Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
` 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 IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 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 13
` 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 IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 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 IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 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 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,319,471 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’471 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.”).
`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 Preliminary Response, we conclude that
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that the
`challenged claims are unpatentable. Accordingly, we authorize inter partes
`review of all of the challenged claims of the ’471 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.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner represents that the ’471 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; 8,149,113;
`9,119,033; 9,485,314; and 9,071,931.” Pet. 4. Petitioner also identifies
`pending U.S. patent application nos. 14/629,347 and 15/200,592 as related to
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`the ’471 patent. Pet. 5. 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.
`
`Petitioner has also filed IPR petitions challenging certain claims of the
`’314, ’113, ’033, and ’661 patents, respectively: IPR2017-00968; IPR2017-
`00969; IPR2017-01007; and IPR2017-01269.
`
`Petitioner represents that the ’471,’113, ’033, and ’314 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. 4–5. A review
`of the complaint filed in that case reveals that the ’012, ’499, and ’931
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`patents, for which reviews have been instituted and are pending as noted
`above, are also at issue in that litigation.
`
`B. The ’471 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’471 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, 6:18–30 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 2:35–44, 19:49–52.
`One or more administrators may be given privileges to configure an
`information-sharing environment by “specifying authorized users of the
`[information-sharing] environment and their access privileges.” Id. at 5:39–
`42; 13:19–23. 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. 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 9:14–56. The mother
`may then use 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
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`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 1–20, of which claims 1, 8, and 12 are
`independent. Challenged claim 1 is reproduced below, with formatting
`added.1
`
`[1P] A tracking system comprising:
`[1.1] one or more servers capable of communicating object
`location information to a group comprising a plurality of
`users having user IDs, said group having a group ID, said
`group being one of a plurality of groups each having
`corresponding group IDs and user IDs,
`[1.2] said object location information relating to a plurality
`of mobile objects having object IDs,
`[1.3] wherein a first object ID of a first mobile object of said
`plurality of mobile objects is associated with a first
`location information source that provides a first location
`information corresponding to first coordinates of said
`first mobile object within a first coordinate system, and
`wherein a second object ID of a second mobile object of
`said plurality of mobile objects is associated with a
`second location information source that provides a
`second location information corresponding to second
`coordinates of said second mobile object within a second
`coordinate system,
`[1.4] said second coordinates being relative to said first
`coordinates based on proximity of the first mobile object
`to the second mobile object,
`[1.5] the one or more servers being configured to:
`[1.6] define first level administrative privileges to control
`user membership in said group;
`
`1 For expediency, Petitioner breaks claim 1 into limitations 1P and 1.1–1.18.
`Pet. 15–16. We adopt that format herein for ease of reference.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`
`[1.7] define second level administrative privileges to control
`conveyance of said object location information to said
`group;
`[1.8] check the first level administrative privileges before
`associating a user ID with a group ID of said group;
`[1.9] check the second level administrative privileges before
`associating said first object ID and said second object ID
`with said group ID of said group;
`[1.10] provide one or more interfaces for setting at least one
`of a zone, an event, or an alert;
`[1.11] receive a request to set a zone;
`[1.12] receive a request to set an event based upon said zone
`and said object location information;
`[1.13] receive a request to set an alert based upon said event,
`said alert being associated with an access privilege, said
`request identifying said group as being the recipient of
`said alert;
`[1.14] check the second level administrative privileges
`before setting said zone, said event, and said alert;
`[1.15] store said zone, said event and said alert in one or
`more databases;
`[1.16] receive object IDs and object location information;
`[1.17] compare said object IDs and said object location
`information with said zone and said event to determine
`whether to send said alert to said group; and
`[1.18] cause the alert to be sent to said group based on said
`access privilege.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`
`D. 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) Ghazarian, U.S. Patent No. 7,034,683, filed December 5, 2001,
`published as U.S. Patent Pub. 2002/0089434 on July 11, 2002, and issued on
`April 25, 2006 (“Ghazarian”) (Ex. 1018), which Petitioner asserts is prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (Pet. 7).
`Petitioner asserts claims 1–20 of the ’471 patent are unpatentable on
`the following grounds:
`
`
`Reference(s)
`Fast
`Fast and Phillips
`
`Fast, Phillips, and
`Ghazarian
`
`Basis
`§ 102(e)
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 7, 12, and 14
`1–5, 7–10, 12–14, and 16–
`20
`1–20
`
`Pet. 8.
