Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01811/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01811-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Google Inc.
Appellee
Unwired Planet, LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

UNWIRED PLANET, LLC,

Appellant

v.

GOOGLE INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1810, 2015-1811

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in Nos. 

IPR2014-00036, CBM2014-00005.

______________________ 

Decided: November 15, 2016

______________________ 

WILLIAM M. JAY, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by ELEANOR 

M. YOST; BRETT M. SCHUMAN, DAVID ZIMMER, San Francisco, CA. 

JON WRIGHT, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, 

Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

MICHAEL V. MESSINGER, DEIRDRE M. WELLS, JOSEPH E.

MUTSCHELKNAUS; PETER ANDREW DETRE, Munger, Tolles 

& Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA; ADAM R. LAWTON, Los 

Angeles, CA.

______________________ 

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 1 Filed: 11/15/2016
2 UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

Before REYNA, PLAGER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge. 

Unwired Planet, LLC (“Unwired”) appeals from the 

final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board (“Board”) in Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) No. 2014-

00036 and Covered Business Method (“CBM”) Patent 

Review No. 2014-00005. Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, 

LLC, IPR2014-00036, 2015 WL 1478653 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 

30, 2015) (“IPR Final Decision”); Google Inc. v. Unwired 

Planet, LLC, CBM2014-00005, 2015 WL 1519056 

(P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2015) (“CBM Final Decision”). For the 

reasons stated below, we affirm the Board’s decision that 

the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,024,205 (the 

“’205 patent”) are invalid as obvious in the IPR appeal

and dismiss the CBM appeal as moot.

BACKGROUND

U.S. Patent No. 7,024,205

The ’205 patent is entitled “Subscriber Delivered Location-Based Services.” It describes a system and method 

for providing wireless network subscribers (e.g., cell 

phone users) with prioritized search results based on the 

location of their mobile device (e.g., the nearest gas station). The specification describes how search results can 

be personalized for subscribers by taking into account, for

example, “favorite restaurants; automobile service plans; 

and/or a wide variety of other subscriber information.” 

’205 patent col. 2 ll. 18–19. 

In contrast, the specification also describes how 

search results can be ordered to give priority to “preferred

service providers defined by the network administrator.” 

Id. at col. 8 ll. 35–36. This allows the network to generate 

revenue by charging service providers to be put on the 

preferred-service-provider list. Id. at col. 8 ll. 46–52. 

Preferred-provider status, in turn, leads to preferred 

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 2 Filed: 11/15/2016
UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 3

providers’ listings being prioritized in search results 

provided to subscribers. 

Prioritization based on subscriber information and 

preferred provider status is independent of a subscriber’s 

location; hence, it can lead to service providers that are 

actually farther away from the subscriber being given 

priority over service providers that are nearer. As a 

consequence, the results returned to the subscriber can 

order preferred providers and other service providers that 

are farther away higher than nearer service providers. 

The parties and the Board refer to this result as “fartherover-nearer ordering,” although that term is not used in 

the patent.

The sole independent claim of the ’205 patent, claim 1, 

claims farther-over-nearer ordering in the context of 

wireless location-based services through a series of method steps. We treat claim 1 of the ’205 patent as representative and dispositive because the parties do not argue 

that any limitations of the dependent claims alter the 

obviousness analysis in the context of the asserted prior 

art. Relevant here, it claims: 

identifying, on said network platform, first and 

second service providers and associated first and 

second service provider information[,] . . . wherein 

said first service provider is farther from [a] mobile unit than said second service provider; [and]

*** 

based on said stored prioritization information, 

prioritizing said first and second service provider 

information, wherein said first [farther] location 

information is assigned a higher priority than said 

second [nearer] location information; and

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 3 Filed: 11/15/2016
4 UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

outputting both said first and second service information on said mobile unit based upon said 

step of prioritizing.

’205 patent, cl. 1, col. 10 ll. 27–57.

Asserted Prior Art

Five asserted prior art references are relevant to the 

issues addressed below. 

