Filed on Behalf of: Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`
` Apple Inc.
`
`
` Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co.
`
`
` Aruba Networks, LLC
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`APPLE INC.,
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE CO.,
` ARUBA NETWORKS, LLC
`
`Petitioners,
`
`- vs. -
`
`BILLJCO, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,761,804
`
`Case No.: IPR2022-00426
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest .......................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters .................................................................................... 1 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ......................... 1 
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 3 
`II. 
`III.  REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................. 3 
`IV.  REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF ............................................ 3 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’804 PATENT .......................................................... 4 
`A. 
`Summary of the ’804 Patent ................................................................ 4 
`B. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 6 
`C. 
`Priority Date ........................................................................................ 7 
`VI.  STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES ....................................... 7 
`VII.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 8 
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 8 
`IX.  STATE OF THE ART PRIOR TO THE ’804 PATENT .............................. 9 
`A.  Device-Locating Concepts, Including Periodically Beaconing
`Data to Locate Mobile Devices, Were Well-Known Long Before
`the ’804 Patent. .................................................................................... 9 
`Himmelstein ...................................................................................... 10 
`B. 
`C.  Myr .................................................................................................... 13 
`D. 
`Evans ................................................................................................. 16 
`E. 
`General Knowledge of a POSA ........................................................ 18 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`
`X.  GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1 AND 10-12 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF HIMMELSTEIN AND
`MYR. 19 
`A.  Motivation to Combine Himmelstein and Myr ................................. 19 
`B. 
`Claim 1 .............................................................................................. 22 
`1. 
`Element [1.0] ........................................................................... 22 
`2. 
`Element [1.1] ........................................................................... 23 
`3. 
`Element [1.2] ........................................................................... 27 
`4. 
`Element [1.3] ........................................................................... 30 
`5. 
`Element [1.4] ........................................................................... 31 
`6. 
`Element [1.5] ........................................................................... 35 
`7. 
`Element [1.6] ........................................................................... 36 
`8. 
`Element [1.7] ........................................................................... 36 
`9. 
`Element [1.8] ........................................................................... 37 
`10.  Element [1.9] ........................................................................... 37 
`11.  Element [1.10] ......................................................................... 38 
`12.  Element [1.11] ......................................................................... 41 
`13.  Element [1.12] ......................................................................... 43 
`14.  Element [1.13] ......................................................................... 45 
`15.  Element [1.14] ......................................................................... 45 
`16.  Element [1.15] ......................................................................... 47 
`Claim 10 ............................................................................................ 50 
`Claim 11 ............................................................................................ 52 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`
`
`Element [11.0] ......................................................................... 52 
`1. 
`Element [11.19] ....................................................................... 53 
`2. 
`Element [11.20] ....................................................................... 54 
`3. 
`Element [11.21] ....................................................................... 55 
`4. 
`Element [11.28] ....................................................................... 57 
`5. 
`Claim 12 ............................................................................................ 57 
`E. 
`XI.  GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1 AND 10-12 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF HIMMELSTEIN, MYR
`AND EVANS. ............................................................................................. 59 
`A. 
`Claim 1 .............................................................................................. 59 
`B. 
`Claims 10-12 ..................................................................................... 63 
`XII.  OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS .................................... 63 
`XIII.  DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER § 325(D) OR § 314(A) IS NOT
`WARRANTED ............................................................................................ 64 
`XIV.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 70 
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 64
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB March 20, 2020) .............................. 62, 64, 65
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00204, Paper 11 (PTAB June 19, 2020) ............................................. 67
`BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-528 (W.D. Tex.) ....................................................................... 1
`BillJCo, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-181 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................ 1
`BillJCo, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., et al.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-183 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................ 1
`Dish Network LLC v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01280, Paper 17 (PTAB Feb. 4, 2021) ................................................ 64
`Dish Network LLC v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01359, Paper 15 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2021) .............................................. 63
`Ex Parte Jung IPR2016-8290 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017) ............................................ 51
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`6:21-CV-00926-ADA, Dkt. 412, Order (W.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2021) .................... 65
`
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
`IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ............................................................... 62
`Mylan Pharma. Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH,
`IPR2018-01680, Paper 22 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2019) ............................................... 63
`Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC,
`IPR2014-01478, Paper 18 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2015) ............................................. 61
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) ............................................................ 8
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking
`LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ................................. 63, 64, 67
`Sega of Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01453, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2015) ............................................. 61
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. 282(b) ........................................................................................................ 8
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 7, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................. 7, 8
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .............................................................................................. 61, 62
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) ............................................................................................... 66
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) ............................................................................................. 63
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .............................................................................................. 61, 62
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 1.312 ....................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340, Vol. 83, No. 197 (Oct. 11, 2018) .............................................. 8
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 2111.03(I) ................................................ 50
`MPEP 2131 .............................................................................................................. 51
`MPEP 2143.03 ................................................................................................... 51, 58
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,761,804 (“the ’804 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,761,804
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Darrell D.E. Long
`
`Declaration of Darrell D.E. Long, dated January 14, 2022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,123,926 (“Himmelstein”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0014181 (“Myr”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,327,535 (“Evans”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,600,341
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,600,341
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0030824 (“Ribaudo”)
`
`BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-528, Apple, Inc.’s
`Opening Claim Construction Brief, Dkt. No. 32 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 2,
`2021)
`BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-528, Agreed
`Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 27 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 2021)
`BillJCo, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-181, BillJCo, LLC
`v. Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co. and Aruba Networks, Case No.
