`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________________________________
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MACROPOINT LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________________________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,429,659
`
`Case No.: IPR2017-02018
`_________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`III.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,429,659 ............................................ 2
`A. Summary of the ’659 Patent .................................................................... 2
`B.
`Independent Claims 1, 2, 12 and 23 ........................................................ 6
`SUMMARY OF THE CITED REFERENCES ............................................... 9
`A. Enzmann ................................................................................................ 10
`B. King ....................................................................................................... 11
`C. Dhanani .................................................................................................. 12
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13
`V.
`THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”) .......... 13
`VI. PETITIONER HAS THE BURDEN OF PRESENTING EVIDENCE
`AND ARGUMENT SHOWING A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF SUCCESS ON THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .................................... 14
`VII. PETITIONER HAS NOT OFFERED ANY VALID GROUNDS
`DEMONSTRATING A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT ANY
`OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ’659 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ............ 15
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-30 Are Not Rendered Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 By Enzmann .................................................................... 15
`1. Enzmann fails to disclose a machine for “monitoring
`location of at least one of a vehicle or freight” or a server
`programmed to “receive a request for information regarding
`the location of a vehicle or freight” and “estimate the
`location of the vehicle or the freight” (claims 1, 2, 12 and
`23). ................................................................................................. 16
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`2. A POSITA would not have been motivated to modify
`Enzmann by substituting a vehicle for the network user. ............. 18
`3. Enzmann fails to disclose or suggest an indication of
`consent in the form of receipt of location information from
`location information provider (claim 7). ....................................... 20
`B. Ground 2: Claims 5, 7 and 26 Are Not Rendered Obvious Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 By Enzmann in View of King .................................... 27
`C. Ground 3: Claims 11 and 16 Are Not Rendered Obvious Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 By Enzmann in View of Dhanani ............................... 28
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 28
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner MacroPoint LLC (“Patent Owner”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.170, respectfully requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“Board”) deny institution of IPR2017-02018. This filing is timely made
`
`within three months of the date of the Notice according the Petition a filing date.
`
`Notice, Paper 3.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’659 patent claims are directed to a system for monitoring the location
`
`of at least one or a vehicle of freight carried by the vehicle, and require a server
`
`that is programmed to estimate the location of the vehicle or freight based on the
`
`location of mobile device. Such estimation is made possible, according to the ’659
`
`patent, by correlating the vehicle or freight and the mobile device, in addition to
`
`associating a user with the mobile device (to obtain consent for monitoring). Ex.
`
`1001 at 5:7-41.
`
`Enzmann is directed to a system for monitoring only the location of a mobile
`
`device and associated user—not also a vehicle—after receiving consent from a
`
`user to monitor the user’s location. As such, Enzmann fails to disclose the
`
`correlation of a vehicle with a mobile device as required by the claims.
`
`Recognizing this deficiency, Petitioner suggests that it would be obvious to
`
`substitute a vehicle or freight for the network user in Enzmann to arrive at the
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`challenged claims of the ’659 patent. However, Petitioner’s proposed substitution
`
`would not arrive at the challenged claims because a user—not a vehicle—must
`
`provide consent for transmission of location information. Thus, while Petitioner’s
`
`proposed substitution would permit estimation of a vehicle’s location as required
`
`by the claims, it would sacrifice the association of the network user and the mobile
`
`device, thereby eliminating the opportunity for a user to provide consent (and the
`
`server to receive consent as required by the claims).
`
`For at least these reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`deny institution of Grounds 1-3 of the Petition on the merits, and decline to
`
`institute inter partes review of the ʼ659 patent.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,429,659
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’659 Patent
`
`The ’659 patent generally is directed to a machine, or group of machines,
`
`that tracks the location of a vehicle or freight carried by the vehicle. Ex. 1001 at
`
`Abstract. Figure 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 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
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`vehicle 105 or the device 110. In one embodiment, the location information
`
`provider 150 is a wireless service provider that provides wireless service in a
`
`network 155.” Id. at 4:34-38.
`
`
`
`Ex.1001 at FIG. 1.
`
`However, the claims of the ’659 patent are directed to a system that does
`
`more than simply track a vehicle as illustrated in Figure 1—they additionally
`
`require user consent to transmission of location information. Figure 3 of the ’659
`
`patent illustrates an embodiment of a system:
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1001 at FIG. 3.
