`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.,
`PETITIONERS,
`
`v.
`
`MACROPOINT LLC,
`PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02016
`Patent 8,275,358
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MR. SCOTT ANDREW DENNING
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK .............................................. 2
`
`II.
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ....................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
` BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 3
`
`IV.
`
` LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Claim Interpretation ........................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness ....................................................................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`
`
`BASIS FOR OPINIONS .............................................................................12
`
`VI.
`
` FIELD OF ART ..........................................................................................13
`
`VII.
`
` POSITA ......................................................................................................13
`
`VIII.
`
` THE ’358 PATENT ....................................................................................14
`
`IX.
`
` ANALYSIS REGARDING THE CLAIMS OF THE ’358 PATENT IN
`LIGHT OF THE PRIOR ART ....................................................................16
`
`A. Overview of Poulin ...........................................................................16
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Karp .............................................................................18
`
`State of Technology at the Time of the Alleged Invention ................18
`
`D.
`
`’358 and Poulin .................................................................................22
`
`Claim 1 ...............................................................................................22
`
`Claim 3 ...............................................................................................33
`
`Claim 4 ...............................................................................................33
`
`Claim 5 ...............................................................................................36
`
`Claim 6 ...............................................................................................38
`
`Claim 7 ...............................................................................................40
`
`Claim 8 ...............................................................................................44
`
`
`
`i
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Claim 9 ...............................................................................................45
`
`Claim 10 .............................................................................................48
`
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................49
`
`Claim 12 .............................................................................................50
`
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................51
`
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................57
`
`Claim 16 .............................................................................................58
`
`Claim 17 .............................................................................................58
`
`Claim 18 .............................................................................................59
`
`Claim 19 .............................................................................................61
`
`Claim 22 .............................................................................................67
`
`Claim 23 .............................................................................................67
`
`Claim 24 .............................................................................................68
`
`Claim 25 .............................................................................................70
`
`Claim 26 .............................................................................................71
`
`Claim 30 .............................................................................................78
`
`E.
`
`Claims 2, 14, and 20 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by
`Poulin in view of Karp ......................................................................79
`
`Motivation to Combine: ..............................................................................79
`
`Claim 2 ...............................................................................................80
`
`Claim 14 .............................................................................................81
`
`Claim 20 .............................................................................................82
`
`X.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................83
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,275,358 to Adelson
`
`Exhibit 1003 CV of Scott Denning
`
`Exhibit 1004 Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 8,275,358
`
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0115453 to Poulin et al.
`
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,591,242 to Karp et al.
`
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0186166 to Zhou et al.
`
`Exhibit 1008 CTIA, Best Practices and Guidelines for Location-Based Services.
`
`Exhibit 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,592,538 to Kosowsky
`
`Exhibit 1010 U.S. Patent Pub. No 2007/0159322 to Campbell
`
`Exhibit 1011 U.S. Patent No. 8,045,995 to King et al. (“King”)
`
`Exhibit 1012 Order Dismissing Complaint Without Prejudice, FourKites, Inc. v
`MacroPoint, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02703-CAB (N.D. Ohio) (entered
`on June 27, 2017)
`
`Exhibit 1013 Proof of Service of Complaint of Patent Infringement, MacroPoint,
`LLC v Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 6:16-cv-01133 (E.D. TX) (served on
`August 31, 2016)
`
`Exhibit 1014 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0295798 to Roach (“Roach”)
`
`
`
`i
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`
`
`I, Scott Andrew Denning, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, declare that:
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK
`
`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.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis regarding the
`
`references identified by Ruiz Food Products, Inc. (“Petitioner”) in this IPR related
`
`to U.S. Patent 8,275,358 (“the ‘358 patent”), which appears to be assigned to
`
`MacroPoint, LLC (“Patent Owner”). I have been asked to consider what one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art before the earliest claimed priority date of the ‘358 patent,
`
`March 1, 2012, would have understood including scientific and technical
`
`knowledge related to the ’358 patent.
