Filed By: Vivek Ganti (vg@hkw-law.com) Reg. No. 71,368; and
`
`
`Sharad K. Bijanki (sb@hkw-law.com) Reg. No. 73,400
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`TELETRAC INC.,
`NAVMAN WIRELESS NORTH AMERICA, LTD.
`GEOTAB INC., AND
`TV MANAGEMENT, INC., D/B/A GPS NORTH AMERICA
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PERDIEM CO., LLC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2016-TBA
`
`U.S. Patent 8,717,166
`
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Mandatory Notices (42 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1)) ....................................................... 2
`
`A. Notice of related matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))........................................ 2
`
`1. District Court Litigation ................................................................................ 2
`
`2. Patent Trial and Appeal Board ...................................................................... 2
`
`3. Related pending patent applications in the USPTO ...................................... 3
`
`B. Real party-in-interest (42 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ............................................. 3
`
`C. Notice of Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3-4)) ....... 3
`
`III. Grounds for Standing and Fees ........................................................................ 4
`
`IV. Statement of Relief Requested and Overview of the Challenge ...................... 4
`
`D.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications .................................................... 4
`
`E. Overview of Grounds for Unpatentability .................................................... 5
`
`V. Overview of the ’166 Patent ............................................................................. 6
`
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 7
`
`A. Applicable Principles of Claim Construction. .............................................. 7
`
`B.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art ................................................................................. 8
`
`C.
`
`Terms to be Construed .................................................................................. 8
`
`1. “user” ............................................................................................................. 8
`
`2. “user identification code” .............................................................................. 8
`
`3. “information sharing environment” (ISE) and “user group” ........................ 9
`
`4. “authorized user” and “administrator” ........................................................10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`VII.
`
`The Grounds for Unpatentability ................................................................11
`
`A. Ground 1: Fast anticipates claims 1-10, 13-16, and 19-25 ........................11
`
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................17
`
`2. Claims 2-3 ...................................................................................................30
`
`3. Claim 4 ........................................................................................................32
`
`4. Claims 5-7 ...................................................................................................35
`
`5. Claims 8-10 .................................................................................................37
`
`6. Claims 13 and 14 .........................................................................................37
`
`7. Claim 15 ......................................................................................................38
`
`8. Claims 16 and 19-24 ....................................................................................39
`
`9. Claim 25 ......................................................................................................43
`
`B. Ground 2: The combination of Fast and Zou renders obvious claims 1-10,
`
`13-16, and 19-25 ...................................................................................................43
`
`C.
`
`Statement of non-redundancy ......................................................................60
`
`VIII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASE LAW
`United States Supreme Court
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. (2007) ............................................... 44
`
`Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`Facebook, Inc. v. Pramatus AV LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17678,
` *11 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................... 8
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................... 44
`USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Progressive Casualty, CBM2012-
` 00003, Paper 7........................................................................................... 59
`
`STATUTES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ........................................................................................... 59
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ....................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ............................................................................. 11
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................. 5
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................ 5
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................ 5
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 5, 6
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................ 60
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3-4) ................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ......................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .......................................................................................... 4
`42 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ....................................................................................... 2
`42 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ....................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,717,166 (“’166 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`The file history of the ’166 Patent
`
`Ex. 1003 U.S. Patent No. 7,327,258 (“Fast”)
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Provisional Patent App. No. 60/542,208 (“Fast Provisional”)
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2005/0156715 (“Zou”)
`
`Ex. 1006 Discrete Wireless’s Marcus GPS Fleet Management Application
`
`Product Brochure (“Marcus”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 14/629,336, Response to Non-Final Office
`
`Action (Feb. 11, 2016)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`”Success Stories in Fleet Tracking
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 7,949,608 (“Li”)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Software as a Service Article (“SaaS Article”)
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Infringement Contentions in related litigation
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Supporting Declaration of Dr. Stephen Heppe
`
`Ex. 1013 Declaration of Vivek Ganti, Esq.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,717,166 (“the ’166 Patent,” Ex. 1001) describes methods
`
`and systems relating to creating information sharing environments (ISEs) within a
`
`master ISE having two or more levels of system administration for regulating access
`
`to information. Long before the December 23, 2005 priority date claimed by the
`
`’166 Patent, participants in the location-based services industry, including fleet
`
`management companies, were offering master systems having centralized global
`
`administration, while allowing clients the opportunity to create and independently
`
`manage their own local ISEs.
