`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