`
`3.
`
`I have also been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether
`
`claims 1-30 of the ‘358 patent (“the Challenged Claims”) would have been obvious
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`(“POSITA”).
`
`4. My analysis is directed by my education, training, and experience as a
`
`POSITA as of the priority date of the ’358 patent. The ‘358 patent was filed on
`
`March 1, 2012 as 13/409,281 (the ‘281 application).
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`5.
`
`For the purposes of my Declaration, I have been asked to assume that
`
`a patent or printed publication is prior art to the ‘358 patent if it is dated before
`
`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`March 1, 2012.
`
`6.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in connection with this IPR
`
`proceeding at my standard hourly rate. My compensation is not in any way
`
`contingent on the substance of my opinions or the outcome of these proceedings.
`
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`7.
`
`Based on my experience and expertise, discussed below, and my
`
`review of the references identified by Ruiz Foods in this IPR for the ’358 patent, it
`
`is my opinion that the cited references do render obvious all claims 1-30 of the
`
`’358 patent.
`
` BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`III.
`
`8.
`
`I am currently employed at Applied Sciences Corp. of Colorado
`
`Springs, Colorado, as an independent mobile wireless technologies expert and
`
`consultant. The following paragraphs summarize some of my experience that is
`
`relevant to the technologies described within the ’358 patent. For further details,
`
`please refer to my curriculum vitae attached to this declaration [Ex.1003].
`
`9.
`
`In 1993, I received a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Computer
`
`Science from the Southern College of Technology in Marietta, Georgia. I have
`
`over twenty-seven years of professional experience in areas of hardware and
`
`3
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`software engineering including wireless telecommunications technologies, location
`
`and navigation technologies, and network and Internet communications
`
`technologies. Applicable wireless technologies I have experience with include: 3rd
`
`Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Long Term Evolution (LTE or 4G), Code
`
`Division Multiple Access (CDMA), General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), 3rd
`
`Generation (3G), Global System for Mobile communication (GSM), Cellular
`
`Digital Packet Data (CDPD), and WiFi. Applicable location and navigation
`
`technologies I have experience with include: cellular signal timing, strength, and
`
`angle techniques (TDOA, AFLT, EOTD), WAAS, and GPS. Applicable network
`
`and Internet technologies I have experience with include web server development,
`
`BSD Sockets, RPC, XML-RPC, Software as a Service (SAS) and Distributive
`
`Computing. During this time, I have worked as a consultant, a software engineer,
`
`a systems architect, a principle engineer, a company executive, a forensic
`
`investigator, and an expert.
`
`10.
`
`I began working in cellular phone technology in 1990 for Pac-Tel
`
`Cellular as an entry-level consulting engineer. I worked on the design of several
`
`broadband fiber and microwave links that connected the various Pac-Tel facilities
`
`and cellular infrastructure including the MTSO and numerous cellsites. I also
`
`designed and built several cellular modems for connecting personal computer
`
`based devices via the cellular network. Furthermore, I worked with the fraud
`
`4
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`division to develop methods for identifying and locating stolen and cloned mobile
`
`phones based upon call signatures, calling patterns, cellsite handovers, and signal
`
`strength triangulation.
`
`11.
`
`In 1995, I began working for Optical Robotics to develop cellular
`
`phone based communications apparatus for pipeline inspection trucks. The system
`
`utilized AMPS cellular control channels for sending asynchronous serial data and
`
`was used for relaying messages and inspection data between municipal offices and
`
`the pipeline inspection trucks.
`
`12. From 1999 to 2002, I worked for Navsys Corporation and designed
`
`the network architecture and software for the servers and handheld devices,
`
`including the protocol stack, for handheld emergency personal location devices and
`
`the monitoring dispatch center. This system utilized IP packets transmitted via
`
`CDPD on AT&T’s DAMPS network for communication between the handheld
`
`device and the dispatch control center. In 2002, I worked to convert the network
`
`software and device firmware to GPRS when GSM became available in the
`
`necessary coverage areas. While at Navsys I designed and wrote the firmware for
`
`numerous geolocation systems that utilized proprietary communication schemes
`
`built on top of standard protocols and equipment. In particular, I wrote firmware
`
`for Novatel and Research In Motion embedded modem modules for managing
`
`5
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`device communication on the AMPS, CDMA, and GPRS cellular networks
`
`including call setup and handover procedures.
