UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________________
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.,
`
`PETITIONER,
`
`v.
`
`MACROPOINT LLC,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`
`________________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-02016
`Patent 8,275,358
`
`________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT DENNING IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S
`OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`1
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________________
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.,
`
`PETITIONER,
`
`v.
`
`MACROPOINT LLC,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`
`________________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-02016
`Patent 8,275,358
`
`________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT DENNING IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S
`OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`1
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Background................................................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`Original Dependent Claims ........................................................................... 5
`
`III. The Steps of the Proposed Substitute Claims Are Well-Known and
`
`Conventional ................................................................................................. 7
`
`IV. Proposed Substitute Claims Lack Support in the Specification ................... 15
`
`V.
`
`Substitute claims 31-60 have been improperly broadened ........................... 20
`
`VI. Substitute Claims 31-60 are Obvious .......................................................... 21
`
`A. Obtaining Location Information of the Mobile Device of a
`
`Driver by a Carrier so That the Carrier May Assign Freight for
`
`the Driver to Haul (Substitute Claim 31 and 49) ............................... 24
`
`B.
`
`Receiving from the carrier a code that the carrier obtained from
`
`another carrier that serves as verification that the driver has
`
`consented to disclosing the location information of the mobile
`
`device (Substitute Claim 31 and 49) ................................................. 25
`
`VII. A “second” telephone call (Substitute claim 43) ......................................... 31
`
`VIII. Substitute Claims 32-44, 44-48, and 50-60 ................................................. 32
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Scott Andrew Denning, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, declare that:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Ruiz Food Products, Inc. in the above-
`
`captioned Inter Partes Review (IPR) as an independent expert in the fields of
`
`location tracking and telecommunications.
`
`2.
`
`As explained in paragraphs ¶¶8-15 of my initial Declaration (Ex.
`
`1002), I would have been a person with at least ordinary skill in the art of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,275,358 (the ’358 patent) as of the time of its alleged invention.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide expert testimony in this declaration
`
`regarding the patentability of the claims of the ’358 patent as well as new
`
`amendments to the original claims of the ’358 patent.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`4.
`
`As I explained in paragraphs ¶¶45-50 of my original declaration, the
`
`features described in the claims of the ’358 patent were widely known and routine
`
`at the time of the filing of the ’358 patent. For example, automated interactive
`
`voice response (IVR) was widely used to provide information and receive signals
`
`within a telephone call well before the filing of the ’358 patent. See e.g., [Ex.
`
`1009. at 1:19-28 (in 1993 stating, “IVR provides an interactive voice session
`
`between customer and business…the customer interacts using a telephone keypad
`
`or through voiced statements.”)]. Moreover, at the time of the filing of the ’358
`
`patent, it was widely known that an IVR system can be used as an equivalent to a
`
`
`
`3
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`website or SMS as a form of communicating information to a user when signing-
`
`up for a service and getting consent for the service to share information, including
`
`location information, about the user. See e.g., [Ex. 1010 at 0033 (“A person can
`
`use a number of methods to sign up for the service and interact (for example: web,
`
`mobile, messaging, IVR, call centre).”) and 0048 (example using SMS to obtain
`
`consent of user to join group sharing status information of the user)].
`
`5.
`
`Further, it was widely known to provide notice of location tracking
`
`via messages to the user whose location was being tracked and potentially
`
`disclosed. For example, Exhibit 1014 to Roach discusses a system where a third
`
`party is requesting a user’s directory information. See [Roach at Abstract, 0008
`
`(directory information includes “location information”), 0035, and FIG 4]. Further
`
`this “notice” can be tailored to the features and functionality of the intended
`
`device. See [id. 0036 (using IVR, text message, email, video or any other
`
`appropriate delivery mechanism interchangeably), 0044]. There is nothing in the
`
`’358 patent that was not well-known in the art prior to the filing of the ’358 patent.
`
`6.
