US 9892637

US Patent 9892637, titled "Vehicle identification system," was invented by Dereje M. Demisse and is currently assigned to Rideshare Displays Inc., which was also the original assignee. The patent was filed on May 27, 2015, under application number US14/723,049, and issued on February 13, 2018. The legal status of the patent is active, with an anticipated expiration date of May 27, 2035.

Abstract:
The patent describes a vehicle identification system that includes one or more displays visible from the exterior of a vehicle, a transceiver, and a controller. The controller generates a first signal transmitted via the transceiver to a driver's mobile communication device when the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a specific location. In turn, the driver's mobile device generates a second signal representing an indicator, which is then transmitted to and displayed on the vehicle's external display(s).

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (System): This claim describes a vehicle identification system. It comprises at least one display on the vehicle exterior, a transceiver, and a controller. The controller sends a first signal to a driver's mobile device when the vehicle is near a specified location. The driver's mobile device then generates and transmits a second signal, which contains an indicator, to the external vehicle display.
• Claim 9 (Method): This claim outlines a method for identifying a dispatched ride-service vehicle. It involves: 1) generating a notification signal to a driver's mobile device when the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of the user's location, 2) the driver's device generating an indicatory signal (representing an indicator) upon receiving the notification, 3) displaying this indicator on an external vehicle display, 4) displaying the same indicator on the user's mobile device, and 5) the user identifying the vehicle by visually matching the indicators on their device and the vehicle's display.
• Claim 13 (System): This claim describes another vehicle identification system configuration. It includes at least one external vehicle display, a transceiver, and a controller. The controller is adapted to generate a first signal (including a code) for the driver's mobile device and a second signal (also including the code) for the user's mobile device. Additionally, a third signal, which provides the code and acts as an indicator to identify the vehicle, is transmitted to the external vehicle display.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, a review of the scheduled cases for May and June 2026 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit does not explicitly show any new cases specifically listing patent US9892637, Rideshare Displays Inc., or Dereje M. Demisse. While the patent family has been involved in prior litigation, including CAFC cases in 2023 and a PTAB IPR in 2021, current public dockets for 2026 do not indicate new filings or scheduled arguments directly pertaining to this specific patent.

Known litigation involving US patent 9892637 includes a district court infringement case and appeals to the Federal Circuit concerning inter partes review (IPR) decisions.

Here is a summary of the known litigation:

1. District Court Litigation

• Plaintiff(s): Rideshare Displays, Inc.
• Defendant(s): Lyft, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:20-cv-01629
• Filing Date: November 30, 2020
• Outcome/Current Status: Rideshare Displays, Inc. filed this patent infringement suit against Lyft, Inc., asserting US9892637 and other related patents. As of July 12, 2021, the court recommended denying Lyft's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice, allowing Lyft to renew its arguments regarding patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at the summary judgment stage. The status of this district court case after the Federal Circuit's validity decisions (detailed below) is not explicitly provided, but the Federal Circuit's rulings on patentability would significantly impact its progression.

2. Federal Circuit Appeals from Inter Partes Review (IPR) Decisions

• Plaintiff(s) (Appellant): Rideshare Displays, Inc.
• Defendant(s) (Cross-Appellant): Lyft, Inc.
• Intervenor: Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
• Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
• Case Numbers: 23-2033, 23-2035, 23-2036, 23-2037, 23-2039 (consolidated appeals concerning US9892637 and four other related patents)
  • The patent text also lists cases 23-2035, 23-2036, 23-2033, 23-2037, and 23-2039.
• Filing Date: The appeals to the Federal Circuit were filed around June 2023, following underlying IPR proceedings initiated by Lyft in November 2021.
• Outcome/Current Status: The Federal Circuit issued a decision on September 29, 2025, with a mixed outcome of "Affirmed-in-Part, Reversed-in-Part, and Dismissed-in-Part."
  • The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) determinations that several claims of the five patents, including claims 1-9 and 11-20 of US9892637, were unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
  • On cross-appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB's partial grant of Rideshare Displays' motions to amend certain claims (specifically claims 29, 31, and 32 of US9892637), holding that the proposed substitute claims were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description.

