`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`FedEx Corp.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC and Callahan Cellular L.L.C.,
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`_________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,494,581
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................ iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged ............... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ............................................... 3
`
`Statutory Grounds.................................................................................. 3
`
`III.
`
`’581 Patent Overview ...................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary ............................................................................................... 4
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 7
`
`IV. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................ 7
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 8
`
`VI. Ground 1: Rappaport Renders Obvious Claims 1-15, 18, 19, 21, 23,
`and 24 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................13
`
`A. Overview of Rappaport .......................................................................13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Combine Rappaport’s
`Embodiments .......................................................................................15
`
`Rappaport Renders Obvious Each Element of Claims 1-15, 18,
`19, 21, 23, and 24 ................................................................................16
`
`VII. Ground 2: Rappaport and DeLorme Render Obvious Claim 16 Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..............................................................................................57
`
`A. Overview of DeLorme .........................................................................57
`
`B.
`
`Rationale to Combine Rappaport and DeLorme .................................58
`
`–ii–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`C.
`
`Rappaport and DeLorme Collectively Teach All Features of
`Claim 16 ..............................................................................................59
`
`VIII. Ground 3: Rappaport and Wright Render Obvious Claims 17 and 22
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103...................................................................................60
`
`A. Overview of Wright .............................................................................60
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Rationale to Combine Rappaport and Wright .....................................61
`
`Rappaport and Wright Collectively Teach All Features of
`Claims 17 and 22 .................................................................................65
`
`IX. Ground 4: Rappaport and Khalessi Render Obvious Claim 20 Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..............................................................................................67
`
`A. Overview of Khalessi ..........................................................................67
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Rationale to Combine Rappaport and Khalessi ..................................68
`
`Rappaport and Khalessi Collectively Teach All Features of
`Claim 20 ..............................................................................................69
`
`X. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................71
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................71
`
`Related Matters ....................................................................................72
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel ...................................................................72
`
`Service Information .............................................................................73
`
`XI. Grounds for Standing .....................................................................................73
`
`XII. Fee Payments .................................................................................................74
`
`XIII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................74
`
`
`
`
`
`–iii–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581 to Barbosa (“the ’581 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,971,063 to Rappaport (“Rappaport”)
`
`Exhibit 1003.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,158 to DeLorme (“DeLorme”)
`
`Exhibit 1004.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,857,201 to Wright, Jr. (“Wright”)
`
`Exhibit 1005.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,633,900 to Khalessi (“Khalessi”)
`
`Exhibit 1006.
`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1007.
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/547,363
`
`Exhibit 1008.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,493,679 to Rappaport (“Rappaport ’679”)
`
`Exhibit 1009.
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`v. FedEx Corp., 2:16-cv-00980 (E. D. Tex., Aug. 31, 2016)
`
`Exhibit 1010.
`
`Exhibit D to Plaintiff Intellectual Venture II LLC’s
`
`Infringement Contentions, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v.
`
`FedEx Corp., 2:16-cv-00980 (E. D. Tex., Jan. 17, 2017)
`
`Exhibit 1011.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,083,353 to Alexander, Jr. (“Alexander”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`–iv–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Bosch v. Snap-on, Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .......................................................................................... 8
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)) ............................................................................. 8
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .................................................................................................... 3, 73
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ........................................................................................................ 73
`
`RULES/REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ...................................................................................... 9, 73
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`–v–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`I.
`
`
`Introduction
`
`FedEx Corp. (“FedEx”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-24 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,494,581 (“the ’581 patent”) (Ex. 1001). The Board should institute
`
`review and cancel claims 1-24.
`
`The ’581 patent describes a handheld device, such as the one shown below
`
`in Figure 1, that allows personnel in the field to collect data about a situation and
`
`transmit that data back to a remote server. (E.g., Ex. 1001, 1:23-31, 7:50-8:12,
`
`claims 1, 7, 18.)
`
`
`
`The data includes field data collected by the device or input by the user, as well as
`
`location data. (E.g., id. at 7:55-8:12, claim 1.) The remote server can process the
`
`received data and provide information and analysis back to the mobile device in
`
`the field. (E.g., id. at 8:4-8.)
