Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`LBT IP I LLC,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Appellee
`______________________
`
`2022-1613, 2022-1614, 2022-1615, 2022-1616, 2022-1617
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
`01189, IPR2020-01190, IPR2020-01191, IPR2020-01192,
`IPR2020-01193.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: June 9, 2023
`______________________
`
`BRIAN SHERWOOD SEAL, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
`LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also argued
`by SHAUN DARRELL GREGORY.
`
` ADAM PRESCOTT SEITZ, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park,
`KS, argued for appellee. Also represented by JENNIFER C.
`BAILEY, CLIFFORD T. BRAZEN; ABRAN J. KEAN, Greenwood
`Village, CO.
` ______________________
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`2
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`
`Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and STOLL, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`MOORE, Chief Judge.
`LBT IP I LLC (LBT) appeals five inter partes review
`decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding var-
`ious claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,497,774; 8,542,113;
`8,102,256; 8,421,618; and 8,421,619 unpatentable. For the
`following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate
`in part, and remand in part.
`BACKGROUND
`LBT’s patents relate to improvements in battery power
`conservation of portable electronic tracking devices. See,
`e.g., ’774 patent at 3:55–4:58. The ’113, ’256, and ’618 pa-
`tents1 disclose electronic tracking devices that include lo-
`cation tracking circuitry (e.g., GPS circuitry) and an
`accelerometer to measure location coordinates without re-
`quiring GPS signaling. See ’618 patent at Fig. 1, 5:4–10.
`When the strength of the device’s GPS signal is below a
`predetermined threshold value—for example, when the de-
`vice’s access to GPS satellites is partially or fully blocked—
`portions of the location tracking circuitry may be deac-
`tivated to conserve battery power. Id. at 5:1–14, 6:66–7:11,
`7:62–8:12. The device may subsequently reactivate the lo-
`cation tracking circuitry when the signal level is above the
`predetermined signal level. Id. at 6:66–7:11, 9:48–54.
`
`
`1 LBT raises the same issue on appeal with respect
`to the ’113, ’256, and ’618 patents. The relevant disclosures
`in these patents and the Board’s relevant analyses in the
`final written decisions are materially the same. For sim-
`plicity, we cite only to the ’618 patent and the correspond-
`ing final written decision.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`3
`
`The ’774 patent discloses an electronic tracking device
`that, to conserve power, may intermittently deactivate the
`GPS receiver in response to a low detected battery level.
`See ’774 patent at 11:44–53, 13:52–67. The claimed device
`also permits the user to make certain power level adjust-
`ments and select between modes with higher update rates
`but shorter battery lives and modes with lower update
`rates but longer battery lives. Id. at 13:52–14:57; see also
`id. at Fig. 4. This feature allows the user “to select an ap-
`propriate update[d] set of network communication signal-
`ing protocols to achieve a desired user defined battery
`operating environment.” Id. at 11:58–63.
`The ’619 patent discloses an electronic tracking device
`including an accelerometer and GPS receiver. ’619 patent
`at 5:2–6, 5:50–6:17. The accelerometer is used to detect
`movement and to determine location coordinates when
`GPS signals are not available. Id. at 5:3–6, 8:13–15. If the
`accelerometer determines the tracking device is stationary
`for a period of time, a last-known location is sent without
`accessing the GPS signaling circuitry. Id. at 8:13–39. Ad-
`ditionally, the GPS receiver may be activated or deac-
`tivated based on that determination. Id. at 6:54–65, 8:13–
`19. This approach conserves battery power by reducing use
`of the GPS receiver when the device is at rest. Id. at 8:29–
`39.
