`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`FedEx Corp.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,494,581
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 1
`
`IV Exhibit 2120
`FedEx v. IV
`Case IPR2017-02028
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................ iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... vi
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged ............... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ............................................... 4
`
`Statutory Grounds.................................................................................. 4
`
`III. The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to Institute This Petition .............. 5
`
`IV.
`
`’581 Patent Overview ...................................................................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................10
`
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................11
`
`VII. Ground 1: Brockman and Bernard Render Obvious Claims 18-20 and
`24 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................15
`
`A. Overview of Brockman .......................................................................15
`
`B. Overview of Bernard...........................................................................19
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Rationale to Combine Brockman and Bernard ...................................20
`
`Claim 18 ..............................................................................................22
`
`Claim 19 ..............................................................................................56
`
`Claim 24 ..............................................................................................58
`
`VIII. Ground 2: Brockman and Bernard in view of Khalessi Render
`Obvious Claim 20 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ....................................................60
`
`A. Overview of Khalessi ..........................................................................60
`
`B.
`
`Rationale to Combine Brockman and Bernard with Khalessi ............61
`
`–ii–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`C.
`
`Claim 20 ..............................................................................................64
`
`IX. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................65
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................65
`
`Related Matters ....................................................................................66
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel ...................................................................67
`
`Service Information .............................................................................67
`
`X. Grounds for Standing .....................................................................................68
`
`XI. Fee Payments .................................................................................................68
`
`XII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................69
`
`
`
`
`
`–iii–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581 to Barbosa (“the ’581 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,125,356 to Brockman (“Brockman”)
`
`Exhibit 1003.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,497,339 to Bernard (“Bernard”)
`
`Exhibit 1004.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,633,900 to Khalessi (“Khalessi”)
`
`Exhibit 1005.
`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1006.
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`v. FedEx Corp., 2:16-cv-00980 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 31, 2016),
`
`ECF No. 1.
`
`Exhibit 1007.
`
`Exhibit D to Plaintiff Intellectual Venture II LLC’s
`
`Infringement Contentions, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v.
`
`FedEx Corp., 2:16-cv-00980 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 17, 2017).
`
`Exhibit 1008.
`
`Appendix A to Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`
`Statement, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp. et al.,
`
`No. 2:16-cv-980 (E.D. Tex., June 30, 2017), ECF No. 82-1.
`
`Exhibit 1009.
`
`Plaintiff Intellectual Ventures’ Opening Claim Construction
`
`Brief, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp., 2:16-cv-
`
`00980 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 16, 2017), ECF No. 91.
`
`–iv–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Exhibit 1010.
`
`Defendants’ Claim Construction Brief, Intellectual Ventures II
`
`LLC v. FedEx Corp., 2:16-cv-00980 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 30,
`
`2017), ECF No. 102.
`
`Exhibit 1011.
`
`Institution Decision, FedEx Corporation v. Intellectual
`
`Ventures II, LLC, IPR2017-00729, Paper No. 7 (July 25, 2017).
`
`Exhibit 1012.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, FedEx Corporation v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, IPR2017-00729, Paper No. 2
`
`(Jan. 19, 2017).
`
`
`
`
`
`–v–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Party Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 12
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00506, Paper 25 (Dec. 10, 2014) .......................................................... 5
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 11
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2015-01872, Paper No. 10 (March 14, 2016) ................................................. 7
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)) ........................................................................... 11
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................. 5, 15, 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .................................................................................................... 4, 68
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .................................................................................................... 6, 68
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................. 5, 6
`
`RULES/REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 65
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ..................................................................................................... 68
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................. 12, 68
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48657, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................... 11
`
`–vi–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`I.
`
`
`Introduction
`On July 25, 2017, the Board granted institution of inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581 (“the ’581 patent”) (Ex. 1001), and
`
`denied institution for claims 18-24. (Ex. 1011.) FedEx Corp. now submits this
`
`Petition for review of claims 18-20 and 24 based on new prior art references. The
`
`Board should grant review and cancel these claims.
`
`The ’581 patent describes a handheld device that allows personnel to receive
`
`assistance from remote resources while engaging in field activities. (E.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`1:35-2:9, Fig. 1 (below); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6-11.) Exemplary field activities include
`
`“customer interaction, sales, [and] data collection.” (Ex. 1001, 1:35-2:9) Using the
`
`handheld device, “less experienced personnel” are provided guidance and access to
`
`information while, in some examples, interacting with customers and engaging in
`
`sales. (Id.) Data collected during these activities can be utilized by more senior
`
`personnel to make business decisions. (Id.)
