throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper 28
`Entered: November 19, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SQUARE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNWIRED PLANET LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-01164
`U.S. Patent No. 7,376,433 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`Background
`A.
`Square, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting
`an inter partes review of claims 1–17 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,376,433 B1 (Exhibit 1001, “the ’433 Patent”). We instituted
`trial for all the challenged claims on the grounds of unpatentability below.
`Paper 7 (“Decision to Institute” or “Inst. Dec.”).
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`Asserted Prior Art
`Basis
`Claims
`DeLorme1
`§102(e)
`Claims 1–7 and 11–17
`DeLorme and Trask2
`§103(a)
`Claims 7–10
`Baker3 and Hall4
`§103(a)
`Claims 1–6 and 11–16
`Baker, Hall, and Trask
`§103(a)
`Claims 7–10
`After institution of trial, Unwired Planet LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed
`a Patent Owner Response (Paper 11, “PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply
`to the Patent Owner Response (Paper 17, “Pet. Reply”).
`A hearing was held on September 16, 2015. The transcript has been
`entered into the record. Paper 27 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons given herein, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner state that the ’433 Patent has been
`asserted against Petitioner in the following district court case: Unwired
`Planet LLC v. Square, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00579 (D. Nev.). Pet. 2; See
`Mandatory Notice of Patent Owner Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) (“Patent
`Owner Notice,” Paper 4).
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,948,040 (“DeLorme”) (Ex. 1008).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,945,919 (“Trask”) (Ex. 1007).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,505,046 B1 (“Baker”) (Ex. 1009). Petitioner
`additionally relies on U.S. Patent Appl. No. 60/066,653 (“Baker
`Provisional”) (Ex. 1010).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,026,375 (“Hall”) (Ex. 1011).
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`Patent Owner asserted a related patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,024,205
`(“the ’205 patent”), in Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-
`00504 (D. Nev.). See Patent Owner Notice. The ’205 patent issued from the
`parent of the application that issued as the ’433 Patent. The ’205 patent is
`the subject of a covered business method patent review, CBM2014-00005,
`and an inter partes review, IPR2014-00036, both of which involve a
`different petitioner than the instant proceeding. Id.
`Furthermore, U.S. Patent No. 7,711,100 (“the ’100 patent”) and U.S.
`Patent No. 8,275,359 (“the ’359 patent”) are involved in the same district
`court proceeding involving Petitioner identified above, and also concern
`location-based mobile service technology. The ’100 patent and the ’359
`patent are not, however, in the same patent family as the ’433 Patent.
`Petitioner has requested Office review of the ’100 patent (Case CBM2014-
`00156) and the ’359 patent (Case IPR2014-01165).
`
`The ’433 Patent
`C.
`The ’433 Patent relates to subscriber delivered, location-based
`services. Ex. 1001, 1:18–24. The ’433 Patent states that location-based
`service systems have been implemented or proposed for wireless networks.
`Id. at 1:32–34. According to the ’433 Patent, these systems generally
`involve determining location information for a wireless transceiver and
`processing the location information to provide an output desired for a
`particular application. Id. at 1:34–37. The ’433 Patent also states that
`location-based services can be enhanced by personalizing the services
`provided by processing a request based, at least in part, on stored
`information regarding a subscriber. Id. at 2:13–18. Subscriber information
`may include account numbers, credit card numbers, other financial
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`information, lodging preferences, price limitations, and discount programs.
`Id. at 2:18–23.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims challenged by Petitioner.
