`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01211
`Patent 8,786,494
`__________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`  MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1) ............. 2 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 2 
`B. 
`Identification of Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) ........... 2 
`C. 
`Lead and Backup Counsel ..................................................................... 3 
`D. 
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4) ................................ 5 
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 5 
`  REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104 ............................................. 5 
`A.  Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 5 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenges and Precise Relief Requested .................. 6 
`C. 
`Prior Art Qualification of Asserted References .................................... 7 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 8 
`A. 
`The ’494 Patent ..................................................................................... 8 
`B. 
`Examination History ............................................................................. 8 
`C. 
`The Prior Art ......................................................................................... 9 
`1. 
`Shkedi (EX1006)......................................................................... 9 
`2. 
`Zhu (EX1010) ........................................................................... 11 
`3. 
`Spain (EX1009) ......................................................................... 12 
`4. 
`Laitinen (EX1011) .................................................................... 12 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) ................................ 13 
`D. 
`  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13 
`
` 
`
`i
`
`

`

`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`E. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`“calibration data” ................................................................................. 14 
`“observed network measurement data” ............................................... 15 
`“grid point” .......................................................................................... 15 
`“as said mobile station” ....................................................................... 15 
`Order of “collecting…” “modifying…” and “comparing…”
`steps ................................................................................................... 15 
`  PETITIONER HAS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF
`PREVAILING ............................................................................................... 16 
`A. 
`Claims 1 and 4 Are Anticipated By Shkedi (Ground 1) ..................... 16 
`1. 
`Claim 1 (Preamble): “A method for determining a
`location of a mobile station, comprising:” ................................ 16 
`a. 
`Element [1.1]: “providing a database of
`previously-gathered calibration data for a
`predetermined region in a wireless network;” ................ 17 
`Element [1.2]: “collecting observed network
`measurement data, the observed network
`measurement data collected by the mobile station
`and transmitted to the network or collected by the
`network;” ........................................................................ 20 
`Element [1.3]: “modifying said observed network
`measurement data; and;” ................................................ 22 
`Element [1.4]: “comparing said modified network
`measurement data with said database of calibration
`data to thereby determine the location of the
`mobile station.” ............................................................... 25 
`Claim 4: “The method of claim 1 wherein said database
`comprises previously-gathered calibration data for one or
`more non-uniform grid points within said region.” .................. 28 
`Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Over Shkedi in View of
`Spain (Ground 2) ................................................................................. 30 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`C. 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`Claims 1, 4, 25, 26, and 35 Are Anticipated By Zhu (Ground 3) ....... 32 
`1. 
`Claim 1 (Preamble) ................................................................... 32 
`a. 
`Element [1.1] .................................................................. 33 
`b. 
`Element [1.2] .................................................................. 35 
`c. 
`Element [1.3] .................................................................. 37 
`d. 
`Element [1.4] .................................................................. 39 
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 40 
`Claim 25 (Preamble): “A method for determining a
`location of a mobile station, comprising: .................................. 42 
`a. 
`Element [25.1]: “providing a database of
`previously-gathered calibration data for a
`predetermined region in a wireless network;” ................ 42 
`Element [25.2]: “collecting observed network
`measurement data from each of a plurality of
`transmitters including a signal characteristic from
`each one of said plural transmitters, the observed
`network measurement data collected by the mobile
`station and transmitted to the network or collected
`by the network;” ............................................................. 42 
`Element [25.3]: “determining an average value for
`select ones of said signal characteristics;” ...................... 43 
`Element [25.4]: “modifying said observed network
`measurement data using said average value; and” ......... 45 
`Element [25.5]: “comparing said modified network
`measurement data with said database of calibration
`data to thereby determine the location of the
`mobile station.” ............................................................... 47 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`e. 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`D. 