The primary reference, U.S. Patent No. 6,108,533 

(“Brohoff”), is entitled “Geographical Database for Radio 

Systems.” It describes a system using a radio telecommunication network in combination with a database of 

consumer services. Brohoff col. 2 ll. 18–25. The system 

provides the information about nearby consumer services 

in response to search requests. To do so, the system

determines the location of the mobile device sending the 

search request and provides information about nearby, 

relevant consumer services from its database. Id. at col. 2 

ll. 33–42. Brohoff teaches using a database where the 

consumer services are grouped by geographic zones and

returning location-based search results grouped by these 

geographic zones. Id. at col. 2 ll. 48–58, col. 3 ll. 13–19. 

One secondary reference is Wilbert O. Galitz’s book 

The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques (John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1997)) (“Galitz”). It discusses principles for interface design, including discussing the advantages of various techniques for ordering text

information and menus. Id. at 120–21, 255–56. It also 

discusses the benefits and applications of several ordering 

techniques, including alphabetic order. Id. at 256. Galitz 

further suggests how the design principles it discusses 

may be applied in designing interfaces for future, specialized devices. Id. at 32.

Another secondary reference is Laura Rich’s article IQ 

News: New Search Engine Allows Sites To Pay Their Way 

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 4 Filed: 11/15/2016
UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 5

To Top.1 It describes a search engine that orders search 

results “according to who paid the most for that particular 

keyword” in a search. It also discusses ranking sites 

“according to user and editor input.” 

A fourth reference is European Patent No. EP 

0647076 (“Remy”), entitled, “Cellular radio communication system with access to location dependent service, 

location retrieving module and server module for personal, location dependent services.” It describes a cellular 

radio communication system within a network of geographical cells that responds to a location-based query 

with the nearest result. 

Finally, International Patent No. WO 97/22066

(“Hopkins”) is entitled “Method for computer aided advertisement.” It describes a computer-implemented method 

for presenting vendor advertising information to a user. 

Hopkins discusses how users can search the information 

alphabetically, by name, by address, or by geographical 

area. 

Procedural History

Google Inc. (“Google”) filed the IPR and CBM petitions 

on appeal on October 8, 2013. In both proceedings, Google 

challenged claims 1–6 of the ’205 patent. The Board 

consolidated the proceedings before the same panel and, 

on April 8, 2014, instituted both proceedings on all challenged claims. IPR2014-00036, 2014 WL 1410358; 

CBM2014-00005, 2014 WL 1396977. On March 30, 2015, 

the Board issued final written decisions invalidating all of 

the challenged claims as obvious. 

1 Laura Rich, IQ News: New Search Engine Allows 

Sites To Pay Their Way To Top, http://www.adweek.com/

news/advertising/iq-news-new-search-engine-allows-sitespay-their-way-top-24893 (Feb. 23, 1998).

 

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 5 Filed: 11/15/2016
6 UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

In the IPR final written decision, the Board held the 

challenged claims were obvious on three grounds. IPR 

Final Decision, 2015 WL 1478653, at *18. In the first 

ground, claims 1–3, 5, and 6 were held obvious over 

Brohoff in view of Galitz. In the second ground, claim 4 

was held obvious in further view of Rich. In the third 

ground, claims 1–6 were also held obvious over Remy in 

view of Hopkins.

In the CBM final written decision, the Board held 

that claims 1–6 were invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1.2 CBM Final Decision, 

2015 WL 1519056, at *17. Specifically, the Board determined that the specification lacked written description 

support for the claim term “prioritization information 

establishing a basis independent of proximity and independent of any subscriber preferences for prioritizing said 

first and second service provider information” and for 

farther-over-nearer ordering. Id. at *14, *16.

Unwired appeals from both final written decisions. 

We consolidated the appeals for briefing and argument. 

Order Consolidating Appeals, No. 2015-1810, ECF No. 2 

(Fed. Cir. July 15, 2015). We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 319, 329. 

