Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 83 PageID #:
`3529
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 83 PageID #:
`3530
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724
`Issued: Dec. 8, 2009
`Application No.: 11/308,648
`Filing Date: Apr. 17, 2006
`
`For: Method of Providing a Cellular Phone/PDA Communication System
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,630,724
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 83 PageID #:
`3531
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 3
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest (“RPIs”) ........................................................... 3
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`C.
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ............................. 4
`D.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review .................................................................. 5
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 6
`IV.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ................. 6
`V.
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 6
`A.
`The ’724 Patent (Ex. 1001) ................................................................... 6
`1.
`Technological Background ......................................................... 7
`2.
`Summary of Alleged Invention ................................................... 9
`3.
`Prosecution History ................................................................... 11
`4.
`Inter Partes Review of the Related ’055 Patent ....................... 12
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) .................................... 14
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 15
`1.
`“database” ................................................................................. 15
`Summary of the Prior Art .................................................................... 16
`1.
`Fumarolo ................................................................................... 16
`2.
`Sheha ......................................................................................... 17
`3.
`Lazaridis .................................................................................... 18
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 83 PageID #:
`3532
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`VI. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIES ........................................................ 20
`VII. GROUND 1: FUMAROLO IN VIEW OF SHEHA AND
`LAZARIDIS RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 9, 12, 13, AND 15 ............. 24
`A. A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine the
`Teachings of Fumarolo and Sheha ...................................................... 24
`A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine the
`Teachings of Fumarolo and Sheha with the Teachings of
`Lazaridis .............................................................................................. 28
`Independent Claim 9 ........................................................................... 32
`1.
`Preamble .................................................................................... 32
`2.
`9[a] map database...................................................................... 35
`3.
`9[b] symbols representative of participating users ................... 38
`9[c] telephone and symbol database ......................................... 40
`9[d] calling by touching the symbol on the map display
`and a call switch ........................................................................ 43
`9[e] connecting to internet connection ...................................... 46
`9[f] exchanging IP addresses using SMS ................................. 48
`D. Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 50
`1.
`Claim 12: adding new participant ............................................. 50
`2.
`Claim 13: transmitting sender location ..................................... 54
`3.
`Claim 15: new track .................................................................. 55
`VIII. GROUND 2: FUMAROLO IN VIEW OF SHEHA, LAZARIDIS,
`AND VAN BOSCH RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIM 10 ............................. 58
`A. Van Bosch ........................................................................................... 58
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 5 of 83 PageID #:
`3533
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine the
`Teachings of Fumarolo, Sheha, and Lazaridis with the
`Teachings of Van Bosch ..................................................................... 59
`Dependent Claim ................................................................................. 61
`1.
`Claim 10: photographs or video clips ....................................... 61
`IX. GROUND 3: FUMAROLO IN VIEW OF SHEHA, LAZARIDIS,
`AND SHEHA ’155 RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 9, 12, 13, AND
`15 ................................................................................................................... 63
`A.
`Sheha ’155 ........................................................................................... 63
`B.
`A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine the
`Teachings of Fumarolo, Sheha, and Lazaridis with the
`Teachings of Sheha ’155 ..................................................................... 64
`Independent Claim 9 ........................................................................... 65
`C.
`D. Dependent Claims 12, 13, and 15 ....................................................... 67
`X. GROUND 4: FUMAROLO IN VIEW OF SHEHA, LAZARIDIS,
`SHEHA ’155, AND VAN BOSCH RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIM
`10 ................................................................................................................... 67
`XI. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 68
`XII. THE BOARD SHOULD REACH THE MERITS OF THIS
`PETITION ..................................................................................................... 68
`A.
`Institution is appropriate under § 325(d) ............................................. 68
`B.
