`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`Billhartz et al.
`In re Patent of:
` Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`7,321,777
`U.S. Patent No.:
`January 22, 2008
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 11/531,487
`
`Filing Date:
`September 13, 2006
`
`Title:
`WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM INCLUDING
`A WIRELESS DEVICE LOCATOR AND RELATED
`METHODS
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 7,321,777 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR—37 C.F.R. §42.104 ........................................ 2 
`  Grounds for Standing—37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ......................................... 2 
`  Challenge and Relief Requested—37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) ........................ 2 
`  Claim Construction—37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3) ....................................... 3 
`III.  THE ’777 PATENT ........................................................................................ 4 
`  Brief Description ...................................................................................... 4 
`  Background of the Art .............................................................................. 6 
`  Prosecution History .................................................................................. 7 
`IV.  Level of Ordinary Skill ................................................................................... 9 
`V. 
`PRIOR ART REFERENCES .......................................................................... 9 
`  McCorkle .................................................................................................. 9 
`  Leeper ..................................................................................................... 17 
`  Tajima ..................................................................................................... 18 
`VI.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ......................... 19 
`A.  Grounds 1-5: Claims 1, 6-9, 12, 16-20, and 23-25 are anticipated by
`McCorkle, claims 1, 3, 5-9, 12, 14-20, and 22-25 are obvious over
`McCorkle, claims 1-3 and 5-25 are obvious over McCorkle in view of
`Leeper, claims 3, 5, 14, 15, and 22 are obvious over McCorkle in view of
`Tajima, and claims 3, 5, 11, 14, 15, and 22 are obvious over McCorkle and
`Leeper in further view of Tajima ........................................................... 19 
`Claim 1 .......................................................................................... 19 
` 
`Claim 2 .......................................................................................... 46 
` 
`Claim 3 .......................................................................................... 46 
` 
`Claim 5 .......................................................................................... 55 
` 
`Claim 6 .......................................................................................... 55 
` 
`Claim 7 .......................................................................................... 56 
` 
`Claim 8 .......................................................................................... 57 
` 
`Claim 9 .......................................................................................... 58 
` 
`Claim 10 ........................................................................................ 58 
` 
`  Claim 11 ........................................................................................ 60 
`  Claim 12 ........................................................................................ 60 
`  Claim 13 ........................................................................................ 61 
`  Claim 14 ........................................................................................ 62 
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`  Claim 15 ........................................................................................ 62 
`  Claim 16 ........................................................................................ 62 
`  Claim 17 ........................................................................................ 63 
`  Claim 18 ........................................................................................ 63 
`  Claim 19 ........................................................................................ 63 
`  Claim 20 ........................................................................................ 64 
`  Claim 21 ........................................................................................ 65 
`  Claim 22 ........................................................................................ 65 
`  Claim 23 ........................................................................................ 65 
`  Claim 24 ........................................................................................ 66 
`  Claim 25 ........................................................................................ 66 
`VII.  DISCRETION SHOULD NOT PRECLUDE INSTITUTION .................... 66 
`A.  The General Plastic Factors Favor Institution—§314(a) ...................... 67 
`Factor 1: Petitioner’s Multiple Petitions Do Not Prejudice Patent
` 
`Owner ........................................................................................... 69 
