Paper 42
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Date: March 2, 2022
`571-272-7822
`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
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOHN A. HUDALLA, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Claims Unpatentable
`Denying Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting
`an inter partes review of claims 1–20 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,542,113 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’113 patent”). LBT IP I LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8). Taking into
`account the arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response,
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Date: March 2, 2022
`571-272-7822
`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
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOHN A. HUDALLA, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Claims Unpatentable
`Denying Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting
`an inter partes review of claims 1–20 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,542,113 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’113 patent”). LBT IP I LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8). Taking into
`account the arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response,
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`we determined that the information presented in the Petition established that
`there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect
`to its unpatentability challenges. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted
`this proceeding on March 4, 2021, as to all challenged claims and all
`grounds of unpatentability. Paper 9 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`During the course of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 17, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 25, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner also filed a
`Sur-reply. Paper 31 (“PO Sur-reply”).
`In addition, Patent Owner filed a contingent motion to amend
`(Paper 16, “MTA”) proposing to substitute claims 21–40 for claims 1–20,
`respectively, if we are to determine claims 1–20 unpatentable. Petitioner
`filed an opposition to the motion to amend. Paper 26 (“MTA Opp.”). On
`September 24, 2021, pursuant to Patent Owner’s request (see MTA 2), we
`issued Preliminary Guidance on Patent Owner’s motion to amend. Paper 28
`(“PG”). Patent Owner then filed a revised motion to amend in which it
`proposed revised substitute claims 21–40.1 Paper 30 (“RMTA”). Petitioner
`opposed Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend. Paper 34 (“RMTA
`Opp.”). Patent Owner filed a reply in support of its revised motion to amend
`(Paper 39 (“RMTA Reply”)), to which Petitioner filed a sur-reply (Paper 40
`(“RMTA Sur-reply”)).
`An oral hearing was held on January 7, 2022, and a transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record. Paper 41 (“Tr.”).
`
`
`1 Hereinafter, we refer only to the proposed substitute claims in the revised
`motion to amend unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`Petitioner filed Declarations of Scott Andrews with its Petition
`(Ex. 1003), with its Reply and opposition to the motion to amend
`(Ex. 1080), and with its opposition to the revised motion to amend
`(Ex. 1081). Both parties filed a transcript of the deposition of Mr. Andrews.
`Exs. 1068, 2003.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This decision is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of
`claims 1–20 of the ’113 patent. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner
`has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of the
`’113 patent are unpatentable. We also deny Patent Owner’s revised motion
`to amend.
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies Apple Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Pet. 74.
`Patent Owner identifies LBT IP I LLC as the real party-in-interest. Paper 3,
`2; Paper 6, 2.
`
`Related Proceedings
`The parties identify the following proceeding related to the
`’113 patent (Pet. 74; Paper 3, 2; Paper 6, 2):
`LBT IP I LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01245-UNA (D. Del. filed
`July 1, 2019).
`We additionally note that Petitioner has challenged other patents
`owned by Patent Owner in IPR2020-01189, IPR2020-01191,
`IPR2020-01192, and IPR2020-01193. We issue final written decisions in
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`IPR2020-01189, IPR2020-01191, IPR2020-01192, and IPR2020-01193
`concurrently with this Decision.
`
`The ’113 patent
`The ’113 patent is directed to location and tracking communication
`systems. Ex. 1001, 1:33–34. Figure 1 of the ’113 patent is reproduced
`below.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a schematic of tracking device 100, which contains
`electronic components 101 such as transceiver 102, signal processing
`circuitry 104 (e.g., a microprocessor or other signal logic circuitry), and
`accelerometer 130. Id. at 4:6–8, 5:53–56. Location tracking circuitry 114
`(e.g., global positioning system (GPS) circuitry) calculates location data
`received and sends the data to signal processing circuitry 104. Id. at 6:16–
`18. Signal detecting circuitry 115 detects and measures signal power level.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`Id. at 6:21–22. Battery level monitor 116 detects a battery level of
`battery 118. Id. at 6:24–26.
