PTAB

IPR2019-00275

Apple Inc v. Zomm LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Security Device and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’895 patent discloses a wireless security device that communicates with a Bluetooth-enabled mobile phone. The device is configured to determine an appropriate emergency telephone number based on the phone's geographic location and then command the phone to place a call to that number.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3-5, 12, 17, and 19-20 are obvious over Berry-351 in view of Kim and one of Forstall or Jang

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Berry-351 (Patent 8,903,351), Kim (Application # 2008/0039017), Forstall (Patent 8,275,352), and Jang (Patent 7,113,764).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Berry-351 discloses the core elements of the claimed invention: a vehicle emergency system that pairs with a cellular phone via Bluetooth to make an emergency call to a local public safety answering point (PSAP) based on the phone’s GPS location. Berry-351 expressly teaches using a look-up table to determine the emergency number. However, Petitioner asserted that Berry-351’s look-up table is located on a remote server, not locally in the security device’s memory as required by independent claims 1 and 17.
    • To address the local storage limitation, Petitioner relied on Forstall or Jang. Both references disclose systems for placing emergency calls using a locally stored database or "mapping table" that correlates a device's location (e.g., country) with the correct emergency number (e.g., "911" for the U.S. vs. "112" for Europe).
    • To address the limitation of "selecting and implementing a Bluetooth wireless protocol profile," Petitioner relied on Kim. Kim discloses that a Bluetooth device "selects a suitable [profile] from [Bluetooth] profiles according to the current operation condition" to communicate and control functionality, such as placing a telephone call.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Forstall or Jang with Berry-351 because they address the identical problem of placing location-appropriate emergency calls. A POSITA would find it obvious to modify Berry-351’s system to store the look-up table locally, as taught by Forstall/Jang, to enhance the speed and reliability of the system, which are critical factors in an emergency. Storing the table locally would eliminate network latency and dependency. Similarly, a POSITA would combine Kim with Berry-351 to implement the standard and necessary Bluetooth functionality of profile selection to ensure a reliable and compatible connection for the system's core purpose of making a call.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success. The combination involves applying known techniques (local data storage, standard Bluetooth protocols) to a known system (Berry-351) to achieve predictable results (improved speed, reliability, and compatibility).

Ground 2: Claims 2 and 18 are obvious over Berry-351 in view of Kim, Hollstien, and one of Forstall or Jang

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Berry-351 (Patent 8,903,351), Kim (Application # 2008/0039017), Hollstien (Application # 2009/0203349), and one of Forstall (Patent 8,275,352) or Jang (Patent 7,113,764).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination in Ground 1 to specifically address dependent claims 2 and 18, which recite particular Bluetooth profiles, including a "hands-free profile." While Kim teaches the general concept of selecting a profile, Hollstien discloses a wireless security system that uses specific Bluetooth profiles for emergency calls, expressly identifying the "Hands-Free [profile]" as a preferred option for communicating with a cellular phone.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that once a POSITA was motivated by Kim to implement profile selection in the Berry-351 system, it would be obvious to consult prior art like Hollstien to identify which specific profiles were best suited for the intended emergency calling function. Hollstien provides an explicit reason to select the "Hands-Free profile," thereby rendering the limitations of claims 2 and 18 obvious.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was argued to be high, as Hollstien confirms the suitability of standard, well-known Bluetooth profiles for the exact functionality being implemented.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted alternative obviousness challenges mirroring the grounds above. Grounds 4 and 5 substitute Berry-145 (Application # 2009/0002145) as the primary reference in place of Berry-351, arguing the references contain substantially similar disclosures. Ground 3 and Ground 6 substitute Ayed (Patent 7,973,657) for Kim to teach the Bluetooth profile selection limitations.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6, 12, and 16-20 of Patent 8,351,895 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.