EXHIBIT
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No.: 6:16-cv-01133—RWS-KNM
`
`District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III
`
`Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell
`
`| l | | l I | |
`
`| |
`
`MACROPOINT, LLC,
`
`Plaintifi
`
`v.
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF IVAN ZATKOVICH
`
`February 15, 2018
`
`
`
`$9.03 4
`
`' “ .RHS
`
`Page 1 of 225
`  
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`1
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED FOR THIS REPORT ................................................... 6
`
`2
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ............................................................................................ 6
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`4
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................ 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................................... 18
`
`6
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT ................................................................ 19
`
`4.1
`
`Presumption of validity ............................................................................. 12
`
`4.2
`
`Anticipation — 35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................. 13
`
`4.3
`
`Non-obviousness — 35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................... 15
`
`4.4
`
`Objective Indicia of Non—obviousness ...................................................... l 7
`
`7
`
`8
`
`6.1
`
`Summary of the ‘659 Patent ..................................................................... 22
`
`6.2
`
`Summary of the ‘35 8 Patent ..................................................................... 23
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................... 26
`
`ANTICIPATION ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 26
`
`8.1
`
`‘358 ANTICIPATION ANALYSIS ......................................................... 26
`
`8.1.1 CTIA Guidelines ........................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8.1.2 TechnoCom White Paper .............................................................. 62
`
`8.1.3 Enterprise ...................................................................................... 88
`
`8.2
`
`‘659 ANTICIPATION ANALYSIS ....................................................... 102
`
`8.2.1
`
`Prior Art — Thomas ..................................................................... I ()3
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 225
`"#$%&'&()&''*
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`8.2.2 Claim 2 ........................................................................................ 109
`
`8.2.3 Claim 12 ...................................................................................... 128
`
`8.2.4 Claim 23 ...................................................................................... 132
`
`9
`
`OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 136
`
`9.1
`
`‘358 Obviousness Analysis ..................................................................... 136
`
`9.1.]
`
`PM Demo in view ofPOSITA Knowledge ................................ 138
`
`9.1.2
`
`PM Demo in View of POSITA Knowledge ................................ 168
`
`9.1.3 TechnoCom White Paper in view of CTIA Guidelines .............. 169
`
`9.1.4 TechnoCom White Paper in View of Enterprise ......................... 170
`
`9.2
`
`‘659 Obviousness Analysis ..................................................................... 173
`
`9.2.1
`
`Several Cited References are not Analogous Art ....................... 1 74
`
`9.2.2 Dependent Claims 3 and 24 ........................................................ 176
`
`9.2.3 Dependent Claims 4, l3, and 25 ................................................. 177
`
`9.2.4 Dependent Claims 5 and 17 ........................................................ 179
`
`9.2.5 Dependent Claims 6. 18, and 27 ................................................. 180
`
`9.2.6 Dependent Claims 7, 22, and 28 ................................................. 182
`
`9.2.7 Dependent Claims 8, 19, 20, and 21 ........................................... 183
`
`9.2.8 Dependent Claims 9, 14, and 29 ................................................. 184
`
`9.2.9 Dependent Claims 10, 15, and 30 ............................................... 186
`
`9.2.10 Dependent Claim 11 and 16 ........................................................ 186
`
`9.2.11 Additional Deficiencies in the prior art ...................................... 188
`
`9.2.12 Lack of Reason to Combine ........................................................ 190
`
`
`
`
`
`3 P
`
`age 3 of 225
`+,-./0/12/334
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`9.3
`
`Secondary Considerations ....................................................................... 192
`
`9.3.1 MacroPoint Practices the ‘358 and ‘659 Patents ........................ 192
`
`9.3.2 Commercial Success ................................................................... 193
`
`9.3.3 Long Felt but Unsolved Need / Recognition of Problem ........... 210
`
`9.3.4 RecognitionofNeed 213
`
`9.3.5
`
`Praise by Others .......................................................................... 213
`
`9.3.6 Failure of Others ......................................................................... 216
`
`9.3.7 Copying of the invention by competitors .................................... 218
`
`9.3.8
`
`Skepticism of Experts ................................................................. 220
`
`9.3.9 Teaching Away ........................................................................... 220
`
`9.4
`
`INDEFINITENESS ................................................................................. 221
`
`9.5
`
`WRITTEN DESCRIPTION / ENABLEMENT ..................................... 222
`
`10
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 224
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 225
`56789:9;<9==>
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`1, Ivan Zatkovich, have been retained by MacroPoint, LLC. (“MacroPoint”
`
`
`
`or “Plaintiff”) through the law firm of Thompson Hine LLP as an expert witness in the
`
`matter of MacroPoint, LLC v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-01 133—
`
`RWS-KNM.
