United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`FedEx Corporation,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC and Callahan Cellular LLC
`
`Patent Owners
`
`
`Patent No. 7,199,715
`Filing Date: March 1, 2005
`Issue Date: April 3, 2007
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRACKING ID TAGS USING A
`DATA STRUCTURE OF TAG READS
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 1
`
`IV Exhibit 2104
`FedEx v. IV
`Case IPR2017-02028
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
`EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED ................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ............................................... 3
`
`Statutory Grounds.................................................................................. 4
`
`III.
`
`’715 PATENT OVERVIEW ......................................................................... 5
`
`IV. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................10
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`“modifying part of the information in the database as a function
`of other information in the database” ..................................................11
`
`VI. Ground 1: Jones Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................13
`A. Overview of Jones ...............................................................................13
`
`B.
`
`Jones Renders Obvious Each Element of Claims 1, 2, 11,
`and 12 ..................................................................................................15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................15
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................23
`
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................25
`
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................35
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 2
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`VII. Ground 2: Jones and Bauer Render Obvious Claims 4, 5, 7-9, 14,
`15, 17-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................37
`A. Overview of Bauer ..............................................................................38
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Combine Jones and Bauer ..............39
`
`Jones and Bauer Render Obvious Each Element of Claims 4, 5,
`and 7-9 .................................................................................................42
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................42
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................45
`
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................46
`
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................47
`
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................48
`
`D.
`
`Jones and Bauer Render Obvious Each Element of Claims 14,
`15, 17, and 18 ......................................................................................50
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 14 ....................................................................................50
`
`Claims 15, 17, and 18 ...............................................................51
`
`E.
`
`Jones and Bauer Render Obvious Each Element of Claims 19,
`20, 22, 23, 25, and 26 ..........................................................................53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 19 and 20.......................................................................53
`
`Claim 22 ....................................................................................56
`
`Claims 23, 25, and 26 ...............................................................57
`
`F.
`
`Jones and Bauer Render Obvious Each Element of Claim 29 ...........59
`
`1.
`
`Claim 29 ....................................................................................59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`VIII. MANDATORY NOTICES .........................................................................66
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................66
`
`Related Matters ....................................................................................66
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information .......................67
`
`Service Information .............................................................................68
`
`IX. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................68
`
`X.
`
`FEE PAYMENTS ........................................................................................68
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................69
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 4
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1001:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715 to Fields et al. (“the ’715 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002:
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/069,788.
`
`Exhibit 1003:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,952,645 to Jones (“Jones”).
`
`Exhibit 1004:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,321,302 to Bauer et al. (“Bauer”).
`
`Exhibit 1005:
`
`Declaration of Jason Hill, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1006:
`
`Exhibit 1007:
`
`Exhibit 1008:
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`v. FedEx Corp. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00980 (Aug. 31, 2016),
`ECF No. 1.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II Claim Chart Alleging FedEx
`Infringement of the ’715 patent
`
`Exhibit C to Intellectual Ventures II Infringement Contentions
`of January 17, 2017 in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx
`Corp. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00980 (Aug. 31, 2016).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 5
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ___________________________________________ 38
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ____________________________________ 10
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ___________________________ 10
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(c) ___________________________________________ 69
`
`Other Authorities
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48657, 48698 ________________________________________ 11
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48657, 48764 ________________________________________ 11
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ____________________________________________ 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) __________________________________________ 11
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 6
`
`