3. PTAB Litigation

• Petitioner: Lyft, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Rideshare Displays, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2021-01598 (as noted in the patent text, one of the IPRs)
• Filing Date: November 2021 (when Lyft filed five petitions for inter partes review challenging the patents).
• Outcome/Current Status: The PTAB issued decisions finding claims of US9892637 and related patents unpatentable for obviousness, which were subsequently affirmed-in-part by the Federal Circuit. The PTAB also partially granted Rideshare's motions to amend claims, which the Federal Circuit later reversed.

Proceedings overview

There is one concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding on file for US Patent 9,892,637 that led to the invalidation of multiple claims, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. Specifically, IPR2021-01598, consolidated with four other IPRs on related patents, resulted in claims 1-9 and 11-20 of US9892637 being found unpatentable. This outcome provides a strong defensive posture for a defendant, as a significant portion of the patent's claims have been canceled.

IPR2021-01598 — Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: November 2021
• Status: Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are CANCELED. The PTAB's Final Written Decision found these claims unpatentable, and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
• Judge panel: The Federal Circuit panel included Judges Taranto, Chen, and Hughes. The specific PTAB judge panel for the FWD is not publicly available in the provided search snippets.
• Petition grounds: Challenges were made under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) and/or 103 (obviousness) over prior art references including Kalanick, Lalancette, and Kemler, either alone or in combination.
• Institution decision: The PTAB instituted review, determining that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious or anticipated over the cited prior art.
• Final Written Decision (issued by PTAB; specific date of FWD not found in snippets, but the Board's decision was appealed): The PTAB determined that claims 1-9 and 11-20 of US Patent No. 9,892,637 were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit's opinion states: "we affirm the Board's holding that all challenged claims are unpatentable."
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as a Final Written Decision was issued and affirmed on appeal.
• Appeal: Yes, the PTAB's decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal of IPR2021-01598 was consolidated with other IPRs (IPR2021-01599, IPR2021-01600, IPR2021-01601, IPR2021-01602) under lead appeal number 23-2033 (and related case numbers 23-2034, 23-2035, 23-2036, 23-2037, 23-2038, 23-2039). The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's holding that claims 1-9 and 11-20 of US9892637 are unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit also reversed the Board's partial grant of Rideshare's motions to amend claims 29, 31, and 32 of the '637 patent. The decision was rendered on September 29, 2025, and rehearing was denied on December 22, 2025.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-9 and 11-20 of US9892637 have been conclusively invalidated through IPR and subsequent Federal Circuit review. Any infringement theory or demand letter relying on these claims for assertion has no legal basis and should be challenged.

Strategic summary

Claims 1-9 and 11-20 of US9892637 are now CANCELED as they were found unpatentable for obviousness by the PTAB, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Claim 10 of US9892637 was not among the claims explicitly listed as unpatentable in the Federal Circuit's decision, meaning it is UNTESTED by this specific IPR proceeding. The patent's scope has been significantly narrowed, removing a large majority of its claims (19 out of 20) from enforceability.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) will bar the petitioner (Lyft, Inc.) and its privies from asserting in future district court actions that claims 1-9 and 11-20 are invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2021-01598. However, since these claims were found unpatentable, this estoppel primarily benefits the patent owner by preventing re-litigation of the validity of these now-canceled claims by Lyft. For any other defendant facing assertion of US9892637, the prior-art grounds used in this IPR (Kalanick, Lalancette, and Kemler, alone or in combination) are available for arguments against claim 10, or potentially against the canceled claims in situations where estoppel does not apply.

The pattern signals indicate that Rideshare Displays, Inc. has aggressively pursued its patent rights, appealing PTAB decisions to the Federal Circuit. However, in this instance, the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidation of the original claims. The fact that Lyft, Inc. (a major rideshare service) successfully challenged the patent signals a strong desire to clear the field of this technology.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US9892637:

• Claims 1-9 and 11-20 of US9892637 are canceled. If your demand letter cites any of these claims, the asserted claims are invalid. You can confidently rely on the Federal Circuit's decision in Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc. (Case No. 23-2033, et al., decided September 29, 2025) which affirmed the Board's unpatentability finding for these claims. The Federal Circuit stated: "we affirm the Board's holding that all challenged claims are unpatentable".
• Regarding claim 10, which was not explicitly part of the claims found unpatentable, it remains legally "alive" but unadjudicated in this specific IPR. A defendant could consider commissioning an invalidity search specifically for claim 10 to determine if strong prior art exists, potentially leading to another IPR challenge if new grounds are discovered or if the defendant is not in privity with Lyft.
• The Federal Circuit's opinion in Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 23-2033 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2025), is a nonprecedential decision, but it definitively resolved the patentability of claims 1-9 and 11-20. The decision can be accessed via the Federal Circuit's docket or CourtListener (though a specific CourtListener link for the final decision was not provided in the search results).## Proceedings overview

