Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 29
`Date: August 16, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`KEEP TRUCKIN, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`INNOVATIVE GLOBAL SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
`FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Petitioner Keep Truckin, Inc. filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,032,277 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’277 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 29
`Date: August 16, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`KEEP TRUCKIN, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`INNOVATIVE GLOBAL SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
`FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Petitioner Keep Truckin, Inc. filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,032,277 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’277 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`§ 311(a). On August 19, 2020, we instituted an inter partes review as to all
`challenged claims on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.
`Paper 7 (“Decision on Institution” or “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner
`Innovative Global Systems, LLC subsequently filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 17, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 22,
`“Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 26, “Sur-Reply”).
`An oral hearing was held on April 22, 2021, and a transcript of the hearing is
`included in the record (Paper 28, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that
`follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1–13 are unpatentable.
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’277 patent is the subject of the following
`pending district court case: Innovative Global Systems, LLC v. Keep Truckin,
`Inc., Case No. 19-cv-00641-MN (D. Del.). See Paper 14, 2; Paper 23, 1.
`Petitioner also filed a petition challenging claims of related U.S. Patent
`No. 10,157,384 B2 in Case IPR2020-00694. A final written decision was
`entered in Case IPR2020-00694 on July 21, 2021.
`
`
`C. The ’277 Patent
`The ’277 patent discloses devices and methods for “logging and
`reporting driver activity and vehicle operation.” Ex. 1001, code (57).
`Operators of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are required to comply
`with “rules governing the safe operation of . . . vehicles,” including hours of
`service (HOS) regulations designed to reduce “driver fatigue and sleep
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`disorder related incidents on the nation’s highways.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 11–26.
`The ’277 patent states that it incorporates by reference federal regulations
`defined in 49 C.F.R. Parts 395 and 390.5, which “prohibit drivers from
`operating or being forced to operate their vehicles more than a specified
`amount of time between mandatory off-duty periods” and require logging of
`activities to ensure compliance. Id. at col. 1, ll. 27–38, 52–54. According to
`the ’277 patent, “[t]he cost of compliance with these reporting requirements
`is extraordinarily burdensome” and expensive when using a paper log. Id. at
`col. 1, ll. 55–62. The ’277 patent seeks to solve this issue using a
`mechanical device in the vehicle. Id. at col. 1, l. 66–col. 6, l. 17.
`Figure 1 of the ’277 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts front panel 240 of on-board recorder 200, which has
`“various inputs and outputs for interfacing with” the vehicle driver, a host
`server, or a device operated by legal authorities; sensors within the vehicle
`(e.g., a vehicle odometer); a data bus of the vehicle; and a global navigation
`satellite system (e.g., the Global Positioning System (GPS)). Id. at col. 6,
`ll. 49–56. On-board recorder 200 obtains, via various interfaces, “mileage
`from the vehicle mileage sensing system,” “mileage, engine use, miles
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`driven, time and date” from the vehicle engine control module (ECM), and
`vehicle location, date, and time from a global navigation satellite system.
`Id. at col. 7, ll. 28–35.
`On-board recorder 200 also includes duty status buttons 244 for
`inputting the driver’s current duty status. Id. at col. 6, l. 56–col. 7, l. 3.
