`
`a mobile device in a variety of ways omits the requirement of receiving location
`
`information of a mobile device. There is no limitation on the methods of acquiring the
`
`location information of a mobile device by the mobile device.
`
`339. Therefore, Dr. Heppe did not establish by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that Thomas disclosed the present limitation. Accordingly, Thomas does not anticipate
`
`element 2.1.
`
`340. In addition, Thomas does not disclose receiving device location from a
`
`mobile device. See section above "In Thomas the Location Information Provider is not
`
`disclosed."
`
`8.2.2.3 Claim 2.2 —Thomas does not disclose receiving a request for information
`
`regarding the location of a ~~ehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle.
`
`341. Claim 2.2 requires "the central processing unit programmed to: receive a
`
`request for information regarding the location of the vehicle or the freight carried by the
`
`vehicle" Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report at
`
`¶216-217. I disagree. Thomas does not disclose receiving a request for information
`
`regarding the location of the vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle. See Notice of
`
`Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31, 34.
`
`342. Dr. Heppe has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`Thomas discloses a request for location of a vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle.
`
`While Thomas does use a wireless network to monitor mobile devices, Notice of
`
`Allowability at §5, Dr. Heppe has not asserted that any of the requests he asserts are
`
`l l4
`
`Page 114 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`disclosed by Thomas are a request for location of a vehicle or freight carried by a vehicle.
`
`All the requests Dr. Heppe has identified in Thomas involve a mobile device. In my
`
`opinion a mobile device is not a vehicle nor is a mobile device the freight carried b~ the
`
`vehicle.
`
`343. Therefore, Dr. Heppe did not establish by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that Thomas disclosed a request for location of a vehicle or the freight carried by the
`
`vehicle. Accordingly, Thomas does not anticipate element 2.2.
`
`344. In addition, Thomas does not disclose monitoring vehicles or freight
`
`carried by vehicles. See section above "In Thomas the location of a mobile phone is not
`
`the location of a vehicle."
`
`8.2.2.4 Claim 2.3 —Thomas does not disclose a location information provider.
`
`345. Claim 2.3 requires "the central processing unit programmed to ...request
`
`location information of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver from a location
`
`information provider." Dr. Heppe opined that claim 23 was disclosed by Thomas or
`
`would have been obvious over Thomas. Heppe Opening Report at paragraph 218-23
`
`(disclosed) and paragraph 223 (obvious). I disagree. Dr. Heppe has not established that
`
`Thomas discloses location information of the mobile device being obtained from a
`
`location information provider. See File Wrapper of `659 Patent, Notice ofAllowability §5
`
`(July 6, 2016) (the "Notice of Allowability"). Thomas does not anticipate or render
`
`obvious claim 2 for at least this reason.
`
`346. Dr. Heppe observes that the '659 Patent discloses that the claimed
`
`"location information provider" can be a "wireless service provider," (Heppe Opening
`
`1 15
`
`Page 115 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`Report at §218), and then Dr. Heppe incorrectly concludes that in Thomas, "the wireless
`
`network is the claimed location information provider." Heppe Opening Report at ¶220.
`
`This is incorrect. Dr. Heppe improperly conflates a wireless network with a wireless
`
`service provider.
`
`347. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a network, such
`
`as a wireless network, is infrastructure, while a service provider, such as a wireless
`
`service provider or a location information provider, provides a service that may use the
`
`infrastructure. Accordingly, the `659 Patent consistently treats the location information
`
`provider 150 and the wireless network 155 as distinct throughout the patent. The `659
`
`Patent teaches, for example, "In one embodiment, the location information provider 150
`
`is a wireless service provider that provides wireless service in a network 155." `659
`
`Patent at 4:35-38.
`
`348. In Thomas, by contrast, "the location of the client device (mobile device)
`
`can be determined ... by a wireless network infrastructure," (Thomas at 5:54-61),
`
`"us[ing] location information obtained from a wireless network," (Thomas at 4:37).
