Court Opinion

ID: 9403549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:02:46.137654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:07.863846
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1613   Document: 39     Page: 1   Filed: 06/09/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                     LBT IP I LLC,
                       Appellant

                            v.

                     APPLE INC.,
                        Appellee
                 ______________________

  2022-1613, 2022-1614, 2022-1615, 2022-1616, 2022-1617
                 ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
 01189, IPR2020-01190, IPR2020-01191, IPR2020-01192,
 IPR2020-01193.
                  ______________________

                  Decided: June 9, 2023
                 ______________________

     BRIAN SHERWOOD SEAL, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
 LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also argued
 by SHAUN DARRELL GREGORY.

     ADAM PRESCOTT SEITZ, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park,
 KS, argued for appellee. Also represented by JENNIFER C.
 BAILEY, CLIFFORD T. BRAZEN; ABRAN J. KEAN, Greenwood
 Village, CO.
                 ______________________
Case: 22-1613     Document: 39     Page: 2    Filed: 06/09/2023

 2                                    LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and STOLL, Circuit
                           Judges.
 MOORE, Chief Judge.
      LBT IP I LLC (LBT) appeals five inter partes review
 decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding var-
 ious claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,497,774; 8,542,113;
 8,102,256; 8,421,618; and 8,421,619 unpatentable. For the
 following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate
 in part, and remand in part.
                        BACKGROUND
      LBT’s patents relate to improvements in battery power
 conservation of portable electronic tracking devices. See,
 e.g., ’774 patent at 3:55–4:58. The ’113, ’256, and ’618 pa-
 tents 1 disclose electronic tracking devices that include lo-
 cation tracking circuitry (e.g., GPS circuitry) and an
 accelerometer to measure location coordinates without re-
 quiring GPS signaling. See ’618 patent at Fig. 1, 5:4–10.
 When the strength of the device’s GPS signal is below a
 predetermined threshold value—for example, when the de-
 vice’s access to GPS satellites is partially or fully blocked—
 portions of the location tracking circuitry may be deac-
 tivated to conserve battery power. Id. at 5:1–14, 6:66–7:11,
 7:62–8:12. The device may subsequently reactivate the lo-
 cation tracking circuitry when the signal level is above the
 predetermined signal level. Id. at 6:66–7:11, 9:48–54.

      1   LBT raises the same issue on appeal with respect
 to the ’113, ’256, and ’618 patents. The relevant disclosures
 in these patents and the Board’s relevant analyses in the
 final written decisions are materially the same. For sim-
 plicity, we cite only to the ’618 patent and the correspond-
 ing final written decision.
Case: 22-1613        Document: 39   Page: 3     Filed: 06/09/2023

 LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.                                  3

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

 4                                    LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.

 Mar. 2, 2022); Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC (’618 Decision),
 No. IPR2020-01192, 2022 WL 683994 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2,
 2022); Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC (’619 Decision), No.
 IPR2020-01193, 2022 WL 685082 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022).
     Specifically, the Board determined the challenged
 claims of the ’113, ’256, and ’618 patents would have been
 obvious over Japanese Patent Application Publication No.
 2004-37116A (Sakamoto) in view of various combinations
 of secondary references. ’618 Decision, at *27. The Board
 determined the challenged claims of the ’774 patent would
 have been obvious over Sakamoto. ’774 Decision, at *26.
 Finally, the Board determined the challenged claims of the
 ’619 patent would have been obvious over prior art combi-
 nations that all included U.S. Patent No. 6,940,407 (Mi-
 randa-Knapp) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
 2006/0119508A1 (Miller). ’619 Decision, at *30. LBT ap-
 peals.      We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                         DISCUSSION
      LBT raises three distinct challenges on appeal. First,
 LBT argues the Board’s finding that Sakamoto discloses
 the activation/reactivation limitation in certain claims of
 the ’618, ’256, and ’113 patents is not supported by substan-
 tial evidence. Second, LBT argues the Board improperly
 construed the term “multitude” in claim 8 of the ’774 pa-
 tent. Finally, LBT argues the Board’s finding that a skilled
 artisan would have been motivated to combine Miranda-
 Knapp and Miller as claimed in the ’619 patent is not sup-
 ported by substantial evidence. We address each argument
 in turn.
     We review the Board’s ultimate determination of obvi-
 ousness de novo and its underlying findings of fact for sub-
 stantial evidence. Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848
 F.3d 987, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2017). What a prior art reference
 discloses and whether a skilled artisan would have been
 motivated to combine prior art references are questions of
Case: 22-1613        Document: 39    Page: 5   Filed: 06/09/2023

 LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.                                5

 fact. Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d
 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We review the Board’s claim
 construction de novo and review any necessary subsidiary
 factual findings based on extrinsic evidence for substantial
 evidence. Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254, 259
 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
            I.       THE ’113, ’256, AND ’618 PATENTS
     The Board determined claims 1–20 of the ’113 patent;
 claims 8–10 of the ’256 patent; and claims 1–24 of the ’618
 patent would have been obvious over Sakamoto in view of
 various combinations of secondary references. ’618 Deci-
 sion, at *27. Claim 1 of the ’618 patent is representative
 for purposes of this appeal:
         1. A portable electronic tracking device to
         monitor location coordinates of one or more
         individuals or objects, the device compris-
         ing:
         transceiver circuitry to receive at least one
         portion of a receive communication signal
         comprising location coordinates infor-
         mation;
         accelerometer circuitry to measure dis-
         placements of the portable electronic track-
         ing device;
         a battery power monitor configured to selec-
         tively activate and deactivate at least one
         portion of the transceiver circuitry and lo-
         cation tracking circuitry to conserve battery
         power in response to a signal level of the at
         least one portion of the receive communica-
         tion signal; and
         processor circuitry configured to process
         the at least one portion of the receive com-
         munication signal.
Case: 22-1613     Document: 39     Page: 6    Filed: 06/09/2023

 6                                    LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.

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

     2   All of the challenged claims in the ’618 and ’256 pa-
 tents recite the activation/reactivation limitation, but only
 claims 3, 9, and 11 of the ’113 patent recite this limitation.
Case: 22-1613        Document: 39   Page: 7   Filed: 06/09/2023

 LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.                               7

 between normal sensitivity positioning mode and high sen-
 sitivity positioning mode); J.A. 1324 ¶ 38 (disclosing tran-
 sition into stop-position mode). The Board and Apple thus
 relied on Apple’s expert Mr. Andrews’ testimony to fill in
 the gap in this disclosure. ’618 Decision, at *10–12. Mr.
 Andrews testified that a skilled artisan would have under-
 stood that if Sakamoto’s receiver is in stop-position mode
 and the periodically-measured signal level is greater than
 a predetermined threshold level, the GPS receiver reac-
 tivates by transitioning into normal or high sensitivity po-
 sitioning mode. J.A. 6414–15 ¶ 138 (citing J.A. 1323–24
 ¶¶ 37–38); J.A. 3636–37 ¶ 212. He also testified that a
 skilled artisan would have understood a device that tran-
 sitioned into stop-position mode and never transitioned
 into one of the other positioning modes would be useless.
 J.A. 3637 ¶ 213; see also J.A. 1979 at 21:7–15 (Andrews
 deposition) (“[Sakamoto] doesn’t contemplate that once the
 – once the GPS signal level went below that threshold, the
 system would turn off and never turn on again. That would
 be – that wouldn’t be very practical.”); J.A. 1982 at 24:4–
 10.
      Although Apple does not purport to rely on inherency,
 its argument regarding Sakamoto’s disclosure is substan-
 tively one of inherency. Apple concedes there is no explicit
 disclosure of a transition out of stop-position mode in Sa-
 kamoto, but nevertheless argues a skilled artisan would
 understand this transition is present in the cycle set in ad-
 vance embodiment. In other words, Apple argues this tran-
 sition is inherently disclosed in Sakamoto. “[T]o rely on
 inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in
 the prior art in an obviousness analysis,” Apple must show
 the activation/reactivation limitation is “necessarily pre-
 sent” or “the natural result of the combination of elements
 explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v.
 TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir.
 2014). Mr. Andrews’ testimony fails to meet this standard
 for inherent disclosure. See id. at 1195.
Case: 22-1613     Document: 39      Page: 8     Filed: 06/09/2023