`
`Finally, using codes to verify identities and permissions was also
`
`known in the art at the time of the filing of the ’358 patent. For example, in Ex.
`
`1010 at [0048] discusses transmitting security codes with a message to join a
`
`group. Accordingly, using codes to verify identify and permissions was also one
`
`
`
`4
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`step that a POSITA could use when designing a system to further enhance security
`
`
`
`within the system.
`
`II. Original Dependent Claims
`
`7.
`
`I have been asked to review Mr. Williams’ opinion as it relates to the
`
`original dependent claims. It is my opinion that Mr. Williams takes an overly
`
`narrow view of what teachings Poulin provides to a POSITA. While we both agree
`
`that a notice is provided, with respect to claims 3 and 21, Mr. Williams takes issues
`
`with whether the notice is for the service or for location. Ex. 2001 at [0066]-
`
`[0070]. However, a POSITA reviewing Poulin’s system would not recognize this
`
`distinction because the very purpose of the system is to track the user, and a
`
`POSITA would view this teaching of notice as notice that the user is being tracked.
`
`In Poulin’s system, these are the same thing, as there is no real purpose in having
`
`an active service in Poulin if the system is not tracking your location. In other
`
`words, the notice that we both agree is provided by Poulin, is to a user and informs
`
`them that the system is tracking them when the service is being used.
`
`8.
`
`A POSITA does not read Poulin looking for exact phrases, but instead
`
`reads the reference for all it teaches. It is my opinion that the Poulin teaches all the
`
`elements of claims 3 and 21.
`
`9.
`
`Regarding his commentary with respect to claims 8 and 26, his
`
`opinion is based on language not in the claim. The claim recites “communicating
`
`
`
`5
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`the location information of the mobile device…” not the location of the freight. A
`
`POSITA recognizes that a system can use the location of the mobile device as a
`
`proxy for the freight.
`
`10. What is abundantly clear is that when a POSITA reviews Poulin, they
`
`will understand that in the employee/employer relationship, which encompasses
`
`movement of goods or freight, that employers often track their employees via
`
`location of their mobile device, as taught by Poulin. Poulin at [0006], [0021], and
`
`[0022]. What is not required is any deep correlations between freight and
`
`distribution centers, but rather the location of the mobile device. Ex. 2001 at
`
`[0073]-[0075]. It is my opinion that a POSITA would understand that, at the time
`
`of the invention, Poulin teaches communicating the location of a mobile device,
`
`including in the field of freight.
`
`11. With respect to claim 12, it is again my opinion that Mr. Williams is
`
`unduly narrow in how he is interpreting how a POSITA would view Poulin and the
`
`claim language. Mr. Williams attempts to introduce the idea of “tracking” that is
`
`not present in the claim. Claim 12 relates to obtaining location information. It is
`
`my opinion that Poulin provides teachings on how to temporarily revoke
`
`permissions to obtain location information, to revoke permission for certain times
`
`or periods of times, and teaches how to obtain location information when that
`
`permission is allowed, as recited in claim 12. Ex. 1002 at ¶¶122-123. It is my
`
`
`
`6
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`opinion that Poulin is providing the teachings to a POSITA that the system can
`
`revoke permission to obtain location information of a subscriber, because the
`
`purpose of the Poulin system is to collect the location of the subscribers.
`
`12. Relatedly, Mr. Williams opines that the global on/off feature is not
`
`temporary because Poulin does not explicitly disclose turning permissions back on.
`
`Ex. 2001 at [0081]. I disagree, as a POSITA would view a switch that permanently
`
`disables location tracking as antithetical to standard design practices, as users will
`
`ultimately want to be tracked again. Further an “on/off” switch is inherently able to
`
`turn the system both “on” and “off” thereby making any change between the two
`
`statuses while the device is being used, temporary.
