UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`
`SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00268
`Patent No. 8,315,367
`_________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,315,367
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged ............... 2
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ............................................... 2
`A.
`
`Statutory Ground of Challenge ............................................................. 2
`B.
`
`III. Overview of the ’367 Patent ............................................................................ 4
`IV. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................ 6
`V.
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 7
`“Non-Removable Item” ......................................................................... 7
`A.
`
`VI. Polozola Anticipates Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 of the ’367 Patent ........... 9
`
` Overview of Polozola ............................................................................ 9 A.
`Polozola Teaches Each and Every Feature of Claims 1-7, 9-17,
`B.
`
`19, and 20 ............................................................................................10
`VII. Polozola in View of Csabai Renders Obvious Claims 3 and 13 ..................26
`
` Overview of Csabai.............................................................................27 A.
`Polozola and Csabai Collectively Teach Each and Every
`B.
`
`Feature of Claims 3 and 13 .................................................................28
`C.
`Rationale to Combine Polozola and Csabai .......................................29
`
`VIII. Polozola in View of Hansen Renders Obvious Claims 4, 8, 14, and 18.......30
`
` Overview of Hansen ............................................................................30 A.
`Polozola and Hansen Collectively Teach Each and Every
`B.
`
`Feature of Claims 4, 8, 14, and 18 ......................................................31
`C.
`Rationale to Combine Polozola and Hansen ......................................33
`
`IX. Reinhold in View of Polozola and Csabai Renders Obvious Claims 1-
`3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 ......................................................................34
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`X.
`
`
` Overview of Reinhold .........................................................................35 A.
`Reinhold, Polozola, and Csabai Collectively Teach Each and
`B.
`
`Every Feature of Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 ................36
`C.
`Rationale to Combine Reinhold, Csabai, and Polozola ......................52
`
`Reinhold in View of Csabai, Polozola, and Hansen Renders Obvious
`Claims 4, 8, 14, and 18 ..................................................................................54
`Reinhold, Csabai, Polozola, and Hansen Collectively Teach
`A.
`
`Each and Every Feature of Claims 4, 8, 14, and 18 ............................54
`B.
`Rationale to Combine Reinhold, Polozola, Csabai, and Hansen .......56
`
`XI. Petitioner Presents New Grounds of Rejection That Are Not
`Redundant ......................................................................................................58
`XII. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................59
`Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................59
`A.
`
`Related Matters ....................................................................................59
`B.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel ...................................................................59
`C.
`
`Service Information .............................................................................59
`D.
`
`XIII. Grounds for Standing .....................................................................................60
`XIV. Fee Payments .................................................................................................60
`XV. Conclusion .....................................................................................................60
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001 U_S. Patent No. 8,315,367 to Profanchik (“the ’367 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,315,367
`
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Michael Caloyannides, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1004 Curriculum Vitae of Michael Caloyannides Ph D
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 8,031,052 to Polozola (“PoIo:0la”)
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No 7,494,061 to Reinhold (“Reinhold’ )
`
`Ex. 1007 International Publication No. WO2006/097775 to C sabai et al
`
`(“Csabai”)
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0180647 to Hansen (“Hansen”)
`
`_iV_
`
`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Arkema France v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., IPR2015-00916,
` Paper 16 (Oct. 21, 2015) .................................................................................... 59
`In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (C.C.P.A. 1960) ..................................................... 33. 56
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............................................................ 7
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................... 3, 59
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................. 2, 3, 9
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................ 3, 33, 56, 59
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319................................................................................................. 1
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. .......................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Regulations (continued)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................................................................... 60
`
`Other Authorities
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................. 7
`M.P.E.P. § 2131.03 .................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Securus Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,315,367 (“the ’367 patent”) (Ex. 1001) in
`
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`The ’367 patent generally discloses a controlled access system in which an
`
`inmate wears a radio frequency identification (“RFID”) tag. A tag reader receives
`
`identification information from the RFID tag and provides the information to a
`
`management system. The management system uses the identification information
`
`to determine whether an inmate is allowed to use an electronic device, such as to
`
`use a telephone to place a call.
`
`This technology, however, was well-known in the prior art as of the priority
`
`date of the ’367 patent, and prior art RFID identification systems for inmates are
`
`described in many patents and publications. These identification systems were used
`
`with access management systems for devices like telephones, computers, doors,
`
`and gates to prevent inmates from placing unauthorized calls, accessing
`
`unauthorized websites, or entering unauthorized areas. Each of these systems was
`
`known to receive identification information from an inmate’s RFID tag and to
`
`provide the identification information to a management system. The prior art
`
`management system then accessed a database of restrictions linked to the identified
`
`inmate and determined whether the inmate was authorized to make the requested
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`call, just like in the ’367 patent.
