`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`FedEx Corporation,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC and Gula Consulting LLC,
`Patent Owners
`_________________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,909,356
`_________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,909,356
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 1
`
`IV Exhibit 2102
`FedEx v. IV
`Case IPR2017-02028
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................ iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged ............... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ............................................... 2
`
`Statutory Grounds.................................................................................. 2
`
`III.
`
`’356 Patent Overview ...................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................ 7
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“controlled space” ................................................................................. 9
`
`“defective status” .................................................................................10
`
`VI. Ground 1: Arneson Renders Obvious Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-14, 17, 33,
`34, 51, 53-55, and 60-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...........................................11
`
`A. Overview of Arneson...........................................................................11
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Combine Arneson’s
`Embodiments .......................................................................................16
`
`Arneson Renders Obvious Each Element of Claims 1, 3-5, 7,
`10-14, and 17 ......................................................................................19
`
`Arneson Renders Obvious Each Element of Claims 33 and 34 ..........47
`
`Arneson Renders Obvious Each Element of Claims 51, 53-55,
`and 60-63 .............................................................................................51
`
`VII. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................56
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................56
`
`Related Matters ....................................................................................56
`
`–ii–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 2
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel ...................................................................57
`
`Service Information .............................................................................57
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`VIII. Grounds for Standing .....................................................................................57
`
`IX. Fee Payments .................................................................................................58
`
`X.
`
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................58
`
`
`
`
`
`–iii–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 3
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,909,356 to Brown et al. (“the ’356 patent”).
`
`Exhibit 1002.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,844,505 to Arneson et al. (“Arneson”).
`
`Exhibit 1003.
`
`Declaration of Jason Hill, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1004.
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/053,540.
`
`Exhibit 1005.
`
`[Reserved]
`
`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 ’356 patent.
`
`Exhibit B 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 2102 Page 4
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................... 16, 17, 18
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .......................................................................................... 7
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Microsoft v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(c) ...................................................................................................56
`
`Other Authorities
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48657, 48698 ........................................................................................ 8
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48657, 48764 ........................................................................................ 8
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`–v–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 5
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Introduction
`Petitioner FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”) requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-14, 17, 33, 34, 51, 53-55, and 60-63 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,909,356 (“the ’356 patent”) (Ex. 1001), assigned in public records to Gula
`
`Consulting LLC but now purportedly assigned to Intellectual Ventures II, LLC
`
`(“IV2”). The Board should institute review and cancel claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-14, 17,
`
`33, 34, 51, 53-55, and 60-63.
`
`The ’356 patent describes an inventory management system for monitoring
`
`“entities” and “objects” within a “controlled space” using wireless technology,
`
`such as radio frequency identification (RFID). ’356 patent at Abstract and 4:7-22.
`
`In particular, the ’356 patent describes and claims methods for conducting
`
`inventory management
`
`that involve associating the addition, removal, or
`
`movement of tracked objects with the “person or robot” in possession of those
`
`objects, notifying a user of whether such events were authorized, and returning
`
`objects in response to the notification. ’356 patent at 3:7-28, claims 1, 3-5, 7,
`
`10-14, 17, 33, 34, 51, 53-55, and 60-63.
`
`But these inventory management techniques were well-known when the
`
`application underlying the ’356 patent was filed. Prior art patent Arneson, for
`
`example, disclosed associating the status of an item with the person in possession
`
`of that item before the earliest claimed priority date of the ’356 patent. Arneson
`
`–1–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 6
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`at 30:59-65 and 31:8-12. Indeed, Arneson also disclosed notifying a user when an
`
`item left a secure area or otherwise entered an unauthorized area, as well as a
`
`robotic vehicle for navigating such an area to return items. Id. at 34:54-62. FedEx
`
`thus requests that the Board institute review of the ’356 patent and cancel claims 1,
`
`3-5, 10, 11, 14, 33, 34, 51, 53-55, and 60-63.
`
`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, 3-5,
`
`7, 10-14, 17, 33, 34, 51, 53-55, and 60-63 of the ’356 patent and cancellation of
`
`those claims as unpatentable.
