PTAB

IPR2019-01205

Amazon.com Inc v. M2M Solutions LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Remote Asset Management
  • Brief Description: The ’989 patent discloses a system for remotely managing a plurality of wireless consumer device "assets." The system uses a remote server platform to autonomously monitor the devices by receiving operational status and consumer usage information, processing that information, and sending management instructions back to the devices to modify their content or behavior.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kloba and Multer - Claims 1-6 and 13 are obvious over Kloba in view of Multer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kloba (Patent 6,421,717) and Multer (Patent 6,671,757).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kloba disclosed a client/server system for managing mobile devices which meets most limitations of claim 1. Kloba’s server receives device "state" information (operational status) and "tracked client behavior" (consumer usage information) during a synchronization process. The server then processes this information and sends instructions to the devices to update content, thereby managing the device assets.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that Kloba’s system relied on a manual, user-initiated synchronization (e.g., pressing a "sync" button). Multer taught automatic synchronization for devices like cellular phones, which could be triggered by pre-programmed conditions such as time-based intervals or other system events. A POSITA would combine Multer’s automatic synchronization with Kloba’s management system to improve usability and reliability, particularly for devices that lacked a manual sync button. This combination would ensure content remained current without user intervention, representing a predictable design choice to enhance automation.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining an automatic trigger for a known synchronization process was a routine modification and one of a limited number of known design choices for initiating data transfer.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kloba, Multer, and Hoyle - Claims 1-6 and 13 are obvious over Kloba and Multer in view of Hoyle.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kloba (Patent 6,421,717), Multer (Patent 6,671,757), and Hoyle (Patent 6,141,010).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built on the Kloba/Multer combination by adding Hoyle to more explicitly teach managing devices based on processed consumer usage information. Hoyle disclosed a system where a server gathers "computer usage information" (e.g., what programs are run, what resources are accessed) and uses it to "better target[] future advertising to the end user." The management instruction, in this case, would be the command to download and display these targeted advertisements.
    • Motivation to Combine: Kloba already disclosed that its server could load "context sensitive objects" like advertisements and that providers could pay for tracked client behavior data. Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Hoyle's more sophisticated targeted advertising methods into the Kloba/Multer system. This would enhance the value of the tracked user data and create a more effective advertising platform, a well-known business motivation.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a predictable extension of Kloba's existing functionality. Since Kloba already loaded content based on user preferences, using more detailed behavioral data to select and load targeted advertisements as taught by Hoyle would be a consistent and straightforward modification.

Ground 3: Obviousness with Loughran for Power Management Features - Claims 7, 14, 16-17, and 19-25 are obvious over combinations including Kloba, Multer, and Loughran (+/- Hoyle).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The above references plus Loughran (Application # 2002/0129107).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims requiring communication with devices in a low-power state. Loughran taught a system where a server could send a Short Message Service (SMS) message to a mobile device that was "switched off" or in a low-power standby mode. An "alert module" in the device would receive the SMS, power up the device, and enable it to receive further communications like software or database updates.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would integrate Loughran's power-up-on-demand feature into the primary system to enhance its functionality. This would allow the server to manage and update devices even when they were not actively in use, ensuring that content and software remained current. This directly furthered Kloba's stated goal of allowing users to access up-to-date content in an offline mode and increased the overall robustness of the management system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claims 8-12, 15, 18, and 26-30 based on further combination with Fong (Patent 7,197,011), which taught a server monitoring device battery levels and sending management messages accordingly.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "management instructions": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "commands for a device asset to perform particular actions." This construction is central to arguing that Kloba’s synchronization instructions meet the claim limitation.
  • "managing...based upon the results of having processed...consumer usage information": Petitioner argued this limitation requires that the act of sending the management instructions be triggered by the processing of consumer usage information, not that the content of the instructions must be derived from it. This interpretation, which Petitioner stated the Board adopted in a related case, allows Kloba's system—where the entire "one-down" transmission is a response to the "one-up" transmission containing usage data—to meet the limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’989 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.