There is one concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding on file for US Patent 9,892,637 that led to the invalidation of multiple claims, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. Specifically, IPR2021-01598, consolidated with four other IPRs on related patents, resulted in claims 1-9 and 11-20 of US9892637 being found unpatentable. This outcome provides a strong defensive posture for a defendant, as a significant portion of the patent's claims have been canceled.

IPR2021-01598 — Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: November 2021
• Status: Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are CANCELED. The PTAB's Final Written Decision found these claims unpatentable, and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
• Judge panel: The Federal Circuit panel for the appeal included Judges Taranto, Chen, and Hughes. The specific PTAB judge panel for the FWD is not publicly available in the provided search snippets.
• Petition grounds: Challenges were made under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) and/or 103 (obviousness) over prior art references including Kalanick, Lalancette, and Kemler, either alone or in combination.
• Institution decision: The PTAB instituted review, determining that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious or anticipated over the cited prior art.
• Final Written Decision (issued by PTAB; specific date of FWD not found in snippets, but the Board's decision was appealed): The PTAB determined that claims 1-9 and 11-20 of US Patent No. 9,892,637 were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit's opinion states: "we affirm the Board's holding that all challenged claims are unpatentable."
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as a Final Written Decision was issued and affirmed on appeal.
• Appeal: Yes, the PTAB's decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal of IPR2021-01598 was consolidated with other IPRs (IPR2021-01599, IPR2021-01600, IPR2021-01601, IPR2021-01602) under lead appeal number 23-2033 (and related case numbers 23-2034, 23-2035, 23-2036, 23-2037, 23-2038, 23-2039). The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's holding that claims 1-9 and 11-20 of US9892637 are unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit also reversed the Board's partial grant of Rideshare's motions to amend claims 29, 31, and 32 of the '637 patent, finding the substitute claims directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The decision was rendered on September 29, 2025, and rehearing was denied on December 22, 2025.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-9 and 11-20 of US9892637 have been conclusively invalidated through IPR and subsequent Federal Circuit review. Any infringement theory or demand letter relying on these claims for assertion has no legal basis and should be challenged.

Strategic summary

Claims 1-9 and 11-20 of US9892637 are now CANCELED as they were found unpatentable for obviousness by the PTAB, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Claim 10 of US9892637 was not among the claims explicitly listed as unpatentable in the Federal Circuit's decision, meaning it is UNTESTED by this specific IPR proceeding. The patent's scope has been significantly narrowed, removing a large majority of its claims (19 out of 20) from enforceability.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) will bar the petitioner (Lyft, Inc.) and its privies from asserting in future district court actions that claims 1-9 and 11-20 are invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2021-01598. However, since these claims were found unpatentable, this estoppel primarily benefits the patent owner by preventing re-litigation of the validity of these now-canceled claims by Lyft. For any other defendant facing assertion of US9892637, the prior-art grounds used in this IPR (Kalanick, Lalancette, and Kemler, alone or in combination) are available for arguments against claim 10, or potentially against the canceled claims in situations where estoppel does not apply.

The pattern signals indicate that Rideshare Displays, Inc. has aggressively pursued its patent rights, appealing PTAB decisions to the Federal Circuit. However, in this instance, the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidation of the original claims. The fact that Lyft, Inc. (a major rideshare service) successfully challenged the patent signals a strong desire to clear the field of this technology.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US9892637:

• Claims 1-9 and 11-20 of US9892637 are canceled. If your demand letter cites any of these claims, the asserted claims are invalid. You can confidently rely on the Federal Circuit's decision in Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc. (Case No. 23-2033, et al., decided September 29, 2025), which affirmed the Board's unpatentability finding for these claims. The Federal Circuit stated: "we affirm the Board's holding that all challenged claims are unpatentable." The Federal Circuit's decision can be accessed at: https://www.federalcircuit.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/23-2033.pdf (Please note that the provided URL is derived from the search result snippet and may lead to a PDF. Direct linking to USPTO PTAB E2E for the specific FWD was not available in the snippets).
• Regarding claim 10, which was not explicitly part of the claims found unpatentable, it remains legally "alive" but unadjudicated in this specific IPR. A defendant could consider commissioning an invalidity search specifically for claim 10 to determine if strong prior art exists, potentially leading to another IPR challenge if new grounds are discovered or if the defendant is not in privity with Lyft.

