US 8185130

I'll research this patent across the requested sources.

Let me dig deeper into the claims and any litigation/docket activity.

Let me verify the granted claims and any enforcement history.

US Patent 8,185,130 — Verification Summary

I searched for this patent number specifically (Google Patents full text, Justia, FPO, Unified Patents/RPX, and CAFC opinion/order sources). Note that the authoritative full text of the patent was supplied directly in the research file, and my external searches corroborated it. Findings below; uncertainties are flagged explicitly.

Bibliographic Data (high confidence)

Family / priority chain (from the patent's own cross-reference): continuation of App. 11/406,881 (filed 2006-04-19, now US 7,509,133) → continuation of App. 09/740,414 (filed 2000-12-19, now US 7,224,978). The '130 patent in turn seeded continuations US 8,509,813 → 8,874,140 → 9,763,091, plus sibling members such as US 8,755,777 (identity blocking) and the "web advertiser" line culminating in US 10,217,137.

Corporate chain of title: BellSouth Intellectual Property Corp. → AT&T BLS IP → AT&T Delaware IP → AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. → Google LLC (assignment recorded 2017-12-28). A 2020 corrective assignment fixed an execution-date error at Reel 044986/Frame 0446.

Abstract

The patent covers mutually exclusive identity-blocking and location-blocking services that can be sold commercially by a service promoter — either a cellular carrier or a web advertiser. In the identity-blocking mode, the promoter discloses the mobile subscriber's current physical location to a third party (e.g., a web advertiser) but withholds the subscriber's identity. In the location-blocking mode, the promoter does the inverse: it discloses the subscriber's identity but not the location. Blocking may be imposed for privacy, to comply with a government regulation, or as a subscriber-selected service option. As an exception, when the subscriber dials an emergency number (e.g., "911") or requests emergency services, neither identity nor location is blocked — all information is released to the emergency provider (police, fire, hospital).

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

⚠️ Explicit uncertainty: the full text fetched for this patent was truncated at the end of the detailed description, before the claims. I did not obtain the literal granted claim text of US 8,185,130, and one widely-mirrored claim set circulating online under "8,185,130 / 8,509,813" actually belongs to the later continuations (language about "subscriber authorization information … without sharing information that identifies a location"). What follows is therefore a plain-language overview of the independent subject matter disclosed as "the invention" in the patent's Summary section (four independent concepts), not a verbatim claim recitation. Treat the claim numbering as unverified.

1. Identity-blocking at the carrier (independent concept A). A method in which the system obtains the identity of a user operating a wireless device (e.g., name, address, subscribed services — often captured at service sign-up and held in an HLR/VLR/MSC), obtains location information for that user (via cell-site registration, time-difference-of-arrival per U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,512,908 and 5,625,364, or a GPS-equipped handset), and transfers the location to a third party without disclosing the user's identity. The promoter may charge the third party a fee (fixed or per-delivery) and/or charge the user for the blocking.

2. Identity-blocking at the advertiser (independent concept B). A method of delivering an advertisement over a network: receive location information and identity information for the user, search a database of location-specific advertisements, select one based on criteria pre-selected by the user, and send that advertisement to the wireless device without transmitting the identity with it. Networks may be the Internet, PSTN, and/or the cellular network; delivery may be a TCP/IP message (banner, text, or streamed audio).

3. Location-blocking at the carrier (independent concept C). The mirror image: obtain identity information and location information, then transfer the identity to a third party without disclosing the location. Location may be derived by monitoring/analyzing signals from the device, or supplied by the device itself. The subscriber may target this mode to receive only location-independent content (the patent's example: stock quotes).

4. Location-blocking at the advertiser (independent concept D). Receive identity and location, search a database of user-specific advertisements, select based on user pre-selected criteria, and send the advertisement without transmitting the location information.

Common threads across the independents: opt-out/opt-in activation codes (e.g., *25 to remove blocking, *34 to enable it), per-call or pre-stored identity handling, blocking implemented in hardware/software anywhere in the path (including at the WAP proxy/server), and mandatory unblocking for emergency calls.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 Docket Check

No CAFC 2026 docket activity for US 8,185,130 was found. I searched for Federal Circuit appeals and PTAB/IPR proceedings referencing this patent number and returned nothing tying 8,185,130 to a 2026 appeal. The CAFC items that surfaced (e.g., 2024-1930, Centripetal v. Keysight, Rule 36 judgment dated 2026-01-12) concern unrelated IPRs. One hit referencing "an SEC Form D" carrying the identifier 8185130 is an EDGAR filing accession artifact, not this patent.

Practical enforcement context: the patent expired for fee-related reasons effective 2022-08-05, so post-expiration appellate activity is unlikely; and the family's later members carry terminal disclaimers, which is relevant if you are evaluating validity of the surviving family members rather than '130 itself.

Items I Could Not Authoritatively Confirm

• Verbatim independent claim text and claim count for US 8,185,130. The truncation described above.
• Inventor surname spelling. The authoritative text lists "Robert T. Moton, Jr.," while an OCR rendering of the related US 8,874,140 front page reads "Robert T. Morton." I did not auto-correct either; the '130 record says Moton.
• Current owner of record today (2026). Google LLC is listed as current assignee in the machine-readable record; I have not confirmed whether a further transfer occurred after that record.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8185130. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me search more specifically for this patent's litigation.

Summary of Findings — Litigation Involving US 8,185,130

I could not identify any litigation that specifically names U.S. Patent No. 8,185,130 ("Location blocking service from a wireless service provider") as an asserted patent.

I searched the sources you indicated (Unified Patents patent/litigation portal, court filings via CourtListener/RECAP, and general litigation coverage) as well as general web results keyed to the exact number "8185130" and its title. The results returned:

• The patent's own Google Patents/Justia/Patent-Review pages and its prosecution history;
• The Unified Patents portal entry for a sibling patent in the same family, US 8,494,501 B2 ("Identity blocking service from a wireless service provider"); and
• A separate, unrelated lawsuit involving US 6,847,822 and US 7,289,763 (the Emsat/LBS "Dennison" location patents asserted against wireless carriers) — these numbers are not 8,185,130 and should not be confused with it.

No case (plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome) was found in which US 8,185,130 is the patent-in-suit.

Important context and caveats

1. Patent identity (as given, not auto-corrected). US 8,185,130 B2 is a real grant: application 12/164,307, filed 2008-06-30, granted 2012-05-22, priority 2000-12-19, inventors Zellner, Enzmann, and Moton. It is a continuation in a chain descending from US 7,224,978 (09/740,414) → US 7,509,133 → US 8,185,130 → US 8,509,813 → US 8,874,140 → US 9,763,091. Original assignee was AT&T/BellSouth; the current recorded assignee is Google LLC (with earlier AT&T assignments).

2. Why litigation may exist on relatives but not this number. Because '130 is one member of a large continuation family, any enforcement activity is more likely to have been brought on a different family member (e.g., 7,224,978; 7,509,133; 8,509,813; 8,874,140; 9,763,091) or on related AT&T location/privacy patents. My searches did not surface any such suit expressly listing '130 either.

3. Confidence level. I have low-to-moderate confidence in the negative finding, because (a) my search returned no docket-level PACER record for this exact number, and (b) Unified Patents and RPX-type databases are not fully indexed through web search, so a case could exist that these queries did not reach.

Recommendation to confirm

To definitively state whether '130 has been litigated, run the exact number through the primary docket tools directly:

• PACER / CourtListener RECAP — search the term "8,185,130" and 8185130 in complaint documents;
• Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) — filter by patent number;
• RPX Insight — patent-specific litigation page for US 8,185,130.

If those databases likewise return nothing, the correct statement is that no litigation involving US 8,185,130 is known, rather than that none exists. I flag this explicitly rather than inventing case details (plaintiff, defendant, court, docket number, dates, outcome), which I will not fabricate.

I'll start by verifying the structured block against live sources, since the canonical list indicates no PTAB activity.

Search results are noisy and conflating a different patent family (RE44,818). Let me run targeted searches.

No hits for the patent itself yet. Let me check the patent family (continuations carry the same priority date and are often challenged together) and litigation-triggered PTAB activity.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 8,185,130: zero. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal block supplied for this task reports no AIA trial proceedings, and I could not surface any IPR, PGR, or CBM naming US 8,185,130 in web sources either — so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore not "the patent survived two IPRs and is hardened," and it is not "claims 1–5 are canceled." It is a third, less common posture: the patent has never been tested at the PTAB, and it is expired and fee-lapsed, so there is no live infringement exposure to defend against. Any demand letter citing US 8,185,130 is asserting a patent whose term has run.

Caveat on sourcing. Per the operating rules, the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block is canonical and says the ODP API returned no AIA trial proceedings. My web searches returned no proceeding for this patent number. I did not exhaustively verify every sibling in the priority family (see below), and I cannot rule out a very recently filed petition that neither the ODP ingest nor the search index has picked up. Treat "zero" as "zero proceedings found on file," not as a certified negative.

Proceedings

None to report. Because the count is zero, the usual per-proceeding template (### {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner}) has no entries. I am deliberately not populating it: inventing a proceeding number such as "IPR2015-xxxxx" to fill the schema would be fabrication, and the instruction is explicit that I must not invent proceeding numbers.

A false positive you should know about before you rely on any search output

My searches repeatedly surfaced the RE44,818 patent (Intellectual Ventures / VMware / HPE / Srinivasa / Edsall art) and the 8,189,611 patent (Cradlepoint v. 3G Licensing, IPR2021-00639). Both are frequently OCR-confused with "8185130." Neither is this patent. RE44,818 is a reissue (hence the "RE") in the data-storage space; 8,189,611 is a 3G Licensing patent. If an adversary or a vendor database cites an IPR against "the '818 patent," confirm whether it means RE44,818 (a different serial/patent entirely) before treating it as a hit on US 8,185,130. The VMWare/HPE IPRs (IPR2020-00859, IPR2020-01081, IPR2022-00096) are on the reissue, not on this patent.

Family-level screening (screened, no proceedings found)

I screened these because family members share the 2000-12-19 priority date and identical or near-identical specifications, so a challenge to any one of them is usually a challenge to all. Nothing turned up. I flag that this screening was search-based, not an item-by-item PTAB E2E docket pull, so it is diligence-grade, not certification-grade.

Strategic summary

Claims status: all claims UNTESTED, and the whole patent is expired. No claim of US 8,185,130 has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the PTAB — because no petition was ever instituted. Normally an untested patent is an unknown-risk asset and a defendant budgets for that uncertainty. Here the analysis is short-circuited by the term itself. Google Patents' structured data for this document shows legal status "Expired – Fee Related" with an adjusted expiration of 2022-08-05 (Google's own disclaimer: status and priority/expiration dates are assumptions and not legal conclusions). The patent issued 2012-05-22 from application 12/164,307 (filed 2008-06-30), which is a continuation of the 7,509,133 application, which is a continuation of the 7,224,978 application filed 2000-12-19. Twenty years from that earliest non-provisional filing plus the listed adjustment lands squarely in mid-2022. On today's date, 2026-09-29, US 8,185,130 has no enforceable term remaining. There are no surviving claims to list, because the surviving-claim question is moot: the claim set as a whole is past its statutory term. (Note also the fee lapse — "Expired – Fee Related" indicates maintenance fees were not paid, which can cut the enforceable window off earlier than the natural term. Either way, the patent is dead.)

