UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SPEIR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`IPR2022-00987
`U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`———————
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BRAASCH, PH.D., UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,321,777
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 1 of 133
`
`
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SPEIR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`IPR2022-00987
`U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`———————
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BRAASCH, PH.D., UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,321,777
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 1 of 133
`
`
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 3
`II.
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................ 7
`IV.
`THE ’777 PATENT ...................................................................................... 10
`A.
`Summary and Prosecution History ..................................................... 10
`B.
`Background of the Art ........................................................................ 10
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 12
`C.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................ 14
`A.
`Prior Art .............................................................................................. 15
`B.
`Device Types ....................................................................................... 16
`C.
`Location Updates ................................................................................ 18
`D.
`Estimating a Range ............................................................................. 20
`E.
`Antennas ............................................................................................. 25
`F.
`Portable Housing ................................................................................ 31
`G. Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) Devices ....................................... 31
`VII. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 32
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 32
`
`
`
` i
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 2 of 133
`
`
`
`I, Michael Braasch, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified” or
`
`“Petitioner”) as an independent expert witness for the above-captioned Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777 (“the ’777 patent”). I am
`
`being compensated at my usual and customary rate for the time I spend in connection
`
`with this IPR. My compensation is not affected by the outcome of this IPR. I make
`
`this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and, if called upon to
`
`testify, would testify competently to the matters stated herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-
`
`3 and 5-25 (each a “Challenged Claim” and collectively the “Challenged Claims”)
`
`of the ’777 patent are unpatentable as they would have been anticipated by the prior
`
`art or obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the
`
`earliest claimed priority date of the ’777 patent. It is my opinion that all of the
`
`Challenged Claims would have been obvious to a POSITA, after reviewing the prior
`
`art discussed below.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`EX1001, the ’777 patent;
`
`the prior art references discussed below:
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 3 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`
`● U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0174048(filed
`
`December 13, 2002, published September 18, 2003)
`
`(“McCorkle” (EX1003));
`
`● U.S. Patent 7,203,500 (filed August 1, 2003, issued April
`
`10, 2007) (“Leeper” (EX1004)); and
`
`● U.S. Patent 5,381,444 (filed October 30, 1992, issued
`
`January 10, 1995) (“Tajima” (EX1006));
`
`EX1008, the file history of the ’777 patent; and
`
`any other document cited below.
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`4.
`
`I understand that the ’777 patent issued on January 22, 2008 from U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 11/531,487 (“the ’487 application”), filed on September 13,
`
`2006. I understand that the ’487 application is a continuation of U.S. Application
`
`10/767,794, filed January 29, 2004. The face of the ’777 Patent lists Thomas Jay
`
`Billhartz, Vivek Krishna, and Steve Kopman as the purported inventors. I understand
`
`that Speir Technologies Ltd. is the current assignee of the ’777 patent.
`
`5.
`
`To the best of my knowledge, I have no financial interest in Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that Speir Technologies Ltd. purports to own
`
`the ’777 patent. To the best of my knowledge, I have no financial interest in Speir
`
`Technologies Ltd. To the best of my knowledge, I similarly have no financial interest
`
`in the ’777 patent. To the extent any mutual funds or other investments that I own
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 4 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`have a financial interest in the Petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC, the Patent Owner,
`
`Speir Technologies Ltd., or the ’777 patent, I am not aware of, nor do I have control
`
`over, any financial interest that would affect or bias my judgment.
`
`6.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and experience in the relevant field of art, and have considered the
`
`viewpoint of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), as of January 29, 2004.
`
`I have also considered:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`the documents listed above,
`
`any additional documents and references cited in the analysis
`
`below,
`
`c)
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standards for
`
`anticipation and obviousness, and
`
`d)
`
`my knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area
`
`as described below.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are construed according to the same
`
`claim construction standard as one would use in a District Court proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`8.
`
`My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached as Appendix A to this
`
`3
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 5 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`declaration. The following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and
`
`professional experience.
`
`9.
`
`I am currently a Professor with tenure in the School of Electrical
`
`Engineering and Computer Science at Ohio University.
`
`10.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees in
`
`Electrical Engineering from the Ohio University in 1988 and 1989 respectively. In
`
`1992, I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering also from Ohio University.