`
`Because every limitation of claims 1-20 was well—knoWn and described in
`
`the prior art before the priority date of the ’367 patent, all of the challenged claims
`
`should be cancelled as unpatentable.
`
`H.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged
`
`A.
`
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests review under 35 U.S.C- § 311 of claims 1-20
`
`of the ’367 patent and cancellation of those claims as unpatentable.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Ground of Challenge
`
`Claims 1-20 of the ’367 patent are unpatentable and should be canceled in
`
`View of the following prior art references and grounds:
`
`Prior Art References
`
`Polozola, U.S. Patent No. 8,031,052 (Ex. 1005); issued on Oct. 4,
`
`2011, from an application filed in the United States on Nov. 22, 2006;
`
`under at least pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. § l02(e).
`
`prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C_ § 102(e)_
`
`Reinhold, U.S. Patent No. 7,494,061 (Ex. 1006); issued on Feb. 24,
`
`2009, from a United States application filed June 30, 2006; prior art
`
`

`
`Prior Art References
`
`Csabai, International Publication No. WO 2006/097775 (Ex. 1007);
`
`filed July 25, 2005, published Sept. 21, 2006; prior art under at least
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`Hansen, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0180647 (Ex. 1008);
`
`published on Aug. 17, 2006, from a U_S. application filed Feb. 1 1,
`
`2005; prior art under at least pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e).
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Polozola anticipates claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 under
`
`35 U.S.C- § 102.
`
`Polozola in View of Csabai renders obvious claims 3 and 13 under
`
`35 U.S-C. § 103.
`
`Polozola in View of Hansen renders obvious claims 4, 8, 14, and 18
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Reinhold in view of Csabai and Polozola renders obvious claims 1-3,
`
`5-7, 9-13, 15-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Reinhold in view of Csabai, Polozola, and Hansen renders obvious
`
`claims 4, 8, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`

`
`III. Overview of the ’367 Patent
`The ’367 patent was filed May 23, 2011, as a continuation application of
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/870,157, filed Oct. 10, 2007, and claims priority to
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/916,166, filed May 4, 2007.
`
`The ’367 patent describes “systems and methods for preventing
`
`unauthorized persons from using an electronic device within a facility.” (Ex. 1001
`
`at Abstract.) Disclosed examples include penal institutions, such as prisons,
`
`attempting to control inmates’ access to telephone systems and other electronic
`
`devices. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 5:14-7:2, 8:8-15.) These access control systems
`
`include an “RFID tag having unique identification information associated with a
`
`wearer of the RFID tag,” which may be contained in “a non-removable item worn
`
`by the wearer, such as a bracelet.” (Ex. 1001 at Abstract, 2:40-43.) Each RFID tag
`
`contains “identification information unique to each tag, which in turn is unique to
`
`each wearer of a tag.” (Ex. 1001 at 4:30-31.)
`
`Discussing the RFID tags in a prison telephone context, the system
`
`“identifies prison inmates during their use of the telephone in a controlled
`
`environment, and determines whether the phone call can continue to proceed based
`
`on the proximity of one or more inmates to the telephone.” (Ex. 1001 at 2:16-20.)
`
`Figure 2, for example, shows an “RFID reader 240 [that] would detect RFID tags
`
`that enter the predetermined RFID coverage zone 230 generated around [a]
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`telephone 21.” (Ex. 1001 at 5:50-52, 7:16-17, FIG. 3 at 310.) The RFID signal
`
`from the tag “will identify its inmate wearer to the call management system.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 5:58-60.) When the RFID tag is detected, the detected identification
`
`information is sent to a device management system. (Ex. 1001 at 7:19-21, FIG. 3 at
`
`315, 320.) The management system then determines “whether the wearer of the
`
`detected RFID tag is authorized to use the electronic device.” (Ex. 1001 at 7:21-24,
`
`FIG. 3 at 25.) If the wearer is authorized to use the device, the device is activated
`
`for use by the wearer. (Ex. 1001 at 7:31-34, FIG. 3 at 325, 330.) If the wearer is
`
`not authorized to use the device, “the device is deactivated or otherwise prevented
`
`from operating for the detected wearer.” (Ex. 1001 at 7:25-28, FIG. 3 at 325, 350.)