`
`III. The Steps of the Proposed Substitute Claims Are Well-Known and
`Conventional
`
`13. The current amended claims are well-known and conventional ideas
`
`related to the idea of receiving consent from a user to track their location. It is my
`
`opinion that a POSITA would understand the claims as a whole represent a
`
`conventional implementation of a well-known idea using standard hardware.
`
`14. The first limitation recites “participating in a telephone call with the
`
`mobile device”. It is my opinion that the step of participating in a telephone call
`
`with a mobile device was well-known and conventional prior to the filling of the
`
`’358 patent. Further, a POSITA would understand that the hardware to participate
`
`in a telephone call with a mobile device was well-known and conventional as well.
`
`
`
`7
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`For example, mobile devices such as cellular telephones had been in widespread
`
`use in the United States since the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X was introduced in
`
`1984. A user of a landline phone participating in a call with a user of cellular
`
`phone was very common prior to the filling of the ’358 patent.
`
`15. The second limitation recites “within the telephone call, identifying
`
`the mobile device at least in part by obtaining an identifier associated with the
`
`mobile device.” It is my opinion that this step of within the telephone call,
`
`identifying the mobile device at least in part by obtaining an identifier associated
`
`with the mobile device was well-known and conventional prior to the filing of the
`
`’358 patent. Identifying the mobile device was routine at the time of the filling of
`
`the ’358 patent as identifying the mobile device was required for billing purposes
`
`and emergency purposes, as examples. As indicated in the ’358 specification, this
`
`was performed using well-known
`
`techniques
`
`including automatic number
`
`identification (ANI) or numerous other serial or identification numbers known in
`
`the art. Ex. 1001 at 4:11-26 (providing list that includes the following known
`
`identifiers: ANI, MIN, IMEI, IMSI, MEID, MSN, MSISDN, MAC). These were
`
`standard in the art at the time of filing of the ’358 patent.
`
`16. The third limitation recites “transmitting to the mobile device during
`
`the telephone call an automated voice message communicating to the user of the
`
`mobile device at least one of”. It is my opinion that this step of transmitting to the
`
`
`
`8
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`mobile device during a telephone call an automated voice message communicating
`
`to the user of the mobile device was well-known and conventional prior to the
`
`filing of the ’358 patent. For example, Ex. 1018, U.S. Patent No. 4,785,408
`
`“provides a method and apparatus to enable a system designer or producer to create
`
`application programs for instructing a computer-controlled voice response system
`
`to provide a desired user service.” Additionally, Ex. 1021, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,199,062 “relates to a telephone communications system which includes a digital
`
`telephone switch, a voice response unit and a central processing unit, the telephone
`
`switch and the voice response unit being controlled by a common program
`
`sequence stored in the central processing unit.”
`
`17. Further the hardware associated with an IVR system, as described in
`
`the examples above, was well-known and conventional at the time of the filing of
`
`the ’358 patent.
`
`18. The fourth
`
`limitation recites “a notice
`
`including
`
`information
`
`indicating that consenting to the obtaining of the location information of the
`
`mobile device would result in the location information of the mobile device being
`
`disclosed, and a location at which to find the notice, wherein the location at which
`
`to find the notice is represented by a web address corresponding to a website
`
`where, during the telephone call, the user can find the notice indicating to the user
`
`that consenting to the obtaining of the location information of the mobile device
`
`
`
`9
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`would result in the location information of the mobile device being disclosed.”
`
`This limitation of providing information during a telephone call was well-known
`
`and conventional at the time of the filing of the ’358 patent. As stated above,
`
`automated messaging systems were well-known and conventional, and using them
`
`for their intended purpose, to convey information to a user, was also well-known
`
`and conventional. Furthermore, the hardware to undertake this step would be the
`
`same well-known and conventional hardware addressed with respect to the
`
`automated voice message. Finally, it was standard practice at the time of the filing
`
`of the ’358 patent for these communications to take place during the telephone call,
`
`so this is merely implementing standard wireless and telephone communications
`
`equipment, including the IVR, as they were designed to operate.