`
`This system was not new as of the ’581 patent’s priority date, as the primary
`
`reference in this petition, Rappaport, demonstrates. As shown in Figure 9 below,
`
`–1–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Rappaport discloses a handheld computer operating in the field for collecting data
`
`(including location data), and then sending the data to a remote server computer for
`
`processing, just like the ’581 patent. (E.g., Ex. 1002, 18:7-18.)
`
`
`
`As discussed below, Rappaport, in combination with other references cited in this
`
`Petition, discloses or renders obvious every limitation of the ’581 patent. (Ex. 1006
`
`¶¶ 6-12.) While the ’581 patent’s claims tack on functionality such as accessing a
`
`program stored on the remote server (claim 1), downloading a program from the
`
`remote server (claim 7), a wireless transmitter (claims 3, 4), a two-way
`
`communication channel (claim 10), etc., all of this common functionality was well
`
`known and rendered obvious by the cited references. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12.)
`
`–2–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`II.
`
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged
`
` Claims for Which Review Is Requested A.
`Petitioner requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 1-24 of the ’581
`
`patent and cancellation of those claims as unpatentable.
`
`Statutory Grounds
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-24 of the ’581 patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled in
`
`view of the following grounds and prior art.
`
`Prior Art References
`
`Ref. 1: Rappaport, U.S. Patent No. 6,971,063 (Ex. 1002); filed July 28,
`
`2000; prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Ref. 2: DeLorme, U.S. Patent No. 6,321,158 (Ex. 1003); filed Aug. 31,
`
`1998; prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Ref. 3: Wright, U.S. Patent No. 5,857,201 (Ex. 1004); issued Jan. 5, 1999;
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Ref. 4 Khalessi, U.S. Patent No. 6,633,900 (Ex. 1005); filed April 26, 2000;
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Ground
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Rappaport renders obvious claims 1-15, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 24 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Rappaport and DeLorme render obvious claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103.
`
`Rappaport and Wright render obvious claims 17 and 22 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Rappaport and Khalessi render obvious claim 20 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`’581 Patent Overview
`A.
`
`The ’581 patent describes a system and method for managing mobile field
`
`Summary
`
`assets. (Ex. 1001, 1:23-31; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 37-43.) The system includes an enterprise
`
`computing device (i.e., a remote server) and a handheld device employing a
`
`communication module and a position module. (Ex. 1001, 6:21-23, 6:51-55, 7:54-
`
`67.) The handheld device uses a network to enable “[r]eal time communications”
`
`with the computing device for “real-time access to remote programs, assistance
`
`–4–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`and/or information related to [] field operations[,] and asset (personnel and
`
`inventory) resource management.” (Id. at Abstract.)
`
`Claim 1 recites a method for using the handheld device to access an
`
`assessment program on the computing device and transfer field and location data to
`
`the computing device. (Id. at 13:36-50.) Independent claims 7 and 18 recite devices
`
`suitable for carrying out the method. (Id. at 14:1-14 (claim 7), 14:55-15:2 (claim
`
`18).)
`
`
`
`As disclosed with regard to Figure 6 (above), field crew personnel can use
`
`handheld device 10/10’ to access remote management system 58, which can
`
`“provide instructions (e.g., templates, task/punch lists) and/or programs to a group
`
`of users.” (Id. at 7:35-36.) The programs are “centrally stored within one or more
`
`–5–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`databases 61/59” and are directly accessible to the handheld device 10/10’ over the
`
`network 55 or indirectly accessible through the remote management system 58. (Id.
`
`at 7:38-41.) The handheld devices are well-known “handheld or palm
`
`computer/PC, PDA, smart phone, [or] mobile telephony devices,” and enable
`
`remote access to industry/profession-specific applications so “users [can] be more
`
`productive while operating in the field.” (Id. at 5:45-50.)
`
`The field crew can use the handheld device to gather data particular to an
`
`industry and process it locally or transmit it to the remote computing device for
`
`further processing. (Id. at 6:38-41, 8:13-31.) The data includes both field data
`
`collected by the device or input by the user and location data. (Id. at 7:55-8:12.) In
`
`one instance, the data is transmitted to the remote computing device to “undergo
`
`computing operations beyond the resident capabilities of the handheld device,”
`
`where a “limited software program can be used for gathering of data [and a] larger
`
`software application and computing resources [of the remote computing device]
`
`may be necessary to render a comprehensive analysis.” (Id. at 8:20-31.) After the
`
`data is processed, the results are sent back to the handheld device for use by the
`
`field crew. (Id. at 7:64-67.)
