PTAB

IPR2023-01212

Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Grid-Based Pattern Matching for Geolocation
  • Brief Description: The ’753 patent describes a method and system for determining the location of a mobile device using a grid-based pattern matching system. The system uses "calibration data," such as radio frequency (RF) signal strengths from known locations, to generate a map of "grid points" which is then compared against live "network measurement reports" from a device at an unknown location to estimate its position.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Spain and Agiwal - Claims 1, 7, 9, 32, 38, and 40 are anticipated by or obvious over Spain, with Agiwal providing additional context.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Spain (Application # 2003/0064735) and Agiwal (a 2004 publication titled “LOCATOR – Location Estimation System for Wireless LANs”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Spain teaches every element of the challenged claims. Spain describes a geolocation system using an RF "fingerprint" database, which corresponds to the claimed "calibration data" at "calibration points." Crucially, Petitioner asserted that Spain discloses generating new, interpolated grid points from existing measurements to create a denser, more robust location database, directly teaching the claimed step of "generating one or more sets of grid points." Spain further discloses receiving a live fingerprint (a "network measurement report") from a mobile unit and performing a multi-tiered search to find its location. This search first narrows possibilities based on the serving cell site identity (a "characterizing parameter" meeting claim 9) and then selects the closest matching grid points based on signal strength "closeness" (a "predetermined criteria") to interpolate a final location estimate.
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary argument is that Spain anticipates the claims outright. Agiwal was presented as evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have understood how to implement certain concepts described in Spain, such as using a k-best search algorithm to determine "closeness" between signal strength fingerprints. Petitioner argued a POSITA would look to a reference like Agiwal, which addresses the same problem of RF fingerprint-based location, to implement the system described in Spain.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because Spain discloses a complete, functional system for location determination. The use of interpolation to densify a grid map was a known technique for improving accuracy, and Spain explicitly suggests it for this purpose. Agiwal further confirmed the viability of these techniques.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "calibration data": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "modified or unmodified network measurement data associated with a geographic location."
  • "grid point": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a point associated with representative calibration data for an area." This construction is important because it supports the argument that Spain's interpolated fingerprints, which represent an area rather than a single measurement spot, meet the claim limitation.
  • "network measurement report": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a report used in cellular networks which provides the results of a measurement from a mobile device on one or more cells." This construction was argued to be broad enough to cover the "fingerprint structure" disclosed in Spain.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that it will seek a stay in the parallel district court litigation, the trial date has not yet been scheduled, and the investment in the parallel proceeding is limited. Petitioner contended that the strong merits of the petition weigh heavily in favor of institution.
  • §325(d) (Same or Substantially the Same Art or Arguments): Petitioner argued against denial under §325(d), acknowledging that Spain was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during the original prosecution. However, Petitioner asserted the Examiner materially erred by failing to appreciate Spain's key teachings, particularly its disclosure of generating interpolated grid points. The prosecution record shows the Examiner focused on a different, related reference (Dressler) and rejected claims on narrower grounds not relevant to this petition, thereby overlooking the broader teachings in Spain that anticipate the issued claims. This alleged material error, supported by new expert testimony, was argued to warrant institution.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1, 7, 9, 32, 38, and 40 of the ’753 patent as unpatentable.