ...................................................................................... 7 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Summary of the ’994 Patent .................................................................. 8 
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 14 
`
`Priority Date ........................................................................................ 14 
`
`V. 
`
`STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES ....................................... 15 
`
`VI.  THE CHALLENGES ARE BASED ON PRIOR ART PATENTS AND
`PRINTED PUBLICATIONS ........................................................................ 16 
`
`VII.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 16 
`
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 17 
`
`IX.  STATE OF THE ART PRIOR TO THE ’994 PATENT .............................. 18 
`
`  Wrappe ................................................................................................ 18 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`Philips .................................................................................................. 20 
`
` 
`
`  Weiser .................................................................................................. 23 
`
` 
`
`Evans ................................................................................................... 25 
`
`X.  GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-2, 6, 8-9 13-15, AND 19 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS OVER WRAPPE AND PHILIPS ........ 26 
`
`  Motivation to Combine Wrappe and Philips ....................................... 26 
`
` 
`
`Claims 1, 8, and 14 .............................................................................. 30 
`
`[1.0] A beaconing data processing system comprising: ...................... 30 
`
`[1.1] one or more processors; .............................................................. 30 
`
`[1.2] a Bluetooth communications interface; and ............................... 30 
`
`[1.3] a memory coupled to the one or more processors, wherein
`the one or more processors access the memory and control
`operations of the beaconing data processing system, the
`operations comprising: ........................................................................ 30 
`
`[8.0] A method in a beaconing data processing system, the
`method comprising: ............................................................................. 30 
`
`[14.0] A non-transitory computer readable medium containing
`executable instructions, that when executed, controls one or more
`processors, based on the instructions, to perform a method
`comprising: .......................................................................................... 30 
`
`[1.4] periodically beaconing outbound a broadcast unidirectional
`wireless data record communicated through the Bluetooth
`communications interface to serve as a physical location
`reference contributing
`to physical
`location determination
`processing of one or more receiving user carried mobile data
`processing systems in a Bluetooth wave spectrum range vicinity
`of the beaconing data processing system, the beaconing data
`processing system: ............................................................................... 36 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`[8.1] one or more processors periodically beaconing outbound a
`broadcast unidirectional wireless data record communicated
`through a Bluetooth communications interface of the beaconing
`data processing system to serve as a physical location reference
`contributing to physical location determination processing of one
`or more user carried mobile data processing systems in a
`Bluetooth wave spectrum range vicinity of the beaconing data
`processing system, the beaconing data processing system: ................ 36 
`
`broadcast
`a
`outbound
`beaconing
`periodically
`[14.1]
`unidirectional wireless data record communicated through a
`Bluetooth communications interface of a beaconing data
`processing system to serve as a physical location reference
`contributing to physical location determination processing of one
`or more user carried mobile data processing systems, in a
`Bluetooth wave spectrum range vicinity of the beaconing data
`processing system, the beaconing data processing system: ................ 36 
`
`[1.5/8.2/14.2] not soliciting an inbound communication to the
`beaconing data processing system from the one or more user
`carried mobile data processing systems in response to a receipt
`of the broadcast unidirectional wireless data record in the one or
`more user carried mobile data processing systems, and ..................... 40 
`
`inbound
`process
`to
`configured
`not
`[1.6/8.3/14.3]
`communications resulting from the receipt of the broadcast
`unidirectional wireless data record in the one or more user carried
`mobile data processing systems, the broadcast unidirectional
`wireless data record communicated through the Bluetooth
`communications interface to serve as the physical location
`reference including: ............................................................................. 40 
`
`[1.7/8.4/14.4] [the broadcast unidirectional wireless data record
`including:] no physical location coordinates of the beaconing
`data processing system, ....................................................................... 41 
`
`[1.8/8.5/14.5] [the unidirectional wireless data record including:]
`a data field containing a signal strength of the beaconing data
`processing system, and ........................................................................ 42 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`[1.9] [the unidirectional wireless data record including:]
`application identifier data stored in the memory. ............................... 44 
`
`[8.6/14.6] [the unidirectional wireless data record including:]
`application identifier data stored in the memory of the beaconing
`data processing system. ....................................................................... 44 
`
` 
`
`Claims 2, 9, and 15 .............................................................................. 46 
`
`[2] The beaconing data processing system of claim 1 wherein the
`application identifier data stored in the memory is configured in the
