`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`FedEx Corporation,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`_________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 1
`
`IV Exhibit 2120
`FedEx v. IV
`Case IPR2017-02043
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged ............... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ............................................... 3
`
`Statutory Ground ................................................................................... 3
`
`III. The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to Institute This Petition .............. 4
`
`IV.
`
`’715 Patent Overview ...................................................................................... 6
`
`V.
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art. .........................................................10
`
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`“Supply Chain” ....................................................................................11
`
`VII. Ground 1: Smith and Bauer Render Obvious Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11,
`14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................12
`
`A. Overview of Smith ...............................................................................12
`
`B. Overview of Bauer ..............................................................................21
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Combine Smith and Bauer ..............25
`
`Smith and Bauer Renders Obvious Each Element of Claims 1,
`4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, and 25. .......................................30
`
`VIII. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................70
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................70
`
`Related Matters ....................................................................................70
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel ...................................................................71
`
`Service Information .............................................................................71
`
`IX. Grounds for Standing .....................................................................................71
`
`X.
`
`Fee Payments .................................................................................................72
`
`–ii–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 2
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`XI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................72
`
`
`
`
`
`–iii–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 3
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715 to Fields et al. (“the ’715 patent”).
`
`Exhibit 1002.
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/069,788.
`
`Exhibit 1003.
`
`Declaration of Jason Hill, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1004.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,312,752 to Smith et al. (“Smith”).
`
`Exhibit 1005.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,321,302 to Bauer et al. (“Bauer“).
`
`Exhibit 1006.
`
`Exhibit 1007.
`
`Exhibit 1008.
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`v. FedEx Corp. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00980 (Aug. 31, 2016),
`ECF No. 1.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II Claim Chart Alleging FedEx
`Infringement of the ’715 patent.
`
`Exhibit C to Intellectual Ventures II Infringement Contentions
`of January 17, 2017 in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx
`Corp. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00980 (Aug. 31, 2016).
`
`Exhibit 1009.
`
`Institution Decision (Paper No. 7), FedEx Corp. v. Intellectual
`Ventures II LLC, Case IPR2017-00787 (PTAB).
`
`Exhibit 1010.
`
`Excerpt of Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.
`
`
`
`
`
`–iv–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 4
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00506, Paper 25 (Dec. 10, 2014) .......................................................... 4
`
`FedEx Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`Case IPR2017-00787 ............................................................................ 1, 5, 22, 72
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp. et al.,
`No. 2:16-cv-980 (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................................... 71
`
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 62
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 3, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 71
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................. 72
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`–v–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 5
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Introduction
`Petitioner FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”) requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, and 25 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,199,715 (“the ’715 patent”) (EX-1001), assigned to Intellectual Ventures II, LLC
`
`(“IV”). FedEx requests the Board to institute review and cancel the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`FedEx filed an earlier Petition challenging the ’715 patent (IPR2017-00787),
`
`but the Board only instituted review of claims 1, 2, 11, and 12. EX-1009. Since the
`
`first petition, IV has identified in its Infringement Contentions the claims it
`
`specifically asserts against FedEx. EX-1007; EX-1008. This Petition is limited in
`
`scope, raising one ground challenging only the asserted claims—most of which
`
`will not be reviewed in IPR2017-00787. FedEx respectfully requests the Board to
`
`institute review of this Petition so that FedEx may use the IPR process to challenge
`
`the specific claims IV asserts against it.
`
`This Petition addresses the reasons the Board partially instituted review in
`
`IPR2017-00787. In its Institution Decision, the Board denied Ground 2 combining
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,952,645 (“Jones”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,321,302
`
`(“Bauer”). EX-1009 3. The Board partially denied review because it found “Jones
`
`is directed to tracking … vehicles” while “Bauer … is directed to using RFID tags
`
`on inventory items to assist in inventory management.” Id. 28. Petitioner
`
`–1–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 6
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`respectfully submits that the ’715 patent claims concern tracking tags, so the
`
`object--vehicle or inventory--is not relevant, particularly under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard. Jones attaches tracking units to vehicles, similar
`
`to how Bauer attaches tags to inventory objects to track the objects.
