Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. GOOGLE, INC.
Filing
27
NOTICE by GOOGLE, INC. of PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Manning, Susan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SKYHOOK WIRELESS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
GOOGLE INC.,
Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
v.
SKYHOOK WIRELESS, INC.,
Counterclaim-Defendant.
GOOGLE INC.’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
Pursuant to the Parties’ Joint Statement filed on December 7, 2010 and Local Rule 16.6,
defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) hereby serves its Preliminary Invalidity Disclosures for U.S.
Patent Numbers 7,414,988 (“‘988 patent”), 7,433,694 (“‘694 patent”), 7,474,897 (“‘897 patent”),
and 7,305,245 (“‘245 patent”) (collectively, “patents-in-suit”) on plaintiff Skyhook Wireless,
Inc. (“Skyhook”).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, RESERVATION OF RIGHTS,
AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. This preliminary disclosure is directed to invalidity issues only and does not address noninfringement, unenforceability, or claim construction issues. Google reserves all rights with
respect to such issues.
2. These Preliminary Invalidity Contentions are preliminary and are based on Google’s
current knowledge, understanding, and belief as to the facts and information available as of the
A/74147649.4
date of these contentions. Discovery in this action is ongoing, Skyhook has not yet produced
documents concerning its conception or reduction to practice of the patents in suit, or any
documents relating to the meaning of claim terms used in the patents, and Google has not
completed its investigation, discovery, or analysis of information related to this action. While
Google has made a good-faith effort to provide a comprehensive list of prior art relevant to this
case, Google reserves the right to amend, supplement, or materially modify its prior art list and
invalidity contentions as discovery progresses. This reservation of rights includes the right to
supplement prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), 103, 112 and based
on information Google may learn during discovery in this case.
3. Google provides these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions prior to any claim construction
ruling by the Court with respect to the claims of the ‘988, ‘694, ‘897, and ‘245 patents asserted
by Skyhook in its Infringement Contentions. Any invalidity analysis depends, ultimately, upon
claim construction, which is a question of law reserved for the Court. Google reserves the right
to amend, supplement, or materially modify its prior art list and invalidity contentions after the
claims have been construed by the Court. Google also reserves the right to amend, supplement,
or materially modify its prior art list and invalidity contentions based on any claim construction
positions that Skyhook may take in this case and as it discovers additional information. Google
also reserves the right to assert that a claim is indefinite, not enabled, or fails to meet the written
description requirement during or after the claim construction process, including based on any
claim construction position Skyhook may take or based on any claim construction the Court may
adopt in this case.
A/74147649.4
2
SUPPLEMENTAL PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENSIONS
I.
Identification of Prior Art
Skyhook accuses several of Google’s products of infringing claims 1-3 of the ‘988 patent,
claims 1 and 2 of the ‘694 patent, claims 1-4 of the ‘897 patent, and claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8 of the
’245 patent (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”). See Plaintiff Skyhook Wireless Inc.’s
Preliminary Infringement Disclosure at 2-4. The Asserted Claims of the ‘988, ‘694, ‘897, and
‘245 patents are invalid for at least the reasons discussed herein.
In addition to the prior art identified in the ‘988, ‘694, ‘897, and ‘245 patents, and
particularly in the background of the invention sections of each patent and prosecution histories,
at least the prior art references identified below are relevant to the invalidity of the ‘988, ‘694,
‘897, and ‘245 patents as either prior art under 35 U.S.C §§ 102 or 103 as indicated. These
references alone, or in combination, render each asserted claim of the ‘988, ‘694, ‘897, and ‘245
patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103.
I. List of Relevant Prior Art References:
Prior Art Reference
1. Wolf-Dietrich Ambrosch et al. “The
Intelligent Network: A Joint Study by
Bell Atlantic, IBM and Siemens, Chapter
9. ERS Service Description”, pp. 162177.
2. U.S. Patent No. 4,310,726 to Asmuth
3. Paramvir Bahl et al. “RADAR: An InBuilding RF-based User Location and
Tracking System”, Microsoft Research,
2000.
4. Paramvir Bahl et al. “A Software
System for Locating Mobile Users:
Design, Evaluation, and Lessons”,
Microsoft Research, University of
California at San Diego, 2000.
5. U.S. Patent No. 7,440,755 to
Balachandran et al.
A/74147649.4
Filing/Priority
Date
Jun. 17, 2003
3
§ 102(b)
Jan. 12, 1982
2000
§§ 102(b) & (e)
§ 102(b)
2000
Feb. 4, 1980
Issue/
Publication
Date
1989
Applicability
§ 102(b)
Oct. 21, 2008
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Prior Art Reference
Filing/Priority
Date
6. Ezekiel S. Bhasker et al. “Employing
User Feedback for Fast, Accurate, LowMaintenance Geolocationing”,
Department of Computer Science and
Engineering, University of California,
San Diego, 2004.
7. Per Bjorndahl, et al. “CME20 - A
Total Solution for GSM Networks”,
Ericsson Review No., 3, 1991, pp. 72-79.
8. Bluesoft, Inc., Aeroscout, available at
least as early as August, 2003 (see
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20030
802052607/http://bluesoftinc.com/wlan.asp, last accessed April 14,
2011).
9. Eloise Brackenridge “The New Urban
Infrastructure: Cities and
Telecommunications”, University of
Texas at Austin, Center for Research on
Communication, Technology and
Society, pp. 77-100,
10. Mary Buccafurno, “The Philadelphia
Story”, TE&M Special Report 911, pp.
68-72.
11. California Legislature Senate
Committee on Energy and Public
Utilities and Joint Committee on Fire,
Police, Emergency and Disaster Services,
Joint Interim Hearing on The 911
Emergency Response System - An
Overview of its Effectiveness, Los
Angeles California, 1990.
12. U.S. Patent No. 5,379,337 to Castillo Aug. 16, 1991
et al.
13. Paul Castro, et al. “A Probabilistic
Room Location Service fro Wireless
Networked Environments” Ubicomp
2001: Ubiquitious Computing, Intl.
Conference Atlanta, GA, Sept. 30-Oct. 2,
2001, pp. 19-34 (2001).
