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
`U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MR. MARK ALAN STURZA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 1 of 62
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01211
`U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MR. MARK ALAN STURZA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 1 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 2
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ..................................................................... 8
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................. 9
`
`A. Claim Construction ............................................................................. 9
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................... 10
`
`C. Anticipation ........................................................................................ 10
`
`D. Obviousness ........................................................................................ 10
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 12
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ............................................ 13
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’494 PATENT ....................................................... 17
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 26
`
`A.
`
`The District Court’s Construction of “Grid Point” (“a point
`associated with representative calibration data for an area”) ...... 28
`
`B. Construction of “Non-Uniform Grid Point” (“a point
`associated with representative calibration data for an area
`whose boundaries are determined from evaluation of the
`calibration data”) .............................................................................. 32
`
`IX. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 4 AND 26 OF THE
`’494 PATENT ............................................................................................... 39
`
`A. Ground 1: Anticipation based on Shkedi ........................................ 39
`
`
`
`i
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 2 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`B. Ground 2: Obviousness based on Shkedi and Spain ..................... 47
`
`C. Ground 3: Anticipation based on Zhu ............................................ 50
`
`D. Ground 4: Obviousness based on Zhu and Spain .......................... 53
`
`E. Ground 6: Obviousness based on Shkedi, Zhu, and Spain ........... 53
`
`X. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 3 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibits
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494, issued on July 22, 2014 (“the ’494
`Patent”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/771,542, filed
`on February 20, 2013 (“the ’542 Application”)
`
`File History of Reexamination Control No. 90/012,694 (“the
`’694 Reexam”)
`
`Reexamination Certificate issued on August 18, 2014
`(Reexamination Control No. 90/012,694)
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/899,379, filed on
`February 5, 2007 (“the ’379 Provisional”)
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,706,811 (“Shkedi”)
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,097,784, issued on August 4, 2015 (“the
`’784 Patent)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,406,753, issued on March 26, 2013 (“the
`’753 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0064735,
`published on April 3, 2003 to D. Spain et al. (“Spain”)
`
`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”)
`
`1011
`
`Heikki Laitinen, Jaakko Lähteenmäki, Tero Nordström,
`“Database Correlation Method for GSM Location”, VTT
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 4 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`Information Technology, IEEE, 2001. (“Laitinen”)
`
`1012
`
`Declaration of David Hilliard Williams
`
`1013
`
`Curriculum Vitae of David Hilliard Williams
`
`1014
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`1015
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`1016
`
`Complaint dated November 22, 2022, 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 (“the
`Related Litigation”)
`
`1017
`
`Not Assigned
`
`1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,561,104 (“the ’104 Patent”)
`
`1019
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/424,320, filed
`on April 15, 2009 (“the ’320 Application”)
`
`1020-1023 Not Assigned
`
`1024
`
`Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies PTE. LTD.’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief dated May 26, 2023, 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
`
`1025-1026 Not Assigned
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Appendix C to Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.’s
`Preliminary Infringement Contentions dated April 7, 2023,
`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
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion & Order dated July
`19, 2023, Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC
`f/k/a Google Inc., Civ. Action No. 1:22-cv-01331 (EDVA)
`iv
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 5 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`
`
`2001
`
`filed on November 22, 2022
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`Declaration of Christopher M. Gerson in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Christopher
`M. Gerson Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`2002
`
`Not Assigned
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`Memorandum Opinion on Google’s Motion for Judgment on
`the Pleadings on Patent Eligibility dated September 18, 2023,
`Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, Civ. Action
`No. 1:22-cv-01331 (EDVA)
`
`Memorandum Opinion on Apple’s Motion for Judgment on
`the Pleadings on Patent Eligibility dated September 18, 2023,
`Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Civ. Action
`No. 1:22-cv-01373 (EDVA)
`
`Final Judgment dated October 6, 2023, Geoscope
`Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, Civ. Action No. 1:22-
`cv-01331 (EDVA)
`
`Final Judgment dated October 5, 2023, Geoscope
`Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Civ. Action No. 1:22-cv-
`01373 (EDVA)
`
`Order dated June 26, 2023, Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. v.