`
`Claim 26: “The method of claim 25 wherein said
`database comprises previously-gathered calibration data
`for one or more non uniform grid points within said
`region.” ...................................................................................... 47 
`Claim 35: “The method of claim 25 wherein at least one
`of said plurality of transmitters is not a member of said
`wireless network.” ..................................................................... 47 
`Claims 4 and 26 Would Have Been Obvious Over Zhu in View
`of Spain (Ground 4) ............................................................................. 49 
`Claim 35 Would Have Been Obvious Over Zhu in View of
`Laitinen (Ground 5) ............................................................................. 51 
`Claims 25, 26 and 35 Would Have Been Obvious Over Shkedi
`in View of Zhu and Spain (Ground 6) ................................................ 53 
`1. 
`Claim 25 (Preamble) ................................................................. 53 
`a. 
`Element [25.1] ................................................................ 54 
`a. 
`Element [25.2] ................................................................ 54 
`b. 
`Element [25.3] ................................................................ 54 
`c. 
`Element [25.4] ................................................................ 56 
`d. 
`Element [25.5] ................................................................ 56 
`Claim 26 .................................................................................... 57 
`2. 
`Claim 35 is Disclosed in Shkedi ............................................... 57 
`3. 
`  OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 58 
`Secondary Considerations ................................................................... 58 
`Discretion to Institute .......................................................................... 59 
`1. 
`The Board should not deny this Petition under §314(a) ........... 59 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Factor 1: Whether the court granted a stay or
`evidence exists that one may be granted if a
`proceeding is instituted ................................................... 59 
`Factor 2: Proximity of the court’s trial date to the
`Panel’s projected statutory deadline for a final
`written decision ............................................................... 59 
`Factor 3: Investment in the parallel proceeding by
`the court and the parties .................................................. 60 
`Factor 4: Overlap between issues raised in the
`petition and in the parallel proceeding ........................... 61 
`Factor 5: Whether the petitioner and the defendant
`in the parallel proceeding are the same party ................. 61 
`Factor 6: Other circumstances that impact the
`Panel’s exercise of discretion, including the merits ....... 62 
`The Board should not deny this Petition under §325(d) ........... 62 
`2. 
`  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 64 
`APPENDIX A - LIST OF EXHIBITS
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 37 C.F.R. §42.24
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`e. 
`
`f. 
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) .......................................... 62, 63
`Amgen Inc. v. Alexion Pharm., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00740, Paper 15 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2019) ............................................. 63
`Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings,
`IPR2020-00686, Paper 9 (Sept. 23, 2020) .......................................................... 59
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................... 62
`Dish Network LLC v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01332, Paper 14 (Jan. 27, 2021) .......................................................... 61
`DISH Network LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2020-01041, Paper 13, 22 (PTAB Jan 19, 2021) ......................................... 63
`Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Ravgen, Inc.,
`IPR2021-01054, Paper 11 (Nov. 5, 2021) .......................................................... 60
`Microsoft Corporation v. D3D Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00703, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 12, 2021) .............................................. 60
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 14
`Puma N. Am., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.,
`IPR2019-01058, Paper 10, 19 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2019) ........................................ 64
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.,
`IPR2019-01615 (PTAB April 17, 2020) ............................................................ 63
`Sand Revolution II v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June. 16, 2020) ................................ 59, 60, 61
`Scientific Design Co. v. Shell Oil Co.,
`IPR2021-01537, Paper 7 (PTAB Mar. 18, 2022) ............................................... 63
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`Scientific Design Co. v. Shell Oil Co.,
`IPR2022-00158, Paper 7 (PTAB Apr. 4, 2022) ................................................. 63
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00633, Paper 11 (PTAB Aug. 14, 2015) ............................................. 13
`Trans Ova Genetics, LC v. XY, LLC,
`IPR2018-00250, Paper 9, 18-19 (PTAB June 27, 2018) .................................... 63
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 13
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §102 ........................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ...................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) ...................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. §103 ........................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. §§311-319.................................................................................................. 1
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .................................................................................................... 59
`35 U.S.C. §318(a) ...................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .................................................................................................... 62
`
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1) ................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(a) .................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(b) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) .................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. §42.100 et seq. ........................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. §42.102(a)(2) ............................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. §42.104 ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review of Claims
`
`1, 4, 25, 26, and 35 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494 (“the
`
`’494 Patent”) (EX1001) under 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §42.100 et seq.