14. U.S. Patent No. 5,161,180 to Chavous Oct. 19, 1990
A/74147649.4
4
Issue/
Publication
Date
2004
Applicability
§§ 102(a) & (b)
1991
§ 102(b)
Aug. 2003
1985
§ 102(b)
Dec. 15, 1987
§ 102(b)
Nov. 21, 1990
§ 102(b)
Jan. 3, 1995
§§ 102(b) & (e)
2001
§ 102(b)
Nov. 3, 1992
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Prior Art Reference
15. Yatin Chawathe et al. “A Case Study
in Building Layered DHT Applications”,
Intel Research Seattle, University of
California, San Diego, Intel Research
Berkeley, ICSI, 2005.
16. Yu-Chung Cheng et al. “Accuracy
Characterization for Metropolitan-scale
Wi-Fi Localization” University of
California, San Diego; Intel Research
Seattle; Microsoft Corporation, 2005.
17. U.S. Patent No. 4,924,491 to
Compton et al.
18. U.S. Patent No. 3,881,060 to Connell
et al.
19. Kay Connelly et al. “A Toolkit for
Automatically Construction Outdoor
Radio Maps” Proceedings of the Intl.
Conference on Information Technology:
Coding and Computing (ITCC 2005).
20. U.S. Patent No. 5,043,736 to Darnell
et al.
21. Thomas Dayharsh et al. “Update on
the National Emergency Number 911”,
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, Vol. VT-28, No. 4,
November, pp. 292-297, 1979.
22. Edgar S. Delong, Jr. “Making 911
even better” Telephony Integrating Voice
and Data Communications, An Intertec
Publication, pp. 60-63, (1987)
23. Ernest DeNigris, et al. “Enhanced
911: emergency calling with a plus” Bell
Laboratories Record, pp. 74-79. (March,
1980)
24. U.S. Patent No. 5,235,633 to
Dennison et al.
25. U.S. Patent No. 7,116,988 to Dietrich
et al.
26. U.S. Patent No. 7,433,696 to Dietrich
et al.
27. U.S. Patent No. 5,389,935 to
Drouault et al.
A/74147649.4
Filing/Priority
Date
Issue/
Publication
Date
2005
§§ 102(a)
Jan. 2005
§§ 102(a)
Nov. 18, 1988
May 8, 1990
§§ 102(b) & (e)
June 4, 1973
Apr. 29, 1975
§§ 102(b) & (e)
2005
§ 102(b)
Aug. 27, 1991
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Nov. 1979
§ 102(b)
Dec. 14, 1987
§ 102(b)
1980
§ 102(b)
Dec. 26, 1991
Aug. 10, 1993
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Mar. 16, 2004
Oct. 3, 2006
§§ 102(e)
May 18, 2004
Oct. 7, 2008
§§ 102(a) & (e)
Mar. 23, 1994
Feb. 14, 1995
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Jul. 27, 1990
5
Applicability
Prior Art Reference
Filing/Priority
Date
28. U.S. Patent No. 5,119,504 to
Jul. 19, 1990
Durboraw, III
29. Wayne Eckerson, “Users test toll-free
net access options”, Management
Strategies, Network World, pp. 17-18,
December 30, 1991/January 6, 1992.
30. Ekahau, Ekahau Positioning Engine
2.1, available at least as early as October,
2003 (see
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031
008125411/http://www.ekahau.com/prod
ucts/,
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031
004002510/http://www.ekahau.com/prod
ucts/positioningengine/,
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031
011143106/http://www.ekahau.com/prod
ucts/positioningengine/epe20_features.ht
ml,
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031
011193911/http://www.ekahau.com/prod
ucts/positioningengine/epe20_specificati
ons.html,
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031
208195116/http://www.ekahau.com/prod
ucts/positioningengine/epe20_requiremen
ts.html, and
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031
217181553/http://www.ekahau.com/prod
ucts/positioningengine/epe20_casestudies
.html, last accessed April 14, 2011).
A/74147649.4
6
Issue/
Publication
Date
June 2, 1992
Applicability
§§ 102(b) & (e)
December 30,
1991/January
6, 1992
§ 102(b)
2003
§ 102(b)
Prior Art Reference
31. Ekahau, Ekahau Site Survey 1.0,
available at least as early as October,
2003 (see
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031
008125411/http://www.ekahau.com/prod
ucts/,
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20030
807204446/http://www.ekahau.com/prod
ucts/sitesurvey/, and
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20030
801080918/http://www.ekahau.com/prod
ucts/sitesurvey/ess10_why.html, last
accessed April 14, 2011).
32. Ekahau, Ekahau Client 3.0, available
at least as early as October, 2003 (see
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031
008125411/http://www.ekahau.com/prod
ucts/,
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031
004002735/http://www.ekahau.com/prod
ucts/client/, and
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20030
929003821/http://www.ekahau.com/prod
ucts/client/ReleaseNotes3_0.html, last
accessed April 14, 2011).
33. Eiman Elnahrawy, et al. “Using Areabased Presentations and Metrics for
Localization Systems in Wireless LANs”
Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE
Intl. Conference on Local Computer
Networks, IEEE Computer Society Press
LCN’04, (2004).
34. JP04-035345 to Emi
35. U.S. Patent No. 5,095,505 to
Finucane et al.
36. WO 03/021851 to Gray et al.
37. U.S. Patent No. 6,674,403 to Gray, et
al.
38. U.S. Patent No. 7,257,411 to Gwon et
al.
A/74147649.4
Filing/Priority
Date
Issue/
Publication
Date
2003
§ 102(b)
2003
§ 102(b)
Nov. 2004
§ 102(a)
May 28, 1990
May 17, 1991
Feb. 2, 1992
Mar. 10, 1992
§§ 102(b) & (e)
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Sept. 5, 2002
Sept. 5, 2002
Mar. 13, 2003
Jan. 6, 2004
§§ 102(b) & (e)
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Dec. 27, 2002
Aug. 14, 2007
§§ 102(b) & (e)
7
Applicability
Prior Art Reference
Filing/Priority
Date
39. Dean Harvey et al. “Call Center
Solutions” Intelligent Networking:
Business Communications Systems,
AT&T Technical Journal, Vol. 70, No. 5
(Sept./Oct. 1991)
40. Ahmad Hatami et al. “A Comparative
Performance Evaluation of RSS-Based
Positioning Algorithms Used in WLAN
Networks” 2005 IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking
Conference, IEEE Communications
Society, WCNC Vol. 4, (March 13-17,
2005).