`
`The ’367 patent contains two independent claims, claims 1 and 11.
`
`Challenged claim 1 recites:
`
`1. An access management system for preventing
`unauthorized persons from using an electronic communication
`device in a custodial facility, the system comprising:
`a RFID tag configurable to have unique identification
`information that can be associated with a wearer of the RFID
`tag, wherein the RFID tag is configured to be comprised in a
`non-removable item worn by the wearer;
`a reader configurable to be associated with the electronic
`communication device, the reader configurable to have a RFID
`coverage zone for detecting RFID tags within the coverage
`zone; and
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`a call management system configurable to be connected
`to the reader and configurable to determine whether a wearer is
`authorized to use the electronic communication device based at
`least in part on an RFID tag’s detected unique identification
`information;
`wherein the reader is configured to detect when the RFID
`tag is within the coverage zone, the call management system
`activating the electronic communication device if it determines
`the wearer is authorized to use the electronic communication
`device.
`(Ex. 1001 at 9:33-52.) Independent claim 11 is a method reciting steps similar to
`
`claim 1. (Ex. 1001 at 10:16-35.)
`
`IV. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Several factors define the level of ordinary skill in the art. These include:
`
`(1) the types of problems encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those
`
`problems; (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication
`
`of the technology; and (5) the educational level of active workers in the field. See
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2131.03 (citing In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
`
`Based on these factors, a person of ordinary skill at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’367 patent would have held a bachelor’s or master’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering and had at least three years of experience working with
`
`access control systems, or the equivalent thereof. (Ex. 1003 at ¶ 37.)
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`V. Claim Construction
`A claim in an unexpired patent subject to inter partes review “shall be given
`
`its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`The construction below is provided solely for this proceeding. Claim terms
`
`not addressed below should be given their plain and ordinary meaning under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Because claims are construed under a different standard in district court,
`
`Petitioner reserves its right to present a different construction there, if applicable.
`
`See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc). But the unpatentability grounds presented here hold under either standard.
`
` A.
`“Non-Removable Item”
`
`The term “non-removable item” is expressly recited in claims 1, 8-11, and
`
`18-20, and it implicitly appears in the remaining claims of the ’367 patent by virtue
`
`of their dependence on either claim 1 or claim 11. Although one might reasonably
`
`read “non-removable item” to mean an item that can never be removed, this is not
`
`the understanding one of ordinary skill would derive from the ’367 patent’s
`
`specification. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 43.) Instead, the ’367 patent states that an RFID bracelet
`
`may be constructed so it “cannot be removed by unauthorized persons.” (Ex. 1001
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`at 8:16-18; Ex. 1003, at ¶ 44.) The ’367 patent supports this understanding by
`
`describing a custodial facility environment, where the “non-removable” bracelets
`
`must be removed when the wearer is released from the facility. (Ex. 1003 at ¶ 45.)
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’367 patent would understand that the
`
`item should be non-removable by the wearer but should be removable by
`
`authorized personnel when necessary. (Ex. 1003 at ¶ 45.)
`
`This understanding also makes sense based on the ’367 patent’s disclosure
`
`of “tamper detection circuitry” within the RFID bracelet. If tampering is detected,
`
`the bracelet will cease to function properly. (Ex. 1001 at 8:48-61; Ex. 1003 at ¶
`
`46.) One of ordinary skill in the art reading this disclosure would understand that
`
`an authorized person replacing a non-functioning band would first need to remove
`
`the damaged “non-removable” bracelet. (Ex. 1003 at ¶ 46.) And some tampering is
`
`so severe that the ’367 patent contemplates that “the inmate has . . . broken the
`
`band.” (Ex. 1001 at 8:54-58.) One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`a broken band could be removed, but the ’367 patent teaches that broken bands
`
`also no longer function. (Ex. 1001 at 8:48-63; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 46.)
`
`In view of these teachings, “non-removable item” in the context of the ’367
`
`patent does not mean an item that is impossible to remove. Instead, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand “non-removable item” to mean “an item that
`
`cannot be removed by unauthorized persons without it ceasing to function
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`properly.” (Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 42, 47.)
`
`VI. Polozola Anticipates Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 of the ’367 Patent
`Polozola is prior art to the ’367 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). It discloses
`
`every element of claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 of the ’367 patent, so it anticipates
`
`these claims.
`
` Overview of Polozola A.
