Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 34
`
`
`
`
` Entered: March 14, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`DENSO CORPORATION AND CLARION CO. Ltd.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BEACON NAVIGATION GmbH
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 34
`
`
`
`
` Entered: March 14, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`DENSO CORPORATION AND CLARION CO. Ltd.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BEACON NAVIGATION GmbH
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Introduction
`Petitioners, Denso Corporation (“Denso”) and Clarion Co., Ltd.
`(“Clarion”), filed a Petition on October 18, 2012 for inter partes review of
`claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 6,029,111 patent (“the ’111 patent”)1
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319.
`On March 18, 2013 we granted the petition, and instituted this inter
`partes review of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-13, 17-20, and 22 on fewer than all of
`the grounds of unpatentability alleged. Paper 12. During the course of this
`inter partes review, claims 1, 10, and 17 were cancelled as a result of an ex
`parte reexamination,2 leaving only claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11-13, 18-20, and 22 for
`continued consideration.
`Patent Owner, Beacon Navigation GmbH (“Beacon”), filed a Patent
`Owner Response. Paper 19 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a reply. Paper 25
`(“Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner did not file a motion to amend claims.
`Counsel for both Petitioners and Patent Owner were present and
`presented argument at an oral hearing3 held on December 13, 2013.
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims
`2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18-20, and 22 are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`1 The ’111 patent issued on February 22, 2000 on an application filed
`December 28, 1995.
`2 A Reexamination Certificate issued March 28, 2013 in ex parte
`reexamination 90/012,070, which was initiated prior to institution of this
`inter partes review. Ex. 3001
`3 A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record. Paper 33.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`B. The ’111 Patent
`The ’111 patent describes a navigation system in which “information
`from a Global Positioning System4 (GPS) [is used] to obtain velocity
`vectors, which include speed and heading components, for propagating or
`‘dead reckoning’ the vehicle position from a previous position to a current
`position.” Ex. 1001, 2:28-33.
`The ’111 patent states that:
`GPS position data alone is not accurate enough for
`certain applications, such as turn-by-turn route guidance in
`automobile applications, because its error may be 100
`[meters] and there is considerable position drift, even
`when stationary. GPS velocities are much more accurate
`than the position data, 1 [meter per second] or thereabouts,
`and can be used to propagate a known position forward
`and be more accurate over time then the GPS position
`solution.
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract; 2:36-43.
`The ’111 patent invention “uses information from a GPS to obtain
`velocity vectors, which include speed and heading components.” Ex. 1001,
`2:28-31. These velocity vectors are used in place of sensor5 signals to add
`dead reckoning capability to a GPS navigation system and allow a vehicle's
`current position to be “calculated by adding displacements obtained from the
`GPS velocities to the previous position.” Ex. 1001, 2:45-47.
`Figure 3 of the ’111 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4 The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based satellite navigation
`system that provides data to a GPS receiver enabling it to determine its
`position and velocity.
`5 E.g., speed sensor (speedometer), accelerometer, odometer (distance), and
`heading sensor, etc.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’111 patent is a block/data flow diagram of an embodiment
`of the invention.
`
`
`GPS receiver 18 provides position information, velocity information,
`pseudo-ranges, and delta pseudo-ranges to a sensor integrator 40. Sensor
`integrator 40 uses the velocity information to determine a current position
`for the vehicle. GPS velocity information is derived from a set of delta
`ranges. Sensors including accelerometer 28, odometer 29, speed sensor 34,
`and heading sensor 36 provide input independent of GPS-determined
`position and velocity. Sensors are calibrated by sensor calibration 44 based
`on GPS receiver 18 measurement data. See generally Ex. 1001, 5:27 to
`10:19.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`C. Prior Art References Alleged to Support Unpatentability
`The following table summarizes the prior art references asserted in instituted
`grounds:
`
`
`Name
`Maki
`Geier
`Anderson
`Endo6
`
`Description
`5,193,064
`5,416,712
`5,684,476
`JP App. No. 1992-121618
`(English translation)
`
`Exhibit
` Date
`Ex. 1004
`Oct. 9, 1990
`Ex. 1005
`May 28, 1993
`Ex. 1008
`May 8, 1995
`April 22, 1992 Ex. 1012
`
`
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability
`The following table summarizes the challenges to patentability:
`
`
`Claims
`Claims 2, 6, and 18
`Claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 18, and 20
`Claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 18-20, and
`22
`Claims 2, 3, 11, 18, and 20
`
`Grounds
`§ 102
`§ 102
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Reference
`Maki
`Geier
`Anderson
`
`Endo
`
`A. Principles of Law
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14,
`
`
`
`6 This reference previously was referred to by Petitioner in Denso Corp. and
`Clarion Co. Ltd. v. Beacon Navigation GmbH, and reflected in our Decision
`to Institute in IPR2013-00026, Paper 12 (Mar. 18, 2013) as “Yoshinori”
`which is the inventor’s given name.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`2012). Claim terms are also given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007).
