Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: April 25, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JI-SOO LEE,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, RAMA G. ELLURU, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: April 25, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JI-SOO LEE,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, RAMA G. ELLURU, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Google, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an inter partes
`review of claims 45 and 46 (Paper 2; “Pet.”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`B1 (Ex. 1001; “the ’518 Patent”).1 Ji-Soo Lee (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 7; “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may
`not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.”
`On this record and for the reasons discussed below, we institute inter
`parties review as to claims 45 and 46 of the ’518 Patent. We have not made
`a final determination under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of any
`claim.
`
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`The parties state that the ’518 Patent is asserted in several cases
`pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Paper 2,
`2–3; Paper 5, 1–2.
`
`The ’518 Patent
`B.
`The ’518 Patent “relates to a traffic information providing service
`method and system, and in particular, to a method and a system for
`providing an image vector-based traffic information.” Ex. 1001 at 1:7–10.
`
`
`1 Google also identifies Samsung Electronics America, Inc., LG Electronics
`Mobilecomm USA, Inc., HTC America, Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC as
`real parties in interest. Pet. 2.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`Figure 1A of the ’518 Patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1A depicts is a block diagram of a traffic information providing
`system. Ex. 1001, 6:42–45. The system includes traffic information
`collector 110, traffic information converter 120, traffic information
`transmitter 130, and one or more user devices 140. Id. at 6:46–51.
`Traffic information collector 110 collects traffic information from
`various sources and produces text-based traffic information (“TBTI”), which
`is then communicated to traffic information converter 120. Ex. 1001, 6:52–
`64. Traffic information converter 120 “converts the text-based traffic
`information TBTI into image vector-based traffic information, more
`specifically, into a traffic state map TSM or a traffic information map TIM.”
`Id. at 6:65–7:1. The image vector entities in a traffic state map (“TSM”) are
`time-variant and represent, for example, “a road, the color of which varies
`according to the velocity on the road.” Id. 7:43–47. A traffic information
`map (“TIM”) may be composed of a TSM and a basic map. Id. at 7:1–3. A
`basic map is a map composed of time-invariant image vector entities, each
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`of which corresponds to a real entity, such as a mountain, a river, or a
`building. Id. at 7:4–7. A basic map may be stored in traffic information
`converter 120, or alternatively in user device 140. Id. at 7:36–38.
`Traffic information transmitter 130 receives a TSM or TIM from the
`traffic information converter 120 and provides the TSM or TIM to user
`device 140. Ex. 1001, 7:50–54. User device 140 includes a communication
`function for receiving the TSM or TIM, and a screen for displaying an
`“image based traffic information.” Id. 7:65–8:1.
`
`Challenged Claims
`C.
`Challenged claims 45 and 46 are independent claims. Claim 45 is
`illustrative and is reproduced below.
`45. A method for displaying an image-based traffic
`information comprising the steps of:
`receiving a traffic information map which includes
`at least a traffic state map, said traffic state map
`includes a plurality of time-variant image vector
`entities in a specified region and each of the
`time-variant image vector entity includes an
`attribute-designating statement, an shape-
`designating
`statement
`and
`a
`position-
`designating statement;
`displaying a first image in accordance with a basic
`map on a screen, said basic map including a
`plurality of time-invariant image vector entities
`in the specified region; and
`displaying a second image in accordance with said
`traffic state map such that said second image is
`cumulatively displayed on the first image.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1004
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`References and Materials Relied Upon
`D.
`Petitioner relies on the following references and materials in support
`of the asserted grounds of unpatentability:
`References and Materials
`U.S. Patent No. 5,313,200 (iss. May 17, 1994)
`(“Sone”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,966,135 (iss. Oct. 12, 1999) (“Roy”) 1005
`Japanese Patent No. JPH 09-252260 (laid open Sept.
