US 10667089

I'll search for authoritative information on US 10,667,089, including any CAFC 2026 activity.

Let me dig into litigation and CAFC activity for this patent specifically.

Let me verify the litigation hit and check specifically for Federal Circuit activity.

Summary — US Patent No. 10,667,089

Important scope note first: The user asked me to search USPTO and CAFC 2026 dockets for this exact number. My searches surfaced no Federal Circuit (or other appellate) docket for US 10,667,089 in 2026 or any year, and I could not directly query PatentCenter/PAIR or the CAFC docket system in this session. Everything below is grounded in the authoritative full text of the patent (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑10‑01, https://patents.google.com/patent/US10667089/en) plus corroborating web results. Where I am inferring rather than confirming, I say so.

1. Bibliographic data (per the patent text)

Assignment/security history recorded on the face of the Google Patents record (not a legal conclusion): security agreements to Wilmington Trust and JPMorgan Chase (2019‑07‑03); a 2020‑01‑02 assignment of interest from Lin, Dave and Kish, William S. to Ruckus Wireless, Inc., followed the same day by Ruckus Wireless, Inc. → ARRIS Enterprises LLC; a 2021‑11‑19 Wilmington Trust security interest; a 2024‑12‑19 release of security interest (reel/frame 049905/0504); and a 2026‑01‑09 termination and release of security interest (reel/frame 49709/0266) in favor of Ruckus Wireless, LLC (f/k/a Ruckus Wireless, Inc.). The chain-of-title labels (Ruckus vs. ARRIS) are inconsistent between the header and the assignment entries, so treat the "current assignee" label with mild caution.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"Methods and computer-executable instructions for mapping performance data of wireless systems include receiving from an access point actual performance information, such as throughput, of a user device at a particular time, along with an identifier of the access point, and location information of the user device. Then, using the received actual performance information, the received location information, and the particular time to map the received actual performance information on a map of an area around the mobile device. In certain embodiments, converting the mapped actual performance information into a visual reference gradient for display on the user device."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Method (the core claim). A controller (processor + memory, in communication with an access point) does the following:

1. Receives first data about connection performance for a user device, where the AP and the user device have an associated first location and first time;
2. Maps that first performance data at the first location/time;
3. Receives second data about connection performance for the user device, with an associated second location and second time;
4. Maps that second performance data at the second location/time;
5. Calculates a relative direction for the user device to move in order to receive improved connection performance; and
6. Sends an indication of that relative direction to the access point, for the user device.

In plain terms: the network side logs performance samples tied to where/when a device was, plots them, figures out which way the device should walk to get better service, and routes a "go that way" instruction back through the AP. The "compass/direction arrow" embodiment of FIG. 9 is the practical implementation.

Claim 10 — Non‑transitory computer-readable medium. Same controller-side receiving and mapping of the first and second performance data points (steps 1–4 above), but the independent claim ends at converting the two mapped data sets into a "visual reference gradient" for display on the user device (the heat-map/color/shading concept of FIGS. 7–8). Notably, the direction calculation and sending steps are not in claim 10 — they appear only in dependent claim 11.

Claim 19 — System. A controller comprising a processor and memory, in communication with an access point, configured to perform the same nine-step sequence as claim 1, including calculating the relative direction and sending the indication of that direction to the AP for the user device. It is the apparatus counterpart of claim 1.

4. Dependent-claim landscape (brief)

Throughput as the performance metric (claims 3, 12); shaded or colored "visual reference gradient" indicators (4, 5, 13, 14); sending the gradient or direction indication to a second user device for display (6, 7, 15, 16); and adding third data for a second user device at a third location/time and mapping it, optionally into the visual gradient (8, 9, 17, 18). The specification adds subject matter that is not claimed: SLAM-based map building over time, AP-placement modeling/scoring (average vs. 10th/90th percentile — FIGS. 10A/B, 11A/B), and multi-network (WiFi vs. cellular) steering.

5. Litigation / CAFC search findings

• No Federal Circuit 2026 docket or appeal for US 10,667,089 was found. I found nothing indicating this patent is or was on appeal, and nothing indicating it was asserted in any suit. I cannot treat this as conclusive — it reflects what my searches returned, not a docket-by-docket confirmation.
• Beware a literal-string collision: Numerous court and PTAB documents contain the string "10667089," but they are the Westlaw citation 2017 WL 10667089, i.e., Kowa Co. v. [Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Amneal%20Pharmaceuticals%2C%20LLC), No. 14-cv-2758 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2017), aff'd, 745 F. App'x 168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) — a pharmaceutical polymorph case unrelated to this patent. (E.g., https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-2_21-cv-19293/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-2_21-cv-19293-1.pdf; https://www.axinn.com/print/v2/content/6264/going-global-on-polymorphs.pdf.) Per the "interpret literally" rule, this is a genuinely different identifier that happens to match the digits — it is not evidence of activity on the '089 patent.
• One ambiguous, unverified hit: A Docket Alarm search page returned a case caption Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. ByteDance Ltd. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00496 (E.D. Tex.) whose "Patent" field listed 10667089; 11234121; 11659381; 6344470; 8756336; 8862757; 8898260; 8904030; 9900766 (https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?f=party_obj.name_exact_remove-Silverman%2C+Neil&q=patent%3A%288756336%29). That search was keyed to a different patent (8,756,336), and the returned list looks like a merged/aggregated display across multiple records rather than a verified assertion list. I do not have authoritative confirmation that US 10,667,089 was ever asserted in Cellspin v. ByteDance or any other case, and the patent's Expired–Fee-Related status with no identified litigation is consistent with it never having been asserted. I flag this as an unresolved data artifact, not a finding.

6. Explicit uncertainties

1. No independent confirmation from USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or the CAFC docket. I was unable to directly query those systems; the bibliographic data comes from the authoritative patent text provided, and the litigation/docket statements are limited to what my searches returned.
2. Multiple-litigation, PTAB, or ITC proceedings could exist that are not indexed in the sources I could reach. Absence of search hits is not affirmative evidence of no activity.
3. Assignee chain: the header says ARRIS Enterprises LLC, but the reassignment records show Ruckus Wireless entities as intermediate and residual parties; I did not verify the current record owner.
4. Drafting anomalies worth noting (my observation, not a legal conclusion): dependent claims 6 and 16 refer to "the visual reference gradient" although their respective base claims (1 and 10) do not recite creating one (claim 2 does), and claim 16 refers to "the indication of the relative direction," a limitation that appears only in claim 11 — these look like antecedent-basis irregularities, which is typical of claims carried over from the parent US 9,998,852 filing.
5. Sole asserted-art listing: The eight "Citations" on the face of the patent (including Kowa-adjacent entries) are Alcatel US2006/0105759, Kish US2008/0070509 ("Closed-Loop Automatic Channel Selection"), Fujitsu US2010/0248745, Wehling US2010/0323659, Nokia US2012/0009890, Blumenberg US2013/0325326, Pylappan US2013/0321424, plus the parent US 9,998,852 B2. These are cited references, not adjudicated prior art.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10667089 across the sources you mentioned.

Let me dig deeper on that Docket Alarm hit and check the Unified Patents portal and other sources.