`
`l have previously submitted an expert report on behalf of MacroPoint
`
`regarding infringement of the US. Patent No. 8,275,358 (the “‘358 Patent”) and US.
`
`Patent No. 9,429,659 (the “‘659 Patent”) (together, the “Patents-in-Suit”) by Defendant
`
`Page 5 of 225
`?@ABCDCEFCGGD
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

` Ruiz Food Products, Inc. (“Ruiz Foods” or “Defendant”).1 I submit this report in rebuttal
`
`
`
`of the Expert Report of Dr. Stephen B. Heppe regarding validity of the Patents-in—Suit.
`
`2.
`
`1 may supplement my report in light of any additional discovery, opinions
`
`by Defendant’s experts, and/or trial testimony.
`
`I also may provide rebuttal opinions and
`
`testimony in response to Defendant’s experts, and rebuttal testimony in response to any
`
`of Defendant’s witnesses. Further, I may use animations, demonstratives, enlargements
`
`of actual Exhibits, and other information in order to illustrate my opinions.
`
`1 MATERIALS CONSIDERED FOR THIS REPORT
`
`3.
`
`A list of materials I considered in preparing this report are attached as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`I have consulted with Mr. R. Christopher Anderson, who I understand to has
`
`been engaged to provide an expert opinion in connection with damages in this case.
`
`2
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`4.
`
`It is my understanding that claims 1, 4, l9, and 22 of the ‘358 Patent and
`
`claims 2 — 25 and 27 — 30 of the ‘659 Patent (altogether, the “Asserted Claims”) are at
`
`issue in this action.
`
`5.
`
`Based on my review and analysis of the materials listed in Exhibit A
`
`including Dr. Heppe’s report and the prior art references identified therein, as well as my
`
`1 Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich Regarding Infringement of US. Patent Nos. 8,275,358
`and 9,429,659, Jan. 25, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 225
`HIJKLMLNOLPPQ
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`experience and education, it is my opinion that Defendant and Dr. Heppe have failed to
`
`meet their burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Asserted Claims are
`
`anticipated by any of the prior art references they have identified.
`
`6.
`
`It is my opinion that Defendant and Dr. Heppe have failed to meet their
`
`burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Asserted Claims are obvious in
`
`view of the prior art references they have identified, individually or in combination.
`
`7.
`
`It
`
`is my opinion that secondary considerations of non-obviousness,
`
`including commercial success, long-felt but unresolved need, failure of others, skepticism
`
`by experts, praise by others, teaching away, licensing of the invention, recognition of a
`
`problem, and copying by others further support the non—obviousness of the Asserted
`
`Claims.
`
`8.
`
`Further, Dr. Heppe states without support
`
`in a footnote that
`
`it
`
`is his
`
`opinion “that the claims in the ‘358 and ‘659 patents do not appear substantially different
`
`from many of the claims” of patents found to be directed to unpatentable subject matter
`
`in prior litigation.2 I disagree. Dr. Heppe has done nothing to establish that the Asserted
`
`Claims of the ‘358 and ‘659 Patents are in any way similar to any claim of patents at
`
`issue in the prior litigation.