Estoppel landscape: essentially none, and it doesn't matter. Because no IPR was ever instituted, no petitioner is subject to the § 315(e)(2) estoppel bar on this patent, and no PTAB-driven claim cancellation narrows the prior-art field for anyone. That sounds like bad news for a defendant — no free invalidity judgment to lean on — but it is neutral-to-irrelevant given expiration. Practical consequences for a defendant: (1) there is no FWD to quote, link, or hand to the judge; (2) there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel chaining any party, so if you are somehow in a live dispute you are free to run any prior-art ground you can muster, including the 2000-era location-services art (e.g., the U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,512,908 and 5,625,364 references discussed in the specification, plus the SnapTrack/GPS and WAP prior art cited in the file history); and (3) § 286's six-year damages lookback and § 271(a) direct-infringement exposure both reach conduct before expiration only, so damages windows are already closed absent earlier-preserved claims.

Pattern signals. There is no pattern to read, because there is no petitioner: no serial filer, no Unified Patents-style defensive aggregator in the chain, and no PTAB appeal history. What the record does show is an ownership change that explains the dormancy. The assignment chain on the Google Patents page runs BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation → AT&T BLS / AT&T Intellectual Property, Inc. → AT&T Delaware Intellectual Property, Inc. → AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P., with a reassignment recorded 2017-12-28 to GOOGLE LLC (confirmed as current assignee). A 2017 transfer of a 2000-priority location-marketing portfolio to Google — a company that has never asserted this patent — is consistent with a defensive-acquisition rationale rather than an assertion program. There is no evidence of the patent owner "pursuing PTAB appeals aggressively" or of any assertion campaign. Note also a data inconsistency worth flagging to your diligence team: the Google Patents record lists a 2017-12-04 assignment to BellSouth and a 2018-01-03 assignment to AT&T IP I, L.P. that are later-dated than the 2017-12-28 Google assignment, plus a 2020-03-16 corrective assignment — these assignment dates appear out of sequence and should be pulled directly from the USPTO Assignment Recordation Branch if chain of title matters to your deal.

Recommended next steps

1. If you received a demand letter or complaint citing US 8,185,130, lead with expiration. Pull the face of the patent and the maintenance-fee record from Patent Center / Patent Public Search to fix the exact lapse date and the exact expiration date, then calendar the pre-expiration damages window. Link: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8185130/en (structured status: "Expired – Fee Related," adjusted expiration 2022-08-05) and the USPTO assignment/status record via https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Because Google's status field is expressly an assumption, verify against the Office's official maintenance-fee and expiration data before you represent a date to a court or an adversary.

2. Do not represent to anyone that a PTAB proceeding exists. There is no FWD to link or quote, so there is nothing to cite from https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions or PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/) for this patent. If someone on your team has a search hit that appears to be an "818" IPR, check whether it is RE44,818 — that reissue is a different patent, and the VMware/HPE and HPE IPRs (IPR2020-00859, IPR2020-01081, IPR2022-00096) are on the reissue, not on this patent. Citing them as this patent's PTAB history would be an error your opponent will exploit.

3. Check the siblings if you need belt-and-suspenders. US 7,224,978, 7,509,133, 8,509,813, 8,874,140, and 9,763,091 share the specification and the 2000-12-19 priority date. If your adversary's portfolio assertion spans the family, run each one individually against PTAB E2E and the ODP API; my screen found nothing, but I did not pull each docket individually. The family members with later issue dates may have later expiration dates, so expiration is a per-patent conclusion, not a family-wide one.

4. The absence of PTAB activity is itself a signal — read it correctly here. The usual inference is that a well-asserted patent eventually attracts IPRs. No IPR plus an expired, fee-lapsed registration plus a 2017 transfer to Google LLC points the other way: this patent does not appear to have been a litigation driver, which means the practical defensive posture is not "hardened by surviving IPR" but "the assertion target is stale." If a current demand rests on this patent, the strongest immediate response is a term-expiration and standing/ownership inquiry, not an IPR-based invalidity defense.

I'll research the assignment record for US 8185130 before building the report.

Let me dig deeper into the AT&T→Google transaction and any litigation involving this patent family.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 8,185,130 B2

Patent: US 8,185,130 B2 — "Location blocking service from a wireless service provider"
Appl. No.: 12/164,307 (continuation of 11/406,881, issued as US 7,509,133; itself a continuation of 09/740,414, issued as US 7,224,978)
Priority: 2000-12-19 · Filed: 2008-06-30 · Granted: 2012-05-22
Status (per Google Patents legal events, fetched 2026-09-24): Expired — Fee Related; adjusted expiration 2022-08-05

Sourcing note up front (important for the whole report): the Google Patents legal-events feed in the authoritative text gives dates and party names for this patent, but only one reel/frame reference (reel 044986/0446, cited inside the text of the 2020-03-16 corrective assignment). The fuller reel/frame set I cite below was recovered from the Espacenet INPADOC legal-status record for sibling family member US 8,805,414 (same BellSouth/AT&T chain, same conveyances, umbrella re-recordings). I flag which reel numbers are directly documented for this patent versus family-level. I could not retrieve the recorded correspondent (attorney/agent) of record for any recording on this patent from the sources available to me — I will not guess at it.

Inventors

• All three are repeat BellSouth inventors; Zellner (34 filings), Enzmann (31), Moton (23) lead the BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation assignee profile.
• The original inventor→BellSouth assignment bears signing dates of 2001-03-19 to 2001-03-27 (per Espacenet INPADOC entry for sibling US 8,805,414, reel 031211/0434).
• Departure pattern: not determinable / not unusual on this record. All three continued filing BellSouth/AT&T location-service applications together through at least 2006 (e.g., 11/406,881; 11/298,419; 11/298,149; 11/300,694; 11/522,239). There is no evidence in the assignment record of a coordinated inventor exit preceding a portfolio sale. The three form a stable, long-tenured team, not a "file-and-flee" group.

Original assignee

BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation, Wilmington, Delaware (a Delaware corporation — the IP-holding subsidiary of BellSouth Corporation, not a single-purpose shell).

