`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`___________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
`AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`TransCore, LP
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Axcess International, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY WECHSELBERGER IN SUPPORT OF
`THE INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,286,158
`
`-1-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 1 of 85
`
`
`
`I, Anthony Wechselberger, declare and state as follows:
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness for the Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158 (“the ‘158 patent”) filed by TransCore, LP
`
`(“Petitioner” or “TransCore”) against Axcess International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”
`
`or “Axcess”). More specifically, I have been asked to render opinions for this IPR
`
`as to the patentability of Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 19-21 of the ‘158 patent.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`2.
`
`A copy of my Curriculum Vitae (“CV”) is attached to this declaration
`
`as Appendix A.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from the University of Arizona in 1974 and a Master of Science degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering from San Diego State University in 1979. In addition, in
`
`1984, I completed the Executive Program for Scientists and Engineers at the
`
`University of California at San Diego.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently the President of Entropy Management Solutions
`
`(“EMS”), a position I have held since I founded the company in 1999. In this
`
`capacity, I perform consulting services related to technology and business
`
`development, content management, distribution and merchandizing, systems
`
`engineering, and product design in the areas of industrial and consumer broadband
`
`-2-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 2 of 85
`
`
`
`and multimedia technologies and associated commercial systems. As a result of my
`
`twenty-five years of extensive technology experience in corporate life, and
`
`continuing as President of EMS, I have worked with various aspects of video
`
`distribution systems, including systems and equipment that included and supported
`
`on-demand content access such as pay-per-view (PPV) and video on demand
`
`(VOD).
`
`5.
`
`I have over forty years of experience working with high technology
`
`systems related to military, commercial, and consumer communication systems,
`
`networks, and appliances. I have held various design, leadership, and executive
`
`positions in, for example, engineering, operations, sales and marketing, and
`
`product management at leading companies, such as TV/COM International, Inc.
`
`(TV/COM) and Oak Communications, Inc. (Oak), in those fields.
`
`6.
`
`I specialize in the areas of digital communications technologies,
`
`systems and networks, including infrastructures, signal processing, network
`
`management and command and control, and information security as used for
`
`content management, merchandizing and delivery. My background includes much
`
`experience with interactive and client-server technologies, such as those used in
`
`broadband and Internet networks. Network management and command and control
`
`refers to the technical oversight and management of communication systems and
`
`equipment within a distribution system to direct both the transmission equipment
`
`-3-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 3 of 85
`
`
`
`(e.g., network infrastructures, servers, hubs, nodes, head ends and uplinks etc.) and
`
`receiving equipment (e.g., personal computer (PC), television, set top box (STB),
`
`handset/mobile device or other consumer appliance) as to communications,
`
`applications, set-up and operations in order to perform required features and
`
`functions.
`
`7.
`
`As Vice President at Oak Communications (1980s) and Chief
`
`Technology Officer at TV/COM (1990s), I was involved in the development of
`
`terrestrial broadcast, satellite uplink and cable head end industrial equipment for
`
`television transmissions, as well as consumer appliance equipment such as STBs
`
`and other home based or home networked devices. All of these architectures
`
`included computer control systems for network and associated network device
`
`command and control, and for management of content distribution and consumer
`
`appliance functions. For example, these systems were all addressable.
`
`“Addressability” enables the system operator to control the delivery of content and
`
`network services, network sourcing and receiving devices (e.g., servers and
`
`transmission equipment, and PC or STB receivers) and the consumer experience.
`
`Examples are delivery of software or data files, in which purchased or subscription
`
`services or content is available, and a la carte functions such as pay-per-view
`
`(PPV) and video-on-demand (VOD).
`
`-4-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 4 of 85
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I was involved from the start with the development and evolution of
`
`modern consumer digital audio and video communications systems and
`
`technologies. In 1991, my employer, TV/COM, and I began to participate in the
`
`International Organization for Standardization (ISO) MPEG-2 digital television
`
`standards initiatives, and in the following year, both the European Digital Video
`
`Broadcast (DVB) and U.S. Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC)
`
`forums (which were based upon MPEG-2). I was an active participant and
`
`contributor to the first two standard-setting bodies, and was a voting member of the
`
`ATSC. As Chief Technology Officer of TV/COM, I developed a business strategy
`
`based on supporting open international standards for digital television (DTV). In
`
`the mid 1990s, as the technologies and standards in support of DTV moved
`
`towards implementation, the dawn of the Internet age arrived. This had a dramatic
`
`impact on the way broadband systems engineers like myself began to plan for the
`
`future. This is because the concept of convergence—the melding of traditional
`
`broadband communications systems and equipment, computers and computer
`
`networks, and the telecommunications worlds—was changing the communications
`
`infrastructure and technology landscape. When television distribution went all-
`
`digital, the information of television became simply “data”—and it became
`
`possible for the technologies of digital television, computers and computer
`
`networks and the telephony industry (which was in the midst of its transition to
`
`-5-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 5 of 85
`
`
`
`digital infrastructure that began in the 1970s) to coalesce. Support for on-line and
`
`Internet services demanded a high performance two-way data transmission
`
`capability, and so broadband network providers began to upgrade their distribution
`
`infrastructures accordingly.