`To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
`as is recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net
`MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
`Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
`2001).
`
`If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must
`be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contends that
`the specification of the ’111 patent, as filed, coined a new meaning for any
`term, different from the ordinary recognized meaning for any term.
`However, as discussed below, Patent Owner contends that “position” has a
`meaning limited by its particular usage in the patent.
`
`B. “Position”
`All of the claims, either directly or through claim dependency, include
`the term “position.” Patent Owner offers a construction of “position” on
`which it bases arguments distinguishing the claims at issue from the prior art
`references. For example, in distinguishing Maki, Patent Owner argues that
`as used in the ’111 patent, the term “position” refers to “a geographical
`location that is ultimately displayed on a map.” PO Resp. 9.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`
`In support of its construction, Patent Owner points to the ’111 patent
`embodiment illustrated in Figures 4A-4C. Figure 4A is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 Figure 4A
`The ’111 patent describes Figures 4A and 4C as showing “graphic plots of
`vehicle position using raw GPS position data, and Figures 4B and 4D show
`graphic plots of vehicle position using GPS velocity information.”
`Ex. 1001, 3:26-29. Patent Owner argues that position refers only to
`longitude and latitude as plotted on a map such as shown in Figure 4A. We
`are not persuaded by this argument. Although we agree that the use of
`latitude/longitude/altitude coordinates is an often-utilized way to describe
`position, it is not the only way to do so.
`Patent Owner notes the use of “position” in the following
`specification text as supporting its construction that “position” only refers to
`“a geographical location that is ultimately displayed on a map”:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`
`The map matching block 42 provides road segment
`information for the road segment that the vehicle is
`determined to be travelling on, such as heading, and a
`suggested position. The sensor integrator 40 can update
`the heading component of the velocity information with
`the heading provided by the map matching block 42 to
`update the current position. If the map matching block 42
`indicates a good match, then the map matched position can
`replace the current position. If not, the sensor integrator
`propagates the previous position to the current position
`using the velocity information. As such, the sensor
`integrator 40 determines the current position and provides
`the current position to a user interface and/or route
`guidance block 46.
`
`
`PO Resp. 9-10 quoting Ex. 1001, 6:13-28.
`The ’111 patent does not provide a specific definition of the word
`“position.” It uses the word “position” in various ways and manners
`throughout the specification, not all of which refer to a position plotted or to
`be plotted on a map. For example, the patent states “[f]rom this information,
`the user computes the satellite's precise position and clock offset.” Ex.
`1001, 1:38-40. (emphasis added). Here, the word “position” refers to the
`position of a satellite, not to the position of a GPS receiver being plotting on
`a map. The satellite’s position is never plotted on a map. Another example
`is found in the description of Figures 4A and 4C of the patent. That
`description uses “position” to refer to “raw data” that is not plotted on a
`map, but used as an intermediate value to calculate data that is plotted on a
`map. Another example is a portion of the specification that describes
`correcting bias errors in differential GPS: “A [r]eference [s]tation receiver
`measures ranges from all visible satellites to its surveyed position.” Ex.
`1001, 4:59-61. (emphasis added). The surveyed position is a fixed position
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`of a reference station, not the position of a GPS receiver being plotted on a
`map. Thus, within the four corners of the ’111 patent, we find uses of the
`word “position” that are outside of Patent Owner’s construction. Based on
`this intrinsic evidence alone, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is too
`narrow.
`Petitioner argues that claim 2 puts no further limitation on the term
`“position.” Pet. Reply 1. We agree.
`We construe the word “position” as referring to a location.7 Our
`construction does not require that “position” only refer to a location that is
`ultimately plotted on a map. For example, a “position” may be that of a GPS
`satellite or a location represented by a signal that is used in an intermediate
`calculation.