`
`The requesting party 160 is a party or device seeking to monitor the vehicle
`
`105 (or to allow another party to monitor the vehicle 105), and the receiving party
`
`is a party or device that receives the location of the vehicle from the system 100 to
`
`monitor the location of the vehicle 105. Id. at 4:51-56. The location information
`
`can be determined by “1) techniques that require the device to incorporate a global
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`positioning system (GPS) receiver, and 2) techniques that use some form of
`
`radiolocation from the device’s network and do not require the device to
`
`incorporate a GPS receiver.” Id. at 7:10-13.
`
`The system requires consent from the user of the mobile device to monitor
`
`the location of the vehicle. For example, the system of Figure 3 includes validation
`
`logic 130 that is configured to identify the device 110 to ensure that the correct
`
`user (e.g., a driver of a vehicle 105) is notified that the location of the vehicle 105
`
`will be monitored, and that such user consents to the monitoring of the location. Id.
`
`at 8:37-55.
`
`Consent can be obtained in numerous ways including telephone calls and/or
`
`automated voice messages. Id. at 8:37-9:7. The user’s device 110 sends data to the
`
`communications interface 120 indicating user consent to monitoring the location of
`
`the vehicle 105. Id. at 9:4-25. For example, the user may indicate consent by
`
`performing an action, such as pressing the number 1, or speaking, such as by
`
`saying “yes.” Id. The consent for location monitoring can be revoked, or
`
`temporarily paused by the user. Id. at 10:5-38.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`the vehicle 105. Id. at 5:38-40. These associations can be stored in a database. Id.
`
`at 5:19-21; see, FIG. 2.
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 2, 12 and 23
`
`1. A machine or group of machines for monitoring location of at
`least one of a vehicle or freight carried by the vehicle, comprising:
`a mobile device comprising a GPS receiver, a display, a
`microprocessor and a wireless communication transceiver coupled to
`the GPS receiver, the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver
`programmed to receive data sent by a plurality of GPS satellites,
`calculate location information of the mobile device comprising the
`GPS receiver and transmit the location information;
`a server comprising a central processing unit, a memory, a
`clock, and a server communication transceiver that receives the
`location information of the mobile device comprising the GPS
`receiver, and the central processing unit programmed to:
`receive a request for information regarding the location
`of the vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle;
`request location information of the mobile device
`comprising the GPS receiver from a location information
`provider;
`receive a signal that indicates that consent was given to
`transmission of location information;
`receive from the location information provider location
`information of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver,
`wherein the location information of the mobile device
`comprising the GPS receiver originated from a device other
`than the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver itself; and
`estimate the location of the vehicle or the freight carried
`by the vehicle based at least in part on the location information
`of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver; and
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`communicate the location of the vehicle or the freight
`carried by the vehicle to cause a representation of the location
`of the vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle.
`
`2. A machine or group of machines for monitoring location of at
`least one of a vehicle or freight carried by the vehicle, comprising:
`a server comprising a central processing unit, a memory, a
`clock, and a server communication transceiver that receives location
`information of a mobile device, the mobile device comprising a GPS
`receiver, a microprocessor and a wireless communication transceiver
`coupled to the GPS receiver, the mobile device comprising the GPS
`receiver programmed to receive data sent by a plurality of GPS
`satellites, calculate location information of the mobile device
`comprising the GPS receiver and transmit the location information,
`the central processing unit programmed to:
`receive a request for information regarding the location
`of the vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle;
`request location information of the mobile device
`comprising the GPS receiver from a location information
`provider;
`receive a signal that indicates that consent was given to
`transmission of location information;
`receive from the location information provider location
`information of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver,
`wherein the location information of the mobile device
`comprising the GPS receiver originated from a device other
`than the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver itself; and
`estimate the location of the vehicle or the freight carried
`by the vehicle based at least in part on the location information
`of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver; and
`communicate the location of the vehicle or the freight
`carried by the vehicle to cause a representation of the location
`of the vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`12. A machine or group of machines for monitoring location of at
`least one of a vehicle or freight carried by the vehicle, comprising:
`a server comprising a central processing unit, a memory, a
`clock, and a server communication transceiver that receives location
`information of a mobile device, the mobile device comprising a GPS
`receiver, a microprocessor and a wireless communication transceiver
`coupled to the GPS receiver, the mobile device comprising the GPS
`receiver programmed to receive data sent by a plurality of GPS
`satellites, calculate location information of the mobile device
`comprising the GPS receiver and transmit the location information,
`the central processing unit programmed to:
`determine whether consent was given to transmit location
`information of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver;
`estimate the location of the at least one of the vehicle or
`the freight carried by the vehicle based on the location
`information of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver;
`receive a request for information regarding the location
`of the at least one of the vehicle or the freight carried by the
`vehicle;
`request location information of the mobile device
`comprising a GPS receiver from a location information
`provider corresponding to a device other than the mobile device
`comprising the GPS receiver;
`receive from the location information provider the
`location information of the mobile device comprising the GPS
`receiver; and
`communicate the location of the at least one of the
`vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle to cause a
`representation of the location of the vehicle or the freight
`carried by the vehicle by a remote device.
`
`23. A machine or group of machines for monitoring location of at
`least one of a vehicle or freight carried by the vehicle, the machine or
`group of machines comprising:
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`a server comprising a central processing unit, a memory, a
`clock, and a server communication transceiver that receives location
`information of a mobile device, the mobile device comprising a GPS
`receiver, a microprocessor and a wireless communication transceiver
`coupled to the GPS receiver, the mobile device comprising the GPS
`receiver programmed to receive data sent by a plurality of GPS
`satellites, calculate location information of the mobile device
`comprising the GPS receiver and transmit the location information,
`the central processing unit programmed to:
`receive a request for information regarding the location
`of the vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle, and
`request location information of the vehicle or the freight
`carried by the vehicle from a location information provider;
`receive an indication that consent to transmission of
`location information has been given; and
`receive location information of the vehicle or the freight
`carried by the vehicle from the location information provider;
`estimate the location of the vehicle or the freight carried
`by the vehicle from the location information received from the
`location information provider;
`communicate the location of the vehicle or the freight
`carried by the vehicle.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE CITED REFERENCES
`The claims at issue in the Petition are addressed in Grounds 1-3. Petitioner
`
`relies on U.S. Patent No. 7,130,630 to Enzmann et al. (“Enzmann”) as a primary
`
`reference with secondary references U.S. Patent No. 8,045,995 to King et al.
`
`(“King”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,395,547 to Dhanani et al. (“Dhanani”). The
`
`grounds in this proceeding are as follows:
`
`Ground 1: Petitioner alleges claims 1-30 are obvious under Enzmann.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Petitioner alleges claims 5, 17 and 26 are obvious under
`
`Enzmann in view of King.
`
`Ground 3: Petitioner alleges claims 11 and 16 are obvious under Enzmann
`
`in view of Dhanani.
`
`A. Enzmann
`
`Enzmann describes a location query service for use with a wireless network
`
`that tracks the location of network devices. Ex. 1004 at Abstract. “The service
`
`provides requestors with the locations of network users, based on the locations of
`
`the user’s wireless network devices.” Id. at 2:5-7. For example, “the location query
`
`service receives a location query from a requestor for a network user, retrieves the
`
`location information of the network user, and returns the location information to
`
`the requestor. The requestor may be an authorized requestor and the service
`
`authenticates that the requestor is authorized before returning the location
`
`information to the requestor.” Id. at 2:17-23. However, “[i]f the request is
`
`unauthorized and the network user does not accept individual requests to release
`
`location information, in step 204a, location server 100 returns a message to
`
`requestor reporting that the location query has been denied.” Id. at 7:34-38.
`
`The location information can be determined as part of the wireless network
`
`including “Wireless Access Protocol (WAP) location services, Time Difference of
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Arrival (TDOA) location systems, and other systems using triangulation across cell
`
`sites or cell sectors.” Id. at 4:34-37. The location information system can also be
`
`contained in the handheld device such as GPS. Id. at 4:37-38.
`
`The location information can be provided in raw or displayable forms. Id. at
`
`8:37-40. If provided in raw form, the user wireless network “translates the raw
`
`location information to a displayable form before returning the location
`
`information to the location server 100.” Id. at 8:51-54. If, however, the location
`
`information is provided in displayable form “user wireless network 102 simply
`
`forwards the location information.” Id. at 8:57-59. The location server then returns
`
`location information of the network user back to the requestor. Id. at 8:65-67.
`
`The system of Enzmann is not directed to identifying locations of vehicles or
`
`freight. Nor does Enzmann teach or suggest correlating a mobile device with a
`
`vehicle or freight.
`
`B. King
`
`King describes a centralized location system including “a location update
`
`application programming interface (API) to receive varying types of location
`
`inputs for a user from at least one location providing application.” Ex. 1005 at
`
`Abstract. King describes a system and methods for centralizing location updates in
`
`a system for providing updated user locations to location-based service
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`applications, and in which third party location-providing applications also may
`
`participate. Id. at 1:45-49. Specifically, King is directed to a centralized means for
`
`ascertaining and updating a user’s location that can integrate multiple types of
`
`location inputs, including from third party applications. Id. at 3:47-55. Location
`
`information may include a street address, a zip code, a city, a state, a country, and a
`
`latitude/longitude coordinate set. Id. at 4:63-65. Raw location inputs may be
`
`integrated as part of the user location update API or the processor. Id. at 6:45-49.
`
`The system of King is not directed to identifying locations of vehicles or
`
`freight. Nor does King teach or suggest correlating a mobile device with a vehicle
`
`or freight.
`
`C. Dhanani
`
`Dhanani describes a mobile device a processing circuit that is configured to
`
`store a data set (location data and a location name) for a predetermined location.
`
`Ex. 1006 at Abstract. The tracking involves comparing current location data and
`
`updated location data to stored data at times calculated based on heuristic data. Id.
`
`Notification messages may be generated when the mobile device arrives at or near
`
`a predetermined location. Id.
`
`The mobile computing device “may be configured to provide data
`
`communications functionality in accordance with different types of cellular radio
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`telephone systems. Examples of cellular radiotelephone systems offering data
`
`communications services may include GSM with General Packet Radio Service
`
`(GPRS) systems (GSM/GPRS), CDMA/2xRIT systems, Enhanced Data Rates for
`
`Global Evolution (EDGE) systems, Evolution Data Only or Evolution Data
`
`Optimized (EV-DO) systems, Long Term Evolution (LTE) systems, etc.” Id. at
`
`3:20-29.
`
`The system of Dhanani is not directed to identifying locations of vehicles or
`
`freight. Nor does Dhanani teach or suggest correlating a mobile device with a
`
`vehicle or freight.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner has addressed the
`
`terms of challenged claims under Petitioner’s proposed construction of plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. Moreover, both Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that the
`
`preamble of each of claims 1, 2, 12 and 23 is limiting.
`
`Patent Owner reserves the right to present its own claim construction should
`
`inter partes review be instituted.
`
`V. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”)
`Mr. Denning states that a POSITA would have been “a person having at
`
`least a Bachelor of Science degree (or equivalent) in Computer Engineering,
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Computer Science, or Electrical Engineering and two to three years of experience
`
`in the fields of telecommunications, location/navigation including tracking
`
`technologies, geolocation, triangulation and/or GPS.” Petition at 22; Ex. 1002 at ¶
`
`35. For purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner accepts this
`
`characterization of a POSITA.
`
`VI. PETITIONER HAS THE BURDEN OF PRESENTING EVIDENCE
`AND ARGUMENT SHOWING A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF
`SUCCESS ON THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`The Board may grant a petition for inter partes review only where “the
`
`information presented in the petition … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged
`
`in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. §314(a); 37 C.F.R. §42.108(c). Petitioner bears the
`
`burden of showing that this statutory threshold has been met. See, Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“The Board …
`
`may institute a trial where the petitioner establishes that the standards for
`
`instituting the requested trial are met ….”). If inter partes review is granted,
`
`Petitioner also bears the burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence. 35 U.S.C. §316(e).
`
`“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere
`
`to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’.” Intelligent Bio-Systems,
`
`Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 35 U.S.C. §
`
`312(a)(3). “All arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be made in the
`
`motion.” Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1369 (declining to consider new
`
`obviousness arguments, new reasons to combine, and new evidence not presented
`
`in petition); 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`
`Moreover, it is well settled that “rejections on obviousness cannot be
`
`sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
`
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In
`
`re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). As shown below, Petitioner has not
`
`established a prima facie case of obviousness, with respect to any of Grounds 1, 2
`
`or 3. The Board should decline to institute review of the ’659 patent.
`
`VII. PETITIONER HAS NOT OFFERED ANY VALID GROUNDS
`DEMONSTRATING A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT ANY
`OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ’659 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-30 Are Not Rendered Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 By Enzmann
`
`The ’659 patent claims require correlation of a vehicle or freight with the
`
`mobile device, in addition to associating a user with the mobile device. Enzmann
`
`discloses only the association of the mobile device with a network user (who
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`provides consent to monitor location). While a network user can provide consent as
`
`required by the claims, a vehicle cannot. Thus, substituting a vehicle for the
`
`network user in Enzmann as suggested by Petitioner would overcome one
`
`deficiency of Enzmann (the inability to estimate the location of a vehicle) while
`
`creating a new deficiency (the inability to provide consent prior to transmission of
`
`location information). The Board should deny institution of Grounds 1-3 of the
`
`Petition on the merits, and decline to institute inter partes review of the ʼ659
`
`patent.
`
`1.
`
`Enzmann fails to disclose a machine for “monitoring
`location of at least one of a vehicle or freight” or a server
`programmed to “receive a request for information
`regarding the location of a vehicle or freight” and “estimate
`the location of the vehicle or the freight” (claims 1, 2, 12 and
`231).
`
`All of the challenged claims, including independent claims 1, 2, 12 and 23,
`
`are directed to a system (i.e., a machine or group of machines) for monitoring a
`
`vehicle or freight. All of the challenged claims further require a server
`
`programmed to, among other things:
`
`
`
`1 Although the language of claims varies slightly, the distinctions addressed in this
`
`section between each of claims and Enzmann are effectively the same.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`• Receive a signal that indicates that consent was given to transmission
`
`of location information; and
`
`• Estimate the location of the vehicle or the freight based at least in part
`
`on the location information of a mobile device.
`
`Enzmann is directed to a system for monitoring location of a user a) based
`
`on the location of the user’s mobile device and b) after having obtained the user’s
`
`consent. Associating a user with a network device, such as a mobile phone, is
`
`therefore essential to Enzmann. See, Ex. 1004 at 5:3-12, 6:41-50, 7:12-58, FIG. 2.
`
`However, Enzmann does not teach (or suggest) also correlating a vehicle with a
`
`mobile device as is required by the challenged claims.
`
`Petitioner first attempts to overcome this deficiency by arguing that
`
`Enzmann does in fact (somehow) disclose a system for monitoring location of at
`
`least one vehicle or freight. Petition at 23-24. It clearly does not. The only mention
`
`in Enzmann of fleet tracking systems is in the background discussion of prior art,
`
`which simply notes that then-existing fleet tracking systems exemplified tracking
`
`systems capable of passive tracking without communicating with or interrupting a
`
`user. Ex. 1004 at 1:55-67. Nowhere does Enzmann suggest, much less teach, that
`
`its disclosed monitoring system would be suitable for use in tracking or monitoring
`
`vehicles or freight.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Confusing the issue further, Petitioner misleadingly quotes column 4, lines
`
`24-31 of the ’659 patent, but erroneously uses the short cite, “Id.” and the sentence
`
`introduction “Enzmann also discloses…” to falsely present the quote as originating
`
`from Enzmann when it is really from the ’659 patent:
`
`For example, in a typical fleet vehicle tracking system.” Ex.1004 at
`3:1-16; 1:55-67; see also id. at 2:41-67. Enzmann also discloses, as
`shown in FIG. 1 below, “an exemplary system 100 for monitoring the
`location of a vehicle 105, which has a communication device 110
`within the vehicle 105. The system 100 includes a communications
`interface 120 that communicates with devices external to the system
`100 via electronic signals. For example, the communications logic
`120 is configured to communicate with a location information
`provider 150, a requesting party 160, and a receiving party 165.” Id. at
`4:24-31.