`
`The ’166 Patent also adds common features from the prior art, such as user-
`
`defined zones and location tracking of mobile devices, using associated “user
`
`identification (ID) codes” to facilitate access to positional data. As shown herein,
`
`the ’166 Patent adds nothing more than what was already commercially practiced
`
`and well-known to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) prior to December
`
`23, 2005. For this reason, the instant petition should be granted.
`
`Teletrac Inc., Navman Wireless North America, Ltd, Geotab Inc., and TV
`
`Management, Inc., (“Petitioners”), the defendants in related litigation, submit this
`
`Petition to present and explain two (2) grounds showing why the ’166 Patent should
`
`have never issued in light of the state of the art in 2005.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`II. Mandatory Notices (42 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1))
`
`A. Notice of related matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`1. District Court Litigation
`
`The Patent Owner filed lawsuits asserting the ’166 Patent in the following
`
`cases, each of which is pending in the Eastern District of Texas: PerdiemCo, LLC.
`
`v. Omnivations II, LLC D/B/A Fleetronix, Case No. 2:15-cv-00729; PerdiemCo,
`
`LLC. v. thingtech LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01218; PerdiemCo, LLC. v.
`
`LiveViewGPS, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01219; PerdiemCo LLC v. TV Management,
`
`Inc. d/b/a GPS North America, Case No. 2:15-cv-01217; PerdiemCo, LLC. v.
`
`Teletrac, Inc. et al; Case No. 2:15-cv-00730; PerdiemCo LLC v. Geotab Inc. et al,
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-00726; Perdiem Co LLC v. GPS Logic, LLC; Case No. 2:15-cv-
`
`01216; PerdiemCo, LLC. v. Industrack LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00727.
`
`2. Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`The ’166 Patent is only one of eight related patents and two pending
`
`applications. In addition to the ’166 Patent, related U.S. Patent Nos. 8,493,207;
`
`8,223,012; 9,003,499; and 9,071,931 also have been asserted in the above
`
`litigations. The ’166 Patent shares a common specification with the four additional
`
`patents at issue in District Court litigation as well as the patents and applications
`
`that are not at issue. Petitioners have filed or intend to file inter partes review
`
`petitions relating to each of the four additional patents.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`3. Related pending patent applications in the USPTO
`
`The ’166 Patent relates to the pending patent applications 14/629,343 and
`
`14/629,347.
`
`B. Real party-in-interest (42 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties in interest are: Teletrac Inc. (American corporation,
`
`principal place of business in Garden Grove, CA); Navman Wireless North
`
`America, Ltd. (American corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`Glenview, IL); Geotab Inc. (Canadian corporation, principal place of business in
`
`Oakville, Ontario); TV Management, Inc. d/b/a GPS North American. (American
`
`corporation, principal place of business in Langhorne, PA); Fleet Management
`
`Solutions Inc. (American corporation, principal place of business in Garden Grove,
`
`CA); Teletrac Holdings Inc. (American corporation, principal place of business in
`
`Garden Grove, CA); Navman Wireless Holdings LP (American corporation,
`
`principal place of business in Glenview, IL); Telular corporation (American
`
`corporation, principal place of business in Chicago, IL).
`
`C. Notice of Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3-4))
`
`Lead Counsel: Vivek Ganti (Reg. No. 71,368)
`
`Backup Counsel: Sharad Bijanki (Reg. No. 73,400)
`
`
`
`Address: HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP, 3350 Riverwood
`
`Parkway, Suite 800, Atlanta, GA 30339. Tel. 678.384.7453. Fax. 770.953.1358.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and backup counsel at the
`
`address shown above. Petitioners consent to electronic service of papers by email
`
`at: vg@hkw-law.com and perdiemIPR@hkw-law.com. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.10(b), a Power of Attorney by Petitioners appointing each of the above
`
`designated counsel is concurrently filed.
`
`III. Grounds for Standing and Fees
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’166 Patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that the Petitioners are not estopped or barred from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims identified in the Petition. The undersigned provides an
`
`online USPTO deposit account to pay the required fees ($9,000 request fee,
`
`$14,000 post-institution fee, and any excess claim fees), as set forth in 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.15(a) for this Petition. The undersigned further authorizes payment for any
`
`additional fees (or fee deficiency) that might be due in connection with this
`
`Petition to be charged to the Deposit Account 506541 (Customer ID No. 87296).
