PTAB

IPR2020-00692

Keep Truckin Inc v. Innovative Global Systems LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Driver Activity and Vehicle Operation Logging and Reporting
  • Brief Description: The ’277 patent relates to in-cab electronic logging devices (ELDs) and systems for logging and reporting driver activity and vehicle operation data. The disclosed device collects information such as GPS position, miles driven, and hours-of-service for commercial vehicle drivers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Houser - Claim 1 is obvious over Houser.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Houser (International Publication No. WO 1997/13208).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Houser, which discloses an electronic vehicle log (EVL) for commercial vehicles, teaches every element of independent claim 1. Houser’s EVL was described as comprising a processor operatively connected to memory for storing operating data, a power supply (a 12-volt inverter connected to the vehicle battery), and a display. Petitioner asserted Houser discloses interfaces for connecting to vehicle systems, such as a PCMCIA card interface for an analog acquisition card to receive mileage sensor data and another for a vehicle bus. Houser also allegedly teaches a GPS receiver and a radio for wirelessly uploading data to governmental authorities, as well as controls for a driver to input identity information.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Houser and Transportation Regulations - Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 12, and 13 are obvious over Houser in view of the Transportation Regulations.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Houser (WO 1997/13208) and the Transportation Regulations (49 C.F.R. §§ 390-395, as of Oct. 1, 2003).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Houser provides the foundational electronic logging system, while the Transportation Regulations provide the specific regulatory context and data requirements that render the claimed methods and features obvious. Specifically, the Regulations explicitly mandate the recording of a driver’s "duty status" and the creation of an "hours of service log" with specific data points (e.g., total hours driven, changes in duty status). Petitioner argued that applying these regulatory requirements to Houser’s general-purpose logging device would have been obvious. For method claim 2, Houser was said to teach identifying a driver and recording operating data from various vehicle systems, and the Regulations teach the specific data to be logged for hours of service. For dependent claims, transmitting safety information like a driver’s safety record (claim 12) or tire pressure (claim 13) were described in Houser as part of vehicle credential and safety data collection.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) developing a commercial EVL system as described in Houser would have been motivated to consult the governing Transportation Regulations. The primary purpose of such a device is regulatory compliance, making it essential to ensure the device logged and reported all legally required data, such as duty status and hours of service.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in configuring Houser’s system to record and report the specific data fields mandated by the Regulations, as this involves applying known legal requirements to a system designed for that exact purpose.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Houser, Transportation Regulations, and Murphy - Claims 3 and 8-11 are obvious over Houser in view of the Transportation Regulations and further in view of Murphy.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Houser (WO 1997/13208), the Transportation Regulations (49 C.F.R. §§ 390-395), and Murphy (Patent 6,225,890).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination of Houser and the Regulations by adding Murphy to supply specific technical implementations. For claim 3, which requires a specific vehicle data bus (e.g., SAE J1708), Petitioner argued that while Houser teaches a generic vehicle bus interface, Murphy explicitly discloses using standard vehicle buses like SAE J1708 and J1587 for acquiring vehicle data. For claims 8-11, relating to driver identification, Petitioner asserted Murphy teaches downloading driver identification data from a remote facility to an onboard recorder (claim 8) and using specific biometrics like facial, retinal, or thumbprint scans for driver identification (claim 9), which Houser only mentions generically. Murphy also allegedly teaches matching stored biometric data to verify identity (claim 10) and disabling the vehicle if a driver fails to log in (claim 11).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA seeking to implement the system of Houser for commercial use would have sought out references like Murphy for specific, well-known technical solutions. Murphy provides concrete examples of industry-standard data buses and robust biometric security features that would have been obvious and beneficial additions to Houser's more general system to enhance its functionality and security.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in integrating the specific data bus standards and biometric identification methods from Murphy into the Houser/Regulations framework, as it would involve combining known, compatible technologies to achieve predictable results.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-13 of the ’277 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.