• At grant (2012) the recorded owner per Google Patents is AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P., the downstream successor of the BellSouth entity (see chain below). Google Patents therefore lists "Original Assignee: AT&T Intellectual Property I LP."
• Primary line of business: BellSouth was a Regional Bell Operating Company — a wireline and wireless (BellSouth Mobility / Cingular) telecommunications carrier. The claimed subject matter is a service (a location-blocking / identity-blocking location service), not a device.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Unclear. BellSouth/AT&T certainly operated the wireless network infrastructure that could practice the claimed methods, but I found no evidence AT&T ever commercially launched the claimed "location-blocking service" as a subscriber offering. The specification is drafted as a contemplated commercial service, not a shipping product.
• Current status: BellSouth Corporation was acquired by AT&T Inc. (SBC) in December 2006. The IP entity was renamed in sequence (BellSouth IP Corp → AT&T Intellectual Property, Inc. → AT&T BLS Intellectual Property, Inc. → AT&T Delaware Intellectual Property, Inc.). The corporate family is operating and solvent; there was no bankruptcy. AT&T has never filed Chapter 7/11 in this chain.

Assignment timeline

Format note: dates shown are the recording dates surfaced on Google Patents for this patent, which are the dates the USPTO abstract reflects. The underlying execution dates are much older (2001, 2007, 2013) and are shown in parentheses where the family record establishes them. Five recordings landed in a 32-day window (2017-12-04 → 2018-01-05) — this is a belated due-diligence catch-up, not a genuine cascade of contemporaneous transfers (see signal 4).

• 2020-03-16 (recorded) / executed date corrected — Reel 044986/0446 (directly cited in this patent's own record)

  • Conveyance: Correction — "CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT TO CORRECT THE EXECUTION DATE PREVIOUSLY RECORDED AT REEL: 044986 FRAME: 0446"
  • Assignor: AT&T Delaware Intellectual Property, Inc.
  • Assignee: AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — cannot be cited
  • Context: pure administrative correction of an execution date; no change in beneficial ownership.

• 2018-01-05 (recorded) / executed 2007-11-01 — Reel 031217/0550 (family-level reel, sibling US 8,805,414)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: AT&T BLS Intellectual Property, Inc.
  • Assignee: AT&T Delaware Intellectual Property, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: internal corporate reorganisation (entity renaming), no arm's-length consideration.

• 2018-01-04 (recorded) / executed 2007-07-25 — Reel 031217/0547 (family-level reel)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: AT&T Intellectual Property, Inc.
  • Assignee: AT&T BLS Intellectual Property, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: internal corporate reorganisation (entity renaming).

• 2018-01-04 (recorded) / executed 2007-04-25 — Reel 031217/0544 (family-level reel; a corrective for this record was filed at reel 044707/0873, recorded 2017-12-06)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation
  • Assignee: AT&T Intellectual Property, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: internal corporate reorganisation following the AT&T/BellSouth merger.

• 2018-01-03 (recorded) / executed 2013-05-08 — Reel 031211/0588 (family-level reel; this patent's own 2020 correction points to reel 044986/0446 for the same conveyance)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: AT&T Delaware Intellectual Property, Inc.
  • Assignee: AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: internal AT&T intra-group consolidation of IP into AT&T IP I, L.P.

• 2017-12-28 (recorded) / executed ~2017-12-11 (execution date from sibling US 8,805,414, reel 044995/0505; not independently confirmed for this patent)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.
  • Assignee: GOOGLE LLC (1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: sale / divestiture of the AT&T location-services portfolio to an operating acquirer — the terminal transfer in the chain, and the only transfer to a non-AT&T party.

• 2017-12-04 (recorded) / executed 2001-03-19 → 2001-03-27 — Reel 031211/0434 (family-level reel)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (original inventor assignment)
  • Assignors: MOTON, ROBERT T., JR.; ZELLNER, SAMUEL N.; ENZMANN, MARK J.
  • Assignee: BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: the founding assignment, recorded ~16 years after execution — a textbook pre-closing title clean-up. It appears last in Google Patents' feed only because of its late recording date.

If the Assignment Center shows no additional records beyond the above for US 8,185,130: that is the complete chain; the last recorded owner is Google LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8185130
    2000 : Priority application filed by BellSouth
    2001 : Inventors assign to BellSouth IP Corp
    2006 : BellSouth acquired by AT&T
    2007 : Name changes across AT&T IP entities
    2012 : Patent issues as US 8185130
    2013 : Assigned to AT&T Intellectual Property I
    2017 : Chain re-recorded in December
         : AT&T IP I assigns to Google LLC
    2018 : Corrective Assignments recorded
    2022 : Patent lapses for fee non-payment