`Factor 2: Petitioner’s Knowledge of the Prior Art in the Unified
`Petition Did Not Prejudice Patent Owner ..................................... 69 
`Factor 3: This Petition Does Not Implicate Road-Mapping or
`Playbooking Concerns .................................................................. 70 
`Factors 4 and 5: Petitioner Diligently Prepared This Joinder Petition
`at the Appropriate Time ................................................................ 70 
`Factors 6 and 7: Institution Efficiently Promotes Patent Quality. 71 
` 
`B.  The Fintiv Factors Favor Institution—§314(a) ...................................... 72 
`VIII.  PETITIONER’S RANKING OF PETITIONS ............................................. 74 
`A.  The Original Petition and the Joinder Petition Are Materially Different74 
`B.  Petitioner Ranks the Original Petition Ahead of the Joinder Petition ... 75 
`IX.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................ 78 
`  Real Party-in-Interest—37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1) ...................................... 78 
`  Related Matters—37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) ............................................... 78 
`  Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ............................ 79 
`FEES—37 C.F.R. §42.103 ............................................................................ 79 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 7,321,777 to Thomas Jay Billhartz et al. (“the ’777
`patent”)
`Exhibit 1002 Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D. (“Braasch Declaration”)
`Exhibit 1003 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0174048 to McCorkle
`(“McCorkle”)
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent 7, 203,500 to Leeper et al. (“Leeper”)
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent 7,058,414 to Rofheart et al. (“Rofheart”)
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent 5,381,444 to Tajima (“Tajima”)
`Chlamtac, Imrish, Marco Conti, and Jennifer J.-N. Liu, Mobile ad
`hoc networking: imperatives and challenges, 2003,
`https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S15708705
`03000131
`Exhibit 1008 Prosecution File History of the ’777 Patent
`Exhibit 1009
`[Reserved]
`Overview of Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) and
`Systems,
`Identification
`Friend/Foe
`(IFF)
`https://www.ieee.li/pdf/viewgraphs/overview-of-ssr-and-iff-
`systems.pdf
`Exhibit 1011 U.S. Patent 3,302,199 to Kelly et al. (“Kelly”)
`Exhibit 1012 U.S. Patent 3,728,728 to Vogel et al. (Vogel”)
`Exhibit 1013 U.S. Patent 4,126,859 to Böhm (“Böhm”)
`Exhibit 1014 U.S. Patent 4,677,441 to Höfgen et al. (“Höfgen”)
`IEEE Standard for Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC)
`Exhibit 1015
`and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications
`Exhibit 1016 U.S. Patent 8,625,481 to Duggi et al. (“Duggi”)
`Exhibit 1017 U.S. Patent 7,321,783 to Kim (“Kim”)
`Gudmundson, Björn, Johan Skõld, and Jon K. Ugland. “A
`comparison of CDMA and TDMA systems.” [1992 Proceedings]
`Vehicular Technology Society 42nd VTS Conference-Frontiers of
`Technology. IEEE, 1992.
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`Exhibit 1019
`
`Exhibit 1020
`
`Bruzzese, Stephanie, and Charles McLellan, Dell Inspiron 5100,
`March 3, 2003, https://www.zdnet.com/product/dell-inspiron-
`5100/
`Smith, Tony, Palm Tungsten C Wi-Fi PDA, October 27, 2003,
`https://www.theregister.com/2003/10/27/palm_tungsten_c_wifi_p
`da/
`
`Exhibits
`1021-1099
`
`[Reserved]
`
`Exhibit 1100
`
`Federal Court Management Statistics June 2022 published by the
`Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, retrieved from
`https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fcms_na_distprofile06
`30.2022_0.pdf on August 19, 2022
`Exhibit 1101 Scheduling Order, Speir Technologies Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case
`6:22-cv-00077-ADA (WDTX)
`
`Exhibit 1102 Apple’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Speir Technologies
`Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case 6:22-cv-00077-ADA (WDTX)
`
`Exhibit 1103 Speir’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Speir Technologies
`Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case 6:22-cv-00077-ADA (WDTX)
`
`Exhibit 1104 Order Resetting Markman Hearing, Speir Technologies Ltd. v.
`Apple Inc., Case 6:22-cv-00077-ADA (WDTX)
`
`Exhibit 1105
`
`Notice Regarding Agreed Extension to Serve Final Infringement
`and Invalidity Contentions, Speir Technologies Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`Case 6:22-cv-00077-ADA (WDTX)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-3 and 5-25 of
`
`U.S. Patent 7,321,777 (“the ’777 patent”). The patentability analysis of this Petition
`
`mirrors the petition filed on May 27, 2022 by Unified Patents, LLC (“the Unified
`
`Petition”) in Case No. IPR2022-00987 (“the Unified Proceeding”). The Board
`
`instituted review in the Unified Proceeding on November 9, 2022, finding that the
`
`Unified Petition “present[s] not only a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, but
`
`also a compelling unpatentability challenge.” Unified Patents, LLC v. Speir
`
`Technologies Ltd., IPR2022-00987, Paper 9 at 13 (PTAB Nov. 9, 2022). So too does
`
`this mirror-image Petition.
