Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 10
`
`Entered: January 25, 2013
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2012-00004 (JL)
`Patent 6,064,970
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 10
`
`Entered: January 25, 2013
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2012-00004 (JL)
`Patent 6,064,970
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`On September 16, 2012, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
`
`(“Liberty”) filed a petition requesting a review under the transitional
`
`program for covered business method patents of U.S. Patent 6,064,970 (“the
`
`’970 patent”). The patent owner, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
`
`(“Progressive”), filed a preliminary response on December 21, 2012. (Paper
`
`No. 8.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324. See section 18(a) of
`
`the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329
`
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`The standard for instituting a covered business method review is set
`
`forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD --The Director may not authorize a post-grant
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if
`such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is
`more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition is unpatentable.
`
`Liberty challenges the patentability of claims 1 and 3-18 of the
`
`’970 patent. Taking into account Progressive’s preliminary response, we
`
`determine that the information presented in the petition demonstrates that it
`
`is more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. § 324 and section 18(a) of the AIA, we hereby authorize a
`
`covered business method review to be instituted as to claims 1 and 3-18 of
`
`the ’970 patent.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`A. Liberty’s standing
`
`Liberty certifies that the ’970 patent was asserted against it in Case
`
`No. 1:10-cv-01370, Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill. et al.,
`
`pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. (Pet. 5.)
`
`Progressive does not dispute that certification.
`
`B. Covered Business Method Patent
`
`Under section 18(a)(1)(E) of the AIA, the Board may institute a
`
`transitional proceeding only for a patent that is a covered business method
`
`patent. Section 18(d)(1) of the AIA defines the term “covered business
`
`method patent” to mean:
`
`a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for
`performing data processing or other operations used in the
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product
`or service, except that the term does not include patents for
`technological inventions.
`
`The legislative history explains that the definition of covered business
`
`method patent was drafted to encompass patents “claiming activities that are
`
`financial or complementary to financial activity.” 157 Cong. Rec. S5432
`
`(daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer).
`
`Section 18(d)(2) of the AIA provides that “the Director shall issue
`
`regulations for determining whether a patent is for a technological
`
`invention.” The legislative history points out that the regulation for this
`
`determination should only exclude “those patents whose novelty turns on a
`
`technological innovation over the prior art and are concerned with a
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`technical problem which is solved with a technical solution and which
`
`requires the claims to state the technical features which the inventor desires
`
`to protect.” 157 CONG. REC. S1364 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of
`
`Sen. Schumer).
`
`Pursuant to that statutory mandate, the Office promulgated 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.301(b) to define the term “technological invention” for the purposes of
`
`the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents. Therefore,
`
`for determining whether a patent is for a technological invention in the
`
`context of the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents,
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) identifies the following for consideration:
`
`whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior
`art; and solves a technical problem using a technical solution.
`
`In the petition, Liberty asserts that the ’970 patent is a covered
`
`business method patent because the ’970 claimed invention is related to the
`
`administration and management of an insurance policy to adjust insurance
`
`premiums based on monitored vehicle data. (Pet. 3.) Liberty further
`
`contends that the claimed invention of the ’970 patent is not a “technological
`
`invention” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). (Pet. 4.) According to
`
`Liberty, the prosecution history of the prior reexamination shows that there
`
`was no “technological feature” that was novel and unobvious, and the
`
`subject matter as a whole does not solve a “technical problem.” (Pet. 4-5.)
`
`Progressive counters that the claimed invention of the ’970 patent is a
`
`“technological invention” and, therefore, the ’970 patent is ineligible for
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`covered business method review. (PR 45.) More specifically, Progressive
`
`argues that the claimed invention is similar to the credit card reader example
`
`provided in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,1 which the Office
`
`indicates would not be eligible for a covered business method review.
`
`(PR 43-45.) Progressive also asserts that the claimed invention is more
`
`technical than a credit card reader since it includes physical sensors for
`
`sensing actual vehicle operation data. (Id.) Progressive further argues that
`
`the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is
`
`novel and unobvious over the prior art citing to the reasons for patentability
`
`provided by the Examiner in the prior ex parte reexamination (NIIRC at
`
`pages 9-22). (PR 46-53.) Additionally, Progressive contends that the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole solves a technical problem using a
`
`technical solution because sensor data representing actual monitored driving
`
`characteristics of an operating state of vehicles or actions of operators is
`
`used to determining an insurance rating, solving the problem of the
`
`unavailability of such data. (PR 54-58.)
