Paper 12
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: August 12, 2013
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`DOMINION DEALER SOLUTIONS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AUTOALERT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00222 (JL)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC (“Dominion”) filed a petition
`(“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,827,099 (“the ’099 patent”). Paper 1. Patent Owner, AutoAlert, Inc.
`(“AutoAlert”), filed a preliminary response (“Prel. Resp.”). Paper 11. We
`have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides:
`THRESHOLD --The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the information
`presented in the petition does not establish that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Dominion will prevail in showing that claims 1-20 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). We hereby deny the
`petition.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`Dominion indicates that the ’099 patent was asserted against it in
`AutoAlert, Inc. v. Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC, Autobase, Inc. and 110
`Reynolds, LLC, SACV12-01661 JST (JPR), filed in the U.S. District Court
`for the Central District of California. Pet. 2. Dominion also filed four other
`petitions seeking inter partes review of the following patents: U.S. Patent
`
`2
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 2
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`No. 8,005,752 (IPR2013-00220); U.S. Patent No. 8,086,529 (IPR2013-
`00223); U.S. Patent No. 8,095,461 (IPR2013-00224); and U.S. Patent
`No. 8,396,791 (IPR2013-00225). Id.
`
`B. The Invention of the ’099 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The invention of the ’099 patent generally relates to alerting dealers
`when favorable financial terms are available to customers. Ex. 1001, 1:17-
`19. In particular, the invention of the ’099 patent generates and sends alerts
`to a dealer when a prospective customer is able to enter into a new financial
`arrangement under financial terms that are favorable to the customer. Ex.
`1001, 1:62-65; 22:5-8. Financial terms that are favorable to a customer are
`those in which the customer will pay less under a new financial arrangement
`than under an old financial arrangement. Ex. 1001, 22:8-11. However, in
`certain cases, a customer may find terms favorable to the customer even
`when the customer will pay more under the new financial arrangement, e.g.,
`purchasing a vehicle with a higher level of quality or luxury. Ex. 1001,
`22:11-15. A salesperson associated with the dealer can use the alerts to
`contact customers proactively and offer them a new financial agreement that
`would replace their old financial agreement. Ex. 1001, 4:26-28.
`
`Figure 39 of the ’099 patent illustrates a financial terms alert
`generation system attached to a computer network. Ex. 1001, 4:5-7; 21:4-6.
`Figure 39 is reproduced below:
`
`3
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 3
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`
`
`
`Figure 39 illustrates the local storages and modules that form the financial
`terms alert generation system.
`
`According to Figure 39, the financial terms alert generation system
`
`3905 includes the following local storages: financing information 3910;
`customer information 3915; and product information 3920. Ex. 1001, 21:6-
`11. The financial terms alert generation system 3905 also includes the
`following modules: a data entry module 3925; an information retrieval
`module 3930; a financial terms comparison module 3935; and an alert
`transmission module 3940. Id. The financial terms alert generation system
`3905 is connected via a computer network 3945 to external financing
`information 3950, external customer information 3955, external product
`4
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 4
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`information 3960, and at least one dealer terminal 3965. Ex. 1001, 21:11-
`15.
`
`The ’099 patent discloses that the information retrieval module 3930
`
`retrieves information automatically about products, customers, and financing
`from sources available on the network 3945, e.g., from the external
`financing information 3950, the external customer information 3955, and the
`external product information 3960. Ex. 1001, 21:45-50. Upon retrieving
`information about products, customers, and financing from sources available
`on the network 3945, the information retrieval module 3930 makes the
`information available to the financial terms alert generation system 3905,
`which in turn uses the information to perform calculations that are necessary
`to determine whether a customer advantageously can enter into a new
`financial agreement. Ex. 21:50-57. Thereafter, the alert transmission
`module generates alerts and sends those alerts to the dealer terminal 3965
`whenever the new information retrieved by the information retrieval module
`3930 affects whether a customer is able to enter into a new lease or purchase
`transaction. Ex. 1001, 22:51-55; 23:23-25.