`
`Heppe Opening Report at ¶219. "In an embodiment of Thomas where location is
`
`determined by the wireless network, a POSITA would understand that this information
`
`would be requested from the wireless network ... " Heppe Opening Report at ¶221.
`
`"[A] POSITA would understand the scope of these disclosures in Thomas to include a
`
`pair of servers —the location monitoring server 102 plus a server associated with the
`
`wireless network infrastructure —wherein the location monitoring server requests location
`
`1 16
`
`Page 116 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`information of the client (mobile) device from the server associated with the wireless
`
`network infrastructure." Heppe Opening Report at ¶222.
`
`349. Dr. Heppe has not demonstrated Thomas to disclose that the location of a
`
`mobile device can be determined from a service provider of any kind, much less a
`
`location information provider.
`
`350. Thus, while Thomas may disclose a wireless network,(Notice of
`
`Allowability at §5), Defendants and Dr. Heppe have not met their burden to prove by
`
`clear and convincing evidence that Thomas discloses "the central processing unit
`
`programmed to ...request location information of the mobile device comprising the GPS
`
`receiver from a location information provider."
`
`351.
`
`352. The argument that Thomas anticipates and/or renders obvious the asserted
`
`claims has been made before. File Wrapper of `659 Patent, Protest Under 37 C.F.R. ~
`
`1.291 at 4-5 (Jan. 27, 2016) (the "Protest"). Protestants specifically stated regarding
`
`Thomas: "Another method is to use location information from a wireless network. The
`
`wireless network can provide location information on some or all of the mobile units.
`
`(Thomas, 4:37-41)." Protest at 4. The Examiner plainly appreciated the distinction
`
`between a network and a provider. The Examiner stated in his Notice of Allowability
`
`"One embodiment [of Thomas] includes mobile computing devices supported by a
`
`wireless network . . . ," "Thomas doesn't appear to teach the location information of the
`
`mobile device being obtained from a location information provider . . . ," and "While
`
`-. _ -.
`
`1 17
`
`Page 117 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`Thomas does use a wireless network to monitor mobile devices, the [Thomas] reference
`
`doesn't teach all the limitations ...The prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious
`
`the unique system of monitoring freight locations ...." Id. at §5.
`
`353. Thomas discloses a first approach that transmits GPS data from a mobile
`
`device, through (rather than from) a wireless network, to a server. See Thomas at l :66-67
`
`("transmitting the location information to a web server through at least in part a wireless
`
`network"). (emphasis added) See also Thomas at 3:15-17, 4:5-9, and 4:23-28 (location
`
`information transmitted through wireless network) and 4:2-3 (wireless network "enabled"
`
`moble device to communicate with server).
`
`354. Thomas also discloses a second approach (discussed above) involving
`
`tower-based data acquisition from a wireless network. See Thomas at 4:37-42. As
`
`Thomas makes clear, the second approach does not involve GPS data originating on the
`
`mobile device. "In this case, the mobile units need not participate in obtaining the
`
`location information." Thomas at 4:41-42. See also Heppe Opening Report at
`
`paragraph 219 (quoting Thomas's statement that "the mobile units need not participate in
`
`obtaining the location information"). Thus, Thomas expressly disclaims receiving GPS-
`
`-.. -.
`
`ll8
`
`Page 118 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`originated data generated on the mobile device and originating from the wireless
`
`network.29
`
`355. Dr. Heppe nonetheless concludes that Thomas teaches the claimed
`
`"location information provider." Dr. Heppe's conclusion is based on a
`
`mischaracterization of Thomas and I disagree with his conclusion for at least that reason.
`
`356. Dr. Heppe bases his conclusion on an opinion that the "wireless network"
`
`is the claimed "location information provider." See Heppe Opening Report at 230
`
`("Here, the wireless network is the claimed location information provider."). I disagree
`
`that Thomas's wireless network is the claimed "location information provider."