`
`The ’581 patent claims recite performing these well-known functions using a
`
`remote “assessment program” and a downloaded “field management program.” (Id.
`
`at 13:36-50 (claim 1), 14:1-14 (claim 7).) These programs are a set of instructions
`
`–6–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`“stored in . . . computer memory such as a hard disk drive of a personal computer
`
`(PC)” or “downloaded from a server via the Internet” for use by the handheld
`
`device. (Id. at 6:16-21.)
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`
`The ’581 patent was filed on August 25, 2009, as U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 12/547,363. (Ex. 1001.) Its earliest claimed priority date is September 18,
`
`2000. (Id.) In responding to the Office’s only prior art rejection (Ex. 1007 at 84-
`
`97), the Applicant amended claim 1 (then claim 21) as follows to clarify that the
`
`handheld device accesses a remote assessment program: “using a handheld device
`
`to access an assessment program stored in a memory of a computing device located
`
`geographically remote from the handheld device.” (Id. at 65 (underlining reflects
`
`amended language).) The Applicant distinguished this step by arguing that
`
`accessing a remote program is different than accessing a remote database: “[t]he
`
`distinction is between accessing an assessment program and accessing a database
`
`storing data.” (Id. at 71-72.)
`
` The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art IV.
`
`
`Factors defining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the types of
`
`problems encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those problems;
`
`(3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of
`
`–7–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`technology; and (5) the educational level of active workers in the field. In re GPAC
`
`Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
`
`Based on these factors, a person of ordinary skill at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’581 patent would have held at least a Bachelor’s Degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or
`
`the
`
`equivalent, and two or more years of industry experience in the field of mobile
`
`communications, or the academic equivalent thereof. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44-49 (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:23-31, 3:45-67, 2:10-3:24).) This person would have been familiar
`
`with the standard components, methods, and protocols used at the time of the
`
`alleged invention to communicate between handheld devices and a server. (Id.)
`
` Claim Construction V.
`
`
`A claim in an unexpired patent “shall be given its broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in the context of the specification. Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`
`2131, 2142 (2016).
`
`In this proceeding, Petitioner submits that the claim terms of the ’581 patent
`
`should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by one of
`
`–8–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the disclosure. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(3); 77 Fed. Reg. 48657, 48764.
`
`Claims 18-24 use “means” and thus invoke the rebuttable presumption that
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 governs their construction. See Bosch v. Snap-on,
`
`Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If a claim term invokes § 112, ¶ 6, it is
`
`limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
`
`specification, and their equivalents, performing the claimed function. Id.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), Petitioner identifies the portions of the
`
`specification that “describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each
`
`claimed function” for the terms below using the term “means.”
`
`Claimed Function
`
`Corresponding Structure
`
`Claim 18
`
`means for establishing a two-way
`communication channel between a
`server and at least one handheld
`device located at a field
`geographically distant from the
`server;
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (communication
`module 42), or Fig. 4 (integrated
`modem 40, communications link 38),
`6:21-50; see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 52-53.
`
`
`
`means for accessing a program stored
`at the server to enable an assessment
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (communication
`module 42), or Fig. 4 (integrated
`
`–9–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Claimed Function
`
`Corresponding Structure
`
`at the field using the at least one
`handheld device;
`
`modem 40, communications link 38),
`6:21-50; see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 54-56.
`
`means for managing data collected at
`the field using the at least one
`handheld device responsive to
`program;
`
`Ex. 1001 Fig. 2 (processor 22 and
`RAM 26), 7:50-8:12 (“field data
`management program”), 6:5-9; see Ex.
`1006 ¶ 57.
`
`means for determining a geographic
`location of the at least one handheld
`device;
`
`means for enabling communicating
`the data collected at the field and the
`geographic location of the at least one
`handheld device between the at least
`one handheld device and other devices
`or the server.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 5 (position module 46),
`6:51-67; see Ex. 1006 ¶ 58.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (communication
`module 42), or Fig. 4 (integrated
`modem 40, communications link 38),
`6:21-50; see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 59-60.
`
`Claim 19
`
`means for tracking a location of the at
`least one handheld device.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 5 (position module 46),
`6:51-67; see Ex. 1006 ¶ 61.
`
`Claim 20
`
`means for enabling updating field
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2 (processor 22 and
`
`–10–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Claimed Function
`
`Corresponding Structure
`
`operation assignments for each of the
`at least one handheld device.