`Google LLC, Civ. Action No. 1:22-cv-01331 (EDVA)
`
`Email from Saunak Desai to Stephen E. Noona, “Geoscope v.
`Google - Claim Narrowing” (June 12, 2023)
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion & Order dated July
`19, 2023, Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Civ.
`Action No. 1:22-cv-01373 (EDVA)
`
`2010
`
`Order dated June 26, 2023, Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. v.
`Apple Inc., Civ. Action No. 1:22-cv-01373 (EDVA)
`
`
`
`v
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 6 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`Defendant Google LLC’s Final Invalidity Contentions dated
`July 3, 2023, Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC,
`Civ. Action No. 1:22-cv-01331 (EDVA)
`
`Geoscope’s Opening Appeal Brief dated November 17, 2023,
`Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, Apple Inc.,
`Case Nos. 24-1003 (Lead) 24-1018 (member) (Fed. Cir.)
`
`2013-2016 Not Assigned
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`Preliminary Identification of Asserted Claims dated March 27,
`2023, Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, Civ.
`Action No. 1:22-cv-01331 (EDVA)
`
`Declaration of Saunak K. Desai in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Christopher M. Gerson
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`2019
`
`Not Assigned
`
`2020
`
`Declaration of Mark Alan Sturza
`
`2021
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Mark Alan Sturza
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`Deposition Transcript of David Hilliard Williams for U.S. Pat.
`No. 8,406,753 (April 23, 2024)
`
`Deposition Transcript of David Hilliard Williams for U.S. Pat.
`Nos. 7,561,104, 8,786,494 and 8,400,358 (April 23, 2024)
`
`Patent Owner’s Statutory Disclaimer of Claims 1, 25, and 35
`of the ’494 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 7 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`I, Mark Alan Sturza, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Mark Alan Sturza. I have been retained by Patent
`
`Owner Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Patent Owner” or “Geoscope”) as an
`
`independent expert consultant in this proceeding and asked to submit this
`
`declaration in connection with U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494 (“the ’494 Patent”). I
`
`understand the ’494 Patent is the subject of an inter partes review and petition
`
`(“the Petition”) in front of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office, filed by Petitioner Google LLC (“Google” or
`
`“Petitioner”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions on the technology
`
`claimed in, and the patentability or nonpatentability of, Claims 4 and 26 of the
`
`’494 Patent. This declaration is directed to Claims 4 and 26 of the ’494 Patent
`
`and sets forth certain opinions I have formed, the conclusions I have reached,
`
`and the bases for each.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard consulting rate of $500 per
`
`hour. My compensation is not contingent on the substance of my opinions or
`
`testimony, nor is it contingent on the outcome of this proceeding. I have no other
`
`financial interest in this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`Based on my experience, knowledge of the field at the relevant
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 8 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`time, review of materials including the ’494 Patent and prior art references relied
`
`on by Petitioner, and the understanding a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have of the claim terms, it is my opinion that Claims 4 and 26 of the ’494 Patent
`
`are patentable over the asserted references and that the Petition fails to
`
`demonstrate otherwise.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5. My opinions stated in this declaration are based on my own
`
`personal knowledge and professional judgment. In forming my opinions, I have
`
`relied on my knowledge and experience in designing, developing, and
`
`researching the technology referenced in this declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I am over eighteen years of age and, if I am called upon to do so, I
`
`would be competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein. A detailed list of
`
`my qualifications and experiences is contained in my curriculum vitae, which I
`
`understand is being submitted as Ex. 2021. The following provides a brief
`
`overview of my qualifications relevant to the matters set forth herein. I am
`
`familiar with all aspects of position, location, and navigation technology.
`
`7.
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in Applied Mathematics
`
`from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1977, a Master of
`
`Science in Electrical Engineering (MSEE) degree from the University of
`
`Southern California (USC) in 1979, and a Master of Business Administration
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 9 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`(MBA) degree from Pepperdine University in 1985.