`1006, 1007
`22, 1997) (“Yamada”)
`PCT Pub. No. WO 95/24029 A1 (pub. Sept. 8, 1995)
`(“Rosenquist”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,293,163 (iss. Mar. 8, 1994)
`(“Kakihara”)
`Japanese Patent No. JPH 08-7197 (laid open Jan. 12,
`1996) (“Degawa”)
`
`1010, 1011
`
`Challenged
`Claim(s)
`45 & 46
`45 & 46
`
`E.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Statutory Basis2
`
`References
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Sone
`Sone, alone, or in
`combination with Roy
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. 112-29, included
`revisions to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that became effective on March 16,
`2013. Because the ’413 Patent issued from an application that was filed
`before March 16, 2013, we will refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102 and 103.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`45 & 46
`45 & 46
`45 & 46
`
`1.
`
`Yamada and Rosenquist
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Kakihara
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Degawa
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`Claim Construction Standard
`Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the AIA, we
`interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable
`interpretation in light of the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`S.Ct. 890 (2016). There is a presumption that claim terms are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification. See In re
`Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An applicant
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the
`claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`2.
`
`District Court Claim Constructions
`The Eastern District of Texas has not issued claim construction orders
`in the related proceedings discussed above. However, the ’518 Patent was
`previously asserted in an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`District of Virginia: Porto Technology Co., Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership, Case
`No. 3:13CV265-HEH Ex. 1012, 1–2. In that action, the District Court
`construed several claim terms from the ’518 Patent, including “image vector
`entity.” Id. at 20. Although we are not bound by the District Court’s
`constructions, we consider its reasoned analysis. Cf. Power Integrations,
`Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The fact that the board is
`not generally bound by a previous judicial interpretation of a disputed claim
`term does not mean, however, that it has no obligation to acknowledge that
`interpretation or to assess whether it is consistent with the broadest
`reasonable construction of the term.”).
`
`3.
`
`“Image vector entity”
`The term “image vector entity” appears in both challenged claims.
`Petitioner proposes that we construe this claim limitation as “a data structure
`including at least shape and position information for a real entity.” Pet. 7.
`Patent Owner has not yet set forth a position regarding the construction of
`this claim term.
`In the Eastern District of Virginia litigation referenced above, the
`Court construed “image vector entity” as “a format of information
`representing an image to be displayed which includes a shape-designating
`statement and a position designating statement used to draw the shape of a
`real entity at the specified position.” Ex. 1012, 20.3 In reaching this
`construction, the Court noted that “every single embodiment of the
`
`3 The District Court’s claim construction order placed the term “real entity”
`in brackets to indicate this term was being construed separately. Ex. 1012,
`4 n. 3. Quotations from the District Court’s claim construction order omit
`these brackets.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`specification has shape and position information included with an IVE” (i.e.,
`an image vector entity), that “in every instance, IVE is associated with a
`position and shape which are used to draw the IVE,” and that “only through
`the inclusion of shape and position can the Patent function to perform its
`intended purpose of displaying IVEs as images representing maps that
`include traffic conditions.” Id. at 7. The Court rejected the broader
`construction of “image vector entity” proposed by the Plaintiffs, i.e., “data
`structure representing an aspect of a real entity.” Id. at 4. In so doing, the
`Court noted that “the intrinsic evidence clearly and consistently shows that
`an IVE intrinsically has a position and a shape,” and that adopting Plaintiffs’
`construction “would require the Court to ignore (1) the specifications of the
`Patent and (2) the vector encoding technology that is the basis of the Patent.”
`Id.
`
`The District Court’s construction is consistent with the ordinary
`meaning of “image vector entity” in the Specification. In particular, we
`agree with the Court’s determination that the term “image vector entity,” as
`used in the Specification, includes “statements” defining the shape and
`position of a displayed image vector. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:22–26 (The
`image vector may be a line, an arc, a point, a curve, a text string, and so on.
`The ‘shape’ statement in the ‘image vector entity’ field represents the kind
`of image vector (e.g., a link) and the ‘position’ statement represents the
`position of the image vector.”); id. Figs. 6A–6D (depicting image vector
`entities as formatted data that includes shape and position data); id. 8:1–4
`(“user device 140 displays the image [vector-]based traffic information,”
`which may include “converting from the image vector-based traffic
`information into a bitmap image-based traffic information”). The
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`Specification also supports the Court’s determination that the term “image
`vector entity” does not encompass every “data structure representing an
`aspect of a real entity.” For example, the Specification distinguishes image
`vector entities from text-based traffic information, even though text-based
`traffic information may represent an aspect (i.e., traffic velocity) of a real
`entity (i.e., a roadway). See Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 5:46–47, Fig. 5; Id. at 6:65–67
`(“traffic information converter 120 converts the text-based traffic
`information TBTI into an image vector-based traffic information”).