`Each of claims 2–14 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 1, and each
`of claims 16 and 17 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 15. Claim 1
`is illustrative and is reproduced below:
`
`1. A method of providing location-based services to a
`subscriber of a wireless network, the method comprising:
`storing, on the network platform, subscriber profile
`information regarding the subscriber, the subscriber using a
`mobile unit;
`in
`receiving, on a network platform
`thereafter
`communication with the subscriber, a service request from the
`mobile unit requesting information regarding the location-based
`services;
`obtaining, on the network platform, location information
`regarding a location of the mobile unit;
`identifying, on the network platform, a plurality of
`candidate service providers from a database of service
`providers, based upon the location of the mobile unit;
`identifying, on the network platform, service provider
`information associated with the plurality of candidate service
`providers;
`selecting, on the network platform, a subset of the
`plurality of candidate service providers based on the subscriber
`profile information, wherein selecting a subset comprises not
`selecting at least one of the plurality of candidate service
`providers;
`outputting information regarding the subset of the
`plurality of candidate service providers to the mobile unit;
`receiving an input from the mobile unit, wherein the
`input comprises a selection of a preferred service provider;
`transmitting information regarding the subscriber to the
`preferred service provider;
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`initiating a transaction between the subscriber and the
`preferred service provider based on the information regarding
`the subscriber; and
`receiving a transaction confirmation from the preferred
`service provider.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`As a step in our analysis in the Decision to Institute, we determined
`the meaning of the claims. The constructions are summarized in the table
`below.
`
`Claim Term
`“subscriber profile information”
`
`“network platform”
`
`“mobile service provider”
`
`
`
`Construction
`“[I]nformation relating to a user.”
`Inst. Dec. 7.
`“[C]omputer included on a network.”
`Id. at 8.
`“[S]ervice provider that changes its
`location.” Id. at 8. We determine
`that “mobile service provider”
`encompasses the examples provided
`in the ’433 Patent specification
`including taxi, courier, and police
`unit. Id. at 9.
`
`Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner disputes our constructions. Pet.
`Reply 2–3; PO Resp. 3–9; Tr. 8, 27. We discern no reason, based on the
`complete record now before us, to change our determinations thereof.
`Patent Owner provides constructions for three additional terms. We
`evaluate two of these constructions below, but need not address the other. In
`particular, we need not evaluate Patent Owner’s contentions regarding
`whether “at least one of” modifies both the credit card number and the
`expiration date as recited in claim 12’s limitation “wherein the financial
`information comprises at least one of a credit card number and an expiration
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`date, a bank account number, or corporate account information,” because we
`determine that DeLorme discloses “corporate account information,” as
`discussed further below.
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC., 793 F.3d 1268, 1277–1279 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard in enacting the [America Invents Act (Pub. L. No. 11229, 125
`Stat. 284 (2011)) (‘AIA’)],” and “the standard was properly adopted by
`[United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’)] regulation.”).
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given
`their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We construe
`the terms below in accordance with these principles.
`
`“receiving a transaction confirmation from the preferred
`1.
`service provider”
`The term “receiving a transaction confirmation from the preferred
`service provider” is recited, for example, in independent claims 1 and 15.
`According to Patent Owner “receiving a transaction confirmation from the
`preferred service provider” means “receiving a transaction confirmation
`either directly from or indirectly from the preferred service provider.” PO
`Resp. 3. Patent Owner provides further clarification regarding its
`construction citing to Petitioner’s declarant, “Mr. Proctor[ ] testified during
`his deposition that ‘[i]t could be sent from a service provider via a central
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`service, or it can be sent directly, under the broadest reasonable meaning.’”
`Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 2003 at 140:4–9).
`Petitioner contends that the term “indirectly” does not appear in the
`patent specification and would itself require further construction. Pet. Reply
`3. Petitioner’s contention is not persuasive because the ’433 Patent
`Specification describes how a transaction confirmation is sent. In particular,
`the ’433 Patent Specification states that a transaction confirmation “is
`received (324) by the system and, in turn, transmitted (326) to the subscriber
`to complete the process,” which we discern as being “indirect,” as the
`“system” is not a part of the preferred service provider. Ex. 1001, 8:50–53.
`In light of Patent Owner’s contentions that an order is not a
`transaction (PO Resp. 49), we construe “transaction.” The ’433 Patent
`Specification does not define “transaction.” A dictionary sets forth a plain
`and ordinary meaning of “transaction” as follows: “something, such as a
`business deal, that is settled or is in the process of being settled.”