`
`The Challenged Claims encompass determining a location of a mobile station
`
`(e.g., mobile phone) by modifying observed network measurement data used to
`
`locate the mobile station so as to address location accuracy when the mobile station
`
`is in an indoor facility. In Related Litigation, Patent Owner (“Owner”) asserts that
`
`modification of observed network measurement data constitutes the purported
`
`“inventive feature” of the ’494 Patent. EX1016, ¶54. The ’494 Patent accomplishes
`
`modifying by collecting observed network measurement data with a mobile device
`
`seeking its location and transmitting the observed network measurement data to a
`
`network.
`
`The USPTO erred in allowing the ’494 Patent because its alleged novelty was
`
`disclosed in prior art that was not considered. The prior art cited in this Petition
`
`teaches that it was known to modify observed network measurement data of a
`
`Network Measurement Report (NMR) by using relative/normalized measurements
`
`as disclosed in the ’494 Patent. Certain Challenged Claims encompass modifying
`
`observed network measurement data using an average value which was also known
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`as evidenced by the prior art cited in this Petition. The Challenged Claims are
`
`therefore unpatentable. See EX1006, EX1010 in their entireties.
`
` MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Google LLC is the
`
`real party-in-interest. Google LLC is a subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc. which is a
`
`subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. XXVI Holdings Inc. and Alphabet Inc. are not real
`
`parties-in-interest to this proceeding.
`
`B.
`Identification of Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)
`The following is a list of any judicial or administrative matters that would
`
`affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding:
`
`Related District Court and PTAB Matters
`
`1.
`
`Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC f/k/a Google Inc., Civ.
`
`Action No. 1:22-cv-01331 (EDVA) filed on November 22, 2022 (pending) (the
`
`“Related Litigation”); and
`
`2.
`
`Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Civ. Action No. 1:22-
`
`cv-01373 (EDVA) filed on December 1, 2022 (pending).
`
`Related Applications
`
`The ’494 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/771,542, filed on
`
`February 20, 2013, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`12/424,320, filed on April 15, 2009 (US Patent 8,400,358) which is a continuation
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/026,333, filed on February 5, 2008 (US Patent
`
`7,561,104), which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/899,379,
`
`filed on February 5, 2007.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/012,694, filed on September 24, 2012, is an ex
`
`parte reexamination of US Patent 7,561,104. The Reexamination Certificate issued
`
`on August 18, 2014.
`
`Other Related Matters
`
`1.
`
`Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd., Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,561,104, Case No. IPR2023-01209; and
`
`2.
`
`Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd., Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,400,358, Case No. IPR2023-01210.
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) and §42.10(a), Petitioner hereby identifies
`
`its lead and backup counsel as follows:
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`Backup Counsel:
`Roger H. Lee, Esq.
`Registration No. 46,317
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Direct Telephone (703) 838-6545
`Main Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`roger.lee@bipc.com
`Backup Counsel:
`Andrew R. Cheslock, Esq.
`Registration No. 68,577
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Direct Telephone (703) 838-6523
`Main Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`andrew.cheslock@bipc.com
`Backup Counsel:
`Samuel Harrod, Esq.
`Registration No. 79,148
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`Union Trust Building
`501 Grant Street, Suite 200
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`Direct Telephone (412) 562-8805
`Main Facsimile (412) 562-1041
`samuel.harrod@bipc.com
`
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Patrick C. Keane, Esq.
`Registration No. 32,858
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Direct Telephone (703) 838-6522
`Main Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`patrick.keane@bipc.com
`Backup Counsel:
`Matthew L. Fedowitz, Esq.
`Registration No. 61,386
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`1700 K Street, NW, Suite 300
`Washington, DC 20006
`Direct Telephone (202) 452-7306
`Main Facsimile (202) 452-7989
`matthew.fedowitz@bipc.com
`Backup Counsel:
`Mythili Markowski, Ph.D., Esq.
