`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 49
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: November 30, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`TV MANAGEMENT, INC., D/B/A GPS NORTH AMERICA,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PERDIEMCO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`__________________________
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`PerdiemCo LLC (“Patent Owner”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,003,499 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’499 patent”). TV Management, Inc., d/b/a
`
`GPS North America (“Petitioner”)1 requested an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 3–6, 8, 11, 12, and 16–20 of the ’499 patent. Paper 5 (“Pet.”). We
`
`instituted inter partes review of all of the challenged claims (Paper 20, “Inst.
`
`Dec.”) because Petitioner demonstrated a “reasonable likelihood” of
`
`prevailing on those claims. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper
`
`28, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner followed with a Reply (Paper 37, “Reply”).
`
`Each party had an opportunity to present its case in a hearing conducted on
`
`September 12, 2017, a transcript of which is in the record. Paper 48 (“Tr.”).2
`
`We have jurisdiction over these proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
`
`After considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, we determine
`
`that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the
`
`subject matter of claims 1, 3–6, 8, 11, 12, and 16–20 of the ’499 patent is
`
`unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). We issue this Final Written Decision
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`
`1 On August 15, 2016, prior to institution, Petitioners Teletrac Inc. and
`Navman Wireless North America, Ltd., moved to terminate the proceedings
`with respect to themselves only. Paper 11. The Board granted that motion
`on August 24, 2016. Paper 13. After institution, Petitioner Geotab Inc. and
`Patent Owner jointly moved to terminate the proceedings as to Geotab Inc.
`only, Paper 24, and the Board granted that motion on December 29, 2016,
`leaving as sole petitioner TV Management, Inc., d/b/a GPS North America,
`Paper 26.
`
`2 An oral hearing in related Cases IPR2016-01061 and IPR2016-01278
`occurred on the same day, with similar issues presented and argued.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`The ’499 patent is part of a family of patents that share a common
`
`specification and claim priority through a continuation chain to U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,525,425, which in turn claims priority to a provisional application
`
`filed on December 23, 2005. Other patents in this family include U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 8,149,113; 8,223,012; 8,493,207; 8,717,166; 9,071,931; 9,119,033;
`
`9,319,471; 9,485,314; 9,621,661; and 9,680,941.
`
`
`
`In addition to inter partes review of the ’499 patent, the Board has
`
`instituted the following inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) directed to certain
`
`claims of the following patents within this patent family:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. IPR2016-01061 (the ’012 patent);
`
`2. IPR2016-01062 (the ’207 patent);
`
`3. IPR2016-01063 (the ’166 patent);
`
`4. IPR2016-01278 (the ’931 patent);
`
`5. IPR2017-00968 (the ’314 patent);
`
`6. IPR2017-00969 (the ’113 patent);
`
`7. IPR2017-00973 (the ’471 patent);
`
`8. IPR2017-01007 (the ’033 patent); and
`
`9. IPR2017-01269 (the ’661 patent).
`
`Subsequent to institution, two of those IPRs were terminated in an adverse
`
`judgment in view of Patent Owner’s disclaimer of all challenged claims.
`
`IPR2016-01062 (Paper 29); IPR2016-01063 (Paper 30).
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`
`
`The ’499 patent, along with the ’207, ’012, ’166, and ’931 patents,
`
`was asserted in the following cases in the Eastern District of Texas, all of
`
`which have been terminated: PerdiemCo LLC v. Geotab Inc. et al, Case No.
`
`2:15-cv-00726; PerdiemCo, LLC. v. Industrack LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
`
`00727; PerdiemCo, LLC. v. Omnivations II, LLC D/B/A Fleetronix, Case
`
`No. 2:15-cv-00729; PerdiemCo, LLC. v. Teletrac, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:15-
`
`cv-00730; Perdiem Co LLC v. GPS Logic, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01216;
`
`PerdiemCo LLC v. TV Management, Inc. d/b/a GPS North America, Case
`
`No. 2:15-cv-01217; PerdiemCo, LLC. v. thingtech LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
`
`01218; PerdiemCo, LLC. v. LiveViewGPS, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01219.
`
`
`
`The ’499 patent, along with the ’012, ’931, ’471, ’113, ’033, and ’314
`
`patents, is currently the subject of a co-pending lawsuit in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, which was filed after institution of the present proceeding
`
`and after termination of the above-referenced cases: PerdiemCo LLC v.