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The chain runs operating company → operating company: BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation (an RBOC IP subsidiary, Delaware corporation) through four internally driven AT&T affiliate renamings, terminating at Google LLC (reel 044995/0505 family-level; recorded 2017-12-28 for this patent). There is no assignee with an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" single-purpose suffix, no registered-agent-service address, and no single-member Delaware or Texas LLC anywhere in the chain. Delaware incorporation of BellSouth IP Corp and Google LLC is ordinary corporate practice, not shell evidence.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
No assignee or predecessor matches the Acacia / Marathon / Intellectual Ventures / IPNav / Wi-LAN / Mosaid-Conversant / Vringo / Pendrell / Innovatio / MPHJ / Lumen View / Round Rock / Document Generation / Spangenberg lists. The terminal assignee, Google LLC, is an operating technology company. Note the inverse signal: Google LLC appears as petitioner in IPR2025-00124, and Apple Inc. as petitioner in IPR2023-00096, both citing Zellner/Enzmann family patents as prior art — i.e., third parties are pushing against this family, not monetizing it through it. I could not confirm that US 8,185,130 itself was ever asserted; treat the IPR references as adjacent context only, not as a finding about this patent.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNKNOWN / NOT DETERMINED.
I was unable to retrieve the recorded correspondent (attorney/agent) on any of the seven recordings above from the sources I could reach. The one correspondent name that surfaced in my searches (Chantal Z. Hwang, Cooley LLP; John C. — the latter truncated) appears on a Google trademark assignment abstract, not on this patent, and must not be imported into this chain. Stated plainly: no correspondent finding can be made. This is the single largest evidentiary gap in this report and the first thing to pull from the Assignment Center.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT IN FORM, BENIGN IN SUBSTANCE.
Five recordings fall inside 32 days (2017-12-04 → 2018-01-05), and the assignees plainly share common principals (all AT&T affiliates). But the underlying conveyances are dated 2001-03-19…27 (inventor assignment), 2007-04-25 / 2007-07-25 / 2007-11-01 (three name changes), and 2013-05-08 (intra-group assignment) — four to sixteen years stale. This is a title clean-up executed on the eve of the Google closing, not a chain of quick-flip shell LLCs. Zero LLCs are involved at all; every intermediate assignee is a named AT&T corporation. Scoring this as a classic NPE cascade would be a misread.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (on available evidence).
The terminal transfer to Google is recorded 2017-12-28 (executed ~2017-12-11). I found no infringement suit naming US 8,185,130 by or against any party, so there is no litigation date to measure a six-month window against. The AT&T→Google transfer is on its face a portfolio divestiture, not a standing/venue set-up. Separately, the patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (adjusted expiration 2022-08-05), which is inconsistent with it being held as an assertion vehicle.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
Neither BellSouth, AT&T, nor Google filed Chapter 7/11 in this chain. BellSouth was acquired in an ordinary merger (Dec 2006); the 2007 recordings are Change-of-Name conveyances, not asset-sale conveyances.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
The direction of travel is the opposite of privateering: an operating carrier (AT&T) divested the portfolio to another large operating company (Google), not to an NPE asserting on AT&T's behalf. No SEC 8-K/10-K disclosure of an NPE-funded assertion campaign surfaced. (I did not have access to a complete SEC filing set; this prong rests on absence of evidence.)

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at Google LLC, an operating company — not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The portfolio has not been neutralised by a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain is BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation → (AT&T name changes) → AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. → Google LLC, recorded 2017-12-28, with earlier links executed 2001, 2007 and 2013 and belatedly recorded 2017-12-04 through 2018-01-05. Not one NPE signal fires: no shell LLC, no asserter-list assignee, no liquidation, no defensive-aggregator terminus, and the patent lapsed fee-related on 2022-08-05. Caveat on the label: the ownership prong is fully documented, but the assertion prong is unverified — I found no suit naming this patent — and the correspondent of record, the strongest tell this exercise asks for, was not retrievable and is therefore reported as unknown rather than inferred.

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (query patent 8,185,130)
• Legacy USPTO assignment index — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (same underlying records)
• Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US8185130/en

Recommended next pulls to close the gaps: (a) the Assignment Abstract of Title PDF for 8,185,130 at assignmentcenter, tab-by-tab for correspondent name and address on each of the seven recordings; (b) the recorded document at reel 044986/0446 and the Google-purchase recording at the 044995/xxxx reel range; (c) a Docket Navigator / PACER check for "8,185,130" to confirm whether the assertion prong can be substantiated.

I'll search for the specific patent and its cited references.

Let me pull the actual "References Cited" lists from the patent record itself.

Let me try to retrieve the exact citation list for the '130 grant itself.

I've gathered what the accessible sources contain. Note: I hit the tool-call limit before I could pull the last few entries, so this answer is built from the fetched results plus the authoritative patent text. Here is the prior-art analysis.

Prior Art Analysis — US 8,185,130 B2

0. Provenance, scope, and an explicit limitation

Target confirmed as the correct number. Every relevant hit below resolves to US 8,185,130 B2, "Location blocking service from a wireless service provider," App. No. 12/164,307, filed 2008-06-30, issued 2012-05-22 — not a look‑alike number. I excluded the noise hits that merely mention the string "8185130" (see §5).

⚠️ Critical limitation, stated up front: I could not retrieve the literal front-page "References Cited" block of the '130 grant itself. The Google Patents full text supplied in the research file is truncated at the end of the detailed description (before the claims and before the references section), and my external queries returned the family/parent citation lists rather than the '130 grant's own list. This compounds the limitation already flagged in the previously generated section — I still do not have verbatim claim text for '130. Consequently:

• The reference list below is the patent-art citation list for the family's root application — published as US 2002/0077118 A1 (App. No. 09/740,414, filed 2000-12-19, "Location Blocking Service from a Wireless Service Provider"), which is the direct ancestor of '130 and the application in which the same subject matter was first examined. Verified via the Unified Patents record at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20020077118-A1, which lists it as "Patent Art (62)."
• Because '130 is a continuation that did not add new matter, the examiner's art of record carried forward; the parent list is the correct proxy. But it is a proxy, and the '130 grant's exact front page may add or drop a small number of entries.
• Count discrepancy flagged honestly: the source is labeled "Patent Art (62)," but the retrievable snippet enumerates only 53 entries (the list is cut off after US 5,875,401 A). I am reporting the 53 I can attribute; ~9 entries remain unretrieved.

1. Bibliographic anchor for §102 timing

⚠️ Contradiction: Google Patents and Unified Patents disagree by one day (2000-12-19 vs. 2000-12-18) on the effective priority date. For §102 purposes this is immaterial for references filed well before 2000, but it is a live one-day gap for anything claiming priority in December 2000, so I flag it rather than silently harmonize it.

Under pre-AIA practice (correct here, given a 2000 priority), a U.S. patent or a U.S. application publication is §102(e) art if its effective U.S. filing date precedes 2000-12-19 — even though it may have issued/published later.

2. U.S. patent documents cited (the §102 backbone)

Ordered roughly as retrieved. "Priority date" is the earliest date given in the source record; assignee is the current recorded owner (which, for several, is a later acquirer — e.g., RPX Clearinghouse, Optis, Google Technology Holdings — not the original drafter).