Inventors

• Dereje M. Demisse: Employed by Rideshare Displays Inc. at the time of the patent's filing.

Original assignee

Rideshare Displays Inc. is the original assignee named on the issued patent. The company has developed and appears to market a product called LOCUS™, a vehicle identification system consisting of a mini-billboard display for rideshare vehicles that wirelessly links to a driver's mobile device to show unique alphanumeric identifiers, logos, and graphics to passengers. Their primary line of business is as a technology company focused on vehicle identification systems to enhance rider safety in app-based ridesharing services, and to generate revenue through mobile advertising. Rideshare Displays Inc. is currently operating and actively engaged in patent litigation, notably against Lyft, Inc., concerning this and other related patents.

Assignment timeline

• 2017-01-26 (executed) / recorded 2017-03-06 — Reel 039777/0239
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: DEMISSE, DEREJE M.
  • Assignee: RIDESHARE DISPLAYS, INC.
  • Correspondent: ROBERT E. HARMON, HARMON & SMITH, P.A., 510 NORTH HIGHWAY D. SUITE 217, LAKE QUIVIRA, KS 66217. This correspondent has not recurred in this specific chain.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights from the inventor to the corporate entity.

The USPTO Patent Assignment Search shows only one assignment record for US9892637, which is the initial transfer from the inventor to Rideshare Displays, Inc. There are no subsequent recorded assignments for this patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9892637
    2015 : Application filed by Rideshare Displays Inc
    2017 : Assigned to Rideshare Displays Inc by inventor
    2018 : Patent Issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded assignment is from the inventor to Rideshare Displays Inc. Rideshare Displays Inc. appears to be an operating company with a product (LOCUS™) and is actively involved in patent litigation, rather than a mere licensing shell.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Rideshare Displays Inc. is not identified as a known NPE on common public lists. While they are asserting patents, they also appear to have a product.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. There is only one assignment record from the inventor to the original assignee (Reel 039777/0239), so no recurring correspondent pattern is observable for this patent's chain.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is only one recorded assignment in the chain.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. The patent was assigned from the inventor to Rideshare Displays Inc. on March 6, 2017 (recorded date, executed Jan 26, 2017) (Reel 039777/0239). The patent issued on February 13, 2018. While the patent family has been involved in litigation, including IPR petitions by Lyft in November 2021, the initial transfer from the inventor occurred well before these known litigation events. Without specific dates for the first infringement suit naming this exact patent, it's difficult to definitively make this call.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence suggests Rideshare Displays Inc. has undergone bankruptcy proceedings or that the patent was acquired via a fire-sale.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While Rideshare Displays Inc. is asserting its patents against a major rideshare company (Lyft), there is no public information indicating this is a "privateering" arrangement where an operating company secretly funds an NPE to assert on its behalf against competitors. Rideshare Displays Inc. appears to be directly asserting its own IP.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is not currently owned by a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion
The patent is currently owned by Rideshare Displays Inc., which publicly identifies as a technology company developing and marketing a vehicle identification product called LOCUS™. The only recorded assignment is from the inventor to this company (Reel 039777/0239). Rideshare Displays Inc. is actively involved in litigation against major rideshare platforms, suggesting assertion by an entity that also appears to be commercializing technology within the scope of the patent.

Verification: USPTO Patent Assignment Search for US9892637

The USPTO database review for prior art of US patent 9892637 focuses on the references explicitly cited within the patent.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US9892637

The only patent explicitly listed under the "Citations" section of US9892637 is US20050012598A1.

Full Citation:
US20050012598A1, titled "Dynamic mobile advertising system," invented by Berquist Steven Earl.

