Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`Entered: September 20, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONITOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CENTRAK, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`____________
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`Entered: September 20, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONITOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CENTRAK, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`____________
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Sonitor Technologies, Inc. (“Sonitor”) filed a Petition
`
`(Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–14 and 21–331
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,622,030 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’030 patent”) pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(a). Patent Owner Centrak, Inc. (“Centrak”) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 313.
`
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
`
`see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). After considering the evidence and arguments
`
`presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude that the
`
`information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Sonitor would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any challenged
`
`claim of the ’030 patent.
`
`Therefore, for the following reasons, we decline to institute an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–14 and 21–33 of the ’030 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Centrak represents that a statutory disclaimer has been filed for claims 15–
`20, 34, and 35. Prelim. Resp. 1. A terminal disclaimer was, in fact, entered
`on June 26, 2018. Ex. 3001. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e), “[n]o inter
`partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” We also note
`that a Certificate of Correction was entered on September 11, 2018,
`correcting an error in now-disclaimed claim 20.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`A. The ’030 Patent2
`
`The ’030 patent generally relates to “real-time location” (“RTL”)
`
`systems for determining the location and identity of portable devices (e.g.,
`
`tags that may be attached to people or equipment), using signals sent
`
`between the devices and fixed base stations. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`The Background of the Invention (Ex. 1001, 1:24–62) explains that
`
`RTL systems using radio frequency (“RF”) and infrared (“IR”) transmitters
`
`were known in the prior art but that the prior art systems have various
`
`drawbacks. Conventional tag-based IR transmitters, for example, require a
`
`line-of-sight connection with IR receivers, making them prone to lack of
`
`reception if the line of sight is blocked and limiting their reliability. Ex.
`
`1001, 1:30–42. Also, because the receivers are “open” at all times, they are
`
`generally hard-wired for power and connectivity, increasing the installation
`
`complexity and cost. Id. at 1:42–45. An alternative arrangement employs
`
`transmitters with substantially higher transmission power in the base stations
`
`and receivers in the tags; this helps with reliability, but not with the need for
`
`hard-wiring. Id. at 1:46–51. The high burst repetition rates from the
`
`transmitters, however, can result in interference with, for example, television
`
`remote controls in hospital rooms, whereas systems that transmit relatively
`
`infrequently in order to avoid causing interference are problematic because
`
`they need to search continuously for IR signals with an open IR receiver and
`
`thereby drain battery power in the tags. Id. at 1:52–62.
`
`
`
`2 Case IPR2014-01219 involved the same parties, but a different patent,
`U.S. Patent No. 8,604,909 B1, which is in the same family as the ’030
`patent. See Pet. 71. Institution was denied in that case.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`The ’030 patent acknowledges that there were known RTL systems
`
`with base stations that transmitted IR signals (i.e., IR base stations) with
`
`their respective base station ID (“BS-ID”) to portable devices (tags) that are
`
`equipped with IR receivers. Ex. 1001, 2:60–63. The base stations are
`
`typically located in different physical open spaces to avoid “dead zones” that
`
`may be generated by overlapping signals because the timing of the signal
`
`transmissions from the base stations are not coordinated. Id. at 3:36–40.
`
`Because this configuration typically relies on base stations that are
`
`connected to a power source, the base stations transmit at a much higher
`
`power to improve reception reliability. Id. at 3:3–9. These base stations
`
`also typically transmit a BS-ID continually (or almost continually) and,
`
`therefore, the portable device has no indication of when the transmissions
`
`occur and must be able to receive the signals at any time. Id. at 3:10–15.
`
`Once the portable device receives a BS-ID transmitted by a base station, “the
`
`portable device transmits both the device ID and the received BS-ID to a
`
`reception device, for example, by radio frequency (RF) or IR transmission.”
`
`Id. at 2:63–66. From the information received from the portable device, the
`
`location of the device may be determined based on the known location of the
`
`respective base station associated with the BS-ID received. Id. at 2:66–3:3.
`
`The invention of the ’030 patent seeks to improve the performance of
`
`the known RTL systems by transmitting timing synchronization information
`
`(“TSI”) to “provide a unified time of origin” to coordinate the transmission
`
`of the various signals transmitted during operation. Ex. 1001, 3:53–60.