`
`Telular Corp. et al., 2-16-cv-01408. The district court case is currently
`
`stayed pending resolution of this IPR proceeding and the related IPR
`
`proceedings.
`
`B. The ’499 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’499 patent describes a system that conveys information related to
`
`an object to one or more users in “information-sharing environments.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:61–62, 5:27–38. According to the ’499 patent, various
`
`technologies (such as Global Positioning Systems (“GPS”)) may be used to
`
`track the location of objects. Id. at 6:9–11. The objects tracked may be
`
`people (such as a child), vehicles (such as a semi-truck or a car), or other
`
`objects or animals (such as a crate or a dog). Id. at 6:24–27; see also id. at
`
`Fig. 1. The objects may be tracked relative to “user-defined zones.” Id. at
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`1:62–2:8, 5:10–14. The system also monitors “event[s],” which are, for
`
`example, instances when a tracked object enters or exits a zone. Id. at 1:64–
`
`2:3.
`
`An “information-sharing environment,” as described in the ’499
`
`patent, may include a family or group of friends or it may be larger (e.g., a
`
`company). Id. at 5:27–38. Multiple information-sharing environments may
`
`co-exist within a larger information-sharing environment. Id. at 5:33–35.
`
`Administrative functions may be performed within a group as, for example,
`
`a “family can set up its own information-sharing environment.” Id. at 5:62–
`
`65. An administrator with privileges may configure an information-sharing
`
`environment by specifying authorized users and giving these authorized
`
`users their own privileges. Id. at 5:39–42. Various levels of administrator
`
`privileges may exist. Id. at 5:51–54.
`
`Each information-sharing environment may be administered to
`
`manage conveyance of information among computing devices based on
`
`“user identification codes” and/or “group codes.” Id. at 5:65–67, 7:45–50.
`
`Such codes “may be managed by a control station or may be established
`
`based on user unique user identification,” and can be associated with “one or
`
`more groups, and one or more information access privilege classifications,
`
`etc.” Id. at 7:2–7. Based on these codes, conveyance of specified object
`
`location information may be limited to specified users. Id. at 7:45–67. Each
`
`user may be associated with a level of access, thereby limiting who may
`
`receive the location information. Id. at 2:45–3:3, 6:64–7:60.
`
`In one exemplary scenario, a mother can track the location of an
`
`object (her daughter’s car) by equipping it with a tracking beacon and
`
`assigning it an identification code. Id. at 9:12–56. The mother may then use
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`that identification code to set up “events” so that when her daughter’s car
`
`enters or leaves a pre-defined “zone,” the mother will receive an “alert”
`
`(such as an email). Id. The mother may also have the location of her
`
`daughter’s tracked car conveyed to one or more other specified users, such
`
`as another parent or a guardian, by assigning them identification codes and
`
`associating a particular level of access, i.e., an access privilege, with each
`
`user’s identification code. Id. at 10:30–54.
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 3–6, 8, 11, 12, and 16–20, of which
`
`claims 1 and 19 are independent. Challenged claim 1 is exemplary and is
`
`reproduced below.3
`
`1. [a] A system for conveying a plurality of event information
`associated with a corresponding plurality of events that occur
`based on satisfactions of a corresponding plurality of
`specified event conditions related
`to
`locations of a
`corresponding plurality of mobile objects having a
`corresponding plurality of mobile object identification codes,
`[b] wherein each mobile object is associated with at least one
`location information source that provides a corresponding
`location information over a wireless network, said system
`comprising:
`
`[c] one or more computer servers configured to create a plurality
`of information-sharing environments, [d] said plurality of
`information-sharing environments providing user interfaces
`for a plurality of authorized users over a network of
`computing devices, [e] said plurality of authorized users
`being associated with a corresponding plurality of authorized
`user identification codes, [f] wherein said plurality of
`information-sharing environments are configurable based on
`varying levels of administrator privileges, said varying levels
`
`
`3 For expediency, Petitioner and Patent Owner break claim 1 into limitations
`1(a)-1(m). We adopt that format herein for ease of reference.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`
`of administrator privilege comprising a first level of
`administrator privilege
`associated with
`a network
`administrator and a second level of administrator privileges
`associated with said plurality of authorized users, [g] said first
`level of administrator privilege being used in a first
`information-sharing environment to allow for configuring a
`plurality of event information-sharing environments within
`said first information-sharing environment independent of
`one another, [h] wherein said plurality of event information-
`sharing environments are configurable based on said second
`levels of administrator privileges for specifying the plurality
`of specified event conditions;
`
`[i] one or more access control systems that are configured to
`communicates [sic] with said one or more computer servers
`to control access to the plurality of information sharing
`environments, [j] wherein access control to the plurality of