`
`19. The fifth limitation recites “receiving from the mobile device during
`
`the telephone call a signal including data indicating consent for obtaining the
`
`location information of the mobile device.” This limitation was well-known and
`
`conventional at the time of the filing of the ’358 patent. For example, a user could
`
`indicate consent by pressing a key on the mobile device, which then sends a dtmf
`
`code to the IVR. See e.g., Ex. 1022, U.S. Patent No. 5,592,538. This step
`
`represents to a POSITA transmitting data (in no specific format) from a mobile
`
`device, which, again was a standard procedure implemented using wireless
`
`standards and conventional hardware.
`
`
`
`10
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`20. The sixth body limitation recites “receiving from the carrier a code
`
`that the carrier obtained from another carrier that serves as verification that the
`
`driver has consented to disclosing the location information of the mobile device.”
`
`Again, the step of receiving information from other devices within the system was
`
`well-known and conventional at the time of the filing of the ’358 patent. The
`
`hardware associated with receiving information is foundational to the
`
`communications industry. A POSITA would understand that transmitting data
`
`from a mobile device, which, again was a standard procedure implemented using
`
`wireless standards and conventional hardware, was well-known and conventional
`
`at the time of the filing of the ’358 patent.
`
`21. Further, it is my opinion that a POSITA would understand the claim
`
`as using conventional techniques and conventional hardware to automate the
`
`process of two humans undertaking a telephone call. It was common for years to
`
`have operators discuss location information and have the user acknowledge that
`
`this was acceptable. For example, in 1979 I observed while I was working in the
`
`trucking industry unloading freight that it was common practice for truck drivers
`
`and freight company dispatchers to communicate their exact locations by way of
`
`two-way radios such as citizen-band (CB) radios. Obviously, in providing their
`
`location they are giving consent for their location to be known. Further examples
`
`can include, two people sitting in a room discussing locations, with this merely
`
`
`
`11
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`connecting the people via telephone, which has been standard technology for
`
`decades.
`
`22. Further, operators conventionally operated from a script to constrain
`
`the information provided to the front-line employees, that would then escalate any
`
`problems not answered by the script. For example, a call would be initiated, an
`
`interaction takes place between an operator and system user which would include
`
`each party identifying themselves and a device that is the subject of the call, then
`
`they would communicate information within that call to address the reason for the
`
`call. This claim is fundamentally using well-known and conventional IVR
`
`hardware to automate standard human interactions taking place during common,
`
`ordinary, and conventional telephone calls.
`
`23.
`
`It is my opinion, that after review of the claims, the only automation
`
`taking place is via the “automated voice message” that is claimed in the
`
`independent claims, and this process is implemented via standard IVR hardware,
`
`which has been utilized for decades for automating voice telephone calls. A
`
`POSITA would understand that the other steps, e.g., communicating information,
`
`are all standard interactions that can take place between two people in a room or
`
`over a phone. The limitation reciting an automated voice message is merely
`
`reciting the conventional hardware implementing standard IVR systems which
`
`
`
`12
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`transmit automated voice messages to provide information to users or generated
`
`responses by users. IVR systems were well-known long before the ’358 patent.
`
`24. The dependent claims further limit claims 31 and 49 but do not
`
`provide any benefit to the above analysis. For example, claims 32, 44, and 50
`
`merely add industry standard identification using ANI numbers. ANI numbers
`
`were well-known prior to the time of the invention of the ’358 patent.
`
`25. Claims 33 and 51 provide data periodically. A POSITA understands
`
`that data
`
`transmission
`
`in
`
`this environment
`
`is well-known and periodic
`
`transmissions are conventional in these systems.
`
`26. For claims 34, 45, 47, and 52 allow for the received signals to include
`
`performing actions, which can include pressing a button or issuing a voice
`
`command. However, these again were well-known and conventional activities at
`
`the time of the invention. As one example, systems have accepted “press ‘1’ for
`
`English” or “say ‘1’ for English” for years prior to the filing of the ’358 patent..
