PTAB

IPR2021-00124

Platform Science Inc v. XRS Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Local Monitoring
  • Brief Description: The ’365 patent discloses a system and method for monitoring the position of a mobile client, such as a vehicle, relative to a predefined location. The technology involves defining a "destination circle" and a "tolerance circle" around a notification point and using the client's position relative to these areas to trigger the transmission of status messages to a host system.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are anticipated or rendered obvious by Coffee

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Coffee (Patent 6,611,755).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Coffee, which describes a vehicle fleet management system, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. In Coffee, an on-board "tracker" (the mobile client) in a fleet vehicle receives a "Site Dispatch" message containing the latitude/longitude of a job site (a "notification point"). The tracker determines its own position via GPS and compares it to a predefined "job zone" ("an area encompassing said notification point"). Upon entering the zone, the tracker's state logic determines an "Arrive Job" event has occurred and transmits a corresponding status message to the dispatcher. Petitioner contended this process directly maps to the limitations of independent claim 1. For dependent claims, Coffee allegedly teaches using a "second area" by employing hysteresis on the job zone boundary to prevent false "arrive-leave" events. It also discloses using timers for periodic status updates and setting a status bit to "0" for arrival, which Petitioner argued corresponds to setting an "entrance flag."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): While primarily an anticipation argument, Petitioner argued that to the extent Coffee's rectangular "job zones" were not identical to the '365 patent's "circles," a POSITA would find it obvious to use circular zones. This is because defining a circle requires less data to transmit than a rectangle, representing a simple and efficient design choice.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing these known fleet management techniques, as they were standard in the art and involved predictable software and hardware components.

Ground 2: Claims 1-20 are anticipated or rendered obvious by McDonald

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McDonald (Patent 6,496,775).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that McDonald, which discloses a system for automatic vehicle tracking during delivery operations, also anticipates or renders obvious all challenged claims. McDonald's system creates "geographic fences" or "hot zones" (the "area") around a delivery site (the "notification point") and downloads them to a vehicle's mobile data unit (the "mobile client"). The unit determines its position via GPS and compares it to the hot zone. When the unit detects that the vehicle "passes a boundary of the hot zone," it sends a status message to a central data center and sets the delivery state of the vehicle to "At Job Site," which Petitioner equated to "setting a state of an entrance flag." For dependent claims, McDonald explicitly teaches enlarging the initial hot zone to create a "second area" to prevent false boundary crossings due to GPS inaccuracies. McDonald also discloses that the mobile unit can include a timer to periodically provide status updates to the dispatch center after the initial arrival event.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under Fintiv. It contended that the parallel district court proceeding was in its earliest stages, as no scheduling order had been issued, no trial date was set, and no significant investment had been made in the litigation by the parties or the court.
  • Petitioner further argued that the median time to trial in the Southern District of California would likely place any potential trial date after the projected date for the IPR's Final Written Decision (FWD), favoring institution for efficiency. The petitioner also asserted that the merits of its petition were particularly strong, which weighs in favor of institution to serve the interest of system efficiency and integrity.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 7,043,365 as unpatentable.