41. Charles Head “Intelligent Network: A
Distributed System” IEEE
Communications Magazine, pp. 16-20,
(December 1988).
42. Jeffrey Hightower et al. “A Survey
and Taxonomy of Location Systems for
Ubiquitous Computing”, University of
Washington, 2001.
43. William Honig et al. “The Realities
of Service Creation on Switching
Systems Through Attached Processors”
XII International Switching Symposium,
Vol. VI, pp. 51-54, (May 27-June 1,
1990).
44. Paul Hunter “ The Sources of
Innovation in New Jersey Bell Switching
Services” Master of Science Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
(June 1991).
45. Chris Hurley et al., “War Driving
Drive, Detect, Defend A Guide to
Wireless Security”, Syngress Publishing,
Inc., 2004
46. Ming-Hui Jin et al. ”802.11-based
Positioning System for Context Aware
Applications” GLOBECOM, IEEE 2003.
47. U.S. Patent No. 7,389,114 to Ju et al. Feb. 11, 2004
A/74147649.4
8
Issue/
Publication
Date
1991
Applicability
§102 (b)
2005
§ 102(a)
1988
§102(b)
Aug. 24, 2001
§ 102(b)
1990
§102(b)
June, 1991
§102(b)
2004
2003
§ 102(b)
June 17, 2008
§§ 102(e)
Prior Art Reference
48. Jong Hee Kang et al. “Extracting
Places from Traces of Locations” Dept.
of Computer Science and Engineering,
University of Washington, WMASH ’04,
pp. 110-118, (October 1, 2004).
49. C. A. Kent et al. “Position Estimation
of Access Points in 802.11 Wireless
Network” Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, 2004.
50. John Krumm et al. “The NearMe
Wireless Proximity Server” UbiComp
2004, LNCS 3205, pp. 283-300, (2004).
51. Robert K. Kwan “GLOBALSTAR:
Linking the World via Mobile
Connections”, IEEE Intl. Symposium on
Personal, Indoor & Mobile Radio
Communications, pp. 318-323, (Sept. 2425, 1991).
52. Anthony LaMarca et al. “Place Lab:
Device Positioning Using Radio Beacons
in the Wild” Intel Research Seattle; Intel
Research Cambridge; UC San Diego;
University of Washington; Information
School, University of Washington, 2004.
53. Anthony LaMarca et al. “Place Lab:
Device Positioning Using Radio Beacons
in the Wild” PERVASIVE 2005, LNCS
3468, pp. 116-133, (2005).
54. U.S. Patent No. 7,412,246 to Lewis et
al.
55. U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2009/0017841 to Lewis et al.
56. U.S. Patent No. 7,130,642 to Lin
57. Konrad Lorinez et al. “MoteTrack: A
Robust, Decentralized Approach to RFBased Location Tracking” LoCA 2005,
LNCS 3479, pp. 63-82, (2005).
58. U.S. Patent No. 7,519,372 to
MacDonald et al.
A/74147649.4
Filing/Priority
Date
Issue/
Publication
Date
Oct. 1, 2004
Applicability
§§ 102(a), (b),
& (e)
Jan. 21, 2004
§§ 102(a) & (b)
2004
§ 102(a) & (b)
1991
§102 (b)
2004
§§ 102(a) & (b)
2005
§§ 102(a)
Oct. 6, 2003
Aug. 12, 2008
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Jul 8, 2008
Jan. 15, 2009
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Mar. 2, 2004
Oct. 31, 2006
2005
§§ 102(a) & (e)
§§ 102(a) & (b)
Apr. 3, 2002
Apr. 14, 2009
§§ 102(b) & (e)
9
Prior Art Reference
59. Bernard J.T. Mallinder, “The Final
Countdown to GSM”, 1991 Pan
European Digital Cellular Radio
Conference, Acropolis Conference
Center, Nice, France.
60. U.S. Patent No. 5,353,023 to Mitsugi
61. WO 05/004527 to Moeglein et al.
62. U.S. Patent No. 5,235,630 to Moody
et al.
63. European Pat. App. EP1359714A2 to
Moore et al.
64. U.S. Patent No. 6,664,925 to Moore
et al.
65. Netstumbler Blog Posting,
“Wardriving as a Proxy for Wi-Fi GPS
Location” (available at
http://www.netstumbler.org/news/wardri
ving-as-a-proxy-for-wi-fi-gps-locationt10762.html, May 11, 2004 - May 17,
2004, last accessed April, 13, 2004)
66. Newbury Networks, Newbury
Networks' LocaleServer, available at
least as early as October, 2004 (see
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20041
010054718/http://www.newburynetworks
.com/products/coretech.php, last accessed
April 14, 2011).
67. Newbury Networks, LocalePoints,
available at least as early as October,
2004 (see
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20041
009170934/http://www.newburynetworks
.com/products/coretech.php?localepoints,
, last accessed April 14, 2011).
68. U.S. Patent No. 7,299,058 to Ogino
69. U.S. Patent No. 7,672,675 to Pande et
al.
A/74147649.4
Filing/Priority
Date
Issue/
Publication
Date
Feb. 5-6 1991
§ 102(b)
Jun. 25, 1992
June 28, 2004
Apr. 17, 1991
Oct. 4,1994
Jan. 13, 2005
Aug. 10, 1993
§§ 102(b) & (e)
§§ 102(a) & (e)
§§ 102(b) & (e)
May 2, 2003
Nov. 5, 2003
§§ 102(b) & (e)
May 2, 2002
Dec. 16, 2003
§§ 102(b) & (e)
May 11, 2004 May 17, 2004
§§ 102(a) & (b)
2004
§ 102(b)
2004
§ 102(b)
Nov. 20, 2007
Mar. 2, 2010
§ 102(e)
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Aug. 11, 2005
Sep. 10, 2002
10
Applicability
Prior Art Reference
70. Pango, PanGo Proximity Platform,
available at least as early as October,
2003 (see
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031
002102757/http://pangonetworks.com/pr
oximity.htm and
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031
002103310/http://pangonetworks.com/pr
oducts.htm, last accessed April 14, 2011).
71. Pango, PanGo Mobile Applications
Suite, available at least as early as
August, 2003 (see
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20030
825161534/http://www.pangonetworks.c
om/mobile.htm and
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031
002103310/http://pangonetworks.com/pr
oducts.htm, last accessed April 14, 2011).