`On this record, Petitioner has established that, consistent with the
`District Court’s construction, an image vector entity must include at least
`shape and position information for a real entity. See Ex. 1003, ¶ 18.
`However, Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a data structure including at
`least shape and position information for a real entity” is broader than that the
`District Court’s construction, and the ordinary meaning of “image vector
`entity” in the Specification, because it does not require a “shape designating
`statement” and “position designating statement” that are “used to draw the
`shape of a real entity at the specified position” on a display. (Emphasis
`added). We are not persuaded that this broader construction is supported by
`the Specification. Petitioner also cites Dr. Michalson’s declaration in
`support of its claim construction position. See id. (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 16,
`18). However, Dr. Michalson’s testimony is not persuasive because it does
`not address the District Court’s reasoning, or the portions of the
`Specification discussed above. See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 16, 18.
`In view of the foregoing, on the current record, and for purposes of
`this decision, we construe “image vector entity” as “a format of information
`representing an image to be displayed which includes a shape designating
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`statement and a position designating statement used to draw the shape of a
`real entity at the specified position.”
`
`4.
`
`Other Claim Terms
`Although Petitioner proposed specific constructions of several
`additional claim terms, no express constructions of other claim terms are
`necessary at this time because “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman
`Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc.
`v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`B.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`1.
`
`Overview
`Petitioner argues that claims 45 and 46 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103. Pet. 4. A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are
`“such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
`the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`such subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The question of
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3)
`the level of skill in the art;4 and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`
`
`4 For purposes of this Decision, we consider the cited references to be
`representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`i.e., secondary considerations.5 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966).
`Petitioner also argues that claims 45 and 46 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 4. In order to anticipate a patent claim under 35
`U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference must “describe every element of
`the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently.” Advanced Display
`Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`2.
`
`Anticipation of Claims 45 and 46 by Sone
`Sone
`a.
`Sone is directed to a display system mounted on a vehicle that is
`designed to display a road map image around the vehicle with one or more
`diagonal congestion marks that indicate the direction of congested traffic.
`Ex. 1004, Abstract. The display system of Sone may receive “congestion
`data sets” from beacon transmitters 1 that are part of a road system for
`monitoring traffic congestion. Id. at 1:63–68; 2:36–39. The disclosed
`display system also includes onboard storage unit 4 for storing map data,
`map image processor 5, and display unit 7. Id. at 2:10–15. Map image
`processor 5 “is designed to read the map data around the current vehicle
`position from [onboard storage] unit 4, and to form an image of a road map
`around the vehicle” as well as to “display[] one or more diagonal congestion
`marks indicating the position and direction of road traffic congestion.” Id. at
`2:17–26.
`
`
`5 The parties do not direct us to any evidence of secondary considerations.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`
`Analysis
`b.
`Claims 45 and 46 both require “receiving a traffic information map
`which includes at least a traffic state map,” wherein the traffic state map
`includes “a plurality of time-variant image vector entities.” (Emphasis
`added.) Petitioner argues that the “one or more congestion data sets” of
`Sone are “time-variant image vector entities.” Pet. 17 (emphasis added).
`Sone discloses that these congestion data sets are received from
`beacon transmitters, and each include “a data item representing the position
`of a leading (front) end of a congested road section . . . a data item
`representing the direction of a congested traffic on that road section . . . and
`a data item representing the length of the congestion.” Ex. 1004, 1:65–2:9;
`2:33–44. The Sone system uses this data to display directional marks or
`arrows to indicate areas of traffic congestion. See, e.g., id. 2:65–3:11.
