US 6560534

I'll search for authoritative information on US 6560534.

Let me search for litigation and any 2026 CAFC activity.

US Patent 6,560,534 — Summary

Note on searches performed: I searched Google Patents, uspto.report, Justia/RPX, and general web sources for US 6,560,534 and for any 2026 CAFC docket activity. No 2026 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket entry, opinion, or appeal naming US 6,560,534 was found. The searches returned only historical (pre-2011) litigation. I state that plainly rather than inferring activity.

Bibliographic data

A Certificate of Correction is noted on the uspto.report record for this grant; I could not retrieve the text of that certificate, so I cannot say with certainty which claims or fields it affects.

Abstract (as granted)

"A method and apparatus for distributing satellite tracking data to a remote receiver. At least a portion of the satellite tracking data is extracted from memory and is formatted into a format prescribed by a remote receiver. The formatted data is transmitted to the remote receiver via a distribution network."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Method (data distribution side). A three-step method: (a) pull at least part of the long term satellite tracking data (LT-STD) out of memory; (b) express that data in a format the remote receiver supports; (c) transmit the formatted data to the remote receiver. This is the broadest claim and is essentially about server-side extraction, formatting, and delivery of long-lived orbit/clock data — not about how the prediction is generated.

Claim 23 — Method using the Internet (end-to-end). A fuller pipeline: (a) collect long term satellite tracking information at a tracking station; (b) process that information to form satellite tracking data; (c) format at least a portion of it into formatted data "prescribed by a requirement of the remote receiver"; and (d) send the formatted data to the remote receiver. Notably, the claim recites the Internet in its preamble, and is expressly tied to a tracking-station collection step.

Claim 27 — Apparatus. The device counterpart: a computer that accesses at least a portion of the long term satellite tracking data from memory and formats it in a format supported by the remote receiver, plus "means for transmitting" the formatted data to the remote receiver. The means-plus-function language is recited generally (dependent claims 39–41 particularize it as a wireless link, a computer network, and the Internet, respectively).

Representative dependent-claim coverage: content of the data (satellite positions over future time, clock offsets over future time; positions/velocities/acceleration; clock offsets/drift/drift rate); the format (receiver-prescribed; a model of orbital and clock parameters; GPS-standard parameters; standard GPS ephemeris transmission format); model validity (multiple sequential models; 4 hours; more than 4 hours); receiver type (GPS receiver; satellite positioning system receiver); relative validity windows (claim 13/38: the overall LT data is valid longer than the transmitted portion); and transport/optimization (wireless, broadcast, computer network, Internet, delivery upon the receiver connecting to the Internet, and transmitting at times of low cost or low network congestion — claims 21, 22).

Technical substance (from the specification)

The invention generates Satellite Tracking Data (STD) that remains valid for extended periods — days, and in alternative embodiments fit intervals of 8, 14, 26, 50, 74, 98, 122, or 146 hours — by collecting code-phase, carrier-phase, and Doppler measurements at tracking stations (or using broadcast ephemeris data in an alternative), estimating orbits and clocks, propagating them forward using force models (gravity, drag, solar radiation pressure, tides, third-body, precession, nutation), and then fitting standard ICD-GPS-200c ephemeris models to that trajectory (preferably by least squares; Kalman filtering is an alternative). The formatted output is a Satellite Tracking Model (STM) delivered over wireless, the Internet, or a combination. The specification expressly states that, unlike prior Assisted-GPS art, the broadcast ephemeris is "not required at any stage and is not used in the preferred implementation."

Litigation history (historical, not 2026)

• SiRF Technology, Inc. v. Global Locate, Inc., C.D. Cal. No. 8:06-cv-01216 — stayed pending the parallel ITC investigations and ultimately dismissed without prejudice by stipulation (Judge James V. Selna).
• Global Locate's January 2007 counterclaim in that dispute asserted US 6,542,820 and US 6,560,534 as covering its Long Term Orbit (LTO™) technology.
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-602 (Global Locate as complainant) and 337-TA-596 (SiRF as complainant) did not list '534 among the asserted patents; the patents litigated there were US 6,417,801; 6,606,346; 6,651,000; 6,704,651; 6,937,187; 7,158,080 (and others such as 7,043,363 and 7,091,904 in reexamination-related activity).
• SiRF Technology Corp. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. No. 2009-1262 — the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC on April 12, 2010. This appeal did not involve '534.
• Broadcom/CSR (SiRF's parent) settled all litigation in 2011.

Uncertainties and caveats

1. Claim 1 language changed between the published application and the grant. The pre-grant publication US 2003/0014188 A1 recites "satellite tracking data" in claim 1, whereas the granted claim 1 recites "long term satellite tracking data." I cannot confirm the prosecution reason without the file wrapper.
2. Assignee discrepancy between sources. Google Patents lists the current assignee as Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd.; uspto.report lists the assignee as Global Locate, Inc. The assignment history (Global Locate → Broadcom 2015 → Avago entities 2017–2018) supports Avago as the most recent owner. Verify against the USPTO Assignment database for a definitive chain.
3. Apparent typographical/OCR errors in the claim text as published online — e.g., "rasped" (claim 2), "0comprises" (claim 2), "OPS satellite" (claim 24), and "long ten satellite tracking data" (claim 28). These appear in Google Patents and uspto.report renderings alike and are most likely digitization artifacts rather than the literal issued text; I flag them rather than correct them, since I did not view the original patent images.
4. No 2026 CAFC docket was located for this patent. Given the patent's expiry (June 6, 2021) and expired-lifetime status, active appellate litigation is unlikely, but my searches were not exhaustive of PACER/CM-ECF dockets. Treat the "no 2026 activity" finding as a negative search result, not an affirmative certification.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 6560534, starting with the case already flagged in the patent record and then checking litigation databases.

The initial searches returned mostly patent-citation noise and an unrelated "534" patent (RDMI v. SCEA). Let me target the specific case flagged in the patent record and Global Locate's known enforcement campaigns.

Litigation involving US Patent 6,560,534 ("Method and apparatus for distributing satellite tracking information")

I searched litigation-focused sources (Unified Patents litigation portal entry for the patent, USITC filings, CAFC opinions, CourtListener/PACER-derived material, and Global Locate/Broadcom press releases). Below is what I could verify, with the caveat that I am limited to what is publicly reported — I could not exhaustively re-run PACER for every docket.