`
`In fact, the claims plainly differ on their face, for example,
`
`Claim 1 of the ’943 Patent, which was identified as representative of the claims in the
`
`2 Expert Report ofD. Stephen B. Heppe 21, n. 5, Jan. 25, 2018.
`
`Page 7 of 225
`RSTUVWVXYVZZ[
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`prior litigation3 lacks the limitation “request location information of the mobile device
`
`comprising the GPS receiver fiom a location information provider.”
`
`:
`
`.
`
`— Therefore. ii
`
`is my opinion iiiai
`
`Defendant and Dr. Heppe have not met their burden to prove by clear and convincing
`
`evidence that the ‘358 and ‘659 patents are not substantially different from any claim at
`
`issue in prior litigation.
`
`3 QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.291 Reference 1 (Jan. 27, 2016)).
`
`9.
`
`I have extensive experience in the field of art relevant to the ‘358 and ‘659
`
`Patents.
`
`I expect to testify concerning my qualifications, background and experience
`
`relevant to the issues in this investigation. A copy of my Curriculum Vitae and
`
`Testimony I have provided in the last 5 years is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`10.
`
`I am a Principal Consultant of eComp Consultants, a position I have held
`
`for over 15 years. I have over 30 years of experience in a diverse set of technologies
`
`3 MacroPoint, LLC v. FourKites, Ina, Mem. of Op. and Order 2, No. 1:15-cv-1002 (N .D.
`Oh. Nov. 6, 2015) (available in File Wrapper of ‘659 Patent at Protest Under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`Page 8 of 225
`\]^_`a`bc`dde
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`including GIS (Geographic Information Systems), GPS, Vehicle Tracking, Electronic
`
`Logging Devices, Wireless and Network Communications, and Mobile Applications.
`
`11.
`
`eComp Consultants provides professional consulting services relating to
`
`computer and technical matters in a wide range of industries
`
`including utilities, telecommunications, eCommerce, financial transactions, digital media,
`
`and cloud-based services. Such consulting services include working with clients on
`
`specific information technology projects, process improvement, project management and
`
`other technology issues, as well as providing professional expert witness services.
`
`12.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, with a minor in
`
`Electrical Engineering Digital Circuit Design, from the University of Pittsburgh in 1980.
`
`I completed a Master’s thesis in Computer Networks from the University of Pittsburgh,
`
`the results of which were published in Byte Magazine.
`
`13.
`
`In my professional career, I have worked for companies such as Digital
`
`Equipment Corp. and GTE/Verizon Telecomm on projects designing, developing and
`
`integrating software and hardware for computer networks, wireless, cellular, and
`
`telecommunications systems. For example, relevant projects from my career include:
`
`14.
`
`Utility Partners — Developed the MobileUP application, a geographic work
`
`order and vehicle Tracking System dispatching Field Service personnel and managing
`
`Electronic Onboard Recording.
`
`. Utility Partners — Developed the MobileUP application, a geographic work order
`
`and vehicle tracking system dispatching Field Service personnel and managing
`
`
`
`Electronic Onboard Recording.
`
`Page 9 of 225
`fghijkjlmjnno
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`o GTE/Verizon — Designed and developed Automated Geolocation, Geographic
`
`Mapping and Facilities Management system based on Customer & Equipment
`
`location. Developed provisioning systems for mobile phones and cellular networks.
`
`. GIS Dispatch Mapping (AWAS) — Implemented Geographic based mobile field
`
`services for locating subscribers and displaying routing information on a geographic
`
`map.
`
`.
`
`eComp Consultants — Location based mobile applications including:
`
`. Mobile Payments — developed patents for mobile phone payment and
`
`advertising. Technology includes NFC (Near Field Communication) and
`
`SMS based transaction authorization. (Android, iPhone)
`
`Cell Mesh Networks — developed Mesh Network for hyper-local
`
`marketing and mobile applications using WiFi direct connect technology
`
`(Android, iPhone)
`
`and status information.
