Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper # 41
`Entered: 2/4/22
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LBT IP I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`_____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Friday, January 7, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before JOHN A. HUDALLA, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper # 41
`Entered: 2/4/22
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LBT IP I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`_____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Friday, January 7, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before JOHN A. HUDALLA, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JENNIFER C. BAILEY, ESQUIRE
`ADAM P. SEITZ, ESQUIRE
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Boulevard
`Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`(913) 777-5600
`jennifer.bailey@eriseip.com
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRIAN SEAL, ESQUIRE
`SHAUN GREGORY, ESQUIRE
`TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
`200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Suite 500
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`(202) 664-1537
`bseal@taftlaw.com
`sgregory@taftlaw.com
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matters came on for hearing on Friday, January 7,
`2022, commencing at 10:00 a.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Okay. Thank you.
` Good morning, everyone.
` This is the consolidated oral hearing in
`IPR2020-01190 and 01193. I'm Judge Hudalla. I have
`with me Judges McShane and Dirba.
` I'd like to start with appearances first. Who
`do we have from Petitioner?
` MS. BAILEY: Jennifer Bailey and Adam Seitz of
`Erise IP, for Petitioner, Apple Inc.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Good morning to you.
` And from Patent Owner?
` MR. SEAL: Brian Seal and Shaun Gregory from
`Taft, Your Honor.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Good morning to you.
` So I believe we're going to try to run this
`hearing the same way we ran the December hearing. We're
`going to start with the 90 case first. We'll go through
`and run through the original amended claims for
`Petitioner, followed by Patent Owner, and then, do some
`brief rebuttal and surrebuttal at that time. And then,
`we'll repeat the process for the 93 case after that.
` I do expect we'll have a five-minute break,
`probably between the two sections. And I ask you to be
`cognizant that you have 90 minutes of total argument
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`time, so you can break it up as you see fit between the
`two different cases.
` We have a public line today, so keep that in
`mind. This transcript will be part of the public record
`after this, so to the extent that there's any
`confidential information, please do not discuss it in
`this open hearing. Although I don't think there's
`anything that's been sealed in this case.
` Just a reminder that we're in the virtual
`environment here so if you could occasionally give us
`chances to interject with questions, that would be
`great. And also for the benefit of the court reporter,
`if you could mention your name before you start
`speaking, that would also be helpful.
` Okay. So with that, I don't think we have
`anything else, and I don't know if it's going to be you,
`Ms. Bailey, or Mr. Seitz presenting for Petitioner now
`for the 90 case?
` MS. BAILEY: For the 90 case, it'll be me,
`Jennifer Bailey, and for the 93 case, it'll be Adam
`Seitz.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Okay, Ms. Bailey, I'm going to
`ask the unusual question again. How much opening and
`rebuttal time would you like to take today?
` MS. BAILEY: For the 1190 case, I would like 45
`minutes opening, 15 minutes rebuttal.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Okay. So you're going to use
`-- just to be clear, you're going to have 30 minutes for
`the second case then?
` MS. BAILEY: That's correct, Your Honor.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Okay. Ms. Bailey, you may
`begin. We do have the demonstratives.
` MS. BAILEY: Thank you, Your Honors. May it
`please the Board.
` I want to first discuss the original claims for
`the '113 Patent, and then, move on to the amended
`claims. Let's start with Petitioner's demonstratives at
`DX-7. The pages before that just lay out the grounds
`and the issues in dispute. I'm happy to do a reminder
`for the Board if you'd like, but otherwise, let's just
`jump into the argument.
` So there is a single issue in dispute with
`respect to the original claims and it's similar to what
`we saw for the other patents in this family; the '256,
`and the '618.
` And the question on the table is whether
`Sakamoto teaches the ability to transition from one mode
`to another based on the detected GPS signal level.
` It's Petitioner's position that Sakamoto does
`teach stopping position searching when the GPS signal
`is poor, and then, reactivating the position searching
`when the GPS signal is good. LBT's position is that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`when positioning is not performed, in other words, when
`the GPS signal is poor, and the GPS system of Sakamoto
`is placed in a stop-position mode where positioning is
`not performed, the GPS receiver is off, and that there's
`no capability to measure the signal level to be able to
`move out or away from a position of not -- from a mode
`of not position searching to a mode where position
`searching is performed.