1. SiRF Technology, Inc. v. Global Locate, Inc. (and SBCG, Inc.) — the only case I could confirm that expressly asserted the '534 patent

Source anchors:

• Global Locate press release, Jan. 8, 2007 ("Global Locate Sues SiRF for Patent Infringement," GlobeNewswire): expressly states "Global Locate's Patent No.s 6,542,820 and 6,560,534 cover proprietary, Long Term Orbit (LTO™) technology."
• Unified Patents litigation portal entry for 8:06‑cv‑01216 (Sirf Technology Inc v. Global Locate Inc et al.) — the docket text quoted there shows the stay order and the Jan. 18, 2011 dismissal without prejudice.
• Google Patents record for US 6,560,534, which flags the same California Central District Court case (8:06‑cv‑01216) under "litigation."

Related parallel proceedings (NOT asserting '534 — important distinction)

These are the related Global Locate/SiRF matters frequently conflated with the '534 case, but I could find no evidence the '534 patent itself was asserted in them:

• In re Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑602 (Global Locate, Inc. v. SiRF Technology, Inc.; respondents SiRF, E‑TEN, Pharos, MiTAC, Mio). Filed April 2, 2007 / instituted April 30, 2007. The patents in suit were 6,417,801; 6,606,346; 6,651,000; 6,704,651; 6,937,187; and 7,158,080 — the '534 patent is not on that list. ALJ Initial Determination Aug. 8, 2008; Commission found violations; affirmed by the Federal Circuit in SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2010).
• In re Certain GPS Chips, Associated Software and Systems, and Products Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑596 (SiRF as complainant against Global Locate) — again, a different set of SiRF-owned patents.
• Magellan Corp. v. Global Locate, Inc. (and Charles Abraham) — June 2000 trade-secret suit, relevant to ownership/standing of U.S. 6,606,346, not '534.

Caveats and negative findings

1. No currently pending litigation is known. The patent's Google Patents legal status shows "Expired – Lifetime," with anticipated expiration June 6, 2021. The only case I could confirm that named the '534 patent was dismissed without prejudice in 2011.
2. I could not independently confirm whether the "four additional, separate claims" that Broadcom filed against SiRF in U.S. District Court in May 2008 included the '534 patent. That is a possible additional assertion I cannot verify from the sources retrieved.
3. Do not confuse this patent with a different "534" patent. A search hit for RDMI v. SCEA discusses a "'534 patent" directed to "remote server assembly / auxiliary site addresses" (game-console technology). That is not US 6,560,534 and should not be attributed to this patent. Similarly, many hits for "6560534" are merely prior-art citations by unrelated later patents (e.g., TomTom WO2007101723A3, Broadcom EP2081040).
4. I am not able to guarantee completeness of this list from the tools available; the authoritative check would be a PACER docket search and the Unified Patents case list, which I recommend as a final confirmation step.

Bottom line: The single confirmed assertion of US 6,560,534 is the counterclaim by Global Locate against SiRF in SiRF Technology, Inc. v. Global Locate, Inc., No. 8:06‑cv‑01216 (C.D. Cal.), filed Jan. 8, 2007, which was stayed in 2009 and dismissed without prejudice on Jan. 18, 2011. No litigation asserting this patent is currently pending.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 6,560,534. The canonical list provided from the USPTO Open Data Portal (the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block) is empty — no IPR, PGR, or CBM — and my targeted web searches (patent number, patent title, "Global Locate" + petition, PTAB/CBM/reexam queries, Unified Patents portal) surfaced no AIA trial proceeding on the '534 patent. The bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant today is therefore not "the patent has been hardened by surviving IPRs" but rather "the patent has never been PTAB-tested and its term has run out" — the '534 is listed by Google Patents as expired (anticipated expiration 2021-06-06), which, not any PTAB outcome, is the dispositive fact for anyone being asserted against now.

Important caveats on the source data:

• The structured record's "PTAB proceedings on file" block is the authoritative list and it is empty. I am not inventing proceeding numbers to fill the template.
• The same record's family table contains an apparent data artifact: "Related Parent Applications" maps application 09/874,809 to US 6,581,772 ("Stackable container with tapered stacking tabs"). That is not a GPS patent and is plainly a family-table mis-mapping; do not rely on the family listing for anything beyond the real parents (09/875,809 → US 6,542,820).
• Search noise: my queries surfaced CBM2014-00190, but that proceeding is directed to US 7,334,720, a different patent. It is not a proceeding on the '534.

Proceedings on US 6,560,534

None. There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or appeal on file for this patent. Accordingly, no judge panel, no grounds, no claim-level outcome, and no settlement or Federal Circuit appeal can be reported — and I will not fabricate them.

Adjacent activity that is NOT PTAB (context for why the docket is empty)

These matter because they explain the absence of PTAB activity and because a defendant will encounter them in diligence:

• Litigation: Global Locate, Inc. v. SiRF Technology, Inc. — California Central District Court, case 8:06-cv-01216, flagged in the structured record (see the Unified Patents litigation entry). Global Locate asserted the '534 and US 6,542,820 (the "Long Term Orbit" family), plus US 6,704,651 and US 6,606,346, against SiRF in its January 2007 counterclaim.
• ITC: Global Locate's companion Section 337 action, Inv. No. 337-TA-602, asserted US 6,417,801; 6,606,346; 6,651,000; 6,704,651; 6,937,187; and 7,158,080 — the '534 was not among the asserted ITC patents. ALJ initial determination 2008-08-08; Commission final determination finding a violation, Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders (USITC Pub. 4137, Commission Opinion, Inv. No. 337-TA-602, https://www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/documents/pub4137.pdf)., Affirmed in part in SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (appeal No. 2009-1262), https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[1320748](/patent/1320748)/sirf-technology-inc-v-international-trade-commission/ and http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/09-1262.pdf. The Federal Circuit's opinion confirms the '534's sibling '000 patent (US 6,651,000) covers "the compaction of satellite ephemeris data," and the '080 patent (US 7,158,080) covers long-term orbit use at the receiver — the '534 is in that same LTO/compact-distribution lineage.
• Administrative (non-PTAB) challenges: contemporaneous reporting indicates SiRF filed ex parte reexamination requests in August 2008 against the four Broadcom/Global Locate patents asserted in the parallel Santa Ana district court case (GPS World, "SiRF Requests Reexamination of Broadcom Patent Ruling," 2008-08-07). I could not confirm that the '534 was among those four patents, nor could I locate a reexamination certificate in the '534's public record. Flagging as unverified — confirm via USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter before relying on it.

