Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`Under Armour, Inc.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`adidas AG,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,652,009
`
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................................ 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ......................................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ................................................................................................... 1 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information .................................. 1 
`II.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................................................................. 1 
`III. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND THE 009 PATENT ................ 2 
`IV. 
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2 
`V. 
`THE 009 PATENT ...................................................................................................... 4 
`VI. 
`STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR THE CHALLENGES..................................... 7 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................... 7 
`A. 
`“position data” (all claims) ............................................................................... 7 
`VIII.  THE 009 PATENT CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ...................................... 9 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 13, 14, and 17 are Anticipated by Bouve ...................... 9 
`1. 
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................. 10 
`2. 
`Claim 14 – The method of claim 13, further comprising
`recommending a route for traversal by the individual based
`on the stored route data. ..................................................................... 15 
`Claim 17 – The method of claim 14, wherein the stored
`route data comprises a length of the route....................................... 17 
`Ground 2: Claims 13, 18 and 20 are Obvious Based on Bouve in
`View of DeLorme ............................................................................................ 19 
`1. 
`Claim 13 - A method for recommending a route for
`traversal by an individual, comprising . . . receiving position
`data relating to a position of the individual . . . and
`recommending a route for traversal by the individual from
`the stored route data based on the position data. ........................... 21 
`Claim 18 – The method of claim 13, wherein the stored
`route data comprises data associated with one or more
`routes previously traversed by the individual. ................................. 23 
`Claim 20 – The method of claim 13, wherein the position
`data is received with a global positioning satellite receiver. ........... 25 
`
`3. 
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`C. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Ground 3: Claims 13, 14, 15, 17, and 20 are Anticipated by Kim ........... 26 
`1. 
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................. 27 
`2. 
`Claim 14 – The method of claim 13, further comprising
`recommending a route for traversal by the individual based
`on the stored route data. ..................................................................... 31 
`Claim 15 – The method of claim 14, wherein the stored
`route data comprises elevation profile data. .................................... 33 
`Claim 17 – The method of claim 14, wherein the stored
`route data comprises a length of the route....................................... 34 
`Claim 20 – The method of claim 13, wherein the position
`data is received with a global positioning satellite receiver. ........... 36 
`IX.  CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 37 
`
`5. 
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`UA-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,009 to Ellis et al.
`
`UA-1002
`
`Docket Report for Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00130-GMS
`
`UA-1003
`
`Expert declaration of Dr. Shawn Burke
`
`UA-1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,648,768 to Bouve
`
`UA-1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,158 to DeLorme et al.
`
`UA-1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,742,922 to Kim
`
`UA-1007
`
`Plaintiffs’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief in Co-Pending
`Litigation, Dkt. No. 93.
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The Petitioner and real parties-in-interest are Under Armour, Inc.
`
`
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Under Armour”) and MapMyFitness, Inc. (“MapMyFitness”).
`
`MapMyFitness is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Under Armour.
`
`B. Related Matters
`As of the filing of this Petition, U.S. Patent No. 8,652,009 (the “009 Patent,”
`
`
`
`UA-1001) is involved in one pending litigation naming Under Armour and
`
`MapMyFitness as defendants. See adidas AG, et. al. v. Under Armour, Inc. and
`
`MapMyFitness, Inc., Case No. 14-130-GMS (D. Del.) (“Co-Pending Litigation”).
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`Petitioner designates Brian Ferguson (Reg. No. 36,801), available at 1300
`
`
`
`Eye Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 (T: 202-682-7516), as Lead
`
`Counsel, and Anish Desai (Reg. No. 73,760), available at 1300 Eye Street NW,
`
`Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 (T: 202-682-7103), as Backup Counsel. Please
`
`address all correspondence to both lead and backup counsel. Petitioner consents to
`
`service by electronic email (brian.ferguson@weil.com; anish.desai@weil.com).
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the 009 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. The present
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`petition is filed not more than one year after Petitioner was served with the second
`
`amended complaint in the Co-Pending Litigation. See UA-1002.006 (Dkt. No. 44,
`
`service date: Sept. 11, 2014).
`
`III.
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND THE 009 PATENT
`
`Claims 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 of the 009 Patent are challenged in this
`
`Petition. Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board review the prior art and
`
`analysis herein, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims 13, 14, 15, 17, 18,
`
`and 20, and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`This Petition describes the 009 Patent, its claims, and the prior art relied
`
`upon, and also sets forth illustrative examples of how the prior art discloses each
`
`limitation of the challenged claims. The attached expert declaration of Dr. Shawn
`
`Burke further elaborates on and supports each such position. UA-1003 (“Burke
`
`Decl.”).
