throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 6,618,593
`
`For: LOCATION DEPENDENT USER
`MATCHING SYSTEM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF STEPHEN B. HEPPE, D.SC.
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`I, Stephen B. Heppe, hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as a technical consultant on behalf of Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., the petitioner in the present proceeding. I am being
`
`compensated for my time at my usual rate, which is not dependent upon the
`
`outcome of this inter partes review or any litigation. I have no financial
`
`interest in, or affiliation with, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America,
`
`LLC, which I understand are the real parties-in-interest of the petition. I also
`
`have no financial interest in, or affiliation with, Black Hills Media, LLC.
`
`2.
`
`In providing this declaration I have reviewed the following documents:
`
`LG EXHIBIT 1005
`
`Page 1 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`a. U.S. Patent No. 6,618,593 (“the ’593 Patent”) and its prosecution
`
`history (which are identified in the Petition respectively as Exhibits
`
`1001 and 1002);
`
`b. International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2000/022860 to
`
`Degnbol (which is identified in the Petition as Exhibit 1003;
`
`hereinafter “Degnbol”);
`
`c. U.S. Patent No. 5,948,040 to DeLorme et al. (which is identified in
`
`the Petition as Exhibit 1004; hereinafter “DeLorme”).
`
`3.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention of the ’593 patent would have at least a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`science, or the equivalent, and one to two years of experience in the field of
`
`computer communications, telecommunications, and/or communications
`
`networking.
`
`4.
`
`I have attached my curriculum vitae hereto as Exhibit 1006. My relevant
`
`education and experience is described below.
`
`5.
`
`I hold a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from Princeton
`
`University, which I obtained in 1977. I also hold an M.S. and D.Sc. in
`
`Electrical Engineering and Communications from George Washington
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`University, which I obtained in 1982 and 1989, respectively. I specialized in
`
`radio communications, electro-physics, and operations research. My
`
`doctoral research was in the area of radar direction-finding.
`
`6.
`
`I have an independent consulting practice in the area of telecommunications
`
`and GPS navigation. I have been active in the telecommunications and
`
`satellite-based navigation industries for 35 years. Over these years, I have
`
`variously supported, designed, and managed the development of terrestrial
`
`and satellite-based communications, navigation, and surveillance systems for
`
`commercial entities and Government programs. This includes computer
`
`communications, telecommunications, and communications networking. For
`
`example, during my tenure at Insitu, Inc., from 2002 to 2009, I was
`
`responsible for the GPS navigation system and the DGPS-based precision
`
`navigation system used for recovery of un-manned aircraft. During my
`
`tenure at Stanford Telecommunications, Inc., I participated in the
`
`development of GPS-based navigation systems for aircraft, spacecraft and
`
`ground vehicles, as well as the development of air-to-air surveillance
`
`systems and relative positioning systems based on ATCRBS/Mode-S. I also
`
`helped develop a prototype vehicular position reporting and fleet
`
`management system that relied on GPS and communicated wirelessly with a
`
`central control station. I chaired Working Group 6 of RTCA’s Special
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`Committee 159 (GPS), and participated in the development of international
`
`standards for the Wide Area Augmentation System, the Ground-Based
`
`Augmentation System, command and control links for unmanned aircraft
`
`operating in the U.S. National Airspace, and ICAO’s technical standards for
`
`VHF Data Link Mode 4 that relies on GPS navigation and timing to move
`
`position reports and other data among participating aircraft and ground
`
`stations, and also to organize the radio communications channel for
`
`maximum throughput. I also teach a course on interference and jamming of
`
`GPS and a course on communications theory and data links. My work
`
`experience is detailed further in my CV, Exhibit 1006.
`
`Background in the Technology of the ’593 Patent
`
`7.
`
`The ’593 patent pertains generally to a location-dependent user matching
`
`system that provides information about the location where matching users
`
`are located. The inventors, however, did not invent the particular devices,
`
`electronics, hardware, position-locating technology, such as GPS, wireless
`
`or mobile communications technology, or matching algorithms described in
`
`the patent. These components were all already disclosed and well known in
`
`the prior art. Furthermore, at the time of the alleged invention, location-
`
`based user matching was already well known. For example, known systems
`
`and methods included applications such as providing directory services,
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`providing motorist assistance, matchmaking, locating friends and buddies,
`
`military and aircraft applications, and many others.
`
`8.