`2:21-cv-183, Docket Control Order, Dkt. No. 44 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25,
`2021)
`Dufresne, A., et al., How Reliable are Trial Dates Relied on by the
`PTAB in the Fintiv Analysis? (Oct. 29, 2021)
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-926-ADA, Order (Oct. 4,
`2021)
`BillJCo, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-181, Cisco
`Systems Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue, Dkt. No. 36 (E.D. Tex.
`Oct. 11, 2021)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`BillJCo, LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co. and Aruba
`Networks, Case No. 2:21-cv-183, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise
`Company’s and Aruba Networks, LLC’s Opposed Motion to Transfer
`Venue to the Northern District of California Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404,
`Dkt. No. 34 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2021)
`BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-528, Defendant’s
`Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims of Willful Infringement as to
`Each Patents-in-Suit and Plaintiff’s Claims of Indirect Infringement
`as to Each Patents-in-Suit, Dkt. No. 16 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2021)
`BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-528, Apple Inc.’s
`Opposed Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404,
`Dkt. No. 26 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2021)
`Curriculum Vitae listing Prior Litigation Engagements for Darrell
`D.E. Long
`Jackson, C., Radar and LORAN, Popular Electronics (July 1959)
`
`Letter from Krishnan Padmanabhan, dated January 14, 2022
`
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Hewlett Packard
`
`Enterprise Co. (“Hewlett Packard”) and Aruba Networks, LLC (“Aruba”) are the
`
`petitioners (“Petitioners”), and each is a real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`U.S. Patent No. 8,761,804 (“the ’804 Patent”) is asserted in BillJCo, LLC v.
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-181 (E.D. Tex.); BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-528 (W.D. Tex.); and BillJCo, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise
`
`Co., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-183 (E.D. Tex.) (each individually a “Related
`
`Litigation” and collectively “the Related Litigations”).
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Phone: 404-954-5040
`Jeffrey D. Blake
`Fax: 612-332-9081
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`jblake@merchantgould.com
`191 Peachtree Street NE
`USPTO Reg. No. 58,884
`Suite 3800
`
`Atlanta, GA 30303
`
`
`Phone: 404-954-5040
`Back-up Counsel
`D. Kent Stier
`Fax: 612-332-9081
`kstier@merchantgould.com
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,640
`191 Peachtree Street NE
`Suite 3800
`
`Atlanta, GA 30303
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Larissa S. Bifano
`DLA PIPER
`33 Arch Street 26th Floor
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1447
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1750 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`Rose C. Prey
`(pro hac vice forthcoming)
`Greenburg Traurig, LLP
`One Vanderbilt Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`
`Elana B. Araj
`Greenburg Traurig, LLP
`One Vanderbilt Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`
`Kathryn E. Albanese
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`One Vanderbilt Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`Phone: 617-406-6013
`larissa.bifano@dlapiper.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 59,051
`
`
`Phone: 703-749-1370
`Fax: 703-749-1301
`SommerA@gtlaw.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 53,932
`
`Phone: 212-801-6473
`Fax: 212-801-6400
`PreyR@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel at
`
`BilljcoIPR@merchantgould.com and counsel of record (shown above). Petitioners
`
`consent to electronic service.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’804 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 and
`
`10-12) of the ’804 Patent, and that the Director cancel them as unpatentable.
