`
`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
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JACOB SHARONY, PH.D. REGARDING CLAIMS 1-3, 9,
`11-13 AND 19-20 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,292,011
`
`40635741.2
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 1 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IV. 
`
` 
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .................................................................................... 1 
`II. 
`III.  QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .............................................................. 2 
`A. 
`Education and Experience ............................................................................. 2 
`B. 
`Compensation ................................................................................................ 5 
`C. 
`Documents and Other Materials Considered ................................................ 5 
`D. 
`Prior Testimony and Publications ................................................................. 6 
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ............................................................... 9 
`A. 
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 9 
`B. 
`Obviousness ................................................................................................. 10 
`SCOPE OF OPINIONS .......................................................................................... 11 
`V. 
`VI.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’011 PATENT ................................................................... 11 
`A.  Written Specification ................................................................................... 12 
`B. 
`The Claim Language ................................................................................... 13 
`C. 
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................ 15 
`VII.  PRIOR ART RELIED ON IN PETITION ............................................................. 16 
`A. 
`Ribaudo Patent Publication ......................................................................... 16 
`B. 
`Lorincz “MoteTrack” Paper ........................................................................ 17 
`VIII.  ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OF THE ’011 PATENT ......................................... 20 
`A. 
`Ribaudo Fails To Disclose “Periodic Beaconing,” and a POSITA
`Would Not Combine Ribaudo With Lorincz [1.1/20.1/11.1] ..................... 20 
`1. 
`Ribaudo Fails to Disclose “Periodic Beaconing”............................. 20 
`2. 
`A POSITA Would Not Have Combined Ribaudo with
`Lorincz ............................................................................................. 23 
`Ribaudo Fails To Disclose “Application Context Identifier Data
`Identifying Location Based Content” .......................................................... 25 
`Ribaudo Fails to Disclose a Location Based Application that
`“Presents the Location Based Content to the User Interface of the
`Receiving User” .......................................................................................... 28 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`40635741.2
`
`i
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 2 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`I, JACOB SHARONY, Ph.D., hereby declare as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`
`
`1.
`
`I have been engaged by Patent Owner BillJCo LLC as a consultant in
`
`connection with the present inter partes review by Petitioner.
`
`2.
`
`This Declaration sets forth the opinions I have formed and the bases for
`
`them concerning Petitioner's arguments regarding the patentability of claims 1-3, 9,
`
`11-13 and 19-20 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,292,011 (“’011
`
`patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I have relied on my knowledge, experience, and expertise in the
`
`technologies involved, which I have acquired over my career, in providing the
`
`analysis and opinions contained in this report. All of my conclusions and opinions
`
`are provided within a reasonable degree of professional certainty.
`
`II.
`
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`4.
`
`It is my opinion that the challenged claims of the ’011 patent are not
`
`obvious over U.S. Publication No. 2007/0030824A1 (“Ribaudo”) (EX1005) in view
`
`of Lorincz & Welsh, MoteTrack: A Robust, Decentralized Approach to RF-Based
`
`Location Tracking (“Lorincz”) (EX1006).
`
`5.
`
`It is my opinion that Ribaudo fails to disclose “periodically beaconing
`
`outbound a broadcast unidirectional wireless data record for physically locating …
`
`40635741.2
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 3 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`one or more receiving user carried mobile data processing systems,” as recited by
`
`independent claims 1, 11, and 20 of the ’011 patent.
`
`6.
`
`It is also my opinion that 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.
`
`7.
`
`It is also my opinion that Ribaudo 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,” as recited by
`
`independent claims 1, 11, and 20 of the ’011 patent.
`
`8.
`
`It is also my opinion that Ribaudo fails to disclose a location based
`
`application that “presents … location based content to the user interface of the
`
`receiving user,” as recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 20 of the ’011 patent.
`
`9.
`
`The subsequent sections of this Declaration provide my qualifications
`
`and experience and then my analysis and the bases for my opinions.
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`
`
`A. Education and Experience
`
`
`
`10.
`
`I have over 35 years of experience working in mobile and wireless
`
`technologies, which has resulted in over 50 issued patents and numerous
`
`publications in scientific journals and conferences. I have also served on various
`
`40635741.2
`
`2
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 4 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`government expert panels, including for the National Science Foundation and
`
`National Institutes of Health.
`
`11.
`
`Since 2010, I have been an Adjunct Professor of Electrical Engineering
`
`at Columbia University, teaching graduate level courses on advanced wireless
`
`technologies including in the areas of wireless sensing and Auto ID technologies,
`
`mmWave communications, and applications for 5G wireless networks and systems.
`
`12.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s Degree (1979) and Master’s Degree (1984) in
`
`Electrical Engineering from Tel Aviv University. I have M.Phil. (1991) and Ph.D.
`
`(1993) Degrees in Electrical Engineering from Columbia University. I also have an
`
`MBA Degree (1989) from Tel Aviv University.
`
`13.
`
`I have been involved with mobile and wireless networking technologies
`
`since the mid-1990s working as a researcher, developer, and educator on wireless
`
`wide, local, and personal area networks (WWAN, WLAN, and WPAN),
`
`infrastructure and mobile devices. Over these two-and-a-half decades, I have
`
`witnessed the change from voice-centric to data-centric networks, and have worked
`
`on enterprise mobility products and solutions as early as the late 1990s.
`
`14. After obtaining my Ph.D., I led the advanced mobile networking group
`
`at BAE Systems, developing tactical mesh-based wireless network systems for the
`
`U.S. Department of Defense. I also conducted research and development in
`
`advanced mobile and wireless networks. My work resulted in several issued patents.
`
`40635741.2
`
`3
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 5 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`15.
`
`From 1997 to 2005, I held various positions at Symbol Technologies
`
`(acquired by Motorola Solutions). While working at Motorola/Symbol I gained
`
`substantial experience in application-specific and data-capture mobile devices, and
`
`wireless networking and architecture solutions in several vertical applications, e.g.,
`
`transportation and logistics, healthcare, warehousing, retail, and education, among
`
`others. As Senior Director, Research and Development, I initiated and led several
`
`research and development programs in wireless LAN (local area network)
`
`technologies including mobile device management and security. As Senior Director,
`
`Technology Strategy and Development, I was responsible for the research and
`
`development of new mobile applications for delivering multimedia-rich content to
`
`mobile devices connected over heterogeneous networks. That work resulted in
`
`several U.S. patents.
`
`16.
`
` In 2004, I founded Mobius Consulting, a consulting firm providing
`
`professional services in mobile wireless strategy, technologies, systems, and
`
`applications, including enterprise mobility, wireless communication networks,
`
`mobile embedded devices, device management, and mobile applications and
`
`services. In this capacity, I have worked with many companies in the mobile and
`
`wireless ecosystem including service providers and operators, equipment vendors,
`
`and semiconductor companies. Since founding Mobius Consulting, I have worked
`
`with many enterprises interested in deploying mobile and wireless solutions in order
`
`40635741.2
`
`4
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 6 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`to become more productive, efficient, and cost effective. These solutions spanned
`
`numerous industry sectors and involved various mobile and wireless technologies
`
`including 3G/4G/5G Cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, ZigBee, and RFID (radio frequency
`
`identification). That work resulted in several U.S. patents.
`
`17.
`
`In addition to the summary I have provided here, I describe my
`
`education and experience in greater detail in my curriculum vitae (CV) attached as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`
`
`B. Compensation
`
`18.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $550 per hour. The
`
`compensation is not contingent upon my performance, the outcome of this or any
`
`other proceeding, or any issues involved in or related to this matter.
`
`
`
`C. Documents and Other Materials Considered
`
`19.
`
`In addition to my education, training, and knowledge, my opinions are
`
`based on review of the documents and other materials identified in this Declaration,
`
`including:
`
` The Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,292,011.
`
`Paper 3
`
` The ’011 patent. EX1001.
`
` The prosecution history for the ’011 patent. EX1002.
`
` U.S. Publication No. 2007/0030824A1 to Ribaudo. EX1005.
`
`40635741.2
`
`5
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 7 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Lorincz & Welsh, MoteTrack: A Robust, Decentralized Approach to
`
`RF-Based Location Tracking to Lorincz. EX1006.
`
` Declaration of William Michalson. EX1003.
`
` Deposition of William Michalson dated October 3, 2022 in IPR2022-
`
`00427 Petition for Inter Partes Review of 10,292,011
`
` Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in IPR2022-00427 Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,292,011. Paper 8.
`
` Institution Decision in IPR2022-00427 Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of 10,292,011. Paper 16.
`
`D.