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The alleged invention of the 009 Patent is a simple one that had already been
`
`known for years. In short, the 009 Patent claims a method for using GPS to
`
`recommend a route to a user based on the user’s location and where she wants to
`
`go. But the named inventors of the 009 Patent do not claim to have invented GPS
`
`technology, nor could they claim to have invented the idea of recommending a
`
`route to a user. Indeed, these ideas were disclosed long before the earliest priority
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`date of the 009 Patent, in patents such as U.S. Patent No. 5,648,768 to Bouve (UA-
`
`1004, “Bouve”), U.S. Pat. No. 6,321,158 to DeLorme et al. (UA-1005,
`
`“DeLorme”), and U.S. Patent No 5,742,922 to Kim (UA-1006, “Kim”).
`
`Bouve, for example, discloses a database of stored travel routes and a
`
`processor to recommend to a user a route between two points of interest. UA-1004
`
`at Abstract, 4:26-32; Burke Decl. at ¶ 28. Although Bouve does not disclose using
`
`GPS, it does disclose transmitting route information to the user in real time while
`
`she is on her route. DeLorme likewise teaches a routing system, and further
`
`discloses that a GPS receiver can be used as a device to input a user’s current
`
`position as a starting point for the route. UA-1005 at 29:43-50; Burke Decl. at ¶ 54.
`
`And Kim discloses storing data regarding available routes, receiving the position
`
`data of a user with GPS, and processing the position information to recommend a
`
`route based on the position and stored route data. See UA-1006 at Abstract; Burke
`
`Decl. at ¶ 65.
`
`The simplicity of the invention of the 009 Patent exposes the claims to these
`
`disclosures in the prior art—which anticipate render obvious each of the claims
`
`addressed herein. And the grounds for invalidating these claims are not redundant
`
`because each ground discloses a particular combination of elements that the other
`
`does not. Bouve, for example, in combination with DeLorme, discloses saving
`
`routes previously traversed by the individual (dependent claim 18), while Kim
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`does not. Kim, on the other hand, discloses using elevation information to
`
`recommend a route to a user (dependent claim 15), while Bouve and DeLorme do
`
`not. And as demonstrated below, each of claims 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are
`
`anticipated or rendered obvious by Bouve, DeLorme, and Kim, and therefore these
`
`claims should be cancelled as invalid.
`
`V. THE 009 PATENT
`
`The 009 Patent issued from U.S. Pat. App. No. 13/789,266, filed on March
`
`7, 2013, and claims priority to U.S. provisional application no. 60/270,400, filed on
`
`February 20, 2001.
`
`
`
`Independent claim 13 of the 009 Patent states:
`
`13. A method for recommending a route for traversal by an individual,
`comprising:
`storing data associated with one or more routes available to be
`traversed by an individual;
`receiving position data relating to a position of the individual; and
`processing the position data with one or more processors and
`recommending a route for traversal by the individual from the
`stored route data based on the position data.
`
`Thus, all the inventors claim is a method for (1) storing data about available routes;
`
`(2) receiving the position of the user; and (3) recommending a route based on the
`
`user’s position. UA-1001 at 72:21-29. The dependent claims state that the stored
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`route data can include, for example, elevation data, the length of the route, and
`
`routes previously traversed by the user. Id. at 72:33-34, 72:37-41.
`
`The 009 Patent specification explains that while there were existing
`
`“individual portable personal devices” such as “mobile phones, personal digital
`
`assistants, medical monitoring devices, personal entertainment systems, and
`
`athletic monitoring systems,” supposedly “none of these individual devices [could]
`
`combine with any of the other devices to provide improved functions.” Id. at 1:27-
`
`37. The patent thus sought to create “a system in which individual portable device
`
`modules [could] be combined in a multitude of ways to provide an infinite variety
`
`of functions.” Id. at 1:41-43.
`
`The specification explains that the “invention may be used for one or many
`
`purposes” which can include “guidance, athletic…, travel-related, outdoor-
`
`related…or other purposes or combination of purposes.” Id. at 4:18-26. In
`
`particular, the background of the invention explains how “[t]ravelers . . . need a
`
`system that provides a variety of integrated features. For example, a system is
`
`needed that combines . . . travel information, . . . weather, route guidance, . . . and
`
`orienteering functions.” Id. at 3:17-21; id. at 65:26-44 (“As described in step 3265
`
`of FIG. 32, an MPN [modular personal network] may be used by a traveler to
`
`provide travel-related functions. . . . In step 8910, the MPN may monitor the user’s
`
`position, for example using a GPS monitor. Information on the user’s position may
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`be provided to the user in step 8912. In step 8914, the system may provide
`
`guidance to the user based on the user’s location.”).
`
`The above guidance features can be carried out while traveling via car.
`
`Indeed, the specification explains that the modular personal network (MPN)
`
`including multiple individual network components (INCs) can be “worn by the
`
`user…, carried by the user, or…mounted on personal equipment.” Id. at 5:50-52.
`
`One of the INCs can be a display device that is “mounted on a bicycle or in an
`
`automobile.” Id. at 7:51-52; see also id. at 27:38-43 (“In step 1920, the INC may
`
`be mounted on personal equipment that may be used by the user. For example, in
`
`substep 1922, the INC may be mounted on a bicycle, a car, a piece of exercise
`
`equipment, or other suitable personal equipment.”); 29:59-64 (“INC may be
`
`configured to be mounted on . . . for example, a car”); 34:34-36 (“INC may also be
`
`mounted . . . on a car.”). In this embodiment, a global positioning system monitor
`
`can be used with the MPN to “display current location, direction, elevation, speed,
`
`or other related information, . . . and the user may be automatically guided through
`
`the recommended route . . . [or] a previous route.” Id. at 10:7-11, 21-25.
`
`As demonstrated below, the claimed method for storing route data, receiving
`
`position data, and recommending a route for traversal by an individual was well-
`
`known in the prior art before the filing date of the provisional application to which
`
`the 009 Patent claims priority.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`VI. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR THE CHALLENGES
`
`Ground 1 Anticipation of claims 13, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on
`U.S. Patent No. 5,648,768 to Bouve (“Bouve”)
`
`Ground 2 Obviousness of claims 13, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
`Bouve in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,321,158 to DeLorme et al.
`(“DeLorme”)
`
`Ground 3 Anticipation of claims 13, 14, 15, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`based on U.S. Patent No 5,742,922 to Kim (“Kim”)
`
`
`
`Bouve was granted on July 15, 1997, from an application filed on December
`
`30, 1994, and is prior art under § 102(b). UA-1004. DeLorme was granted on
`
`November 20, 2001, from an application filed on August 31, 1998, claiming
`
`priority to a now abandoned continuation-in-part filed on June 24, 1994, and is
`
`prior art under § 102(e). UA-1005. Finally, Kim was granted on April 21, 1998,
`
`from an application filed on February 12, 1996, and is prior art under § 102(b).
`
`UA-1006.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`This Petition analyzes the claims consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`“position data” (all claims)
`
`A.
`As mentioned above, the 009 Patent claims to receive “position data”
`
`regarding a user’s position and recommending a route based on that position. The
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “position data” in light of the
`
`specification is data relating to geographic position, which is the construction
`
`Petitioner proposed in the Co-Pending Litigation. Burke Decl. at ¶ 25. For
`
`example, claim 20 recites that “the position data is received with a global
`
`positioning satellite receiver.” UA-1001 at claim 20.1 The specification is in
`
`accord, explaining that “[p]osition data collected in one session may also be used
`
`to simulate the same route in a later session. For example, a user may travel the
`
`route of an upcoming competition in one or more sessions and collect position and
`
`elevation information.” UA-1001 at 42:33-36; Burke Decl. at ¶ 26. Dr. Burke
`
`agrees that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand “position
`
`data” to mean data relating to geographic position.2 Burke Decl. at ¶ 26.
`
`
`1 All emphases herein are added.
`
`2 Dr. Burke opines that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have,
`
`through training or experience, an understanding of basic analog and digital
`
`circuits, microcontrollers, transmitters, receivers, signaling, sensing, and embedded
`
`software, and that such a person would have at least a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, and three or
`
`more years of practical experience with sensing, signaling, and embedded and/or
`
`mobile systems, or the equivalent. Burke Decl. at ¶ 10.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`In the Co-Pending Litigation, Plaintiffs proposed a broader construction for
`
`“position data” than the Petitioner. Namely, Plaintiffs assert that “position data”
`
`can include not only data relating to geographic position, but also data relating to,
`
`for example, orientation of a human body. See, e.g., UA-1007.019-.020, Plaintiffs’
`
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief (asserting that the patent “indicates that the
`
`position monitor can collect the directional orientation of a user through a
`
`compass. . . . Thus, the measurement of a user’s position as used in the claims and
`
`specification is broader than simply geographic position.”). While Petitioner
`
`asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is
`
`more narrow than Plaintiffs’ proposal in the Co-Pending Litigation, the prior art
`
`discussed herein nevertheless invalidates the asserted claims under either proposal,
`
`because both parties’ proposed constructions of “position data” would at least
`
`capture the geographic “position data” disclosed by the prior art discussed below.