`
`The senior personnel can act with greater
`
`confidence knowing that operators performed
`
`their duties consistently with guidance
`
`provided to them in the field, notwithstanding
`
`any lack of experience or supervision. (Id.;
`
`see also id. at 1:54-63.)
`
`–1–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Before the ’581 patent, Brockman described performing the same activities
`
`using the same system of remote assistance and data collection. (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12-
`
`14.) Brockman describes challenges facing businesses in the sales industry and the
`
`problem of inexperienced salespersons. (Ex. 1002, 1:23-2:29.) To address these
`
`challenges, Brockman discloses a handheld computer unit (“handheld unit”) to be
`
`used by salespersons while interacting with customers. (Id. at 4:23-34, 5:50-57,
`
`Fig. 2 (below).) The handheld unit provides salespersons and managers with
`
`several features, including providing a salesperson with up-to-date information
`
`about inventory and products from
`
`a
`
`remote
`
`resource, providing
`
`prompts
`
`for a salesperson
`
`to
`
`effectively communicate with a
`
`customer, providing a series of
`
`screen displays that enable the
`
`collection of data
`
`from
`
`the
`
`customer, and allowing
`
`sales
`
`managers to track a salesperson’s activities and make remote decisions during a
`
`buyer-seller negotiation. (E.g., id. at 4:35-5:44, 6:12-16, 6:33-7:22, 8:22-42, 9:7-
`
`26, Figs. 3-21 (exemplary screen displays) Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 22-24.) Brockman’s system
`
`addresses existing “information-flow problems” in the sales industry and allows
`
`–2–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`for more effective use of capital in a sales-oriented business. (Id. at 1:38-60;
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 25.) While the exemplary business in Brockman is vehicle sales, (id. at
`
`1:38-3:29), this is an “illustrative embodiment” that does not limit Brockman’s
`
`application to other fields, (id at 4:4-23; see also, id. at 14:64-15:5 (describing
`
`“jewelry store” sales)), including those of the ’581 patent, (ex. 1005 ¶¶ 21).
`
`The ’581 patent also discloses that location data may be gathered in certain
`
`instances and transmitted remotely. (Ex. 1001, 8:8-12.) Bernard discloses this
`
`known capability. (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 15-16.) As shown in Fig. 10 (below), Bernard
`
`includes a communication device (100B) that couples to a handheld device (102B)
`
`to provide access to multiple communication media, including cellular wireless
`
`communications networks and global positioning systems (GPS). (E.g., Ex. 1003,
`
`Fig. 1-3, 10, Abstract, 1:19-57, 3:59-4:15.) A serial interface couples the
`
`communication device to the
`
`handheld device and allows
`
`data
`
`to be
`
`transmitted
`
`between the handheld device
`
`and remote resources. (E.g.,
`
`id. at 4:59-5:8, 6:21-36,
`
`10:30-48, 16:38-65.)
`
`–3–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Bernard, when combined with Brockman, demonstrates that the challenged
`
`claims are obvious combinations of known elements as of the priority date of the
`
`’581 patent. The challenged claims recite the basic operations of a handheld device
`
`with remote access to a server, together with other known functionality. (Ex. 1005
`
`¶¶ 17-19.) These other known functions include accessing a program stored at the
`
`server (claim 18), tracking the handheld device (claim 19), updating field operation
`
`assignments (claim 20), and providing data to a server for analysis (claim 24). (Ex.
`
`1002, 14:55-15:28.) As demonstrated, the prior art renders obvious each and every
`
`limitation of claims 18-20 and 24. (Ex. 1005 ¶ 20.) The Board should institute
`
`review and cancel these claims.
`
`II.
`
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged
`
` Claims for Which Review Is Requested A.
`Petitioner requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 18-20 and 24 of
`
`the ’581 patent and cancellation of these claims as unpatentable.
`
`Statutory Grounds
`
`B.
`
`Claims 18-20 and 24 of the ’581 patent are unpatentable and should be
`
`cancelled in view of the following grounds and prior art.
`
`Prior Art
`
`1
`
`Brockman, U.S. Patent No. 6,125,356 (Ex. 1002); filed September
`15, 1997; prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`–4–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Prior Art
`
`Bernard, U.S. Patent No. 5,497,339 (Ex. 1003); issued March 5,
`1996; prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b).