2 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112 were replaced with new 

versions in the America Invents Act (“AIA”). See Leahy 

Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, §§ 3(c), 

4(c), 125 Stat. 284, 287, 296 (2011) (“AIA”). However, the 

AIA versions of §§ 103 and 112 do not apply to the patents-in-suit in view of the AIA’s effective date provisions. See AIA, §§ 3(n)(1), 4(e), 125 Stat. 293, 297. Thus, 

we refer to the pre-AIA version of Title 35.

 

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 6 Filed: 11/15/2016
UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 7

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the Board’s factual determinations for substantial evidence and its legal conclusion of obviousness 

de novo. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 

1280 (Fed. Cir. 2015), aff’d, Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC 

v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016); Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 

805 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 

1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). 

DISCUSSION

A claim would have been obvious “if the differences 

between the subject matter sought to be patented and the 

prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole 

would have been obvious at the time the invention was 

made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which 

said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006). 

In order to determine if a claim would have been obvious, 

“the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at 

issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill 

in the pertinent art resolved.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex 

Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v. John 

Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966)). Given the differences 

between the prior art and the claimed invention, the 

claimed combination would have been obvious only if 

there was an apparent reason for a skilled artisan “to 

combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by 

the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. 

Unwired makes three challenges to the Board’s basis 

for the first ground of obviousness in the IPR. Unwired 

argues (1) that Galitz is not analogous prior art, (2) that 

the prior art does not teach farther-over-nearer ordering, 

and (3) that a person of skill in the art would not have 

been motivated to combine Brohoff with Galitz. Unwired 

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 7 Filed: 11/15/2016
8 UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

does not separately dispute the further combination with 

Rich in the second ground of obviousness. We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings

with respect to the first two grounds of the IPR, and these 

facts lead to the conclusion that claims 1–6 of the ’205 

patent were obvious. This resolves the patentability of all 

challenged claims, so we do not reach the third ground in 

the IPR or the issues presented in the CBM review.

1. The relevant prior art includes Galitz.

Unwired challenges the Board’s factfinding with respect to the scope of the prior art. Unwired argues that 

Galitz “has nothing to do with mobile telephony or location-based services, but instead is a manual for designers 

of graphic user interfaces—a thoroughly different concept.” Unwired Br. 16. We disagree. 

Prior art is analogous and can be applied in an obviousness combination if it either (1) “is from the same field 

of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed” or

(2) “is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with 

which the inventor is involved.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 

658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). To determine if art is analogous, 

we look to “the purposes of both the invention and the 

prior art.” Id. at 659. If a reference disclosure and the 

claimed invention have a same purpose, the reference 

relates to the same problem, which supports an obviousness rejection. Id. 

The field of endeavor of the ’205 patent is not limited 

to technical issues related to the wireless network system; 

it also teaches methods for ordering and displaying information from the network on users’ mobile devices. The 

’205 patent discusses various ways that “the service 

information can be provided to the user,” including “on a 

visual display of the [mobile device], as an audible, recorded message, or through any other appropriate means.” 

’205 patent col. 3 ll. 15–18. “In cases where the service 

information is provided as a menu of selections, the 

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 8 Filed: 11/15/2016
UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 9

method may further involve receiving a menu selection 

entered by the user and outputting further service information in response to the menu selection. Id. at col. 3 ll. 

18–22. One particular problem the ’205 patent addresses 

is how to display and order information on a mobile 

device. When a menu is displayed on a mobile device, it 

“may be ordered based on any of various criteria such as 

the preferences expressed in the subscriber profile, nearest to farthest, preferred service providers defined by the 

network administrator, etc.” Id. at col. 8 ll. 32–36. 

The Galitz reference deals generally with graphical 

user interface design and includes a chapter devoted to 

menu design with specific suggestions for how to order 

menu items. J.A. 1182–94. This discussion substantially 

focuses on displaying and ordering text in lists and menus. One example that Galitz uses is address text, which it 

urges should be ordered “in the customary way” and 

sequenced to accord with user expectations, i.e., “street, 

city, state, and zip code.” J.A. 1053. Additionally, Galitz 

discusses future operating systems for internet-connected 

devices that “will aim at niches,” including “the purse or 

wallet.” J.A. 966. It suggests that the “narrower focus” 

on such devices “will result in much less complexity.” Id. 

