PTAB

IPR2016-01077

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Transport Technologies, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Vehicle Occupancy Monitoring System
  • Brief Description: The ’101 patent relates to a system that allows a vehicle occupant (a "registrant") to make a claim about the number of people in the vehicle. The system uses an in-vehicle transponder to transmit the occupancy claim and a unique registrant identifier to roadside data collectors, which then transfer the information to a central processing facility.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

  • 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 teaches a vehicle occupancy monitoring system for toll roads where a vehicle operator uses an in-vehicle transponder to input and transmit the "number of passengers." Roadside transceivers receive this information along with a unique "identifying signal" (like a VIN) for a central processor. Petitioner contended Hassett’s "vehicle operator" is the claimed "registrant," its "number of passengers" renders "number of occupants" obvious, its transponder is the "sending transponder," and its roadside transceivers are the "reading data collectors" that interrogate the vehicle, receive and store data, and transfer it with a time/date stamp. Dependent claim 3, which requires the transponder to transmit both the occupancy and identifier, was allegedly taught by Hassett’s disclosure of transmitting processed information along with an identifying signal from a single unit.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, the argument focused on obvious modifications. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to adapt Hassett’s tolling system for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. This would motivate interpreting "passengers" as "occupants" (including the driver) to reduce confusion, a common practice in HOV systems.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as adapting existing RFID tolling technology for occupancy-based tolling was a straightforward extension of its known capabilities.

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 December 16, 2004).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted the Ontario Report, which analyzes automated vehicle occupancy systems for HOV/HOT facilities, renders all challenged claims obvious. The report explicitly describes using a windshield-mounted transponder for a motorist to claim occupancy (either manually or via automatic detection) and to transmit that data along with a unique "identification (account) number" to roadside readers. This system is used on designated highway sections (HOV lanes). The report further discloses sending data to a central processing facility and using time-stamped information for creating "detailed invoices." For claim 5, the report teaches a visual display, such as colored lights on the windshield, to indicate occupancy to an enforcement officer.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This is a single-reference ground. The Ontario Report itself was argued to provide all necessary elements and motivations for its own system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have expected success in implementing the systems described, as the report was a viability analysis of existing and near-future technologies for the express purpose of monitoring vehicle occupancy on highways.

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 (Patent 5,289,183) and Hassett (Patent 5,086,389).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground combined the teachings of two related patents from the same inventor. Hassett ’183 provided the primary system for claiming and transmitting vehicle occupancy. Hassett ’389, which is incorporated by reference in Hassett ’183, was cited for its disclosure of an external visual display for enforcement. Specifically, Hassett ’389 teaches using a light array that illuminates to show a claimed "vehicle class," allowing enforcement personnel to visually verify the claim. The argument was that this light array from ’389 could be adapted to display the "number of occupants" data already collected by the ’183 system.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner provided two primary motivations. First, Hassett ’183 explicitly incorporates Hassett ’389 by reference, directing a POSITA to consider its teachings. Second, a POSITA would combine the occupancy counting of ’183 with the visual enforcement of ’389 to create a complete and effective system for enforcing occupancy-based regulations on HOV/HOT lanes.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying a known enforcement display from one tolling system (’389) to a similar tolling system (’183) to achieve the predictable result of visually indicating a different data type (occupancy instead of vehicle class).

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including anticipation of claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 by Hassett ’183 and anticipation of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 by the Ontario Report. An additional obviousness ground combined Hassett ’183 with the Ontario Report to add the latter's visual display for enforcement to the system of '183.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the preambles of independent claims 1 and 6 should be construed as non-limiting under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. This construction is important because it broadens the scope of the claims, making them more susceptible to invalidation by prior art that might not meet a more restrictive preamble limitation, such as the specific purpose of the "vehicle occupancy monitoring system."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 as unpatentable.