PTAB

IPR2017-00180

United States v. EnvisionIT LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Broadcast Alerting Message Aggregator/Gateway System and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’954 patent describes systems and methods for aggregating broadcast messages from multiple originating sources and delivering them to user devices within a specific, geographically-defined target area. The system is designed to manage message requests, verify the authority of the originator, and select appropriate transmission networks for broadcast.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Gundlegård, 3GPP, Sandhu, Rieger, and Zimmers - Claims 1, 2, 4, 17, and 23 are obvious over Gundlegård in view of the 3GPP Standard, Sandhu, and Rieger in view of Zimmers.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gundlegård (a 2003 Master’s thesis on telematics), 3GPP Standard (a technical specification for cell broadcast), Sandhu (a 1994 IEEE article on access control), Rieger (Application # 2002/0103892), and Zimmers (6,816,878).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gundlegård, the primary reference, disclosed a cell broadcast system for delivering targeted messages to specific geographic areas, meeting the core limitations of independent claims 1 and 17. However, Gundlegård did not explicitly teach storing jurisdictional authority for message originators or verifying requests against that authority. Petitioner asserted that Rieger supplied this limitation by disclosing a system that restricts postings based on user-defined geographic regions and assigned privileges. Sandhu was cited for its teaching of standard access control systems that use an authorization database to permit or deny user actions, which would be a known way to implement Rieger’s jurisdictional controls.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the references to create a more robust and commercially viable system. Gundlegård explicitly referenced and relied upon the 3GPP Standard, making its use for implementation details a natural step. A POSITA would incorporate Sandhu’s well-known access control and auditing principles into Gundlegård’s system to manage security and facilitate billing, a commercial need suggested by Gundlegård. Finally, a POSITA would combine Rieger’s teachings on geographic restrictions, along with the safety rationale provided by Zimmers (i.e., preventing over-alerting and the “cry wolf” syndrome), to improve the targeting and relevance of messages in Gundlegård’s system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying established principles of access control (Sandhu, Rieger) and message targeting (Zimmers) to a known cell broadcast architecture (Gundlegård, 3GPP Standard) to achieve the predictable result of a secure, manageable, and effective location-based messaging system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Mani, 3GPP, Sandhu, Rieger, and Zimmers - Claims 1, 2, 4, 17, and 23 are obvious over Mani in view of the 3GPP Standard, Sandhu, and Rieger in view of Zimmers.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mani (Application # 2002/0184346), 3GPP Standard, Sandhu, Rieger, and Zimmers.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Mani served as an alternative primary reference, disclosing an emergency notification service that sends messages to specific geographic target areas based on the authorization level of the sender. While Mani taught the concept of user privileges, it did not explicitly detail storing geographic jurisdiction or the specific formatting for broadcast messages. To supply these elements, Petitioner again relied on Rieger and Sandhu to teach storing geographic authorizations in a database and verifying user requests against them. The 3GPP Standard was introduced to provide the standard implementation details for the "broadcast mode" over a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) that Mani disclosed.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Mani’s system, which uses a PLMN and a "broadcast mode," would have been motivated to consult the 3GPP Standard for the necessary technical specifications and message formatting protocols. To implement Mani’s concept of different user privilege levels, a POSITA would naturally apply the well-known access control and user role management techniques taught by Sandhu. As in Ground 1, the safety concerns from Zimmers and the commercial benefits of targeted messaging would motivate a POSITA to incorporate Rieger's explicit geographic jurisdiction controls into Mani’s emergency notification system to ensure messages reach only the intended recipients.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as this combination merely integrated standard industry protocols (3GPP Standard) and fundamental security practices (Sandhu, Rieger) with the system architecture disclosed in Mani to enhance its functionality in a predictable manner.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "broadcast": Petitioner argued for the construction: “to transmit data for purposes of wide dissemination over a communications network including, but not limited to, cellular carriers, digital private radio systems, private radio systems, internet, wireline telecommunications, satellite, and CATV systems.” This broad construction was taken directly from the ’954 patent’s specification and was crucial to Petitioner’s arguments as it established that the claims were not limited to a specific technology, thereby broadening the scope of applicable prior art.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 17, and 23 of the ’954 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.