`
`Concurrently with this Petition, Petitioner conditionally moves for joinder with
`
`the Unified Proceeding if, and only if, the Board denies institution of Petitioner’s
`
`Original Petition in Case No. IPR2022-01512 (“the Apple Proceeding”). As discussed
`
`below in Sections VII and VIII, Petitioner submits this Petition and seeks conditional
`
`joinder with the intent to participate in a single inter partes review, preferably the
`
`Apple Proceeding. Instituting review in either the Apple Proceeding or here (with
`
`joinder to the Unified Proceeding) appropriately balances the respective interests of
`
`the parties and simultaneously promotes judicial efficiency and consistency between
`
`co-pending district court and PTAB proceedings regarding the ’777 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR—37 C.F.R. §42.104
` Grounds for Standing—37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’777 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
` Challenge and Relief Requested—37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-3, 5-25 (“challenged claims”) of the ’777 patent.
`
`The ’777 patent ultimately claims priority to U.S. Application 10/767,794, filed
`
`January 29, 2004. Petitioner assumes the challenged claims have a priority date of
`
`January 29, 2004, without conceding that the challenged claims are entitled to that date.
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below:
`
`1. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0174048 (filed December 13,
`
`2002, published September 18, 2003) (“McCorkle” (EX1003)).
`
`2. U.S. Patent 7,203,500 (filed August 1, 2003, issued April 10, 2007)
`
`(“Leeper” (EX1004)).
`
`3. U.S. Patent 5,381,444 (filed October 30, 1992, issued January 10, 1995)
`
`(“Tajima” (EX1006)).
`
`McCorkle, Leeper, and Tajima are each prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e).
`
`Tajima is also prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`None of the above prior art was cited during prosecution of the ’777 patent.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`This Petition, supported by the Declaration of Michael Braasch, Ph.D
`
`(“Braasch Declaration” EX1002), requests cancellation of claims 1-3 and 5-25 under
`
`the following Grounds.
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`’777 Patent Claims
`1, 6–9, 12, 16–20, and
`23-25
`1, 3, 5–9, 12, 14–20,
`and 22-25
`1–3 and 5–25
`3, 5, 14, 15, and 22
`
`3, 5, 11, 14, 15 and 22
`
`Basis
`
`§102: McCorkle
`
`§103: McCorkle
`
`§103: McCorkle in view of Leeper
`§103: McCorkle in view of Tajima
`§103: McCorkle in view of Leeper and
`Tajima
`
`
`
` Claim Construction—37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3)
`Because the Challenged Claims are obvious under any reasonable interpretation,
`
`no express constructions are required in this proceeding. To be clear, Petitioner
`
`reserves the right to address any construction proposed by Patent Owner or the Board.
`
`Petitioner also reserves the right to pursue constructions in district court that are
`
`necessary to decide matters of infringement.
`
`For example, in district court, Petitioner construed the term “known device
`
`latency” as “predetermined latency for the given device type of the target wireless
`
`communication device.” EX1102, 3. Patent Owner opposed this construction and
`
`argued that “known device latency” should be given its (presumably broader) plain
`
`meaning. Id.; EX1103, 1-4. While pertinent to infringement, the parties’ dispute has no
`
`bearing in this IPR because the prior art obviates the Challenged Claims under either
`3
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`party’s interpretation.
`
`In the recently instituted Unified Proceeding, the Board “determine[d] that no
`
`terms require construction at this stage.” Unified Patents, LLC v. Speir Technologies
`
`Ltd., IPR2022-00987, Paper 9 at 12 (PTAB Nov. 9, 2022). The same approach is
`
`warranted here in this Petition, where the unpatentability grounds mirror those from
`
`the Unified Petition.
`
`III. THE ’777 PATENT
` Brief Description
`The ’777 patent is directed to a system and method of using a wireless device
`
`locator to location a remote wireless device. EX1001, Abstract. According to a
`
`described embodiment, wireless communications system 30 includes a wireless
`
`location device (blue) and wireless communications devices 34-36 (orange), as shown
`
`in annotated Figure 1 below. Id., 4:56-62, Fig. 1.
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`Wireless device locator 32 includes an antenna 39, transceiver 41 and controller
`
`42. Id., 5:28-30. Controller 42 cooperates with transceiver 41 to send a plurality of
`
`location finding signals to a target wireless communications device (e.g., one of
`
`devices 34-36). Id., 5:42-48. Controller 42 further cooperates with transceiver 41 to
`
`receive a reply signal from the target device via antenna 39. Id., 6:36-38.
`
`Controller 42 determines
`
`the propagation delay associated with
`
`the
`
`transmission of each location finding signal and respective reply. Id., 6:42-59. To
`
`determine the propagation delay, controller 42 must consider the device latency of the
`
`target device. Id., 6:50-67. The device latency is the time it takes the target device to
`
`receive, process, and transmit the reply signal in response to the location finding
`
`signal. Id., 6:65-67. Controller 42 has access to a known device latency of the target
`
`device based on its device type which provides a close approximation of the actual
`
`device latency. Id., 7:13-20. Controller 42 also knows the transmission time t1 of the
`
`location finding signal and the reception time t4 of the reply to the location finding
`
`signal. Id., 6:50-7:12, Fig. 3. Controller 42 calculates the total propagation time by
`
`subtracting the known device latency from the time between times t1 and t4. Id., 7:21-
`
`30.
`
`To determine the range from wireless device locator 32 to the target device, the
`
`total propagation delay is divided by two to find the one-way propagation delay from
`
`wireless device locator 32 to the target device because both the propagation delays to
`
`and from the target device may be considered equal or substantially equal for a
`5
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`stationary or a slow moving target device. Id., 7:30-33. The one-way propagation
`
`delay is then multiplied by the speed of light to give an estimated distance to the target
`
`device. Id., 7:33-36. To improve the accuracy of the estimated distance to the target
`
`device and mitigate the effects of variations in the actual device latency time, controller
`
`may estimate the range based on an average of multiple calculated propagation delays
`
`between wireless device locator 32 and the target device. Id., 7:47-65.
`
`Such systems for locating a remote wireless device were well known before the
`
`’777 patent, as evidenced by the prior art in this Petition and the Braasch Declaration.
`
`See also, EX1002, ¶¶35-63 (citing EX1003-EX1007; EX1010-EX1020).
`
`
`Background of the Art
`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 ‘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.
`
`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
`6
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`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 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.
`
`
`Prosecution History
`The ’777 patent issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/531,487 (“the ’487
`
`application”), which was filed September 13, 2006 as a continuation of U.S. Patent
`
`Appl. No. 10/767,794 (now U.S. 7,110,779), which was filed January 29, 2004.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`After one Office Action, the claims were allowed. See generally EX1008. The
`
`Office Action rejected the pending claims on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-
`
`type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent 7,110,779
`
`(the ’779 patent) (parent of the ’777 patent), provisionally rejected the pending claims
`
`on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Application 11/058,931 (the ’931 application)
`
`and rejected the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
`
`combinations of U.S. Published Application 2004/0266348 (“Deshpande”), U.S.
`
`Published Application 2003/0191604 (“Kuwahara”), and U.S. Published Application
`
`2003/0117320 (“Kim”). Id., 103-107. The applicant filed a terminal disclaimer over
`
`the ’779 patent and argued that the prior art references used in the Office Action do
`
`not disclose “determining a propagation delay associated with the transmission of a
`
`location finding signal and a respective reply signal based upon a known device
`
`latency of a target wireless communications device” because, for example, Kuwahara
`
`“merely looks at the time of transmission from a transmitting device and the time of
`
`reception at a receiving device” and “simply does not take into account any device
`
`latency of the transmitting terminal.” Id., 88-91. The applicant and the examiner
`
`conducted an interview, and the claims were allowed. Id., 18-28. The examiner
`
`provided no indication regarding which elements rendered the claims allowable. Id.,
`
`23-24.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill
`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). EX1002, ¶¶28-31.
`
`V.
`
`PRIOR ART REFERENCES
` McCorkle
`Like the ’777 patent, McCorkle is directed to a system for determining a
`
`location of a remote wireless device. EX1003, Abstract, [0098]-[0105], [0118]-
`
`[0128], Figs. 4, 7. The reference is analogous art to the ’777 patent, as each discloses
`
`wireless communication systems
`
`in
`
`the same field of endeavor (location
`
`determination) and are pertinent to the problem of how to locate a remote wireless
`
`device. EX1001, Abstract; EX1003, Abstract, [0098]-[0105], [0118]-[0128], Figs. 4,
`
`7; EX1002, ¶¶47, 58. McCorkle discloses a wireless network 400, such as a wireless
`
`local area network (WLAN) or other wireless network, in which a plurality of wireless
`
`devices communicate over. EX1003, [0098]. These wireless devices are shown in
`
`annotated Figure 4 below and include a local device 405 (blue) and multiple remote
`
`devices 4101 through 410N (orange). Each device also includes an ultra-wide band
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`(UWB) transceiver having at least one antenna 105 for transmitting and receiving
`
`UWB signal 420. Id., [0101].