`beaconing data processing system to match a configured location based
`condition in the one or more user carried mobile data processing
`systems. ............................................................................................... 46 
`
`[9] The method of claim 8 wherein the application identifier data stored
`in the memory is configured in the beaconing data processing system
`to match a configured location based condition in the one or more user
`carried mobile data processing systems. ............................................. 46 
`
`[15] The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14
`wherein the application identifier data stored in the memory is
`configured in the beaconing data processing system to match a
`configured location based condition in the one or more user carried
`mobile data processing systems. ......................................................... 46 
`
` 
`
`Claims 6, 13, and 19 ............................................................................ 49 
`
`[6] The beaconing data processing system of claim 1 wherein the
`beaconing data processing system is a mobile data processing
`system. ................................................................................................. 49 
`
`[13] The method of claim 8 wherein the beaconing data
`processing system is a mobile data processing system. ...................... 49 
`
`[19] The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14
`wherein the beaconing data processing system is a mobile data
`processing system. ............................................................................... 49 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`XI.  GROUND 2: CLAIMS 3, 10, AND 16 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF WRAPPE, PHILIPS,
`AND WEISER ............................................................................................... 51 
`
`  Motivation to Combine and Combining Wrappe, Philips, and
`Weiser .................................................................................................. 51 
`
` 
`
`Claims 3, 10, and 16 ............................................................................ 54 
`
`[3] The beaconing data processing system of claim 1 wherein the
`application identifier data stored in the memory is configured in
`the beaconing data processing system to match a configured
`arrival or departure condition in the one or more user carried
`mobile data processing systems. ......................................................... 54 
`
`[10] The method of claim 8 wherein the application identifier
`data stored in the memory is configured in the beaconing data
`processing system to match a configured arrival or departure
`condition in the one or more user carried mobile data processing
`systems. ............................................................................................... 54 
`
`[16] The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14
`wherein the application identifier data stored in the memory is
`configured in the beaconing data processing system to match a
`configured arrival or departure condition in the one or more user
`carried mobile data processing systems. ............................................. 54 
`
`XII.  GROUNDS 3-4: GROUNDS 1-2 EACH FURTHER IN VIEW OF
`EVANS .......................................................................................................... 56 
`
`XIII.  OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ...................................... 60 
`
`XIV.  DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER § 325(d) OR § 314 IS NOT
`WARRANTED .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`XV.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 66 
`
`XVI.  CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ........................................................... 67 
`
`APPENDIX A – CLAIM LISTING ..................................................................... 68 
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`
`vi
`
`

`

`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,477,994 (“the ’994 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’994 Patent
`
`CV of William Michalson, dated January 14, 2022
`
`Declaration of William Michalson, dated January 14, 2022
`
`PCT International Publication No. WO 2005/106523 (“Wrappe”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0030824 (“Ribaudo”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,327,535 (“Evans”)
`
`Claim Construction of “Wireless Data Record” in BillJCo, LLC v.
`Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-528 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Cisco’s Motion to Dismiss in Related Litigation
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Cisco’s Motion to Dismiss
`Order from Court on HPE’s Motion to Dismiss
`
`Order from Court on Cisco’s Motion to Dismiss
`
`PCT International Publication No. WO 02/15601 A2 to Koninklijke
`Philips N.V. (“Philips”)
`
`PCT International Publication No. WO 2006/005979 A1 to Nokia
`Corporation (“Nokia”)
`
`1015
`
`UK Patent Application No. 0015454.2 (filed Jun. 26, 2000)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0136132 to Weiser et
`al. (“Weiser”)
`
`PCT International Publication No. WO 02/078381 to Obnex
`Technologies HB (“Obnex”)
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,155,210 to Benson (“Benson”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,324,462 to Page et al. (“Page”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0252197 to Fraley et al.
`(“Fraley”)
`
`1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,594,678 to Livneh (“Livneh”)
`
`1022
`
`Radar and LORAN, July 1959 Popular Electronics, Clark E. Jackson
`(“LORAN”)
`
`1023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,123,926 to Himmelstein (“Himmelstein”)
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`First Amended Docket Control Order in BillJCo, LLC v. Cisco Inc. et
`al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00181 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Civil Docket in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Hewlett Packard
`Enterprise Co., Case No. 6:21-cv-00226 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Scheduling Order in BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-528
`(W.D. Tex.)