`
`RAM 26), Fig. 9 (“method relating to
`project management”), 10:45-11:12
`(“program managed by a central
`computer/server can track every aspect
`of a project and provide worker with
`tasks . . . .”); see Ex. 1006 ¶ 62.
`
`Claim 21
`
`means for enabling the at least one
`handheld device to identify service
`schedule requirements.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2 (processor 22 and
`RAM 26), Fig. 11 (“method relating to
`inventory tracking/ordering,” step
`1102 “identify service schedule”),
`11:41-52 (describing “inventory
`program”); see Ex. 1006 ¶ 63.
`
`Claim 22
`
`means for enabling synchronization of
`a service schedule on the at least one
`handheld device with inventory data
`stored in the server.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2 (processor 22 and
`RAM 26), Fig. 11 (“method relating to
`inventory tracking/ordering,” step
`1103 “synchronize schedule with
`inventory manager”), 11:41-52
`(describing “inventory program”); see
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 64.
`
`Claim 23
`
`–11–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Claimed Function
`
`Corresponding Structure
`
`means for enabling troubleshooting a
`field problem and collecting data
`related to the field problem;
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2 (processor 22 and
`RAM 24), 7:50-54 (“field data
`management program”), Fig. 7, 8:59-
`9:6; see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 65-66.
`
`means for collecting information
`related to the field problem responsive
`to the program using the at least one
`handheld device
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2 (processor 22, RAM
`24, and control buttons 16), 7:50-54
`(“field data management program”),
`Fig. 7, 9:7-19; see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 67-69.
`
`means for enabling analysis of the
`information
`
`means for rendering post-analysis
`instructions from the at least one
`handheld device for use in resolving
`the field problem
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2 (processor 22 and
`RAM 24), 7:50-54 (“field data
`management program”), Fig. 7, 9:17-
`23; see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 70-71.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2 (processor 22, RAM
`24, and display 14), 7:64-8:8, Fig. 7,
`9:24-28; see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 72-73.
`
`Claim 24
`
`means for providing data to the server
`for analysis, and means for retrieving
`enhanced data from the server for use
`in conducting the field assessment
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (communication
`module 42), or Fig. 4 (integrated
`modem 40, communications link 38),
`6:21-50, Fig. 13, 11:67-12:7, 12:36-47,
`
`–12–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Claimed Function
`
`Corresponding Structure
`
`4:32-35; see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 74-75.
`
`
` Ground 1: Rappaport Renders Obvious Claims 1-15, 18, 19, 21, 23, and
`VI.
`24 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
` Overview of Rappaport
`A.
`Rappaport discloses systems and methods employing a portable handheld
`
`computer and one or more remote server computers for technicians in the field to
`
`complete the “design, deployment, test, optimization, and maintenance cycle
`
`required to implement successful communications networks.” (Ex. 1002, Abstract;
`
`Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 77-78.) Using a handheld computer, a wireless network technician in
`
`the field can model and optimize a wireless network signal within a building or
`
`over a distributed area. (Ex. 1002, 1:12-18, 4:41-5:31, 18:64-19:8.) The technician
`
`can also take measurements using the handheld computer and transmit this data
`
`along with location data to a remote server computer. (Id. at 4:54-5:3, 18:7-18, Fig.
`
`9 (below).)
`
`–13–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`
`
`The technician can view a computer model of the wireless network using the
`
`handheld computer’s display and make adjustments in the field that can be
`
`incorporated into the model for assessment. (Id. at 4:41-48.) The technician inputs
`
`adjustments into the handheld computer for manipulation of the model, including
`
`“adjustments as to choice of equipment, placement in the space, and orientation” of
`
`equipment. (Id.) The model is then updated and the technician can “obtain
`
`performance prediction and other valuable information” about the network as a
`
`result of the changes. (Id.) Therefore, the handheld computer allows the technician
`
`to collect and display the signal properties of the network, manipulate the network
`
`components, and then predict and optimize the network all while in the field. (Id. at
`
`1:12-18.) The data is transferred between the handheld computer and the remote
`
`–14–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`server computer via a wired or wireless communication link. (Id. at 9:36-41, 14:45-
`
`54, 18:59-63; Ex. 1006 ¶ 79.)
