`
`Case: 22-1613 Page:1_Filed: 06/09/2023Document: 39
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`Anited States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`LBT IP I LLC,
`Appellant
`
`Vv.
`
`APPLEINC.,
`Appellee
`
`2022-1613, 2022-1614, 2022-1615, 2022-1616, 2022-1617
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
`01189, IPR2020-01190, IPR2020-01191, IPR2020-01192,
`IPR2020-01193.
`
`Decided: June 9, 2023
`
`BRIAN SHERWOOD SEAL, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
`LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also argued
`by SHAUN DARRELL GREGORY.
`
`ADAM PRESCOTT SEITZ, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park,
`KS, argued for appellee. Also represented by JENNIFERC.
`BAILEY, CLIFFORD T. BRAZEN; ABRAN J. KEAN, Greenwood
`Village, CO.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 22-1613 Page:2_Filed: 06/09/2023Document: 39
`
`
`
`2
`
`LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and STOLL, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`Moore, Chief Judge.
`
`LBT IP I LLC (LBT) appeals five inter partes review
`decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holdingvar-
`ious claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,497,774; 8,542,113;
`8,102,256; 8,421,618; and 8,421,619 unpatentable. For the
`following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate
`in part, and remandinpart.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`LBT’spatents relate to improvementsin battery power
`conservation of portable electronic tracking devices. See,
`e.g., 774 patent at 3:55-4:58. The 7118, ’256, and ’618 pa-
`tents! disclose electronic tracking devices thatinclude lo-
`cation tracking circuitry (e.g., GPS circuitry) and an
`accelerometer to measure location coordinates without re-
`quiring GPS signaling. See ’618 patent at Fig. 1, 5:4—10.
`Whenthe strength of the device’s GPS signal is below a
`predetermined threshold value—for example, when the de-
`vice’s access to GPSsatellites is partially or fully blocked—
`portions of the location tracking circuitry may be deac-
`tivated to conserve battery power. Id. at 5:1—14, 6:66-7:11,
`7:62-8:12. The device may subsequently reactivate thelo-
`cation trackingcircuitry whenthesignal level is above the
`predeterminedsignal level. Jd. at 6:66—7:11, 9:48—54.
`
`LBT raises the same issue on appeal with respect
`1
`to the 7113, ’256, and ’618 patents. The relevant disclosures
`in these patents and the Board’s relevant analyses in the
`final written decisions are materially the same. For sim-
`plicity, we cite only to the 618 patent and the correspond-
`ing final written decision.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 22-1613 Page:3_Filed: 06/09/2023Document: 39
`
`
`
`LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`3
`
`The ’774 patent discloses an electronic tracking device
`that, to conserve power, may intermittently deactivate the
`GPSreceiver in response to a low detected battery level.
`See ’774 patent at 11:44-538, 13:52-67. The claimed device
`also permits the user to make certain powerlevel adjust-
`ments and select between modes with higher update rates
`but shorter battery lives and modes with lower update
`rates but longer battery lives. Id. at 13:52—14:57; see also
`id. at Fig. 4. This feature allows the user “to select an ap-
`propriate update[d] set of network communication signal-
`ing protocols to achieve a desired user defined battery
`operating environment.” Id. at 11:58-63.
`
`The ’619 patent discloses an electronic tracking device
`including an accelerometer and GPSreceiver. 619 patent
`at 5:2-6, 5:50-6:17. The accelerometer is used to detect
`movement and to determine location coordinates when
`GPSsignals are not available. Jd. at 5:3—6, 8:13-15. If the
`accelerometer determinesthe tracking device is stationary
`for a period of time, a last-knownlocation is sent without
`accessing the GPSsignaling circuitry. Id. at 8:13-39. Ad-
`ditionally, the GPS receiver may be activated or deac-
`tivated based on that determination. Id. at 6:54—65, 8:13—
`19. This approach conserves battery power by reducing use
`of the GPS receiver when the device is at rest. Id. at 8:29—
`39.
`
`Apple Inc. (Apple)filed five petitions for inter partes re-
`view challenging claims 1, 4—6, 8, 10, 13, and 15 of the ’774
`patent; claims 1—20 of the ’1138 patent; claims 8—10 of the
`256 patent; claims 1—24 of the ’618 patent; and claims 1—
`20 of the ’619 patent as unpatentable. The Board insti-
`tuted each petition and issued final written decisions hold-
`ing all challenged claims unpatentable. Apple Inc. v. LBT
`IP I LLC (774 Decision), No. IPR2020-01189, 2022 WL
`685040 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022); Apple Inc. v. LBT IPI LLC
`(118 Decision), No.