`
`Ground 1 here substitutes Jones for Smith. As detailed below, Smith is
`
`analogous to Bauer because Smith also discloses a system that tracks assets using
`
`tags, which can be RFID tags, throughout a facility like a hospital or other multi-
`
`floor building. Thus, this Petition’s use of Smith addresses the Board’s reasons for
`
`partially denying review in the earlier IPR. For similar reasons, the combination of
`
`Smith and Bauer here is substantially different from the combination of Jones and
`
`Bauer in the earlier Petition.
`
`The ’715 relates to tracking tags as they travel in a business process. EX-
`
`1001 Abstract. Tracking includes, for example, receiving tag-read information
`
`from tags attached to packages at successive points in the business process,
`
`time-stamping these readings, and recording the information in a database. Id.
`
`1:7-15. The ’715 patent also discloses and claims modifying information in the
`
`database based on other information in the database, such as estimating the
`
`location of a tag when it can’t be read. See id. 2:1-18, 6:43-55, 7:1-9, 10:57-11:9.
`
`As explained below, Smith discloses a similar technique of tagging assets and
`
`tracking the tags through a facility, such as a hospital or other building, receiving
`
`–2–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 7
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`location measurements and environmental measurements from the tags, storing
`
`them in a database, and modifying information in the database based on other
`
`information in the database. Bauer discloses a similar system tracking tagged
`
`inventory items in different business environments, such as retail stores,
`
`warehouses, and supermarkets. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`would have been motivated to combine the references and the similarity in the two
`
`systems would have provided a reasonable expectation of success in making the
`
`combination.
`
`FedEx respectfully requests the Board to institute review and cancel the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`II.
`
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged
`
` Claims for Which Review Is Requested A.
`FedEx requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 and cancelation of claims 1, 4,
`
`5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, and 25 of the ’715 patent (“the challenged
`
`claims”).
`
`Statutory Ground
`B.
`
`Ground 1: U.S. Patent No. 7,312,752 to Smith (EX-1004) and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,321,302 to Bauer (EX-1005) render obvious claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15,
`
`17, 19, 22, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Smith: Smith is a U.S. patent filed October 18, 2004 and issued on
`
`December 25, 2007, and thus qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`–3–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 8
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`Bauer: Bauer is a U.S. patent filed January 23, 2003 and issued November
`
`27, 2012, so it also qualifies prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
` The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to Institute This Petition III.
`
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests the Board to exercise its discretion to
`
`institute review of this Petition. The Board has discretionary power to grant a
`
`second petition based on the particular circumstances of the case. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d); see also Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`
`IPR2014-00506, Paper 25 at 3-4 (Dec. 10, 2014). The circumstances here warrant
`
`consideration and grating of this Petition.
`
`Petitioner filed an earlier petition challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 11, 12,
`
`14, 15, 17–20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29 of the ’715 patent, but the Board only
`
`instituted review of claims 1, 2, 11, and 12. EX-1009. Since that time, Patent
`
`Owner has specifically identified which claims it asserts against Petitioner in the
`
`related litigation. EX-1007; EX-1008. This Petition presents just one Ground
`
`challenging the subset of asserted claims, which includes several claims the Board
`
`will not review in the other proceeding.
`
`The Petition applies a new prior art reference (Smith) that addresses the
`
`reasons the Board partially instituted review of the earlier petition. The earlier
`
`petition combined Jones and Bauer. EX-1009. The Board rejected Petitioner’s
`
`evidence supporting this combination and found that a POSITA would not have
`
`–4–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 9
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`combined Jones and Bauer because “Jones is clear that [a] vehicle, not [a]
`
`package, is what is tracked.” EX1009 at 24. According to the Board, Jones does
`
`not describe the vehicles as “products in inventory being transported, but rather as
`
`the carriers of the products in inventory from one point in the supply chain to the
`
`next.” Id. at 26. Given this distinction, the Board found that “Petitioner d[id] not
`
`explain persuasively why Jones would have been modified, per Bauer’s teaching of
`
`multiple tag readers for reading RFID tags, to have multiple tag readers at multiple
`
`locations.” Id. 34. Petitioner believed in good faith that the Jones-Bauer
`
`combination fully addressed the challenged claims. Nevertheless, and respecting
`
`the Board’s decision otherwise, Petitioner respectfully requests this opportunity to
`
`address concerns that Board raised in IPR2017-00787.
