`Case 2:17-cv-00514—JRG Document 162-19 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 14519
`
`
` EXHIBIT 19
`EXHIBIT 19
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 162-19 Filed 02/13/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 14520
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Paper 9
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`Entered: October 3, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018–00817
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 162-19 Filed 02/13/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 14521
`IPR2018–00817
`Patent 9,445,251 B2
`
`discussion or explanation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be left
`to speculate unduly about the nature and contribution of a second
`georeferenced map to the claimed invention. In the absence of any
`substantive discussion or explanation about a second georeferenced map in
`the disclosure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not appreciate, or
`understand, that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
`Based on the record presently before us, we are not persuaded that the
`’410 Application sufficiently describes or explains a “second georeferenced
`map” such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
`inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Accordingly, we are
`not persuaded the ’410 Application satisfies the written description
`requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 with respect to the claims of the ’251 patent.
`We need not reach Petitioner’s other arguments in support of its contention
`that the ’410 Application fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`5. Conclusion on Priority Date
`Because we are not persuaded the ’410 Application satisfies the
`Because we are not persuaded the ’410 Application satisfies the
`written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 with respect to the claims
`written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 with respect to the claims
`of the ’251 patent, Patent Owner has not established the ’251 patent is
`of the ’251 patent, Patent Owner has not established the ’251 patent is
`entitled to rely on the filing date of the ’410 Application, September 16,
`entitled to rely on the filing date of the ’410 Application, September 16,
`2013. Accordingly, based on this record, the ’724 patent, which issued on
`2013. Accordingly, based on this record, the ’724 patent, which issued on
`December 8, 2009, qualifies as prior art to the ’251 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`December 8, 2009, qualifies as prior art to the ’251 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`102(a)(1).
`102(a)(1).
`
`E. The ’724 Patent (Ex. 1008)
`The ’724 patent discloses a cellular, PDA communication device and
`communication system for allowing a plurality of cellular phone users to
`monitor others’ locations and status, and to initiate cellular phone calls by
`
`26
`
`