`
`We are not persuaded by Progressive’s arguments. Rather, we
`
`determine that Liberty has demonstrated that the ’970 patent is a covered
`
`business method patent and the claimed invention is not a “technological
`
`invention” within the meaning of 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`The determination of whether a patent is eligible for covered business
`
`method review is based on what the patent claims. In other words, a patent
`
`
`
`1 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764
`(Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`having one claim directed to a covered business method is eligible for
`
`review even if the patent includes additional claims.2
`
`Here, the ’970 patent discloses an invention that is related to a method
`
`of determining a cost of automobile insurance based upon monitoring,
`
`recording and communicating data representative of operator and vehicle
`
`driving characteristics. (Abs.) Claim 4, reproduced below, is illustrative of
`
`the claimed subject matter:
`
`A method of insuring a vehicle operator for a selected
`period based upon operator driving characteristics during the
`period, comprising, steps of:
`
`generating an initial operator profile;
`
`generating an insured profile for the vehicle operator
`prior to any monitoring of any of the vehicle operator’s driving
`characteristics wherein the insured profile comprises coverage
`information, including limits and deductibles, for determining a
`base cost of vehicle insurance for the vehicle operator;
`
`monitoring the vehicle operator’s driving characteristics
`during the selected period; and
`
`deciding a total cost of vehicle insurance for the selected
`period based upon the vehicle operator’s driving characteristics
`monitored in that selected period and the base cost of
`insurance.3
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents – Definitions
`of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final
`Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48736 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Response to Comment 8).
`3 Reexam. Cert. at col. 1:50-65 (original emphases and bracketed
`matters omitted).
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`For the issue of whether the claimed invention is a technological
`
`invention under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b), we focus our analysis on claim 4.
`
`We first note that Progressive’s contentions are not commensurate with the
`
`scope of claim 4. Notably, the sensors for monitoring the vehicle operator’s
`
`driving characteristics are described in the ’970 specification, but are not
`
`recited in claim 4. In fact, claim 4 does not recite any technological element
`
`(e.g., a computer or electrical sensors), but rather recites only method steps
`
`that can be completed by a person. For example, a passenger sitting in the
`
`vehicle when the vehicle operator is driving can monitor the vehicle
`
`operator’s driving characteristics during the selected time period (e.g., the
`
`passenger can observe whether the vehicle operator is driving over the speed
`
`limit or fails to stop at a red traffic light). Progressive fails to point out any
`
`specific novel and non-obvious technological element recited in claim 4.
`
`Therefore, Progressive’s arguments related to the credit card reader example
`
`in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide are misplaced.
`
`As to Progressive’s contentions regarding the Examiner’s reasons for
`
`patentability for claim 4 in the prior ex parte reexamination, Progressive
`
`merely relies upon the Examiner’s statements that the prior art cited in the
`
`reexamination does not disclose the insured-profile claim limitation
`
`(generating an insured profile prior to any monitoring of any of the vehicle
`
`operator’s driving characteristics). (PR 49-50.) However, that claim
`
`limitation does not require a technological feature. Indeed, a person can
`
`generate an insured profile by writing down on a paper the value of the
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`vehicle, insurance coverage limits, and deductibles, before a passenger
`
`monitors the vehicle operator’s driving characteristics.
`
`We are also not convinced by Progressive’s argument that the claimed
`
`subject matter as a whole solves a technical problem using a technical
`
`solution. The ’970 specification expressly states that the motor vehicle
`
`control and operating systems that were known in the art at the time of the
`
`invention could readily be modified to obtain the desired types of
`
`information relevant to determination of the cost of insurance. (Col. 3:25-
`
`28.) Determining a cost of vehicle insurance is a financial problem rather
`
`than a technical problem.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the subject matter of claim 4 is not a
`
`“technological invention” under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). Accordingly, the
`
`’970 patent is eligible for a covered business method review.