`
`15.
`
`I have been frequently called upon to provide my expert opinion on
`
`matters concerning patent disputes for over 15 years. I have given testimony as an expert
`
`at trial and by deposition. including in areas that relate to the technology described in the
`
`patents-in-suit. For example. I was qualified as an expert in geolocation and mobile
`
`telecommunications in the following cases:
`
`,° GT Nexus vInttra, Inc., 4:1 l-cv—02145—SBA (N .D. Cal.) — Patent Litigation -
`
`Testifying expert providing expertise in systems for Location and Tracking of Cargo
`
`and Container shipments using central communication and normalization of tracking
`
`Page 10 of 225
`pqrstuvtwxtyyz
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`0
`
`Progressive v. State Farm. CBM2012-00003, CBM2013-00004 (PTAB) —
`
`Covered Business Method — Expert providing expertise in
`
`Electronic OnBoard Recording devices to allow vehicles to record and transmit
`
`vehicle location, status, and other characteristics. Provided expert report including
`
`rebuttal of a 101 Patentable subject matter challenge.
`
`. GeoTag, Inc v. Frontier Communications Corp., 2:10-cv-00265 (E.D. Tex.) —
`
`Patent Litigation - Testifying expert for 12 defendants for web and mobile based
`
`Geolocation applications to identify proximity to and location of Merchants.
`
`0 Black Hills Media, LLC v. Samsung, Inv. No. 337-TA-882 (ITC) — ITC Patent
`
`Investigation — Analysis of Mobile based location sharing and event driven mobile
`
`applications such as AT&T FamilyMap, Google+ Location, and Latitude. Providing
`
`infringement assertions against Samsung, LG, and Toshiba (smart phones & mobile
`
`tablets).
`
`16.
`
`By Virtue of the above experience, I have gained a detailed understanding
`
`of the technology that is at issue in this case. In addition, my experience with commercial
`
`and technical aspects of geolocation and mobile telecommunications is directly relevant
`
`to the subject matter of the patents-in-suit.
`
`17.
`
`Therefore, I consider myself a person of at least ordinary skill in the art of
`
`the ’358 and ’659 Patents in the 2012 time period, the qualifications of which I have
`
`stated below.
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 225
`{|}~€€‚ƒƒ„
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

` 4
`
`
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`In expressing opinions on legal issues, I have applied the following legal
`18.
`
`
`I have additionally reviewed and
`standards conveyed to me by MacroPoint’s counsel.
`
`
`understand the legal standards set forth in Dr. Heppe’s expert report.
`
`
`4.1 Presumption of validity
`
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the claims in an issued patent are presumed to be valid.
`
`I u
`
`
`
`nderstand that each claim of a patent is presumed valid independently of the validity of
`
`
`other claims.
`
`
`I understand that the burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any
`20.
`
`
`I understand that to overcome the
`claim thereof rests on the party asserting invalidity.
`
`
`presumption of a claim’s validity, the party asserting invalidity must prove invalidity by
`
`
`I understand that the clear and convincing evidence
`clear and convincing evidence.
`
`
`standard described as a high or very high degree of confidence.
`
`
`I understand that a party seeking to establish invalidity of any claim of a
`2].
`
`
`
`
`
`patent with a prior art reference that was considered by the Patent Office Examiner
`
`during prosecution of that patent bears the additional burden of overcoming the deference
`
`that is due to a qualified government agency presumed to have properly done its job.
`
`1
`
`understand this deference extends to Patent Examiners, who are assumed to have some
`
`expertise in interpreting the references and to be familiar from their work with the level
`
`of skill in the art, and whose duty it is to issue only valid patents.
`
`Page 12 of 225
`…†‡ˆ‰Š‹‰Œ‰‹‹Ž
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the party asserting invalidity bears the burden of proving
`
`that allegedly invalidating art is prior in time to the inventions claimed in the Patents-in-
`
`Suit.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that because establishing invalidity requires clear and
`
`convincing evidence. mere conclusory statements are insufficient to support an invalidity
`
`conclusion.