`
`During that time, my post-baccalaureate and doctoral work focused on navigation
`
`systems. My M.S. thesis involved the development of a computer simulation of an
`
`interrogation-reply ranging system known as the Distance Measuring Equipment
`
`(DME).
`
`11. From 1989 to 1993, I was a research engineer in the Avionics
`
`Engineering Center at Ohio University. I became an assistant professor in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Ohio University in 1994 and
`
`have been on the faculty at Ohio University since that time. I have held the title of
`
`Professor in the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science since 2003
`
`and was appointed as the Thomas Professor of Electrical Engineering in 2004. As a
`
`professor of Electrical Engineering, I have taught courses in navigation including
`
`ranging systems such as DME.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 6 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`
`12.
`
`I am a Licensed Professional Engineer (P.E.) in the State of Ohio. In
`
`my professional career, I have specialized in the areas of electronic navigation
`
`receiver design, electronic navigation system engineering, satellite-based navigation
`
`systems, inertial navigation systems, and integrated navigation systems.
`
`13. Since the mid 1980s, I have been involved with research related to
`
`navigation and transportation systems including navigation system computer
`
`modeling and validation; characterization of GPS error sources and development of
`
`mitigation strategies; design, development and testing of software-defined GPS
`
`receiver architectures; design, development and flight testing of advanced cockpit
`
`displays; and analysis of safety-certification issues in unmanned aerial vehicle
`
`operations. I have been the recipient of over 65 research grants and contracts,
`
`including awards from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
`
`Administration, Air Force Office of Scientific Research and NASA. In 1992 I
`
`received the RTCA (formerly known as the Radio Technical Commission for
`
`Aeronautics) William E. Jackson Award in recognition of an outstanding aviation
`
`electronics publication.
`
`14.
`
`I have published over 80 journal articles, book chapters, conference
`
`papers, and workshop papers, most of which were related to navigation systems. I
`
`have authored or co-authored over 20 academic publications in the areas of graphical
`
`display systems, electronic navigation system engineering, satellite-based
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 7 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`navigation systems with emphasis in GPS, and integrated navigation systems. These
`
`publications include book chapters in Global Positioning System: Theory and
`
`Applications, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Washington,
`
`D.C. (1996). A complete list of my publications is included in my curriculum vitae.
`
`15.
`
`I have given numerous presentations at various conferences and
`
`universities worldwide on these topics. In particular, I have been invited speak and
`
`publish in connection with conference proceedings on the navigation systems at
`
`venues around the world. Additional contributions of mine to the field are set forth
`
`in my current curriculum vitae.
`
`16.
`
`In addition to gaining expertise via my academic training, professional
`
`experiences, and research accomplishments described above, I have kept abreast of
`
`various sub-disciplines within the field of navigation systems, such as locating
`
`technologies, by reading
`
`technical
`
`literature, attending and presenting at
`
`conferences, and attending and presenting at symposia. I have been invited to
`
`participate in the peer review process for various technical journals, and conferences,
`
`and have reviewed manuscripts submitted by other engineers relating to navigation
`
`system technology. Furthermore, I have collaborated with or have communicated
`
`with many of the engineers in the field of navigation systems.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 8 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`
`17.
`
`In summary, I have extensive familiarity with fields involving device
`
`locating technologies. I am familiar with what the state of this field was at the
`
`relevant time up to the time the ’777 patent was filed.1
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`18.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but in my work, I have
`
`had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims from the
`
`perspective of a person skilled in the art. For the purposes of this declaration, I have
`
`been informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to forming my
`
`opinions. My understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious. I
`
`understand that anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim is
`
`disclosed expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the
`
`claim. Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that for a claimed limitation to be
`
`
`1 I have been informed and understand that the ’777 patent was effectively filed on
`
`January 29, 2004 because it is a continuation of an application filed on this date.
`
`When I refer to the “time the patent was filed” or “time the ’777 patent was filed”
`
`throughout this Declaration, I am referring to the January 29, 2004 filing date of the
`
`’777 patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 9 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`inherently present, the prior art need not expressly disclose the limitation, so long as
`
`the claimed limitation necessarily flows from a disclosure in the prior art.
`
`20. Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a claim
`
`are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`application was filed.
