Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`FEDEX CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00787
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`TITLE: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRACKING ID TAGS USING A
`DATA STRUCTURE OF TAG READS
`Issue Date: April 3, 2007
`
`__________________
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC’S
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 1
`
`IV Exhibit 2105
`FedEx v. IV
`Case IPR2017-02039
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’715 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PETITION .................................................................. 5
`
`A. Overview of Jones ................................................................................. 5
`
`B. Overview of Bauer ................................................................................ 7
`
`C.
`
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ....................................................... 9
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 9
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION ON AT LEAST
`GROUND 1 BECAUSE JONES DOES NOT TEACH, SUGGEST,
`OR DISCLOSE
`“TAGS”,
`“READERS”, AND OTHER
`LIMITATIONS OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS 1, 2, 11, AND 12. ............. 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Jones Does Not Teach, Suggest, or Disclose “Tags” (All
`Challenged Claims) ............................................................................. 10
`
`Jones Does Not Teach, Suggest, Or Disclose “Attempting To
`Read Each Tag At Each Successive Point” (Challenged Claims
`1 And 2) Or “A Reader For Reading Each Tag At Each
`Successive Point And The Time Of Each Reading” (Challenged
`Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12). ..................................................................... 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“Attempting To Read Each Tag At Each Successive
`Point” (Challenged Claims 1 And 2) ........................................ 14
`
`“A Reader For Reading Each Tag At Each Successive
`Point And The Time Of Each Reading” (Challenged
`Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12). ........................................................... 20
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Established That Jones Discloses “Storing In
`Each Corresponding Cell Of The Data Structure Information
`Relating To Whether Or Not Each Tag Was Read At Each
`Successive Point” (Challenged Claim 2) / “Wherein the
`
`i
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Processor Stores In Each Corresponding Cell Of The Data
`Structure Corresponding To Whether Or Not Each Tag Was
`Read At Each Successive Point (Challenged Claim 12) ..................... 21
`
`V.
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION ON GROUND 2
`BECAUSE
`PETITIONER DID NOT
`ESTABLISH A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PREVAILING. ................................... 23
`
`A. A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Have No Reason
`To Combine Jones And Bauer ............................................................ 24
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Jones In View Of Bauer Does Not Render Obvious Challenged
`Claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 ............................................................................ 31
`
`Jones In View Of Bauer Does Not Render Obvious Challenged
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................ 33
`
`Jones In View Of Bauer Does Not Render Obvious Challenged
`Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18. ................................................................... 35
`
`Jones In View Of Bauer Does Not Render Obvious Challenged
`Claims 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26. .............................................................. 37
`
`Jones In View Of Bauer Does Not Render Obvious Challenged
`Claim 29. ............................................................................................. 38
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 42
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`Cases
`
`2Wire, Inc. v. TQ Delta LLC,
`Case IPR2015-00240, Paper 18 (PTAB May 29, 2015) ............................... 25
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 30, 37
`
`Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V.,
`Case IPR2013-00048, Paper 94 (PTAB May 9, 2014) .......................... 12, 31
`
`Front Row Techs., LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P.,
`Case IPR2015-01932, Paper 7 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2016) ................................. 28
`
`Hyundai Motor Co. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01477, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2017) ......................... 12, 30
`
`In re NuVasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 25
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) ......................................................................... 10
`
`Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`Case IPR2016-00609, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2016) ................................. 28
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................. 25
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC,
`662 Fed. App’x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................ 27
`
`Motorola Mobility, LLC v. ITC,
`737 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 36
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharm., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 10
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1,
`Case IPR2016-01442, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2017) .................................. 28
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 24
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 .............................................................................................. 12, 31
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`IV Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`
`Description
`Complaint, ArrivalStar s.a. and Melvino Techs. Ltd. v.
`ShipMatrix, Inc., United Parcel Services, Inc. and FedEx Corp.,
`C.A. No. 2:07-cv-00415 (W.D. Pa.)
`Declaration of Daniel W. Engels, Ph.D.
`Ali H. Sayed, et al., “Network-Based Wireless Location,
`Challenges faced in developing techniques for accurate wireless
`location information,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine,
`Volume 24, July 2005.