`
`In one embodiment, the financial terms comparison module 3935
`
`performs the processing illustrated in block 3620 of Figure 36. Ex. 1001,
`19:16-18, 29-31. Figure 36 is reproduced below:
`
`5
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 5
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`
`
`Figure 36 illustrates a method of generating an alert.
`
`The process illustrated in Figure 36 generates an alert whenever the
`difference between the amount that a customer pays for a new, but
`comparable, financial arrangement as compared to the customer’s current
`financial arrangement is below a threshold value, e.g., the difference in
`payment amount is less than 10% of the current payment. Ex. 1001, 19:35-
`41.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent claims. Claims 2-7 directly or
`
`indirectly depend from independent claim 1; claims 9-12 directly depend
`from independent claim 8; and claims 14-20 directly depend from
`
`6
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 6
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`independent claim 13. Independent claims 1 and 8 are illustrative of the
`invention of the ’099 patent and are reproduced below:
`
`A
`
`financial
`
`system
`
`terms alert generation
`
`1.
`
`comprising:
`
`at least one computer-readable medium storing a plurality
`of software modules, wherein each of the software modules
`comprises computer-executable instructions; and
`
`computer hardware comprising at least one computer
`processor
`in communication with
`the computer-readable
`medium and configured to execute the software modules to
`generate and transmit an alert to a vehicle dealer to indicate that
`the vehicle dealer can replace a first vehicle of a customer with
`a second vehicle, wherein the software modules comprise:
`
`a vehicle comparison module configured to access at
`least one data repository that stores associations between
`comparable vehicles and to determine, based on one or more of
`the associations, a vehicle that is comparable to another vehicle;
`
`an information retrieval module configured to retrieve,
`from at least one data repository accessible via a computer
`network, customer information, first financial terms that the
`customer has for a first vehicle, first vehicle information,
`second vehicle information for a second vehicle that the vehicle
`comparison module determines is comparable to the first
`vehicle, and second financial terms available to the customer
`for the second vehicle, wherein the first financial terms and the
`second financial terms collectively comprise at least an amount
`due on the first vehicle, an existing periodic payment for the
`first vehicle, interest rates, payoff periods, and any dealer or
`manufacture
`incentives
`that are available, wherein
`the
`information retrieval module is configured to determine when
`retrieved information has changed since a previous retrieval of
`information;
`
`a value estimation module configured to estimate at least
`an equity value of the first vehicle from at least a portion of the
`
`7
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 7
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`
`customer information, the first financial terms, and the first
`vehicle information, the estimated equity value of the first
`vehicle based on a comparison between (1) a payoff amount
`associated with the first vehicle adjusted by a trade-in value
`associated with the first vehicle, and (2) the amount due on the
`first vehicle;
`
`a second vehicle cost calculation module configured to
`calculate a cost of the second vehicle by adjusting an average
`selling price associated with the second vehicle by the
`estimated equity value of the first vehicle and any of the dealer
`or manufacture incentives that are available;
`
`a financial terms generation module configured to
`generate adjusted second financial terms by analyzing the
`calculated cost of the second vehicle;
`
`a financial terms comparison module configured to
`automatically cause the computer hardware to periodically
`monitor the adjusted second financial [terms] if it is determined
`in real-time that the changed retrieved information may affect
`whether it is favorable for the customer to replace a first vehicle
`and first financial terms with a second vehicle and second
`financial
`terms, wherein
`the determination
`comprises
`calculating, based at least upon the estimated value of the first
`vehicle and the adjusted second financial terms, an available
`periodic payment for the second vehicle, calculating the
`difference between the available periodic payment for the
`second vehicle and the existing periodic payment for the first
`vehicle, and determining whether the difference is less than or
`equal to a preset acceptable threshold value;
`
`an alert generation and transmission module configured,
`when it is determined that it is favorable to the customer to
`replace the first vehicle and the first financial terms with the
`second vehicle and the adjusted second financial terms, to
`generate for the dealer an alert comprising information
`identifying the customer, the customer’s contact information,
`the first vehicle, the second vehicle, and the adjusted second
`financial terms and to transmit at least a notification of the alert
`8
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 8
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`
`to the dealer, wherein the alert comprises a deal sheet adapted
`to facilitate a replacement transaction in which the customer
`replaces the first vehicle with the second vehicle; and
`an alert management module configured to provide the
`
`dealer access to a plurality of alerts generated for the dealer
`and to allow the dealer to perform a plurality of management
`operations on the alerts, wherein the management operations
`are adapted to facilitate the dealer’s closing of a replacement
`transaction with a customer and comprise sorting the alerts,
`searching for and viewing a portion of the alerts, and
`assigning a status to an alert.
