PTAB

IPR2015-00151

YellowpagesCOm LLC v. Locata LBS LLC

Title: Method of Triggering an Event
Brief Description: The ’381 patent discloses methods for triggering events in a roving apparatus. An event is triggered based on the apparatus's location combined with at least one additional triggering criterion, such as direction of travel, proximity to a point-of-interest, time, or an increase in distance from a point.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Kamiya (Patent 5,751,228).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kamiya discloses a nearly identical system and is thus a standalone obviousness reference. Kamiya teaches a vehicle guide system that provides sightseeing guidance for a roving apparatus (e.g., a tour bus). The system defines a plurality of predetermined areas (“guide objects”) representing points of interest, associates events (audio/visual guidance) with them, and uses triggering criteria like location, direction of travel, and the angle/bearing of the apparatus relative to the guide object. Petitioner contended that the concept of "overlapping areas" was inherently disclosed or would have been an obvious modification to represent real-world geography, such as a landmark (point object) located within a city (zone object).
- Motivation to Combine: For the overlapping areas element, Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to define overlapping guide objects to accurately model real-world features of varying scope and to reduce the time in which no guidance is provided to the user.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in defining broader zone objects that contain smaller point and linear objects, as this is a logical way to organize geographical data.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Kamiya (Patent 5,751,228) and Zijderhand (Patent 5,598,167).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This combination was asserted to teach the limitation in claims 2 and 8, which requires triggering an event based on an "increase in distance from a predetermined point." Petitioner argued Kamiya provides the base system for location-based event triggering, as detailed in Ground 1. Zijderhand was asserted to disclose a vehicle navigation and tracking system that detects when a vehicle deviates from a planned route by more than a threshold amount, which constitutes an "increase in distance" from points on the planned route. Upon detection, Zijderhand triggers an event, such as sending a notification to a central station.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings to add Zijderhand's route deviation monitoring to Kamiya's sightseeing guide system. This would allow a central station to effectively monitor a fleet of tour vehicles, receive alerts if a vehicle strays from its designated sightseeing route, and better manage routing and scheduling.
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued the combination was a simple and predictable substitution of one known navigation element (Zijderhand's advanced system) for another (Kamiya's conventional system) to achieve a known benefit.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Fast (Patent 5,497,149) and Buss (Patent 5,539,395).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This combination was argued to disclose all challenged claim limitations. Fast teaches a GPS security beacon worn by a person, which triggers alerts based on the wearer's location relative to predefined zones (e.g., entering a disallowed area or leaving a permitted "school" zone). The zones can overlap. Buss teaches a GPS-enabled portable pager that alerts users to nearby points of interest (e.g., retail stores) based on location and direction of travel.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the point-of-interest alerting functionality of Buss into the personal security device of Fast. This combination would enhance safety by providing a user with useful, location-aware information (e.g., the location of a nearby police station or business) during an emergency situation triggered by Fast's geofencing system.
- Expectation of Success: The combination would predictably add the known benefits of Buss's point-of-interest and path-of-travel features to Fast's safety-oriented system, yielding a more robust and useful device. Petitioner noted the Board had already instituted an inter partes review (IPR) based on this same combination in a related case.

Petitioner adopted claim constructions from a prior Board decision in a related IPR (IPR2014-00585) involving the same patent. These constructions were presented as central to the obviousness arguments for dependent claims.
bearing (Claims 3, 4, 9, 10): Construed as "measurement of direction between two points."
heading (Claims 4, 10): Construed as "direction of travel."

Petitioner argued that institution would be proper and not a matter for discretionary denial. It asserted that its grounds were not redundant with each other, as they relied on different prior art combinations to challenge distinct sets of claims.
Specifically regarding a related IPR filed by eBay, Petitioner contended that its challenges based on the Kamiya reference were substantially different and stronger than the art previously considered by the Board. For the Fast-Buss combination, Petitioner argued that since the Board had already instituted review on that same ground in the eBay IPR, it should do so again for the same reasons.

Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-12 of Patent 6,259,381 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.