UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`One or more of Mr. Ji-Soo Lee, Ms. Jin-Won Oh, and Mr. Heung-Soo Lee,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,233,518
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................... 2
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest................................................................................ 2
`
`B. Related Matters ......................................................................................... 2
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information .............................. 3
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING .......................................................................... 3
`
`IV. RELIEF REQUESTED ..................................................................................... 3
`
`V. THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF ........................................ 4
`
`A. The ’518 Patent ......................................................................................... 4
`
`1. Overview .......................................................................................... 4
`
`2.
`
`Prosecution History .......................................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenges ..................................................................... 8
`
`1. Challenged Claims ........................................................................... 8
`
`2.
`
`Statutory Ground for Challenges ..................................................... 8
`
`3. Claim Construction ........................................................................ 10
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`“image vector entity” .............................................................. 10
`
`“attribute-designating statement” ........................................... 12
`
`iii. “shape-designating statement” ................................................ 13
`
`iv. “position-designating statement” ............................................ 14
`
`4.
`
`Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable ..................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`i.
`
`Challenge: Claims 45 and 46 are obvious under 35 U.S.C §
`103 over Fujitsu and Ichiura ................................................... 14
`
`VI. THIS PETITION PRESENTS DIFFERENT PRIOR ART AND
`ARGUMENTS THAN THE PREVIOUSLY-FILED PETITION
`CHALLENGING THE ’518 PATENT ...................................................................41
`
`VII. Conclusion .......................................................................................................43
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518 (“the ’518 Patent,” Ex. 1001) is generally directed
`
`to receiving and displaying image-based traffic information to a user. The ’518
`
`Patent itself admits that it was already known to provide image-based traffic
`
`information. Ex. 1001, 1:22-23. The alleged novelty recited in claims 45 and 46—
`
`transmitting traffic information as “image vector entities” consisting of attribute,
`
`shape, and position data—however, was well known to persons of ordinary skill in
`
`the art before the earliest alleged priority date of the ’518 patent.
`
`For example, five years before the alleged priority date drivers in Japan were
`
`already receiving vector-based traffic information from the Vehicle Information
`
`and Communication System (VICS). The 1995 article “Onboard System Devices
`
`for a Vehicle Information and Communication System” (Ex. 1005, “Fujitsu”)
`
`describes a VICS-compatible Fujitsu system that receives vector-based, graphical
`
`traffic information consisting of attribute data, shape data, and position data.
`
`Fujitsu teaches that its system superimposes the vector-based traffic information
`
`over unchanging road map data and displays the resulting image to a driver.
`
`Another reference, U.S. Patent No. 5,734,780 (Ex. 1006, “Ichiura”),
`
`describes the data format of the FM broadcast signal that carries the traffic
`
`information to Fujitsu’s system. Ichiura teaches that the FM broadcast signal
`
`transmits the traffic information within a hierarchal data structure that corresponds
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`to the data structure recited in claims 45 and 46 of the ’518 Patent.
`
`The evidence in this petition demonstrates that claims 45 and 46 of the ’518
`
`Patent are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, Apple Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that claims 45 and 46 of the ’518 Patent be held
`
`invalid and cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The real party-in-interest is Apple Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`As of the filing date of this petition, the ’518 Patent has been asserted in:
`
` Porto Technology Co. Ltd., et. al. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
`
`Wireless, 3:12-cv-00678 (E.D. Va. 2012), terminated;
`
` Porto Technology Co. Ltd., et. al. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
`
`Wireless, 3:13-cv-00265 (E.D. Va. 2013), terminated; and
`
` Porto Technology Co. Ltd., et. al. v. Apple., et al., consolidated case no.
`
`2:15-cv-457-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. 2015), transferred to N.D. Cal.; and
`
` Porto Technology Co. Ltd., et. al. v. Apple., case no. 5:16-cv-01515-PSG
`
`(N.D. Cal. 2016), ongoing.
`
`Additionally, the ’518 Patent has been challenged in the inter partes review
`
`proceeding IPR2016-00045 filed by Google Inc., Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., HTC America, Inc., and Motorola
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`Mobility LLC. Apple Inc. is not a real party-in-interest in IPR2016-00045.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`Lead Counsel
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Phone: (214) 651-5116
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Dallas, TX 75219
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,271
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Scott T. Jarratt
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Phone: (972) 739-8663
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 70,297
`
`
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`
`
`consents to electronic service by email.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’518 Patent is eligible 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. Petitioner
`
`was served with a complaint asserting infringement of the ’518 Patent on April 14,
`
`2015 (see Ex. 1019, p. 2), which is not more than one year before the filing of this
`
`Petition. Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim
`
`of the ’518 Patent.
