throbber
338. Dr. Heppe describes forwarding or transmitting location information from
`
`a mobile device in a variety of ways omits the requirement of receiving location
`
`information of a mobile device. There is no limitation on the methods of acquiring the
`
`location information of a mobile device by the mobile device.
`
`339. Therefore, Dr. Heppe did not establish by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that Thomas disclosed the present limitation. Accordingly, Thomas does not anticipate
`
`element 2.1.
`
`340. In addition, Thomas does not disclose receiving device location from a
`
`mobile device. See section above "In Thomas the Location Information Provider is not
`
`disclosed."
`
`8.2.2.3 Claim 2.2 —Thomas does not disclose receiving a request for information
`
`regarding the location of a ~~ehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle.
`
`341. Claim 2.2 requires "the central processing unit programmed to: receive a
`
`request for information regarding the location of the vehicle or the freight carried by the
`
`vehicle" Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report at
`
`¶216-217. I disagree. Thomas does not disclose receiving a request for information
`
`regarding the location of the vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle. See Notice of
`
`Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31, 34.
`
`342. Dr. Heppe has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`Thomas discloses a request for location of a vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle.
`
`While Thomas does use a wireless network to monitor mobile devices, Notice of
`
`Allowability at §5, Dr. Heppe has not asserted that any of the requests he asserts are
`
`l l4
`
`Page 114 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`disclosed by Thomas are a request for location of a vehicle or freight carried by a vehicle.
`
`All the requests Dr. Heppe has identified in Thomas involve a mobile device. In my
`
`opinion a mobile device is not a vehicle nor is a mobile device the freight carried b~ the
`
`vehicle.
`
`343. Therefore, Dr. Heppe did not establish by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that Thomas disclosed a request for location of a vehicle or the freight carried by the
`
`vehicle. Accordingly, Thomas does not anticipate element 2.2.
`
`344. In addition, Thomas does not disclose monitoring vehicles or freight
`
`carried by vehicles. See section above "In Thomas the location of a mobile phone is not
`
`the location of a vehicle."
`
`8.2.2.4 Claim 2.3 —Thomas does not disclose a location information provider.
`
`345. Claim 2.3 requires "the central processing unit programmed to ...request
`
`location information of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver from a location
`
`information provider." Dr. Heppe opined that claim 23 was disclosed by Thomas or
`
`would have been obvious over Thomas. Heppe Opening Report at paragraph 218-23
`
`(disclosed) and paragraph 223 (obvious). I disagree. Dr. Heppe has not established that
`
`Thomas discloses location information of the mobile device being obtained from a
`
`location information provider. See File Wrapper of `659 Patent, Notice ofAllowability §5
`
`(July 6, 2016) (the "Notice of Allowability"). Thomas does not anticipate or render
`
`obvious claim 2 for at least this reason.
`
`346. Dr. Heppe observes that the '659 Patent discloses that the claimed
`
`"location information provider" can be a "wireless service provider," (Heppe Opening
`
`1 15
`
`Page 115 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`Report at §218), and then Dr. Heppe incorrectly concludes that in Thomas, "the wireless
`
`network is the claimed location information provider." Heppe Opening Report at ¶220.
`
`This is incorrect. Dr. Heppe improperly conflates a wireless network with a wireless
`
`service provider.
`
`347. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a network, such
`
`as a wireless network, is infrastructure, while a service provider, such as a wireless
`
`service provider or a location information provider, provides a service that may use the
`
`infrastructure. Accordingly, the `659 Patent consistently treats the location information
`
`provider 150 and the wireless network 155 as distinct throughout the patent. The `659
`
`Patent teaches, for example, "In one embodiment, the location information provider 150
`
`is a wireless service provider that provides wireless service in a network 155." `659
`
`Patent at 4:35-38.
`
`348. In Thomas, by contrast, "the location of the client device (mobile device)
`
`can be determined ... by a wireless network infrastructure," (Thomas at 5:54-61),
`
`"us[ing] location information obtained from a wireless network," (Thomas at 4:37).