`
`Burke Decl. at ¶ 26. Thus, while the analysis below assumes that Petitioner’s
`
`proposed construction of “position data,” is correct, none of Petitioner’s arguments
`
`would be affected if Plaintiff’s broader construction is adopted.
`
`VIII. THE 009 PATENT CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Claims 13, 14, and 17 are Anticipated by Bouve
`The route recommendation system disclosed in Bouve is precisely the same
`
`
`
`type of system that the 009 Patent purported to invent. Burke Decl. at ¶ 28. Indeed,
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`Bouve discloses a multifunctional system that pools information from a variety of
`
`resources to recommend a route to a user. See, e.g., UA-1004 at 2:10-13, 2:49-60,
`
`5:10-14, 8:1-3, 8:34-37; Burke Decl. at ¶ 28. For example, Bouve uses a database
`
`of stored travel routes and a processor to compute a route between two points of
`
`interest. UA-1004 at Abstract, 4:26-32; Burke Decl. at ¶ 28. Along the route,
`
`Bouve uses a satellite communications link to update the user in real time as to
`
`weather and traffic conditions that the user may wish to avoid and allows the user
`
`to change her route mid-journey. UA-1004 at 5:11-15, 6:13-15; Burke Decl. at
`
`¶ 28. Bouve even discloses—as in the 009 Patent—that the route recommendation
`
`system can be integrated directly “in the dash panel of the vehicle.” UA-1004 at
`
`4:65-5:1; Burke Decl. at ¶ 28. Bouve thus discloses every element of claims 13, 14,
`
`and 17.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 13
`a)
`
`A method for recommending a route for traversal by
`an individual, comprising:
`
`
`
`Bouve discloses a method for recommending a route for traversal by an
`
`individual. For example, Bouve discloses “identifying and presenting information
`
`relating to travel within a geographic region, . . . a data base for storing a plurality
`
`of travel routes within the geographic region and . . . information associated with
`
`one or more of the plurality of travel routes.” UA-1004 at Abstract; Burke Decl. at
`
`¶ 30. To use the system, the user can “input first and second geographic locations
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`within the geographic region to the system” via “keyboard, voice recognition
`
`subsystem or other input device.” UA-1004 at 1:66-2:21; Burke Decl. at ¶ 30. The
`
`system then employs a processor that “retrieves at least one travel route between
`
`the first and second geographic locations from the stored plurality of travel routes.”
`
`UA-1004 at Abstract; 1:66-2:21; Burke Decl. at ¶ 30. Finally, “[a] presentation
`
`device such as a display, printer or voice synthesizer is provided for presenting the
`
`retrieved travel route(s) and travel information to the user.” UA-1004 at 1:66-2:21;
`
`Burke Decl. at ¶ 30.
`
`b)
`
`storing data associated with one or more routes
`available to be traversed by an individual;
`
`
`
`Bouve also discloses storing data associated with one or more routes
`
`available to be traversed by an individual. Burke Decl. at ¶ 32. Indeed, the system
`
`in Bouve stores route information on “a hard disk, compact disc (CD), ROM
`
`memory or other electronic or magnetic data storage device.” UA-1004 at 1:66-
`
`2:21; see also Abstract (“system . . . has a data base for storing a plurality of travel
`
`routes within the geographic region.”); 2:5-10 (“One or more data bases residing
`
`on the storage device have a plurality of travel routes within a geographic region as
`
`well as one or more types of travel information, such as eateries, hotels/motels,
`
`road construction areas, weather, or other information useful to traveler, and
`
`associated with one or more of the plurality of travel routes.”); 2:51-54 (“A
`
`plurality of travel routes within the geographic region are stored. One or more
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`types of travel information relating to the stored travel routes are also stored.”);
`
`4:12-14 (“Incident and Condition information corresponding to the retrieved
`
`route(s), are retrieved from data bases stored on the data storage device 14.”);
`
`4:65-67 (“[A] vehicle system 30 is shown which includes an input device 12, a
`
`microprocessor 11, a data storage device 14, and a presentation device 13 all
`
`located in the dash panel of the vehicle.”); id. at 5:30-37 (“FIG. 2 [shows] a travel
`
`information system . . . using a centralized electronic or magnetic data storage
`
`device 200 with a centralized processing unit (CPU) 205 which is accessed by the
`
`user via . . . cellular and/or satellite, communications links.”). Bouve thus
`
`discloses storing data associated with routes available to be traversed by an
`
`individual. Burke Decl. at ¶ 32.
`
`c)
`
`receiving position data relating to a position of the
`individual; and
`
`
`
`Next, Bouve discloses receiving position data relating to a position of the
`
`individual. For example, Bouve discloses that “[a] keyboard, voice recognition
`
`system or other input device is used to input first and second geographic locations
`
`within the geographic region and between which the user desires to travel.” UA-
`
`1004 at 2:10-13; Burke Decl. at ¶ 34. The “first geographic location” and “second
`
`geographic location” correspond to the beginning position of the individual and the
`
`ending position of the individual. UA-1004 at 3:63-66 (“Geographic locations
`
`representing the location at which overland travel will begin and end…are entered
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`via the data entry device 12.”); see also Burke Decl. at ¶ 34. Bouve further
`
`discloses that the system can be incorporated in an automobile, and the user can
`
`enter the inputs while in the automobile. UA-1004 at 2:43-45 (“[U]ser can access
`
`the system using an input device in his/her residence or automobile.”); 5:6-9 (“The
`
`vehicle system preferably has an optional voice recognition device 12a so that the
`
`driver of the vehicle may query the system and input data while maintaining proper
`
`control of the vehicle.”). Bouve also states that “[t]he vehicle system 30 is
`
`particularly beneficial to a traveler desiring to select or change the route of travel
`
`during the course of travel, or to inquire about Incidents or Conditions while
`
`traveling.” Id. at 5:11-15. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the “first geographic location” input by the user can include data
`
`relating to a current position of the individual or a future position of the individual.
`
`Burke Decl. at ¶ 35.
`
`
`
`The system in Bouvre thus discloses receiving position data relating to a
`
`position of the individual. Burke Decl. at ¶ 38.
`
`d)
`
`processing the position data with one or more
`processors and recommending a route for traversal
`by the individual from the stored route data based on
`the position data.
`
`
`
`Bouve discloses the step of processing the position data with one or more
`
`processors and recommending a route for traversal by the individual from the
`
`stored route data based on the position data. For instance, Bouve discloses that “[a]
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`keyboard or other device is provided to input first and second geographic locations
`
`within the geographic region to the system. A computer processor retrieves at least
`
`one travel route between the first and second geographic locations from the stored
`
`plurality of travel routes.” UA-1004 at Abstract; see also id. at 1:66-2:21 (“A
`
`keyboard, voice recognition subsystem or other input device is used to input first
`
`and second geographic locations within the geographic region and between which
`
`the user desires to travel. Responsive to the inputted geographical locations, a
`
`computer processing unit retrieves at least one travel route between the first and
`
`second geographic locations, from the stored plurality of travel routes.”); Burke
`
`Decl. at ¶ 39. Bouve recommends a stored route to the user by presenting it on a
`
`display: “A presentation device such as a display, printer or voice synthesizer is
`
`provided for presenting the retrieved travel route(s) and travel information to the
`
`user.” UA-1004 at 1:66-2:21; Burke Decl. at ¶ 39. Thus, once a user inputs her
`
`starting and ending positions, the computer will recommend from storage a route
`
`for traversal.
`
`
`
`Bouve also explains that the system can recommend a new route to a user in
`
`the middle of a journey, where traffic conditions or weather are unfavorable: “The
`
`vehicle system 30 is particularly beneficial to a traveler desiring to select or change
`
`the route of travel during the course of travel, or to inquire about Incidents or
`
`Conditions while traveling.” UA-1004 at 5:11-15. The user can even customize
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`when she wants to be prompted to change her route: “The user can . . . choose the
`
`type of Incidents information, if any, which is of interest, such as ‘traffic accidents’
`
`etc. Finally, the user can input the types, if any, of Condition information which
`
`may be of interest such as ‘road construction’ and ‘icy road conditions’ etc.” UA-
`
`1004 at 7:63-8:3. Accordingly, Bouve discloses recommending a route from the
`
`stored route data for traversal by the individual based on the current position of the
`
`individual or a future position of the individual. Burke Decl. at ¶ 40.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 14 – The method of claim 13, further comprising
`recommending a route for traversal by the individual based
`on the stored route data.