`
`8.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (IEEE), as well as a Senior Member of the American Institute of
`
`Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). I hold memberships in the Institute of
`
`Navigation (ION), the Pacific Telecommunications Council (PTC), the Society
`
`of Satellite Professionals International (SSPI), and the International Association
`
`for the Advancement of Space Safety (IAASS). I also hold a General
`
`Radiotelephone Operator License
`
`from
`
`the Federal Communications
`
`Commission (FCC).
`
`9.
`
`I am the President of 3C Systems Company, a company I founded
`
`in 1989 to provide consulting expertise in the design, development, analysis, and
`
`regulation of communications systems. My industry experience includes senior
`
`engineering management and technical positions at LinQuest, Litton, Magnavox,
`
`and Teledyne.
`
`10.
`
`I have over 45 years of experience in the design, development, and
`
`application of position, location, and navigation systems, including with respect
`
`to iOS and Android location-based services. Examples of my experience are
`
`provided below.
`
`11.
`
`I designed and implemented an improved graphics capability for the
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 10 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`St. Mary’s Loran-C navigation system.
`
`12.
`
`I developed the first Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation
`
`set for commercial aviation applications, the LTN-700, in the early 1980’s. I also
`
`architected 2nd and 3rd generation aviation products, the LTN-710 and the
`
`µNAV.
`
`13.
`
`I have participated in the design of numerous radio frequency (RF)
`
`devices. These included a TT&C (Telemetry, Tracking, and Control) transceiver
`
`operating from 70 MHz through S-Band, a 5.8-GHz Sensor Receiver for an RF
`
`Motion Capture system, a DVB-T/H receiver chipset, a Ka-band/5-GHz
`
`transverter (upconverter/downconverter unit used to change the frequency band
`
`over which a transceiver operates), an S-Band/L-Band transverter, miniaturized
`
`low-power J-Band transceiver for Trajectory Controlled Munitions, wideband
`
`(1-GHz bandwidth) modem, 60-GHz transceiver, several GPS receivers from
`
`cards to modules to chipsets to single chip solutions, an amplifier module for
`
`Globalstar’s multi-channel active antenna subscriber units, and several
`
`miniaturized low-power S-Band, L-Band, and VHF frequency synthesizers.
`
`14.
`
`I was Principal Investigator for four Department of Defense (DoD)
`
`Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) contracts:
`
`•
`•
`
`QPSK and MPSK Transmission and Receiving Equipment
`RPV Range Surveillance and Radio Relay Via Satellite
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 11 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`Miniature GPS Digital Translator Development
`ECM Resistant GPS Receiver
`
`•
`•
`
`
`I developed one of the first GPS software receivers, in the early
`
`15.
`
`1990’s. A software receiver is a computer program that processes digitized GPS
`
`signal samples generating pseudo-range and delta-range measurements and
`
`computes a navigation solution. This was part of the work I performed for
`
`NAVSYS Corporation supporting an Air Force contract.
`
`16.
`
`I developed a differential GPS (DGPS) navigation filter with
`
`autonomous fault detection and conducted studies of receiver autonomous
`
`integrity monitoring (RAIM). DGPS is a technique used to improve location
`
`accuracy, and RAIM is a technique used to verify the location estimate was
`
`obtained from valid measurement data.
`
`17.
`
`I was a member of the tiger team formed to review contract
`
`performance of the vendor developing Sirius Satellite Radio’s receiver chipset.
`
`18.
`
`I developed the system architecture for the Leo One USA store-and-
`
`forward satellite system including radio frequency plan, multiple access
`
`techniques, link budgets, satellite constellation orbits, network protocols, and
`
`satellite and user terminals.
`
`19.
`
`I was technical lead for the Eagle River due diligence leading to
`
`ICO Global Communication’s (ICO) emergence from bankruptcy. I worked
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 12 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`closely with the ICO and Boeing Space Systems teams to identify and mitigate
`
`technical risks and continued to provide technical and regulatory support
`
`following the restructuring.
`
`20.
`
`I was a member of the Teledesic (Gates–McCaw “internet in the
`
`sky”) founding team. I developed the communications systems architecture for
`
`this low-Earth orbit (LEO) Ka-band satellite communications system, including
`
`developing the radio frequency plan, multiple access techniques, and link
`
`budgets.