`Petitioner also relies on the declaration of Dr. Stephen Heppe, an
`engineering consultant with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, which was
`submitted as Exhibit 1011 in IPR2016–01278. Pet. 7–8; Ex. 1011.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`In this preliminary proceeding, we decide whether Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that “at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition” is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`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
`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 two terms for construction: “near field
`communications” and “tag.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner does not comment
`on Petitioner’s proposed constructions or offer competing constructions for
`those terms. We conclude, at this stage, that no construction of these terms
`is necessary for us to assess the reasonable likelihood threshold for inter
`partes review. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`Patent Owner presents three terms for construction: “first level
`administrative privilege,” “second level administrative privilege,” and
`“group.” Prelim. Resp. 21. Patent Owner argues that “[t]hese terms make
`clear that there are at least three different privileges that are assigned to at
`least three different membership levels.” Id. at 20. Patent Owner proposes
`that these terms be construed as follows:
`First level administrative
`Privilege to perform first level
`privilege
`administrative
`functions.
` This
`level is different from the second
`level administrative privilege. This
`level controls who is part of the
`group membership.
`
`Privilege to perform second level
`administrative
`functions.
` This
`level is different from the first level
`administrative privilege. This level
`controls conveyance of object
`location information.
`
`A group of users who are given
`permission to receive the group
`alert. Privileges for general group
`members are different from the
`first level administrative privilege
`and the second level administrative
`privilege.
`
`Second level
`administrative privilege
`
`Group
`
`Id. at 21.
`
`
`
`1. “first level administrative privileges” /
`“second level administrative privileges
`With regard to the first two terms presented by Patent Owner, we
`
`decline, at this juncture, to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed constructions to
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`the extent they are redundant of explicit recitations in the claims. For
`example, claim 1 recites “one or more servers configured to . . . define first
`level administrative privileges to control user membership in said group,”
`and similarly recites “one or more servers configured to . . . define second
`level administrative privileges to control conveyance of said object location
`information to said group.” Ex. 1001, 23:6–10 (emphases added). These
`explicit limitations in the claims do not need to be restated (or paraphrased)
`in the definition of the first and second level administrative privileges, as
`Patent Owner proposes.
`
`In addition, we also decline, at this juncture, to adopt Patent Owner’s
`proposed constructions to the extent they restrict which entities may be
`allowed to exercise which privileges—e.g., by stating that each level is
`“different from” the other level. Prelim. Resp. 21. We agree each
`administrative privilege level is recited distinctly in the claims. On the
`present record, however, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments
`that this recitation in the claims limits the exercise of each level of privilege
`to a different level of user. See Prelim. Resp. 26–27 (arguing that Fast
`cannot anticipate claim 1 because Fast’s subscribers may exercise both
`privileges). Patent Owner’s argument does not find support in the language
`of claim 1, which requires that a server is configured to “define” and
`“check” the first and second administrative privilege levels, but does not
`specify which entity or user may exercise each level. Patent Owner’s
`argument is also inconsistent with the ’471 patent specification, which is
`similarly non-restrictive in terms of which entity or user may exercise each
`level of administrative privilege. The ’471 patent specification makes clear,
`for example, that control over membership in a user group (the “first level
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`administrative privilege[]” in claim 1) may be exercised by different types of
`users, such as by an “administrator” and also by a user in that group, such as
`a “parent”:
`An administrator may define one or more groups to which a
`given user may be associated. . . . After a group has been
`defined, the administrator can associate individual users with
`one or more of the defined groups. Similarly, a parent
`administering an information-sharing environment might define
`groups such as parents, teenagers, children, drivers, and so
`forth. . . . In accordance with the present invention, any user
`can define a group, for example, a group of friends, a study
`group, etc.
`Id. at 13:10–32 (emphases added). In other words, the ’471 patent
`contemplates that the privilege to add users to a group may be exercised by
`an administrator and also by a user in a group (such as a parent adding
`family members).
`
`The ’471 patent further contemplates that “any user” in a group (such
`as a parent) may also control conveyance of object location information (the
`“second level administrative privilege[]” recited in claim 1). Ex. 1001,
`10:15–18 (stating “any user can associate a source of location information
`with an object, define a user-defined zone, and define an object location
`event” (emphasis added)). In particular, the ’471 patent specification
`describes an “exemplary scenario” in which a “mother desiring to track the
`location of a teenage daughter” may define one or more “zones” and one or
`more “object location events” so that the mother will receive notifications
`(such as by email) when, for example, the daughter enters or leaves a user-
`defined zone. Id. at 9:14–56. The ’471 patent specification also states that,
`in that exemplary scenario, the mother may “facilitate the conveyance of the
`objection location information to another trusted user,” such as the father.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`Id. at 11:5–13. Thus, in the ’471 patent, a user (such as a parent) may
`exercise both the “first level administrative privilege” to add other family
`members to a family group, and may also exercise the “second level
`administrative privilege” to control conveyance of object location
`information to the group (such as to another family member). Therefore, to
`the extent Patent Owner proposes a construction of “first level
`administrative privilege” and “second level administrative privilege” that
`makes exercise of each privilege mutually exclusive to a different type of
`user, Patent Owner’s arguments are not supported by the intrinsic record,
`and we decline, at this juncture, to adopt that construction.
`
`For purposes of this decision, we construe “first level administrative
`privilege” as “a privilege that may be exercised by any entity authorized to
`add, delete, and/or edit membership in a user group,” and we construe
`“second level administrative privilege” as “a privilege that may be exercised
`by any entity authorized to convey object location information to a member
`of a user group.”
`
`2. “group”
`The language of claim 1 states that a “group” comprises “a plurality of
`
`users having user IDs, said group having a group ID.” Ex. 1001, 22:53–55.
`Patent Owner’s construction, however, goes further by defining a group as
`comprised of members that lack certain privileges, stating “[p]rivileges for
`general group members are different from the first level administrative
`privilege and the second level administrative privilege.” Prelim. Resp. 21.
`As noted above, the language of the claims does not require that first or
`second level administrative privileges be restricted to any particular users;
`the claim language similarly does not require that a “group” includes
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`“general” members who do not have access to either of these privileges, as
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction states.
`
`We also are not persuaded, at this juncture, by Patent Owner’s
`argument that the term “group” should be construed as limited to users who
`are “given permission to receive the group alert.” Prelim. Resp. 21. In the
`’471 patent, the term “group” does not denote a particular membership of
`users, but generally refers to a “group” of people and is otherwise is context-
`specific. For example, the ’471 patent specification states “a given user may
`be included in a group indicating members of a family, a company, a club, or
`an association.” Ex. 1001, 7:7–9. A “group” in this context may or may not
`mean that every member is a user. The ’471 patent specification also states
`“[t]he user identification code may also be associated with one or more
`groups having corresponding group identification codes.” Id. at 7:52–54. A
`“group” in this context is more formal in that it has an identification code.
`In another context, the ’471 patent specification states “an access code
`specifies the individual users or groups having access to the information to
`which the access code is associated provided a given user knows the
`password.” Id. at 8:4–7. A “group” in this context is given access to
`particular information. The ’471 patent further contemplates that groups
`may overlap or have sub-groups, as the specification notes that “a user may
`be associated with one or more groups defined by an administrator of an
`information-sharing environment.” Id. at 13:27–29; see also id. at 13:10–29;
`Prelim. Resp. 6 (noting that individuals with the privilege to control group
`membership “can create new sub-groups”).
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`In short, for purposes of this decision, we reject Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction of “group” as overly narrow, and we conclude the
`term “group” should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`We also conclude no construction of any other claim terms is
`necessary at this stage for us to assess the reasonable likelihood threshold for
`inter partes review.
`B. Description of the Asserted Prior Art
`Petitioner asserts that the subject matter of one or more of claims 1–20
`is anticipated by Fast; is obvious in view of Fast and Phillips; and/or is
`obvious in view of Fast, Phillips, and Ghazarian. Pet. 8. 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.
`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, in turn, logs into the
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`portal with a user ID and password, and 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
`may be set up 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.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`
`C. Petitioner’s Asserted Grounds
`1. Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 by Fast
`Petitioner asserts that Fast anticipates claims 1, 7, 12, and 14. Pet.
`
`11–36. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments, and we find them
`sufficient for purposes of institution and supported by the cited disclosures.
`We highlight the following for emphasis, focusing our analysis on
`independent claim 1.
`
`a. Claim 1
` Claim 1 of the ’471 patent contemplates a “tracking system” for
`
`communicating object location information relating to a plurality of mobile
`objects (e.g., persons, things, or vehicles to be tracked) among users in a
`user group, wherein the users have user IDs, the group has a group ID, and
`the mobile objects have object IDs. Ex. 1001, 22:52–59. In the claimed
`system, one or more servers are configured to “define first level
`administrative privileges to control user membership in said group,” and also
`to “define second level administrative privileges to control conveyance of
`said object location information to said group.” Id., at 23:8–10. The server
`is also configured to check the first level administrative privileges before
`associating user IDs with the group, and to check the second level
`administrative privileges before associating object IDs with the group. Id.,
`at 23:11–15. The server is also configured, inter alia, to receive requests to
`set zones and events, and to set alerts based on events, and to compare the
`object IDs and the object location information with the zone and event to
`determine whether to send an alert to the group, wherein alerts are associated
`with access privilege. Id., at 23:16–34.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`
`(1) “first level administrative privileges” /
`“second level administrative privileges”
`With regard to “one or more servers being configured to . . . define
`
`first level administrative privileges to control user membership in said
`group,” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent
`claims 8 and 12, Petitioner argues “Fast utilizes user login credentials to give
`retailers, wholesalers, subscribers, and other users the privilege to access
`GMMS.” Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003, FIG. 14-1, box 405c; Ex. 1011,
`¶¶ 96–98). We are persuaded, for purposes of institution, that Fast’s system
`demonstrates “first level administrative privileges” because, inter alia, a
`password and login ID allow Fast’s retailers, wholesalers, and/or subscribers
`to control membership in a group. In particular, as Petitioner contends, Fast
`discloses that after a retailer/wholesaler logs into a portal (Ex. 1003, FIG.