`
`This Petition’s application of Smith instead of Jones directly addresses the
`
`Board’s concerns with the Jones-Bauer combination because Smith discloses a
`
`system 100 that uses tags 170, which can be RFID tags, to track objects “within an
`
`area of a facility covered by system 100.” EX-1004 4:7-12. Similar to Bauer, Smith
`
`discloses applying the tags 170 to “any object or asset for which tracking is
`
`desired,” Id. 4:25-27 (emphasis added); see also id. 4:27-29. Beacon emitters 130
`
`placed at different locations throughout the facility send beacon signals to cause
`
`reading of the tags at those locations. See, e.g., id. EX-1004 4:31-5:2, 5:60-7:46.
`
`Smith teaches that the facility relates to a business, such as “a hospital with several
`
`–5–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 10
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`floors,” id., 8:6-19, or another “multifloor building.” Id. 28:63-64, 32:53-67; see
`
`also id. claims 1, 2 (“method for real-time position location of an object within an
`
`indoor multiple floor facility”). Because Smith and Bauer both track tagged objects
`
`(including using RFID tags) throughout a business, it would have been clear to a
`
`POSITA how to combine them, as explained below. Additionally, because of the
`
`differences between Smith and Jones, the disclosures and arguments in this Petition
`
`substantially differ from the earlier petition, so Board should use its discretion to
`
`institute review.
`
`Additionally, the public has in interest in properly considering the invalidity
`
`of the challenged claims, as the claimed object-tracking techniques were known
`
`when the underlying application was filed. Petitioner, therefore, respectfully
`
`requests that the Board consider the Petition on the merits and exercise its
`
`discretion to institute review.
`
`IV.
`
`
`’715 Patent Overview
`
`The ’715 patent was filed on March 1, 2005, as U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 11/069,788. EX-1001. The ’715 patent is directed to tracking tags as they
`
`travel along a business process. EX-1001, Abstract. The ’715 patent discloses that
`
`“a tag may be any device or marking.” Id. 3:45-52. The tags are tracked or
`
`monitored at successive points in the business process, as depicted in Figure 2:
`
`–6–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 11
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`EX-1001, FIG. 2*1
`The ’715 patent explains that a processor 108 receives tag read information
`
`
`
`as the tags travel along the business process. 4:3-10. Processor 108 analyzes
`
`recorded tag 102 identifications with the read time the tag passes respective reader.
`
`Id. 3:63-65. It then populates database 110 with tag read information. Id. 4:20-29.
`
`Thus, disclosed methods include receiving tag read information from tags carried
`
`by packages through several points in the business process, time-stamping these
`
`readings, and recording the information in a database. Id. 1:7-15.
`
`Because processor 108 may receive incomplete data for any given point
`
`along the business process, or not receive any tag data at all, the disclosed process
`
`include “modifying” the collected tag read data based on other information in the
`
`database. Id. 3:55-62, 9:54-10:2. For example, as noted above, this may include
`
`
`1 Petitioner identifies annotated figures with “*”.
`
`–7–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 12
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`filling in missing or incomplete data based on knowledge of the approximate travel
`
`time between successive points, the intended route, subsequent tag read
`
`information reflecting that the tag has otherwise traveled along the intended route
`
`as expected, etc. Id.
`
`For example, processor 108 may estimate the expected position of the
`
`missing tag based on “other information” in the database. Id. 6:43-55. Specifically,
`
`processor 108 fills the cells in the database using the data modification tool 112
`
`based on, e.g., other tag reads, estimated positioning, travel time, or distance. Id.
`
`6:28-55. Table 4 of the ’715 patent provides such an example, where processor 108
`
`modifies the database for tags C and D to reflected an expected read time of 12:30
`
`for the third read point based on such “other data”:
`
`EX-1001, Table 4*
`
`
`
`The ’715 patent includes claims very broadly directed to these concepts,
`
`which, as detailed below, were well-known to wireless tag tracking before the
`
`–8–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 13
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`earliest claimed priority date of the ’715 patent. Claim 1 is representative of the
`
`independent claims and recites:
`
`1. A method of tracking tags at several successive points of a business
`process, said method comprising:
`attempting to read each tag at each successive point;
`populating a database with information corresponding to the
`reading of each tag at each successive point and the time of each
`reading;
`modifying part of the information in the database as a function of
`other information in the database; and
`using the modified information to track the tags through the
`business process.
`
`11. A system of tracking tags at several successive points of a business
`process, said system comprising:
`a reader for reading each tag at each successive point and the time
`of each reading;
`a database;
`a processor responsive to the reader for storing in the database
`information corresponding to the reading of each tag at each
`successive point and the time of each reading; and
`a tool for modifying part of the information stored in the database
`as a function of other information stored in the database whereby the
`modified information is used to track the tags through the business
`process.