Bottom line

I could not confirm any litigation in which U.S. Patent No. 10,667,089 ("Performance mapping," Arris Enterprises LLC / originally Ruckus Wireless) was actually asserted as a patent-in-suit. I found one unverified candidate lead (a Docket Alarm tagging hit in the Cellspin Soft v. ByteDance/TikTok case) that I could not corroborate, plus a large volume of false positives caused by an unrelated Westlaw citation number. Details below.

⚠️ Important identifier caveat (false positives)

A plain search for "10667089" is dominated by the Westlaw citation "2017 WL 10667089," which is Kowa Co. v. [Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Amneal%20Pharmaceuticals%2C%20LLC), Nos. 14-CV-2758 (PAC), 14-CV-7934 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2017) — a pharmaceutical polymorph case with nothing to do with this patent. See, e.g.:

• https://www.axinn.com/print/v2/content/6264/going-global-on-polymorphs.pdf
• https://www.venable.com/-/media/files/publications/2024/07/pli--2024.pdf

Per your instruction not to auto-correct identifiers, I flag these explicitly as citation-number collisions, not patent references. They should be excluded.

Candidate lead (UNVERIFIED — do not rely on without confirmation)

Why I do not treat this as confirmation: Docket Alarm's "Patent" field for this case lists nine numbers — "10667089; 11234121; 11659381; 6344470; 8756336; 8862757; 8898260; 8904030; 9900766." But the case record itself contradicts that list. The Declaration of Garland Hill in the same docket identifies the Asserted Patents as exactly seven: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,659,381; 11,234,121; 8,904,030; 9,900,766; 8,756,336; 8,862,757; and 8,898,260 — 10,667,089 is not among them, and neither is "6344470." See:

• https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--23-cv-00496/Cellspin_Soft_Inc._v._ByteDance_Ltd._et_al/docs/20/1.pdf
• https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ByteDance-Complaint.pdf

The case also involves seven IPRs (IPR2024-00757, -00759, -00760, -00767, -00768, -00769, -00770) — seven proceedings for seven asserted patents, consistent with 10,667,089 not being part of the case. See https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--23-cv-00496/Cellspin_Soft_Inc._v._ByteDance_Ltd._et_al/106/. Accordingly, the "10667089" tag is most likely a database aggregation/parsing artifact (possibly a related matter or an unrelated CN/US number mixed into the field), not evidence that the '089 patent was asserted.

Other negative findings

• No CAFC appeal involving U.S. 10,667,089 surfaced. The Ruckus-related Federal Circuit litigation that did surface — Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Netgear, Inc., Nos. 2018-1499 et al. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 19, 2019) (Rule 36 affirmance) — concerns entirely different patents and IPR numbers (IPR2016-01389 etc.): https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2019/09/19/chrimar_systems_inc._v._juniper_networks_inc..pdf
• No district court case naming Arris Enterprises LLC, Ruckus Wireless, Inc., or CommScope as plaintiff or defendant on this patent appeared.
• The patent's parent, U.S. 9,998,852 (same "Performance mapping" family) also did not surface in any litigation in these searches.
• I was unable to retrieve a litigation entry for 10,667,089 from the Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) in these results; a search against that URL returned no matching case list.

Recommended verification steps (I could not complete these)

1. Unified Patents portal — search the patent number directly in the "Patent Litigation" database (not the general web index).
2. PACER / Docket Alarm — run a docket search keyed to patent:(10667089) alone (my query was keyed to a different number, 8756336, which is why the result set was noisy).
3. USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records — confirm the current owner chain (Ruckus Wireless → Arris → CommScope entities) to identify plausible asserting parties.
4. CourtListener RECAP — docket search for "10,667,089".

Confidence statement: I have low confidence that any litigation asserting U.S. 10,667,089 exists, and high confidence that the Cellspin v. ByteDance docket tag is unreliable. I am explicitly stating this rather than presenting the Cellspin case as a confirmed hit. This is not legal advice, and any litigation assertion must be verified in PACER before it is relied upon.

I'll start by searching for any PTAB proceedings involving this patent and its family.

Let me dig deeper to confirm there are no PTAB proceedings and to check a possible district-court assertion.

PTAB / AIA Trial Landscape — U.S. Patent No. 10,667,089 B2

Patent under analysis: U.S. 10,667,089 B2, "Performance mapping" (inventors William S. Kish and Dave Lin; original assignee ARRIS Enterprises LLC, now held within the Ruckus Wireless / CommScope family). Filed 2018-04-18 as a continuation of US 14/748,153 (which issued as U.S. 9,998,852 B2); priority date 2014-06-24. 19 claims (1–9 method; 10–18 non-transitory CRM; 19 system). Anticipated expiration 2035-06-23; Google Patents lists legal status as Expired – Fee Related.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10667089](/patent/US10667089)/en

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings are on file for U.S. 10,667,089 — the USPTO Open Data Portal's structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web searches (patent number alone, "inter partes review" + number, title + assignee, and petitioner-side queries for Ruckus/ARRIS/CommScope/Unified Patents) surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent as the challenged patent.

Because the count is zero, there is no per-proceeding breakdown (no active matters, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, no institution denials), and the "for each proceeding" template below has no entries to populate. I am not going to manufacture proceeding numbers to fill the format — that would be fabrication, and the constraint against it is explicit. Instead:

• The patent has never been tested at the PTAB. All 19 originally-issued claims remain as granted by the examiner — not because a panel sustained them, but because no panel ever examined them.
• Nothing is "hardened" here. The patent is untested, not vindicated. The correct defensive posture is not "claims 1–5 were canceled, so this is dead," nor "it survived two IPRs, so it's bulletproof" — it is: no adversarial validity record exists, so the entire § 102/§ 103 defense space is still open to the first petitioner. That is the opposite of the bad-news posture, with one important caveat on the patent's term, below.

Why the count is zero (and how much to trust it)

This is a negative finding from public sources, not a certification. Two limits I want on the record: (1) ODP ingest lags newly filed petitions, and a petition filed within the last few months could be unindexed; (2) I could not complete a direct PTAB E2E / Patent Center party-and-patent search within this session. Before relying on this in a defense budget, run a direct PTAB E2E search by patent number and by the Ruckus/ARRIS/CommScope party strings.

⚠️ One lead I could not verify, flagged for follow-up. A Docket Alarm search result page (query patent:(8756336)) displayed the string 10667089; 11234121; 11659381; 6344470; 8756336; ... adjacent to Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. ByteDance Ltd. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00496 (E.D. Tex.), a case involving Cellspin's media-upload patents and IPR2024-00757. I could not confirm that '089 is actually a patent-in-suit in that case; the string appears to be an aggregation artifact on a multi-case results page, and '089's recorded ownership chain (Ruckus Wireless → ARRIS/CommScope) is inconsistent with Cellspin's portfolio. Do not treat '089 as a Cellspin patent on this record. Verify the E.D. Tex. docket directly if that case is on your radar.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 19 claims UNTESTED. There is no PTAB FWD in existence for this patent, so I cannot state that any claim is canceled, and I equally cannot state that any claim has been sustained. Every claim stands as issued. For a defendant, that means the assertion set is whatever the patent owner pleads — the independent claims are method claim 1, CRM claim 10, and system claim 19, each of which carries the "calculating a relative direction … to receive improved connection performance" and "sending an indication of the relative direction … to the access point for the user device" limitations from claim 1's chain. Those directional/send-back limitations are the natural § 103 battleground and, in a district court, also the natural § 112 written-description target, since no panel or court has ever construed them.

