UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BILLJCO LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE: IPR2022-00427
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,292,011
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`40618337.2
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0001
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`
`PETITIONER’S UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS ............................................. 1
`
`III.
`
`THE ’011 PATENT .................................................................................................. 3
`
`A. Written Specification ..................................................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Claim Language ..................................................................................... 4
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art .............................................................. 6
`
`IV.
`
`PRIOR ART RELIED ON IN THE PETITION ...................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Ribaudo Patent Publication ........................................................................... 7
`
`Lorincz “MoteTrack” Paper .......................................................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`ALL GROUNDS AND ALL CHALLENGED CLAIMS: PETITIONER
`HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT RIBAUDO IN COMBINATION WITH
`LORINCZ RENDERS OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF
`THE ’011 PATENT ................................................................................................ 11
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 11
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“Periodic beaconing” ........................................................................ 13
`1.
`All Grounds: Ribaudo fails to disclose “periodic beaconing” and it
`would not be obvious to combine Ribaudo with Lorincz ........................... 16
`
`1.
`2.
`
`Ribaudo Fails to Disclose “Periodic Beaconing”............................. 16
`A POSITA Would Not Have Combined Ribaudo with
`Lorincz ............................................................................................. 18
`All Grounds: Ribaudo Fails To Disclose “Application Context
`Identifier Data Identifying Location Based Content” ................................. 20
`
`All Grounds: Ribaudo Fails to Disclose a Location Based
`Application that “Presents the Location Based Content to the User
`Interface of the Receiving User” ................................................................. 22
`
`E.
`
`OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .............................. 24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`Copying ............................................................................................ 25
`1.
`Petitioner's Access to the ’011 Patented Technology ........... 25
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner's Devices Embody The Challenged Claims .......... 27
`
`Commercial Success ........................................................................ 30
`Licensing .......................................................................................... 31
`The Nexus Between The Challenged Claims And The
`Objective Evidence of Non-Obviousness ........................................ 32
`
`40618337.2
`
`i
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,
`944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ……………………………………………….…...32
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)……………………………………..………………..2
`
`Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013)…………………………………………....……....31
`
`J.T. Eaton & Co. v. ATl. Paste & Glue Co.,
`106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997)…………………………………………………....33
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)………………………………………………………………..2
`
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) …………………...………...32-33
`
`Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.,
`941 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2019)……………………………………………...…….25
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`774 F.2d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 1985)………………………………………………...….25
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)………………………………………………........12
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)………………………………………………........12
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012))………………………………………………..….24
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016)………………………………………...24, 25, 30, 33
`
`40618337.2
`
`ii
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0003
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`2011
`
`2012
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`2019
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Memorandum Opinion & Order Denying the Motion to Transfer
`Venue of Defendants Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., Aruba
`
`Networks, LLC and Cisco Systems,Inc., Filed February 16, 2022
`
`Memorandum Opinion & Order Denying Apple Inc.'s Motion to
`Transfer Venue filed February 24, 2022 (Public Version) (W.D.
`Tex
`
`Patent Cases, January
`
`2017-September 2021
`
`Cases, January
`
`2017-September 2021
`
`Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss Claims of Patent Owner and Cisco Systems, Inc. with Prejudice (E.D. Tex.
`
`
`
`24, 2022 (W.D. Tex
`Claim Construction Order filed February
`Claim Construction Order March 23, 2022 (W.D. Tex.
`Complaint for Patent Infringement filed May 25, 2021 (W.D.
`Tex.
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order March 14
`2022 (E.D. Tex.
`(E.D. Tex.
`BillJCo's Motion to Compel (Redacted Copy)
`Defendants, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and Aruba
`Networks, LLC’ Motion to Compel Discovery (Redacted Copy)
`_D. Tex.
`Affidavit of Service of Apple Inc. on May 28, 2021 (W.D. Tex.
`Affidavit of Service of Cisco Systems, Inc. on May 26, 2021 (E.D.
`Tex.
`Affidavit of Service of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company on
`May 25, 2021 (E.D. Tex
`Affidavit of Service of Aruba Networks on May 25, 2021 (E.D.
`Tex.
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement filed May 25, 2021 (Cisco
`System, Inc.)
`(E.D. Tex.
`
`40618337.2
`
`ill
`
`APPLE
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0004
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0004
`
`