Publication/Filing Date:

• Priority date: July 9, 2003
• Publication date: January 20, 2005

Brief Description:
Despite multiple attempts, a confident and explicit abstract for US20050012598A1 could not be retrieved from the provided search results. Based on its title, "Dynamic mobile advertising system," this prior art likely describes a system for displaying advertisements on mobile vehicles. Such a system would typically involve displays on the vehicle exterior and a mechanism to update the content displayed, possibly wirelessly. The primary purpose, as suggested by the title, would be to generate revenue through advertising, rather than for user identification in ride-sharing services.

Potential Anticipation Analysis (under 35 U.S.C. § 102):

The distinguishing features of US9892637, as defined in its independent claims, revolve around an interactive system for a user to identify a specific ride-service vehicle by visually matching an indicator displayed on the vehicle's exterior with an indicator on their mobile device. The system also involves a communication flow where a central controller alerts a driver, whose mobile device then generates or facilitates the display of the indicator on the vehicle.

• Against Claim 1 (System):

  • "at least one display associated with a vehicle, wherein the at least one display is located to be visible from an exterior of the vehicle;" - This element is likely present in US20050012598A1, as an advertising system would feature external displays.
  • "a transceiver; and a controller communicatively coupled to the transceiver," - These generic communication components are highly probable in any modern mobile advertising system for content updates.
  • "wherein the controller is adapted to generate a first signal to be transmitted by the transceiver to a mobile communication device associated with a driver of the vehicle when it is determined that the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a specific location," - This specific functionality of generating a signal to a driver's mobile device when within a predetermined distance of a specific location (implying a pickup location for a ride service) is not explicitly taught or suggested by the title "Dynamic mobile advertising system." An advertising system focuses on location for ad targeting, not for driver notification for a passenger pickup.
  • "wherein the mobile communication device associated with the driver is adapted to generate a second signal to be transmitted to the at least one display, the second signal representing an indicator." - This crucial step, where the driver's mobile device generates a signal to the vehicle's display to show a specific indicator for identification, is not found in the description of a generic mobile advertising system. Advertising systems typically have content managed by a central server directly to the display, or by a pre-loaded schedule, not dynamically generated by a driver's personal device for a unique pickup event.

  Therefore, US20050012598A1 does not appear to anticipate Claim 1 of US9892637 due to the absence of teaching the specific interactive driver-mobile-device-to-vehicle-display communication for user identification based on proximity to a pickup location.

• Against Claim 9 (Method):

  • "when it is determined that the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of the location of the user, generating a notification signal to a mobile communication device associated with the driver;" - This specific notification step for a driver in the context of a user pickup is not part of a "Dynamic mobile advertising system."
  • "generating an indicatory signal representing an indicator in response to receiving the notification signal;" - The dynamic generation of an indicator by the driver's device in response to a pickup notification is absent.
  • "displaying, on a display associated with the vehicle, the indicator based on the notification signal, the display being located to be visible on the exterior of the vehicle;" - While external displays exist, displaying a specific, dynamic "indicator" tied to a ride request (rather than generic advertising) is not taught.
  • "displaying the indicator on a mobile communication device associated with the user; and" - There is no suggestion of the user's mobile device displaying an indicator for vehicle identification.
  • "identifying the vehicle based on appearance of a match, by visual observation of the user, between the indicator being displayed on the mobile communication device associated with the user and the indicator being displayed on the display associated with the vehicle." - This core interactive identification process is entirely absent from the concept of a mobile advertising system.

  Consequently, US20050012598A1 does not appear to anticipate Claim 9 of US9892637, as it lacks the specific steps for coordinating an indicator display between a user's device and a vehicle's display for ride identification, driven by proximity and driver interaction.

• Against Claim 13 (System):

  • "at least one display associated with a vehicle, wherein the at least one display is located to be visible from an exterior of the vehicle;" - Likely present.
  • "a transceiver;" - Likely present.
  • "a controller communicatively coupled to the transceiver, wherein the controller is adapted to generate a first signal including a code to be transmitted by the transceiver to a mobile communication device associated with a driver of the vehicle and a second signal including the code to a mobile communication device associated with a user requesting a ride; and" - The controller generating a "code" to both the driver's and user's mobile devices for a ride request is specific to US9892637 and not inferable from an advertising system.
  • "a third signal to be transmitted to the at least one display, the third signal providing the code and representing an indicator to identify the vehicle." - While a signal to the display for content is expected, this signal specifically providing a "code" for vehicle identification in a ride-sharing context, coordinating with codes sent to driver/user mobile devices, is not taught.

