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