`Independent claim 19 embodies substantially the same concepts, and recites:
`
`19. A method of supplying products carrying tags wherein the
`products are handled in a supply chain during which the products and
`their tags pass several tag reading points, said method comprising:
`populating a database with information corresponding to the
`reading of each tag at each tag reading point and the time of each
`reading;
`
`–9–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 14
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`modifying part of the information in the database as a function
`of other information in the database; and
`adjusting the supply chain as a function of the modified
`information.
`
`A POSITA of the alleged invention of the ’715 patent would have held at
`
` The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art. V.
`
`least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical
`
`Engineering, or an equivalent or related field and at least two years of work
`
`experience or practical post-graduate work in the area of wireless tracking systems.
`
`EX-1003 ¶¶[008]-[013], [031]-[032]. In the prior proceeding involving the ’715
`
`patent, the Patent Owner did not dispute this level of skill and the Board adopted it.
`
`EX-1009 11.
`
` Claim Construction2
`VI.
`A claim in an unexpired patent subject to IPR receives the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The broadest reasonable construction should be
`
`
`2 While additional claim terms may warrant construction, any such terms do
`
`not affect the analysis in this Petition. Additional terms may be construed in the
`
`related district court litigation. Because IPR procedures do not permit challenges
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Petitioner has not included any such arguments. Petitioner
`
`may, however, raise such arguments in other proceedings.
`
`–10–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 15
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`applied to all claim terms in the ’715 patent. Petitioner submits that, for the
`
`purposes of this Petition, no explicit construction is needed for any claim term not
`
`addressed below.
`
`“Supply Chain”
`
`A.
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “supply chain” includes inventory
`
`and
`
`inventory management because
`
`the ’715 patent describes
`
`inventory
`
`management as an aspect of supply chain management. EX-1003 ¶[020]. For
`
`example, claim 5 of the ’715 patent recites that “adjusting the supply chain
`
`comprises varying the supply of additional products to the supply chain” (emphasis
`
`added). Similarly, claim 7 recites that “adjusting the supply chain comprises
`
`adjusting the handling of the products during the supply chain as a function of the
`
`modified information in the database” (emphasis added). The specifically similarly
`
`describes inventory management as a component of supply chain management.
`
`See, e.g., EX-1001 1:50-65 (explaining alleged invention may reduce “inventory
`
`(safety stock) by analyzing inventory movement to identify ways to reduce supply
`
`chain variability thereby enabling safety stock reduction” (emphasis added)); see
`
`also id. 11:29-36; EX-1003 ¶[020]. Petitioner’s construction is consistent with
`
`Patent Owner’s allegations in the related litigation. See, e.g., EX-1007 2-3
`
`(alleging that supply chain management includes “keep[ing] track of its
`
`–11–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 16
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`inventory”), 36 (sorting products), 59 (computing the “quantity of products at a
`
`certain place in their respective lifecycles”).
`
` Ground 1: Smith and Bauer Render Obvious Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14,
`VII.
`15, 17, 19, 22, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
` Overview of Smith
`A.
`Similar to the ’715 patent and Bauer described below, Smith tracks RFID-
`
`tagged assets throughout a business using readers placed at various locations
`
`throughout the facility. EX-1003 ¶¶[034]-[049]. Specifically, Smith discloses a
`
`system 100 that tracks tags 170 “within an area of a facility covered by
`
`system 100.” EX-1004 4:6-13. The facility relates to a business, such as “a hospital
`
`with several floors,” EX-1004 8:6-19, or another “multifloor building.” Id. 28:63-
`
`64, 32:53-67; see also id. claims 1, 2 (“method for real-time position location of an
`
`object within an
`
`indoor multiple
`
`floor
`
`facility”). There are “many
`
`tags 170 mounted on assets throughout the facility.”3 Id. 8:18-19.
`
`
`3 Smith sometimes refers to a tagged asset as an “object 170.” See, e.g., id.
`
`4:8, 4:25-32, 6:14, 6:42-47, 6:49-64, 11:10-14, 16:41-48, 26:16-21; EX-1003
`
`¶[035]. As Smith explains, “An object 170 may also be referred to herein as a
`
`mobile device or a tag. A tag may be a device that is attached to the object for
`
`which tracking is desired.” EX-1004 4:26-29 (emphases added).