`
`IV. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`The Challenged Claims of the ’804 Patent would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) and are therefore unpatentable. The ’804
`
`Patent claims recite nothing more than an obvious combination of elements relating
`
`to a method for preparing a “broadcast unidirectional wireless data record”
`
`containing location-based content on a “sending data processing system” and then
`
`“beaconing” that wireless data record to “mobile data processing systems” in a
`
`“wireless vicinity” of the sending system. EX1001, 117:60-118:52.
`
`This Petition’s showing that the cited art renders the Challenged Claims
`
`unpatentable is supported by the Declaration of Darrell D.E. Long, a Distinguished
`
`Professor of Engineering at the University of California, Santa Cruz. EX1004, ¶¶1-
`
`11. He is familiar with the state of the art relating to location-based exchanges of
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`data since well before the ’804 Patent was filed and agrees with and supports the
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`showing herein that the claims at issue merely recite aspects of the art that have been
`
`long known. EX1004, ¶¶1-17, 20, 53-54, 129.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should institute trial, and the Director should cancel
`
`the Challenged Claims.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’804 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the ’804 Patent
`The ’804 Patent is one in a family of patents assigned to Patent Owner that
`
`“relat[e] generally to location based services for mobile data processing.” EX1001,
`
`1:20-24; EX1004, ¶¶21-28. The ’804 Patent describes how the rise of the internet
`
`led to a number of new service offerings, including services provided to “mobile
`
`data processing systems.” EX1001, 1:30-65; EX1004, ¶22. Common examples of
`
`mobile data processing systems include cell phones, laptops, and personal
`
`computers. Id., 3:7-17.
`
`The ’804 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, 2:23-26 EX1004, ¶23. The ’804 Patent explains that “[a]
`
`reasonable requirement is to push intelligence out to the mobile data processing
`
`systems themselves, for example, in knowing their own locations and perhaps the
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`locations of other nearby mobile data processing systems.” Id., 2:59-62. “Mobile
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`data processing systems can intelligently handle many of their own application
`
`requirements without depending on some remote service.” Id., 2:62-65. “Just as two
`
`people in a business organization should not need a manager to speak to each other,
`
`no two mobile data processing systems should require a service middleman for
`
`useful location dependent features and functionality.” Id., 2:65-3:2.
`
`The claims of the ’804 Patent recite a “sending data processing system,”
`
`which accesses four types of information: (1) “identity information for describing
`
`an originator identity associated with the sending data processing system,” (2)
`
`“application information for an application in use at the sending data processing
`
`system,” (3) “location information associated with the sending data processing
`
`system,” and (4) “reference information for further describing the location
`
`information associated with the sending data processing system.” EX1001, 117:60-
`
`118:7 EX1004, ¶¶25-28. The claims are not specific to whether the sending data
`
`processing system is a mobile data processing system, such as a cell phone, or a
`
`stationary data processing system, such as a cell tower. Id. The claims state that the
`
`four types of accessed information are combined into a “broadcast unidirectional
`
`wireless data record” by the sending data processing system. EX1001, 118:8-20. The
`
`sending data processing system maintains a “a configuration for when to perform
`
`beaconing of the broadcast unidirectional wireless data record.” Id., 118:21-23. The
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`broadcast unidirectional wireless data record is beaconed to “receiving mobile data
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`processing systems in a wireless vicinity of the sending data processing system. Id.,
`
`118:24-52.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The ’804 Patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 14/033,540 (“the
`
`’540 Application”) on September 23, 2013. It is a continuation of Application No.
`
`12/077,041 (“the ’041 Application”), filed March 14, 2008, now U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,600,341. EX1001; EX1008; EX1004, ¶29.
`
`The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued a first Office Action
`
`Notice of Allowance on January 6, 2014. EX1002 at 657-665. The Applicant then
`
`filed an Amendment under 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 on January 28, 2014 adding new
`
`dependent claims to independent Claim 21. EX1002 at 701-714. The PTO issued a
`
`Response to the Rule 312 Communication indicating that the Amendment under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.312 filed on January 28, 2014, was entered. Id. at 719-720. A second
`
`Notice of Allowance issued on May 15, 2014. Id. at 737-741; EX1004, ¶30.
`
`With respect to the parent ’041 Application, the Applicant emphasized that
`
`the invention in that application is directed to “unsolicited (one; unidirectional)
`
`communication flow capable of being used to locate a mobile system” in response
`
`to a rejection based on prior art. EX1009 at 528; EX1004, ¶31. Separately, in
`
`response to another rejection, the Patent Owner argued that the invention of the ’041
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`Application “discloses completely eliminating the requirement for a shared
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`centralized service,” which was a “radical departure from the state of the art of cloud
`
`and service industry methods.” Id. at 580, EX1004, ¶31. However, as demonstrated
`
`in the analysis set forth below in Section X, these features were well-known in the
`
`art. EX1004, ¶¶53-138.
