`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.,
`PETITIONERS,
`
`v.
`
`MACROPOINT LLP,
`PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MR. SCOTT ANDREW DENNING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................. iii
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK .................................................. 1
`
`II.
`
` SUMMARY OF OPINIONS........................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
` BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 2
`
`IV.
`
` LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 6
`
`A. Claim Interpretation .............................................................................. 7
`
`B. Obviousness .......................................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
` BASIS FOR OPINIONS ................................................................................11
`
`VI.
`
` FIELD OF ART ...........................................................................................13
`
`VII.
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................13
`
`VIII.
`
` THE ’659 PATENT ....................................................................................14
`
`A. The Prosecution History ......................................................................14
`
`B. Summary of Disclosure of the Claimed Invention ................................18
`
`IX.
`
` THE STATE OF THE ART RELEVANT TO THE ’659 PATENT .............20
`
`X.
`
` SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES RELIED ON FOR
`OBVIOUSNESS .........................................................................................23
`
`A. Enzmann (U.S. Patent No. 7,130,630) .................................................23
`
`B. King (U.S. Patent No. 8,045,995) ........................................................24
`
`C. Dhanani (U.S. Patent No. 8,395,547) ...................................................26
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`XI.
`
` CLAIMS 1-30 ARE OBVIOUS ...................................................................27
`
`XII.
`
` DETAILED INVALIDITY ANALYSIS .....................................................28
`
`XIII.
`
` CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................85
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`Exhibit
`1003
`Exhibit
`1004
`Exhibit
`1005
`Exhibit
`1006
`Exhibit
`1007
`Exhibit
`1008
`Exhibit
`1009
`Exhibit
`1010
`Exhibit
`1011
`Exhibit
`1012
`
`Exhibit
`1013
`
`Exhibit
`1014
`Exhibit
`1015
`Exhibit
`1016
`Exhibit
`1017
`Exhibit
`1018
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,429,659 (“the ’659 patent”)
`
`Scott Denning CV
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,130,630 to Enzmann et al. (“Enzmann”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,045,995 to King et al. (“King”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,395,547 to Dhanani et al. (“Dhanani”)
`
`Prosecution File History of the ’659 patent
`
`CTIA, Best Practices and Guidelines for Location-Based Services
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D580,387 to Andre et al. (“Andre”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,833,811 to Zeitfuss et al. (“Zeitfuss”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163 to Ording et al. (“Ording”)
`
`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)
`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)
`Complaint of Patent Infringement, MacroPoint, LLC v. Ruiz Food
`Products, Inc., 6:16-cv-01133 (E.D. TX)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,736,290 to McCallion (“McCallion”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,467,420 to Murakami (“Murakami”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,768,150 to Chang et al. (“Chang”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0186166 to Zhou et al. (“Zhou”)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`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 fields of location
`
`tracking and telecommunications.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis regarding the
`
`references identified by petitioner Ruiz Food Products, Inc. (“Petitioner”) in this
`
`IPR related to U.S. Patent 9,429,659 (“the ’659 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
`
`’659 patent, March 26, 2012, would have understood including scientific and
`
`technical knowledge related to the ’659 patent.
`
`3.
`
`I have also been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether
`
`claims 1-30 of the ’659 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
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest claimed priority date of the ’659
`
`patent. The ’659 patent was filed on January 4, 2016 as Application No.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`14/987,707 (the ‘707 application) and identifies several continuation applications,
`
`the earliest filed March 26, 2012 as U.S. Patent No. 8,330,626.
`
`5.
`
`For the purposes of my Declaration, I have been asked to assume that
`
`a patent or printed publication is prior art to the ’659 patent if it is dated before
`
`March 26, 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 Petitioner in this IPR for the ’659 patent, it is
`
`my opinion that the cited references render obvious all claims 1-30 of the ’659
`
`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 ’659 patent. For further details,
`
`please refer to my curriculum vitae attached to this declaration [Scott Denning
`
`CV].