`
`v
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“IV”) submits this preliminary
`
`response to the Petition (Paper 2, the “Petition”) FedEx Corp. (“Petitioner”) filed
`
`on January 27, 2017. The Petition challenges 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 (Ex. 1001, “the ’715
`
`patent”) on two grounds of alleged unpatentability. Those grounds are: (1)
`
`obviousness of claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 over U.S. Patent No. 6,952,645 (Ex. 1003,
`
`“Jones”) and (2) obviousness of claims 4, 5, 7-9, 14, 15, 17-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and
`
`29 over Jones in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,321,302 (Ex. 1004, “Bauer”). IV has
`
`timely filed this preliminary response within three months of February 2, 2017, the
`
`Notice of Filing Date Accorded. (Paper 3.)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’715 patented inventions addressed improvements to supply chain RFID
`
`tag tracking systems. While tag tracking systems strive to be as precise and useful
`
`as possible, existing systems struggled with various issues including what to do
`
`with inventory as circumstances change and variations in precision, among others.
`
`(Ex. 1001, at 1:28-29, 1:33-35; see also Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 32-33, 36.) To solve those
`
`problems and optimize supply chain management, the ’715 patent discloses novel
`
`systems and methods for supply chain management, including a tool for modifying
`
`tracked tag data. (Id. at 2:28-41.) Those systems and methods use the tracked and
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`modified information in various ways, including to adjust handling products and to
`
`supply additional products to the supply chain. (Id. at 1:7-15.)
`
`In contrast, Petitioner’s primary reference, Jones, has nothing to do with
`
`improving or adjusting supply chains or even tag tracking. (Ex. 1003; Ex. 2002,
`
`¶¶ 49-50.) Instead, Jones focuses on providing end users (e.g., bus riders) with
`
`advance notification of a vehicle’s arrival at a particular location. (Id.) Jones’s
`
`end users determine when and in what circumstances they would like to be notified
`
`of a vehicle’s arrival (if at all), and Jones’ proposed system will make those
`
`requests to a vehicle as needed. Jones never contemplates the use of tags, much
`
`less a system of tracking tags, reading tags, or maintaining information about
`
`attempted tag reads. Despite Petitioner’s efforts to make the references appear
`
`similar, Jones’ disclosure is fundamentally different from the ’715 patented
`
`invention.
`
`Petitioner is unlikely to prevail on either ground. Jones does not disclose or
`
`suggest several essential limitations of the challenged claims such as “tags” or
`
`“readers” that attempt to read each tag at each successive point of a business
`
`process, as required by all challenged claims. To address those shortcomings,
`
`Petitioner proposes combining Jones with Bauer, a patent directed to an inventory
`
`management system. But, Petitioner has not shown a credible reason why a skilled
`
`artisan would combine Jones (a vehicle tracking patent) with Bauer (an inventory
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`management system patent) to arrive at any claim of the ’715 patent. Nor does the
`
`combination of Jones and Bauer teach, suggest, or disclose all limitations of any
`
`challenged claim. The Board should reject Petitioner’s offered motivation to
`
`combine because it employs impermissible hindsight using non-analogous art.
`
`Because Petitioner is not reasonably likely to prevail on either ground, the
`
`Board should deny the Petition in its entirety.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’715 PATENT
`
`The ’715 patent titled “System and Method for Tracking Tag ID Tags using
`
`a Data Structure of Tag Reads” issued on April 3, 2007 and was initially assigned
`
`to Kimberly Clark-Worldwide, Inc. (Ex. 1001.) The application leading to the
`
`’715 patent (No. 11/069,788) was filed on March 1, 2005. (Id.)
`
`The ’715 patent generally provides novel systems and methods for tracking
`
`tags at several successive points of a business process. (Ex. 1001, at Abstract.) In
`
`particular, the ’715 patent relates to a “radio frequency identification (RFID) tag
`
`tracking system which tracks tags at several successive points and uses the tracking
`
`information to control a business process.” (Id. at 1:7-11.) As the ’715 patent
`
`explains, “[t]here is a need for RFID systems which have increased precision so
`
`that the resulting information can be relied upon to adjust business processes
`
`monitored by the RFID systems.” (Id. at 1:28-41.) Those adjustments would
`
`include adjustments to the supply chain as the ’715 patent describes.
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’715 patent discloses systems and methods that collect time-stamped
`
`RFID tag readings for various purposes. (Ex. 1001, at 1:45-49.) Figure 1 of the
`
`’715 patent discloses one of several embodiments of the claimed inventions:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, at Fig. 1 (highlighting added).) As shown, the system “tracks tags 102
`
`at several successive points of a business process 104.” (Id. at 3:38-40.) That
`
`supply chain has a plurality of readers, as depicted by 106-1, 106-2, and 106-N,
`
`which are highlighted in blue. (Id. at 3:53-55.) Those readers “at each read point
`
`attempt to read the tags 102 as the tags pass by or come in proximity to the
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`readers.” (Id. at 3:55-58.) The readers provide the information they collect to a
`
`processor 108, which stores information in a database 110. (Id. at 4:3-5.)
