PTAB

IPR2016-01077

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Transport Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Vehicle Occupancy Monitoring System
  • Brief Description: The ’101 patent relates to a system for monitoring vehicle occupancy for use in restricted-access highway lanes, such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) or High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. The system uses a vehicle-mounted transponder allowing a registrant to claim the number of occupants, which is then read by roadside data collectors and transferred to a central processing facility for verification.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hassett '183 - Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 are obvious over Hassett '183.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hassett (Patent 5,289,183).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hassett ’183 discloses all elements of the challenged claims. Hassett ’183 describes a vehicle transponder and roadside transceiver system for collecting information on a roadway, including a vehicle's "number of passengers" and an "identifying signal for the transponder." Petitioner contended that a vehicle operator (the "registrant") uses a keypad to enter the passenger count (the "claim"), which is then transmitted to roadside transceivers that interrogate the vehicle and relay the information to a central data processor. Petitioner asserted that "number of passengers" in Hassett ’183 either directly discloses or renders obvious the claimed "number of occupants," and the transponder's "identifying signal" or vehicle identification number (VIN) meets the limitation of a "code that uniquely identifies the registrant."
    • Motivation to Combine: Although a single-reference ground, Petitioner argued a POSITA would find it obvious to apply the toll road system of Hassett '183 to occupancy-based tolling for HOV/HOT lanes. This would involve the simple and obvious modification of tracking "occupants" instead of "passengers" to reduce confusion regarding whether the driver is counted, a known issue in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: As the underlying technologies (transponders, transceivers, data processing) were well-established and disclosed in Hassett ’183, a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in implementing the system for occupancy monitoring.

Ground 2: Obviousness over the Ontario Report - Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 are obvious over the Ontario Report.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The Ontario Report ("Automated Vehicle Occupancy Monitoring Systems For Hov/Hot Facilities," published Dec. 16, 2004).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the Ontario Report, published just three months before the ’101 patent was filed, describes the claimed invention for the identical purpose of monitoring HOV/HOT facilities. The report details systems with a "windshield-mounted transponder" that communicates both occupancy information and an "identification (account) number" to a roadside "reader" or "monitoring equipment." This data is then transmitted to a "processing centre" or "host computer." For claims 5 and 10, the report explicitly discloses a "visual display of the number of claimed occupants," suggesting colored lights on the windshield or a handheld device for enforcement officers. The report discusses both automated occupant detection and a manual "self-identifying" method where a user inputs the number of occupants.
    • Motivation to Combine: As a single-reference ground, the motivation was based on the fact that the Ontario Report comprehensively describes the state of the art and lays out the exact system claimed in the ’101 patent. A POSITA reading the report would have found it obvious to assemble the described components to create the claimed system.
    • Expectation of Success: The Ontario Report analyzes existing and viable technologies, indicating that a POSITA would have a clear and reasonable expectation of success in implementing such a system.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Hassett '183 and Hassett '389 - Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 are obvious over Hassett '183 in view of Hassett '389.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hassett '183 (Patent 5,289,183) and Hassett '389 (Patent 5,086,389).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hassett ’183 provides the core system for monitoring vehicle occupancy, as described in Ground 1. Hassett ’389, which addresses an automatic toll processing apparatus, was asserted to supply the visual display element for enforcement recited in claims 5 and 10. Specifically, Hassett ’389 discloses using a light array that illuminates to visually display the claimed "vehicle class" to enforcement personnel.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references for several reasons. First, Hassett ’183 explicitly incorporates Hassett ’389 by reference, directing a POSITA to its teachings. Second, both patents are in the same field of electronic toll collection and share a common inventor. Third, a POSITA would be motivated to add the proven visual enforcement mechanism from Hassett ’389 (used for vehicle class) to the occupancy monitoring system of Hassett ’183 to create a complete and enforceable HOV/HOT lane system, an obvious substitution of one type of data (occupancy) for another (vehicle class) on the display.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining a known data collection system with a known visual enforcement display was argued to be a straightforward integration of known elements to achieve a predictable result.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including anticipation of claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 by Hassett '183 (Ground 2); anticipation of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 by the Ontario Report (Ground 4); and obviousness of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 over the combination of Hassett '183 and the Ontario Report (Ground 5).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard applicable in IPR proceedings, the preambles of independent claims 1 and 6 should be construed as non-limiting. This construction broadens the scope of the claims, making them more susceptible to invalidation by the prior art.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 of the ’101 patent as unpatentable.