`Institution is appropriate under § 314(a) ............................................. 69
`XIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 70
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 6 of 83 PageID #:
`3534
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) .............................................. 68, 69
`AGIS Software Dev., LLC v. Google LLC,
`835 F. App’x 607 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................... 14
`Alphatec Holdings, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00361, Paper 59 (PTAB July 8, 2020) .................................................. 20
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. M2M Solutions LLC,
`IPR2019-01205, Paper 43 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2021) ................................................. 20
`Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc.,
`555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................. 27, 31, 65
`Google LLC v. AGIS Software Dev., LLC,
`IPR2018-01080, Paper 31 (Dec. 2, 2019),
`aff’d, 835 F. App’x 607 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .............................................................. 69
`In re Freeman,
`30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................... 20
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................. 27, 31, 65
`MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC,
`880 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................. 20
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................. 21
`United Access Techs., LLC v. CenturyTel Broadband Servs. LLC,
`778 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 20, 21
`Webpower, Inc. v. Wag Acquisition, LLC,
`IPR2016-01239, Paper 21 (PTAB Dec. 26, 2017) ....................................... passim
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 7 of 83 PageID #:
`3535
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................ 27, 31, 65
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................... 6, 24
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................... 68
`RULES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 8 of 83 PageID #:
`3536
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Description
`Ex.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (“the ’724 patent”)
`1002 File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (“’724 FH”)
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Benjamin Bederson (“Bederson Decl.”)
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Benjamin Bederson
`1005 U.S. Patent 6,366,782 B1 to Fumarolo, et al. (“Fumarolo”)
`1006 U.S. Patent App. Publication No. 2004/0054428 A1 to Sheha, et al.
`(“Sheha”)
`1007 U.S. Patent App. Publication No. 2004/0157590 A1 to Lazaridis, et al.
`(“Lazaridis”)
`1008 U.S. Patent App. Publication No. 2005/0221876 A1 to Van Bosch, et
`al. (“Van Bosch”)
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 7,565,155 B2 to Sheha, et al. (“Sheha ’155”)
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 9,408,055 (“the ’055 patent”)
`1011 Google LLC v. AGIS Software Development, LLC, IPR2018-01080,
`Paper 9 (Dec. 4, 2018)
`1012 Google LLC v. AGIS Software Development, LLC, IPR2018-01080,
`Paper 31 (Dec. 2, 2019)
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 6,636,803 to Hartz, et al. (“Hartz”)
`1014 U.S. Patent Pub. 2004/0192331 A1 to Gorday, et al. (“Gorday”)
`1015 Microsoft Rings in Pocket PC Phone Edition, MICROSOFT (Feb. 19,
`2002), https://news.microsoft.com/2002/02/19/microsoft-rings-in-
`pocket-pc-phone-edition/
`1016 Palm Treo Review, CNET (Nov. 17, 2003 7:06 PM),
`https://www.cnet.com/reviews/palm-treo-review/
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 9 of 83 PageID #:
`3537
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`
`Ex.
`Description
`1017 Lennart Östman, A Study of Location-Based Services Including Design
`and Implementation of an Enhanced Friend Finder Client with
`Mapping Capabilities, Luleå University of Technology (Aug. 31,
`2001)
`1018 Qualcomm CDMA Technologies Announces Development of gpsOne
`Global Position Location Technology Solution, QUALCOMM (Oct. 11,
`1999), https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/1999/10/11/
`qualcomm-cdma-technologies-announces-development-gpsone-global-
`position
`1019 Qualcomm Completes Acquisition of Wireless Location Leader
`SnapTrack, QUALCOMM (Mar. 2, 2000),
`https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2000/03/02/ qualcomm-
`completes-acquisition-wireless-location-leader-snaptrack
`1020 Microsoft Puts Drivers on the Map with Streets & Trips 2004,
`MICROSOFT (Aug. 5, 2003),
`https://news.microsoft.com/2003/08/05/microsoft-puts-drivers-on-the-
`map-with-streets-trips-2004/
`1021 U.S. Patent No. 6,321,158 to DeLorme, et al. (“DeLorme”)
`1022 Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/711,490 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/308,648
`1023 Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions served on May 19, 2021
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 10 of 83 PageID #:
`3538
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`WhatsApp LLC (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (“Challenged Claims”),
`
`titled “Method of Providing A Cellular Phone/PDA Communication System” (the
`
`“’724 patent,” Ex. 1001). Patent Office records indicate that the ’724 patent is
`
`assigned to AGIS Software Development, LLC (“PO”).
