Filed By: Vivek Ganti (vg@hkw-law.com) Reg. No. 71,368; and
`
`
`Sharad K. Bijanki (sb@hkw-law.com) Reg. No. 73,400
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`TELULAR CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PERDIEM CO., LLC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00575
`
`U.S. Patent 9,003,499
`
`_________________
`
`SECOND PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ............................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Notice of related matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ...................................... 2
`
`1. Previous District Court Litigation ................................................................ 2
`
`2. Current District Court Litigation ................................................................. 2
`
`3. Patent Trial and Appeal Board ..................................................................... 2
`
`4. Related pending patent applications in the USPTO .................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Real party-in-interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ............................................ 3
`
`Notice of Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3-4)) ..... 3
`
`Grounds for Standing and Fees .................................................................... 4
`
`Statement of Relief Requested and Overview of the Challenge ................. 5
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications .................................................. 5
`
`Overview of Grounds for Unpatentability ................................................... 5
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 6
`
`VI.
`
`The Grounds for Unpatentability ................................................................. 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art ............................................................................... 7
`
`Ground 1: Fast anticipates claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 13-15, and 21 ...................... 8
`
`5. Fast anticipates independent claim 1, from which claims 2, 7, 9, 10, and
`
`13-15 depend ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`6. Fast anticipates Claim 2 ............................................................................. 22
`
`7. Fast anticipates dependent claim 6, upon which claims 7, 9, 10, and 13-15
`
`depend ................................................................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`8. Fast anticipates dependent claim 7 ............................................................ 26
`
`9. Fast Anticipates claims 9 and 10 ............................................................... 30
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Fast Anticipates claim 13 ................................................................. 33
`
`Fast Anticipates claim 14 ................................................................. 34
`
`Fast Anticipates claim 15 ................................................................. 34
`
`Fast anticipates independent claim 19, from which claim 21
`
`depends 35
`
`14.
`
`Fast anticipates claim 21 .................................................................. 36
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: The combination of Fast and Zou render obvious claims 2, 7,
`
`9, 10, 13-15, and 21 .............................................................................................. 37
`
`1. Overview of the combination of Fast and Zou .......................................... 37
`
`2. Fast and Zou render obvious independent claim 1, from which claims 2, 7,
`
`9, 10, and 13-15 depend ..................................................................................... 40
`
`3. Fast and Zou render claim 2 obvious ......................................................... 51
`
`4. Fast and Zou render obvious dependent claim 6, from which claims 7, 9,
`
`10, and 13-15 depend ......................................................................................... 52
`
`5. Fast and Zou render claim 7 obvious ......................................................... 54
`
`6. Fast and Zou render obvious claims 9 and 10 ........................................... 56
`
`7. Fast and Zou render obvious claim 13 ....................................................... 57
`
`8. Fast and Zou render obvious claim 14 ....................................................... 57
`
`9. Fast and Zou render obvious claim 15 ....................................................... 58
`
`10.
`
`Fast and Zou render obvious independent claim 19, from which
`
`claim 21 depends ............................................................................................... 58
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Fast and Zou render obvious claim 21 ............................................. 59
`
`VII.
`
`Certification of Compliance ....................................................................... 60
`
`VIII.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASE LAW
`
`United States Supreme Court
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ......................................... 38
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................... 38
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................. 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................ 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b) ............................................................................................ 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(c) ............................................................................................ 4
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ....................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ....................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3-4) ................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ......................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .......................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) ......................................................................................... 60
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ........................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ............................................................................. 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122 ............................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,003,499 (“’499 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`The file history of the ’499 Patent
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,327,258 (“Fast”)
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent App. No. 60/542,208 (“Fast Provisional”)
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2005/0156715 (“Zou”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Discrete Wireless’s Marcus GPS Fleet Management Application
`
`Product Brochure (“Marcus”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Success Stories in Fleet Tracking
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,949,608 (“Li”)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Software as a Service Article (“SaaS Article”)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen Heppe submitted in IPR2016-010164
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`gpsOne Documentation
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,765 (“Phillips”)
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Declaration of Vivek Ganti
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent Owner Perdiem Co., LLC sued GPS North America (“GPSNA”)
`
`alleging patent infringement relating to claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11, 12, and 16-20 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,003,499 (“the ’499 Patent”). PerdiemCo LLC v. TV Management,
`
`Inc. d/b/a GPS North America, Case No. 2:15-cv-01217 (E.D. Tex.). In response,
`
`GPSNA filed a first IPR petition challenging the claims asserted against it. See
`
`IPR2015-01064 (hereinafter “the first IPR”). Telular Corp (“Telular”) is a real
`
`party in interest in the first IPR.