`
`“After a predefined period of time from the unified time of origin, the IR
`
`base stations may transmit their corresponding BS-IDs.” Id. at 3:61–63. In
`
`addition, “[t]he portable device may open communication to receive the BS-
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`ID after the same predetermined period of time from the unified time of
`
`origin.” Id. at 3:63–65. By coordinating the base stations and the portable
`
`devices to a unified time of origin, the ’030 patent contends power
`
`consumption by the portable device may be reduced because it can be in
`
`sleep mode when it is not in a state of transmission or reception. Id. at 3:67–
`
`4:4.
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 of the ’030 patent is illustrative of the claimed invention and
`
`it is reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight the limitations
`
`Centrak contends distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
`
`1. A system comprising:
`
`a server;
`
`one or more portable devices, each portable device having a
`respective portable device ID;
`
`one or more ultrasonic base stations;
`
`a plurality of RF base stations coupled to a backbone network, at
`least a first RF base station of the plurality of RF base stations
`configured to transmit timing synchronization information
`(TSI) to the one or more ultrasonic base stations, wherein:
`
`one ultrasonic base station of the one or more ultrasonic base
`stations is configured to receive the TSI and to transmit an
`ultrasonic signal including an ultrasonic base station ID
`at a time determined from the received TSI, the ultrasonic
`base station ID being associated with a location of the one
`ultrasonic base station;
`
`the portable device is configured: 1) to detect the ultrasonic
`base station ID from the received ultrasonic signal, 2) to
`store the ultrasonic base station ID as a digital value, and
`3) to transmit an RF output signal including the ultrasonic
`base station ID and the portable device ID to a second RF
`base station of the plurality of RF base stations:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`the second RF base station is configured to 1) receive the
`signal from portable device, and 2) send the portable
`device ID and the ultrasonic base station ID to the server;
`and
`
`the server is configured to receive the portable device ID and
`the ultrasonic base station ID from the second RF base
`station and to associate the portable device having the
`portable device ID with the location of the ultrasonic base
`station having the base station ID.
`
`C. Evidence Relied Upon
`
`In addition to the Declaration of Gary Michael Gaukler, Ph.D.
`
`(Ex. 1003, “Gaukler Dec.”), Sonitor relies on the following prior art:
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0061967 A1,
`published March 13, 2008, filed November 12, 2007 (Ex. 1005,
`“Corrado”);3
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,970,097 B2, issued November 29, 2005
`(Ex. 1006, “Welles”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,917,425, issued June 29, 1999 (Ex. 1008,
`“Crimmins”);
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0124306 A1,
`published June 9, 2005 (Ex. 1007, “Cheng”); and
`
`O’Hara, B. and Petrick, A., IEEE 802.11 Handbook A Designer’s
`Companion, Standards Information Network IEEE Press (1999)
`(Ex. 1009, “O’Hara”).
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Sonitor challenges claims 1–14 and 21–33 of the ’030 patent on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`
`
`3 Petitioner argues that Corrado is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because
`the earliest possible effective filing date for the challenged claims, according
`to Petitioner, is January 18, 2008. See Pet. 5–9.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Corrado and Welles
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12,
`14, 24, 29
`
`Corrado, Welles, and Crimmins
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`23, 28
`
`Corrado, Welles, and Cheng
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`7, 8
`
`Corrado, Welles, and O’Hara
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`3, 5, 10, 11, 13,
`21, 22, 25–27,
`30
`
`Corrado, Welles, Cheng, and
`O’Hara
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`31–33
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Sonitor’s challenges to the patentability of claims 1–14 and 21–33 in
`
`this Petition are all based on their alleged obviousness in view of the prior
`
`art. Pet. 3. A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if “the
`
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
`
`are such that the subject as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3)
`
`the level of skill in the art; and, when in evidence, (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`Cir. 2016). The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner.
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition in accordance
`
`with the above-stated principles. In each of Sonitor’s alleged grounds of
`
`unpatentability for the challenged claims (either directly for independent
`
`claims 1, 2, 7, and 9, or indirectly for the dependent claims), Sonitor asserts,
`
`inter alia, that the Welles disclosure, along with the Gaukler Declaration,
`
`demonstrates that modifying the real-time location system described in
`
`Corrado to transmit and use timing synchronization information (“TSI”) in
`
`the manner claimed would have been an obvious adaptation for a skilled
`
`artisan at the time of the invention. See Pet. 15–19, 23–24, 31–32, 41, 43.