`
`IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner asks that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) review
`
`the accompanying prior art and analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`claims 45 and 46 of the ’518 Patent, and cancel those claims as invalid.
`
`V. THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`As explained below and in the declaration of Petitioner’s expert, Scott
`
`Andrews, the concepts described and claimed in the ’518 Patent were not novel.
`
`This petition explains where each element of claims 45 and 46 is found in the prior
`
`art and why the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art before the earliest claimed priority date of the ’518 Patent. The full statement of
`
`the reasons for the relief requested is as follows.
`
`A. The ’518 Patent
`1. Overview
`The ’518 Patent generally describes methods for receiving and displaying
`
`“image-based traffic information” on a screen of a user device. Ex. 1001, Abstract,
`
`1:59-61. Notably, the ’518 Patent itself admits that it was already known and
`
`“conventional” to provide “image-based traffic information” to a user terminal. Id.
`
`at 1:22-23. Mr. Andrew’s industry experience confirms this. Ex. 1003, ¶ 26. The
`
`’518 Patent further states that these “conventional” systems utilized “bit-map based
`
`images” for the traffic information, but that these “images are too big to be
`
`transmitted.” Ex. 1001, 1:24-25, 1:37-39.
`
`The ’518 Patent attempts to address the problems with bitmap-based systems
`
`by instead transmitting “traffic state image vector entities.” Ex. 1001, 7:42-43.
`
`Each image vector entity is composed of an “attribute-designating statement,” a
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`“shape-designating statement,” and a “position-designating statement.” Id. at
`
`11:24-27. Figure 11B illustrates a time-variant image vector entity:
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 11B
`
`
`
`The ’518 Patent explains that “the attribute is for example a color, a brightness or a
`
`pattern.” Ex. 1001, 11:26-27. Additionally, “[t]he ‘shape’ statement in the ‘image
`
`vector entity’ field represents the kind of the image vector (e.g. a line) and the
`
`‘position’ statement represents the position of the image vector.” Id. at 9:22-25.
`
`The alleged solution presented in the ’518 Patent—i.e., transmitting image
`
`data in the form of shape, position, and attribute data rather than transmitting
`
`conventional bitmap image data—was well known to persons of ordinary skill in
`
`the art before the earliest alleged priority date of the ’518 patent. Ex. 1003, ¶ 29.
`
`For example, others had previously identified the problem of “bit mapped graphics
`
`files . . . tak[ing] a relatively long amount of time to download over the Internet,”
`
`and had already solved the problem through the use of vector-based image data
`
`“compris[ing] a type, a size[], and a location of the vector object.” Ex. 1010, 1:24-
`
`26, 1:40-44, 1:52-54. It was already known that “vector graphics [] substantially
`
`reduce or eliminate disadvantages and problems associated with prior network
`
`graphics.” Ex. 1010, 1:40-44. Moreover, not only were vector-based images being
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`utilized in general networking applications before the ’518 Patent, but they were
`
`also already being applied in the context of geographic mapping. Ex. 1003, ¶ 29.
`
`For example, textbooks already taught using “vector encoding” to represent “road
`
`network features” (Ex. 1012, p. 18), and companies were already patenting systems
`
`that displayed “a map picture that is generated from vector-based map data
`
`retrieved over the Internet” (Ex. 1011, 2:1-2).
`
`In claims 45 and 46 of the ’518 Patent, the image-based traffic information
`
`is received by a user device as a “traffic information map” that includes “a traffic
`
`state map,” which, in turn, is simply a plurality of time-variant image-vector
`
`entities. Ex. 1001, 11:21-23. Figure 11A illustrates a traffic state map:
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 11A
`
`
`
`When the image-based traffic information is received by a user device, it is
`
`displayed cumulatively with a basic map, which is “composed of time-invariant
`
`image vector entities, each of which corresponds to a part or the entire [sic] of a
`
`real entity (e.g. a mountain, a river, a building and so on).” Ex. 1001, 7:4-7. As
`
`explained by the ’518 Patent, a “processor 220 first displays a basic map image on
`
`the screen 222 in accordance with the BM (Basic Map) and then a TSM image is
`
`cumulatively displayed (i.e. overwritten) on the BM image in accordance with the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`TSM.” Ex. 1001, 13:14-17. Fig. 17 illustrates an example of the cumulative image
`
`displayed to a user:
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 17
`
`
`
`As discussed below in more detail, the method of providing image-based
`
`traffic information described in the ’518 Patent and claimed in claims 45 and 46
`
`was already well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest
`
`alleged priority date. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 34-35.
