PTAB

IPR2014-00588

Samsung Electronics America Inc v. Pragmatus Mobile LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: PERSONAL SECURITY AND TRACKING SYSTEM
  • Brief Description: The ’795 patent discloses a signaling system that allows an individual in distress to initiate an alarm using a portable signaling unit and a remote alarm switch. The system transmits data, including an alarm code and the individual's location, to a central dispatch station to facilitate an emergency response.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Unpatentability over Fast, alone and in combination (Claims 1-22)

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fast (Patent 5,497,149), Lookofsky (Patent 5,416,731), and Layson (Patent 5,731,757).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fast, which describes a "security beacon" for locating persons or objects, anticipates claims 1-15 and 17-21. Fast allegedly teaches a portable signaling unit with all claimed components, including a cellular transceiver, speaker, microphone, display, and microcontroller. Crucially, Petitioner asserted that Fast discloses a keypad for programming the beacon with a "multi-digit security code," directly teaching the feature that the patent examiner found lacking in the prior art during prosecution. For dependent claims, Fast was alleged to teach a second, non-cellular receiver (for restraining order enforcement), a standby mode for power conservation, and circuitry for dialing a phone number in response to an event.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):
      • (Claims 16 over Fast and Lookofsky): Petitioner contended that Fast discloses the option of either a remote or a built-in keypad. A POSITA would combine Fast’s beacon with the teachings of Lookofsky, which discloses an arm-mounted computer with a keypad and buttons arranged on the same surface. The motivation was to improve convenience, ease of access, and reduce the likelihood of accidental activation by consolidating the user interfaces onto a single surface of the wearable beacon, an obvious design choice.
      • (Claim 22 over Fast and Layson): Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Fast with Layson to add two-way voice communication. While Fast’s beacon includes a microphone and speaker for voice capability, Layson explicitly teaches a portable tracking device with interactive two-way voice communication for a dispatch operator to issue commands. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate this feature into Fast’s system to enhance its functionality, a straightforward modification since the necessary hardware was already present.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success was expected because the combinations involved applying known user interface configurations (Lookofsky) and established communication methods (Layson) to a similar tracking system (Fast) to achieve predictable benefits.

Ground 2: Unpatentability over Mansell, alone and in combination (Claims 1-22)

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mansell (Patent 5,223,844) and Mohan (Patent 6,121,922).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Mansell, which discloses a vehicle monitoring and tracking system, anticipates claims 1-7, 9-16, and 20-22. Mansell's "Mobile Unit" was described as a portable signaling unit that includes a cellular transceiver, a keypad with an LED display, and an optional telephone handset (providing a speaker and microphone). Petitioner argued Mansell’s system requires entry of a valid sequence of keys (e.g., ASSIST, POLICE, SEND) to operate, which constitutes receiving a security code via a user interface, thus teaching the key feature that allowed the ’795 patent. Mansell was also argued to teach a second, non-cellular radio receiver for communicating with a handheld "ambulatory operator input device."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):
      • (Claims 8, 17-19 over Mansell and Mohan): Petitioner argued that Mansell teaches conserving power by turning off components when the vehicle ignition is off but lacks a specific standby mode for the cellular transceiver. Mohan teaches an electronic tracking system with a "Standby Mode" that disables the GPS and communications transceiver until a remote locate-request is received or a distress signal is initiated, explicitly to conserve battery life. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Mohan’s specific standby mode into Mansell’s system to provide a more robust power management solution, ensuring the battery is not drained before the tracking function is needed.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that combining Mansell and Mohan was merely the application of a known power-saving technique (Mohan) to a known electronic tracking system (Mansell) to solve a known problem (battery drain), yielding predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Display A [Visual] Message" (Claims 1, 20): Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly to include any visual indication that conveys information, not just text. This construction was important because the prior art (e.g., Mansell) discloses illuminating LEDs to acknowledge receipt of a command, which Petitioner argued meets the limitation under this broader interpretation.
  • "User interface" (Claims 1, 7, 16): As the term does not appear in the specification outside the claims, Petitioner proposed it be construed broadly as any "structure capable of facilitating user interaction." This construction would encompass the keypads disclosed in both the Fast and Mansell references.
  • "Encoded Data Represents the Actuation of a Further User Interface" (Claim 7): Petitioner argued this phrase should not require identification of the specific interface actuated, but only that the data results from a user interface having been actuated. This construction supports the argument that pressing a panic button or call button in the prior art generates data meeting this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-22 of the ’795 patent as unpatentable.