`
`13. From 2003 to 2007 at DRS Technologies and then again at Purple
`
`Mountain Labs, I designed two families of high performance embedded computers
`
`utilizing Broadcom’s broadband communications processor chips. These systems
`
`were designed for numerous military and intelligence applications including deep
`
`packet inspection for the monitoring of 2G and 3G cellular communications. This
`
`included processing control plane signals for call parameters and determining
`
`mobile device location using cellsite handovers and signal strength triangulation.
`
`14. During 2008-2010 while at Allied Security Trust, I built close
`
`relationships with the IP staff of Trust member companies in the mobile telecom
`
`space including Apple, Google, Verizon, RIM, Sony-Ericsson, Philips, and Cisco
`
`for the purpose of learning their mobile technologies and then identifying patents
`
`that may be of interest to the Trust. I was a key contributor in the acquisition of
`
`numerous patent assets, many of them having to do with wireless network
`
`infrastructure, low-level mobile communications protocols, location based
`
`services, and interprocess communications between devices on a network.
`
`15. Based on my experience and education, I believe that I am qualified to
`
`opine as to knowledge and level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention of the ’358 patent (which I further describe below) and what
`
`6
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`such a person would have understood at that time, and the state of the art during
`
`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`that time.
`
` LEGAL STANDARDS
`IV.
`
`16.
`
`In preparing my analysis, I have applied the legal standards described
`
`below, which were provided to me by counsel for the Patent Owner. I have been
`
`provided with an understanding of the legal standards sufficient to conduct the
`
`analysis given in this report.
`
`17.
`
`It is my understanding that assessing the validity of a U.S. patent
`
`based on a prior art analysis requires two essential steps. First, one must construe
`
`the terms of the patent claims to understand what meaning one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would give the terms. Second, after the claim terms have been construed,
`
`one may then assess validity by comparing a patent claim to the “prior art.” A
`
`patent or printed publication that predates March 1, 2012 is prior art against the
`
`‘358 patent. I understand that the teaching of the prior art is viewed through the
`
`eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. My
`
`opinion as to what constitutes a relevant person of ordinary skill in the art is set
`
`forth below. For purposes of my independent analysis, I have assumed that all of
`
`the references cited by the Petitioner in this IPR proceeding to be prior art.
`
`7
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`18.
`
`I understand that the ’358 patent has not expired. As such, I have
`
`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`been informed by counsel that the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard of
`
`construction applies in these proceedings. Under this standard, claims are to be
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`time of the respective claims of the ’358 patent. I have been informed that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard that applies in IPR proceedings
`
`involving unexpired patents is different than the standard applied by courts and in
`
`some other forums in which issued patents can be challenged for validity.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`19. My understanding is that a patent claim is invalid as obvious only if
`
`the subject matter “as a whole” of the claimed invention would have been obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the field at the time the invention was made. In
`
`determining the differences between a prior art reference (or a proposed
`
`combination of prior art references) and the claims, the question of obviousness is
`
`not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the
`
`claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. Also, obviousness
`
`grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
`
`8
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`some articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal
`
`conclusion of obviousness.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is not
`
`proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was
`
`independently known in the prior art. In evaluating whether any claim of the ’358
`
`patent would have been obvious, I considered whether the references listed above
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the field to combine the
`
`elements or concepts from the prior art in the same way as in the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that there is no single way to define the line between true
`
`inventiveness on one hand (which is patentable) and the application of common
`
`sense and ordinary skill to solve a problem on the other hand (which is not
`
`patentable). For example, market forces or other design incentives may be what
`
`produced a change, rather than true inventiveness.