`

`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`2029
`2030
`2031
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement filed May 25, 2021 (Hewlett
`Packard Enterprise Company and Aruba Networks, LLC (E.D.
`Tex.)
`Apple Inc.'s Final Invalidity Contentions (W.D. Tex.) (pp 1097-
`1421)
`Order regarding Apple Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (W.D. Tex.)
`Order regarding Mediation between Hewlett Packard Enterprise
`Company, Aruba Networks and Patent Owner (E.D. Tex.)
`Affidavit of Courtland C. Merrill in Support of Pro Hac Vice
`Admission Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 (c)
`Declaration of Jacob Sharony re ’011 Patent
`Deposition of Deposition of William R. Michalson dated October
`3, 2022 in IPR2022-00427 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent 10,292,011
`Amended Complaint and Select Exhibits [Northern District of
`California] (SEALED)
`Patent License Agreement (SEALED)
`Patent License Agreement (SEALED)
`Patent License Agreement (SEALED)
`Excerpts of U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`Video: “What's New in Core Location ‐ WWDC 2013 ‐ Videos ‐
`Apple Dev.mp4” [Produced Natively]
`Transcript Excerpt from Video “What’s New in Core Location –
`WWDC 2013 -Videos – Apple Dev.mp4” from:
`https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2013/307/ at
`[32:40 – 33:59] (accessed Apr. 22, 2021)
`Screen shot from video: “What's New in Core Location ‐
`WWDC 2013 ‐ Videos ‐ Apple Dev.mp4” at 34:18
`Getting Started with iBeacon
`[https://developer.apple.com/ibeacon/Getting-Started-with-
`iBeacon.pdf]
`
`40618337.2
`
`iv
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0005
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner BillJCo, LLC submits that Petitioner Apple, Inc. has not metits
`
`burden in demonstrating that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,292,011
`
`(“the ’011 patent”) are more likely than not invalid as obvious.
`
`Il.
`
`PETITIONER’S UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`
`Petitioner alleges the following groundsof unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 against independentclaims 1, 11 and 20 and dependentclaims 2-3, 9, 12-13
`
`and 19 of the ’011 patent. Pet. at 3.
`
`
`
`:
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Ribaudoin view of Evans*
`
`All of the grounds in the Petition are deficient in showing the challenged
`
`claims unpatentable. The challenged claimsof the 011 patent are not obvious over
`
`1EX1005.
`
`7EX1006.
`
`3EX1008.
`
`*EX1007.
`
`40618337.2
`
`APPLE
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0006
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0006
`
`

`

`Ribaudo (EX1005) in view of Lorincz (EX1006) as alleged in Ground 1, which
`
`affects and is dispositive of all remaining grounds in the Petition.
`
`Ribaudo fails to disclose “periodically beaconing outbound a broadcast
`
`unidirectional wireless data record for physically locating … one or more receiving
`
`user carried mobile data processing systems,” as recited by independent claims 1,
`
`11, and 20 of the ’011 patent. It would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to combine the periodic beaconing feature in Lorincz with the system
`
`disclosed in Ribaudo. Ribaudo also fails to disclose a wireless data record including
`
`“application context identifier data identifying location based content for presenting
`
`by a location based application of the receiving user”. Ribaudo additionally fails to
`
`disclose a location based application that “presents … location based content to the
`
`user interface of the receiving user”. Lastly, evidence of secondary considerations
`
`support a finding the Petition has not shown the challenged claims obvious.
`
`Petitioner has failed to provide an articulated reasoning with a rational
`
`underpinning to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006).) Accordingly, the Petition must be denied.
`
`Grounds 2 and 3 do not affect the deficiencies present in Ground 1. None of
`
`the remaining grounds affect the deficiencies in the Petition.
`
`40618337.2
`
`2
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0007
`
`

`

`III. THE ’011 PATENT
`
`The ’011 Patent is titled “System and Method for Location based Exchange
`
`Network.” EX1001. The invention “relates generally to location based services for
`
`mobile data processing systems, and more particularly to location based exchanges
`
`of data between distributed mobile data processing systems for locational
`
`applications.” EX1001 at 1:36-40.
`
`A. Written Specification
`
`The ’011 patent describes the need for a method for “enabling users to get
`
`location dependent features and functionality through having their mobile locations
`
`known, regardless of whether or not their MS [or Mobile data processing System]
`
`is equipped for being located. Also, new and modern location dependent features
`
`and functionality can be provided to a MS unencumbered by a connected service.”
`
`EX1001 at 3:65-4:3. The patent discloses new terminology, system and, method
`
`referred to as Location Based Exchange (LBX) which “provide server-free and
`
`server-less location dependent features and functionality.” EX1001 at 4:29-31.
`
`The ’011 Patent also discloses that “[i]t is an advantage [] enabling useful
`
`distributed applications without the necessity of having a service, and without the
`
`necessity of users and/or systems registering with a service. MSs interact as peers
`
`in preferred embodiments, rather than as clients to a common service (e.g. internet
`
`connected web service).” EX1001 at 4:62-67); see also EX1001 at 1:40-44.
`
`40618337.2
`
`3
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0008
`
`

`

`B.
`
`The Claim Language
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’011 patent recites:
`
`1. (a)5 A system including one or more sending data processing systems
`
`wherein each sending data processing system of the one or more sending data
`
`processing systems comprise:
`
`(b) one or more processors; and
`
`(c) memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions,
`
`wherein the one or more processors, based on the instructions, perform
`
`operations comprising:
`
`(d) periodically beaconing outbound a broadcast unidirectional
`
`wireless data record for physically locating in a region of the sending
`
`data processing system one or more receiving user carried mobile data
`
`processing systems, the broadcast unidirectional wireless data record
`
`received directly from the sending data processing system in each
`
`receiving user carried mobile data processing system of the one or more
`
`receiving user carried mobile data processing systems, and including:
`
`(e) no physical location coordinates of the sending data processing
`
`system;
`
`5 Element labeling, e.g., “(a),” has been added to the claim for ease of reference.
`
`40618337.2
`
`4
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0009
`
`

`

`(f) a data field containing a signal strength of the sending data
`
`processing system, and
`
`(g) application context identifier data identifying location based
`
`content for presenting by a location based application of the
`
`receiving user carried mobile data processing system to a user
`
`interface of the receiving user carried mobile data processing system
`
`(h) upon the receiving user carried mobile data processing system
`
`determining with a local memory maintained location based
`
`configuration monitored with background processing of the
`
`receiving user carried mobile data processing system during
`
`mobility of the receiving user carried mobile data processing system
`
`anticipating receipt of the broadcast unidirectional wireless data
`
`record having the application context identifier data in response to a
`
`user activating the location based application with the user interface
`
`of the receiving user carried mobile data processing system wherein
`
`the location based application:
`
`(i) invokes a location based API of the receiving user carried mobile
`
`data processing system for the location based configuration
`
`anticipating the receipt of the broadcast unidirectional wireless
`
`data record having the application context identifier data,
`
`40618337.2
`
`5
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0010
`
`

`

`(j) is notified upon the receipt of the broadcast unidirectional
`
`wireless data record having the application context identifier data
`
`configured in the location based configuration, and
`
`(k) presents the location based content to the user interface of the
`
`receiving user carried mobile data processing system, the location
`
`based content originating from another data processing system
`
`that is remote to both the sending data processing system and
`
`the receiving user carried mobile data processing system.
`
`EX1001 at 448:10-451:23 (bold and italics added).
`
`Independent claim 11 and 20 recite elements similar to claim 1. Claim 11
`
`requires a method and claim 20 calls for a non-transitory computer readable medium
`
`for performing a method similar to the system in claim 1.
`
`C.
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`“would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering,
`
`or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience,” and a [POSITA]
`
`“would have had a working knowledge of hardware and software for location
`
`tracking of mobile devices.” Further, “a person with additional education but less
`
`professional experience may still qualify as a [POSITA], and a person with
`
`additional professional experience but less education may still qualify as a
`
`40618337.2
`
`6
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0011
`
`

`

`[POSITA].” EX1004 ¶ 41. Patent Owner does not contest this proposal. EX2025,
`
`Sharony Decl. ¶ 36.
`
`IV.
`
`PRIOR ART RELIED ON IN THE PETITION
`
`The Petition
`
`is based on
`
`the disclosures U.S. Publication No.
`
`2007/0030824A1
`
`to Ribaudo,
`
`titled “System and Method for Providing
`
`Communication Services to Mobile Device Users Incorporating Proximity
`
`Determination” (EX1005), in combination with Lorincz’s MoteTrack article
`
`(EX1006). See Ground 1, Pet. at 25-26.
`
`A.
`
`Ribaudo Patent Publication
`
`The Petition is based primarily on the disclosures of Ribaudo. Ribaudo
`
`generally relates to “a system and method for providing communication services to
`
`mobile device users incorporating proximity determination” by receiving network
`
`identifiers from mobile devices (e.g., first and second mobile devices). EX1005 ¶
`
`[0002]. Based on the received network identifiers, the system determines (by
`
`comparing the network identifiers) if the first and second mobile devices are in
`
`proximity to one another. EX2025, Sharony Decl. ¶ 39.
`
`Ribaudo also discloses embodiments where a mobile device broadcasts its
`
`client ID that may be used by other mobile devices to detect a match (of another
`
`person) in proximity. EX1005 ¶ [0046]. Further, “[received] signal strength may be
`
`used to narrow the range of other users in proximity, filtering out matches that are
`
`40618337.2
`
`7
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0012
`
`

`

`farther away.” Id. ¶ [0076]. Another example of using Bluetooth technology for
`
`proximity determination is described in [0149]. In this example, information
`
`regarding Bluetooth detection is sent to a data center that notifies users that they are
`
`in proximity. EX2025, Sharony Decl. ¶ 40.
`
`In sum, Ribaudo is not directed to location determination but rather to
`
`proximity determination. EX2025, Sharony Decl. ¶ 41. That is, the determination of
`
`being in proximity to other people rather than determining one’s location based on
`
`a beaconing device broadcasting a unidirectional wireless data record including
`
`location information – as taught by the asserted patents. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Lorincz “MoteTrack” Paper
`
`Lorincz is titled “MoteTrack: A Robust, Decentralized Approach to RF-Based
`
`Location Tracking.” EX1006. MoteTrack is based on low-power radio transceivers
`
`coupled with a modest amount of computation and storage capabilities. EX2025,
`
`Sharony Decl. ¶ 43. It does not rely upon any back-end server or network
`
`infrastructure, and the location of each mobile node is computed using a received
`
`radio signal strength signature from numerous beacon nodes to a database of
`
`signatures that is replicated across the beacon nodes. Id. The MoteTrack location
`
`system is depicted below. Id.
`
`40618337.2
`
`8
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0013
`
`

`

`In MoteTrack, beacon nodes broadcast periodic beacon messages, which
`
`consist of a tuple of the format {sourceID, powerLevel}. EX2025, Sharony Decl. ¶
`
`44. sourceID is the unique identifier of the beacon node, and powerLevel is the
`
`transmission power level used to broadcast the message. Id. Each mobile node that
`
`wishes to use MoteTrack to determine its location listens for some period of time to
`
`acquire a signature, consisting of the set of beacon messages received over some
`
`time interval. Id. This signature is compared to reference signatures in a database,
`
`where each reference signature is associated with a known three-dimensional
`
`location (x, y, z). Id.
`
`40618337.2
`
`9
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0014
`
`