72. U.S. Patent No. 5,414,432 to Penny et
al.
73. Canadian Pat. App. No. 2,056,203 to
Reading et al.
74. European Pat. App. EP0493896A2 to
Reading et al.
75. U.S. Patent No. 4,757,267 to Riskin
76. Michael Robinson et al. “Received
Signal Strength Based Location
Estimation of a Wireless LAN Client”
2005 IEEE Wireless Communications
and Networking Conference, IEEE
Communications Society, WCNC Vol. 4,
(March 13-17, 2005).
77. Siddhartha Saha et al. “Location
Determination of a Mobile Device Using
IEEE 802.11b Access Point Signals”
2003 IEEE Wireless Communications
and Networking Conference, IEEE
Communications Society, pp. 1987-1992,
(March 16-20, 2003).
A/74147649.4
Filing/Priority
Date
Issue/
Publication
Date
2003
§ 102(b)
2003
§ 102(b)
Apr. 22, 1993
May 9, 1995
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Nov. 26, 1991
July 1, 1992
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Dec. 5, 1991
July 8, 1992
§§ 102(b) & (e)
June 17, 1987
July 12, 1988
2005
§§ 102(b) & (e)
§ 102(a)
2003
§ 102(b)
11
Applicability
Prior Art Reference
78. Bill N. Schilit et al. “Challenge:
Ubiquitous Location-Aware Computing
and the “Place Lab” Initiative” Dept. of
Computer Science and Engineering,
University of Washington, WMASH ’03,
pp. 29-35, (Sept. 19, 2003).
79. Bill N. Schilit et al., “Bootstrapping
the Location-enhanced Word Wide Web”
Intel Research Seattle; University of
Washington; University of California at
San Diego; University of California at
Berkeley, 2003.
80. U.S. Patent No. 7,426,197 to Schotten
et al.
81. U.S. Patent No. 7,373,154 to Sharony
et al.
82. U.S. Patent No. 7,319,878 to
Sheynblat et al.
83. U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 07/0077945A1 to Sheynblat
84. Peter Shipley, “Open WLANs the
early results of war Driving” DEFCON9
Conference 802.11b War Driving
Presentation
85. Peter Shipley, "802.11b War Driving
and LAN Jacking", DEFCON 9
Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA,
July 13-15 2001, (available at
http://www.defcon.org/html/links/dcarchives/dc-9-archive.html, last accessed
April 13, 2011), video and transcript.
86. U.S. Patent No. 6,134,448 to Shoji et
al.
87. U.S. Patent No. 5,334,974 to Simms
et al.
88. Sue Spielman and Philip Brittan,
"Java and GIS, Part 1: Intro to GIS",
February 16, 2004 available at
http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2004/02
/16/gis.html, last accessed April 14, 2011
A/74147649.4
Filing/Priority
Date
Issue/
Publication
Date
2003
§ 102(b)
2003
§ 102(b)
Oct. 7, 2005
Sept. 16, 2008
§§ 102(e)
Dec. 7, 2006
May 13, 2008
Oct. 21, 2004
Jan. 15, 2008
§§ 102(a), (b),
& (e)
§§ 102(a) &(e)
Aug. 24, 2005
Apr. 5, 2007
§ 102(e)
July 13-15,
2001
§ 102(b)
July 13-15,
2001
§ 102(b)
Mar. 3, 1997
Oct. 17, 2000
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Feb. 6, 1992
Aug. 2, 1994
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Feb. 16, 2004
§§ 102(a) & (b)
12
Applicability
Prior Art Reference
89. Sue Spielman and Simon Brown,
"Java and GIS, Part 2: Mobile LBS",
April 1, 2004 available at
http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2004/04
/01/gis.html, last accessed April 14, 2011
90. David Sterling et al. “The Iridium
System - A Revolutionary satellite
Communications System Developed with
Innovative Applications of Technology”,
IEEE Communications Society, pp.
0436-0440, MILCOM ’91 (1991).
91. U.S. Patent No. 7,242,950 to
Suryanarayana et al.
92. Ali Taheri, et al. “Location
Fingerprinting on Infrastructure 802.11
Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs)
using Locus, 29th Conference on Local
Computer Networks, IEEE
Communications Society, (Nov. 16-18,
2004).
93. Texas Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations,
“Implementing 9-1-1 Systems in Texas:
Legal and Institutional Background”
94. U.S. Patent No. 6,484,034 to
Tsunehara et al.
95. U.S. Patent No. 6,990,351 to
Tsunehara et al.
96. Bob Wallace “Domino’s delivers
using new call routing service” Network
World, Vol. 8, Number 32.
97. U.S. Patent No. 7,130,646 to Wang
98. U.S. Patent No. 5,136,636 to
Wegrzynowicz
99. WO 04/002185A1 to Wood et al.
100. Alexandra Workman et. al.
“International Applications of AT&T’s
Intelligent Network Platforms”, AT&T
Technical Journal, 1991, Volume 70, No.
34, pp. 44-57.
101. JP03-235562 to Yoshihiro et al.
A/74147649.4
Filing/Priority
Date
Issue/
Publication
Date
Apr. 1, 2004
§ 102(a)
1991
§ 102(b)
Jul. 10, 2007
§§ 102(b) & (e)
2004
§ 102(b)
June, 1987
§ 102(b)
Aug. 29, 2001
Nov. 19, 2002
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Feb. 19, 2002
Jan. 24, 2006
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Aug. 12, 1991
§ 102(b)
Feb. 14, 2003
Feb. 7, 1991
Oct. 31, 2006
Aug. 4, 1992
§§ 102(b) & (e)
§§ 102(b) & (e)
June 19, 2003
Dec. 31, 2003
1991
§§ 102(b) & (e)
§ 102(b)
Feb. 13, 1990
Oct. 21, 1991
§§ 102(b) & (e)
Feb. 18, 2003
13
Applicability
II.
Anticipation
B. The ‘988 and ‘694 Patents
The ‘988 and ‘694 patents are directed to a “Wi-Fi location server” that includes a
“database of Wi-Fi access points” and “[a] database of Wi-Fi access points,” respectively. The
patents claim priority to provisional patent application no. 60/623,108 filed on October 29, 2004.