`
`Ex. 1001, Claims -- 24:39-25:56 (emphasis added).
`
`8.
`A method of providing an alert regarding a
`customer that has first financial terms for a first vehicle and that
`is able to enter into second financial terms for a second vehicle
`and that are favorable to the customer, the method comprising:
`
`accessing a plurality of computer-readable instructions;
`and
`executing the instructions on a computer system
`
`comprising computer hardware including at least one computer
`processor, wherein execution of the instructions by the
`computer processor causes the computer system to perform a
`plurality of operations comprising:
`
`retrieving from computer storage accessible via a
`computer network customer information, first financial terms
`that the customer has for a first vehicle, and first vehicle
`information;
`
`determining a second vehicle that is comparable to the
`first vehicle;
`
`retrieving from computer storage accessible via a
`computer network second vehicle information for the second
`vehicle and second financial terms available to the customer for
`the second vehicle;
`
`9
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 9
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`
`determining in real-time changes in retrieved
`
`information since a previous retrieval of information;
`
`determining in real-time whether the changed retrieved
`information may affect whether it is favorable for the customer
`to replace a first vehicle and first financial terms with a second
`vehicle and second financial terms, wherein the determining
`comprises:
`
`estimating at least an equity value of the first vehicle
`from at least a portion of the customer information, the first
`financial terms, and the first vehicle information, the estimated
`equity value of the first vehicle based on a comparison between
`a payoff amount associated with the first vehicle adjusted by a
`trade-in value associated with the first vehicle and an amount
`due on the first vehicle;
`
`calculating a cost of the second vehicle by adjusting an
`average selling price associated with the second vehicle with
`the estimated equity value of the first vehicle;
`
`generating adjusted second financial terms by analyzing
`the calculated cost of the second vehicle;
`
`determining a first alert parameter based at least in part
`on the first financial terms and the adjusted second financial
`terms;
`
`generating the alert; and
`
`transmitting the alert to the dealer.
`
`Ex. 1001, Claims -- 26:41-27:20 (emphasis added).
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Dominion relies upon the following prior art references:
`Ex. 1002
`Weiss
`
`US 2002/0035520 A1 Mar. 21, 2002
`Ex. 1003
`Sheets
`
`US 2001/0049653 A1 Dec. 6, 2001
`Ex. 1004
`Jones
`
`US 7,249,322 B2
`
`July 24, 2007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(filed Feb. 20, 2001)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 10
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`
`E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Dominion seeks to cancel claims 1-20 of the ’099 patent based on the
`alleged grounds of unpatentability set forth in the table below.
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`Weiss
`§ 102(b) 8-20
`Sheets
`§ 102(b) 8-20
`Weiss and Sheets
`§ 103(a) 1-20
`Weiss and Jones
`§ 103(a) 1-20
`Weiss, Sheets, and Jones § 103(a) 1-20
`
`
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011), we construe
`claims by applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). There is a “heavy
`presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`However, a “claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee
`acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the
`disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.” Id.