`
`The ’593 patent discusses the prior art Vindigo system. The Vindigo system
`
`was an Internet-based “find-it” service in which a user of a Palm personal
`
`data assistant having wireless connectivity to the Internet could request
`
`directory information on service providers/vendors, such as the location of
`
`the nearest restaurant or movie theater. Ex. 1001 at 1:14-34. The ‘593
`
`patent criticizes the Vindigo system, stating that the user was required to
`
`manually enter their location, which could not be automatically tracked on
`
`the Palm personal digital assistant. Id. at 1:30-34.
`
`9.
`
`The ’593 patent also discusses the prior art OnStar system that provides
`
`motorist assistance via cellular communications, location-enabled mobile
`
`devices, and a manned service center. Users contacted the service center
`
`using wireless communication devices for services such as driving directions
`
`or roadside assistance. Ex. 1001 at 1:35-48. In addition, in the event of an
`
`accident, OnStar received the location of the vehicle and could dispatch an
`
`emergency vehicle even if the user is incapacitated. The ‘593 patent
`
`criticizes the OnStar system, stating that it does not provide an ability for
`
`two OnStar-equipped cars to exchange information about each other’s
`
`location. Id. at 1:45-48.
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`10. Matching based on user profiles and preferences of mobile communications
`
`devices was also already well known in the art circa 2000. For example,
`
`Degnbol discloses mobile communications devices that, when a match is
`
`found between profiles of users, information about the location of the
`
`matched user is transmitted to one or both of the users, depending on their
`
`preferences.
`
`Overview of the ’593 Patent
`
`11. The ’593 patent discloses a system for matching two users of mobile
`
`communications devices based on their user profiles. A central unit stores
`
`the user profiles for the users in the system and determines if the user
`
`profiles match. One of the criteria used for matching in the user profiles
`
`may be the current location of each mobile communications devices, which
`
`in at least one embodiment is regularly transmitted to the central unit. A
`
`further criterion may be a user-configurable “user receiving status” or “user
`
`sending status,” explained in more detail below. If these conditions are met,
`
`then information based on both users’ locations is provided to one or both of
`
`the users.
`
`12. The claims of the ‘593 patent all require, at a minimum: 1) first and second
`
`mobile communications devices for transmitting information defining the
`
`location of each device, respectively; see ‘593 patent at 16:49-54 (claim 1),
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`17:28-33 (claim 4), 17:65-18:3 (claim 7); 2) a user “status,” which is either a
`
`receiving status or a sending status to indicate whether information sharing
`
`is allowed; see id. at 16:50-54 (claim 1), 17:30 (claim 4), 18:3 (claim 7); and
`
`3) a central unit having a processor coupled to a memory; see id. at 16:55-
`
`17:12 (claim 1), 17:34-54 (claim 4), 18:4-23 (claim 7). The central unit must
`
`be capable of communicating with the first and second mobile
`
`communications devices over first and second wireless communications
`
`links, respectively. See id. at 16:55-60 (claim 1); 17:34-39 (claim 4); 18:4-9
`
`(claim 7). The memory of the central unit stores user profile data for the
`
`users and the processor receives information defining the locations of the
`
`users and the receiving and/or sending statuses. See id. at 16:60-68 (claim
`
`1); 17:39-47 (claim 4); 18:9-16 (claim 7). The central unit’s processor
`
`matches information of the users and, if there is a match and the user status
`
`or statuses are appropriately set, transmits locating information to at least
`
`one of the users. See id. at 17:1-8 (claim 1); 17:47-52 (claim 4); 18:13-21
`
`(claim 7). The locating information is based upon the information defining
`
`the locations of both the first and the second mobile communications
`
`devices. See id. at 17:9-11 (claim 1); 17:52-54 (claim 4); 18:21-23 (claim
`
`7).
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`13. The ‘593 patent describes the “user receiving status” as data that “indicates
`
`whether the associated mobile communications device is accepting data or
`
`requests from other mobile communications devices or the central server
`
`25.” Ex. 1001 at 6:63-67. At a high level, in relation to claims 1 and 4, a
`
`user will not receive information about matches if its user receive status is
`
`set to not accept data or requests. The “user sending status” of claim 7 is
`
`similar, but instead of indicating whether the user’s device will receive data,
`
`it indicates whether a user permits the system to notify other users about his
`
`or her own location. Id. at 7:1-4; 8:57-9:2; 14:18-32. Both the send and
`
`receive statuses may be manually set by the user of the mobile
`
`communications devices. Id. at 7:11-15; 7:47-49; 7:61-65. The statuses
`
`may also be stored at the central server.