`
`Apple Inc. (Apple) filed five petitions for inter partes re-
`view challenging claims 1, 4–6, 8, 10, 13, and 15 of the ’774
`patent; claims 1–20 of the ’113 patent; claims 8–10 of the
`’256 patent; claims 1–24 of the ’618 patent; and claims 1–
`20 of the ’619 patent as unpatentable. The Board insti-
`tuted each petition and issued final written decisions hold-
`ing all challenged claims unpatentable. Apple Inc. v. LBT
`IP I LLC (’774 Decision), No. IPR2020-01189, 2022 WL
`685040 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022); Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC
`(’113 Decision), No. IPR2020-01190, 2022 WL 685081
`(P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022); Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC (’256
`Decision), No. IPR2020-01191, 2022 WL 683992 (P.T.A.B.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`4
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`Mar. 2, 2022); Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC (’618 Decision),
`No. IPR2020-01192, 2022 WL 683994 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2,
`2022); Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC (’619 Decision), No.
`IPR2020-01193, 2022 WL 685082 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022).
`Specifically, the Board determined the challenged
`claims of the ’113, ’256, and ’618 patents would have been
`obvious over Japanese Patent Application Publication No.
`2004-37116A (Sakamoto) in view of various combinations
`of secondary references. ’618 Decision, at *27. The Board
`determined the challenged claims of the ’774 patent would
`have been obvious over Sakamoto. ’774 Decision, at *26.
`Finally, the Board determined the challenged claims of the
`’619 patent would have been obvious over prior art combi-
`nations that all included U.S. Patent No. 6,940,407 (Mi-
`randa-Knapp) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2006/0119508A1 (Miller). ’619 Decision, at *30. LBT ap-
`peals.
` We have
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1295(a)(4)(A).
`
`DISCUSSION
`LBT raises three distinct challenges on appeal. First,
`LBT argues the Board’s finding that Sakamoto discloses
`the activation/reactivation limitation in certain claims of
`the ’618, ’256, and ’113 patents is not supported by substan-
`tial evidence. Second, LBT argues the Board improperly
`construed the term “multitude” in claim 8 of the ’774 pa-
`tent. Finally, LBT argues the Board’s finding that a skilled
`artisan would have been motivated to combine Miranda-
`Knapp and Miller as claimed in the ’619 patent is not sup-
`ported by substantial evidence. We address each argument
`in turn.
`We review the Board’s ultimate determination of obvi-
`ousness de novo and its underlying findings of fact for sub-
`stantial evidence. Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848
`F.3d 987, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2017). What a prior art reference
`discloses and whether a skilled artisan would have been
`motivated to combine prior art references are questions of
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 5 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`5
`
`fact. Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d
`1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We review the Board’s claim
`construction de novo and review any necessary subsidiary
`factual findings based on extrinsic evidence for substantial
`evidence. Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254, 259
`(Fed. Cir. 2022).
`THE ’113, ’256, AND ’618 PATENTS
`I.
`The Board determined claims 1–20 of the ’113 patent;
`claims 8–10 of the ’256 patent; and claims 1–24 of the ’618
`patent would have been obvious over Sakamoto in view of
`various combinations of secondary references. ’618 Deci-
`sion, at *27. Claim 1 of the ’618 patent is representative
`for purposes of this appeal:
`1. A portable electronic tracking device to
`monitor location coordinates of one or more
`individuals or objects, the device compris-
`ing:
`transceiver circuitry to receive at least one
`portion of a receive communication signal
`comprising
`location coordinates
`infor-
`mation;
`accelerometer circuitry to measure dis-
`placements of the portable electronic track-
`ing device;
`a battery power monitor configured to selec-
`tively activate and deactivate at least one
`portion of the transceiver circuitry and lo-
`cation tracking circuitry to conserve battery
`power in response to a signal level of the at
`least one portion of the receive communica-
`tion signal; and
`processor circuitry configured to process
`the at least one portion of the receive com-
`munication signal.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 6 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`6
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`’618 patent at claim 1 (emphasis added).
`With respect to the activation/reactivation limitation,2
`the Board found Sakamoto discloses activating/reactivat-
`ing the GPS receiver when it transitions from stop-position
`mode into normal sensitivity positioning mode or high sen-
`sitivity positioning mode in its “cycle set in advance” em-
`bodiment. See ’618 Decision, at *7–12. LBT argues this
`finding is not supported by substantial evidence. We agree.