`
`On November 17, 2016, GPSNA and Patent Owner settled its dispute and
`
`Patent Owner dismissed its suit against GPSNA with prejudice. The settlement
`
`agreement did not obligate GPSNA to move to terminate the first IPR. On
`
`December 5, 2016, the Board instituted trial on all challenged claims in the first
`
`IPR. Notwithstanding this institution decision, Patent Owner filed suit 8 days later,
`
`asserting the ‘499 Patent against Telular and others. PerdiemCo LLC v. Telular
`
`Corporation et al, Case No. 2-16-cv-01408 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Telular now submits this second IPR petition to challenge the remaining
`
`claims of the ’499 Patent. Specifically, this petition challenges claims 2, 7, 9, 10,
`
`13-15, and 21. These claims were not challenged in the first IPR. Petitioner
`
`Telular concurrently files a motion to join the instant petitioner with the first IPR.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`II. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`
`A. Notice of related matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`1. Previous District Court Litigation
`
`The Patent Owner previously filed lawsuits asserting the ’499 Patent in the
`
`following cases, each of which were pending in the Eastern District of Texas:
`
`PerdiemCo, LLC. v. Omnivations II, LLC D/B/A Fleetronix, Case No. 2:15-cv-
`
`00729; PerdiemCo, LLC. v. thingtech LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01218; PerdiemCo,
`
`LLC. v. LiveViewGPS, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01219; PerdiemCo LLC v. TV
`
`Management, Inc. d/b/a GPS North America, Case No. 2:15-cv-01217;
`
`PerdiemCo, LLC. v. Teletrac, Inc. et al; Case No. 2:15-cv-00730; PerdiemCo LLC
`
`v. Geotab Inc. et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-00726; Perdiem Co LLC v. GPS Logic,
`
`LLC; Case No. 2:15-cv-01216; PerdiemCo, LLC. v. Industrack LLC, Case No.
`
`2:15-cv-00727.
`
`2. Current District Court Litigation
`
`On December 13, 2016, Patent Owner filed the following suit in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas: PerdiemCo LLC v. Telular Corporation et al, Case No. 2-16-cv-
`
`01408.
`
`3. Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`The ’499 Patent is only one of ten related patents and two pending
`
`applications. The ’499 Patent, relates to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,525,425; 8,493,207;
`
`8,717,166; 8,223,012; 9,071,931; 8,149,113; 9,119,033; 9,319,471; 9,485,314;
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`most of which have been asserted in the above litigations. Five total petitions have
`
`been filed, each of which resulted in IPR institution:
`
`1. IPR2015-01061 (the ’012 Patent);
`
`2. IPR2015-01062 (the ’207 Patent);
`
`3. IPR2015-01063 (the ’166 Patent);
`
`4. IPR2015-01064 (the ’499 Patent); and
`
`5. IPR2015-01278 (the ’931 Patent).
`
`Petitioner concurrently files or intends to file IPR petitions that challenge the
`
`remaining claims of the 012 Patent and the 931 Patent. In addition, Petitioner
`
`intends to file IPR petitions challenging the claims of the 113, 033, 471, and 314
`
`Patents, all of which have been asserted against Petitioner in the related litigation.
`
`4. Related pending patent applications in the USPTO
`
`The ’499 Patent relates to the pending applications 14/629,347 and 15/200,592.
`
`B. Real party-in-interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties in interest are: SkyBitz, Inc, SkyBitz Petroleum Logistics,
`
`LLC f/k/a SmartLogix, LLC, SkyBitz Tank Monitoring Corporation f/k/a
`
`TankLink Corporation, TV Management d/b/a GPS North America, and Wayupay
`
`LLC d/b/a Reltima.
`
`C. Notice of Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3-4))
`
`Lead Counsel: Vivek Ganti (Reg. No. 71,368)
`
`Backup Counsel: Sharad Bijanki (Reg. No. 73,400)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`Address: HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP, 3350 Riverwood
`
`Parkway, Suite 800, Atlanta, GA 30339. Tel. 770.953.0995. Fax. 770.953.1358.
`
`
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service of papers by email at: vg@hkw-
`
`law.com and perdiemIPR2@hkw-law.com. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a
`
`Power of Attorney by Petitioner appointing each of the above designated counsel is
`
`concurrently filed.