`IPR2020-01190, 2022 WL 685081
`(P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022); Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC (256
`Decision), No. IPR2020-01191, 2022 WL 683992 (P.T.A.B.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613
`
`Document: 39
`
`Page:4
`
`Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`4
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`Mar. 2, 2022); Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC (618 Decision),
`No. IPR2020-01192, 2022 WL 683994 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2,
`2022); Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC (619 Decision), No.
`IPR2020-01193, 2022 WL 685082 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022).
`
`the Board determined the challenged
`Specifically,
`claims of the 71138, ’256, and ’618 patents would have been
`obvious over Japanese Patent Application Publication No.
`2004-87116A (Sakamoto) in view of various combinations
`of secondary references. 618 Decision, at *27. The Board
`determinedthe challenged claims of the ’774 patent would
`have been obvious over Sakamoto.
`’774 Decision, at *26.
`Finally, the Board determined the challenged claims of the
`619 patent would have been obviousoverprior art combi-
`nations that all included U.S. Patent No. 6,940,407 (Mi-
`randa-Knapp) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2006/0119508A1 (Miller). 619 Decision, at *380. LBT ap-
`peals.
`We
`have
`jurisdiction
`under
`28 U.S.C.
`§ 1295(a)(4)(A).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`LBTraises three distinct challenges on appeal. First,
`LBT argues the Board’s finding that Sakamoto discloses
`the activation/reactivation limitation in certain claims of
`the 618, ’256, and’113 patents is not supported by substan-
`tial evidence. Second, LBT argues the Board improperly
`construed the term “multitude” in claim 8 of the ’774 pa-
`tent. Finally, LBT argues the Board’s finding that a skilled
`artisan would have been motivated to combine Miranda-
`Knapp and Miller as claimed in the ’619 patent is not sup-
`ported by substantial evidence. We address each argument
`in turn.
`
`Wereview the Board’s ultimate determination of obvi-
`ousness de novo andits underlyingfindingsof fact for sub-
`stantial evidence. Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848
`F.3d 987, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2017). What a prior art reference
`discloses and whether a skilled artisan would have been
`motivated to combineprior art references are questionsof
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 22-1613 Page:5_Filed: 06/09/2023Document: 39
`
`
`
`LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`5
`
`fact. Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d
`1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We review the Board’s claim
`construction de novo and review any necessary subsidiary
`factual findings based on extrinsic evidencefor substantial
`evidence. Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254, 259
`(Fed. Cir. 2022).
`
`I,
`
`THE ’118, ’256, AND 618 PATENTS
`
`The Board determined claims 1—20 of the ’113 patent;
`claims 8—10 of the ’256 patent; and claims 1—24 of the ’618
`patent would have been obvious over Sakamoto in view of
`various combinations of secondary references. 618 Deci-
`sion, at *27. Claim 1 of the ’618 patent is representative
`for purposesof this appeal:
`
`1. A portable electronic tracking device to
`monitor location coordinates of one or more
`individuals or objects, the device compris-
`ing:
`
`transceiver circuitry to receive at least one
`portion of a receive communication signal
`comprising location coordinates
`infor-
`mation;
`
`accelerometer circuitry to measure dis-
`placementsof the portable electronic track-
`ing device;
`
`a battery power monitor configuredto selec-
`tively activate and deactivate at least one
`portion of the transceiver circuitry and lo-
`cation tracking circuitry to conserve battery
`powerin response to a signallevel of the at
`least one portion of the receive communica-
`tion signal; and
`
`processor circuitry configured to process
`the at least one portion of the receive com-
`munication signal.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613
`
`Document: 39
`
`Page:6
`
`Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`6
`
`LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`618 patent at claim 1 (emphasis added).
`
`With respect to the activation/reactivation limitation,?
`the Board found Sakamoto discloses activating/reactivat-
`ing the GPS receiver when it transitions from stop-position
`modeinto normalsensitivity positioning modeor high sen-
`sitivity positioning modein its “cycle set in advance” em-
`bodiment. See 618 Decision, at *7-12. LBT argues this
`finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Weagree.
