PTAB

IPR2015-01697

Apple Inc v. TracBeam LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Location Determination for Cellular Phones
  • Brief Description: The ’484 patent discloses a network-based location system that employs cellular geolocation. The system determines a mobile station’s position using measurements from wireless signals communicated between the mobile station and a network of base stations, utilizing a plurality of location techniques and models to increase accuracy.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Bruno - Claims 25-27, 31, 36-37, 39-40, 49, 51, 56-57, 60-61, and 72 are obvious over Bruno.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bruno (Patent 5,604,765).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bruno discloses a system for combining multiple location-detection techniques to determine a mobile unit’s position. These techniques include measuring distance using cellular timing measurements from multiple base stations, using GPS, and using short-distance RF "Signposts." Bruno’s system receives signals for each technique and its position calculation component estimates a final position based on one or more of them. Petitioner asserted this core teaching meets the limitations of the independent claims, which require using at least two different "location evaluators" to generate location information.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference. Petitioner argued that while Bruno discloses all claim elements, certain limitations reciting well-known techniques (e.g., specific methods for implementing GPS) would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). For claims reciting output criteria (e.g., claims 27, 31, 36), Petitioner contended that Bruno’s disclosure of various applications (E-911, fleet management, theft recovery) made it obvious to provide location estimates at different frequencies depending on the specific application’s needs.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing well-known GPS techniques or varying update frequencies based on application needs, as these were common and predictable modifications in the art.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Bruno in view of LeBlanc - Claims 38, 45, 50, 57, and 63 are obvious over Bruno in view of LeBlanc.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bruno (Patent 5,604,765) and LeBlanc (Patent 5,602,903).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Bruno provides the primary system for locating a mobile unit using multiple techniques. LeBlanc contributes teachings on specific output and communication features. LeBlanc discloses using pattern recognition of wireless signals to determine a mobile device’s position and, critically, displaying the location on a map within a "bounding polygon" that indicates an "error estimate." LeBlanc also explicitly discloses the use of TCP/IP as a communication protocol.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the display features of LeBlanc with Bruno's location system to provide an operator with a more accurate and visually intuitive representation of the mobile unit's location, including its potential range of error. This combination represents the use of a known technique (LeBlanc’s display) to improve a similar device (Bruno’s system). Further, a POSITA would have been motivated to substitute the well-known TCP/IP protocol taught by LeBlanc into Bruno’s system to facilitate communication over standard Internet infrastructure, a predictable and beneficial modification.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Combining a known map display method with a location system and substituting a standard network protocol were straightforward applications of known technologies that would yield predictable results.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Loomis - Claims 25-27, 31, 37-40, 49, 51, 57, 60-61, 63, and 72 are obvious over Loomis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Loomis (Patent 5,936,572).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Loomis discloses a portable hybrid location system with two independent location determination ("LD") units: a satellite-based "outdoor LD unit" and a terrestrial radio signal-based "radio LD unit." Loomis teaches selecting between the two techniques or combining their measurements to generate a resulting location estimate, often based on threshold error and accuracy indicators. This maps to the claims' requirements for using multiple, independent location evaluators. For system claims, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious that a central station in the Loomis system could process requests from multiple different mobile stations, using different estimators based on the availability of input data (e.g., using GPS outdoors and terrestrial signals when GPS is unavailable).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground relies on a single reference. Petitioner’s obviousness arguments focused on extending the teachings of Loomis to scenarios involving multiple mobile stations and applying common knowledge. For example, for claim 63, Petitioner argued a POSITA would have found it obvious to adapt Loomis’s terrestrial system to use a standard two-way cellular network rather than a dedicated FM infrastructure to leverage existing networks for economic and logistical advantages.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would expect success in scaling a location system to handle multiple users and in adapting a system to use a more common communication standard like a cellular network.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 38, 45, and 50 are obvious over Loomis in view of LeBlanc, and claim 56 is obvious over Loomis in view of Yokouchi (Patent 4,903,212). These grounds relied on similar theories of combining known display/communication protocols (LeBlanc) or adding velocity calculation (Yokouchi) to the base system of Loomis.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Location-Related Terms: Petitioner argued that numerous terms added during prosecution—such as "position information," "location data," and "geographical approximation"—are thematically similar and not materially distinct in the specification. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable construction, they should all be construed to mean "information that pertains to location."
  • "Granularity": Petitioner argued that the term "granularity" (recited in claims 36 and 61) should be construed to encompass precision in either location or time, consistent with its use as a criterion for providing a location estimate.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Entitlement: Petitioner contended that the ’484 patent is not entitled to its claimed earlier priority dates. It was argued that during prosecution, approximately 4.5 years after the original parent application, the applicants introduced substantial new matter that "suddenly embraced GPS" technology after the parent application had highlighted "fundamental problems" with GPS. While Petitioner asserted that the cited prior art predates even the earliest claimed priority date, this argument challenges the fundamental validity and lineage of the patent's disclosure.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 25-27, 31, 36-40, 45, 49-51, 56-57, 60-61, 63, and 72 of the ’484 patent as unpatentable.