`information sharing environments is based on access control
`codes requiring multiple levels of access control comprising
`a first level of access control and a second levels [sic] of
`access control, [k] wherein access to said first information
`sharing environment is controlled under the first level of
`access control based on access control codes associated with
`the plurality of authorized user
`identification codes,
`[l] wherein access
`to said event
`information sharing
`environments is controlled under the second level of access
`control to access the plurality of specified event conditions
`independent of each other based on a corresponding plurality
`of event information access codes that are associated with the
`plurality of authorized user identification codes; and
`
`[m] an administrator system in communication with said one or
`more computer servers adapted to configure a corresponding
`plurality of access privileges for the plurality of authorized
`users that specify the specified event conditions based on the
`plurality of event
`information access codes, wherein
`conveyance of the plurality of event information is managed
`based on the plurality of access privileges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`
`D. Instituted Grounds
`
`We instituted inter partes review based on the following two
`
`references:
`
`(1)
`
`Fast et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,327,258 B2, filed January 31,
`
`2005, and issued February 5, 2008 (“Fast”) (Ex. 1003); and
`
`(2) Zou et al., Pub. No. US 2005/0156715 A1, filed January 16,
`
`2004, and published July 21, 2005 (“Zou”) (Ex. 1005).
`
`The grounds on which we instituted review are as follows:
`
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`Fast
`
`Fast and Zou
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 3–6, 8, 11, 12, and 16–
`20
`1, 3–6, 11, 12, and 16–20
`
`Inst. Dec. 40.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the
`
`challenged claims, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic
`
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish the facts supporting its
`
`challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, we give claim terms in an unexpired patent
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`
`2131, 2144–46 (2016) (concluding the broadest reasonable construction
`
`regulation “represents a reasonable exercise of the rulemaking authority that
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`Congress delegated to the Patent Office”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under
`
`that standard, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in the context of the specification. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). That presumption may be rebutted by
`
`a term defined in the patent specification with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read
`
`from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`1. “information access code” / “event information access code”
`
`
`
`In the Institution Decision, we considered the construction of a
`
`generic “information access code” (as proposed by Petitioners), or the
`
`specific type “event information access code” (as proposed by Patent
`
`Owner). Inst. Dec. 8–9. As we noted therein, the construction of these
`
`terms raises the broader question of the nature of “access codes” as
`
`described and claimed in the ’499 patent. As a precursor to describing the
`
`specific types of “information access codes,” the ’499 patent specification
`
`describes generic “access codes” and how they may be associated with, and
`
`used to manage conveyance of, information in accordance with the claimed
`
`invention:
`
`[A]ccess codes can be associated with information to manage
`the conveyance of the information to computing devices.
`Specifically, an object location information access code can be
`associated with object location information. A user-defined zone
`information access code can be associated with user-defined
`zone information and/or an object location event information
`access code can be associated with object location event
`information. These access codes can be used in various ways. In
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`
`one arrangement, an access code specifies the individual users
`and/or groups of users having access to the information to which
`the access code is associated. Such an access code would
`typically include specific user identification codes and/or group
`codes. For example, by a user logging into a computing device,
`a given user identification code is associated with the computing
`device. The user identification code may also be associated with
`one or more groups having corresponding group identification
`codes. The user identification code and group identification
`code(s) are compared to those included in the access code
`whereby a match would indicate the user is authorized to receive
`the information. As such, the information is conveyed to those
`computing devices that are associated with the users having
`access to the information as specified by the access code.
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:37–60 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`Although the ’499 patent specification describes embodiments in
`
`which an “access code” is similar to a password in that it must be entered by
`
`a user into the user’s computing device “in order to be granted access to the
`
`information,” Ex. 1001, 7:61–8:3, the specification also describes
`
`embodiments in which “a user may be granted access to the [information]
`
`based on the [access code] without having knowledge of the access code.”
`
`Id. at 11:10–13 (emphasis added). With regard to an event information
`
`access code, for example, the specification states that “a user that defines an
`
`object location event can also associate an object location event information
`
`access code . . . and can thereby manage the conveying of the object location
`
`event information to one or more users.” Id. at 16:54–59. The specification
`
`further explains that an “object location event information access code
`
`determines which user(s) are conveyed the object location event
`
`information” because the user setting up the access code “specif[ies]
`
`individual users or groups allowed access to” that information. Id. at 16:59–
`
`62.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`
`
`Thus, the specification describes an “information access code” as
`
`having different embodiments—not limited to a password, but also including
`
`an “access code” that may be associated with specific information and may
`
`be used to control access to that information by specifying which users have
`
`access to that information. In this context, the “access code” functions as an
`
`identifier that links specific information with one or more user identification
`
`codes for users that are authorized to receive the information. See Ex. 1001,
`
`7:54–57: “The user identification code . . . [is] compared to those included
`
`in the access code whereby a match would indicate the user is authorized to
`
`receive the information” (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`In light of the foregoing, we preliminarily construed the terms
`
`“information access code” / “event information access code” in our
`
`Institution Decision as encompassing
`
`an identifier in the form of a name, number, or other series of
`letters, numbers, symbols, or the like, that is associated with
`specific information (such as “object location event information”
`in the case of an “event information access code”) and may be
`used to manage conveyance of that information by specifying
`which users are authorized to receive that information.
`
`
`Inst. Dec. 11. Neither party disputed this preliminary construction during
`
`trial, or provided any further argument or evidence regarding the proper
`
`construction of these terms. We maintain our earlier construction of these
`
`terms.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`
`2. “authorized user”
`
`Prior to institution, the parties also disputed construction of the term
`
`“authorized user,” which appears in all of the independent claims of the ’499
`
`patent. See Inst. Dec. 12. The specification describes users being
`
`“authorized” to receive information—for example, if their “user
`
`identification codes” are designated as being authorized to access that
`
`information:
`
`In one arrangement, an access code specifies the individual users
`and/or groups of users having access to the information to which
`the access code is associated. . . . The user identification code
`and group identification code(s) are compared to those included
`in the access code whereby a match would indicate the user is
`authorized to receive the information. As such, the information
`is conveyed to those computing devices that are associated with
`the users having access to the information as specified by the
`access code.
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:45–48, 7:54–60 (emphasis added). The specification further
`
`states, in one embodiment, “users may be granted access to the object
`
`location information based on the access code without having knowledge of
`
`the access code.” Id. at 10:62–65. The specification also states “an Internet
`
`service based on the present invention can be provided and administered
`
`such that anyone having access to the Internet can purchase the service and
`
`be an authorized user.” Id. at 5:54–57.
`
`
`
`In light of the foregoing, we preliminarily construed “authorized user”
`
`in our Institution Decision as “a user who is given permission to access
`
`information.” Inst. Dec. 12. Neither party disputed this preliminary
`
`construction during trial, or provided any further argument or evidence
`
`regarding the proper construction of this term. We maintain our earlier
`
`construction of this term.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`
`We do not need to further construe the claims to resolve the parties’
`
`present disputes. Thus, we decline to adopt further express constructions of
`
`the claim terms. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the
`
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`B. Description of the Prior Art
`
`Petitioner asserts that the subject matter of one or more of claims 1, 3–
`
`6, 8, 11, 12, and 16–20 is anticipated by Fast and/or that the subject matter
`
`of one or more of claims 1, 3–6, 11, 12, and 16–20 would have been obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Fast and Zou.4 Pet. 6.
`
`We provide an overview of each of these references before turning to the
`
`individual grounds.
`
`1. Fast
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that Fast, which was filed on January 31, 2005, and
`
`issued on February 5, 2008, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (Pet. 5),
`
`and Patent Owner does not dispute that contention.
`
`
`
`Fast describes a system for monitoring various parameters (such as
`
`speed, position, and threshold boundaries) of mobile items attached to
`
`tracking devices called “beacons.” Ex. 1003, Abstract, 1:61–63. Beacons
`
`communicate, inter alia, geographic location information to remote
`
`monitoring stations and/or devices through a server. Id. at 4:9–11, 8:38–9:9.
`
`
`4 Of note, with regard to claim 8, Petitioner asserts only anticipation by Fast
`and does not assert obviousness over the combination of Fast and Zou. Pet.
`6.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`Beacons may be “carried or worn by a person or attached to an object.” Id.
`
`at 9:31–32.
`
`
`
`As an exemplary embodiment, Fast describes the Guardian Mobile
`
`Monitoring System (GMMS). Ex. 1003, Fig. 23, 2:63–67, 3:9–35.
`
`According to Fast, the GMMS is a hierarchical system with multiple levels
`
`of users, including wholesalers, retailers, and subscribers. Id. at 18:25–37.