`
`–12–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 17
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`EX-1004, FIG. 1
`
`
`
`Smith teaches that the tag may be an RFID tag, like the tags of the ’715
`
`patent and Bauer. Id. 14:28-38, 17:19-39.
`
`–13–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 18
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`EX-1004, FIG. 8.
`
`
`
`The above figure shows the structure of the tag. Id. 14:9-18:54. It has a transceiver
`
`820, and
`
`transceiver 820 may be capable of making various RF
`measurements. For
`example,
`transceiver 820 may
`measure each beacon [from a plurality of beacon emitters
`130] and store a Received Signal Strength Indicator
`(RSSI) for each beacon. An average RSSI may be
`computed for each beacon to produce an Average Access
`Point Beacon Signal Strength (AAPBSS). Any number of
`other RF measurements may also be made. One or more
`of these measurements may be transmitted to the
`
`–14–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 19
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`positioning engine, optionally based on various
`conditions, examples of which are detailed throughout
`this specification.
`Id. 14:28-38. Smith teaches that, “[w]hen a signal is detected from the transceiver
`
`(for example the presence of an RFID reader) the tag may perform one or more
`
`actions, such as computing location, transmitting data on another transceiver,
`
`changing power states, etc.” Id. 17:21-25. Thus, Smith’s tag can be an RFID tag
`
`like the tags in the ’715 patent and Bauer.
`
`Also shown in FIG. 8 of Smith, the tag 170 has “[s]ensors 840 … connected
`
`to processor 830 for measuring various other environment conditions local to
`
`tag 170, for transmission to location-position engine 110 via transceiver 820.” Id.
`
`15:44-45. The measured environmental conditions include, for example, “the
`
`presence of radiation, biological agents, certain chemicals, or may record air
`
`temperature, pressure, humidity, movement, acceleration, etc.” Id. 15:48-51.
`
`As FIG. 1 also illustrates, Smith’s system 100 has several beacon emitters
`
`130 placed throughout the business facility to facilitate reading the tags, just like
`
`the ’715 patent and Bauer. EX-1003 ¶[040]. Specifically, “[a] plurality of beacon
`
`emitters 130 may be deployed for generating beacons, or more generically as
`
`source signals, throughout some or all of the environment.” EX-1004 4:33-36. The
`
`tags 170 “receiv[e] and measure[e] characteristics of the received beacon signals,
`
`and optionally measure[e] other environment parameters, [and] transmit[] the
`
`–15–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 20
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`measurements to positioning engine 110 via one of a variety of connections.” Id.
`
`4:36-40.
`
`Smith also discloses a computing system including a positioning engine 110
`
`(see FIG. 1 above), in a role similar to the ’715 patent’s processor 108, that
`
`maintains and updates a database of information related to the measurements
`
`received from the tags. EX-1003 ¶[041]. Smith’s FIG. 17 shows the general
`
`structure of the positioning engine.
`
`EX-1004, FIG. 17.
`
`
`
`As FIG. 17 shows, the positioning engine has a “[d]atabase 1710 [that] may
`
`store any number of past locations for each asset being tracked as well as other
`
`environment data recorded.” Id. 25:47-49. The database also stores “an updated
`
`mapped space” of the facility in Smith. Id. 27:52-54.
`
`–16–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 21
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`Smith discloses that the positioning engine modifies and updates the
`
`information stored in the database as a function of the measurements from the tags
`
`like the processor of the ’715 patent. EX-1003 ¶[043]. For example, Smith explains
`
`that the model 1710 (FIG. 17) of the positioning engine “receives tag data as well
`
`as other data” and “determine[s] a position for the particular tag in accordance with
`
`data stored in database 1710.” EX-1004 25:33-36. The positioning engine
`
`“periodically … store[s] the position for each tag. Or, the position for each tag may
`
`be determined in response to a location query. In either case, a location result may
`
`be generated in response to a location query for one or more assets being tracked
`
`by system 100.” Id. 25:42-47. Thus, positioning engine uses a model stored in the
`
`database to modify other information stored in the database, like the processor of
`
`the ’715 patent. EX-1003 ¶[43].
`
`–17–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 22
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`In FIG. 3, Smith shows “[a] subset of components and functions typically
`
`found in a positioning engine” for creating and updating the mapped space stored
`
`in the database. Id. 10:22-25; EX-1003 ¶[044].