`
`9.
`
`In conjunctions with this convergence, as TV/COM’s Chief
`
`Technology Officer I directed the expansion of our network products into
`
`broadband data communications generally, from its initial focus on digital
`
`television. Networks became more advanced in order to support real-time
`
`interaction between consumers and information sources within the network.
`
`Interactive and on-line applications led to rapid adoption of client-server
`
`information access approaches (typical of the computer industry) in the products
`
`and technologies I worked with for content delivery and network command and
`
`control functions. Starting in the early 1990s the ubiquitous set top box began to
`
`evolve from a minimalist appliance towards its current status as a communications
`
`hub of the consumer’s media room. In this same time period, the PC had also
`
`become a ubiquitous consumer appliance, and with the Internet age came much
`
`innovation in electronic information distribution and electronic merchandizing –
`
`that is art related to complementing physical information media and brick and
`
`mortar institutions with all-electronic digital alternatives. This was an explosive
`
`-6-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 6 of 85
`
`
`
`period of innovation in so called digital rights management (DRM) art. I and
`
`TV/COM were part of this evolution until TV/COM was purchased in 1999.
`
`10.
`
`In my consulting work I have continued to work with technologies
`
`and network infrastructures for content distribution and management. My current
`
`work involves both traditional and newly developing architectures and distribution
`
`channels. As an example of the latter, I am the chief security systems architect on
`
`behalf of the six major Hollywood studios for their “Digital Cinema Initiatives”
`
`(DCI) consortium1. DCI develops and evolves the specifications for transitioning
`
`first run theatrical movie releases from film to digital for distribution and
`
`exhibition display. I am responsible for all elements of command and control and
`
`digital rights management (DRM) for the digital cinema system design and
`
`implementation. I also represent DCI at the Society of Motion Picture and
`
`Television Engineers (SMPTE), which is developing the set of internationally
`
`recognized standards for global adoption of digital cinema. The migration to all-
`
`digital distribution impacts other content distribution channels such as early
`
`window release for hospitality, airplane and cable/satellite video-on-demand
`
`(VOD), as well as newer so called “over-the-top” distribution channels based on
`
`Internet distribution. I have also been a strategy and technology consultant to
`
`content management and distribution entities in these areas.
`
`
`1 See: http://www.dcimovies.com/
`
`-7-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 7 of 85
`
`
`
`11. My consulting practice today includes a balance of technology and
`
`systems engineering services and assistance to the legal community as a
`
`technology consultant and/or expert witness. I have been accepted to provide, and
`
`have provided expert testimony in the areas of multimedia technologies and
`
`associated networks as used for content management and delivery on many
`
`occasions. A case list of my assistance to the legal community over the past five
`
`years is attached as Appendix B.
`
`12.
`
`I am currently a member of the Society of Cable &
`
`Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE), the Society of Motion Picture and
`
`Television Engineers (SMPTE) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
`
`Engineers (IEEE). I have previously been a member of the International
`
`Organization for Standardization (ISO), Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG),
`
`the Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) group and as chief technology officer of
`
`TV/Com International, a voting member of the Advanced Television Systems
`
`Committee (ATSC).
`
`13.
`
`I am an inventor on U.S. Patent No. 4,531,020, issued July 23, 1985
`
`and entitled “Multi-layer Encryption System for the Broadcast of Encrypted
`
`Information” and U.S. Patent No. 5,113,440, issued May 12, 1992 and entitled
`
`“Universal Decoder.” I have participated in U.S. patent prosecution, and have a
`
`-8-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 8 of 85
`
`
`
`general understanding of the process, and a good understanding of the novelty and
`
`non-obviousness requirements for patentability.
`
`14. Over many years I have published and/or presented a number of
`
`articles and papers related to content/information creation,
`
`transmission/distribution, and reception/consumption in various media sectors,
`
`including cable, satellite, broadcast/wireless, Internet, and digital cinema. Attached
`
`as Appendix C is a list of my publications.
