UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BILLJCO LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`CASE: IPR2022-00426
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,761,804
`
`_______________________
`
`
`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 '804 PATENT ...................................................................................... 2
`IV. PETITIONER'S CITED PRIOR ART .......................................................... 7
`
`A. Himmelstein ....................................................................................... 7
`
`B. Myr ................................................................................................... 11
`
`C.
`Evans ................................................................................................ 12
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 13
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 13
`
`A.
`"Beaconed By The Sending Data Processing System" .................... 15
`
`B.
`"transmitting … the broadcast unidirectional wireless
`data record for receipt by a plurality of receiving
`mobile data processing system in a wireless vicinity of
`the sending data processing system …" ........................................... 18
`VII. NEITHER PETITIONER'S GROUNDS 1 OR 2
`RENDER THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS ............................................................ 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. GROUND 1: Himmelstein In Combination With Myr
`Fails To Render Any Challenged Claim Obvious .......................... 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Himmelstein In Combination With Myr Fails To
`Disclose The "Beaconed By The Sending Data
`Processing System" Limitation .............................................. 20
`
`Himmelstein And Myr Fail To Disclose The
`"Transmitting … The Broadcast Unidirectional
`Wireless Data Record For Receipt By A
`Plurality Of Receiving Mobile Data Processing
`
`40591577.1 
`
`i 
`
`

`

` 
`
`
`3.
`
`System In A Wireless Vicinity Of The Sending
`Data Processing System ......................................................... 23
`
`Petitioner's Reasons For Combining
`Himmelstein With Myr Are Insufficient ............................... 28
`
`
`
`
`VIII. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS
`
`DEMONSTRATES THE PATENTABILITY OF
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ................................................................ 32
`A.
`Copying ............................................................................................ 33
`1.
`Petitioner's Access to the '804 Patented Technology ............. 33
`2.
`Petitioner's Devices Embody The Challenged Claims .......... 35
`Commercial Success......................................................................... 38
`Licensing .......................................................................................... 39
`The Nexus Between The Challenged Claims And
`The Objective Evidence of Non-Obviousness ................................ 40
`
`B. GROUND 2: Petitioner's Ground 2 Is Inapplicable ......................... 31
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 42
`
`
`40591577.1 
`
`ii 
`
`

`

` 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................ 30, 31
`
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,
`
`944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................. 40
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City,
`
`383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684 (1966) ................................................................. 19
`
`In re Gartside,
`
`203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................. 19
`
`In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.,
`
`832 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 20
`
`Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................. 39
`
`J.T. Eaton & Co. v. ATl. Paste & Glue Co.,
`
`106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................. 41
`
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 at 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) ............................ 41
`
`Liqwd, Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.,
`
`941 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................. 33
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`
`774 F.2d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................................................. 33
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ..................................... 13, 14, 15
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC,
`
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 13
`
`
`40591577.1 
`
`iii 
`
`

`

` 
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.,
`
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................. 32
`
`United States v. Adams,
`
`383 U.S. 39, 86 S.Ct. 708 (1966) ............................................................... 19
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................... 32, 33, 38, 41
`
`
`Other Authority:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ........................................................................................... 13
`
`
`All emphasis supplied unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40591577.1 
`
`iv 
`
`

`

` 
`
`Exhibit
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`2017
`2018
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`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 (E.D. Tex.)
`Memorandum Opinion & Order Denying Apple Inc.'s
`Motion to Transfer Venue filed February 24, 2022 (Public
`Version) (W.D. Tex)
`LegalMetric District Report Texas Western District Court in
`Patent Cases, January 2017-September 2021
`LegalMetric District Report Texas Eastern District Court in
`Patent Cases, January 2017-September 2021
`Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss Claims of Patent
`Owner and Cisco Systems, Inc. with Prejudice (E.D. Tex.)
`Claim Construction Order filed February 24, 2022 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`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.)
`BillJCo's Motion to Compel (Redacted Copy) (E.D. Tex.)
`Defendants, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and
`Aruba Networks, LLC’ Motion to Compel Discovery
`(Redacted Copy) (E.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.)
`Apple Inc.'s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (W.D. Tex.)
`Defendants' Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (E.D. Tex.)
`First Amended Docket Control Order (E.D. Tex.)
`
`40591577.1 
`
`v 
`
`