All of the claims of the ‘988 and ‘694 patents are anticipated by several prior art references. For
example, all of the Asserted Claims of the ‘988 patent and the ‘694 patent are anticipated by at
least U.S. Patent Nos. 7,130,646 (“Wang ‘646 patent”), 7,257,411 (“Gwon ‘411 patent”) and the
Place Lab initiative and product, and the wigle.net project, which are described in several
publications in the prior art list. Additionally, U.S. Patent No. 7,440,755 (“Balachandran ‘755
patent”) anticipates all Asserted claims of the ‘988 patent.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A are illustrative claim charts setting forth a correspondence
between the asserted claims of the ‘988 and ‘646 patent and these anticipating references. These
preliminary charts are premised on how the Plaintiff has asserted the patents in its infringement
contentions against the accused products. In its infringement contentions, Plaintiff did not set
forth a prima facie case of infringement. Nor did it provide with its contentions any claim
construction or other explanation about the purported scope of the claimed inventions. Based on
Plaintiff's infringement contentions, to the extent they are intelligible, Google understands
Plaintiff to be construing the asserted claims in ways that are inconsistent with the language of
the asserted claims, the disclosures of the patents-in-suit, and the prosecution histories of the
patents-in-suit. It is expected that when the court construes the claims, and/or the plaintiff
otherwise changes its contentions to be more specific and more closely related to the
requirements of the patents, the references identified herein may be applied differently to the
claims than as in the illustrative cases provided in the attached claim charts. Google reserves the
A/74147649.4
14
right to rely on each reference in its entirety for purposes of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. sections
102 and 103, including those portions that are identified in the chart with citations and portions
that are not identified by citation. All citations provided are illustrative and are not intended to
limit in any way the full context and disclosure of these references that is relevant to the Asserted
Claims.
B. The ‘897 patent and ‘245 Patents
The ‘897 and ‘245 patents are directed to “methods of calculating the position of WiFienabled devices.” Each of the Asserted Claims within these patents has as its focus determining
the position of a Wi-Fi enabled device from the location of access points. The Asserted Claims,
claims 1 - 4 of the ‘897 patent and claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8 of the ‘245 patent are anticipated by at
least the following references as shown by the charts attached hereto as Exhibit A: Wang ‘646
patent, Gwon ‘411 patent, Balachandran ‘755, and U.S. Patent No. 7,389,114 (“Ju ‘114 patent”)
and the Place Lab initiative and product, which are described in several publications in the prior
art list. Illustrative, preliminary claim charts showing correspondence between each of the above
identified references and the Asserted Claims, as described above, are included in Exhibit A.
III.
Obviousness
A.
The ‘988 and ‘694 Patents
As discussed above, the ‘988 and ‘694 Patents are directed to a “Wi-Fi location server”
that includes a “database of Wi-Fi access points” and “[a] database of Wi-Fi access points,”
respectively. There are many disclosures in the prior art of a server having a database of access
points, including Wi-Fi access points, or a database of such Wi-Fi access points, where the
A/74147649.4
15
locations of the Wi-Fi access points are calculated, updated over time and added to the database.
This was a well known concept before the earliest filing date of any of the patents in suit.
The background of the invention section in each of the patents describes anticipatory
prior art, but the plaintiff attempts to describe distinctions over the prior art that relate to the
manner of collecting Wi-Fi access points by systematically driving according to a Chinese
Postman algorithm. The platinff makes other attempts to describe a required systematic manner
of collecting data that preserves “reference symmetry” and avoids “arterial bias” in determining
the location of access points.
As discussed in connection with deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. § 112, the “reference
symmetry” and avoiding “arterial bias” terms are unclear, with uncertain boundaries or scope
and support in the specification. However, notwithstanding the presence of these terms in certain
claims, it is clear that the prior art has completely anticipated creating databases of Wi-Fi access
points with location information derived by walking, driving, doing either systematically, driving
all the way around a building to identify accurately access points within the building, or any
other conceivable or mundane arrangement. The prior art describes all of these features in many
individual prior art references identified in the table of prior art above. In addition, many of the
references go into detail on certain features found in the claims. None of the asserted claims in
the ‘988 and ‘694 patents represents a new combination of old elements or limitations, or any
new elements beyond what is taught in individual references identified in this pleading or
identified in references taken individually or together.
In addition to the prior art described above as anticipating the asserted claims of the ‘988
and ‘694 patents, all asserted claims of the ‘988 and ‘694 patents are rendered obvious, and
therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103, by at least the following references taken alone or in
A/74147649.4
16
combination with other references in the table of prior art, including the anticipatory references:
the Wang ‘646 patent, the Lorincz reference, and the LaMarca reference. It would have been
well within the grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention to
combine the teaching of these references and other references that teach storing and using Wi-Fi
access point locations for locating wireless devices. The Wang ‘646 patent discloses a method of
determining the location of a wireless device based on information provided by an access point
in a wireless local area network. The position of the access point is determined and then used in
the identification of the wireless device’s location. The Lorincnz reference likewise discloses an
approach to computing location, also relying on a database of location information for access
points in target areas, and a clustering algorithm to determine a centroid of the data. The
LaMarca reference discloses a radio beacon based approach to location, which also utilizes a
database of location information and recognizes war-driving as one method of gathering location
information. Additional references describe gathering location information for Wi-Fi and other
access points, including those described in the anticipation section and in the table above. The
Peter Shipley reference, “Open WLANs the early results of war Driving” DEFCON Conference
802.11b describes the effectiveness of war driving and driving all the way around a building for
improving the accuracy of Wi-Fi access point location measurement. These references, standing
alone or in combination with each other, with the anticipatory references, or with other
references within the table of prior art that teach all or the remaining elements of the asserted
claims of the ‘988 and ‘694 patents, demonstrate that the asserted claims are obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Included with the illustrative, preliminary claim charts attached hereto as Exhibit A are
charts detailing the correspondence between the asserted claim elements and, respectively, the
A/74147649.4
17
Wang ‘646 patent, the Lorincz reference, and the LaMarca reference. Each of these references
renders the claims obvious alone or in combination with other prior art identified herein.
In addition, the Connelly reference, the Kang reference, the Saha reference, the Gwon
‘114 patent, the Balachandran ‘755 patent, EP 1,359,714, and CA 2,056,203, for example, are
prior art as set forth above and render the ‘988 and ‘694 patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103
alone or in combination with each other or other prior art identified herein. Any reference in the
table of prior art references may be used to demonstrate the obviousness of the asserted claims of
the ‘988 and ‘694 patents in combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,
in combination with one of the anticipatory references or in connection with another reference
describing the remaining elements of the asserted claims. All of the references identified in the
table of prior art constitute references under at least 35 U.S.C. § 103. Further citations to prior
art under § 103 are found in Exhibit A.