`
`C.
`Priority Date
`Solely for the purposes of this Petition, Petitioners will assume that the
`
`priority date for the ’804 Patent is March 14, 2008, the filing date of the ’041
`
`Application to which the ’804 Patent claims priority. The prior art references relied
`
`upon by Petitioners in this Petition qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102 based on this priority date. EX1004, ¶32.
`
`VI. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1 and 10-12 of the ’804 Patent are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 7,123,926 (“Himmelstein”) in view of U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2003/0014181 (“Myr”).
`
`Himmelstein (EX1005) issued on October 17, 2006. Thus, Himmelstein
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Himmelstein
`
`published more than one year before the effective filing date of the ’804 Patent
`
`(March 14, 2008).
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`Myr (EX1006) was filed on July 10, 2001, and it published on January 16,
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`2003. Thus, Myr qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Myr
`
`published more than one year before the effective filing date of the ’804 Patent.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1 and 10-12 of the ’804 Patent are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Himmelstein in view of Myr and further in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,327,535 (“Evans”). Himmelstein and Myr qualify as prior art for the reasons stated
`
`above.
`
`Evans (EX1007) issued on December 4, 2001. Thus, Evans qualifies as prior
`
`art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Evans published more than one year
`
`before the effective filing date of the ’804 Patent.
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`As of March 14, 2008, a POSA had a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering or an equivalent, as well as two years of professional
`
`experience, and a POSA would have had a working knowledge of hardware and
`
`software for the beaconing of data to mobile devices. EX1004, ¶¶33-35. Lack of
`
`work experience can be remedied by additional education and vice versa. EX1004,
`
`¶34.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In inter partes review, claims are “construed using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claims must be given their ordinary and
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`customary meaning as understood by a POSA 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, Vol. 83, No. 197 (Oct. 11, 2018). Terms not specifically construed have
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSA. Here, Petitioners assert
`
`that the claim terms in the Challenged Claims do not require construction for the
`
`purpose of evaluating the prior art in this Petition. EX1004, ¶¶18-19, 52.
`
`IX. STATE OF THE ART PRIOR TO THE ’804 PATENT
`A. Device-Locating Concepts, Including Periodically Beaconing Data
`to Locate Mobile Devices, Were Well-Known Long Before the ’804
`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,
`
`¶¶36-40; EX1010; EX1021. One common technique for locating mobile devices
`
`involved using signals periodically sent (or “beaconed”) by nearby devices. Id., ¶38.
`
`The signals contain information that could be used to determine the mobile device’s
`
`location. Id. The device responsible for sending the signal could itself be a mobile
`
`device. Id. Alternatively, another device, such as a cell tower, satellite, or wireless
`
`networking device, sends the signal. Id. The mobile device that receives the signal
`
`may use the signal to ascertain information about its own location. Id. For example,
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`each sending device may beacon a signal to nearby mobile devices that identifies the
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`sending device to the mobile devices and informs the mobile device of the distance
`
`between the two devices. See id., ¶¶38-39; EX1010.
`
`With the adoption and spread of techniques for determining the location of
`
`mobile devices, it additionally became desirable and more common to build
`
`functionality for the mobile devices that would allow those devices to make use of
`
`the knowledge of their location. EX1004, ¶40. For instance, applications installed
`
`on the receiving mobile devices could customize the application user’s experience
`
`based on the user’s location. Id. In the example described above (i.e., a sending
`
`device that beacons a signal to nearby mobile devices), the receiving mobile device
`
`could use the knowledge of its own location 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.; EX1010.
`
`Dr. Long’s declaration provides additional background information regarding
`
`these types of location based exchanges of data between mobile devices. EX1004,
`
`¶¶36-40.
`
`B. Himmelstein
`Himmelstein is entitled “System and method for providing information to
`
`users based on the user’s location” and relates to “providing an advisory
`
`communication to a user via a mobile unit [that] includes locating means for locating
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`the position of the mobile unit and sending means for sending a communication to
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`the mobile unit.” EX1005, Abstract; EX1004, ¶¶41-45. “More particularly, the
`
`invention relates to a mobile communication system which allows mobile vehicles
`
`to communicate with neighboring vehicles and roadside communication networks.”
`
`EX1005, 1:18-21. Figure 1, reproduced below, shows Himmelstein’s mobile
`
`communications system:
`
`Annotated Figure 1 of Himmelstein
`
`
`
`EX1005, 2:59-60; EX1004, ¶43.