`
`Statutory Grounds
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-14, 17, 33, 34, 51, 53-55, and 60-63 of the ’356 patent
`
`are unpatentable and should be cancelled because U.S. Patent No. 7,844,505 to
`
`Arneson et al. (“Arneson”) (Ex. 1002) renders obvious claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-14, 17,
`
`33, 34, 51, 53-55, and 60-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Arneson was filed on February
`
`3, 2000 and issued on November 30, 2010, and thus qualifies as prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 7
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`
`III.
`
`
`’356 Patent Overview
`
`The ’356 patent was filed on November 2, 2001, as U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 10/053,540. ’356 patent at 1; Ex. 1004 at 254. Its earliest claimed priority date
`
`is November 3, 2000. ’356 patent at 1; Ex. 1004 at 255. The ’356 patent describes
`
`an inventory management system for monitoring individuals and objects within a
`
`controlled space using wireless
`
`technology, particularly radio frequency
`
`identification (RFID). ’356 patent at Abstract and 4:7-22. The ’356 patent notes in
`
`its Background section that existing systems “provide some secure means of access
`
`such a locked door or cabinet using physical keys and/or a method for tracking and
`
`viewing inventory,” but purports that “none couple both of these methods….”
`
`’356 patent at 1:49-53.
`
`–3–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 8
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`As disclosed with regard to Figure 2 of the ’356 patent (below), the
`
`inventory management system tracks the location and movement of entities and
`
`objects within the controlled space. Id. at 5:38-62; see also Id. at 3:7-28. In
`
`particular, a tracking system 220 tracks an entity, described as “a person or robot,”
`
`upon entry into a controlled space, and correlates the addition, removal, or
`
`movement of tracked objects with that of the entity. Id. at 3:7-28.
`
`’356 Patent Fig. 2 Depicting a Remote
`Inventory Management System
`
`
`
`Tracking system 220 then reports this tracking information to a server 230,
`
`which stores the information in inventory records. Id. at 5:37-6:44. Server 230 can
`
`also notify a user regarding an event in inventory (i.e., the removal or addition of
`
`an object in inventory associated with a particular entity identity). Id. at 6:45-55.
`
`–4–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 9
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`The notification may also indicate whether or not the event was authorized. Id.
`
`at 3:30-35 and 5:56-62. Moreover, when objects in inventory are depleted or
`
`otherwise moved, the object may be automatically replenished or returned. ’356
`
`patent at 7:6-19.
`
`The claims of the ’356 patent recite performing these well-known functions
`
`of inventory management of secure areas. Independent claim 1 recites:
`
`1. A method, comprising:
`obtaining identity information regarding an entity which enters a
`controlled space;
`monitoring, using a wireless tracking system communicatively
`coupled to a computer system, locations and movements of the
`entity and objects within the controlled space;
`automatically associating, using the computer system, the identity
`information regarding the entity with status information
`regarding additions, removals, returns, defective status, or
`movements of the objects to/from/within the controlled space;
`and
`transmitting the status information and the associated identity
`information to a server communicatively coupled to the
`computer system and configured to automatically notify a user
`of the status information, wherein at least one of the objects is
`automatically returned or picked up as a result of such
`notification.
`
`
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 10
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`Independent claim 33 embodies substantially the same concepts, and recites:
`
`33. A computer system, comprising:
`a processing unit;
`a memory coupled to the processing unit; and
`a process executed from the memory causing the processing unit to
`(i) automatically associate an identity of an entity with
`movement and/or status changes of objects to/from/within a
`controlled space,
`(ii) monitor the location and movement of the entity and objects
`within the controlled space via a wireless tracking system
`coupled to the computer system, and
`(iii) associate the identity of the entity with the movement or
`status changes of the objects according to information which
`is entered into the computer system by the entity using an
`input device coupled to the computer system.
`
`Independent claim 51 also embodies substantially the same concepts as
`
`independent claim 1, and recites:
`
`51. A method, comprising:
`obtaining identity information regarding an entity which enters a
`controlled space;
`monitoring, using a wireless tracking system communicatively
`coupled to a computer system, locations and movements of the
`entity and objects within the controlled space; and
`automatically associating, using the computer system, the identity
`information regarding the entity with status information
`regarding additions, removals, returns, defective status, or
`movements of the objects to/from/within the controlled space,
`which status information is entered into the computer system by
`the entity using an input device.