`
`The ’724 patent is generally directed to a cellular phone communication
`
`network that allows users to initiate a phone call by touching a symbol, and to share
`
`IP addresses using SMS messages. But the claimed subject matter was taught by
`
`Fumarolo1 in view of Sheha2 and Lazaridis.3 In fact, in a final written decision in
`
`IPR2018-01080 later affirmed by the Federal Circuit, the Board invalidated the
`
`challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,408,055 (the “’055 patent”)—a much
`
`narrower descendant of the ’724 patent—based on the very same prior art
`
`combination. This decision is fatal to the Challenged Claims; collateral estoppel
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 6,366,782 B1 to Fumarolo, et al. (“Fumarolo”) (Ex. 1005).
`
`2 U.S. Patent App. Publication No. 2004/0054428 A1 to Sheha, et al. (“Sheha”)
`
`(Ex. 1006).
`
`3 U.S. Patent App. Publication No. 2004/0157590 A1 to Lazaridis, et al.
`
`(“Lazaridis”) (Ex. 1007)
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 11 of 83 PageID #:
`3539
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`precludes PO from re-litigating these invalidity issues here. And regardless, the
`
`materially similar Challenged Claims of the ’724 patent are invalid for the same
`
`reasons.
`
`Like the ’724 patent (and ’055 patent), Fumarolo is directed to establishing a
`
`communication network among
`
`first
`
`responders.
`
` Fumarolo “links
`
`the
`
`communication set-up procedures with the map display to enable [a] terminal user
`
`to simply ‘point and click’ … to quickly communicate with any particular
`
`communication unit or units being monitored by the user.” Ex. 1005, 3:51-56.
`
`Fumarolo does not expressly disclose that the terminal may be a mobile
`
`phone, but (as the Board previously found) this is taught by Sheha. Like Fumarolo,
`
`Sheha explains how mapping software programs were known for “safety dispatching
`
`(i.e., Police, Fire, and Rescue organizations).” Ex. 1006 ¶0004. Sheha goes on to
`
`explain that the map solution “may be practiced by using communication devices
`
`such as a personal computer, a personal digital assistance [sic], in-vehicle navigation
`
`systems, or a mobile telephone.” Id., Abstract. Sheha teaches the use of mobile
`
`phones in automatic vehicle location and dispatch applications, like those described
`
`in Fumarolo. Id. ¶¶0004, 0007, 0011.
`
`Fumarolo also does not expressly disclose the exchange of IP addresses using
`
`SMS, but (again, as the Board previously found) this is taught by Lazaridis. Like
`
`Fumarolo and Sheha, Lazaridis is similarly directed to establishing wireless
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 12 of 83 PageID #:
`3540
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`communications among members of a group—such as “a friend, an instant-
`
`messaging buddy, a person within a specified workgroup, or a co-worker of [a]
`
`user.” Ex. 1007 ¶0024. As part of those communications, Lazaridis explains that
`
`the mobile devices in the network can “exchange IP addresses using SMS
`
`messages.” Id. ¶0034. The IP-based communication of Lazaridis would allow for
`
`more-efficient exchange of larger messages among the devices in Fumarolo’s
`
`communication system. Id. ¶¶0026, 0032, 0057.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board institute review of the
`
`’724 patent and find all Challenged Claims unpatentable, as it did with the
`
`’055 patent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest (“RPIs”)
`WhatsApp LLC, and its parent, Facebook, Inc., are the real parties-in-interest
`
`to this Petition.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’724 patent is asserted in the following cases that may be affected by a
`
`decision in this proceeding: AGIS Software Development LLC v. WhatsApp Inc.,
`
`2:21-cv-00029-JRG (E.D. Tex.); WhatsApp LLC v. AGIS Software Development
`
`LLC, 5:21-cv-03076-BLF (N.D. Cal.).
`
`In the related litigation against WhatsApp filed in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas, WhatsApp filed a motion to dismiss based on improper venue, concurrently
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 13 of 83 PageID #:
`3541
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`filing a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California. In the
`
`Eastern District of Texas case, the claim construction hearing has been set for
`
`October 26, 2021 and trial has been set for March 7, 2022. A schedule has not yet
`
`been set in the Northern District of California case.