`
`357. As discussed above, Thomas discloses that location data can be
`
`communicated through a wireless network but Thomas expressly and unambiguously
`
`disclaims any embodiment in which the location data originates from the wireless
`
`network. Dr. Heppe interprets Thomas to originate location data from the wireless
`
`network so Dr. Heppe's interpretation, and thus his conclusion relying on that
`
`interpretation, must be incorrect.
`
`z9 Although not relevant to my analysis, Thomas also discloses a third approach combining results from
`each of the first and second approaches. See Thomas at 4:42-50. Because neither of the first two
`approaches disclose claim 2.3, a combination of the first two approaches also does not disclose claim 2.3.
`Therefore, Thomas's third approach combining Thomas's first two approaches is irrelevant to my analysis.
`
`-.. -.
`
`l l9
`
`Page 119 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`358. Dr. Heppe opines, in support of his conclusion, that "Thomas also teaches
`
`that the location monitoring server or some other server could send a request for location
`
`information to a client device." (emphasis in original) See Heppe Opening Report at
`
`paragraph 220. Dr. Heppe italicized "or some other server" so I understand Dr. Heppe to
`
`opine that the "some other server" is part of the wireless network.
`
`359. I disagree that a POSITA would have understood Thomas's mention of
`
`"some other server" as disclosing that the other server was part of the wireless network.
`
`One reason for my conclusion is that the context of the sentence Dr. Heppe cites suggests
`
`otherwise. That sentence refers to a "location monitoring server or some other server" as
`
`sending a request to a client device. The location monitoring server in Thomas is not on
`
`the wireless network. Indeed, the location monitoring server receives information from
`
`the wireless network so the location monitoring server is separate from the wireless
`
`network. See Thomas at 4:38-41 (wireless network can provide location information to a
`
`location monitoring server). Thus, a POSITA would understand the "other server" to be
`
`similarly outside the wireless network based on its similar reference within the same
`
`sentence.
`
`360. My conclusion is supported by my observation that if the "other server"
`
`were on the wireless network, Thomas would have disclosed requesting data from that
`
`other server similar to how Thomas discloses requesting data from the mobile device. In
`
`the absence of such a request, the location data remains on the "other server" within the
`
`wireless network and never reaches Thomas's disclosed systems.
`
`-.. -.
`
`120
`
`Page 120 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`361. To the extent that Dr. Heppe implies that an oblique reference to "other
`
`server" implicitly encompasses servers at any location, including servers on the wireless
`
`network, thereby supporting an inference that location data could originate from the other
`
`server on the wireless network, I disagree. Stated differently, a disclosure of "other
`
`server" does not inherently disclose a server located on the wireless network because
`
`such an interpretation merely reflects one design choice among many design alternatives.
`
`As discussed in other contexts, a design choice in the presence of design alternatives
`
`cannot support an inherency conclusion absent more. Claim 2 requires a much more
`
`specific system and a general disclosure of "other server" does not meet the requirements
`
`of claim 2.3.
`
`362. Dr. Heppe did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Thomas
`
`disclosed a location information provider required by claim 2.3. Therefore, Thomas does
`
`not anticipate independent claim 2 or claims 3-6, 8, and ] 0—1 l because they depend from
`
`claim 2.
`
`363. In addition, Thomas does not disclose a location information provider. See
`
`section above "In Thomas the Location Information Provider is not disclosed."
`
`8.2.2.5 Claim 2.4 —Thomas does not disclose the server receiving a signal that
`
`indicates consent was given to transmission of location information.
`
`364. Claim 2.4 requires ""the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`receive a signal that indicates that consent was given to transmission of location
`
`information." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report
`
`at ¶227-229. I disagree. Thomas does not disclose anything specifically about receiving
`
`121
`
`Page 121 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`a signal that indicates that consent was given to transmission of location information. See
`
`Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31, 33-34.
`
`365. Dr. Heppe first mischaracterizes the consent to transmission of location
`
`information required by claim 2.4 to be "authorization for location monitoring" before
`
`stating that Thomas explicitly discloses it. Heppe Opening report at ¶227. However, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand these two concepts to be
`
`equivalent. The skilled artisan would understand that one may consent to the
`
`transmission of location information, but still retain authorization for monitoring the
`
`location. For example, one might consent to the transmission of location information, but
`
`allow it to be monitored in its entirety to A, only in part to B, and not at all to C.