`
`Rappaport was cited by Applicant during prosecution, but was not relied on
`
`in a rejection. (Ex. 1007 at 105.)
`
`B.
`
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Combine Rappaport’s
`Embodiments
`Rappaport discloses several embodiments (e.g., Figures 1, 3, 9, 10) showing
`
`aspects of a wireless communication system. These compatible embodiments can
`
`be read together to form the basis of the obviousness combinations presented in
`
`this petition. It would have been obvious to combine features from these
`
`embodiments with one another because they are all aspects of the same handheld
`
`computer-to-server communication system. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 76-85.) For example,
`
`while Rappaport refers to handheld computer 10 (Figures 1, 3), handheld computer
`
`100 (Figure 9), and handheld computer 300 (Figure 10) to describe various
`
`functionality of the handheld computer, a skilled artisan would have found it
`
`obvious to combine the disclosed functionality into a single handheld computer.
`
`(Id. ¶¶ 80-85.) Rappaport suggests that the same handheld computer is being
`
`described, or at least that it would have been obvious to combine the functionality
`
`into one handheld computer, (1) by referring to each device as the “handheld
`
`computer,” (2) by depicting each device with the same or nearly identical images,
`
`and (3) by stating that “[w]hile the invention has been described in terms of its
`
`–15–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`preferred embodiments, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention
`
`can be practiced with considerable variation . . . .” (Ex. 1002, 19:9-11; Ex. 1006
`
`¶¶ 80-85.) Even if interpreted as different embodiments, a skilled artisan would
`
`have found it obvious to combine the disclosed functionality into one handheld
`
`device. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 80-85.)
`
` Rappaport Renders Obvious Each Element of Claims 1-15, 18,
`C.
`19, 21, 23, and 24
`
`Claim 1
`
`i.
`
`“A method, comprising: using a handheld device to access an
`assessment program stored in a memory of a computing device located
`geographically remote from the handheld device”
`
`As shown in Fig. 1 (right) and Fig. 9 (below),
`
`Rappaport discloses using a handheld device (e.g.,
`
`handheld computer 10, 102) and a remote computing
`
`device (e.g., server computer 100) in an assessment
`
`environment.
`
`(Ex. 1006
`
`¶¶ 86-89.) Rappaport
`
`discloses that the handheld computer may include
`
`cellular phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) running the PalmOS, Pocket
`
`PCs running the Windows CE OS, and tablet computers. (Ex. 1002, 6:27-41.)
`
`Using the handheld computer, the technician can view a computer model of a
`
`wireless network and make adjustments and inputs that can be incorporated into
`
`the model. (See id. at 4:41-48.) The handheld computer and the server computer
`
`–16–
`
`

`

`communicate over a wired or wireless communications link. (Id. at 9:26-42, 14:16-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`22.)
`
`
`
`Rappaport further discloses an “assessment program” stored in a memory of
`
`the server computer 100. Rappaport discloses that the server computer may run a
`
`computer-aided design (CAD) program such as SitePlanner® to design a CAD
`
`model of a communications network. (Id. at 14:30-35, 15:7-20; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 90-
`
`95.) This program can model the physical space and the communications network
`
`being measured and optimized, perform simulation and prediction analysis of the
`
`physical space, and allow for assessments of the communications network. (Ex.
`
`1002, 6:45-58, 12:5-21, 15:21-53, 18:30-50.) Rappaport discloses that handheld
`
`computer 102 may also include its own complementary assessment program (e.g.,
`
`–17–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`also part of the SitePlanner® suite), to display and manipulate the model. (Id. at
`
`6:27-53; Ex. 1006 ¶ 90.)
`
`A skilled artisan would understand that by modeling the physical space and
`
`communications network, the program stored on each of the server computer and
`
`the handheld computer in Rappaport helps a user make assessments in the field
`
`and is thus an “assessment program” within the context of the ’581 patent. (Ex.
`
`1006 ¶¶ 91-95.) The ’581 patent does not use “assessment program” outside of the
`
`claims. It elsewhere explains that “[t]he use of words such as ‘assessments’ as used
`
`herein is not meant to limit the invention.” (Ex. 1001, 13:10-11.) It states
`
`“[e]xamples of field assessments include job estimates/bids, crime scene
`
`investigations, medical procedures, daily punch
`
`list/task management,
`
`equipment/system
`
`testing/troubleshooting, customer
`
`interaction, sales, cost
`
`estimates, and third-party status/feedback collection.” (Id. at 13:13-18 (emphasis
`
`added).) SitePlanner® falls within at least the example of “equipment/system
`
`testing/troubleshooting” and is thus an assessment program that enables field
`
`assessments within the context of the ’581 patent. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 91-95.)
