PTAB

IPR2023-01213

Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method to Collect and Modify Calibration Data
  • Brief Description: The ’784 patent discloses a method and system for generating an enhanced calibration database for wireless device location. The system collects location data from wireless devices and matches it against a street database to correct errors and improve the accuracy of the location data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 10-13, and 21-22 are obvious over Crane in view of Spain.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Crane (Patent 6,381,533) and Spain (Application # 2003/0064735).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Crane taught the core concept of the ’784 patent: a system that enhances a geographic road database by matching the positions of wireless devices (cellular phones) to road locations. Crane disclosed collecting location data, using a location information database (a street database), determining device status (like rate and direction of travel), and matching device locations to the most likely street to create a more accurate, calibrated database. However, Petitioner contended that Crane did not expressly disclose using specific signal attributes (e.g., signal strength) received by the wireless device to determine its location. Spain was argued to supply this missing element. Spain taught a method for determining a mobile unit's location using signal attributes like "observed signal strength" to generate a spectral fingerprint, which is particularly useful in areas with poor GPS coverage. Petitioner asserted that combining Spain's specific technique for determining location from signal attributes with Crane's broader system for database calibration rendered all limitations of the independent claims obvious. Dependent claims reciting specific attributes (signal strength, base station ID) were argued to be directly taught by Spain.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine Crane and Spain to improve the performance of Crane’s system. Crane explicitly stated its system could use "any such technology that is presently available or that becomes available in the future" for determining phone location. A POSITA implementing Crane's system would have been motivated to look for known, reliable location-determination techniques, such as the signal-strength-based method taught by Spain, to augment or provide location data, especially in environments where GPS is unreliable. Both references shared the common goal of improving geolocation technologies.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The combination involved applying Spain's conventional signal-based location determination method within Crane's data collection and matching framework. Neither reference required new infrastructure, instead relying on existing cellular networks, which would have made the integration straightforward and predictable for a person of ordinary skill.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed constructions consistent with a Markman Order from related district court litigation for the terms "wireless device" ("a device capable of transmitting and receiving signals while unattached to any physical wires") and "status of said wireless device" ("information regarding the movement or orientation of the wireless device").
  • Crucially, Petitioner noted that the district court found the terms "determining said most likely street as a first one of said plural geographic locations" and "in proximity" to be indefinite. Petitioner maintained that even without a clear construction for these terms, the prior art combination of Crane and Spain still disclosed the functionality encompassed by these claim elements.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv. It contended that a pre-institution stay would be sought in the parallel district court litigation. Furthermore, no trial date was yet scheduled, and the court's investment was not yet substantial enough to outweigh the petitioner's diligence in filing the petition and the compelling merits of the unpatentability challenge. Petitioner stated it filed the petition less than three months after being made aware of the full set of asserted claims.
  • §325(d) (Same or Substantially the Same Art or Arguments): Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) was inappropriate because the Examiner committed a material error during prosecution. The primary reference, Crane, was never before the Examiner. While Spain was listed in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), it was never substantively analyzed or applied in a rejection. Petitioner asserted that the Examiner's allowance was based on limitations that were, in fact, well-known in the art (as shown by Crane and Spain) and that this failure to consider the most relevant art constituted an error that this IPR was intended to correct.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 10-13, and 21-22 of the ’784 patent as unpatentable.