`
`–6–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 11
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`
` The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art IV.
`
`
`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 ’356 patent would have held at least a Bachelor’s Degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or the equivalent, and two or more
`
`years of industry experience in the field of information management, or the
`
`academic equivalent thereof. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ [036]-[037]. Such a person would have
`
`been familiar with the standard components, methods, and protocols used at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ’356 patent to conduct inventory management
`
`using wireless tracking systems. Id.
`
` Claim Construction V.
`
`
`A claim in an unexpired patent “shall be given its broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in
`
`the context of
`
`the specification. Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC v. Lee,
`
`–7–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 12
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016). “The PTO should also consult the patent’s
`
`prosecution history
`
`in [IPR] proceedings.” Microsoft v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`
`789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`In this proceeding, FedEx submits that the claim terms of the ’356 patent
`
`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 the Patent
`
`Owner 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
`
`
`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.
`
`–8–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 13
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`
` “controlled space”
`
`A.
`
`Independent claims 1, 33, and 51, and dependent claims 10, 12, 34, 52,
`
`and 61 recite “controlled space.” While the ’356 patent consistently describes
`
`“controlled space” as a physically confined space with limitations on ingress
`
`and/or egress (see, e.g., ’356 patent at 3:30-35; see also ’356 patent at 1:49-55,
`
`Figs. 1B, 2, and 3, and associated discussion), 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 a geo-fence setting virtual barriers to a
`
`physical area constitutes a “controlled space.” Ex. 1008 at 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 19, 27,
`
`and 31; see also Ex. 1007 at 1-3, 8, 10, 11. As discussed below, Arneson renders
`
`these claims obvious regardless of whether the Board adopts the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning or a meaning consistent with IV2’s allegations for “controlled
`
`space.”
`
`–9–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 14
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`
`“defective status”
`
`B.
`
`Independent claims 1, 33, and 61, and dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 12, 53, 54,
`
`and 61 recite “defective status.” The ’356 patent includes only one reference
`
`outside of the abstract and claims to monitoring the status of objects. ’356 patent
`
`at 5:60-62. That reference, however, delineates between the status of objects and
`
`the movement of objects:
`
`Note that these accesses and/or movements of goods may be
`authorized or not. The action is recorded/reported in either case.
`Further, the wireless link 235 may be replaced and/or augmented by a
`wired communication link. In addition to the movement of goods,
`status (e.g., defective, return, etc.) may also be monitored.
`
`Id.
`
`Again, however, IV2’s allegations of infringement against FedEx construe
`
`the term more broadly. For example, IV2 alleges that objects have a defective
`
`status “when the objects deviate from a predetermined route”. Ex. 1008 at 21; see
`
`also Ex. 1007, 13. Indeed, IV2 alleges that status information regarding defective
`
`status includes “details regarding the current location in relation to a predetermined
`
`location or route.” Ex. 1008 at 14. As discussed below, Arneson renders these
`
`claims obvious regardless of whether the Board adopts the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning or a meaning consistent with IV2’s allegations for “defective status.”
`
`
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 15
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`
` Ground 1: Arneson Renders Obvious Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-14, 17, 33, 34,
`VI.
`51, 53-55, and 60-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
` Overview of Arneson
`A.
`Arneson discloses electronic inventory systems using radio frequency
`
`identification (RFID) tags to provide various data applications, such as location
`
`tracking, inventory applications, automated transaction applications, and security
`
`monitoring. Arneson at Abstract, 1:57-2:8, 2:65-3:55, 24:14-21, and 27:6-14. For
`
`example, Arneson discloses a distributed tag reader network 1100, depicted in
`
`Figure 11 below, that “can track the location of individuals and items connected to
`
`tags 102.” Id. at Abstract, 28:42-44, and Fig. 11.
`
`Annotated Arneson Fig. 11 Depicting a Remote
`Inventory Management System
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 16
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`Tag reader network 1100 includes a computer system 1112 that, in
`
`conjunction with network reader 1120, receives tracking information from a
`
`wireless system of remote access sensor modules 1104 physically distributed
`
`throughout a monitored space. Id. at 3:14-17, 21:63-22:5, 32:17-22, and 33:19-44.
`
`Computer system 1112 then uses the received information to maintain inventory
`
`records as shown below in Figure 10B, reflecting, among other things, the location
`
`of each tag 102 attached to an item or carried by an individual, the identity of the
`
`individual in possession of an item (if applicable), and the status of the item (e.g.,
`
`missing, accounted for, in an unauthorized area, etc.): Id. at 34:30-50.
`
`Annotated Arneson Fig. 10B Depicting Dynamic Records
`Associating Status Information of an Item with a Customer
`
`Tag reader network 1100 monitors “the location of each person or item that
`
`has a tag 102” by “correlating remote access sensor module 1104 identities with
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 17
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`Tag IDs.” Id. at 28:42-55, and 28:65-29:7. For example, when a particular remote
`
`access sensor module 1304 interrogates a tag 102, tag reader network 1100
`
`associates the physical area defined by the coverage pattern 1304 of that particular
`
`remote access sensor module 1304 with the Tag ID of the interrogated tag 102. Id.
`
`Thus, in the example shown in the annotated Figure 13 of Arneson below, when
`
`remote access sensor module 1104a interrogates tag 102, computer system 1112
`
`receives this information and associates the location of coverage 1304a (e.g.,
`
`aisle 7, designated transaction area, etc.) with the Tag ID for tag 102 in inventory
`
`records:
`
`Annotated Arneson Fig. 13 Showing Sensor 1104a
`Recognizing Tag 102 Within Coverage Area 1304a
`
`
`
`Thus, with the location of each coverage pattern known, distributed tag
`
`reader network 1100 “can track the location of individuals and items connected to
`
`–13–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 18
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`tags 102 as they move through regions defined by coverage patterns 1304.”
`
`Arneson at Abstract, 28:42-55, and Fig. 11. Coverage patterns 1304 may
`
`correspond to a retail store, library, warehouse, areas associated with restricted
`
`pharmaceuticals, storerooms, or other “physical areas.” Id. at 32:38-50. Arneson
`
`also explains that these physical areas may be a “secure area” and include
`
`“automated gates and/or turnstiles … placed near an area’s exits” that “enable[] the
`
`egress of people to be restricted.” Arneson at 13:10-19 and 32:27-50. For inventory
`
`applications where the physical area is controlled, tag reader network 1100
`
`provides various automated security actions. Id. at 29:47-30:17, 31:46-55, and
`
`Fig. 10C. For example, when an item in an individual’s possession has been
`
`removed from the controlled space or moved into an unauthorized area, tag reader
`
`network 1100 may automatically lock the exits to control egress and notify
`
`management or security personnel to retrieve the item. Id. at 29:47-30:17,
`
`31:46-55, and Fig. 10C.
`
`Tag reader network 1100 also monitors the location and movement of
`
`individuals and items to provide automated transactions applications. Id.
`
`at 23:13-24, and 32:12-34:50. For example, remote access transmission terminal
`
`1124 allows individuals to engage in a transaction, such as video rental, retail
`
`purchase, etc., without the assistance of a clerk. Id. at 23:6-12, and 27:9-14.
`
`Specifically, when an individual carrying a tag 102 approaches remote access
`
`–14–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 19
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`transmission terminal 1124 in a “designated transaction location,” distributed tag
`
`reader network 1100 interrogates tags 102 to identify the items (each having
`
`tags 102 attached to them) in proximity to the individual and the remote access
`
`transmission terminal 1124. Id. at 23:13-24, and 32:12-34:50. Remote access
`
`transmission terminal 1124 may then receive the associated customer and tag
`
`information from computer system 1112 and provide a user interface allowing the
`
`individual to confirm and authenticate the transaction. Id. at 23:10-12.