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`“Each of the wireless devices 405 and 4101 through 410N may be a mobile
`
`device such as a mobile telephone, a laptop computer, or personal digital assistant
`
`(PDA).” Id., [0100]. Each of the wireless devices includes a processor system having a
`
`processor unit 301 such as the one shown annotated in red in Figure 3 below. Id.,
`
`[0069], [0100], Fig. 3. Processor unit 301 includes, for example, bus 303, processor
`
`305, main memory 307, read only memory 9ROM) 309, storage device 311, and
`
`communication interface 313. Id., [0069].
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`Local device 405 is linked to remote devices 4101-410N via respective UWB
`
`links 4151-415N, as shown in Figure 6 below. Id., [0098], [0113]-[0116], Fig. 6. To
`
`create the UWB links, local device 405 transmits a join message to all unlinked remote
`
`devices within the transmission range of the local device 405. Id., [0113]. Each of the
`
`unlinked remote devices receives the join message, synchronizes with local device
`
`405, and transmits a reply to the join message. Id., [0113]-[0115]. Each reply is a UWB
`
`signal that includes a unique identifier associated with the respective remote device.
`
`Id., [0115]. The unique identifier may be a device address or a unique time delay for
`
`the remote device. Id. Local device 405 receives the replies and establishes the unique
`
`links with the remote devices. Id., [0116]. The unique identifiers of the remote devices
`
`are stored in memory 307 of local device 405. Id.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`Once the unique link is established, local device 405 calculates a distance to
`
`each linked remote device 4101-410N, as shown in Figure 7 below. Id., [0118]- [0128],
`
`Fig. 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`For example, local device 405 transmits a distance-determining message to
`
`linked remote device 4101 via the unique communication links 4151. Id., [0118]. Local
`
`device 405 determines a transmit time t1 of the distance-determining message and
`
`stores transmit time t1 in main memory 307 along with the corresponding unique
`
`identifier of the corresponding remote device. Id., [0120]. Linked remote device 4101
`
`receives the distance determining message and transmits a response back to local
`
`device 405. Id., [0121]. Local device 405 receives the response, determines a receive
`
`time t2 for the response, and stores the receive time t2 in main memory 307 along with
`
`the corresponding transmit time t1. Id., [0122].
`
`Local device 405 determines a processing delay d for remote device 4101. Id.,
`
`[0123]. The processing delay d is “the times delay between the remote device
`
`receiving the distance determining message and transmitting a response and includes at
`
`least the amount of time necessary for the remote device to process the distance
`
`determining message and form a response.” Id. To determine the processing delay,
`
`local device 405 receives information from remote device 4101 regarding the radio
`
`type of remote device 4101 as part of the unique identifier received when linking the
`
`devices. Id., [0124]. Local device 405 uses the known device type in referring to a
`
`look up table (LUT) stored in memory 307 or ROM 309 to determine a predefined
`
`processing delay for that radio type. Id. Alternatively, the processing delay d itself
`
`may be transmitted to local device 405 as part of the unique identifier received when
`
`linking the devices. Id., [0125].
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`Local device 405 then calculates the round trip time Trt for transmitting the
`
`distance-determining message to remote device 4101 and receiving the corresponding
`
`response using the following formula in which t1 is the transmit time of the distance-
`
`determining message, t2 is the receive time of the corresponding response, and d is the
`
`processing delay for the remote device:
`
`
`
`Id., [0126]. Local device 405 then uses the calculated round trip time Trt to compute
`
`the distance D to remote device 4101 using the following formula in which c is the
`
`speed of light (e.g., the speed at which an RF signal travels through the wireless
`
`medium):
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., [0127]-[0128].
`
`This process may be repeated to continually update the distances to the linked
`
`remote devices. Id., [0145], [0152].