`
`These multiple levels are depicted in Figure 22 of Fast, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 22 of Fast, reproduced above, is a schematic diagram showing the
`
`interrelationship between the GMMS, individual wholesalers, individual
`
`retailers, and individual subscribers in monitoring mobile items. Ex. 1003,
`
`2:58–62. The GMMS refers to the overall system, within which wholesalers
`
`work with operators to provide wholesale and retail mobile monitoring
`
`services to subscribers. Id. at 16:13–17.
`
`
`
`A subscriber may purchase multiple beacons to track multiple items
`
`using GMMS, such as individuals (e.g., members of a family) or objects
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`(e.g., vehicles). Ex. 1003, 24:56–65, 33:1–17. The subscriber may create
`
`zones, such as “allowed or disallowed zones,” to allow monitoring of the
`
`tracked items in particular areas, which may be activated or deactivated
`
`according to a schedule. Id. at 20:63–67. Subscribers may set up the
`
`GMMS software to automatically notify them upon certain conditions, such
`
`as a beacon reaching a specified location. Id. at 12:40–44.
`
`
`
`According to Fast, the GMMS allows users to create various levels of
`
`access privileges. For example, a wholesaler may include an administrator,
`
`which has the highest level of access with unrestricted access to the
`
`wholesaler’s functions. Ex. 1003, 38:26–45. Each wholesaler may have its
`
`own portal, accessible through the Internet, with access restricted to users
`
`that are authorized by administrators. Id. at 16:5–11, 37:44–38:54, Figs. 14-
`
`1 and 14-2. Each wholesaler may provide monitoring services to multiple
`
`subscriber accounts. Id. at Fig. 22, 16:29–30.
`
`
`
`Also according to Fast, each subscriber account in GMMS may be
`
`given access to a dedicated portal, with a user ID and password required to
`
`log in. Ex. 1003, 6:21–23, 42:14–35, Figs. 16-1 and 16-2. The subscriber is
`
`offered “preference settings” for designating other users, such as other
`
`subscribers or guardians, with various levels of access privileges. Id. The
`
`subscriber may be considered to have the highest level of access within that
`
`portal, and has authority to manage other users, including the authority to
`
`add, update, and delete system users. Id. at Fig. 16-2. For example, a
`
`subscriber may designate a “guardian” to have temporary or permanent
`
`responsibility for an item—such as a “babysitter” designated to oversee a
`
`tracked child. Id. at 4:61–62, 43:1–11. In adding users, the subscriber may
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`indicate whether other users are restricted from using any functionality of
`
`the portal. Id. at 42:32–35, 42:48–52; Ex. 1010 ¶ 48.
`
`Figures 16-1 and 16-2 of Fast (reproduced below) depict the
`
`functionality available through the subscriber portal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`Figures 16-1 and 16-2 from Fast, reproduced above, “represent[] the
`
`functionality of the residential and commercial subscriber’s portal.”
`
`Ex. 1003, 42:14–15.
`
`
`
`As shown in block 504 of Figure 16-1, access to the subscriber portal
`
`is granted through login with the user’s “User ID and Password.” Block 512
`
`of Figure 16-1 states that the “level of authorized access” is determined
`
`“based on User Type.” These “User Types,” which are listed in Block 514
`
`of Figure 16-1, include “Subscriber” and “Guardian.” Viewed in light of the
`
`written description, Figure 16-2, which is a continuation through “A” and
`
`“B” of Figure 16-1, depicts that, unless restricted, a user has access to all of
`
`the functionality of the subscriber portal, including access to the “Scenario
`
`Manager” through blocks 518 and 520. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 48.
`
`
`
`In particular, using the GMMS subscriber portal, a subscriber (or
`
`other authorized user, such as a guardian if not restricted from this
`
`functionality by the subscriber) may build and manage “scenarios” to trigger
`
`alerts relating to tracked items. Id. at Fig. 16-1 (subscriber portal), Figs. 11-
`
`1 and 11-2 (Scenario Manager), 32:15–56, 35:8–36:41. Fast describes a
`
`“scenario” as “[a] set of monitoring parameters where events are monitored
`
`automatically according to a schedule,” and when a specified parameter
`
`“exceeds a specified threshold,” while the scenario is active, “specified
`
`notifications are automatically sent by the GMMS . . . .” Id. at 5:42–45. For
`
`example, according to Fast, a scenario could be built to send a specified
`
`message to specified people if a certain tracked vehicle travels outside of a
`
`specified zone. Id. at 32:53–56; see also id. at 35:7–36:41.