`
`Prosecution History
`2.
`The ’518 Patent issued on May 15, 2001 from U.S. National Stage
`
`Application No. 09/509,349 (“the ’349 application”), which has a § 371 date of
`
`March 27, 2000. The PCT application upon which the ’349 application is based
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`was filed on July 28, 1999 and claims priority back to a Korean application filed
`
`on July 28, 1998. A single inventor, Heung-Soo Lee, is listed on the face of the
`
`’518 Patent.
`
` During an abbreviated prosecution, the Examiner issued a Notice of
`
`Allowance for the ’349 application without ever substantively rejecting the claims.
`
`Ex. 1002, pp. 198-200. It appears the Patent Office never considered any of the
`
`prior art references cited in this petition when examining the claims of the ’518
`
`Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenges
`Challenged Claims
`1.
`Claims 45 and 46 of the ’518 Patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`Statutory Ground for Challenges
`2.
`Challenge: Claims 45 and 46 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
`
`article entitled “Onboard System Devices for a Vehicle Information and
`
`Communication System” published in issue no. 7 (June 1995) of the Fujitsu Ten
`
`Technical Journal (“Fujitsu”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,734,780 to Ichiura, et al.
`
`(Ex. 1006, “Ichiura”).
`
`The Fujitsu Ten Technical Journal is “published annually by FUJITSU TEN
`
`LIMITED” and “introduces the technology and products of FUJITSU TEN to
`
`readers both inside and outside the company.” Ex. 1005, p. 2; Ex. 1015, p. 1.
`
`Articles from all forty issues of the Fujitsu Ten Technical Journal are available to
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`the public on Fujitsu Ten’s company website, beginning with issue No. 1 from
`
`February 1988. See generally Ex. 1015. Issues of the journal are also distributed to
`
`libraries. For example, Exhibit 1005 contains portions of issue No. 7 of the Fujitsu
`
`Ten Technical Journal that were obtained by scanning a physical copy of the issue
`
`held at the Kansai-kan location of Japan’s National Diet Library. See Ex. 1022
`
`(Decl. of Shoko Maeda), ¶ 3. The National Diet Library is the national library of
`
`Japan, similar to the Library of Congress in the United States. Ex. 1018 (Decl. of
`
`Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee), ¶ 11.
`
`Exhibit 1005 includes the front cover, table of contents, and the prior art
`
`article “Onboard System Devices for a Vehicle Information and Communication
`
`System,” found on pages 26-34 of issue No. 7 of the journal. See generally Ex.
`
`1005. The front cover of the physical copy of the issue at the National Diet Library
`
`contains a date stamp, which is reflected on page 1 of Exhibit 1005. Ex. 1022, ¶ 3.
`
`The date stamp includes Japanese characters that translate to “National Diet
`
`Library” and a date in Imperial format that translates to “5 November 1996.” Ex.
`
`1005, p. 1; Ex. 1016 (certified translation of the date stamp).
`
`Exhibit 1017 contains a copy of the Fujitsu article downloaded from the
`
`Fujitsu Ten company website. The downloaded copy of the article in Exhibit 1017
`
`is identical to the article contained in Exhibit 1005. Ex. 1003, ¶ 59. The citations in
`
`the petition refer to the copy of the article in Exhibit 1005.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`The prior art article in issue No. 7 (June 1995) of the Fujitsu Ten Technical
`
`Journal was publically available before the earliest alleged priority date of the ’518
`
`Patent—July 28, 1998—making the article prior art under at least one of §§ 102(a)
`
`and (b). See, e.g., Ex. 1018 (Decl. of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee); Ex. 1005, p. 1.
`
`Ichiura was filed May 1, 1995 and issued March 31, 1998, and is thus prior
`
`art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`Claim Construction
`3.