`
`21. Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that a determination of whether a
`
`claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
`the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
`• what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`22. Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that a single reference can
`
`render a patent claim obvious if any differences between that reference and the
`
`claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Alternatively, the teachings of two or more references may be combined in the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 10 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`same way as disclosed in the claims, if such a combination would have been
`
`obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. In determining whether a
`
`combination based on either a single reference or multiple references would have
`
`been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among other factors:
`
`• whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`• whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a predictable
`
`variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`• whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of known
`
`design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of success by
`
`those skilled in the art;
`
`• whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`• whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`• whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`23. Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art has ordinary creativity, and is not an automaton. Petitioner’s counsel has
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 11 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`informed me that in considering obviousness, it is important not to determine
`
`obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being considered.
`
`IV. THE ’777 PATENT
`
`A.
`24.
`
`Summary and Prosecution History
`I have reviewed, had input into, and endorse the discussions in the
`
`Summary and Prosecution History sections of the Petition (Sections IV.A. and
`
`IV.D.), which I hereby incorporate by reference and include in Appendix B below.
`
`B.
`25.
`
`Background of the Art
`I have reviewed, had input into, and endorse the discussions in the
`
`Background of the Art section of the Petition (Section IV.B.). In addition, I have
`
`personal experience related to the background of this technology area as discussed
`
`below. As mentioned above, my Master’s thesis, published in 1989, dealt with the
`
`DME system and thus I gained expertise in the topic of ‘two-way ranging’ (as will
`
`be explained below). In addition, I was formally trained in navigation systems,
`
`including DME, through graduate coursework that I completed as part of my M.S.
`
`program.
`
`26. The technology of the ’777 patent relates to so-called “two-way
`
`ranging” that dates back to World War II. EX1010. Specifically, the development
`
`of radar led to the need to be able to distinguish enemy aircraft from one’s own
`
`forces. Id., 10-11, 18-25. One technique to accomplish this task was called
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 12 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`‘identification friend or foe’ (IFF) and continues in use to the present day. Id. It
`
`involves the transmission of specially coded interrogation signals. Id., 24. A
`
`transponder on a friendly aircraft will receive and process the interrogation and
`
`then transmit a specially coded reply signal. Id. The interrogator concludes the
`
`aircraft is friendly if it receives a valid reply. Id.
`
`27. Although the technology was originally intended for identification
`
`purposes, it soon became apparent that timing circuits could be used to determine
`
`the range (distance) from the interrogator to the transponder. After the war, the
`
`technology led to the development of secondary surveillance radar (in use
`
`throughout the world by air traffic controllers), tactical air navigation systems
`
`(abbreviated as TACAN) and the so-called distance measuring equipment (DME).
`
`See e.g., EX1010; EX1011 (US 3,302,199); EX1012 (US 3,728,728); EX1013 (US
`
`4,126,859); EX1014 (US 4,677,441). The principle remains the same. A DME
`
`interrogator mounted in an aircraft transmits specially coded interrogation signals.
`
`EX1010, 22; EX1014, 3:10-14. Fixed-based ground transponders receive the
`
`interrogations, and after a processing delay, transmit a reply signal. EX1014, 2:31-
`
`4:63. The airborne interrogator measures the elapsed time from its own
`
`transmission to the receipt of the ground transponder reply signal. Id. The ground
`
`transponder processing delay is subtracted from the elapsed time and the result is
`
`divided by 2 to determine the one-way time needed for the transmission. Id. The
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 13 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`one-way time is then multiplied by the speed of light (i.e., the speed of the radio
`
`wave propagation) to determine an estimate of the range. EX1011, 2:17-23. DME
`
`technology was developed throughout the 1950s and eventually became an
`
`international standard for civil aircraft navigation. EX1010; EX1011; EX1012;
`
`EX1013: EX1014.
`
`C.
`28.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the prior
`
`art of record, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to which the
`
`claimed subject matter pertains would have the capability of understanding the
`
`scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art. I understand
`
`that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary creativity, and is not a robot.
`
`29.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at and before
`
`the priority date for the ’777 patent (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics,
`
`or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in wireless location
`
`determination. A lack of experience can be remedied with additional education
`
`(e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, a lack of education can be remedied with
`
`additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).
`
`30. Based on my professional experience, I have an understanding of the
`
`capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. As mentioned above,
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 14 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`I have 36 years of experience in the research and development of location
`
`determination systems including “two-way ranging” systems. Further, as detailed
`
`in Section II above, I myself qualified as at least a POSITA at the time the ’777
`
`patent was filed.