The Board also relied on the testimony of Dr. Donald 

Cox. IPR Final Decision, 2015 WL 1478653, at *10. He 

discussed the Yellow Pages as a “customary and conventional use of sequential or alphabetical ordering for location-based services.” Id. The Yellow Pages list businesses 

in a “specific geographic area,” sort “the businesses into 

similar types,” and then alphabetically order the listings 

in each category. Id. (quoting Decl. of Dr. Donald Cox, 

¶ 27, J.A. 494).

Taken together, this evidence establishes that Galitz 

is analogous prior art to the ’205 patent. The field of 

endeavor of a patent is not limited to the specific point of 

novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or 

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 9 Filed: 11/15/2016
10 UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

the particular focus within a given field. Here, both 

Galitz and the ’205 patent are in the field of interface 

design, with Galitz focusing on graphical user interfaces 

and the ’205 patent focusing on interfaces for locationbased services. These two areas of focus overlap within 

the broader field of interface design because the teachings 

in graphical user interface design, including design principles for displaying text and ordering menus, have relevance in interfaces for location-based applications. 

Likewise, a skilled artisan seeking to apply interface 

design principles to display addresses—one of the particular problems dealt with by the inventor of the ’205 patent—would reasonably look to Galitz, which teaches 

solutions to this same problem. As the Board found, Dr. 

Cox’s testimony shows a skilled artisan would have 

understood the applicability of Galitz’s teachings to this 

problem by providing an example of conventional address 

text and ordering in the location-based context. The 

Board correctly applied Galitz as analogous art based on 

substantial evidence that Galitz is both from the same 

field of endeavor as the ’205 patent and is reasonably 

pertinent to the problem of displaying address information.

2. The prior art teaches prioritization that results in 

farther-over-nearer ordering. 

Unwired argues that none of the prior art references 

cited teach farther-over-nearer ordering as claimed. It 

faults the Board for equating prioritization schemes that 

“sometimes return a farther result” with “farther-overnearer ordering.” Unwired Br. 18–19 (emphasis in original). We reject this argument because combinations of 

prior art that sometimes meet the claim elements are 

sufficient to show obviousness. See Hewlett-Packard Co. 

v. Mustek Sys., Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Unwired acknowledges that the claims do not require 

prioritizing locations that are farther away because they 

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 10 Filed: 11/15/2016
UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 11

are farther away. The claims only require using prioritization information that results in a farther-over-nearer 

order. ’205 patent, cl. 1, col. 10 ll. 53–55 (“wherein said 

first location information is assigned a higher priority 

than said second location information”). The claimed 

result, where a farther first location is given priority over 

a nearer second location, could result from many prioritization schemes that do not depend on location.

The prioritization information used in the proposed 

combination of the prior art is alphabetical ordering. 

Galitz recommends “alphabetical ordering” for lists with 

“a large number of options” and “small lists where no 

frequency or sequence pattern is obvious.” J.A. 1189. 

Alphabetical prioritization will often result in locations 

that are farther away being given a higher priority than 

locations that are nearer. For example, prioritizing a list 

of countries in English by alphabetical order will place

Afghanistan before Niger, even when the prioritization is 

done in nearby Nigeria. Alphabetical order, thus, will 

result in instances of farther-over-nearer ordering. 

It does not matter that the use of alphabetical order 

for locations would not always result in farther-overnearer ordering. It is enough that the combination would 

sometimes perform all the method steps, including farther-over-nearer ordering. See Hewlett-Packard, 340 F.3d 

at 1326. Because the use of alphabetical order as prioritization information would sometimes meet the fartherover-nearer claims elements, the Board was correct to

conclude that the proposed combination taught all of the 

elements of claim 1. 