Additionally incorporated/referenced in the '130 specification itself (these are cited in the body text, and are the applicant's own express prior-art statements):

3. Non-patent literature cited

From the family's "Other Publications"/NPL lists (they recur across the '130 line, e.g., on the US 8,509,813 / US 9,463,076 Justia records and in the US 9,763,091 prosecution-history listing):

1. "Wireless Application Protocol," Wireless Internet Today, pp. 1–20 (Oct. 1999) — WAP architecture (bears on the WAP proxy/server blocking embodiment).
2. Petronis, Scott, "Mapping Technology: The Common Thread," Wireless Review, 17(3):10–14 (Feb. 1, 2000), ISSN 1099-9248 — location technology overview.
3. "Signal Soft Wireless Location Services," http://www.signalsoftcorp.com/products/location-manager.html (1999) — commercial location-services platform.
4. Moeglein, Mark, et al., "An Introduction to SnapTrack® Server-Aided GPS Technology," www.snaptrack.com/AtWork/ion.pdf (1998) — assisted-GPS positioning.
5. 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP): Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Functional Stage 2 Description of Location Services in UMTS (1999) — LCS standard.
6. "Openwave Announces Availability of End-to-End Set of Location Services for Wireless Internet," Openwave press release (2001-03-20).
7. Microsoft Mobility Developer Conference 2003.
8. International Search Report & Written Opinion dated Aug. 1, 2002 in PCT Application No. PCT/US01/22295 (the PCT counterpart of the family).
9. A long series of U.S. Office Actions / Notices of Allowance in the sibling applications (e.g., 09/740,375; 09/630,134; 11/406,881; 11/322,531; 11/252,039; 11/298,149; 11/298,419; 11/637,369; 12/164,307; 12/188,375; 12/132,104) — cited as "Other Publications" but these are prosecution documents, not prior art on the merits.

Note the recurring BellSouth "The Real Yellow Pages," Greater Atlanta A–L / M–Z (2004) citation appears in sibling records; it is a trade-publication citation, not anticipatory art for a 2000 priority.

4. §102 analysis — which references could anticipate

4.0 Caveat that governs this entire section

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a reference anticipates only if it discloses every element of the claim, arranged as in the claim. I do not have the verbatim claim text of '130 (the truncation problem carried over from the earlier section). Therefore I cannot give a defensible claim-number-by-claim-number anticipation mapping. What I can do reliably is map each reference to the four independent concepts the patent itself designates as "the invention" (concepts A–D from the prior section), and note where a reference appears to be a §102-class single-reference candidate versus mere §103/background art. Treat any claim number below as a category placeholder, not a verified claim recitation.

Recall the four independent concepts:

• A — Identity-blocking at the carrier: obtain identity + location; transfer location, withhold identity.
• B — Identity-blocking at the advertiser: receive location + identity; select location-specific ad on user criteria; send ad without identity.
• C — Location-blocking at the carrier: obtain identity + location; transfer identity, withhold location.
• D — Location-blocking at the advertiser: receive identity + location; select user-specific ad on user criteria; send ad without location.
• Dependents/embodiments — activation (*25)/deactivation (*34) codes; per-call vs. pre-stored identity; hardware/software blocking anywhere in the path (incl. WAP proxy); mandatory unblocking on "911"/emergency; fee-charging.

4.1 Strongest single-reference (§102) candidates

4.2 References that are §103/background, not standalone §102 art

• US 4,757,267 A (1987) — pre-dates every relevant technology; call-routing background only.
• US 6,101,381 A (Sony), US 6,047,327 A (Dialogic), US 6,208,854 B1, US 6,427,073 B1, US 5,949,867 A, US 6,324,396 B1, US 5,903,636 A, US 6,421,441 B1, US 5,771,283 A, US 6,233,329 B1, US 6,185,426 B1, US 6,473,626 B1, US 6,321,092 B1, US 6,377,810 B1, US 6,505,049 B1, US 6,868,074 B1, US 6,522,876 B1, US 5,657,375 A, US 6,385,591 B1, US 6,028,921 A, US 5,875,401 A, US 6,618,474 B1, US 6,418,308 B1, US 6,545,596 B1, US 6,505,163 B1, US 6,311,069 B1, US 6,133,853 A, US 6,526,275 B1, US 6,484,148 B1, US 6,618,593 B1, US 4,757,267 A — these supply enabling/background elements (wireless messaging, call routing, profile codes, advertising delivery) and are the natural §103 combination partners, not single-reference anticipations.
• Same-inventor siblings US 6,675,017 B1 and US 6,738,808 B1 (BellSouth, filed 2000-06-29) — these are the applicant's own related work. They appear on the citation list as references, but as commonly-owned/same-inventor material they are generally not §102 prior art against '130 (they may raise §102(f)/derivation or double-patenting/obviousness-type-double-patenting questions instead). Worth flagging specifically because a naive citation dump would mislabel them as anticipatory.
• The NPL items in §3 (WAP paper, Petronis, SnapTrack, 3GPP UMTS LCS, Openwave PR) are enabling-technology references for the location/WAP mechanisms, i.e., §103 support art.

4.3 The incorporated-by-reference patents

• US 5,512,908 and US 5,625,364 — location-determination art; they anticipate nothing in '130 alone (they are directed to finding the phone), but they are the express basis for the location-acquisition step and would be cited in any §103 attack on that element.
• US 5,588,042 — express basis for the "target location-specific advertisements" step; §103 partner.

5. Artifacts to disregard (to keep the record clean)

These surfaced in the same searches but are not citations of '130:

• US 8,185,130 B2 appearing as a "Cited By" on the corrugated-sheet-fed-printing patent US 7,552,467 (B41M 7/009) — this is a classification-overlap artifact (the '130 record carries an anomalous B41M 7/009 "After-treatment of prints… using thermal means" CPC class). The printing patent does not cite '130 as prior art.
• Appearances of US 8,185,130 in US 9,584,647's and US 9,763,091's family tables — these are family/priority links, not prior-art citations.
• The EDGAR accession "8185130" hit noted in the earlier section — an SEC filing artifact, not this patent.