`
`EX-1004, FIG. 3
`
`
`
`The positioning engine includes a “[n]etwork monitor updating function 310 …
`
`us[ing] one or more of the measurements, in conjunction with measurements from
`
`other sensors and/or objects, including past measurements, to update the mapped
`
`–18–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 23
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`space 320.”4 EX-1004 10:31-35. “The mapped space 320 may be monitored and
`
`mapped, over time, according to changing variables such as temperature, humidity,
`
`etc., as described above.” Id. 10:45-48.
`
`Smith discloses that the position engine modifies information stored in the
`
`database based on other information stored in the database in other ways. For
`
`example, Smith discloses that “database [1710] may include … known locations of
`
`calibration points, both static and dynamic, past and present location estimates for
`
`one or more objects, functions, parameters, etc. for use in position location.” EX-
`
`1004 25:35-42 (emphasis added). Thus, the calibration points are also stored in the
`
`database 1710. And Smith teaches that the positioning engine determines and
`
`updates the locations of the tags and updates the mapped space using the
`
`calibration points. See, e.g. id. 11:55-60; 25:24-31, 26:50-27:33, 27:26-36
`
`(discussing using the known, stored calibration points to determine locations of the
`
`tags).
`
`4 Smith sometimes discusses
`
`the positioning engine receiving
`
`the
`
`measurements from a “network monitor” rather than a “tag.” But Smith explains
`
`that “[a] [tagged] object 170 may also serve as a network monitor or beacon
`
`emitter, in various alternate embodiments.” Id. 10:63-67. Thus, the network
`
`monitors discussed in Smith can be tags 170 attached to assets tracked in the
`
`facility. EX-1003 ¶[045].
`
`–19–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 24
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`In fact, Smith discloses that its positioning engine modifies information
`
`stored in the database in the same way as the main example discussed in ’715
`
`patent: interpolating or estimating the location of tags, based on information in the
`
`database, in the absence of actual or reliable measurements from those tags. EX-
`
`1003 ¶[047]; EX-1001 3:55-62, 9:54-10:2. For example, Smith teaches that the
`
`mapped space “may be estimated for locations interspersed between the network
`
`monitors using interpolation techniques, and may be updated over time.” EX-1004
`
`10:38-41 (emphasis added); EX-1003 ¶[047]; see also id. 29:4-34:19 (describing
`
`the processes for error estimation and accuracy enhancement). Thus, although the
`
`challenged claims do not require this narrower example of the claimed
`
`“modifying,” Smith discloses it. EX-1003 ¶[047].
`
`Petitioner notes that a POSITA would understand FIGS. 3 and 17 to show
`
`different aspects of the positioning engine. EX-1003 ¶[048]. Indeed, Smith explains
`
`that FIG. 3 shows “[a] subset of components and functions typically found in a
`
`positioning engine” for updating the mapped space. EX-1004 10:22-35 (emphasis
`
`added); EX-1003 ¶[048]. That is, FIG. 3 shows a subset of the components of the
`
`positioning engine, not an entirely different positioning engine. EX-1003 ¶[048].
`
`FIG. 17 shows the general structure of the positioning engine while FIG. 3 focuses
`
`on the components for creating and maintaining the mapped space, specifically.
`
`Id.; compare EX-1004 10:21-11:14 with id. 25:31-26:3. Consistent with this, the
`
`–20–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 25
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`discussion for FIG. 3 provides detail about creating and updating the mapped space
`
`and precedes a flowchart (FIG. 4) describing this process. EX-1004 10:21-11:60,
`
`FIG. 4; EX-1003 ¶[048]. The discussion for FIG. 17 mentions the mapped space
`
`but leaves out detail about its creation and updating because it has already been
`
`explained. EX-1004 25:32-26:3; EX-1003 ¶[048]. Additionally, Smith links the
`
`structures of the two figures by explaining that the mapped space of FIG. 3 is
`
`stored in the database 1710 shown in FIG. 17. EX-1004 25:47-54 (“In other words,
`
`database 1710 is one embodiment comprising an updated mapped space.”); EX-
`
`1003 ¶[048].
`
`Thus, Smith discloses and/or renders obvious many of the features of the
`
`challenged ’715 patent claims.
`
` Overview of Bauer
`B.
`FedEx generally agrees with the Board’s characterization of Bauer i