Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 14
` Entered: September 20, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`TELULAR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PERDIEMCO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`__________________________
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 14
` Entered: September 20, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`TELULAR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PERDIEMCO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`__________________________
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`By way of a Petition accorded a filing date of March 29, 2017 (see
`Paper 5), Petitioner Telular Corporation (“Petitioner”) requests an inter
`partes review of claims 1–62 of U.S. Patent No. 8,149,113 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’113 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner PerdiemCo LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition on June 29,
`2017. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner included with its
`Preliminary Response a Statutory Disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a),
`wherein Patent Owner has disclaimed claims 1–3, 7–44, 46–56, and 59. Ex.
`2017. The claims remaining after disclaimer are claims 4–6, 45, 57, 58, and
`60–62 (“the remaining challenged claims”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). After
`considering the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we
`conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving
`that the remaining challenged claims of the ’113 patent are unpatentable.
`Accordingly, we authorize inter partes review of all of the remaining
`challenged claims of the ’113 patent.
`Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding
`are based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. This is not a final
`decision as to the patentability of claims for which inter partes review is
`instituted. Our final decision will be based on the record as fully developed
`during trial.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner represents that the ’113 patent “is one of a portfolio of ten
`
`related patents and two pending applications,” and “relates to U.S. Patent
`Nos. 7,525,425; 8,493,207; 8,717,166; 8,223,012; 9,003,499; 9,485,314;
`9,119,033; 9,319,471; and 9,071,931.” Pet. 3. Petitioner also identifies
`pending U.S. patent application nos. 14/629,347 and 15/200,592 as related to
`the ’113 patent. Pet. 4. On April 11, 2017, subsequent to the filing of the
`present Petition, application no. 15,200,592 issued as U.S. Patent No.
`9,621,661 B2. On June 13, 2017, application no. 14,629,347 issued as U.S.
`Patent No. 9,680,941.
`The Board has instituted the following inter partes reviews (“IPRs”)
`
`directed to certain claims of the following patents within this portfolio:
`
`1. IPR2016-01061 (the ’012 patent);
`
`2. IPR2016-01062 (the ’207 patent);
`
`3. IPR2016-01063 (the ’166 patent);
`
`4. IPR2016-01064 (the ’499 patent); and
`
`5. IPR2016-01278 (the ’931 patent).
`The remaining petitioner in each of these proceedings is TV Management,
`Inc., d/b/a GPS North America (“GPS NA”). E.g., IPR2016-01061, Paper
`28. Current petitioner Telular Corporation is named in each of those
`proceedings as a real party-in-interest. E.g., IPR2016-01061, Paper 5 at 10.
`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). Oral arguments
`were held on September 12, 2017, in the remaining instituted IPRs.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`Petitioner has also filed IPR petitions challenging certain claims of the
`
`’314, ’471, ’033, and ’661 patents, respectively: IPR2017-00968; IPR2017-
`00973; IPR2017-01007; and IPR2017-01269.
`
`Petitioner represents that the ’113, ’314, ’033, and ’471 patents are all
`the subject of a co-pending lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas:
`PerdiemCo LLC v. Telular Corp. et al., 2-16-cv-01408. Pet. 3–4. A review
`of the complaint filed in that case reveals that the ’012, ’499, and ’931
`patents, for which reviews have been instituted and are pending as noted
`above, are also at issue in that litigation.
`B. Statutory Disclaimer of Claims 1–3, 7–44, 46–56, and 59
`After Petitioner filed its Petition, Patent Owner filed a statutory
`
`disclaimer of challenged claims 1–3, 7–44, 46–56, and 59 under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 253(a). Prelim. Resp. 4; Ex. 2017. Rule 42.107(e) provides that “[t]he
`patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in
`compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims
`in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed
`claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764-65 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“[A] patent owner may file
`a statutory disclaimer of one or more challenged claims to streamline the
`proceedings. Where no challenged claims remain, the Board would
`terminate the proceeding. Where one or more challenged claims remain, the
`Board’s decision on institution would be based solely on the remaining
`claims.”).
`
`Patent Owner’s disclaimer, Exhibit 2017, is in compliance with 37
`C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of
`disclaimed claims 1–3, 7–44, 46–56, and 59.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`Patent Owner’s disclaimer leaves claims 4–6, 45, 57, 58, and 60–62 of
`
`the ’113 patent to be considered for review, of which claim 60 is the sole
`independent claim.
`
`C. The ’113 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’113 patent relates to a method for tracking the location of an
`object, such as a person, vehicle, or package, using, for example, Global
`Positioning Systems (“GPS”). Ex. 1001, 6:20–32 and Fig. 1. The object
`may be tracked relative to “user-defined zones,” which are compared against
`the object’s tracked location to convey location information to authorized
`users by, for example, sending them a notification when an object’s location
`passes over a zone boundary. Id. at 2:39–44, 19:53–56.
`An administrator, or other authorized user, may configure what
`location information is conveyed and to whom it is conveyed. Id. at 5:41–
`44, 13:22–25. In addition to associating user identification codes with each
`user, the administrator can associate an “access code” with the user to
`control who receives the location information. Id. at 2:48–3:6, 6:66–8:25.
`For instance, a mother can track the location of her daughter’s car by
`equipping it with a tracking beacon and assigning it a user identification
`code. Id. at 9:16–58. The mother then uses 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 via email. Id. at 9:33–48. The mother may
`also have the location of her daughter’s tracked car conveyed to another
`specified user, such as another guardian, by assigning them a different
`identification code and associating a particular level of access, i.e., an access
`privilege, with that user’s identification code. Id. at 10:33–67.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–62. As noted above, however, Patent
`Owner has statutorily disclaimed claims 1–3, 7–44, 46–56, and 59 (Ex.
`2017), leaving only claims 4–6, 45, 57, 58, and 60–62. Of those claims,
`claim 4 is representative because it is the claim principally addressed by
`Patent Owner and it depends (through claim 2) from independent claim 1,
`which is the claim principally argued by Petitioner. Claim 4 is rewritten
`below in independent form (incorporating the limitations from statutorily
`disclaimed claims 1 and 2):
`[4]. A method for conveying information relating to objects
`among a plurality of users of a plurality of computing devices
`associated with user identification codes, including a first user
`identification code and a second user identification code and a
`third user identification code, the method comprising:
`receiving a zone information from a computing device
`associated with the first user identification code, the zone
`information relating to a zone having at least one coordinate
`within a coordinate system;
`associating an object location event information with the zone
`information, the object location event information being
`defined in terms of a condition based upon a relationship
`between the zone and a location of a moving object associated
`with
`the second user
`identification code,
`the second
`identification code being different from
`the first user
`identification code, each
`location of
`the object having
`corresponding object location information;
`associating an access code with at least one of the object
`location information, the zone information, or the object
`location event information, wherein the access code is based on
`the third user identification code, and wherein the third user
`identification code is different from the first and second user
`identification codes; []
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`
`conveying at least one of the object location information, the
`zone information, or the object location event information to a
`computing device associated with the third user identification
`code based on said information access code[;]
`. . . wherein the access code comprises a plurality of user
`identification codes including the third user identification
`code[; and]
`. . . further comprising associating an administrator that
`specifies an access privilege to an authorized user associated
`with the first [user identification] code, said authorized user
`being selected from a group of users associated with the
`plurality of user identification codes, including the first user
`identification code, and granting access to the zone information
`and the object location event information based on the access
`privilege of the authorized user.