Strategic summary

Claim status: untested, not canceled. All 41 claims of the '534 — including independent claim 1 (extract LT-STD from memory / represent it in a remote-receiver-supported format / transmit), independent claim 23 (the Internet-distribution method), and independent claim 27 (the corresponding apparatus) — are UNTESTED before the PTAB. No claim has been canceled, and none has been confirmed in an AIA trial. The only validity determinations in this patent's history are the district court / ITC findings in 2008–2010, which are not binding on the PTAB and predate Alice, KSR practice under modern Board procedure, and the current § 101 landscape. Any defense built on "the PTAB already killed this patent" is unavailable because it isn't true.

Estoppel landscape: clean. With no petitioner on file, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaching to anyone. A defendant being asserted against today faces no estoppel bar from prior IPR filings, and the prior-art universe for the '534's 2000-11-17 / 2001-06-06 priority window (Garner, Krasner/SnapTrack, the CORS/IGS literature, JPL GIPSY/GEODYN practice) is fully open. Conversely, a defendant who now files an IPR would itself be creating the estoppel record — and would be litigating validity over claims whose term has already run, which is usually a poor use of resources.

Pattern signals. There is no repeat-petitioner pattern, no defensive aggregator in the chain (no Unified Patents-filed challenge; the Unified entry is only litigation tracking), and no patent-owner appellate history on PTAB appeals. The original owner pursued its enforcement aggressively in district court and the ITC, not at the PTAB — consistent with the timing: the '534's active enforcement era (2006–2010) preceded IPR availability (2012-09-16), and CBM review was never invoked against it during the CBM window (2012–2020-09-16 sunset). Current assignee: Avago Technologies International Sales Pte Ltd (Broadcom lineage; assignments in the record run Global Locate → Broadcom (2015) → Avago (2017) → Avago International Sales (2018)).

Term check — the point that controls the engagement. The structured record lists anticipated expiration 2021-06-06 and legal status "Expired - Lifetime." The '534 was filed 2001-06-19 as a CIP of 09/875,809 (filed 2001-06-06, which itself claims the 2000-11-17 priority date), so a 20-year term measured from the earliest claimed non-provisional filing date lands in mid-2021. Verify the exact expiration date, and any terminal disclaimer or PTA, in USPTO PatentCenter before relying on it. Two consequences:

1. Infringement liability can only attach to past acts (expired patents cannot be prospectively enjoined and cannot be infringed after expiry). Combined with 35 U.S.C. § 286's six-year damages lookback, a complaint filed today reaches back only to roughly 2020-09-29 — a window that overlaps at most about eight months of the '534's enforceable life. Check whether the accused conduct actually predates expiration.
2. Family members claiming benefit of the same 2001 chain are subject to the same 20-year term — e.g., US 7,443,340, US 8,212,719, US 9,274,225 and the various LTO-integrity continuations. Do not assume the family's reach ended with the '534; confirm each patent's actual expiration in PatentCenter. Separately, US RE48,176 E1 (granted 2020-08-25, priority 2001-07-25) is a reissue in the "compact format" branch of this family and should be cleared independently.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant: the highest-value move is not an IPR — it is a term and damages-limitation defense. Pull the '534's PatentCenter record, confirm the expiration date (the record indicates 2021-06-06), confirm maintenance-fee history, and then determine whether any asserted act falls inside the § 286 six-year lookback and before expiration. If the demand letter asserts claims 1, 23, or 27 against post-2021 conduct, it is asserting an expired patent — say so in the first response.
• If you nonetheless want a PTAB record (e.g., for a customer-indemnity or DJ posture), an IPR on an expired patent is permitted, but note: claims of an expired patent get Phillips-style construction of the claims as issued, and the practical benefit of canceling already-expired claims is low. There is no § 315(b) one-year clock issue if you have not been served, but § 315(b) bars a petition filed more than one year after service of a complaint alleging infringement, and § 315(a)(1) bars a petitioner that previously filed a civil action challenging validity. PGR is unavailable (the '534 is pre-AIA, filed 2001-06-19), and CBM is unavailable (CBM review sunset 2020-09-16, and this is a technical GPS invention unlikely to qualify in any event).
• No PTAB activity exists — say so plainly. Here the absence is not the usual "well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs" red flag, because the enforcement campaign ran before IPRs existed. Treat the zero-PTAB record as no help either way, and anchor the defense in expiration, § 286, laches/notice, assignee standing, and invalidity as a fallback in district court rather than as a PTAB play.
• Diligence links: PTAB E2E / PTAB Center (https://e2e.uspto.gov) and the PTAB public-information petitions portal (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) for a fresh proceeding check at the time you file; CourtListener for SiRF v. ITC, No. 2009-1262 (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1320748/sirf-technology-inc-v-international-trade-commission/) for the family's claim-construction history; and https://patents.google.com/patent/US6560534/en for the specification, all 41 claims, and the family/assignment record.

Confidence statement: I am highly confident there are no AIA trial proceedings on this patent as of the structured-data ingest date. I am not certain that no ex parte reexamination was ever filed against the '534 in 2008 — that specific item is flagged above as unverified and should be confirmed in PatentCenter before it is cited in any brief.

I'll start by attempting to pull the actual USPTO assignment records (reel/frame, correspondent) and cross-reference the litigation and ownership events.

Let me try to pin down specific reel/frame records and the NPE-check directories.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 6,560,534 B2

Method and apparatus for distributing satellite tracking information
App. No. 09/884,874 · Filed 2001-06-19 · Issued 2003-05-06 · Priority 2001-06-06 (CIP of 09/875,809 → US 6,542,820)

Source note / limitation. I could not directly query the USPTO Assignment Center records in this session; the reconstructed chain below is built from the Google Patents legal‑events ledger (which mirrors recorded assignment data but omits most reel/frame and all correspondent fields) plus corroborating public records (Broadcom/USPTO filings, ITC/CAFC litigation, EPO register). The one reel/frame number recoverable from the patent page is 047195/0026 (the Avago merger). Where I lack a reel/frame I say so rather than invent one. Verify primary records at the Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "6560534") — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html surfaces the same records.

Inventors

Pattern note: all three named inventors assigned to the same employer (Global Locate) — a clean, single-source invention. There is no evidence of the "all inventors depart within 12 months of filing" fire-sale tell; the inventor group stayed with Global Locate through the Broadcom acquisition. I have no data on individual departure dates, so I mark that tell not established rather than speculate.

Original assignee

Global Locate, Inc. — San Jose, CA (originally 3190 S. Bascom Ave, Suite 260; later 5300 California Ave., Irvine after Broadcom integration).

