Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`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. 10,292,011
`
`Case No.: IPR2022-00427
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 3
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest ................................................................................ 3
`
`B. Related Matters ......................................................................................... 3
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ............................... 3
`
`II.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 5
`
`III. REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................... 5
`
`IV. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF .............................................. 5
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’011 PATENT ............................................................ 6
`
`A. Summary of the ’011 Patent ...................................................................... 6
`
`B. Prosecution History .................................................................................10
`
`C. Priority Date ............................................................................................10
`
`VI. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES .......................................11
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................12
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................12
`
`IX. STATE OF THE ART PRIOR TO THE ’011 PATENT ..............................13
`
`A. Device-Locating Concepts, Including Periodically Beaconing Data to
`Locate Mobile Devices, Were Well-Known Long Before the ’011
`Patent. ......................................................................................................13
`
`B. Ribaudo ...................................................................................................14
`
`C. Lorincz ....................................................................................................17
`
`D. Evans .......................................................................................................19
`
`E. Wrappe ....................................................................................................21
`
`i
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`X. GROUND 1: Claims 1-3, 9, 11-13 and 19-20 are Unpatentable AS
`OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF RIBAUDO and LORINCZ. ..........22
`
`A. Motivation to Combine Ribaudo and Lorincz ........................................22
`
`B. Claims 1, 11, and 20 ................................................................................25
`
`C. Claims 2 and 12 .......................................................................................52
`
`D. Claims 3 and 13 .......................................................................................53
`
`E. Claims 9 and 19 .......................................................................................54
`
`XI. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1-3, 9, 11-13 AND 19-20 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`AS OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF RIBAUDO AND WRAPPE. ..55
`
`A. Claims 1, 11 and 20 .................................................................................55
`
`B. Claims 2-3, 9, 12-13 and 19 ....................................................................58
`
`XII. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1-3, 9, 11-13 AND 19-20 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`AS OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF RIBAUDO, LORINCZ AND
`EVANS. ...................................................................................................................58
`
`A. Claims 1, 11 and 20 .................................................................................58
`
`B. Claims 2-3, 9, 12-13 and 19 ....................................................................61
`
`XIII. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1-3, 9, 11-13 AND 19-20 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`AS OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF RIBAUDO, WRAPPE AND
`EVANS. ...................................................................................................................61
`
`A. Claims 1, 11 and 20 .................................................................................61
`
`B. Claims 2-3, 9, 12-13 and 19 ....................................................................63
`
`XIV. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ......................................63
`
`XV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER § 325(D) OR § 314 IS NOT
`WARRANTED ........................................................................................................64
`
`XVI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................70
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 66
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB March 20, 2020) ................................ 1, 65, 67
`
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00204, Paper 11 (PTAB June 19, 2020) ....................................... 69, 70
`
`BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-528 ................................................................................... 1, 2, 3
`
`BillJCo, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-181 ................................................................................... 1, 2, 3
`
`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) ....................................................................................... 1, 2, 3
`
`Dish Network LLC v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01280, Paper 17 (PTAB Feb. 4, 2021) ................................................ 66
`
`Dish Network LLC v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01359, Paper 15 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2021) .............................................. 65
`
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`6:21-CV-00926-ADA, Dkt. 412, Order (W.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2021) .................... 67
`
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-926-ADA, Order (Oct. 4, 2021) ........................................ 2, 67
`
`Mylan Pharma. Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH,
`IPR2018-01680, Paper 22 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2019) ............................................... 66
`
`Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC,
`IPR2014-01478, Paper 18 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2015) ............................................. 63
`
`i
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) .......................................................... 13
`
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking
`LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ........................... 65, 66, 69, 70
`
`Sega of Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01453, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2015) ............................................. 63