`“Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to
`describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity,
`
`11
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 11
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`1994).
`
`A. “Real-time” (Claims 1, 8 and 13)
`Neither Dominion nor AutoAlert provides an explicit claim
`construction for the claim term “real-time.” Upon reviewing the
`specification of the ’099 patent in its entirety, we note that the term “real-
`time” is discussed in connection with Figures 38 and 39. For instance, prior
`to discussing the process illustrated in Figure 38, the specification discloses
`that “one embodiment of the system can be used to determine, in real time,
`whether a deal can be presented to a customer, while the customer is, for
`example, in a dealership showroom.” Ex. 1001, 20:46-49. In addition,
`when discussing the functionality of the financial terms comparison module
`3935 illustrated in Figure 39, the specification discloses that it:
`performs a comparison for a particular identified customer and
`returns results of such a comparison in real time. When
`operating in this mode, the financial terms comparison module
`3935 can advantageously lead to the generation of an alert in
`real time while, for example, a customer is in a dealership
`showroom.
`
`Ex. 1001, 22:65-23:5 (emphasis added).
`
`However, these cited portions of the specification do not set forth an
`explicit definition for the claim term “real-time.” Therefore, we resort to its
`ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with
`ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`
`12
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 12
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`Electronics Terms, 6th ed. (1996) defines “real-time” as “pertaining to a
`system or mode of operation in which computation is performed during the
`actual time that an external process occurs, in order that the computation
`results can be used to control, monitor, or respond in a timely manner to the
`external process.” We adopt this construction because it is consistent with
`the use of the term “real-time” in the specification of the ’099 patent.
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Ground of Unpatentability -- Weiss
`Claims 8-20
`Dominion contends that claims 8-20 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) by Weiss. Pet. 41-59. In particular, Dominion relies upon claim
`charts to explain how Weiss allegedly describes the subject matter recited in
`these claims, and the Declaration of Ward A. Hanson, Ph.D. (Ex. 1005) and
`his corresponding claim chart (Ex. 1016) to support its positions. Id. We
`have considered Dominion’s analysis and supporting evidence, as well as
`AutoAlert’s arguments, but are not persuaded that Weiss accounts properly
`for the following claim limitations: (1) “determining in real-time changes in
`retrieved information since a previous retrieval of information,” as recited in
`independent claim 8 and (2) “retrieving in real-time changed information
`associated with the customer information, the first financial terms that the
`customer has for the first vehicle, the first vehicle information, the second
`vehicle, or the second financial terms available to the customer for the
`second vehicle,” as recited in independent claim 13.
`
`13
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 13
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`
`We begin our analysis with a general discussion of Weiss, followed
`by a discussion of the scope and breadth of the claim limitations at issue, and
`then we turn to Dominion’s three positions with respect to Weiss that
`allegedly describes determining and retrieving changes to previously stored
`information in “real-time,” as is required by independent claims 8 and 13.
`Weiss discloses a system for facilitating evaluations and transactions relating
`to real and other properties. Ex. 1002, ¶ 0016. A core property valuation
`system includes one or more servers having access to one or more databases
`of historical real estate sales and real estate characteristics information. Ex.
`1002, ¶ 0025. Application systems may be linked to the property valuation
`system and include or access various companion functional modules. Ex.
`1002, ¶ 0026. These functional modules are configured to generate certain
`types of information or perform certain tasks using information from the
`property valuation system and other relevant information. Id. Weiss
`discloses a total of thirteen different functional modules,1 any or all of which
`
`1 Weiss describes the following individual functional modules:
`Automatically Adjusting Equity Loan (AAEL) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 0085-97);
`Equity Card (EC) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 0098-102); Unsecured Debt Conversion
`(UDC) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 0103-120); Rapid Close (RC) Conforming Loan (Ex.