`
`Arneson also discloses a portable tag reader system 1900 that includes
`
`autonomous or robotic vehicle functionality. Id. at 34:54-62, Fig. 19. Portable tag
`
`reader system 1900, like wireless tag reader network 1100, tracks movement using
`
`tag readers interrogating tags 102. While wireless tag reader network 1100 tracks
`
`the movement of tags 102 based on their interaction with stationary remote access
`
`sensor modules 1104, the portable tag reader system 1900 tracks the movement of
`
`a portable tag reader 1914 based on its interaction with stationary tags 102. Id. at
`
`35:1-36:14, Fig. 19. Arneson discloses that tags 102 may also be associated with
`
`various landmarks in addition to individuals or items, and may thus be used as a
`
`reference location for an autonomous or remote vehicle equipped with a portable
`
`tag reader 1914. Id. at 35:5-6, 35:65-36:14.
`
`Thus, portable tag reader system 1900 includes a location database 1906
`
`storing data records that contain “descriptive information” associated with each
`
`–15–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 20
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`stationary tag 102 within a “defined area,” such as the above-discussed controlled
`
`spaces. Id. at 34:66-35:15. This “descriptive information” serves as “a navigation
`
`map to identify specific landmarks that are relevant to the vehicle’s navigation.”
`
`Id. at 36:9-13. And, as the automated vehicle moves through a defined area,
`
`portable tag reader 1914 interrogates tags 102 and retrieves corresponding map
`
`data to guide the autonomous or robotic vehicle’s navigation. Id. at 37:51-38:17.
`
`B.
`
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Combine Arneson’s
`Embodiments
`
`The obviousness analysis that follows relies on several embodiments
`
`described in Arneson, including those described with respect to distributed tag
`
`reader network 1100 (Fig. 11) and portable tag reader system 1900 (Fig. 19). It
`
`would have been obvious to combine these embodiments of Arneson with one
`
`another. There is nothing in Arneson to suggest these embodiments could not be
`
`easily combined by one skilled in the art. Indeed, combining disclosed
`
`embodiments disclosed in a prior art patent does not require a leap of faith. Boston
`
`Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶¶ [046]-[050].
`
`For example, Arneson refers to embodiments for distributed tag reader
`
`network 1100 implementing various data applications in the context of inventory
`
`control, security monitoring, or automated transactions. Arneson at 27:5-34:50. As
`
`Arneson explicitly discloses, these data applications employ many common
`
`–16–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 21
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`operations, rely on common static and dynamic information, and become
`
`implemented using common RFID technology and techniques. Id. (discussing
`
`implementation of data applications in terms of common steps discussed with
`
`respect to Figures 2, 5, 6, 7, 15 and/or employing common system components
`
`discussed with respect to Figures 1, 11, and 13). Thus, one of skill in the art would
`
`have found it straightforward and obvious to combine the embodiments for
`
`distributed tag reader network 1100, and would have been motivated to do so in
`
`order to achieve the desired overall functionality of distributed tag reader
`
`network 1100. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ [047]-[050]. For example, one of skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to combine the embodiments for distributed tag reader
`
`network 1100 in order to produce an “unattended store” with automated inventory
`
`surveillance, security actions, and transaction capabilities. Ex. 1003 at ¶ [047]
`
`(citing Arneson 13:1-44).
`
`Similarly, one of skill would have found it obvious to combine the
`
`embodiments of distributed tag reader network 1100 with that of portable tag
`
`reader system 1900. Ex. 1003 at ¶ [048]; Boston Sci., 554 F.3d at 991. Both
`
`systems are implemented in common settings using common RFID technology and
`
`techniques discussed
`
`in Arneson. For example, while Arneson refers
`
`to
`
`functionality of computer system 1112 and network reader 1120 while describing
`
`distributed tag reader network 1100, and functionality of portable tag reader 1914
`
`–17–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 22
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`while describing portable tag reader system 1900, both are implemented using
`
`common RFID technology and techniques discussed in Arneson. See, e.g., Arneson
`
`at 16:28-44, 18:57-64, 27:39-42, 34:63-65, and 37:63-67 (referring to common
`
`computing and RFID components and modes of operation with respect to
`
`Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7).