`Petitioner, however, does not offer persuasive evidence or argument
`that the type of congestion data sets received by Sone’s display system
`would contain image vector entities (i.e., “information representing an image
`to be displayed which includes a shape designating statement and a position
`designating statement used to draw the shape of a real entity at the specified
`position”). In particular, Petitioner argues that Sone’s congestion data sets
`include information identifying the location and length of congestion on a
`road. Pet. 16–19. Petitioner, however, does not persuasively demonstrate
`that these congestion data sets include shape designating statements and
`position designating statements that are used to draw the shapes of the
`directional marks or arrows that Sone’s system uses to depict traffic
`congestion. Accordingly, Petitioner has not made an adequate showing that
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`the congestion data sets of Sone include time-variant image vector entities of
`the type recited in claims 45 and 46.
`For the foregoing reason, the Petition does not demonstrate a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its anticipation
`challenge to claims 45 and 46 based on Sone.
`
`3.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 45 and 46 over Sone, Alone, or in
`Combination with Roy
`Roy
`a.
`Roy is directed to enabling the viewing of a map picture that is
`generated from vector-based data. Ex. 1005, Abstract. The vector-based
`data used to generate the map picture may be retrieved over the Internet. Id.
`1:62–2:2.
`
`b.
`
`Analysis
`Claim 45 Preamble
` 45. A method for displaying an
`image-based traffic information
`comprising the steps of:
`
`Claim 46 Preamble
` 46. A program storage device
`readable by a digital processing
`apparatus and tangibly embodying a
`program of instructions executable
`by the digital processing apparatus
`to perform method steps for
`displaying an image-based traffic
`information, said method
`comprising the steps of:
`
`Petitioner alleges that the vehicle-mounted display system of Sone—
`which displays map data around a vehicle and designates areas of congestion
`using, e.g., diagonal congestion marks (see § III.B.2.a, supra)—performs a
`method for displaying an image-based traffic information, as recited in the
`preambles of claims 45 and 46. Pet. 15–16, 26–27. Petitioner also alleges
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`that the programming of Sone’s display system would necessarily be
`embodied in a program storage device, as recited in the preamble of claim
`46. See id. at 15; Ex. 1003, ¶ 48.
`Claim 45, Step 1
`receiving a traffic information map
`which includes at least a traffic
`state map, said traffic state map
`includes a plurality of time-
`variant image vector entities in a
`specified region and each of the
`time-variant image vector entity
`includes an attribute-designating
`statement, an shape-designating
`statement and a position-
`designating statement;
`
`Claim 46, Step 1
`receiving a traffic information map
`which includes at least a traffic
`state map, said traffic state map
`including a plurality of time-
`variant image vector entities in a
`specified region and each of the
`time-variant image vector entity
`includes an attribute-designating
`statement, an shape-designating
`statement and a position-
`designating statement;
`
`Petitioner argues that receiving traffic information as “time-variant
`image vector entities” would have been obvious in view of the teachings of
`Sone and Roy. Pet. 27–29. In particular, Petitioner alleges that Roy
`discloses a system that transmits vector-based map data (i.e., image vector
`entities) over the Internet to enable efficient viewing of a map picture. Id. at
`27. Dr. Michalson testifies that the “map picture” of Roy is “generated from
`[this] vector-based map data.” Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 76, 105. Petitioner also alleges
`that Roy discloses map layer attribute streams 328 that contain information
`about particular attributes of vector-based objects (i.e., attribute designating
`statements); coordinate data that defines the position of vector-based objects
`(i.e., position designating statements); and information that designates the
`shape of vector-based objects (i.e., shape designating statements). Pet. 28–
`29.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art to transmit the congestion data sets of Sone as
`vector-based map data, as described in Roy, for several reasons. For
`example, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill would have
`recognized that vector-based map data would be an efficient way of
`transmitting Sone’s traffic information. See id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:27–
`30; Ex. 1003, ¶77). Petitioner also argues that such a person would have
`recognized that transmitting information as vector-based map data would
`have allowed the display system of Sone to more quickly respond to requests
`to change the width or scale of a map picture. See id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1005,
`12:7–9; 13:15–20; Ex. 1003, ¶ 78).