`Tracking device 100 periodically checks availability of a GPS signal
`by performing a GPS signal acquisition to determine if a receive
`communication signal is above a first signal level. Id. at 7:7–10. Location
`tracking circuitry 114 or transceiver 102 may be placed in a sleep or standby
`mode to conserve a battery level of battery 118. Id. at 7:4–8. Electronic
`tracking device 100 may resume GPS signal acquisition using GPS satellites
`when the acquired receive communication signal level is above the first
`signal level. Id. at 7:10–16.
`Accelerometer 130 may also activate if a power level of the receive
`communication signal (e.g., GPS signal) is insufficient for processing. Id. at
`9:48–50. In this case, processing unit 104 computes current location
`coordinates using acceleration measurements. Id. at 9:53–54. When the
`receive communication signal again becomes sufficient for processing,
`accelerometer 130 is deactivated and location tracking circuitry 114 is
`activated. Id. at 9:58–67. In this case, processing unit 104 resumes the
`calculation of location coordinates from the receive communication signal.
`Id.
`
`The ’113 patent issued from Application No. 13/356,614 (“the ’614
`application”) filed on January 23, 2012, which is a division of Application
`No. 11/969,905 (“the ’905 application”) filed on January 6, 2008. Ex. 1001,
`codes (22), (62). As discussed below, Petitioner applies the January 6, 2008,
`filing date of the ’905 application (i.e., the earliest possible effective filing
`date) for qualifying the asserted references as prior art. See Pet. 5, 9–12;
`MTA Opp. 8–9.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`Of the challenged claims of the ’113 patent, claims 1, 7, and 17 are
`independent. Claims 2–6 depend from claim 1; claims 8–16 depend from
`claim 7; and claims 18–20 depend from claim 17. Claim 1 is illustrative of
`the challenged claims and recites:
`1.
`A method to control power usage comprising:
`measuring a receive communication signal level by
`primary location tracking circuitry of an electronic tracking
`device communicated by a primary location tracking system;
`reducing applied power level to the primary location
`tracking circuitry in response to measurement of a receive
`communication signal level less than a first signal level;
`increasing applied power level to supplemental location
`tracking circuitry response to measurement of the receive
`communication signal less than the first signal level;
`determining differential positional measurements based
`in part on acceleration measurements of supplemental location
`tracking circuitry associated with a secondary location tracking
`system; and
`determining positional coordinates of electronic tracking
`device responsive to a known reference coordinate values and
`the differential positional measurements.
`Ex. 1001, 10:26–44.
`
`Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No.
`JP 2004-37116A, published Feb. 5, 2004
`(Ex. 1004,
`“Sakamoto”);2
`
`E.
`
`
`2 Sakamoto is a Japanese-language publication (Ex. 1004, 36–49, 58) that
`was filed with an English-language translation (id. at 1–19, 21–34, 52–56)
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0217070
`A1, filed Apr. 11, 2003, published Nov. 20, 2003 (Ex. 1005,
`“Gotoh”);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,583,776, filed Mar. 16, 1995, issued
`Dec. 10, 1996 (Ex. 1006, “Levi”); and
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0208544
`A1, filed Mar. 1, 2007, published Sept. 6, 2007 (Ex. 1007,
`“Kulach”).
`
`The Instituted Grounds
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’113 patent on
`the following grounds (Dec. on Inst. 29), which are all the grounds presented
`in the Petition (Pet. 7–8):
`Claims Challenged
`1–20
`1–20
`
`F.
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)3
`103(a)
`
`References/Basis
`Sakamoto, Gotoh, Levi
`Sakamoto, Gotoh, Levi, Kulach
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standards
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`
`and declarations attesting to the accuracy of the translation (id. at 20, 50).
`Our citations to Sakamoto herein refer to the translation.
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112.
`Because the ’113 patent was filed before March 16, 2013 (the effective date
`of the relevant amendments), the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102, 103, and 112
`apply.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
`considerations.4 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together
`with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d
`559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Citing testimony from Mr. Andrews, Petitioner contends a person of
`ordinary skill in the art (or “POSITA”) “would have had a bachelor’s degree
`in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering,
`Computer Science, or an equivalent degree, with at least two years of
`experience in GPS navigation, dead reckoning, portable tracking devices, or
`related technologies.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). For purposes of our
`Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s definition of the level of
`ordinary skill in the art without the qualifier “at least.” Dec. on Inst. 7.
