U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`Uber Technologies Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LBT IP II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,598,855
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0001
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 1
`II.
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED .................................................................. 6
`III.
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................ 7
`A.
`Claim Interpretation ............................................................................. 7
`B.
`Perspective of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................... 7
`C.
`Obviousness .......................................................................................... 8
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 11
`V.
`VI. PRIORITY DATE ........................................................................................ 11
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 11
`VIII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................ 11
`IX. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .............................................................. 12
`A. Geolocation Generally ........................................................................ 13
`B.
`Global Positioning System (GPS) ...................................................... 16
`C.
`Assisted GPS ...................................................................................... 21
`D.
`Cellular/Base Station Positioning ...................................................... 24
`E.
`Positioning Based on Nearby Devices ............................................... 30
`F.
`Tracking and Tracking Devices ......................................................... 31
`G.
`Processors and Controllers ................................................................. 32
`THE CHALLENGED PATENT .................................................................. 36
`X.
`XI. PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY ........................................................ 38
`XII. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLIED PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 39
`A. Hashimoto (Ex-1005) ......................................................................... 39
`B.
`Hockley (Ex-1006) ............................................................................. 44
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Luccketti (Ex-1007) ........................................................................... 45
`C.
`D. Mohi (Ex-1008) .................................................................................. 48
`XIII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE UNPATENTABILITY
`GROUNDS ................................................................................................... 49
`A. Ground 1: Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Hashimoto in view
`of Hockley. ......................................................................................... 49
`1.
`A POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings
`of Hashimoto and Hockley, and would have a reasonable
`expectation of success in doing so. .......................................... 49
`Independent claim 11 ............................................................... 54
`2.
`Ground 2: Claims 12-14 are rendered obvious by Hashimoto
`and Hockley in further view of Luccketti .......................................... 87
`1.
`A POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings
`of Luccketti with the teachings of Hashimoto and
`Hockley, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`success in doing so. .................................................................. 87
`Dependent claims 12-14 .......................................................... 92
`2.
`Ground 3: Claims 15-16 are rendered obvious by Hashimoto
`and Hockley in further view of Mohi. .............................................. 106
`1.
`A POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings
`of Mohi with the teachings of Hashimoto and Hockley,
`and would have a reasonable expectation of success in
`doing so. ................................................................................. 106
`Dependent claims 15-16 ........................................................ 109
`2.
`XIV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 114
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0003
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`LIST OF EXHIBITS1
`
`Ex-1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Ex-1002 Declaration of Mr. Scott Andrews
`Ex-1003 Curriculum Vitae of Mr. Scott Andrews
`Ex-1004 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,784,855
`Ex-1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,999,779 (“Hashimoto”)
`Ex-1006 U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2004/0008138(“Hockley”)
`Ex-1007 U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2003/0151506 (“Luccketti”)
`Ex-1008 U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2003/0195008 (“Mohi”)
`Ex-1009
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1010
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1011
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1012
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1013
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1014
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1015
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1016
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1017
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1018
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1019
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`
`
`1 Four-digit pin citations that begin with 0 are to the page stamps added by Uber in
`the bottom right corner of the exhibits. All other pin citations are to original page,
`column, paragraph, and/or line numbers.
`
`iii
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0004
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1020
`Ex-1021 Petitioner’s Stipulation Letter to Patent Owner, dated April 15, 2022
`Ex-1022 Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, dated February 18,
`2022, including Claim Chart for ’855 Patent (“Infringement
`Contentions”)
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1023
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1024
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1025
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1026
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1027
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`Ex-1028
`Ex-1029 Yilin Zhao, Vehicle Location and Navigation Systems (1997)
`Ex-1030 U.S. Patent No. 6,901,260 (“Xin”)
`Ex-1031 U.S. Patent No. 5,592,173 (“Lau”)
`Ex-1032 U.S. Patent No. 6,748,224 (“Chen”)
`Ex-1033 U.S. Patent No. 6,889,053 (“Chang”)
`Ex-1034 The History of Computing, Abacus Explained — Everything You
`Need To Know (2021)
`Ex-1035 Alan M. Turing, On Computable Numbers, With An Application to
`the Entscheidungsproblem (1936)
`Ex-1036 The History of Computing, John von Neumann – Biography, History
`and Inventions (2021)
`Intel, The Story of Intel
`(https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/history/museum-story-
`of-intel-4004.html (Accessed 4/13/2022)
`Ex-1038 Christopher Evans, The Micro Millennium (1979) (Excerpted)
`
`Ex-1037
`
`iv
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0005
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ex-1039 Datamath Calculator Museum, Intel and TI: Microprocessors and
`Microcontrollers (2001)
`Judge Albright’s Standing Order Governing Proceedings Patent
`Cases
`
`Ex-1040
`
`
`
`v
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0006
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) as an
`
`independent expert consultant in this inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding before
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by Uber’s Counsel (“Counsel”) to consider whether
`
`certain references disclose, teach, and/or suggest the features recited in Claims 11-
`
`16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855 (“the ’855 Patent”) (Ex-1001).
