Prior art

Analysis of Relevant Prior Art

This analysis details the most relevant prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent 6,415,207. The key inventive concept of the '207 patent revolves around using automatically transmitted caller identification information (like a phone number) to look up and provide vehicle status information without requiring the user to manually input a vehicle identifier. Therefore, the most impactful prior art would be any reference that discloses an automated system for providing vehicle or object status in response to a remote query that uses a form of automatic caller authentication.

Based on a review of the patent's file history and its own text, the following references are most relevant.

Key Prior Art References

1. U.S. Patent 4,924,496 to Figa et al. ("Figa")

• Full Citation: US Patent 4,924,496, "Automatic incoming telephone call originating number and party display system," issued May 8, 1990.
• Dates: Filed August 10, 1988; Issued May 8, 1990.
• Brief Description: Figa discloses the foundational technology for caller identification (Caller ID). It describes a system where the calling party's telephone number is transmitted to the called party's equipment during the ringing sequence. This allows the receiving party to identify the caller before answering the call. The '207 patent explicitly incorporates the '496 patent by reference in its detailed description (Column 4, lines 10-15), acknowledging it as the mechanism for automatically transmitting caller ID information.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claims 1, 5, 10: Figa does not anticipate the claims of the '207 patent because it is focused solely on the transmission and display of the caller's number. It does not teach or suggest using this number as a key to automatically query a database for vehicle status information and then transmit that status information back to the caller. Figa provides a necessary component technology but does not disclose the complete system or method claimed by the '207 patent. It teaches the "receiving caller identification information" step but not the subsequent steps of using that information to retrieve and transmit vehicle status.

2. U.S. Patent 5,802,492 to Delaune et al. ("Delaune")

• Full Citation: US Patent 5,802,492, "System for monitoring the location of a vehicle," issued September 1, 1998.
• Dates: Filed June 7, 1995; Issued September 1, 1998.
• Brief Description: Delaune describes a comprehensive vehicle location and notification system. A central station monitors the location of a vehicle (e.g., a school bus) using GPS. The system can automatically notify a user (e.g., a parent) via telephone when the vehicle is approaching a predetermined location. A user can also call into the system to check the vehicle's status. When calling in, the system may prompt the user to enter an identification code to receive information about a specific vehicle. The system can recognize a caller's telephone number through Automatic Number Identification (ANI), which is functionally equivalent to Caller ID.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claims 1, 5, 10: Delaune is highly relevant and was a key reference in the PTAB challenges. It discloses nearly all elements of the independent claims: a central station ("database" and "system manager") that maintains vehicle location ("status information"), updates from the vehicle, and a communication interface for users. Crucially, Delaune discloses receiving the caller's telephone number via ANI. However, a strict anticipation argument might fail because Delaune describes using this identified number primarily to determine which telephone number to call back for an automatic notification, or it prompts the user for an ID code. It does not explicitly teach using the incoming ANI by itself to automatically look up the associated vehicle and transmit its status back in the same call without any further user input. An argument could be made that this final step is an obvious design choice, but it may not be expressly or inherently disclosed, which is the standard for anticipation under § 102.

3. U.S. Patent 5,742,905 to Gifford et al. ("Gifford")

• Full Citation: US Patent 5,742,905, "Personalized information delivery system," issued April 21, 1998.
• Dates: Filed June 7, 1995; Issued April 21, 1998.
• Brief Description: Gifford discloses a system for delivering personalized information (such as news, stock quotes, or weather) to users. The system identifies the user based on their incoming telephone number (Caller ID). Once the user is identified, the system accesses a user profile that specifies the type of information the user is interested in. The system then retrieves this pre-selected information and delivers it to the user, for example, as a synthesized voice message or a fax.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claims 1, 5, 10: Gifford presents a strong challenge to the novelty of the '207 patent's claims. It teaches the core concept of using Caller ID to automatically identify a user, look up their preferences in a database, and provide them with specific information without further input. The primary difference is the type of information provided—Gifford focuses on general information like news and weather, whereas the '207 patent specifies "vehicle status information." An anticipation argument would hinge on whether substituting "vehicle status information" for other types of information would be considered a novel and non-obvious step. While Gifford does not explicitly mention vehicles, the underlying method is identical: receive caller ID, use it to query a database for user-associated information, and transmit that information back. A challenger would argue that applying this known method to the specific domain of vehicle tracking does not create a patentable distinction. Therefore, Gifford has a high likelihood of being found to anticipate the core method of claims 1, 5, and 10, as the specific content being retrieved is arguably a non-limiting aspect of the claimed process.