  Therefore, US20050012598A1 does not appear to anticipate Claim 13 of US9892637, as it lacks the sophisticated coordination of codes between a central controller, driver's device, user's device, and vehicle display, all for the explicit purpose of identifying a ride-service vehicle.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 9892637 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the independent claims of US Patent 9892637 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) as of the patent's priority date of May 29, 2014. A PHOSITA in this field would possess knowledge in mobile application development, telecommunications, Global Positioning System (GPS) technologies, and the architectural design of ride-sharing services. The overarching motivation for combining these references would be to improve the efficiency, user experience, and security of identifying ride-service vehicles.

The patent US9892637, titled "Vehicle identification system," addresses the problem of users having difficulty identifying their requested ride-service vehicle, particularly in busy environments, and aims to enhance rider and driver security. [cite: The present disclosure relates generally to a system and method for vehicle identification. More particularly, the present invention relates to a system adapted to provide an indicator on a mobile communication device of a user having requested a ride service to allow the user to identify a vehicle prior to boarding the vehicle., A continuing need exists for systems and methods adapted for use by transportation services to ensure rider and driver security.]

Combination of Prior Art References

A combination of the following prior art references would render claims 1, 9, and 13 obvious:

1. US20110313804A1 to Camp (hereinafter "Camp"): Titled "System and method for arranging transport amongst parties through use of mobile devices," published December 22, 2011 (priority date December 4, 2009). [cite: US20110313804A1]

   • Disclosure: Camp describes a foundational ride-sharing system where users and drivers arrange transport via mobile communication devices interacting with a central server (controller/transceiver). The system dispatches vehicles to user locations and provides information about the vehicle and driver to the user's mobile device for identification. This implicitly includes location tracking (e.g., GPS) to determine vehicle proximity to a pickup spot and send notifications to drivers.
   • Relevant elements covered by Camp: A controller, a transceiver, mobile communication devices for both drivers and users, generating notification signals to drivers, determining vehicle proximity to a specific location, and displaying vehicle identification information (indicator) on the user's mobile device.

2. US20140081764A1 to Frias (hereinafter "Frias"): Titled "Dynamically changing display on for-hire vehicles," published March 20, 2014 (priority date September 14, 2012).

   • Disclosure: Frias discloses dynamically changing displays explicitly mounted on the exterior of for-hire vehicles. These displays are used to "provide information to passengers or other individuals outside of the vehicle."
   • Relevant elements covered by Frias: At least one display associated with a vehicle, visible from the exterior of the vehicle, capable of dynamically displaying information.

Obviousness of Independent Claim 1 (System)

Claim 1 Breakdown:

1. At least one display associated with a vehicle, visible from an exterior.
2. A transceiver.
3. A controller communicatively coupled to the transceiver, adapted to generate a first signal to the driver's mobile device when the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a location.
4. The driver's mobile device adapted to generate a second signal to the external display, representing an indicator.

Analysis of Obviousness (Camp + Frias):

• The "at least one display associated with a vehicle, wherein the at least one display is located to be visible from an exterior of the vehicle" is directly taught by Frias.
• The "transceiver" and "controller communicatively coupled to the transceiver" are inherent components of the ride-sharing system described by Camp for managing communications between users, drivers, and the central service. [cite: US20110313804A1]
• Camp's system involves a controller generating signals to a driver's mobile device to dispatch them to a user's location, implicitly involving proximity determination (e.g., via GPS) to notify the driver when the vehicle is "within a predetermined distance of a specific location." [cite: US20110313804A1] This covers the controller generating the first signal.
• The step "wherein the mobile communication device associated with the driver is adapted to generate a second signal to be transmitted to the at least one display, the second signal representing an indicator" would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA. In Camp's system, the driver's mobile device is the central interface for trip information. [cite: US20110313804A1] Frias teaches an external dynamic display on a for-hire vehicle. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to program the driver's mobile application (from Camp), upon receiving a unique trip identifier from the central controller, to transmit that identifier as a "second signal" to the vehicle's external display (from Frias) via a short-range wireless connection (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi Direct) for local control and synchronization. This addresses the need for the external display to dynamically show trip-specific information.

Motivation:
A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine Camp and Frias to address the known problem of users struggling to identify their ride-share vehicles in crowded areas, thereby improving the rider's experience and perceived security. Integrating Frias's external dynamic displays into Camp's ride-sharing system allows for a clear, unambiguous visual indicator to be displayed directly on the vehicle, facilitating quick and accurate identification by the user.

Obviousness of Independent Claim 9 (Method)

Claim 9 Breakdown:

1. When a vehicle is within a predetermined distance, generating a notification signal to the driver's mobile device.
2. Generating an indicatory signal (representing an indicator) in response to receiving the notification signal.
3. Displaying the indicator on an external vehicle display.
4. Displaying the indicator on the user's mobile device.
5. Identifying the vehicle by visual match between the indicators on the user's device and the vehicle's display.

Analysis of Obviousness (Camp + Frias):

• "when it is determined that the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of the location of the user, generating a notification signal to a mobile communication device associated with the driver" is explicitly achieved by Camp's ride-sharing system, which uses location tracking to dispatch and notify drivers. [cite: US20110313804A1]
• "generating an indicatory signal representing an indicator in response to receiving the notification signal" by the driver's mobile device, to be displayed on the vehicle, is an obvious implementation detail when combining Camp and Frias. As explained for Claim 1, the driver's mobile device (from Camp) receiving the ride identifier would logically be tasked with sending this identifier to the external vehicle display (from Frias).
• "displaying, on a display associated with the vehicle, the indicator... the display being located to be visible on the exterior of the vehicle" is directly enabled by Frias's disclosure of external dynamic displays on for-hire vehicles, now used within the context of a ride service from Camp.
• "displaying the indicator on a mobile communication device associated with the user" is a core function of Camp's system, where vehicle identification information is provided to the user. [cite: US20110313804A1]
• "identifying the vehicle based on appearance of a match, by visual observation of the user, between the indicator being displayed on the mobile communication device associated with the user and the indicator being displayed on the display associated with the vehicle" is the inherent and obvious consequence and objective of combining the systems of Camp and Frias in this manner to solve the identification problem.

Motivation:
The motivation for combining Camp and Frias to perform this method is the same as for Claim 1: to enhance the rider's ability to quickly and accurately identify their assigned vehicle, thereby improving safety and user satisfaction in on-demand transportation services.

Obviousness of Independent Claim 13 (System)

Claim 13 Breakdown:

1. At least one display associated with a vehicle, visible from an exterior.
2. A transceiver.
3. A controller communicatively coupled to the transceiver, adapted to generate a first signal (code to driver's mobile device) and a second signal (code to user's mobile device).
4. A third signal to be transmitted to the external display, providing the code as an indicator.

Analysis of Obviousness (Camp + Frias):

• The "at least one display associated with a vehicle, wherein the at least one display is located to be visible from an exterior of the vehicle" is directly provided by Frias.
• The "transceiver" is part of Camp's communication infrastructure. [cite: US20110313804A1]
• The "controller communicatively coupled to the transceiver, wherein the controller is adapted to generate a first signal including a code to be transmitted by the transceiver to a mobile communication device associated with a driver of the vehicle and a second signal including the code to a mobile communication device associated with a user requesting a ride" is fully described by Camp. Camp's system centrally coordinates rides and provides identifying details (codes/indicators) to both the driver's and user's mobile devices. [cite: US20110313804A1]
• The "third signal to be transmitted to the at least one display, the third signal providing the code and representing an indicator to identify the vehicle" would be an obvious addition. Given that Camp's controller already generates the unique identification "code" and sends it to the driver and user, and Frias teaches external dynamic displays on for-hire vehicles, it would be a straightforward engineering decision for a PHOSITA to have the central controller (from Camp) also transmit this same code as a "third signal" to the external vehicle display (from Frias). This ensures consistent display of the identifier across all relevant devices.

Motivation:
The motivation for a PHOSITA to combine Camp and Frias to arrive at Claim 13 is consistent with the other claims: to provide a seamless and secure vehicle identification process for ride-sharing users. By having the central controller manage and distribute the same unique identification code to all three points of display (driver's mobile device, user's mobile device, and external vehicle display), the system offers maximum clarity and ease of visual matching, directly addressing the identified need for improved vehicle identification in transportation services.