`
`According to one embodiment, “a data modification tool 112 such as a
`
`software module executed by processor 108 modifies part of the information stored
`
`in the database 110 as a function of other information stored in the database 110 so
`
`the modified information may be used to track the tags 102 through the business
`
`process 104.” (Id. at 4:24-29.) Other embodiments provide systems that adjust the
`
`supply of products in the supply chain based on information collected and stored in
`
`the database.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PETITION
`
`The Petition presents two grounds of alleged unpatentability:
`
`Ground 1: Obviousness of claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 over Jones;
`
`Ground 2: Obviousness of claims 4, 5, 7-9, 14, 15, 17-20, 22, 23, 25, 26,
`
`and 29 over Jones in view of Bauer.
`
`A. Overview of Jones
`
`Petitioner’s primary reference, U.S. Patent No. 6,952,645 (“Jones”), titled
`
`“System and Method for Activation of an Advance Notification System for
`
`Monitoring and Reporting Status of Vehicle Travel” issued on October 4, 2005.
`
`(Ex. 1003.) Jones issued from an application (Appl. No. 09/163,588) filed on
`
`September 30, 1998 by Martin Kelly Jones on behalf of ArrivalStar, Inc.
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`(“ArrivalStar”). (Id.) In the past ten years, ArrivalStar has sued numerous entities
`
`alleging infringement of Jones and its progeny, including Petitioner and related
`
`FedEx entities. (E.g., Ex. 2001.)
`
`According to Jones, around 1998 there was a need for a “system and method
`
`for monitoring travel of a vehicle and for providing desirable travel information.”
`
`(Ex. 1003, at 2:47-50.) As one example, Jones asserts that “[a] system
`
`informing…students of the school bus’ proximity is desirable in order for the
`
`students to avoid waiting on the school bus at the school bus stop for extended
`
`times.” (Id. at 2:10-13.)
`
`To that end, Jones proposed a system in which remote users request
`
`information regarding the status of a vehicle, e.g., a school bus. (Ex. 1003, at
`
`Abstract, 2:58-61.) Upon receiving a request from a remote user (e.g., a student or
`
`a bus rider), a “data manager” retrieves travel and location data based on a “vehicle
`
`indicator” (e.g., a bus number) and a “location indicator” (e.g., a bus stop number).
`
`(Id. at abstract.) That “data manager” then “correlates and compares the location
`
`data with travel data associated with the vehicle. The travel data indicates the
`
`current location of the vehicle, and the data manager transmits a message to the
`
`user via the second communications device, when the data manager determines
`
`that the vehicle is a predetermined proximity from the location identified by the
`
`location indicator.” (Id. at 3:5-12.)
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`In stark contrast to the ’715 patent, Jones never contemplates a system that
`
`tracks tags, reads or attempts to read tags at each successive point of a business
`
`process. (Ex. 1003; Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 51-64.) Nor does Jones contemplate storing
`
`information concerning any attempted reads, modifying information in the
`
`database as a function of other information in a database, or using information
`
`concerning attempted reads in any way. (Id.)
`
`B. Overview of Bauer
`
`Petitioner’s secondary reference, U.S. Patent No. 8,321,302 (“Bauer”) titled
`
`“Inventory Management System,” issued on November 27, 2012. (Ex. 1004.)
`
`Bauer issued from an application (Appl. No. 10/348,941) filed on January 23, 2003
`
`by Donald G. Bauer, et al. on behalf of Sensormatic Electronics, LLC. (Id.) Bauer
`
`generally relates to inventory management. (Id. at Abstract, 1:17-21.)
`
`Bauer asserts that around 2003, a need existed for an “intelligent inventory
`
`management system to provide a comprehensive view of the inventory within a
`
`particular environment.” (Id. at 2:48-51.) Accordingly, Bauer presents a system
`
`that allegedly provides “process for managing an inventory of items, each item
`
`being positioned in a respective location within an environment and being
`
`associated with a corresponding wireless identification device.” (Id. at 2:55-60.)