`
`Heppe Opening Report at ¶219. "In an embodiment of Thomas where location is
`
`determined by the wireless network, a POSITA would understand that this information
`
`would be requested from the wireless network ... " Heppe Opening Report at ¶221.
`
`"[A] POSITA would understand the scope of these disclosures in Thomas to include a
`
`pair of servers —the location monitoring server 102 plus a server associated with the
`
`wireless network infrastructure —wherein the location monitoring server requests location
`
`1 16
`
`Page 116 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`information of the client (mobile) device from the server associated with the wireless
`
`network infrastructure." Heppe Opening Report at ¶222.
`
`349. Dr. Heppe has not demonstrated Thomas to disclose that the location of a
`
`mobile device can be determined from a service provider of any kind, much less a
`
`location information provider.
`
`350. Thus, while Thomas may disclose a wireless network,(Notice of
`
`Allowability at §5), Defendants and Dr. Heppe have not met their burden to prove by
`
`clear and convincing evidence that Thomas discloses "the central processing unit
`
`programmed to ...request location information of the mobile device comprising the GPS
`
`receiver from a location information provider."
`
`351.
`
`352. The argument that Thomas anticipates and/or renders obvious the asserted
`
`claims has been made before. File Wrapper of `659 Patent, Protest Under 37 C.F.R. ~
`
`1.291 at 4-5 (Jan. 27, 2016) (the "Protest"). Protestants specifically stated regarding
`
`Thomas: "Another method is to use location information from a wireless network. The
`
`wireless network can provide location information on some or all of the mobile units.
`
`(Thomas, 4:37-41)." Protest at 4. The Examiner plainly appreciated the distinction
`
`between a network and a provider. The Examiner stated in his Notice of Allowability
`
`"One embodiment [of Thomas] includes mobile computing devices supported by a
`
`wireless network . . . ," "Thomas doesn't appear to teach the location information of the
`
`mobile device being obtained from a location information provider . . . ," and "While
`
`-. _ -.
`
`1 17
`
`Page 117 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`Thomas does use a wireless network to monitor mobile devices, the [Thomas] reference
`
`doesn't teach all the limitations ...The prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious
`
`the unique system of monitoring freight locations ...." Id. at §5.
`
`353. Thomas discloses a first approach that transmits GPS data from a mobile
`
`device, through (rather than from) a wireless network, to a server. See Thomas at l :66-67
`
`("transmitting the location information to a web server through at least in part a wireless
`
`network"). (emphasis added) See also Thomas at 3:15-17, 4:5-9, and 4:23-28 (location
`
`information transmitted through wireless network) and 4:2-3 (wireless network "enabled"
`
`moble device to communicate with server).
`
`354. Thomas also discloses a second approach (discussed above) involving
`
`tower-based data acquisition from a wireless network. See Thomas at 4:37-42. As
`
`Thomas makes clear, the second approach does not involve GPS data originating on the
`
`mobile device. "In this case, the mobile units need not participate in obtaining the
`
`location information." Thomas at 4:41-42. See also Heppe Opening Report at
`
`paragraph 219 (quoting Thomas's statement that "the mobile units need not participate in
`
`obtaining the location information"). Thus, Thomas expressly disclaims receiving GPS-
`
`-.. -.
`
`ll8
`
`Page 118 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`originated data generated on the mobile device and originating from the wireless
`
`network.29
`
`355. Dr. Heppe nonetheless concludes that Thomas teaches the claimed
`
`"location information provider." Dr. Heppe's conclusion is based on a
`
`mischaracterization of Thomas and I disagree with his conclusion for at least that reason.
`
`356. Dr. Heppe bases his conclusion on an opinion that the "wireless network"
`
`is the claimed "location information provider." See Heppe Opening Report at 230
`
`("Here, the wireless network is the claimed location information provider."). I disagree
`
`that Thomas's wireless network is the claimed "location information provider."