`CHAMBERS 21ST CENTURY DICTIONARY (Mari Robinson & George Davidson
`eds., 2001), available at
`http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/chambdict/transaction/0 (Ex.
`3001).
`The dictionary definition is consistent with the ’433 Patent
`Specification. For example, the ’433 Patent Specification describes that
`“[t]he subscriber may direct the location-based service application running
`on the platform to transmit credit card or other subscriber information to a
`selected hotel or other service provider in order to consummate a
`transaction.” Ex. 1001, 7:53–57.
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`Upon review, we determine that “receiving a transaction confirmation
`from the preferred service provider” means “receiving a confirmation of
`something, such as a business deal, that is settled or is in the process of
`being settled either directly from or indirectly from the preferred service
`provider.”
`
`“network-assisted location finding technology”
`2.
`The term “network-assisted location finding technology” is recited in
`claim 2. Patent Owner contends that “network-assisted location finding
`technology” means “a location finding technology that analyzes signals
`communicated between network equipment and the mobile device to
`calculate a location of the mobile device which operates in conjunction with
`external systems that calculate mobile device location based on signals from
`external sources.” PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner further contends that
`“‘network assisted location finding technology’ is not standalone GPS
`[Global Positioning System] technology.” Id. at 7. Petitioner contends that
`“GPS is a location finding technology,” but does not otherwise provide its
`own construction. Pet. Reply 3.
`The ’433 Patent Specification does not define “network-assisted.” A
`dictionary sets forth a plain and ordinary meaning of “assist” as follows: “to
`help.” CHAMBERS 21ST CENTURY DICTIONARY (Mari Robinson & George
`Davidson eds., 2001), available at
`http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/chambdict/assist/0 (Ex.
`3002). The dictionary definition of “assist” is useful in ascertaining the way
`in which one of ordinary skill in the art would use the claim term. Starhome
`GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 856–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This
`definition is consistent with the ’433 Patent Specification. Neither party has
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`pointed to portions of the ’433 Patent Specification that use the term “assist”
`or “assisted” with respect to location finding technology. The ’433 Patent
`Specification uses the term “assist” as an action performed by an emergency
`dispatcher when responding to a call (Ex. 1001, 1:42–44), and as an outcome
`of sending the location of a car phone in a stolen car to authorities (id. at
`1:50–53). The ’433 Patent Specification indicates that “location information
`may be based on an output from any suitable location finding equipment
`(LFE) or a combination thereof.” Ex. 1001, 2:50–52. The ’433 Patent
`Specification provides examples of LFEs including “network based
`systems” and “external systems that determine location based on signals
`from external sources, e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS) signals.” Id. at
`2:52–59. Additionally, according to the ’433 Patent Specification “[s]uch
`LFE inputs may be used in raw form or, more preferably, may be processed
`in conjunction with other LFE inputs, mapping information or the like to
`provide enhanced location information.” Id. at 2:59–63.
`Patent Owner contends that “the ’433[ P]atent [ ] broadly
`differentiates between ‘network based systems’ and ‘external systems.’” PO
`Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:50–59). In reliance on the testimony of Dr.
`Sandeep Chatterjee, Patent Owner concludes “[t]hus, the ’433 [P]atent
`specification makes clear that ‘network assisted location finding technology’
`does not encompass unassisted GPS.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 73–75).
`Dr. Chatterjee relies on the portion of the specification noted above for his
`view. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 73, 75. For example, Dr. Chatterjee testifies, “the
`patentee would not have called out this distinction if he had intended for
`‘network assisted location finding technology’ to include unassisted GPS
`signals.” Id. ¶ 75.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`Patent Owner’s contentions and Dr. Chatterjee’s testimony, however,
`are not consistent with the ’433 Patent Specification and the claims with
`respect to the aforementioned claim limitation of “network-assisted location
`finding technology.” In particular, the ’433 Patent Specification describes
`“network based systems” and “external systems.” Ex. 1001, 2:52–57
`(emphasis added). To the extent that the ’433 Patent Specification
`distinguishes network based systems from external systems, we are
`unpersuaded that it is relevant to a construction of “network-assisted
`location finding technology,” and in any case, the claims do not recite this
`distinction.
`Upon review, we determine that “network-assisted” means “helped by
`the network.” We determine that “location finding technology” needs no
`express construction, except that we note that it encompasses the examples
`of location finding equipment set forth in the specification including cell,
`microcell, angle of arrival, time of arrival, time delay of arrival, and GPS.
`Id. at 2:52–59.
`
`Anticipation by DeLorme
`B.
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–7 and 12–17 of the ’433 Patent are
`unpatentable as anticipated by DeLorme. Pet. 47–56. In support of this
`ground, Petitioner presents a Declaration by Mr. James A. Proctor, Jr. (Ex.
`1012).
`In the Decision to Institute, we determined that Petitioner had shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this proposed ground of
`unpatentability. Inst. Dec. 15. Additionally, we determined that Petitioner
`had shown a reasonable likelihood in prevailing on a ground that claim 11 of
`the ’433 Patent is unpatentable as anticipated by DeLorme. Id. at 14.
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`Petitioner requested review of claim 11 based on other grounds. See, e.g.,
`Pet. 23, 42–43. As set forth in our Decision to Institute, we determined that
`Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that
`DeLorme discloses every limitation claims 1–7 and 11–17 of the ’433
`Patent. Inst. Dec. 9–15.
`To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
`as is recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference.
`Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
`2001). We evaluate the parties’ contentions below.
`
`DeLorme
`1.
`DeLorme relates to systems that permit individuals to make travel
`arrangements via a computer network. Ex. 1008, 1:29–32. In particular,
`DeLorme describes the Travel Reservation and Information Planning
`System (“TRIPS”), which is a completely integrated system that enables an
`individual to locate, select, and schedule travel, so as to execute customized
`or personalized travel arrangements in association with map displays or
`other output of travel routes. Id. at 1:32–46. Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates a representation of the TRIPS data structure.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`The simplified standard TRIPS data structure illustrated in Figure 3 is
`used to build TRIPS databases and TRIPS data objects. Id. at 32:1–3.
`Electronic communications among TRIPS devices are performed by
`constructing data packets conforming to the standard illustrated in Figure 3.
`Id. at 32:3–7. The TRIPS data structure includes a unique random object
`identifier, topical data such as activities, things-to-do, organizations,
`products, goods, services, and other content related to travel, geographic
`data, temporal data such as dates and times, and accounting data, such as
`user identity and membership information. Id. at 32:31–40, 34:26–30,
`Fig. 3. Enrolled or registered TRIPS users input individual profiles, which
`include preferences or personal travel planning operational parameters that
`are global settings for individual travel planning sessions. Id. at 61:10–16.
`For example, TRIPS users select one or more participating providers within
`an Accounting Subsystem table, such as a favorite airline or chain of hotels.
`Id. at 71:39–50.
`According to one embodiment of TRIPS, mobile users at remote
`locations may access TRIPS using a wireless communication unit (“WCU”),
`which is typically a handheld device or is mounted or used in a vehicle. Id.
`at 71:61–72:2. The portable mobile device or WCU preferably includes a
`position sensor unit, such as a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor and
`transmitter (id. at 2:8–11) and user input and output capability (id. at 72:2–
`15). Exemplary WCUs include notebooks, laptop personal computers,
`personal digital assistants, and smart cellular phones. Id. at 75:33–45.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`Figure 9B is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 9 illustrates automated travel information processing of
`inquiries from users equipped with wireless communication
`units and GPS.
`Figure 9 illustrates two-way wireless communications between WCU
`907 and TRIPS database 904. Id. at 73:50–52. Two-way wireless
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`communications involves TRIPS data packets formatted in accordance with
`the standard discussed above with respect to Figure 3. Id. at 73:20–22.
`TRIPS users can use portable TRIPS in conjunction with TRIPS travel plans
`prepared in advance of travel. Id. at 72:23–26. Alternatively, TRIPS users
`can call to obtain assistance en route, which does not require a previously
`arranged travel plan. Id. at 72:63–67.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`2.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence,
`including the Declaration of Mr. Proctor (Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 104–29), which read
`all elements of claim 1 of the ’433 Patent onto the disclosure of DeLorme.
`Pet. 47–56. For instance, regarding the first element of claim 1, which
`requires storing subscriber profile information, Petitioner points to (Pet. 49)
`the following description: “[e]nrolled or registered TRIPS retail consumers
`can input individual profiles, preferences or personal travel planning
`operational parameters.” Ex. 1008, 61:10–16. As Petitioner notes (Pet. 50),
`in reliance on the testimony of Mr. Proctor (Ex. 1012 ¶ 110), these profiles
`include global settings that avoid repetitive entry of routine information
`including preferences such as nonsmoking, preferred transportation modes
`or accommodation providers, and topical interests such as favorite foods.
`Ex. 1008, 61:10–26.
`Regarding the next three elements of claim 1, which require receiving
`a service request from the mobile unit, obtaining the mobile unit’s location,
`and identifying candidate service providers and associated service provider
`information, Petitioner relies on DeLorme’s description of processing TRIPS
`service requests received from a wireless communication unit. See Pet. 49–
`50. For instance, in accordance with the portable embodiment of TRIPS
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`cited by Petitioner (Pet. 49–50), DeLorme discloses a mobile sending a
`“specific request” to TRIPS “in conjunction with GPS 908 data on the
`current location” of the mobile (Ex. 1008, 77:36–38). The request and GPS
`data are used to “search[ ] the TRIPS database for restaurants located in the
`vicinity of . . . the remote TRIPS user.” Id. at 77:40–42.
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions regarding the
`first four elements of claim 1, except that Patent Owner contends the
`subscriber profile is not used to narrow search results. Patent Owner’s
`contention in that regard relates more to a subsequent limitation that is
`discussed below.
`Regarding the next two elements of claim 1, which require selecting,
`on the network platform, a subset of the candidate service providers based
`on the subscriber profile and outputting the subset to the mobile, Petitioner
`relies on the overall TRIPS system, including the TRIPS database and data
`structure, as well as the mobile embodiments described with respect to
`Figures 9A and 9B. Pet. 47, 48, 50 (citing Ex. 1008, Abstract, 7:66–8:9, 8:5,
`8:23–30, 17:41–43, 32:1–7, 61:10–26, 71:1–78:21, Figs. 3, 9A, 9B).
`Petitioner also relies on the testimony of Mr. Proctor. Pet. 47, 48, 50 (citing
`Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 111–123, 126–129). Mr. Proctor testifies “[w]hen a user,
`including a mobile user, searches for nearby services, DeLorme teaches
`using that user’s preferences to send search results.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 126 (citing
`Ex. 1008, 61:10–26, 17:41–42, 71:41–44, 71:46–50, 26:24–28, 77:48–50).
`One of Petitioner’s contentions is that DeLorme describes “a subset of
`the plurality of candidate service providers,” as recited in claim 1, as
`follows: “DeLorme’s mobile embodiment discloses that ‘[i]nformation on
`two or more restaurants can be presented to . . . the TRIPS user.’” Pet. 50
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`(citing Ex. 1008, 77:48–50). Patent Owner refers to text omitted by
`Petitioner, i.e., that the information can be “presented to and/or selected by”
`the user. PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1008, 77:48–49 (emphasis added)). Patent
`Owner contends that this selection is made entirely on the mobile unit, and
`not on the network platform, as required by the claim. Id. at 15. Contrary to
`Patent Owner’s contention, Petitioner does not rely on “selected by” in the
`above-referenced disclosure for the recited “selecting, on the network
`platform, a subset of the plurality of candidate service providers,” as
`indicated by the omission of “selected by” from Petitioner’s contention.
`Indeed, we find that the “selected by” in the portion of DeLorme noted
`above occurs after the subset is formed.
`Regarding “selecting, on the network platform, a subset of the
`plurality of candidate service providers,” as recited in claim 1, as Petitioner
`notes (Pet. 47), DeLorme describes that the TRIPS system includes a
`database (Ex. 1001, 8:23–30), i.e., a network platform. As Petitioner further
`notes (Pet. 47–48), the database employs a standard TRIPS data structure
`(id. at 32:1–7), which is searched by a primary key or other criteria (id. at
`71:33–34). More particularly, as Mr. Proctor testifies (Ex. 1012 ¶ 126),
`DeLorme describes that “TRIPS users can arrange ‘filters’ or sorting
`operations that limit subsequent map tickets or presentations of TRIPS
`offerings” and “setting up filters . . . will concentrate her selection . . . on
`specified providers such as her favorite airline or chain of hotels.” Ex. 1008,
`71:41–50. As Petitioner further notes in its Reply (Pet. Reply 11–12), the
`TRIPS database performs “state-of-the-art text searches and associations” or
`uses other “data matching technologies.” Ex. 1008, 56:36–42; see also id. at
`67:6–11 (“matching reservations, tickets, and other special offers found in
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`the GOODS/SERVICES & PROVIDERS LIST 809 in FIG. 8A with topical,
`temporal, geographic and transactional ‘filters’ or relational database criteria
`as imposed over the course of the sequential component operations”).
`Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing
`that selecting is done on the network platform.
`Patent Owner, additionally, contends that DeLorme’s mobile
`embodiments make no reference to using “subscriber profile information,”
`and that Petitioner’s reference to desktop embodiments in that regard is of
`no help, because Petitioner does not connect adequately the desktop
`embodiments to the mobile embodiments. PO Resp. 15. We disagree.
`Petitioner relies on the testimony of Mr. Proctor, who testifies that
`subscriber profile information is used by mobile embodiments. Pet. 47, 48,
`50 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 111–123, 126–129). Mr. Proctor testifies that
`DeLorme describes a “coordinated mobile embodiment,” which allows
`mobile users to pick up a session started on a desktop and an “on-the-go
`mobile embodiment,” which allows a mobile user to start and complete a
`travel session on the mobile device. Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 113, 114. Mr. Proctor’s
`testimony is consistent with the disclosure of DeLorme, which explains,
`“Fig. 9 illustrates portable TRIPS embodiments, which can function either
`with or without [r]elation to desktop TRIPS user setups as described
`heretofore with reference to FIG. 1A.” Ex. 1008, 72:20–23. Mr. Proctor
`also testifies “[i]n my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood that all the TRIPS functionality and options discussed
`before Fig. 9 would have still been available to the mobile users described in
`connection with Fig. 9.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 116. We again credit the testimony of
`Mr. Proctor as being consistent with the disclosure of DeLorme. DeLorme
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`further specifies that “FIG. 9 [portable] TRIPS embodiments also enable
`responsive previews or presentations . . . the capabilities for such previews
`or presentations are further detailed heretofore, particularly with reference to
`FIGS. 5, 6, 7, and 8 [illustrating filtering to concentrate a selection on a
`favorite airline or chain of hotels].” Ex. 1008, 77:1–14. As Petitioner
`further notes (Pet. Reply 10), DeLorme discloses by “identifying the
`individual remote user whose WCU 907 is sending a given transmission, the
`TRIPS service provider 904 can access the individual user account, user
`profile and ‘pre-filed’ travel plan output (if any).” Ex. 1008, 74:45–56
`(emphasis added).