`
`IV. Statement of Relief Requested and Overview of the Challenge
`
`Petitioners request inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10, 13-
`
`16, and 19-25 of the ’166 Patent based on the grounds presented below.
`
`D. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The ’166 Patent’s earliest priority claim is to Provisional Pat. App. No.
`
`60/752,876, which was filed December 23, 2005. Accordingly, Petitioners identify
`
`the following prior art references relied upon in their invalidity grounds.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 7,327,258 (“Fast,” submitted herein as Ex. 1003), filed Jan 31,
`
`2005, is prior art as an issued patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Fast claims
`
`priority to a provisional application filed Feb. 4, 2004, which is submitted
`
`herein as Ex. 1004. Petitioners reserve the right to rely on this provisional
`
`application in the event Patent Owner alleges an earlier date of invention.
`
`2. U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2005/0156715 (“Zou,” submitted herein as Ex. 1005),
`
`filed Jan. 16, 2004 and published in July, 31, 2005, is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) and as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`E. Overview of Grounds for Unpatentability
`
`Petitioners challenge claims 1-10, 13-16, and 19-25 of the ’166 Patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 103. This Petition is supported by the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen Heppe (submitted herein as Ex. 1012), who has more
`
`than 30 years of experience in the field. The prior art read in light of Dr. Heppe’s
`
`declaration demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to the challenged claims. The Grounds proposed are:
`
`Ground 1: Fast anticipates claims 1-10, 13-16, and 19-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`Ground 2: The combination of Fast and Zou renders obvious claims 1-10, 13-16,
`
`and 19-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`V. Overview of the ’166 Patent
`
`According to the ’166 Patent, Global Positioning Systems (“GPS”) can be
`
`used to track the location of objects. (Ex. 1001, p.26, 6:18-20). Such objects may
`
`be a fireman, semi-truck, crate, car, cow, etc. (Id., p.26, 6:33-36; see also FIG. 1).
`
`The ’166 Patent describes the creation of “user-defined zones” via a user interface.
`
`These zones are compared against a tracked object’s location in order to identify
`
`instances where a tracked object enters or exits a zone (“events”).
`
`The ’166 Patent describes “information sharing environments” (ISEs) for
`
`sharing location or event information. An ISE may be a family or group of friends
`
`or it may be larger (e.g., a company). (Ex. 1001, p.26, 5:36-42). Multiple ISEs
`
`may co-exist within a larger ISE. (Id., 5:42-47). An administrator with privileges
`
`may configure an ISE by specifying authorized users and giving these authorized
`
`users their own privileges. (Id., 5:48-51). The purpose of configuring ISEs is to
`
`allow for the “conveyance” of information pertaining to a location or event such as
`
`an alert based upon a geofence crossing. The ’166 Patent uses “user ID codes” to
`
`identify users (Ex. 1001, p.5, FIG. 3, boxes 302 and 304), and “group ID codes” to
`
`identify groups of users (id., p.27, 7:62-67).
`
`Exemplary claim 1 of the ’166 Patent claims a method for conveying
`
`information related to locations of a plurality of mobile devices of users in a
`
`plurality of user groups. (Ex. 1001, pp.34-35, 22:61-23:24). The claimed method
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`contemplates a first ISE made up of multiple location-sharing ISEs, each of which
`
`is independently configurable. Id.
`
`
`
`A first administrator privilege of the primary ISE is used to associate one or
`
`more users of the location ISEs with each of a plurality of user groups. Id. In
`
`other words, each location ISE is configured to be comprised of a user group.
`
`Next, a second level of administrative privilege specifies one or more levels of
`
`location information access privileges for a group’s authorized user(s). Id. The
`
`conveyance of information relating to the location of users’ mobile devices is
`
`managed using these access privileges. Id.