`14-1, item 404), they may add/update/delete subscribers (id. at FIG. 14-2,
`item 416), add/update/delete other users (id. at item 412), and assign
`beacons to a subscriber (id. at item 432). Pet. 23. Similarly, after a
`subscriber logs into a portal (Ex. 1003, FIG. 16-1, item 504), the subscriber
`may manage user types—including adding/updating/ deleting system users
`(id. at Fig. 16–2, items 530, 532)—and may also manage dependents/
`personnel (id. at FIG. 16-2, item 522), manage beacons (id. at item 523), and
`manage supervisors/guardians (id. at items 526 and 527). Petitioner further
`contends the “group” recited in claim 1 may be mapped to Fast’s disclosure
`of a subscriber’s group, which includes, inter alia, the guardians/supervisors
`responsible for tracking the dependents/personnel (id. at 43:1–11, 20:57–62).
`Pet. 23.
`
`With regard to “one or more servers being configured to . . . define
`second level administrative privileges to control conveyance of said object
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`location information to said group,” as recited in claim 1 and
`commensurately recited in independent claims 8 and 12, Petitioner argues
`Fast discloses this limitation by describing subscriber-level privileges that
`include administrative privileges to assign access privileges to other users,
`allowing them to control conveyance of information regarding the group
`(e.g., to create scenarios based on, for example, geofencing violations).
`Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1011, ¶ 86). For example, a subscriber may create one or
`more guardians and assign them access privileges to the one or more
`beacons (which may be assigned to dependents). Ex. 1003, 20:42–62, 43:1–
`11). The guardian may access the beacon’s location information through the
`subscriber portal. Id. at FIG. 16, 41:37–41. Petitioner also argues that,
`according to Fast, a guardian may be authorized by the subscriber to build
`scenarios and set notification schemes. Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1003, FIG.
`16-2, items 518, 520, showing access to the Scenario Manager; id. at FIG.
`11-1, item 278, showing the selection of a notification scheme as part of the
`Scenario Manager). Not all users may use the Scenario Manager, however,
`because the subscriber may “assign an access level 534 indicating what
`functionality [a user] will be restricted from using.” Ex. 1003, 42:48–50. In
`other words, as Petitioner argues, Fast discloses a system in which a
`subscriber (and guardians authorized by the subscriber) have access to the
`Scenario Manager (and other features), with which they can control
`conveyance of object location information, while other users may be
`restricted from using that functionality. See Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1011, ¶ 107).
`Thus, Petitioner contends, Fast discloses subscribers have the claimed
`“second level administrative privileges” because they (and others authorized
`by them) can control the conveyance of information for beacons in the
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00973
`Patent 9,319,471 B2
`
`subscriber account (e.g., the group) from the server to other computing
`devices. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1011, ¶¶ 107–109).
`
`Patent Owner acknowledges subscribers in Fast may create scenarios
`and control membership in groups, but argues Fast’s disclosure of
`subscribers being able to perform both functions is exactly why Fast does
`not anticipate claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 25–28. In particular, Patent Owner
`argues Fast’s deficiency is that:
`[i]n Fast, the privileges to control group membership and
`control group information conveyance are not split between
`different levels. They are instead inseparably intertwined at the
`same level: namely, the privilege level required to create a
`scenario. See generally Fast at 32:15–36:51 (explaining the
`functionality of Fast’s “Scenario Manager,” which allows
`privileged users to build scenarios by creating groups and
`notification schemes).
`Id. at 26 (emphases added). Thus, Patent Owner’s argument is premised on
`construing the claims as requiring that the first and second administrative
`privileges are “split between levels,” by which Patent Owner apparently
`means these privileges are each exercised exclusively by users at different
`levels of hierarchy in the system. This point is illustrated by Patent Owner’s
`argument that Petitioner “conflates both alleged levels of privilege” in
`reading these limitations on Fast, because Fast’s subscribers “have the
`ability to create scenarios that first assemble groups and then assign
`notification schemes to convey information to those groups.” Id. at 27; see
`also id. at 30 (arguing that the claims “plainly require” that the two
`privileges be split “into separate ‘levels,’ such that one level might be held
`by one user while another level might be held by another user”).
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