`
`Centrak contends Sonitor’s showing in this regard is deficient because it
`
`relies on unsubstantiated factual assertions and an internally inconsistent
`
`rationale for combining Corrado and Welles. Prelim. Resp. 16–36. After
`
`considering the submitted evidence and the parties’ contentions about what
`
`the evidence shows, we agree with Centrak for the following reasons.
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Sonitor contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`
`[had] at least a Bachelor’s degree in engineering, computer science, or
`
`related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years of
`
`experience with [real-time location systems].” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20).
`
`Additionally, Sonitor asserts, a skilled artisan “would have been familiar
`
`with various types of [real-time location systems] techniques including
`
`RFID, IR, Wi-Fi, and [ultrasonic], and would have been familiar with
`
`synchronization in wireless networks.” Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`Patent Owner does not provide an assessment of the appropriate level of
`
`skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`We are persuaded that the assessment proposed by Sonitor is correct.
`
`Further, in this case, the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of
`
`skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Tech.,
`
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under that standard, we
`
`generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007).
`
`Sonitor proposes a construction for “base station.” See Pet. 10–11.
`
`Centrak does not respond to Sonitor’s proposed construction of this term;
`
`nor does Centrak suggest any other term needs interpretation. Our decision
`
`in this case does not depend on the meaning of “base station” and, moreover,
`
`we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes
`
`of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor
`
`Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (explaining that only
`
`those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to
`
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`C. Overview of Corrado
`
`The method and systems that Corrado describe relate to the field of
`
`active multi-modal Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags and systems,
`
`which generally consist of a system of illuminators, readers, and tags for In
`
`Transit Visibility (ITV) and Total Asset Management (TAM). Ex. 1005 ¶ 2.
`
`More specifically, Corrado describes “RFID tags that are bimodal, that is,
`
`tags that utilize a combination of Radio Frequency (RF) signals and
`
`localized secondary communication modes, principally Infra Red (IR) and
`
`ultrasound (US) communication and sensing.” Id. The reader and
`
`illuminator are communicatively coupled with the tag and adapted to
`
`provide command and control signals to the tag and receive data/information
`
`from it. Id. Abstract, ¶¶ 12, 16, 17, 67, 101, Figs. 1, 10. The tag is
`
`configured to look for an illuminator and report to a reader the ID of the
`
`illuminator that it “sees” (i.e., is capable of communicating with). Id. ¶¶ 12,
`
`16, 17, 67, 101, Figs. 1, 10. The detection history permits the tagged objects
`
`or persons to be tracked and located. Id.
`
`D. Overview of Welles
`
`Welles discloses “[a] location system and method for determining the
`
`location of a tagged item in a facility.” Ex. 1006, Abstract. The system
`
`includes a plurality of room transmitters, which are positioned in multiple
`
`areas within a facility and are configured to generate a unique signature. Id.
`
`at 1:61–64. One or more items are fitted with a location tag and the tag is
`
`configured to receive the unique signatures from the respective room
`
`transmitters. Id. at 1:44–54. The tags are further configured to transmit a
`
`signal to a location receiver that enables the tag to be located. Id. at 1:55–
`
`59.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`In one embodiment, the tag is configured to generate a signal having
`
`information regarding the identity of the tag and the signature of a room
`
`transmitter, which is received by a location receiver and used to determine
`
`the likely location and identity of the tag within a facility. Ex. 1006, 1:60–
`
`2:5, 7:1–27. In this embodiment, the system is able to determine the
`
`location and identity of the location tag based on the signal of the location
`
`tag. Id. at 2:3–5.