`Sakamoto discloses a GPS positioning system that in-
`cludes a portable terminal with a GPS receiver. J.A. 1321
`¶ 18. In one embodiment, the GPS signal level is periodi-
`cally measured at a “cycle set in advance.” J.A. 1323–24
`¶ 37. If the signal level is equal to or lower than a prede-
`termined threshold value, then the system transitions to
`high sensitivity positioning mode, where the GPS receiver
`is operated constantly. J.A. 1319 ¶ 4; J.A. 1324 ¶ 38. If the
`signal level is equal to or higher than a predetermined
`threshold value, then it transitions to normal sensitivity
`positioning mode, in which the GPS receiver is operated
`only when necessary. J.A. 1319 ¶ 4; J.A. 1324 ¶ 38. Fi-
`nally, if “the positioning cannot be performed when the sig-
`nal level value is equal to or lower than a predetermined
`threshold value,” then it transitions into stop-position
`mode, i.e., the GPS receiver stops position searching. J.A.
`1324 ¶ 38.
`It is undisputed that Sakamoto does not expressly dis-
`close transitioning from stop-position mode into one of the
`other two positioning modes. See ’618 Decision, at *11 (“Sa-
`kamoto may not explicitly identify moving out of the stop-
`position mode as a result of the cyclic signal level checking
`. . . .”); see also J.A. 1322 ¶ 27 (disclosing transition
`
`
`2 All of the challenged claims in the ’618 and ’256 pa-
`tents recite the activation/reactivation limitation, but only
`claims 3, 9, and 11 of the ’113 patent recite this limitation.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 7 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`7
`
`between normal sensitivity positioning mode and high sen-
`sitivity positioning mode); J.A. 1324 ¶ 38 (disclosing tran-
`sition into stop-position mode). The Board and Apple thus
`relied on Apple’s expert Mr. Andrews’ testimony to fill in
`the gap in this disclosure. ’618 Decision, at *10–12. Mr.
`Andrews testified that a skilled artisan would have under-
`stood that if Sakamoto’s receiver is in stop-position mode
`and the periodically-measured signal level is greater than
`a predetermined threshold level, the GPS receiver reac-
`tivates by transitioning into normal or high sensitivity po-
`sitioning mode. J.A. 6414–15 ¶ 138 (citing J.A. 1323–24
`¶¶ 37–38); J.A. 3636–37 ¶ 212. He also testified that a
`skilled artisan would have understood a device that tran-
`sitioned into stop-position mode and never transitioned
`into one of the other positioning modes would be useless.
`J.A. 3637 ¶ 213; see also J.A. 1979 at 21:7–15 (Andrews
`deposition) (“[Sakamoto] doesn’t contemplate that once the
`– once the GPS signal level went below that threshold, the
`system would turn off and never turn on again. That would
`be – that wouldn’t be very practical.”); J.A. 1982 at 24:4–
`10.
`
`Although Apple does not purport to rely on inherency,
`its argument regarding Sakamoto’s disclosure is substan-
`tively one of inherency. Apple concedes there is no explicit
`disclosure of a transition out of stop-position mode in Sa-
`kamoto, but nevertheless argues a skilled artisan would
`understand this transition is present in the cycle set in ad-
`vance embodiment. In other words, Apple argues this tran-
`sition is inherently disclosed in Sakamoto. “[T]o rely on
`inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in
`the prior art in an obviousness analysis,” Apple must show
`the activation/reactivation limitation is “necessarily pre-
`sent” or “the natural result of the combination of elements
`explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v.
`TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir.
