Lbt Ip Illc v. Apple Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 S HAUN D ARRELL G REGORY .
ADAM P RESCOTT SEITZ, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park,
KS, argued for appellee. Also represented by J ENNIFER C.
BAILEY , CLIFFORD T. BRAZEN; ABRAN J. K EAN, Greenwood
Village, CO.
______________________
Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 1 of 17 --

LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC. 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE 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: 2 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 2 of 17 --

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: 3 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 3 of 17 --

LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC. 4
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).
D ISCUSSION
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: 4 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 4 of 17 --

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).
I. T HE ’113, ’256, AND ’618 P ATENTS
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: 5 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 5 of 17 --

LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC. 6
’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: 6 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 6 of 17 --

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: 7 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 7 of 17 --

LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC. 8
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: 8 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 8 of 17 --

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
II. T HE ’774 P ATENT
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
3 In a footnote, LBT argues that although independ-
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: 9 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 9 of 17 --

LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC. 10
an electronic tracking device that is
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: 10 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 10 of 17 --

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: 11 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 11 of 17 --

LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC. 12
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: 12 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 12 of 17 --

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. T HE ’619 P ATENT
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: 13 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 13 of 17 --

LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC. 14
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: 14 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 14 of 17 --

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: 15 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 15 of 17 --

LBT IP I LLC v. APPLE INC. 16
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: 16 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 16 of 17 --

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.
Case: 22-1613 Document: 39 Page: 17 Filed: 06/09/2023

-- 17 of 17 --