`

`Petitioner FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”) requests inter partes review of
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,199,715 (“the ’715 patent”) (Ex. 1001), assigned in public records to
`
`Callahan Cellular LLC but now purportedly assigned to Intellectual Ventures II,
`
`LLC (“IV2” or “Patent Owner”). The Board should institute review and cancel
`
`claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29.
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The ’715 patent tracks tags as they travel along a business process. Ex. 1001
`
`at Abstract. Tracking the tags includes, for example, receiving tag read information
`
`from tags attached to packages at successive points in the business process,
`
`time-stamping these readings, and recording the information in a database. Id.
`
`at 1:7-15. The ’715 patent explains, however, that a poor read at any given point
`
`along the business process will result in incomplete tag read data. Id. at 1:33-37.
`
`Thus, a system or a human operator goes back to “modify” the tag read data based
`
`on “other information” in the database, such as knowledge of the intended route
`
`indicating the path taken along the business process. Id. at 6:43-55. For example,
`
`the system or human operator will backfill missing tag read information in a
`
`database when, for whatever reason, tag read information is missing or incomplete
`
`for a read point along a route, but other information reflects that tag has otherwise
`
`traveled along the intended route as expected. Id. at 6:43-55. A human operator
`
`
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 7
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`may also adjust the business process based on the modified information to address,
`
`e.g., inventory shrinkage. Id. at 2:1-18, 7:1-9, and 10:57-11:9.
`
`The ’715 patent explains that there was nothing new about tracking the
`
`location of products or other physical objects with tags. Ex. 1001 at 1:16-24.
`
`Indeed, the ’715 patent concedes that such tracking already included ignoring poor
`
`reads and inferring missing data to increase tag read precision. Id. at 1:33-41.
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner also noted that “[t]racking tags at successive
`
`points in a business process is not new.” Ex. at 1002, ¶ 3. Nonetheless, after an
`
`otherwise limited examination, the USPTO allowed the ’715 patent on the premise
`
`that the “prior art does not include a system that reads each tag in addition to
`
`populating a database with information corresponding to the reading of the tag and
`
`modifying part of the information as a function of other information and using this
`
`information to track the tags through a business process.” Id. But such database
`
`population and modification was also well known and implemented in existing
`
`tracking systems.
`
`For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,952,645 to Jones (“Jones”,” Ex. 1003), and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,321,302 to Bauer et al. (“Bauer,” Ex. 1004) teach tracking tags
`
`at successive points of a business process and modifying the tracking information
`
`using the methods claimed in the ’715 patent. Indeed, Jones discloses a tag
`
`tracking system that tracks tags attached to a vehicle traveling along successive
`
`
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 8
`
`

`

`checkpoints of a travel route, such as a delivery or bus route. Jones at Abstract.
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`Jones also teaches correcting data tables as part of tracking these tags as they travel
`
`along the travel route. Jones at 18:1-26 and 19:35-40. And, like Jones, Bauer
`
`collects and manipulates tracking data to track tags through successive points of a
`
`business process. In particular, Bauer collects inventory information from radio
`
`frequency ID (“RFID”) tags attached to products as part of performing various
`
`inventory tracking and management processes. Bauer at Abstract. Bauer further
`
`teaches adjusting supply chains based on inventory information collected from the
`
`RFID tags. Id. at Abstract. Indeed, Bauer discloses determining, reporting, and
`
`providing corrective actions for trigger events associated with inventory shrinkage,
`
`depletion of inventory, defects in inventory, or movement of inventory. Id. Neither
`
`Jones nor Bauer, however, was considered by the Examiner during prosecution.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
` Claims for Which Review Is Requested A.
`
`FedEx respectfully requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 1, 2, 4,
`
`5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29 of the ’715 patent and
`
`cancellation of those claims as unpatentable.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 9
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`Statutory Grounds
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29 of the
`
`’715 patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled as obvious in view of the
`
`following grounds and prior art references.
`
`Prior Art References
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,952,645 to Jones (Ex. 1003, “Jones”) was filed
`
`Ref. 1:
`
`September 30, 1998 and issued on October 4, 2005, and thus
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,321,302 to Bauer et al. (Ex. 1004, “Bauer”) was
`
`Ref. 2:
`
`filed January 23, 2003, issued November 27, 2012, and thus qualifies
`
`as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Jones renders obvious claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Jones and Bauer render obvious claims 4, 5, 7-9, 14, 15, 17-20, 22,
`
`23, 25, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 10
`
`