`
`WAG Acquisition, LLC v. WebPower, Inc.,
`781 Fed. Appx. 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................ 35
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404 ........................................................................................................ 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................. 11, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................. 11, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .................................................................................................... 64
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) ............................................................................................... 69
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) ............................................................................................. 65
`
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .................................................................................................... 64
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ........................................................................................ 12, 13
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340, Vol. 83, No. 197 (Oct. 11, 2018)............................................ 13
`
`IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) .................................................................... 64
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`Lorincz, K. and Welsh, M., MoteTrack: A Robust, Decentralized
`Approach to RF-Based Location Tracking
` ............................................................ 1, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41
`
`Lorincz & Welsh, MoteTrack: A Robust, Decentralized Approach to
`RF-Based Location Tracking .............................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,011 (the ’011 Patent)
`
`1002
`
`Prosecution History of the ’011 Patent
`
`1003
`
`Curriculum Vitae of William Michalson
`
`1004
`
`Declaration of William Michalson, dated January 14, 2022
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0030824
`(“Ribaudo”)
`Lorincz, K. and Welsh, M., MoteTrack: A Robust,
`Decentralized Approach to RF-Based Location Tracking
`(“Lorincz”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,327,535 (“Evans”)
`
`PCT Patent Application Publication No. 2005/106523
`(“Wrappe”)
`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’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,
`Dkt. No. 23 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2021)
`Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee, Ph.D., dated January 13, 2022
`
`BillJCo, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-181, Order,
`Dkt. No. 58 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 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)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,123,926 (“Himmelstein”)
`
`Dufresne, A., et al., How Reliable are Trial Dates Relied on by
`the PTAB in the Fintiv Analysis? (Oct. 29, 2021)
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`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)
`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)
`Jackson, C., Radar and LORAN, Popular Electronics (July
`1959)
`Kanemitsu, H., et al., Automobile Navigation System Using
`Individual Communication Beacon, SAE International Paper
`Letter from Erik R. Fuehrer, dated January 14, 2022
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Hewlett Packard
`
`Enterprise Co. (“HP”) and Aruba Networks, LLC (“Aruba”) are the petitioners
`
`(“Petitioners”), and each is a real party-in-interest.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,011 (“the ’011 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”).
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Larissa S. Bifano
`DLA PIPER
`33 Arch Street 26th Floor
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1447
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Jeffrey D. Blake
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`191 Peachtree Street NE
`Suite 3800
`Atlanta, GA 30303
`
`Daniel W. McDonald
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`
`
`
`Phone: 617-406-6013
`larissa.bifano@dlapiper.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 59,051
`
`
`
`
`Phone: 404-954-5040
`Fax: 612-332-9081
`jblake@merchantgould.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 58,884
`
`
`Phone: 612-336-4637
`Fax: 612-332-9081
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`150 South Fifth Street
`Suite 200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`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
`
`Jonathan Hicks
`DLA Piper, LLP
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`Zack Conrad
`DLA Piper, LLP
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`dmcdonald@merchantgould.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 32,044
`
`
`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
`
`Phone: 650-833-2164
`jonathan.hicks@dlapiper.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 75,195
`
`
`Phone: 617-406-5992
`zack.conrad@dlapiper.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 77,682
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel at
`
`BilljcoIPR@merchantgould.com and counsel of record (shown above). Petitioners
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`consent to electronic service.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’011 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioners ask that the Board review the accompanying prior art and analysis,
`
`institute a trial for an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims (Claims 1-3, 9,
`
`11-13 and 19-20) of the ’011 Patent, and that the Director cancel them as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`IV. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`The Challenged Claims of the ’011 Patent would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) and are therefore unpatentable. The ’011
`
`Patent claims recite nothing more than an obvious combination of components that
`
`perform “location based exchanges of data” between mobile devices to “enable
`
`location based features and functions” on those devices. This Petition’s showing that
`
`the cited art renders the Challenged Claims unpatentable is supported by the
`
`Declaration of William Michalson, a Professor of Robotics Engineering and a
`
`5
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic
`
`Institute. EX1004, ¶¶1-8; EX1003. He is familiar with the state of the art relating to
`
`location based exchanges of data, as he has been working in that field since 1991.
`
`Dr. Michalson supports the showing herein that the claims at issue merely recite
`
`aspects of the art that have been long known. EX1004, ¶¶9-17, 63, 121, 127, 133.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’011 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ’011 Patent “relates generally to location based services for mobile data
`
`processing systems, and more particularly to location based exchanges of data
`
`between distributed mobile data processing systems for locational applications.”