`The ’277 patent lists four possible duty statuses: “driving-on duty, not
`driving-on duty, off duty, and sleeper berth.” Id. at col. 8, ll. 44–45. A duty
`status change can be recorded manually when the driver presses one of duty
`status buttons 244 or automatically when certain information is received by
`on-board recorder 200. Id. at col. 8, ll. 45–50. For example, on-board
`recorder 200 can log a change to driving-on duty status “when the vehicle
`starts to move, as determined by the ECM indicating engine use, i.e., that the
`vehicle has been started, and by the vehicle mileage sensing system or ECM
`indicating motion,” or a change to off duty status when the driver logs out
`from on-board recorder 200. Id. at col. 9, ll. 9–30. On-board recorder 200
`uses raw data collected over time to create an HOS log. Id. at col. 8,
`ll. 51–54.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`Figure 5 of the ’277 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 5 depicts an exemplary method for “logging and reporting driver and
`vehicle operating data.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 32–33. The on-board recorder
`identifies the driver at step 505 (e.g., via input to biometric reading device
`242 shown in Figure 1 above), receives and records GPS, mileage, and ECM
`data at steps 510 and 515, determines and records duty status changes (via
`manual input or automatically) at step 520, “calculat[es] total hours per day
`in each duty status to create an HOS log” at step 530, and compares the
`HOS log to HOS regulations to determine compliance with such regulations
`at step 540. Id. at col. 10, ll. 39–55. The ’277 patent discloses that
`[i]n creating the HOS log, recorder 200 continuously calculates
`the time the driver has been in each duty status over the course
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`of a day. The HOS log includes the time per duty status for eight
`consecutive days, including a calculation of the total hours driven
`today, total hours on duty for the past seven days, and total hours
`on duty for the past eight days. The hours of service log is
`typically created from date, time, mileage and duty status.
`Id. at col. 8, ll. 57–64, col. 11, ll. 1–20 (describing an exemplary HOS log
`shown in Figure 6, with duty status on the vertical axis and hours of the day
`on the horizontal axis).
`Finally, the on-board recorder periodically displays the HOS log or
`compliance information to the driver (e.g., via display 250 shown in Figure 1
`above) at step 570, uploads the information to a “receiver external to the
`vehicle” (e.g., via a wireless telecommunications network) at step 560, or
`uploads the information to a device of “federal, national, state, provincial or
`local authorities” at step 550. Id. at col. 9, ll. 42–col. 10, l. 14, col. 10,
`ll. 39–55. For example, “[b]y continuously emitting a signal indicating the
`compliance status of the driver, recorder 200 provides a way whereby
`authorized federal, state or local officials can immediately check the status
`of a driver’s hours of service.” Id. at col. 10, ll. 11–14. A device operated
`by authorities can receive a compliance signal “whenever the vehicle is
`within a predetermined range of the second receiver located, for example in
`a hand-held device, law enforcement vehicle, weigh station, or along a
`highway,” or the device may wirelessly interrogate the on-board recorder for
`certain data. Id. at col. 10, ll. 14–28.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Challenged claims 1 and 2 of the ’277 patent are independent.
`Claims 3–13 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 2. Claim 2 recites:
`2. A method for logging and reporting driver activity and
`vehicle operation, comprising: identifying a driver of a vehicle;
`recording operating data with an electronic device
`operatively connected to a data bus of the vehicle, coupled to a
`vehicle mileage sensing system, and linked to a global navigation
`satellite system, the operating data being selected from a group
`consisting of mileage obtained from at least one of the vehicle
`mileage sensing system and the data bus; engine use, time, and
`date obtained from the vehicle data bus; and location, time, and
`date obtained from the global navigation satellite system;
`recording a duty status of the driver;
`creating an hours of service log comprising data selected
`from a group consisting of a change in duty status of the driver,
`time and date the change occurred, hours within each duty status,
`total hours driven today, total hours on duty for seven days, and
`total hours on duty for eight days; and
`automatically uploading the hours of service log to a
`receiver
`external
`to
`the vehicle using
`a wireless
`telecommunications network.
`
`
`E. Evidence
`The pending grounds of unpatentability in the instant inter partes
`review are based on the following prior art:
`U.S. Patent No. 6,225,890 B1, issued May 1, 2001
`(Ex. 1007, “Murphy”);
`Publication
`Application
`Patent
`International
`No. WO 97/13208, published Apr. 10, 1997 (Ex. 1006,
`“Houser”);1 and
`
`1 When citing Houser, we refer to the page numbers listed at the top of each
`page and the line numbers in the left margin of each page.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 390–
`396 (Oct. 1, 2003) (Ex. 1008, “Transportation Regulations”).
`Petitioner filed a declaration from Scott Andrews (Exhibit 1002) with its
`Petition. Patent Owner filed a declaration from William T. Brown
`(Exhibit 2006) with its Response.