`
`1027
`
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Aruba Networks, LLC Motion to
`Transfer filed in BillJCo, LLC v. Cisco Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-
`00181 (E.D. Tex.)
`1028 Motion to Dismiss filed in BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-
`cv-528 (W.D. Tex.)
`1029 Motion to Transfer filed in BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-
`cv-528 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`Complaint filed in BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-528
`(W.D. Tex.)
`
`Complaint filed in in BillJCo, LLC v. Cisco Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-
`cv-00181 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1032
`
`Complaint filed in in BillJCo, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.
`et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00183 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`R. Gupta and S. R. Das, “Tracking moving targets in a smart sensor
`network,” 2003 IEEE 58th Vehicular Technology Conference. VTC
`2003-Fall (IEEE Cat. No. 03CH37484), 2003, pp. 3035-3039 Vol. 5,
`doi: 10.1109/VETECF.2003.1286181 (“Gupta”)
`
`N. Bulusu, J. Heidemann, and D. Estrin, “GPS-less low cost outdoor
`localization for very small devices,” IEEE Personal Communications,
`Special Issue on “Smart Spaces and Environments,” vol. 7, no. 5, pp.
`28–34, 2000 (“Bulusu”)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
` Real Party-in-Interest
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (“Hewlett Packard”), Aruba Networks, LLC
`
`(“Aruba”), Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), and Apple Inc. (“Apple”) are the
`
`petitioners (“Petitioners”), and each is a real party-in-interest.
`
` Related Matters
`U.S. Patent No. 10,477,994 (“the ’994 Patent”) is asserted in BillJCo, LLC v.
`
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-183 (E.D. Tex.); BillJCo,
`
`LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-181 (E.D. Tex.); and BillJCo, LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-528 (W.D. Tex.) (each individually a “Related
`
`Litigation” and collectively “the Related Litigations”).
`
` Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Phone: 703-749-1370
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`Fax: 703-749-1301
`1750 Tysons Boulevard
`sommera@gtlaw.com
`Suite 1000
`USPTO Reg. No. 53,932
`
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Rose Cordero Prey
`(pro hac vice forthcoming)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`One Vanderbilt Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`
`
`
`
`
`Phone: 212-801-6473
`Fax: 212-801-6400
`preyr@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Elana B. Araj
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`One Vanderbilt Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`
`
`Kathryn E. Albanese
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`One Vanderbilt Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`
`
`Jeffrey D. Blake
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`191 Peachtree Street NE
`Suite 3800
`Atlanta, GA 30303
`
`
`Daniel W. McDonald
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`3200 IDS Center
`80 South Eighth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`Larissa S. Bifano
`DLA Piper, LLP (US)
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`
`Jonathan Hicks
`DLA Piper, LLP (US)
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`
`Zachary Conrad
`DLA Piper, LLP (US)
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`Phone: 212-801-6566
`Fax: 212-801-6400
`araje@gtlaw.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 75,804
`
`
`Phone: 212-801-6533
`Fax: 212-801-6200
`albanesek@gtlaw.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 78,153
`
`
`Phone: 404-954-5040
`Fax: 612-332-9081
`jblake@merchantgould.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 58,884
`
`
`
`Phone: 612-336-4637
`Fax: 612-332-9081
`dmcdonald@merchantgould.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 32,044
`
`
`
`Phone: 617-406-6013
`Fax: 617-406-6100
`larissa.bifano@dlapiper.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 59,051
`
`
`Phone: 617-406-2164
`Fax: 617-406-6100
`jonathan.hicks@dlapiper.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 75,195
`
`
`Phone: 617-406-5992
`Fax: 617-406-6100
`5
`
`

`

`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`zack.conrad@dlapiper.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 77,682
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel at GT-HPE-
`
`BillJCo@gtlaw.com. Petitioners consent to electronic service.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioners certify that the ’994 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. REQUESTED RELIEF
`Petitioners ask that the Board review the accompanying prior art and analysis,
`
`institute a trial for an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims (Claims 1-3, 6,
`
`8-10, 13-16, and 19) of the ’994 Patent, and that the Director cancel them as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`IV. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`The Challenged Claims of the ’994 Patent would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) and are therefore unpatentable. The
`
`’994 Patent claims encompass obvious combinations of components and processes
`
`that perform “location based exchanges of data” between mobile devices to “enable
`
`location based features and functions” on those devices.