`1002, ¶¶ 0121-132); Automated PMI Removal (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 0133-142);
`Property Rating & Ranking (R&R) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 0143-193); Property
`Evaluation & Alert (E&A) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 0194-202); Seller-Based Property
`Rating (SPR) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 0203-207); Relocation Alert (RA) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶
`0208-218); Relocation Forecasting (RF) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 0219-256); Property
`Tradeoff (PT) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 0257-298); Broker Evaluation (BE) (Ex. 1002,
`¶¶ 0299-337); and Property Guaranteed Valuation (PGV) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶
`0338-356).
`
`14
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 14
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`may be embodied in a given system. Ex. 1002, ¶ 0084. Certain modules
`may extend or interact with other modules. See e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 0211.
`While the property valuation system is described primarily with respect to
`real property, Weiss also discloses that the property valuation system may be
`configured to accommodate any type of property where sales and
`characteristics information is available, including vehicles such as cars or
`boats. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 0025, 0359].
`One of the functional modules disclosed in Weiss is a relocation alert
`(RA) system. Ex. 1002, ¶ 0046. The RA system provides a client with the
`capability to evaluate buying opportunities in a second market relative to a
`first market. Id. Markets may be defined in a variety of manners, such as a
`certain geographic location, a certain tier or price range in a given
`geographic location, a certain type of property regardless of the price, etc.,
`and the first and second markets can be defined differently. Ex. 1002,
`¶¶0047, 0210. The RA system tracks the second market with respect to the
`first market over time and determines when the difference between the
`property value of a subject property in the first market and the property
`value of a candidate property in the second market falls below a certain
`threshold. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 0048, 0215. Upon such a determination, the RA
`system generates an alert informing the client that it is advantageous to seek
`a property in the second market. Id. The RA system may be implemented
`as an extension of the separately described evaluation and alert (E&A)
`system and also can include one or more components of the separately
`described rating and ranking (R&R) system. Ex. 1002, ¶ 0211. Weiss does
`
`15
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 15
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`not describe explicitly the RA system directly interacting with or relying on
`systems other than the E&A and R&R systems.
`Independent claim 8 recites “determining in real-time changes in
`retrieved information since a previous retrieval of information.” It is
`implicit that the information that changes first must be stored because the
`“real-time” determination in independent claim 8 is based on the “previous
`retrieval of information.” Independent claim 13 recites “retrieving in real-
`time changed information associated with the customer information, the first
`financial terms that the customer has for the first vehicle, the first vehicle
`information, the second vehicle, or the second financial terms available to
`the customer for the second vehicle.” Similar to our claim construction
`above, it is implicit that the vehicle or financial information that changes
`first must be stored because the “real-time” retrieval in independent claim 8
`is based on changes to any one of customer information, first financial terms
`that a customer has for a first vehicle, first vehicle information, second
`vehicle information, or second financial terms available to the customer for
`the second vehicle. With this claim construction in mind, we turn to the
`merits of Dominion’s proposed ground of unpatentability based on
`anticipation by Weiss.
`First, Dominion takes the position that because Weiss discloses
`“automated valuation [that are] determined substantially in real-time,”
`Weiss describes determining and retrieving changes to information in “real-
`time,” as is required by independent claims 8 and 13. Pet. 46 (citing to Ex.
`1002, ¶ 0034). We do not agree. Weiss discloses that when a traditional
`
`16
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 16
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`appraisal is required for a subject property -- in this case, a vehicle -- there
`will be two property valuations: (1) an automated valuation and (2) a
`traditional valuation. Ex. 1002, ¶ 0034. In particular, Weiss discloses
`determining the automated valuation “substantially in real-time.” Id. To
`establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as is
`recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Karsten
`Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
`2001). There is no indication in Weiss that the automated valuation
`encompasses determining and retrieving changes to previously stored
`vehicle or financial information during the actual time such changes occur.