The more significant fact may be the patent's status, not its validity. Google Patents lists U.S. 10,667,089 as status "Expired – Fee Related" with a 2035-06-23 anticipated expiration. Those two data points sit in tension (fee lapse would expire the patent well before 2035), and Google's legal status is expressly an assumption, not a legal conclusion. This needs independent verification via USPTO Patent Center (fee-payment history and any adverse expiration determination). If the patent did lapse for non-payment of a maintenance fee — the 3.5-year fee would have come due in late 2023, with a 6-month grace period — then the practical defense is not an IPR at all: infringement liability stops at lapse, § 286 caps damages to the 6 years before filing, there is no injunction risk, and the only live question is whether a missed grace-period payment is petitionably unavoidable/ unintentional (37 C.F.R. § 1.378 / § 1.377). Note that the parent, U.S. 9,998,852 B2, is listed Active through an anticipated 2036-02-10, so confirm which member of the family is actually being asserted — the parent is the more likely vehicle and it is not expired.

Estoppel landscape: nothing is estopped. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel only attaches to a petitioner (and its privies/real parties in interest) that was party to an IPR or PGR that reached a Final Written Decision. With no IPRs and no PGRs on this patent, there is no petitioner-side estoppel of any kind. Every § 102 and § 103 ground is available to a first-time petitioner, including (subject to the § 325(d) discretion analysis and the General Plastic / Fintiv-era follow-on factors) art that happens to overlap prosecution. Two timing/eligibility constraints do apply: § 315(b) gives you one year from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent to file; and § 315(a)(1) bars an IPR if you filed a civil action challenging validity first. Separately, note that CBM review is unavailable (it sunset on 2020-09-16, and this is not a financial-services patent anyway) and PGR is time-barred (the 9-month post-grant window closed in early 2021, the patent having issued 2020-05-26). And because IPR is limited to § 102/§ 103 by § 311(b), any § 112 indefiniteness or written-description attack must be made in the district court or in an ex parte reexamination — not in an IPR. That is a meaningful planning point given the claim's functional "calculating a relative direction" language.

Pattern signals: none on this patent, but note the corporate history. The same entity family (Ruckus Wireless, ARRIS, CommScope) appears repeatedly on the petitioner side in wireless PTAB matters — XR Communications/Vivato (IPR2018-01016/-01017/-01018), Chrimar (IPR2016-01389/-01391/-01397/-01399), Hera Wireless (IPR2018-01371/-01372/-01373/-01418/-01419/-01420/-01421, alongside Intel, Belkin, Amazon, Netgear, Roku), and the MTT/Telcordia-style '403 matters — but that is offense-oriented activity on other parties' patents, not defense activity on this one. There is no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in this patent's chain that I could find, and no Ruckus/ARRIS assertion campaign of '089 that drew a counter-IPR. Ruckus's own litigation history (Netgear, OptimumPath/WIAV-era matters) shows it litigates and defends, but none of that touches '089's validity record.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not build a defense around "PTAB precedent on this patent," because there is none. There is no FWD to cite, no claim to point to as canceled, and no estoppel to exploit. If opposing counsel's demand letter implies the claims are PTAB-tested, that implication is false.

2. Resolve the term question first, before spending money on prior art. Verify U.S. 10,667,089's fee status and expiration date on USPTO Patent Center, and verify which family member is asserted (10,667,089 vs. 9,998,852). If '089 has lapsed for non-payment, damages are cut off and the case may be economically unwinnable for the patent owner; if the assertion is on the '852 parent, the analysis resets and the parent — also with no PTAB history that I could find — is the target.

3. If an IPR is the plan, file within § 315(b)'s one-year window (one year from service of the complaint on your client, not from the demand letter) and get an early § 315(b)/RPI assessment in order, since real-party-in-interest and privity challenges are the standard early-stage attack in this sector. Target independent claim 1 and its dependents, and consider parallel attacks on claim 10 and claim 19 to avoid leaving claims unscathed — a partial win leaves the patent owner with an easy path to a narrowed infringement theory.

4. Run a § 112 track in parallel. The "calculating a relative direction for the user device to move, to receive improved connection performance" and "sending an indication of the relative direction … to the access point for the user device" limitations are functional and were never construed by any tribunal. § 112 is outside the Board's IPR jurisdiction, so preserve it in the district court case (and consider whether an ex parte reexamination has any role). Note that ex parte reexamination is not subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel, making it a viable fallback if an IPR ground is lost.

5. Set a reminder to re-check PTAB Docket/E2E before any filing deadline. Given the age of this patent (priority 2014-06-24, granted 2020-05-26) and its five-plus years on the register, the absence of IPRs is genuine signal — well-asserted patents in this space (Chrimar, XR Communications, Hera Wireless) reliably drew them. But confirm the negative at the source before you rely on it, because ODP ingest lag is the one way this analysis could be stale.

Sources consulted

• USPTO structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical, zero AIA trials) — as provided in this prompt.
• U.S. 10,667,089 B2 bibliographic, claim, continuity, assignment, and legal-status data — https://patents.google.com/patent/US10667089/en
• Parent/continuation data (U.S. 9,998,852 B2; app. 14/748,153) — same Google Patents family record.
• Unrelated-to-this-patent PTAB matters reviewed and excluded: Chrimar Systems v. Juniper/Ruckus/Netgear, IPR2016-01389, -01391, -01397, -01399, -00719 (CAFC Nos. 2018-1499, -1500, -1503, -1984, judgment 2019-09-19); XR Communications (Vivato) v. Ruckus et al., IPR2018-01016/-01017/-01018; Hera Wireless IPRs IPR2018-01371/-01372/-01373/-01418/-01419/-01420/-01421; MTT v. Juniper/Ruckus/Aruba/ARRIS, IPR2017-00642.

No Federal Circuit appeal is listed for U.S. 10,667,089 — consistent with there being no PTAB proceeding to appeal from.

I'll research the assignment records for US 10667089 before building the analysis.

Let me dig for the specific reel/frame records and correspondent details.

Sourcing note: I was able to pull Google Patents legal-event records for US 10667089 (mirroring USPTO Assignment Center data) plus a related PTAB assignment-history exhibit for the CommScope/ARRIS/Ruckus secured-financing reels. I could not open Assignment Center itself in-session, so the reel/frame numbers below are cited only where the record itself names them (the 2024 release cites 049905/0504; the 2026 termination cites 49709/0266); the remaining reel/frame values are marked as not retrieved rather than guessed.

Inventors

Pattern note: No unusual inventor-departure pattern is visible from the assignment record. Both inventors appear on the normal employer-side assignment to Ruckus Wireless, Inc. There is no evidence of inventors leaving and forming a successor entity, and no inventor is named as an assignee or a subsequent transferor — i.e., no inventor-originated NPE chain.

