PTAB

IPR2018-01726

Cisco Systems Inc v. TracBeam LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Gateway And Hybrid Solutions For Wireless Location
  • Brief Description: The ’327 patent discloses methods for locating communication devices within a wireless communication system. The system uses measurements from wireless signals communicated between mobile stations and network base stations to provide location capabilities.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Sheffer, Cisneros, and Sanderford - Claims 1 and 47 are obvious over Sheffer in view of Cisneros and further in view of Sanderford.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheffer (Patent 5,844,522), Cisneros (Patent 5,774,829), and Sanderford (Patent 5,717,406).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Sheffer, Cisneros, and Sanderford disclosed all limitations of claims 1 and 47. Sheffer was presented as the primary reference, teaching a wireless network location system that uses multiple independent techniques (azimuth triangulation, RSSI, and cell sector data) to determine a mobile phone's location and assign a "confidence level" to that determination. Petitioner contended that Sheffer’s system meets the core method steps of claim 1. To meet the limitation of using different types of "location determiners," Petitioner proposed modifying Sheffer’s system by incorporating a GPS-based technique as a first location determiner and a neural network-based technique as a second location determiner. The GPS technique was taught by the background of Sheffer and further detailed in Cisneros. The neural network technique, specifically designed to improve accuracy in environments with multi-path signal distortion (e.g., urban areas), was taught by Sanderford. Cisneros further supplied the concept of combining outputs from different location techniques by averaging or weighting them based on estimated quality to produce a final, more accurate location.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve the overall accuracy and reliability of location estimates for a mobile device. Sheffer’s system already uses multiple techniques, establishing the benefit of a hybrid approach. A POSITA would look to incorporate Sanderford’s neural network because it is specifically designed to mitigate multi-path distortion, a known problem in urban environments that can degrade the accuracy of techniques like those in Sheffer. This would improve performance in cities. Concurrently, a POSITA would incorporate a GPS technique, as taught by Cisneros, for its high accuracy in open environments where multi-path is not an issue. The motivation for adding Cisneros’s weighting technique was to provide an intelligent method for combining the outputs of these disparate systems (Sheffer's base techniques, GPS, and the neural network), allowing the system to adaptively rely on the most accurate technique for a given environment.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because all three references operate in the same field of wireless communications and location determination for mobile devices. The combination involved applying known solutions (GPS, neural networks for multi-path) to solve a known problem (improving location accuracy across different environments) using predictable methods.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "location determiners": Petitioner argued this term is governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6 as means-plus-function language. The proposed function was "determining communication device location," and the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification was a "location hypothesizing model (FOM) implemented on or by a location center or mobile base station." This construction was central to mapping structures like GPS receivers and neural network processors from the prior art to the claims.
  • "at least one of: a potential geographic location and a potential geographic extent": Petitioner contended this phrase should be construed with its ordinary disjunctive meaning of "A or B," not the conjunctive "at least one of A and at least one of B." This interpretation was argued to be consistent with the alternative phrasing used throughout claim 1.
  • "said second estimator": Petitioner argued that this term in dependent claim 47 lacked an antecedent basis in either claim 1 or 47, which instead recite a "second location determiner." Accordingly, Petitioner proposed that "said second estimator" should be construed to mean "said second location determiner" to correct the apparent error.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against potential redundancy-based discretionary denial by explaining that it was filing two other IPR petitions against the ’327 patent simultaneously. The petitions were asserted not to be redundant because they challenged different sets of claims. Although all three petitions challenged claim 1, this was necessary because the other challenged claims depended from it. Petitioner stated that due to the complexity and length of the challenged claims, as well as PTAB word count limits, it was not possible to consolidate all challenges into a single petition.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review of claims 1 and 47 of the ’327 patent and the cancellation of these claims as unpatentable.