`
`Regardless of whether Dr. Heppe has demonstrated that Thomas discloses authorization
`
`for location monitoring, he has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`Thomas discloses the required consent to transmission of location information.
`
`366. Further, Thomas does not disclose Dr. Heppe's analysis of claim 2.4 and
`
`Thomas does not identify consent was given to the machine of claim 2.0.
`
`367. Dr. Heppe omitted consent was given" to the machine of claim 2.0. He
`
`asserts Thomas teaches sending an access request to the mobile phone to determine if a
`
`requestor is allowed to access to the location of the mobile phone. Dr. Heppe asserts that
`
`from Thomas "authorization for location monitoring can be controlled by the owner or
`
`user of the mobile communication device". [Heppe Opening Report at ¶227]
`
`368. Dr. Heppe also asserts, "Furthermore, claim 20 of Thomas notes that the
`
`location monitoring system is "configured to send an access request to the mobile phone
`
`122
`
`Page 122 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`to determine if a requestor is allowed to access [sic] to the location of the mobile phone"
`
`[Heppe Opening Report at ¶228]
`
`369. The limitation of claim 2 is the machine or group of machines receives a
`
`signal that indicates consent was given. Heppe wrongly applies this limitation to the
`
`parties that access the server. The following diagram shows the consent message flow of
`
`element 2.4.
`
`Location
`Information
`Provider
`
`_._._._---__~
`Consent
`
`_~
`
`Wireless
`Device
`
`__.
`
`Access
`
`Authorized User
`
`A
`
`~,
`Access
`
`AuthorixedUser
`
`i
`
`I
`
`gachipeor
`~
`I rou of
`j machines
`
`Acce~
`
`Authorized User
`~ C
`
`370. In the diagram above, the machine or group of machines from claim 2.0
`
`receives a signal from Location Information Provider indicating consent has been given
`
`from the wireless device to access the location of the wireless device. This is a single
`
`consent that the machine or group of machines can then provide to authorized users.
`
`37l . The following diagram shows the consent message flow of Thomas.
`
`Thomas
`Server
`
`Consent
`
`Authorize User
`A
`
`Wireless
`
`Consent
`Device ~~ B
`
`Authorized User
`
`Authorized User
`
`C
`
`l23
`
`Page 123 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`372. The diagram above shows a very different flow of a consent message.
`
`Each authorized user must be given consent from the wireless device by the server taught
`
`in Thomas.
`
`373. The machine or group of machines of claim 2 receives a signal that
`
`indicates consent was given. Such a signal may take the form of location information
`
`itself. With consent, the location information is then transmitted and stored on the
`
`machine. The machine can then use this stored location information to estimate the
`
`location information of a vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle. This estimated
`
`location information can then be shared with multiple parties authorized to access the
`
`location information of vehicles or freight carried by vehicles.
`
`374. Dr. Heppe mischaracterizes the requestor as the machine or group of
`
`machines taught in claim 2. The requestors in Thomas are other servers accessing the
`
`monitoring server taught by Thomas.
`
`375. Therefore, Dr. Heppe did not establish by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that Thomas disclosed consent was given" to the machine of claim 2.0. Accordingly,
`
`Thomas does not anticipate claim 2.4.
`
`376. In addition, Thomas does not disclose a server receiving a signal that
`
`indicates consent was given to transmission of location information as shown above in
`
`section "In Thomas consent is not given to transmit location information to the machine."
`
`124
`
`Page 124 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`8.2.2.6 Claim 2.5 —Thomas does not disclose receiving location information
`
`originating from a device other than the mobile device.