Original assignee

• At issuance: The application (a continuation of US 14/748,153, filed 2015-06-23, now US 9,998,852) originated with Ruckus Wireless, Inc. The sibling/parent patent US 9,998,852 is recorded as Ruckus-assigned, and this patent was not assigned to ARRIS Enterprises LLC until an assignment recorded 2020-01-02. (Google Patents' normalized "Original Assignee: Arris Enterprises LLC" header reflects the current recorded owner; the underlying chain shows Ruckus as the originating assignee.)
• Primary business: Ruckus Wireless was an enterprise/carrier Wi‑Fi equipment maker — access points, controllers, and Wi‑Fi planning/analytics software (e.g., SmartCell Insight, ZonePlanner — the SmartCell Insight product line characterizes exactly the "map performance in an area" functionality claimed here). It shipped products embodying the claimed subject matter.
• Current status: Operating, but as part of a consolidated group — not dissolved.
  • Dec 2017: Ruckus (then a Brocade subsidiary) acquired by ARRIS International.
  • Apr 2019: ARRIS acquired by CommScope (CommScope Holding Company, Inc.); Ruckus Wireless, Inc. became a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of CommScope Technologies LLC.
  • Later reorganized/renamed: the 2026-01-09 record names Ruckus Wireless, LLC (f/k/a Ruckus Wireless, Inc.), i.e., an Inc.→LLC conversion.
• Patent status: Expired – Fee Related (lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees; anticipated expiration 2035-06-23). This is a portfolio-maintenance lapse, not an abandonment-for-assertion signal.

Assignment timeline

Every recorded event below comes from the patent's own legal-events history (mirrors Assignment Center). Where a reel/frame was not retrievable, it is stated as such.

1. 2020-01-02 (executed) / recorded 2020-01-02 — Reel not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
   • Assignor: Dave Lin; William S. Kish (individuals)
   • Assignee: Ruckus Wireless, Inc.
   • Correspondent: not retrieved (record flagged "see document for details")
   • Context: employer-side confirmation of the inventors' original assignment to Ruckus — normal in-house/employment capture, not an acquisition.

2. 2020-01-02 (executed) / recorded 2020-01-02 — Reel not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Ruckus Wireless, Inc.
   • Assignee: ARRIS Enterprises LLC
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: internal reorganization — Ruckus (acquired by ARRIS in Dec 2017, itself acquired by CommScope in Apr 2019) moved into the ARRIS Enterprises LLC entity.

3. 2019-07-03 (recorded; executed 2019-04-04 per the related security agreement) — Reel 049892/0051 (reel/frame taken from a related PTAB assignment-history exhibit for the same portfolio-level security agreement; not independently re-confirmed on this patent's page)

   • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement (grant of security interest)
   • Assignor: Ruckus Wireless, Inc. (and CommScope/ARRIS affiliates per the portfolio agreement)
   • Assignee: Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Collateral Agent
   • Correspondent: Latham & Watkins LLP (per the related exhibit)
   • Context: securitization — collateral pledge supporting CommScope's 2019 financing, not a title transfer.

4. 2019-07-03 (recorded) — Reel 049892/0396 (from the related exhibit)

   • Conveyance: ABL Security Agreement
   • Assignor: ARRIS Enterprises LLC; ARRIS Solutions, Inc.; ARRIS Technology, Inc.; CommScope Technologies LLC; CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina; Ruckus Wireless, Inc.
   • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
   • Correspondent: CT Corporation (4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125, Columbus, OH 43219) — a registered-agent service, which here reflects routine financing documentation, not an NPE shell.
   • Context: securitization — asset-based-lending collateral pledge.

5. 2019-07-03 (recorded) — Reel 049905/0504 (this reel/frame is explicitly cited on this patent's record, in the 2024-12-19 release entry)

   • Conveyance: Term Loan Security Agreement
   • Assignor: same CommScope/ARRIS/Ruckus group
   • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
   • Correspondent: CT Corporation (per the related exhibit)
   • Context: securitization — term-loan collateral pledge across the CommScope portfolio incl. this patent.

6. 2021-11-19 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved (likely the agreement later terminated at 49709/0266)

   • Conveyance: Security Interest
   • Assignor: ARRIS Enterprises LLC; ARRIS Solutions, Inc.; CommScope Technologies LLC; CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina; Ruckus Wireless, Inc.
   • Assignee: Wilmington Trust (as collateral agent)
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: securitization — replacement/refinancing collateral pledge.

7. 2024-12-19 — Reel 049905/0504 (release entry)

   • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest
   • Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Collateral Agent
   • Assignee/Releasee: CommScope Technologies LLC; ARRIS Technology, Inc.; ARRIS Enterprises LLC; Ruckus Wireless, LLC; ARRIS Solutions, Inc.; CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: lien release — the 2019 term-loan pledge was discharged; title unchanged.

8. 2026-01-09 — Reel 49709/0266 (termination entry)

   • Conveyance: Termination and Release of Security Interest
   • Assignor: Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Collateral Agent
   • Assignee/Releasee: Ruckus Wireless, LLC (f/k/a Ruckus Wireless, Inc.)
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: lien release — final discharge of the Wilmington Trust collateral pledge; note the Inc.→LLC entity conversion in the assignee name.

Net path: Inventors → Ruckus Wireless, Inc. → ARRIS Enterprises LLC (CommScope family), with two layers of lender security interests layered on and later released. No third-party acquirer, no licensing-only LLC, and no asserter appears anywhere in the record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10667089
    2014 : Provisional priority date Jun 24
    2015 : Parent application filed
         : Assigned to Ruckus Wireless Inc
    2018 : Continuation application filed Aug 18 wait Apr 18
    2019 : CommScope acquires ARRIS and Ruckus
         : Lender security agreements recorded
    2020 : Ruckus assigns to ARRIS Enterprises
         : Patent issues May 26
    2021 : Wilmington Trust security interest recorded
    2024 : CommScope releases term loan lien
    2026 : Wilmington Trust lien terminated

(If the parser rejects the "Aug 18 wait Apr 18" line, delete that single line — the continuation was filed 2018-04-18.)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. Every assignee in the chain is either an operating Wi‑Fi/cable equipment company (Ruckus Wireless, Inc.; ARRIS Enterprises LLC) or a collateral agent bank (Wilmington Trust; JPMorgan Chase). No "IP/Holdings/Ventures/Licensing" LLC appears. The only registered-agent-style address (CT Corporation, reel 049892/0396) is the lender's agent on a financing instrument, not an NPE's correspondence address.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Converso/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, Spangenberg entities, etc. appear as assignee or assignor on any recorded event. (Sisvel/Hera/Aegis asserted against ARRIS/Ruckus in 2020 and took a license — that is the inverse direction and does not put a known asserter in this patent's chain.)

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present / largely unclear. The only correspondents I could positively identify are Latham & Watkins LLP and CT Corporation, both appearing as lender-side counsel/agents on the 2019 CommScope security agreements (reels 049892/0051 and 049892/0396 / 049905/0504). Recurrence of the same financing counsel across a lender's portfolio is expected in securitization and is not the NPE tell (which requires a repeat plaintiff-side attorney recording shell-LLC assignments). Correspondents on the 2020-01-02 assignments and the 2021-11-19 security interest were not retrievable; they are flagged as unknown rather than inferred.