• Line of business: fabless GPS / Assisted-GPS semiconductor and software vendor. It shipped products embodying the claimed technology — the "Hammerhead" single-die GPS receiver, sold into TomTom One PNDs and HP/Sharp handsets, plus the "Worldwide Reference Network" A-GPS/Long-Term-Orbit service. This is an operating company, not a licensing shell.
• Status: acquired by Broadcom Corporation for US$146 M + up to US$80 M earn-out, announced 2007-06-12/07-12 and closed 2007 (≈175 issued/pending patents acquired). Global Locate no longer exists as an independent entity; its portfolio sits inside Broadcom Inc./Avago.

Assignment timeline

Execution dates are given only where the record discloses them; where the ledger shows only a recorded date, that is noted. Reel/frame was not exposed by the source ledger except where stated.

1. Recorded 2002-01-11 (execution date not shown) — Reel/frame not exposed

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (inventor → company)
   • Assignor: Charles Abraham; Frank van Diggelen; James W. LaMance
   • Assignee: Global Locate, Inc.
   • Correspondent: not shown for this patent. Family analog: the sibling Global Locate assignment (App. 10/081,164) was filed by Raymond R. Moser, Jr., Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP, 595 Shrewsbury Ave., Shrewsbury NJ (USPTO Assignment 12867/409, recorded 2002-05-06). Moser IP Law Group is the firm of record that prepared/prosecuted this Global Locate family (per its own 2010 press release). Flagged as probable-but-unverified for this reel/frame.
   • Context: Original inventor assignment; basis for Global Locate's standing (later upheld in SiRF v. ITC).

2. Recorded 2015-09-16 — Reel/frame not exposed

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
   • Assignor: Global Locate, Inc.
   • Assignee: Broadcom Corporation
   • Correspondent: not shown. Broadcom's assignment/PoA correspondence of record across its portfolio was handled by Thomas | Horstemeyer LLP (TkRH), 400 Interstate North Pkwy, Atlanta GA — USPTO Customer No. 15650. Flagged as probable-but-unverified.
   • Context: Confirmatory/clean-up recording of the 2007 acquisition (deed of assignment dated 2015-10-16 per EPO register) — eight years after deal close; an internal portfolio-integration step, not a market transfer.

3. Recorded 2016-02-11 — Reel/frame not exposed

   • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
   • Assignor: Broadcom Corporation
   • Assignee: Bank of America, N.A., as Collateral Agent
   • Correspondent: not shown.
   • Context: Securitization — collateral grant under Broadcom's credit facility (not a change of beneficial ownership).

4. Recorded 2017-02-01 — Reel/frame not exposed

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
   • Assignor: Broadcom Corporation
   • Assignee: Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
   • Correspondent: not shown.
   • Context: Internal reorg — post-Avago/Broadcom holding-company consolidation of IP into the Singapore IP entity.

5. Recorded 2017-02-03 — Reel/frame not exposed

   • Conveyance: Termination and Release of Security Interest in Patents
   • Assignor: Bank of America, N.A.
   • Assignee: Broadcom Corporation
   • Context: Release of the 2016 collateral lien (securitization unwind).

6. Recorded 2018-10-04 — Reel/frame 047195/0026 (per the corrective entry below)

   • Conveyance: Merger (see document for details)
   • Assignor: Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
   • Assignee: Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
   • Context: Internal reorg / universal succession by merger within the Broadcom group.

7. Recorded 2018-11-05 — Reel/frame 047195/0026

   • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment — to correct the effective date of the merger previously recorded at Reel 047195, Frame 0026
   • Assignor: Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
   • Assignee: Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
   • Context: Administrative correction of the merger effective date (name/record hygiene only).

Current assignee of record: Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (Singapore) — an indirect subsidiary of Broadcom Inc. (Google Patents lists current assignee as "Avago Technologies International Sales Pte Ltd").

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6560534
    2001 : App filed by Global Locate
    2002 : Inventors assign to Global Locate
    2007 : Broadcom buys Global Locate
    2015 : Assignment recorded to Broadcom
    2016 : Security interest to Bank of America
    2017 : Transfer to Avago General IP Singapore
         : Security interest released
    2018 : Merger into Avago International Sales

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. Every post-issuance transfer runs into named operating semiconductor companies (Broadcom Corp. → Avago General IP Singapore → Avago International Sales Pte. Ltd.). None of the assignee names is an "IP Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" shell; the corporate addresses (Irvine/San Jose CA; 1 Yishun Ave 7, Singapore) are operating-company premises, not registered-agent service addresses. Reels/events in questions: 2015-09-16, 2017-02-01, 2018-10-04/2018-11-05 (047195/0026).

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No assignee matches the named NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, etc.). The chain's enforcer is Broadcom/Avago, which "focuses on selling chips, as opposed to licensing patents" (Broadcom statement, 2007) and is not carried as a high-frequency plaintiff NPE by Unified Patents or RPX.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (data gap). The source ledger does not expose correspondent fields, so I cannot confirm or deny recurrence. Two candidate correspondents surface on corroborating records — Raymond R. Moser, Jr. (Moser, Patterson & Sheridan → Moser IP Law Group) on the Global Locate side, and Thomas | Horstemeyer LLP (Customer No. 15650) on the Broadcom side — but neither is verified to a reel/frame on this patent. A single appearance is not a finding; I decline to score this as "present" without the reel/frame.

4. Cascading transfers — present but benign. Four records land inside ~34 months (2018-10-04 merger + 2018-11-05 corrective; 2017-02-01 transfer + 2017-02-03 release), plus 2016-02-11/2017-02-03 as a matched lien/release pair. The tight spacing reflects Broadcom's 2016 Avago/Broadcom corporate integration and a credit-facility lien cycle, not chained LLCs with common principals hiding ownership. Assignees all share a single corporate parent and a single Singapore/Cali­fornia address. Scored present-but-operating-reorg, not NPE-style cascading.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The patent's known litigation footprint (C.D. Cal. 8:06-cv-01216, SiRF Technology v. Global Locate; ITC 337-TA-602 Certain GPS Devices, 2007) predates the 2015 Broadcom recording by ~8 years. The patent was not moved within 6 months of a suit to set venue/standing; Broadcom's later assertions (e.g., Broadcom v. Netflix, 8:20-cv-00529) are far downstream.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding for Global Locate, Broadcom, or Avago in the record; the transfer was a $146–226 M strategic acquisition.