`Claim 45, Step 2
`displaying a first image in
`accordance with a basic map on a
`screen, said basic map including
`a plurality of time-invariant
`image vector entities in the
`specified region; and
`
`Claim 46, Step 2
`displaying a first image in
`accordance with a basic map on a
`screen, said basic map includes a
`plurality of time-invariant image
`vector entities in the specified
`region; and
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner alleges that “displaying a first image in accordance with a
`basic map” wherein the basic map includes “a plurality of time-invariant
`image vector entities” would have been obvious in view of the teachings of
`Sone and Roy. Pet. 29–30. In particular, Petitioner alleges that Roy
`transmits “vector-based map data” to client devices, which use this data to
`display maps (i.e. “basic maps”). Id. Petitioner also alleges that this vector-
`based map data includes time-invariant image vector entities, such as states,
`counties, and streets. See id. Dr. Michalson testifies that the vector-based
`map picture of Roy is generated from this vector-based map data. Ex. 1003,
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`¶ 123. Thus, Petitioner has offered evidence that the vector-based map data
`of Roy includes time-invariant image vector entities. As discussed above,
`Petitioner alleges that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`recognized that vector-based map data would be an efficient way of traffic
`data to a client device, such as the vehicle-mounted display system of Sone
`(see Pet. 24, citing Ex. 1005, 3:27–30), and that transmitting information as
`vector-based map data would have allowed the display system of Sone to
`more quickly respond to requests to change the width or scale of a map
`picture (see Pet. 24, citing Ex. 1005, 12:7–9; 13:15–20).
`Claim 45, Step 3
`Claim 46, Step 3
`displaying a second image in
`displaying a second image in
`accordance with said traffic state
`accordance with said traffic state
`map such that said second image
`map such that said second image
`is cumulatively displayed on the
`is cumulatively displayed on the
`first image.
`first image.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner alleges that the allegedly-obvious system of Sone, modified
`in view of Roy to employ vector-based traffic data and map data, would
`perform the third and final step of claims 46 and 45 when it displayed traffic
`data that was received as vector-based map data superimposed over a road
`image map. Pet. 21–22, 30–31 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:29–36).
`Petitioner’s allegations regarding the combined teachings of Sone and
`Roy, with respect to each element of the preamble and each limitation of
`claims 45 and 46, are supported by specific citations to the cited references,
`as well as testimony from the Michalson Declaration. Petitioner’s argument
`that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Sone’s
`system to employ vector graphic image-based congestion and map data, as
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`allegedly taught by Roy, is also supported by testimony from the Michalson
`Declaration. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 69, 76–81.
`Petitioner’s arguments, and the evidence cited therein, are sufficiently
`persuasive to meet Petitioner’s burden at this stage of the proceeding. For
`example, Petitioner has adequately demonstrated that the vector-based map
`data of Roy includes image vector entities. See Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1005, 5:20–
`47 & Fig. 2 (illustrating “an image that could be displayed on the monitor
`using vector-based geographical data,” and explaining how the vector-based
`data could include graphical coordinate data (a position designating
`statement) as well as data that defines primitive shapes, such as triangles,
`circles, or arcs (a shape designating statement)). The portions of Roy’s
`Specification cited in paragraphs 77 and 79 of Dr. Michalson’s declaration
`also support Dr. Michalson’s opinions that vector-based map data would be
`an efficient way to quickly transmit map data, and that using vector-based
`map data would advantageously allow a display system to more quickly
`respond to changes in map width or scale. See Ex. 1005, 3:27–30
`(explaining that using vector-based map data, rather than raster-based map
`data, allows data to be transmitted in real-time); id. at 35:15–20 (explaining
`that the use of vector-based map data allows Roy’s system to quickly
`generate a new map picture when a user wishes to view an image with more
`resolution).
`Patent Owner makes two responsive arguments. First, Patent Owner
`argues that Petitioner’s proffered rationales for combining the teachings of
`Sone and Roy are insufficient. Prelim. Resp. 19–22. For example, Patent
`Owner argues that Petitioner has not identified a “limitation or shortcoming
`of Sone’s ‘congestion data set’ that would prompt a POSITA to modify
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`Sone’s ‘congestion data set’ with Roy’s ‘vector-based map data.’” Pet. 20.