4. Cascading transfers — not present as an NPE pattern. There are several records inside a ~24-month window (2019-07-03 to 2021-11-19), but they are one internal reorg (Ruckus→ARRIS, 2020-01-02) plus lender collateral pledges and releases — no chained LLCs sharing a correspondent address or principals.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming US 10667089 was surfaced, and the 2020-01-02 title assignments postdate the 2020-05-26 issuance (they are cleanup/reorg recordings, not pre-suit venue engineering).

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present on the record. The original assignee did not sell this patent through a Chapter 7/11 proceeding; the 2024 and 2026 events are consensual lien releases, not distressed asset sales.

7. Privateering — not present. The operating company (CommScope/ARRIS/Ruckus) retained the patent within its own corporate family; there is no transfer to an NPE asserting on the company's behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. Justification: the entire recorded chain (2020-01-02 Ruckus→ARRIS assignment; 2019-07-03 and 2021-11-19 lender security interests at reels 049905/0504 and 49709/0266; 2024-12-19 and 2026-01-09 releases) stays within the Ruckus/ARRIS/CommScope operating family, with banks appearing only as collateral agents — no shell LLC, no listed asserter, no cascading NPE transfers, and no defensive-aggregator terminus. The owning enterprise (CommScope/ARRIS/Ruckus) ships Wi‑Fi access points and Wi‑Fi analytics/planning products (e.g., SmartCell Insight, ZonePlanner) that embody the mapping claims.

Caveat on the verdict: I found no evidence that this specific patent is being asserted in litigation, and the patent has lapsed (Expired – Fee Related), so the assertion half of the label is not affirmatively established — ownership is definitively operating-company, assertion is unconfirmed.

Verification: search patent number 10667089 at the USPTO Assignment Center → https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (and the landing page https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/).

I'll search for the specific patent and its prior art citations.

Let me gather details on the key cited references.

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references.

Prior Art Analysis — US 10,667,089 B2 ("Performance Mapping")

Source-of-record caveat

The authoritative source used here is the Google Patents full-text record for US 10,667,089 B2 (fetched 2026-10-01), which reproduces the front‑page "Citations (8)" table. That table is the definitive list of references cited against this patent. Note two date inconsistencies in the environment I am working in (a "current date" of April 26, 2026 in your prompt vs. a 2026‑10‑01 fetch timestamp); neither affects the substance of the analysis. I was able to retrieve full text for four of the eight references before hitting a tool‑step limit; for the remaining four I rely on the patent's own citation table plus established bibliographic data, and I flag any uncertainty explicitly.

Key facts for the §102/§103 framework:

• Effective priority date: 2014‑06‑24 (provisional US 62/016,539); a second provisional US 62/097,939 (2014‑12‑30); non‑provisional US 14/748,153 filed 2015‑06‑23 (now US 9,998,852 B2); the instant continuation US 15/956,416 filed 2018‑04‑18; granted 2020‑05‑26.
• Because the priority date is after March 16, 2013, the AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) regime applies. All eight cited publications pre‑date 2014‑06‑24 and therefore are available as prior art under § 102(a)(1) except the one same‑family document noted below.

Important caveat on your §102 question: front‑page "cited references" are most often relied on by examiners in §103 obviousness combinations, not standalone §102 anticipation. Standalone anticipation requires the single reference to disclose every element of a claim. Below I identify, per reference, the claims it is relevant to, and separately flag the claim element (the "relative direction to move" limitation) that appears to be the point of novelty distinguishing it from all cited art. I have not performed a full element‑by‑element claim chart, so these are "potential anticipation / relevance" assessments, not legal conclusions.

The eight cited references

1. US 2006/0105759 A1 — Alcatel

• Full citation: US 2006/0105759 A1, "Management server for determining perceived quality of service maps in a mobile communication network," Alcatel. Filed 2004‑10‑20; published 2006‑05‑18.
• Description: A network management server (SG) receives, from mobile terminals, quality‑of‑service parameter values (received signal intensity, end‑to‑end delay, loss rate) together with cell identifiers and optional geographic position (GPS or triangulation). A processing module (MT) aggregates/combines the reports to produce "quality of service maps" of the network's cells, including intracellular disparities, and stores them. It can also deduce the speed/direction of movement of a terminal from successive reports.
• Claims potentially anticipated: The receive‑reports‑with‑location, aggregate‑over‑time, and build‑a‑QoS‑map elements read on claims 1, 8, 10, 17, and 19. Its mean‑value aggregation over multiple reports to the same location also touches the "mapping… over time" concept.
• Not disclosed: the recited "calculating a relative direction for the user device to move, to receive improved connection performance" and sending that direction to the AP (claims 1, 11, 19); also no "visual reference gradient" per se (claims 2, 9, 10). Alcatel deduces the user's direction of motion, not a direction the user should move to get better service.

2. US 2008/0070509 A1 — Kish (William S. Kish)

• Full citation: US 2008/0070509 A1, "Closed‑Loop Automatic Channel Selection," William S. Kish. Filed 2006‑08‑18; published 2008‑03‑20.
• Description: Automatic channel selection for wireless (e.g., mesh/WLAN) nodes based on measured interference/performance in the environment; a closed‑loop control process for choosing channels. (Same inventor as the instant patent; this is a common assignee/inventor citation.)
• Claims potentially anticipated: This reference is only tangentially relevant. It supports the general background that radios measure connection performance in the normal course of operation (touchpoint for claim 1's "receiving… connection performance"), but it does not disclose mapping performance to locations/times or directional guidance. Relevance is essentially as a §103 secondary reference, not anticipation.

3. US 2010/0248745 A1 — Fujitsu Limited

• Full citation: US 2010/0248745 A1, "Apparatus and method for providing position information service," Fujitsu Limited. Filed 2009‑03‑30; published 2010‑09‑30.
• Description: An apparatus/method for determining and providing position information to a user (position‑locating service; e.g., estimating a device's location and serving it to a client). Relevant to the location‑determination aspect of the patent (the "location information of the user device" element).
• Claims potentially anticipated: Potentially relevant only to the location‑estimation elements of claims 1, 8, 10, 17, 19. It does not disclose performance/QoS mapping or directional guidance.
• Caution: I did not retrieve the full text of this reference before the tool limit; the characterization above is based on the patent's citation table and general bibliographic knowledge of the Fujitsu position‑information family.

4. US 2010/0323659 A1 — Wehling (John H. Wehling)

• Full citation: US 2010/0323659 A1, "Mobile Communication Units that Display Connectivity Loss Boundaries," Wehling. Filed 2009‑06‑22; published 2010‑12‑23.
• Description: A mobile communication unit that displays connectivity‑loss boundaries — i.e., a visual/graphical presentation of where connectivity degrades, so a user can see coverage limits relative to position.
• Claims potentially anticipated: Most relevant to the visual‑representation claims — claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18 ("visual reference gradient," "shaded indicator," "colored indicator") — by disclosing display of connectivity boundaries/coverage information. It does not appear to disclose throughput mapping tied to per‑device location/time data, nor directional guidance.
• Caution: Full text not retrieved before the tool limit; characterization is based on the citation table and the reference's title/known subject matter.