`
`That process “may perform an inventory management process to provide real time
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`information associated with the inventory of items.” (Id. at 2:62-66.) Bauer
`
`Figure 1 shows a depiction of one embodiment of the invention:
`
`
`
`As shown above, this embodiment has two “environments,” labeled 110-1 and
`
`110-N. (Ex. 1004, at 4:29-64.) To perform
`
`these “intelligent
`
`inventory
`
`management services”, each environment has an “IIMS” (an Intelligent Inventory
`
`Management System), a “DCS” (a data collection system), and item inventory. (Id.
`
`at 4:65-5:2.) Similar to Jones, Bauer never contemplates storing information
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`concerning attempted tag reads, modifying information stored concerning tag
`
`reads, or using that information in any way.
`
`C. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention
`
`of the ’715 patent would have held “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.” (Petition at 10.) While IV does not necessarily agree
`
`with that level of ordinary skill, for the purposes of evaluating the Petition, IV
`
`contends it does not meaningfully affect the analysis herein, and will apply it. IV
`
`reserves the right to challenge that definition should trial be instituted.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner does not offer any specific claim constructions for any terms.
`
`Instead, Petitioner offers generic statements regarding IV’s
`
`infringement
`
`contentions in the ongoing litigation between the parties, as allegedly applied to the
`
`limitation “modifying part of the information in the database as a function of other
`
`information in the database”, but does not offer any affirmative claim constructions
`
`for any terms contained therein or any other term.
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`IV has not presented all of its claim construction and validity arguments in
`
`this preliminary response. If the Board institutes trial, IV reserves the right to raise
`
`claim construction arguments in its Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION ON AT LEAST
`GROUND 1 BECAUSE JONES DOES NOT TEACH, SUGGEST, OR
`DISCLOSE “TAGS”, “READERS”, AND OTHER LIMITATIONS OF
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS 1, 2, 11, AND 12.
`
`The Board should deny institution on Ground 1 because Jones does not
`
`teach, suggest, or disclose multiple critical limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`In assessing obviousness, “[a]ll words in a claim must be considered in
`
`judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d
`
`1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). Petitioner has the “burden to prove that all claimed
`
`limitations are disclosed in the prior art.” Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharm., Inc.,
`
`773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“[T]he petition
`
`must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art.”).
`
`Petitioner has not carried its burden here for at least the following reasons.
`
`A.
`
`Jones Does Not Teach, Suggest, or Disclose “Tags” (All
`Challenged Claims).
`
`The ’715 patent “generally relates to tag tracking systems.” (Ex. 1001, at
`
`1:7; see also id. at 3:44-45 (generally describing tags).) The ’715 patent tags are
`
`what a person of skill in the art reading the ’715 patent would understand to be
`
`“low functionality tags” or tags identifying objects that can be tracked or read by
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`readers. (Ex. 1001, at 3:44-45; Ex. 2002, ¶ 54 (generally describing the ’715
`
`patent’s tags as “low functionality tags that talk directly over a physical interface to
`
`a reader”).)
`
` Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Jones does not teach, suggest, or disclose
`
`“tags” or a tag tracking process. Jones Figure 1 shows an embodiment of its
`
`alleged invention, showing the VCU 15, as indicated in yellow below:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1003, at Fig. 1.) As shown, that VCU is a complex, high functionality
`
`computing device that has several components including a GPS sensor 18, a
`
`vehicle manager 29, and a communications device 44 (shown as “TX/RX”). (Id.;
`
`see also Ex. 2002, ¶ 55 (explaining Jones’s VCU as a complex, high functionality
`
`device).) In contrast to the ’715 patent’s tags, which only may be read by a reader,
`
`Jones’ VCUs communicate to a server directly, without the use of a reader. (E.g.,
`
`Ex. 1003, at Figs. 1 and 2; Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 55-59 (explaining how VCUs
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`communicate directly with the server, in contrast to the ’715 patent tags, which is
`
`read by a reader, which in turn communicates with a server).)
`
`Although Petitioner asserts that Jones’s VCUs are “tags” and describes them
`
`as “location sensor tag[s] physically associated with the product being tracked,”
`
`Petitioner never explains why or how those VCUs, or any of their components, are
`
`“tags” or how to use them as tags in the tag tracking process claimed by the ’715
`
`patent. (E.g., Petition at 13, 15-16.) Dr. Hill’s declaration does not rectify the
`
`Petition’s deficiency. (Ex. 1005, [038-41].) Instead, Dr. Hill’s declaration with
`
`respect to “tag” is a verbatim recitation of the Petition. (Compare, e.g., Petition 15-
`
`16 with Ex. 1005, [038].) That verbatim recitation contributes nothing to the
`
`Petition’s analysis, and therefore, the Board should accord little, if any weight to it.