`
`22.
`
`It is my understanding that the Board may consider whether the
`
`change was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to
`
`their known functions, or whether it was the result of true inventiveness. And, the
`
`Board may also consider whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior
`
`art to make the modification or combination of elements recited in the claim at
`
`issue. Also, the Board may consider whether the innovation applies a known
`
`9
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`technique that had been used to improve a similar device or method in a similar
`
`way. The Board may also consider whether the claimed invention would have
`
`been obvious to try, meaning that the claimed innovation was one of a relatively
`
`small number of possible approaches to the problem with a reasonable expectation
`
`of success by those skilled in the art.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claims, but can
`
`take into account ordinary innovation and experimentation, and that a person of
`
`skill in the art is a person of ordinary creativity and is not an automaton
`
`24.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel that if any of these considerations
`
`are relied upon to reach a conclusion of obviousness, the law requires that the
`
`analysis of such a relied-upon consideration must be made explicit. I understand
`
`that the Board must be careful not to determine obviousness using the benefit of
`
`hindsight and that many true inventions might seem obvious after the fact. I
`
`understand that the Board should consider obviousness from the position of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant field at the time the claimed invention was
`
`made and that the Board should not consider what is known today or what is
`
`learned from the teaching of the patent.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that in order to determine whether a patent claim is
`
`obvious, one must make certain factual findings regarding the claimed invention
`
`10
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`and the prior art. Specifically, I understand that the following factors must be
`
`evaluated to determine whether a claim is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (2) the difference or differences, if any, between the claim of the patent
`
`and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed
`
`invention was made; and (4) the objective indicia of non-obviousness (if
`
`available), also known as “secondary considerations.”
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the secondary considerations include:
`
`• commercial success of a product due to the merits of the
`
`claimed invention;
`
`• a long felt need for the solution provided by the claimed
`
`invention;
`
`• unsuccessful attempts by others to find the solution provided by
`
`the claimed invention;
`
`• copying of the claimed invention by others;
`
`• unexpected and superior results from the claimed invention;
`
`• acceptance by others of the claimed invention as shown by
`
`praise from others in the field or from the licensing of the
`
`claimed invention;
`
`• teaching away from the conventional wisdom in the art at the
`
`time of the invention;
`
`11
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`• independent invention of the claimed invention by others before
`
`or at about the same time as the named inventor thought of it;
`
`and
`
`• other evidence tending to show obviousness.
`
`27.
`
`It is my understanding that, in order to establish a secondary
`
`consideration, the evidence must demonstrate a nexus between that secondary
`
`consideration and the claimed invention.
`
`28.
`
`I am not aware of any such evidence of secondary considerations
`
`relative to the ‘358 patent and reserve the right to provide my opinion on any such
`
`evidence that the Patent Owner may later submit in this proceeding.
`
`29.
`
`I have applied these standards as I understand them to my evaluation
`
`of whether the claims of the ‘358 patent would have been obvious over the prior
`
`art.
`
`V.
`
` BASIS FOR OPINIONS
`
`30. My opinions and analysis set forth in this Declaration are based on my
`
`education, training, and experience as summarized above and detailed in my C.V.,
`
`as well as my review of the ’358 patent, the file history, and numerous prior art
`
`references, and technical references from the time of the alleged invention. I have
`
`also reviewed the Petition and each of the accompanying documents that are cited
`
`in the Petition in addition to those specifically mentioned below.
`
`12
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`31.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon
`
`my knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education in the relevant field of the
`
`art, and have considered the viewpoint of a person of skill in the art as of March 1,
`
`2012. My opinion is based, at least in part, on the following references in view of
`
`the knowledge of a person of skill in the art:
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US2002/0115453 to Poulin et al.
`
`(“Poulin”, Ex. 1005 );
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,591,242 to Karp et al. (“Karp”, Ex. 1006).
`
` FIELD OF ART
`VI.
