PTAB

IPR2020-00317

Tile Inc v. Cellwitch Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System, Method and Network for Monitoring of Location of Items
  • Brief Description: The ’655 patent discloses a system for preventing the loss of personal items. The system uses a wireless device ("patch") attached to an item that communicates with a user's mobile terminal, which monitors the proximity and generates an alert if a threshold distance is exceeded, providing immediate notification of loss.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-4, 10-16, and 22 over Ritter in view of Duncan

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ritter (Application # 2006/0055538), Duncan (Application # 2004/0087314).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ritter discloses the core elements of the claimed system, including a plurality of wireless devices (RFID tags) associated with items, a plurality of wireless communication terminals (mobile phones) that monitor the proximity of associated tags, and a processing system with a database. In Ritter, a mobile device periodically polls for its associated tag and generates a visual or sound alarm if the tag does not respond, indicating it has exceeded a proximity threshold (i.e., communication range). The primary limitation not explicitly taught by Ritter is the "buddy wireless communication terminal" configured to monitor a wireless device associated with a different user's terminal.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted that Duncan supplies the missing "buddy" concept. Duncan discloses a tracking system where multiple monitors can be paired with a single target, expressly teaching a scenario where two parents ("buddies") can simultaneously and independently monitor a target affixed to their child. A POSITA would combine Duncan's well-known concept of buddy monitoring with Ritter's nearly identical system to achieve the predictable result of increased surveillance and a reduced risk of loss among trusted users.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination required only the application of Duncan's known technique to the known and suitable system of Ritter, yielding predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 5-9 and 17-21 over Ritter in view of Duncan and Hayes

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ritter (Application # 2006/0055538), Duncan (Application # 2004/0087314), and Hayes (Patent 6,967,576).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Ritter/Duncan combination to further teach the limitations of dependent claim 5, which requires the processing system to comprise a "learning module that uses the collected data to provide at least one service to a respective user." Petitioner argued that Hayes discloses this feature, teaching a tracking system with a "learning mode" where a hub automatically learns to track items and uses collected data to populate a user profile. This profile provides services such as defining "safe areas" where alerts are suppressed or "schedule information" to customize alarm times and types, which directly corresponds to the claimed learning module and services.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to integrate the learning module from Hayes into the base Ritter/Duncan system to solve a known problem: the generation of unwanted alerts in situations where an item is not truly at risk of being lost. This combination would provide users with greater flexibility and control, creating a more sophisticated and commercially desirable product. Furthermore, Ritter contemplates a service provider operating its system, and adding Hayes's features would allow that provider to offer more customizable, billable services.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Combining Hayes's software-based learning features with the hardware and network system of Ritter was a straightforward integration of known elements to improve system functionality.

Ground 3: Anticipation of Claim 23 by Ritter

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ritter (Application # 2006/0055538).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ritter teaches every limitation of claim 23, which adds functionality for a network of users to find lost items. Specifically, claim 23 requires that terminals can detect wireless devices they are not configured to monitor and, if a lost device is detected, the processing system enables direct communication between the finder and the owner. Ritter discloses this exact functionality through its "community of mobile users" feature. In Ritter, a third-party mobile device can detect any "neighboring tags," query the central database to determine if the tag is reported lost, and retrieve the owner's contact information (e.g., MSISDN phone number) from the database. The transmission of this number from the processing system to the finder's device is the claimed "signal enabling direct communication" to facilitate the return of the lost item.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-23 of Patent 8,872,655 as unpatentable.