`2014). Mr. Andrews’ testimony fails to meet this standard
`for inherent disclosure. See id. at 1195.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 8 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`8
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`In his deposition, for example, Mr. Andrews repeatedly
`used qualifying language such as “presumably,” “maybe,”
`and “might” when he explained that although the GPS re-
`ceiver is deactivated when in the stop-position mode, a
`skilled artisan would understand Sakamoto turns on com-
`ponents of the GPS receiver to cyclically measure the signal
`level. See, e.g., J.A. 1981–82 at 23:10–24:3 (“Well, Sa-
`kamoto doesn’t describe how he determines that the signal
`level is above that threshold. It’s possible that he periodi-
`cally turns on the GPS receiver just briefly to check so that
`it’s – most of the time it’s off and every now and then he
`turns it on and looks, and if it’s not above the level, he turns
`it back off, or maybe even just turns those components that
`he needs to use to examine the signal, and it’s possible that
`he might leave some of the components on . . . . (emphases
`added)); ’618 Decision, at *12 (relying on Mr. Andrews’ dep-
`osition testimony to reject LBT’s argument that because
`Sakamoto’s GPS receiver is the only component that re-
`ceives GPS signals, it cannot obtain the necessary signal
`required to move into a different mode when it is deac-
`tivated in stop-position mode). “Inherency, however, may
`not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The
`mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
`of circumstances is not sufficient.” PAR, 773 F.3d at 1195
`(quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).
`Mr. Andrews provides no testimony explaining why the
`transition from stop-position mode into one of the other two
`positioning modes in response to a GPS signal must neces-
`sarily be present in Sakamoto’s cycle set in advance embod-
`iment. He opines that a skilled artisan would understand
`the device transitions out of stop-position mode because
`otherwise the device would be useless. See J.A. 3637 ¶ 213
`(Andrews declaration); J.A. 1982 at 24:4–10 (Andrews dep-
`osition). But he fails to explain why this transition is nec-
`essarily present considering that Sakamoto teaches its
`GPS receiver can be manually reactivated after it has been
`placed in stop-position mode. J.A. 1321 ¶ 20. The fact that
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 9 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`9
`
`the GPS receiver cannot automatically transition out of
`stop-position mode in the cycle set in advance embodiment
`does not render Sakamoto’s device useless because the re-
`ceiver can be turned on manually.
`We conclude substantial evidence does not support the
`Board’s finding that Sakamoto discloses the activation/re-
`activation limitation. Accordingly, we reverse the Board’s
`obviousness determinations with respect to claims 1–24 of
`the ’618 patent, claims 8–10 of the ’256 patent, and claims
`3, 9, and 11 of the ’113 patent.3
`THE ’774 PATENT
`II.
`The Board determined claims 1, 4–6, 8, 10, 13, and 15
`of the ’774 patent would have been obvious over Sakamoto.
`’774 Decision, at *26. On appeal, LBT challenges the
`Board’s construction of “multitude of threshold values” as
`recited in independent claim 8 and dependent claims 10,
`13, and 15. Claim 8 is representative and recites:
`8. A local charging management device to
`manage electrical resource capability for
`
`
`In a footnote, LBT argues that although independ-
`3
`ent claims 1, 7, and 17 of the ’113 patent do not require
`activation/reactivation, we should also reverse the Board’s
`obviousness determination with respect to those claims be-
`cause the reduction of power required by these claims does
`not eliminate the ability of the invention to receive and
`measure the signal level for reactivation, as required by de-
`pendent claim 3. The Board rejected this argument be-
`cause it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims—
`these claims recite reducing or adjusting the power to the
`primary location tracking circuitry, not reactivating the
`primary location tracking circuitry. See ’113 Decision, at
`*7, *13, *16. We decline to disturb the Board’s determina-
`tion based on LBT’s undeveloped footnote argument.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 10 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`10
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`is
`an electronic tracking device that
`tracked by at least one other tracking de-
`vice comprising:
`a battery power level monitor;
`a charging unit; and
`an electrical power resource management
`component to adjust cycle timing of at least
`one of a request rate of location coordinate
`packets to a target host and a listen rate of
`the location coordinate packets responsive
`to an estimated charge level of the charging
`unit,
`wherein the battery power level monitor
`measures a power level of the charging unit
`and adjusts a power level applied to loca-
`tion tracking circuitry responsive to one or
`more signal levels, the power level compris-
`ing a multitude of threshold values deter-
`mined by a user or system administrator to
`intermittently activate or deactivate the lo-
`cation tracking circuitry to conserve power
`of the charging unit in response to the esti-
`mated charge level of the charging unit.