`
`32. The ’358 patent generally relates to location tracking services utilizing
`
`GPS and/or other location technologies and selectively making the locations
`
`available to network subscribers. As such, it is my opinion that the ’358 patent is
`
`in the fields of location/tracking and telecommunications, and a complete
`
`understanding of the ’358 patent requires experience and appreciation of the
`
`challenges in design, development, and commercialization of such systems for
`
`consumer use.
`
` POSITA
`VII.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the teaching of the prior art is viewed through the
`
`eyes of a POSITA at the time of the invention. To assess the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, I understand that one can consider the types of problems encountered in
`
`13
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`the art, the prior solutions to those problems found in prior art references, the speed
`
`with which innovations were made at that time, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the level of education of active workers in the field.
`
`34. Based upon my knowledge and experience in this field and my review
`
`of the ’358 patent and the references cited above, I believe that a POSITA at the
`
`time of the invention (“POSITA” or “person of skill in the art”) would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`science, or a related discipline, and at least two to three years of relevant
`
`experience in the fields of location/navigation and telecommunications, such as
`
`experience with mobile networks and devices. Additional education might
`
`substitute for some of the experience and substantial experience might substitute
`
`for some of the educational background.
`
`35. My analysis is thus based on the perspective of a POSITA having at
`
`least this level of knowledge and skill in the time leading up to the ’358 patent. I
`
`have been informed that I should assume the priority date of the ’358 patent is the
`
`relevant time of the invention, namely March 1, 2012. I have applied this date in
`
`my analysis below.
`
` THE ’358 PATENT
`VIII.
`
`36. Figure 1 of the ‘358 patent, reproduced below, is system 100 for
`
`providing user notification and receiving a user’s consent to obtain location
`
`14
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`information of mobile device 110 [‘358 at 3:56-67, 4:1-2]. Communications
`
`interface 120, which can be associated with a telephone number, can participate in
`
`telephone calls with mobile device 110 [id. at 3:56-67, 4:1-2]. During the
`
`telephone call, validation logic 130 identifies mobile device 110 by an identifier
`
`that is received from and associated with mobile device 110 [id. at 4:3-26].
`
`
`
`Id. at FIG. 1
`
`37. System 100 transmits an automated voice message to mobile device
`
`110, which can include one or both of the following options [id. at 4:27-29]. In the
`
`first option, the automated voice message notifies the user that the user’s consent
`
`would “result in location information of the mobile device 110 being disclosed”
`
`[id. at 4:29-35]. In the second option, the automated voice message directs the user
`
`to a web address location [id. at 4:35-40]. The web address location includes a
`
`15
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`notification that the user’s consent would “result in location information of the
`
`mobile device 110 being disclosed” [id.]
`
`38. After the automated voice message is transmitted to mobile device
`
`110, communications interface 120 receives data from mobile device 110 that
`
`indicates whether the user has provided consent to sharing the location information
`
`of mobile device 110 [id. at 4:44-50]. For example, mobile device 110 can transmit
`
`data that the user provided consent, such as pressing a button or speaking a
`
`particular word or phrase [id. at 4:51-67; 5:1-4]. The request includes the mobile
`
`device’s identifier, and location provider 150 can be any party that has access to
`
`that mobile device’s location information [id. at 5:13-32]. Once communications
`
`interface 120 receives the location information, it then communicates the location
`
`information to obtaining party 160 [id. at 5:33-35].
`
` ANALYSIS REGARDING THE CLAIMS OF THE ’358 PATENT IN
`IX.
`LIGHT OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. Overview of Poulin
`
`39. U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0115453 is entitled “Method and
`
`System for Location Based Wireless Communication Services.” Poulin was filed
`
`on February 15, 2002 and listed Ronald Poulin, Kevin Buckham, and Anthony
`
`Melli as the inventors. It was published on August 22, 2002. Accordingly, I have
`
`been informed that Poulin is prior art to the ‘358 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`102(b).