`
`27. Regarding claims 35, 41, 46, 53, and 59, the claims relate to SMS
`
`messages. The standards for SMS were created well before the time of the
`
`invention of the ’358 patent. SMS messages were a well understood and
`
`conventional technology at the time of the invention and were implemented using
`
`standard hardware. Relatedly, a POSITA would not consider the text content of an
`
`
`
`13
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`SMS message to be important in any analysis, as the messages are merely data
`
`being sent in a conventional manner.
`
`28. Regarding claims 36, 37, 54, and 55, the claims merely recite a
`
`different way of receiving information, an API, which was a well-known and
`
`conventional technique for exchanging information at the time of the invention. An
`
`API is simply a reference to an interface that defines the format to more easily
`
`communicate with a software application.
`
`29. Regarding claims 38 and 56, it is my understanding that the Patent
`
`Owner is attempting to make the idea of information related to freight service
`
`providers as a special type of data. However, a POSITA would understand that
`
`freight service providers used conventionally formatted data and delivery
`
`mechanisms. There is no disclosure in the ’358 patent that the data associated with
`
`freight or freight service providers is formatted or treated differently than standard
`
`data. Therefore, in my opinion a POSITA would treat the data exchanged in claims
`
`38 and 56 like any other data type, and exchanging data in this manner was well-
`
`known and conventional at the time of the filing of the ’358 patent.
`
`30. Regarding claims 39, 43, and 57, the claims are merely discussing
`
`information related to a notice, however, this information is, again, just data that is
`
`being provided. Transmission of information in the form of data was a well-known
`
`
`
`14
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`and conventional process using well-known and conventional hardware at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`31. Claims 40, 42, 43, 47, 48, 58, and 60 merely describe receiving a
`
`signal, which takes place via a standard transceiver. Transceivers for mobile
`
`devices and other computing devices was well-known and conventional at the time
`
`of the invention, regardless of the content of the signal.
`
`32. All of the features in the substitute dependent claims either employ
`
`well-known technology to perform its conventional function (ANI number,
`
`transmitting/receiving/communication data, SMS messages, API’s, generate signal
`
`by taking actions/voice commands), specify certain data contained in the
`
`transmitted notice or received signals (“share,” “hide,” or revocation information),
`
`or specify certain recipient of the location information (freight service provider).
`
`33.
`
`It is my opinion that nothing recited in the substitute claims improves
`
`the operational capabilities of the computer, but is instead merely utilizing well-
`
`known and conventional technology to implement typical human interactions.
`
`From review of the claim, the computer is just a generic tool used by a POSITA for
`
`automation of routine processes.
`
`IV. Proposed Substitute Claims Lack Support in the Specification
`
`34. After reviewing the specification, it is my opinion that there is no
`
`disclosure within the specification that a POSITA would understand to support the
`
`
`
`15
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`step of “receiving from the carrier a code obtained from another carrier that serves
`
`as verification that the driver has consented to disclosing the location of the mobile
`
`device.” A POSITA would understand this claim to require a code that serves to
`
`verify the consent of a first entity received from a second entity and was obtained
`
`from a third entity. I have reviewed the paragraphs cited by the Patent Owner,
`
`paragraphs [0058] and [0062] of the underlying application. After this review, I am
`
`unable to find any description that would allow a POSITA to understand that
`
`Patent Owner had support for this proposed claim limitation.
`
`35. Paragraphs [0058] describes the “illustrated embodiment” of Figure 4,
`
`reproduced below, where the “user interface displays a Partner/Code. The
`
`Partner/Code field may display a code corresponding to a partner company or
`
`driver.” Ex. 1004 at 22.