` The problem with LBT's arguments is that it
`does not address Sakamoto's teaching of detecting the
`signal level. And LBT just kind of glosses over this. It
`ignores that teaching in paragraph 37.
` So I'm going to delve into that DX-8, but
`before we get there, as an initial matter with respect
`to the claims of the '113, I want to note something
`that's different than the '256 and the '618. And that
`the independent claims merely require reducing applied
`power level. That's -- or adjusting power levels. And
`Sakamoto does describe in paragraph 38 stopping
`positions searching and reducing power levels when
`positioning searching is stopped in paragraph 50.
` And this is why LBT specifically in its Patent
`Owner -- Patent Owner response discusses claims 3 and 9,
`which are dependent claims regarding reactivating the
`primary location tracking circuitry.
` In other words, my point is I don't think LBT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`really contends that the independent claims are not
`taught. LBT's contention is more that there is no
`reactivation of the primary location tracking circuitry
`from the stop-position mode.
` So turning to DX-8, the Board has seen this
`slide before, but this is text from Sakamoto
`color-coded, and I want to specifically highlight the
`purple text here.
` So as we know, Sakamoto teaches that at a cycle
`set in advance, the GPS signal level is measured. And
`so the cycle set in advance is the highlighted yellow
`text. And that happens in response to the server, which
`is labeled number 2, sending a satellite signal level
`request message to the terminal, labeled number 1. And
`then, in response to the terminal receiving that
`satellite signal level request message, the positioning
`control unit 13 causes the satellite signal level
`detection unit to monitor the level, signal level, from
`the GPS satellite. That's the purple text we see there.
` So the mobile terminal, in response to
`receiving an instruction to measure the satellite signal
`level, the positioning control unit 13 then instructs
`the satellite level -- excuse me -- the satellite signal
`level detection unit 15 to monitor the signal level.
`And we know from FIG. 7 that that signal level has been
`measured and is sent back up to the server 2. And that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`is further set out in the green text where the satellite
`signal level response message is sent to the server, and
`the server reads the signal level.
` LBT has argued, well, the GPS receiver is off,
`so it has no ability for the signal levels to be
`measured. So Sakamoto tells us that the positioning
`control unit 13 controls power to the GPS receiver.
`That's at paragraph 20. And that the positioning
`control unit 13 also controls the satellite level or
`satellite signal level detection unit 15. That's the
`purple text at DX-8.
` So we know from Sakamoto that the signal level
`is detected. And that's all we need from Sakamoto in
`order for it to then determine what mode, positioning
`mode, it should be in, whether it's continuing to
`stop-position searching, a normal mode, or high
`sensitivity mode.
` So this idea that because the GPS signal or GPS
`receiver is off, that it does not have the ability to
`detect a signal level, directly contravenes this purple
`text. There's nothing in Sakamoto that says that the
`GPS receiver is off when signal level detection is
`performed.
` In fact, the evidence from Mr. Andrews is that
`a POSITA would understand that a portion of the signal
`-- a portion of the GPS receiver necessary for doing the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`signal level detection is turned on in order to perform
`what Sakamoto expressly states in this purple text; that
`it causes the satellite signal level detection unit to
`monitor the signal level.
` So again, it does not matter that Sakamoto does
`not tell us what portions of the GPS receiver are
`powered on to perform this signal level detection. It
`is simply enough that Sakamoto teaches that a signal
`level detection is performed, and as soon as that
`detected signal level is sufficiently high, a transition
`from a mode where no position searching is performed to
`a mode where position searching is performed satisfies
`the claim language included in the dependent claims.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Ms. Bailey?
` MS. BAILEY: Uh-hum. Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: It's Judge Hudalla. I had a
`question. Is -- is this -- I know you're trying to make
`a distinction here between the satellite signal level,
`detecting unit 15, and maybe other components in
`Sakamoto. Is -- is your intention here that you're
`talking about consistent with the mapping in the
`Petition where you called a group of components the,
`quote, Sakamoto GPS components?