`Our construction of the term “position” includes a location actually
`plotted on a map and more. Based on context, a signal can represent a
`“position” that is not ultimately displayed on a map. In GPS technology,
`numerous position calculations and determinations are made that never are
`plotted on a map. For example, ephemeris data describing the orbit of a
`GPS satellite need not be plotted on a map in order to provide a useful basis
`from which to determine the position of a GPS receiver on the earth. The
`ephemeris data describing satellite position must be known in order for GPS
`to provide its determinations, but the GPS receiver does not plot satellite
`position on a map.
`
`
`
`
`
`7 Typically position is described with respect to some reference frame or an
`object whose location is known.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`
`It is well known how to translate a position given in one coordinate
`system to an equivalent representation in another coordinate system by
`mathematical transformation using matrix and other mathematical
`techniques well known to GPS engineers.
`No persuasive evidence has been presented that the ’111 patent
`inventor acted as his or her own lexicographer, and crafted a narrow
`definition of “position” limiting it to a geographical location that is
`ultimately displayed on a map.
`
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Patent Owner argues that this inter partes review should be dismissed
`for non-compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) in that Petitioners have not
`identified all real parties-in-interest.
`According to Patent Owner, at least Mazda Motor Corporation and
`Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (“Mazda”), who are represented by Denso’s
`inter partes review counsel in related litigation and who have sought a stay
`in the related litigation on the basis of the Petition for inter partes review,
`are in cooperation with Petitioner Denso. PO Resp. 5-6. According to
`Patent Owner, Mazda has engaged in the strategic planning, preparation, and
`review of the Petition for inter partes review, thereby making them related
`parties-in-interest to this proceeding. Id. at 5. Likewise, according to
`Patent Owner, Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., and Nissan North America, Inc.
`(“Nissan”), who are represented by Clarion’s inter partes review counsel in
`related litigation and who have sought a stay in the related litigation on the
`basis of the Petition for inter partes review, are in cooperation with Clarion
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`and have engaged in the strategic planning, preparation, and review of the
`present petition for inter partes review, thereby making them related parties
`in interest to this proceeding. Id. 5. Patent Owner further states: “It is also
`likely that other parties in the litigations regarding infringement of the ’111
`patent are in privity with Denso and Clarion.” Id. 5. We disagree with
`Patent Owner’s conclusion. The only relationship alleged by Patent Owners
`between the named real parties-in-interest and the alleged real parties-in-
`interest not named is that of being co-defendants or concurrent defendants in
`related litigation. The mere fact that parties are co-defendants or concurrent
`defendants in litigation does not make them real parties-in-interest. See
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48759.
`Patent Owner argues that the alleged additional real parties-in-interest
`have engaged in strategic planning, preparation, and review of the Petition.
`There is, however, no evidence that the alleged real parties-in-interest guide
`or otherwise control this inter parties review. See Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48759.
`We are not persuaded that any real parties-in-interest have been
`omitted.
`
`B. Anticipation by Maki of claims 2, 6, and 18
`1. Maki Disclosure
`Maki describes a “method and arrangement for integrating a Global
`Positioning System and an Inertial Navigating System without the use of
`accelerometers to provide a velocity steering signal that is utilized in the
`guidance of a flying vehicle, such as a space craft.” Ex. 1004, Abstract.
`Maki Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`
`
`
`Maki Figure 1
`
`Maki Figure 1 is a block diagram demonstrating how GPS-derived
`signals from GPS 12 are used to develop a compensated velocity vector
`steering signal (Velocity Steering Compensation 20 and Velocity Vector
`Steering 24) to guide a spacecraft. Maki at 2:46-64 describes that a
`preceding sampled GPS-derived position and velocity vectors is used to
`predict current position and velocity vectors. These predicted position and
`velocity vectors are used to determine a steering rate vector for guiding the
`vehicle. Maki col. 3, line 55 to col. 4, line 7 describes how the predicted
`velocity vector is determined using blocks 14, 16 and 18 shown in Maki
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`Figure 1. It further describes that
`[t]hese computations are performed for each of the
`three components of velocity. The current value of
`position can be obtained by the same means, or by
`integrating velocity over a time period and adding
`it to the last GPS position update. (emphasis
`added)
`
`2. Claim 2
`Claims 1 (which has been cancelled) and 2 are reproduced below with
`disputed limitations emphasized.