7. Privateering — not present (arguably inverse). Broadcom/Avago litigate the family in its own name against competitors (SiRF, Netflix, Realtek), and the 2010 CAFC/ITC win was credited to Broadcom's own enforcement — no transfer to a third-party assertion vehicle is recorded.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain terminates at an asserting operating company (Avago/Broadcom), not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. The patent has not been neutralized by defensive aggregation.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain runs Global Locate → Broadcom Corp. (recorded 2015-09-16) → Avago Technologies General IP Singapore (2017-02-01) → Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. (merger, Reel 047195/0026, 2018-10-04, corrected 2018-11-05) — every link is a solvent operating semiconductor company with products embodying the claims (Global Locate GPS chips; Broadcom/Avago chipsets), and the family has been enforced by those owners against actual competitors (SiRF, 8:06-cv-01216 / ITC 337-TA-602; later Broadcom v. Netflix). No NPE-list assignee, no shell-LLC transfer, no bankruptcy, and no defensive-aggregator terminus appears in the record. Because the highest-value fields (reel/frame and correspondent) were not fully exposed by the sources available here, the one residual gap is signal #3 (repeat correspondent) — verify it at the Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/, patent 6560534) before relying on any correspondent-based conclusion.

I'll search for the patent and each of its cited prior-art references to ground this analysis.

Now let me search the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 6560534 B2

1. Confirming the target patent (literal identifier)

I searched for the specific number 6560534 (not adjacent numbers such as 6560535 or 6560634). The number resolves to one patent only:

Source/limitation note (important, per your no-fabrication rule): My searches returned Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6560534B2](/patent/US6560534B2)/en), uspto.report, and Justia mirrors rather than the USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Full-Text interface directly. The bibliographic data and the citation list below are taken from the authoritative patent text you supplied (the patent's own front page, mirrored from USPTO data), not from any substitute number. For three of the seven references (US 6411899B2, US 5983109A, US 6222483B1, US 6313787B1) my independent web lookups hit the tool-step limit, so their bibliographic detail is cited only from the authoritative patent text; I flag where that matters.

One data point to treat literally, not correct: the family/priority block of the same page lists the priority date as 2000-11-17 for several family members while the front page lists 2001-06-06. Both dates appear in the source; I reproduce them as-is.

2. The citation set actually on the patent

US 6560534 lists 7 examiner-cited patent references. (The "Cited By (148)/(330)" and "Families Citing this family" lists are forward citations — later patents citing the '534 — and are not prior art; I exclude them.) The seven are:

1. US 4445118A
2. US 5673256A
3. US 6064336A
4. US 6411899B2
5. US 5983109A
6. US 6222483B1
7. US 6313787B1

3. Reference-by-reference

R1 — US 4445118A

• Full citation / dates: Taylor, R.E. et al.; "Navigation system and method"; assignee The United States of America (NASA); filed 1981-05-22; issued 1984-04-24.
• Description: Foundational "Assisted-GPS" reference. An earth-based control/reference station collects GPS satellite position data and encodes it, with Doppler-prediction and satellite-identification data, as an FSK aiding signal on a reference channel relayed to remote user terminals to reduce terminal complexity.
• §102 reach: This is the reference the '534 specification itself cites in the background as the origin of Assisted-GPS. It discloses "collect/transmit orbit data to remote receiver," but the transmitted data is essentially current satellite-coordinate/Doppler aiding data, not long-term satellite tracking data (STD) derived from tracking stations and propagated for days. It does not anticipate independent claims 1, 23, or 27, because the "long term satellite tracking data" limitation is absent. At most it is relevant to the generic-collection aspects of claim 23's preamble. No §102 anticipation.

R2 — US 5673256A

• Full citation / dates: Motorola, Inc.; "Apparatus and method for sending data messages at an optimum time"; filed 1995-07-25; issued 1997-09-30.
• Description: A communication system stores subscriber messages (voice, fax, pager, data-file) and sends them at low-traffic times (LTT) and/or the most economical times, or at system-selected default times, autonomously.
• §102 reach: This is the most substantively on-point citation with respect to the dependent claims 21 and 22 (claim 21: "determining a time when the cost of transmitting the formatted data is relatively low; and transmitting the formatted data at said time"; claim 22: "determining a time when the congestion of a transmission network is relatively low"). US 5673256 discloses both the cost-optimization and congestion-optimization scheduling concepts. However, because claims 21 and 22 depend from claim 1, they incorporate claim 1's "long term satellite tracking data" and remote-receiver-format limitations, which US 5673256 does not disclose. So it is not a clean §102 anticipation of claims 21/22 standing alone; its practical role is §103 art on the transmission-timing features.

R3 — US 6064336A

• Full citation / dates: Krasner, N.F.; "GPS receiver utilizing a communication link"; Snaptrack, Inc.; priority listed 1995-10-09; issued 2000-05-16 (application 09/129,599, filed 1998-08-05, a divisional of 08/759,523).
• Description: A basestation transmits satellite almanac information (and/or Doppler) to a remote GPS unit over a communication link; the remote derives Doppler from the almanac; also discloses using a precision carrier frequency to calibrate the remote's local oscillator. Almanac validity is described as on the order of up to one month.
• §102 reach: Relevant to claims 10/11 (GPS / satellite-positioning receiver), 14–20 (wireless link, network, Internet, "couples the formatted data to the remote receiver when said remote receiver connects"), and 20's connection-based delivery. The long almanac lifetime gives a "long-validity" flavor, but almanac data is a coarse broadcast constellation description, not the long-term trajectory/clock STD generated by the '534's server. It does not anticipate claims 1, 23, or 27 (no "long term satellite tracking data" extraction/formatting step as claimed), and it is §103 art at most against the data-delivery dependent claims.

R4 — US 6411899B2

• Full citation / dates: Schipper, J.; "Position based personal digital assistant"; Trimble Navigation Ltd.; priority 1996-10-24; issued 2002-06-25.
• Description: A PDA/portable computing device integrated with a GPS unit that receives and processes GPS signals and provides geographic location to the mobile computer. (As listed on the '534 front page.)
• §102 reach: Relevant only to claim 10 ("said remote receiver is a GPS receiver") and to the specification's discussion of loading an STM via a PDA cradle. It says nothing about extracting long-term STD from memory, formatting it per a remote receiver, or transmitting it over a distribution network. Note its issue date (2002-06-25) postdates the '534 filing (2001-06-19), so any §102(c)/(e)-type reliance would rest on its 1996-10-24 priority/filing, not its grant date. No anticipation of any claim.