`
`Prior Testimony and Publications 
`
`20. A detailed list of my publications, including any published with the last
`
`ten years, is described in my CV which is attached to this Declaration as Appendix
`
`A.
`
`21.
`
`In addition to this case, I have submitted declarations, reports, and
`
`testimony in the last four years in the following matters:
`
` Deutsche Telekom AG v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2014-
`10 (UNCITRAL) Expert Reports + Arbitration Hearing.
` Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. Et al v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No.
`2013-09 (UNCITRAL) Expert Reports + Arbitration Hearing.
` Philips v. HTC, Claim HP-2015-000063 (UK) Expert Report.
` Ruckus Wireless, Inc. et al v. Hera Wireless S.A., Case IPR2018-01419
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` Ruckus Wireless, Inc. et al v. Hera Wireless S.A., Case IPR2018-01736
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
`
`40635741.2
`
`6
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 8 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
` Intel Corporation v. Hera Wireless S.A., Case IPR2018-01702 (PTAB)
`Expert Declaration.
` Ruckus Wireless, Inc. et al v. Hera Wireless S.A., Case IPR2018-01418
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` Ruckus Wireless, Inc. et al v. Hera Wireless S.A., Case IPR2018-01739
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` Intel Corporation et al v. Hera Wireless S.A., Case IPR2018-01700
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` Intel Corporation et al v. Hera Wireless S.A., Case IPR2018-01701
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` Ruckus Wireless, Inc. et al v. Hera Wireless S.A., Case IPR2018-01732
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` Ruckus Wireless, Inc. et al v. Hera Wireless S.A., Case IPR2018-01737
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` Intel Corporation et al v. Hera Wireless S.A., Case IPR2018-01686
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` Ruckus Wireless, Inc. et al v. Hera Wireless S.A., Case IPR2018-01420
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` Intel Corporation et al v. Hera Wireless S.A., Case IPR2018-01687
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` Ruckus Wireless, Inc. et al v. Hera Wireless S.A., Case IPR2018-01738
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` RPX Corporation et al v. Iridescent Networks, Inc. (McEwen, Kathy,
`inventor), Case IPR2018-00254 (PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` RPX Corporation et al v. Iridescent Networks, Inc. (McEwen, Kathy,
`inventor), Case IPR2017-01661 (PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` RPX Corporation et al v. Iridescent Networks, Inc., Case IPR2017-
`01662 (PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp., (2:16-cv-00980), Expert
`Report + Deposition + Trial (Texas Eastern District Court).
` FedEx Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case IPR2017-02030
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` FedEx Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case IPR2017-00741
`(PTAB) Expert Declaration.
` Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., and Uniloc 2017 LLC
`(Uniloc) v.
` Samsung, (2:18-cv-00042) Expert Report + Deposition.
` Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., and Uniloc 2017 LLC
`(Uniloc) v.
`
`40635741.2
`
`7
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 9 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
` Samsung, (2:18-cv-00044) Expert Report + Deposition.
` SoL IP v. AT&T et al., (2:18-cv-00526), Expert Report + Deposition.
` Juniper Networks v. American Patents, Case IPR2020-01114 (PTAB)
`Expert Declaration.
` Juniper Networks v. American Patents, Case IPR2020-01115 (PTAB)
`Expert Declaration.
` Intellectual Tech v. Zebra Technologies, (6:19-cv-00628) Expert
`Declaration.
` Aegis 11 S.A. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc., Civ. Nos. 19-1161-RGA, -1162-RGA,
`and 1163RGA Expert Declaration.
` Aegis 11 S.A. v. TTE Tech., Inc., Civ. No. 19-1165-RGA Expert
`Declaration
` Aegis 11 S.A. v. Funai Electric Co., Civ. No. 20-03890
` AEGIS v. Hisense, (1:20-cv-03891) Expert Declaration.
` Soter Technologies, LLC v. IP Video Corp. et al, SDNY 20-cv-
`05007(LJL) Expert Declaration. • Soter Technologies, LLC v. IP Video
`Corp. et al, EDNY 2:20-cv02989(GRB)(AKT) Expert Declaration +
`Deposition.
` Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., NDCA 4:17-cv-05931YGR Expert
`Report.
` Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Under Armour, Inc., NDCA 4:17-cv-05932YGR
`Expert Report.
` BillJCo, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al., EDTX 2:21-cv-181, 183-JRG
`Expert Declaration + Deposition + Expert Report.
` BillJCo, LLC v. Apple, Inc., WDTX 6:21-cv-528-ADA Expert
`Declaration.
` Zebra Technologies v. OnAsset Intelligence, Inc., ITC Washington DC,
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1278 Expert Reports on Infringement &
`Validity + Deposition + Trial.
` Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Technologies, WDTX 6:19-cv-00628-
`ADA Expert Report.
` Hewlett Packard Enterprise v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case
`IPR2021-01377 (PTAB) Expert Declaration + Deposition.
`
`I identify a list of recent expert consulting engagements in my CV,
`
`
`22.
`
`which is attached to this Declaration as Appendix A.
`
`40635741.2
`
`8
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 10 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`23.
`
`I have been advised of certain legal principles applicable to this inter
`
`partes review. I have incorporated and applied these legal principles within the
`
`opinions set forth below in this Declaration.
`
`
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`24.
`
`I understand that patent claims are to be interpreted in view of a patent’s
`
`specification and prosecution history. I understand that claim construction starts with
`
`the plain language of the claims as understood by a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time the patent was filed. I am further informed that a patent's
`
`specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis and usually
`
`dispositive of the meaning. I also understand that the prosecution history may also
`
`provide evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent. I also
`
`understand that extrinsic evidence, such as technical dictionaries, may provide
`
`insight as to the meaning of technical terms.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a patentee may be its own lexicographer, so long as
`
`the definition of a specific term is clearly set forth in the specification and it is clear
`
`the inventor intended to define the term. I further understand that Petitioner does not
`
`contend that any claim term should be given a special meaning, and instead, has
`
`taken the position that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary
`
`meanings.
`
`40635741.2
`
`9
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 11 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a patent claim may be found invalid as obvious if the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed
`
`invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed
`
`invention pertains. I further understand that obviousness of a patent claim is
`
`determined based on (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`between the claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4)
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that in assessing the prior art, one must consider whether
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine
`
`the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so. I understand that this motivation may
`
`come from a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine. I also understand that
`
`a specific teaching, suggestion, or motivation is not required.
`
`28.
`
`I also understand that objective indicators of non-obviousness
`
`(sometimes referred to as “secondary considerations”) must be considered in
`
`evaluating obviousness, including commercial success of the claimed invention,
`
`whether others copied the invention, whether others in the field praised the
`
`invention, and licensing of the invention. I understand that secondary considerations
`
`40635741.2
`
`10
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 12 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`of non-obviousness support a finding of non-obviousness if the evidence of
`
`secondary considerations is sufficiently tied to the patented features. Where a patent
`
`claims a combination of features, I understand that the evidence of secondary
`
`considerations may be tied to the claimed combination as a whole.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that, after consideration of all of these factors, a patent is
`
`not obvious unless the difference between the subject matter sought to be patented
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`which said subject matter pertains.
`
`V.
`
`
`SCOPE OF OPINIONS
`
`30.
`
`I provide my independent opinions and analysis only concerning the
`
`issues I specifically discuss in this declaration. I note that the Petition (and the
`
`evidence it cites) appears to raise many other issues, but I have not been asked to
`
`provide my opinions as to any of those other issues.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’011 PATENT
`
`
`31. 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.” EX1001at 1:36-40.
`
`40635741.2
`
`11
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 13 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`A. Written Specification
`
`32. 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).
`
`33. The specification of the ’011 patent discloses:
`
`A common connected service is not required for location based for
`
`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.
`
`EX1001 at 1:40-44.
`
`
`40635741.2
`
`12
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 14 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Claim Language
`
`34.
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’011 patent recites:
`
`1. (a)1 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;
`
`
`1 I add element labeling, e.g., “(a)” to the claim for ease of reference.
`13
`
`40635741.2
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 15 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`(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,
`
`40635741.2
`
`14
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 16 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`(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. (bold
`
`added
`
`EX1001 at 448:10-451:23.
`
`35.
`
`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
`
`36.
`
` Petition states and Dr. Michalson opines 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
`
`40635741.2
`
`15
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 17 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`person with additional professional experience but less education may still qualify
`
`as a [POSITA].” EX1004 ¶ 41. I do not disagree with Petitioner's and Dr.