`This petition presents claim analysis in a manner that is consistent with the
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and accustomed 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). Also, because the claim constructions proposed
`
`herein are based on the broadest reasonable construction, they do not necessarily
`
`apply to other proceedings that use different claim construction standards. See
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00569, Paper 9 at 2 (PTAB 2013).
`
`i.
`
`
`
`“image vector entity”
`
`The ’518 Patent does not provide an explicit definition for “image vector
`
`entity;” however the claims themselves provide sufficient context for this term. Ex.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`1003, ¶ 41. In more detail, claims 45 and 46 both recite:
`
`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;
`
`Ex. 1001, 23:18-23, 24:11-16, (emphasis added).
`
`The ’518 specification is consistent with this claim language: “In FIG. 11B,
`
`the TVIVE (Time-Variant Image Vector Entity) includes an attribute-designating
`
`statement, a shape-designating statement and a position-designating statement.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:23-26. Fig. 11B illustrates an image-vector entity with the three
`
`designating statements:
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 11B
`
`
`
`Based on the above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that the claim language of claims 45 and 46 provide sufficient context for the claim
`
`term “image vector entity.” See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 40-43.1
`
`
`1 The District Court in a previous case involving the ’518 patent (Porto Technology
`
`Co. Ltd., et. al. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, 3:13-cv-00265 (E.D.
`
`Va. 2013)) construed “image vector entity” to mean: “a format of information
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`ii.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`“attribute-designating statement”
`The ’518 Patent does not provide an explicit definition for “attribute-
`
`designating statement;” however, the ’518 specification provides that a “color
`
`designating statement” is an example of an attribute-designating statement. Ex.
`
`1001, 2:19-21, 11:23-27, 11:46-52; see also id. at Fig. 11B (showing that the
`
`“attribute” field in a time-variant image vector entity may, for example, be a
`
`“color”).
`
`Accordingly, for the purposes of the invalidity analysis found in this
`
`petition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an “attribute-
`
`designating statement” would at least encompass a color designating statement. See
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 44-48. 2
`
`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. 1013, p. 20. This construction is not
`
`necessarily applicable to this proceeding as the Verizon court considered claims
`
`beyond claims 45 and 46 that did not expressly recite the three designating
`
`statements in connection with the “image vector entity.” Id. at p. 5.
`
`2 The Verizon court construed “attribute-designating statement” to mean: “an
`
`element of an image vector entity representing an aspect/color of a real entity
`
`which is used to draw the image vector entity.” Ex. 1013, pp. 11, 20. The parties in
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`iii.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`“shape-designating statement”
`The ’518 Patent does not provide an explicit definition for “shape-
`
`designating statement”; however, the ’518 specification provides that a statement
`
`designating an image vector as a “line” is an example of a shape-designating
`
`statement. Ex. 1001, 9:21-25.
`
`Accordingly, for the purposes of the invalidity analysis found in this
`
`petition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a “shape-
`
`designating statement” would at least encompass a statement designating an image
`
`vector as a “line.” See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 49-53. 3
`
`the current corresponding litigation involving the ’518 Patent have agreed on a
`
`construction of “an element of an image vector entity representing an aspect of a
`
`physical or geographical object which is used to draw the image vector entity.” Ex.
`
`1014, Exhibit A.
`
`3 The Verizon court construed “shape-designating statement” to mean: “an element
`
`of an image vector entity representing a shape of a real entity which is used to
`
`draw the image vector entity.” Ex. 1013, pp. 11, 20. The parties in the current
`
`corresponding litigation involving the ’518 Patent have agreed on a construction of
`
`“an element of an image vector entity representing a shape of a physical or
`
`geographical object which is used to draw the image vector entity.” Ex. 1014,
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`iv.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`“position-designating statement”
`The ’518 Patent does not provide an explicit definition for “position-
`
`designating statement;” however, the ’518 specification provides that that a
`
`position-designating statement in an image vector entity may include, for example,
`
`“one or more position coordinates.” Ex. 1001, 9:21-25, 11:36-39.
`
`Accordingly, for the purposes of the invalidity analysis found in this
`
`petition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a “position-
`
`designating statement” would at least encompass position coordinates. See Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶ 54-58.4
`
`4.