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`
`A. Applicable Principles of Claim Construction.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, all claim terms employ their plain and ordinary
`
`meanings. The Board should construe these claims using the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioners propose BRI-based
`
`constructions of terms herein solely for purposes of the inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`proceeding as provided by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) and 42.104(b)(3). The BRI-
`
`based standard is not used in litigation or other proceedings, and on that basis
`
`Petitioners note that these constructions are not necessarily appropriate for use in
`
`litigation or any other proceedings which employ a standard of claim construction
`
`other than BRI. A BRI of a claim term may be the same as or broader than the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`construction under the Phillips standard, but it may not be narrower. See Facebook,
`
`Inc. v. Pramatus AV LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17678, *11 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`B. Level of Skill in the Art
`
`With respect to the ’166 Patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(POSITA) possesses a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer
`
`science with one or two years of experience in related fields such as (depending on
`
`the focus of the undergraduate degree) electronics, computer science, positioning
`
`technologies such as GPS, and radio communications. More education could
`
`substitute for work experience, and more work experience could substitute (to a
`
`degree) for education. (Ex. 1012, ¶13).
`
`C. Terms to be Construed
`
`1. “user”
`
`Under the BRI standard, a “user” is anything that uses, including people and
`
`objects. In other words, a “user” may be any person or thing that employs
`
`something to effectuate some purpose. In the context of the ’166 Patent, a user
`
`may be any person or object that uses a location tracking system to effectuate some
`
`purpose, and would include the persons or things performing tracking functions, as
`
`well as persons or things being tracked.
`
`2. “user identification code”
`
`Under the BRI standard, a “user identification code” is a code that identifies
`
`a user, and examples include, but are not limited to, a user account name, a user
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`number, or any identifier having an association with a user. Applying BRI, a user
`
`ID code “would typically include an identifier (e.g., a user account name or user
`
`number).” (Ex. 1001, p.27, 7:14-15). In addition, under BRI, a user ID code “is
`
`associated with other user information such as the user name, title, address
`
`information, email address, phone numbers, etc.” (Id., 7:33-36). Further, under
`
`the BRI standard, the user ID code need not be different than the information
`
`access code or the information package access code, as construed below.
`
`3. “information sharing environment” (ISE) and “user group”
`
`Under the BRI standard, an ISE is at least as broad as “a computing network
`
`where the conveyance of information from a server to a group of users’ computing
`
`devices can be controlled or configured.” In other words, the ISE includes the
`
`hardware of a system. Applying BRI, an ISE may include a computing network
`
`having wired and wireless network links and connectivity to the Internet. (Ex.
`
`1001, p.26, 6:13-17). ISEs viewed under BRI “can be administered so as to
`
`manage conveyance of information among computing devices. . .” (Id., 6:7-10).
`
`Using BRI, examples of ISEs include computer networks for a family, a group of
`
`friends, and a company with employees/affiliates. (Id., p.26, 5:36-42).
`
`On the other hand, a “user group” comprises the users (e.g., people or
`
`things) that use a given ISE, but need not include the hardware for conveyance of
`
`information. The people in the user group use the ISE network as the backbone for
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`conveying information. A user group may be coextensive with the ISE (e.g.,
`
`computer network for a family as the ISE and user group is the persons that
`
`constitute the family), or a user group may be a subset of the users that use the ISE
`
`(e.g., where a computer network for a family is the ISE, and the user group refers
`
`to the children within the family, but not the parents).
`
`4. “authorized user” and “administrator”
`
`Authorized user: Under the BRI standard, an authorized user is an
`
`individual who is given permission to access information. The specification
`
`explains the concept of indicating whether a “user is authorized to receive the
`
`information.” (Ex. 1001, p.27, 7:64-67)
`
`Administrator: Under BRI, an administrator includes a “user who performs
`
`administrative functions.” Applying BRI, examples of administrative functions
`
`include managing a database (id., p.40, 13:5-8), creating user groups (id., p.40,
`
`13:21-22), and establishing a coordinate system (id., p.30, 14:15-18).
`
`Petitioners note that under BRI, a particular user may be both an
`
`administrator and an authorized user. However, even if the Board holds that the
`
`authorized user is mutually exclusive from the administrator, it does not impact the
`
`invalidity analysis presented below.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`VII. The Grounds for Unpatentability
`
`As required by 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4)-(5), this section details how the
`
`teachings of the prior art anticipate for render obvious the challenged claims.
`
`A. Ground 1: Fast anticipates claims 1-10, 13-16, and 19-25
`
`Fast (Ex. 1003) describes the Guardian Mobile Monitoring System
`
`(GMMS), one of the prior art systems commercialized prior to the ’166 Patent.
`
`(Ex. 1008, p.2 (describing GMMS’s success in September 2005)). Although Fast
`
`is identified on the face of the ‘166 Patent, it was not substantively discussed in
`
`any office action.