`
`Sakamoto discloses a GPS positioning system that in-
`cludes a portable terminal with a GPS receiver. J.A. 1321
`4 18. In one embodiment, the GPSsignal level is periodi-
`cally measured at a “cycle set in advance.” J.A. 1823-24
`{ 37. Ifthe signal level is equal to or lower than a prede-
`termined threshold value, then the system transitions to
`high sensitivity positioning mode, where the GPSreceiver
`is operated constantly. J.A. 1319 { 4;J.A. 18249 38. Ifthe
`signal level is equal to or higher than a predetermined
`threshold value, then it transitions to normal sensitivity
`positioning mode, in which the GPS receiver is operated
`only when necessary.
`J.A. 1819 § 4; J.A. 1824 7 38. Fi-
`nally, if “the positioning cannot be performed whenthesig-
`nal level value is equal to or lower than a predetermined
`threshold value,” then it transitions into stop-position
`mode,i.e., the GPS receiver stops position searching. J.A.
`13824 J 38.
`
`It is undisputed that Sakamoto does not expressly dis-
`close transitioning from stop-position modeinto oneof the
`other two positioning modes. See 618 Decision, at *11 (“Sa-
`kamoto may notexplicitly identify moving out of the stop-
`position mode asa result of the cyclic signal level checking
`..); see also J.A. 1822 § 27 (disclosing transition
`
`2 All of the challenged claims in the 618 and ’256pa-
`tents recite the activation/reactivation limitation, but only
`claims 3, 9, and 11 of the 7113 patent recite this limitation.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613
`
`Document: 39
`
`Page:7
`
`Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`7
`
`between normalsensitivity positioning mode andhigh sen-
`sitivity positioning mode); J.A. 1324 § 38 (disclosing tran-
`sition into stop-position mode). The Board and Apple thus
`relied on Apple’s expert Mr. Andrews’ testimonyto fill in
`the gap in this disclosure. 618 Decision, at *10-12. Mr.
`Andrewstestified that a skilled artisan would have under-
`stood that if Sakamoto’s receiver is in stop-position mode
`and the periodically-measured signal level is greater than
`a predetermined threshold level, the GPS receiver reac-
`tivates by transitioning into normal or high sensitivity po-
`sitioning mode.
`J.A. 6414-15 § 138 (citing J.A. 1323-24
`14 37-388); J.A. 3636-37 § 212. He also testified that a
`skilled artisan would have understood a device that tran-
`sitioned into stop-position mode and never transitioned
`into one of the other positioning modes would be useless.
`J.A. 3637 § 218; see also J.A. 1979 at 21:7-15 (Andrews
`deposition) (“[Sakamoto] doesn’t contemplate that once the
`— once the GPSsignal level went below that threshold, the
`system would turn off and never turn on again. That would
`be — that wouldn’t be very practical.”); J.A. 1982 at 24:4—
`10.
`
`Although Apple does not purport to rely on inherency,
`its argument regarding Sakamoto’s disclosure is substan-
`tively one of inherency. Apple concedesthere is no explicit
`disclosure of a transition out of stop-position mode in Sa-
`kamoto, but nevertheless argues a skilled artisan would
`understandthis transition is present in the cycle set in ad-
`vance embodiment. In other words, Apple arguesthis tran-
`sition is inherently disclosed in Sakamoto.
`“[T]o rely on
`inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in
`the prior art in an obviousness analysis,” Apple must show
`the activation/reactivation limitation is “necessarily pre-
`sent” or “the natural result of the combination of elements
`explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v.
`TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195-96 (Fed. Cir.
`2014). Mr. Andrews’ testimonyfails to meet this standard
`for inherent disclosure. See id. at 1195.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 22-1613 Page:8_Filed: 06/09/2023Document: 39
`
`
`
`8
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`In his deposition, for example, Mr. Andrews repeatedly
`used qualifying language such as “presumably,” “maybe,”
`and “might” when he explained that although the GPSre-
`ceiver is deactivated when in the stop-position mode, a
`skilled artisan would understand Sakamoto turns on com-
`ponents of the GPSreceiverto cyclically measure the signal
`level.
`See, eg., J.A. 1981-82 at 23:10—-24:3 (“Well, Sa-
`kamoto doesn’t describe how he determinesthat the signal
`level is above that threshold.
