PTAB

IPR2018-01080

Google LLC v. AGIS Software Development LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Establishing Communications Among First Responders via an Interactive Map
  • Brief Description: The ’055 patent describes a system for establishing a temporary ad hoc communication network for first responders during an emergency. The system uses wireless devices (e.g., PDAs, cell phones) that display an interactive map showing the GPS-derived locations of other participants, allowing users to initiate communications by selecting symbols on the map.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 14, 15, 17, 21-25, 28, 30, 32-34, 36, 40-43, 45, 49, and 54 are obvious over Fumarolo, Sheha, and Lazaridis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fumarolo (Patent 6,366,782), Sheha (Application # 2004/0054428), and Lazaridis (Application # 2004/0157590).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fumarolo disclosed the core system of a display-based terminal for first responders showing locations on an interactive map to initiate communications. Sheha taught using modern mobile wireless phones for such dispatcher applications and associating displayed objects with unique identifiers like telephone numbers. Lazaridis disclosed a method for initiating robust, IP-based communication by first exchanging device information (like an IP address) via a less robust channel, such as an SMS message containing the telephone numbers of the sending and receiving devices. Together, these references taught all elements of the independent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Fumarolo and Sheha as a simple substitution of a known element (Fumarolo's data terminal) for a more modern equivalent (Sheha's mobile phone) for its intended purpose in dispatcher applications. A POSITA would incorporate Lazaridis’s SMS-to-IP communication method to improve the efficiency, speed, and data capacity of Fumarolo's emergency communication system, a crucial and predictable benefit for first responders.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success as the combination involved applying known communication technologies (SMS, IP-based messaging) to an existing framework (map-based dispatch) to achieve predictable improvements in performance and functionality.

Ground 2: Claim 27 is obvious over Fumarolo, Sheha, Lazaridis, and Liu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fumarolo (Patent 6,366,782), Sheha (Application # 2004/0054428), Lazaridis (Application # 2004/0157590), and Liu (Application # 2002/0027901).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address the additional limitation of claim 27: initiating "voice-over-IP (VOIP) communication." While the base combination taught initiating data and voice communications, Liu explicitly disclosed that mobile devices can be part of a packet-switched network, such as the Internet, that supports VOIP.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Liu’s VOIP capability with the Fumarolo system to provide a more efficient and modern form of voice communication. Petitioner argued this would have been an obvious design choice, as VOIP was a known and special type of voice and data communication that offered predictable benefits for an emergency response network.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating VOIP into a data-capable mobile network was a well-understood and routine practice at the time, ensuring a predictable outcome.

Ground 3: Claim 37 is obvious over Fumarolo, Sheha, Lazaridis, and Van Bosch.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fumarolo (Patent 6,366,782), Sheha (Application # 2004/0054428), Lazaridis (Application # 2004/0157590), and Van Bosch (Application # 2005/0221876).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 37, which depends from claim 30 and specifies that transmitted data can be a video, comprising a "video clip or a video transmission." The base combination disclosed transmitting various data types. Van Bosch was added because it explicitly taught a system for posting and receiving location-based messages in a wireless network, where such messages could be textual, audio, or video.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Van Bosch's capability of sending location-based video messages into the Fumarolo system. The motivation was to provide richer, more detailed, and highly relevant information (e.g., video of an incident scene) to first responders, which would be an obvious and significant improvement for situational awareness in an emergency context.
    • Expectation of Success: Transmitting video was a known form of data transmission. A POSITA would expect that adding this known data type to an existing data communication system would function predictably.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner contended that no claim terms required construction for the purposes of the IPR. It argued that all terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because the petition presented new arguments and prior art not previously before the Office.
  • The petition asserted it relied on different combinations of prior art than a separate IPR petition filed by another party (Apple Inc.).
  • Petitioner also argued that although Fumarolo and Sheha appeared on the face of the ’055 patent, the Examiner did not rely on them in any rejection during prosecution, and the key additional references (Lazaridis, Van Bosch, Liu) were never considered by the Examiner at all.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 14, 15, 17, 21-25, 27, 28, 30, 32-34, 36, 37, 40-43, 45, 49, and 54 of the ’055 patent as unpatentable.