` MS. BAILEY: Is there a particular place in the
`Petition that you're asking on, Your Honor? And may I
`ask you to further explain -- I'm sorry, I'm not quite
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`understanding your question. I apologize.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Okay.
` MS. BAILEY: Do ask it again.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: All right. Sure. Let's see.
` MS. BAILEY: And I believe at the Petition page
`24, we discuss the primary location tracking circuitry
`in a group of components that we refer to as the
`Sakamoto GPS components.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Right, and that -- and that's
`my question. I'm wondering if maybe that is the -- the
`part of Patent Owner's argument that's coming to the
`fore here, which is you have this mapping where you talk
`about these Sakamoto GPS components as being the primary
`location tracking circuitry. And I think Patent Owner
`may be arguing maybe that your position is inconsistent
`when you try to take out just this satellite signal
`level detecting unit 15 and say well, it's really maybe
`not part of that group.
` MS. BAILEY: I'm not sure that I understand how
`that actually makes a difference with respect to the
`claim mapping. Again, let's go back to what the claim
`actually recites. This is -- we have the claim language at
`DX -- DX-4. The claim requires reducing applied power
`level to the primary location tracking circuitry. So
`when the GPS, the primary location tracking circuitry,
`is mapped as that group of components, on page 24 of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`Petition, but when position searching is stopped, we
`know that at least the GPS receiver is powered down. We
`know that from paragraph 50 of Sakamoto. But that
`doesn't necessarily mean that everything is powered
`down. Sakamoto doesn't tell us that, and the Petition
`didn't map that way. And a single level detection unit
`can still monitor the signal level per Sakamoto,
`paragraph 37, in order to determine the GPS signal
`level.
` So let's not be confused by does Sakamoto have
`the ability to transition from one mode to another,
`which is what Patent Owner argued. They -- I don't
`think they made the argument that you're suggesting,
`Your Honor, respectfully. They argue that because the
`GPS receiver is off when position searching is not being
`performed, then that means that the GPS signal or the
`satellite signal level detection unit can't monitor the
`signal. But that is incorrect or it flies in the face
`and contravened that expressed teaching that the
`satellite signal level detection unit monitors the
`signal level.
` Am I answering --
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Okay.
` MS. BAILEY: -- your question, Your Honor?
` JUDGE HUDALLA: I -- I think -- I think you
`are. I just want to be clear, though. So your
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`contention is when we get to the -- the part where we're
`reducing applied power to the primary location tracking
`circuitry, your contention is maybe we're reducing it or
`turning it off for everything but this detection unit
`15?
` MS. BAILEY: The claim only requires reducing
`applied power level to the primary location tracking
`circuitry. If the GPS receiver is powered down, per
`paragraph 50 of Sakamoto, such that power consumption is
`reduced, then, that satisfies the claim. What happens
`to the other elements within that primary location
`tracking circuitry, for example, the positioning control
`unit, the satellite signal level detecting unit, does
`not matter with respect to the claim mapping. The claim
`only requires reducing applied power level to the
`primary location tracking circuitry. If reduction of
`power to the GPS receiver 10 accomplishes a reduction of
`power, then it has satisfied the claim.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Okay. Thank you. I understand
`your position.
` MS. BAILEY: I want to give the Board a couple
`of citations for the record. These are in our briefing,
`but so that we have them for purposes of the transcript.
` At the Petition page 25, and at Exhibit 1003, which
`is Andrews -- Mr. Andrews's declaration, paragraphs 155
`through 160. There's discussion of how there is the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`reduction of the applied power levels, or the adjusting
`of the power levels as recited in the claims. And I
`specifically give you a pinpoint, paragraph 155 of Exhibit
`1003.
` I also note during his deposition, Mr. Andrews
`discussed how a POSITA understand from Sakamoto that at
`least a portion of the GPS receiver is turned on to
`detect the signal levels, per, again, that text at
`paragraph 37 of Sakamoto that says expressly that the
`signal levels are detected. But that you don't
`necessarily have to turn on the entire GPS receiver.