`It’s possible that he periodi-
`cally turns on the GPSreceiverjust briefly to check so that
`it’s — most of the timeit’s off and every now and then he
`turns it on andlooks,andif it’s not above thelevel, he turns
`it back off, or maybe even just turns those components that
`he needs to use to examinethesignal, andit’s possible that
`he might leave some of the components on... . (emphases
`added)); 618 Decision, at *12 (relying on Mr. Andrews’ dep-
`osition testimony to reject LBT’s argument that because
`Sakamoto’s GPSreceiver is the only component that re-
`ceives GPSsignals, it cannot obtain the necessary signal
`required to move into a different mode when it is deac-
`tivated in stop-position mode). “Inherency, however, may
`not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The
`mere fact that a certain thing mayresult from a given set
`of circumstancesis not sufficient.” PAR, 773 F.3d at 1195
`(quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).
`
`Mr. Andrewsprovides notestimony explaining why the
`transition from stop-position modeinto one of the other two
`positioning modesin response to a GPS signal must neces-
`sarily be present in Sakamoto’s cycle set in advance embod-
`iment. He opines that a skilled artisan would understand
`the device transitions out of stop-position mode because
`otherwise the device would be useless. See J.A. 3637 J 213
`(Andrewsdeclaration); J.A. 1982 at 24:4-10 (Andrewsdep-
`osition). But he fails to explain whythis transition is nec-
`essarily present considering that Sakamoto teaches its
`GPSreceiver can be manually reactivated after it has been
`placed in stop-position mode. J.A. 1321 J 20. The fact that
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613
`
`Document: 39
`
`Page:9
`
`Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`9
`
`the GPS receiver cannot automatically transition out of
`stop-position mode in the cycle set in advance embodiment
`does not render Sakamoto’s device useless becausethe re-
`ceiver can be turned on manually.
`
`Weconclude substantial evidence does not support the
`Board’s finding that Sakamoto discloses the activation/re-
`activation limitation. Accordingly, we reverse the Board’s
`obviousness determinations with respect to claims 1—24 of
`the ’618 patent, claims 8—10 of the ’256 patent, and claims
`3, 9, and 11 of the 7113 patent.®
`
`II.
`
`THE ’774 PATENT
`
`The Board determined claims 1, 4—6, 8, 10, 18, and 15
`of the ’774 patent would have been obvious over Sakamoto.
`774 Decision, at *26. On appeal, LBT challenges the
`Board’s construction of “multitude of threshold values” as
`recited in independent claim 8 and dependent claims 10,
`138, and 15. Claim 8 is representative and recites:
`
`8. A local charging managementdevice to
`manage electrical resource capability for
`
`Ina footnote, LBT argues that although independ-
`3
`ent claims 1, 7, and 17 of the ’113 patent do not require
`activation/reactivation, we should also reverse the Board’s
`obviousness determination with respect to those claims be-
`cause the reduction of power required by these claims does
`not eliminate the ability of the invention to receive and
`measurethesignal level for reactivation, as required by de-
`pendent claim 3. The Board rejected this argument be-
`causeit is not commensurate with the scope of the claims—
`these claims recite reducing or adjusting the power to the
`primary location tracking circuitry, not reactivating the
`primary location tracking circuitry. See *113 Decision, at
`*7, *13, *16. We decline to disturb the Board’s determina-
`tion based on LBT’s undeveloped footnote argument.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 22-1613 Page:10_Filed: 06/09/2023Document: 39
`
`
`
`10
`
`LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`is
`that
`an electronic tracking device
`tracked by at least one other tracking de-
`vice comprising:
`
`a battery power level monitor;
`
`a charging unit; and
`
`an electrical power resource management
`component to adjust cycle timing of at least
`oneof a request rate of location coordinate
`packets to a target host and a listen rate of
`the location coordinate packets responsive
`to an estimated chargelevel of the charging
`unit,
`
`wherein the battery power level monitor
`measures a powerlevel of the charging unit
`and adjusts a power level applied to loca-
`tion tracking circuitry responsive to one or
`moresignallevels, the power level compris-
`ing a multitude of threshold values deter-
`mined by a user or system administrator to
`intermittently activate or deactivate thelo-
`cation tracking circuitry to conserve power
`of the charging unit in responseto theesti-
`mated chargelevel of the charging unit.
`
`"774 patent at claim 8 (emphasis added).