`
`31. The analysis set forth herein evaluates anticipation, obviousness, and
`
`priority issues consistent with the legal principles provided to me by counsel and
`
`through the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the ’777 patent was
`
`filed.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`32.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’777 patent,
`
`the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that the
`
`claims are to be construed according to the same claim construction standard that
`
`district courts use. Thus, it is my understanding that claim terms are construed
`
`according to their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`33.
`
`In order to construe the claims, I have reviewed the entirety of the ’777
`
`patent along with portions of the prosecution history of the ’777 patent (EX1008).
`
`Consistent with the ’777 patent disclosure, I have given the terms in the Challenged
`
`Claims their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 15 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`
`34.
`
`I reviewed and contributed to the constructions proposed by petitioner
`
`in the Petition. The Petition’s explanation in Section V as to why these claims should
`
`be construed as proposed for this proceeding reflects my understanding of how I use
`
`them in this declaration, and I incorporate it herein by reference and include in
`
`Appendix B below.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS2
`
`
`35.
`
` In my opinion, claims 1-3 and 5-25 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the
`
`’777 patent are unpatentable because they would have been anticipated, or at least
`
`obvious, to a POSITA at the time the ’777 patent was filed. My opinions are based
`
`on my expertise in the technology of the ’777 patent at the time the ’777 patent was
`
`filed, as well as my review of the ’777 patent, its file history, and the prior art
`
`discussed in the Petition. If the patent owner is allowed to submit additional evidence
`
`pertaining to the validity of the ’777 patent, I intend to review that as well and update
`
`my analysis and conclusions as appropriate and allowed under the rules of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`36.
`
`I reviewed and contributed to the Petition’s explanation as to why these
`
`claims are unpatentable. The Petition’s explanation in Section VI as to why these
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise specified, all bold emphasis below has been added. Text in italics
`
`is used to signify claim language, while reference names are also italicized.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 16 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`claims are unpatentable reflects my understanding, and I incorporate it herein by
`
`reference and include in Appendix B below.
`
`37. The Petition sets forth my reasons for my opinion that the Challenged
`
`Claims would have been anticipated or obvious. Below I elaborate on certain points
`
`raised in the discussion of the Petition from the perspective of a POSITA at the time
`
`of the ’777 priority date.
`
`A.
`
`38.
`
`Prior Art
`
`In my opinion, the systems described in McCorkle (as detailed for
`
`Grounds 1 and 2), McCorkle in view of Leeper (as detailed for Ground 3), McCorkle
`
`in view of Tajima (as detailed for Ground 4), and McCorkle and Leeper in view of
`
`Tajima (as detailed for Ground 5) had all of the key components and performed all
`
`of the same basic functions as the system described in the ’777 patent.
`
`1. McCorkle
`
`39. An overview of McCorkle is provided in the Petition in Section VI.A.1.,
`
`which I have reviewed, had input into, and adopt herein by reference and include in
`
`Appendix B below.
`
`2.
`
`Leeper
`
`40. An overview of Leeper is provided in the Petition in Section VI.A.2.,
`
`which I have reviewed, had input into, and adopt herein by reference and include in
`
`Appendix B below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 17 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`
`3.
`
`Tajima
`
`41. An overview of Tajima is provided in the Petition in Section VI.A.3.,
`
`which I have reviewed, had input into, and adopt herein by reference and include in
`
`Appendix B below.
`
`B. Device Types
`42. McCorkle discloses
`
`that each remote device 4101-410N sends
`
`“information about the radio type of the remote device” to local device 405. EX1003,
`
`[0124]. Radio types widely used in mobile telephones at the time of the assumed
`
`priority date include, for example, CDMA (code division multiple access) and
`
`TDMA (time division multiple access)/GSM (global system for mobiles). EX1003,
`
`[0103]-[0104] (citing EX1015). A POSITA would understand that CDMA and
`
`TDMA are distinctly different technologies even though they are being used for the
`
`same ultimate purpose. EX1018. In addition, radio types for laptops and PDAs at the
`
`time would have included WiFi (IEEE Standard 802.11b). EX1019; EX1020. As
`
`discussed in the ’777 patent, the device type may signify the communication standard
`
`of the device. EX1001, 5:12-13. This is consistent with my experience that radio
`
`type of the device is the key indicator for determining the latency of the device. I
`
`have utilized a variety of radio types in my work with communication, navigation,
`
`and surveillance systems. This is also consistent with the description in McCorkle
`
`disclosing that knowing the radio type leads to the “device type [being] known.”