`
`EX1001, 1:36-40; EX1004, ¶¶18-37. In the systems and methods disclosed in the
`
`’011 Patent, “[a] common connected service is not required for location based
`
`functionality and features.” Id., 1:40-41. Instead, “[l]ocation based exchanges of data
`
`between distributed mobile data processing systems enable location based features
`
`and functionality in a peer to peer manner.” Id., 1:41-44.
`
`The ’011 Patent describes how the rise of the Internet led to a number of new
`
`service offerings, including service offerings to mobile devices or “MSs.” EX1001,
`
`1:48-55. Some examples of MSs include cell phones, laptops and personal
`
`computers. Id., 3:26-35. The ’011 Patent states that, traditionally, companies
`
`offering services to a MS acted as “the intermediary point” between users,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`employing “centralized processing” and “centralized maintaining of data.” Id., 1:55-
`
`67. The ’011 Patent notes several drawbacks of this centralized approach, including
`
`possible poor performance, costs of centralized storage of users’ data, and security
`
`or privacy concerns of storing user information in a centralized database. Id., 2:16-
`
`40, 3:5-10; 4:50-61.
`
`The ’011 Patent states that a “location-based exchange” or “LBX” network
`
`allows MS devices to take advantage of location based functionality by allowing
`
`direct “peer-to-peer” communications between MSs. Specifically, the ’011 Patent
`
`discloses that within each MS of a LBX network, there are “permissions” and
`
`“charters,” as illustrated in green below in annotated Figure 1A:
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`Annotated Figure 1A of the ’011 Patent
`
`
`
`EX1001, Figure 1A, 29:17-34, 32:4-24. How a user configures these permissions
`
`and charters governs how a MS interacts with other MSs in specified circumstances.
`
`Id., 38:18-22; see also EX1004, ¶¶23-25. In certain instances, these “locally
`
`maintained configurations” enable a user to receive alerts “when MSs are newly
`
`nearby, or are newly departing being nearby.” EX1001, 12:3-12; see also EX1004,
`
`¶25. In other examples, a LBX can be used for “peer to peer content delivery and
`
`local MS configuration of that content.” EX1001, 12:24-34; see also EX1004, ¶26.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`
`The independent claims of the ’011 Patent recite, respectively, a system,
`
`method, and computer readable medium for sending information from a first
`
`“sending” data processing system to a second “receiving” user carried mobile data
`
`processing system. EX1001, 448:10-67, 449:33-450:15, 450:39-451:23; EX1004,
`
`¶¶29-37.1 The claims recite “periodically beaconing” a unidirectional “wireless data
`
`record.” EX1001, 448:10-67, 449:33-450:15, 450:39-451:23. This “wireless data
`
`record” includes (1) a “data field containing a signal strength” of the sending
`
`device’s system and (2) “application context identifier data.” Id. The claimed
`
`“wireless data record” includes “no physical location coordinates of the sending data
`
`processing system.” Id. Upon receipt of the “wireless data record” by a “receiving
`
`user carried mobile data processing system,” the receiving system is able to present
`
`certain location based content to a user. Id. One example of such location based
`
`content being presented to a user is automatically “being alerted to nearby people
`
`needing assistance and nearby fire engines or police cars that need access to roads.”
`
`Id., 13:3-9.
`
`The ’011 Patent comprises over 300 pages of figures and 450 columns. The
`
`examples and embodiments described above are relevant to the Challenged Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The full text of the Challenged Claims is set for in Appendix A to this petition.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`of the ’011 Patent and, as such, provide appropriate background for the analysis
`
`below showing that these Challenged Claims should be canceled as unpatentable.
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`
`The ’011 Patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 16/147,532 (“the
`
`’532 Application”) on September 28, 2018. EX1001. The ’532 Application asserts
`
`the benefit of an earlier priority date through a string of continuation or continuation-
`
`in-part applications,
`
`including Application Nos. 15/218,039; 14/752,945;
`
`13/972,125; 12/590,831; 12/287,064; and 12/077,041. Id. The earliest possible
`
`priority date for the ’532 Application (and thus the ’011 Patent) is March 14, 2008,
`
`which is the filing date of Application No. 12/077,041. Id.; EX1004, ¶38.
