Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`Entered: February 12, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`__________________________________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`Entered: February 12, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`__________________________________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Google, LLC, (“Petitioner”),1 filed a Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311–319 requesting inter partes review of claims 1–4 (the “challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,615,130 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’130 patent”).
`Paper 2. Patent Owner, Makor Issues & Rights Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed
`a Preliminary Response. Paper 7. Upon consideration of the information
`presented in the Petition, we determined that there was a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with at least one challenged claim,
`and instituted this trial, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), as to claims 1–4 of
`the ’130 patent. Paper 9 (“Decision on Institution” or “Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 16,
`“Reply”). We ordered (Paper 21) the parties to concurrently submit a claim
`construction brief addressing whether any limitation of the challenged
`claims is subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Papers 25, 26. A transcript of the oral
`hearing held on October 19, 2017, has been entered into the record as Paper
`27 (“Tr.”).2
`This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–4 of the
`’130 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner submitted an updated mandatory notice indicating that Google
`Inc., changed its name to Google LLC on September 30, 2017. Paper 24.
`2 Both parties requested to present arguments collectively for IPR2016-
`01535, IPR2016-01536, and IPR2016-01537. Paper 19, 20, 22, and 27.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Petitioner names itself and Waze Inc. as the real parties-in-interest.
`Pet. 2.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties state that the ