PTAB

IPR2017-01965

Unified Patents Inc. v. Location Based Services, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Techniques for Indicating Status of Locations on a Map
  • Brief Description: The ’648 patent discloses a method for requesting and displaying a map on a device, where the map has locations associated with "location interaction rules." Based on a user's interaction with a location, which is verified by monitoring devices, the map display is altered to reflect a change in the location's status (e.g., blurring a visited location).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Gellberg - Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10, and 13 are anticipated by or obvious over Gellberg.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gellberg (International Publication No. WO 01/55994).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gellberg discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Gellberg describes a system for managing refuse collection, where a driver in a vehicle receives a map on a mobile unit showing an itinerary with multiple "visiting points" (locations). These locations are associated with rules, such as the requirement to visit the point and empty a refuse container. The system uses transponders on the containers and a communication unit on the vehicle as "monitoring devices" to verify when a driver physically visits a location and performs the required task. Upon verification, Gellberg’s system alters the map display—for example, by changing an unfilled circle to a filled circle—to indicate the status of the location has changed. This, Petitioner contended, directly maps to the ’648 patent’s method of receiving a map, associating locations with interaction rules, verifying interactions with monitoring devices, and altering the map as a function of those rules.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): To the extent any minor feature was not explicitly disclosed, Petitioner argued it would have been an obvious modification. For example, if Gellberg's indication of a user's identity was deemed insufficient, a POSITA would have found it obvious to use a standard unique identifier (e.g., name, ID, MAC address) to enable the base station to provide the correct map and itinerary for a specific driver in a fleet, which is a known method for a predictable result.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing any minor modifications, as they involved applying known, conventional techniques to improve the functionality of Gellberg's existing system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Gellberg in view of Schroeder - Claims 7 and 14 are obvious.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gellberg (WO 01/55994) and Schroeder (Application # 2003/0069691).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the teachings of Gellberg and addressed dependent claims 7 and 14, which add the limitation of using specific wireless technologies like a WLAN, IEEE 802 network, or a satellite network. Petitioner asserted that while Gellberg discloses using a GSM network, it also suggests that "another radio communication system" could be used. Schroeder was introduced because it explicitly discloses a navigation device that receives map data via a satellite broadcast receiver.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to combine Schroeder’s satellite communication with Gellberg’s system for a clear and predictable reason: to improve system reliability and expand its operational range. Gellberg’s reliance on GSM (a cellular network) would be ineffective in remote or rural areas with poor or nonexistent cellular coverage. A POSITA would look to known alternatives like the satellite networks taught by Schroeder to ensure the system remains functional in such environments, either as a primary communication method or as a backup.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination was portrayed as a simple substitution of one known communication network (GSM) for another (satellite) to achieve the predictable benefit of broader network coverage.

Ground 3: Obviousness over DeKock - Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are obvious.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: DeKock (Patent 6,574,548).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented DeKock as an independent basis for invalidity. DeKock discloses a system for providing real-time traffic status to users on mobile devices. Petitioner argued this system meets all limitations of the challenged claims. DeKock's system displays a map of a road. The "locations" are segments of the road, and the "location interaction rules" are the rules that determine how a road segment is displayed based on traffic speed (e.g., 20-25 mph = red, 25-30 mph = orange). The "monitoring devices" are either fixed traffic monitors (e.g., cameras, road loops) or the GPS-enabled mobile devices of other users, which detect vehicle speeds at various locations. The system "alters the map" by changing the color or pattern of road segments as traffic conditions change, which is a function of the interaction rules.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued DeKock renders the claims obvious. For the limitation requiring a user identifier in the request, DeKock teaches that a computer system can calculate a user's velocity using a "unique identification code" transmitted with the user's location. A POSITA would have found it obvious to include this existing identifier in any map request to improve the accuracy and resolution of the traffic database and provide customized results.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have readily understood that combining DeKock's various disclosed features—such as including an already-used unique ID with a map request—was a simple, logical step to enhance system performance with predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Map": Petitioner proposed this term be construed simply as "a representation of an area." This broad construction was argued to be consistent with the patent's specification and its plain meaning, allowing references like DeKock (showing a road) and Gellberg (showing an itinerary) to qualify.
  • "Location Interaction Rules": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "rules for interacting with a location." This broad interpretation was asserted to encompass not only explicit visit requirements (as in Gellberg) but also condition-based display rules, such as displaying a road segment in a specific color based on the measured traffic speed (as in DeKock).
  • "Monitoring Device": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a device usable to detect user interaction with a location." This construction supports finding the limitation in Gellberg’s transponders and DeKock’s traffic sensors or other users' GPS devices.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 of the ’648 patent as unpatentable.