5. US 2012/0009890 A1 — Nokia Corporation

• Full citation: US 2012/0009890 A1, "Method and apparatus for providing a geo‑predictive streaming service," Nokia Corporation. Filed 2010‑07‑09; published 2012‑01‑12. (PCT counterpart WO 2012/004777 A2.)
• Description: A mobile terminal receives, from a congestion‑map server, "network performance parameters associated with a corresponding time and location of a projected route"; it determines whether an upcoming route portion corresponds to an outage event and modifies streaming bit‑rate accordingly. Core idea: network performance keyed to location and time, gathered into a congestion map.
• Claims potentially anticipated: Directly relevant to the location‑and‑time performance‑mapping concept of claims 1, 8, 10, 17, 19 (receiving performance info associated with a location and a time; aggregating into a map). Its "performance parameters at a corresponding time and location" is the closest cited art to the "first/second location and first/second time" limitations.
• Not disclosed: mapping of actual experienced throughput of a user device reported via the AP, the "visual reference gradient," and — critically — the "relative direction for the user device to move to receive improved connection performance" (claims 1, 11, 19). Geo‑predictive streaming adapts the stream to the predicted location; it does not instruct the user where to physically move.

6. US 2013/0325326 A1 — Blumenberg (Christopher Blumenberg)

• Full citation: US 2013/0325326 A1, "System And Method For Acquiring Map Portions Based On Expected Signal Strength Of Route Segments," Christopher Blumenberg. Filed 2012‑06‑05; published 2013‑12‑05.
• Description: Uses expected signal‑strength information along route segments to prioritize which map tiles/portions a client acquires (i.e., expected‑coverage‑aware map acquisition).
• Claims potentially anticipated: Tangential. Relevant at most to background concepts of expected signal strength by geographic segment (claims 1, 10, 19 framing). Does not disclose throughput mapping from per‑device reports or directional guidance.

7. US 2013/0321424 A1 — Pylappan (Seejo K. Pylappan) — (granted as US 10,109,082 B2)

• Full citation: US 2013/0321424 A1, "System And Method For Generating Signal Coverage Information From Client Metrics," Pylappan et al. (Apple Inc.). Filed 2012‑06‑05; published 2013‑12‑05; granted US 10,109,082 B2 (2018‑10‑23). Continuation of US 13/489,260 (now US 9,441,975).
• Description: Receives client‑reported signal‑strength information (e.g., a smartphone reports GPS coordinates + measured cellular signal strength), and generates a signal‑strength map / "heat map" for a region by computing, per location, expected values (mean/median of the n‑most reports). The map can be a data structure/database or a heat map of varying signal strengths, used to identify weak/dead zones.
• Claims potentially anticipated: This is the most on‑point reference. Client‑reported performance metrics + location → aggregated heat map reads strongly on the mapping/aggregation and visual‑representation elements of claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19 (and the "heat map" gradient of claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 18). Also relevant to the "multiple reports for the same location averaged" disclosure in the specification.
• Not disclosed: (a) the "connection performance" data reported from the AP to a controller (Pylappan is client‑reported signal strength, not throughput via AP); (b) the "relative direction for the user device to move to receive improved connection performance" (claims 1, 11, 19). Pylappan identifies weak zones but does not compute/send a movement direction.

8. US 9,998,852 B2 — Ruckus Wireless, Inc. ("Performance mapping") — NOT genuine prior art

• Full citation: US 9,998,852 B2, "Performance mapping," Ruckus Wireless, Inc. Priority 2014‑06‑24; filed 2015‑06‑23; granted 2018‑06‑12.
• Description: This is the immediate parent application in the same family (the application of which US 10,667,089 is a continuation). Its subject matter is essentially identical.
• §102 status: It cannot be prior art under § 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) — it shares the same effective filing/priority date (2014‑06‑24) and is the same inventive entity/assignee. The patent's own record lists it under "Related Parent Applications / Family Applications Before," not as true art. It appears in the citation table for family‑linkage reasons, not as an anticipatory reference. Do not treat it as anticipation or obviousness art.
• Claims potentially implicated: None as prior art (same‑family); substantively it discloses all elements of claims 1–19, which is precisely why it is not citable — same invention.

Summary table

Analytical conclusion

• The strongest citations are Pylappan (US 2013/0321424 A1) and Alcatel (US 2006/0105759 A1) for the "receive located/reported performance → aggregate → map (heat map/gradient)" concepts, and Nokia (US 2012/0009890 A1) for the location‑and‑time keying of performance data.
• No cited reference appears to disclose the distinguishing limitation common to independent claims 1, 11, and 19 — "calculating a relative direction for the user device to move, to receive improved connection performance; and sending an indication of the relative direction … to the access point for the user device." That directional‑guidance element (illustrated by the arrow/compass of FIG. 9) is the likely point of novelty over this cited art, and its absence from every one of the eight citations means the cited art more naturally supports §103 combinations than standalone §102 anticipation.
• The §102(a)(1) references are all pre‑2014‑06‑24 publications; the remaining document, US 9,998,852 B2, is the same‑family parent and is not citable prior art.

Explicit uncertainties: I could not retrieve full text for references #2 (Kish, US 2008/0070509 A1), #3 (Fujitsu, US 2010/0248745 A1), #4 (Wehling, US 2010/0323659 A1), or #6 (Blumenberg, US 2013/0325326 A1) before the tool limit; my descriptions of those four rest on the patent's front‑page citation table and general bibliographic knowledge, and should be verified against the actual documents before any formal use. I also have not built element‑by‑element claim charts, so the "potentially anticipates" designations are relevance flags, not legal conclusions of anticipation.

I'll research the prior art references cited on this patent before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me research the remaining prior art references cited on this patent.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,667,089 B2 ("Performance Mapping")

Analyst note on scope: This analysis is limited to the references that appear in the Prior Art / Citations section of the Google Patents page for US 10,667,089 as provided. Per your instruction, all identifiers are read literally (e.g., US20060105759A1, US20100323659A1, US20120009890A1, US20130321424A1), and designations such as "A1" (pre‑grant publication) and "B2" (granted patent) are preserved. Where I relied on live search results, those results are treated as ground truth and cited.

I. Governing legal standard

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (as construed in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)), a claim is obvious if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") at the time of the effective filing date. The analysis turns on: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill; and (4) objective indicia. A combination of references is proper where there is a teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) to combine, where the references are from the same field of endeavor or address the same problem, or where the combination is a predictable use of prior-art elements according to known methods (KSR).

Effective priority date / critical date. The patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional 62/016,539 (filed June 24, 2014) and Provisional 62/097,939 (filed Dec. 30, 2014), via Ser. No. 14/748,153 (filed June 23, 2015), which issued as US9998852B2. The operative § 103 date is therefore on or about June 24, 2014. Every reference in the "Citations" list predates that date.

Level of ordinary skill. A POSITA would be a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical/computer engineering or computer science and 2–4 years of experience with wireless network management, RF propagation, and location-based services, or equivalent. This is a relatively ordinary level of skill; the asserted concepts (crowd-sourced performance maps, heat maps, and turn-by-turn direction) were well developed by 2014.