`
`The Board construed “multitude” to mean two or more.
`774 Decision, at *4—6. LBT argues the proper construction
`of “multitude” does not include two. Weagree.
`
`Claim terms are generally given their plain and ordi-
`nary meaning, which is the meaning oneofordinaryskill
`in the art would ascribe to a term whenread in the context
`of the claim, specification, and prosecution history. See
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1813-14 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptionsto this gen-
`eral rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613
`
`Document: 39
`
`Page:11
`
`Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`11
`
`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. Ent. Am.
`LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of multitude in the
`°774 patent does not encompass two threshold values. The
`only example of a multitude of threshold values provided
`in the specification is Figure 4, which depicts 5—7 threshold
`values. ’774 patent at Fig. 4 (threshold values represented
`by tick markson active display 482); id. at 138:58-67 (“[T]he
`present invention has the capability of power level (e.g.,
`battery power level 406) adjustments include multitude of
`threshold values (see active display 482 of FIG. 4) that is
`determined by user ... to intermittently activate or deac-
`tivate location tracking circuitry ....” (emphasis added)).
`
`
`
` FF Locate By Phone Si 1-321-441-4254 BEA 44-161-660-6815) (4 Beta Users Please leavefeedback orreport a bug here]
`406
`
`
`
`HELLO
`
`
`
`identification
`
`resi pocketfinder
`
`
`
`Me S|fo)| © | =
`
`
`
`
`Locate
`
`History
`
`i
`
`Zones
`
`Speed Limit
`
`Power
`
`Power Management
`Adjust the power settings for your device, Hereyoucan see the current battery life, how much timeis left before a chargeis
`required andfine tune your update interval to obtain your optimalbattery setting,
`
`Battery Lite Mode|Updates Every
`less updates
`more updates
`3 Days
`imi
`
`(+ battery) (- battery)
`
`Leave acomment or report a bug.
`pe
`
`9
`
`Site Credit
`
`Privacy
`
`Policy
`sey
`
`Thissite is protected by copyright and
`Terms and Conditions
`trademark laws under US and Interetional law.
`All righs reserved. © 2006-2008 Location Based Technologies
`
`400
`
`Figure 4
`
`Nowhere does the specification contemplate as few as
`two threshold values. In concluding otherwise, the Board
`relied on the following passage: “Advantageously as com-
`pared to conventional tracking devices, user input request
`430 adjusts value 419 to select an appropriate update set
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613
`
`Document: 39
`
`Page:12
`
`Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`12
`
`LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`of network communication signaling protocols to achieve a
`desired user defined battery operating environment, e.g.,
`obtain optimal battery life, obtain optimal update rate,
`tradeoffs between them.” Id. at 11:58—67 (emphasis added).
`According to the Board,
`this statement
`shows
`that
`“tradeoffs can be made between as few as two points: an
`endpoint where less updates are traded for better battery
`life, and an endpoint where worsebattery life is traded for
`more updates.” ’774 Decision, at *5. While the Board may
`be correct that this isolated sentence is consistent with as
`few as two threshold values, this sentence must be read in
`the context in which it is used. This statement appears in
`column 11 of the specification, all of which discusses Figure
`4. See’774 patent at 11:2-67 (“Referring to FIG. 4... .”).
`Figure 4 clearly depicts 5—7 threshold values. Read in con-
`text, “optimal battery life” and “optimal update rate” refer
`to the end points on the active display in Figure 4, while
`the “tradeoffs between them”refer to the tick marks be-
`tween the end points. Jd. at 11:62—63; see also id. at 11:64
`(“slider 432” can be positioned at “value 419” between the
`two end points). We therefore do not read this sentence as
`showing multitude includes two threshold values.
`
`The Board also found certain dictionary definitions
`supported its construction of multitude as two or more.
`774 Decision, at *6. To the extent the Board foundthedic-
`tionaries show the plain and ordinary meaning of multi-
`tude is two or more, this finding is not supported by
`substantial evidence. The dictionaries define multitude as
`“[t]he condition or quality of being numerous,” “[a] very
`great number,” and “a large number.” IPR2020-01189, Ex.
`3001 at 3; Ex. 3002 at 3. Plurality is defined as “[t]he state
`or fact of being plural”(i.e., two or more) or “[a] large num-
`ber or amount; a multitude.” Ex. 3001 at 4; see also Ex.
`3002 at 4. Plurality is only a synonym of multitude in the
`context of the second definition: a large number or amount.
`A plurality is two or more; a multitude is a large number.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613
`
`Document: 39
`
`Page:13
`
`Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`13
`
`As part of its obviousness determination with respect
`to claims8, 10, 18, and 15, the Board found Sakamoto’s two
`battery powerlevel thresholds disclose the claimed “multi-
`tude of threshold values” underits improperconstruction.
`774 Decision, at *15—16. We therefore vacate the Board’s
`decision with respect to these claims. Because the Board
`incorrectly concluded a multitude includes two,it did not
`address Apple’s alternative argument that Sakamoto dis-
`closes at least four threshold values—two battery level
`thresholds and two GPS signal
`level thresholds.
`See
`IPR2020-01189, Petitioner’s Reply Br. at 15-19. Were-
`mand to the Board for it to consider this argument in the
`first instance underthe proper construction. We hold only
`that multitude does not include two but must include as
`few as five threshold values. Weleave it for the Board on
`remand to determine whether multitude encompasses
`three or four threshold values and whetherthe twosets of
`threshold values disclosed in Sakamoto teach a multitude
`of threshold values.
`
`Ill.
`
`THE’619 PATENT
`
`The Board determined claims 1—20 of the ’619 patent
`would have been obvious over prior art combinations in-
`cluding Miranda-Knapp and Miller. 619 Decision, at *30.
`Claim 1 of the 619 patent is representative. It recites:
`
`1. A portable electronic tracking device to monitor
`location coordinates of one or more individuals and
`objects, the device comprising:
`
`transceivercircuitry to receive at least one portion
`of a receive communication signal comprising loca-
`tion coordinates information;
`
`accelerometer circuitry to measure displacements
`of the portable electronic tracking device, wherein
`the displacements comprise movements of an ob-
`ject or individual associated with the device;
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613
`
`Document: 39
`
`Page:14
`
`Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`14
`
`LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`a battery power monitor configured to activate and
`deactivate at least one portion of signaling circuitry
`in responseto the accelerometercircuitry detecting
`a substantially stationary position of the electronic
`tracking device since last known location coordinate
`measurement; and
`
`processor circuitry configured to process the dis-
`placements, to associate the displacements with a
`specified pattern, and to generate an alert message
`in responseto the specified pattern.
`
`619 patent at claim 1 (emphasis added).
`
`As relevant on appeal, the Board found Apple’s pro-
`posed combination of Miranda-Knapp and Miller discloses
`the claim limitation reciting “a battery power monitor con-
`figured to activate and deactivate at least one portion of
`signaling circuitry in response to the accelerometer cir-
`cuitry detecting a substantially stationary position of the
`electronic tracking device.” ‘619 Decision, at *8—-12. The
`Board found Miranda-Knappteaches a battery power mon-
`itor configured to activate a portion of signaling circuitry
`(i.e., Messaging circuitry) to send an alert message in re-
`sponse to an accelerometer detecting a substantially sta-
`tionaryposition. Jd. at *10. It further found Miller teaches
`deactivating a portion of signaling circuitry (i.e., GPScir-
`cuitry) by halting scanning operations on the GPS receiver
`when the device is stationary.
`Jd. The Board found a
`skilled artisan would have been motivated to add Miller’s
`teachings of deactivating GPS circuitry to Miranda-
`Knapp’s device to increase the device’s battery life. Jd. at
`*11.
`
`LBTraises several arguments against the Board’s mo-
`tivation-to-combine finding. First, LBT argues the combi-
`nation of Miranda-Knapp and Miller is improper because
`it adds redundant elements and functionality already pre-
`sent in Miranda-Knapp’s device. For instance, as Apple’s
`expert Mr. Andrews testified, both references disclose
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 22-1613 Page:15_Filed: 06/09/2023Document: 39
`
`
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`15
`
`“similar architectures that include receivers, processors,
`power managers, and accelerometers.” J.A. 6980 4 1382.