`
`In an alternative embodiment, the tag is configured to receive the
`
`signals transmitted by multiple room transmitters that each have a unique,
`
`time dependent signature. Ex. 1006, 2:11–29, 7:40–65. For example, a first
`
`room transmitter sends a time varying signal that varies between a first
`
`frequency and a second frequency and a second room transmitter sends a
`
`time varying signal that varies between a third frequency and a fourth
`
`frequency during the same time that the first room transmitter sends its time
`
`varying signal. Id. at 2:16–23, 7:44–50. This creates a synchronization
`
`between the transmission of the first and second room transmitters. After
`
`receiving these synchronized signals, the tag transmits a signal having
`
`information that allows an offset value for the time varying signals from the
`
`first and second room transmitters to be determined. Id. at 2:25–28, 7:50–
`
`62, 8:2–16. This information is received by a location receiver and used to
`
`locate the tag within a facility. Id. In this embodiment, the system is able to
`
`determine the location of the location tag based on the offset of the time
`
`varying signals from the first and second room transmitters. Id.
`
`E. Unpatentability Based on Corrado and Welles
`
`For the system in independent claim 1, the claim recites, inter alia,
`
`[1.4] a plurality of RF base stations coupled to a backbone
`network, at least a first RF base station of the plurality of RF base
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`synchronization
`timing
`transmit
`to
`stations configured
`information (TSI) to the one or more ultrasonic base stations,
`wherein:
`
`[1.5] one ultrasonic base station of the one or more
`ultrasonic base stations is configured to receive the TSI and
`to transmit an ultrasonic signal including an ultrasonic base
`station ID at a time determined from the received TSI, the
`ultrasonic base station ID being associated with a location of
`the one ultrasonic base station
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:63–15:7.4 Sonitor represents that the remaining independent
`
`claims 2, 7, and 9 likewise include substantially similar limitations. See Pet.
`
`31–32, 43. And Sonitor contends that these similar limitations are disclosed
`
`by the combination of Corrado and Welles for the same reasons they
`
`disclose the above elements 1.4 and 1.5 of claim 1. Id. Sonitor does not rely
`
`on Cummins, Cheng, or O’Hara for these limitations. See id. at 23–25.
`
`For limitation 1.4, Sonitor states, “Corrado does not disclose that its
`
`readers [i.e., RF base stations] are configured to transmit TSI to the
`
`illuminators (“ultrasonic base stations”).” Pet. 23; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 67.
`
`Sonitor asserts instead, “Welles discloses this limitation.” Pet. 23; see also
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 67. Regarding limitation 1.5, although an express representation
`
`is not made that Corrado does not disclose an ultrasonic base station
`
`“configured to receive the TSI and to transmit an ultrasonic signal
`
`[including an ultrasonic base station ID] at a time determined from the
`
`received TSI,” Sonitor nevertheless again relies solely on Welles to disclose
`
`this limitation. Pet. 24–25. To show it would have been obvious to a skilled
`
`
`
`4 Sonitor refers to these limitations as “1.4” and “1.5,” respectively, in the
`Petition and, thus, we have also modified the quoted claim language to
`include these references for clarity. See Pet. 23, 24.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`artisan to combine the teachings of Corrado and Welles to arrive at the
`
`claimed configuration, Sonitor argues that a skilled artisan “would have
`
`modified Corrado’s RF [base stations] to transmit synchronization
`
`information to the [ultrasonic base stations] to enable them to operate
`
`interference-free without a physical barrier between them,” which “would
`
`enable more accurate position estimates for the tag [i.e., portable device].”
`
`Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53). According to Sonitor, “Welles motivates
`
`this combination, stating that its synchronized system ‘allows accurate
`
`determination of the location of tag 254 within room 247.’” Id. (quoting
`
`Ex. 1006, 8:15–16).
`
`
`
`Sonitor’s basis for this contention is as follows. Because Corrado
`
`discloses a real-time location system with ultrasonic base stations that are
`
`not synchronized, the system is subject to interference that is caused by the
`
`ultrasonic base stations transmitting signals simultaneously, which prevents
`
`the portable devices from successfully decoding the signals transmitted. Pet.
`
`16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49; Ex. 1005 ¶ 101, Fig. 10). Corrado avoids this
`
`problem by separating the ultrasonic base stations outside the “field of view”
`
`of each other, either by spatially isolating them in different rooms or by
`
`adjusting their transmission properties. Id. “The purpose of limiting the
`
`field of view is to ideally have each [portable device] receive signals from
`
`only one [ultrasonic base station] at a time, even if multiple [ultrasonic base
`
`stations] are transmitting simultaneously.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 49. Nevertheless,
`
`Sonitor contends a skilled artisan recognized that there were advantages to
`
`being able to receive ultrasonic transmissions from multiple transmitters
`
`without interference, which was a “design goal that cannot be addressed
`
`simply by restricting the field of view.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`Sonitor asserts that Welles, which also discloses real-time location
`
`systems, shows a skilled artisan knew a solution to this interference problem
`
`was to synchronize the ultrasonic base stations “such that they can coexist in
`
`the same room but avoid interference by transmitting at different times.”