`
`Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`i. Challenge: Claims 45 and 46 are obvious under 35 U.S.C §
`103 over Fujitsu and Ichiura
`
`
`4 The Verizon court construed “position-designating statement” to mean: “an
`
`element of an image vector entity representing a position of a real entity which is
`
`used to draw the image vector entity.” Ex. 1013, pp. 11, 20. The parties in the
`
`current corresponding litigation involving the ’518 Patent have agreed on a
`
`construction of “an element of an image vector entity representing a position of a
`
`physical or geographical object which is used to draw the image vector entity.” Ex.
`
`1014, Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`(a)
`
`Summary of Fujitsu
`
`Fujitsu describes the components and operation of a vehicle-based system
`
`that “displays graphical traffic information provided by a radio infrastructure.” Ex.
`
`1005, p. 4. Fujitsu’s onboard traffic system receives graphical traffic information
`
`from the Vehicle Information and Communication System (VICS)—a collection of
`
`FM multiplex radio signals and roadside beacons that broadcast traffic information
`
`“24 hours a day and in any location, in a form which is useful to the car driver.” Id.
`
`The Fujitsu article teaches that Fujitsu’s VICS-based system includes,
`
`among other things, a color monitor, a system controller with memory for storing
`
`programming instructions, and an FM multiplex signal receiver to receive the
`
`broadcasts containing graphical traffic information. Ex. 1005, p. 6. Fujitsu’s
`
`system “combines character codes and graphic information sent from the system
`
`infrastructure, and then displays the result on an existing onboard device such as a
`
`TV.” Ex. 1005, pp. 5-6. Fig. 3 shows the graphical traffic information displayed
`
`on the system’s “color monitor”:
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`
`Color
`Monitor in
`vehicle
`
`Graphical
`traffic
`information
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3 (annotated);
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 61
`
`
`
`In more detail, Fujitsu teaches that its system receives “road traffic
`
`information” in graphical form over the FM broadcast, where the road traffic
`
`information “is separated into unchanged underlying-picture data for area maps
`
`and roads, and various superposed data that shows sections with congestion and
`
`accident locations.” Ex. 1005, p. 8. Both the underlying road map data and the
`
`“superposed” congestion data are received in the form of vector-based image data
`
`consisting of attribute data, shape data, and position data. Id. For example, the
`
`“superposed” congestion data includes a plurality of “data block[s] to draw
`
`graphics such as lines, circles, and polygons.” Id. Fujitsu explains that these data
`
`blocks include commands to designate the color, type (i.e., shape), and position of
`
`the lines, circles, and polygons displayed on the screen: “[t]his data block consists
`
`of commands and parameters that specify data such as the graphic types to be
`
`displayed [shape-designating statement], drawing colors [attribute-designating
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`statement], and display locations determined by the starting and ending
`
`coordinates [position-designating statement].” Id. (emphasis and brackets added).
`
`Other references confirm that it was well known in the art to utilize shape,
`
`position, and attribute data to describe a vector object (e.g., line, circle, etc.) when
`
`transmitting image data. Ex. 1010, 1:52-54, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003, ¶ 62.
`
`Fujitsu further explains that after the traffic information and underlying road
`
`map information have been received, Fujitsu’s system superimposes the graphical
`
`congestion data (called “superposed” data) over the underlying road map data
`
`when displaying the information to the driver. Ex. 1005, p. 8 (“When information
`
`is displayed, superposed graphics are placed over underlying graphics”). Fig. 7
`
`illustrates how Fujitsu’s system superimposes time-variant vector-based traffic
`
`information for a specific region over time-invariant road map data for the same
`
`region to arrive at the image displayed to the driver:
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`Time-invariant road map
`image data
`
`Time-variant traffic image
`data
`
`Traffic image data
`superimposed on
`road image data
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 7
`(annotated), Ex.
`1003, p. 42)
`
`
`
`As shown in the resultant, bottom image of Fig. 7, the superimposed traffic
`
`data and the underlying road map data correspond to the same specific region. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 64. In that regard, Fujitsu teaches that the underlying road map picture data
`
`is associated with a “call number,” and when a particular call number is received
`
`with traffic information, the system can determine if the underlying picture data
`
`associated with the call number is “available” on the system. Ex. 1005, p. 8, Fig. 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`As discussed above, Fujitsu teaches receiving image vector traffic
`
`information via a FM multiplex broadcast signal from the VICS system. Ex. 1005,
`
`pp. 4, 6, 8. The specific format of the FM multiplex signal described in Fujitsu was
`
`well known prior to the earliest alleged priority date of the ’518 Patent. Ex. 1003, ¶
`
`67. For instance, Ichiura, described below, teaches the specific format of the FM
`
`multiplex signal described in Fujitsu.