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 18 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`Thus, a POSITA would have understood, or at least found obvious, that the claimed
`
`associated device type is taught by McCorkle’s remote device 4101-410N each having
`
`an associated radio type (e.g., CDMA devices, TDMA/GSM devices, and/or WiFi
`
`devices). EX1003, [0124].
`
`43. This received radio type is used by local device 405 to refer to a look
`
`up table (LUT) stored in memory to determine a predefined processing delay
`
`associated with that radio type. Id. A POSITA would have understood, or at least
`
`found obvious, that McCorkle describes a plurality of different device types because
`
`the LUT would include more than one radio type corresponding to, for example,
`
`CDMA devices, TDMA/GSM devices, and/or WiFi devices and each radio type
`
`having a predefined processing delay. Id. For example, a POSITA would have
`
`considered cell phones as CDMA devices or TDMA/GSM devices and laptops and
`
`PDAs as WiFi devices. EX1003, [0103]-[0104] (citing EX1015); EX1018; EX1019;
`
`EX1020. In particular, a POSITA would have understood, or at least found obvious,
`
`that a LUT is used where there are multiple radio types to look up. That is, a table
`
`would not be needed if each of the remote devices had the same device type. For
`
`example, in my experience, a typical LUT would include a column of radio types
`
`and a corresponding column of processing delays associated with the radio type in
`
`the same row.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 19 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`
`C. Location Updates
`44. McCorkle discloses a process for determining the location of remote
`
`devices, as shown highlighted in Figure 7 below. EX1003, [0118]-[0128]. The
`
`process includes transmitting a distance-determining message from a local device
`
`(step 701, highlighted in green); marking a transmitting time for the distance
`
`determining message (step 703, highlighted in pink); receiving the distance-
`
`determining message at the remote device and transmitting a response to the local
`
`device (step 705, highlighted in purple); receiving the response at the local device
`
`(step 707, highlighted in yellow); marking the receiving time for each response (step
`
`709, highlighted in dark blue); determining the processing delay of the remote device
`
`(step 711, highlighted in red); computing the round trip time (step 713, highlighted
`
`in dark green); and computing the distance to the remote device (step 715,
`
`highlighted in blue).
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 20 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 21 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`
`45. McCorkle discloses that the system continually updates the location of
`
`each remote device. EX1003, [0140], [0145], [0152]. To make these continual
`
`updates, McCorkle discloses that its distance determining process shown in Figure
`
`7 is repeated as loop 507. Id., [0110]-[0111], [0137], [0140], [0166], Figs. 5, 7. A
`
`POSITA would have understood, or at least found obvious, that multiple distance-
`
`determining messages are sent to each remote device at least so that the location of
`
`the remote device can be continually updated, i.e., step 701 is repeated. Id. In
`
`particular, McCorkle describes that “a new distance-determining signal is sent to”
`
`the corresponding remote device so that the distance can be updated. Id., [0140].
`
`Similarly, a POSITA would have understood, or at least would have found obvious,
`
`that a corresponding response is sent for each distance-determining message that is
`
`received, i.e., step 703 is repeated each time step 701 is conducted. Id., [0145],
`
`[0152]. That is, each time step 701 is conducted to update the distance, loop 507 is
`
`repeated such that each of the other steps are also repeated.
`
`D. Estimating a Range
`46. Like McCorkle, Leeper discloses determining a distance or range
`
`between two wireless communication devices by sending and receiving signals
`
`between the devices and determining a propagation delay of the signals. EX1004,
`
`2:15-3:9, 4:22-64, 6:66-7:7, 7:35-59, Fig. 1. Furthermore, Leeper also discloses that
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 22 of 133
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
`
`“the process of exchanging messages between the devices may be repeated a number
`
`(N) of times and averaged” to reduce errors. Id., 5:34-52.
`
`47. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
`
`McCorkle with those of Leeper with a reasonable expectation of success. First, the
`
`references are analogous art to the ’777 patent (and each o
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