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at my ordinary and customary consulting rate
`
`for my work, which is $500 per hour. My compensation is in no way contingent on
`
`the nature of my findings, the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the
`
`outcome of this or any other proceeding. I have no other financial interest in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`All of my opinions stated in this Declaration are based on my own
`
`personal knowledge and professional judgment. In forming my opinions, I have
`
`relied on my knowledge and experience in designing, developing, researching, and
`
`teaching the technology referenced in this Declaration.
`
`5.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and, if I am called upon to do so, I would be
`
`competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein. I understand that a copy of
`
`my current curriculum vitae, which details my education and professional and
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0007
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`academic experience, is being submitted as Ex-1003. The following provides a
`
`brief overview of some of my experience that is relevant to the matters set forth in
`
`this Declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, and other qualifications relevant to this matter. I have also included a
`
`current version of my curriculum vitae, attached as Ex-1003.
`
`7.
`
`I have over 30 years of professional experience in the field of mobile
`
`devices and technologies and systems, including handheld communications and
`
`navigation devices, vehicle information systems and vehicle safety and control
`
`systems, and the sensor systems that are used in these devices. Further, I have
`
`authored numerous published technical papers and am a named inventor on 13
`
`U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`8.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from University of California, Irvine in 1977 and a Master of Science degree in
`
`Electronic Engineering from Stanford University in 1982.
`
`9.
`
`From 1977 to 1979, I worked at Ford Aerospace where I designed,
`
`tested and delivered microwave radar receiver systems.
`
`10. From 1979 to 1983, I worked at Teledyne Microwave, where I
`
`developed high reliability microwave components and developed CAD tools.
`
`11. From 1983 to 1996, I worked at TRW, Inc., having held various
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0008
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`positions. From 1983 to 1985, I was a Member of the technical staff and a
`
`Department Manager in the Space Electronics sector. Between 1985 and 1990 I
`
`was a project manager working on various communications systems projects
`
`including the US DoD Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA)
`
`MIMIC Program. Between 1990 and 1993 I was the Manager of MMIC
`
`(monolithic-microwave-integrated-circuit) Products Organization. In this role, I
`
`developed business strategy and managed customer and R&D programs. During
`
`this time, I also developed the first single chip 94 GHz Radar, used for automotive
`
`cruise control and anti-collision systems. In 1993, I transferred to the TRW
`
`Automotive Electronics Group, and managed about 30 engineers in the Systems
`
`Engineering and Advanced Product Development organization. In this role, I
`
`managed advanced development programs such as automotive radar, adaptive
`
`cruise control, occupant sensing, automatic crash notification systems, in-vehicle
`
`information systems, and other emerging transportation products.
`
`12. During this time, I also worked with various types of location
`
`determining equipment. For example, one system I developed in 1992 used a pager
`
`based system that triangulated the user’s position, and then used that position to
`
`provide information about and direction to user selected points of interest.
`
`13.
`
`I was employed as a Project General Manager in the Electronics
`
`Division of Toyota Motor Corporation at Toyota headquarters in Toyota City,
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0009
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`Japan from April 1996 to around April 2000. In this position, I was responsible for
`
`leading the development of vehicle telematics systems, infotainment systems,
`
`including on-board and off-board navigation systems, mobile device integration
`
`systems, traffic information systems, vehicle communications systems, safety
`
`applications, and automated vehicle control systems. At this time global
`
`positioning system (GPS) equipment has become inexpensive enough that nearly
`
`all of the location based systems we developed relied on GPS to determine the
`
`user/vehicle location. In particular, between 1997 and 2000, I was responsible for
`
`the development of several vehicle tracking systems in the United States and
`
`Europe. These systems used a GPS receiver coupled with a cellular telephone
`
`transceiver and a processor to provide the vehicle position and other status
`
`information to a monitoring center. In this capacity I met with and reviewed the in-
`
`vehicle and back-office systems offered by numerous service providers. All of the
`
`systems I reviewed would monitor the status of various vehicle systems and alert
`
`service provider operators if, for example, the vehicle had experienced a crash
`
`(indicated by an airbag activation) or had been stolen. The operator would then
`
`open a voice channel to the vehicle occupants, determine the extent of any
`
`assistance required, and dispatch appropriate help (tow truck, paramedics, etc.).