`Patent Owner states that it adopts this definition. PO Resp. 3; MTA 17;
`RMTA 17–18. Thus, we discern no reason to change the level of ordinary
`skill in the art applied in this Final Written Decision. Accordingly, a person
`
`B.
`
`
`4 The trial record does not include any evidence of secondary considerations
`of nonobviousness.
`
`8
`
`
`
`C.
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical
`Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer
`Science, or an equivalent degree, with two years of experience in GPS
`navigation, dead reckoning, portable tracking devices, or related
`technologies. We determine that this definition comports with the level of
`skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’113 patent
`and the asserted prior art.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, we construe each claim “in accordance with
`the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Accordingly, our claim construction standard is the
`same as that of a district court. See id. Under the standard applied by
`district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary
`meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a
`patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when
`the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the
`specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am.
`LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`Neither party puts forth any terms for construction. See Pet. 8. We
`determine that no terms require explicit construction. See, e.g., Nidec Motor
`Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`D. Obviousness Ground Based on Sakamoto, Gotoh, and Levi
`Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 1–20 would have been
`obvious over the combination of Sakamoto, Gotoh, and Levi. Pet. 12–69;
`Pet. Reply 1–18. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contentions. PO Resp.
`4–16; PO Sur-reply 1–10.
`
`Sakamoto
`1.
`Sakamoto is a Japanese patent application publication directed to the
`use of a GPS positioning system that includes a portable terminal and remote
`server. Ex. 1004, code (57), ¶ 18. Figure 1, reproduced below, is a diagram
`showing a position information communication terminal.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1, above, depicts position information communication terminal 1,
`which includes GPS receiver 10, communication control unit 11 for mobile
`communications, GPS control unit 12, positioning control unit 13, man-
`machine interface control unit 14, satellite signal level detection unit 15,
`battery control unit 16, and communication line status control unit 17. Id.
`¶ 19. Battery control unit 16 constantly monitors the remaining battery
`level. Id. ¶ 28. Battery control unit 16 provides positioning control unit 13 a
`remaining battery life warning when the remaining battery amount falls
`below a preset threshold value. Id. ¶ 19.
`Satellite signal level detector 15 detects a level of the GPS signal
`received by GPS receiver 10 via GPS control unit 12. Id. When the signal
`level value is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value,
`positioning mode control unit 22 initiates a normal sensitivity positioning
`mode. Id. ¶ 38. Normal sensitivity positioning mode is a mode in which the
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`GPS receiver is operated only when necessary. Id. ¶¶ 4–5, 19. When the
`signal level value is equal to or lower than a predetermined threshold value,
`positioning mode control unit 22 initiates a high sensitivity positioning
`mode. Id. ¶ 38. High sensitivity positioning mode is a mode in which the
`GPS receiver is operated constantly. Id. ¶¶ 4–5, 19. When the signal level
`value is equal to or lower than a threshold value associated with the inability
`to perform positioning, positioning mode control unit 22 stops the position
`search.5 Id. ¶ 38. A user may select among normal sensitivity positioning
`mode, high sensitivity positioning mode, and the power-off of terminal 1 via
`man-machine interface control unit 14. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28.
`Figure 2 of Sakamoto is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a GPS positioning system with position management/
`positioning server 2 connected to position information communication
`terminal 1 by a mobile communication network. Ex. 1004 ¶ 18. Terminal 1
`responds to a position request from terminal user A by showing the position
`of terminal 1 to terminal user A. Id. Server 2 responds to a position search
`request of terminal 1 from position searcher B with a position response. Id.
`Server 2 may also send a position search request message to terminal 1, and
`
`
`5 The parties refer to this state as “stop-position” mode.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`terminal 1 responds by sending a search response message including
`position information to server 2. See id. ¶¶ 31–35, Figs. 4, 5.
`Petitioner contends Sakamoto qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) based on its publication date. Pet. 9. Patent Owner does not
`contest the prior art status of Sakamoto. We determine that Sakamoto
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Sakamoto’s
`publication date of February 5, 2004, is more than one year before the
`earliest effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is January 6,
`2008. Ex. 1001, code (62); Ex. 1004, code (43).
`
`
`Gotoh
`2.
`Gotoh is a U.S. patent application publication directed to a positional
`information management system and method. Ex. 1005 ¶ 2. Figure 1 of
`Gotoh is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1, above, depicts an embodiment of a positional management system.