`
`Fast describes infrastructure for deploying and monitoring mobile tracking
`
`devices called “Beacons.” (Ex. 1003, p.1, Abstract). Beacons communicate, inter
`
`alia, present location information to remote monitoring stations and/or devices
`
`through a server. (Id., p.33, 4:9-11; see also p.36, 9:31-32). Fast deploys beacons
`
`across a range of manufacturers, distributers, service providers, and end users. The
`
`hierarchy of users is presented below:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
` (Ex. 1003,
`
`p.29, FIG. 22). The GMMS refers to the overall networked system. Wholesalers
`
`work with an operator of a GMMS to provide wholesale and retail mobile
`
`monitoring services. (Id., p.33, 4:36-38). Retailers work with wholesalers to sell
`
`beacons and provide monitoring services to subscribers. (Id., 4:42-44). “The
`
`fundamental difference between a wholesaler and a retailer is that a retailer does
`
`not typically operate a monitoring station.” (Id., p.31, 16:24-25)
`
`A subscriber may purchase beacons for residential use or for enterprise
`
`applications. For example, a subscriber may be a parent who uses beacons to track
`
`items. (Id., p.43, 24:56-65). Fast refers to tracked individuals or objects as
`
`“items.” (Id., p.48, 33:1-5). Subscribers use a “Zone Manager” to create any
`
`number of allowed or disallowed zones to track his dependents. (Id., p.41, 20:63-
`
`67). Fast describes zones as geographic shapes or combinations of shapes on a
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`map. (Id., p.48, 33-36). By implementing zones, Fast allows multiple users to
`
`perform geofence monitoring on tracked beacons. (Id., p.44, 25:11-21).
`
`Other users at the subscriber level include, among others, “guardians.” (Ex.
`
`1003, p.21, FIG. 16-1, box 514). A guardian is an individual who is assigned by a
`
`subscriber to have temporary or permanent responsibility for an item. (Id., 4:61-62
`
`and 43:5-6). As a subscriber, a parent may assign a babysitter the role of a
`
`“guardian” to oversee a tracked child. (Id., p.51, 39:6-9).
`
`As demonstrated herein, Fast discloses a flexible software architecture that
`
`allows the users of the GMMS to configure the system to suit the users’ respective
`
`individual needs. Though Fast demonstrates its system may be configured in
`
`numerous different ways, the following anticipated configurations from Fast are
`
`used to demonstrate the invalidity of the challenged claims.
`
`Wholesaler ISE and administrative privileges. The GMMS may be
`
`configured to have Wholesaler N1 and Wholesaler N2, (Ex. 1003, p.39, 16:7-11;
`
`p.29, FIG. 22; See Ex. 1013, ¶29). Each of these Wholesalers may create
`
`numerous users with various access privileges (Ex. 1003, p.50, 38:26-45), but for
`
`simplification the Wholesalers will be assumed to be one individual (i.e., an
`
`administrator) with unrestricted access to the Wholesaler’s functions. Consistent
`
`with Figure 22, each of these Wholesalers may provide monitoring services to
`
`multiple Subscriber Accounts. For example, Wholesaler N1 may have Subscriber
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`Account A1 and Subscriber Account B1; and Wholesaler N2 may provide services
`
`to Subscriber Account A2 and Subscriber Account B2. An unlimited number of
`
`Wholesalers or subscribers can be enabled and can provide monitoring services to
`
`an unlimited number of Subscriber Accounts. (Ex. 1003, p.39, 16:17-11; Ex. 1013,
`
`¶30). This shows a level of Wholesaler administrative privilege within Fast.
`
`Retail-level ISE and administrative privilege. FIG. 22 shows wholesalers
`
`and retailers reside at different administrative levels. The roles of these user types
`
`differ in that wholesalers may operate a monitoring station while retailers typically
`
`do not. (Ex. 1003, p.39, 16:23-26). Otherwise, the following discussion of
`
`wholesalers generally applies to retailers as well.