` And please refer to Exhibit 2003, page 20, line 25
`through page 21, line 20; page 25, lines 1 through 19;
`page 32, lines 10 through 33 -- excuse me, page 32, line
`10 through page 33 line 14; and page 33, line 16 through
`page 35 line 4.
` In other words, there was quite a bit of
`testimony regarding how components of a GPS receiver
`would be powered on in order to detect the satellite
`signal level.
` And I'm just going to end with this: LBT's
`position has no expert support. It has very little
`explanation. I think the fact that we're all going, Um,
`what are they arguing? Are they really arguing this?,
`shows the lack of explanation in their argument. And,
`they only have attorney argument. Whereas, Apple has
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`presented significant amount of discussion along with a
`significant amount of supporting evidence from Mr.
`Andrews.
` So if the Board accepts LBT's argument, it has
`to not only weigh Mr. Andrews's opinions and not give
`them consideration against unrebutted testimony, but
`probably even more notably, it has to somehow explain
`and contravene, again, this expressed teaching in Sakamoto
`that the satellite signal level is detected, because I'm
`going to go back to what LBT's argument is. LBT's
`argument is that there's no ability in Sakamoto to
`reactivate from a position mode where no searching is
`being performed. But that's simply untrue. How then
`does it rectify and synthesize paragraphs 37 and 38 of
`Sakamoto, but expressly describe that at a cycle set in
`advance, the signal level is detected, the positioning
`mode is determined based on the detected signal level
`and it is set?
` If there are no further questions, Your Honors,
`on the original claims, I'll move to the amended claims.
` Thank you. All right. Let's move on to DX-19.
`Again, we provided both the claims, the grounds, and the
`issues in dispute in the slides prior to DX-19 for the
`Board's reference. And I'll go from here to the
`substantive discussion.
` So first, we're going to talk about the amended
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`claims and the recitation of a single predetermined
`signal level. So in the Revised Motion to Amend, LBT
`amended the claims to recite that there is adjustment
`responsive to measuring a single predetermined signal
`level. Apple's position with respect to this new
`amendment is two-fold. One, Sakamoto teaches, and also
`Alberth, for Claim 27, teaches measurement and -- excuse
`me, adjustment responsive to measuring a single
`predetermined signal level. But additionally, that
`there's no 112(1) support for this limitation
`essentially, using what LBT is implicitly construing as
`a claim.
` Now, the Board doesn't have to get to the
`112(1) issue because Sakamoto teaches the plain language
`of the claim. And LBT made this argument to, of course,
`get around Sakamoto. So let's talk about what Sakamoto
`teaches. Sakamoto discloses multiple signal level
`threshold values. At one predetermined threshold value
`to move to position where no searching is being
`performed. Another threshold value to move to a
`position searching mode where normal positioning being
`performed. And a third threshold value to move to a
`positioning mode where the high sensitivity mode is
`being performed. And that's discussed at paragraph 38
`of Sakamoto.
` Let's look at DX-16, which is the claim
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`language. And specifically 21b. The language of the
`claim recites, In response to measurement --
`measurement -- of a receive communication signal level
`less than a single predetermined signal level, there's
`reduction of applied power.
` So in response to measuring a single signal
`level, there's reduction of applied power. Sakamoto
`teaches that.
` The last sentence -- and I'm going to go back
`to DX-19, the last sentence of paragraph 38 of Sakamoto
`teaches exactly what is claimed there; that if it's
`determined that positioning cannot be performed when the
`signal level value is equal to or lower than a
`predetermined threshold value, that predetermined
`position searching is stopped. That predetermined
`threshold value is a single signal level. And at that
`signal level, when the signal level is measured, at that
`signal level, that predetermined threshold value
`position searching is stopped. Sakamoto does not
`require multiple signal levels to be measured to adjust
`the mode to stop-position searching.
` I want -- I want to kind of think about that
`and repeat it. The claim requires measurement of a
`single signal level to adjust or reduce the applied
`power levels. Sakamoto teaches measurement of a
`predetermined threshold value signal level to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`stop-position searching. The claim doesn't require, or
`the claim excludes measuring multiple signal level
`values to reduce applied power level. Sakamoto does not
`require multiple signal levels to be measured to move to
`position mode where position searching is not performed.
` LBT's argument in its Revised Motion to Amend
`is, in my opinion, Your Honors, a little misleading.
`And I refer the Board to paper 30, page 21. LBT argues
`Sakamoto and Alberth disclosed: “Adjusting power
`level relative to two predetermined signal levels.” But
`I want to emphasize that's not what is claimed. It's
`not claimed adjusting power levels relative to two
`predetermined signal levels. The claim recites
`adjusting power levels in response to measurement of a
`single signal level. Sakamoto and Alberth both teach
`adjusting responsive to measuring a single; i.e., only
`one signal level.
` Now, LBT will probably come back and say, well,
`the claim really means there's only one signal level at
`which any adjustment occurs, such that there is one and
`only one signal level allowing for adjustment of power.
`That's really what LBT is arguing in trying to get
`around Sakamoto. But the problem with that argument is
`that it then puts LBT in this catch-22 where if that's
`their position, there's no 112(1) support for a single
`signal level.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
` Let's move to DX-20. Again, the claim language
`of the claim does not require adjustment only in
`response to measuring a single signal level. The claim
`language does not require measuring one and only one
`signal level. Instead, the claim language excludes
`adjustment responsive to measuring multiple signal
`levels. And so what happens is that LBT's rebuttal
`arguments become inconsistent. LBT argues in their
`Revised Motion to Amend that because Sakamoto discloses
`more than one threshold level at which any or at which
`an adjustment may occur, then Sakamoto does not disclose
`adjustment responsive to a single signal level.
` Okay. So in Sakamoto, we have the different
`threshold values, and you enter different modes
`depending on which threshold value is set. The purpose
`of the single predetermined signal level limitation is
`to try to get around Sakamoto. But in rebutting the
`112(1) argument, LBT argues that since the inventors
`envision more than one signal level at which adjustment
`may occur, this provides support for adjusting at a
`single signal level.
` And let me back up for just a second. The
`specification or the priority document for the '113 Patent
`only describes adjusting at a first signal level. And
`in our opposition, Apple's opposition, we said, well,
`this would inform that there's a second signal level
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`where adjustment may occur. In other words, there's no
`support in a priority document that adjustment can only
`occur at one and only one signal level.
` Well, LBT tried to rebut that by saying, okay,
`well, fine. Since the inventors envisioned more than
`one signal level, because they were -- because they
`disclosed a first signal level, then that means there's
`support for a single signal level. But then, that runs
`afoul of Sakamoto's teaching. Its disclosure in the
`priority document of two signal levels provide support
`for reciting a single signal level, that's LBT's
`argument, then similarly Sakamoto's disclosure of two
`signal levels teaches or renders obvious the claimed
`single signal level.
` I'm going to pause there and see if there are
`any questions.
` Okay. So let's move to DX-22. Even applying
`LBT's implicit conclusion on this single predetermined
`signal level, Claim 27 is also obvious over Alberth,
`Gotoh and Levi. So in the opposition to the Revised
`Motion to Amend, we presented a new Ground 5 that relies
`on Alberth as the primary. And as we're going to
`discuss, LBT argues that Alberth has two signal levels
`at which it adjusts, but that's incorrect for a couple
`of reasons.
` So first of all -- well, actually, let's go
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`ahead and discuss that argument by LBT. LBT says, well,
`Alberth doesn't have a single predetermined signal level
`because Alberth teaches adjustment in response to a
`predetermined threshold of the GPS signal level value.
`But per LBT, Alberth also teaches adjustment in response
`to a cellular signal level value. But that argument is
`wrong for a couple of reasons that I want to get into.
` First of all, let's look at what Alberth does
`teach. At DX-22, I have the quote, exception from
`Alberth. And Alberth says, if the GPS receiver
`determines the signal strength is below a predetermined
`threshold, then the position locations are too weak to
`process. And so based on that, Alberth teaches moving
`-- moving from a first frequency rate to a second
`frequency rate where GPS signaling is performed less
`frequently.