`
`As shown in Figure 1, Himmelstein’s “vehicle communication system 10
`
`generally includes one or more base stations 14, each of which is in wireless
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`communication with a plurality of remote units 16.” EX1005, 2:60-63; EX1004, ¶43.
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`“Although the remote units 16 may be fixed or mobile, they will be referred to
`
`hereinafter for simplicity as mobile units 16.” EX1005, 2:63-65. “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.” Id., 2:65-3:1.
`
`Himmelstein teaches that “[c]ommunications between mobile units 16 using
`
`a vehicle communication system 10 are accomplished through a stream of
`
`transmitted communication packets 50.” EX1005, 4:31-33; EX1004, ¶44. A
`
`“microprocessor 40 provides central control of a mobile unit 16.” EX1005, 3:62-63.
`
`Microprocessor 40, shown below in Figure 2, “also performs packet handling,
`
`including packet assembling for outgoing communication packets 50. . . .” Id., 3:64-
`
`66.
`
`Annotated Figure 2 of Himmelstein
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`As shown below in Figure 3A of Himmelstein, each communication packet
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`50 includes a header 51 and a payload 53. EX1005, 4:33-35; EX1004, ¶44.
`
`Annotated Figure 3A of Himmelstein
`
`
`
`Further, as shown in Figure 3B, header 51 includes “a plurality of information fields
`
`which can be generally categorized by three different functional groups: 1)
`
`transmission administrative information 55; 2) sender information 56; and 3)
`
`receiver information 57.” EX1005, 4:52-56; EX1004, ¶44.
`
`Annotated Figure 3B of Himmelstein
`
`
`
`C. Myr
`Myr is entitled “Traffic information gathering via cellular phone networks for
`
`intelligent transportation systems.” EX1006. The invention disclosed in Myr “relates
`
`generally to traffic control systems.” EX1006, ¶[0001]; EX1004, ¶¶46-48. “More
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`specifically, the present invention relates to a traffic information gathering system
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`using cellular phone networks for automated intelligent traffic signal control.”
`
`EX1006, ¶[0001]. “The present invention comprises an intelligent data gathering
`
`and processing system based on existing cellular phone networks, and utilizes real
`
`time cell phone position data for reconstructing concurrent traffic conditions.”
`
`EX1006, ¶[0037]. This is accomplished by “measuring the signals traveling between
`
`a moving cell phone and a fixed set of base stations.” EX1006, ¶[0036].
`
`Figure 1 of Myr is “a flow diagram of an exemplary embodiment of the
`
`inventive cell phone gathering system showing the main steps of data exchange
`
`flow.” EX1006, ¶[0069]; EX1004, ¶47. “As shown in [Figure] 1, at Step 1, the cell
`
`phone records are obtained from the network operator for 100, 102, 104, 106, etc.”
`
`EX1006, ¶[0069], Figure 1 (reproduced below). Myr discloses a clear time for when
`
`the beaconing of records from the cell phones is performed to capture traffic data
`
`based on the location of cellphones. EX1006, ¶[0092]; EX1004, ¶47. According to
`
`Myr, “it is time and cost effective if the data are received in the form of periodic data
`
`packets in real time, such as, 1 to 3 minutes, for example.” EX1006, ¶[0092].
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`Annotated Figure 1 of Myr
`
`
`
`“As shown in [Figure] 2, at each time period T, the Traffic Service Center
`
`(TSC) compiles a Current Phone List (CPL) consisting of cell phone records (in the
`
`sense defined above) of all available active cell phones in the system database
`
`according to their ID reference numbers.” EX1006, ¶[0096]; EX1004, ¶48. “At the
`
`next time period T1 a new CPL is similarly compiled and recorded, with the first
`
`CPL becoming the Previous Phone List (PPL) number 1, PPL1.” EX1006, ¶[0096].
`
`“At the following period, a new CPL is compiled, the CPL becomes PPL1, and PPL1
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`becomes PPL2, etc.” EX1006, ¶[0096]. “For the purposes of analysis [in Myr], it is
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,761,804
`
`necessary to store at any given moment a predetermined number of these lists, such
`
`as, 4 or 5.” EX1006, ¶[0096].
`
`D. Evans
`Evans relates to “context-aware computing systems and methods” in which
`
`“hierarchical tree structures are utilized to ascertain a device context or location.”
`
`EX1007, Abstract; EX1004, ¶¶49-51. “In one embodiment, a