PTAB

IPR2023-00850

Google LLC v. WirelessWerx IP LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multi-dimensional Mapping and Communication
  • Brief Description: The ’203 patent discloses a system using distributed nodes within a building to communicate with a user's mobile device and map its location. The system can select the closest node on the same elevational level (floor) as the user and use this location data to send tailored messages, such as advertisements.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5 are obvious over Wrappe in view of Belcea

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wrappe (International Publication No. WO2005/106523) and Belcea (Patent 7,203,497).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wrappe disclosed a system of using "microcell beacons" for indoor position determination in commercial complexes where GPS signals are weak. These beacons broadcast location information (including coordinates and altitude/floor level) to mobile devices. Petitioner asserted that Belcea supplemented Wrappe by teaching a system for accurately computing the position of wireless devices in multi-story, high-rise buildings. Belcea specifically addressed overcoming signal attenuation between floors by using a network of nodes (routers) and a scoring algorithm to identify the correct floor a user is on, thus teaching the claimed limitation of narrowing nodes to a specific elevational level.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Belcea with Wrappe to improve the accuracy and reliability of Wrappe’s indoor positioning system within a multi-floor commercial environment. Belcea’s teachings on managing node networks and accurately identifying a user's floor would have been a known solution to the challenges of indoor positioning in complex structures like the multi-store buildings described in Wrappe.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success as both references address similar problems of indoor location determination using compatible, well-known wireless networking technologies.

Ground 2: Claims 6-30 are obvious over Wrappe and Belcea in view of Christopher

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wrappe, Belcea, and Christopher (Application # 2008/0042836).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Wrappe-Belcea combination from Ground 1, adding Christopher to teach limitations related to user profiling and targeted messaging. Petitioner contended that Christopher disclosed a system for tracking shopping behavior by monitoring a user's traffic patterns, purchase history, and time spent at various locations within a store. Christopher explicitly taught using this collected data to create a user profile and "tailor a promotional message or sales coupons to mobile device." This directly addressed the ’203 patent's claims of tailoring a targeted message to a user's profile.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Christopher's teachings with the Wrappe-Belcea framework to add valuable commercial functionality. Wrappe already suggested sending commercial information based on user "preferences." Christopher provided a detailed and logical method for implementing this by tracking user behavior to create robust profiles for targeted advertising, a known business strategy for increasing sales.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been predictable, as it involved integrating known data-tracking and targeted advertising techniques into the location-aware communication system established by Wrappe and Belcea.

Ground 3: Claims 6-30 are obvious over Wrappe and Belcea in view of Kinnunen

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wrappe, Belcea, and Kinnunen (Patent 6,813,501).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 2, substituting Christopher with Kinnunen. Petitioner argued Kinnunen taught providing location-dependent services to mobile users by employing a "profiling sub-system." This system compiled user profiles containing information such as demographics, user preferences (e.g., interest in music or clothes), and location history. Kinnunen explicitly stated that these user profiles could be used for "targeting of advertisements." This fulfilled the limitations in claims 6-30 related to associating a user with a profile and tailoring messages accordingly.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was analogous to that in Ground 2. A POSITA seeking to implement the targeted messaging suggested by Wrappe would have looked to prior art like Kinnunen, which provided an established framework for creating and using profiles to deliver relevant, location-based advertisements.
    • Expectation of Success: As with Christopher, integrating Kinnunen's well-understood profiling system into the Wrappe-Belcea location-aware network would have been a straightforward and predictable design choice for a POSITA.

4. Key Technical Contentions

  • Priority Date Challenge: A central contention was that the ’203 patent was not entitled to its claimed 2004 priority date and its earliest effective priority date is January 8, 2009. Petitioner argued that the priority applications failed to provide written description support for key limitations recited in all challenged claims, including (1) mapping within a "building" structure with multiple floors, and (2) narrowing a selection of nodes to the "most practically near node" on the same "elevational level" as the user. Petitioner asserted the priority documents were directed to tracking vehicles and other moving objects, not indoor mapping in buildings. This later priority date was critical for establishing Wrappe, Belcea, and Christopher as prior art.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The argument was based on several factors: there was no trial date and minimal activity in the parallel district court proceeding; the IPR petition challenged all 30 claims of the patent while the district court case involved only claims 1-5, making the IPR a more efficient vehicle for resolving the dispute; and the merits of the petition were compelling.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’203 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.