`1. An improved navigation system having a GPS receiver
`which provides GPS velocity information, said navigation
`system calculating a displacement based upon said GPS
`velocity information over a time interval, said vehicle
`navigation system adding said displacement to a previous
`position to obtain a current position. (emphasis added).
`
`2. The system of claim 1 wherein said system determines
`east and north displacements from said GPS velocity
`information and applies said east and north displacements
`to said previous position to obtain said current position.
`(emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner points to Maki 2:46-64 and 3:55 to 4:7, described above, as
`meeting the limitations of claim 2. Petitioner argues that Maki inherently
`discloses “east and north displacements.” According to Petitioner’s expert,
`Dr. Michalson, international regulations require airplane navigation to be
`referenced to the WGS-848 reference frame. Ex. 1017 ¶ 18. He further
`explains that displacement based on WGS-84 is indistinguishable from the
`North-East-Down (“NED”) reference frame when a calculated displacement
`
`
`
`
`8 “WGS” stands for the “World Geodetic System,” which is a standard for
`use in cartography and navigation. The latest revision is WGS-84.
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`covers a relatively short distance because a change in latitude in WGS-84
`corresponds to a change in north displacement in NED. Ex. 1017 ¶ 20.
`Further, Dr. Michalson testifies that it is a fundamental function of any
`navigation system that disclosure of one reference frame inherently discloses
`the others, and that the ’111 patent recognizes the equivalence of these
`reference frames and the fundamental nature of the transformations between
`them through its disclosure of the ECEF, WGS-84 and NED frames. Ex.
`1017 ¶ 21 (citing’111 patent, 6:65-7:24). Patent Owner does not challenge
`the Michalson assertions regarding WGS-84 and reference frame
`equivalence.
`Patent Owner argues that Maki does not anticipate claim 2 because
`Maki does not disclose “said vehicle navigation system adding said
`displacement to a previous position to obtain a current position” (emphasis
`added). PO Resp. 9. According to Patent Owner, Maki’s “value of
`position” is not an actual position consistent with its proposed construction
`of “position,” it is a “variable” for input into calculations. There is no actual
`conversion of the value of position to coordinates that can be plotted on a
`map. PO Resp. 10.
`We agree with Patent Owner’s understanding of Maki, that the
`described “value of position” represents a location that is only used in an
`intermediate calculation and is not plotted on a map. However, Maki also
`describes integrating position to obtain a displacement. Ex. 1004, 4:2-7.
`As we construe “position,” it does not matter that actual position
`coordinates are not determined and plotted on a map. Maki clearly teaches
`integrating velocity to obtain a displacement in position. The velocity that is
`integrated is a GPS-derived velocity. The fact that Maki teaches how to
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`compute a velocity steering signal does not diminish its teaching of
`integrating a GPS-derived velocity to obtain a displacement. We, therefore,
`find this argument unpersuasive.
`Patent Owner further argues that Maki does not disclose “wherein said
`system determines east and north displacements from said GPS velocity
`information and applies said east and north displacements to said previous
`position to obtain said current position.” PO Resp. 11. According to Patent
`Owner, Maki does not specifically mention “east” and “north.” PO Resp.
`12. We agree.
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that east and north
`displacements inherently are taught by Maki. Petitioner’s argument begins
`with the proposition that international regulations require airplane navigation
`to be referenced to the WGS-84 geodetic frame. Ex. 1017 ¶ 18. This may
`be so, but Maki does not describe guidance for an airplane. It describes
`guidance for a space vehicle. We find no mention of WGS-84 in Maki and
`we are not persuaded to infer that WGS-84 is utilized.
`As Petitioner argues, Maki describes a “velocity vector.” Patent
`Owner’s expert, Dr. Dafesh, agrees that a velocity vector can be expressed in
`components to the east and to the north, regardless of the direction in which
`it points. Ex. 1019, 128:25 to 129:3. Further, Dr. Dafesh, admits that
`“position” is “not limited to being relative to a geographical reference.” Ex.
`1019, 74:22-75:4. However, there is no evidence presented demonstrating
`that the position vector is resolved into components at all, a precursor to
`resolving into “east” and “north” components. For this reason, we are not
`persuaded that Maki inherently teaches east and north displacements as
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`claimed. Petitioner has not carried its burden with respect to anticipation by
`Maki of claim 2.