`
`In addition, the ’724 patent is asserted in the following litigations involving
`
`third parties: AGIS Software Development LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile
`
`US, Inc., 2:21-cv-00072-JRG (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. Lyft,
`
`Inc., 2:21-cv-00024-JRG (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. Uber
`
`Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Uber, 2:21-cv-00026-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Smith Micro
`
`Software, Inc., et al. v. AGIS Software Development, LLC, 3:21-cv-03677-TSH
`
`(N.D. Cal.); Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC, 3:21-cv-04653-JCS
`
`(N.D. Cal.).
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing an IPR challenging related U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,031,728, which is asserted in the above litigations.
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), Petitioner
`
`designates the following lead counsel:
`
`• Lisa K. Nguyen (Reg. No. 58,018): lisa.nguyen@lw.com; Latham &
`
`Watkins LLP, 140 Scott Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025; 650.470.4848
`
`(Tel.); 650.463.2600 (Fax).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 14 of 83 PageID #:
`3542
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`
`Petitioner also designates the following backup counsel:
`
`• Richard G. Frenkel (Reg. No. 47,578): rick.frenkel@lw.com; Latham
`
`& Watkins LLP, 140 Scott Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
`
`650.463.3080 (Tel.); 650.463.2600 (Fax).
`
`• Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724), jonathan.strang@lw.com,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000;
`
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304; 202.637.2362 (Tel.); 202.637.2201
`
`(Fax).
`
`• Alan M. Billharz (Reg. No. 79,532): alan.billharz@lw.com; Latham &
`
`Watkins LLP, 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000, Washington, D.C.
`
`20004-1304; 202.637.2226 (Tel.); 202.637.2201 (Fax).
`
`• Tiffany C. Weston (Reg. No. 79,469): tiffany.weston@lw.com; Latham
`
`& Watkins LLP, 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000, Washington,
`
`D.C. 20004-1304; 202.637.2197 (Tel.); 202.637.2201 (Fax).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney from WhatsApp is
`
`attached. WhatsApp consents to electronic service.
`
`D.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`
`to Deposit Account No. 506269.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 15 of 83 PageID #:
`3543
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’724 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or otherwise estopped from requesting this proceeding.
`
`IV.
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`Ground 1: Claims 9, 12, 13, and 15 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over Fumarolo in view of Sheha and Lazaridis.
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Claim 10 is obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Fumarolo in view of Sheha, Lazaridis, and Van Bosch.4
`
`
`
`Ground 3: Claims 9, 12, 13, and 15 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over Fumarolo in view of Sheha, Lazaridis, and Sheha ’155.5
`
`
`
`Ground 4: Claim 10 is obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Fumarolo in view of Sheha, Lazaridis, Sheha ’155, and Van Bosch.
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’724 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The application that issued as the ’724 patent was filed on April 17, 2006 as
`
`a continuation-in-part of the application that issued as the ’728 patent, which was
`
`
`4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0221876 A1 to Van Bosch, et al.
`
`(“Van Bosch”) (Ex. 1008).
`
`5 U.S. Patent No. 7,565,155 B2 to Sheha, et al. (“Sheha ’155”) (Ex. 1009).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 16 of 83 PageID #:
`3544
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`filed on September 21, 2004. Ex. 1002 at 3-6. The Challenged Claims are entitled
`
`to an effective priority date of no earlier than September 21, 2004.6
`
`1.
`Technological Background
`Location-based services (“LBS”) generally refers to software that utilizes
`
`geographic data and information to provide services or information to users.
`
`Ex. 1003 (“Bederson Decl.”), ¶¶78-79. LBS largely developed from the
`
`convergence of three technologies: mobile devices, the Internet, and Global
`
`Positioning System (“GPS”) navigation. Id., ¶79. By 2004, all three technologies
`
`were in widespread use. Id., ¶¶79-93.