`Registration No. 67,063
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
`Washington, DC 20006
`Direct Telephone (202) 452-7314
`Main Facsimile (202) 452-7989
`mythili.markowski@bipc.com
`
`Backup Counsel:
`Ralph G. Fischer, Esq.
`Registration No. 55,179
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`Union Trust Building
`501 Grant Street, Suite 200
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`Direct Telephone (412) 392-2121
`Main Facsimile (412) 562-1041
`ralph.fischer@bipc.com
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`A Power of Attorney is being filed concurrently herewith in accordance with
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(b).
`
`D.
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)
`Petitioner consents to e-mail service at BIR-GoogleGeoscope@bipc.com.
`
` PAYMENT OF FEES
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge Deposit Account No. 02-
`
`4800 for fees required by 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a).
`
` REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’494 Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.102(a)(2). Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging the claims of the ’494
`
`Patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`This Petition is filed within one year from the date on which Petitioner was
`
`served a Complaint by Owner in the Related Litigation.
`
`Neither Petitioner nor its privies have received a final written decision under
`
`35 U.S.C. §318(a) regarding any claim of the ’494 Patent on any ground that was
`
`raised or could have been raised by Petitioner or its privies in any inter partes review,
`
`post grant review, or covered business method patent review.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`B.
`Identification of Challenges and Precise Relief Requested
`Petitioner challenges Claims 1, 4, 25, 26, and 35 of the ’494 Patent and
`
`requests that these claims be found unpatentable for the reasons set forth in
`
`Petitioner’s Grounds as follows:1
`
`Ground
`
`Reference(s)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,706,811 (“Shkedi”)
`(EX1006)
`Shkedi; U.S. Patent Publication No.
`2003/0064735 (“Spain”) (EX1009)
`Jian Zhu and G. D. Durgin,
`“Indoor/outdoor location of cellular
`handsets based on received signal
`strength,” 2005 IEEE 61st Vehicular
`Technology Conference, Stockholm,
`Sweden, 2005, pp.92-96, Vol. 1, doi:
`10.1109/VETECS.2005.1543256
`(“Zhu”) (EX1010)
`Zhu; Spain
`
`Zhu; Heikki Laitinen, Jaakko
`Lähteenmäki, Tero Nordström,
`“Database Correlation Method for
`GSM Location”, VTT Information
`Technology, IEEE, 2001 (Laitinen)
`Shkedi; Zhu; Spain
`
`
`
`Basis
`
`§102
`
`§103
`
`§102
`
`Claims
`
`1, 4
`
`4
`
`1, 4, 25,
`26, 35
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`4, 26
`
`35
`
`§103
`
`25, 26, 35
`
`
`1 Owner asserts infringement of Claims 1, 4, 25, 26, and 35 of the ’494 Patent in the
`
`Related Litigation.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`Petitioner also relies upon the evidence listed in the Exhibit List, including the
`
`Declaration and Curriculum Vitae of David Hilliard Williams (EX1012, ¶¶1-12, and
`
`see generally, ¶¶13-284; EX1013) and the Declaration and Curriculum Vitae of Dr.
`
`Sylvia Hall-Ellis (EX1014-EX1015).
`
`C.
`Prior Art Qualification of Asserted References
`For this Petition, Petitioner assumes the earliest effective filing date of
`
`the ’494 Patent is February 5, 2007—the filing date of priority U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/899,379.2
`
`Shkedi (EX1006), filed on September 19, 2006, constitutes prior art at least
`
`under Section 102(e).
`
`Spain (EX1009), published April 3, 2003, constitutes prior art at least under
`
`Section 102(b).
`
`Zhu (EX1010), published no later than October 3, 2005, constitutes prior art
`
`at least under Section 102(b). EX1014.
`
`Laitinen (EX1011) was published no later than October 17, 2001 and thus
`
`constitutes prior art at least under Section 102(b). EX1014.