`’774 patent at claim 8 (emphasis added).
`The Board construed “multitude” to mean two or more.
`’774 Decision, at *4–6. LBT argues the proper construction
`of “multitude” does not include two. We agree.
`Claim terms are generally given their plain and ordi-
`nary meaning, which is the meaning one of ordinary skill
`in the art would ascribe to a term when read in the context
`of the claim, specification, and prosecution history. See
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this gen-
`eral rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 11 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`11
`
`as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows
`the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or
`during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am.
`LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`The plain and ordinary meaning of multitude in the
`’774 patent does not encompass two threshold values. The
`only example of a multitude of threshold values provided
`in the specification is Figure 4, which depicts 5–7 threshold
`values. ’774 patent at Fig. 4 (threshold values represented
`by tick marks on active display 432); id. at 13:58–67 (“[T]he
`present invention has the capability of power level (e.g.,
`battery power level 406) adjustments include multitude of
`threshold values (see active display 432 of FIG. 4) that is
`determined by user . . . to intermittently activate or deac-
`tivate location tracking circuitry . . . .” (emphasis added)).
`
` Nowhere does the specification contemplate as few as
`two threshold values. In concluding otherwise, the Board
`relied on the following passage: “Advantageously as com-
`pared to conventional tracking devices, user input request
`430 adjusts value 419 to select an appropriate update set
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 12 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`12
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`of network communication signaling protocols to achieve a
`desired user defined battery operating environment, e.g.,
`obtain optimal battery life, obtain optimal update rate,
`tradeoffs between them.” Id. at 11:58–67 (emphasis added).
`According to the Board, this statement shows that
`“tradeoffs can be made between as few as two points: an
`endpoint where less updates are traded for better battery
`life, and an endpoint where worse battery life is traded for
`more updates.” ’774 Decision, at *5. While the Board may
`be correct that this isolated sentence is consistent with as
`few as two threshold values, this sentence must be read in
`the context in which it is used. This statement appears in
`column 11 of the specification, all of which discusses Figure
`4. See ’774 patent at 11:2–67 (“Referring to FIG. 4 . . . .”).
`Figure 4 clearly depicts 5–7 threshold values. Read in con-
`text, “optimal battery life” and “optimal update rate” refer
`to the end points on the active display in Figure 4, while
`the “tradeoffs between them” refer to the tick marks be-
`tween the end points. Id. at 11:62–63; see also id. at 11:64
`(“slider 432” can be positioned at “value 419” between the
`two end points). We therefore do not read this sentence as
`showing multitude includes two threshold values.
`
`The Board also found certain dictionary definitions
`supported its construction of multitude as two or more.
`’774 Decision, at *6. To the extent the Board found the dic-
`tionaries show the plain and ordinary meaning of multi-
`tude is two or more, this finding is not supported by
`substantial evidence. The dictionaries define multitude as
`“[t]he condition or quality of being numerous,” “[a] very
`great number,” and “a large number.” IPR2020-01189, Ex.
`3001 at 3; Ex. 3002 at 3. Plurality is defined as “[t]he state
`or fact of being plural” (i.e., two or more) or “[a] large num-
`ber or amount; a multitude.” Ex. 3001 at 4; see also Ex.
`3002 at 4. Plurality is only a synonym of multitude in the
`context of the second definition: a large number or amount.