6. Bottom line and explicit uncertainties

1. Target verified: US 8,185,130 B2, App. 12/164,307, filed 2008-06-30, issued 2012-05-22, effective prior-art date 2000-12-19 (Google) / 2000-12-18 (Unified) — a one-day contradiction I am flagging, not resolving.
2. The citation list I could attribute (53 of a stated 62) is the family/parent-application patent-art list (US 2002/0077118 A1, App. 09/740,414), used as the proxy for '130's "References Cited." I could not confirm the '130 grant's own front-page list, and ~9 entries are unretrieved.
3. No reference I found is a clean, complete single-reference §102 anticipation of the combination claimed — the alleged novelty point across all four concepts is the selective withholding of identity or location while transmitting the other. The closest §102-class candidates are US 6,594,482 B1 (identity withholding) and US 6,505,048 B1 / US 6,662,014 B1 / US 6,138,003 A (location withholding), with US 6,112,186 A (user-preselected criteria), US 6,449,497 B1 / US 5,566,235 A (feature codes), and US 6,819,929 B2 / US 5,596,625 A (emergency routing) covering the dependent-claim clusters.
4. I cannot map to specific claim numbers because the verbatim claim text of '130 was not obtained (truncation, per the earlier section). Any claim-number attribution I gave would be fabrication, so I have mapped to concept categories instead.

If you want the exact '130 grant-page "References Cited," the two records to pull directly are the USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited" tab for App. 12/164,307 and the '130 front page (column 1 item (56)), which will resolve both the 62-vs-53 gap and the one-day priority discrepancy.

I'll analyze obviousness under § 103. First, let me research the prior art references cited in this patent and related art.

Let me get details on the '364 and '042 patents, plus related privacy/anonymity prior art from the relevant era.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,185,130 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Preliminary caveat (must be flagged, not buried)

Before the analysis, one gating limitation carried over from the earlier sections: the authoritative text supplied for US 8,185,130 was truncated before the claims. I therefore do not have the literal granted claim language, and I will not invent it. Per the earlier summary, the claims circulating online under "8,185,130 / 8,509,813" belong to the later continuations (e.g., "subscriber authorization information … without sharing information that identifies a location"). Accordingly, I analyze the four independent concepts disclosed in the patent's Summary of the Invention — which the patent itself recites as "the present invention contemplates" — as the best available proxy for the independent claims, and I flag where a dependent claim or preamble could change the outcome. Anyone relying on this for a validity opinion must re-run it against the certified claim text (USPTO Patent Center / the printed grant).

I also note the task instruction to "use the results from the Prior Art section." The references expressly discussed and incorporated in the patent's own Background/Detailed Description are U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,512,908, 5,625,364, and 5,588,042, plus the admitted prior art on cookies, HLR/VLR identity storage, GPS handsets, and WAP/web-browser phones. Those are the references I build combinations from.

1. Legal framework and the Graham factors

Obviousness is decided under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), on four factual inquiries: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the claims and the prior art; (3) level of ordinary skill; and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination is obvious where a POSITA would have had a reason to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success, and the analysis may consider "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ," id. at 418, 421. Critically for this patent, KSR also holds that "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious," id. at 417, and that the "design incentives and other market forces" can render a variation obvious, id. at 417–18.

Level of ordinary skill (POSITA), as of the Dec. 19, 2000 priority date: a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering, plus 1–2 years of experience with wireless networks/mobile devices and wireless positioning (GPS or network-based location). This mirrors the skill level adopted in related IPR proceedings in this field (e.g., the level recited in the Google petition on the sibling '039 patent).

2. Scope and content of the prior art

U.S. Pat. No. 5,512,908 ("the '908 patent") — Herrick, Lockheed Sanders; filed July 8, 1994; issued Apr. 30, 1996.
Teaches determining a cellular telephone's location by time difference of arrival (TDOA) measurements at a multiplicity of base stations, including acquiring the phone's identity/number from the reverse control channel and triggering simultaneous location sampling. (Confirmed via the patent PDF, RPX, and uspto.report.) The '908 patent also expressly lists "911 calls," "tourist and travel information," and "tracking of unauthorized cell phone usage" as motivations for locating a cell phone — i.e., the emergency and commercial use cases the '130 patent recites are admitted prior-art motivations.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,625,364 ("the '364 patent") — issued Apr. 29, 1997.
Per the '130 patent's own characterization, "discusses locating the source of radio transmissions (including cellular phone transmissions) within a multipath signal environment," using "a hand-held sensor unit with a built-in non-directional or omnidirectional antenna." (The related PCT, WO 96/02007, corroborates the "general location, then precise location via portable receiver" approach in this art.)

U.S. Pat. No. 5,588,042 (issued Dec. 24, 1996).
Incorporated by reference in the '130 patent for the proposition that, when a service provider identifies a cell phone operating in its system, it "may target location-specific advertisements to the cell phone." This is the explicit prior-art basis for the marketing/targeting half of the invention.

Admitted prior art in the '130 specification itself (treated as prior art against its own claims):

• A wireless service provider already knows the subscriber's identity (name, gender, age, employment, address) because it is "obtained by the SP 16 … when the MS initially signs up," and is stored in the HLR (home) or VLR (roaming).
• A wireless service provider may wish to supply a mobile subscriber's location to a third party (e.g., a web advertiser) as part of the service provider's marketing activity.
• A web advertiser already knows subscriber identity via cookies — "the identity of the cell phone operator may be available to an Internet world wide web advertiser with the help of, for example, cookies."
• The specification states, as an admitted desideratum, that "Because of various reasons (e.g., privacy concerns), it may be desirable that the wireless service provider not disclose the mobile subscriber's identity to the third party when sending the subscriber's location information to the third party," and, mirroring it, "it may be desirable that the wireless service provider block the mobile subscriber's location information while supplying the subscriber's identity information to a third party."

That last admission is dispositive-adjacent: the patent concedes that both the motivation and the objective existed in the art before the filing.

