UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`GEOTAB INC. and TV MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a GPS NORTH
`AMERICA
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PERDIEMCO LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01063
`U.S. Patent 8,717,166
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1
`
`INTRODUCTION TO THE ’166 PATENT AND SUMMARY
`OF PETITION DEFICIENCIES ...........................................................2
`
`III.
`
`PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................................................................9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,327,258 (“Fast”) .............................................9
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2005/0156715 (“Zou”) .......................9
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................9
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONERS’ GROUNDS FOR REJECTION ARE
`UNPERSUASIVE .............................................................................. 11
`
`A. Overview of Fast ...................................................................... 11
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`Fast Does Not Anticipate Claim 1 ........................................... 29
`
`Fast Does Not Anticipate Claim 2 ........................................... 36
`
`Fast Does Not Anticipate Claim 3 ........................................... 36
`
`Fast Does Not Anticipate Claim 4 ........................................... 36
`
`Fast Does Not Anticipate Claims 5-7 ...................................... 37
`
`Fast Does Not Anticipate Claims 8-10 .................................... 37
`
`Fast Does Not Anticipate Claim 13 ......................................... 37
`
`Fast Does Not Anticipate Claims 14 ........................................ 38
`
`Fast Does Not Anticipate Claim 15 or 16 ................................ 38
`
`Fast Does Not Anticipate Claim 19 ......................................... 38
`
`Fast Does Not Anticipate Claims 20-25 .................................. 39
`
`The Combination of Fast and Zou Does Not Render
`Obvious Claims 1-20 ................................................................ 39
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 42
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a), Patent Owner
`
`PerDiemCo LLC (“PerDiem”) respectfully submits this Preliminary
`
`Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“the Petition”) filed in this
`
`matter.1 Petitioners Geotab Inc. and TV Management, Inc. (collectively
`
`“Petitioners”) seek Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-13, 18-19, 22-
`
`24, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166 (“the ‘166 Patent”), as allegedly
`
`being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a). The ’166 Patent
`
`is assigned to PerDiem. It was formerly the subject of co-pending litigation,
`
`PerDiemCo, LLC v. Industrack LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-727-JRG-RSP
`
`(E.D. Tex.) and PerDiemCo, LLC v. GPSLogic, LLC et al., No. 2:15-cv-
`
`16616-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.), although PerDiem is not currently pursuing
`
`any of the ’166 claims in those co-pending litigations.
`
`In their Petition, Petitioners assert that various claims of the ’166
`
`Patent are invalid on two grounds: (1) that the Fast reference2 anticipates
`
`claims 1-10, 13-16, and 19-25, and (2) that claims 1-10, 13-16, and 19-25
`
`
`1 This submission is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 21, as it is being filed within
`three months following the mailing date of the Notice of Filing Date
`Accorded to Petition.
`2 U.S. Patent No. 7,327,258 to Fast et al. Fast is attached as Ex. 1003 to
`Petitioners’ Petition.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`are obvious over the combination of Fast and a secondary reference, Zou.3
`
`(Petition at 5). As set forth below, the Petition is unpersuasive on numerous
`
`grounds and no IPR should be instituted.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION TO THE ’166 PATENT AND SUMMARY OF
`PETITION DEFICIENCIES
`
`This IPR should not be instituted because Petitioners’ invalidity
`
`arguments are wrongly premised on (1) servers manually monitoring event
`
`thresholds for moving objects, and (2) specified event condition data that
`
`have file names stored in databases somehow monitoring locations. This
`
`IPR should also not be instituted because (3) Fast does not teach the claimed
`
`requirement of independent administrative privileges for conveying location
`
`related information to user groups, and (4) Petitioners adopt the incorrect
`
`premise that Fast teaches sending object location messages to independent
`
`user groups based on user-specified access privileges, when in fact the sent
`
`messages cannot contain object location information.
`
`The ’166 Patent describes a centralized system (Ex. 10014 at 12:63-
`
`13:2, FIG. 1) that conveys location-related information in a plurality of
`
`
`3 U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2005/0156715 to Zou . Zou is attached as Ex.
`1005 to Petitioners’ Petition.