Skyhook has not identified any secondary evidence of non-obviousness supporting the
validity of any of the asserted claims, such as industry acquiescence, unexpected results, the
prior failure of others, skepticism, long-felt need, commercial success, or copying. To the
contrary, each element of the asserted claims and systems incorporating those elements are
described in the prior art identified herein. Moreover, many systems and techniques described in
the prior art references listed in the table of prior art, including Wardriving, NetStumbler, Radar,
Place Lab, Cricket and other similar systems demonstrate that collecting a database of Wi-Fi
access points, identifying information, information about location of the access points, and other
information, and using such information in systems for locating hand held wireless devices was
well known and implemented before the filing of the patents in suit.
A/74147649.4
18
B.
The ‘897 and ‘245 Patents
The ‘897 and ‘245 Patents, as discussed above, relate to the use of a WiFi enabled device
to determine its location, essentially using signal strength received from WiFi access points and
calculated location information for those access points. It was well known in the prior art at the
time of the filing of the patents in suit to determine location using triangulation and other
calculation techniques using signal strength and other information received from access points,
such as WiFi access points, cellular towers, Loran towers, and other access points. Many of the
references identified in the table of prior art detail such location determining techniques and
several anticipatory references have been specifically identified and illustratively charted herein
that show correlation between these references and the asserted claim elements. Any of these
anticipatory references, standing alone or in combination with other references may also be used
to demonstrate the obviousness of the invention. In addition, as discussed above in connection
with the ‘988 and ‘694 patents, many systems and techniques described in the prior art references
listed in the table of prior art, including Wardriving, NetStumbler, Radar, Place Lab, Cricket and
other similar systems demonstrate that collecting a database of Wi-Fi access points, identifying
information, information about location of the access points, and other information, and using
such information in systems for locating hand held wireless devices was well known and
implemented before the filing of the patents in suit.
To the extent that the plaintiff seeks to show non-obviousness of the asserted claims of
the ‘897 and ‘245 Patents because of the techniques used to gather and calculate the locations of
the WiFi access points in a database used by wireless devices to calculate the location of the
wireless device, as discussed above in connection with the ‘988 and ‘694 Patents, such databases
A/74147649.4
19
are anticipated by the prior art and were well known and in use at the time of the alleged
invention.
Additional illustrative charts showing the use of various references within the table of
prior art references to show the presence of the elements and limitations of the Asserted Claims
of the ‘897 and ‘245 patents are shown in the charts attached at Exhibit A. Any reference in the
table of prior art references may be used to demonstrate the obviousness of the asserted claims of
the ‘897 or ‘245 patents in combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, in
combination with one of the anticipatory references or in connection with another reference
describing the remaining elements of the asserted claims. All of the references identified in the
table of prior art constitute references under at least 35 U.S.C. § 103. The references in the table
teach elements of the asserted claims, including for example:
•
Bluesoft, Inc.'s Aeroscout, Ekahau's Positioning Engine 2.1, Site Survey 1.0, and Client
3.0, PanGo's Proximity Platform and Mobile Applications Suite, and Newbury Networks'
LocaleServer and LocalePoints products, for example, as well as other references in the
table, provide location-based database servers with recorded position information for
determining the location of a wi-fi enabled device by referencing the location of the device
in relation to known access points, and also provide client applications for use on mobile
devices, where the applications would record signal strength information of detected access
points and then access the provided server to determine location based on calculated and
filtered position information;
•
WO 03/021851 to Gray et al., WO 04/002185A1 to Wood et al., for example, as well as
other references in the table, describe, inter alia, a database of Wi-Fi access points,
calculating the signal strength of the messages received by Wi-Fi access points to
determine location of a wireless device, adding records for newly-discovered Wi-Fi access
points to a database, using predefined rules to determine whether an observed WiFi access
point should be included or excluded from a set of WiFi access points, based on the
number of Wi-Fi access points within range, choosing a corresponding location
determination algorithm from a plurality of location determination algorithms, updating of
access point location, filtering data collected, and filtering data used in positioning;
•
“Java and GIS”, Parts 1 and 2 by Spielman et al., for example, as well as other references
in the table, describe, inter alia, using a handset to contact a remote location server for
information about location device location, based on signal strength readings from the
device;
A/74147649.4
20
•
Chris Hurley et al., “War Driving Drive, Detect, Defend A Guide to Wireless Security”, for
example, as well as other references in the table, describes, inter alia, methods of driving
an area to collect information about the locations of wi-fi access points, filtering the
collected information, and adding information about previously known and newly
discovered access points to a database;
•
U.S. Patent No. 7,373,154 to Sharony et al. and U.S. Patent No. 7,426,197 to Schotten et
al., for example, as well as other references in the table, describe, inter alia, a method and
apparatus for determining a location of a wireless device within an environment. The
device receives identifying information from a transponder, which may be an RFID. They
disclose a location database that may be stored in the memory of the wireless device. They
also disclose a coverage map associated with each radio receiver that records signal
strength data defined out to a threshold signal strength level;
•
U.S. Patent No. 7,116,988 to Dietrich et al. and U.S. Patent No. 7,433,696 to Dietrich et
al., for example, as well as other references in the table, describe, inter alia, methods,
apparatuses, and systems directed to a wireless node location mechanism that uses a signal
strength weighting metric to improve the accuracy of estimating the location of a wireless
node based on signals detected among a plurality of radio transceivers. They also teach
maintaining a database of strength signals and wireless node identifiers, and a RF physical
model of the coverage area associate with the environment;
•
U.S. Patent No. 7,319,878 to Sheynblat et al. for example, as well as other references in the
table, describes, inter alia, a method for determining the position of a base station in a
wireless communication network. It also discloses a database of location information that
can be updated, a calibration system, and the use of GPS, CDMA and Advanced Forward
Link Trilateration.
•
U.S. Patent No. 7,299,058 to Ogino, for example, as well as other references in the table,
describes, inter alia, a method for determining the position of a radio device by calculating
error degradation quantities on varying distances;
•
U.S. Patent No. 6,664,925 to Moore et al., for example, as well as other references in the
table, describes, inter alia, the use of strength signal measurements for locating a mobile
computer connected to a wireless access point in a computer network. It also teaches
compiling a database of access point locations.