`
`III. Grounds for Standing and Fees
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’499 Patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that the Petitioner is not estopped or barred from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims identified in the Petition, assuming the concurrently filed
`
`joinder motion is granted. Patent Owner served a patent infringement complaint
`
`asserting the ’499 Patent on RPI GPSNA on July 2, 2015. However, the one year
`
`bar does not apply when there is a timely joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 314(c). 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. Here, the instant IPR petition is timely
`
`because it is filed no later than one month after the institution of the first IPR
`
`which was December 5, 2016. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122.
`
`The undersigned provides an online USPTO deposit account to pay the
`
`required fees ($9,000 request fee, $14,000 post-institution fee, and any excess
`
`claim fees), as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition. The undersigned
`
`further authorizes payment for any additional fees (or fee deficiency) that might be
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`due in connection with this Petition to be charged to the Deposit Account 506541
`
`(Customer ID No. 87296).
`
`IV. Statement of Relief Requested and Overview of the Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 2, 7, 9, 10,
`
`13-15, and 21 of the ’499 Patent based on the grounds presented below.
`
`A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The ’499 Patent’s earliest priority claim is to Provisional Pat. App. No.
`
`60/752,876, which was filed December 23, 2005. Accordingly, Petitioner
`
`identifies the following prior art references relied upon in their invalidity grounds.
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 7,327,258 (“Fast,” submitted herein as Ex. 1003), filed Jan 31,
`
`2005, is prior art as an issued patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Fast claims
`
`priority to a provisional application filed Feb. 4, 2004, which is submitted
`
`herein as Ex. 1004. Petitioner reserves the right to rely on this provisional
`
`application in the event Patent Owner alleges an earlier date of invention.
`
`2. U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2005/0156715 (“Zou,” submitted herein as Ex. 1005),
`
`filed Jan. 16, 2004 and published in July, 31, 2005, is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) and as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`B. Overview of Grounds for Unpatentability
`
`In the first IPR, IPR2015-01064, Petitioner challenged claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11,
`
`12, and 16-20 of the ’499 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`That petition was supported by the Declaration of Dr. Stephen Heppe (submitted
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`herein as Ex. 1010), who has more than 30 years of experience in the field. The
`
`Board instituted trial on all claims and on all grounds. Here, this second IPR
`
`petition challenges the remaining claims, claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 13-15, and 21. The
`
`Grounds proposed are:
`
`Ground 1: Fast anticipates claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 13-15, and 21; and
`
`Ground 2: The combination of Fast and Zou render obvious claims 2, 7, 9, 10,
`
`13-15, and 21.
`
`V. Claim Construction
`
`In the institution decisions of the related IPR cases, the Board preliminarily
`
`construed “information access code” (IPR2015-01064, paper 20, p.11), “authorized
`
`user” (IPR2015-01064, paper 20, p.13), and “code” (IPR2015-01061, paper 11,
`
`pp.5-7). These BRI construction should be used in connection with this
`
`proceeding as well.
`
`In addition, in the First IPR, the petitioners proposed other terms to be
`
`construed, which the Board neither reject nor adopted. The instant Petition applies
`
`those constructions identified in the First IPR petition.
`
`
`
`Notwithstanding the above, Petitioner notes that the term “specified event
`
`configurations” appears in claims 6 and 19 without any antecedent basis. The term
`
`refers to either the preceding recitation of “specified event conditions” or it refers
`
`to the preceding recitation of the configured event information-sharing
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`environments. Given this ambiguity, Petitioner reserves the right to maintain that
`
`“specified event configurations” is indefinite. However, under BRI, the Board can
`
`give the term its ordinary meaning.
`
`VI. The Grounds for Unpatentability
`
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5), this section details how the
`
`teachings of the prior art anticipate for render obvious the challenged claims. For
`
`the sake of brevity, Petitioner will not repeat the general overview of the patent-at-
`
`issue and prior art already introduced in the first IPR. Instead, Petitioner details
`
`how challenged claims are invalid of the prior art of record.