`
`3. Claim 6
`Claim 6, depending from claim 1, additionally requires GPS velocity
`information to be calculated from delta range measurements. Patent Owner
`does not separately argue claim 6 with respect to Maki and relies on the
`argument made with respect to claim 2 that Maki does not disclose “said
`vehicle navigation system adding said displacement to a previous position to
`obtain a current position.” We are not persuaded by this argument because
`Maki describes integrating velocity to obtain a position displacement. No
`arguments are directed to the limitation added by claim 6. We, therefore,
`conclude that claim 6 is anticipated by Maki.
`
`
`4. Claim 18
`Claims 17 (which has been cancelled) and 18 are reproduced below
`(with limitations in dispute italicized).
`17. A method of determining a current position from a
`previous position including the steps of:
`
`
`
`calculating a displacement based upon said GPS
`
`velocity information over a time interval; and
`
`using said displacement to propagate a previous
`
`position to a current position.
`
`18. The method of claim 17 wherein said displacement
`comprises
`
`providing GPS velocity information;
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`
`east and north displacements said method further
`
`including the step of
`applying said east and north displacements to said
`
`previous position to obtain said current position.
`
`Claim 18, as with claim 2, requires resolving east and north position
`displacements. For the same reasons stated with respect to claim 2, we are
`not persuaded that Maki describes resolving the predicted position vector
`into components. We, therefore, conclude that Petitioner has not met its
`burden with respect to anticipation by Maki of claim 18.
`
`C. Anticipation by Geier of claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 18 and 20
`1. Geier Disclosure
`Geier describes “global positioning system (GPS) devices that use
`dead-reckoning [(DR)] apparatus to fill in as backup during periods of GPS
`shadowing such as occur amongst obstacles, e.g., tall buildings in large
`cities.” Ex. 1005 1:10-13; Abstract. As shown in Geier Figure 2,
`reproduced below, a GPS “velocity solution” is derived from GPS
`navigation computer 44.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`
`
`
`Geier Figure 2
`Geier Figure 2 shows the use of a velocity solution from a GPS navigation
`computer 44 by a dead reckoning calculator 60. Geier blends GPS solutions
`and dead-reckoning using Kalman filters (Ex. 1005, 2:44-46) to solve the
`problem of temporary loss of GPS satellite tracking. Ex. 1005, 1:51-63.
`
`
`2. Claims 2 and 6
`Patent Owner argues that Geier “blends” calculations from GPS
`velocities with other velocity data and therefore does not teach using “GPS
`velocity” information.” PO Resp. 18-20. We disagree. As explained in
`Geier:
`
`A velocity estimate (V) and a heading estimate (H)
`are received by a dead reckoning (DR) calculator
`60. A position filter 62 receives both a DR change
`of position signal (Δp) and a GPS position solution
`(pGPS). (emphasis added)
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`Ex. 1005 at 5:1-4.
`This passage indicates that dead reckoning calculator 60 provides a
`dead reckoning position calculation that is a function of the velocity
`estimate. Geier Figure 2 shows that a “velocity solution” is produced
`upstream of dead reckoning calculator 60, which receives two inputs, both of
`which are a function of the velocity solution. The velocity solution from
`GPS navigation computer 44 is used by heading calculator 46 to provide an
`input to dead reckoning calculator 60.
`Claim 2 requires that the “system determines east and north
`displacements from said GPS in response to claim velocity information and
`applies east and north displacements from said GPS velocity information
`and applies said east and north displacements to said previous position to
`obtain said current position.” We have reviewed the portions of Geier cited
`by Petitioner as describing the features of claim 2 (Ex. 1005, 2:30-41; 4:21-
`26; 5:20-22; 4:56-62; 5:41-45 and Figure 2). Although there is no explicit
`mention there of “east” and “north,” it is clear that position is resolved into
`components for display. The ’111 patent discusses the equivalence of
`various reference frames and the fundamental nature of the transformations
`among them through its disclosure of the ECEF, WGS-84 and NED frames.
`See Ex. 1001, 6:65-7:24. In our view, resolving vector components is so
`well recognized that it usually goes unmentioned. We determine that one of
`ordinary skill at the time of the ’111 patent invention would have inferred
`the teaching of “east” and “north” vector components, even though Maki is
`not explicit as to their use. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA
`1968), which instructs us that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it
`is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
`expected to draw therefrom.”
`Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that claim 2
`is anticipated by Geier.