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`built on top of standard protocols and equipment. In particular, I wrote firmware
`
`for Novatel and Research In Motion embedded modem modules for managing
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`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 ’659 patent (which I further describe below) and what
`
`such a person would have understood at that time, and the state of the art during
`
`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 Petitioner. 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 26, 2012 is prior art against the
`
`’659 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`18.
`
`I understand that the ’659 patent has not expired. As such, I have
`
`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 ’659 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
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
`
`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 ’659
`
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`issue. Also, the Board may consider whether the innovation applies a known
`
`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.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`I understand that in order to determine whether a patent claim is
`
`obvious, one must make certain factual findings regarding the claimed invention
`
`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;
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`• teaching away from the conventional wisdom in the art at the
`
`time of the invention;
`
`• 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 ’659 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 ’659 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 ’659 patent, the file history, numerous prior art
`
`references, and technical references from the time of the alleged invention. I have
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`also reviewed the Petition and each of the accompanying documents that are cited
`
`in the Petition in addition to those specifically mentioned below.
`
`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
`
`26, 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 No. 7,130,630 to Enzmann et al. (“Enzmann,” Ex. 1004)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,045,995 to King et al. (“King,” Ex. 1005)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,395,547 to Dhanani et al. (“Dhanani,” Ex. 1006)
`
`32. While some of the above grounds for obviousness cover the same
`
`claims, the technical teachings between the different grounds are not cumulative.
`
`For claims 5, 17, and 26, while Enzmann alone discloses software that a POSITA
`
`would find renders obvious using application programming interface (API), King
`
`expressly discloses using API for location based software that would lead a
`
`POSITA to utilize an API in the system of Enzmann. For claims 11 and 16,
`
`Enzmann alone discloses triangulation, which is one technique to obtain location
`
`information in the claimed markush group. However, Dhanani teaches other
`
`techniques in the claimed markush group for obtaining location information
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`including advance forward link trilateration (AFLT), observed time difference
`
`(OTD), and Cell-ID (CID) that a POSITA would use with the system of Enzmann.
`
`
`
` FIELD OF ART VI.
`
`33. The ’659 patent generally relates to location tracking services utilizing
`
`GPS and/or other location technologies and making the location information
`
`available to others. As such, it is my opinion that the ’659 patent is in the fields of
`
`location tracking and telecommunications, and a complete understanding of the
`
`’659 patent requires experience and appreciation of the challenges in design,
`
`development, and commercialization of such systems.
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`VII.
`
`34.
`
`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 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 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.
`
`35. Based upon my knowledge and experience in this field and my review
`
`of the ’659 patent and the references cited above, I believe that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA” or “person of
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`skill”) 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 telecommunications,
`
`location/navigation including tracking technologies, geolocation, triangulation
`
`and/or GPS. Additional education might substitute for some of the experience and
`
`substantial experience might substitute for some of the educational background.
`
`36. 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 ’659 patent. I
`
`have been informed that I should assume the earliest claimed priority date of the
`
`’659 patent is date of the invention, namely March 26, 2012. I have applied this
`
`date in my analysis below.
`
` THE ’659 PATENT
`VIII.
`
`A. The Prosecution History
`
`37. The application that would issue as the ’659 patent received an initial
`
`Non-Final Office Action on March 4, 2016 [‘659 prosecution history at p. 449].
`
`The Examiner objected to claims 29 and 30 because of informalities and rejected
`
`claims 1-30 under nonstatutory double patenting over numerous patents including
`
`U.S. Patent No 8,275,358 (which Petitioner is concurrently filing an IPR Petition
`
`against) [id. at 451]. The Patent Owner corrected the informalities and filed a
`
`terminal disclaimer on March 7, 2016 [id. at 469-471; 477-490].