`
`The first mobile phone utilizing GSM wireless cellular technology was
`
`introduced in the early 1990s. Id., ¶81. Around the same time, the term personal
`
`digital assistant (“PDA”) was first coined to refer to a portable computing device.
`
`Id., ¶82. The PDA would establish the basic form factor that laid the foundation for
`
`smartphones. Id., ¶83. By the early 2000s, early “smartphones” were
`
`commonplace—hybrid devices that combined existing PDA operating systems with
`
`basic phone hardware. Id., ¶¶84-87.
`
`
`6 Petitioner does not concede that any Challenged Claims is entitled to the
`
`September 21, 2004 effective priority date. For the purpose of this Petition, it is
`
`unnecessary to break the priority chain.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 17 of 83 PageID #:
`3545
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`
`During the time that mobile device technology was advancing, the Internet
`
`was also gaining widespread popularity. Id., ¶88. The Internet started to be
`
`commercialized in the mid-1990s. Id. Amazon and eBay launched in 1995, and
`
`Hotmail launched in 1996. Id. With the rise of mobile devices and the Internet,
`
`technology soon developed to provide cellular phones with access to the Internet.
`
`Id. In 2000, General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), a mobile data standard, was
`
`introduced as an add-on to GSM to transmit IP packets to external networks such as
`
`the Internet. Id., ¶¶81, 88.
`
`Concurrently, GPS navigation systems and positioning applications were also
`
`developing. Id., ¶¶89-93. In the late-1990s, the first commercially-available cellular
`
`phone with built-in GPS capability was released. Id., ¶89. In 1999, E-911 legislation
`
`was enacted to automatically provide a caller’s location to 911 dispatchers, further
`
`catalyzing the integration of GPS into cellular phones. Id., ¶90. By the early 2000s,
`
`GPS was being used to provide the position-determination function in numerous
`
`automobile navigation systems. Id., ¶89. Startups developing GPS-based software
`
`for mobile phones were not unusual at that time. See id., ¶91.
`
`By 2004, Internet and GPS capabilities were common features of cellular
`
`phones. Id., ¶¶92-93. As the ’724 patent acknowledges: “Cellular telephony also
`
`now includes systems that include Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation that
`
`utilizes satellite navigation. These devices thus unite cellular phone technology with
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 18 of 83 PageID #:
`3546
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`navigation information, computer information transmission and receipt of data.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:33-38; see also id. at 2:12-16 (describing prior art system that “combines
`
`within a single enclosure a GPS satellite positioning unit, mobile telephony using
`
`cellular phone technology and personal computing capable of wired or wireless
`
`internet or intranet access using a standard operating system”). Thus, by the time of
`
`alleged invention, it was an obvious design choice to develop software that could
`
`leverage the features of all three technologies. Bederson Decl., ¶80.
`
`2.
`Summary of Alleged Invention
`The ’724 patent generally relates to a “cellular, PDA communication device
`
`and communication system for allowing a plurality of cellular phone users to
`
`monitor each other’s locations and status, [and] to initiate cellular phone calls by
`
`touching a symbol on the display screen with a stylus which can also include point
`
`to call conferencing calling.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. Each cellular phone is identified
`
`on the map display by a symbol at its geographical location. Id., 6:44-49. Each
`
`cellular phone has “communications hardware … to initiate a voice telephone call
`
`or transmit data messages, photographs, or videos by touching the display screen.”
`
`Id., 15:50-54. Figure 1 of the ’724 patent, reproduced below, depicts an exemplary
`
`embodiment of the alleged invention:
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 19 of 83 PageID #:
`3547
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`
`
`
`Each device has an “LCD display screen 16” with a “geographical
`
`display 16b” and symbols 30 and 34, which represent participants in the
`
`communications network located in the displayed geographical area. Id. at 4:24-30,
`
`5:51-58. According to the ’724 patent, “PDA/cellular phone units such as these are
`
`currently on sale and sold as a complete unit,” and “[t]he heart of the invention lies
`
`in the software applications provided in the system.” Id. at 4:55-56, 5:9-10.