`A plurality is two or more; a multitude is a large number.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 13 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`13
`
`As part of its obviousness determination with respect
`to claims 8, 10, 13, and 15, the Board found Sakamoto’s two
`battery power level thresholds disclose the claimed “multi-
`tude of threshold values” under its improper construction.
`’774 Decision, at *15–16. We therefore vacate the Board’s
`decision with respect to these claims. Because the Board
`incorrectly concluded a multitude includes two, it did not
`address Apple’s alternative argument that Sakamoto dis-
`closes at least four threshold values—two battery level
`thresholds and two GPS signal level thresholds. See
`IPR2020-01189, Petitioner’s Reply Br. at 15–19. We re-
`mand to the Board for it to consider this argument in the
`first instance under the proper construction. We hold only
`that multitude does not include two but must include as
`few as five threshold values. We leave it for the Board on
`remand to determine whether multitude encompasses
`three or four threshold values and whether the two sets of
`threshold values disclosed in Sakamoto teach a multitude
`of threshold values.
`III. THE ’619 PATENT
`The Board determined claims 1–20 of the ’619 patent
`would have been obvious over prior art combinations in-
`cluding Miranda-Knapp and Miller. ’619 Decision, at *30.
`Claim 1 of the ’619 patent is representative. It recites:
`1. A portable electronic tracking device to monitor
`location coordinates of one or more individuals and
`objects, the device comprising:
`transceiver circuitry to receive at least one portion
`of a receive communication signal comprising loca-
`tion coordinates information;
`accelerometer circuitry to measure displacements
`of the portable electronic tracking device, wherein
`the displacements comprise movements of an ob-
`ject or individual associated with the device;
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 14 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`14
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`a battery power monitor configured to activate and
`deactivate at least one portion of signaling circuitry
`in response to the accelerometer circuitry detecting
`a substantially stationary position of the electronic
`tracking device since last known location coordinate
`measurement; and
`processor circuitry configured to process the dis-
`placements, to associate the displacements with a
`specified pattern, and to generate an alert message
`in response to the specified pattern.
`’619 patent at claim 1 (emphasis added).
`As relevant on appeal, the Board found Apple’s pro-
`posed combination of Miranda-Knapp and Miller discloses
`the claim limitation reciting “a battery power monitor con-
`figured to activate and deactivate at least one portion of
`signaling circuitry in response to the accelerometer cir-
`cuitry detecting a substantially stationary position of the
`electronic tracking device.” ’619 Decision, at *8–12. The
`Board found Miranda-Knapp teaches a battery power mon-
`itor configured to activate a portion of signaling circuitry
`(i.e., messaging circuitry) to send an alert message in re-
`sponse to an accelerometer detecting a substantially sta-
`tionary position. Id. at *10. It further found Miller teaches
`deactivating a portion of signaling circuitry (i.e., GPS cir-
`cuitry) by halting scanning operations on the GPS receiver
`when the device is stationary. Id. The Board found a
`skilled artisan would have been motivated to add Miller’s
`teachings of deactivating GPS circuitry to Miranda-
`Knapp’s device to increase the device’s battery life. Id. at
`*11.
`LBT raises several arguments against the Board’s mo-
`tivation-to-combine finding. First, LBT argues the combi-
`nation of Miranda-Knapp and Miller is improper because
`it adds redundant elements and functionality already pre-
`sent in Miranda-Knapp’s device. For instance, as Apple’s
`expert Mr. Andrews testified, both references disclose
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 15 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`15
`
`“similar architectures that include receivers, processors,
`power managers, and accelerometers.” J.A. 6980 ¶ 132.