`According to LBT, a skilled artisan would not be motivated
`to combine these redundant elements. LBT misunder-
`stands the Board’s finding. The Boarddid notfind a skilled
`artisan would combine every feature of Miller’s device with
`Miranda-Knapp’s device. Instead, it found a skilled artisan
`would be motivatedto add certain functionality from Miller
`to Miranda-Knapp’s device, which discloses the claimed
`transceiver circuitry and accelerometercircuitry. 619 De-
`cision, at *7—8, *11. That Miller discloses a similar device
`with several overlapping elements supports the Board’s
`finding of a motivation to combine. See KSR IntCo. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has
`been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would recognize that it would improve sim-
`ilar devices in the same way,using the technique is obvious
`unless its actual application is beyondhisor her skill.”).
`
`LBTalso contends the Board failed to identify the re-
`dundant functionality between Miranda-Knapp and Mil-
`ler, namely, deactivating signaling circuitry in response to
`the accelerometer detecting a substantially stationary po-
`sition. Miranda-Knapp teaches that, to conserve battery
`power, “certain transmissions or phone calls could be in-
`hibited”if the phoneis left at rest in a safe zone. J.A. 7057
`at 5:13-18. This disclosure relates to the deactivation of
`Miranda-Knapp’s messaging circuitry. The proposed com-
`bination, however, incorporates Miller’s deactivation ofits
`GPScircuitry, a different signaling circuitry. See 619 De-
`cision, at *11. LBT fails to explain how this functionality
`is redundant.
`
`Second, LBT argues the proposed combination of Mi-
`randa-Knapp and Miller would result in an inoperable de-
`vice because the two references disclose contradictory
`approaches. Specifically, Miranda-Knappteaches activat-
`ing a GPSreceiver whena device is stationary, while Miller
`teaches deactivating a GPS receiver when a device is
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613
`
`Document: 39
`
`Page:16
`
`Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`16
`
`LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`stationary. This argument, again, is based on LBT’s fun-
`damental misunderstanding of the proposed combination.
`The Board found a skilled artisan would have been moti-
`vated to modify Miranda-Knapp’s device to deactivate its
`GPSreceiverafter its location is determined—i.e., after ac-
`tivating a portion of the signaling circuitry—to conserve
`battery power.
`Jd. at *10-11. LBT fails to point to any
`evidence showing this combination would be inoperable.
`Instead, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding
`that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to in-
`crease the device’s battery life by deactivating the GPSre-
`ceiver after the location is determined and would have a
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so. For example,
`Mr. Andrewstestified that a skilled artisan would have
`been motivated to increase the device’s battery life and
`would have recognized that deactivating the GPS receiver
`after the stationary device’s location has already been de-
`termined would accomplish this goal.
`J.A. 7002-07
`77 162-168; see also J.A. 7056-57 (Miranda-Knapp) at
`4:57-5:43 (identifying the needto alert the user “before the
`battery drains” when the device is at rest but not in a safe
`zone); J.A. 7079 (Miller) {4 18, 22 (teaching that when the
`device is stationary, the scanning operations of receivers
`are halted in order to conserve battery power).
`
`Finally, LBT argues Miller teaches away from the
`claimedsolution becauseit discloses using a motion model,
`rather than an accelerometer alone, to determine whether
`the device is in motion. Substantial evidence supports the
`Board’s contrary finding. See 619 Decision, at *12. Miller
`states “[a]ccelerometer 114 sends signals to motion model
`108 indicating whether or not the mobile device is in mo-
`tion.” J.A. 7079 { 18. That is, Miller teaches that an ac-
`celerometeris used to detect a stationary position. While
`the motion modelalso uses signals from receivers 102, 104,
`and 106, in some circumstances, the data from the accel-
`erometer may be the only data relied on by the motion
`model. J.A. 7079 4 21-22.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613
`
`Document: 39
`
`Page:17
`
`Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`LBT IPI LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`17
`
`Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
`a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Mi-
`randa-Knapp and Miller as claimed. We therefore affirm
`the Board’s obviousness determinations with respect to
`claims 1-20 of the ’619 patent.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Wehaveconsidered the parties’ remaining arguments
`and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given above,
`we reverse the Board’s decisions with respect to claims 1—
`24 of the ’618 patent, claims 8—10 of the ’256 patent, and
`claims 3, 9, and 11 of the 113 patent. We vacate andre-
`mand the Board’s decision with respect to claims 8, 10, 18,
`and 15 of the ’774 patent. We affirm the Board’s decision
`with respect to claims 1—20 of the ’619 patent.
`
`AFFIRMEDIN PART, REVERSEDIN PART,
`VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED IN PART
`
`No costs.
`
`Costs
`
`