`
`
`
`16
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4
`
`
`
`A POSITA reading paragraph [0058] would understand that the described code
`
`corresponds to a partner company or driver but provides no discussion or support
`
`that “the code is a verification that the driver has consented to disclose the location
`
`the mobile device.” Indeed, as shown in Figure 4, the same partner code is used
`
`for three different phone numbers, some of which are being tracked and others that
`
`are “hidden.” Thus, a POSITA reading paragraph [0058] would not understand
`
`that the partner code described could be used by the system to determine if the user
`
`associated has provided their consent to the system tracking their location. Instead,
`
`a POSITA would understand that the partner code of paragraph [0058] as
`
`identifying the partner, but not having any indication of consent.
`
`
`
`17
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`36. Furthermore, paragraph [0058] describes “carrier A” subcontracting
`
`with another carrier “NAT.” However, there is no discussion of anything related to
`
`consent and/or location tacking. Further, this section of the specification does not
`
`have any information that would indicate to a POSITA that a code can be sent from
`
`carrier A to carrier NAT.
`
`37. Paragraph [0062] states that “the user may enter a Partner/Code that
`
`serves as verification that the user has obtained authorization from the partner to
`
`obtain location information of the mobile device.” Ex. 1004 at 23. A POSITA
`
`reviewing paragraph [0062] at the time of the invention would understand the
`
`claim language and the language of the paragraph to be substantially different. One
`
`important distinction is that paragraph [0062] only discusses two entities, i.e., the
`
`user and the partner, while the proposed claim language discusses three entities,
`
`i.e., the carrier, another carrier, and the driver. A POSITA would not understand
`
`the discussion contained in paragraph [0062] as supporting the three claimed
`
`entities, because it would require the one entity to simultaneously provide support
`
`for two separate entities.
`
`38. For instance, if paragraph [0062] were understood to mean “the
`
`[carrier] may enter a Partner/Code that serves as verification that the [carrier] has
`
`obtained authorization from [another carrier] to obtain location information of the
`
`
`
`18
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`mobile device” then there is no disclosure that the code obtained is verification that
`
`the driver has consented, because there is no communication from the driver.
`
`39. Alternatively, if paragraph [0062] were understood to mean “the
`
`[carrier] may enter a Partner/Code that serves as verification that the [carrier] has
`
`obtained authorization from [the driver] to obtain location information of the
`
`mobile device” then there is no disclosure of obtaining the code from “another
`
`carrier” Because there is no communication from the other carrier.
`
`40.
`
`If obtaining authorization from the “partner” is the alleged support for
`
`obtaining the code from “another carrier” then there is no support that the code
`
`“serves as verification that the driver has consented.” Conversely, if obtaining
`
`authorization from the “partner” is the alleged support that the code “serves as
`
`verification that the driver has consented” then there is no support for obtaining the
`
`code from “another carrier.”
`
`41. Therefore, a POSITA reviewing paragraph [0062] would be unable to
`
`identify any support for language “receiving from the carrier a code obtained from
`
`another carrier that serves as verification that the driver has consented to disclosing
`
`the location of the mobile device.”
`
`42.
`
`It is my opinion, that a POSITA, when reviewing the specification,
`
`would not be able to find support for the idea that the system receives a signal that
`
`indicates consent for location tracking and also receives a code that verifies
`
`
`
`19
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`consent for location tracking. The amendments recite transmitting a notice that
`
`“consenting to the obtaining of the location information of the mobile device
`
`would result in the location information of the mobile device being disclosed” and
`
`“receiving from the mobile device….a signal including data indicated consent for
`
`obtaining the location information of the mobile device.” In my opinion, this is not
`
`supported by the specification.
`
`43. The specification provides no guidance to a POSITA that a signal and
`
`a code are both received much less that the signal and code are used to confirm
`
`consent. Further, there is no context from any embodiment in the specification that
`
`would explain to a POSITA how or why a signal and a code would have both been
`
`used in the way recited in the amendments to claims 31 and 49.
