PTAB

IPR2025-00959

Carbyne Inc v. TriTech Software Systems

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Communication During an Emergency
  • Brief Description: The ’016 patent discloses a system for managing communications during an emergency call. The system allows an emergency dispatcher to supplement voice calls by sending textual messages to a caller, including a specific type of message containing a URL that directs the caller's mobile device to a website for collecting and transmitting the device's GPS location back to the dispatcher.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Brooks and SARLOC - Claims 1, 5-9, and 13-16 are obvious over Brooks in view of SARLOC.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Brooks (Application # 2002/0197977) and SARLOC (a 2012 conference article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Brooks taught a foundational "enhanced emergency call system" where a dispatcher can receive a voice call and then send text messages to the caller to "query the user to pinpoint the location of the user for rescue purposes." However, Brooks did not specify the exact mechanism for this location query. Petitioner asserted that SARLOC, which describes a mobile phone geolocation system for search and rescue, supplied the missing details. SARLOC taught sending a caller an SMS message containing a URL. When clicked, the URL directs the phone's browser to a web page that uses the browser's geo-location API to obtain the phone's GPS coordinates and transmit them to a database accessible by rescue personnel. This combination, Petitioner contended, taught all limitations of the independent claims, including the "web-hosting module" configured to query devices for location and share that information with a "presentation module" (the dispatcher's interface).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references because they addressed the same problem: locating an emergency caller. A POSITA implementing the general location-querying function described in Brooks would have looked to known methods for achieving it. SARLOC provided a well-documented, practical, and efficient method that required no special software on the user's phone, making it an obvious and attractive solution to implement Brooks's system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Brooks's system already contemplated using SMS to query for location. SARLOC provided a straightforward implementation using standard, existing smartphone functionality (SMS, web browsers, GPS APIs), ensuring a predictable result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Salafia and Marr - Claims 1, 5-9, 13-17, and 25-27 are obvious over Salafia in view of Marr.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Salafia (Application # 2010/0261492) and Marr (Application # 2012/0190384).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Salafia, which was considered during prosecution of the original patent, taught nearly all claimed features. Salafia disclosed an emergency call handling system where a dispatcher could send text messages (including MMS) to a caller, that these messages could contain URLs, and that the system could obtain and display a caller's GPS location. Petitioner argued the only element purportedly missing from Salafia was the specific implementation of using a URL-based web resource to actively query for GPS data. Petitioner contended that Marr, which was disclosed to the Patent Owner and the USPTO during reissue but not substantively analyzed, explicitly taught this exact mechanism. Marr described a service system where a dispatcher sends a customer a text message with a URL that directs the phone to a website, which then requests and collects GPS data from the device and relays it to the dispatcher.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that since Salafia's stated goal was to obtain caller GPS information and it already disclosed sending URLs, a POSITA would have been motivated to consult references like Marr to find an effective method for combining these functionalities. Marr was presented as directly pertinent, teaching the same solution to the same problem: overcoming the difficulty of obtaining a caller's location verbally. Combining Marr's specific URL-based GPS collection method with Salafia's broader emergency communication system was characterized as an obvious design choice to improve Salafia's functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because Salafia's system was already designed to handle both GPS data and URL transmission. Integrating Marr's method would not require extensive modification, as it relied on the same standard smartphone capabilities that Salafia's system would interact with.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 3) based on the combination of Brooks, SARLOC, and Salafia. This ground argued that if the functional disclosures of Brooks and SARLOC were deemed insufficient, Salafia provided the necessary structural details (e.g., specific workstation and module configurations) to render the claims obvious.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • For the purpose of the petition, Petitioner accepted Patent Owner's prosecution argument that the various "module" limitations (e.g., "call reception module," "outgoing message module") were not means-plus-function limitations.
  • Petitioner adopted the construction that these "module" terms require "computer program modules that are executed by processors," rather than a generic description for software or hardware, and argued the prior art met this construction.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 5-9, 13-17, and 25-27 of the ’016 patent as unpatentable.