`According to LBT, a skilled artisan would not be motivated
`to combine these redundant elements. LBT misunder-
`stands the Board’s finding. The Board did not find a skilled
`artisan would combine every feature of Miller’s device with
`Miranda-Knapp’s device. Instead, it found a skilled artisan
`would be motivated to add certain functionality from Miller
`to Miranda-Knapp’s device, which discloses the claimed
`transceiver circuitry and accelerometer circuitry. ’619 De-
`cision, at *7–8, *11. That Miller discloses a similar device
`with several overlapping elements supports the Board’s
`finding of a motivation to combine. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has
`been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would recognize that it would improve sim-
`ilar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
`unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
`LBT also contends the Board failed to identify the re-
`dundant functionality between Miranda-Knapp and Mil-
`ler, namely, deactivating signaling circuitry in response to
`the accelerometer detecting a substantially stationary po-
`sition. Miranda-Knapp teaches that, to conserve battery
`power, “certain transmissions or phone calls could be in-
`hibited” if the phone is left at rest in a safe zone. J.A. 7057
`at 5:13–18. This disclosure relates to the deactivation of
`Miranda-Knapp’s messaging circuitry. The proposed com-
`bination, however, incorporates Miller’s deactivation of its
`GPS circuitry, a different signaling circuitry. See ’619 De-
`cision, at *11. LBT fails to explain how this functionality
`is redundant.
`Second, LBT argues the proposed combination of Mi-
`randa-Knapp and Miller would result in an inoperable de-
`vice because the two references disclose contradictory
`approaches. Specifically, Miranda-Knapp teaches activat-
`ing a GPS receiver when a device is stationary, while Miller
`teaches deactivating a GPS receiver when a device is
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 16 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`16
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`stationary. This argument, again, is based on LBT’s fun-
`damental misunderstanding of the proposed combination.
`The Board found a skilled artisan would have been moti-
`vated to modify Miranda-Knapp’s device to deactivate its
`GPS receiver after its location is determined—i.e., after ac-
`tivating a portion of the signaling circuitry—to conserve
`battery power. Id. at *10–11. LBT fails to point to any
`evidence showing this combination would be inoperable.
`Instead, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding
`that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to in-
`crease the device’s battery life by deactivating the GPS re-
`ceiver after the location is determined and would have a
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so. For example,
`Mr. Andrews testified that a skilled artisan would have
`been motivated to increase the device’s battery life and
`would have recognized that deactivating the GPS receiver
`after the stationary device’s location has already been de-
`termined would accomplish this goal. J.A. 7002–07
`¶¶ 162–168; see also J.A. 7056–57 (Miranda-Knapp) at
`4:57–5:43 (identifying the need to alert the user “before the
`battery drains” when the device is at rest but not in a safe
`zone); J.A. 7079 (Miller) ¶¶ 18, 22 (teaching that when the
`device is stationary, the scanning operations of receivers
`are halted in order to conserve battery power).
`Finally, LBT argues Miller teaches away from the
`claimed solution because it discloses using a motion model,
`rather than an accelerometer alone, to determine whether
`the device is in motion. Substantial evidence supports the
`Board’s contrary finding. See ’619 Decision, at *12. Miller
`states “[a]ccelerometer 114 sends signals to motion model
`108 indicating whether or not the mobile device is in mo-
`tion.” J.A. 7079 ¶ 18. That is, Miller teaches that an ac-
`celerometer is used to detect a stationary position. While
`the motion model also uses signals from receivers 102, 104,
`and 106, in some circumstances, the data from the accel-
`erometer may be the only data relied on by the motion
`model. J.A. 7079 ¶¶ 21–22.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 17 Filed: 06/09/2023
`
`LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC.
`
`17
`
`Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
`a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Mi-
`randa-Knapp and Miller as claimed. We therefore affirm
`the Board’s obviousness determinations with respect to
`claims 1–20 of the ’619 patent.
`CONCLUSION
`We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
`and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given above,
`we reverse the Board’s decisions with respect to claims 1–
`24 of the ’618 patent, claims 8–10 of the ’256 patent, and
`claims 3, 9, and 11 of the ’113 patent. We vacate and re-
`mand the Board’s decision with respect to claims 8, 10, 13,
`and 15 of the ’774 patent. We affirm the Board’s decision
`with respect to claims 1–20 of the ’619 patent.
`AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART,
`VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED IN PART
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`