`
`16
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`40. Poulin teaches a location based wireless service that enables
`
`subscribers to request the location and status information of other subscribers
`
`[Poulin at 0005]. For example, a communication service permits a subscriber to
`
`“define and maintain lists of wireless devices for which a subscriber may request
`
`location and status information” [id. at 0006]. In the employment context, the
`
`service “permit[s] employers to track progress and manage workloads by providing
`
`an overall picture of employee location, permitting employees to provide their
`
`current status, and permitting employers and employees to communicate via short
`
`message service or otherwise” [id. at 0022].
`
`41. Subscribers can control whether to disclose their location and/or status
`
`through their profile [id. at 0023]. Subscribers “maintain a profile that defines
`
`permission on when, where, and how other authorized subscribers (members of the
`
`group) may obtain an individual subscriber's own location and status information,”
`
`thus granting or denying permission according to a specified time or
`
`geography/area [id. at 0023]. The communication service also allows a subscriber
`
`to override rules associated with the subscriber’s profile by permitting the
`
`subscriber to “globally turn ON or turn OFF permission to be located and statused”
`
`[id. at 0024].
`
`17
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`42. The location based wireless service can be activated by a “service
`
`activation request message [that can be] the call signaling generated when a
`
`subscriber calls a service activation number” [id. at 0030].
`
`B. Overview of Karp
`
`43. U.S. Patent No 6,591,242 is entitled “Visit Verification Method and
`
`System” Ex. 1006. Karp was filed on April 15, 199 and issued on July 8, 2003.
`
`Accordingly, Karp is prior art to the ‘358 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`44. Karp teaches a system for tracking clients as they visit various
`
`locations. Karp at Abstract. Karp also teaches that an “ANI is used to identify the
`
`calling telephone” and that the ANI can be used in place of a client identifier, and
`
`utilized by a system to determine a phone number of a phone used to make an
`
`incoming call prior to the call being answered [id. at 1:31, 7:36-54, 7:66-8:8].
`
`C.
`
`State of Technology at the Time of the Alleged Invention
`
`45. The idea of providing notice and obtaining consent to location based
`
`services from wireless device users was a well-known solution to existing privacy
`
`concerns as acknowledged by the ‘358 patent [‘358 patent. at 1:52-2:3]. Indeed,
`
`the ‘358 quotes from existing CTIA1 Guidelines that “users must receive
`
`
`
`1 CTIA is a trade group that represents the U.S. wireless communications
`
`industry. See https://www.ctia.org/about; see also Ex. ‘358 patent at 1:58-59.
`
`18
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`‘meaningful notice...’ and “must also ‘consent to the use or disclosure of location
`
`information’ and ‘have the right to revoke consent.’” [id. at 1:63-2:3 quoting Ex.
`
`1008 at 1 (“These Guidelines rely on two fundamental principles: user notice and
`
`consent….”); see also id. at 5:56-58 (quoting CTIA Guidelines in describing a
`
`revocation of consent embodiment of the alleged invention)]. Furthermore, it was
`
`my experience that this is true, a POSITA when designing systems that track a
`
`user’s location, would consider both consent to track and revocation of that
`
`consent, because users are very cognizant when a company has access to
`
`information that they deem private. Companies were very concerned that users
`
`would avoid services that did not treat their privacy seriously, and one way to show
`
`that a company is treating user’s privacy seriously is to provide the user the ability
`
`to grant, deny, and revoke permission to track the user.
`
`46. This is further true when considered in the context where these
`
`services are typically used. For example, it was common to use these services with
`
`family and significant others in one context, and employment in another context. In
`
`both of these situations, the relationships end routinely, via ending personal
`
`relationships or ending employment with a specific company. Under both of these
`
`circumstances it is foreseeable that a user of the services would not want a former
`
`personal or professional relationship to continue tracking the user’s location after
`
`the relationship ended. Accordingly, by the time the ‘358 patent was filed, it was
`
`19
`
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02016
`
`
`routine to include privacy protections, including providing users the ability to grant
`
`and revoke permission to track their location.