 8                                     LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.

      In his deposition, for example, Mr. Andrews repeatedly
 used qualifying language such as “presumably,” “maybe,”
 and “might” when he explained that although the GPS re-
 ceiver is deactivated when in the stop-position mode, a
 skilled artisan would understand Sakamoto turns on com-
 ponents of the GPS receiver to cyclically measure the signal
 level. See, e.g., J.A. 1981–82 at 23:10–24:3 (“Well, Sa-
 kamoto doesn’t describe how he determines that the signal
 level is above that threshold. It’s possible that he periodi-
 cally turns on the GPS receiver just briefly to check so that
 it’s – most of the time it’s off and every now and then he
 turns it on and looks, and if it’s not above the level, he turns
 it back off, or maybe even just turns those components that
 he needs to use to examine the signal, and it’s possible that
 he might leave some of the components on . . . . (emphases
 added)); ’618 Decision, at *12 (relying on Mr. Andrews’ dep-
 osition testimony to reject LBT’s argument that because
 Sakamoto’s GPS receiver is the only component that re-
 ceives GPS signals, it cannot obtain the necessary signal
 required to move into a different mode when it is deac-
 tivated in stop-position mode). “Inherency, however, may
 not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The
 mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
 of circumstances is not sufficient.” PAR, 773 F.3d at 1195
 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).
     Mr. Andrews provides no testimony explaining why the
 transition from stop-position mode into one of the other two
 positioning modes in response to a GPS signal must neces-
 sarily be present in Sakamoto’s cycle set in advance embod-
 iment. He opines that a skilled artisan would understand
 the device transitions out of stop-position mode because
 otherwise the device would be useless. See J.A. 3637 ¶ 213
 (Andrews declaration); J.A. 1982 at 24:4–10 (Andrews dep-
 osition). But he fails to explain why this transition is nec-
 essarily present considering that Sakamoto teaches its
 GPS receiver can be manually reactivated after it has been
 placed in stop-position mode. J.A. 1321 ¶ 20. The fact that
Case: 22-1613        Document: 39      Page: 9    Filed: 06/09/2023

 LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.                                   9

 the GPS receiver cannot automatically transition out of
 stop-position mode in the cycle set in advance embodiment
 does not render Sakamoto’s device useless because the re-
 ceiver can be turned on manually.
     We conclude substantial evidence does not support the
 Board’s finding that Sakamoto discloses the activation/re-
 activation limitation. Accordingly, we reverse the Board’s
 obviousness determinations with respect to claims 1–24 of
 the ’618 patent, claims 8–10 of the ’256 patent, and claims
 3, 9, and 11 of the ’113 patent. 3
                       II.      THE ’774 PATENT
      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: 10     Filed: 06/09/2023

 10                                   LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.

         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: 11   Filed: 06/09/2023

 LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.                               11

 as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows
 the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or
 during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am.
 LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
     The plain and ordinary meaning of multitude in the
 ’774 patent does not encompass two threshold values. The
 only example of a multitude of threshold values provided
 in the specification is Figure 4, which depicts 5–7 threshold
 values. ’774 patent at Fig. 4 (threshold values represented
 by tick marks on active display 432); id. at 13:58–67 (“[T]he
 present invention has the capability of power level (e.g.,
 battery power level 406) adjustments include multitude of
 threshold values (see active display 432 of FIG. 4) that is
 determined by user . . . to intermittently activate or deac-
 tivate location tracking circuitry . . . .” (emphasis added)).

     Nowhere does the specification contemplate as few as
 two threshold values. In concluding otherwise, the Board
 relied on the following passage: “Advantageously as com-
 pared to conventional tracking devices, user input request
 430 adjusts value 419 to select an appropriate update set
Case: 22-1613    Document: 39      Page: 12     Filed: 06/09/2023

 12                                    LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.

 of network communication signaling protocols to achieve a
 desired user defined battery operating environment, e.g.,
 obtain optimal battery life, obtain optimal update rate,
 tradeoffs between them.” Id. at 11:58–67 (emphasis added).
 According to the Board, this statement shows that
 “tradeoffs can be made between as few as two points: an
 endpoint where less updates are traded for better battery
 life, and an endpoint where worse battery life is traded for
 more updates.” ’774 Decision, at *5. While the Board may
 be correct that this isolated sentence is consistent with as
 few as two threshold values, this sentence must be read in
 the context in which it is used. This statement appears in
 column 11 of the specification, all of which discusses Figure
 4. See ’774 patent at 11:2–67 (“Referring to FIG. 4 . . . .”).
 Figure 4 clearly depicts 5–7 threshold values. Read in con-
 text, “optimal battery life” and “optimal update rate” refer
 to the end points on the active display in Figure 4, while
 the “tradeoffs between them” refer to the tick marks be-
 tween the end points. Id. at 11:62–63; see also id. at 11:64
 (“slider 432” can be positioned at “value 419” between the
 two end points). We therefore do not read this sentence as
 showing multitude includes two threshold values.
      The Board also found certain dictionary definitions
 supported its construction of multitude as two or more.
 ’774 Decision, at *6. To the extent the Board found the dic-
 tionaries show the plain and ordinary meaning of multi-
 tude is two or more, this finding is not supported by
 substantial evidence. The dictionaries define multitude as
 “[t]he condition or quality of being numerous,” “[a] very
 great number,” and “a large number.” IPR2020-01189, Ex.
 3001 at 3; Ex. 3002 at 3. Plurality is defined as “[t]he state
 or fact of being plural” (i.e., two or more) or “[a] large num-
 ber or amount; a multitude.” Ex. 3001 at 4; see also Ex.
 3002 at 4. Plurality is only a synonym of multitude in the
 context of the second definition: a large number or amount.
 A plurality is two or more; a multitude is a large number.
Case: 22-1613        Document: 39      Page: 13   Filed: 06/09/2023

 LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.                                 13

      As part of its obviousness determination with respect
 to claims 8, 10, 13, and 15, the Board found Sakamoto’s two
 battery power level thresholds disclose the claimed “multi-
 tude of threshold values” under its improper construction.
 ’774 Decision, at *15–16. We therefore vacate the Board’s
 decision with respect to these claims. Because the Board
 incorrectly concluded a multitude includes two, it did not
 address Apple’s alternative argument that Sakamoto dis-
 closes at least four threshold values—two battery level
 thresholds and two GPS signal level thresholds. See
 IPR2020-01189, Petitioner’s Reply Br. at 15–19. We re-
 mand to the Board for it to consider this argument in the
 first instance under the proper construction. We hold only
 that multitude does not include two but must include as
 few as five threshold values. We leave it for the Board on
 remand to determine whether multitude encompasses
 three or four threshold values and whether the two sets of
 threshold values disclosed in Sakamoto teach a multitude
 of threshold values.
                       III.     THE ’619 PATENT
     The Board determined claims 1–20 of the ’619 patent
 would have been obvious over prior art combinations in-
 cluding Miranda-Knapp and Miller. ’619 Decision, at *30.
 Claim 1 of the ’619 patent is representative. It recites:
     1. A portable electronic tracking device to monitor
     location coordinates of one or more individuals and
     objects, the device comprising:
     transceiver circuitry to receive at least one portion
     of a receive communication signal comprising loca-
     tion coordinates information;
     accelerometer circuitry to measure displacements
     of the portable electronic tracking device, wherein
     the displacements comprise movements of an ob-
     ject or individual associated with the device;
Case: 22-1613     Document: 39      Page: 14    Filed: 06/09/2023

 14                                    LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.

      a battery power monitor configured to activate and
      deactivate at least one portion of signaling circuitry
      in response to the accelerometer circuitry detecting
      a substantially stationary position of the electronic
      tracking device since last known location coordinate
      measurement; and
      processor circuitry configured to process the dis-
      placements, to associate the displacements with a
      specified pattern, and to generate an alert message
      in response to the specified pattern.
 ’619 patent at claim 1 (emphasis added).
      As relevant on appeal, the Board found Apple’s pro-
 posed combination of Miranda-Knapp and Miller discloses
 the claim limitation reciting “a battery power monitor con-
 figured to activate and deactivate at least one portion of
 signaling circuitry in response to the accelerometer cir-
 cuitry detecting a substantially stationary position of the
 electronic tracking device.” ’619 Decision, at *8–12. The
 Board found Miranda-Knapp teaches a battery power mon-
 itor configured to activate a portion of signaling circuitry
 (i.e., messaging circuitry) to send an alert message in re-
 sponse to an accelerometer detecting a substantially sta-
 tionary position. Id. at *10. It further found Miller teaches
 deactivating a portion of signaling circuitry (i.e., GPS cir-
 cuitry) by halting scanning operations on the GPS receiver
 when the device is stationary. Id. The Board found a
 skilled artisan would have been motivated to add Miller’s
 teachings of deactivating GPS circuitry to Miranda-
 Knapp’s device to increase the device’s battery life. Id. at
 *11.
     LBT raises several arguments against the Board’s mo-
 tivation-to-combine finding. First, LBT argues the combi-
 nation of Miranda-Knapp and Miller is improper because
 it adds redundant elements and functionality already pre-
 sent in Miranda-Knapp’s device. For instance, as Apple’s
 expert Mr. Andrews testified, both references disclose
Case: 22-1613        Document: 39   Page: 15    Filed: 06/09/2023

 LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.                                15