`
`These systems also responded to vehicle theft and allowed the operator to perform
`
`various vehicle functions such as locking and unlocking doors and performing
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0010
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`various vehicle diagnostics. One provider, ATX, had a system that was marketed to
`
`high net worth individuals that included a feature wherein a parent could define a
`
`geographic boundary on a map using a web browser. This boundary would be used
`
`to issue an alert to the parent if their teen driver ventured outside this so-called
`
`“geofence”.
`
`14. Since late 2001, I have been a consultant for Cogenia Partners, LLC,
`
`focusing on systems engineering, business development and technical strategy
`
`supporting automotive and information technology. I have been in this position
`
`since 2001. Between 2006 and 2010, I served as the chief system architect for the
`
`US DOT sponsored Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) program, (later known
`
`as “Intellidrive”, and currently referred to as “connected vehicles”. This was a
`
`location based system using GPS to determine the position of the vehicle, and a
`
`short range radio data system to provide information to the vehicle from the
`
`roadside, to collect information from the vehicle, for example for traffic
`
`measurement, and to exchange information between vehicles to support various
`
`safety applications. As part of this project, I provided extensive background
`
`support for the US DOT ITS Joint Program Office about positioning systems and
`
`their capabilities and limitations.
`
`15. Between 2010 and 2019 I served on various other US DOT Projects
`
`associated with connected vehicles. For example, recently I was the technical lead
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0011
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`on a project funded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
`
`(NHTSA) to develop requirements for connected vehicle safety systems in
`
`preparation for NHTSA regulations governing such systems. I also served as a
`
`technical consultant on multiple projects sponsored by the Federal Highway
`
`Administration (FHWA) related to connected vehicle technology research. In one
`
`FHWA project I developed a precision location and timing system that was able to
`
`record and report the user vehicle location to an accuracy of about 1 cm and time
`
`with an accuracy of about 100 nanoseconds. This system allowed us to track the
`
`precise trajectory of a vehicle as it moved through a test facility and supported the
`
`accurate characterization of other systems being tested.
`
`16.
`
`In the various positions mentioned above, I was responsible for
`
`research and development projects relating to numerous mobile information
`
`systems, navigation systems, user interface systems, sensory systems, control
`
`systems and safety systems, and also had the opportunity to collaborate with
`
`numerous researchers and suppliers to the auto industry. I therefore believe that I
`
`have a detailed understanding of the state of the art during the relevant period, as
`
`well as a sound basis for opining how persons of skill in the art at that time would
`
`understand the technical issues in this case.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`17.
`In preparation for this Declaration, I have considered the materials
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0012
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`discussed in this Declaration, including, for example, the ’855 Patent, the
`
`references cited by the ’855 Patent, the prosecution history of the ’855 Patent,
`
`various background articles and materials referenced in this Declaration, and the
`
`prior art references identified in this Declaration. In addition, my opinions are
`
`further based on my education, training, experience, and knowledge in the relevant
`
`field.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`18.
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions. For the purposes of
`
`this Declaration, I have been informed about certain aspects of the law that are
`
`relevant to my analysis, as summarized below.
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`19.
`I have been informed and understand that in an IPR proceeding,
`
`claims are to be interpreted according to the Phillips claim construction standard. I
`
`have been informed and understand that claim construction is a matter of law and
`
`that the final claim constructions for this proceeding will be determined by the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
`
`20. To resolve the particular grounds presented in this Declaration I do
`
`not believe any term requires explicit construction.
`
`B.
`21.
`
`Perspective of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I have been informed and understand that a patent is to be understood
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0013
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`from the perspective of a hypothetical “person of ordinary skill in the art”
`
`(“POSITA”). Such an individual is considered to possess normal skills and
`
`knowledge in a particular technical field (as opposed to being a genius). I
`
`understand that in considering what the claims of a patent require, what was known
`
`prior to that patent, what a prior art reference discloses, and whether an invention
`
`is obvious or not, one must use the perspective of such a POSITA.
`
`C. Obviousness
`22.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103, and therefore invalid, if the claimed subject matter, as a
`
`whole, would have been obvious to a POSITA as of the priority date of the patent
`
`based on one or more prior art references and/or the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis must consider (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 pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations,
`
`if any, of non-obviousness (such as unexpected results, commercial success, long-
`
`felt but unmet need, failure of others, copying by others, and skepticism of
`
`experts).