`
`I similarly understand that unsupported assertions or opinions lacking a
`
`reasonable technical foundation are also insufficient to support an invalidity conclusion.
`
`
`
`4.2 Anticipation — 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a reference may only anticipate claims of an issued
`
`patent, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, if the reference is “prior art” to the patent.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that several categories of prior art are defined by subsections
`
`of § 102 and that these categories changed somewhat with passage of the America
`
`Invents Act
`
`(“AIA”).
`
`I understand that
`
`the effective date,
`
`for anticipation and
`
`obviousness purposes, of the AIA is March 16, 2013. Thus, any patent filed before that
`
`date is evaluated under § 102 as it existed prior to the AIA.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that under pre—AIA § 102, a document is prior art to a patent
`
`if it was publicly disclosed (i.e., published) prior to the priority date of the patent. By
`
`contrast,
`
`I also understand that documents that were not publicly disclosed, including
`
`documents that were distributed under confidentiality restrictions or under a non-
`
`disclosure agreement, are not prior art for purposes of pre-AIA § 102.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that prior art described in the specification is considered by
`
`the examiner.
`
`Page 13 of 225
`‘’“”•“–—“˜˜™
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`
`
`

`

`28.
`
`I understand that mere listing of a reference in an information disclosure
`
`statement is not taken as an admission that the reference is prior art against the claims.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that for anticipation to exist that each and every limitation of
`
`the claim at issue must be identically found in the reference disclosure, as viewed by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the field of invention at the time the invention was made.
`
`30.
`
`Anticipation requires that each element of the claim at issue be found,
`
`either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, or that the claimed invention
`
`was previously known or embodied in a single prior art device or practice.
`
`I understand
`
`that a limitation is only inherently disclosed by a reference if that limitation is necessarily
`
`present in the reference, and it must be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`I understand inherency may not be established by probabilities, possibilities,
`
`suggestions, or inferences that a limitation may be present in the disclosed features of a
`
`reference, and that the mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
`
`alternatives, does not establish inherency.
`
`circumstances is not sufficient to show inherency.
`
`31.
`
`As I understand it, an example of inherency is that disclosure of water
`
`molecules necessarily discloses the presence of hydrogen and oxygen atoms because
`
`science dictates that water comprises hydrogen and oxygen. By contrast, disclosure of a
`
`motorcycle does not
`
`inherently disclose a vehicle with two wheels because some
`
`motorcycles have three wheels notwithstanding that we may conventionally think that
`
`motorcycles have two wheels.
`
`I understand inherency to require “certainty” not
`
`“possibility.”
`
`It is my understanding that a design choice, in the presence of design
`
`Page 14 of 225
`š›œžŸ ž¡¢ž££¤
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`Invalidity by anticipation requires that the four comers of a single prior art
`
`reference describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
`
`such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue
`
`experimentation.
`
`4.3 Non-obviousness — 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious only if the differences between
`
`the claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter of the claim as a whole would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that for a patented invention to be invalid as obvious, the
`
`accused infringer must identify prior art references that alone or in combination with
`
`other references (or the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art) would have
`
`rendered the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention.
`
`35.
`
`I understand for a claim to be found obvious every claim limitation must
`
`be found present in the combination of the prior art references or POSITA (a Person of
`
`Ordinary Skill in the Art) knowledge before the obviousness analysis proceeds.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that
`
`the factors that should be assessed in the obvious
`
`analysis include at least: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`(4) whatever objective evidence may be present as indicia of nonobviousness.
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 225
`¥¦§¨©ª«©¬­©®®«
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37.