`
`As noted above, whereas distributed tag reader network 1100 generally
`
`tracks the movement of tags 102 based on their interaction with stationary remote
`
`access sensor modules 1104, the disclosed portable tag reader system 1900 tracks
`
`the movement of a portable tag reader 1914 based on its interaction with stationary
`
`tags 102. Id. at 35:1-36:14, and Fig. 19. Arneson discloses that both distributed tag
`
`reader network 1100 and portable tag reader system 1900 may include such
`
`stationary tags 102 placed near a landmark, such as a “door.” Arneson at 29:48-57
`
`and 35:10-14. Thus, one of skill in the art would have found it straightforward and
`
`obvious to combine the embodiments for distributed tag reader network 1100 and
`
`portable tag reader system 1900, and would have been motivated to do so in order
`
`to achieve the desired overall functionality of distributed tag reader network 1100
`
`and portable tag reader system 1900 operating in parallel. Boston Sci., 554 F.3d
`
`at 991; Ex. 1003 at ¶ [049].
`
`For example, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
`
`the automated inventory surveillance, security actions, and transaction capabilities
`
`–18–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 23
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`embodiments of distributed tag reader network 1100 with the autonomous robotic
`
`vehicle of portable tag reader system 1900 in order to, for example, to automate the
`
`return of items to inventory when an automatic transaction is declined or an item’s
`
`departure from an authorized area caused security actions to be taken. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ [050].
`
`i.
`
`
` Arneson Renders Obvious Each Element of Claims 1, 3-5, 7,
`C.
`10-14, and 17
`Claim 1
`“A method of comprising: obtaining identity information
`regarding an entity which enters a controlled space”
`Arneson discloses obtaining a “customer ID” identifying a person that enters
`
`1.
`
`a “physical area defined by [a] coverage patterns 1304.” Arneson at 28:1-9,
`
`28:42-44, 32:12-37, and 33:19-55. For example, “coverage patterns 1304” may
`
`correspond to a retail store, library, warehouse, areas associated with restricted
`
`pharmaceuticals, storerooms, etc. Id. at 32:43-50. Arneson also explains that these
`
`physical areas may be a “secure area” and include “automated gates and/or
`
`turnstiles … placed near an area's exits” that “enable[] the egress of people to be
`
`restricted.” Id. at 30:8-17, 31:45-57, and 32:27-50.
`
`In one exemplary embodiment, Arneson discloses a tag reader network 1100
`
`that “can track the location of individuals and items connected to tags 102 as they
`
`move through regions defined by coverage patterns 1304.” Id. at 28:42-55, and
`
`Fig. 11. Each tag 102 is allocated a unique “Tag ID,” also referred to as a
`
`–19–
`
`Exhibit 2102 Page 24
`
`

`

`United States Patent No. 6,909,356
`
`“customer ID” when associated with an individual instead of an item. Id. at
`
`3:14-17, 28:41-55, and 33:34-35. Thus, tag reader network 1100 obtains identity
`
`information when an individual carrying an identification card with a tag 102
`
`enters a controlled space associated with coverage patterns 1304, such as a retail
`
`store, library, warehouse, etc. Id. at 27:51-67 and 32:38-50; see also Section V(a).
`
`For example, Arneson discloses computer system 1112, in conjunction with
`
`network reader 1120, receiving the customer ID when the individual enters
`
`coverage pattern(s) 1304 via the remote access sensor module(s) 1104 for that
`
`physical area interrogate the tag 102 carried by the individual. Id. at 3:14-17,
`
`21:63-22:5, 32:17-21, and 33:19-44.
`
`2.
`
`“monitoring, using a wireless tracking system
`communicatively coupled to a computer system, locations
`and movements of the entity and objects within the
`controlled space”
`Arneson discloses a tag reader network 1100 that wirelessly “track[s] the
`
`location of individuals and items connected to tags 102 as they move through
`
`regions defined by coverage patterns 1304.” Arneson at 28:42-55, Fig. 11. For
`
`example, as shown in Fig. 11 below, tag reader network 1100 uses a wireless
`
`tracking system (e.g., remote access sensor modules 1104 and tags 102)
`
`comm