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds
`The instant inter partes review involves the following grounds of
`unpatentability:
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`1
`
`1, 2, 4–7, 12, 13
`
`3, 8–11
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)2
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Houser
`Houser, Transportation
`Regulations
`Houser, Transportation
`Regulations, Murphy
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Legal Standards
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of claims 1–13 of the
`’277 patent, Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
`that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). “In an [inter partes
`review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v.
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the challenged claims
`of the ’277 patent have an effective filing date before the effective date of
`the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA version of
`35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden of
`persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(“Where, as here, the only question presented is whether due consideration
`of the four Graham factors renders a claim or claims obvious, no burden
`shifts from the patent challenger to the patentee. This is especially true
`where the only issues to be considered are what the prior art discloses,
`whether there would have been a motivation to combine the prior art, and
`whether that combination would render the patented claims obvious.”).
`A claim is unpatentable for obviousness if, to one of ordinary skill in
`the pertinent art, “the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006)).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including “the scope and content of the prior art”;
`“differences between the prior art and the claims at issue”; and “the level of
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966). Additionally, secondary considerations, such as “commercial
`success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized
`to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
`matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness,
`these inquiries may have relevancy.”3 Id. When conducting an obviousness
`
`
`3 Patent Owner has not presented any evidence of secondary considerations
`of nonobviousness in this proceeding.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`analysis, we consider a prior art reference “not only for what it expressly
`teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu,
`923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).
`A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that
`each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR,
`550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that
`a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled
`artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’”
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359,
`1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418
`(for an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”).
`“Although the KSR test is flexible, the Board ‘must still be careful not to
`allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as
`to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed
`invention.’” TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) (citation omitted). Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be
`sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
`articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); accord In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d
`1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that “conclusory statements” amount to
`an “insufficient articulation[] of motivation to combine”; “instead, the
`finding must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’” (citation omitted));
`Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380 (“To satisfy its burden of proving
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The
`petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of
`record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).
`
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`We consider Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability in view
`of the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The level of
`ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens through which . . . the Board
`views the prior art and the claimed invention” to prevent hindsight bias.
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In determining
`the level of ordinary skill in the art for a challenged patent, we look to
`“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 the technology; and 5) the educational level of active
`workers in the field.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 666–667
`(Fed. Cir. 2000). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one
`or more of them may predominate.” Id.
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the parties’ arguments and
`record at the time, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition and
`preliminarily found that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`’277 patent (August 2005) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`engineering, or equivalent, at least two years of experience related to
`designing and/or developing on-board recording devices for commercial
`vehicles, and familiarity with the rules and regulations governing logging
`and reporting of data for drivers of motor carriers.” Dec. on Inst. 9; see
`Pet. 8–10; Ex. 1002 ¶ 16; Paper 6, 3. The parties agree with that assessment.
`See PO Resp. 4; Reply 3. Based on the full record developed during trial,
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`including our review of the ’277 patent and the types of problems and prior
`art solutions described in the ’277 patent, we adopt the preliminary
`definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of
`this Decision.
`
`
`C. Claim Interpretation
`We interpret the challenged claims
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b),
`including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary
`and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to
`the patent.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Neither party proposes any interpretations for
`terms in the challenged claims. See Pet. 9; PO Resp. 4. We have reviewed
`the parties’ papers and conclude that no terms require express interpretation.
`See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are
`in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’
`we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is
`not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citations omitted)).
`
`
`D. Obviousness Ground Based on Houser and Transportation Regulations
`(Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 12, and 13)
`1. Houser
`Houser discloses devices and methods for “maintaining an electronic
`vehicle log.” Ex. 1006, code (57). Houser states that “[m]any vehicles,
`particularly those used commercially, must maintain legally auditable
`records of their usage,” including, for example, data regarding the “driver
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`and duration of driving.” Id. at p. 1, ll. 12–19. Such records may be
`required by “governmental authorities or agencies.” Id. at p. 1, ll. 19–21.
`Figure 1 of Houser is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts electronic vehicle log (EVL) 1, a “package of elements
`suitably housed to be mounted in a vehicle” also referred to as a “data
`processing interface unit (DPIU).” Id. at p. 7, ll. 17–23. EVL 1 includes a
`processor; removable non-volatile memory module 2 for storing collected
`data; radio 3 for “communicat[ing] with governmental authorities” via
`wireless communication; display 4 for displaying data to the driver; and
`controls 5, which may comprise a “keyboard, keypad or related switch
`control” or microphone for speech input. Id. at p. 8, l. 16–p. 9, l. 14.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`EVL 1 is coupled to sensors 6 of the vehicle, such as, for example,
`“brake sensors, accelerator sensors, [and] tachometer or mileage sensors.”
`Id. at p. 9, ll. 15–20. EVL 1 collects data by “periodically monitoring
`sensors on the vehicle to determine how the vehicle is being used,”
`including, for example, “date and time of data collection, vehicle speed,
`brake usage, . . . and vehicle location from a navigation source such as the
`so-called Global Positioning System (GPS) or equivalent data gathering
`system.” Id. at p. 1, l. 29–p. 2, l. 19, p. 15, l. 31–p. 16, l. 3, p. 20, ll. 18–26.
`Such records in the past were “manually maintained in a handwritten log.”
`Id. at p. 2, ll. 20–22, p. 7, ll. 14–16.
`Figure 3B of Houser is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 3B depicts various components of an exemplary EVL, including
`Personal Computer Memory Card International Association (PCMCIA)
`controller 352 and PCMCIA cards 360, 370, 380, and 390 for interfacing
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`with vehicle components (e.g., sensors) and other systems. Id. at p. 14,
`ll. 17–19, p. 16, l. 14–p. 17, l. 29. Figure 5B of Houser is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 5B lists various elements of data collected by EVL 1 “[o]ver time.”
`Id. at p. 26, ll. 16–17. Houser discloses that
`[o]ver time, data may be tabulated and summarized and output in
`the form of Figure 5B. For example, brake performance can
`demonstrate over time the mechanical status and history of the
`cab and trailer(s) brakes. Moreover, over time, the driver status
`and history may be recorded. For example, the driver can collect
`road mileage, time or duration of travel for the mileage logged
`and health record. More particularly, the driver’s vision, alcohol
`or drug record and the like can be maintained with the driver’s
`identification. Figure 5B also refers to environmental systems
`for detecting temperature, pressure and the like which are factors
`of the environment of the vehicle, driver and cargo. Inspection
`records and on-board monitors and sensor data is recorded in an
`environmental system table over time.
`Id. at p. 26, ll. 18–25. Houser describes wirelessly uploading collected data
`to, for example, an inspection facility at a border crossing when the vehicle
`enters a particular geographic zone. Id. at p. 10, l. 31–p. 13, l. 1.
`
`
`2. Transportation Regulations
`Transportation Regulations sets forth standards for those involved
`with the operation of commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce.
`Ex. 1008. The regulations require that “every motor carrier shall require
`every driver used by the motor carrier to record his/her duty status for each
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`24 hour period” using either a paper grid format or “using an automatic
`on-board recording device.” Id. at 154 (49 C.F.R. § 395.8(a)). “The duty
`status shall be recorded as follows: (1) ‘Off duty’ or ‘OFF’; (2) ‘Sleeper
`berth’ or ‘SB’ (only if a sleeper berth is used); (3) ‘Driving’ or ‘D’;
`(4) ‘On-duty no driving’ or ‘ON.’” Id. (49 C.F.R. § 395.8(b)). The
`regulations require that drivers “keep their records of duty status current to
`the time shown for the last change of duty status” and require recording of,
`for example, “[t]he total hours in each duty status.” Id. at 154–155
`(49 C.F.R. § 395.8(f)(1), (f)(11)). A driver must, if required by his or her
`motor carrier to use an automatic on-board recording device, “use such
`device to record the driver’s hours of service.” Id. at 159 (49 C.F.R.
`§ 395.15(a)(2)). The regulations require that automatic on-board recording
`devices be capable of producing, “upon demand, a driver’s hours of service
`chart, electronic display, or printout showing the time and sequence of duty
`status changes including the drivers’ starting time at the beginning of each
`day.” Id. (49 C.F.R. § 395.15(b)(1)).