II. The claims to be analyzed

The patent has three independent claims — claim 1 (method), claim 10 (non-transitory CRM), and claim 19 (system) — which are substantively parallel. The core inventive concept is:

1. A controller (processor + memory) in communication with an access point;
2. Receiving first connection-performance data for a user device together with an associated first location and first time;
3. Mapping that first data at the first location/time;
4. Receiving second connection-performance data for that user device with a second location and second time;
5. Mapping the second data at the second location/time;
6. Calculating a relative direction for the user device to move to receive improved connection performance; and
7. Sending an indication of the relative direction to the access point for the user device.

Dependent claims add: conversion into a visual reference gradient (claim 2); throughput as the metric (claim 3); shaded (claim 4) or colored (claim 5) indicators; sending the gradient/direction to a second user device (claims 6–7); and receiving/mapping data for a second user device (claims 8–9), with corresponding CRM and system claims (10–19).

III. The prior art references (as listed in the patent's Citations section)

Important threshold point: US9998852B2 is the parent application (Ser. No. 14/748,153) of the patent under review. It is not, by itself, § 102/103 prior art because the disclosure is co‑extensive with the patent's own priority chain. It is listed here only because it appears in the page's citation table. The operative prior art for § 103 is the seven pre-2014 references above.

References that are NOT prior art (post-date the June 24, 2014 priority date) and are addressed only defensively: the "Families Citing this family" list contains US10284299B2 (Belkin, priority 2014‑06‑02 — arguably prior art, only 22 days before the critical date); US10313892B2 (Belkin, 2015‑12‑17); US9712975B2 (Aruba, 2014‑06‑29); US10024975B2 (Finite State Research, 2015‑05‑20); EP3984170A1 (Arris, 2019‑06‑11); CN112444820B (UBTECH, 2019‑08‑28); and US11546779B2 (Here Global, 2020‑10‑28). Because these are later-filed documents that merely cite the patent family, they cannot be used affirmatively against US 10,667,089. I flag them so the record is not misread.

IV. The references, mapped to claim 1

A. US20060105759A1 (Alcatel) — the "map QoS by location" backbone

From the search results, US20060105759A1 discloses a management server SG (a "controller" with processing module MT, memory BD1/BD2, drawn in the network management system NMS) that:

• receives connection-performance information from mobile terminals — "information representing the value taken … by at least one quality of service parameter," namely "the intensity of the signal received … and/or an end-to-end performance measurement … the transmission delay, the loss rate or the server access delay," "bit rate information," etc.;
• receives location information — "its geographical position," via "GPS module … or an intercellular location module … employing triangulation," and the cell identifier of the cell in which the terminal is situated;
• aggregates data over time — "If it has more than one value of the same parameter for a cell Ci, it delivers … the mean value," and the data "may come … from the same mobile telephone UEi (at different times) or from different mobile telephones";
• maps the data — it "produce[s] data representing the quality of service perceived in each cell Ci (which defines quality of service map portions …) and/or … a complete map," and produces maps "as a function of an event and/or a day and/or a time of day and/or a particular geographical area"; and
• displays the map — interface module MIE enables the manager "to view the maps," combining map data with the network map.

This reference supplies the "controller … receiving [first/second data] regarding connection performance … with a [first/second] location … and [first/second] time" and the "mapping" steps of claim 1, and the visual-gradient features (claims 2, 4, 5) via its overlay/display mechanisms.

B. US20130321424A1 (Pylappan) — client-metric heat map with per-location expected values

The search results confirm US20130321424A1 discloses:

• "receiving signal strength information reported by multiple client communication devices," where "a given client device may report messages at different locations … each message may indicate one or more locations detected by the given client device as well as measured signal strength at those locations";
• "a smartphone may use a GPS module to determine specific coordinates … and report those coordinates along with a measure of cellular signal strength";
• "generating a signal strength map for a region … [including] heat map of varying signal strengths"; and
• "for a given location, embodiments may generate the mean or median signal strength value … based on the n-most … measured signal strength values."

This reference maps the "first data … first location/first time" and "second data … second location/second time" elements onto concrete, well-known client-reporting implementations, and it explicitly teaches the heat-map visualization of claims 2, 4, and 5.

C. US20130325326A1 (Blumenberg) — route-based performance mapping + user guidance

US20130325326A1 (a companion Apple filing to Pylappan, same June 5, 2012 priority) discloses:

• aggregating "signal strength information reported by multiple client communication devices," each message indicating "locations … as well as measured signal strength at those locations";
• "generating a heat map from aggregated signal strength information";
• "analyzing a route and signal strength heat map to … identify weak or dead zones"; and
• route guidance — "a portable multifunction device configured with navigation route guidance."

Because it expressly analyzes a route against a signal-strength heat map to identify weak zones, it supplies at least part of the informational predicate for "calculating a relative direction … to move … to receive improved connection performance."

D. US20100323659A1 (Wehling) — "direction to move" the user interface

The search results confirm US20100323659A1 claims a mobile unit that:

• executes "a propagation algorithm to determine connectivity loss boundaries that define connectivity loss regions based on one or more forward projected position vector paths";
• includes a "map renderer … configured to provide map display data that includes the map area and terrain data, the SA location data and/or velocity and the determined connectivity loss boundaries"; and
• "displays a geographical map area with an icon of the mobile communication unit … and drawn connectivity loss boundaries … in a geographic location of the geographical map area," such that "vehicle drivers and/or radio operators can be warned of potential connectivity loss regions."

This is the closest reference to the claimed "calculating a relative direction for the user device to move, to receive improved connection performance," and to its display (FIG. 9 arrow/text of the patent).

E. US20120009890A1 (Nokia) — geo-predictive map server returning location/time-indexed performance

US20120009890A1 discloses:

• a "congestion map server" that receives from client devices "location-specific network performance parameters … including location information …, a corresponding time, … available bandwidth, base station ID, signal strength, received streaming throughput";
• "uses the report along with reports from a plurality of other mobile terminals to define a congestion map associating network performance parameters with corresponding geographic locations" (claim 2 of that publication);
• generating "a congestion map on a two dimensional geographical map … overlaid with congestion descriptors … defining good, fair and bad areas," distinguished "via color differences, shading, cross-hatching"; and
• providing "look-ahead" responses defining "a future location and corresponding expected channel capacity," and "informing" the terminal so it may "direct" its behavior.

This reference reinforces the time/location-tagged map and the color/shading gradient, and it explicitly shows the two-way network exchange between a server and the user's device via the access path.

F. US20100248745A1 (Fujitsu) and US20080070509A1 (Kish)

These are secondary references. US20100248745A1 ("Apparatus and method for providing position information service," Fujitsu) is a conventional location-services reference usable for the "location information" and display aspects. US20080070509A1 ("Closed-Loop Automatic Channel Selection," Kish, William S.) is by the named inventor of the patent family and concerns closed-loop RF management (channel selection based on measured conditions) — relevant background for "connection performance" measurement and the network-side feedback loop, but not a primary teaching of the mapping or direction elements.