`Patent Owner does not separately argue dependent claim 6. For the
`reasons set forth above, we find that Petitioner also has demonstrated that
`claim 6 is anticipated by Geier.
`
`3. Claims 3, 18, and 20
`Patent Owner argues that Geier “does not teach that GPS velocity
`information is not available.” PO Resp. 20-23. We disagree and note two
`passages of Geier that describe blocking of GPS information:
`Another advantage of the present invention is that
`a system is provided that automatically switches to
`a calibrated dead-reckoning solution when GPS
`satellite signals are blocked for any reason.
`
`See Ex. 1005, 2:61-64 (emphasis added).
`In some situations, such blockage can prevent all
`the overhead GPS satellites from being tracked and
`such outages can last for several minutes. GPS
`signals also become unavailable to vehicles when
`moving
`through underground or underwater
`tunnels.
`
`See Ex. 1005, 1:53-58 (emphasis added).
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dafesh, agrees that Geier explicitly
`teaches instances where GPS velocity information is not available. Ex.
`1019, 161:20-25.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`
`Claim 3 requires “sensors providing information used to propagate
`position if said GPS velocity information is not available, said navigation
`system determines calibration information from said GPS velocity
`information to calibrate said sensors.” (emphasis added). According to
`Geier, GPS-derived information is used to correct the “odometer scale
`factor, thereby improving the estimate of distance traveled input to the dead
`reckoning calculations.” Ex. 1005, 5:29-31.
`Claim 20 requires that sensor information be used to propagate
`position in the event GPS velocity is not available. It further requires that
`calibration information from GPS velocity be used to calibrate sensors. For
`the reasons discussed with respect to claim 3, containing similar features, we
`conclude that claim 20 also is anticipated by Geier.
`Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and further requires that
`displacements calculated are “east” and “north” displacements. For reasons
`stated above with respect to claim 2, we determine that “east” and “north”
`displacements would have been inferred by one of ordinary skill in the GPS
`arts. We conclude, therefore, that claim 18 is also anticipated by Geier.
`
`4. Claim 13
`Claims 10 (cancelled, but from which claim 13 depends) and 13 are
`reproduced below with disputed portions emphasized.
`10. An improved navigation system comprising:
`
`a GPS receiver which provides GPS velocity
`
`information, said navigation system using GPS velocity
`information to propagate a previous position to a current
`position,
`said
`system determines east and north
`displacements by
`integrating
`said GPS velocity
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`
`information and applies said east and north displacements
`to said previous position to obtain said current position;
`and
`
`sensors providing information used to propagate
`
`vehicle position if said GPS velocity information is not
`available, said navigation system determines calibration
`information from said GPS velocity information to
`calibrate said sensors.
`
`13. An improved navigation system according to claim 10
`wherein said navigation system calculates said GPS
`velocity based upon a plurality of delta
`range
`measurements, said navigation system calculating each
`said delta range measurement based upon a different pair
`of pseudorange measurements, each said pair of
`pseudorange measurements being received
`from a
`different GPS satellite, said navigation system calculates
`said displacement by integrating said GPS velocity over a
`time interval between said first and second pseudorange
`measurements. (emphasis added)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that claim 13 does not teach a “pair of pseudo-
`range measurements being received from different GPS satellites,” and
`calculating “displacement by integrating said GPS velocity over a time
`interval between said first and second pseudo-range measurement.”
`A GPS receiver determines its position and velocity by determining its
`range (pseudo-range) with respect to each of multiple satellites, each of
`which has a known position at a known time defined by ephemeris data
`describing the satellite’s orbit. A GPS receiver computes its position and
`velocity from these pseudo-range determinations.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00026
`Patent 6,029,111
`
`
`As Geier states:
`GPS receiver 16 is such that it computes a
`complete vehicle position/velocity solution from
`signals received from at least three GPS satellites
`and it computes pseudo ranges (PRs) and pseudo
`range rates (PRRs) from signals received from
`GPS satellites tracked by the receiver.
`
`Ex. 1005, 4:21-26.
`
`This passage describes that pseudo-ranges are determined with respect to
`multiple satellites. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dafesh, in his deposition,
`confirms that Geier teaches computing pseudo-ranges and pseudo-range
`rates (rate of change of a pseudo-range) from signals received from multiple
`satellites. Ex. 1019, 141:18-22.
`With regard to the period of time during which pseudo-range
`calculations ar
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
