PTAB

IPR2020-00694

Keep Truckin Inc v. Innovative Global Systems LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Logging and Reporting Driver Activity and Operation Data of a Vehicle
  • Brief Description: The ’384 patent relates to in-cab electronic systems for logging and reporting driver activity and vehicle operation data. The system uses an onboard recorder connected to the vehicle's data bus to collect data and transmit it to a portable device that generates and displays an hours-of-service (HOS) log for regulatory compliance.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Skeen, Warkentin, and Transportation Regulations - Claims 1-6, 10, 11, and 14-20 are obvious over Skeen in view of Warkentin and the Transportation Regulations.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Skeen (Patent 6,832,141), Warkentin (Application # 2002/0035421), and the Transportation Regulations (49 C.F.R. §§ 390-396).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary references collectively taught all limitations of the challenged claims. Skeen taught an onboard diagnostic port memory module (ODPMM) that connects to a vehicle's data bus to continuously record operational data and transmit it wirelessly (e.g., via IrDA). Warkentin taught a portable handheld device with a processor, display, and software specifically for generating and presenting a driver's HOS log in a regulatory-compliant grid format. Petitioner contended that Skeen's ODPMM supplies the "onboard recorder" and vehicle data, while Warkentin's portable device provides the user interface, processing, and display for the HOS log. The Transportation Regulations provided the well-known requirements for the content and format of HOS logs, which Warkentin's device was designed to meet.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Skeen and Warkentin because Warkentin expressly suggested using a vehicle interface to automate data collection but did not detail its implementation. Skeen provided a detailed, off-the-shelf solution for that exact purpose. The combination would yield the predictable result of a complete, automated HOS logging system. The Transportation Regulations provided the strong regulatory incentive and specific data requirements for creating such a system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination involved integrating known components (a data logger and a portable display unit) using standard interfaces to perform their conventional, established functions.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Skeen/Warkentin/Regulations in view of Murphy - Claim 8 is obvious over Skeen, Warkentin, and the Transportation Regulations, further in view of Murphy.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Skeen (Patent 6,832,141), Warkentin (Application # 2002/0035421), the Transportation Regulations, and Murphy (Patent 6,225,890).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 by adding the teachings of Murphy to satisfy the "portable memory device reader" limitation of claim 8. Murphy taught a secure method for driver identification using a token or smart card (a portable memory device) that is inserted into a reader. This ensured that vehicle and driving data were correctly and reliably associated with a specific driver.
    • Motivation to Combine: While the primary combination of Skeen and Warkentin could log data, it lacked a robust method to verify the driver's identity, creating a risk of inaccurate or fraudulent logs. Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Murphy's well-known token-reader system to enhance the security and integrity of the collected data, a known problem in the industry, particularly for vehicles used by multiple drivers.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Skeen/Warkentin/Regulations in view of Berenz - Claims 7 and 9 are obvious over Skeen, Warkentin, and the Transportation Regulations, further in view of Berenz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Skeen (Patent 6,832,141), Warkentin (Application # 2002/0035421), the Transportation Regulations, and Berenz (Patent 6,724,920).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed the "biometric reader" (claim 7) and "camera" (claim 9) limitations by incorporating the teachings of Berenz into the base combination of Ground 1. Berenz taught using a camera and facial recognition software as a biometric method for verifying an individual's identity.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that in Ground 2: to add a secure and reliable driver identification method to the base logging system. Berenz provided a known biometric alternative to Murphy's token-based system. A POSITA seeking to prevent fraud and ensure data accuracy would have found it obvious to implement a known biometric solution like the camera-based system taught by Berenz.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • continuously should be construed to mean persistently: Petitioner argued this construction was required based on the Patent Owner's own arguments during prosecution. The Patent Owner had distinguished prior art by asserting that its claimed "onboard recorder" maintained a persistent connection to the vehicle data bus, unlike a prior art device that was readily removable from its cradle, which interrupted the data connection.
  • electronic tablet should be construed to mean mobile computing device that has a flat, rectangular form and a relatively large display: As the specification did not define the term "portable handheld communications device," Petitioner proposed this construction for "electronic tablet" (recited in claim 10) based on descriptions in the ’384 patent specification and standard dictionary definitions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-11 and 14-20 of the ’384 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.