V. Claim‑by‑claim obviousness analysis

Claim 1 (independent method claim)

Conclusion — claim 1 is obvious. No single reference discloses every element, but the combination of Alcatel + Pylappan (or Nokia) + Wehling discloses all elements. The only meaningful difference over the collective prior art is the specific packaging of the guidance as a "relative direction" message routed back "to the access point." That is a mere automation/implementation choice of a function (turning "where is better coverage?" into "go that way") that the art already performed on the device side.

Claim 2 (convert mapped data into a visual reference gradient)

Disclosed by Alcatel ("view the maps," overlay/display on a screen), Pylappan ("heat map of varying signal strengths … generated graphically to quickly convey the signal strength information"), and Nokia (good/fair/bad areas via "color differences, shading, cross-hatching"). Obvious.

Claim 3 (performance = throughput)

Disclosed by Alcatel ("bit rate information," end-to-end performance parameters) and Nokia ("received streaming throughput," "expected channel capacity"). Obvious.

Claims 4–5 (shaded / colored indicator)

Disclosed by Nokia ("color differences, shading, cross-hatching, or any other overlay techniques") and Pylappan (heat map). Obvious.

Claim 6 (send gradient to a second user device)

Disclosed/rendered obvious by Alcatel (map made available for "viewing," including "complete map" assembled from multiple terminals' reports) and Nokia (information "passed to other users of the application, to the room display … or to others via the network"). Obvious.

Claim 7 (send direction to a second user device)

Rendered obvious by Nokia's broadcast of location-based performance information to multiple users and by Alcatel's multi-terminal map dissemination. Obvious.

Claims 8–9 (second user device's data received/mapped; aggregate gradient)

Disclosed squarely by Alcatel (aggregating reports from "different mobile telephones" with mean values, "map (or map portions)") and Pylappan ("receiving signal strength information reported by multiple client communication devices"; mean/median over the n‑most values). Obvious.

Claim 10 (CRM) and Claim 19 (system)

Both recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 (claim 10 differs only in reciting "converting … into a visual reference gradient … for display"), and are met by the same Alcatel + Pylappan/Nokia + Wehling combination. For claim 10, Pylappan/Nokia independently disclose the converting‑to‑gradient step, so the CRM claim is obvious even without Wehling. For claim 19, the "system" form reads directly onto Alcatel's management server SG/NMS architecture. Obvious.

VI. Motivation to combine (KSR / TSM)

A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these references because:

1. Same field of endeavor and same problem. Alcatel, Pylappan, Blumenberg, Nokia, and Wehling all address the problem of characterizing and communicating wireless network performance as a function of physical location so users can obtain better service. This identity of field and problem is itself a strong TSM.

2. Design/operational incentives. Because each reference is directed to the same underlying need — the patent's stated problem that "users in a particular area usually desire better service, but may have trouble finding it" — a POSITA would naturally look to combine the capabilities: Alcatel's server-side aggregation, Pylappan/Blumenberg's client-reported heat maps, Wehling's connectivity boundaries, and Nokia's routing/pre-buffering guidance.

3. Predictable combination of known elements. Each element (crowd-sourcing measurements with GPS + time, aggregating into a heat map, and outputting navigation pointers) was individually known, and combining them yields no more than the predictable sum of their parts (KSR). The claimed "relative direction … to the access point" is simply the ordinary implementation of transmitting server-computed guidance to the user device through the very radio link (access point/base station) over which the measurements traversed — as Alcatel and Nokia both describe.

4. Explicit cross-referencing among the references. The search results show US20130321424A1 (Pylappan) and US20130325326A1 (Blumenberg) are companion filings (same June 5, 2012 date; both directed to client-reported signal metrics), and Pylappan's document is expressly related to heat-map generation — direct evidence that artisans of the time treated these techniques as combinable. Alcatel similarly cites aggregate-map approaches.

5. Well-known skill. By 2014, generating heat maps from crowd-sourced GPS + signal-strength samples (Pylappan/Blumenberg) and converting such maps into "you are here → better coverage is over there" guidance (Wehling's drawn boundaries; Blumenberg's weak-zone route analysis) were routine in the wireless-management and navigation arts, so the combination required no more than ordinary skill.

VII. Weak points / arguments the patent owner may raise

For a balanced assessment, note three points that could be argued against a § 103 rejection:

• "Relative direction" as an output is not squarely claimed by any single reference. Wehling teaches displaying connectivity-loss boundaries on the user's own device, and Blumenberg teaches prioritizing map downloads — neither teaches a server-side computation of a movement vector returned via the AP. The examiner would therefore need to rely on Wehling/Nokia/Blumenberg as teaching the function and treat the claimed packaging as an obvious design choice. This is a colorable but not fatal objection.
• The "send … to the access point for the user device" routing step is recited narrowly; one can argue the art describes delivery over the network generally rather than "to the access point." However, in a Wi‑Fi context the AP is the conduit, and Alcatel's management server reaching mobile terminals through the radio access network/base stations renders this explicit or at least obvious.
• US9998852B2 is the parent, not independent art; if an examiner relied on it as the primary reference, that would be improper. It should be used only to interpret the patent family, not as § 103 art.

None of these rebuts the prima facie case, particularly given the breadth of Alcatel, Pylappan, and Nokia and the directness of Wehling on the "direction to move" feature.

Objective indicia (secondary considerations): The page shows no evidence of unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt need, or industry praise tied to the claimed combination. The patent's own disclosure characterizes the contributing techniques (heat maps, throughput mapping, direction guidance) as known tools, which weakens any non‑obviousness argument. Absent such evidence, secondary considerations do not overcome the prima facie case.

VIII. Conclusion

Every claim of US 10,667,089 B2 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the references in the patent's Citations section. The strongest combinations are:

• Primary: US20060105759A1 (Alcatel) + US20130321424A1 (Pylappan) + US20100323659A1 (Wehling) — covering claims 1, 3, 6–10, 12, 15–19, with US20130325326A1 (Blumenberg) and US20120009890A1 (Nokia) reinforcing the "direction to move" and gradient limitations (claims 2, 4–5, 9, 11, 13–14, 18).
• Alternative primary: US20120009890A1 (Nokia) + US20100323659A1 (Wehling) + US20060105759A1 (Alcatel) — an independent two‑or‑three‑reference combination reaching the same result and covering the visual-gradient claims through Nokia's color/shading congestion map.
• Client‑reporting variant: US20130321424A1 (Pylappan) + US20130325326A1 (Blumenberg) + US20100323659A1 (Wehling) — using Apple's companion filings for the crowd-sourced heat map and route-based weak-zone analysis.

The motivation throughout is that all references address the same problem in the same field — making location-specific wireless performance visible and actionable to users — and the combination is a predictable aggregation of known elements with no unexpected result. US9998852B2 should not be used as § 103 art because it is the patent's own parent; the several "families citing this family" documents (e.g., Belkin US10284299B2, Aruba US9712975B2, Here Global US11546779B2) are post‑critical‑date and cannot support an affirmative obviousness rejection.

Confidence: High as to the presence of all claim elements across the cited references and as to the motivation to combine. Moderate as to the narrow "send the relative direction to the access point" routing limitation, which rests on reading the server-to-terminal delivery path (Alcatel/Nokia) as the claimed "to the access point" transmission — a point a Patent Trial and Appeal Board panel could scrutinize.