`

`III.
`
`’715 PATENT OVERVIEW
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`The ’715 patent was filed on March 1, 2005, as U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 11/069,788. Ex. at 1001 at 1. The ’715 patent is directed to tracking tags,
`
`which “may be any device or marking,” as they travel along a business process.
`
`Id. at Abstract, 3:45-52. In particular, the tags are tracked or monitored at
`
`successive points in the business process, as depicted in Figure 2:
`
`
`Annotated ’715 Patent Fig. 2, Depicting a Business Process Having Successive
`Points
`
`The ’715 patent explains that a processor 108 receives tag read information
`
`as the tags travel along the business process. Id. at 4:3-10. Processor 108 analyzes
`
`recorded tag 102 identifications with the read time the tag passes a given tag
`
`reading point. Id. at 3:53-4:5 and 4:18-29. It then populates database 110 with tag
`
`read information. Id. at 4:20-29. Thus, disclosed methods include receiving tag
`
`read information from tags carried by packages through several points in the
`
`
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 11
`
`

`

`business process, time-stamping these readings, and recording the information in a
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`database. Id. at 1:7-15.
`
`But because processor 108 may receive incomplete data for any given point
`
`along the business process, or not receive any data at all, the disclosed process may
`
`also include “modifying” the collected tag read data based on other information in
`
`the database. Id. at 3:55-62 and 9:54-10:6. For example, as noted above, missing or
`
`incomplete data may become backfilled based on knowledge of the approximate
`
`travel time between successive points, the intended route, subsequent tag read
`
`information reflecting that the tag has otherwise traveled along the intended route
`
`as expected, etc. Id at 9:54-10:6, 10:47-56.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 12
`
`

`

`For example, processor 108 may estimate the expected time of the missing
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`tag read based on “other information” in the database. Id.at 6:43-55. Specifically,
`
`processor 108 modifies, or corrects, cells in the database with the data modification
`
`tool 112 based on, e.g., additional tag reads, estimated positioning, travel time, or
`
`distance. Id. at 6:28-55, 7:24-33, 7:47-67. Table 4 of the ’715 patent provides such
`
`an example, where processor 108 modifies the database for tags C and D to
`
`reflected an expected read time of 12:30 for the third read point based on such
`
`“other data”:
`
`’715 Patent Table 4 Depicting Modified Tag Read Data
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 13
`
`

`

`The ’715 patent includes claims directed to these concepts, which, as
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`detailed below, were well-known to wireless tag tracking before the earliest
`
`claimed priority date of the ’715 patent. Independent claim 1 recites:
`
`1. A method of tracking tags at several successive points of a business
`process, said method comprising:
`attempting to read each tag at each successive point;
`populating a database with information corresponding to the
`reading of each tag at each successive point and the time of each
`reading;
`modifying part of the information in the database as a function
`of other information in the database; and
`using the modified information to track the tags through the
`business process.
`
`Independent claim 11 embodies substantially the same concepts, and recites:
`
`11. A system of tracking tags at several successive points of a
`business process, said system comprising:
`a reader for reading each tag at each successive point and the
`time of each reading;
`a database;
`a processor responsive to the reader for storing in the database
`information corresponding to the reading of each tag at each
`successive point and the time of each reading; and
`a tool for modifying part of the information stored in the
`database as a function of other information stored in the database
`whereby the modified information is used to track the tags through
`the business process.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 14
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`Independent claim 19 embodies substantially the same concepts, and recites:
`
`19. A method of supplying products carrying tags wherein the
`products are handled in a supply chain during which the products and
`their tags pass several tag reading points, said method comprising:
`populating a database with information corresponding to the
`reading of each tag at each tag reading point and the time of each
`reading;
`modifying part of the information in the database as a function
`of other information in the database; and
`adjusting the supply chain as a function of the modified
`information.
`
`Independent claim 29 embodies substantially the same concepts, and recites:
`
`29. A method of improving the accuracy of a tag-enabled supply chain
`system comprising:
`applying tags to products in a supply chain, and associating tag
`code information with the products in the supply chain;
`tracking the products with tag readers at multiple locations in a
`supply chain, such that the time and location of tag reads are stored
`in a database of information about the supply chain;
`identifying an acceptable delay time between a first tag reader
`and a second tag reader in the supply chain, the first and second tag
`readers being successive on an intended pathway for the products;
`in response to a product being read by the first tag reader but
`not yet having been read by the second tag reader within the
`acceptable delay time, issuing an alert indicating that a problem
`may have occurred.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 15
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`IV. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`Factors defining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the types of
`
`problems encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those problems;
`
`(3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of
`
`technology; and (5) the educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`Based on these factors, a person of ordinary skill at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’715 patent would have held at least a bachelor’s degree in
`
`Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent
`
`or related field and at least two years of work experience or practical post-graduate
`
`work in the area of wireless tracking systems. Ex. 1005 at [030]-[031].
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). A claim in an unexpired patent subject to inter partes
`
`review receives the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification
`
`of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). As such, the
`
`constructions adopted in this proceeding may differ from the constructions in any
`
`district court or ITC litigation, including Case No. 2:16-cv-00980 in the U.S.
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 16
`
`

`

`In this proceeding, FedEx submits that the claim terms of the ’715 patent
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the disclosure.1 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(3); 77 Fed. Reg. 48657, 48764. FedEx offers the following comments,
`
`however, understanding that the Board may find written statements of patent
`
`owners regarding claim scope helpful in understanding and construing claims
`
`under the broadest reasonable interpretation. 77 Fed. Reg. 48657, 48698
`
`(explaining that the Office may take into consideration inconsistent statements
`
`made by a patent owner regarding claim scope submitted under 35 U.S.C. 301(d)).2
`
`A.
`
`
`“modifying part of the information in the database as a
`function of other information in the database”
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “modifying part of the information in the
`
`database as a function of other information in the database.” Independent claims 11
`
`and 19 include similar recitations, and dependent claims 2, 12, and 20 include
`
`
`1 While FedEx believes that additional claim terms may warrant construction, any
`
`such terms do not affect the analysis in this Petition. Additional terms may be
`
`construed in the related district court litigation.
`
`2 Because IPR procedures do not permit challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`Petitioner has not included any such arguments herein. Petitioner may, however,
`
`raise such arguments in other proceedings.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 17
`
`

`

`related recitations. While the ’715 patent consistently describes such
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`“modifying…as a function of” as correcting or revising tag read information to
`
`update the corresponding data structure with missing or incomplete information
`
`regarding a tag’s route through a business process (see, e.g., Ex. 1001 4:29-34,
`
`5:51-6:66), IV2’s allegations of infringement against FedEx construe the term
`
`more broadly. For example, in IV2’s infringement contentions in Intellectual
`
`Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00980 (Aug. 31, 2016),
`
`IV2 alleges that merely confirming or “validating” expected inventory contents,
`
`“the location of specific products,” or the “status in the supply chain” constitutes
`
`the claimed “modifying…as a function of.” Ex. 1008 at 20-24; see also Ex. 1007
`
`at 8-9. In fact, IV2 alleges that giving employees or operators “the opportunity to
`
`modify the information concerning [a] pallet and/or product in the database” falls
`
`within the scope of this limitation. Ex. 1008 at 23. As discussed below, Jones alone
`
`or in combination with Bauer renders claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 19, and 20 obvious
`
`regardless of whether the Board adopts the ordinary and customary meaning or a
`
`meaning consistent with IV2’s allegations for “modifying…as a function of.”
`
`
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 18
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`VI. Ground 1: Jones Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 under
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`A. Overview of Jones
`Jones discloses systems and methods for tracking tags as they travel along a
`
`business route. Ex. 1003 at 2:62- 3:12. In one embodiment, for example, Jones
`
`discloses systems and methods for tracking a “vehicle control unit (VCU) 15”
`
`attached to a vehicle traveling along a business route, such as a delivery or bus
`
`route. Id. at 2:29-46, 3:65-4:7. Jones also discloses populating a database with
`
`tracking data associated with tracking the VCU, and using that data to estimate
`
`other travel parameters such as travel time. Id. at 18:1-26 and 19:35-40. Jones also
`
`discloses modifying the database with, e.g., estimated travel and arrival times
`
`based on previous read points, and using this updated information to notify users of
`
`the status of tracked goods. Id. at 19:35-50.
`
`In one embodiment, Jones discloses a Base Station Control Unit
`
`(“BSCU”) 38 that monitors and receives transmissions from tracking VCU 15. Id.
`
`3:65-4:7, 5:43-53. The VCU 15 is a location sensor tag physically associated with
`
`the product being tracked. Id. at 18:3-20. Jones explains that while exemplary
`
`embodiments are discussed primarily with respect to tracking tags attached to
`
`vehicles, VCU 15 may be associated with “any mobile structure.” Id. at 4:1-7.
`
`Indeed, Jones discloses that “VCU 15 can be attached to an automobile, an
`
`
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 19
`
`