`
`Petition at 24. The quoted text is not from Enzmann (Ex. 1004), but rather is from
`
`the ’659 patent.
`
`The result is a fallacious and misleading claim that Enzmann discloses a
`
`system for tracking “a vehicle 105”—it does not.
`
`2.
`
`A POSITA would not have been motivated to modify
`Enzmann by substituting a vehicle for the network user.
`
`Petitioner’s false citation to Enzmann is compounded when it then attempts
`
`to argue that a POSITA would have been motivated to substitute the network user
`
`in Enzmann for the vehicle 105 of the ’659 patent. Petitioner is wrong. As noted
`
`above, all of the challenged claims require multiple levels of correlation: a first
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`association between a network user and a mobile device, and a second correlation
`
`between the mobile device and a vehicle or freight. The substitution proposed by
`
`Petitioner would not arrive at any of the challenged claims, and a POSITA would
`
`not have been motivated to make such a substitution.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that there is “no difference in submitting a
`
`query for the location information of a network user, vehicle or freight.” Petition at
`
`28. Thus, according to Petitioner, a “POSITA would also recognize the network
`
`user of Enzmann is equivalent to the vehicle or freight.” Id. at 29; see also, Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶ 85 (“Based on this, a POSITA would have known the network user or
`
`[sic] Enzmann is equivalent to the vehicle or freight carried by the vehicle”).
`
`Petitioner may be correct that substituting a vehicle for a network user
`
`would not have presented a significant technical challenge to a POSITA. See,
`
`Petition at 28. Such substitution could be accomplished, for example, by replacing
`
`a unique user identifier with a unique vehicle identifier. Such a substitution could
`
`convert Enzmann into a system for monitoring a vehicle, so long as consent is not
`
`required for monitoring.
`
`However, unlike a network user, a vehicle is not capable of deciding
`
`whether to give consent and sending a related signal to a location server. A
`
`POSITA would have recognized that upon substituting the vehicle 105 for the
`
`network user in Enzmann, the network user would no longer have the ability to
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`provide consent to transmission of location information. Thus, while the
`
`modification proposed by Petitioner would permit the system to estimate the
`
`location of the vehicle based on the location information of a mobile device (as
`
`required by the claims), it would eliminate the opportunity for the mobile device
`
`network user to provide consent (also as required by the claims).
`
`For at least these reasons, a POSITA would not have been motivated to
`
`modify Enzmann as suggested by Petitioner. Petitioner has failed to carry its
`
`burden, and the Board should decline to institute review of any of claims 1-30 on
`
`this ground.
`
`3.
`
`Enzmann fails to disclose or suggest an indication of consent
`in the form of receipt of location information from location
`information provider (claim 7).
`
`Claim 7 is directed to a machine or group of machines in which the server
`
`that is programmed to “receive a request for information regarding the location of
`
`the vehicle” and “receive from the location information provider location
`
`information of the mobile device” does not also receive a separate indication that
`
`“consent was given to transmission of location information.” Specifically, claim 7
`
`requires:
`
`7. The machine or group of machines of claim 2, wherein the central
`processing unit receiving from the location information provider
`location information of the mobile device comprising the GPS
`receiver is the signal that indicates that consent was given to
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`transmission of location information of the mobile device comprising
`the GPS receiver.
`
`Thus, the received “location information of the mobile device” sent “from the
`
`location information provider” is the “signal that indicates that consent was given
`
`to transmission of location information.”
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that Enzmann does not disclose this limitation.
`
`Petition at 45-46. This is because, in every embodiment disclosed in Enzmann, the
`
`location server 100 of Enzmann (which is the server that receives a “request for
`
`information regarding the location”) is the server that checks for consent prior to
`
`requesting the location information of the user’s mobile phone. It could never
`
`receive location information without first knowing whether consent was given—
`
`because it would never have asked in the first place.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s and Mr. Denning’s stated reasons for why a POSITA
`
`would have been motivated to modify Enzmann fail to address the real-world
`
`obstacles that would need to be overcome to even contemplate such modification.
`
`Petitioner provides two alleged reasons why a POSITA would have modified
`
`Enzmann to arrive at c