`

` 
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`2026
`
`2027
`2028
`
`2029
`2030
`2031
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement filed May 25, 2021
`(Cisco System, Inc.) (E.D. Tex.)
`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 '804 Patent
`Deposition of Darryl Long dated September 29, 2022 in
`IPR2022-00426 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent 8,761,804
`Excerpts 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)
`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]
`
`40591577.1 
`
`vi 
`
`

`

` 
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple, Inc. ("Petitioner") filed its Petition ("Pet.") requesting inter partes
`
`review of claims 1 and 10-12 ("the Challenged Claims") of U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`(EX1001, "'804 Patent"). BillJCo, LLC ("Patent Owner") filed a Patent Owner's
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board")
`
`issued a decision granting institution on July 12, 2022. (Paper 16, "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 two Grounds for unpatentability. Each of Petitioner's
`
`Grounds is based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 asserting that the Challenged Claims are
`
`obvious.
`
`40591577.1 
`
`1 
`
`

`

` 
`
` Ground 1 asserts each of the Challenged Claims is obvious in view of
`
`U.S. Patent 7,123,926 ("Himmelstein") (EX1005) in combination with
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0014181 ("Myr") (EX1006).
`
` Ground 2 asserts each of the Challenged Claims is obvious in view of
`
`Himmelstein in view of Myr, and further in view of U.S. Patent
`
`6,327,535 ("Evans") (EX1007).
`
`
`
`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, and additional evidence submitted
`
`herewith further establishes the patentability of the Challenged Claims.
`
`III. THE '804 PATENT
`
`
`
`The '804 Patent was issued on June 24, 2014. The '804 Patent is entitled
`
`"System and Method for Location Based Exchanges of Data Facilitating Distributed
`
`Locational Applications." The '804 Patent states:
`
`The present disclosure 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. A common connected service is not
`required for location based functionality and features. Location
`based exchanges of data between distributed mobile data
`processing systems enable location based features and functionality
`in a peer to peer manner. Ex. 1001, col. 1:20-27.
`
`Websites yahoo.com, google.com, ebay.com, amazon.com, and
`iTunes.com have demonstrated well the ability to provide valuable
`
`40591577.1 
`
`2 
`
`

`

` 
`
`
`
`services to a large dispersed geographic audience through the internet
`…. Advantages of having a service as the intermediary point between
`clients, users, and systems, and their associated services, includes
`centralized processing, centralized maintaining of data, for example to
`have an all knowing database for scope of services provided, having a
`supervisory point of control, providing an administrator with access to
`data maintained by users of the web service, and other advantages
`associated with centralized control. Id. at col. 1:32-46.
`
`While a centralized service has its advantages, there are also
`disadvantages. A service becomes a clearinghouse for all web service
`transactions. Regardless of the number of threads of processing spread
`out over hardware and processor platforms, the web service itself can
`become a bottleneck causing poor performance for timely response, and
`can cause a large amount of data that must be kept for all connected
`users and/or systems. Id. at col. 1:66-2:6.
`
`It is an advantage herein to have no centralized service governing
`location based features and functionality among MSs. Avoiding a
`centralized service prevents performance issues, infrastructure costs,
`and solves many of the issues described above. Id. at col. 4:24-28.
`
`is an advantage herein for enabling useful distributed
`It
`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). Id. at col.
`4:36-41.
`
`The Challenged Claims, claims 1 and 10-12, are set forth below:
`
`1. A method by a sending data processing system, the method
`comprising:
`
`accessing, by the sending data processing system, identity
`information for describing an originator identity associated with the
`sending data processing system;
`
`accessing, by the sending data processing system, application
`information for an application in use at the sending data processing
`
`40591577.1 
`
`3 
`
`

`

` 
`
`system; accessing, by the sending data processing system, location
`information associated with the sending data processing system;
`
`accessing, by the sending data processing system, reference
`information for further describing the location information associated
`with the sending data processing system; preparing, by the sending data
`processing system, a broadcast unidirectional wireless data record
`including:
`the identity information for describing the originator
`
`identity associated with the sending data processing system,
`
`the application information for the application in use at the
`sending data processing system,
`
`the location information associated with the sending data
`processing system, and
`
`the reference information for further describing the
`location information associated with the sending data processing
`system;
`the sending data processing system, a
`maintaining, by
`
`configuration for when to perform beaconing of the broadcast
`unidirectional wireless data record; and
`
`transmitting, by the sending data processing system, the
`broadcast unidirectional wireless data record for receipt by a plurality
`of receiving mobile data processing systems in a wireless vicinity of the
`sending data processing system wherein the broadcast unidirectional
`wireless data record is beaconed by the sending data processing system
`in accordance with the configuration for when to perform beaconing,
`and wherein the broadcast unidirectional wireless data record includes
`at least:
`the identity information for describing the originator
`
`identity associated with the sending data processing system
`wherein the identity information is for an alert determined by
`each receiving mobile data processing system of the plurality of
`receiving mobile data processing systems that the each receiving
`mobile data processing system is in the wireless vicinity of the
`sending data processing system,
`
`the application information for the application in use at the
`sending data processing system,
`
`40591577.1 
`
`4 
`
`

`

` 
`
`the location information associated with the sending data
`
`processing system to be used by the each receiving mobile data
`processing system for determining their own location relative to
`the location information, and
`
`the reference information for further describing the
`location information associated with the sending data processing
`system for describing to the each receiving mobile data
`processing system useful information associated with the
`sending data processing system.
`
`
`10. The method of claim 1 wherein the broadcast unidirectional
`wireless data record includes information that is processed by the each
`receiving mobile data processing system for determining by the each
`receiving mobile data processing system what to present to a user
`interface.
`
`11. The method of claim 1 wherein the broadcast unidirectional
`wireless data record includes at least one of:
`
`information for a location technology used to locate the
`sending data processing system,
`
`information for a triangulation measurement associated
`with the sending data processing system,
`
`information for a time difference of arrival measurement
`associated with the sending data processing system,
`
`information for a time of arrival measurement associated
`with the sending data processing system,
`
`information for an angle of arrival measurement
`associated with the sending data processing system,
`
`information for a yaw measurement associated with the
`sending data processing system,
`
`information for a pitch measurement associated with the
`sending data processing system,
`
`information for a roll measurement associated with the
`sending data processing system,
`
`information for an accelerometer measurement associated
`with the sending data processing system,
`
`40591577.1 
`
`5 
`
`

`

` 
`
`information for a communications signal strength of a
`
`transmission associated with the sending data processing system,
`
`information for a communications wave spectrum
`characteristic of a transmission associated with the sending data
`processing system,
`
`information for a communications wave spectrum class of
`a transmission associated with the sending data processing
`system,
`
`information for a communications wave spectrum
`frequency of a transmission associated with the sending data
`processing system,
`
`information associated with a wireless data record
`received by the sending data processing system from a particular
`data processing system,
`
`information maintained by an application associated with
`the sending data processing system,
`
`information for an application in use at the sending data
`processing system,
`
`information for an application context of an application
`associated with the sending data processing system,
`
`information for a navigation Application Programming
`Interface associated with the sending data processing system,
`
`information for a situational location associated with the
`sending data processing system,
`
`information for a speed associated with the sending data
`processing system,
`
`information for a heading associated with the sending data
`processing system,
`
`time information associated with the sending data
`processing system,
`
`information for a service condition associated with the
`sending data processing system,
`
`information for a physical address associated with the
`sending data processing system,
`
`40591577.1 
`
`6 
`
`