3. Differences between the claims and the prior art

Taking the four independent concepts from the Summary:

The only element not squarely taught by the references is the deliberate withholding of one data field while transmitting the other. Everything else — identity acquisition (admitted), location acquisition ('908/'364), targeted advertising to a located mobile subscriber ('042), and network/web delivery of ads to a web-browser phone (admitted WAP/Internet art) — is prior art. The withholding step is the entire point of novelty, and it is the step the specification itself admits was a known, desirable objective.

4. Obviousness combinations

Ground 1 — '042 in view of '908 (or '364) and the admitted HLR/VLR identity data

Renders obvious Concepts A and C (the carrier-side methods).

• '042 teaches selecting and delivering location-specific advertisements to a subscriber a carrier has identified in its network.
• '908 (or '364) teaches how to obtain the location precisely enough to do so.
• The HLR/VLR (admitted) supplies the identity.
• The motivation to combine is stated in the admitted background: privacy/regulatory concern makes it desirable to withhold one field while still monetizing the other; and the carrier has a market incentive (the '130 patent admits the SP may "offer the cell phone operator's location information to a third party … for a fee, which may be fixed or based on per-delivery"). Under KSR's "market forces" and "design incentive" rationales, this is a textbook obvious combination.

Why the withholding step is not saving: A POSITA implementing a location-targeted ad service with a privacy requirement has only two symmetric choices — withhold identity, or withhold location. The '130 specification lists both as alternative "embodiments" of the same idea, which is the classic KSR "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" situation. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.

Ground 2 — '042 in view of the admitted cookie-based identity model and a GPS/network location feed

Renders obvious Concepts B and D (the advertiser-side methods).

• The specification admits a web advertiser already knows user identity via cookies and registration.
• Location can be taken from the MS itself (GPS handset, admitted) or purchased from the carrier (Ground 1).
• The advertiser then searches a database of location-specific (or user-specific) ads, selects on pre-selected user criteria, and sends the ad over TCP/IP/WAP.
• Motivation: the advertiser wants to monetize location targeting while avoiding the privacy/fraud exposure of misdirected or intercepted packets — an advantage the '130 patent itself recites ("Protection of identity information of the MS may be useful when data packets get misdirected or intercepted over the Internet"). Using a cookie-known identity and declining to echo it back in the ad is an obvious, low-cost design choice.

Ground 3 — '908/'364 + privacy motivation, standing alone, for the emergency-unblocking dependent subject matter

If any claim recites "unblocking" for an emergency call (e.g., 911), that limitation is squarely taught/obvious: the '908 patent expressly identifies "911 calls" as a reason to locate a cell phone, and one cannot route emergency services without releasing location. Suspending a privacy block for a 911 call would have been obvious to a POSITA — indeed, the regulatory backdrop (E911) made it mandatory. See the related art on E911 geolocation (e.g., the "geolocating a wireless communications device" line, which ties 911 to location determination).

Ground 4 — activation/deactivation codes (*25, *34) and fee-charging limitations

If claimed, opt-out dial-in codes and per-delivery/per-user fees are conventional telephony service-provisioning and billing steps — the '130 specification describes them without any asserted technical difficulty ("The SP 16 may even allow the MS to enter the activation code over the Internet 18"). No reasonable expectation-of-success problem arises; these are routine administrative features. KSR, 550 U.S. at 427 (a "predictable variation" is obvious).

5. Motivation-to-combine statement (consolidated)

A POSITA in December 2000 would have combined these references because:

1. Same field / reasonably pertinent: all three references and the admitted art address (a) locating wireless subscribers and (b) delivering targeted information/advertising to them — the precise problem the '130 patent addresses. Under In re Bigio/Unwired Planet analogous-art analysis (and the CAFC's reasoning in the Unwired Planet appeal), the references need only be in the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the problem.
2. Predictable result: combining a location engine ('908/'364) with an ad-targeting engine ('042) and a known identity store (HLR/cookies) yields only the expected result — targeted ads to a located subscriber.
3. Recognized market/legal need: the specification itself concedes the privacy/regulatory motivation for blocking either field. A known problem with a finite set of known solutions is obvious under KSR.

6. Secondary considerations

No evidence of nonobviousness appears on the face of the record: there is no assertion of unexpected results, no evidence of a long-felt-but-unmet need tied to the specific blocking mechanism, and no showing of industry praise or copying attributable to the claimed feature. The patent bills the blocking services as straightforward service options sold "for a fee." Absent objective indicia rebutting the prima facie case, the §103 case stands.

7. Items I cannot resolve / where a claim limitation could change the result

• Verbatim claim text is unavailable to me (truncation). If an independent claim recites something narrower than the four concepts above — e.g., a specific data-structure interchange with the third party, a specific "do-not-share" token/authorization message, or a particular network element ordering — that could be a point of novelty the generic references above do not reach, and the analysis would need re-running. The earlier summary notes that later family members (e.g., 8,509,813) recite "subscriber authorization information," which is a different and narrower concept than the '130 Summary — do not import it into '130.
• Whether the claims are framed as "obtaining/transferring" method steps vs. a "service" affects how much weight to give the Bilski/Alice business-method backdrop, but that is a §101 issue, not §103, and is outside this task.
• '364 patent bibliographic details: I confirmed the '130 patent's characterization of the '364 (multipath, hand-held sensor) and a corroborating PCT (WO 96/02007), but I did not retrieve the '364 front page itself; treat the inventor/assignee attribution as unverified.

Bottom line: Standing on the prior art the patent itself cites and incorporates — '908, '364, '588,042, plus the admitted cookie/HLR/WAP background — every element of the four disclosed independent concepts is disclosed or obvious, and the sole point of novelty (withholding one of two data fields while transmitting the other) is both (i) admitted in the specification as a known, desirable objective and (ii) one of only two predictable, symmetric design choices. A strong prima facie §103 case therefore exists, subject to verification against the actual granted claims.