`
`The ’532 Application received a Notice of Allowance on December 21, 2018,
`
`less than three months after filing, indicating allowance of all claims (Claims 1-20)
`
`as originally filed. EX1002 at 998, 1014-1022; EX1004, ¶39. The ’532 Application
`
`issued as the ’011 Patent on May 14, 2019. EX1001.
`
`
`
`Solely for the purposes of this Petition, Petitioners will assume that the
`
`priority date for the ’011 Patent is March 14, 2008, the filing date of the earliest
`
`application to which the ’011 Patent claims priority. EX1004, ¶40. 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.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`VI. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES
`
`Ground #1: Claims 1-3, 9, 11-13 and 19-20 of the ’011 Patent are obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Publication No. 2007/0030824A1 (“Ribaudo”)
`
`in view of Lorincz & Welsh, MoteTrack: A Robust, Decentralized Approach to RF-
`
`Based Location Tracking (“Lorincz”).
`
`Ribaudo (EX1005) was filed on August 8, 2006, and published on February
`
`8, 2007. Thus, Ribaudo qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`because Ribaudo published more than one year before the effective filing date of the
`
`’011 Patent (March 14, 2008).
`
`Lorincz (EX1006) was publicly accessible as early as June 23, 2005, and no
`
`later than April 19, 2006. EX1012. Thus, Lorincz qualifies as prior art under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Lorincz is a printed publication published more than one
`
`year before the effective filing date of the ’011 Patent.
`
`Ground #2: Claims 1-3, 9, 11-13 and 19-20 of the ’011 Patent are obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ribaudo in view of PCT Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2005/106523 (“Wrappe”). Ribaudo qualifies as prior art for the
`
`above-discussed reasons. Wrappe (EX1008) was filed on April 2, 2004, and it
`
`published on November 10, 2005. Thus, Wrappe qualifies as prior art under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Wrappe published more than one year before the
`
`effective filing date of the ’011 Patent.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`
`Ground #3: Claims 1-3, 9, 11-13 and 19-20 of the ’011 Patent are obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ribaudo in view of Lorincz and further in view of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,327,535 (“Evans”). Ribaudo and Lorincz qualify as prior art for
`
`the above-discussed reasons. 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 ’011 Patent.
`
`Ground #4: Claims 1-3, 9, 11-13 and 19-20 of the ’011 Patent are obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ribaudo in view of Wrappe and further in view of
`
`Evans. Ribaudo, Wrappe and Evans qualify as prior art for the above-discussed
`
`reasons.
`
`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 location tracking of mobile devices. Lack of work experience can be
`
`remedied by additional education and vice versa. EX1004, ¶¶41-42.
`
`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
`
`35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claims must be given their ordinary and
`
`12
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`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, ¶62.
`
`IX. STATE OF THE ART PRIOR TO THE ’011 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,
`
`¶43. One common technique for locating mobile devices involved using signals
`
`periodically sent (or “beaconed”) by nearby devices. Id., ¶¶44-45. 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.,
`
`¶45. 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,
`
`prior art mobile devices had the capability to beacon a signal to nearby mobile
`
`13
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`devices that identifies the beaconing mobile device to a receiving mobile device and
`
`informs the receiving mobile device of the distance between the two devices. See
`
`EX1005, ¶¶[0007], [0026], [0057]; EX1004, ¶46.
`
`With the adoption and spread of techniques for determining the location of
`
`mobile devices, it became desirable and more common to build functionality for the
`
`mobile devices that would allow them to make use of the knowledge of their
`
`location. EX1004, ¶47. 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., the network of mobile devices that
`
`each beacon a signal to nearby devices), an application on the receiving mobile
`
`device could use the knowledge of the location of other devices to present content
`
`to the user of the device, such as a notification that other devices are nearby and
`
`information about the users associated with those devices (e.g., user profile
`
`information). Id.; EX1005, ¶¶[0026], [0087].
`
`
`
`Ribaudo is directed to systems and methods for “proximity determination.”
`
`EX1005, Abstract; EX1004, ¶¶48-53. Ribaudo discloses techniques that use mobile
`
`devices as beacons to “allow[] mobile device users with one or more commonalities
`
`or other reasons for interacting to detect each other when they are or have been in
`
`physical proximity.” EX1005, ¶[0006], EX1004, ¶48. This allows for the real-time
`
`14
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`detection of networking “matches” within physical proximity of one another.