`

`The location estimation problem consists of a two-phase process: an offline
`
`collection of reference signatures followed by online location estimation. EX2025,
`
`Sharony Decl. ¶ 45. As in other signature-based systems, the reference signature
`
`database is acquired manually by a user with a laptop and a radio receiver. Id. Each
`
`reference signature, shown as gray dots in Fig. 1 above, consists of a set of signature
`
`tuples of the form {sourceID, powerLevel, meanRSSI}. Id. sourceID is the beacon
`
`node ID, powerLevel is the transmit power level of the beacon message, and
`
`meanRSSI is the mean received signal strength indication (RSSI) of a set of beacon
`
`messages received over some time interval. Id. Each signature is mapped to a known
`
`location by the user acquiring the signature database. Id. The location estimation is
`
`performed based on a mobile node’s received signature s and the reference signature
`
`set R by computing the signature distances, from s to each reference signature ri in
`
`the set R. Id.
`
`In contrast to the system and method described in the ’011 patent, the
`
`MoteTrack system does not transmit an application context identifier (e.g.,
`
`parameters Par1, Par2) based on which mobile user can determine its location (e.g.,
`
`if the application context identifier is Par1=3 and Par2=4, then the mobile user is in
`
`a department store in Madrid (Par1=3) in the shoes section (Par2=4)). EX2025,
`
`Sharony Decl. ¶ 46. Rather, the mobile user of Lorincz has to estimate its location
`
`based on distance computations of its received signature from a reference signature
`
`40618337.2
`
`10
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0015
`
`

`

`set. Id. Therefore, the two methods are fundamentally different. Id. In addition, for
`
`MoteTrack to work properly, several beacon nodes (three or more) are required. For
`
`example, one or two beacon nodes would not suffice as it would result in locationing
`
`ambiguity. Id. This is in stark contrast to the ’011 patent where a single beacon node
`
`is used to determine location. Id.
`
`V.
`
`ALL GROUNDS AND ALL CHALLENGED CLAIMS: PETITIONER
`HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT RIBAUDO IN COMBINATION
`WITH LORINCZ RENDERS OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS OF THE ’011 PATENT
`
`Petitioner’s analysis suffers from several fundamental flaws, and Petitioner
`
`has failed to show that any of the challenged claims are more likely than not
`
`unpatentable for obviousness. The Petition asserts in Ground 1 that Ribaudo in
`
`view of Lorincz renders obvious each challenged claim. Pet. at 22-53. The Petition,
`
`however, fails to demonstrate Ribaudo’s disclosure of multiple elements recited by
`
`independent claims 1, 11 and 20 of the ’011 patent. EX2025, Sharony Decl. ¶ 48.
`
`Nor have Petitioners demonstrated that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to
`
`combine Ribaudo with Lorincz. Id.
`
`A.
`
`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
`
`40618337.2
`
`11
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0016
`
`

`

`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 patentee disavows the
`
`full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner
`
`v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “To act
`
`as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the disputed
`
`claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. (internal quotations and
`
`citation omitted). “The inventor's written description of the invention, for example,
`
`is relevant and controlling insofar as it provides clear lexicography….” Id. at 1365-
`
`66 (internal quotations and citation omitted).
`
`Petitioner does not contend any lexicography or disavowal, and instead asserts
`
`that “the Challenged Claims do not require construction for the purpose of evaluating
`
`the prior art in this Petition.” Pet. at 13. Patent Owner agrees the terms and phrases
`
`in the challenged claims should be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary
`
`meanings. However, in view of Petitioner's arguments, certain wireless transmission
`
`terms of art at issue here require clarification.
`
`In determining the ordinary and customary meaning, the claim language
`
`“provide[s] substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. A patent's specification “is always highly relevant to the
`
`40618337.2
`
`12
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0017
`
`