`
`This Petition’s showing that the cited art renders the Challenged Claims
`
`unpatentable is supported by the Declaration of William Michalson, Ph.D.
`6
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`(EX1004), a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Worcester
`
`Polytechnic Institute. He is familiar with the state of the art relating to location-based
`
`exchanges of data since well before the ’994 Patent was filed, and agrees with and
`
`supports the conclusion that the Challenged Claims merely recite conventional
`
`features used for their conventional purposes.
`
`Thus, the Board should institute trial and the Director should cancel the
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
` Device-Locating Concepts, Including Periodically Beaconing Data to
`Locate Mobile Devices, Were Well-Known Long Before the ’994
`Patent
`As the use of mobile devices became increasingly common in the early 2000s,
`
`many approaches were developed for tracking and locating these devices. EX1004,
`
`¶18. While some mobile devices were equipped with technology to track the
`
`device’s location (e.g., GPS), many devices were not. Id. One common technique
`
`for locating devices involved using signals periodically sent (or “beaconed”) by
`
`nearby devices and using information conveyed by those signals to determine the
`
`device’s location. Id, ¶19; Ex. 1005, Abstract. Mobile devices were also used for
`
`sending signals used for determining location. Id., Ex. 1006, ¶[0077]. Alternatively,
`
`another device, such as a cell tower, satellite, or wireless networking device, sent the
`
`signal. EX1004, ¶20. The receiving device may use the signal to determine
`
`information about its location. Id., ¶21. For example, a mobile device may beacon a
`
`7
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`signal to nearby mobile devices that identifies the beaconing mobile device to the
`
`receiving mobile device and can be used to inform the receiving mobile device of
`
`the distance between the two devices. See EX1006, ¶¶[0007], [0026], [0057].
`
`With the adoption and spread of techniques for determining the location of
`
`mobile devices, it became desirable and more common to build functionality for
`
`mobile devices that would allow those devices to use the determined location.
`
`EX1004, ¶22. For instance, applications installed on the receiving mobile devices
`
`could customize the application user’s experience based on the device’s location. Id.
`
`In the example described above (i.e., the network of mobile devices that each beacon
`
`a signal to nearby devices), an application on the receiving mobile device could use
`
`the knowledge of the location of other devices to present content to the user of the
`
`device, such as a notification that other devices are nearby and information about the
`
`users associated with those devices (e.g., user profile information). Id., ¶23; EX1006,
`
`¶¶[0026], [0087].
`
`Dr. Michalson’s declaration provides additional background information
`
`about these types of location based exchanges of data between mobile devices.
`
`EX1004, ¶¶18-23.
`
` Summary of the ’994 Patent
`The ’994 Patent “relates generally to location based services for mobile data
`
`processing systems, and more particularly to location based exchanges of data
`
`8
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`between distributed mobile data processing systems for locational applications.”
`
`EX1001, 1:43-47. In the systems and methods disclosed in the ’994 Patent, “[a]
`
`common connected service is not required for location based functionality and
`
`features.” Id., 1:47-48. Instead, “[l]ocation based exchanges of data between
`
`distributed mobile data processing systems enable location based features and
`
`functionality in a peer to peer manner.” Id., 1:48-51.
`
`The ’994 Patent describes how the rise of the internet led to a number of new
`
`service offerings, including services provided to mobile devices or “MSs.” EX1001,
`
`2:7-23. Common examples of MSs include cell phones, laptops, and personal
`
`computers. EX1001, 3:35-44. The ’994 Patent states that, traditionally, companies
`
`offering services to a MS acted as “the intermediary point” between users,
`
`employing “centralized processing” and “centralized maintaining of data.” EX1001,
`
`1:62-2:3. The ’994 Patent notes several drawbacks of this centralized approach,
`
`including possible poor performance, costs of centralized storage of users’ data, and
`
`security or privacy concerns of storing user information in a centralized database.