`
`377. Claim 2.5 requires "the central processing unit programmed to ... receive
`
`from the location information provider location information of the mobile device
`
`comprising the GPS receiver, wherein the location information of the mobile device
`
`comprising the GPS receiver originated from a device other than the mobile device
`
`comprising the GPS receiver itself." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶230-232. I disagree. Thomas does not disclose the location
`
`information of the mobile device originating from a device other than the the mobile
`
`device comprising the GPS receiver itself. See Notice of Allowability at ~5; Protest
`
`Response at 31, 34.
`
`378. Dr. Heppe begins his analysis by recharacterizing the claims to leave out
`
`certain limitations. "Boiled down, this element requires location information of the
`
`mobile device (that is GPS configured) to originate from another source." Heppe
`
`Opening report at ¶231. In one particular, this mischaracterization writes out the
`
`limitation of claim 2.5 that the location information must be received from the location
`
`information provider. I understand that it is not permitted to write out claim limitations.
`
`379. Relying on the teaching in the `659 Patent that a location information can
`
`be a wireless service provider, (`659 Patent at 4:35-38), Dr. Heppe repeats his error
`
`(discussed with regard to claim 23 above) and once again conflates a wireless service
`
`provider with a wireless network. Heppe Opening report at ¶231-232. Dr. Heppe asserts
`
`"Thomas explicitly contemplates that while the location information can be generated by
`
`125
`
`Page 125 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`the device itself, alternatively, it can be provided by the wireless network." Heppe
`
`Opening report at ¶232 (emphasis added). For the same reasons discussed with respect to
`
`claim 2.3 above, a wireless network is not the location information provider of the
`
`claimed invention. Information received from the wireless network of Thomas is
`
`therefore not received from a location information provider, as required by the claims.
`
`Dr. Heppe has not demonstrated receiving from the location information provider
`
`location information originating from a device other than the mobile device.
`
`380. Therefore, Dr. Heppe did not establish by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that Thomas discloses "the central processing unit programmed to ...receive from the
`
`location information provider location information of the mobile device comprising the
`
`GPS receiver, wherein the location information of the mobile device comprising the GPS
`
`receiver originated from a device other than the mobile device comprising the GPS
`
`receiver itself' as required by claim 2. Accordingly, Thomas does not anticipate element
`
`2.
`
`38l . In addition, Thomas does not disclose receiving location information from
`
`a mobile device. See section above "In Thomas the Location Information Provider is not
`
`disclosed."
`
`8.2.2.7 Claim 2.6 —Thomas does not disclose estimating location based at least in
`
`part on the location information of the mobile device.
`
`382. Claim 2.6 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`estimate the location of the vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle based at least in
`
`part on the location information of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver." Dr.
`
`-.. -.
`
`126
`
`Page 126 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report at ¶233-236. I
`
`disagree. Thomas does not disclose a location estimate based at least in part on the
`
`location information. See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 3l, 34.
`
`383. Dr. Heppe has failed to demonstrate an estimate based at least in part on
`
`the location information. Dr. Heppe asserts a specification of Thomas notes that the
`
`"location monitoring server 102 manages location information pertaining to a plurality of
`
`mobile units 104. The mobile units are typically attached to objects, such as people,
`
`vehicles, or containers." Heppe Opening report at ¶234. He asserts that attaching objects
`
`to a mobile unit is equivalent to estimating the location of a vehicle or the freight carried
`
`by the vehicle.
`
`384. Dr. Heppe does not indicate or imply any form of estimating location
`
`information. His response of attachment to an object is a direct correlation. Heppe
`
`Opening report at ¶234. It is not an estimate. Dr. Heppe asserts "If the claimed
`
`estimation process is interpreted to include the trivial or degenerate algorithm which
`
`simply assigns the reported mobile device location to the vehicle or freight to which it is
`
`attached (and with which it is associated), then these disclosures in Thomas teach the
`
`limitation." Heppe Opening report at ¶235. This is a tacit admission that his assertion is
`
`inadequate.
`
`385. Dr. Heppe fails to indicate any estimating process that is based at least in
`
`part on the location information. Dr. Heppe opines on attached objects, such as people,
`
`vehicles, or containers. He does not disclose how attached objects to a mobile device
`
`provides an estimate based at least in part on the location information.