`
`See, e.g., Hyundai Motor Co. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC, Case IPR2016-01477, Paper
`
`13, at 21 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2017) (“[Petitioner’s expert’s] representations are
`
`particularly unconvincing and of minimal probative weight given that they
`
`generally repeat verbatim the precise statements in the claim chart of the Petition,
`
`with the mere addition of phrases like ‘it is my opinion that’ and a single new
`
`sentence.”); Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., Case IPR2013-00048, Paper 94,
`
`at 33 (PTAB May 9, 2014) (concluding that an expert’s verbatim repetition of
`
`Petitioner’s attorney’s argument warrants “little weight in the absence of objective,
`
`evidentiary support.”); see also Fed. R. Evid. 702. Thus, neither Petitioner nor its
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`expert has established that Jones’ disclosure of VCUs teaches the “tags” of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`In sum, because Jones does not disclose, teach, or suggest “tags” or tracking
`
`tags as claimed in the ’715 patent, Petitioner cannot prevail on at least Ground 1
`
`for any challenged claim.
`
`B.
`
`Jones Does Not Teach, Suggest, Or Disclose “Attempting To Read
`Each Tag At Each Successive Point” (Challenged Claims 1 And 2)
`Or “A Reader For Reading Each Tag At Each Successive Point
`And The Time Of Each Reading” (Challenged Claims 1, 2, 11,
`and 12).
`
`Even if the Board disagrees with IV and concludes that Jones’s VCU
`
`constitutes a “tag”, Jones does not teach, suggest, or disclose “attempting to read
`
`each tag at each successive point” (challenged claims 1 and 2) or “a reader for
`
`reading each tag at each successive point and the time of each reading” (challenged
`
`claims 11 and 12) because Jones lacks “a reader” “attempting to read each tag at
`
`each successive point.” Petitioner argues that Jones’ BSCU and its monitoring
`
`mechanism 69 is a “reader” that “attempt[s] to read each tag at each successive
`
`point.” (Petition at 17.) But as described below in more detail, Jones’ BSCU is not
`
`a reader and does not attempt to read each VCU at each successive point.
`
`Moreover, given the nature of Jones’ disclosure—providing users with
`
`advance notification concerning a vehicle’s location—there is no discernible need
`
`to “attempt to read each tag at each successive point” or store information
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`concerning any attempted read. Jones’ goal is to provide an end user, such as a bus
`
`rider, with information concerning when a particular vehicle will reach a particular
`
`stop. Those users are not concerned with whether each VCU is “read” at “each
`
`successive point.” For at least the following reasons, Jones does not teach, suggest
`
`or disclose any of the “reading” limitations in the challenged claims.
`
`1.
`
`“Attempting To Read Each Tag At Each Successive Point”
`(Challenged Claims 1 And 2).
`
`
`
`To argue “attempting to read each tag at each successive point” is met,
`
`Petitioner mischaracterizes Jones’ disclosure and argues that the BSCU 38
`
`“[a]ttempts to read each tag at each successive point” because it allegedly collects
`
`travel data from VCU 15 at “predetermined reference points” for the vehicle.
`
`(Petition at 16 (citing Ex. 1003, at 13:34-67, 18:3-20).) But Jones’s VCUs only
`
`provide GPS coordinates: (1) upon user request (Jones at 13:34-67), (2) at
`
`predetermined time intervals (id. at 18:4-20), or (3) at some point after the VCU
`
`vehicle manager (i.e., not the BSCU) determines that a particular predetermined
`
`location is passed (id. at 17:36-41). None of those constitute an “attemp[t] to read
`
`each tag at each successive point” by the BSCU, as Petitioner claims and as
`
`described below.
`
`
`
`First, having the VCU provide GPS coordinates to the BSCU upon user
`
`request does not constitute “attempting to read each tag at each successive point.”
`
`To receive the information concerning a certain vehicle’s current location on
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`demand, the user contacts the BSCU and “request[s] information pertaining to the
`
`travel data stored in the travel data storage unit,” which is located on the VCU.
`
`(Ex. 1003, at 20:47-51.) As Jones explains:
`
`In the case where the user desires to know the time and/or distance the
`
`selected VCU 15 is from the selected location, the monitoring
`
`mechanism 69 is designed to retrieve from travel data storage unit 68
`
`the coordinates of the destination specified by the user. . . and the
`
`current coordinates of the VCU 15.