`
`14. The independent claims of the ’593 patent are generally similar with small
`
`variations. Claims 1 and 4 both include limitations directed to the “user
`
`receiving status,” and not the “user sending status.” Claim 1 involves the
`
`“user receiving status” of both a first and second user, and claim 4 involves
`
`only the “user receiving status” of a first user. Claim 7 includes the “user
`
`sending status” and not the “user receiving status.” In Claim 1, the
`
`respective location information of the matched user is sent to each mobile
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`communication device, while in claims 4 and 7 the location information is
`
`only sent to one of the devices.
`
`15. Claim 15, which depends from claims 1, 4, and 7, includes the limitation that
`
`the “the locating information includes a map, vectors, directions, and an
`
`address.” None of these terms is explicitly defined in the ‘593 patent, but is
`
`each understood by persons of skill in the art. The terms “map,”
`
`“directions,” and “address” are familiar to laypersons as well as persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to be types of information that are generally used to
`
`find a location of interest: a graphical representation of a physical area, a
`
`textual sequence of steps to follow to arrive at a destination, and a unique
`
`identifier for a physical location, respectively. The term “vector” is not
`
`commonly used by laypersons, but its ordinary meaning to persons of skill is
`
`a representation of a direction and a magnitude. In the context of the
`
`mapping arts the magnitude of a vector would generally be understood to
`
`mean a distance, however, the term is not specifically defined within the
`
`specification or the file history of the ‘593 patent.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`16.
`
`I have been asked to opine about the construction of the terms that appear in
`
`the limitations of the ’593 patent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`understand that in the present proceeding, claim terms are interpreted as the
`
`broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification or “BRC.”
`
`17. The BRC for “user receiving status” is “information indicating whether the
`
`device is currently able to receive data or requests from other mobile
`
`communications devices or the central server.” The specification essentially
`
`defines the term to a person of ordinary skill in the art when it discloses that
`
`“receive status data . . . indicates whether the associated mobile
`
`communications device is accepting data or requests from other mobile
`
`communications devices or the central server.” Id. at 6:63-67. Examples in
`
`the ‘593 patent support this construction. “[F]or example, the user may
`
`only wish to receive a matching notification from the central server after
`
`5:00 PM on weekdays and sets his communications device availability
`
`accordingly.” Id. at 7:49-52.
`
`18. The “user sending status” is similar to the “user receiving status,” except that
`
`it determines whether data or requests can be sent rather than received. Id.
`
`at 7:1-7. The specification explains that “[t]he transmit [sending] status data
`
`works similarly in that it indicates to the mobile communications device
`
`itself, whether requests or data should be sent to other mobile
`
`communications devices or to the central server.” Id. The central server
`
`determines whether two mobile communications devices “match” based on
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`criteria which include the “transmit/receive status data.” Id. at 8:64-9:2; see
`
`also id. 14: 18-22. This is consistent with various examples in the ‘593
`
`patent. For example, in a commercial embodiment, users of an organ donor
`
`matching system “may be provided the ability to participate in [such a]
`
`donation program by setting their ‘availability’ appropriately.” Id. at 12:65-
`
`13:20. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that users
`
`of an organ donor matching program would involve two kinds of
`
`participants, potential donors and potential recipients. A person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that a potential donor’s
`
`“participat[ion]” in the program would involve setting their user sending
`
`status, such that potential recipients (and, presumably, the donor matching
`
`program itself) could be alerted that a donor had been located. A potential
`
`donor that was not participating would not want potential recipients to be
`
`improperly alerted of their presence, and so would set their user sending
`
`status to disable notices. The BRC for “user sending status” is accordingly
`
`“information indicating whether data should be sent to other mobile
`
`communications devices.”
`
`The Degnbol Patent
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`19. Degnbol is entitled “A Method and a System For Transmitting Data
`
`Between Units.” It was filed on October 12, 1999, and lists a priority date of
`
`October 12, 1998. It was published internationally on April 20, 2000.
`
`20. Degnbol discloses a system for matching mobile devices based on user
`
`profiles and proximity. “When a match is found between the Personal
`
`Profiles of user ‘A’ and user ‘B’ an alert is transmitted to user ‘A’, user ‘B,’
`
`or both, depending on their respective preferences. The particular effect of
`
`this information is to enable user ‘A’ to be notified of the presence of others
`
`users with matching Personal Profiles.” Degnbol, 18:29–33. Figure 1 from
`
`Degnbol is illustrative of the system’s operation:
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`Figure 1 illustrates two mobile communications device users, user ‘A’ and user
`
`‘B.’ Position reports, represented in Figure 1 by dashed arrows, flow from
`
`the users’ mobile communications devices through a wireless network to a
`
`processor coupled to a database. Figure 1 shows that “User B” has just
`
`entered the area of interest for “User A,” and as a consequence, if a match is
`
`found, alerts flow back from the processor, through the wireless network, to
`
`the two users.