`
`A. Level of Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) possesses a Bachelor’s degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering and/or Computer Science with one or two years of
`
`experience in related fields such as (depending on the focus of the undergraduate
`
`degree) electronics, computer science, positioning technologies such as Global
`
`Position Systems (GPS), and radio communications. More education could
`
`substitute for work experience, and more work experience could substitute (to a
`
`degree) for education. (Ex. 1010, p.8, ¶10).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`B. Ground 1: Fast anticipates claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 13-15, and 21
`
`5. Fast anticipates independent claim 1, from which claims 2, 7, 9, 10, and 13-
`15 depend
`
`In the first IPR, the Board instituted trial on the ground of claim 1 being
`
`anticipated by Fast. IPR2015-01064, paper 20, p.32. Because this petition
`
`challenges claims that depend from claim 1, Petitioner provides the following
`
`analysis of the first IPR with respect to claim 1.
`
`As background, Fast describes a prior art commercialized Guardian Mobile
`
`Monitoring System (GMMS). Although it was listed in an Information Disclosure
`
`Statement (“IDS”) within the prosecution history of the ’499 Patent, it was never
`
`substantively discussed in any office action. (Ex. 1001, p.2; see generally Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`Fast describes infrastructure for deploying and monitoring mobile tracking
`
`devices called “Beacons.” (Ex. 1003, p.1, Abstract, p.33, 4:9-11; see also id., p.36,
`
`9:31-32). Fast deploys beacons across a range of manufacturers, distributers,
`
`service providers, and end users. Wholesalers work with an operator of a GMMS to
`
`provide wholesale and retail mobile monitoring services. (Id., p.33, 4:36-38).
`
`Retailers work with wholesalers to sell beacons and provide monitoring services to
`
`subscribers for residential or enterprise applications. (Id., 4:42-44). There are
`
`information sharing environments (“ISE”) at the wholesaler level, at the lower
`
`retail level, and at the subscriber level, and multiple ISEs may be nested together
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`(see, e.g., id., p.29, Fig. 22).
`
`Each Subscriber Account may have multiple beacons. (Id., p.43, 24:56-62).
`
`Fast also explains the Subscriber Account can have multiple users with various
`
`levels of access privilege. (Id., p.52, 42:26-35). Within a given subscriber-level
`
`ISE, the subscriber may be considered to have the highest level of access, and the
`
`subscriber can manage user types such as adding, updating, and deleting system
`
`users, as well as assigning access levels to these users. (Id.; id., p.22, FIG 16-2).
`
`These and other examples and configurations of Fast are explained in greater detail
`
`in the Declaration of Dr. Heppe. (Ex. 1010).
`
`The following analysis relies on Dr. Heppe’s exemplary configuration of a
`
`Wholesalers, Subscriber Accounts, Parents, Beacons, and Guardians, presented
`
`below:
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1010, ¶¶45-47). This is just one potential configuration supported by FIG.
`
`22 of Fast. (Id.).
`
`Claim 1, Limitation 1(a) – To the extent the preamble is limiting, Fast
`
`discloses a wireless network and system for using Beacons to convey a plurality of
`
`event information (e.g., zone violation notifications) associated with a
`
`corresponding plurality of events (e.g., zone violations) that occur based on
`
`satisfactions of a corresponding plurality of specified event conditions (e.g., a
`
`trigger mechanism and zone parameters defined in a scenario) related to locations
`
`of a corresponding plurality of mobile objects (e.g., Beacons carried by
`
`dependents) having a corresponding plurality of mobile object identification codes
`
`(e.g., Beacons IDs, dependent’s names).
`
`Fast’s subscriber portal allows the subscriber to “manage scenarios.” (Ex.
`
`1003, p.22, FIG. 16-2, box 518; p.52, 42:36-41). A subscriber may build a scenario
`
`that gives other users access to location information of a dependent when the
`
`scenario is triggered. (See id., pp.13-14, FIGS. 11-1 and 11-2 depicting a scenario
`
`builder with a trigger mechanism 258 that may be a based on a zone trigger 260).
`
`An important aspect of building a scenario within the “Scenario Manger” is
`
`the selection of a notification scheme. (See id., p.13, FIGS. 11-1 boxes 272, 276,
`
`and 278). A notification scheme identifies a selected group of entities (e.g.,
`
`guardians, the subscriber himself, or other entities specified by a subscriber) who
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`are notified when a scenario is triggered. (Id., p.49, 35:46-53; see also 36:34-39).
`
`Fast also teaches a subscriber assigning guardians to track various dependents. (Ex.
`
`1010, pp.38-39, ¶63). Fast explains that:
`
`The ultimate function of the Scenario Manager is to allow users to
`
`command the GMMS system to automatically monitor mobile
`
`events. An example would be ‘If the specified vehicle is outside of the
`
`specified zone, at the specified time, send the specified message, to
`
`the specified people/places, using the specified communications
`
`methods.’