`
`(Id. at 13:24-30.) After those coordinates are retrieved, the monitoring mechanism
`
`69 calculates the distance that the VCU is from the selected destination based upon
`
`on the coordinate values of its current location versus the selected destination. (Id.
`
`at 13:34-67.) Having GPS information provided to the BSCU upon that type of
`
`user request does not constitute any attempt by the BSCU to read “each tag” at
`
`“each successive point.” (Ex. 2002, ¶ 63 (explaining how the BSCU in this
`
`embodiment operates “like a Web client retrieving data from the VCU operating
`
`like a Web server” and “attempt[ing] to communicate through a communication
`
`network only to a specific VCU device.”).) Indeed, there will be many vehicles for
`
`which the VCU is never contacted, and there are many stops that the VCU passes
`
`for which information will never be communicated back to the BSCU. (Id.)
`
`Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Hill explains why this embodiment allegedly discloses
`
`or renders obvious “attempting to read each tag at each successive point.”
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 21
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`Second, having the VCU provide the BSCU with GPS coordinates at
`
`predetermined time intervals (id. at 18:4-20) similarly does not constitute
`
`“attempting to read each tag at each successive point.” The ’715 patent discloses
`
`reading each tag at “successive points” in space. In the detailed description of the
`
`invention, the ’715 patent explains that “[g]enerally, the supply chain has a
`
`plurality of readers 106-1 to 106-N at fixed read points or otherwise at known
`
`locations.” (Ex. 1001, at 3:53-55; see also Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 56, 60.) Those reads occur
`
`as the tags pass by or come into proximity to the readers:
`
`The readers 106 at each read point attempt to read the tags 102 as the
`
`tags pass by or come in proximity to the readers so that the tags 102
`
`are read and tracked or monitored at successive read points.
`
`(Ex. 1001, at 3:55-58; see also Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 56, 58, 60 (explaining how reads occur
`
`as the tags “come[] into proximity with each successive tag reader”).) As those
`
`reads occur, the readers “record both the identification of each tag 102 which is
`
`read and the time at which each tag 102 is identified. (Ex. 1001, at 3:62-64.) The
`
`’715 patent depicts such a setup in Figure 1, with the exemplary readers
`
`highlighted in blue:
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 22
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 1 (highlighting added).) As the tagged products move along the
`
`business process (as shown in yellow), the readers (as shown in blue) attempt to
`
`read tags that come into proximity of those readers.
`
`In contrast, having the VCU transmit GPS coordinates to the BSCU at
`
`certain predetermined time intervals is not the same as having a reader “attempting
`
`to read each tag at each successive point” in space. (Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 61-63.) As
`
`Petitioner concedes, those predetermined time intervals are set based on the
`
`amount of time that has elapsed since the start of the route. (Petition at 16 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003, at 18:4-20).) And the VCU transmits those coordinates at those
`
`predetermined times without any “read” attempt whatsoever from the BSCU. (Ex.
`
`17
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 23
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00787
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`
`
`
`
`
`1003, at 18:4-20; Ex. 2002, ¶ 62.) Again, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Hill explains
`
`why this embodiment allegedly discloses or renders obvious this limitation.
`
` Third and lastly, having the VCU provide GPS coordinates to the BSCU at
`
`some point after the VCU determines that a predetermined location is passed
`
`likewise does not constitute the BSCU “attempting to read each tag at each
`
`successive point.” (Ex. 1003, at 17:36-41; see also Petition at 16-17.) Jones
`
`explains that the vehicle manager in the VCU determines whether one particular
`
`checkpoint is passed for one particular vehicle by comparing known GPS
`
`coordinate values with the current GPS coordinate values. (Ex. 1003, at 18:4-
`
`19:15.) When the vehicle manager (in the VCU) determines either that a certain
`
`coordinate is passed for that particular vehicle or that its schedule is off, then the
`
`VCU can transmit the GPS coordinates to the BSCU. (E.g., id. at 18:21-26.) Thus,
`
`the BSCU does not request the GPS coordinates for “each tag at each successive
`
`point”; it only receives the GPS coordinates for a particular vehicle at some point
`
`in time after the VCU determines one particular stop has been passed. Again,
`
`neither Petitioner nor Dr. Hill explains why this embodiment allegedly discloses or
`
`renders obvious “attempting to read each tag at each successive point”.
`
`A person of ordinary skill would not recognize Jones’ BSCU as a “reader”
`
`of tags as the ’715 patent teaches. (Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 61-63.) For example, a