`
`21.
`
`I developed an RF Tag motion capture system for the entertainment
`
`industry allowing the capture of actor’s performances in robust environments.
`
`22.
`
`I was Chief Technology Officer (CTO) for SkyVault, a digital
`
`rights management and secure content distribution startup. I also developed a
`
`demo system showcasing SkyVault’s UltraSecure™ digital content protection.
`
`23.
`
`I was a member of the team that developed the SiRFstar I, SiRFstar
`
`II, and SiRFstar IV GPS chipsets, including between 2006 and 2009. I developed
`
`high performance signal acquisition algorithms and moding, investigated
`
`positioning and geolocation techniques for GSM and UMTS mobile devices, and
`
`analyzed hybrid positioning techniques for mobile devices.
`
`24.
`
`I was a member of the FCC’s LightSquared/GPS Industry technical
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 13 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`working group (TWG). The TWG was established to evaluate the potential for
`
`interference to GPS and conducted extensive testing of all types of GPS devices
`
`and use cases, including iOS and Android devices.
`
`25.
`
`I was a member of an online dating startup’s team where I worked
`
`on apps utilizing iOS location services.
`
`26.
`
`I was a member of the Pascal’s Pocket team developing remote
`
`control applications for smartphones. I developed an ultra-secure virtual private
`
`network (VPN) for gaming machine applications. I also worked on apps utilizing
`
`iOS and Android location services.
`
`27.
`
`I was a member of the founding team of sfara, a mobile app
`
`telematics startup that uses data science and sensor fusion technology on
`
`smartphones to provide a “Sphere of Safety.” My support included developing
`
`extensive expertise with the iOS and Android location services, and underlying
`
`technologies.
`
`28.
`
`I developed a product line of web service tools for link budget
`
`analysis, capacity planning, and performance monitoring.
`
`29.
`
`I led a team conducting an Independent Technical Evaluation of
`
`Panasonic’s eXConnect service.
`
`30.
`
`I was a senior advisor to OneWeb in position, location, and
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 14 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`navigation technology.
`
`31.
`
`I have served as a senior advisor to Microsoft, Google, SpaceX,
`
`Facebook, and Viasat in matters of spectrum policy and radio technology.
`
`32.
`
`I hold thirty U.S. patents in communications system design, eleven
`
`of which specifically cover position, location, and navigation technology. I have
`
`authored over thirty technical papers, twenty-one of which focused on position,
`
`location, and navigation technology. Two of these papers were published in
`
`Navigation: Journal of the Institute of Navigation.
`
`33.
`
`I was an instructor at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA)
`
`Extension teaching short courses (one-week courses intended for industry
`
`professionals) on “Integrated Communications, Precision Positioning
`
`Determination and Navigation, and Identification Systems”, and on “NAVSTAR
`
`Global Positioning System
`
`(GPS): Operation,
`
`Implementation, and
`
`Applications.” I also presented a similar short course for the University
`
`Consortium for Continuing Education. Additionally, I was an instructor at
`
`California State University Northridge, teaching a class in Linear Systems.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`34.
`
`In forming my opinions regarding the ’494 Patent, I reviewed all
`
`materials referenced in this declaration. In forming my opinions, I have reviewed
`
`all of the exhibits filed to date in this proceeding as well as the Petition and
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 15 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`Institution Decision. In addition, my opinions are also based on my education,
`
`training, experience, and knowledge in the field.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`35.
`
`I am not an attorney and do not intend to offer my opinion on the
`
`law. In forming my opinions in this case, I used the following legal standards
`
`that were explained to me by counsel.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed that claim terms are to be construed from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was
`
`filed. I have been informed that a claim term is generally given the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would ascribe to it
`
`when viewed in the context of the patent’s claims, specification, and prosecution
`
`history.
`
`37.
`
`I have been informed that “intrinsic evidence,” including the patent
`
`claims, specification, and prosecution history are the most important sources for
`
`interpreting claim language in a patent. I have been informed that related patents
`
`and their prosecution histories may also be relevant to interpreting claim terms
`
`in another patent.