`
`III. COMPENSATION
`
`15.
`
`I am being compensated for the time that I spend consulting on this
`
`IPR at a rate of $375 per hour. My compensation is not dependent upon the
`
`outcome of this IPR.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`16.
`
`In developing my opinions for this IPR, I reviewed the ‘158 patent, its
`
`prosecution history, a previously filed inter partes reexamination request and
`
`related prosecution history, and numerous prior art references in the relevant field
`
`of technology.
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`17.
`
`I am not an attorney, and I will offer no opinions on the law.
`
`However, I have an understanding of several principles concerning invalidity (and
`
`other legal issues). I understand that a patent claim can be invalid under the United
`
`-9-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 9 of 85
`
`
`
`States patent laws for various reasons, including, for example, anticipation or
`
`obviousness in light of the prior art. In arriving at my opinions, I have applied the
`
`following legal standards and analyses:
`
`Anticipation
`
`Regarding the legal doctrine of anticipation, my understanding is as
`
`A.
`
`18.
`
`follows.
`
`19.
`
`A claim is anticipated if the claimed invention was known or used by
`
`others in the United States, or patented or described in a printed publication in the
`
`United States or a foreign country, before the patentee invented the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`20.
`
`Also, a claim is anticipated if the claimed invention was patented or
`
`described in a printed publication in the United States or a foreign country or in
`
`public use or on sale in the United States, more than one year prior to the date that
`
`the patentee filed an application for patent directed to the claimed invention.
`
`21.
`
`Additionally, a claim is anticipated if the claimed invention was
`
`described in either (1) a published patent application filed by another in the United
`
`States before the patentee invented the claimed invention or (2) a patent granted on
`
`an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the patentee
`
`invented the claimed invention.
`
`22.
`
`Anticipation must be found in a single reference, device, or process.
`
`-10-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 10 of 85
`
`
`
`23.
`
`For a prior art reference to anticipate, each claim limitation, as
`
`properly construed, must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in the prior
`
`art reference, and the claimed arrangement or combination of those limitations
`
`must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in the prior art reference.
`
`24.
`
`Although anticipation cannot be established through a combination of
`
`references, additional references may be used to interpret an allegedly anticipating
`
`reference by, for example, indicating what the allegedly anticipating reference
`
`would have meant to one of ordinary skill in the art. For the claim to be
`
`anticipated, however, the additional references must make clear that the missing
`
`descriptive matter is inherent to the features described in the prior art references. In
`
`other words, the missing feature is necessarily or implicitly present in the allegedly
`
`anticipating reference.
`
`25.
`
`For a prior art device to anticipate, each claim limitation, as properly
`
`construed, must be embodied in the prior art device.
`
`26.
`
`If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would
`
`necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed is anticipated by
`
`the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in
`
`the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device
`
`will inherently perform the claimed process.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 11 of 85
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness
`
`27. Regarding the legal doctrine of obviousness, my understanding is as
`
`follows.
`
`28. A claim may be invalid even if each and every claim limitation is not
`
`present or disclosed in a single prior art reference or device.
`
`29. Under the doctrine of obviousness, a claim is invalid if the differences
`
`between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was made to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.
`
`30. A person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have knowledge of
`
`the relevant prior art at the time of the claimed invention.
`
`31. Obviousness is based on the scope and content of the prior art, the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claim, the level of ordinary sill in the art,
`
`and secondary indicia of obviousness and non-obviousness to the extent such
`
`indicia exist.
`
`32. The scope of the prior art includes any prior art that was reasonably
`
`pertinent to the particular problems the inventor faced.
`
`33. The determination of whether patent claims would have been obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art and, therefore, invalid, is not governed by
`
`any rigid test or formula. Instead, a determination that a claim is obvious is based
`
`-12-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 12 of 85
`
`
`
`on a common sense determination that the claimed invention is merely a
`
`combination of known limitations to achieve predictable results.
`
`34. Any of the following rationales are acceptable justifications to
`
`conclude that a claim would have been obvious:
`
`A. the claimed invention is a combination of known prior art methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`B. the claimed invention is a substitution of one known element
`
`for another to obtain predictable results;
`
`C. the claimed invention uses known techniques to improve
`
`similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
`
`D. the claimed invention applies a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`E. the claimed invention was “obvious to try” – choosing from a
`
`finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success;
`
`F. there is known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt
`
`variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one
`
`based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations
`
`would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`-13-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 13 of 85
`
`
`
`G. there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art
`
`reference to combine prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`inventions.