`
`Subscriber-level ISE and administrative privilege. Each Subscriber
`
`Account may have multiple beacons. (Ex. 1003, p.35, 24:56-62). Subscriber
`
`Account A1 may have Beacon A1X associated with Child A1X (“Alex”) and
`
`Beacon A1Y associated with Child A1Y (“Amy”). (Id., 24:56-62; Ex. 1012, ¶¶46-
`
`47). Similarly, Subscriber Account B1 may have Beacon B1X associated with
`
`Child B1X (“Bob”) and Beacon B1Y with Child B1Y (“Beth”). Further, Fast
`
`explains the Subscriber Account can have multiple users with various levels of
`
`access privilege. (Ex. 1003, p.52, 42:26-35). With a given subscriber-level ISE,
`
`the subscriber may be considered to have the highest level of access, and the
`
`subscriber can manage user types such as adding, updating, and deleting system
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`users, as well as assigning access levels to these users. (Id., 42:26-31; p.22, FIG
`
`16-2). A POSITA would understand that a subscriber may create a user and not
`
`restrict access to any functions, such that the subscriber and the newly created user
`
`have the same level of access. (Id., p.52, 42:26-31; p.22, FIG 16-2; Ex. 1012, ¶46).
`
`Accordingly, Subscriber Account A1 may have Parent AX and Parent AY,
`
`and Subscriber Account B may have Parent BX and Parent BY. Parents of the
`
`Subscriber Accounts may wish to set up guardians for their children, such that the
`
`guardians may have access to the children’s locations and events. The Parents may
`
`either assign the same guardian, or different guardians, such that if different
`
`guardians are used, the guardians may have access only to their assigned child.
`
`(Ex. 1003, p.33, 4:61-62; p.41, 20:46-62 (dependent manager: assign guardians to
`
`dependents; guardian manager: assign one or more guardians to one or more
`
`dependents); p.53, 43:1-11; p.22, FIG. 16-2, box 522; Ex. 1012, ¶47). Subscribers
`
`may “assign an access level 534 indicating what functionality they will be
`
`restricted from using. A record of the access level of each User is kept in the list of
`
`User types 514.” (Ex. 1003, p.52, 42:49-52).
`
`Further, in emergency situations, the subscriber may provide an operator
`
`with the subscriber or guardian's passcode. (Id., p.51, 39:13-15). The authorized
`
`emergency operator may receive access to location information relating to a
`
`dependent (having a second user ID code) of the subscriber. (See e.g., p.31, FIG.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`24 which shows “how an operator at a monitoring station can access a subscriber's
`
`portal to provide services while still protecting the security and privacy of the
`
`subscriber”; see also p.33, 3:1-4). Accordingly, as described, Fast enables the
`
`following exemplary configuration (see Ex. 1012, ¶46), which modifies FIG. 22:
`
`
`
`While only Subscriber Accounts A1 and B1 were explained and depicted,
`
`Subscriber Accounts A2 and B2 could be configured to suit the subscribers’ needs.
`
`(Ex. 1003, p.41, 20:31-63 (a “Beacon Manager” assigns beacons to dependents, a
`
`“Dependent Manager” manages dependents, and a “Guardian Manager” assigns
`
`guardians to dependents).
`
`
`
`Fast’s user accounts (e.g., wholesalers, retailers, and subscribers) have their
`
`own “portals” to access and control aspects of GMMS. (Id., p.34, 5:27-36). FIG.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,717,166
`
`
`
`14-1 shows the flowchart of how a wholesaler would log in using an ID and
`
`password. (Id., p.17, FIG. 14-1, box 405c). After verifying that the user type is for
`
`a wholesaler (boxes 408 and 409), the user may then take a number of actions to
`
`control or access the GMMS system. Such actions may be managing subscriber
`
`accounts (box 414) or managing beacons (box 414). (Id.). FIG. 16-1 shows the
`
`flowchart of how a subscriber accesses GMMS who also use their own ID and
`
`password. (Id., p.21, FIG. 16-1, boxes 505c). Upon verification that the user is a
`
`subscriber (id., boxes 512 and 514), Fast describes a variety of subscriber functions
`
`such as managing scenarios and managing user types (id., p.22, FIG. 16-2, boxes
`
`518 and 530).
`
`
`
`Using the subscriber portal, a subscriber may build scenarios to trigger alerts
`
`relating to a tracked person. (Id., FIGS. 11-1 and 11-2). In addition, a subscriber
`
`can designate other users (e.g., other authorized users, guardians, or GMMS
`
`operators) to manage aspects of the subscriber’s functionality. (Id., p.52, 42:48-
`
`50).
`
`1. Claim 1
`
`First, as shown above, the Wholesaler may be considered the claimed “first
`
`information-sharing environme