`
`Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:5–11; Ex. 1003 ¶ 51) (emphasis added). Sonitor
`
`contends, Welles also shows a skilled artisan recognized that implementing
`
`this synchronization of the ultrasonic base stations into the real-time location
`
`system Corrado discloses would have allowed for the location of a portable
`
`device to be determined more accurately. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:15–
`
`16; Ex. 1003 ¶ 53). Moreover, the modifications that were necessary for this
`
`adaptation would have been nothing more than “a combination of prior art
`
`elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Id. at 19
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). Thus, Sonitor concludes, the combination of Corrado
`
`and Welles disclose limitations 1.4 and 1.5 of claim 1. Id. at 23–24 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67, 69; Ex. 1006, 8:2–9).
`
`Centrak argues that Sonitor’s basis for combining Corrado and Welles
`
`in the manner claimed relies on a critical unfounded factual assertion about
`
`what Welles teaches and, when Welles is considered for what it is properly
`
`understood to teach, it actually undermines Sonitor’s reasoning. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 18–22. In particular, Centrak disputes that Welles teaches avoiding
`
`potential inference problems that may occur if a real-time location system
`
`like Corrado’s had multiple ultrasonic base stations with overlapping “fields
`
`of view” by transmitting their signals at different times. Id. at 16–19.
`
`Centrak contends that the evidence Sonitor cites from Welles is contrary to
`
`this proposition because, when those citations are viewed in context, they
`
`teach that the respective signals from the multiple different ultrasonic base
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`stations are actually to be transmitted at the same time. Id. at 19–20. This
`
`factual error, according to Centrak, undercuts the basis of Sonitor’s
`
`contention that Welles shows a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
`
`modify the real-time location system Corrado discloses in the manner
`
`claimed because modifying Corrado’s ultrasonic base stations to transmit
`
`their signals at the same time would significantly worsen interference
`
`problems and the system’s ability to locate accurately the portable device
`
`(i.e., tag). Id. at 21.
`
`Centrak’s opposition to Sonitor’s basis for combining Corrado and
`
`Welles in the manner claimed is well-founded. To establish a skilled artisan
`
`would have been motivated to synchronize the ultrasonic base stations of
`
`Corrado “such that they transmit signals at different times,” the only
`
`evidence Sonitor provides is the Welles disclosure at column 8, lines 5–11.5
`
`Pet. 17–18. Welles states,
`
`The signals [from locating receiver] 262A–C are synchronization
`codes that cause the transmitters 250, 252, and 264 to transmit
`their respective ultrasound signals at known times in a
`synchronized fashion as is shown for two exemplary transmitters
`in FIG. 19. Tag 254 receives these ultrasound signals after a
`delay caused by the distance from each room transmitter divided
`by the speed of sound.
`
`Ex. 1006, 8:5–11 (emphasis added). Illustrative Figure 19 of Welles is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`5 We note that the Gaukler Declaration makes the same representation and
`cites to the same passage from Welles as support. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–52. Dr.
`Gaukler, however, does not provide anything further to explain why this
`passage would have been understood by a skilled artisan in the manner
`alleged. Therefore, these representations have no more probative and/or
`evidentiary value than those made by Sonitor in the Petition.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`
`
`Above Figure 19 is a schematic trace of the signals from two room
`transmitters illustrating a synchronized condition.
`
`Column 8, lines 5–11, and Figure 19 from Welles, however, do not support
`
`Sonitor’s characterization of Welles as showing, “the ultrasound transmitters
`
`can be synchronized such that they can coexist in the same room but avoid
`
`interference by transmitting at different times” and the “[u]ltrasonic
`
`transmitters UST 1–3 [in Figure 15] are synchronized such that they transmit
`
`signals at different times.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:5–11). To the
`
`contrary, when considered in context, we agree with Centrak that Welles
`
`describes transmitting signals from the ultrasonic transmitters at the same
`
`time.