`
`21. Degnbol discloses the processor receiving user profiles that are used to
`
`match information of the users. See, e.g., id. at 3:6-9, 16:7-9, 16:18-21,
`
`19:7-12, 20:34-21:6, and Figure 3. “The Personal Profile is continuously
`
`compared with the Personal Profiles of other nearby users — when a match
`
`is found an alert is sent to the user(s).” Id. at 19:7-12.
`
`22. Degnbol discloses a database, also shown in Figure 1, that stores position
`
`data for the users in the system. The database “contains status information
`
`on active units, including their latest reported position. . . . Position data is
`
`dynamically updated; an example is shown in Table 2.” Degnbol, 21:24-
`
`22:13. Degnbol discloses “[t]he database also includes permission
`
`information that determines whether other users may be notified of the
`
`user’s activity. This database is relatively static, but may be dynamically
`
`updated to reflect changes user preferences [sic].” Id. at 21:23-29.
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`23. The “permissions” disclosed in Degnbol include an ability to disable
`
`incoming alerts from other units, as well as an “incognito” mode to disable
`
`alerts to other units of the position of the “incognito” unit. See Degnbol at
`
`13:10-8; 21:23-19.
`
`24. Degnbol also discloses how preferences for receiving alerts from other units
`
`are represented in its system. For example, Table 1 includes two profiles for
`
`a user “JohnS” with slightly different characteristics:
`
`
`
`Each of the two profiles, which a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand are represented by the separate lines in Table 1, includes
`
`an “Altering [sic] Times” field which determines what times of day JohnS
`
`wishes to receive alerts; a “Geo Area” field which indicates the proximity
`
`threshold for matching; and a “Users” field which identifies units with which
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`JohnS’s mobile unit may be matched. See Degnbol at 22:3-5 (“[U]ser JohnS
`
`has two profiles . . . [t]he first will alert him of any user with specified
`
`interests in a nearby area; the second will alert him of a specific user
`
`reaching a particular map point.”). Among these preferences, the alerting
`
`time represents a status that the user does not which to receive data during
`
`specific times. See, e.g., id. at 10:28-29 (“[U]ser ‘A’ can configure the
`
`system so that he does not receive any alerts between 10 PM and 8 AM,
`
`avoiding nightly interruptions.”); 20:13-16 (“He then clicks a ‘Preferences’
`
`and selects e.g. a ‘No alerts during night time’ option -- even though he’s a
`
`great fan of Manchester United, he does not want to be woken up by his
`
`wireless phone when a fellow Manchester United fan walks past his house at
`
`3 AM . . .”). A person of ordinary skill would understand the “alerting time”
`
`to be information indicating whether the device is currently able to receive
`
`data or requests from other mobile communications devices or the central
`
`server, since the device will not receive alerts (i.e., data) from the central
`
`server about other devices outside of the specified alerting time.
`
`25. Degnbol discloses in one example a user electing to be matched with fans of
`
`the sports team Manchester United. Degnbol at 20:7-16. The user can then
`
`configure his profile to prevent alerts from being received by his mobile
`
`communication device during the night time: “He then clicks a ‘Preferences’
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`and selects e.g. a ‘No alerts during night time’ option - even though he's a
`
`great fan of Manchester United, he does not want to be woken up by his
`
`wireless phone when a fellow Manchester United fan walks past his house at
`
`3 AM ...” Degnbol at 20:13-16. To the extent that this disclosure is not a
`
`“user receiving status”, a person of ordinary skill would have been
`
`motivated to include a user receiving status in the system disclosed in
`
`Degnbol. The BRC of “user receiving status” is “information indicating
`
`whether the device is currently able to receive data or requests from other
`
`mobile communications devices or the central server,” and a person of
`
`ordinary skill would appreciate the benefit of including an explicit
`
`information in the user profile that indicates whether a device is currently
`
`able to receive data or requests from other mobile communications devices
`
`or the central server. Degnbol already discloses that users in its system can
`
`elect to not be able to receive alerts from the central server. See, e.g., id. at
`
`10:27-29. An alert, to a person of skill, would be a kind of data. In order for
`
`the central server to determine whether or not to send an alert to any given
`
`receiving device, it would need to know which devices do not wish to
`
`receive alerts, which would need to be represented in the system of the
`
`central server. A person of ordinary skill would acknowledge that a number
`
`of other types of information, for example governing the matching of users
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`and transmitting of alerts, already exist in the database of Degnbol, and that
`
`one additional criterion in the database would require nothing more than
`
`known techniques, without undue experimentation. It would also be
`
`apparent to a person of skill to try to represent a user’s desire to not be
`
`disturbed, using information that is communicated by the mobile
`
`communication device to the central server, as described in the ‘593 patent.