`
`
`3. Claim 2
`Petitioner argues that claim 2 is unpatentable over Houser and
`Transportation Regulations under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 39–53.
`Petitioner relies on Houser as teaching the majority of the limitations of
`claim 2 and relies on Transportation Regulations for certain limitations. Id.
`Petitioner argues that Houser teaches a method for “logging and
`reporting driver activity and vehicle operation.” Id. at 42–43 (citing
`Ex. 1006, p. 1, ll. 3–6). With respect to the first step of claim 2, “identifying
`a driver of a vehicle,” Petitioner cites Houser’s statement that controls 5 are
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`used for “input[t]ing the operator’s identity.” Id. at 43 (emphasis omitted)
`(quoting Ex. 1006, p. 9, ll. 9–11).
`The second step of claim 2 is
`recording operating data with an electronic device
`operatively connected to a data bus of the vehicle, coupled to a
`vehicle mileage sensing system, and linked to a global navigation
`satellite system, the operating data being selected from a group
`consisting of mileage obtained from at least one of the vehicle
`mileage sensing system and the data bus; engine use, time, and
`date obtained from the vehicle data bus; and location, time, and
`date obtained from the global navigation satellite system.
`Petitioner argues that EVL 1 in Houser is “operatively connected to a data
`bus of the vehicle” (via PCMCIA card 390 shown in Figure 3B above and
`labeled “Vehicle Bus Interface”), “coupled to a vehicle mileage sensing
`system” (via PCMCIA card 360 connected to a vehicle mileage sensor), and
`“linked to a global navigation satellite system” (via PCMCIA card 380
`labeled “Global Positioning System”). Id. at 43–44. Petitioner further
`contends that EVL 1 records “operating data,” namely “mileage” obtained
`from a mileage sensor, as well as “engine use” and “location,” both of which
`are logged by date and time provided by the navigation system.4 Id.
`at 44–46.
`With respect to the third step of claim 2, “recording a duty status of
`the driver,” Petitioner relies on a combination of Houser and Transportation
`Regulations. Petitioner first points to Houser’s disclosure of controls 5 on
`EVL 1 for inputting data and Houser’s statement that “over time, the driver
`status and history may be recorded. For example, the driver can collect road
`
`
`4 Claims 1 and 2 recite, in a number of limitations, data “selected from a
`group consisting of” certain types. For the second step of claim 2, Petitioner
`argues that Houser teaches recording all three recited types of data.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`mileage, time or duration of travel for the mileage logged and health
`record.” Id. at 31–34, 46–47 (emphasis added) (quoting Ex. 1006, p. 26,
`ll. 18–22). Petitioner further argues that Transportation Regulations
`expressly teaches recording the “duty status” of the driver using an
`automatic on-board recording device. Id. at 39–40, 47 (citing Ex. 1008, 154
`(49 C.F.R. § 395.8)). According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in
`the art implementing the device described in Houser, which has input
`controls and records vehicle and driver data, “would have consulted the
`Transportation Regulations to identify the types of data that were required to
`be logged to ensure that they are in compliance with the Transportation
`Regulations, and that the data is, in fact, properly recorded and reported.”
`Id. at 40–41. In combination, “Houser’s system would be capturing and
`recording various vehicle and driver parameters, and the Transportation
`Regulations, as noted by Houser, would specify which vehicle and driver
`parameters were required to be recorded.” Id. at 41. Thus, Petitioner
`contends that Houser teaches recording various data, such as “driver status
`and history” over time, and Transportation Regulations specifies particular
`data that must be recorded, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have been motivated to record the duty status of the driver using the
`device of Houser. Id. 31–34, 40–41, 46–47.