Further citations to prior art under § 103 are found in Exhibit A.
As discussed above in connection with the ‘988 and ‘694 patents, Skyhook has not
identified any secondary considerations of obviousness and there are none.
A/74147649.4
21
IV.
Additional Bases for Invalidity
A.
The patents-in-suit are invalid for failure to comply with the definiteness
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
The following patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 because they fail to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the
invention:
•
Claims 1 - 3 of the ‘988 patent;
•
Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘694 patent;
•
Claims 1 - 4 of the ‘897 patent; and
•
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 6, and 8 of the ‘245 patent.
Specifically, the following terms are indefinite within the meaning of § 112, ¶ 2, because
one skilled in the art would not understand the bounds of the claims in which they appear when
read in light of the specification:
1. “target
area
having
a
radius
on
the
order
of
tens
of
miles”
target
area”
(‘988 patent, claim 1; ‘694 patent, claim 1);
2. “substantially
all
Wi-Fi
access
points
in
the
(‘988 patent, claim 1; ‘694 patent, claim 1);
3. “obtained from recording multiple readings of the Wi-Fi access point at different
locations around the Wi-Fi access point so that the multiple readings have
reference symmetry relative to other Wi-Fi access points in the target area and so
that the calculation of the position of the Wi-Fi access point avoids arterial bias in
the calculated position information” (‘988, claim 1);
A/74147649.4
22
4. “logic” associated with the “computer implemented logic to add records to the
database for newly-discovered Wi-Fi access points” (‘988 patent, claim 1);
5. “logic” associated with the “computer logic including logic to recalculate position
information for Wi-Fi access points previously stored in the database to utilize
position information for the newly-discovered readings of previously stored Wi-Fi
access points” (‘988 patent, claim 1);
6. “logic” associated with the “computer-implemented clustering logic to identify
position information based on error prone GPS information” (‘988 patent,
claim 2);
7. “logic” associated with the “the clustering logic includes logic to determine a
weighted centroid position for all position information reported for an access
point” (‘988 patent, claim 3);
8. “logic” associated with the “the clustering logic includes … logic to identify
position information that exceeds a statistically-based deviation threshold amount
away from the centroid position and excludes such deviating position information
from the database and from influencing the calculated positions of the Wi-Fi
access points” (‘988 patent, claim 3);
9. “recording multiple readings of the Wi-Fi access point at different locations
around the Wi-Fi access point so that the multiple readings avoid arterial bias in
the calculated position information of the Wi-Fi access point” (‘694 patent, claim
1);
A/74147649.4
23
10. “the database records for substantially all Wi-Fi access points in the target area
provide reference symmetry within the target area” (‘694 patent, claim 1);
11. “c) using the recorded location information for each of the observed WiFi access
points in conjunction with predefined rules to determine whether an observed
WiFi access point should be included or excluded from a set of WiFi access
points” (‘897 patent, claim 1);
12. “the predefined rules include rules to determine a reference point and to compare
the recorded location information for each of the observed WiFi access points to
the reference point” (‘897 patent, claim 3);
13. “WiFi access points having a recorded location within a predefined threshold
distance of the reference point are included in the set” (‘897 patent, claim 3);
14. “WiFi access points having a recorded location in excess of the predefined
threshold distance of the reference point are excluded from the set” (‘897 patent,
claim 3); and
15. “based on the number of Wi-Fi access points identified via received messages,
choosing a corresponding location-determination algorithm from a plurality of
location-determination algorithms, said chosen algorithm being suited for the
number of identified Wi-Fi access points” (‘245 patent, claim 1).
Because each asserted independent claim is indefinite and therefore invalid, all claims
depending from them are also indefinite and invalid.
A/74147649.4
24
Skyhook has not disclosed its constructions of any limitation of any patent-in-suit, and
the court has not construed the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. Google reserves the right to
supplement or amend its preliminary indefiniteness contentions as appropriate.
B. The patents-in-suit are not enabled.
The following patent claims are not enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 because the
specification does not teach a person having ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the full
scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
•
Claims 1 - 3 of the ‘988 patent;
•
Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘694 patent;
•
Claims 1 - 4 of the ‘897 patent; and
•
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 6, and 8 of the ‘245 patent.
Specifically, the specification of the ‘988 patent does not enable the following claim
elements:
1. “computer implemented logic to add records to the database for newly-discovered
Wi-Fi access points” (‘988 patent, claim 1);
2. “computer logic including logic to recalculate position information for Wi-Fi
access points previously stored in the database to utilize position information for
the newly-discovered readings of previously stored Wi-Fi access points” (‘988
patent, claim 1);
3. “computer-implemented clustering logic to identify position information based on
error prone GPS information” (‘988 patent, claim 2);
A/74147649.4
25
4. “the clustering logic includes logic to determine a weighted centroid position for
all position information reported for an access point” (‘988 patent, claim 3);
5. “the clustering logic includes … logic to identify position information that
exceeds a statistically-based deviation threshold amount away from the centroid
position and excludes such deviating position information from the database and
from influencing the calculated positions of the Wi-Fi access points” (‘988 patent,
claim 3);
6. “recording multiple readings of the Wi-Fi access point at different locations
around the Wi-Fi access point so that the multiple readings avoid arterial bias in
the calculated position information of the Wi-Fi access point” (‘694 patent, claim
1);
7. “the database records for substantially all Wi-Fi access points in the target area
provide reference symmetry within the target area” (‘694 patent, claim 1);
8.
“c) using the recorded location information for each of the observed WiFi access
points in conjunction with predefined rules to determine whether an observed
WiFi access point should be included or excluded from a set of WiFi access
points” (‘897 patent, claim 1);
9. “the predefined rules include rules to determine a reference point and to compare
the recorded location information for each of the observed WiFi access points to
the reference point” (‘897 patent, claim 3);
10. “WiFi access points having a recorded location within a predefined threshold
distance of the reference point are included in the set” (‘897 patent, claim 3);
11. “WiFi access points having a recorded location in excess of the predefined
threshold distance of the reference point are excluded from the set” (‘897 patent,
claim 3); and
12. “based on the number of Wi-Fi access points identified via received messages,
choosing a corresponding location-determination algorithm from a plurality of
A/74147649.4
26
location-determination algorithms, said chosen algorithm being suited for the
number of identified Wi-Fi access points” (‘245 patent, claim 1).