`
`357. As discussed above, Thomas discloses that location data can be
`
`communicated through a wireless network but Thomas expressly and unambiguously
`
`disclaims any embodiment in which the location data originates from the wireless
`
`network. Dr. Heppe interprets Thomas to originate location data from the wireless
`
`network so Dr. Heppe's interpretation, and thus his conclusion relying on that
`
`interpretation, must be incorrect.
`
`z9 Although not relevant to my analysis, Thomas also discloses a third approach combining results from
`each of the first and second approaches. See Thomas at 4:42-50. Because neither of the first two
`approaches disclose claim 2.3, a combination of the first two approaches also does not disclose claim 2.3.
`Therefore, Thomas's third approach combining Thomas's first two approaches is irrelevant to my analysis.
`
`-.. -.
`
`l l9
`
`Page 119 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`358. Dr. Heppe opines, in support of his conclusion, that "Thomas also teaches
`
`that the location monitoring server or some other server could send a request for location
`
`information to a client device." (emphasis in original) See Heppe Opening Report at
`
`paragraph 220. Dr. Heppe italicized "or some other server" so I understand Dr. Heppe to
`
`opine that the "some other server" is part of the wireless network.
`
`359. I disagree that a POSITA would have understood Thomas's mention of
`
`"some other server" as disclosing that the other server was part of the wireless network.
`
`One reason for my conclusion is that the context of the sentence Dr. Heppe cites suggests
`
`otherwise. That sentence refers to a "location monitoring server or some other server" as
`
`sending a request to a client device. The location monitoring server in Thomas is not on
`
`the wireless network. Indeed, the location monitoring server receives information from
`
`the wireless network so the location monitoring server is separate from the wireless
`
`network. See Thomas at 4:38-41 (wireless network can provide location information to a
`
`location monitoring server). Thus, a POSITA would understand the "other server" to be
`
`similarly outside the wireless network based on its similar reference within the same
`
`sentence.
`
`360. My conclusion is supported by my observation that if the "other server"
`
`were on the wireless network, Thomas would have disclosed requesting data from that
`
`other server similar to how Thomas discloses requesting data from the mobile device. In
`
`the absence of such a request, the location data remains on the "other server" within the
`
`wireless network and never reaches Thomas's disclosed systems.
`
`-.. -.
`
`120
`
`Page 120 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`361. To the extent that Dr. Heppe implies that an oblique reference to "other
`
`server" implicitly encompasses servers at any location, including servers on the wireless
`
`network, thereby supporting an inference that location data could originate from the other
`
`server on the wireless network, I disagree. Stated differently, a disclosure of "other
`
`server" does not inherently disclose a server located on the wireless network because
`
`such an interpretation merely reflects one design choice among many design alternatives.
`
`As discussed in other contexts, a design choice in the presence of design alternatives
`
`cannot support an inherency conclusion absent more. Claim 2 requires a much more
`
`specific system and a general disclosure of "other server" does not meet the requirements
`
`of claim 2.3.
`
`362. Dr. Heppe did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Thomas
`
`disclosed a location information provider required by claim 2.3. Therefore, Thomas does
`
`not anticipate independent claim 2 or claims 3-6, 8, and ] 0—1 l because they depend from
`
`claim 2.
`
`363. In addition, Thomas does not disclose a location information provider. See
`
`section above "In Thomas the Location Information Provider is not disclosed."
`
`8.2.2.5 Claim 2.4 —Thomas does not disclose the server receiving a signal that
`
`indicates consent was given to transmission of location information.
`
`364. Claim 2.4 requires ""the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`receive a signal that indicates that consent was given to transmission of location
`
`information." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report
`
`at ¶227-229. I disagree. Thomas does not disclose anything specifically about receiving
`
`121
`
`Page 121 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`a signal that indicates that consent was given to transmission of location information. See
`
`Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31, 33-34.