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference may be combined with other
`
`references to disclose each element of the invention under 35 U.S.C. §103. I
`
`understand that a reference may also be combined with the knowledge of a
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0014
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`POSITA, and that this knowledge may be used to combine multiple references. I
`
`further understand that a POSITA is presumed to know the relevant prior art. I
`
`understand that the obviousness analysis may take into account the inferences and
`
`creative steps that a POSITA would employ.
`
`25.
`
`In determining whether a prior art reference would have been
`
`combined with other prior art or other information known to a POSITA, I
`
`understand that the following principles may be considered:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`whether the references to be combined involve non-analogous art;
`
`whether the references to be combined are in different fields of
`
`endeavor than the alleged invention in the Patent;
`
`•
`
`whether the references to be combined are reasonably pertinent to the
`
`problems to which the inventions of the Patent are directed;
`
`•
`
`whether the combination is of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods that yields predictable results;
`
`•
`
`whether a combination involves the substitution of one known
`
`element for another that yields predictable results;
`
`•
`
`whether the combination involves the use of a known technique to
`
`improve similar items or methods in the same way that yields predictable results;
`
`•
`
`whether the combination involves the application of a known
`
`technique to a prior art reference that is ready for improvement, to yield
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0015
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`
`predictable results;
`
`•
`
`•
`
`whether the combination is “obvious to try”;
`
`whether the combination involves the known work in one field of
`
`endeavor prompting variations of it for use in either the same field or a different
`
`one based on design incentives or other market forces, where the variations are
`
`predictable to a POSITA;
`
`•
`
`whether there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`art that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention;
`
`•
`
`whether the combination requires modifications that render the prior
`
`art unsatisfactory for its intended use;
`
`•
`
`whether the combination requires modifications that change the
`
`principle of operation of the reference;
`
`•
`
`•
`
`whether the combination is reasonably expected to be a success; and
`
`whether the combination possesses the requisite degree of
`
`predictability at the time the invention was made.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that in determining whether a combination of prior art
`
`references renders a claim obvious, it is helpful to consider whether there is some
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references and a reasonable
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0016
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`expectation of success in doing so. I understand, however, that a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine is not required.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`27. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field,
`
`and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or
`
`testing of GPS and related positioning techniques, or the equivalent, with
`
`additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.
`
`VI. PRIORITY DATE
`28.
`I understand that the ’855 Patent is a continuation of an application
`
`filed on Feb 1, 2005. I take no position on the proper priority date for each claim of
`
`the ’855 Patent because I understand that all prior art references are U.S. patents or
`
`patent publications that were published and/or filed well-before the filing date of
`
`this ’855 Patent.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`29.
`I do not believe that any term in the challenged claims requires
`
`explicit construction to resolve the grounds presented.
`
`VIII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`30.
`I have been asked to consider whether the claims of the ’855 Patent
`
`are obvious over certain prior art references. As explained below in detail in this
`
`Declaration, it is my opinion that:
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0017
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`
`•
`
`Ground 1: Claim 11 is rendered obvious by U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,999,779 (“Hashimoto”, Ex-1005) in view of U.S. Published Patent Application
`
`No. 2004/0008138 (“Hockley”, Ex-1006).
`
`•
`
`Ground 2: Claims 12-14 are rendered obvious by Hashimoto and
`
`Hockley, in further view of U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2003/0151506
`
`(“Luccketti”, Ex-1007).
`
`•
`
`Ground 3: Claims 15-16 are rendered obvious by Hashimoto and
`
`Hockley, in further view of U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2003/0195008
`
`(“Mohi”, Ex-1008).
`
`31. The following table is a summary of the above enumerated grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`
`Prior Art
`Hashimoto and Hockley
`Hashimoto, Hockley, and Luccketti
`Hashimoto, Hockley, and Mohi
`
`Claims
`11
`12-14
`15-16
`
`
`IX. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`32. To provide background for the element-by-element analysis of the
`
`claims to follow, below I will present an overview of the state of the art existing at
`
`the time of the alleged invention relating to geolocation generally, and as it relates
`
`to locating mobile devices or individuals, among other relevant technology. As I
`
`will describe below from a high-level functional perspective, in the next section
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0018
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`based on specific prior art, and then in subsequent sections on a limitation-by-
`
`limitation basis, all of these technologies and positioning techniques were well-
`
`known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`claimed in the ’855 Patent, and a POSITA would have readily understood the
`
`combination of elements of Claim 11-16 to have been obvious.
`
`A. Geolocation Generally
`33. Navigation, and numerous other safety and convenience systems rely
`
`on determining the state2 of the vehicle (aircraft, ship, car, etc.) with reasonable
`
`accuracy. This position can then be used to locate the vehicle on a map, for
`
`example to inform or support the user, or to control the position of the vehicle
`
`relative to known structures or hazards.