`
`35.
`
`In addition, a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the claim is obvious in view of the
`
`common sense or knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`36. An analysis of whether a claimed invention is obvious must not rely
`
`on a hindsight combination of prior art. Instead, the analysis must proceed in the
`
`context of the time of the alleged invention or claimed priority date and consider
`
`whether the invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, taking into consideration any interrelated teachings of the prior art,
`
`the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
`
`marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
`
`reason to combine any known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at
`
`issue.
`
`37. Secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include, for example:
`
`
`
`A. a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the
`
`invention of the patent;
`
`-14-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 14 of 85
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. commercial success of a product or process covered by the patent;
`
`C. unexpected results achieved by the invention;
`
`D. praise of the invention by others skilled in the art;
`
`E. taking of licenses under the patent by others; and
`
`
`
`F. deliberate copying of the invention.
`
`38.
`
`I also understand that these secondary considerations are only relevant
`
`to obviousness if there is a connection, or nexus, between them and the invention
`
`covered by the patent claims. For example, commercial success is relevant to
`
`obviousness only if the success of the product is related to a feature of the patent
`
`claims. If commercial success is due to advertising, promotion, salesmanship or the
`
`like, or is due to features of the product other than those claimed in the patent-in-
`
`suit, then any commercial success should not be considered an indication of non-
`
`obviousness.
`
`39.
`
`In forming my opinions on obviousness, I have not seen any evidence
`
`that supports any secondary considerations.
`
`C.
`
`Priority Date and Date of Invention
`
`40.
`
`I understand that multiple dates may be relevant to a claimed
`
`invention and the prior art that may be asserted against a claim.
`
`41.
`
`The ‘158 patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 09/469,644
`
`(“the ‘644 Application”) on December 22, 1999, and issued on October 23, 2007.
`
`-15-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 15 of 85
`
`
`
`Thus, I understand that the earliest effective filing date for Claims 1-5, 8-12, and
`
`19-21 of the ‘158 patent is December 22, 1999.
`
`42.
`
`I am informed that in the underlying litigation, Axcess has not
`
`indicated a priority date or date of invention prior to December 22, 1999.
`
`Therefore, it is my understanding that for purposes of this IPR, the priority date
`
`and date of invention for the ‘158 patent is December 22, 1999, and I have
`
`analyzed Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 19-21 of the ‘158 patent using this December 22,
`
`1999 priority date and date of invention.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`43.
`
`The ‘158 specification describes the technical field of the alleged
`
`invention as “remote business management, and more particularly to a method and
`
`system for providing integrated remote monitoring services” (Ex. 1001 – 1:8-10).
`
`Based upon my personal knowledge and experience in the fields of video sourcing,
`
`control and transmission/distribution technology, and general communications
`
`technology, in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ‘158
`
`patent at the time of the alleged invention, would have the equivalent of a four-year
`
`degree from an accredited institution (e.g., a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree) in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent
`
`education, and approximately three years of industry experience related to video
`
`-16-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 16 of 85
`
`
`
`control, transmission/distribution and general communications, or an equivalent
`
`level of skill and knowledge, inclusive of Internet and RFID communications.
`
`44.
`
`In forming the opinions set forth in this declaration, I applied this
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`VII. THE ‘158 PATENT
`
`45.
`
`I have reviewed the ’158 patent, which is entitled “Method and
`
`System for Providing Integrated Remote Monitoring Services.” The ‘158 patent
`
`describes a system that enables remote monitoring of a facility. In the embodiment
`
`illustrated in Fig. 1 of the ‘158 patent (shown below), the remote monitoring
`
`system includes monitored facilities (MF) 14, a central host 16, and subscribers 18
`
`connected to the Internet 12.
`U.S. P a t e n t O c t . 23, 2007
`
`Sheet 1 of 4
`
`U
`
`S
`
` 7,286,158 B1
`
`14
`MF
`
`FIG. 1
`
`MF
`
`14 MF
`
`14
`
`SUBSCRIBER V-18
`
`SUBSCRIBER
`
`18
`
`MF
`
`16
`
`MF
`
`14
`SUBSCRIBER K 1 8
`
`
`
`46.