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Liberty relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`July 4, 1995
`Nov. 7, 1995
`Mar. 8, 1990
`Aug. 16, 1995
`
`US patent 5,430,432
`Camhi
`Bouchard US patent 5,465,079
`Pettersen WO 90/02388
`
`Herrod
`GB-2 286 369
`
`
`“Notes on Exposure and Premium Bases” by Paul Dorweiler,
`published on May 9, 1930 (“Dorweiler”) (Ex. 1009)
`
`1988 Automobile Insurance Shoppers’ Guide, published in 1988
`(“Florida Guide”) (Ex. 1008)
`
`
`(Ex. 1010)
`(Ex. 1004)
`(Ex. 1005)
`(Ex. 1007)
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`1995 Consumers Guide on Automobile Insurance (Downstate),
`published in 1995 (“New York Guide”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`
`D. Grounds of Challenge
`
`Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 18 are independent claims. Liberty seeks
`
`cancelation of claims 1 and 3-18 based on the following grounds:
`
`A. Claims 1 and 3 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over:
`
`(1) Bouchard and Pettersen;
`
`(2) Bouchard, Pettersen, and New York Guide; or
`
`(3) Bouchard, Pettersen, and Herrod.
`
`B. Claims 4, 5, 16, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over:
`
`(1) Bouchard and Pettersen;
`
`(2) Bouchard, Pettersen, and Florida Guide; or
`
`(3) Bouchard, Pettersen, and New York Guide.
`
`C. Claims 6-8, 10-11, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over:
`
`(1) Bouchard and Pettersen;
`
`(2) Bouchard, Pettersen, and New York Guide; or
`
`(3) Bouchard, Pettersen, and Herrod.
`
`D. Claim 9 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over:
`
`(1) Bouchard, Pettersen, and Dorweiler;
`
`(2) Bouchard, Pettersen, New York Guide, and Dorweiler; or
`
`(3) Bouchard, Pettersen, Herrod, and Dorweiler.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`(4) Bouchard, Pettersen, and Camhi;
`
`(5) Bouchard, Pettersen, New York Guide, and Camhi; or
`
`(6) Bouchard, Pettersen, Herrod, and Camhi.
`
`E. Claims 12 and 15 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over:
`
`(1) Bouchard and Pettersen;
`
`(2) Bouchard, Pettersen, and New York Guide; or
`
`(3) Bouchard, Pettersen, and Herrod
`
`(4) Bouchard, Pettersen, and Dorweiler;
`
`(5) Bouchard, Pettersen, New York Guide, and Dorweiler; or
`
`(6) Bouchard, Pettersen, Herrod, and Dorweiler.
`
`F. Claim 18 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over:
`
`(1) Bouchard and Pettersen;
`
`(2) Bouchard, Pettersen, and New York Guide;
`
`(3) Bouchard, Pettersen, and Herrod; or
`
`(4) Bouchard, Pettersen, and Dorweiler.
`
`
`
`II. FINDINGS OF FACTS
`
`
`
`The findings of fact in this decision including those in the analysis are
`
`supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`
`
`A. Background of The ’970 Patent
`
`The background section of the ’970 patent describes conventional
`
`insurance schemes that use actuarial classes to determine vehicle insurance
`
`costs. (Col. 1:17-2:37.) In particular, the background section of the ’970
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`patent teaches that conventional insurance cost determination methods
`
`involve generating an insured profile for the vehicle operator by gathering
`
`relevant historical data from a personal interview and public motor vehicle
`
`driving records. (Col. 1:17-col. 2:37.) The data results in a classification of
`
`the vehicle operator to a broad actuarial class for which insurance rates are
`
`assigned based upon the empirical experience of the insurer. (Col. 1:22-24.)
`
`The conventional insurance system creates groupings of vehicles and drivers
`
`(actuarial classes) based on certain types of classifications (e.g., speeding or
`
`other traffic violations and number of accidents). (Col. 1:21-27; col. 2:1-4.)
`
`The classifications are further broken into actuarial classes to develop a
`
`unique vehicle insurance cost based on the specific combination of actuarial
`
`classes for a particular risk. (Col. 1:53-56.) Based on the information in the
`
`insured profile (e.g., the value of the vehicle, driver’s record, and type of
`
`coverage), a unique vehicle insurance cost is determined. (Col. 1:56-col.
`
`2:12.) Additionally, conventional insurance rating systems provide
`
`discounts and surcharges for certain types of use of the vehicle, equipment
`
`on the vehicle, and type of driver. (Col. 2:22-24.) For example, discounts
`
`are provided to safe drivers, such as those that have low number of speeding
`
`violations or accidents. (Col. 1:17-col. 2:37.)