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`
`Leeper
`Like the ’777 patent, Leeper is directed to a system for determining a location
`
`of a remote wireless device. EX1004, Abstract, 2:15-3:9, 4:22-64, 5:29-56, 6:56- 7:59,
`
`Figs. 1, 4. The reference is analogous art to the ’777 patent, as each discloses wireless
`
`communication systems in the same field of endeavor (location determination) and
`
`are pertinent to the problem of how to locate a remote wireless device. EX1001,
`
`Abstract; EX1004, Abstract, 2:15-3:9, 4:22-64, 5:29-56, 6:56-7:59, Figs. 1, 4;
`
`EX1002, ¶47.
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 below, Leeper discloses two or more electronic
`
`devices 102 (blue), 104 (orange) that are connected through an UWB wireless
`
`communication channel 106. EX1004, 2:46-57. Each electronic device 102, 104
`
`includes an UWB transceiver 108 with an associated antenna for transmitting and
`
`receiving UWB signals. Id.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`Each electronic device 102, 104 includes a ranging agent 112/114/200 for
`
`determining a range between the electronic devices 102, 104. Id., 2:46-3:9, 4:22-39,
`
`Figs. 1, 2. Electronic device 102 sends and receives ranging messages to/from
`
`electronic device 104. Id., 4:22-64. Based on this exchange of messages, a propagation
`
`delay is calculated based on the time it takes the messages to propagate between the
`
`devices. Id., 6:66-7:7, 7:35-59. This propagation delay is used to calculate the distance
`
`between the electronic devices 102, 104. Id., Abstract, 2:15- 3:9, 4:22-64, 6:66-7:7,
`
`7:35-59. The exchanging of messages between the devices may be repeated a number
`
`(N) of times and averaged to reduce errors. Id., 5:29-56.
`
` Tajima
`Like the ’777 patent, Tajima is directed to a system for determining a location
`
`of a wireless mobile apparatus. EX1006, Abstract, Figs. 1, 3. This reference is
`
`analogous art to the ’777 patent, as each discloses wireless communication systems in
`
`the same field of endeavor (location determination) and are pertinent to the problem
`
`of how to locate a remote wireless device. EX1001, Abstract; EX1006, Abstract, 5:5-
`
`17, 5:28-68, 6:35-39, 7:15-38, 10:37-55, Figs. 1, 3, 4; EX1002, ¶58.
`
`Tajima discloses fixed radio apparatus 1 and mobile radio apparatus 2. Id., 5:5-
`
`17. Fixed radio apparatus 1 has a transmission/reception unit 4 for sending and
`
`receiving signals from mobile radio apparatus 2. Id. Fixed radio apparatus 1 also
`
`includes measuring unit 5 for measuring the propagation distance and direction to
`
`mobile radio apparatus 2. Id., 5:5-17, 5:43-68.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0107IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent 7,321,777
`
`Transmission/reception unit 4 of fixed radio apparatus 1 has non-directional
`
`antenna 11 and directional antenna 12. Id., 5:28-34, 6:35-39, Fig. 4. When the radio
`
`wave sent in reply by mobile radio apparatus 2 is received by non-directional antenna
`
`11 and directional antenna 12, fixed radio apparatus uses the reception level from the
`
`two antennas to determine the direction to mobile radio apparatus 2. Id., 7:15- 38,
`
`10:37-55, Fig. 4.
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE1
`A. Grounds 1-5: Claims 1, 6-9, 12, 16-20, and 23-25 are anticipated
`by McCorkle, claims 1, 3, 5-9, 12, 14-20, and 22-25 are obvious
`over McCorkle, claims 1-3 and 5-25 are obvious over McCorkle
`in view of Leeper, claims 3, 5, 14, 15, and 22 are obvious over
`McCorkle in view of Tajima, and claims 3, 5, 11, 14, 15, and 22
`are obvious over McCorkle and Leeper in further view of Tajima
`
`Claim 1
`[1.0] A wireless communications system, comprising:
`To the extent limiting, McCorkle discloses, or at least renders obvious, the
`
`preamble. As shown in annotated Figure 4 below, McCorkle discloses a wireless
`
`network 400 in which a plurality of wireless devices (e.g., local device 405 (blue) and
`
`remote devices 4101-410N (orang