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`38. On April 27, 2016, the Examiner then issued a Request for Patent
`
`Owner to respond to a Protest filed by FourKites, Inc. asking Patent Owner to
`
`“highlight differences between the claims within the present invention and the
`
`references cited in the protest, in particular the Proietti reference (US 8,755,823)”
`
`and respond to a finding affirmed by the Federal Circuit that related patents were
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101. Id. at 506-509; see Id. at 91-423 (Protest filed on
`
`January 27, 2016).
`
`39.
`
`In its response, Patent Owner argued that neither Proietti, nor any
`
`other prior art cited in the protest, “disclose anything regarding the location
`
`information of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver being received from
`
`a location information provider or it being originated from a device other than the
`
`mobile device comprising the GPS receiver itself as recited in the claims” [id. at
`
`554-569] (emphasis in original); [see also id. at 540; 570; 585; 599; 614; 629;
`
`643]. For other prior art, the Patent Owner also argued that they failed to “disclose
`
`anything specifically about receiving a signal that indicates that consent was given
`
`to transmission of location information [id. at 540; 570; 585; 599; 614; 629; 643;
`
`657; 671; 685].
`
`40. The Examiner then allowed all claims and found the prior art did not
`
`teach all the limitations of the claim and adopted Patent Owner’s arguments in
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`indicating why the claims were allowed over the prior art cited in the protest [id. at
`
`706-728].
`
`41. The prior art cited in this proceeding is not cumulative to the prior art
`
`discussed in the prosecution. The primary reference cited in this IPR petition,
`
`Enzmann, discloses a server receiving location information from a location service
`
`provider (“location server [100]” receiving location information from a “wireless
`
`network [102]”), obtaining the location information originating from a device other
`
`than the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver (radiolocation technologies
`
`utilized by the “network-based location system [124]”) as seen in FIG. 1 below.1
`
`[See also FIG. 2 (steps 204d to 210)].
`
`
`1 As discussed below, Enzmann can also alternatively locate a device with
`
`GPS technology through “handheld location system [122]” or can use both the
`
`network-based location system and the handheld location system. [Ex. 1004 at
`
`4:18-20].
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`[Ex. 1004 at FIG. 1].
`
`
`
`42.
`
`In addition, Enzmann also discloses receiving a signal that indicates
`
`that consent was given to transmission of location information [See Enzmann at
`
`FIG. 2] (in step 204b, location server must receive signal indicating authorization
`
`to share location information with the requestor before the location server requests
`
`location information from wireless network or transmits location information to
`
`requestor).
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`43. Therefore, Enzmann is not the same or substantially the same prior art
`
`prior art discussed in prosecution, including prior art submitted in the Protest. Nor
`
`are the arguments for Enzmann the same or substantially the same as the
`
`arguments raised by the Examiner or in the Protest. Enzmann explicitly discloses
`
`those limitations found to be missing by the Examiner in the prior art discussed in
`
`the prosecution.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Disclosure of the Claimed Invention
`
`44. The ’659 patent generally describes a machine or group of machines
`
`for monitoring location of at least one of a vehicle or freight carried by the vehicle
`
`[‘659 patent at Abstract]. FIG. 1 of the ’659 patent, reproduced below, depicts the
`
`machine or group of machines comprising a system 100 (including a
`
`communications interface 120 and a correlation logic 170), a communications
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`device 110, a requesting party 160, a receiving party 165, a location information
`
`provider 150, and a network 155 [id. at 4:24-31]. The location information
`
`provider “has access to the location of the vehicle 105 or the device 110. In one
`
`embodiment, the location information provider is a wireless service provider that
`
`provides wireless service in a network” [id. at 4:34-38].
`
`
`
`[‘659 patent at FIG. 1].
`
`45. The requesting party is a party or device seeking to monitor the
`
`vehicle while the receiving party is a party or device who receives the location of
`
`the vehicle from the system [id. at 4:51-56]. The location information can be
`
`determined by “1) techniques that require the device to incorporate a global
`
`positioning system (GPS) receiver, and 2) techniques that use some form of
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`radiolocation from the device’s network and do not require the device to
`
`incorporate a GPS receiver” [id. at 7:10-13].