`
`The ‘158 patent provides details of a monitored facility (MF) 14 in
`
`Fig. 2 (shown below). As described with respect to the embodiment illustrated in
`HOST
`DATABASE
`APPLICATIONS
`ACTIVITY RECORDS
`Fig. 2, MF 14 is a retail clothing store 40 that includes a sales floor 42, a back area
`LOCATION V-162
`FACILITY 1_7-180
`ACCESS
`VIDEO
`DATABASE V 182
`ACCESS
`COMBINED k 166
`-17-
`ALERT V 184
`PROCESSION
`REPORT I x - 186
`GENERATION
`
`160
`
`160
`
`000
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 17 of 85
`
`
`
`44 supported by a security door 46, and the back area 44 includes a stock area 60, a
`
`vault room 62 and a computer room 64.
`
`
`
`47.
`
`The computer room 64 includes a local computer system 78 that
`
`collects data using radio frequency identification (RFID) tag technology. RFID
`
`data is collected by stationary polling stations (PSs) as assets enter or leave store
`
`40 and as they enter certain defined areas. Polling station (PS) 100 polls tagged
`
`inventory on sales floor 42 and PS 102 polls tagged inventory included in
`
`inventory 70 (Ex. 1001 – 5:36-44). The RFID data is collected by a local computer
`
`system 78 and transmitted to central host 16 (Ex. 1001 – 6:56-67).
`
`48.
`
`The ‘158 patent describes that digital network video cameras or
`
`standard video cameras 110-124 are distributed throughout the store 40 and
`
`connect to the Internet 12, either directly or indirectly (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 – 5:65-
`
`-18-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 18 of 85
`
`
`
`6:3). The ‘158 patent discloses that the video data collection may be triggered via
`
`an external trigger or alarm and that the video may be transmitted live or recorded
`
`for later review (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 – 6:4-7). The ‘158 patent also describes that a
`
`remote video controller 188 located at the host 16 provides operators and
`
`subscribers 18 with control of the video cameras in the monitored facility 14 (Ex.
`
`1001 – 8:36-42).
`
`49.
`
`I note that there is a great deal of disclosure of central host 16
`
`functionality within the ‘158 specification, however, the central host component
`
`does not appear in any claim. The only actors from Fig. 1 that appear in the claims
`
`are the remote (i.e., monitored) facility and the subscriber, and this of course
`
`means that the prior art only needs to read on these two actors.
`
`50.
`
`The prior art, as shown and described in the references discussed
`
`herein, illustrates that claims 1-5, 8-12, and 19-21 of the ‘158 patent were obvious
`
`at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘158 patent, i.e., December 22, 1999.
`
`
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`51. My opinions related to the issue of patentability of the ‘158 patent are
`
`based upon the claim constructions set forth in TransCore’s Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of the ‘158 patent (“the Petition”), which are also set forth below.
`
`The following bolded and un-numbered elements recite TransCore’s construction
`
`-19-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 19 of 85
`
`
`
`of various claim terms. I have not independently verified the appropriateness of the
`
`claim constructions recited below, however, the proposed construction of the claim
`
`terms is consistent with my understanding of such terms as they would be
`
`understood to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`• “integrated remote monitoring services”
`
`The term “integrated remote monitoring services” appears only in the
`
`preamble of claim 1 (and does not appear in any other claim or claim element).
`
`The ‘158 patent refers to providing integrated remote monitoring services,
`
`but does not explicitly define the term. However, the background of the ‘158 patent
`
`refers to apparently prior art video surveillance technology that “allows remote
`
`personnel to connect to a video camera at a facility and control or determine
`
`conditions at the facility,” but indicates that such video technology does not
`
`provide an integrated solution for business owners (Ex. 1001 – 1:35-42; italic
`
`added to “or” for emphasis). Immediately following the Background, in first
`
`paragraph of the Summary of the Invention, the ‘158 patent then describes
`
`integrated monitoring services as those that “allow a subscriber to remotely
`
`monitor, evaluate, and control operations at a facility” (Ex. 1001 – 1:50-52; italic
`
`added to “and” for emphasis). Thus, non-integrated services allow video
`
`monitoring along with control or the ability to determine conditions; and integrated
`
`-20-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 20 of 85
`
`
`
`services allow video monitoring along with control and evaluation (which appears
`
`to equate to “determining conditions”). Therefore, the term “integrated remote
`
`monitoring services” should be construed as providing more than one type of
`
`service in addition to video monitoring.
`
`• “RFID system”
`
`Claims 1, 8, and 19 recite the term “RFID system” without providing
`
`context which would define the term’s scope. Turning to the description, the ‘158
`
`patent dedicates an entire paragraph to the incorporation by reference of seven U.S.