`Id. ¶¶ 43, 50, 51. Cellular phone terminal 10 comprises GPS signal
`reception unit 12, accelerometer 13, acceleration data storage unit 14, and
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`control unit 11. Id. ¶ 51. GPS signal reception unit 12 receives GPS signals
`from GPS satellites. Id. ¶ 53. Accelerometer 13 measures the acceleration
`applied to cellular phone terminal 10 and stores acceleration data in
`acceleration data storage unit 14 in time series. Id. Control unit 11 controls
`GPS signal reception unit 12 and accelerometer 13 and includes a wireless
`communication function for communicating with communication system 30
`(not shown). Id. ¶ 52. Management system 20 is a computer system for
`managing positional information received from cellular phone terminal 10.
`Id. ¶ 56.
`Cellular phone terminal 10 starts measuring the acceleration when
`cellular phone terminal 10 cannot receive GPS signals. Id. ¶ 66. Control
`unit 11 sends the acceleration data (including measurement start time and an
`acceleration log) stored in acceleration data storage unit 14 to management
`system 20 through communication system 30. Id. ¶ 84. Management
`system 20 includes management computer 21, which receives the
`acceleration data and then stores the data in acceleration data storage unit 23.
`Id. ¶ 85. Management computer 21 derives a distance traveled between the
`acceleration measurement start time and a measurement end time based on
`the acceleration data. Id. ¶ 90.
`Petitioner contends Gotoh qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) based on its publication date. Pet. 10. Patent Owner does not
`contest the prior art status of Gotoh. We determine that Gotoh qualifies as
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Gotoh’s publication date of
`November 20, 2003, is more than one year before the earliest effective filing
`date of the challenged claims, which is January 6, 2008. Ex. 1001,
`code (62); Ex. 1005, code (43).
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`Levi
`3.
`Levi is a U.S. patent directed to the use of a portable navigation
`device that integrates GPS data, dead reckoning (DR) sensors, and digital
`maps into a self-contained navigation instrument. Ex. 1006, code (57),
`1:60–63. The device uses an accelerometer to provide acceleration data
`indicative of footsteps, and sensed footsteps are converted to distance and
`velocity. Id. at 3:13–14, 3:35–36. A DR software module performs DR
`navigation by sampling vector velocities for incremental course changes. Id.
`at 7:64–66. The DR software accesses compass, altimeter, pedometer
`frequency, and calibration table data to obtain velocity magnitude and three-
`dimensional direction. Id. at 8:1–3. DR software normally uses GPS to
`obtain starting positions, but when GPS data is not valid, DR uses the last
`fix, whether GPS or manual, for a start point. Id. at 8:3–7. DR navigation is
`automatically used by the navigation module when GPS is unavailable. Id.
`at 8:7–9. The DR system allows users to designate landmarks for
`navigation. Id. at 8:50–9:52.
`Petitioner contends Levi qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) based on its issue date. Pet. 10. Patent Owner does not contest the
`prior art status of Levi. We determine that Levi qualifies as prior art under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Levi’s issue date of December 10, 1996, is more
`than one year before the earliest effective filing date of the challenged
`claims, which is January 6, 2008. Ex. 1001, code (62); Ex. 1006, code (45).
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`Claim 1
`4.
`Preamble and Claim Limitations
`a.
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] method to control power usage.”
`Ex. 1001, 10:26. Petitioner relies on Sakamoto’s teachings of stopping a
`position search based on a satellite signal level equal to or lower than a
`predetermined threshold, which results in a reduction in power consumption.
`Pet. 12, 28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132, 146–147; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38, 50). Patent
`Owner does not contest Petitioner’s analysis of the preamble. Neither party
`addresses whether the preamble is limiting. We are persuaded that
`Sakamoto’s GPS positioning system switches operating modes and stops
`position searching when the received GPS signal level is low, which reduces
`power consumption. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132, 146–147; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38,
`50. Because Petitioner has shown that Sakamoto teaches the preamble, we
`need not determine whether the preamble is limiting. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at
`1017.
`
`Claim 1 further recites “measuring a receive communication signal
`level by primary location tracking circuitry of an electronic tracking device
`communicated by a primary location tracking system.” Ex. 1001, 10:27–30.