`
`
`
`In addition to recommending a route based on the position data, Bouve also
`
`discloses the method of dependent claim 14, which recommends a route for
`
`traversal by the individual based on stored route data. Figure 3, for example, shows
`
`that in “step 300 a user inputs data on data entry device 12, 12a, 212 or 212a which
`
`includes a beginning and end location for travel, and preferably also includes a
`
`selection of route type such as highway, back roads, scenic route, etc. . . . After the
`
`presented input data has been confirmed in step 320 it is either processed by
`
`processor 11 or transmitted via communications network 250 to CPU 205 and then
`
`processed by CPU 205 in step 340.” UA-1004 at 6:44-61. Next, in “step 350, the
`
`processor 11 or CPU 205 accesses the appropriate data bases stored in storage
`
`device 14 or 200, as applicable, and retrieves one or more routes corresponding to
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`the input data route selection and identified start and end locations from the route
`
`selection data base stored in storage device 14 or 200.” UA-1004 at 6:62-7:27.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the route type information
`
`(“highway, back roads, scenic route, etc.”) is route data stored in the database, and
`
`further, that the recommendation of a route is based on a comparison of the route
`
`type information input by the user and the route type data stored in the database.
`
`Burke Decl. at ¶ 42-43.
`
`
`
`In Bouve, the processor also retrieves route data stored in the database, such
`
`as information about facilities, landmarks, weather conditions, and traffic incidents
`
`along the route:
`
`In step 360, the processor 11 or CPU 205, as applicable, retrieves
`Facility information corresponding to the types of Facility information
`selected, as represented by the input data, from the Facilities
`information data base stored on the storage device 14 or 200, as
`applicable. The retrieved Facility information will correspond to the
`route or routes retrieved in step 350. In step 370, processor 11 or CPU
`205, as applicable, retrieves Landmark information corresponding to
`the route or routes retrieved in step 350 and corresponding also to the
`types of Landmark information selected by the user, as reflected by
`the input data, from the Landmark information data base stored on the
`storage device 14 or 200, as applicable. In step 380, the applicable
`processor retrieves, from the Incident data base stored on the
`applicable storage device, Incident information corresponding to the
`
`16
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`retrieved route or routes and to the selection of Incident information
`of interest to the traveler as reflected in the user input data. In step
`390, the applicable processor retrieves, from the Conditions data base
`stored on the applicable storage device, the Condition information
`which corresponds to the route or routes selected in step 350 and to
`the type selection of Condition information of interest to the traveler,
`as reflected by the user input data.
`
`UA-1004 at 6:62-7:27. Finally, Bouve recommends a route to the user based on the
`
`stored route data by presenting this information on a display: “A presentation
`
`device such as a display, printer or voice synthesizer is provided for presenting the
`
`retrieved travel route(s) and travel information to the user.” UA-1004 at 1:66-2:21;
`
`Burke Decl. at ¶ 44.
`
`Accordingly, Bouve discloses recommending a route for traversal by an
`
`individual based on the stored route data. Burke Decl. at ¶ 45.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 17 – The method of claim 14, wherein the stored
`route data comprises a length of the route.
`
`
`
`Bouve discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the stored route data
`
`comprises a length of the route. First, Bouve describes how in the prior art, users
`
`had to manually determine the distance of a route: “For a traveler to know the
`
`locations of certain enroute facilities, such as lodgings, travel directories must be
`
`examined to identify which lodgings are located along the route of travel, and then,
`
`typically using roadmaps, painstakingly determine the locations of these facilities
`
`17
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,652,009
`
`along the travel route in order to approximate travel distances to and between each
`
`facility so as to plan enroute stopping points.” UA-1004 at 1:28-35; Burke Decl. at
`
`¶ 46.
`
`
`
`Bouve improved upon the prior art systems by maintaining route length
`
`information in a database: “The processors beneficially include software or other
`
`conventional means to compute the mileage indication, along the retrieved travel
`
`route(s), for each individual item of travel information which is retrieved from the
`
`data bases.” UA-1004 at 8:18-22; see also id. at 4:31-32 (“Mileage indicators
`
`provide cumulative mileage along the application travel route.”); Burke Decl. at
`
`¶ 47. Using the route length information stored in databases, Bouve computes
`
`mileage information along a rout