Apple Inc v. Speir Technologies Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2023-00151
• Patent #: 7,110,779
• Filed: November 30, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-34

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Wireless Communications System Including a Wireless Device Locator and Related Methods
• Brief Description: The ’779 patent discloses a wireless device locator that performs "active range finding" to locate other wireless devices. The system transmits location finding signals, receives reply signals, and determines the propagation delay by accounting for a "known device latency" of the target device to estimate its range.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12-13, 18-19, 22-24, 26-28, 32, and 34 are obvious over McCrady in view of Raphaeli.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: McCrady (Patent 6,453,168) and Raphaeli (Patent 7,511,604).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that McCrady disclosed the core elements of the challenged claims, including a position location system with a "master radio" (a wireless device locator) that determines its range to "reference radios" (target wireless devices). McCrady’s system transmitted outbound ranging messages containing a destination address (a unique identifier or UID) and calculated a one-way propagation delay by measuring the round-trip time and subtracting the target's known device latency ("turn around time"). Raphaeli taught that determining multiple round-trip delays and calculating an "average time delay" increases the precision of the range estimate.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Raphaeli's averaging technique with McCrady's ranging system to predictably improve the precision of the estimated range. Petitioner noted that McCrady itself suggested using averaging for other purposes (e.g., internal delay calibration), which would have prompted a POSITA to apply the well-known technique of averaging to the primary propagation delay measurements as taught by Raphaeli.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because both references address range determination for wireless devices using similar round-trip timing methods. Applying an averaging technique to a series of measurements was a routine and predictable method for improving accuracy in the field.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 3-6, 10-11, 13-17, 20-21, 24-25, and 29-33 are obvious over McCrady and Raphaeli in view of Rofheart.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: McCrady (Patent 6,453,168), Raphaeli (Patent 7,511,604), and Rofheart (Patent 7,058,414).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the McCrady-Raphaeli combination by adding the teachings of Rofheart. Rofheart disclosed that a remote device can generate and transmit an "independent signal" (i.e., an unsolicited signal) that contains information about the device, including its radio type and UID. This teaching was argued to render obvious the limitations in claims 3, 14, 20, and 29 related to a target device generating unsolicited signals. Rofheart also explicitly disclosed that its system could be implemented with WLAN and mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) devices.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Rofheart's teaching of unsolicited, independent signals into the McCrady-Raphaeli system to provide a mechanism for new device discovery. McCrady taught that its set of reference radios could "vary over time," which would motivate a POSITA to seek methods for acquiring new reference radios. Rofheart's independent signal provided a known mechanism for a device to announce its presence and capabilities without being prompted, directly addressing this need.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in this combination because implementing a device discovery mechanism using unsolicited signals (as taught by Rofheart) was a well-known technique in wireless protocols and would predictably enhance the functionality of the McCrady system without altering its core ranging operations.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 6-7, 17, 21, and 31 are obvious over McCrady-Raphaeli-Kuwahara for adding bearing determination via multiple antennas, and that claims 1-6 and 8-34 are obvious over the alternative combination of Rofheart-Raphaeli-Godfrey.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that no express claim constructions are required for the proceeding. However, it noted a dispute from a parallel district court case regarding the term "known device latency." Petitioner contended that the challenged claims are obvious under either its proposed construction ("predetermined latency for the given device type") or the Patent Owner's proposed broader, plain-meaning interpretation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors. The petition asserted that its merits are compelling, the trial date in the parallel district court litigation is unreliable and likely to occur after the Board’s Final Written Decision, and the litigation is in its early stages.
• Petitioner further argued that denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because the primary prior art references (McCrady, Raphaeli, Rofheart, Kuwahara, and Godfrey) were never considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution of the ’779 patent.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-34 of Patent 7,110,779 as unpatentable.