`
`B. Camhi
`
`Camhi discloses an electronic monitoring and recording system
`
`installed in a vehicle for detecting unsafe driving conditions (e.g., detecting
`
`the actual speed of the vehicle and indicating whether the speed is above or
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`below a predetermined safe value). (Col. 3:65-col. 4:7.) The recorded
`
`information would enable insurance companies to evaluate the driving habits
`
`of vehicle operators. (Col. 1:62-65.) And vehicle operators would be
`
`motivated to drive more safely by the reward of lower insurance premiums.
`
`(Col. 2:29-32.) Figure 3 of Camhi, reproduced below, is a block diagram of
`
`an embodiment of Camhi that has a microcontroller multiple input data
`
`acquisition and monitoring unit:
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram of a device of Camhi.
`
`Camhi’s system has a processor 14B, multiple input signal generators
`
`12B, an optional external terminal 36, and a storage unit 26B. (Col. 5:59-
`
`col. 6:18.) Using the multiple input signal generators 12B and the
`
`programming stored in the ROM 32, multiple vehicle operating variables
`
`may be monitored, and a variety of unsafe vehicle operating conditions may
`12
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`be predefined and simultaneously monitored for their occurrence. (Col. 6:5-
`
`18.) Further, when a predefined unsafe condition occurs, information
`
`pertaining to the predefined unsafe condition occurrence may be transferred
`
`to storage unit 26B. (Id.) Camhi also discloses that the recorded
`
`information related to driving conditions may be saved in a storage unit for
`
`later review and analysis. (Col. 3:42-49.)
`
`C. Bouchard
`
`Bouchard discloses a method and an apparatus for evaluating a
`
`driver’s performance under actual real-time conditions and for determining
`
`the driver’s ability to safely operate a vehicle. (Abs.) Specifically, the
`
`system monitors the driver’s performance characteristics such as average
`
`driving speed, braking and acceleration habits, and typical distance from the
`
`vehicle immediately in front. (Col. 28:47-52.) The driver’s performance is
`
`constantly monitored and compared to that driver’s past performance and the
`
`normal driving standards. (Abs.)
`
`Bouchard’s system has an event recording apparatus (ERA) that
`
`records selectable vehicle performance, operational status, and/or
`
`environment information. (Col. 5:53-57.) The ERA system is configured to
`
`store a wide variety of vehicle information gathered by sensors dispersed
`
`throughout a vehicle. (Col. 5:66-col. 6:1.) The recorded information is used
`
`to determine a baseline performance standard based on the driver’s past
`
`performance against which a driver’s present performance can be measured.
`
`(Col. 5:60-64.) Each driver has a personalized ERA that maintains
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`information that identifies the driver and a record of the driver’s driving
`
`history and performance. (Col. 6:4-8.) A system processing unit, shared by
`
`the ERA and the driver fitness evaluating system, generates a profile of the
`
`driver based upon the information that is stored in the ERA. (Col. 6:9-15.)
`
`D. Pettersen
`
`Pettersen discloses an electronic monitoring and reporting system for
`
`recording the driving pattern of a motor vehicle. (P. 1-74.) In particular,
`
`Pettersen’s system monitors the speed of the vehicle, the distance driven,
`
`and the acceleration of the vehicle, to generate data describing the driving
`
`pattern of the motor vehicle. (P. 1-2.) According to Pettersen, it would be
`
`advantageous to car insurance companies to use such an electronic
`
`monitoring system for recording the driving pattern of the policy holder and
`
`set a bonus arrangement that gives a higher bonus to those policy holders
`
`having a “careful” driving pattern (e.g., low speeds and low accelerations).
`
`(P. 1.) Pettersen also discloses that policy holders can utilize the system to
`
`control the amount of disbursements from the insurance companies by
`
`reducing driving speed and number of accidents. (Id.)
`
`E. Herrod
`
`
`
`Herrod discloses a computer-based monitoring and reporting device
`
`that is used in a vehicle to measure driver acceleration patterns and report
`
`associated accident risks. (P. 1-2.) Herrod’s device uses the measured
`
`
`
`4 The page numbers refer to the original page numbers of the references, and
`not the exhibit page numbers.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`acceleration data to classify the driver into one of several groups, each of
`
`which associates with a different level of accident risk. (Id.) According to
`
`Herrod, safe drivers can use the measured acceleration data to demonstrate
`
`their competence to insurance companies. (P. 1.)