`4 The ’166 Patent is Ex. 1001 to Petitioners’ Petition.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`independent user groups (Limitations 1(a) and 1(f)). One or more
`
`computing devices configure a plurality of information sharing
`
`environments (ISEs) for users based on varying levels of administrative
`
`privilege (Limitation 1(b)). The computing devices configure a first
`
`information sharing environment (ISE) based on a first level of
`
`administrative privilege to associate users with each one of the plurality of
`
`user groups (Limitation 1(e)). The computing devices convey location-
`
`related information of mobile devices based on location information access
`
`privileges associated with authorized users in the user groups (Limitation
`
`1(g)). The claims therefore enable one authorized user conveying event or
`
`location information to specific user groups independent of other authorized
`
`users and independent of administers and users having higher/administrative
`
`privileges.
`
`The Fast reference conveys object location information to many
`
`different users of Fast’s system such as operators, supervisors, rescue
`
`personnel and the like who have successfully logged into the system
`
`simultaneously. (Fast at 14:46-55). Inherent in Fast is that “operators-in-
`
`the-loop” are added to the list of users notified about event information.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`(Fast at 35:45-55). Fast describes “operators” who access the monitoring
`
`system 24/7 and interact with “subscribers” or “wholesalers.” (Id. at 4:51-
`
`53). Administrative privileges in Fast are not independent because, for
`
`example, an operator or police official in Fast can view beacon locations
`
`without user authorization simply by virtue of having access to the GMMS5
`
`via user ID/password authentication (Fast at 6:48-50 and at 14:46-55).
`
`Therefore, Fast fails to teach or suggest configuring a plurality of location
`
`[ISEs] for each user group independent of one another to convey location
`
`information.
`
`Moreover, in the ’166 Patent servers are configured to determine the
`
`occurrence of events and convey event information to remote computing
`
`devices when events occur. (Ex. 1001, Fig. 7, item 604). Remote
`
`computing devices in the ’166 Patent cannot detect the occurrence of
`
`specified event conditions because they receive event information. That is
`
`why the ’166 Patent does not teach or suggest anything other than servers
`
`determining occurrence of events before conveying event information.
`
`
`5 Guardian Mobile Monitoring System or “GMMS” is the name of the
`system described in Fast.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`In stark contrast, Fast determines the occurrence of events either by
`
`remote beacon devices “automatically” or by human activity “manually.”
`
`(Fast at 26:1-64, Example 2 and Example 4). Thus, Fast does not disclose
`
`configuring servers to determine the occurrence of events, as required by the
`
`‘166 claims.
`
`Petitioners’ secondary prior art reference, Zou, describes the
`
`“benefits” of determining the occurrence of events automatically in
`
`“telemetry devices” remote from the servers. (Zou at [0081]). Thus, neither
`
`reference discloses determining the occurrence of events at servers, as
`
`required by the ’166 claims.
`
`The ’166 Patent improves upon the prior art because with servers
`
`determining occurrence of events, processing limitations at the device or
`
`object are avoided and other resources are more efficiently utilized. In this
`
`way, the ’166 Patent significantly simplifies Fast’s complex implementation
`
`requiring 24/7 man-in-the-loop, as well as complex interactions with
`
`beacons involving switching beacon modes back and forth.
`
`However, there are still more reasons that the Petition fails to meet the
`
`requirements for instituting this IPR. As discussed below, the Petition fails
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`to establish that the cited references teach eight limitations of claim 1,
`
`namely: Limitation 1(a), 1(d), 1(e), 1(f) and 1(g).
`
`In the ’166 Patent, servers control conveyance of the above-described
`
`information based on user identification codes at a first level of access
`
`control (Ex. 1001 at 10:32-35) and a different user-specified “information
`
`access code” (id. at 2:39-67, 3:1-6, 7:63-8:5) at a second level of access
`
`control. (Id. at 10:35-41). The ’166 Patent improves protection of user
`
`privacy by not only requiring authentication based on user ID/Password
`
`access codes at a first level, but also requiring an event information access
`
`code which is different from the user ID/Password that was used in the first
`
`level of access control above. (See id. at 8:10-15 (noting that there at least
`
`are “two conditions that must be met to gain access.”))