`
`EX1001, 2:24-53; 3:3-19; 4:59-5:3.
`
`The ’994 Patent states that “[i]t is inevitable that as users are hungry for more
`
`features and functionality on their mobile data processing systems, processing will
`
`be moved closer to the device for optimal performance and infrastructure cost
`
`savings.” EX1001, 2:49-53. Thus, the ’994 Patent discloses a network of “location-
`
`9
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`based exchanges” or “LBXs,” which, although unclaimed, the ’994 Patent describes
`
`as a superior alternative to the “centralized” approach to providing data to a MS.
`
`Despite not claiming either centralized or decentralized techniques, the ’994 Patent
`
`explains that processing is distributed throughout the network of devices (or
`
`“decentralized”) by “push[ing] intelligence out to the mobile data processing
`
`systems themselves.” EX1001, 3:20-26. The ’994 Patent describes techniques to
`
`allow users of MSs (e.g., mobile devices) to take advantage of “location dependent
`
`features and functionality” without having their location tracked and stored by a
`
`centralized service provider. EX1001, 4:8-13.
`
`Figures 1B and 1C of the ’994 Patent illustrate the purported difference
`
`between the described decentralized and centralized approaches. In the decentralized
`
`approach, shown in Figure 1B below (left), each of the five MSs (denoted by the
`
`number 2) communicates directly with the other MSs in its vicinity, without
`
`requiring a centralized service provider to facilitate the interaction. EX1001, 32:52-
`
`56. This direct communication between devices is represented by the lines annotated
`
`in red. In contrast, in Figure 1C below (right), a prior-art single location-based
`
`service provider (called “Service(s)”) facilitates all interactions between the MSs
`
`(denoted as MS 1, MS 2,...MS N), and the MSs do not communicate directly with
`
`one another. EX1001, 33:31-54. The communication between the devices and the
`
`centralized server is represented by the lines annotated in red.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures 1B and 1C of the ’994 Patent (annotated)
`
`EX1001, Figure 1B (left); Figure 1C (prior art) (right).
`
`
`
`The ’994 Patent states that a LBX network allows MS devices to use location-
`
`based functionality by allowing direct “peer-to-peer” communications between
`
`MSs. Specifically, the ’994 Patent discloses that within each MS of the LBX
`
`network, there are “permissions” and “charters,” as illustrated below in green below
`
`in annotated Figure 1A:
`
`11
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`
`Figure 1A of the ’994 Patent (Annotated)
`
`
`
`EX1001, Figure 1A, 32:16-41. How a user configures these permissions and charters
`
`governs how a MS interacts with other MSs in specified circumstances. EX1001,
`
`38:32-39; see also EX1004, ¶32. These “locally maintained configurations” enable
`
`a user to receive alerts “when MSs are newly nearby, or are newly departing being
`
`nearby.” EX1001, 12:18-25; see also EX1004, ¶32. In other examples, a LBX can
`
`be used for “peer to peer content delivery and local MS configuration of that
`
`content.” EX1001, 12:31-41; see also EX1004, ¶32.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`The independent claims of the ’994 Patent recite, respectively, a system (claim
`
`1), method (claim 8), and computer-readable media (claim 14) for sending
`
`information from a “beaconing data processing system” to a “user carried mobile
`
`data processing system[].” EX1001, 448:27-451:20; EX1004, ¶36.1 The claims
`
`recite “periodically beaconing” a broadcast unidirectional “wireless data record.”
`
`EX1001, 404:59-62, 448:35-36, 449:38-39, 450:31-32. This “wireless data record”
`
`includes (1) a “data field containing a signal strength” of the sending device’s
`
`system, and (2) “application identifier data.” Id.; see also id., 41:36-42:61; 78:64-
`
`85:11; FIG. 11A. The claimed “wireless data record” includes “no physical location
`
`coordinates of the beaconing data processing system.” Id. Upon receipt of the
`
`“wireless data record” by a “user carried mobile data processing system,” the system
`
`can present certain location-based content to a user. Id. One example of such
`
`location-based content being presented to a user of a “user carried mobile data
`
`processing system” is automatically “being alerted to nearby people needing
`
`assistance and nearby fire engines or police cars that need access to roads.” Id.,
`
`13:14-16.