`
`44. Patent Owner seeks to add the phrase “the mobile device of a driver
`
`by a carrier” in all the substitute claims. However, when reviewing the claim, it is
`
`my opinion that a POSITA would not understand what is meant by this phrase. A
`
`POSITA would not recognize this phrase as having any understood meaning and
`
`there is no understandable relationship between the driver and carrier.
`
`V.
`
`Substitute claims 31-60 have been improperly broadened
`
`45. A POSITA reading claims 31 and 49, would understand that the
`
`“driver” claimed may or may not be the same as the user of the mobile device. A
`
`POSITA would understand that user and driver may be different or may be the
`
`
`
`20
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`same depending on how the carrier implements their location-based services.
`
`Accordingly, the substitute claims encompass situations where the driver is not the
`
`“user of the mobile device.”
`
`VI. Substitute Claims 31-60 are Obvious
`
`46.
`
`I have reviewed the amendments as proposed in the Motion to
`
`Amend, and it is my opinion that the proposed changes to claims 31 and 49
`
`represent trivial differences to a POSITA when compared to original claims 1 and
`
`19. There is no technological difference in implementing the original claims versus
`
`the amended claims. Instead, Patent Owner is trying to limit the claims to a
`
`particular use case, where a “code” is received from a freight carrier that verifies
`
`consent of the driver. A POSITA would recognize this as a well-known and
`
`obvious implementation that does not provide any technological difference
`
`compared to the original claims.
`
`47.
`
`It remains my opinion that Poulin’s teaching of employer-employee
`
`tracking renders obvious freight carrier-driver tracking to a POSITA. See also Ex.
`
`1023, U.S. Patent No. 6,442,391 at 3:22-35 (location based services are “flexible”
`
`and can be used in personal and professional settings including “haulage
`
`contractors”). Further, it is my opinion that a POSITA would understand that use
`
`of a code to verify consent for location tracking was taught at least by Cone. Cone,
`
`teaches a subscriber can provide a “network operator-independent personal
`
`
`
`21
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`location code (PLC)” which is supplied in a request for location information and
`
`used to confirm that a requester has permission to see the user’s location. Cone at
`
`[0006], [0018], [0019], and [0038].
`
`48. The amendment to original claim 13 changes the dependency of claim
`
`13 and adds a second telephone call. It is my opinion that to the extent claim 13 is
`
`found to be obvious, then neither the change to a dependent claim or the trivial step
`
`of a second telephone call renders the amendment to claim 43 non-obvious.
`
`49. A POSITA would recognize that Cone and Poulin are from the same
`
`field of endeavor, namely location-based tracking systems, and their combination
`
`would lead to predictable results of allowing users of Poulin to better control who
`
`has access to the user’s location by implementing the PLC code of Cone. A
`
`POSITA would be motivated to combine these references because the use of a
`
`code that verifies consent provides for a more robust and secure system in Poulin.
`
`50. Cone teaches that there are problems associated with communications
`
`between networks and privacy permissions between applications. Cone at [0004]
`
`and [0005]. These problems lead to systems that potentially providing too much
`
`information to “undesirable parties” or can lead to excessive interruptions of the
`
`user to request permissions to share location information. Cone at [0004] and
`
`[0005]. A POSITA would recognize that they can solve these identified problems
`
`
`
`22
`
`RUIZ FOODS PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`in the Poulin system by including a PLC as taught by Cone, thereby increasing the
`
`privacy protections and reducing the need for subscriber interruptions.
`
`51.
`
`It is my opinion that adding a PLC from Cone to the system of Poulin
`
`would lead to the predictable result of the subscriber providing the PLC as part of
`
`the interactions with the LBSC of Poulin. This provides an easy method to control
`
`which other subscribers are able obtain the subscriber location through the use of
`
`the PLCs. The PLC from Cone when combined with Poulin would provide
`
`increased privacy, which is of paramount importance to location-based systems.
`
`52. For example, Poulin’s system can be used by subscribers that are
`
`“linked only through subscription to the service and location in one of
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