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner has interpreted the scope of “assessment program”
`
`and “field assessment” broadly, alleging that FedEx uses “an assessment program
`
`(e.g., software designed to track delivery and pick up of packages, signature
`
`capture, and take and send geostamped photos of packages)” configured to enable
`
`–18–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`a “field assessment (e.g., configured to update the status of the package . . . ).” (Ex.
`
`1010 at 4.) SitePlanner®, which interactively assists field technicians in designing,
`
`troubleshooting, and optimizing a communications network, therefore falls within
`
`the scope of Patent Owner’s view of “assessment program” and “field assessment.”
`
`(Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 91-95.)
`
`Rappaport discloses or renders obvious using a handheld device to “access
`
`an assessment program stored in a memory of a computing device located
`
`geographically remote from the handheld device,” in at least two independent
`
`ways. (Ex. 1006 ¶ 96.) Each is discussed below.
`
`First, in Rappaport the handheld device (handheld computer 102) accesses
`
`the assessment program (SitePlanner®) stored in the memory of a computing
`
`device located geographically remote from the handheld device (server computer
`
`100) to exchange a network model and associated data with the assessment
`
`program. (Ex. 1002, 4:41-60, 6:45-58, 12:11-21, 14:16-54; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 97-107.)
`
`Rappaport states that the model is generated by the SitePlanner® assessment
`
`program and is a “3-D environmental database” representing the physical
`
`environment and the wireless network under study. (Ex. 1002, 6:45-58.) The model
`
`is viewed and manipulated by the SitePlanner® assessment program on the server
`
`computer and transferred between the handheld computer and the server computer.
`
`(E.g., id. at 14:16-54, 15:21-41, 12:17-21; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 97-107.) To interact with
`
`–19–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`the SitePlanner® assessment program, the handheld computer operates a
`
`complementary program, i.e., another SitePlanner® module. (Ex. 1002, 6:27-53
`
`(stating the software on the handheld device is part of the SitePlanner® “tool
`
`suite”); id. at 14:30-32 (describing “open[ing] a communication link” between the
`
`handheld computer 100 and remote server computer 100); Ex. 1006 ¶ 98.) The
`
`SitePlanner® assessment program on the remote server computer can export the
`
`model to the handheld computer. (Ex. 1002, 8:31-46.) In one embodiment, the
`
`handheld computer can collect data, upload the data to the remote server computer
`
`where analyses are performed, and receive the results of the analyses from the
`
`remote server computer. (Id. at 12:5-21, 15:21-53, 18:30-50.) By sending model
`
`edits (e.g., instructions) to the SitePlanner® assessment program over a
`
`communications link and in turn receiving an updated model, Rappaport’s
`
`handheld computer “accesses” the SitePlanner® assessment program stored on the
`
`remote server computer when communicating the network model and associated
`
`data to and from the remote server computer. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 97-99.)
`
`This way in which Rappaport’s handheld computer accesses an assessment
`
`program on the server computer is consistent with a ’581 patent embodiment
`
`where handheld device 10 is remotely linked to a remote management system 58
`
`that can provide instructions or programs to users. (Ex. 1001, 7:31-49;
`
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 100.).) In this embodiment, the device users provide the data which is
`
`–20–
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`then analyzed by remote management system 58 to generate and provide a report.
`
`(Id. at 8:2-8.)
`
`Moreover, Rappaport’s access is consistent with the statement made during
`
`prosecution discussed in Section III.B that “[t]he distinction is between accessing
`
`an assessment program and accessing a database storing data.” (Ex. 1007 at 71-72.)
`
`In Rappaport, the handheld computer is accessing the server computer and
`
`assessment program to communicate the entire network model itself, or to
`
`communicate updates to and analysis of that model. (Ex. 1006 ¶ 101.) Rappaport
`
`therefore provides more than just database access. (Id.)
`
`To the extent Patent Owner argues that communicating the network model
`
`and associated analysis data in Rappaport does not expressly disclose accessing a
`
`remote assessment program, such a feature would have been obvio