`

`claim construction analysis” and usually “dispositive.” Id. at 1315. The construction
`
`that “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent's
`
`description of the invention” governs. Id.
`
`Courts may also consider extrinsic evidence, such as technical dictionaries
`
`and expert testimony, “if the court deems it helpful in determining the 'true meaning
`
`of language used in the patent claims'“ and it does not contradict the intrinsic
`
`evidence. Id. at 1318. Technical dictionaries, can be helpful resources during claim
`
`construction by providing insight into commonly accepted meanings of a term to
`
`those of skill in the art. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318.
`
`
`
`Expert testimony can be useful “to ensure that the court's understanding of the
`
`technical aspects of the patent is consistent with that of a person of skill in the art,
`
`or to establish that a particular term in the patent or the prior art has a particular
`
`meaning in the pertinent field.” Id. “However, conclusory, unsupported assertions
`
`by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court. Similarly, a
`
`court should discount any expert testimony ‘that is clearly at odds with the claim
`
`construction mandated by the claims themselves, the written description, and the
`
`prosecution history, in other words, with the written record of the patent.’“ Id.
`
`1.
`
`“Periodic beaconing”
`
`
`
`The claim term “periodic beaconing” is found in each of the challenged
`
`claims. Referring to claim 1, “period beaconing” is recited as:
`
`40618337.2
`
`13
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0018
`
`

`

`periodically beaconing outbound a broadcast unidirectional wireless
`data record for physically locating in a region of the sending data
`processing system one or more receiving user carried mobile data
`processing systems, the broadcast unidirectional wireless data record
`received directly from the sending data processing system in each
`receiving user carried mobile data processing system of the one or
`more receiving user carried mobile data processing systems, and
`including:
`
`EX1001 at 448:19-28 (bold, underline added).
`
`While Petitioner states that the claim terms should be afforded their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning, Petitioner offers no explanation as to what these plain and
`
`ordinary meanings may be, especially with respect to the “periodic beaconing”
`
`related term.
`
`The standard meaning of a “periodic” in the context of “periodic beaconing”
`
`a broadcast wireless data record between carrier mobile data processing systems
`
`means beaconing occurring or reoccurring at regular intervals.6
`
`
`
`The intrinsic evidence is commensurate with this plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The claims' use the term “periodic beaconing” consists of broadcasting in regularly
`
`6 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/periodic (periodic: “1 a. occurring
`
`or recurring at regular intervals, b. occurring repeatedly from time to time, 2 a.
`
`…repeated … cyclic b. … recurs at regular intervals”);
`
`https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/periodic (periodic: “happening regularly
`
`over a period of time”).
`
`40618337.2
`
`14
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0019
`
`

`

`reoccurring intervals. See e.g., claim 1 (“periodically beaconing outbound a
`
`broadcast unidirectional wireless data record from at least one sending data
`
`processing system for physically locating”); EX1001 at 449:35-37.
`
`Consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning, the '011 patent specification
`
`uses “periodic beaconing” consist with meaning broadcasting in regularly
`
`reoccurring intervals. EX1001 at 118:19-27. “FIG. 20 depicts a flowchart for
`
`describing a preferred embodiment of MS [mobile data processing systems]
`
`whereabouts broadcast processing . . . Thread(s) 1902 purpose is for the MS of FIG.
`
`20 processing (e.g. a first, or sending, MS) to periodically transmit whereabouts
`
`information to other MSs (e.g. at least a second, or receiving, MS) to use in locating
`
`themselves.” Id. (italics, bold added).
`
`Extrinsic evidence, in the form of expert testimony, further establishes that a
`
`“periodic beaconing” would have been understood by a POSITA to means
`
`beaconing occurring or reoccurring at regular intervals. Patent Owner's expert, Dr.
`
`Sharony, explains that “A POSITA would have understood the ‘periodic beaconing’
`
`required by the ’011 patent in accord with the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`term: beaconing occurring or reoccurring at regular intervals. EX2025, Sharony
`
`Decl. ¶ 50. Dr. Sharony’s expert testimony is also consistent with the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of “periodic beaconing.”; see also EX2026, Michalson Dep. at
`
`40618337.2
`
`15
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0020
`
`