13. The patents-in-suit lack the written description required by 35 U.S.C. § 112,
¶ 1.
The following patent claims do not comply with the written description requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 because the disclosure of the pertinent application does not convey to those
skilled in the art that the inventors invented what is claimed, i.e., that they had possession of the
claimed subject matter, as of the filing date:
•
Claims 1 - 3 of the ‘988 patent;
•
Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘694 patent;
•
Claims 1 - 4 of the ‘897 patent; and
•
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 6, and 8 of the ‘245 patent.
Specifically, the written description requirement is not met as to the following claim
elements:
1. “computer implemented logic to add records to the database for newly-discovered
Wi-Fi access points” (‘988 patent, claim 1);
2. “computer logic including logic to recalculate position information for Wi-Fi
access points previously stored in the database to utilize position information for
the newly-discovered readings of previously stored Wi-Fi access points” (‘988
patent, claim 1);
3. “computer-implemented clustering logic to identify position information based on
error prone GPS information” (‘988 patent, claim 2);
A/74147649.4
27
4. “the clustering logic includes logic to determine a weighted centroid position for
all position information reported for an access point” (‘988 patent, claim 3);
5. “the clustering logic includes … logic to identify position information that
exceeds a statistically-based deviation threshold amount away from the centroid
position and excludes such deviating position information from the database and
from influencing the calculated positions of the Wi-Fi access points” (‘988 patent,
claim 3);
6. “recording multiple readings of the Wi-Fi access point at different locations
around the Wi-Fi access point so that the multiple readings avoid arterial bias in
the calculated position information of the Wi-Fi access point” (‘694 patent, claim
1);
7. “the database records for substantially all Wi-Fi access points in the target area
provide reference symmetry within the target area” (‘694 patent, claim 1);
8.
“c) using the recorded location information for each of the observed WiFi access
points in conjunction with predefined rules to determine whether an observed
WiFi access point should be included or excluded from a set of WiFi access
points” (‘897 patent, claim 1);
9. “the predefined rules include rules to determine a reference point and to compare
the recorded location information for each of the observed WiFi access points to
the reference point” (‘897 patent, claim 3);
10. “WiFi access points having a recorded location within a predefined threshold
distance of the reference point are included in the set” (‘897 patent, claim 3);
11. “WiFi access points having a recorded location in excess of the predefined
threshold distance of the reference point are excluded from the set” (‘897 patent,
claim 3);
12. “calculating the signal strength of the messages received by the Wi-Fi access
points” (‘245 patent, claim 1); and
A/74147649.4
28
13. “choosing a corresponding location-determination algorithm from a plurality of
location-determination algorithms, said chosen algorithm being suited for the
number of identified Wi-Fi access points” (‘245 patent, claim 1).
D.
The patents-in-suit are invalid for failure to comply with the best mode
requirement.
Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the inventors of each
patent-in-suit possessed a best mode for practicing the invention at the time each application was
filed, and that the written description of each patent does not disclose the best mode for
practicing the invention known to the inventors such that a person of ordinary skill in the art
could practice it. Google is therefore informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the
following patent claims are invalid for failure to comply with the best mode requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1:
•
Claims 1 - 3 of the ‘988 patent;
•
Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘694 patent;
•
Claims 1 - 4 of the ‘897 patent; and
•
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 6, and 8 of the ‘245 patent.
Specifically, Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the best
mode requirement is not met as to the following claim limitations:
1. “computer implemented logic to add records to the database for newly-discovered
Wi-Fi access points” (‘988 patent, claim 1);
2. “computer logic including logic to recalculate position information for Wi-Fi
access points previously stored in the database to utilize position information for
A/74147649.4
29
the newly-discovered readings of previously stored Wi-Fi access points” (‘988
patent, claim 1);
3. “computer-implemented clustering logic to identify position information based on
error prone GPS information” (‘988 patent, claim 2);
4. “the clustering logic includes logic to determine a weighted centroid position for
all position information reported for an access point” (‘988 patent, claim 3);
5. “the clustering logic includes … logic to identify position information that
exceeds a statistically-based deviation threshold amount away from the centroid
position and excludes such deviating position information from the database and
from influencing the calculated positions of the Wi-Fi access points” (‘988 patent,
claim 3);
6. “recording multiple readings of the Wi-Fi access point at different locations
around the Wi-Fi access point so that the multiple readings avoid arterial bias in
the calculated position information of the Wi-Fi access point” (‘694 patent, claim
1);
7. “c) using the recorded location information for each of the observed WiFi access
points in conjunction with predefined rules to determine whether an observed
WiFi access point should be included or excluded from a set of WiFi access
points” (‘897 patent, claim 1);
8. “the predefined rules include rules to determine a reference point and to compare
the recorded location information for each of the observed WiFi access points to
the reference point” (‘897 patent, claim 3);
9. “WiFi access points having a recorded location within a predefined threshold
distance of the reference point are included in the set” (‘897 patent, claim 3);
10. “WiFi access points having a recorded location in excess of the predefined
threshold distance of the reference point are excluded from the set” (‘897 patent,
claim 3);
A/74147649.4
30
11. “choosing a corresponding location-determination algorithm from a plurality of
location-determination algorithms, said chosen algorithm being suited for the
number of identified Wi-Fi access points” (‘245 patent, claim 1).
* * *
Google reserves its right to supplement or amend its contentions based upon further
investigation, discovery, the Court’s claim construction rulings, or as otherwise warranted.
Respectfully Submitted,
GOOGLE, INC.
By its attorneys,
/s/ Susan Baker Manning
Jonathan M. Albano, BBO # 013850
jonathan.albano@bingham.com
BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP
One Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110-1726, U.S.A.
617.951.8000
William F. Abrams
william.abrams@bingham.com
BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP
1900 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2223
650.849.4400
Robert C. Bertin
robert.bertin@bingham.com
Susan Baker Manning
susan.manning@bingham.com
BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP
2020 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1806
202.373.6000
Dated: April 15, 2011
A/74147649.4
31
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants, by federal express,
on April 15, 2011.
/s/ Susan Baker Manning
Susan Baker Manning
A/74147649.4
32
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?