`
`F. Florida Guide
`
`
`
`The Florida Guide is an automobile insurance shoppers’ guide that is
`
`designed to help insurance policy holders control some of the costs
`
`associated with automobile insurance. (Title and Comm. Message.)
`
`According to the Florida Guide, all drivers in the state of Florida must carry
`
`a minimum amount of property damage liability coverage in addition to the
`
`required personal injury protection coverage. (P. 3.) Further, auto insurance
`
`premium may vary based on many factors such as the type of coverage the
`
`policy holder selects, including liability limits and deductibles (p. 11), and
`
`the area where the policy holder garages their car (p. 13). For example, if
`
`the policy holder selects high liability limits and low deductibles, the policy
`
`holder is likely to pay more for auto insurance. (P. 11.) Different premiums
`
`are charged in different areas because of frequency of accidents, medical
`
`expenses and repair coast. (P. 13.)
`
`G. New York Guide
`
`The New York Guide is a consumer guide on automobile insurance.
`
`In particular, the New York Guide provides ways that the insurance holders
`
`may save money on auto insurance, such as increasing the deductibles on
`
`physical damage coverage. (P. 17-19.)
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`III. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art,
`
`(3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called
`
`secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383
`
`U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`In a covered business method patent review, claim terms are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). Thus, we determine the
`
`scope of the claims by giving claim terms their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Here, Liberty states that for the sole purposes of this proceeding, it
`
`construes the claim language such that claim terms are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, based upon the interpretation given by the Office
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`during the prior ex parte reexamination of the ’970 patent (Control
`
`No. 90/011,252). (Pet. 19-20.) Specifically, Liberty lists several key terms
`
`and their constructions (reproduced in the table below) as applied during the
`
`prior reexamination. (Pet. 20-22.)
`
`Progressive does not oppose those claim constructions. Upon review
`
`of the record, Liberty’s claim constructions seem to be consistent with the
`
`specification. Further, in the prior reexamination, the Office gave the claim
`
`terms their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
`
`specification. See e.g., Ex. 1003 at 755, 3/7/11 OA at 6. Based on the
`
`record before us, we therefore adopt the constructions provided by Liberty in
`
`the petition.
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Construction
`
`Vehicle
`(claims 1, 3-18)
`
`Initial operator profile/ initial
`insured profile
`(claims 4-5, 16-17)
`
`Actuarial class
`(claims 1,3, 6-15, 18)
`
`Operator controlled motor vehicles
`normally requiring insurance, including,
`but not limited to, automobiles
`
`Initial files or information with respect to
`the operator or the insuring thereof
`
`A combination/group/groupings related to
`loss/risk/safety which are determined from
`classifications/characteristics
`representative of motor vehicle operational
`characteristics and driver behavior for
`which data is gathered
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`Cost of insurance/cost of
`vehicle insurance
`(claims 1, 3-5, 16-17)
`
`A/one or more or all cost(s) associated
`with insurance of the vehicle, including,
`but not limited to, a cost to the insured
`and/or insurer/underwriter associated with
`the insurance
`
`Safety standard
`(claims 5, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18)
`
`Value/criteria associated with the
`promotion of safety/prevention of
`risk/loss/injury
`
`A/one or some cost(s), e.g., not all costs or
`the final or total cost or gross premium,
`associated with insurance of the vehicle,
`e.g., a cost to the insured and/or
`insurer/underwriter associated with the
`insurance
`Collecting, deriving, generating or
`calculating
`A/some value/cost used to determine an
`overall cost associated with insurance of
`the vehicle
`Storing of information corresponding to
`the event and transmitting of a
`signal/information corresponding to the
`event to a receiving system which system
`may or may not be remote.
`
`Base cost
`(claims 4-5, 16-17)
`
`Extracting
`(claims 6-15, 18)
`
`Insurance rating
`(claims 6, 9, 18)
`
`Storing and transmitting a
`signal corresponding to the
`determined triggering event to
`a receiving system
`(claim 7)
`
`
`
`
`B. Claims 4, 5, 16, and 17
`
`Claims 4 and 5 are independent claims, and claims 16 and 17 depend
`
`from claim 5. Claim 4, reproduced below, is representative:
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`A method of insuring a vehicle operator for a selected
`period based upon operator driving characteristics during the
`period, comprising, steps of:
`
`generating an initial operator profile;
`
`generating an insured profile for the vehicle operator
`prior to any monitoring of any of the vehicle operator’s driving
`characteristics wherein the insured profile comprises coverage
`information, including limits and deductibles, for determining a
`base cost of vehicle insurance for the vehicle operator;
`
`monitoring [operator] the vehicle operator’s driving
`characteristics during the selected period; and
`
`deciding a total cost of vehicle insurance for the selected
`period based upon the [operating] vehicle operator’s driving
`characteristics monitored in that selected period and the base
`cost of insurance.5
`
`Liberty argues that claims 4, 5, 16, and 17 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Bouchard and Pettersen, by
`
`itself, or alternatively in view of Florida Guide or New York Guide.