`
`Polozola teaches systems and methods for “providing radio frequency
`
`identification (RFID) of individuals, as may be implemented with respect to a
`
`controlled environment facility, using RFID transducer technology deployed in
`
`association with a user terminal, such as telephone or multimedia kiosk.” (Ex. 1005
`
`at Abstract; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 52.) RFID tags “identify residents of a controlled
`
`environment facility and control one or more transactions associated with the
`
`residents and/or actions of the residents using a RFID system in which a user
`
`presents a RFID transponder in proximity to a RFID transducer for identification.”
`
`(Ex. 1005 at Abstract.)
`
`Figure 6 shows an exemplary method in which a user approaches an
`
`electronic device and is prompted to present their RFID tag. (Ex. 1005 at 9:61-62,
`
`FIG. 6 at 602; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 53.) The RFID tag then transmits identification
`
`information, such as an “identification number,” to an RFID tag reader. (Ex. 1005
`
`at 10:49-57, FIG. 6 at 603.) A processing system then identifies the user based on
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`the RFID tag’s information. (Ex. 1005 at 11:21-23, FIG. 6 at 605.)
`
`The processing system “determines if the user is authorized to conduct the
`
`desired transaction, such as to place a call to a phone number input by the user.”
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 11:36-39, FIG. 6 at 606.) If the “user is authorized to place the call,
`
`for example, [the] processing system[] connects the call,” and the transaction is
`
`allowed to proceed. (Ex. 1005 at 11:59-61, FIG. 6 at 607.) If the user is not
`
`authorized, the call is not connected, the transaction may be terminated, and an
`
`investigator may be notified of the attempt to make an unauthorized call. (Ex. 1005
`
`at 11:61-67, FIG. 6 at 614.)
`
`In addition to determining whether calls are authorized, Polozola also
`
`teaches using RFID tags to determine whether an inmate is authorized to use other
`
`electronic devices, “such as computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), cellular
`
`telephones, and/or the like,” and whether the inmate can pass through a door or
`
`gate. (Ex. 1005 at 4:34-36, 8:50-55.)
`
`
`
` B.
`
`Polozola Teaches Each and Every Feature of Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19,
`and 20
`Claim 1 recites an access management system and claim 11 recites a similar
`
`method. These are the only independent claims in the ’367 patent, and this petition
`
`addresses them first below. The claims depending from claim 1 frequently recite
`
`features identical to claims depending from claim 11. For example, claims 2 and 12
`
`recite essentially identical features. This petition groups these similar dependent
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`claims and addresses them below after addressing independent claims 1 and 11.
`
`Claim 1
`1.
`Polozola teaches each and every element of claim 1, so it anticipates that
`
`claim. (Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 63-75.)
`
`“An access management system for preventing unauthorized persons
`from using an electronic communication device in a custodial facility”
`
`Polozola discloses this preamble feature of claim 1. (Ex. 1001 at 9:32-34;
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 64-65.) For example, Polozola discloses systems “providing radio
`
`frequency identification (RFID) of individuals, [and] using RFID transducer
`
`technology deployed in association with a user terminal, such as [a] telephone or
`
`multimedia kiosk.” (Ex. 1005 at Abstract, 2:34-40; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 65.) An “access
`
`management system,” such as processing system 16 in Figures 1, 2, 4, and 5,
`
`controls access to a telephone or multimedia kiosk to prevent unauthorized use of
`
`the device by inmates. (Ex. 1005 at Abstract, 8:4-17, 11:21-35, 11:61-63, FIGs. 1,
`
`2, 4, and 5 at item 16; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 65.) The telephone and multimedia kiosk in
`
`Polozola are understood to be “electronic communication device[s].” (Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 65) Polozola also discloses that this system can be implemented in a “custodial
`
`facility,” such as a jail or prison. (Ex. 1005 at 3:54-59, claim 51; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 65.)
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`“a RFID tag configurable to have unique identification information that
`can be associated with a wearer of the RFID tag, wherein the RFID tag
`is configured to be comprised in a non-removable item worn by the
`wearer”
`
`Polozola discloses this feature of claim 1 by disclosing, for example, an
`
`RFID tag 12 in Figures 1 and 4 that includes “data which identifies an individual,
`
`data which may be used to identify an individual, or a combination of both.” (Ex.
`
`1005 at 2:55-57; see also id. at 8:31-32, FIGs. 1 and 4; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 66, 67.) The
`
`RFID tag has the claimed “unique identification information that can be associated
`
`with the wearer of the RFID tag” because the data it contains may include “an
`
`individual’s identification number, identification code, name, picture, social
`
`security number, date of birth, age, nationality, race, height, weight, eye color, hair
`
`color, and/or any other information that may be used for identification purposes.”
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 2:55-65.) Polozola describes this data as being “associable with an
`
`individual” wearing the RFID tag (id.) or “associated with the identity of the
`
`resident carrying [the tag]” (id. at 4:9-14; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 67).
`
`Polozola discloses that “the RFID tag is configured to be comprised in a
`
`non-removable item worn by the wearer,” as claimed, because the RFID tags can
`
`be placed in “a bracelet or other substantially permanently associated or attached
`
`item” or a “permanent RFID wristband” that is rendered inoperable if removed.
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 2:55-65, 4:9-12, 16:41-44, FIG. 8; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 68.) These types of
`
`wristbands are “non-removable items” under Petitioner’s proposed construction for
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`that term.
`
`“a reader configurable to be associated with the electronic
`communication device, the reader configurable to have a RFID
`coverage zone for detecting RFID tags within the coverage zone”
`
`Polozola teaches this element of claim 1, for example, through its disclosure
`
`in Figure 4 of an RFID reader 42 in electronic communication with RFID tag 12
`
`via communication link 18. (Ex. 1005 at 8:31-32, FIG. 4; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 69, 70.)
`
`RFID reader 42 is also associated with telephone 44 via communication link 46,
`
`which is also shown in Figure 7A where RFID reader 72 attached to a telephone
`
`70. (Ex. 1005 at 4:33-37, 8:38-43, 14:43-49, FIGs. 4, 7A; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 70.) The
`
`RFID reader includes an RFID interrogator 26 that “contains an antenna and is
`
`operable to communicate with RFID tag 12 (FIG. 1) via communication
`
`link 18 (FIG. 1).” (Ex. 1005 at 7:19-23; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 70.) The communication link
`
`is an RFID coverage zone for detecting the RFID tags within the zone, because
`
`communication between the RFID tag and the RFID reader only occurs when the
`
`RFID tag is within the “proximity of RFID reader 42.” (Ex. 1005 at 9:61-62; FIG.
`
`6 at step 602; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 70.)
`
`“a call management system configurable to be connected to the reader
`and configurable to determine whether a wearer is authorized to use the
`electronic communication device based at least in part on an RFID tag’s
`detected unique identification information”
`
`Polozola teaches this claimed feature, for example, by disclosing a call
`
`management system in the form of processing system 16. (Ex. 1005 at 8:4-17,
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`11:21-35, FIG. 4 at 16; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 71, 72.) Processing system 16 is connected
`
`to tag reader 42 via communication link 20. (Ex. 1005 at 4:36-39, FIG. 4 at 20; Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 72.) Processing system 16 receives the RFID tag’s identification
`
`information from tag reader 42 and accesses a database entry for the wearer based
`
`on the received information. (Ex. 1005 at 8:12-17, 8:40-49, 10:55-60, 11:21-35;
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 72.) Each database entry includes “access, rights, privileges,
`
`restrictions, and/or the like associated with the [wearer]” of the RFID tag, which
`
`processing system 16 uses to “determine if the user is authorized to place the
`
`call . . . by analyzing the information.” (Ex. 1005 at 8:12-17, 11:21-39; Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 72.) Thus, the processing system determines whether the wearer of the RFID tag
`
`is authorized to use the electronic communication device, for example, to place the
`
`requested call, based on the RFID tag’s identification information. (Ex. 1005 at
`
`8:12-17, 11:21-39, FIG. 6 at 605, 606; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 72.)
`
`Polozola, therefore, discloses the claimed “call management system
`
`configurable to be connected to the reader and configurable to determine whether a
`
`wearer is authorized to use the electronic communication device based at least in
`
`part on an RFID tag’s detected unique identification information.” (Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 71.)
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`“wherein the reader is configured to detect when the RFID tag is within
`the coverage zone, the call management system activating the electronic
`communication device if it determines the wearer is authorized to use
`the electronic communication device”
`
`Polozola teaches this last feature of claim 1. For example, the RFID reader
`
`includes an RFID interrogator 26 that “contains an antenna and is operable to
`
`communicate with RFID tag 12 (FIG. 1) via communication link 18 (FIG. 1)”
`
`when the RFID tag is within the “proximity of RFID reader 42.” (Ex. 1005 at 7:19-
`
`23, 9:61-62, FIG. 6 at step 602; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 73, 74.) Polozola explains that
`
`“RFID tag 12 responds with data stored therein, sending the data back over
`
`communication link 18 to RFID interrogator 26,” such as an “identification
`
`number.” (Ex. 1005 at 10:53-56, FIG. 6 at 603; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 74.) Thus, Polozola
`
`teaches that the “reader is configured to detect when the RFID tag is within the
`
`coverage zone,” as claimed, at least because the tag is close enough to send
`
`information to the reader. (Ex. 1003 at ¶ 74.)