R5 — US 5983109A

• Full citation / dates: Northern Telecom Limited; "Method and apparatus for using advanced positioning systems in cellular communications networks"; filed 1997-02-03; issued 1999-11-09.
• Description: Use of advanced (GPS-type) positioning in a cellular communications network — cellular-network positioning architecture. (Bibliographic data taken from the authoritative '534 front page; an independent lookup was not completed.)
• §102 reach: Relevant to claims 14/16 (wireless communications link / computer network) as evidence that delivering positioning assistance through a cellular network was known. It does not disclose the claimed long-term-STD extraction/formatting/distribution. No §102 anticipation; potential §103 art on the network-delivery dependent claims.

R6 — US 6222483B1

• Full citation / dates: Nokia Mobile Phones Limited; "GPS location for mobile phones using the internet"; filed 1998-09-29; issued 2001-04-24. (Bibliographic data taken from the authoritative '534 front page.)
• Description: Distributing GPS assistance/location data to mobile phones via the Internet.
• §102 reach: This is the most relevant reference for the Internet-based claims: claim 18 ("transmitting using the Internet"), claim 20 ("couples the formatted data to the remote receiver when said remote receiver connects to the internet"), and the independent claim 23 ("using the Internet"). Because it discloses Internet delivery of GPS assistance data to a mobile receiver, it is a serious §103 combination reference (and arguably §102 art as to the delivery-medium limitations themselves). It nevertheless does not disclose "long term satellite tracking data" generated as in the '534, so it does not anticipate independent claims 1, 23, or 27. Its 1998-09-29 filing date precedes the '534 priority date, so it qualifies as prior art under §102(b)/(e).

R7 — US 6313787B1

• Full citation / dates: Motorola, Inc.; "Method and apparatus for assisted GPS protocol"; filed 1999-11-12; issued 2001-11-06. (Bibliographic data taken from the authoritative '534 front page.)
• Description: An assisted-GPS protocol for conveying assistance data between a network and a receiver.
• §102 reach: Most relevant to claim 12 ("said format is a standard format for transmitting satellite models to a global positioning system receiver") and to claim 23's "formatted data that is prescribed by a requirement of the remote receiver" — i.e., the concept of a standardized/prescribed A-GPS data format. It does not disclose long-term STD, so no §102 anticipation of independent claims; potential §103 art on the format-related dependent claims.

4. References cited in the family (not on the '534 itself)

The page lists two "Family Cites Families" items: US 5471217A (Magnavox Electronic Systems Co.; smoothing code measurements in a GPS receiver; 1993-02-01 / 1995-11-28) and US 5938721A (Trimble Navigation Ltd.; position based personal digital assistant; 1996-10-24 / 1999-08-17). These are cited in related family members, not as prior art against US 6560534, and I would not treat them as §102 art for this patent without confirming which family member cites them.

5. Bottom-line assessment

• No cited reference anticipates the independent claims. Claims 1, 23, and 27 all require "long term satellite tracking data" (STD valid for extended future periods and generated from tracking-station measurements/propagation, as recited in the specification), extracted from memory and represented in a receiver-supported format. None of the seven references discloses long-term STD in this sense — the closest (US 4445118A, US 6064336A) deal with current ephemeris/almanac or aiding data. A §102 anticipation rejection over any single one of these would be difficult to sustain.
• The realistic §102/§103 exposure is at the dependent-claim level, largely as §103 combinations:
  • Transmission-timing claims 21/22 → US 5673256A (cost- and congestion-optimized transmission scheduling).
  • Internet/connection-delivery claims 18/20 and Internet-based claim 23 → US 6222483B1.
  • Wireless/cellular/network claims 14/16 → US 5983109A, US 6064336A.
  • Format-related claims 12 and 23 → US 6313787B1.
  • Receiver-type claims 10/11 → US 6064336A, US 6411899B2.
• Qualifying dates: all seven references predate the '534's 2001-06-06/2001-06-19 dates, so all are available as prior art; US 6411899B2 and US 6222483B1 would be relied on via their earlier filing/priority dates (1996-10-24 and 1998-09-29), not their later issue dates.

Confidence and gaps: I am highly confident in the seven-reference list and their titles/assignees/dates, because these come from the authoritative patent text. I am not able to independently verify the full text/claims of US 6411899B2, US 5983109A, US 6222483B1, and US 6313787B1 from a live source in this session (search-step limit), so my §102 statements about those four are based on the patent's own characterization and their titles — I have flagged that rather than assert verified verbatim claim language. If you want, I can re-run targeted lookups for those four to pull their actual claim sets before finalizing any rejection rationale.

I'll verify what the cited prior-art references actually disclose before mapping them to the claims.

Obviousness Analysis — US 6,560,534 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Date-of-analysis note: the task states the current date as April 26, 2026; my operating environment date is September 29, 2026. I flag the inconsistency and proceed; nothing in this analysis turns on it.

Continuity note: this section assumes and builds on the claim summary and litigation summary already generated (claims 1, 23, 27 independent; claim 1 = extract LT-STD from memory → format for the receiver → transmit; claim 23 = the Internet end-to-end pipeline; claim 27 = the apparatus). Per the strict rule, I do not auto-correct identifiers; I flag record inconsistencies instead (Section 12).

1. Framework and the prior-art record actually available

The application was filed June 19, 2001 as a CIP of US 09/875,809 (filed June 6, 2001), so pre-AIA §§ 102/103 govern. The controlling effective date for the added "long term" subject matter is at the earliest June 6, 2001, and no later than the June 19, 2001 CIP filing date. Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) supplies the four factual inquiries; KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) supplies the flexible "expansive and creative" motivation standard, including "design incentives," "predictable variations," and "known techniques."

The "Prior Art" section of the page contains nine references (the seven "Patent Citations" plus two "Family Cites Families"), all comfortably before the critical date:

Section 103(c) / "by another" caution. The '534 family members that appear elsewhere on the page — US6542820B2, US2003/0014188A1, and the later Global Locate continuations — are not available: same inventive entity/common ownership, §103(c) disqualification, and no "by another" status. The same caveat applies to the Global Locate "wide area reference network for propagating ephemeris" application (US2003/0176969A1, priority 2000‑07‑13) that appears only under "Cited By."

2. The dispositive issue: what "long term" actually adds

Claim 1 does not recite any accuracy, any number of hours, or any claim to how the data is produced. The per-curiam-added limitation is only that the data be "long term" — which the specification operationalizes as valid beyond the ~4-hour broadcast ephemeris (days; alternate fit intervals of 8, 14, 26, 50, 74, 98, 122, 146 hours). Dependent claim 9 recites "more than four hours"; claim 8 recites "four hours."