`
`365. Dr. Heppe first mischaracterizes the consent to transmission of location
`
`information required by claim 2.4 to be "authorization for location monitoring" before
`
`stating that Thomas explicitly discloses it. Heppe Opening report at ¶227. However, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand these two concepts to be
`
`equivalent. The skilled artisan would understand that one may consent to the
`
`transmission of location information, but still retain authorization for monitoring the
`
`location. For example, one might consent to the transmission of location information, but
`
`allow it to be monitored in its entirety to A, only in part to B, and not at all to C.
`
`Regardless of whether Dr. Heppe has demonstrated that Thomas discloses authorization
`
`for location monitoring, he has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`Thomas discloses the required consent to transmission of location information.
`
`366. Further, Thomas does not disclose Dr. Heppe's analysis of claim 2.4 and
`
`Thomas does not identify consent was given to the machine of claim 2.0.
`
`367. Dr. Heppe omitted consent was given" to the machine of claim 2.0. He
`
`asserts Thomas teaches sending an access request to the mobile phone to determine if a
`
`requestor is allowed to access to the location of the mobile phone. Dr. Heppe asserts that
`
`from Thomas "authorization for location monitoring can be controlled by the owner or
`
`user of the mobile communication device". [Heppe Opening Report at ¶227]
`
`368. Dr. Heppe also asserts, "Furthermore, claim 20 of Thomas notes that the
`
`location monitoring system is "configured to send an access request to the mobile phone
`
`122
`
`Page 122 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`to determine if a requestor is allowed to access [sic] to the location of the mobile phone"
`
`[Heppe Opening Report at ¶228]
`
`369. The limitation of claim 2 is the machine or group of machines receives a
`
`signal that indicates consent was given. Heppe wrongly applies this limitation to the
`
`parties that access the server. The following diagram shows the consent message flow of
`
`element 2.4.
`
`Location
`Information
`Provider
`
`_._._._---__~
`Consent
`
`_~
`
`Wireless
`Device
`
`__.
`
`Access
`
`Authorized User
`
`A
`
`~,
`Access
`
`AuthorixedUser
`
`i
`
`I
`
`gachipeor
`~
`I rou of
`j machines
`
`Acce~
`
`Authorized User
`~ C
`
`370. In the diagram above, the machine or group of machines from claim 2.0
`
`receives a signal from Location Information Provider indicating consent has been given
`
`from the wireless device to access the location of the wireless device. This is a single
`
`consent that the machine or group of machines can then provide to authorized users.
`
`37l . The following diagram shows the consent message flow of Thomas.
`
`Thomas
`Server
`
`Consent
`
`Authorize User
`A
`
`Wireless
`
`Consent
`Device ~~ B
`
`Authorized User
`
`Authorized User
`
`C
`
`l23
`
`Page 123 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`372. The diagram above shows a very different flow of a consent message.
`
`Each authorized user must be given consent from the wireless device by the server taught
`
`in Thomas.
`
`373. The machine or group of machines of claim 2 receives a signal that
`
`indicates consent was given. Such a signal may take the form of location information
`
`itself. With consent, the location information is then transmitted and stored on the
`
`machine. The machine can then use this stored location information to estimate the
`
`location information of a vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle. This estimated
`
`location information can then be shared with multiple parties authorized to access the
`
`location information of vehicles or freight carried by vehicles.
`
`374. Dr. Heppe mischaracterizes the requestor as the machine or group of
`
`machines taught in claim 2. The requestors in Thomas are other servers accessing the
`
`monitoring server taught by Thomas.
`
`375. Therefore, Dr. Heppe did not establish by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that Thomas disclosed consent was given" to the machine of claim 2.0. Accordingly,
`
`Thomas does not anticipate claim 2.4.
`
`376. In addition, Thomas does not disclose a server receiving a signal that
`
`indicates consent was given to transmission of location information as shown above in
`
`section "In Thomas consent is not given to transmit location information to the machine."
`
`124
`
`Page 124 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`8.2.2.6 Claim 2.5 —Thomas does not disclose receiving location information
`
`originating from a device other than the mobile device.