`For the recited “primary location tracking system,” Petitioner cites
`Sakamoto’s teaching of GPS satellites from which GPS satellite signals are
`received. Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 137; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 5, 19, code (57)).
`For the recited “electronic tracking device,” Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s GPS
`receiver 10, GPS control unit 12, positioning control unit 13, communication
`control unit 11, satellite signal level detection unit 15, communication line
`status control unit 17, and battery control unit 16, which Petitioner calls
`collectively the “Sakamoto Electronic Components,” in combination with
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`Gotoh’s accelerometer. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 133; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 53,
`66, 81, 82), 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 139; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19, 37, 38, Figs. 1–
`3). Petitioner maps the recited “primary location tracking circuitry” to
`Sakamoto’s GPS receiver 10, GPS control unit 12, satellite signal level
`detecting unit 15, and positioning control unit 13, which Petitioner calls
`collectively the “Sakamoto GPS Components.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 143; Ex. 1004 ¶ 19). According to Petitioner, satellite signal level
`detection unit 15 detects (i.e., measures) the level of the GPS satellite signal
`received by the GPS receiver 10 (i.e., the “receive communication signal”)
`via the GPS control unit 12. Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 152–154; Ex. 1004
`¶¶ 8, 19, 22, 50).
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s analysis of the
`“measuring” limitation. We are persuaded Sakamoto teaches that the
`“Sakamoto GPS Components” measure received signal levels received from
`GPS satellites. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 152–154; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 8, 19, 22, 50.
`Claim 1 further recites “reducing applied power level to the primary
`location tracking circuitry in response to measurement of a receive
`communication signal level less than a first signal level.” Ex. 1001, 10:31–
`33. Petitioner cites the following teaching from Sakamoto: “If it is
`determined that the positioning cannot be performed when the signal level
`value is equal to or lower than a predetermined threshold value, the position
`search may be stopped.” Pet. 35 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 38). Petitioner maps
`the recited “first signal level” to Sakamoto’s predetermined threshold value.
`Id. at 35–36. Petitioner further cites Sakamoto’s teaching that “power
`consumption can be reduced by stopping the position search when
`positioning is not possible.” Id. at 36 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 50) (emphasis
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`omitted). Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have
`understood or found obvious [that] power applied to the Sakamoto GPS
`Components (i.e., primary location tracking circuitry) is reduced because
`position searching is stopped when a GPS signal level value is equal to or
`lower than a predetermined threshold value.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 173).
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s analysis of the “reducing”
`limitation. PO Resp. 4–15; PO Sur-reply 1–6. In particular, Patent Owner
`argues that “the reduction of power required by claim 1 cannot be read to
`eliminate the ability of the invention to receive and measure a signal strength
`level for reactivation as required by claim 3.” PO Resp. 5. Patent Owner
`notes that power is cut off to Sakamoto’s GPS receiver 10 when it is in stop-
`position mode. Id. at 10–11 (citing Pet. 37). Citing Mr. Andrews’s
`deposition testimony that “GPS receiver 10 is the only component in
`Sakamoto that receives the GPS satellite signal,” Patent Owner argues that
`Sakamoto’s system cannot be reactivated in response to a signal level. Id. at
`11–12 (citing Ex. 2003, 14:5–16:2).
`We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments because they are not
`commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 requires
`reducing power to the primary location tracking circuitry, not reactivating
`the primary location tracking circuitry. Compare Ex. 1001, claim 1, with id.
`at claim 3. Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s
`persuasive showing that Sakamoto teaches stopping GPS position searching
`when the received signal level is below a predetermined threshold value
`(i.e., “a first signal level”). See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 38. Sakamoto states
`expressly that this results in a reduction in power consumption. See id. ¶ 50.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`Thus, we are persuaded that Sakamoto teaches the “reducing” limitation.
`And, even if Patent Owner’s arguments regarding “reactivation” were
`commensurate with the language of claim 1, we would not agree with them
`for the same reasons discussed with respect to the “reactivating” limitation
`of claim 3 as discussed below. See infra § II.D.6.