`
`
`
`One aspect of building a scenario within Fast’s “Scenario Manager” is
`
`the selection of a “notification scheme.” See Ex. 1003, Fig. 11-1 (boxes
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`272, 276, and 278). According to Fast, a notification scheme identifies a
`
`selected group of entities (e.g., guardians, the subscriber herself, and/or other
`
`specified entities) who are notified when a scenario is triggered. Id. at
`
`35:46–53; see also id. at 36:34–39. Fast explains that:
`
`[t]he ultimate function of the Scenario Manager is to allow users
`to command the GMMS system to automatically monitor mobile
`events. An example would be “If the specified vehicle is outside
`of the specified zone, at the specified time, send the specified
`message, to the specified people/places, using the specified
`communications methods.”
`
`Id. at 32:51–56. Also according to Fast, “[n]otification schemes are named
`
`and saved for use in any number of scenarios.” Id. at 34:36–37.
`
`2. Zou
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that Zou is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and
`
`is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Pet. 5. Patent Owner does
`
`not dispute these contentions.
`
`
`
`Zou describes a fleet manager using mobile GPS tracking devices
`
`referred to as “telemetry devices.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 9. Each telemetry device is
`
`assigned to a tracked object, id. at ¶ 12, communicating with a Network
`
`Operations Center (NOC), id. at ¶ 9; see also id. at Fig. 3. A user of the
`
`system communicates with the NOC over a network such as the Internet. Id.
`
`at Fig. 3. A user’s desktop client interfaces to the NOC through a
`
`presentation server. Id. at ¶ 113, Fig. 3. The presentation server provides
`
`functions including fleet and asset tracking and “general purpose I/O
`
`monitoring and control.” Id. at ¶ 111. The server also maintains a database
`
`“for user accounts and other related data (e.g., configuration data, user
`
`management information, device management, and data acquired from the
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`devices 103).” Id. Zou’s user interfaces “manage and control user
`
`administration.” Id. at ¶ 9.
`
`
`
`Zou describes an “exemplary system” that “includes a GeoFence
`
`Violation Report.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 171. According to Zou, “[t]his report will
`
`detail each time a vehicle entered or exited a GeoFence set for that vehicle.
`
`It will also report the date, time, speed, direction, and location of the vehicle
`
`when the GeoFence was violated.” Id. Zou also describes how users may
`
`“organize the exemplary system to meet specific needs. Options here allow
`
`the user to group vehicles into fleets, edit system user authority levels, and
`
`customize the way telemetry devices record and transmit data.” Id. at ¶ 189.
`
`Within a given fleet, a manager can select specific permissions for
`
`authorizing users to view fleets, build alert templates, and manage other
`
`users. Id. at ¶¶ 191–193, 202, 203, Figs. 18a, 18e.
`
`C. Anticipation by Fast
`
`
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 3–6, 8, 11, 12, and 16–20 of the ’499
`
`patent as anticipated by Fast. Pet. 15–40. For the reasons discussed below,
`
`we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence, including annotated figures, a detailed claim analysis, and expert
`
`testimony, that Fast anticipates the challenged claims. Id.; Reply 3–14;
`
`Ex. 1010.
`
`1. Independent Claim 1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that independent claim 1 of the ’499 patent
`
`describes a “system for tracking the location of objects and determining
`
`whether certain events have occurred,” while protecting users’ privacy by
`
`using “tiered privileges and access codes,” which allow the claimed system
`
`to “protect the event information, while allowing authorized users more
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01064
`Patent 9,003,499 B2
`
`freedom to configure the system to their specific needs.” PO Resp. 3–4.
`
`Patent Owner argues Fast does not anticipate the invention recited in claim 1
`
`(which Patent Owner argues collectively with independent claim 19)
`
`because Fast’s system “conveys information according to a predetermined
`
`hierarchical structure, not a flexible user-defined structure.” Id. at 13.
`
`Focusing its arguments on limitations 1(k), 1(l), and 1(m), Patent Owner
`
`argues that Fast does not disclose those limitations because, collectively,
`
`they “require two levels of access control—an ‘authorized user identification
`
`code’ (AUIC) and an ‘event information access code[]’ (EIAC).” Id. at 2
`
`and 18–22. As discussed more fully below, Patent Owner argues that Fast
`
`does not disclose these two levels of access control because Fast does not
`
`disclose any such access codes; instead, according to Patent Owner, the level
`