`

` 
`
`information for a logical address associated with the
`
`sending data processing system,
`
`information for a user configuration associated with the
`sending data processing system,
`
`information for monitoring movement of the sending data
`processing system,
`
`information for an identifier associated with the sending
`data processing system, or
`
`information in accordance with one or more permissions
`configured by a user associated with the sending data processing
`system.
`
`
`12. The method of claim 1 wherein the broadcast unidirectional
`wireless data record includes information that can be processed
`according to a user configured permission maintained at the each
`receiving mobile data processing system.
`
`
`See EX1001 at col. 117:60-120:25.
`
`IV. PETITIONER'S CITED PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`In Ground 1, Petitioner relies on the combination of two references,
`
`Himmelstein (EX1005) and Myr (EX1006). In Ground 2, Petitioner repeats its
`
`contentions from Ground 1, and further incorporates Evans (EX1006), but only in
`
`the event that the Board gives a particular meaning for the claim term "wireless data
`
`record"; a meaning that is not being suggested by either party. Each of the relied-on
`
`prior art references is discussed briefly herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Himmelstein
`
`Himmelstein (EX1005) is directed to " a mobile communication system which
`
`allows mobile vehicles to communicate with neighboring vehicles and roadside
`
`40591577.1 
`
`7 
`
`

`

` 
`
`communication networks." Id. at col. 1:16-21. Himmelstein describes the disclosed
`
`system to be an improvement over existing technologies.
`
`
`
`In the Background, Himmelstein explains the shortcomings of existing
`
`technologies, and particularly "CB or two-way radio[s]" and cell phones.
`
`include cellular
`Conventional mobile communication systems
`telephones and CB or two-way radio. When using a cell phone as a
`means of mobile communication, there is no practical way of
`discovering whether a neighboring vehicle operator possesses a cell
`phone. Additionally, there is no process for determining the phone
`number of the targeted cell phone. Accordingly, the cell phone as a
`communication medium is severely limited.
`
`CB radio is a widely broadcast public medium where mobile users may
`talk to other mobile or stationary users in their vicinity. However, since
`there is no ability to prevent others from listening, there is no privacy
`between mobile communicators.
`
` …
`
` The limitations of present forms of communication are even more
`severe when considering the extent to which a communication link can
`improve both the driving experience and the safety statistics of modern
`vehicles.
`
`EX1005, col. 1:28-49. Referring to Fig. 1, Himmelstein explains its system intended
`
`to address the shortcomings of the prior art CB radios and cell phones.
`
`40591577.1 
`
`8 
`
`

`

` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The vehicle communication system 10 generally includes one or more
`base stations 14, each of which is in wireless communication with a
`plurality of remote units 16. Although the remote units 16 may be fixed
`or mobile, they will be referred to hereinafter for simplicity as mobile
`units 16. Each mobile unit 16 can communicate with another mobile
`unit 16, the closest base station 14, or the base station 14 which provides
`the strongest communication signal. The base stations 14 communicate
`with a base station controller 20, which coordinates communications
`among base stations 14 and mobile units 16. … [T]he base station
`controller 20 provides all of the operations, administrative, and
`maintenance (OA&M) signaling associated with establishing and
`maintaining all of the wireless communications between the mobile
`units 16, the base stations 14, and the base station controller 20.
`The base station controller 20 can provide the routing of all
`communications between mobile units 16, and between the mobile
`units 16 and the PSTN 22. The base station controller 20 also provides
`an interface between the mobile units 16 and the PSTN 22. Id. at col.
`2:60-3:21.
`
`"Communications between mobile units 16 using the vehicle communication
`
`system 10 are accomplished through a stream of transmitted communication packets
`
`50. As shown in FIG. 3A, each communication packet 50 includes a header 51 and
`
`40591577.1 
`
`9 
`
`

`

` 
`
`a payload 53. The header 51 includes a plurality of predefined information fields
`
`which provide information regarding the particular communication, the sender
`
`which originated the communication, and the receiver to which the
`
`communication is destined." Id. at col. 4:32-41.
`
`
`
`"The base station controller 20 routes all of the communication packets
`
`50 to the specified addresses, either to one or more mobile unit operators, one or
`
`more outside entities, or both." Id. at col. 7:21-24. "This routing function is the same
`
`as an Internet router, whereby the destination address or addresses are read by the
`
`router and the communication packet 50 is forwarded to those addresses. If the
`
`communication packet 50 is to be forwarded to multiple addresses or broadcast to
`
`all addresses, the base station controller 20 provides such a routing function." Id. at
`
`col. 7:25-30. "The base station controller 20 may also confirm to sender whether or
`
`not a signal has been received by the recipient. In an alternative embodiment, each
`
`communication may require a confirmation packet be sent from the recipient to the
`
`sender to provide the confirmation." Id. at col. 7:32-39. As such, in the primary
`
`embodiment from Himmelstein, mobile devices do no communicate directly with
`
`any other mobile devices. EX2025, ¶¶ 43-46.
`
`
`
`In one embodiment, Himmelstein teaches an architecture where "the system
`
`10 can also use technology similar to Bluetooth wireless technology. Using
`
`technology such as Bluetooth allows mobile units and base stations to communicate
`
`40591577.1 
`
`10 
`
`