`
`377. Claim 2.5 requires "the central processing unit programmed to ... 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." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶230-232. I disagree. Thomas does not disclose the location
`
`information of the mobile device originating from a device other than the the mobile
`
`device comprising the GPS receiver itself. See Notice of Allowability at ~5; Protest
`
`Response at 31, 34.
`
`378. Dr. Heppe begins his analysis by recharacterizing the claims to leave out
`
`certain limitations. "Boiled down, this element requires location information of the
`
`mobile device (that is GPS configured) to originate from another source." Heppe
`
`Opening report at ¶231. In one particular, this mischaracterization writes out the
`
`limitation of claim 2.5 that the location information must be received from the location
`
`information provider. I understand that it is not permitted to write out claim limitations.
`
`379. Relying on the teaching in the `659 Patent that a location information can
`
`be a wireless service provider, (`659 Patent at 4:35-38), Dr. Heppe repeats his error
`
`(discussed with regard to claim 23 above) and once again conflates a wireless service
`
`provider with a wireless network. Heppe Opening report at ¶231-232. Dr. Heppe asserts
`
`"Thomas explicitly contemplates that while the location information can be generated by
`
`125
`
`Page 125 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`the device itself, alternatively, it can be provided by the wireless network." Heppe
`
`Opening report at ¶232 (emphasis added). For the same reasons discussed with respect to
`
`claim 2.3 above, a wireless network is not the location information provider of the
`
`claimed invention. Information received from the wireless network of Thomas is
`
`therefore not received from a location information provider, as required by the claims.
`
`Dr. Heppe has not demonstrated receiving from the location information provider
`
`location information originating from a device other than the mobile device.
`
`380. Therefore, Dr. Heppe did not establish by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that Thomas discloses "the central processing unit programmed to ...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' as required by claim 2. Accordingly, Thomas does not anticipate element
`
`2.
`
`38l . In addition, Thomas does not disclose receiving location information from
`
`a mobile device. See section above "In Thomas the Location Information Provider is not
`
`disclosed."
`
`8.2.2.7 Claim 2.6 —Thomas does not disclose estimating location based at least in
`
`part on the location information of the mobile device.
`
`382. Claim 2.6 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`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." Dr.
`
`-.. -.
`
`126
`
`Page 126 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report at ¶233-236. I
`
`disagree. Thomas does not disclose a location estimate based at least in part on the
`
`location information. See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 3l, 34.
`
`383. Dr. Heppe has failed to demonstrate an estimate based at least in part on
`
`the location information. Dr. Heppe asserts a specification of Thomas notes that the
`
`"location monitoring server 102 manages location information pertaining to a plurality of
`
`mobile units 104. The mobile units are typically attached to objects, such as people,
`
`vehicles, or containers." Heppe Opening report at ¶234. He asserts that attaching objects
`
`to a mobile unit is equivalent to estimating the location of a vehicle or the freight carried
`
`by the vehicle.
`
`384. Dr. Heppe does not indicate or imply any form of estimating location
`
`information. His response of attachment to an object is a direct correlation. Heppe
`
`Opening report at ¶234. It is not an estimate. Dr. Heppe asserts "If the claimed
`
`estimation process is interpreted to include the trivial or degenerate algorithm which
`
`simply assigns the reported mobile device location to the vehicle or freight to which it is
`
`attached (and with which it is associated), then these disclosures in Thomas teach the
`
`limitation." Heppe Opening report at ¶235. This is a tacit admission that his assertion is
`
`inadequate.
`
`385. Dr. Heppe fails to indicate any estimating process that is based at least in
`
`part on the location information. Dr. Heppe opines on attached objects, such as people,
`
`vehicles, or containers. He does not disclose how attached objects to a mobile device
`
`provides an estimate based at least in part on the location information.
`
`127
`
`Page 127 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`386. Therefore, Dr. Heppe did not establish by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that Thomas provides an estimate based at least in part on the location information.