`Claim 1 further recites “increasing applied power level to
`supplemental location tracking circuitry response to measurement of the
`receive communication signal less than the first signal level.” Ex. 1001,
`10:34–37. Petitioner maps the recited “supplemental location tracking
`circuitry” to Gotoh’s accelerometer 13. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 51,
`Fig. 1). Petitioner cites Gotoh’s teaching of cellular phone terminal 10 that
`“starts measuring the acceleration in a case where the cellular phone
`terminal 10 can not [sic] receive GPS signals.” Id. at 40 (quoting Ex. 1005
`¶ 66) (emphases omitted). In light of Gotoh’s teaching, Petitioner contends
`an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known “to use accelerometer data in
`situations where GPS signals cannot be received due to poor GPS signal
`reception, and thus increase applied power to the accelerometer to start
`measuring acceleration data only when such functionality was needed.” Id.
`at 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 184). And, as discussed above, Petitioner maps the
`“predetermined threshold level” to the satellite signal level at which GPS
`position searching is stopped, as taught by Sakamoto. Id. at 38–39 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38, 50).
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of the
`“increasing” limitation. We are persuaded that the combination of Sakamoto
`and Gotoh teaches increasing power to Gotoh’s accelerometer (i.e.,
`“supplemental location tracking circuitry”) when GPS position searching is
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`stopped due to poor GPS signal reception. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 184;
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 38; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51, 66.
`Claim 1 further recites “determining differential positional
`measurements based in part on acceleration measurements of supplemental
`location tracking circuitry associated with a secondary location tracking
`system.” Ex. 1001, 10:38–41. For “determining differential positional
`measurements,” Petitioner cites Levi’s teachings on “the well-known
`technique of determining a position based on displacement from a known
`starting position (i.e., dead reckoning).” Pet. 46. Specifically, Levi teaches
`that “‘dead reckoning’ (DR) refers to a position solution that is obtained by
`measuring or deducing displacements from a known starting point in
`accordance with motion of the user.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1006, 1:13–16)
`(emphases by Petitioner). Petitioner further maps the recited “supplemental
`location tracking circuitry associated with a secondary location tracking
`system” to “[t]he Sakamoto positioning control unit 13 programmed to
`perform Levi’s DR functionality . . . in combination with an accelerometer as
`taught by both Gotoh and Levi.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 145). Citing
`testimony from Mr. Andrews, Petitioner contends that “Levi’s use of
`acceleration data from the user’s movement (e.g., footsteps) to determine the
`displacement (through known mathematical techniques) indicates the Levi
`DR system is determining the differential positional measurements and that
`such measurements are ‘based in part on acceleration measurements.’” Id. at
`46–47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 191–195; Ex. 1006, 1:19–25, 1:49–55, 3:13–16,
`7:64–8:3).
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s analysis of this limitation.
`We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have implemented
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`Levi’s teachings on dead reckoning using Gotoh’s accelerometer to obtain
`differential positional measurements. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145, 191–195;
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51, 66; Ex. 1006, 1:13–16, 1:19–25, 1:49–55, 3:13–16, 7:64–
`8:3.
`
`Claim 1 further recites “determining positional coordinates of
`electronic tracking device responsive to a known reference coordinate values
`and the differential positional measurements.” Ex. 1001, 10:42–44. For
`“determining positional coordinates,” Petitioner cites Levi’s teaching of
`“continuously displaying the user’s position on the navigation device’s
`graphical display.” Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:5–14, 7:39–45, 8:25–26).
`Petitioner also contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have
`readily understood that dead reckoning, as taught by Levi, determines a
`position of the user.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 198; Ex. 1006, 1:13–17, 1:49–
`55). Regarding the recited “known reference coordinate values,” Petitioner
`cites Levi’s teaching that “DR calculates an incremental change in position
`from a known starting point.” Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1006, 7:49–52, 8:42–44)
`(emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s analysis of
`this limitation. We are persuaded that Levi teaches determining a user’s
`position based on a known starting point via dead reckoning. See, e.g.,
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 198; Ex. 1006, 1:13–17, 1:49–55, 2:5–14, 7:39–45, 7:49–52,
`8:25–26, 8:42–44.
`For these reasons, Petitioner has established that the combination of
`Sakamoto, Gotoh, and Levi teaches all limitations of claim 1.
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01190
`Patent 8,542,113 B2
`Reasons for the Combination
`b.
`Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan
`would have found it obvious and been motivated to combine
`Gotoh’s supplemental location tracking in the form of an
`accelerometer with Sakamoto’s system employing GPS for
`determining a position in orde
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