`
`Khalessi, U.S. Patent No. 6,633,900 (Ex. 1004); filed April 26, 2000;
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`Ground
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Brockman and Bernard render obvious claims 18-19 and 24 of the
`’581 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Brockman and Bernard in view of Khalessi renders obvious claim 20
`of the ’581 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
` The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to Institute This Petition III.
`
`
`
`The Board should grant institution of inter partes review of claims 18-20
`
`and 24 notwithstanding Petitioner’s prior petition in IPR2017-00729, from which
`
`review was not instituted as to these claims. (Ex. 1101.) Whether the Board should
`
`exercise its discretionary power under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) depends on the
`
`circumstances of the case. Conopco, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., IPR2014-
`
`00506, Paper 25 at 3-4 (Dec. 10, 2014). Many reasons justify institution.
`
`–5–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`First, Petitioner presents prior art references that are substantially different
`
`from those presented in IPR2017-00729. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(a), 325(d). In its
`
`first petition, Petitioner presented a single-reference obviousness ground relying on
`
`prior art directed to handheld devices and remote computers used for modeling and
`
`optimizing wireless networks. (Ex. 1012 at 3 (citing U.S. Patent No. 6,971,063 to
`
`Rappaport).) This Petition includes a two-reference obviousness ground relying on
`
`prior art disclosing a portable sales presentation system together with a
`
`communication device for adding cellular and GPS functionality to handheld
`
`devices. See supra Section II.B (listing Brockman and Bernard). The new
`
`references share no relation to Rappaport in the first petition. They disclose
`
`substantially different subject matter and are used differently to demonstrate
`
`unpatentability. Because they are so different, the art in this Petition is not
`
`duplicative or cumulative of the art in the first petition.
`
`Second, the references in this Petition were not known to Petitioner or its
`
`counsel when the first petition was filed. This art, discovered in an exhaustive
`
`search conducted after the Board’s first institution decision,1 was compelled based
`
`
`1 After discovering Brockman and drafting this Petition, Petitioner
`determined that Brockman had been cited in an Information Disclosure Statement
`in another reference, US Patent 7,139,564, that Petitioner had provided to Patent
`Owner during discovery in the copending litigation. Petitioner was not aware of
`Brockman at the time of the first petition and only became aware of its citation in
`the file history of the ’564 patent following a post-hoc search of Petitioner’s
`
`–6–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`on the Board’s denial of institution of claims 18-24 in the first petition, including
`
`its interpretation of “means for managing data collected at the field using the at
`
`least one handheld device responsive to program” as requiring a “prompt” on the
`
`handheld device. (Ex. 1011 at 19-20.) Because neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner
`
`explicitly advanced claim construction positions requiring a prompt, Petitioner did
`
`not seek art to address this limitation. Addressing a construction of an element
`
`from a first petition using new art in a second petition does not amount to
`
`harassment of the Patent Owner. To the extent Patent Owner argues that this
`
`Petition is a “second bite[] at the apple,” this alone is insufficient to deny a petition
`
`based on new art. See Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2015-
`
`01872, Paper 10 at 15-16 (Mar. 14, 2016).
`
`Third, Petitioner has narrowly tailored this Petition to minimize the burden
`
`on the Office and Patent Owner. While the Board declined to institute review of
`
`seven claims (18-24) based on the first petition, this Petition challenges only those
`
`four claims (18-20 and 24) asserted by Patent Owner in the concurrent litigation
`
`between the parties.
`
`Fourth,
`
`this Petition allows
`
`the Board
`
`to properly consider
`
`the
`
`unpatentability of ’581 patent claims 18-20 and 24, which serves the public
`
`interest. The references presented herein demonstrate that the crux of these
`
`production to Patent Owner to verify that Petitioner was unaware of Brockman at
`the time of the first petition.
`
`–7–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`claims—communicating data between a handheld device and a server—as well as
`
`all recited features, were well known.
`
`The Board should consider the Petition on the merits and exercise its
`
`discretion to institute review.
`
`IV.
