PTAB

IPR2018-01722

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Gateway and Hybrid Solutions for Wireless Location
  • Brief Description: The ’484 patent relates to wireless communication systems for locating people or objects. The invention uses measurements from wireless signals communicated between mobile stations and network base stations and is designed to be incorporated into existing commercial wireless telephony systems by utilizing multiple location estimators based on different technologies.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claim 57 is obvious over Sheffer in view of Dunn

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheffer (Patent 5,844,522) and Dunn (Patent 5,659,596).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sheffer discloses the core limitations of claim 57. Sheffer teaches a system to locate a mobile phone using multiple independent techniques, which correspond to the claimed "first and second mobile station location evaluators." Specifically, Sheffer’s CDC workstation uses an azimuth triangulation technique (first evaluator) and a Received Signal Strength Information (RSSI) technique (second evaluator) to produce independent location estimates (Area A and Area B). Petitioner asserted these techniques are independent as required by the claim because they use different input data (azimuth vs. RSSI). Sheffer then compares these estimates to determine a final location and assigns a "confidence level," which Petitioner contended meets the limitation of providing "data indicative of one of: an error and a likelihood."
    • Motivation to Combine: Dunn teaches storing location information for a mobile device along with a corresponding timestamp to provide the most recent location. A POSITA would combine Dunn’s timestamping with Sheffer’s location system to ensure location data used by emergency responders is current, to track the velocity of a moving target, and to monitor the performance of the emergency response system.
    • Expectation of Success: Because Sheffer and Dunn both describe location techniques for similar cellular communication technologies, a POSITA would have found their combination predictable and would have had a reasonable expectation of success.

Ground 2: Claim 59 is obvious over Sheffer, Dunn, and Singer

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheffer (Patent 5,844,522), Dunn (Patent 5,659,596), and Singer (Patent 5,485,163).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses dependent claim 59, which adds a step of transmitting the location estimate over a network to a "destination requesting the location." The combination of Sheffer and Dunn teaches generating a timestamped location estimate. Sheffer discloses transmitting this location estimate to a destination (a follow-up vehicle). Singer adds the missing element by teaching a system where a subscriber requests the location of a portable unit, and the system forwards the location information back to the requesting subscriber’s device, such as a mobile phone or pager. The combination therefore discloses transmitting the final location estimate to a mobile destination that requested it.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Singer's teachings with the Sheffer/Dunn system to enhance its utility for emergency services. This would allow a first responder, who may be on foot in a location inaccessible to a vehicle, to use a mobile device to request and receive the location of a person in distress. This modification would be a common-sense improvement to make the system more flexible and effective.
    • Expectation of Success: Adding a known method for data delivery to a requesting user (as taught by Singer) to an existing location system (Sheffer/Dunn) was argued to be a straightforward design choice with a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "mobile station location evaluator": Petitioner argued this term, as used in the claims, is a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6.
    • Function: "determining [a] mobile station location."
    • Corresponding Structure: A "location hypothesizing model (FOM) implemented on or by a location center or mobile base station," as described in the ’484 patent’s specification. This construction is central to mapping Sheffer’s independent location techniques (azimuth triangulation and RSSI analysis) to the two distinct "evaluators" required by claim 57.
  • "data indicative of one of: an error and a likelihood": Petitioner contended that the ordinary and customary meaning of this phrase is "data indicative of an error or a likelihood." This construction is less stringent than a potential alternative requiring both, and it allows Sheffer’s use of a "confidence level" (a likelihood) to satisfy the limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that its filing of three separate IPR petitions against the ’484 patent is not redundant and should not be grounds for discretionary denial. The petitions challenge different sets of claims asserted by the Patent Owner in co-pending litigation. Petitioner asserted that due to the unusual length of the challenged claims and the 14,000-word limit for IPR petitions, it was not possible to consolidate all challenges into a single petition.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review of claims 57 and 59 of the ’484 patent and cancel these claims as unpatentable.