`
`Once the tag’s identification information is received, processing system 16
`
`accesses a database entry containing “access, rights, privileges, restrictions, and/or
`
`the like” corresponding to RFID tag’s wearer and “determine[s] if the user is
`
`authorized to place the call . . . by analyzing the information.” (Ex. 1005 at 8:12-
`
`17, 8:40-49, 10:55-60, 11:21-39; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 75.) Based on these entries, the
`
`processing system determines whether the wearer of the RFID tag is authorized to
`
`use the electronic communication device, for example, to place the requested call.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`(Ex. 1005 at 8:12-17, 11:21-39, FIG. 6 at 605, 606; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 75.) If the
`
`transaction is authorized by the processing system, “the transaction is allowed to
`
`proceed” (e.g., “YES” path from step 606 to 607 of FIG. 6). (Ex. 1005 at 11:51-54,
`
`FIG. 6 at 606, 607; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 75.) In the case of a phone call, if “a user is
`
`authorized to place the call . . . processing system 16 connects the call.” (Ex. 1005
`
`at 11:59-61; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 75.) Connecting the call, or otherwise permitting the
`
`requested transaction to proceed, corresponds to “activating the electronic device”
`
`once processing system 16 “determines the wearer is authorized to use the
`
`electronic communication device,” as recited in claim 1. (Ex. 1003 at ¶ 75.)
`
`Accordingly, Polozola teaches each and every element of claim 1, and
`
`therefore, anticipates claim 1.
`
`Claim 11
`2.
`Polozola teaches each and every element of claim 11, thereby anticipating
`
`claim 11. (Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 108-121.)
`
`“A method of preventing unauthorized persons from using an electronic
`communication device in a custodial facility”
`
`This preamble of claim 11 closely resembles the preamble of claim 1, which
`
`recites “[a]n access management system for preventing unauthorized persons from
`
`using an electronic communication device in a custodial facility.” Because the
`
`preambles are nearly identical, the same Polozola features discussed above in
`
`Section VI.B.1 for claim 1’s preamble also disclose the preamble of claim 11. (Ex.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`1003 at ¶¶ 64-65, 109-110.)
`
`“providing a RFID tag configurable to have unique identification
`information that can be associated with a wearer of the RFID tag,
`wherein the RFID tag is configurable to be comprised in a non-
`removable item worn by the wearer”
`
`This feature of claim 11 closely resembles claim 1’s recited “RFID tag
`
`configurable to have unique identification information that can be associated with a
`
`wearer of the RFID tag, wherein the RFID tag is configured to be comprised in a
`
`non-removable item worn by the wearer.” Because these claimed features are
`
`nearly identical, the same Polozola features discussed above in Section VI.B.1 for
`
`claim 1’s corresponding feature also disclose this feature of claim 11. (Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶¶ 66-68, 111-113.)
`
`“creating an RFID coverage zone around the electronic communication
`device” and “detecting when the RFID tag is within the coverage zone”
`
`These features are disclosed by the same Polozola features discussed above
`
`regarding claim 1’s “reader configurable to be associated with the electronic
`
`communication device, the reader configurable to have a RFID coverage zone for
`
`detecting RFID tags within the coverage zone” and “wherein the reader is
`
`configured to detect when the RFID tag is within the coverage zone.” (Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶¶ 69-70, 114-115.)
`
`For example, Figure 4 of Polozola shows an RFID reader 42 in electronic
`
`communication with RFID tag 12 via communication link 18. (Ex. 1005 at 8:31-
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`32, FIG. 4; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 115.) The RFID reader is associated with a telephone via
`
`communication link 46 (FIG. 4) or can be attached to a telephone (FIG. 7A). (Ex.
`
`1005 at 4:33-37, 8:38-43, 14:43-49, FIG. 4, 7A; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 115.) The RFID
`
`reader includes an RFID interrogator 26 that “contains an antenna and is operable
`
`to communicate with RFID tag 12 (FIG. 1) via communication link 18 (FIG. 1)”
`
`when the RFID tag is within the “proximity of RFID reader 42.” (Ex.