`
`
`
`E. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner relies on three references as prior art:
`(1)
`Fast, U.S. Patent No. 7,327,258 B2, filed January 31, 2005, and
`issued February 5, 2008 (“Fast”) (Ex. 1003), which Petitioner asserts is prior
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (Pet. 6–7);
`(2)
`Phillips, U.S. Patent No. 7,848,765 B2, filed May 27, 2005, and
`issued Dec. 7, 2010 (“Phillips”) (Ex. 1007), which Petitioner asserts is prior
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (Pet. 7); and
`(3) Linberg, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2001/0039504, published
`November 8, 2001 (“Linberg”) (Ex. 1010), which Petitioner asserts is prior
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (Id.).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`
`Petitioner asserts claims 1–62 of the ’113 patent are unpatentable on
`the following grounds:
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Fast
`
`Claims Challenged Claim(s) Remaining
`after Statutory
`Disclaimer
`4–6, 45, 57, 58, 60, 62
`
`§ 102(e) 1–15, 17, 20–28, 30–
`33, 36–45, 49–52,
`54–60, and 62
`§ 103(a) 1–62
`§ 103(a) 6, 56, and 58
`
`4–6, 45, 57, 58, 60–62
`58
`
`Fast and Phillips
`Fast, Phillips, and
`Linberg
`Pet. 7.
`Petitioner also relies on the declaration of Dr. Stephen Heppe, an
`engineering consultant with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, submitted as
`Exhibit 1009 in IPR2016–01061, which challenges the ’012 patent. Pet. 7;
`Ex. 1009.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b); see 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 Congress
`delegated to the Patent Office”). 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
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`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).
`
`Petitioner presents five terms for construction, all of which were
`construed, in whole or in part, by the Board in related, pending IPRs:
`(1) “user identification code”; (2) “access code”; (3) “information access
`code”; (4) “authorized user”; and (5) “administrator.”
`1. “user identification code”
`Petitioner argues that a “user identification code,” which appears in all
`
`claims presented for review, is “any code that identifies a user, and examples
`include, but are not limited to, a user account name, a user number, or any
`identifier having an association with a user.” Pet. 9. Petitioner notes that, in
`the Decision to Institute in a related IPR, the Board preliminarily construed
`“code” to mean “an identifier in the form of a name, number, or other series
`of letters, numbers, or other identifiers, which can be used for user
`identification and information access.” Pet. 10 (citing IPR2016-01061,
`Paper 11, 5–7). Petitioner asserts that, according to the ’113 patent
`specification, a user identification (“ID”) code “would typically include an
`identifier (e.g., a user account name or user number).” Pet. 10 (citing Ex.
`1001, 7:4–7). Petitioner further asserts that, according to the ’113 patent, a
`user ID code is “associated with other user information such as the user
`name, title, address information, email address, phone numbers, etc.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1001, 7:25–28).
`
`Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed construction,
`nor does Patent Owner offer an alternative construction.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`Having reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and the intrinsic record
`
`before us, we conclude, for purposes of institution, that the broadest
`reasonable construction of “user identification code” includes “any code that
`identifies a user.” We further adopt, for purposes of institution, the
`construction of “code” as set forth in the Decision to Institute in IPR2016-
`01061, Paper 11, which is “an identifier in the form of a name, number, or
`other series of letters, numbers, or other identifiers, which can be used for
`user identification and information access.”
`2. “access code” and “information access code”
`Independent claim 1, from which claims 4–6 depend, and independent
`
`claim 52, from which claims 57 and 58 depend, each recite the term “access
`code.” Ex. 1001, 23:6, 26:51. Claim 1 also refers to “said information
`access code” (id. at 23:16–17 (emphasis added)), but this term does not
`otherwise appear in the claims at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner
`proposes “[f]or purposes of this petition, applying BRI, ‘access code’ and
`‘information access code’ are commensurate in scope.” Pet. 10.
`
`As Petitioner notes, in the Decision to Institute in the related
`IPR2016-01064, the Board preliminarily construed “information access
`code” to encompass
`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.
`Pet. 10–11 (citing IPR2016-01064, paper 20, at 11). Petitioner asserts
`“[t]his BRI construction should be used in connection with this Petition as
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`well” and also applies to the term “access code.” Pet. 11.
`
`Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed construction,
`nor does Patent Owner offer an alternative construction.
`
`We adopt, for purposes of institution, the Board’s construction of
`“information access code” noted above and as set forth in the Decision to
`Institute in the related IPR2016-01064, paper 20 at 11, and for the reasons
`stated therein. We further conclude “access code” and “information access
`code” are commensurate in scope.
`3. “authorized user” / “administrator”
`In the Decision to Institute for IPR2016-01063, the Board construed
`“administrator” as “an entity who performs administrative functions.”
`IPR2016-01063, Paper 20 at 8–10. In that same decision, the Board also
`construed “authorized user” as “a user who is given permission to access
`information.” Id. at 8. The Board also disagreed, in that decision, with
`Patent Owner’s assertion that an “administrator” is mutually exclusive to an
`“authorized user.” Id. at 9–10. Petitioner argues the Board should apply
`those same constructions in this proceeding. Pet. 11.
`Patent Owner, however, argues these constructions “should be
`revisited to distinguish between the administrator and the authorized user.”
`Prelim. Resp. 20. Patent Owner also argues “[t]he Board should also
`construe the terms ‘second user’ and ‘third user,’ which appear in claim 60.”
`Id. Patent Owner proposes the following constructions:
`Administrator: An entity
`that performs administrative
`functions. This entity is different from the
`authorized user and the second/third users.
`This entity uses a first level administrative
`privilege to specify an authorized user.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Second User:
`
`Third User:
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`
`the
`is authorized by
`Authorized User: A user who
`administrator
`to grant access
`to zone
`information and object
`location event
`information. This user is different from the
`administrator and the second/third users.
`This user uses a second level administrative
`privilege
`to grant access
`to
`location
`information about other users (such as the
`second user) to other users (such as the third
`user).
`A user whose location is tracked by the
`authorized user. This user is different from
`the administrator and the authorized user.
`A user who is given permission to receive
`location information. This user is different
`from the administrator and the authorized
`user.
`Id. at 25–26. Patent Owner argues “[t]hese are the only reasonable
`interpretations of these four terms as they are used in the claims of the ’113
`patent, and certainly the only interpretations that are consistent with the
`patent specification.” Id. at 26.
`We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the ’113 patent
`requires construing an “administrator” as “different from the authorized user
`and the second/third users.” Prelim. Resp. 25–26. To the contrary, the ’113
`patent specification confirms that an “administrator” may be an “authorized
`user.” In particular, the ’113 patent specification describes “administrators”
`as being “given privileges to configure the information-sharing
`environment.” Ex. 1001 at 5:41–44. The specification further describes
`scenarios in which an administrator defining a group is also a member of
`that group—for example, a parent: “After a group has been defined, the
`administrator can associate individual users with one or more of the defined
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`groups. Similarly, a parent administering an information-sharing
`environment might define groups such as parents, teenagers, children,
`drivers, and so forth.” Id. at 13:20–25 (emphases added). A fair reading of
`this passage is that the parent defining the sub-groups within the family
`group is both the administrator and an authorized user in at least the “parent”
`group.
`For purposes of institution, we conclude an “administrator,” construed
`according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, is not mutually exclusive
`with an “authorized user” (which Patent Owner equates with a “first user”),
`a “second user,” or a “third user,” as Patent Owner proposes. In addition, to
`the extent that any claim contains language expressly differentiating these
`entities, as Patent Owner contends (Prelim. Resp. 23), we decline to adopt
`Patent Owner’s proposed constructions that render redundant explicit
`recitations in the claims.
`
`We also decline, at this juncture, to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed
`constructions that link the “administrator” with a “first level administrative
`privilege” and the “first user / authorized user” with a “second level
`administrative privilege.” The claims do not recite “administrative
`privilege,” and Patent Owner’s attempt to add limitations, under the guise of
`claim construction, specifying not only an “administrative privilege” but
`different levels of administrative privilege that are each reserved to specific
`classes of users, is untenable and improper. See Hoganas AB v. Dresser
`Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 950 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“It is improper for a court to
`add ‘extraneous’ limitations to a claim, that is, limitations added ‘wholly
`apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`or phrases in the claim.’”) (quoting E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v.
`Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
`
`We adopt, for purposes of this institution decision, the Board’s
`previous constructions of “authorized user” and “administrator” as noted
`above and for the reasons stated in the decision to institute in IPR2016-
`01063 (Paper 20).
`
`We do not need to further construe the claims to assess the reasonable
`likelihood threshold for inter partes review. Thus, we decline to adopt
`further express constructions of claim terms at this time. 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 Asserted Prior Art
`Petitioner asserts that the subject matter of one or more of claims 1–
`621 is anticipated by Fast; is obvious in view of Fast and Phillips; and/or is
`obvious in view of Fast, Phillips, and Linberg. Pet. 7. We provide an
`overview of the primary reference, Fast, before turning to the individual
`grounds.
`
`Fast describes a system for monitoring various parameters (such as
`speed, position, and threshold boundaries) of mobile items associated with
`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.
`
`
`1 As noted above, remaining for consideration after Patent Owner’s statutory
`disclaimer (Ex. 2017) are claims 4–6, 45, 57, 58, and 60–62.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 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.
`Fast’s GMMS system includes “administrators” responsible for permitting
`subscribers access to a dedicated portal for receiving location monitoring
`services. Id. at 6:12–14, 16:4–11. The subscriber logs into the portal with a
`user ID and password, and, in turn, is offered “preference settings” for
`designating other users, such as other subscribers or guardians, with various
`levels of access privileges. Id. at 6:21–23, 42:14–35, Figs. 16-1, 16-2. 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
`indicate whether other users are restricted from using any functionality of
`the portal. Id. at 42:32–35, 42:48–52.
`
`A subscriber may purchase multiple beacons for tracking multiple
`items using GMMS, such as individuals (e.g., members of a family) or
`objects (e.g., vehicles). Ex. 1003, 24:56–65, 33:1–17. Zones may be
`created, such as “allowed or disallowed zones,” to provide monitoring of the
`tracked items in particular areas, which may be activated or deactivated
`according to a schedule. Id. at 20:63–67, 35:9–36:41. The GMMS software
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`may be configured to send automatic notifications upon certain conditions,
`such as a beacon reaching a specified location. Id. at 12:40–44.
`
` Also using the GMMS subscriber portal, an authorized user (such as
`a guardian), if not restricted from this functionality by the subscriber, may
`build 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. For example, a scenario could be created 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.
`
`C. Petitioner’s Asserted Grounds
`1. Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 4–6, 45, 57, 58, 60, and 62 by Fast
`Although Petitioner framed its arguments primarily in the context of
`
`independent claim 1, Patent Owner has disclaimed that claim. We,
`therefore, focus our analysis on claim 4, which depends, through claim 2,
`from claim 1.
`
`a. Claim 4
`Claim 4 (including the limitations of claims 1 and 2) contemplates
`
`conveying information relating to objects among a plurality of users of
`computing devices associated with “user identification codes,” including
`“first,” “second,” and “third” user identification codes. An administrator
`specifies an “access privilege” to an “authorized user” selected from a group
`of users, associated with the first user identification code, and grants access
`to zone information and object location event information based on that
`user’s access privilege. A computing device associated with the first user
`identification code provides “zone information.” “Object event location
`information” is associated with the zone and with an object associated with
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`the “second user identification code.” An “access code” is associated with
`information about the object location, the zone, or the object location event,
`and the access code comprises a plurality of user identification codes,
`including the “third user identification code,” so that this information may
`be conveyed to a computing device associated with the third user
`identification code.
`In challenging claims 1, 2, and 4 as anticipated by Fast, Petitioner
`points to Fast’s description of a Guardian Mobile Monitoring System
`(“GMMS”) in which subscribers (users) purchase “beacons” for tracking
`individuals (e.g., family members) or objects (e.g., vehicles). Pet. 16; see
`also Ex. 1003, 24:56–65, 33:1–17. Fast’s system is deployed using
`computing devices (such as mobile phones, which may also serve as
`tracking beacons), which are associated with user identification codes (e.g.,
`user IDs or combination of user IDs, phone numbers, beacon serial numbers,
`etc.). Pet. 16; Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003, 9:55–67, 21:67–22:9, Fig. 16-1,
`34:41–43, 34:53–57); see also Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:9–11, 9:31–32,
`9:55–67).
`Also like the claimed invention, Fast’s GMMS system includes
`“administrators” responsible for permitting access to a dedicated portal for
`receiving location monitoring services, such as system administrators. Id. at
`6:12–14, 16:4–11. Fast further discloses that subscribers may also perform
`administrative functions for their own accounts. In particular, Fast discloses
`a “Subscriber Administration Module” that “gives end users the ability to
`perform a variety of functions and manage their own data.” Id. at 20:31–34,
`42:27–50; see also Figs. 16-1, 16-2. Included within the administrative
`capabilities of a Fast subscriber are adding, deleting, and updating system
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`users and assigning access levels to each user, indicating what functionality
`they are allowed to use. Id. at 42:41–50. Specifically, in Fast, the subscriber
`logs into the dedicated subscriber portal with a user ID and password, and, in
`turn, is offered “preference settings” for designating other users with various
`levels of access privileges “based on User type.” Id. at 6:21–23, 42:14–35,
`Figs. 16-1, 16-2. Typically, the subscriber has the highest level of access
`within the portal, and the subscriber may assign an access level to each other
`user (such as another subscriber or one or more guardians) indicating if they
`will be restricted from using any functionality. Id. at 42:32–35.
`With regard to receiving zone and event information, Petitioner
`asserts that Fast discloses receiving zone information (e.g., user-created
`geofences) from a computing device (e.g., a subscriber’s or guardian’s
`device) associated with the first user identification code (e.g., a subscriber’s
`or guardian’s ID), wherein the zone information (e.g., user-created
`geofences) relates to a zone having at least one coordinate within a
`coordinate system (e.g., a geofence defined on a map having a longitude and
`latitude). Pet. 16–18. As Petitioner further asserts, Fast discloses, in Figure
`16, a subscriber portal that allows a user to create geofence-based scenarios.
`Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003, 32:59–62; id., Fig. 16-2, item 520; id., Fig. 11-1,
`items 258 and 260). As Petitioner asserts, Fast discloses this functionality
`may be invoked by a subscriber as well as by another user, such as a
`guardian, authorized by the subscriber to have access to the same
`functionality. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003, 18:52–54 (guardians may access
`portals to which they have authorization); Fig. 16-2, item 534; 42:30–35
`(describing how guardian users may access subscriber portal); 42:48–50).
`Fast’s Scenario Manager is further depicted in Figure 11-1, which discloses
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00969
`Patent 8,149,113 B2
`
`how a user can specify zones as part of a location-tracking scenario. Pet. 17
`(citing Ex. 1003, 8:51, 33:34–36; Ex. 1009 ¶ 79). As Fast explains:
`The 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 communication methods.”
`Ex. 1003, 32:51–56.
`For example, in Fast, a parent/subscriber, acting as an administrator,
`may authorize a guardian (having a computing device associated with a first
`user identification code), such as a babysitter, to track the location of a child
`(having a computing device, such as a beacon, associated with a second user
`identification code). Pet. 33–34; Ex. 1003, 4:61–62, 20:42–45, 43:1–11,
`Fig. 16-2 (Block 527, “Assign Guardians to Dependents/Assets”). Unless
`the subscriber restricts the guardian’s access to this functionality, the
`guardian may carry out this tracking responsibility by using the Scenario
`Manager through the subscriber portal to create scenarios, wherein the
`system will convey at least objection location information (such as
`information about the location of the tracked child relative to a designated
`zone), to “specified people,” which include the guardian as well the
`subscriber and/or another user (third user). Pet 34; see also Ex. 1003, at
`4:61–62, 43:1–11, 32:51–56, 35:7–36:11, Figs. 16-1, 16-2, 11-1, and 11-2.
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