`
`Summary of Ichiura
`(b)
`Ichiura schematically illustrates the data structure of the FM multiplex
`
`broadcasting system called DARC (Data Radio Channel) that broadcasts “traffic
`
`information” and other data “by multiplexing digital signals with existing FM
`
`stereo broadcasting signals.” Ex. 1006, 1:21-29, 4:8-11, 4:44-47, Title; see also Ex.
`
`1007, pp. 1-3 (describing additional details of DARC). The DARC FM multiplex
`
`broadcasting system taught by Ichiura was utilized by the VICS system described
`
`in Fujitsu (Ex. 1003, ¶ 66; see also Ex. 1009, p. 1); and thus one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand that Fujitsu and Ichiura describe portions of the same
`
`VICS traffic system. Ex. 1003, ¶ 66. That is, Fujitsu describes the vehicle-based
`
`receiver and Ichiura describes the format of the FM broadcast signals received by
`
`the receiver. Id.
`
`As noted above, Fujitsu explains that its VICS-based system receives image
`
`vector data in the form of “data blocks” transmitted within the FM multiplex
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`broadcast. Ex. 1005, p. 8. Ichiura illustrates these data blocks and the hierarchical
`
`data structures within which they are transmitted. Ex. 1006, Fig. 9. In particular,
`
`Ichiura explains that “a plurality of data blocks” form a “data group,” and that the
`
`data group is combined with a header to form a program of “graphic information.”
`
`Ex. 1006, 5:15-22. The program of graphic information may, for example,
`
`“represent[] the congestion or the like at each junction of a specific road.” Ex.
`
`1006, 5:20-33. Fig. 9 of Ichiura, reproduced below, illustrates the hierarchical data
`
`structure of Ichiura’s FM multiplex signal, with the annotations showing how the
`
`different portions correspond to the elements claimed in the ’518 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Traffic
`information
`map
`
`Traffic state
`map
`
`Image vector
`entity
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 9 (annotated), Ex. 1003, ¶ 69
`
`
`
`(c) Reasons to Combine Fujitsu and Ichiura
`“A determination of obviousness is based not on bodily incorporation of
`
`parts from one disclosed system into another, but what the combined teachings
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the art.” Liberty Mutual
`
`Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2013-00009, Paper 68
`
`at 28 (PTAB 2014) (citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012))
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of Fujitsu and Ichiura in order to produce the obvious, beneficial, and
`
`predictable result of Fujitsu’s in-vehicle system receiving vector-based image
`
`traffic information via an FM multiplex signal having the hierarchical data
`
`structure format taught by Ichiura. See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 69-74. In particular, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination
`
`because Fujitsu and Ichiura merely describe different portions of the same VICS
`
`traffic information system. Ex. 1003, ¶ 70. That is, Fujitsu describes the vehicle-
`
`based receiver, and Ichiura describes the format of the FM broadcast signals
`
`utilized by the VICS system to transmit traffic data to the vehicle-based receiver by
`
`the receiver. Id.; see also Ex. 1009, p. 1. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`when evaluating the teachings of Fujitsu would have naturally combined them with
`
`the teachings of Ichiura in order to fully appreciate the operation of the VICS
`
`traffic information system. Ex. 1003, ¶ 70.
`
`Further, the DARC FM multiplex broadcasting system described by Ichiura
`
`provides many advantages over alternative broadcast systems, leading experts in
`
`the industry to expressly predict that DARC FM multiplex system would be
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`utilized to disseminate traffic information. Ex. 1003, ¶ 71; see also Ex. 1007, p. 6
`
`(“[i]t is expected that DARC will play the main role in traffic information
`
`services”). In that regard, the DARC FM multiplex broadcasting system provides
`
`many advantages over alternative broadcast systems. Ex. 1003, ¶ 71. In particular,
`
`Ichiura teaches that the DARC FM multiplex broadcasting system includes a
`
`number of beneficial features and advantages that enables “traffic information [to
`
`be] easily transmitted to mobiles such as automobiles.” Ex. 1006, 1:30-35.
`
`For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art was taught that the DARC
`
`FM multiplex broadcasting system was especially suitable for disseminat