That drafting choice is what makes the §103 case strong: the prior art already transmitted satellite tracking data valid well beyond four hours to a remote receiver — it just called it the almanac. Krasner '336 expressly discloses seconding "satellite almanac information … a description of the approximate position versus time of all satellites in the GPS constellation" to the remote unit, and Motorola '787's background describes the pre-existing scheme in which "the mobile station stores a GPS almanac," "a base station computes location and clock correction information for the almanac and transmits this correction over the communication link to the mobile station," and "the mobile station … computes satellite location and clock data using the almanac."

Map that onto claim 2 ("a plurality of satellite positions with respect to time for a period of time into the future"), claim 5 ("a model containing … orbital parameters and clock parameters"), and claim 6 ("said orbital parameters and clock parameters are defined by the global positioning system standard"): the almanac is GPS-standard orbital parameters with GPS-standard clock parameters, valid for weeks. The "long term" element therefore does not distinguish over the almanac-distribution art.

3. Combination A (primary): Krasner '336 + Motorola '787 — independent claims 1 and 27, and most dependents

Claim 1 mapping

Claim 27 maps identically onto the basestation/server computer plus the disclosed transceiver (the "means for transmitting," given the disclosed structure and equivalents under §112 ¶6).

Motivation to combine (KSR): both references are in the same field (satellite-position assistance over a communication link), address the same problem (handset-side computational load, battery drain, and repeated-download burden), and '787 expressly builds on the assisted-GPS architecture ('336-style basestation → handset transfer). Where '787's almanac-correction scheme is used, the combination directly practices claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 27, 31, 32, 34, 37.

Why "long term" is satisfied. Krasner '336's almanac is long-validity by nature; and '787's own background concedes the art was already working with "several weeks of ephemeris data" (in criticizing a network-centric incremental-update proposal whose "dynamic range … may not sufficiently cover … satellite station-keeping maneuvers"). A POSITA reading '787 is therefore taught that multi-week satellite-data assistance was both contemplated and attempted.

4. Combination B: Taylor '118 + Nokia '483 + Motorola '787 — claim 23 and the transport claims

Nokia '483 alone supplies extraction-from-a-database, server-side formatting, and Internet + wireless delivery; adding Taylor '118 supplies the tracking-station collection step.

Claim 25 ("said long term satellite tracking information is at least a portion of the broadcast ephemeris data from the at least one GPS satellite") is the prior art: Taylor '118 and Motorola '787 both teach collecting the satellite's broadcast data at a reference/base station and re-transmitting it. Claim 25 therefore presents an acute §102 problem, not merely §103 — a point worth flagging because the '534 specification expressly disclaims using broadcast ephemeris ("not required at any stage"), yet the claim as issued covers it.

5. Combination C: any of A/B + Motorola '256 — claims 21 and 22

Claims 21 ("determining a time when the cost of transmitting … is relatively low; … transmitting at said time") and 22 ("determining a time when the congestion of a transmission network is relatively low; transmitting at said time") map almost element-for-element onto US5673256A:

• "subscriber selects option … low traffic time (LTT) or the most economical times or both low traffic and most economical times or default times selected by the communication system";
• "the subscriber allows the communication system to calculate the most economical time to send a message";
• "the system stores the message and sends it at the first available opportunity" when "system capacity could be saturated";
• claim 19 of '256: "means for comparing a most economical time for said destination location and a most economical time for said geographic location … to determine a lowest cost transmit time";
• express advantage: "costs of using the communication system are lowered."

Motivation: both '534 (claims 21–22) and '256 target the same objective — lowering transmission cost and avoiding network congestion — and '256 is expressly a satellite communication-system reference, so the combination is within the same technical field. The °534 specification's own description (cellular rate structures, low-utilization/low-congestion periods, "transmit or not transmit … in response to the comparison") mirrors '256's disclosure and underscores the predictability of the substitution.

6. Combination D: Trimble '189/'8721 and Nortel '0983109 — receiver-type and loading claims

• Claims 10, 11, 35, 36 (GPS / satellite positioning system receiver): every reference.
• Claims on how the model reaches the device (the °534 specification names a PDA cradle, direct network connection, Bluetooth, cellular): Trimble '189/'8721 (position-based PDA) and Nokia '483 (cellular + Internet). Note the claims themselves do not recite Bluetooth/cradle — only the specification does — so this is background support, not claim-mapping.
• US5983109A: titled to using advanced positioning systems within cellular networks; I use it only for the generic network-transport element and flag that I could not retrieve its text in this session (§12).

7. Combination E: US5471217A — measurement quality (contextual only)

US5471217A (carrier smoothing of code measurements) bears on how a POSITA would obtain the low-noise code/carrier observations recited in the '534 specification's step 202. It is not needed for any claim, because none of the 41 claims recites measurement processing, estimation, or propagation. This is itself a notable point: the claims are directed to distribution, not to generation, so the analytically hard part of the °534 disclosure (steps 202–208) is largely outside the claim scope.

8. Claim-by-claim combination chart

9. Motivation-to-combine synthesis (KSR)

A POSITA of ordinary skill (an RF/GNSS systems engineer with familiarity with ICD-GPS-200 and cellular data networks) would have been motivated to combine the above because:

1. Design incentive / known problem. The art itself identifies the defect: ephemeris "typically … valid for one to two hours" (Krasner family), 2–4 hours (Taylor/JPL-based statements), with the consequence that handsets must be re-energized and re-downloaded repeatedly, draining batteries and loading the network. Extending validity, or else delivering the already-known long-validity almanac, directly addresses that defect.
2. Known technique. Orbit propagation with standard force models (gravity, drag, solar radiation pressure, tides, third-body, precession, nutation) and Brouwer-type theories were decades old and are cited within the °534 specification as known art. Fitting a model to a trajectory was routine (least squares, Kalman filters — also cited as known).
3. Predictable variation. The '534 specification concedes the core design space: "Orbit models can be selected to provide increased accuracy, longer duration fits, more compact representation … or other optimizations," and "the fit interval may be reduced (e.g. to four hours) to compensate." That is a textbook statement of a predictable trading-off among known parameters (accuracy ↔ interval ↔ message size) — the KSR "predictable variations" rationale.
4. Same field, same architecture, combinable references. '336, '787, '118, '483 and '256 all sit in assisted-positioning or satellite-messaging networks; each is a plug-in to the same basestation/server ↔ handset topology.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. '787's almanac-correction scheme and '118's "ephemeris parameters + software model" show the two endpoints (long-but-coarse and short-but-precise) were each workable; interpolating between them was an engineering optimization, not an unpredictable leap.

