PTAB

IPR2014-00369

LibreStream Technologies Inc v. Thomason John A

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Remote Assistance
  • Brief Description: The ’039 patent discloses a system and method for providing real-time, remote assistance to a field technician. The technician uses a wearable wireless system with an audio sensor, video sensor, and audio receiver to communicate with a remote master technician at a local station, enabling the remote expert to see and hear what the field technician experiences.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Beller, Ziegra, McPheely, Thorpe, and David - Claims 1 and 3-11 are obvious over Beller et al.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Beller (Patent 6,046,712), Ziegra (Patent 5,619,183), McPheely (Patent 5,844,601), Thorpe (a 1995 publication), and David (Patent 5,544,649).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Beller taught the foundational wireless remote assistance system, including a head-mounted unit with audio/video sensors for a mobile operator and a remote terminal for an expert. This combination disclosed most elements of independent claim 1. Ziegra was cited to explicitly teach that the remote advisor should view and hear the same stimuli as the operator, a key feature for effective remote assistance. McPheely, Thorpe, and David were introduced to address the limitation in claim 1[u] requiring "a plurality of said local processors operated by a plurality of said local master technicians advising a plurality of said mobile field operators." These references disclosed various multi-user conferencing systems, demonstrating the common practice of scaling one-to-one communication systems to support multiple users.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Beller with Ziegra to improve the system's fundamental utility, a well-understood goal in the art. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of McPheely, Thorpe, and David was to scale Beller's system for greater efficiency, which Petitioner contended was a simple and predictable duplication of parts to achieve a known benefit.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved integrating known, compatible features from existing conferencing and wearable communication systems, which would have led to a predictable outcome.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Beller, Ziegra, McPheely, Thorpe, David, and Fryer - Claim 2 is obvious over Beller et al. in view of Fryer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Beller (Patent 6,046,712), Ziegra (Patent 5,619,183), McPheely (Patent 5,844,601), Thorpe (a 1995 publication), David (Patent 5,544,649), and Fryer (Patent 6,233,428).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the five-way combination for claim 1 and added Fryer to address the additional limitations of dependent claim 2. Claim 2 added requirements for a "monitor," "web browser," "codec," and "wireless modem." Petitioner asserted that Beller already taught the claimed monitor (display 14), codec (video compression chip 84), and wireless modem (radio communication system 96). The key incremental teaching was supplied by Fryer, which disclosed the use of a conventional web browser to establish audio and video communication over a public network like the Internet.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add the web browser functionality taught by Fryer to the base system of Beller. This modification would leverage ubiquitous public networks for communication, thereby increasing the system's flexibility, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness compared to relying on proprietary network infrastructure.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating web-based communication capabilities into a processor-based system was a common and well-understood practice at the time of the invention, ensuring a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Beller and Ziegra - Claims 12 and 13 are obvious over Beller in view of Ziegra.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Beller (Patent 6,046,712) and Ziegra (Patent 5,619,183).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that claims 12 and 13 are method claims that correspond to the system of claims 1 and 3 but, critically, do not require the "plurality" of operators and technicians. Therefore, the simpler combination of Beller and Ziegra alone was sufficient. Petitioner argued that the system disclosed by Beller, when modified with the explicit teachings of Ziegra (allowing the advisor to share the operator's stimuli), would inherently perform the method steps recited in claim 12. These steps included operating the remote and local stations, communicating wirelessly, and delivering audio and video data between them.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that for combining Beller and Ziegra in the previous grounds: to create a more functional and effective remote assistance tool where the expert shares the operator's direct perspective, improving the quality of the assistance provided.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination of the two primary references would predictably result in a system capable of performing the claimed method steps without requiring any inventive leap.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner asserted that all claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
  • A key contention was that the phrase "wherein said wireless portable processor is located in a vehicle" as recited in claims 3 and 13 is merely a statement of intended use, not a structural limitation.
  • Under this construction, the claim did not require any special adaptation for vehicular use. Petitioner argued it would have been obvious for a POSITA to use a portable wireless system in a common environment like a vehicle, especially for a technician performing maintenance work.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-13 of the ’039 patent as unpatentable.