3. A skilled artisan would be motivated to combine. 

Unwired argues that in the context of location-based 

services, a skilled artisan would have no motivation to 

combine the prior art references to achieve farther-overnearer ordering. Unwired argues that “Google has never 

shown a motivation to modify Brohoff, because Google has 

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 11 Filed: 11/15/2016
12 UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

never shown that those working in the art perceived a 

problem with nearer-first ordering.” Unwired Br. 30.

Google argues that the proposed combination does not 

require abandoning nearer-first ordering. It notes that 

Galitz teaches the advantages of using ordering techniques in combination. Google characterizes the proposed 

combination as using the ordering techniques of Galitz in 

combination with Brohoff’s disclosure of grouping search 

results based on proximity zones. Google also argues that 

it does not need to show that there was a known problem 

with the prior art system in order to articulate the required rational underpinning for the proposed combination. We agree.

The Court in KSR described many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of 

prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan. 550 U.S. 

at 417–22; see also MPEP § 2143. KSR overturned the 

approach previously used by this court requiring that 

some teaching, suggestion, or motivation be found in the 

prior art. 550 U.S. at 415. Instead, the Court explained 

that a rationale to combine could arise from “interrelated 

teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands 

known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a 

person having ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 418. For 

example, the Court stated that “if a technique has been 

used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill 

in the art would recognize that it would improve similar 

devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious 

unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” 

Id. at 417. For the technique’s use to be obvious, the 

skilled artisan need only be able to recognize, based on 

her background knowledge, its potential to improve the 

device and be able to apply the technique.

The device to be improved is Brohoff. The Board explained that Brohoff teaches a system that allows users to 

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 12 Filed: 11/15/2016
UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 13

search for information and be provided results based on 

their location. In the provided search results, “the identified service providers are grouped by their respective

locations within a zone.” IPR Final Decision, 2015 WL 

1478653, at *8 (citing Brohoff, col. 6 ll. 45–49). While the 

zones in Brohoff are ordered nearer-first, Brohoff does not 

explain how the service providers are prioritized within 

their zone groups. See Brohoff, col. 8 ll. 47–55.

The improvement is provided by using the technique 

of combining ordering methods found in Galitz. As the 

Board recognized, Galitz teaches benefits of various 

ordering techniques and suggests using them in combination. IPR Final Decision, 2015 WL 1478653, at *8. To 

take advantage of the benefits of multiple techniques, 

“[s]creen layout normally reflects a combination of [different] techniques.” Id. (quoting Galitz at 121, J.A. 1054) 

(second modification in original). Using ordering techniques in combination is, thus, a technique that a person 

of ordinary skill in the art would recognize could be used 

to improve information display. 

The Board’s determination that a person of skill in the 

art would have been motivated to apply the techniques of 

Galitz to Brohoff is supported by substantial evidence. 

The Board found that testimony of Dr. Cox was entitled to 

“substantial weight because [it] is consistent with the 

teachings of Brohoff and Galitz.” Id. at *11. He explained 

that “Galitz recognized that information may be ordered 

by category—such as Brohoff’s geographic zones—and, 

within each category, information may be ordered by 

other prioritization information.” Id. at *8 (quoting Decl. 

of Dr. Donald Cox, ¶ 42, J.A. 502). 

Unwired does not dispute that a person of ordinary

skill in the art would have been able to apply the teachings of Galitz to make the improvement it suggests. 

Unwired claims that the specific problem of farther-overnearer ordering itself is not discussed in the combined 

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 13 Filed: 11/15/2016
14 UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

references. Galitz’s teaching of the advantages of combining ordering techniques shows “there was an apparent 

reason to combine the known elements in the fashion

claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. 

Irrespective of whether a person of skill in the art would 

have recognized specific use of Brohoff, substantial evidence exists if she could have seen the advantages of 

applying the teachings of Galitz to improve Brohoff. This 

is sufficient to render the combination obvious. Id. at 417.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the Board’s determination that claims 1–6 

of the ’205 patent were obvious in No. 2015–1810. We 

dismiss as moot the appeal in No. 2015–1811.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND DISMISSED-IN-PART

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-1811 Document: 4-1 Page: 14 Filed: 11/15/2016