`
`For conveying information related to locations, all ’166 claims require
`
`configuring each of the plurality of location ISEs for each user group
`
`independent of one another based on at least one second level of
`
`administrative privilege by specifying one or more levels of location
`
`information access privilege for at least one authorized user in each user
`
`group (Limitation 1(e)) and managing conveyance of information related to
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`location of the plurality of the mobile devices in the plurality of user groups
`
`based on a plurality of location information access privileges associated with
`
`a plurality of authorized users (Limitation 1(g)).
`
`In this way, the claims enable a plurality of authorized users to specify
`
`access control privileges to location or event information at the second level
`
`of access control independent of higher-level administrators and independent
`
`of one another, based on information access codes specified by the
`
`authorized users.
`
`Moreover, the ’166 Patent protects privacy by describing multiple
`
`levels of independent administrative privileges used with the above-
`
`described multiple levels of access control. (Id. at 5:53-56). The ’166
`
`Patent describes the administrator of a central or distributed database of user
`
`information having an administrator privilege, which can be implemented
`
`using one or more servers.
`
`Under the first level of administrator privilege, the administrator
`
`system and method specifies authorized users and their access privileges.
`
`(Id. at 5:41-44). The administrator provides access only to those having
`
`access privileges to the information-sharing environments. (Id. at 12:63-66).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`The authorized users interface with the system administrator based on user
`
`ID/Password. Under the second level of administrative privilege below the
`
`first level of administrative privilege, the authorized users control
`
`conveyance of location or event information only to specific users specified
`
`by the authorized users.
`
`A second level of administrative privilege can, for example, be used
`
`to specify event conditions. (Id. at 2:13-17; 11:1-5). The servers can
`
`configure access privileges for authorized users that specify event conditions
`
`based upon information access codes, e.g., event IDs. The event information
`
`access codes granted based on the access privileges are used to determine
`
`users to which event information is conveyed. (Id. at 12:50-53).
`
`By providing multiple levels of access control, the ’166 Patent
`
`protects privacy of object location information based on user-specified
`
`information access codes in a manner that is distinguished over Fast, which
`
`uses only a single level of authentication (Fast at 6:48-50).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`III. PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`Petitioners have identified the following prior art references relied
`
`upon in their invalidity grounds.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,327,258 (“Fast”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2005/0156715 (“Zou”)
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`As part of the determination whether to institute a trial, the Board
`
`must interpret the challenged claims, which may include determining a
`
`specific meaning for certain claim terms or phrases, by applying the
`
`“broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`This standard, however, does not give the Board (or a petitioner) “an unfet-
`
`tered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the
`
`claimed invention.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010). Rather, it is well settled that the “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation” must be applied in view of the specification as interpreted by
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Thus, claim
`
`interpretations are only reasonable if they are consistent with the
`
`specification. Id. (“claims should always be read in light of the specification
`
`and teachings in the underlying patent.”).
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`Petitioners state that “the user ID code need not be different than the
`
`information access code or the information package access code, as
`
`construed below, without construing any of these phrases.” (Petition at 9).
`
`Indeed, the construed phrases are not even claim requirements.
`
`Petitioners summarily state that “information sharing environment”
`
`(ISE) includes the hardware of a system, yet construe ISE as “a computing
`
`network where the conveyance of information from a server to a group of
`
`users’ computing devices can be controlled or configured.” (Petition at P.
`
`9). According to the claims, information can be conveyed by server-
`
`implemented software. Indeed, Petitioners admit ISEs under BRI “can be
`
`administered so as to manage conveyance of information among computing
`
`devices. . .” Id.
`
`Petitioners state “‘user group’ comprises the users (e.g., people or
`
`things)...” Id. While equating users with things, Petitioners point out user
`
`groups do not need hardware for conveyance of information. Id. As best
`
`understood, Petitioners argue that ISE must include the hardware for
`
`conveyance of information from a server to a group of users, yet for some
`
`unspecified reason such hardware may not be needed for conveyance of
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`information to user groups. Under Petitioners’ construction, it is not clear
`
`whether user groups receive any information at all, let alone location-related
`
`information. Patent Owner proposes a user group to be a group of at least
`
`two users.
`
`Inconsistent with the ’166 Patent, Petitioners state a particular user
`
`may be both an administrator and an authorized user (Petition at 10). The
`
`’166 Patent describes authorized user be to be mutually exclusive from the
`
`administrator by independent administrative privileges. (Ex. 1001 at 5:26-
`
`38)
`
`Petitioners construe an authorized user as an individual who is given
`
`permission to access information, limiting it to whether a “user is authorized
`
`to receive the information” (Petition at 10). Instead, authorized users should
`
`be construed as users who authorize users that receive information. This
`
`construction is fully consistent with the ‘166 specifications.
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONERS’ GROUNDS FOR REJECTION ARE
`UNPERSUASIVE
`
`A. Overview of Fast
`
`Relying on Fast, Petitioners start their anticipation arguments by
`
`modifying Fast drawings and adding blocks of new subject matter (Petition
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`at 20). Back-filling gaps in the prior art, Petitioners propose incorrect
`
`POSITA hypotheses based on the modified Fast (Petition at 18-20), arguing
`
`that specified event conditions are access codes for conveying event
`
`information. However, the ’166 Patent clearly differentiates event
`
`information based on event IDs that are distinct from zone/scenario/scheme
`
`IDs.
`
`The Fast functionality that compares location information with zone
`
`information to determine whether to send an alert is called “threshold
`
`monitoring.” See, e.g., Fast at 23:62-64 (“Threshold monitoring: Request
`
`the beacon to report an alert if it exceeds or falls below a predefined
`
`threshold. Examples for a vehicle beacon include: alert the system when
`
`going out of a predefined geofence . . .”) Fast primarily discloses the
`
`beacons themselves performing threshold monitoring, by comparing their
`
`location against zone boundaries to determine whether to send an alert. See
`
`also Fast at 30:57-61 (“In the threshold monitoring state, the Beacon
`
`indicates whether a particular threshold has been exceeded, illustratively if it
`
`is exceeding a particular speed or moved outside of a particular zone or
`
`area.”) But the beacons are not located in servers: the beacons are attached
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`to the mobile devices being tracked, whereas the servers are located at a
`
`central repository. Compare Fast at 7:49-50 (“the servers are installed in a
`
`secure data center in a central location”) with Fast at 9:10-11 (“Beacon is the
`
`term used generically to describe any locatable wireless device within the
`
`GMMS network.”) Thus, when the beacons themselves perform threshold
`
`monitoring, that does not disclose “one or more servers configured to”
`
`compare location data to zone boundaries, as required by ‘166 claims.
`
`Under Petitioners’ reasoning, Fast servers are capable of performing
`
`manual functions. Fast discloses a system (GMMS) that monitors
`
`parameters that specify event conditions, such as speed, position and
`
`threshold boundaries of mobile items attached to beacons (See Ex. 1003 at
`
`Abstract). “A fundamental advantage of the GMMS system over any other
`
`systems that incorporate wireless location is that the GMMS system is a
`
`multi-user system. This means that anyone authorized to locate a beacon
`
`can do so at the same time as any other authorized users. A subscriber, a
`
`guardian, an operator, and a police official could all be tracking the same
`
`beacon simultaneously.” (Fast at 14:46-55)
`
`Petitioners claim location information of beacons associated with
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`dependents in the respective user groups (e.g., “Subscriber Account A1” and
`
`“Subscriber Account B1”), may be conveyed by the GMMS server(s) to
`
`entities specified by the subscribers in their respective groups. (Petition at
`
`19). Citing FIGs. 11-1 and 11-2 of Fast, Petitioners hypothesize “Guardian
`
`A1X may be authorized to view the location of Alex, but not Amy, and
`
`Guardian A1Y may be authorized to view the location of Amy, but not
`
`Alex.” (Petition at 25). First of all, the word “location” is not even
`
`mentioned in the relied-upon Fast FIGs. Fast defines one type of user as
`
`“guardian.” Fast’s “Location Manager” allows subscribers to track
`
`dependents or assets, but not guardians (Fast at 20: 39-42). Fast’s Guardian
`
`Manager allows for the creation of guardians assigned to one or more
`
`dependents or assets (Fast at 20:57-22), but there is no second level of
`
`access control in Fast for conveying beacon location information. Because
`
`all authorized users can locate beacons simultaneously, Fast does not control
`
`conveyance of event or location information based on user-specified access
`
`codes under a second level of access control. Indeed, noting in Fast
`
`discloses a subscriber authorizing the operator or the police officer to locate
`
`a beacon using object location information access codes at a second level of
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`access control. Fast administrators authenticate all authorized users,
`
`monitoring operators, public officials without requiring different user-
`
`specified access control codes that control conveyance of event information
`
`at second levels of access control, in addition to system access
`
`authentication at an administrator level above.
`
`Fast does not disclose location information access codes that define
`
`specific users who receive access to beacon location information. Beacon
`
`location information is provided to numerous persons in Fast as long as they
`
`have been granted access to the GMMS via a login password. In the ‘166
`
`Patent, access control involves two levels of information access control.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 7:47-8:16).
`
`Notably, user-specified passwords used as information access codes
`
`under the ’166 Patent are different from login passwords. A login password
`
`can be used for authentication of a user to access a system, while a user-
`
`specified password can be used to provide a level of information access
`
`control to object location information within the system.
`
`In the ’166 Patent, a user-specified password can be used alone or in
`
`combination with other types of access codes (or levels) for object location
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`or event information access control within the system. The specification
`
`describes use of two or more types (or levels) of information access control
`
`using information access control codes, including an access list, a user-
`
`specified access code. (Ex. 1001 at 8:4-25). The access lists or user-
`
`specified access codes are event information access codes that, for example,
`
`specify user groups. A user-specified information access code can specify a
`
`user group associated with a plurality of user identification codes. Any user
`
`can define a group. (Id. at 13:32-33). For example, “a parent administering
`
`an information-sharing environment might define groups such as parents,
`
`teenagers, children, drivers, and so forth.” (Id. at 13:23-25). System access
`
`control is used to determine which users are granted access to a system while
`
`the user-specified information access code is used to control which users of
`
`the system are granted access to which location information that is being
`
`conveyed within the system. Without a user-specified information access
`
`control code at the second level, any user having been granted access to the
`
`system at a level above can access location information. Multiple levels of
`
`information access control provide for greater security and privacy for
`
`conveying location information than a single level of information access
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`control.
`
`Fast does not teach or suggest user-specified information access codes
`
`for controlling access to beacon/dependent location information. Beacon
`
`location information is conveyed to anyone having been granted access to
`
`Fast’s GMMS (Fast at 14:46-55). Petitioners’ POSITA hypothesis is
`
`wrongly premised on Fast conveying object location of a second user
`
`(dependent/beacon) to a third user (guardian) based on an access code
`
`specified by an authorizes user (subscriber) (Petition at 18-20, 27).
`
`However, Fast does not convey a dependent/beacon location to a guardian
`
`based on scenarios/schemes. Fast’s “location manager” only coveys beacon
`
`location information to a subscriber, but not to a guardian. Instead, Fast
`
`teaches guardians having access to the same portal as the subscriber. Fast
`
`does not teach or suggest subscribers authorizing guardians to receive
`
`beacons’ location information based on scenario/scheme name. (Fast at
`
`5:42-47.) Instead, Fast conveys event information to the guardian based on
`
`a specified event condition. Fast’s notification messages do not convey any
`
`beacon/dependent location information. Fast teaches “[w]hen a subscriber
`
`logs in to track their lost dog, the system will send a ‘tracking’ request to the
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`BCI, which will then send the command to the appropriate beacon manager.”
`
`(Petition at 35). However, Fast also allows every authorized user, guardian,
`
`operator and even public official, e.g., police officer, to simultaneously
`
`access beacon location information just based on a single-level
`
`authentication into the administrator system. (Fast at 6:48-50 and at 14:46-
`
`55).