`Therefore, Dominion has not shown that Weiss’ automated valuation
`determines or retrieves changes to previously stored information in “real-
`time,” as is required by independent claims 8 and 13.
`Second, Dominion takes the position that because Weiss discloses that
`the “property valuation system 160, or some other source, is included to
`provide real-time current property valuations,” Weiss describes determining
`and retrieving changes to information in “real-time,” as is required by
`independent claims 8 and 13. Pet. 46 (citing to Ex. 1002, ¶ 0106.) We do
`not agree. There is no indication in Weiss that the property valuation system
`is capable of determining and retrieving changes to previously stored vehicle
`or financial information during the actual time such changes occur. Even if
`Weiss’ property valuation system is capable of doing so, that does not mean
`that it in fact occurs. Therefore, Dominion has not shown that Weiss’
`property valuation system determines or retrieves changes to previously
`
`17
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 17
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`stored information in “real-time,” as is required by independent claims 8 and
`13.
`
`Finally, Dominion takes that position that because Weiss tracks
`markets over time and performs evaluations from time-to-time, it is at least
`inherent that that the system determines changes in information since the
`previous retrieval of information. Pet. 46 (citing to Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 0048, 0215,
`0223; Ex. 1016, G34, G51). In response, AutoAlert contends that
`determining or retrieving changes to information in “real-time” does not
`result necessarily from the express disclosure in Weiss. Prel. Resp. 32.
`AutoAlert argues that a market may be tracked over time without the
`tracking taking place in real-time. Id. We agree with AutoAlert.
`Weiss discloses that the RA system is configured to track markets of
`interest over time, which includes performing evaluations of such markets
`from time-to-time. Ex. 1002, ¶ 0215. Weiss also discloses that the
`relocation forecasting and alert (RF) system is configured to provide updated
`or new forecasts from time-to-time. Ex. 1002, ¶ 0223. While Weiss’
`disclosure of two disparate systems tracking markets and performing
`evaluations from time-to-time may include determining and retrieving
`changes to previously stored vehicle or financial information during the
`actual time such changes occur, mere probabilities or possibilities fall short
`of demonstrating that Weiss necessarily describes determining or retrieving
`changes to previously stored information in “real-time,” as claimed.
`“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The
`mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
`
`18
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 18
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir.
`1999)(citations omitted). As such, Dominion improperly relied upon the
`theory of inherency when alleging that Weiss’ RA and RF systems describe
`determining or retrieving changes to previously stored information in “real-
`time,” as is required by independent claims 8 and 13.
`Dominion has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`on its assertion that independent claims 8 and 13 are anticipated under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b) by Weiss because Dominion’s positions with respect to
`Weiss do not account properly for determining or retrieving changes to
`previously stored information in “real-time.” Claims 9-12 and 14-20
`directly depend from independent claims 8 and 13. For the same reasons
`discussed above with respect to independent claims 8 and 13, Dominion has
`not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`dependent claims 9-12 and 14-20 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`by Weiss.
`
`B. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Ground of Unpatentability -- Sheets
`Claims 8-20
`
`Dominion contends that claims 8-20 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) by Sheets. Pet. 41-59. In particular, Dominion relies upon claim
`charts to explain how Sheets allegedly describes the subject matter recited in
`these claims, and the Declaration of Dr. Hanson (Ex. 1005) and his
`corresponding claim chart (Ex. 1016) to support its positions. Id. We have
`considered Dominion’s analysis and supporting evidence, as well as
`
`19
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2007, Page 19
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00222
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,099
`
`AutoAlert’s arguments, but are not persuaded that Sheets accounts properly
`for the following claim limitations: (1) “determining in real-time changes in
`retrieved information since a previous retrieval of information,” as recited in
`independent claim 8 and (2) “retrieving in real-time changed information
`associated with the customer information, the first financial terms that the
`customer has for the first vehicle, the first vehicle information, the second
`vehicle, or the second financial terms available to