`In reliance on the testimony of Dr. Chatterjee, Patent Owner contends
`that many functions described in connection with desktop embodiments
`were not possible to implement with DeLorme’s mobile embodiments. PO
`Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 40–42, 46–58). Patent Owner identifies one
`example mentioned in DeLorme, i.e., that DeLorme states that the mobile
`embodiment includes simplified input queries. Id. at 13. DeLorme
`describes that a mobile user can provide input with a “push-button” or
`indicating “yes” or “no” with voice recognition software. Ex. 1008, 77:53–
`55. Patent Owner, however, does not explain persuasively how this relates
`to selecting, on the network platform, a subset of the candidate service
`providers based on the subscriber profile, as recited in claim 1.
`Regarding Dr. Chatterjee’s testimony, Dr. Chatterjee acknowledges
`that some amount of TRIPS functionality would be available via mobile
`devices. Ex. 2002 ¶ 48. Dr. Chatterjee, however, is vague with respect to
`his opinion of which functionalities would be too difficult to implement. See
`e.g., id. ¶¶ 48, 52, 53, 58. Dr. Chatterjee testifies regarding significant
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`challenges, but does not tie these challenges persuasively to his opinion that
`DeLorme’s disclosure is inadequate. For example, Dr. Chatterjee testifies
`that “although distributed computing was known at the relevant time,
`distributed computing technologies at that time, e.g., the Common Object
`Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) and Microsoft’s Distributed
`Component Object Model (DCOM), were difficult to deploy.” Id. ¶¶ 50, 51
`(citing Ex. 2014, 14; Ex. 2016, 10). Dr. Chatterjee, however, does not
`testify persuasively regarding (1) how CORBA and DCOM relate to the
`elements recited in claim 1 of the ’433 Patent, or (2) how the challenges with
`implementing CORBA and DCOM undermine the explicit disclosure in
`DeLorme of TRIPS using stored preferences to narrow search results.
`Patent Owner’s contentions regarding “outputting information
`regarding the subset of candidate service providers to the mobile unit” (PO
`Resp. 19–25) are similar to those discussed above. Patent Owner’s
`contentions again are based on excerpts of DeLorme discussed individually,
`without regard to other disclosures in DeLorme. Patent Owner does not take
`into account sufficiently the testimony of Mr. Proctor (Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 111–123,
`126–129) regarding the disclosure in DeLorme that connects embodiments
`of the TRIPS system, including using a profile or an individual’s preferences
`with mobile embodiments. For the reasons discussed above, we are
`persuaded that DeLorme discloses “outputting information regarding the
`subset of the plurality of candidate service providers to the mobile unit.”
`Regarding the remaining elements of claim 1, which require receiving
`a selection of a preferred service provider from the mobile, initiating a
`transaction between the subscriber and the preferred service provider, and
`receiving a transaction confirmation from the preferred service provider,
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01164
`Patent 7,376,433 B1
`
`Petitioner relies on DeLorme’s disclosure of a mobile user making a
`reservation, as well as other portions of DeLorme describing selecting a
`provider and making a reservation. Pet. 51–53 (citing Ex. 1008, 50:27–39,
`50:42–53, 77:48–78:1, 78:17–21, Fig. 5; Ex. 1012 ¶ 129). Patent Owner
`does not provide contentions regarding these elements.
`For the reasons given, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established
`by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 1 is unpatentable
`as anticipated by DeLorme.
`
`Independent Claim 15
`3.
`Independent claim 15 is similar to independent claim 1, except claim
`15 recites, “selecting, on the network platform, one or more of the plurality
`of candidate service providers based on a comparison between the service
`provider information and the subscriber profile information.” Petitioner
`cites to DeLorme’s reference to “database operations” as disclosing this
`claim limitation. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1008, 53:38–44); see also Pet. Reply
`11–12 (citing Ex. 1008, 30:1–11, 44:32–38, 53:38–44, 56:36–49, Fig. 7,
`59:4–10, 67:6–11, 68:63–69:3; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 128, 129). The database

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