throbber

`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket