Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 8085192 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US Patent 8085192 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date: September 6, 2005). The analysis utilizes the prior art identified in the "Prior art" section:

1. US7117075B1 (Report On Board Llc): "Driver activity and vehicle operation logging and reporting" (Published: 2006-10-03; Priority: 2005-08-15).
2. US20040010699A1 (Zhimin Shao): "Secure data management techniques" (Published: 2004-01-15; Priority: 2002-02-07).
3. US20060204047A1 (Sanjay Dave): "Portable memory storage device with biometric identification security" (Published: 2006-09-14; Priority: 2005-03-09).

Combination I: Report On Board (US7117075B1) + Shao (US20040010699A1)

This combination renders independent Claims 1, 13, 19, and 22, along with dependent Claims 2, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 21, obvious.

Motivation for Combination:
Report On Board discloses a device for "logging and reporting driver activity and vehicle operation," which involves determining and storing sensitive location information, such as routes traveled and vehicle velocity. The background of US8085192 explicitly identifies the sensitivity of such information (e.g., home addresses, routes, vehicle usage by employees or children) and the need to restrict access to "designated parties." [Description, Background, para 3-4] Shao teaches general "secure data management techniques," including "encrypting data for storage and transmission to prevent unauthorized access." A person of ordinary skill in the art, facing the recognized problem of securing sensitive location data collected by a device like that in Report On Board, would have been highly motivated to apply the well-known solution of data encryption, as taught by Shao, to protect this information from unauthorized access. This combination directly addresses the stated need for secure storage of sensitive GPS data.

Application to Independent Claims:

• Claims 1 & 13 (Device Claims):

  • Report On Board provides a device with a housing, a locational information module for determining location information (including at least one route traveled and velocity), and a storage module for this information.
  • Shao teaches an "encryption module for encrypting" data and storing "encrypted location information" in a storage module to prevent unauthorized access.
  • Combining these, it would be obvious to integrate Shao's encryption module into Report On Board's device to encrypt the sensitive location data before storing it in the device's storage module, with a processing module inherently handling the sending and retrieving of this encrypted data.
  • For Claim 1, which specifies a "removable storage module," the background of US8085192 itself states that "most devices will allow a user to store information such as address points in the internal memory of the device. Some devices will allow you to store this information on removable memory, e.g., memory cards, optical media, etc." [Description, Background, para 2]. Given that removable memory was a common feature of GPS devices for data transfer, it would have been obvious to apply Shao's encryption to such a removable storage module within the Report On Board device.
  • Thus, independent Claims 1 and 13 are rendered obvious.

• Claims 19 & 22 (System Claims):

  • Claim 19 (Removable Storage System): Building on the obvious device of Claim 1, Report On Board's system is for "logging and reporting," implying that the stored data is eventually accessed and analyzed. When data is stored on a removable module, it is a routine and obvious practice to transfer this module to an external computing device equipped with a compatible reader. Shao's teaching of encryption inherently necessitates a corresponding decryption mechanism. Therefore, it would be obvious to provide an external computing device with a reader for the removable storage module and a processor configured to execute a decryption program to access the encrypted data for reporting and analysis.
  • Claim 22 (Transmission Module System): Building on the obvious device of Claim 13, Report On Board's "reporting" function also implies data transmission. Shao explicitly teaches "encrypting data for storage and transmission." It would be obvious to equip the combined device with a transmission module (e.g., hardwired or wireless, as commonly found on electronic devices and described in US8085192's description of module 112) to transmit the encrypted data to an external computing device. The external computing device would similarly be equipped with a connectivity device for receiving the data and a processor to execute a decryption program, an inherent component of any encryption scheme.
  • Thus, independent Claims 19 and 22 are rendered obvious.

Application to Dependent Claims:

• Claims 2 & 15 (Code String Input): The use of a "code string" (e.g., a password) for encrypting and decrypting data is a fundamental and well-known aspect of secure data management, as generally taught by Shao. An input module to receive such a code string is a standard feature of interactive electronic devices. It would be obvious to integrate such a standard security input method into the device of the combination.
• Claims 11 & 20 (Specific Location Information): Report On Board explicitly teaches logging "velocity of a vehicle." The background of US8085192 states that GPS devices commonly store "home address" and "destination addresses." [Description, Background, para 3] These are common and sensitive types of location information that a POSITA would find obvious to protect using the encryption scheme of the combination.
• Claims 12 & 14 (Transmission Module): These claims are inherently addressed by the analysis for independent Claim 22, as a transmission module is a common and obvious means for transferring data from a device to an external computer for reporting and analysis.
• Claim 21 (Mapping Program Overlay): Once the location information is decrypted and available on an external computing device, it is a routine and obvious function of mapping software (which was widely available prior to the priority date) to "overlay the location information on at least one of the plurality of geographical maps" for visualization and analysis. This is a common post-processing step for geographic data.

Combination II: Report On Board (US7117075B1) + Shao (US20040010699A1) + Dave (US20060204047A1)

This combination renders dependent Claims 3-10 and 16-18 obvious.

Motivation for Combination:
Building upon Combination I, which provides a device that collects and stores encrypted sensitive location data, a POSITA would be motivated to further enhance the security and user access control for this sensitive information. Dave teaches a "portable memory storage device with biometric identification security" to control access to stored data. Given the increasing need for robust authentication in devices handling sensitive information, and the widespread knowledge of biometric technology for identity verification (as acknowledged in US8085192's detailed description for UVM 130, which explicitly mentions "retinal scanning device, finger print reader, facial recognition reader"), it would be obvious to integrate biometric user verification, as taught by Dave, into the encrypted location information device. [Description, Detailed Description, para 22] This would provide a more secure and/or convenient method of access compared to merely using a code string, aligning with the goal of restricting access to "designated parties."

Application to Dependent Claims:

• Claims 3 & 16 (User Verification Module): Dave's patent directly teaches a "biometric identification security" system for a portable memory device, which functions as a user verification module for controlling access to stored data based on user identity. Applying this concept to the device of Combination I to verify the identity of a user and selectively decrypt location information would be obvious.
• Claims 4 & 17 (Password Protection Algorithm): Password protection algorithms were conventional means of user verification prior to the priority date, and could be implemented as an alternative or supplementary method to biometrics.
• Claims 5 & 18 (Identity Capture Device): Dave's biometric identification system inherently includes an "identity capture device."
• Claims 6-10 (Specific Biometric Devices): Dave refers to "biometric identification," which encompasses various known specific biometric devices. The specific examples listed in Claims 7-10 (retinal scanning, fingerprint reader, facial recognition, DNA detection) were all known or contemplated biometric technologies prior to the priority date. It would be obvious for a POSITA to select any known biometric device for the identity capture device based on application requirements (e.g., security level, user convenience).
• Thus, dependent Claims 3-10 and 16-18 are rendered obvious by the combination of Report On Board, Shao, and Dave.