`

`airplane, a train, a boat or any other structure capable of moving across or through
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`the Earth's surface and/or atmosphere.” Id. at 4:3-6 (emphasis added). In fact, the
`
`versatility of the VCU 15 further allows it to become “carried by a person while
`
`walking or running.” Id. at 4:6-7.
`
`Jones discloses that BSCU 38 breaks the delivery route into several
`
`predetermined points where BSCU 38 receives and processes updates from
`
`VCU 15. Id. at 17:52-18:4, 18:14-20. In particular, BSCU 38’s processor 108
`
`separates the initial route into segments, receives the VCU 15 check-in data at each
`
`segment point, analyzes stored travel data, and computes various estimated travel
`
`data for the route. Id. at :53-59,11:49-67, 12:23-30, 16:51-53, 17:27- 18: 20. For
`
`example, upon receiving tracking data from VCU 15 associated with a check-in
`
`point, the BSCU 38 computes and modifies the VCU 15 tag’s estimated arrival
`
`time stored in storage unit 68. Id. at 16:51-53, 17:27-18:20. Thus, these successive
`
`points along the vehicle’s travel route serve as, among other things, predetermined
`
`reference points for estimating the vehicle’s time to reach its destination,
`
`notification point, next reference point, etc. Id. at 2:1-2, 17:19-26, 19:2-13.
`
`Tracking data stored in storage unit 68 by BSCU 38 also includes other
`
`information associated with the tracked product, such as a list of scheduled stops,
`
`list of packages to be delivered, delivery status, elapsed route time corresponding
`
`to the reading of each tag, average times it has previously taken to travel the same
`
`
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 20
`
`

`

`route, estimated arrival times at predetermined physical locations, etc. Id. at
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`8:16-41, 11:49-54, 17:52-18:26, 18:55-19-40. As noted above, some of this
`
`database information, such as stored user preferences, scheduled stop locations,
`
`delivery confirmation, tag locations, and estimated arrival times, becomes
`
`modified throughout the route at the predetermined check-in points. Id. at 2:3-13,
`
`13:53-67. For example, Jones discloses updating bus schedules and arrival times
`
`due to maintenance problems, rush hour traffic, congestion, or other factors. Id.
`
`at 2:3-13. In another example, Jones discloses updating the database to “indicate
`
`which deliveries have been successfully attempted, which deliveries have been
`
`unsuccessfully attempted, and which deliveries remain to be attempted.”
`
`Id. at 7:45-58.
`
`Jones Renders Obvious Each Element of Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12
`B.
`In view of the foregoing, and as discussed in detail below, Jones discloses or
`
`renders obvious every feature and limitation of claims 1, 2, 11, and 12:
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`a.
`
`“A method of tracking tags at several successive
`points of a business process, said method
`comprising:”
`Jones discloses methods for tracking vehicle control units (VCUs) 15 along
`
`predetermined reference points of a travel route, such as a delivery route or bus
`
`route. Jones at 5:36-43, 12:14-30, 15:35-16:15, 18:3-20. Jones discloses a Base
`
`
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 21
`
`

`

`Station Control Unit (BSCU) 38 breaks the delivery route into segments and
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`scheduled stops where BSCU 38 receives updates from VCU 15 regarding the
`
`delivery status and coordinates of the VCU 15. Id. at 18:4-20. The VCU 15 tag
`
`includes a GPS sensor 18 that receives/transmits GPS data at the successive points.
`
`Id. at 4:38-485:44-48, 18:3-20.
`
`b.
`
`“attempting to read each tag at each successive
`point;”
`Jones discloses or at least renders obvious “attempting to read each tag at
`
`each successive point of a business process.” For example, Jones discloses
`
`BSCU 38 collecting travel data from VCU 15 predetermined reference points
`
`dividing up a vehicle’s travel route, including scheduled stops (e.g., delivery
`
`locations, bus stops, etc.) for the vehicle. Id. 13:34-67, 18:3-20. As explained
`
`above, BSCU 38 divides the travel route for a vehicle into sections where the time
`
`required to travel each section is independently calculated. Id. at 13:24-14:3,
`
`18:3-20. These predetermined time intervals create checkpoints where BSCU 38
`
`receives updates regarding VCU 15’s progress. Id. at 17:36-40, 18:4-20.
`
`In this way, BSCU 38 may assume the location of VCU 15 at any given time
`
`during travel based on the amount of time that has elapsed since the start of the
`
`route. Id. at 18:4-20. To ensure BSCU 38’s estimations remain accurate, however,
`
`Jones discloses that BSCU 38 will receive updated travel data “when scheduled
`
`
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 22
`
`

`

`stops or deliveries are reached or when other predetermined locations [e.g.,
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`checkpoints] are passed.” Id. at 17:36-41. Moreover, if VCU 15 is off schedule
`
`(e.g., outside of a predetermined proximity from its assumed location at the
`
`checkpoint), BSCU 38 will receive VCU 15’s true coordinates via monitoring
`
`mechanism 69. Id. at 18:21-32. Indeed, at any desired time, BSCU 38 can request
`
`and receive updated travel data from VCU by transmitting an “update request” to
`
`VCU 15 requesting its true coordinates. Id. at 17:32-36. BSCU 38 may conduct
`
`these reads on VCU 15 via, e.g., monitoring mechanism 69 (Id. at 18:21-54; see
`
`also id. at 7:29-357:58-61, 8:16-41, and 13:30-33):
`
`Annotated ’715 Patent Fig. 4 Depicting Tag Read
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 23
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`c.
`
`“populating a database with information
`corresponding to the reading of each tag at each
`successive point and the time of each reading;”
`Jones discloses or at least renders obvious populating a database with travel
`
`data associated with its tag reads of VCU 15. For example, Jones discloses
`
`BSCU 38 monitoring each VCU 15 and storing travel data comprising monitored
`
`data for each VCU 15 in storage unit 68. Id. at 7:40 58. Each entry in the storage
`
`unit 68 data table is assigned an identification number associated with a VCU 15:
`
`Preferably, travel data storage unit 68 is a database configured to store
`travel data associated with each VCU 15 being monitored by the
`system 10. The travel data storage unit 68 is configured to include a
`relational parameter (i.e., a unique identification value correlated with
`the VCU 15 and, therefore, the travel data associated with the VCU
`15) that enables determination of which travel data is associated with
`which VCU 15.
`
`Id. at 7:38-45.
`
`BSCU 38’s data storage unit 68 contains monitored data for each VCU 15,
`
`including the VCU’s assumed coordinate values, true coordinate values, delivery
`
`status, arrival time at the predetermined locations, predetermined reference points
`
`along a route of travel associated with each VCU 15, preference data, and
`
`generally “all of the desirable information to monitor the status of each VCU 15.”
`
`Id. at 7:48-57, 18:55-19: 40. As discussed above, supra Section VI(B)(1)(b), Jones
`
`discloses that BSCU 38 receives VCU 15’s true coordinate values at “when
`
`scheduled stops or deliveries are reached or when other predetermined locations
`
`
`
`18
`
`Exhibit 2104 Page 24
`
`

`

`[e.g., checkpoints] are passed.” Id. at 17:36-41. Accordingly, the travel data stored
`
`United States Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`in data storage unit 68 by BSCU 38 “correspond[s] to the reading of each tag at
`
`each successive point” and “the time of each reading.” See also Ex. 1008 at 16-20
`
`(characterizing “the time of each reading” as “e.g., arrival time, load times, ship
`
`times, or scan times”).
`
` As discussed above, Jones teaches separating a route into successive points,
`
`estimating the travel time between those points, and tracking VCU 15’s progress
`
`along the route based on elapsed time. See supra Sections VI(A)-VI(B)(1)(b).
`
`Jones discloses that BSCU 38 determines these estimates and provides such
`
`tracking by correlating VCU 15’s travel data with BSCU 38’s internal clock
`
`readings. Jones at 18:4-20. Thus, Jones also discloses populating data storage
`
`unit 68 with “the time of each reading.”
`
`To the extent it is argued Jones does not expressly disclose populating a
`
`database with “t