`Petitioner similarly relies on a combination of Houser and
`Transportation Regulations for the fourth step of claim 2, which is
`creating an hours of service log comprising data selected
`from a group consisting of a change in duty status of the driver,
`time and date the change occurred, hours within each duty status,
`total hours driven today, total hours on duty for seven days, and
`total hours on duty for eight days.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`Petitioner points to Houser’s disclosure that “[t]he present invention is
`characterized as a log because the memory of the present invention
`substitutes for prior art hand-written log books typically used by drivers of
`vehicles, especially commercial vehicles,” and Houser’s statement that
`commercial vehicle operators are required to “maintain legally auditable
`records of their usage,” including “driver and duration of driving.” Id. at
`47–48 (emphasis added) (quoting Ex. 1006, p. 1, ll. 12–17, p. 7, ll. 14–16).
`Petitioner argues that “[a]lthough Houser does not explicitly mention
`preparation of an ‘hours of service log,’ a [person of ordinary skill in the art]
`would have understood that these legal requirements” are set forth in
`Transportation Regulations, which describes in detail what must be logged,
`such as a “driver’s hours of service chart . . . showing the time and sequence
`of duty status changes.” Id. at 48–49 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1008,
`159 (49 C.F.R. § 395.15)). Again, according to Petitioner, a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “implementing Houser would have configured the
`data elements that were logged to be consistent with the requirements set
`forth in the Transportation Regulations.” Id. at 49. Petitioner thus asserts
`that the combination of Houser and Transportation Regulations teaches
`creating an hours of service log comprising at least “a change in duty status
`of the driver,” the “time and date the change occurred,” and “hours within
`each duty status,” as recited in claim 2. Id. at 47–49.
`With respect to the fifth step of claim 2, “automatically uploading the
`hours of service log to a receiver external to the vehicle using a wireless
`telecommunications network,” Petitioner cites Houser’s description of the
`vehicle wirelessly transmitting logged data to an inspection facility at a
`reporting zone in response to a polling signal from the facility. Id. at 50–53.
`Petitioner argues that “[a]lthough Houser does not explicitly show a
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`‘receiver external to the vehicle,’” the reference discloses that the logged
`data is received by the inspection facility, and a person of ordinary skill in
`the art “would have understood that, to receive the wirelessly communicated
`data from the vehicle, the inspection facility would have included a wireless
`receiver.” Id. at 51–52.
`Patent Owner in its Response does not dispute that Houser and
`Transportation Regulations teach all of the limitations of claim 2.5 Nor does
`Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s reasoning as to why a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references’
`teachings in the manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success in
`doing so. Patent Owner’s only argument with respect to the asserted ground
`is that “Petitioner’s arguments . . . fail because they depend upon the opinion
`of Petitioner’s unqualified expert, Scott Andrews,” whose “testimony is
`neither competent nor credible” because he is not a person of ordinary skill
`in the art. PO Resp. 8–15; Sur-Reply 5–8.
`Patent Owner argues that Mr. Andrews is “unqualified” because
`“[n]othing in his background, education, or training renders him qualified to
`opine on the subject matter of [the ’277 patent]—systems that log and
`
`
`5 In summarizing the disclosure of Houser, Patent Owner mentions that
`Houser only allows a driver to input “a limited set of data,” not “duty status
`information,” and does not disclose how such information “would be used
`with other stored information to generate an hours of service log that
`complies with the Transportation Regulations.” PO Resp. 5. As explained
`above, however, Petitioner relies on the combination of Houser and
`Transportation Regulations, not Houser alone, to teach the claim steps of
`“recording a duty status of the driver” and “creating an hours of service log.”
`See Pet. 39–41, 46–49.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00692
`Patent 8,032,277 B2
`present data to ensure compliance with the HOS Regulations.”6 PO Resp. 8.
`Patent Owner argues that Mr. Andrews “has no experience designing or
`developing systems that log and present data to ensure compliance with the
`HOS Regulations,” nor does Mr. Andrews have any other related experience
`associated with ensuring compliance with “HOS Regulations.” Id. at 10–11;
`Sur-Reply 6–7. In particular, Patent Owner highlights Mr. Andrews’s lack
`of familiarity with “key aspects of the HOS Regulations, including 49 C.F.R.
`§ 395.8 and § 395.15,” which allegedly are “critical in the development of
`[the challenged claims because] they define, in part, the problem to
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