`
`(Ex. 1003, p.47, 32:51-56 (emphasis added)).
`
`
`
`Limitation 1(b) – Fast discloses that each mobile object is associated with a
`
`location information source (e.g., the Beacon/Beacon’s GPS receiver) wirelessly
`
`transmitting its location information over a network. A beacon typically contains a
`
`wireless location-determining module and a wireless communications module. The
`
`location determining module may be a GPS receiver. (Ex. 1003, p.36, 9:10-15).
`
`Limitation 1(c) – Fast discloses one or more servers (e.g., web server and
`
`application servers) configured to create a plurality of ISEs (e.g., a wholesaler’s
`
`network, a subscriber’s network). Fast describes a web server farm to interface
`
`with client devices and an application server cluster to carry out the framework of
`
`the GMMS. (Id., p.38, 14:37-50; see also id., p.3, FIG. 2, items 25 and 26). Fast’s
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`servers create an environment that is accessible by client devices. (Ex. 1010,
`
`pp.44-46, ¶¶73-76).
`
`Fast provides portals for users to access the functionality of GMMS. (Ex.
`
`1003, p.34, 5:28-31). Fast describes that the Guardian Administration Portal in the
`
`GMMS is used to create and enable wholesalers. (Id., p.50, 37:44-38:4). An
`
`unlimited number of wholesalers can be enabled and each one is provided with its
`
`own wholesaler portal to user as an interface for configuring ISEs. (Id., p. 18, FIG.
`
`14-2, p.39, 16:7-9). The Wholesaler may have numerous users, each with a
`
`different level of access privilege. (See, e.g., id., p.50, 38:37-45).
`
`Once a Subscriber Account has been created, a subscriber who has been
`
`authorized may log into his Subscriber Account through the subscriber portal using
`
`his user identification code. (Id., p.52, 42:20-25). An authorized subscriber may
`
`track the location of any of his “dependents (family members) and personnel
`
`(organization members).” (Id., p.52, 42:53-60). The subscriber can create an
`
`unlimited number of users for its Subscriber Account and assign an access level to
`
`the other users by restricting access to some functions of the subscriber portal for
`
`these other users. (Id., 42:26-35, 42:47-52). These portals allow wholesalers,
`
`subscribers and other users to configure ISEs.
`
`Limitation 1(d) – Fast discloses said plurality of ISEs providing user
`
`interfaces (e.g., portals) for a plurality of authorized users over a network of
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`computing devices. Specifically, Fast uses “portals” which are “privately
`
`accessible interface[s] to the GMMS for a particular subscriber, user, or user type.
`
`Portals are normally accessed using a web browser.” (Id., p.34, 5:28-30).
`
`Subscribers are authorized users who make up the ISEs. (Id., p.39, 16:9-11; Ex.
`
`1010, pp.45, 51-52, ¶¶75, 86-88). The Subscriber Accounts are “location” ISEs
`
`because users may be configured with various privileges to locate the position of a
`
`dependent within their respective accounts. In addition, any number of scenarios
`
`may be built to track and notify specified users of a dependents’ location. The
`
`access privileges and scenarios are assigned and created for the Subscriber
`
`Accounts independent of each other—e.g., creation of a user and assignment of
`
`privileges in Subscriber Account A1 does not cause the GMMS server(s) to create
`
`the same user with the same privilege in Subscriber Account B1. (Ex. 1003, p.40,
`
`18:25-37 (explaining the layers of separation and integration between data).
`
`Limitation 1(e) – Fast discloses the authorized users are associated with a
`
`corresponding plurality of authorized user identification codes (e.g., user IDs). In
`
`Fast, a “portal is accessible via the Internet and is restricted, using password
`
`protection, to users that are authorized by the system administrators. (Id., p.39,
`
`16:9-11). Users login using their user IDs. (Id., p.50, 38:31-32).
`
`Limitation 1(f) – Fast discloses the ISEs are configurable based on varying
`
`levels of administrator privileges, said varying levels of administrator privilege
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`comprising a first level of administrator privilege (e.g., the wholesaler privilege to
`
`create users and manage subscribers, or the subscriber’s privilege to define parents
`
`and guardians within a subscriber account OR add/update subscriber accounts)
`
`associated with a network administrator. The GMMS allows users to configure
`
`the Wholesaler (i.e., the first ISE) based on an administrative privilege specified for
`
`a user of the Wholesaler network (e.g., administrator), and the administrator may
`
`associate one or more users that use each of the Subscriber Accounts with each of
`
`the plurality of user groups (i.e., the administrator can create users for each
`
`Subscriber Account). At the subscriber level, there is a second level of
`
`administrator privileges (e.g., the privilege to build scenarios) associated with said
`
`plurality of authorized users (e.g., subscribers, guardians).