`
`patent applications that disclose RFID systems. These seven U.S. patent
`
`applications include Application Nos. 09/298,982; 09/357,435; 09/298,559;
`
`09/258,974; 08/789,148; No. 09/357,669; and 09/357,688 (Ex. 1001 – 4:65 to
`
`5:13).
`
`I have been informed that these applications all describe essentially the same
`
`type of “RFID system,” as the following background provided to me supports:
`
`Application No. 09/357,435 issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,005,985 (the ‘985 patent)
`
`on February 28, 2006 (Ex. 1008). The ‘985 patent describes an RFID system 10
`
`that includes a base station 11 that resides in a fixed location and communicates
`
`with one or more radio tags 20 by an analog signal at a specified radio frequency.
`
`Radio tag 20 is described as a remote, portable self-contained device that may be
`
`affixed to a moveable item, such as a person, inventory or a vehicle. Base station
`
`-21-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 21 of 85
`
`
`
`11 is described as a conventional unit and includes a card reader 12, a control
`
`system 14 and a base station antenna 16. Reader 12 is described as acquiring
`
`incoming signals from antenna 16 and demodulating the incoming signal for
`
`processing by control system 14 (Ex. 1008 – 3:45-65 and Fig. 1). Application
`
`09/258,974 issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,294,953 (the ‘953 patent) on September 25,
`
`2001 (Ex. 1009). The ‘953 patent similarly describes the RFID system as including
`
`a conventional base station that communicates with radio tags (Ex. 1009 – 2:30-47
`
`and Fig. 1). The other one of the applications that was incorporated by reference
`
`into the ’158 patent and that issued or was published (i.e., Application No.
`
`08/789,148) describes a similar RFID system. In fact, such an RFID system is
`
`consistent with the description of the system in the ’158 patent itself.
`
`Therefore, the term “RFID system” in the claims of the ’158 patent should
`
`be construed as a conventional radio frequency identification (RFID) system that
`
`includes a base station with a reader and a control/processing unit that processes
`
`RFID data.
`
`• “receiving and storing radio frequency identification (RFID) data
`
`from an RFID system at a remote facility of a subscriber”
`
`
`
`The phrase “from an RFID system at a remote facility of a subscriber” is
`
`included in claim 1 and should be read together (i.e., collectively) as a single
`
`limitation.
`
`-22-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 22 of 85
`
`
`
`
`
`That is, this limitation does not require that the receiving and storing RFID
`
`data be performed at a location that is remote from either the monitored facility or
`
`a subscriber. There are no commas or other punctuation that require that either or
`
`both of the receiving and storing of RFID data is to be performed at the remote
`
`facility. The claim only requires that the RFID data that is received and stored is
`
`from an RFID system at a remote facility.
`
`• “remote facility”
`
`
`
`As noted above, the phrase “remote facility” appears in the first element of
`
`claim 1. The ‘158 patent does not explicitly provide a reference number to any
`
`element in the Figures with respect to the term “remote facility.” However, the
`
`‘158 patent refers to the remote facility, monitored facility and remote monitored
`
`facility interchangeably. For example, the ‘158 patent refers to receiving an RFID
`
`event at a monitored facility 14 and a remote monitored facility (Ex. 1001 – 9:47-
`
`49; and Fig. 5, step 250). That is, the ‘158 patent refers to “monitored facility 14”
`
`in the text and refers to “remote monitored facility” in Fig. 5 at step 250 when
`
`illustrating the same step. All of the terms “remote facility,” “monitored facility,”
`
`and “remote monitored facility” refer to one of monitored facilities (MF) 14.
`
`• “the facility”
`
`
`
`Claim 1 in line 4 introduces the term “a remote facility,” described at item 4
`
`of this section above. The term “the facility” at claim 1, line 7 should be construed
`
`-23-
`
`TransCore Exhibit 1002 - Page 23 of 85
`
`
`
`as referring to the “remote facility” introduced at line 4, in order to provide proper
`
`antecedent basis. That is, the “remote facility” and “the facility” in claim 1 should
`
`be construed as the same facility.
`
`
`
`• “subscriber”
`
`Claims 1-5, 12 and 19 use the term “subscriber.” The ‘158 patent refers to a
`
`user that subscribes to a service in which data, such as video data, is collected at a
`
`business location and made available to the user/subscriber for viewing (Ex. 1001
`
`– 2:31-41). The ‘158 patent does not describe that the subscriber pays any fee for
`
`being provided with access to the video or other data, or that there is any particular
`
`relati
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