10. Where the § 103 case is weakest (patentee's best rebuttals)

1. No reference derives a precise long-term predicted orbit from reference-station measurements. All nine references are assisted-GPS/distribution art; none teaches the °534 steps 202–206 (collect code/carrier/Doppler at a tracking network → estimate orbit/clock → propagate with force models → fit a standard ephemeris model). The patentee will argue the combination supplies only distribution, and that claim 1's "long term satellite tracking data" must be read in light of the specification as the output of that pipeline (multi-day, ~1 m), not as an almanac. This is the single most contestable issue, and it turns on claim construction of "long term."
2. Teaching-away-adjacent statement. Motorola '787's criticism that "using several weeks of ephemeris data may not sufficiently cover … satellite station-keeping maneuvers," together with its discussion of insufficient "dynamic range of the incremental update fields," gives the patentee a "the art expected multi-week solutions to fail" argument. It is a weak teaching-away (it criticizes one delta-update scheme, not the objective) but it will be raised.
3. Accuracy-based redefinition of "long term." If "long term" is construed to require sustained accuracy (the FIG. 5 ~1 m result), the almanac mapping collapses and the °534 specification's own distinctions from "current art" gain weight.
4. Claim 13/38 is vulnerable to an "inherent/trivial selection" attack from the patentee's side (i.e., it adds nothing), which cuts against patentability of that claim but leaves the independents intact.
5. Secondary considerations. Geographic/industry adoption of long-term-orbit assistance (the LTO™ branding referenced in the litigation summary) could be argued as commercial success. However, per the earlier sections the only confirmed '534 assertion was the 2007 counterclaim in SiRF v. Global Locate, No. 8:06-cv-01216 (C.D. Cal.), dismissed without prejudice Jan. 18, 2011 — and no verified nexus evidence (sales, licensing, praise) was located in this session. No weight should be assigned absent that evidence.

11. Practical conclusion

• Independent claim 1 is, on this record, reasonably likely obvious over Krasner '336 and/or Motorola '787 (almanac + clock-correction distribution in a standard, receiver-understood format), with the °534 specification itself supplying the "predictable variation" admission. It is also arguable that claim 1, and claims 2, 5, 6, 9 and 12, read directly on the almanac-distribution prior art — i.e., a §102 problem layered on top of the §103 problem.
• Independent claim 23 is reasonably likely obvious over Nokia '483 in view of Taylor '118 (Internet server with satellite-information database + formatting + wireless delivery; reference-station collection), with '787 supplying the receiver-prescribed protocol.
• Independent claim 27 rises and falls with claim 1 (same limitations in apparatus form; §112 ¶6 equivalents).
• Claims 21 and 22 are the most clearly obvious of the set over Motorola '256, whose disclosure of low-traffic/economical-time transmission, system-calculated optimum times, storage-until-available, and "lowest cost transmit time" maps onto the claims nearly verbatim.
• Claims 25, and 8/34, are the most vulnerable to outright anticipation (broadcast-ephemeris collection and retransmission per Taylor '118 and '787; the 4-hour ephemeris model is the admitted prior art).
• The weakest link in the entire chain is the "long term" element combined with any implicit accuracy requirement. If the Office or a court accepts a broad construction (validity period only), the '534 claims collapse into well-trodden assistance-data distribution. If a narrow construction requiring multi-day accurate predicted orbits is adopted, the nine cited references alone do not get there, and additional art — or the commonly-owned Global Locate "propagating ephemeris" application (US2003/0176969A1, priority 2000‑07‑13) — would have to carry the case (subject to §103(c)).

12. Caveats, evidentiary gaps, and flagged discrepancies

1. References I could not verify in this session. My search budget was exhausted before retrieving the text of US5983109A, US6411899B2, US5938721A, and US5471217A. I have used them only for the elements their titles assignees/dates support, and I do not attribute specific disclosure language to them. Their full texts should be pulled before any filing.
2. No reference in the "Prior Art" section is a long-term-orbit-generation reference. Any assertion that the "long term" limitation is obvious therefore leans on almanac-based distribution art plus the °534 specification's own admissions about the design space. That is a defensible but not airtight position — state it plainly rather than overreaching.
3. Priority/claim-scope risk. As flagged in the earlier patent summary, claim 1 recites "long term satellite tracking data" at grant whereas the pre-grant publication US2003/0014188A1 apparently recited "satellite tracking data." If "long term" is CIP-added matter, then (a) the effective date for that limitation is June 6/19, 2001, and (b) the scope question in §10(1) is squarely raised. The file wrapper should be obtained.
4. Literal-number inconsistencies on the page (flagged, not corrected). The record shows the same Global Locate document ("Method and apparatus for generating and distributing satellite tracking information," June 6, 2001 priority, Oct. 28, 2008 publication) as both US7443340B2 and US7453340B2. Likewise, US11/932,283 → US8212719B2 appears both as "Related Parent Application (Continuation-In-Part)" and as a "Priority to" child. And "Other versions" lists US20030014188A1 as the pre-grant publication of this application. I treat these as rendered-record inconsistencies requiring confirmation against the USPTO records, not as corrected text.
5. OCR artifacts in the claim text ("rasped," "0comprises," "OPS satellite," "long ten") were flagged in the earlier summary; I have not repeated them here and have analyzed the claims by their evident plain meaning. This does not affect the §103 combinations.
6. Sources consulted for this section (all retrieved this session):

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US6560534/en (the patent and its Prior Art/Cited-By sections)
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US4445118A/en (Taylor/Sennott — aiding-signal content; terminal storage of "ephemeris parameters, updated hourly, together with a software model for the GPS satellite orbits")
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US5673256A (Motorola — low-traffic and most-economical transmission times; lowest-cost transmit time; satellite communication system)
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US6222483B1 (Nokia — Internet server with satellite-information database; server-side message formatting; cellular + Internet delivery)
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US6064336A (Krasner/SnapTrack — transmission of ephemeris and almanac from basestation to remote; almanac "approximate position versus time of all satellites")
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US6313787B1 (Motorola assisted-GPS protocol — broadcast ephemeris retransmission; almanac + clock corrections; multiple/delta-encoded ephemeris sets; "several weeks of ephemeris data")
• Related-family corroboration for the 1–2 hour ephemeris validity statement: EP 0 885 492 B1 / EP 0 941 487 B1 (SnapTrack/Krasner family).

I state explicitly that I did not locate, and therefore cannot rely on, any additional prior-art reference — beyond those on this page and the pre-2001-priority "Cited By" items noted in §1 — that discloses generating a long-term predicted satellite orbit at a server. That absence is the principal limit on the strength of the §103 case presented above.