`

` 
`
`through other mobile units and base units (i.e., repeaters). This permits a wireless
`
`interconnect between mobile devices, and between mobile devices and their
`
`peripherals. The mobile devices can form a secure piconet and communicate among
`
`the connected devices. Accordingly, using this technology, mobile units 16 can talk
`
`directly to other mobile units 16 without the intervention of the base stations 14 and
`
`the base station controller 20." EX1005, col. 7:40-52. In a piconet, one device serves
`
`as a master that is connected to up to 7 slave devices. EX2025, ¶ 45-46.1 Like the
`
`primary embodiment, all communications go through the master device, which
`
`switches communications between slaves. Id. As such, there is no direct
`
`communication between slave devices, which in this Himmelstein are the mobile
`
`units. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Myr
`
`Myr is entitled "Traffic Information Gathering via Cellular Phone Networks
`
`for Intelligent Transportation Systems." EX1006, cover. As explained, the system of
`
`Myr "relates generally to traffic control systems. More specifically, the present
`
`invention relates to a traffic information gathering system using cellular phone
`
`networks for automated intelligent traffic signal control." EX1006, Abstract. The
`
` 
`1  See, e.g., https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/piconets;
`https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5081/piconet;
`https://www.tutorialspoint.com/what-is-piconet.  
`11 
`
`40591577.1 
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition relies on Myr for its purported teaching of beaconed transmissions. Pet. at
`
`42.
`
`
`
`The system of Myr gathers data from cell phones in an existing cellular
`
`network. The Myr system uses various algorithms to analyze the data from the
`
`cellular network provider's cell phones to control traffic lights. EX1006, ¶ [0035-
`
`43]; EX2025, ¶¶ 47-48. Just by way of example, Myr states:
`
`The present invention proposes a system and method that overcomes
`the shortcomings of conventional traffic data gathering systems by
`utilizing the general wireless (cellular) telephone information network
`data. The exemplary system and method is equally compatible with the
`GSM, CDMA or PDC wireless telephone systems, since it does not
`depend on system specific features. The data from moving vehicles is
`collected and fed into the system continuously. The system filters and
`cleans the data by applying intelligent heuristic algorithms and
`produces information on traffic situations in real time that can be
`supplied to automated traffic controllers. This eliminates the need for
`developing a dedicated mobile wireless information gathering fleet
`or other high cost devices requiring a large amount of personnel and
`long reaction times for traffic events such as accidents and traffic
`congestion.
`
`C.
`
`Evans
`
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner's reliance on Evans is contingent upon the Board utilizing a
`
`particular claim construction for "wireless data record." In particular, Petitioner
`
`states that "in a Related Litigation, Petitioner Apple has asserted that the claimed
`
`wireless data record should be construed to require 'at least a date/time stamp field,
`
`a location field, and a confidence field.' … While Petitioners do not believe that
`
`40591577.1 
`
`12 
`
`

`

` 
`
`wireless data record needs construction in this proceeding, to the extent the Board
`
`requires these fields in the wireless data record, they are taught by Evans." Pet. at
`
`60. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contends that "wireless data record" should
`
`be construed in the manner contemplated by Petitioner. 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
`
`equivalent, and two years of professional experience, and would have a working
`
`knowledge of hardware and software for location tracking of mobile devices. Pet. at
`
`8. 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 patentee disavows the
`
`full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution." Thorner
`
`40591577.1 
`
`13 
`
`

`

` 
`
`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 should be interpreted according to their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning." Pet. at 6. 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
`
`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. The prosecution history may also
`
`"provide[] evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent." Id. at
`
`1317.
`
`40591577.1 
`
`14 
`
`

`

` 
`
`
`
`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