`
`The alleged invention of the ’724 patent is directed to “an improved cellular
`
`telephone communication network among a plurality of cellular phones for greatly
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 20 of 83 PageID #:
`3548
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`decreasing the operator actions necessary to establish calling and conferencing
`
`between each of the cellular phones,” and “to enable each participant to
`
`automatically exchange IP addresses using SMS or another digital message format.”
`
`Id. at 3:24-31; Bederson Decl. ¶¶40-43.
`
`3.
`Prosecution History
`The original application included 20 claims, with 11 independent claims.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 5. In response to a restriction requirement, the Applicant elected to
`
`prosecute original claims 11-19 which were directed to “position based conferencing
`
`or data sharing.” Id., 69-70. The Applicant withdrew the other pending claims.
`
`Original claim 18 eventually issued as claim 9.
`
`In the first office action on the merits, the Examiner rejected claim 18 as
`
`obvious over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0192331 (“Gorday”) in view of U.S. Patent
`
`Pub. No. 2006/0031927 (“Mizuno”). Id., 75-77. The Examiner found that “Gorday
`
`teaches providing a database in each cell phone that includes a geographical map of
`
`a predetermined area for user viewing on the touch screen display (paragraph
`
`[0013]” as well as “providing a database (paragraph [0014] – selected devices) in
`
`each cell phone that includes cellular telephone numbers of each of the participating
`
`users having similarly equipped cellular phones.” Id., 83-84.
`
`The Examiner also rejected original claims 13-16 as obvious over Gorday in
`
`view of U.S. Patent No. 6,204,844 (“Fumarolo ’844”). Id., 77-80. Importantly,
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 21 of 83 PageID #:
`3549
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`Fumarolo ’844 was not applied against original claim 18 or its dependents, and
`
`regardless, Fumarolo ’844 is a distinct patent family disclosing a different set of
`
`features from the Fumarolo reference applied here. Bederson Decl., ¶49.
`
`In response to the Examiner’s rejections, the Applicant amended the pending
`
`claims and added new claims. Ex. 1002 at 126-40. Specifically, original claim 18
`
`was amended to include the “exchanging IP addresses using SMS” limitation. The
`
`Applicant further traversed the rejection by arguing that Mizuno could not be relied
`
`on for the “internet connection” limitation because “the information management
`
`system shown in Mizuno is completely different and unrelated to the specific
`
`structure and function of Applicant’s claimed invention.” Id., 150.
`
`The Examiner then allowed the amended claims. Id., 161. The Examiner did
`
`not provide any specific reasons for allowance other than to recite all the limitations
`
`of the independent claims.
`
`4.
`Inter Partes Review of the Related ’055 Patent
`The ’055 patent is the seventh application down the chain from the original
`
`’728 patent. The ’724 patent is the second application down the chain from the
`
`’728 patent. Like the ’724 patent, the ’055 patent is directed to a method that allows
`
`“individuals to set up an ad hoc digital and voice network easily and rapidly to allow
`
`users to coordinate their activities.” Ex. 1010, Abstract.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-2 Filed 09/07/21 Page 22 of 83 PageID #:
`3550
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,630,724
`
`
`
`In a final written decision addressing the patentability of certain claims of the
`
`’055 patent, the Board found that the combination of Fumarolo, Sheha, and Lazaridis
`
`discloses the limitations at issue here. Ex. 1012, 102. With respect to Fumarolo, the
`
`Board found that “Fumarolo’s display-based terminal presents a map on display GUI
`
`119 to the user indicating the geographical locations of communication units 105-
`
`113. The terminal receives a selection from the map (e.g., through the use of a
`
`selection devices, such as a mouse or a touchscreen), that allows the user to make
`
`selections from the representations, or icons, of the communication units on the
`
`interactive display 119.” Id., 52.
`
`With respect to Sheha, the Board found that Sheha discloses a method “for
`
`sending and retrieving location relevant information to a user by selecting and
`
`designating a point of interest that is displayed on a graphical user interface and
`
`sending the location information associated with that point of interest to a receiver
`
`that is also selected using the graphical user interface.” Id., 15. Notably, the Board
`
`found that the petitioner had persuasively shown that a POSA woul