`
`Limitations 1(g) and 1(h) – A Wholesaler in a Wholesaler ISE, using the
`
`wholesaler portal can “add, update, and delete subscribers[.]” (Id., 38:50-54).
`
`Accordingly, the Wholesaler may create the second ISEs. Before a Wholesaler can
`
`take such action, his “user type” must be verified. (Id., 38:26-39). FIG. 14-1
`
`shows the Wholesaler login flowchart (id., p.17, FIG. 14-1, box 405c) wherein user
`
`type is verified (boxes 408 and 409) before the Wholesaler can add Subscriber
`
`Accounts. The Wholesaler thus shows “a first level of administrative privilege” to
`
`add Subscriber Accounts and add subscribers to those Subscriber Accounts. (Id.,
`
`p.50, 38:50-54). The Wholesaler also has privileges to add users to the Subscriber
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`Account through the use of an “account manager module.” (Id., p.34, 6:25-26
`
`(subscribers may have the wholesaler perform all tasks for them, including creation
`
`of users); id., pp. 41, 50, 19:60-62, 38:49-54; Ex. 1010, pp.56-57, ¶98).
`
`Within the Wholesaler N1 environment shown in the configuration presented
`
`supra at 9, Subscriber Accounts A1 and B1 are independently configurable. A user
`
`within Wholesaler N1 configures the Wholesaler, and may create users for each of
`
`Subscriber Account A1 and B1. Subscriber Accounts A1 and B1 are independently
`
`configured by their respective subscribers (i.e., the persons with the highest level of
`
`access privilege). The subscriber may configure the Subscriber Accounts to specify
`
`access privileges to locations of its dependents for at least one other user in the
`
`Subscriber Account.
`
`Within a given subscriber account, upon a determination that the subscriber
`
`has a subscriber user type (Ex. 1003, p.21, FIG. 16-1, R. 512, 514), the subscriber
`
`portal allows the subscriber to manage user type, which includes assigning access
`
`levels indicating what functionality a user will be restricted from using. (Id., p.52,
`
`42:47-52). The subscriber may assign a user with an access level equivalent to the
`
`subscriber, or may restrict access to certain features, such as in the case of
`
`guardians. (Ex. 1010, pp.30-31, 56-57, ¶¶48, 98). These users may have a level of
`
`access to view location information of a dependent. (Ex. 1003, pp.52-53, 42:31-35,
`
`42:47-52, 43:1-11; see also id., p.41, 20:39-41 (location manager), 20:57-62
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,003,499
`
`
`
`(guardian manager); id. p.22, FIG. 16-2, R. 474).
`
`In addition, the subscriber portal allows subscribers to “manage scenarios.”
`
`(Id., p.22, FIG. 16-2, box 518; id., p.52, 42:36-41). These scenarios grant access to
`
`certain information under certain conditions. A subscriber may build a scenario
`
`that gives other users access to location information of a dependent when the
`
`scenario is triggered. (See id., pp.13-14, FIGS. 11-1 and 11-2, depicting a scenario
`
`builder with a trigger mechanism 258 that may be a based on a zone trigger 260).
`
`However, only the people specified within the subscriber account will receive
`
`location information. (Id., p.47, 32:51-56).
`
`In the illustrative configuration (supra p. 9), the subscriber for a given
`
`account (e.g., Parent AX) may assign another user (e.g., Parent AY) with an
`
`equivalent level of access (e.g., full access privileges, including to Dependent A1X
`
`“Alex” and Dependent A1Y “Amy” and guardians), and may assign guardians with
`
`access to one dependent but not another (e.g., Guardian A1X may be assigned to
`
`Alex, and Guardian A1Y may be assigned to Amy). According to this
`
`configuration, Parents AX and AY may view the location of both Alex and Amy.
`
`Guardian A1X may be authorized to view the location of Alex, but not Amy, and
`
`Guardian A1Y may be authorized to view the location of Amy, but not Alex.
`
`Also, the subscriber to a specific account (e.g., Parent AX) may create a
`
`scenario to convey Alex’s locat