`
`
`’581 Patent Overview
`
`The ’581 patent describes a system for managing personnel engaged in field
`
`activities. (Ex. 1001, cover, 1:23-67; Ex. 1005 ¶ 50.) In certain embodiments, the
`
`personnel participate in sales and interact with customers across different
`
`industries (Ex. 1001, 3:33-41 (describing field operators as estimators,
`
`investigators, or “salesmen”); Ex. 1005 ¶ 51.) As disclosed with respect to Figure 6
`
`(below), the ’581 system assists these field operators by providing access to
`
`programs, instructions, and/or data stored on a server, which are accessible via a
`
`handheld device acting as a client over a network. (Ex. 1001, cover, 6:1-50, 7:1-67,
`
`Fig. 6; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 52-53.) Exemplary disclosed instructions include “templates,”
`
`“tasks,” or “punch lists.” (Ex. 1001, 7:31-48.) By storing these on the server, the
`
`’581 patent explains that the templates can be maintained with up-to-date
`
`information to provide accurate information to field operators. (Id.)
`
`–8–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`
`
`The handheld device also stores and executes industry-specific programs
`
`(e.g., “field data management” programs) that can be used to collect data, prompt
`
`the operator, and interact with the remotely-stored programs and templates. (Id. at
`
`6:1-50, 7:1-67; Ex. 1005 ¶ 54.) The hardware of the ’581 patent includes well-
`
`known “handheld or palm computer/PC, PDA, smart phone, [or] mobile telephony
`
`devices” that allow personnel to collect data and conduct “field assessments.” (Ex.
`
`1001, 5:45-50, 3:37-41.) Exemplary field assessments
`
`include “customer
`
`interaction, sales, cost estimates, and third-party status/feedback collection.” (Id. at
`
`13:11-24.)
`
`Using the handheld device, personnel gather data particular to an industry
`
`and process it locally or transmit it to a server. (Id. at 6:38-41, 8:13-31;
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 55.) In one embodiment, a field operator collects data in response to a
`
`–9–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`program on the server and the handheld device provides a prompt to the operator.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 7:50-8:12.) The data, if processed remotely, is communicated to the
`
`server and sent back to the handheld device for use by the field personnel. (Id. at
`
`8:20-31, 7:64-67.) The collected data can be communicated with location data.
`
`(E.g., id. at 6:51-67, 8:4-12.)
`
`Claim 18 at issue in this Petition recites an apparatus with means for
`
`establishing a two-way communication channel with a server, means for accessing
`
`a program stored on the server, means for managing data collect at the field
`
`responsive to a program, means for determining a geographic location of a
`
`handheld device, and means for transferring data and geographic location
`
`information to the server. (Id. at 14:55-15:2.) As discussed herein, these elements
`
`were well known, and dependent claims 19, 20, and 24 add little more than
`
`common functions, including location tracking, updating data (e.g., field
`
`assignments), and providing data to a server for analysis. (Id. at 15:3-28;
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 56.)
`
` Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art V.
`
`
`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
`
`–10–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`technology; and (5) the educational level of active workers in the field. In re GPAC
`
`Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`Based on these factors, one skilled in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have held at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering,
`
`Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or the equivalent, and two or more
`
`years of industry experience in the field of mobile communications, or the
`
`academic equivalent thereof. (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 57-62.) This person would have been
`
`familiar with the standard components, methods, and protocols used at the time of
`
`the alleged invention to communicate between handheld devices and a server. (Id.)
`
` Claim Construction VI.
`
`
`Claims 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). 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, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142
`
`(2016).
`
`Petitioner submits that the claim terms of the ’581 patent should be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art and consistent with the disclosure. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3); 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48657, 48764.
`
`–11–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Claims 18-20 and 24 contain the means-plus-function terms listed in the
`
`tables below. The recited function for each term follows the words “means for.”
`
`Petitioner also identifies, the portions of the specification that “describe the
`
`structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(3). In the same tables, Petitioner has provided citations to supporting
`
`portions of the specification that link the identified structure to the claimed
`
`function. Moreover, additional support for Petitioner’s positions is provided in the
`
`separate sections below applying the prior art to each limitation, as well as Dr.
`
`Lavian’s expert declaration. See generally Sections VII, VIII; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65-74.
`
`Where the function is implemented by a computer, the corresponding structure
`
`identifies the algorithm disclosed in the specification. See Aristocrat Techs. Austl.
`
`Party Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In certain
`
`instances, Petitioner has identified multiple, alternative, structures (including
`
`multiple algorithms) for performing the recited function for a given term; in these
`
`cases the prior art need only disclose one of those alternative structures/algorithms
`
`to disclose the term. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1329-30 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012) (explaining, in the context of determining infringement, that where
`
`multiple structures/algorithms are disclosed, the claim is met by an accused
`
`product that contains “at least one” of them).