`
`
`2 Petitioner does not concede that any challenged claim is entitled to an effective
`
`filing date of February 5, 2007.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
` BACKGROUND
`A. The ’494 Patent
`The ’494 Patent discloses a method to modify calibration data used to locate
`
`a mobile unit (e.g., mobile phone) in an indoor facility by modifying observed
`
`network measurement data. EX1001, 3:47-51, 1:20-24. “Calibration data obtained
`
`outdoors may be modified and substituted for indoor calibration data” and “network
`
`measurement data may be modified for comparison with the outdoor calibration
`
`data.” Id., 3:55-58. Owner asserts that modification of observed network
`
`measurement data constitutes the purported “inventive feature” of the ’494 Patent.
`
`EX1016, ¶54. This purported “inventive feature” was disclosed in prior art,
`
`demonstrating it was well known to modify (e.g., normalize) observed data and use
`
`the modified data to determine a mobile station’s location. See, e.g., EX1006, 5:59-
`
`63, 21:14-24; EX1010, pp.94-95. EX1012, ¶¶24-25.
`
`B.
`Examination History
`During prosecution, the Challenged Claims were rejected under obviousness-
`
`type double patenting. EX1002, pp.39-44. Owner responded by filing a terminal
`
`disclaimer to both related patents. The Challenged Claims were subsequently
`
`allowed. EX1002, 21-22. EX1012, ¶27.
`
`The parent application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,561,104 (EX1018) was
`
`allowed in the first action. EX1019, 35 (Office Action dated Feb. 25, 2009). The
`
`reasons for allowance stated that “the examiner found no teaching in the prior art
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`that would render obvious the claimed method for determining a location of a mobile
`
`station comprising ‘determining which of said first and second signal characteristics
`
`has a greater magnitude; and modifying said observed network measurement data
`
`using the greater magnitude signal characteristic’.” Id., 11 (Allowance dated May
`
`29, 2009). The ’104 Patent was subject to reexamination (’694 Reexam). Claims 1-
`
`14 were confirmed without amendment and claims 15-21 were canceled as a result.
`
`EX1004. See also EX1003, 3-10 (NIRC dated Jul. 23, 2014). The Examiner’s
`
`statement of reasons for patentability/confirmation indicated that “Benes fails
`
`teaching comparing the modified network measurement data with the calibration
`
`data.” Id., 7 (NIRC dated Jul. 23, 2014 at 3). The Examiner determined that “Gordon
`
`does not explicitly teach that it is determined which signal has a greater magnitude
`
`and then using the greater magnitude signal to modify observed measurement data”.
`
`Id., 8. (NIRC dated Jul. 23, 2014 at 4). EX1012, ¶28.
`
`The prior art cited in this IPR discloses the features alleged to be missing from
`
`the art applied during prosecution of the ’542 and ’333 Applications and the ’694
`
`Reexam. See Section VII. EX1012, ¶29.
`
`C. The Prior Art
`1.
`Shkedi (EX1006)
`Shkedi discloses determining the location of a mobile telephone using a
`
`“Signal-Comparison Based Location-Determining Method” to address a need “for
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`simple straightforward improvements in determining the precise location of mobile
`
`devices; especially in poor signal-reception locations such as in dense multi-story
`
`urban centers” and “locat[ing] a device in a multi-story structure.” EX1006, 1:23-27,
`
`6:35-7:5. EX1012, ¶45.
`
`Shkedi’s method includes: (A) registering a selected location by first-causing
`
`a portable RF communications device at the selected location to receive an RF
`
`communications signal from a plurality of local fixed-location service-area antenna
`
`stations; (B) recording the selected location by electronically storing at least two of
`
`the respective reception signal strength measurements; (C) monitoring by second-
`
`causing a portable RF communications device to receive communications signals
`
`from a plurality of respectively local fixed-location service-area antenna stations,
`
`and to measure reception signal strength associated with the signals; and (D)
`
`determining if the portable RF communications device is at the selected location of
`
`the registering step by electronically comparing measurements in the monitoring
`
`step with the stored at least two measurements of the recording step. EX1006, 5:36-
`
`63. EX1012, ¶46.