`
`See, e.g., ‘593 patent at claims 1, 4. The functionality to allow a user to
`
`elect to not be disturbed is described in Degnbol, and the use of a data record
`
`to represent that status is one of a finite number of ways of implementing
`
`such a feature.
`
`26. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand “incognito” mode
`
`to be a mode where other units are not alerted of the “incognito” unit’s
`
`position, even if the units would otherwise be matched. Degnbol at 21:23-
`
`19. Degnbol describes users being able to “disable and re-enable their
`
`participation in the system at will—even on a per-person basis—whenever
`
`they wish to be alone or pass through an area incognito.” Id. at 13:13-15.
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand this disclosure to
`
`include the ability to be “incognito” with respect to all other users of the
`
`system, to avoid being matched with anyone entirely. Degnbol also
`
`discloses how permissions are represented in its system in Table 1.
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`
`
`Each of the two profiles includes a “Permissions” field which indicates
`
`which users should be checked for matches with JohnS’s mobile unit. See
`
`Degnbol at 21:25-26 (“The database also includes permission information
`
`that determines whether other users may be notified of the user's activity.”);
`
`22:6-8 (“JohnS has set permissions that allow his position information to be
`
`provided to certain other users selected by him.”) (emphasis added); 20:27-
`
`28 (“User B’s profile includes a permission to notify User A of his
`
`whereabouts.”) A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that the user could also set the Permissions to include no other users to alert,
`
`which would accomplish the function of the “incognito” mode.
`
`27. A person having ordinary skill in the art would also understand that Degnbol
`
`discloses a user being able to set their preferences dynamically using the
`
`mobile device itself, which would include the ability to configure
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`“incognito” mode. Degnbol discloses that “incognito” mode can be entered
`
`“at will.” Degnbol at 13:13-15. It also discloses users being able to set the
`
`characteristics in their profiles from the mobile unit itself, which would be
`
`understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to include setting
`
`fields in the profile, including permissions. See, e.g., id. at 15:21-23
`
`(“Personal profiles can be submitted . . . directly from the handset of the
`
`users [sic] cellular phone.”). Degnbol also discloses exemplary uses of the
`
`system where alerts are made based on unexpected circumstances, for
`
`example a car breaking down or needing a taxi because of a missed bus. Id.
`
`at 17:5-19. Such uses would necessarily require the ability to set
`
`permissions dynamically, because the user would need to add information
`
`representing, respectively, “mechanics” or “taxi” to the user’s instant
`
`preferences and list of allowed recipients. If the user’s permissions did not
`
`already include permissions to alert mechanics or taxis, no match would be
`
`made and the user would not be able to locate a mechanic or hail a taxi as
`
`described by Degnbol.
`
`28. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the disclosure of
`
`“incognito” mode in Degnbol to include modifying permissions, either on a
`
`global basis, or on a user-by-user basis (e.g., as shown in Table 1). This
`
`modification can be performed at the wireless communications device, with
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`associated data transmitted to the central server and stored in the user’s
`
`profile in the database. The permissions in the profile are then used by the
`
`processor in determining whether a match should be made and the user’s
`
`location sent to other users in the system in the form of an alert. See, e.g., id.
`
`at 23:26-24:4. Degnbol describes that the processor periodically scans
`
`through the database to check for changed positions. Id. at 23:25-23:2. For
`
`users with changed positions, the profiles are examined to see if the user is
`
`in proximity with other matching users and should be alerted. Id. at 24:1-2.
`
`“This initial scan takes into account interests, permissions, and alerting
`
`times, and in fact any information available in the Profiles database.” Id. at
`
`24:2-4 (emphasis added). A person of ordinary skill would understand the
`
`“permissions” to be information indicating, in part, whether data should be
`
`sent to other mobile communications devices, since other devices will not
`
`receive alerts from matching with a user unless the user’s permissions are
`
`appropriately set.