`
`Accordingly, Thomas does not anticipate element 2.6.
`
`387. In addition, Thomas does not disclose estimating location information
`
`from a mobile device. See section above "In Thomas the Location Information Provider
`
`is not disclosed."
`
`8.2.3 Claim 12
`
`388. I refer to the elements of claim 12 by a numbering scheme consistent with
`
`that used in my report regarding infringement and shown in Exhibit B to that report. See
`
`Infringement Report, Exh. B 15-20. Claim 12 requires the following elements: claim
`
`12.1, claim 12.2, claim 12.3, claim 12.4, claim 12.5, claim 12.6, and claim 12.7. To the
`
`extent the preamble is found to be limiting, claim 12 also requires claim 12.0. Dr. Heppe
`
`opined "that Thomas anticipates claim 12, and alternatively does so inherently, or at the
`
`very least renders the claim obvious." Heppe Opening report at ¶255. I disagree, for the
`
`reasons set forth below.
`
`8.2.3.1 Claim 12.0 preamble —Thomas does not disclose monitoring location of a
`
`vehicle or freight
`
`389. To the extent the preamble is found to be limiting, claim 12.0 requires
`
`"[a] machine or group of machines for monitoring location of at least one of a vehicle or
`
`freight carried by the vehicle ... " Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶239 I disagree, for reasons similar to those stated above with
`
`-.. -.
`
`l28
`
`Page 128 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`respect to Claim 2.0. Dr. Heppe has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`Thomas discloses monitoring the location of a vehicle or freight carried by the vehicle.
`
`See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31.
`
`f~ ' 1
`
`8.2.3.2 Claim 12.1— Thomas does not disclose a transceiver that receives location
`
`information of a mobile device.
`
`391. Claim 12.1 requires, among other limitations, "a server communication
`
`transceiver that receives location information of a mobile device." Dr. Heppe asserts that
`
`this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report at ¶¶240-241. I disagree, for reasons
`
`similar to those stated above with respect to Claim 2.1. Thomas does not disclose this
`
`element. See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 37.
`
`8.2.3.3 Claim 12.2 —Thomas does not disclose determining whether consent was
`
`given to transmit location information of the mobile device.
`
`392. Claim 12.2 requires "the central processing unit programmed to:
`
`determine whether consent was given to transmit location information of the mobile
`
`device comprising the GPS receiver." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶¶242-243. I disagree, at least for reasons similar to those
`
`stated above with respect to Claim 2.4. Thomas does not disclose this element. See
`
`Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31, 37.
`
`129
`
`Page 129 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`8.2.3.4 Claim 12.3 —Thomas does not disclose estimating location based on the
`
`location information of the mobile device.
`
`393. Claim 12.3 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`estimate the location of the at least one of the vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle
`
`based nn the location information of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver;."
`
`Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report at ¶¶244-245.
`
`I disagree, at least for reasons similar to those stated above with respect to Claim 2.6.
`
`Thomas does not disclose this element. See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest
`
`Response at 37.
`
`8.2.3.5 Claim 12.4 —Thomas does not disclose receiving a request for information
`
`regarding the location of the vehicle or freight.
`
`394. Claim 12.4 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`receive a request for information regarding the location of the at least one of the vehicle
`
`or the freight carried by the vehicle." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶¶246-247. I disagree, at least for reasons similar to those
`
`stated above with respect to Claim 2.2. Thomas does not disclose this element. See
`
`Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 37-38.
`
`8.2.3.6 Claim 12.5 —Thomas does not disclose a location information provider.
`
`395. Claim 12.5 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`request location information of the mobile device comprising a GPS receiver from a
`
`130
`
`Page 130 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`location information provider corresponding to a device other than the mobile device
`
`comprising the GPS receiver." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶¶248-250. I disagree, at least for reasons similar to those
`
`stated above with respect to Claim 2.3 and 2.5. Thomas does not disclose this element.
