PTAB

IPR2018-01727

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 ’327 patent discloses methods for locating communication devices using a wireless network. The system uses a plurality of "location determiners" that employ different technologies to generate geographic location information. The methods also involve obtaining and using information indicative of the reliability of the location data from one or more determiners to provide a resulting location.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, and 6 are obvious over Sheffer in view of Cisneros and 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 asserted that Sheffer provides the foundational system for the invention. Sheffer discloses a wireless location system using a plurality of independent techniques (location determiners), including azimuth triangulation and Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI), to locate a mobile phone. It further teaches comparing the location estimates from these techniques to assign a "confidence level," which Petitioner mapped to the ’327 patent’s reliability limitations.

      To meet limitations not found in Sheffer, Petitioner argued a POSITA would modify Sheffer with the teachings of Sanderford and Cisneros. Sanderford was introduced to teach a second, different type of location determiner: a neural network that uses Time-of-Arrival (TOA) and Relative Time-of-Arrival (RTOA) data. Petitioner contended this neural network, which is trained to recognize patterns in signal data, meets the "predetermined pattern detection process" required by claim 6.

      Cisneros was introduced to teach the specific step of combining or weighting different location estimates to produce a final, more accurate result. While Sheffer compares results, Petitioner argued Cisneros explicitly discloses averaging or weighting different position solutions based on their estimated quality, thereby teaching the "combining" or "resolving a difference" limitation of claim 1.

    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine these references to improve the accuracy and robustness of a location system like Sheffer's. Sheffer acknowledges that its azimuth readings can be erroneous in "reflection intensive environments" (i.e., multi-path distortion). Sanderford's neural network is presented as a known technique for mitigating such multi-path effects. A POSITA would therefore incorporate Sanderford to improve location accuracy in urban areas. To intelligently fuse the different location estimates from Sheffer's techniques and Sanderford's neural network, a POSITA would naturally look to known methods for data fusion, such as the weighting and averaging taught by Cisneros, to produce a more reliable final position.

    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that because Sheffer, Cisneros, and Sanderford all relate to wireless communication and location technologies, their combination would have been a predictable implementation of known techniques to improve a known system, giving a POSITA a reasonable expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "location determiners": Petitioner argued this term is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6. The claimed function is "determining communication device location," and the corresponding structure disclosed in the '327 patent is a "location hypothesizing model (FOM) implemented on or by a location center or mobile base station." This construction allows Petitioner to map prior art structures, such as Sheffer's location calculation processor and Sanderford's neural network, to this limitation.
  • "at least one of: a potential geographic location and a potential geographic extent": Petitioner asserted that this phrase should be interpreted in the alternative (i.e., or), not conjunctively (and). This construction is argued to be consistent with the claim language and prevents an interpretation requiring the prior art to disclose both a point and an area for every single location identification.
  • "at least one of the first and second location determiners": Similar to the term above, Petitioner argued this phrase, as used in claim 6, means one or the other determiner is dependent on an output, not necessarily both. This supports the argument that only one of the combined prior art determiners (Sanderford's) needs to meet the "predetermined pattern detection process" limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that its concurrent filing of three separate IPR petitions against the '327 patent is not redundant and should not be a basis for discretionary denial. It stated that while all three petitions challenge claim 1, they also challenge different dependent claims (e.g., claims 2, 6, 9, 47). Due to the unique requirements of these different dependent claims, the analysis of claim 1 is necessarily different in each petition. Petitioner asserted that the complexity and length of the claims, combined with the PTAB's word-count limits, made it impossible to consolidate all challenges into a single petition.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’327 patent as unpatentable.