`
`38.
`
`I have been informed that “extrinsic evidence,” such as dictionary
`
`definitions and technical publications, may also be used to help interpret the
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 16 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`claim language, but that such extrinsic evidence is secondary to the intrinsic
`
`evidence and cannot be used to contradict the meaning of the claim language that
`
`is evident from the intrinsic evidence.
`
`B.
`
`39.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I have been informed that a patent and its claims are to be
`
`understood from the perspective of a hypothetical “person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art” (“POSITA”). I have been informed that a POSITA is considered to
`
`possess normal skills and knowledge in the relevant technical field.
`
`C. Anticipation
`
`40.
`
`I have been informed that for prior art to anticipate a patent claim,
`
`each and every element of a claim, as properly construed, must be disclosed
`
`either explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference or embodied in a
`
`single prior art device. I have been informed that inherent anticipation may be
`
`found only if the prior art necessarily includes the claimed limitations.
`
`41.
`
`I have been informed that, once a challenged claim has been
`
`properly construed, the step in determining whether the challenged claim is
`
`anticipated by the prior art requires a comparison of the properly construed claim
`
`language to the prior art on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`42.
`
`I have been informed that a claim may be invalid as obvious if the
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 17 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and one or more prior art
`
`references are such that the subject matter would have been obvious to a POSITA
`
`at the time of invention.
`
`43.
`
`I have been informed that in assessing whether a claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA, the following factors are considered: (1)
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the claims and
`
`the prior art, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness.
`
`44.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of the claim elements was known in the prior art. Rather,
`
`there must be a showing that a POSITA would have reason to attempt to either
`
`combine two or more references or modify a reference to achieve the claimed
`
`invention, and that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in doing so. I have been informed that obviousness should not be
`
`evaluated using the benefit of hindsight or what is known today.
`
`45.
`
`I have been informed that the motivation to combine inquiry does
`
`not merely require showing that a POSITA could have combined references, but
`
`rather that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine references to arrive
`
`at the claimed invention. I have been informed that whether a POSITA would be
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 18 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`motivated to make a combination includes whether the POSITA would select
`
`particular references in order to combine their elements. I have been informed
`
`that fundamental differences between references may help show that a POSITA
`
`would not be motivated to combine them to achieve the claimed invention. I have
`
`been informed that when the prior art teaches away from a particular
`
`combination, the discovery of a successful means of combining said prior art is
`
`more likely to be non-obvious. I have been informed that a reference may be said
`
`to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the
`
`reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference,
`
`or would be led in a direction divergent from the path taken by the patentee.
`
`46.
`
`I have been informed that in evaluating whether patent claims are
`
`invalid as obvious, “objective indicia of non-obviousness” should be considered.
`
`I have been informed that objective indicia of non-obviousness include
`
`commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, copying, praise, unexpected
`
`results, industry acceptance, failure of others, and industry skepticism. I have
`
`been informed that there must be a nexus between the objective indicia and the
`
`claimed invention’s novel features.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`47.
`
`I understand that Petitioner and its expert have proposed that a
`
`POSITA would have been (1) someone knowledgeable in wireless networks,
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 19 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`cellular radio systems, mobile communication devices and radio navigation
`
`systems, (2) having at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, with a
`
`background in radio frequency communications and/or navigation system
`
`technology as well as approximately two years of industry experience working
`
`on radio communication and/or navigation systems. Ex. 1012 ¶ 30.
`
`48.
`
`I do not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA for purposes of
`
`this declaration. Regardless, my opinions herein would not be changed by
`
`requiring somewhat more or somewhat less relevant knowledge and/or technical
`
`experience for a POSITA. Based on my background and experience, detailed
`
`further above, I am a person of at least ordinary skill in the relevant art for the
`
`’494 Patent.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`49. As described in further detail below, the inventions claimed in the
`
`’494 Patent relate to the geolocation of mobile devices and provide solutions to
`
`specific problems in that field.