`
`I understand that inherent aspects of the prior art not readily known to a
`
`person of ordinary skill do not support a finding of obviousness because obviousness
`
`cannot be predicated on what is unknown.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that an obviousness determination is analyzed from the
`
`perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`I understand
`
`that it is impermissible to use the patent as a template (and reason) for combining prior
`
`art references to achieve the claimed invention because that would reflect hindsight bias.
`
`This improper practice often takes the form of working backwards from the claims to find
`
`references that disclose the claims’ limitations and then declaring, without analysis, that
`
`the combination would have been obvious because all
`
`limitations were known.
`
`I
`
`understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
`
`would need to be motivated to combine references to create the combination of features
`
`claimed by the patent independent of the teachings of the patent.
`
`39.
`
`It is my understanding that obviousness requires also that a reason must be
`
`shown that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine known
`
`elements in the fashion claimed by the patents at issue. This reason is ofien described as
`9’
`a “motivation to combine. A motivation to combine is often absent for a combination
`
`when a POSITA would have known that disadvantages to making the combination would
`
`have existed. A motivation to combine is also often absent when a POSITA would have
`
`been dissuaded from making a combination. This dissuasion can take many forms
`
`including statements in printed publications and is often described as a “teaching away.”
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 225
`¯°±²³´µ³¶·³¸¸¹
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`40.
`
`I also understand that if a combination of two or more prior art references
`
`is used to render a claimed invention obvious, there must be a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in making or practicing the claimed invention based on such combination.
`
`I
`
`understand that in order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention.
`
`4].
`
`In addition, I understand the obviousness analysis cannot discount at the
`
`time of invention, the inventor’s insights, and willingness to confront and overcome
`
`obstacles, and even serendipity where the pathway to the invention seems to follow the
`
`logical steps to produce these patented properties.
`
`4.4 Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness
`
`42.
`
`It is my understanding that objective indicia of non-obviousness may be
`
`the most pertinent, probative, and revealing evidence available to the decision maker in
`
`reaching a conclusion about obviousness. Under certain circumstances, the objective
`
`indicia evidence may be particularly strong and entitled to such weight that it may be
`
`decisive.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that examples of objective indicia that must be considered as
`
`part of an obviousness inquiry include:
`
`(1) commercial success;
`
`(2) long—felt but unresolved needs;
`
`(3) failure of others;
`
`(4) skepticism by experts;
`
`
`
`(5) praise by others;
`
`Page 17 of 225
`º»¼½¾¿À¾Á¾ÃÃÄ
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(6) teaching away;
`
`(7) licensing of the invention;
`
`(8) recognition of a problem (without its resolution); and
`
`(9) copying of the invention.
`
`44.
`
`To the extent any issues of law are raised by Dr. Heppe or Defendant
`
`which I have not addressed in this report. I reserve the right to supplement my opinions
`
`accordingly.
`
`5 ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`45.
`
`l
`
`have
`
`been
`
`asked
`
`to
`
`offer my
`
`opinion
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ’358 and ’659 Patents.
`
`46.
`
`To assess the level of ordinary skill in the art, I understand one considers
`
`the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior solutions to those problems found in
`
`prior art references, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of
`
`the technology, and the level of education of active workers in the field.
`
`47.
`
`To assess the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’358 and ’659
`
`Patents, I have considered the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior solutions
`
`to those problems found in prior art references, the rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made, the sophistication of the technology. the level of education of active workers in the
`
`field. and my own experience working with those of skill
`
`in the art at the time of
`
`inventions.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’358 and ’659
`
`Patents in the 2012time period would have at
`
`least aBachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, electrical engineering, or a related discipline and 2 years of experience in the
`
`18
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 225
`ÅÆÇÈÉÊËÉÌÍÉÎÎÏ
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`relevant technical field of geolocation and mobile communications or the equivalent.
`
`I
`
`am very familiar with people having this level of skill, as discussed in my curriculum
`
`vitae and background.
`
`6
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`48.
`
`Each of the asserted patents in this case disclose novel and inventive
`
`systems and methods for tracking, monitoring, and reporting to a requesting party the
`
`location of a vehicle or the freight carried by a vehicle.