`
`The ’994 Patent comprises over 300 pages of figures and 451 columns. The
`
`examples and embodiments described above are relevant to the Challenged Claims
`
`
`
`1 The full text of the Challenged Claims is set for in Appendix A to this petition.
`13
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`of the ’994 Patent and, as such, provide appropriate background for the analysis
`
`below showing that these Challenged Claims should be canceled as unpatentable.
`
` Prosecution History
`The ’994 Patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 16/375,836 (the
`
`“’836 Application”) on April 4, 2019. EX1001. The face of the ’836 Application
`
`asserts the benefit of an earlier priority date through a string of continuation and
`
`continuation-in-part applications,
`
`including Application Nos. 16/147,532,
`
`15/218,039; 14/752,945; 13/972,125; 12/590,831; 12/287,064; and 12/077,041. The
`
`earliest possible priority date for the ’836 Application (and thus the ’994 Patent) is
`
`March 14, 2008, which is the filing date of Application No. 12/077,041.
`
`The ’836 Application received a Notice of Allowance on July 3, 2019, less
`
`than three months after filing, allowing all claims (Claims 1-19) as originally filed.
`
`EX1002, 1587-94. The application issued as the ’994 Patent on November 19, 2019.
`
`EX1001.
`
` Priority Date
`Solely for the purposes of this Petition, Petitioners will assume that the
`
`priority date for the ’994 Patent is March 14, 2008, the filing date of the earliest
`
`application to which the ’994 Patent claims priority. The prior art references relied
`
`14
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`on by Petitioners in this Petition qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §1022
`
`based on this priority date.
`
`V.
`
`STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES
`Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13-15, and 19 of the ’994 Patent are obvious
`
`under §103(a) over PCT Publication No. WO 2005/106523 to Wrappe (“Wrappe”)
`
`in view of PCT Publication No. WO 02/15601 to Koninklijke Philips Electronics
`
`N.V. (“Philips”);
`
`Ground 2: Claims 3, 10, and 16 are obvious under §103(a) over Wrappe in
`
`view of Philips as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14, and further in view of U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2007/0136132 to Weiser et al. (“Weiser”);
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, 13-16, and 19 of the ’994 Patent are obvious
`
`under §103(a) over Wrappe in view of Philips and U.S. Patent No. 6,327,535 to
`
`Evans (“Evans”); and
`
`Ground 4: Claims 3, 10, and 16 are obvious under §103(a) over Wrappe in
`
`view of Philips and Wesier as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14, and further in view of
`
`Evans.
`
`
`
`2 All references to statutory sections are to Title 35 and any references to §§102 or
`
`103 are to the pre-AIA versions of those statutes unless otherwise indicated.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`VI. THE CHALLENGES ARE BASED ON PRIOR ART PATENTS
`AND PRINTED PUBLICATIONS
`Wrappe (EX1005) published on November 10, 2005. Thus, Wrappe qualifies
`
`as prior art under at least §102(b).
`
`Philips (EX1013) published on February 21, 2002, making it prior art under
`
`at least §102(b).
`
`Evans (EX1007) issued on December 4, 2001, making it prior art under at
`
`least §102(b).
`
`Weiser (EX1016) was filed on November 28, 2006 and published on Jun. 14,
`
`2007, making it prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§102(a), (e).
`
`Each of Wrappe, Philips, Weiser, and Evans are analogous to the ’994 Patent
`
`because each relates to providing beaconed data over short-range wireless links to
`
`provide information to the mobile device and/or aid in location determination using
`
`techniques in mobile networks, which is a principal goal of the subject matter recited
`
`in the claims of the ’994 Patent as is evident from the analysis below.
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`As of March 14, 2008, a POSITA had a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, as well as two years of professional
`
`experience, and a POSITA would have had a working knowledge of hardware and
`
`software for location tracking of mobile devices. Lack of work experience can be
`
`remedied by additional education and vice versa. EX1004, ¶54.
`
`16
`
`

`

`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In inter partes review, claims are “construed using the same claim
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,477,994
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under
`
`35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claims must be given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by a POSITA at the time of the invention in light
`
`of the specification and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. Id.; Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc); see also 83 Fed.
`
`Reg. 51340, Vo