` What is interesting here just as kind of a
`sidenote is that LBT agrees this teaching here in
`Alberth on DX-22 represents a single predetermined
`threshold value. Because LBT's argument is, well,
`there's this threshold value, but then, there's also the
`cellular signal level value, so that means that Alberth
`has two signal levels.
` But turning to DX-23, Alberth's discussion of
`the cellular signal level doesn't meet with LBT's
`arguments. Claim -- first of all, Claim 27 requires
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`measuring a receive communication signal level value
`from primary location tracking circuitry. Not just any
`signal level value. Well, a cellular signal level value
`is not a receive communication signal level value from
`primary location tracking circuitry. So in that regard,
`the cellular signal level value that's determined in
`Alberth cannot be a second signal level per LBT because
`it's not a receive communication signal level value.
`But even beyond that, Alberth teaches that -- looking at
`DX-24, Alberth teaches that if the cellular signal level
`is determined, and if it's good, then the GPS receiver
`is activated to check the GPS signal level. So the
`cellular signal level in Alberth is used as kind of a
`predicate for checking the GPS signal level value. But
`it's only when the GPS signal level value is
`sufficiently high that there is a reactivation or a
`reduction of applied power levels to the GPS receiver.
`So per Alberth, column 5, Claims 35 through 41, recited
`at DX -- or provided at DX-23, transition from one
`frequency rate to another is responsive to position
`signals of sufficient strength. Not a cellular
`communication signal.
` Are there any questions, Your Honors, before I
`move to the next topic?
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Can you just give a cite to the
`place where you got the cellular signal check that you
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`mentioned?
` MS. BAILEY: Yes, Your Honor. And I believe
`we're going to have it -- let me just double check. I
`think those are the citations at the bottom of the
`DX-24. Along with Mr. Andrews's discussion. Before I
`confirm that, 5 -- yes, 5 -- so Alberth column 5, lines
`35 through 45. And then, also column 6, lines 34
`through 47 talk about further how the Alberth system
`does not use the cellular signal level to perform GPS
`positioning, but it uses the GPS signal level because
`the cellular signal level would not be as good.
` At column 6, lines 33, in addition, changing
`the rate of activation of the GPS receiver based upon
`actual position location signaling rather than, say,
`the strength of the cellular communication signals
`provides for more reliable determination criteria.
` That's Alberth saying it's perform -- it's
`changing the frequency rate based on the GPS signal, not
`the cellular signal.
` And then, at column 5, line 35 through 45, a
`short-term signal strength that's referred to -- and I
`don't know if it's easier to also look at DX-23 that has
`this. The short-term signal strength is the cellular
`signal strength, cellular signal level strength. If
`that short-term signal strength is sufficiently high,
`the controller activates the GPS receiver to attempt to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190 (Patent 8,542,113 B2)
`IPR2020-01193 (Patent 8,421,619 B2)
`
`detect the position location signaling. So if the
`cellular signal level is sufficiently high, then, it's
`going to activate the GPS receiver. And then, the GPS
`receiver determines that the position signals -- not
`cellular signals, but the position signals, are of
`sufficient strength, the controller then increases the
`frequency of activating the GPS receiver.
` And then, Mr. Andrews's discussion, which I
`provided a portion of it on DX-24.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: That last little bit you were
`quoting was from column 5 starting at like line 35; is
`that right?
` MS. BAILEY: Yes, Your Honor.
` And --
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Okay. Thank you.
` MS. BAILEY: -- just for the Board's -- sure.
` Just real quickly, for Board's reference, this
`discussion of the cellular -- cellular begins at column
`4, line 64 and kind of sets up what's going on with the
`cellular discussion.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Thank you.
` MS. BAILEY: Okay. Okay. If there are no
`further questions on that topic, I'm next going to move
`to DX-25, which is a discussion regarding LBT's argument
`about adjusting implied power levels.
` So looking at DX-26, LBT merely argues in its
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`1
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