 “similar architectures that include receivers, processors,
 power managers, and accelerometers.” J.A. 6980 ¶ 132.
 According to LBT, a skilled artisan would not be motivated
 to combine these redundant elements. LBT misunder-
 stands the Board’s finding. The Board did not find a skilled
 artisan would combine every feature of Miller’s device with
 Miranda-Knapp’s device. Instead, it found a skilled artisan
 would be motivated to add certain functionality from Miller
 to Miranda-Knapp’s device, which discloses the claimed
 transceiver circuitry and accelerometer circuitry. ’619 De-
 cision, at *7–8, *11. That Miller discloses a similar device
 with several overlapping elements supports the Board’s
 finding of a motivation to combine. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
 Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has
 been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
 skill in the art would recognize that it would improve sim-
 ilar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
 unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
      LBT also contends the Board failed to identify the re-
 dundant functionality between Miranda-Knapp and Mil-
 ler, namely, deactivating signaling circuitry in response to
 the accelerometer detecting a substantially stationary po-
 sition. Miranda-Knapp teaches that, to conserve battery
 power, “certain transmissions or phone calls could be in-
 hibited” if the phone is left at rest in a safe zone. J.A. 7057
 at 5:13–18. This disclosure relates to the deactivation of
 Miranda-Knapp’s messaging circuitry. The proposed com-
 bination, however, incorporates Miller’s deactivation of its
 GPS circuitry, a different signaling circuitry. See ’619 De-
 cision, at *11. LBT fails to explain how this functionality
 is redundant.
     Second, LBT argues the proposed combination of Mi-
 randa-Knapp and Miller would result in an inoperable de-
 vice because the two references disclose contradictory
 approaches. Specifically, Miranda-Knapp teaches activat-
 ing a GPS receiver when a device is stationary, while Miller
 teaches deactivating a GPS receiver when a device is
Case: 22-1613    Document: 39     Page: 16     Filed: 06/09/2023

 16                                   LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.

 stationary. This argument, again, is based on LBT’s fun-
 damental misunderstanding of the proposed combination.
 The Board found a skilled artisan would have been moti-
 vated to modify Miranda-Knapp’s device to deactivate its
 GPS receiver after its location is determined—i.e., after ac-
 tivating a portion of the signaling circuitry—to conserve
 battery power. Id. at *10–11. LBT fails to point to any
 evidence showing this combination would be inoperable.
 Instead, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding
 that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to in-
 crease the device’s battery life by deactivating the GPS re-
 ceiver after the location is determined and would have a
 reasonable expectation of success in doing so. For example,
 Mr. Andrews testified that a skilled artisan would have
 been motivated to increase the device’s battery life and
 would have recognized that deactivating the GPS receiver
 after the stationary device’s location has already been de-
 termined would accomplish this goal. J.A. 7002–07
 ¶¶ 162–168; see also J.A. 7056–57 (Miranda-Knapp) at
 4:57–5:43 (identifying the need to alert the user “before the
 battery drains” when the device is at rest but not in a safe
 zone); J.A. 7079 (Miller) ¶¶ 18, 22 (teaching that when the
 device is stationary, the scanning operations of receivers
 are halted in order to conserve battery power).
     Finally, LBT argues Miller teaches away from the
 claimed solution because it discloses using a motion model,
 rather than an accelerometer alone, to determine whether
 the device is in motion. Substantial evidence supports the
 Board’s contrary finding. See ’619 Decision, at *12. Miller
 states “[a]ccelerometer 114 sends signals to motion model
 108 indicating whether or not the mobile device is in mo-
 tion.” J.A. 7079 ¶ 18. That is, Miller teaches that an ac-
 celerometer is used to detect a stationary position. While
 the motion model also uses signals from receivers 102, 104,
 and 106, in some circumstances, the data from the accel-
 erometer may be the only data relied on by the motion
 model. J.A. 7079 ¶¶ 21–22.
Case: 22-1613        Document: 39      Page: 17   Filed: 06/09/2023

 LBT IP I LLC   v. APPLE INC.                                 17

     Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
 a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Mi-
 randa-Knapp and Miller as claimed. We therefore affirm
 the Board’s obviousness determinations with respect to
 claims 1–20 of the ’619 patent.
                                CONCLUSION
     We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given above,
 we reverse the Board’s decisions with respect to claims 1–
 24 of the ’618 patent, claims 8–10 of the ’256 patent, and
 claims 3, 9, and 11 of the ’113 patent. We vacate and re-
 mand the Board’s decision with respect to claims 8, 10, 13,
 and 15 of the ’774 patent. We affirm the Board’s decision
 with respect to claims 1–20 of the ’619 patent.
    AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART,
   VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED IN PART
                                  COSTS
 No costs.