`
`50. Location-based services utilize geographic data to provide
`
`information to a user, or perform another function for a user, based on the user’s
`
`location. Location-based services include, among other things, maps (e.g.,
`
`pinpointing a user’s current location or the location of another individual for
`
`applications such as a driver for a rideshare application), navigation (e.g.,
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 20 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`driving directions), local search (e.g., looking for nearby restaurants or
`
`providing relevant search results for requests with local intent), social
`
`networking, and targeted advertising. The ’494 Patent’s mention of “public
`
`safety groups” (Ex. 1001 at 1:24) indicates one possible application for
`
`emergency services.
`
`51. Location-based services for mobile devices generally rely on the
`
`mobile devices being able to determine their location through a process called
`
`“geolocation.” Ex. 1001 at 1:24-27. At the time of the invention, “there [was] a
`
`longstanding problem of providing high accuracy location data for mobile
`
`devices, such as mobile telephones.” Ex. 1006 at 1:19-21. One way a mobile
`
`device can be geolocated is by using a GPS receiver. This GPS-based location
`
`could then be transmitted to a base station or used locally on the device.
`
`However, there are many situations where GPS information is not available or
`
`not reliable. In those situations, the mobile device can still use other information
`
`(such as an identification of nearby base stations and the strength of the signals
`
`received from each nearby base station) to assist in determining the mobile
`
`device’s location.
`
`52. At the time of the invention, geolocation using RF signals (e.g.,
`
`cellular data, as opposed to, for example, GPS information) was of interest in
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 21 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`the field. Many methods attempted to use RF signals to geolocate mobile
`
`devices, but generally had problems, including limited accuracy. See Ex. 1009
`
`at [0003] (“A second solution is to compute the location of the mobile unit based
`
`on the cellular network signaling parameters …. This information is typically
`
`accurate to hundreds of meters.”); see also Ex. 1006 at 1:39-57; Ex. 1011 at
`
`2504 (angle of arrival techniques are “expensive to implement” and “impractical
`
`in microcell sites” while existing GSM methods “do not allow highly accurate
`
`signal timing measurements.”).
`
`53. Some systems, like the ’494 Patent, relied on collecting
`
`“calibration data” from mobile devices moving through various geographic
`
`regions by saving this information into a “calibration database.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:28-32, 1:43-47. Once the calibration data is available, mobile devices seeking
`
`their location can retrieve and use the calibration data to determine their
`
`location. At a high level, a mobile device at an unknown location can “observe”
`
`and measure nearby network signals and compare that observed data to the
`
`previously-collected calibration data to determine its location. Various methods
`
`can be used for this comparison which involves both the calibration data and the
`
`observed data.
`
`54. For example, testing is performed whereby mobile devices travel
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 22 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`through a region and record information such as the received signal strength
`
`from various nearby base stations associated with specific coordinates (e.g.,
`
`through simultaneous GPS measurements). This information is saved into the
`
`calibration database. Then, when a new mobile device passes through the region,
`
`it can “observe” data such as the received signal strength from nearby base
`
`stations and compare that observed data to the stored calibration data that is
`
`associated with coordinates. This allows the mobile device to determine its
`
`location even without GPS.
`
`55. There are a number of reasons calibration data may not correspond
`
`to the data observed by a mobile device at the time it is seeking its location, even
`
`where the same base stations are involved. For example, variations in the
`
`environment (e.g., weather) can affect the observed data. One potential reason
`
`for discrepancies is that the mobile device was indoors when it collected the
`
`observed data.
`
`56. The inventors of the ’494 Patent realized that “[c]alibration data is
`
`typically collected in an outdoor environment” because “it is more time-
`
`consuming to perform calibration procedures indoor due to the required access
`
`to buildings and the inability to utilize automated collection procedures designed
`
`for outdoor environments.” Ex. 1001 at 1:31-39. However, many mobile devices
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Geoscope Exhibit 2020
`Google v. Geoscope
`IPR2023-01211 Page 23 of 62
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01211
`Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`
`
`that require geolocation are located indoors, where the “signal strengths of
`
`s
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