`
`See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31, 38. Further, Dr. Heppe asserts
`
`without support or analysis that MacroPoint disclaimed the scope indicated by the plain
`
`language of the claim. Heppe Opening report at ¶¶249.
`
`8.2.3.7 Claim 12.6 —Thomas does not disclose a location information provider.
`
`396. Claim 12.6 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`receive from the location information provider the location information of the mobile
`
`device comprising the GPS receiver." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶¶25l -252. I disagree, at least for reasons similar to those
`
`stated above with respect to Claim 2.5. Thomas does not disclose this element. See
`
`Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31, 38.
`
`8.2.3.8 Claim 12.7 —Thomas does not disclose a location information provider.
`
`397. Claim 12.7 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`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." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe
`
`Opening report at ¶¶253-254. I disagree, at least for reasons similar to those stated above
`
`-.. -.
`
`131
`
`Page 131 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`with respect to Claim 2.7. Thomas does not disclose this element. See Notice of
`
`Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31, 38.
`
`398. Claim 12.1 requires, among other limitations, "a server communication
`
`transceiver that receives location information of a mobile device." Dr. Heppe asserts that
`
`this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report at ¶240. I disagree, for reasons
`
`similar to those stated above with respect to Claim 12.1. Thomas does not disclose
`
`receiving a request for information regarding the location of the vehicle or the freight
`
`carried by the vehicle. See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 37.
`
`8.2.4 Claim 23
`
`399. I refer to the elements of claim 23 by a numbering scheme consistent with
`
`that used in my report regarding infringement and shown in Exhibit B to that report. See
`
`Infringement Report, Exh. B 36-42. Claim 23 requires the following elements: claim
`
`23.1, claim 23.2, claim 23.3, claim 23.4, claim 23.5, claim 23.6, and claim 23.7. To the
`
`extent the preamble is found to be limiting, claim 23 also requires claim 23.0. Dr. Heppe
`
`opined that "Thomas teaches all elements of the alleged invention if claim 23 and
`
`therefore anticipates the claim. In the alternative, given the state of the art at the time of
`
`the invention, a person of skill would easily arrive at the alleged invention, with the
`
`teachings of Thomas, rendering claim 23 obvious." Heppe Opening report at ¶270. I
`
`disagree, for the reasons set forth below.
`
`-.. -.
`
`l32
`
`Page 132 of 225
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`8.2.4.1 Claim 23.0 preamble —Thomas does not disclose monitoring location of a
`
`vehicle or freight
`
`400. To the extent the preamble is found to be limiting, claim 23.0 requires
`
`"[a] machine or group of machines for monitoring location of at least one of a vehicle or
`
`freight carried by the vehicle ... " Dr. Heppe asserts that this is disclosed by Thomas.
`
`Heppe Opening report at ¶256-257. I disagree, for reasons similar to those stated above
`
`with respect to Claim 2.0 and 12.0. Dr. Heppe has not shown by clear and convincing
`
`evidence that Thomas discloses monitoring the location of a vehicle or freight carried by
`
`the vehicle. See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31.
`
`8.2.4.2 Claim 23.1— Thomas does not disclose a transceiver that receives location
`
`information of a mobile de~~ice.
`
`401. Claim 23.1 requires, among other limitations, "a server communication
`
`transceiver that receives location information of a mobile device." Dr. Heppe asserts that
`
`this is disclosed by Thomas. Heppe Opening report at ¶¶258. I disagree, for reasons
`
`similar to those stated above with respect to Claim 2.1 and 12.1. Thomas does not
`
`disclose this element. See Notice of Allowability at §5; Protest Response at 31.
`
`8.2.4.3 Claim 23.2 —Thomas does not disclose receiving a request for information
`
`regarding the location of the vehicle or freight.
`
`402. Claim 23.2 requires "the central processing unit programmed to
`
`.
`
`receive a request for information regarding the location of the at least one of the vehicle
`
`or the freight carried by the vehicle." Dr. Heppe asserts that this is di

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