`
`Michalson’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this
`
`Declaration and my opinions concerning the Petition, but note that an electrical
`
`engineering degree would also be appropriate.
`
`37.
`
`I meet the definition of a POSITA provided by the Petitioner and Dr.
`
`Michalson.
`
`VII. PRIOR ART RELIED ON IN PETITION
`
`
`A. Ribaudo Patent Publication
`
`
`
`38. The Petition is based primarily on the disclosures of U.S. Publication
`
`No. 2007/0030824A1 to Ribaudo, titled “System and Method for Providing
`
`Communication Services to Mobile Device Users Incorporating Proximity
`
`Determination.” EX1005. Ribaudo published on February 8, 2007 from a related
`
`application filed on August 8, 2006.
`
`39. Ribaudo generally relates “to a system and method for providing
`
`communication services
`
`to mobile device users
`
`incorporating proximity
`
`determination.” Ribaudo ¶ [0002]. Ribaudo teaches a system for proximity
`
`determination by receiving network identifiers from mobile devices (e.g., first and
`
`second mobile devices). Based on the received network identifiers, the system
`
`40635741.2
`
`16
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 18 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`determines (by comparing the network identifiers) if the first and second mobile
`
`devices are in proximity to one another.
`
`40. 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. Ribaudo ¶ [0046]. Further, “[received] signal strength may be
`
`used to narrow the range of other users in proximity, filtering out matches that are
`
`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.
`
`41.
`
`In sum, Ribaudo is not directed to location determination but rather to
`
`proximity determination. 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.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Lorincz “MoteTrack” Paper
`
`42. Lorincz is titled “MoteTrack: A Robust, Decentralized Approach to
`
`RF-Based Location Tracking.” EX1006. Lorincz was coauthored by Konrad Lorincz
`
`and Matt Welsh. The paper was accepted for publication in November, 2005 and
`
`was published in 2006.
`
`40635741.2
`
`17
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 19 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`43. MoteTrack is based on low-power radio transceivers coupled with a
`
`modest amount of computation and storage capabilities. 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. The
`
`MoteTrack location system is depicted below.
`
`
`44.
`
`In MoteTrack, beacon nodes broadcast periodic beacon messages,
`
`
`
`which consist of a tuple of the format {sourceID, powerLevel}. sourceID is the
`
`unique identifier of the beacon node, and powerLevel is the transmission power level
`
`used to broadcast the message. Each mobile node that wishes to use MoteTrack to
`
`40635741.2
`
`18
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 20 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`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. 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).
`
`45. The location estimation problem consists of a two-phase process: an
`
`offline collection of reference signatures followed by online location estimation. As
`
`in other signature-based systems, the reference signature database is acquired
`
`manually by a user with a laptop and a radio receiver. Each reference signature,
`
`shown as gray dots in Fig. 1 above, consists of a set of signature tuples of the form
`
`{sourceID, powerLevel, meanRSSI}. 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. Each signature is mapped to a known location by the user
`
`acquiring the signature database. 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.
`
`46.
`
`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 a 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
`
`40635741.2
`
`19
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 21 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`a department store in Madrid (Par1=3) in the shoes section (Par2=4)), but rather, the
`
`mobile user of Lorincz has to estimate its location based on distance computations
`
`of its received signature from a reference signature set. Therefore, the two methods
`
`are fundamentally different. 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. This is in stark contrast
`
`to the ’011 Patent where a single beacon node is used to determine location.
`
`VIII. ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OF THE ’011 PATENT
`
`
`47.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Michalson's opinion that a POSITA would have
`
`found Claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19 and 20 of the ’011 patent to be obvious in
`
`light of the teachings of Ribaudo and Lorincz. EX1004 ¶ 64.
`
`A. Ribaudo Fails To Disclose “Periodic Beaconing,” and a POSITA
`Would Not Combine Ribaudo With Lorincz [1.1/20.1/11.1]
`
`48.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Michalson’s opinion that Elements [1.1], [11.1] and
`
`
`
`[20.1] are taught by the combination of Ribaudo and Lorincz. EX1004 ¶ 76.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Ribaudo Fails to Disclose “Periodic Beaconing”
`
`49. Dr. Michalson opines that “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
`
`40635741.2
`
`20
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2025 - Page 22 of 40
`
`

`

`
`
`beacon to initiate a broadcast.” EX1004 ¶ 77. However, in his depositio