`
`After the single login authentication, Fast publicizes object location to
`
`all authorized users, operators, police officers based on user
`
`types/designations without any additional access code. Fast fails to teach
`
`independent administrative privileges between a system administrator, e.g.,
`
`GMMS administrator, at a first level and authorized user administration at a
`
`different second level. Because administrative privileges between GMMS
`
`and subscriber/wholesaler/retailer in Fast are not independent, an operator or
`
`police official in Fast can view beacon locations without user authorization
`
`simply by virtue of having access to the GMMS via user ID/password
`
`authentication.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`Access to the GMMS is based on authentication. (FIGs. 14-2, 15-1 or
`
`16-1, portions of which are reproduced below).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`
`
`Fast authenticates the identity of users to ensure authorized
`
`individuals (id. at 37:7-9), e.g., granting recovery personnel temporary,
`
`authenticated access to the GMMS. (Id. at 36:49-54) All user
`
`authentication into the GMMS takes place at the same single level.
`
`Petitioners agree Fast requires its users (wholesalers and subscribers) to
`
`submit passwords to gain access to their respective portals, i.e., a single-
`
`level authentication. (Petition at 27). Wholesalers, retailers, subscribers,
`
`operators, guardians, etc. use this single level authentication to access the
`
`GMMS. Authentication for accessing the GMMS can be done in two ways:
`
`(1) computerized user login based on a password (Fast at 37:50-52) or (2)
`
`operator-based user authentication over telephone (Fast at 39:57-61).
`
`Petitioners agree that Fast discloses password protected portals
`
`(Petition at 27), but do not provide any evidence that the disclosed
`
`password/passcode-based authentication is anything more than a verified
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`identification process for access to the GMMS. This is because Fast does
`
`not discloses a user-specified information access code that must be provided
`
`to receive location or event information conveyed by the GMMS. A verified
`
`identification process for a user in Fast, however, does not involve a user-
`
`specified information access code for controlling conveyance of object
`
`location information of a second user to a third user when every user can see
`
`beacon locations “simultaneously,” as is the case in Fast’s GMMS system.
`
`Administrators or operators in GMMS assign beacons to authenticated
`
`subscribers, wholesalers, retailers, and direct resellers. (Id. at 40:31-49,
`
`38:9-12; see also id. at Fig. 22):
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`Unlike the ’166 Patent, where second-level information sharing
`
`environments can be independently configured such that they are
`
`independent from each other, Fast’s wholesalers, retailers, direct sellers and
`
`their operators are hardwired (predefined) into the GMMS system such that
`
`they exist always for all customers, subscribers, etc. Fast discloses that
`
`users comprise: Monitoring Station Operator, Dispatcher, Supervisor, and
`
`Recover Personnel that are employees working for the companies/service
`
`providers that are part of this hardwired system (Ex. 1003 at 48:28-34),
`
`where the subscribers are “end-users.” (Id. at 4:46-48). Fast also discloses
`
`guardians as persons being temporarily provided responsibility for an item,
`
`which would make the guardian an end-user of Fast. (See Fast at 4:61-62.)
`
`As such, Fast merely discloses end-users that subscribe to this hardwired
`
`infrastructure where there are no groups of end-users ever defined. Fast
`
`discloses selecting entities from a list of available entities shown below.
`
`Petitioners argue that Fast explains that “[t]o create a notification scheme,
`
`suitable entities are selected from a list of available entities to be notified,
`
`indicated at 284,” shown below. (Petition at 39).
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`
`
`
`
`Fast teaches an event notification list that determines which users are
`
`notified given the occurrence of an event automatically by a beacon or
`
`manually by an operator. In Fact, some users are subscriber specified, e.g.,
`
`guardians. However, the event notification list in Fast includes operators,
`
`emergency personnel, supervisors and so on. In Fast, the eligible entities
`
`that can be sent notifications are: database, Incident Queue, Subscriber,
`
`Guardian, Rescue Personnel. (Fast at 35:45-55). Inherent in Fast is that
`
`“operators-in-the-loop” are added to the list of users notified about event
`
`information. An event information access code (e.g., an access control list)
`
`in the ‘166 Patent is different because it defines the specific users that receive
`
`event information where no other user of the information sharing
`
`environment not authorized by the event information access control code is
`
`23
`
`provided access.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01063
` U.S. Patent No. 8,223,166
`
`Fast’s notification access lists are associated with scenarios that
`
`specify event conditions, which is not an event information access code.
`
`Scenarios/schemes do not monitor locations or evens.
`
`All Fast discloses are entity labels, e.g., “subscriber” or “g