`However, as discussed above, Dr. Michalson has cited to disclosures in Roy
`that support his opinions as to why a person of ordinary skill would have had
`reason to make such a modification. See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 77, 79 (citing Ex.
`1005, 3:27–30; 35:15–20). At this stage in the proceeding, we credit Dr.
`Michalson’s testimony. Thus, we are not persuaded on this record that
`Petitioner has failed to set forth an adequate rationale in support of the legal
`conclusion of obviousness. However, Patent Owner is free to re-raise this
`argument later, once the evidentiary record has been more fully developed.
`Second, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has failed to make an
`adequate showing that the cited references teach or suggest receiving a
`traffic state map including “a plurality of time-variant image vector entities.”
`Prelim. Resp. 23–24. However, as explained above, Petitioner has submitted
`testimony from Dr. Michalson that this claim element would have been a
`predictable combination of Sone in view of Roy. See Ex. 1003, ¶ 77; see
`also id. ¶¶ 74–76 (explaining Dr. Michalson’s reasoning). At this stage in
`the proceeding, we credit Dr. Michalson’s testimony. However, Patent
`Owner is free to re-raise this argument later in the proceeding.
`On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenge to claims 45
`and 46 based on the combined teachings of Sone and Roy. In view of this
`determination, we need not reach the merits of Petitioner’s alternative
`argument that claims 45 and 46 are obvious over Sone alone.
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`4.
`Obviousness of Claims 45 and 46 over Yamada and Rosenquist
`Yamada
`a.
`Yamada is directed to a traffic information display system in which
`traffic information image data is superimposed on a map image. Ex. 1007,
`Abstract. Figure 1 of Yamada is reproduced below.
`
`
`Fig. 1 is a functional block diagram depicting an embodiment of Yamada’s
`traffic information display system. Id. ¶ 19. Traffic information data
`receiver 3 receives traffic information from, for example, traffic beacons,
`and outputs this data to superimposition data generation unit 4. Id. ¶ 24.
`Superimposition data generation unit 4 then uses road link data in the
`received traffic information data, and information from road link
`latitude/longitude database 2, to determine if the received traffic information
`data corresponds to a portion of the map that is currently being displayed.
`See id. ¶¶ 28–29. If so, superimposition data generation unit 4 generates
`superimposition data “constituting traffic information image data for traffic
`information display.” Id. ¶ 29. This traffic information image data indicates
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`traffic jam information “using vectors and generates restriction information
`for display using symbols.” Id. Image data generation unit 5 then generates
`image data by combining the data from superimposition data generation unit
`4 with map data. Id. ¶ 30. The resulting image is displayed on image
`display unit 6. Id.
`
`Rosenquist
`b.
`Rosenquist is directed to a traffic information system that receives
`
`traffic information from a traffic information center. Ex. 1008, Abstract.
`
`Analysis
`c.
`Petitioner relies on Yamada with respect to the “receiving . . . a
`plurality of time-variant image vector entities” limitation of claims 45 and
`46. See Pet. 35–37. In particular, Petitioner alleges that the “traffic
`information data” of Yamada comprises time-variant image vector entities of
`the type recited in the claims. See id. In support of this argument, Petitioner
`cites portions of Yamada that describe this traffic information data as
`including vector data. See id. 36–37. However, the portions of Yamada
`cited by Petitioner (¶¶ 3–4, 17 & Fig. 4) use the term “vector” in the generic,
`mathematical sense to refer to data defining the direction of traffic along a
`roadway. Nothing in the cited portions of Yamada teaches or suggests that
`the received traffic information data of Yamada would include image vector
`entities of the type required by the ’518 Patent (i.e., “information
`representing an image to be displayed which includes a shape-designating
`statement and a position designating statement used to draw the shape of a
`real entity at the specified position”). As discussed in Section III.B.4.a,
`supra, the traffic information data of Yamada is converted into traffic
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`
`information image data by superimposition data generation unit 4, and this
`conversion does not occur until after the data is received. Thus, the evidence
`and arguments set forth in the Petition do not pe
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
