PTAB

IPR2018-01728

Cisco Systems Inc v. TracBeam LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Gateway and Hybrid Solutions for Wireless Location
  • Brief Description: The ’327 patent discloses methods for locating wireless communication devices within a communications network. The system uses measurements from wireless signals exchanged between mobile stations and network base stations and is designed to utilize a plurality of different location estimation technologies to determine a device’s position.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, and 9 are obvious over Sheffer in view of Cisneros.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheffer (Patent 5,844,522) and Cisneros (Patent 5,774,829).
  • Core Argument:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sheffer teaches a wireless location system that meets most limitations of the challenged claims. Sheffer discloses using multiple independent "location determiners"—specifically, an azimuth triangulation technique and a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) technique—to generate separate geographic location estimates (disclosed as Area A and Area B). Sheffer further describes comparing these estimates and assigning a "confidence level" based on their agreement or disagreement, which Petitioner contended satisfies the claim element of obtaining information indicative of reliability. The combination with Cisneros was asserted to render obvious the claim limitation of combining or resolving differences between two geographic identifications (e.g., Sheffer's Area A and Area B) so the resulting information is dependent on both. Cisneros explicitly teaches improving location accuracy by computing a weighted average of two different position solutions, thereby providing the missing element of a true combination of results.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sheffer with Cisneros to improve the accuracy of location estimation, a primary goal articulated in both references. Petitioner contended that since Sheffer's system already generates multiple location estimates and assigns confidence levels, applying the weighted averaging technique from Cisneros would be a known, simple, and predictable method to improve Sheffer's existing system. Both patents operate in the analogous art of wireless location, making the combination straightforward for a skilled artisan seeking to enhance performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Both patents describe similar cellular communication technologies and address the common problem of position accuracy using multiple estimation sources. Integrating Cisneros’s mathematical combination technique with Sheffer’s system of generating multiple estimates was presented as a predictable application of a known principle to a similar system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "location determiners": Petitioner asserted this term is governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6 as means-plus-function language. Citing agreement in co-pending litigation, Petitioner proposed the 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 was central to mapping Sheffer's distinct location techniques (azimuth and RSSI) to the claimed "plurality of location determiners."
  • "at least one of: a potential geographic location and a potential geographic extent": Petitioner argued against a conjunctive reading (i.e., requiring both a location and an extent) and for a disjunctive reading (i.e., a location or an extent). This interpretation was based on the claim's internal consistency, where related limitations are phrased in the alternative (e.g., "geographical location or extent"), suggesting the "at least one of" phrase was intended to be disjunctive.
  • "at least one of the first and second location determiners": For claim 9, which recites that "at least one of the first and second location determiners is dependent upon an output," Petitioner argued for a disjunctive construction. The use of the singular verb "is" was highlighted as evidence that the dependency could apply to the first location determiner or the second, not necessarily both, making the limitation easier to meet with the prior art.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that its filing of three separate IPR petitions against the ’327 patent, while challenging some of the same claims, was not redundant and should not result in discretionary denial. It asserted that separate petitions were necessary to properly address different sets of claims asserted in co-pending litigation. This approach was claimed to be a direct result of the unusual length and complexity of the patent's claims, which, combined with the PTAB's strict word-count limits, made it impossible to consolidate all invalidity challenges into a single, coherent petition.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review for claims 1, 2, and 9 of the ’327 patent and the subsequent cancellation of these claims as unpatentable.