`
`Prior to the invention,
`
`conventional vehicle tracking systems required the acquisition and installation of GPS
`
`equipment in each vehicle to be tracked. GPS equipment can be costly, and requires the
`
`GPS equipment to provide the location information, with attendant costs to deliver this
`
`information to the user.
`
`49.
`
`The claimed inventions of the asserted patents cleverly leverage the facts
`
`that (l) a truck driver typically has with him on his person or
`
`in his truck a
`
`communications device, such as a mobile phone, that can be used to track his location
`
`using a variety of techniques; (2) independent third parties routinely collect this location
`
`information about the millions of communications devices already used throughout the
`
`country: and (3) a communications device can be correlated to a particular truck by
`
`matching the communications device to the truck’s driver.
`
`50.
`
`MacroPoint’s patented tracking technology resolves the prior art problems
`
`by providing notice to and obtaining a driver’s consent for monitoring the location of his
`
`phone, obtaining the location of the driver’s phone from a third party with the capability
`
`to track it, correlating the location of a vehicle with the location of the driver’s phone,
`
`19
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 225
`ÐÑÒÓÔÕÖÔ×ØÔÙÙÚ
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`and aggregating and reporting the location of multiple vehicles, regardless of tracking
`
`technique. This provides continuous,
`
`real—time location information to shippers and
`
`customers about all of their shipments, regardless of trucking company. in one integrated
`
`service.
`
`r-.I
`
`[-1
`
`1...-
`
`__"_.i
`
`
`
`,
`
`I
`l
`
`. .._ i .
`
`a
`
`.
`
`l
`
`._.._l:_
`I...“
`,
`.._... _ ,
`1.4 7C.-
`n-zr-
`
`_
`
`1
`
`.1
`Lrglx
`.
`
`3
`
`5].
`
`Figure 3 of the ‘659 Patent shows an example of how MacroPoint’s
`
`invention can be implemented. A third-party Location Information Provider (such as a
`20
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 225
`ÛÜÝÞßàáßâãßààä
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`


`


` !
`
`

`

`
`
`cellular services provider) can determine the location of a communications device using
`
`
`
`GPS or radiolocation techniques that analyze the device’s position based on its
`
`relationship to surrounding cellular towers.
`
`(See ‘659 Patent at 6:60-8:16; ‘358 Patent at
`
`1:41—51.)
`
`52.
`
`The system then correlates the device’s location to a particular truck using
`
`computers programmed with customized “correlation logic” that indicates which driver is
`
`in which vehicle. (See ‘659 Patent at 5:7-6:48; ‘358 Patent, 1:49—51 and 10:58-62.)
`
`53.
`
`To address any issues regarding privacy, the system uses “notification
`
`logic” that informs the driver his location may be seen by others and “validation logic”
`
`that ensures the driver consents to sharing his location.
`
`(See ‘659 Patent at 8:26-10:49;
`
`‘358 Patent at 11:31—51.) Various parties can then request or receive the truck’s location
`
`from the third-party location service provider. (‘659 Patent at 5:25-54; ‘358 Patent at
`
`5:22-55.) For example, MacroPoint could request the information and then provide it to a
`
`shipper or customer.
`
`54.
`
`The invention provides several advantages over prior art systems.
`
`It
`
`provides continuous information about any truck’s location, allowing a shipper to know
`
`exactly where its goods are at any time.
`
`It allows shippers to efficiently go to a single
`
`source, such as MacroPoint, to obtain information about all shipments across all trucking
`
`companies. It can also process location data using multiple and distinct types of tracking
`
`technology—e.g., GPS, radiolocation, etc—unlike prior art systems in which each
`
`trucking company’s system was limited to a single technology.
`
`(See ‘659 Patent at 8:17—
`
`24; ‘358 Patent at 1:41-51.)
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 225
`åæçèéêëéìíéêêî
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`