`

`51:3-5 (“periodic really means regularly enough to be useful in the environment that
`
`it’s deployed in.”).
`
`This plain and ordinary meaning of “periodic beaconing” should be applied
`
`in this matter.
`
`B.
`
`All Grounds: Ribaudo fails to disclose “periodic beaconing” and it
`would not be obvious to combine Ribaudo with Lorincz
`
`The challenged claims of the ’011 patent are not obvious over Ribaudo
`
`(EX1005) in view of Lorincz (EX1006). Ribaudo fails to disclose “periodically
`
`beaconing outbound a broadcast unidirectional wireless data record for physically
`
`locating … one or more receiving user carried mobile data processing systems,” as
`
`recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 20 of the ’011 patent. It would not have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the periodic
`
`beaconing feature in Lorincz with the system disclosed in Ribaudo.
`
`1.
`
`Ribaudo Fails to Disclose “Periodic Beaconing”
`
`The Petition contends “a [POSITA] would have understood from Ribaudo that
`
`the beaconed signal containing … client ID and availability level of the user …
`
`would be periodically beaconed, since the purpose of the beacon is to broadcast
`
`signals that can be received by receivers in the beacon’s proximity, and those
`
`receivers can enter and leave the beacon’s coverage area without querying the
`
`beacon to initiate a broadcast.” EX1004 ¶ 77. However, Petitioner’s expert
`
`40618337.2
`
`16
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0021
`
`

`

`acknowledged in his deposition that Ribaudo does not expressly disclose periodic
`
`beaconing. EX2026 Michalson Dep. at 39:9-42:2.
`
`Petitioner’s expert notes that Ribaudo discloses that a “client ID may include
`
`a public ID that may be broadcast from mobile device 12 and used by mobile devices
`
`12 to detect a match in proximity.” EX1004 ¶ 76, quoting EX1005, ¶[0046] and
`
`citing ¶¶[0057], [0065]. Ribaudo also discloses the beaconed signal may contain
`
`availability level of the user of the sending mobile device. EX1004 ¶ 76, citing
`
`EX1005, ¶[0084]. However, the ’011 patent recites “periodically beaconing
`
`outbound a broadcast unidirectional wireless data record …” EX1001, claim 1; see
`
`also claims 11 and 20. A POSITA would have understood the “periodic beaconing”
`
`required by the ’011 patent in accord with the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`term: beaconing occurring or reoccurring at regular intervals. EX2025, Sharony
`
`Decl. ¶ 50; see also ¶¶ 49, 51, 52. Ribaudo does not disclose outbound periodic
`
`broadcast of a wireless data record. Id.
`
`Petitioner’s expert opines a POSITA would have understood that continuous
`
`broadcast caused “significant, and unnecessary power drain.” EX1004 ¶ 77.
`
`However, a beacon can transmit a signal either continuously or periodically, or even
`
`according to some deterministic or random distribution. EX2025, Sharony Decl. ¶
`
`51. Saving on battery power does not necessitate periodic transmission. Id. For
`
`example, the beacon can transmit a burst of beacons when the channel is clear (not
`
`40618337.2
`
`17
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1030 - PAGE 0022
`
`

`

`busy) and then backoff for a random time and start again if the channel is clear.
`
`Beaconing at irregular intervals--non-periodic beaconing—could be used to reduce
`
`power. Id. In other words, beaconing repeatedly (e.g., at irregular intervals due to
`
`busy channel, especially when many beacon devices are in the same area) does not
`
`mean or require beaconing periodically. Id.
`
`Petitioner’s expert argues that a POSITA would have understood periodically
`
`beaconing also reduces the risk of beacons interfering with one another because
`
`periodic beaconing reduces the amount of time than any particular beacon occupies
`
`a radio channel. EX1004 ¶ 77. However, in a busy channel (e.g., with many beacons
`
`active) periodicity might result in beacons stepping on each other, and therefore,
`
`some randomness is required to avoid collisions. EX2025, Sharony Decl. ¶ 52. This
`
`is a common practice in data networks where multiple nodes share the same channel.
`
`Id. Thus, a POSITA would avoid periodic beaconing within a network with many
`
`nodes sharing a channel. Id. For example, if there are 10’s of users beaconing in the
`
`same area (like in Ribaudo’s