`
`Shkedi specifically modifies observed network measurement data by using a
`
`strongest, greater magnitude signal to normalize measurements. Id., 6:12-34. Shkedi
`
`modifies observed network measurement data by performing mathematical
`
`operations on the “less strong” signals using the strongest signal. See id., 20:63-
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`21:61. The resulting modified data is used to determine the location of the mobile
`
`station. Id., 5:59-63, 21:14-24. Shkedi’s method is performed on a single mobile
`
`device, on separate devices, or in offsite facilities. Id., 12:12-18. See also id., 23:55-
`
`57. EX1012, ¶47.
`
`2.
`Zhu (EX1010)
`Zhu discloses determining indoor/outdoor locations of cellular handsets by
`
`using “received signal strength (RSS) methods for locating wireless handset calls in
`
`a real cellular environment”. EX1010, abstract, title. “The RSS technique estimates
`
`a cellular phone’s location by matching signal strengths measured at the handset
`
`with signal strengths recorded in a database of radio frequency (RF) maps.” Id., p.92,
`
`left col. Zhu’s methods are “for identifying and locating indoor handsets”. Id.,
`
`abstract (emphasis in original). See also id., p.92, left col. (“we conclusively show
`
`that RSS location techniques are also accurate for indoor users”), p.93, left col. (“we
`
`were concentrating on the more complicated question of indoor feasibility”).
`
`EX1012, ¶48.
`
`A location algorithm receives a calibrated RF Map Database (“RFMD”) and
`
`a sequence of network measurement reports (“NMRs”). EX1010, p.94, right col.
`
`NMR reports include signal strength data of the cellular phone to be located. Zhu
`
`discloses “normaliz[ing]” NMR data using signal strength data “to generate the
`
`relative received signal strength”. EX1010, p.95, left col. See also id., paragraph
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`bridging pp.94-95. The “N strongest channels” or “six strongest channels” (e.g., 6
`
`signals of greater magnitude) are selected from the observed network measurement
`
`data and used to calculate an average received signal strength. EX1010, p.94, right
`
`col. EX1012, ¶49.
`
`3.
`Spain (EX1009)
`Spain discloses interpolating grid points between existing grid points to
`
`improve the accuracy of the fingerprint database built using NMRs and observed
`
`network measurement data (i.e., RF “fingerprint” measurement data that can identify
`
`a mobile device location). EX1009, [0101]:1-4 (“the database is built by taking
`
`fingerprint measurements at predetermined
`
`locations and using
`
`intelligent
`
`algorithms that interpolate the fingerprints at all locations in between the sampled
`
`locations”). See also id., [0054]:1-3 (“To improve the accuracy of the fingerprint
`
`database, learning/training techniques and methodologies can be adopted for this
`
`problem.”), [0055]:6-10. EX1012, ¶50.
`
`4.
`Laitinen (EX1011)
`Laitinen, entitled “Database Correlation Method for GSM Location”,
`
`discloses that fingerprint location methods applied to GSM data may consist of
`
`signals obtained from various networks. EX1011, p.2505, Fig. 1, wherein “the
`
`essential location-dependent parameters defined in GSM standard are Location Area
`
`Code (LAC), serving cell ID, timing advance (TA), and the measured signal strength
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`of the serving cell and its neighbors.” EX1011, p.2505, Fig. 1. Laitinen discloses
`
`that “it is possible to use measurements performed by the network as well as by the
`
`MS”, “[w]hen the MS needs to be located, the necessary measurements are
`
`performed and transmitted to the location server”, and “[t]he location server then
`
`calculates the MS location by comparing the transmitted fingerprint and the
`
`fingerprints of the database.” Id., p.2505, left col. EX1012, ¶51.
`
`D.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`A POSITA would have been someone knowledgeable in wireless networks,
`
`cellular radio systems, mobile communication devices and radio navigation systems,
`
`having at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, with a