`
`EX1005, ¶[0006]; EX1004, ¶¶48-49. Ribaudo identifies “[p]ersonal network
`
`building” as one application for its beaconing technologies. EX1005, ¶¶[0003]-
`
`[0004].
`
`Ribaudo discloses an embodiment in which the “detection of another user in
`
`proximity and determination of whether another detected user is a match is
`
`performed locally on the user’s mobile device, without consulting [a] data center or
`
`other centralized location remote from the mobile device users.” EX1005, ¶[0006].
`
`Thus, the mobile devices perform local recognition of nearby devices without
`
`relying on a centralized service. EX1005, ¶[0006]; EX1004, ¶¶49-50. When a
`
`mobile device detects another mobile device in its proximity that is associated with
`
`a match, the user may be notified. EX1005, ¶¶[0059], [0070]; EX1004, ¶50. The
`
`user’s mobile device may then display one or more commonalities (e.g., the fact that
`
`both users attended the same university), and any other suitable information.
`
`EX1005, ¶[0059]; EX1004, ¶50.
`
`Figure 1 of Ribaudo (reproduced below in annotated form) provides an
`
`example system for implementing its proximity detection techniques. Each of 12a,
`
`12b, 12c, and 12d (shown in red) is a type of mobile device, such as a cellular
`
`telephone or laptop computer. EX1005, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], [0018]; EX1004, ¶51. A
`
`user’s mobile device beacons a signal that includes a client ID associated with its
`
`15
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`user and, in some embodiments, an indication of the “user’s availability level” for a
`
`match. EX1005, ¶[0057] (“Mobile device 12 may beacon data such as the client ID
`
`of the user associated with mobile device 12.); see also id., ¶¶[0057], [0070], [0084];
`
`EX1004, ¶51. The client ID (and any other beaconed data) may be broadcast using
`
`WiFi or Bluetooth. EX1005, ¶¶[0066], [0073]; EX1004, ¶51. Each mobile device
`
`may have an adaptor 18 that may facilitate communications with other mobile
`
`devices 12. EX1005, ¶¶[0019].
`
`Annotated Figure 1 of Ribaudo
`
`
`
`EX1005, Figure 1.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`
`When a receiving mobile device receives the signal broadcast by a sending
`
`mobile device, the receiving mobile device can use the client ID to determine that
`
`the sending mobile device is in its proximity. If that client ID is associated with a
`
`match ID stored on the receiving mobile device, the receiving user may be notified
`
`of a match. EX1005, ¶¶[0059], [0070]; EX1004, ¶52. In some embodiments, the
`
`portion of the beaconed signal that indicates the availability of the user of the sending
`
`mobile device is used to determine whether to notify the user of the receiving mobile
`
`device that there is a match. EX1005, ¶¶[0057], [0070]. The user’s mobile device
`
`may display the relevance score of the match, the trust value of the other user with
`
`whom they have been matched, one or more commonalities (e.g., the fact that both
`
`users attended the same university), and any other suitable information. EX1005,
`
`¶[0059]; EX1004, ¶53. The information may be displayed using a display of
`
`application 20 on the mobile device or in any other suitable manner. EX1005,
`
`¶[0078]; EX1004, ¶53.
`
`
`
`Lorincz is a publication describing “a robust, decentralized approach to RF-
`
`based location tracking.” EX1006 at 1; EX1004, ¶¶54-57. The approach, dubbed
`
`“MoteTrack,” uses low-power, battery-operated devices as “beacon nodes” to
`
`wirelessly broadcast signals to receiving devices “to measure, store, and compute
`
`location information” regarding the receiving devices. EX1006 at 1, 4. Lorincz
`
`17
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,292,011
`
`
`explains that prior approaches to RF-based location tracking primarily utilized a
`
`centralized server to compute a mobile node’s location. Id. at 1-2; EX1004, ¶¶54-
`
`55. In contrast, MoteTrack is decentralized, meaning that location computation is
`
`performed by the beacon nodes themselves, resulting in a more robust system that is
`
`more tolerant