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 18
`
`

`

`Claim
`
`18
`
`18
`
`18
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Term
`
`Identification of Structure and Support
`
`“means for establishing a
`two-way communication
`channel between a server
`and at least one handheld
`device located at a field
`geographically
`distant
`from the server”
`
`“means for accessing a
`program stored at
`the
`server
`to
`enable
`an
`assessment at the field
`using the at least one
`handheld device”
`
`“means for managing data
`collected at the field using
`the at least one handheld
`device
`responsive
`to
`program”
`
`“wireless modem and/or cellular wireless
`transmitter”
`Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:22-3:1, 3:58-67,
`4:11-13, 6:16-38, 6:43-50, 7:1-30, 7:54-
`57, 8:40-44, Figs. 3, 4, 6; see Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 65-66
`
`“processor and client software that makes
`a service request to a server program, the
`server program fulfilling the request to
`enable an assessment at the field using
`the at least one handheld device”
`Ex. 1001, 7:10-63, 6:1-18, Fig. 2, Fig. 6;
`see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 67
`
`“industry-specific field data management
`software on the handheld device that
`implements one or more of the
`algorithms described in Figs. 7-13 and
`accompanying references in the
`specification, along with a processor,
`RAM, ROM”
`Ex. 1001, 4:16-23, 4:40-46, 6:1-18, 7:50-
`8:12, 8:40-44, 8:59-9:63, 9:64-10:44;
`10:45-11:12, 11:13-40, 11:41-52, 11:53-
`12:7, 12:8-47, Figs. 2, 7-13; see Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 65, 68
`
`–13–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 19
`
`

`

`Claim
`
`18
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Term
`
`Identification of Structure and Support
`
`“means for determining a
`geographic location of the
`at
`least one handheld
`device”
`
`enabling
`for
`“means
`communicating the data
`collected at the field and
`the geographic location of
`the at least one handheld
`device between
`the at
`least one handheld device
`and other devices or the
`server”
`
`tracking a
`“means for
`location of the at least one
`handheld device”
`
`enabling
`for
`“means
`updating field operation
`assignments for each of
`the at least one handheld
`device”
`
`“Global Positioning System (GPS)
`hardware and software (which may
`include position module 46), and/or
`signal triangulation hardware and
`software”
`Ex. 1001, 6:51-67, 8:9-12, 8:40-44,
`10:23-44, 12:8-47, Figs. 5, 7-8, 13; see
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 69.
`
`“software that implements the algorithm
`described in Fig. 13 and accompanying
`references in the specification, along
`with a processor, RAM, ROM, and
`wireless modem and/or cellular wireless
`transmitter”
`Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:22-3:1, 3:58-60,
`4:11-13, 6:1-50, 7:1-30, 7:54-57, 8:40-
`44, 10:28-30, 12:36-47, Figs. 2, 3, 5, 6,
`13; see Ex. 1005 ¶ 65, 70
`
`“Global Positioning System (GPS)
`hardware and software, and/or signal
`triangulation hardware and software, and
`navigation software”
`Ex. 1001, 6:52-67, 8:9-12, Fig. 5; see Ex.
`1005 ¶¶ 65, 71
`
`“the project management program that
`implements the algorithm described in
`Fig. 9 and accompanying references in
`the specification, along with a processor,
`RAM, ROM, and wireless modem and/or
`cellular wireless transmitter”
`Ex. 1001, 2:22-3:1, 3:58-60, 4:11-13,
`6:1-50, 7:1-30, 10:45-11:12, 12:8-47,
`Figs. 2, 5, 7, 13; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 72.
`
`–14–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 20
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`Term
`
`Identification of Structure and Support
`
`Claim
`
`24
`
`“means for providing data
`to the server for analysis”
`
`“industry-specific field data management
`software on the handheld device that
`implements one or more of the
`algorithms described in Figs. 7-8, 10, 12-
`13 and accompanying references in the
`specification, along with a processor,
`RAM, ROM, and wireless modem and/or
`cellular wireless transmitter”
`Ex. 1001, 4:16-23, 4:40-46, 6:1-18, 7:50-
`8:12, 8:40-44, 8:59-9:63, 9:64-10:44,
`11:13-40, 11:53-12:7, 12:8-47, Figs. 2, 7-
`8, 10, 12-13; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 73-74.