`
`34. Traditionally, navigation has used two methods for determining
`
`location. Celestial navigation and what is known as “Dead Reckoning.” Celestial
`
`navigation involves measuring the positions of stars and planets at known times,
`
`and then converting those measurements to a position estimate using tables
`
`describing the well-established motions of these celestial objects. Celestial
`
`navigation involves measuring the positions of stars and planets at known times,
`
`and then converting those measurements to a position estimate using tables
`
`
`2 In general, this state is represented by a set of state parameters that include
`latitude, longitude, altitude or elevation, time, speed heading and other related
`information.
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0019
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`describing the well-established motions of these celestial objects. This celestial
`
`navigation process involves measuring the elevation of the object from the horizon
`
`using a telescope-like device called a sextant. By noting the name of the object, the
`
`elevation and the time, the observer can then determine where on the earth the
`
`object would be visible at that elevation at that specific time. As shown in Figure 1,
`
`an object in the sky will be observed at a specific elevation at a specific time only
`
`when viewed from anywhere on a unique circle on the earth’s surface.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1
`Star Viewed From Two Points On Earth Shows Same Elevation Angle
`
`35. The observer uses a detailed table of the orbits of bright stars, the sun,
`
`
`
`the moon and the planets (depending on what celestial object is being observed) to
`
`determine exactly where this circle (or a small segment of it in his local vicinity) is
`
`on the Earth’s surface. This table is called an ephemeris.
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0020
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`36. So, by measuring one object the observer knows he is somewhere on
`
`that circle. By measuring two objects, he can define two circles, and his position is
`
`one of the two places where the circles intersect. As shown in Figure 2, by
`
`measuring a third object, and thereby creating a third circle, the observer can
`
`resolve his position to the one place where all three circles cross. More object
`
`measurements will produce more overlapping circles, and thus the more confident
`
`the observer can be in the accuracy of the position estimate.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2
`Multiple Observations Produce Multiple Position Lines.
`Point of Mutual Intersection Is Position
`
`
`
`
`
`37. Dead reckoning uses a known location of a starting point (originally a
`
`point of land, or a buoy in a harbor). As the vehicle moves it’s heading and speed
`
`are recorded, and each time the heading or speed changes, a new record is made
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0021
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`(originally this record was made in the ship’s log), thereby creating a chain of
`
`vectors with direction according to the heading at that time, and distance equal to
`
`the speed time the time on that course. By linking together these changes the
`
`navigator can plot the course traveled and determine roughly where they are after
`
`traveling some distance over time.
`
`38. These two methods (dead reckoning and celestial navigation) have
`
`served navigators well for centuries, but they have serious drawbacks. Celestial
`
`navigation lacks fine accuracy (because you have to measure the elevation of a star
`
`from the horizon, and this may be challenging on the deck of a floating ship, or
`
`flying aircraft, and is impractical in a moving automobile) and it suffers greatly
`
`from the fact that it cannot be used effectively in daylight or under cloud cover.
`
`Dead reckoning assumes that speed and heading can be measured reasonably
`
`accurately, but it does not inherently take into account effects from errors in these
`
`measurements either from the sensor errors, or from external effects such as
`
`current or wind. Dead reckoning works well over short distances, but if used for a
`
`long time the errors in heading and speed measurement accumulate, and the
`
`position estimate can drift off of the true position by significant amounts.
`
`B. Global Positioning System (GPS)
`39. To provide a more reliable and accurate alternative to celestial
`
`navigation, the U.S. government built a constellation of satellites known as the
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Uber Ex-1002, 0022
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,598,855
`Declaration ISO for Inter Partes Review
`Global Positioning System (GPS).3 This system operates in a way reminiscent of
`
`celestial navigation, but re-created in an electronic form.
`
`40. The satellites are arranged in earth orbit in a way that allows several
`
`of them to always be visible from any point on the globe. As a result, it is possible
`
`to use the system at any time of day, and under most weather situations. In
`
`operation, the satellites transmit a repeating signal that contains a variety of
`
`information used by a receiver to determine the orbital location of the satellite, and
`
`also the time delay from when the signal was sent to when it was received by the
`
`receiver.
`
`41. By measuring the time delay from the satellite, it is possible to
`
`determine the distance between the satellite and the receiver. This distance
`
`represents the radius of a sphere centered on the satellite. With the distance to one
`
`satellite the user will know they are somewhere on that sphere. If the distance to
`
`two satellites is known, the user will know they are somewhere on the intersection
`
`of the two spheres (a circle), and if three satellites are known they will know they
`
`are at one the point where the three circles intersect. In practice, four satellite
`
`signals are generally required