`
`127
`
`Page 127 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`386. Therefore, Dr. Heppe did not establish by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that Thomas provides an estimate based at least in part on the location information.
`
`Accordingly, Thomas does not anticipate element 2.6.
`
`387. In addition, Thomas does not disclose estimating location information
`
`from a mobile device. See section above "In Thomas the Location Information Provider
`
`is not disclosed."
`
`8.2.3 Claim 12
`
`388. I refer to the elements of claim 12 by a numbering scheme consistent with
`
`that used in my report regarding infringement and shown in Exhibit B to that report. See
`
`Infringement Report, Exh. B 15-20. Claim 12 requires the following elements: claim
`
`12.1, claim 12.2, claim 12.3, claim 12.4, claim 12.5, claim 12.6, and claim 12.7. To the
`
`extent the preamble is found to be limiting, claim 12 also requires claim 12.0. Dr. Heppe
`
`opined "that Thomas anticipates claim 12, and alternatively does so inherently, or at the
`
`very least renders the claim obvious." Heppe Opening report at ¶255. I disagree, for the
`
`reasons set forth below.
`
`8.2.3.1 Claim 12.0 preamble —Thomas does not disclose monitoring location of a
`
`vehicle or freight
`
`389. To the extent the preamble is found to be limiting, claim 12.0 requires
`
`"[a] machine or group of machines for monitoring location of at least one of a vehicle or
`
`freight carried by the vehicle ... " Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶239 I disagree, for reasons similar to those stated above with
`
`-.. -.
`
`l28
`
`Page 128 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`respect to Claim 2.0. Dr. Heppe has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`Thomas discloses monitoring the location of a vehicle or freight carried by the vehicle.
`
`See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31.
`
`f~ ' 1
`
`8.2.3.2 Claim 12.1— Thomas does not disclose a transceiver that receives location
`
`information of a mobile device.
`
`391. Claim 12.1 requires, among other limitations, "a server communication
`
`transceiver that receives location information of a mobile device." Dr. Heppe asserts that
`
`this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report at ¶¶240-241. I disagree, for reasons
`
`similar to those stated above with respect to Claim 2.1. Thomas does not disclose this
`
`element. See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 37.
`
`8.2.3.3 Claim 12.2 —Thomas does not disclose determining whether consent was
`
`given to transmit location information of the mobile device.
`
`392. Claim 12.2 requires "the central processing unit programmed to:
`
`determine whether consent was given to transmit location information of the mobile
`
`device comprising the GPS receiver." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶¶242-243. I disagree, at least for reasons similar to those
`
`stated above with respect to Claim 2.4. Thomas does not disclose this element. See
`
`Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31, 37.
`
`129
`
`Page 129 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`8.2.3.4 Claim 12.3 —Thomas does not disclose estimating location based on the
`
`location information of the mobile device.
`
`393. Claim 12.3 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`estimate the location of the at least one of the vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle
`
`based nn the location information of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver;."
`
`Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report at ¶¶244-245.
`
`I disagree, at least for reasons similar to those stated above with respect to Claim 2.6.
`
`Thomas does not disclose this element. See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest
`
`Response at 37.
`
`8.2.3.5 Claim 12.4 —Thomas does not disclose receiving a request for information
`
`regarding the location of the vehicle or freight.
`
`394. Claim 12.4 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`receive a request for information regarding the location of the at least one of the vehicle
`
`or the freight carried by the vehicle." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶¶246-247. I disagree, at least for reasons similar to those
`
`stated above with respect to Claim 2.2. Thomas does not disclose this element. See
`
`Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 37-38.
`
`8.2.3.6 Claim 12.5 —Thomas does not disclose a location information provider.
`
`395. Claim 12.5 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`request location information of the mobile device comprising a GPS receiver from a
`
`130
`
`Page 130 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`location information provider corresponding to a device other than the mobile device
`
`comprising the GPS receiver." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶¶248-250. I disagree, at least for reasons similar to those
`
`stated above with respect to Claim 2.3 and 2.5. Thomas does not disclose this element.