`
`
`
`We note Sonitor relies on Welles’s description of a method that uses a
`
`triangulation technique to sense the location of a tag or portable device. See
`
`Pet. 17–18, 23–25; Ex. 1006, 7:40–65. In this method, Welles describes
`
`having multiple room transmitters that each can send a unique, time-varying
`
`frequency pattern “during the same time.” Id. at 7:40–50. When the
`
`frequency patterns from the respective room transmitters do not occur during
`
`the same time, Welles characterizes the signals as being in a “non-
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`synchronized condition.” Id. at 3:18–19, Fig. 20. Welles explains that the
`
`signals are synchronized so that the respective frequency patterns will
`
`complete a frequency cycle at a common point in time. See id., Fig. 19. By
`
`sending the signals at the same time, the method is capable of determining
`
`an offset value “Ω” (in seconds) between the room transmitter signals by
`
`measuring the difference in time between the frequency cycles of the
`
`respective frequency patterns. Id. at 7:52–62. This offset value Ω, when
`
`multiplied by the speed of sound, is then used to calculate the difference of
`
`the distance between the tag/portable device and the respective room
`
`transmitters. Id. From this information, Welles teaches that the location of
`
`the tag/portable device within the room can be accurately determined using
`
`triangulation. Id.
`
`
`
`It is with this background that Welles describes a locating receiver
`
`sending synchronization codes to cause the room transmitters to transmit
`
`their respective ultrasound signals at known times in a synchronized fashion.
`
`Ex. 1006, 8:2–11. And, when viewed in context, we agree with Centrak that
`
`the synchronization codes sent by the locating receiver in Welles are
`
`properly understood to cause the room transmitters to send their respective
`
`unique signals simultaneously and not at different times. Notably, consistent
`
`with our understanding, Welles only refers to the tag/portable device
`
`receiving the ultrasound signals from the room transmitters after a delay that
`
`is caused by the distance the signals must travel, rather than any delay
`
`caused by the synchronization codes themselves. Id. Furthermore, when
`
`viewed in context, we agree with Centrak that Welles’ characterization of
`
`this method as allowing the location of a tag/portable device to be accurately
`
`determined is not suggesting a result caused by transmitting the signals from
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`the room transmitters at different times, but is instead the alleged benefits
`
`that are derived from the triangulation method Welles describes, which relies
`
`on the simultaneous transmission of room transmitter signals with a unique,
`
`time-varying frequency pattern. In view of the foregoing, on this record,
`
`Sonitor’s contention that Welles discloses ultrasonic transmitters that are
`
`synchronized such that they transmit signals at different times lacks the
`
`necessary evidentiary support.
`
`Furthermore, “[a]n inference of nonobviousness is especially strong
`
`where the prior art’s teachings undermine the very reason being proffered as
`
`to why a person of ordinary skill would have combined the known
`
`elements.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d
`
`1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In this case, Sonitor argues a skilled artisan
`
`would have modified the real-time location system of Corrado in the manner
`
`claimed to avoid the potential problems with interference that may be caused
`
`by the ultrasonic base stations transmitting signals simultaneously, but the
`
`method Sonitor relies upon from Welles undermines this very reason
`
`because it describes transmitting signals simultaneously, which would only
`
`contribute to the problem sought to be avoided. The resulting inference of
`
`nonobviousness, therefore, is especially strong. Simply put, Sonitor has
`
`failed to provide a rationale with a rational underpinning for why a skilled
`
`artisan would have combined Corrado and Welles to arrive at the real-time
`
`location system that has elements 1.4 and 1.5, as independent claim 1
`
`recites.
`
`Therefore, because each of Sonitor’s alleged grounds of
`
`unpatentability rely on the combination of Corrado and Welles to disclose a
`
`real-time location system with limitations that are similar to elements 1.4
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`and 1.5 of claim 1, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Sonitor would
`
`prevail in establishing the obviousness of claims 1–14 and 21–33 of the ’030
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`We conclude that Sonitor has not demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’030 patent
`
`challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes
`
`review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review of
`
`the ’030 patent is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00740
`Patent 9,622,030 B1
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Nirav Des
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