`
`(Pet. 41-50, 71, and 72.) In particular, Liberty contends that the cited prior
`
`art references describe all of the claim elements. (Pet. 34-38.) Liberty
`
`further provides the rationales for combining the references. (Pet. 31-34.)
`
`Progressive disagrees and counters that the cited prior art references
`
`fail to describe the insured-profile claim limitation (“generating an insured
`
`profile for the vehicle operator prior to any monitoring of any of the vehicle
`
`operator’s driving characteristics wherein the insured profile comprises
`
`coverage information, including limits and deductibles, for determining a
`
`
`5 Reexam. Cert. at col. 1:50-65.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`base cost of vehicle insurance for the vehicle operator”), and the total-cost
`
`claim limitation (“deciding a total cost of vehicle insurance for the selected
`
`period based upon the vehicle operator’s driving characteristics monitored in
`
`that selected period and the base cost of insurance”), as recited in claim 4.
`
`(PR 28-36.) Specifically, Progressive argues that the references do not
`
`describe determining a total cost of insurance that is based on a base cost of
`
`insurance determined using an insured profile that is generated prior to any
`
`monitoring of any of the vehicle operator’s driving characteristics. (PR 32,
`
`34, 36.)
`
`We do not agree with Progressive since its arguments are based on an
`
`overly narrow reading of the prior art references without sufficient
`
`consideration of the knowledge of one with ordinary skill in the art. We
`
`note that an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
`
`can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re
`
`Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Prior art references
`
`must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
`
`references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
`
`reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826
`
`(CCPA 1968).
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`On this record, the evidence shows that the knowledge level of one
`
`with ordinary skill in the art is quite advanced.6 For instance, conventional
`
`insurance schemes that use actuarial classes to determine vehicle insurance
`
`costs were well known in the art at the time of the invention. (See e.g.,
`
`PR 13-14; 34.) Further, we agree with Progressive that the Florida Guide
`
`and New York Guide cited by Liberty discuss the same conventional prior
`
`art knowledge that is disclosed in the background section of the ’970 patent.
`
`(See e.g., PR 13 (The Florida Guide and New York Guide “discuss the same
`
`subject matter (i.e., the existence of traditional actuarial classes) that is
`
`disclosed in the background section of the ’970 patent”); PR 34 (The cited
`
`portions of the Florida Guide are “essentially identical to the prior art
`
`knowledge disclosed in columns 1 and 2 of the ’970 patent.”)) We therefore
`
`conclude that the background section of the ‘970 patent (specifically col.
`
`1:17-2:37) is admitted conventional prior art. In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566,
`
`571 (CCPA 1975). And thus the knowledge of one with ordinary skill in the
`
`
`
`6 The field of the ’970 patent is insurance which includes determining a cost
`of vehicle insurance based on telematics data. Ex 1011, ¶ 17; Ex 1014, ¶ 17.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as to insurance pricing would have at
`least a B.S. in Mathematics, or equivalent, with at least 5 years of experience
`in the insurance industry setting premiums for auto insurance, and as an
`associate in the Casualty Actuarial Society. Ex 1011, ¶ 17. A person of
`ordinary skill in the art as to telematics data would have at least a B.S.
`degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or
`the equivalent thereof and at least one to two years of experience with
`vehicle telematics systems. Ex 1014, ¶ 17.
`21
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00004
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`art would include a thorough understanding of using actuarial classes to
`
`determine vehicle insurance costs.
`
`We regard the conventional insurance cost determination techniques
`
`noted in the background section of the ’970 patent (col. 1:17-2:37) as basic
`
`knowledge within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Hence, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that when a vehicle operator
`
`is applying for an insurance policy from an insurance company, an insured
`
`profile for the vehicle operator would be generated to determine a base cost,
`
`and such an insured profile includes coverage information such as limits and
`
`deductibles. We also o
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
