PTAB

IPR2015-00151

YellowpagesCOm LLC v. Locata LBS LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method of Triggering an Event
  • Brief Description: The ’381 patent discloses methods for triggering events in a roving apparatus based on its location and at least one additional triggering criterion, such as direction of travel or proximity to a point of interest.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over a Single Reference - Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 are obvious over Kamiya.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kamiya (Patent 5,751,228).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kamiya, which was not before the examiner, discloses a vehicle guide system that is substantially similar to the invention of the ’381 patent. Kamiya’s system provides automatic sightseeing guidance for tourists by triggering events (outputting audio/visual guide data) based on a vehicle's location relative to predefined areas (“guide objects”) and satisfying additional triggering criteria (“guidance initiation conditions”). These conditions include the vehicle's direction of travel, angle, and distance relative to points of interest, directly corresponding to the limitations of independent claims 1 and 7. Kamiya’s use of various guide object types (point, linear, zone) inherently teaches overlapping areas, and its priority system for displaying information when multiple guide objects are identified meets the limitations for triggering events in such overlapping areas.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): N/A.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that the examiner’s failure to reject the challenged claims was an oversight, as the examiner had previously used a different but similar patent from the same inventor (Kamiya II) to reject other claims, which the applicant then canceled.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Combined References - Claims 2 and 8 are obvious over Kamiya in view of Zijderhand.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kamiya (5,751,228) and Zijderhand (Patent 5,598,167).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addresses claims 2 and 8, which require a triggering criterion to be satisfied when there is an increase in distance from a predetermined point. Petitioner asserted that while Kamiya provides the base location-triggered event system, Zijderhand explicitly teaches this missing element. Zijderhand discloses a vehicle navigation and tracking system that triggers an event (e.g., transmitting location to a central station) upon detecting that the vehicle deviates from a planned route by more than a threshold amount. This deviation constitutes an increase in distance from a point on the planned route.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Zijderhand’s navigation and tracking functionality with Kamiya’s tour-guide system to add valuable fleet management capabilities. For instance, a tour company could monitor its vehicles and receive alerts if a guide deviates from the planned tour route, thereby improving safety and scheduling. Petitioner noted that Kamiya itself suggests that using a conventional navigation system is permissible.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involves the simple substitution of one known navigation element (Zijderhand’s system) for another in Kamiya’s disclosed system.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Combined References - Claims 1-12 are obvious over Fast in view of Buss.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fast (5,497,149) and Buss (5,539,395).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued this combination renders all challenged claims obvious. Fast teaches a GPS-based personal security beacon that triggers alerts based on the user’s presence within or absence from predefined zones (e.g., a "school zone"). Buss teaches a GPS-enabled portable pager that provides users with alerts about nearby points of interest (e.g., retail stores), with the ability to filter alerts based on the user's direction of travel. In the combined system, Fast provides the roving apparatus and the framework of triggering events based on location relative to a plurality of predetermined (and overlapping) zones. Buss adds the functionality of triggering events based on more specific criteria, such as direction of travel toward a point of interest, satisfying the limitations of dependent claims 3-5 and 9-11.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these systems to enhance safety. Incorporating Buss's point-of-interest information into Fast's security beacon would allow the system, during an emergency, to provide the user with valuable information, such as the location of a nearby police station or directions to the nearest "allowed" zone.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination would predictably augment the safety features of Fast with the location-based informational capabilities of Buss.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner highlighted that the Board had recently instituted an inter partes review (IPR) against the same patent (IPR2014-00585) based on this exact Fast-Buss combination, arguing that institution should be granted for the same reasons.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner adopted the constructions previously adopted by the Board in the related IPR proceeding (IPR2014-00585) for the following key terms:
    • bearing (Claims 3, 4, 9, 10): measurement of direction between two points
    • heading (Claims 4, 10): direction of travel

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’381 patent as unpatentable.