`
`46. The system can notify and receive consent from the user of the mobile
`
`device to monitor the location of the vehicle. Consent can be obtained in numerous
`
`ways including telephone calls and/or automated voice messages [id. at 8:37-9:7].
`
`A user may indicate consent by performing an action, such as pressing the number
`
`1, or speaking, such as by saying “yes” [id. at 9:8-25]. The consent for location
`
`monitoring can be revoked, or temporarily paused by the vehicle or the device [id.
`
`at 10:5-38].
`
`47. The communications interface 120 transmits a request for the location
`
`information of device 110 and receives the location information of the device from
`
`the location information provider 150 [id. at 5:31-38]. Correlation logic then
`
`correlates the location information of the device 110 to the location information of
`
`the vehicle 105 [id. at 5:38-40]. The correlation can be based on an association
`
`between the user, device 110 and the vehicle 105 or based on an association
`
`between directly between device 110 and vehicle 105 [id. at 5:8-24]. These
`
`associations can be stored in a database [id. at 5:19-21; see FIG. 2].
`
` THE STATE OF THE ART RELEVANT TO THE ’659 PATENT
`IX.
`
`48. The claims of the ’659 patent recite machines or groups of machines
`
`for monitoring the location of a vehicle or freight using either GPS or radiolocation
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`techniques such as triangulation or multilateration methods [‘659 patent at 1:12-
`
`51]. Importantly, the ’659 patent does not purport to have invented or improved
`
`upon either GPS or radiolocation technologies. Rather, it uses these known
`
`technologies in conventional ways to track vehicles or freight.
`
`49. To illustrate the lack of any technological improvement, the claimed
`
`machines or groups of machines are nothing more than a generic server and a
`
`generic mobile device. The claimed server merely comprises a number of generic
`
`components including central processing unit (CPU), a memory, a clock, and a
`
`transceiver [See Claims 1; 2; 12 and 23]. CPU’s, memory, and clocks have been
`
`well known in servers from at least the 1970’s, when the first microprocessors
`
`appeared [McCallion at 1:11-58; Murakami at 1:7-17]. “In the early seventies, a 4-
`
`bit microprocessor, such as Intel 4004, which was also called a microcomputer,
`
`comprised a central processing unit (abbreviated CPU) on a single chip…A one
`
`chip microcomputer generally comprises a CPU, a random-access memory
`
`(abbreviated RAM), a read-only memory (abbreviated ROM), input/output
`
`(abbreviated I/O) ports, a clock generator, and the like on single chip” [Murakami
`
`at 1:7-17].
`
`50. The claimed mobile device similarly comprises a number of generic
`
`components including, a display, a microprocessor, a wireless transceiver, and a
`
`GPS receiver [See ’659 patent at Claims 1; 2; 12 and 23]. Mobile devices include
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`“cell phones, cellular telephones, and the like” which use wireless transceivers to
`
`communicate [Ording at 1:62-64; see also Andre]. Moreover, mobile devices are
`
`known to “comprises a touch screen display, one or more processors, memory, and
`
`one or more programs” [Ording at 2:67-3:1; see also claim 50; 53].
`
`51.
`
` In addition, from at least as early as 2002, “Automatic Vehicle
`
`Location (AVL) systems are available that utilize a Global Positioning System
`
`(GPS) to obtain data that can be used to monitor a vehicle location” [Zeitfuss at
`
`1:13-18]. The “GPS receiver can integrate with a cell phone or mobile radio. Or it
`
`can integrate with other communication devices including those operating on radio
`
`frequencies or optical wavelengths” [id. at 3:39-42]. This GPS data can then be
`
`processed by the mobile device or transmitted to another device [id. at 4:59-66;
`
`5:31-33].
`
`52.
`
`In addition, from at least the 1980s, Application Programming
`
`Interfaces (API) were used in networking functionality [Chang at Abstract]. APIs
`
`are not new or modern, but are well-known and provide a map of “a set of
`
`subroutines to