`
`“industry-specific field data management
`software on the handheld device that
`implements one or more of the
`algorithms described in Figs. 7-8, 10, 12-
`13 and accompanying references in the
`specification, along with a processor,
`RAM, ROM, and wireless modem and/or
`cellular wireless transmitter”
`Ex. 1001, 4:16-23, 4:40-46, 6:1-18, 7:50-
`8:12, 8:40-44, 8:59-9:63, 9:64-10:44,
`11:13-40, 11:53-12:7, 12:8-47, Figs. 2, 7-
`8, 10, 12-13; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 73-74.
`
`24
`
`retrieving
`for
`“means
`enhanced data from the
`server
`for
`use
`in
`conducting
`the
`field
`assessment”
`
`
` Ground 1: Brockman and Bernard Render Obvious Claims 18-20 and 24
`VII.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
` Overview of Brockman
`A.
`Brockman discloses a system that includes a handheld unit (110), a wireless
`
`link (120), and remote resources (105, 115) or assisting both salespersons
`
`interacting with prospective buyers and sales managers.
`
`–15–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 21
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1002, Fig. 1, 1:23-3:29, 4:23-42, 5:49-57, 5:58-63; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75-76.)
`
`Brockman discloses two different remote resources. A first remote resource
`
`includes a central computer unit providing access to “scripts” and other data to the
`
`handheld unit. (Ex. 1002, 4:23-5:32; Ex. 1005 ¶ 76.) A second remote resource
`
`includes an external data store such as a server at a vehicle manufacturer, credit
`
`bureau, or credit granting institution. (Ex. 1002, 4:35-42, 5:33-57, 6:33-41; Ex.
`
`1005 ¶ 76.) Using the remote resources, Brockman’s system allows the handheld
`
`unit to assist salespersons and sales managers by:
`
`(i) permitting the seller to retrieve useful information
`such as inventory availability from a sales information
`data store; (ii) displaying option-sensitive prompts to aid
`the seller
`in discussing specific vehicles under
`consideration; (iii) accessing remote communications
`links to external data sources to obtain information on
`credit-worthiness of the prospect, financing terms, and
`
`–16–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 22
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`availability; (iv) displaying motivational information
`such as the percentage likelihood of consummating the
`sale successfully; (v) providing a communications link
`with management personnel.
`
`(Ex. 1002, Abstract; Ex. 1005 ¶ 77.) A salesperson can send data to and receive
`
`data from the remote resources using the handheld unit and engage a prospective
`
`buyer while the handheld unit prompts the salesperson to collect data and interact
`
`with a buyer. (Ex. 1002, 6:42-7:22.) Brockman discloses providing a sequence of
`
`steps to the handheld unit using “scripts,” which guide the salesperson through a
`
`sales communication process. (Id. at 6:42-63.) Brockman discloses that the scripts
`
`are accessed from the central computer unit, either in real-time or using a periodic
`
`update process. (Id. at 6:42-63, 13:17-14:40, 14:7-40.)
`
`Brockman describes the scripts in two contexts. (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 79-82.) In one
`
`context, they are described as computer language scripts executed on the handheld
`
`unit. (See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 6:42-63 (describing the scripts as “macro-like script
`
`language . . . compiled into executable form[] and . . . executed by the handheld
`
`unit”), Table 3 (describing the scripts as having “script contents,” including “script
`
`text” to be “displayed in a dialog box to prompt the seller to say specific things,”
`
`script functions including a “GOTO” function, data fields for entering data into the
`
`handheld unit, and pointers to different sequences in the script text based on
`
`inputs), 6:55-63 (“programming script”).)
`
`–17–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 23
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`
`In another context, the scripts are disclosed as scripted “messages” that are
`
`displayed by the handheld unit to a salesperson as a guide for a conversation with a
`
`customer. (Id. at 6:42-63 (explaining that the scripts display “appropriate messages
`
`on a display” of the handheld unit), 11:47-52 (suggesting a script is “displayed”),
`
`9:56-10:11 ( “scripted questions”), 19:6-10 (“step-by-step script to follow”); Ex.
`
`1005 ¶¶ 79-81.)
`
`Utilizing these scripts and the handheld unit display screens, a salesperson
`
`obtains information from a buyer, including identifyin