`
`See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31, 38. Further, Dr. Heppe asserts
`
`without support or analysis that MacroPoint disclaimed the scope indicated by the plain
`
`language of the claim. Heppe Opening report at ¶¶249.
`
`8.2.3.7 Claim 12.6 —Thomas does not disclose a location information provider.
`
`396. Claim 12.6 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`receive from the location information provider the location information of the mobile
`
`device comprising the GPS receiver." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶¶25l -252. I disagree, at least for reasons similar to those
`
`stated above with respect to Claim 2.5. Thomas does not disclose this element. See
`
`Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31, 38.
`
`8.2.3.8 Claim 12.7 —Thomas does not disclose a location information provider.
`
`397. Claim 12.7 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`communicate the location of the at least one of the vehicle or the freight carried by the
`
`vehicle to cause a representation of the location of the vehicle or the freight carried by the
`
`vehicle by a remote device." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe
`
`Opening report at ¶¶253-254. I disagree, at least for reasons similar to those stated above
`
`-.. -.
`
`131
`
`Page 131 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`with respect to Claim 2.7. Thomas does not disclose this element. See Notice of
`
`Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31, 38.
`
`398. Claim 12.1 requires, among other limitations, "a server communication
`
`transceiver that receives location information of a mobile device." Dr. Heppe asserts that
`
`this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report at ¶240. I disagree, for reasons
`
`similar to those stated above with respect to Claim 12.1. Thomas does not disclose
`
`receiving a request for information regarding the location of the vehicle or the freight
`
`carried by the vehicle. See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 37.
`
`8.2.4 Claim 23
`
`399. I refer to the elements of claim 23 by a numbering scheme consistent with
`
`that used in my report regarding infringement and shown in Exhibit B to that report. See
`
`Infringement Report, Exh. B 36-42. Claim 23 requires the following elements: claim
`
`23.1, claim 23.2, claim 23.3, claim 23.4, claim 23.5, claim 23.6, and claim 23.7. To the
`
`extent the preamble is found to be limiting, claim 23 also requires claim 23.0. Dr. Heppe
`
`opined that "Thomas teaches all elements of the alleged invention if claim 23 and
`
`therefore anticipates the claim. In the alternative, given the state of the art at the time of
`
`the invention, a person of skill would easily arrive at the alleged invention, with the
`
`teachings of Thomas, rendering claim 23 obvious." Heppe Opening report at ¶270. I
`
`disagree, for the reasons set forth below.
`
`-.. -.
`
`l32
`
`Page 132 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`
`8.2.4.1 Claim 23.0 preamble —Thomas does not disclose monitoring location of a
`
`vehicle or freight
`
`400. To the extent the preamble is found to be limiting, claim 23.0 requires
`
`"[a] machine or group of machines for monitoring location of at least one of a vehicle or
`
`freight carried by the vehicle ... " Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶256-257. I disagree, for reasons similar to those stated above
`
`with respect to Claim 2.0 and 12.0. Dr. Heppe has not shown by clear and convincing
`
`evidence that Thomas discloses monitoring the location of a vehicle or freight carried by
`
`the vehicle. See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31.
`
`8.2.4.2 Claim 23.1— Thomas does not disclose a transceiver that receives location
`
`information of a mobile de~~ice.
`
`401. Claim 23.1 requires, among other limitations, "a server communication
`
`transceiver that receives location information of a mobile device." Dr. Heppe asserts that
`
`this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report at ¶¶258. I disagree, for reasons
`
`similar to those stated above with respect to Claim 2.1 and 12.1. Thomas does not
`
`disclose this element. See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31.
`
`8.2.4.3 Claim 23.2 —Thomas does not disclose receiving a request for information
`
`regarding the location of the vehicle or freight.
`
`402. Claim 23.2 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`receive a request for information regarding the location of the at least one of the vehicle
`
`or the freight carried by the vehicle." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is di