`
`29. A person of ordinary skill would also understand the benefit of
`
`implementing a “user sending status” in the system of Degnbol to the extent
`
`it is not disclosed by “permissions.” Degnbol’s disclosure of the “incognito”
`
`feature prevents a mobile communication device from triggering alerts, even
`
`if it is successfully matched with another device. See, e.g., Degnbol at
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`21:23-19. For an incognito user, an alert sent based on the incognito user
`
`matching another user would be “data . . . sent to other mobile
`
`communications devices.” Similar to the “user receiving status,” described
`
`above in paragraph 25, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that in
`
`order for the central server to act (or not act) based on a user’s “incognito”
`
`status, it would need to have access to the fact that the user is “incognito,”
`
`and that based on Degnbol’s disclosure of checks being performed against a
`
`user’s profile, the user profile would be a convenient place to store that
`
`information (i.e., so that it could be made available for the processing
`
`performed in the central server). This would be an obvious design choice, as
`
`the profile is already used to determine whether an alert should be sent, and
`
`is populated with information received from the user.
`
`30. Degnbol discloses that the alert may include a “pointer.” A person of
`
`ordinary skill would understand the disclosure of a “pointer” to refer to an
`
`arrow on a map indicating a position of a matched user. “The generated
`
`message may comprise text, e.g. information about the distance between
`
`user ‘A’ and user ‘B’, graphics, such as an image or an icon, a map or
`
`diagram with a pointer showing the location of the user, . . ., or any
`
`combination thereof.” Degnbol, at 5:16–20. A person of ordinary skill
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`would also understand that the position (indicated by the pointer) would
`
`indicate, either explicitly or implicitly, the direction to the matched user.
`
`31. Degnbol discloses that, in one embodiment, alert messages may be sent with
`
`increasing frequency as the proximity between two matched mobile
`
`communication units decreases. See, e.g., id. at 5:22-24. A person of
`
`ordinary skill would understand this embodiment to necessarily also include
`
`that the central server continues to receive location updates from both
`
`mobile communication devices after a successful match, and continues to
`
`check the match conditions to send successive updates. A person of
`
`ordinary skill would also understand this embodiment to disclose that the
`
`location information of both devices is “updated to track a movement of at
`
`least one of the first and the second mobile communications devices” as
`
`required by claim 17 of the ‘593 patent. The location information is
`
`necessarily continuously updated in order to provide the disclosed alerts
`
`with increasing frequency as proximity decreases; if the location information
`
`were not updated, the system would not be able to send updates that vary
`
`based on the changing proximity of the mobile communication devices. A
`
`person of ordinary skill would understand that this either explicitly or
`
`implicitly discloses “to track a movement,” as that skilled person would
`
`understand that receiving, checking, and acting based on the position of a
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`subject of interest is “tracking.” Degnbol explicitly states that the “[u]sers of
`
`the system are constantly located by the systems universal tracking
`
`function.” Degnbol at 1:24-25 (emphasis added). Even if Degnbol were
`
`interpreted to not explicitly disclose tracking a movement of the mobile
`
`communication devices, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
`
`that the system disclosed in Degnbol would ordinarily continuously receive
`
`updated information on the devices, for example, when it discloses “the
`
`determination of a position of a unit in the set may comprise monitoring
`
`movements of a unit within a network comprising a plurality of cells.”
`
`Degnbol at 5:10-11. A person of ordinary skill would further understand
`
`that since the purpose of alerts is to notify a user of a matching device’s
`
`location, a user would want to receive updates as a matched user moves.
`
`Otherwise, the user may attempt to rendezvous with a matched user, only to
`
`discover that the other user had moved on. Configuring the central server to
`
`transmit alerts tracking the location of a matched user would require nothing
`
`more than the application of known techniques, such as transmitting alerts
`
`with the current location of the other device as already disclosed by
`
`Degnbol, with a better than reasonable likelihood of success and without
`
`undue experimentation. Furthermore, a user could “locate” or “find”
`
`another user based on nothing more than an alert of nothing more than
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 31
`
`

`

`Docket No. 032449.0032-US04
`
`increasing (or decreasing) frequency, merely by moving around, and
`
`preferentially by moving in a direction of increasing alert frequency.
`
`The DeLorme Patent
`
`32.
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,948,040 (“DeLorme”) issued on September 7, 1999 from
`
`an application filed on February 6, 1997 by DeLorme et al. DeLorme is
`
`entitled “Travel Reservation Information and Planning System.”
`
`33. DeLorme discloses transferring a se

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket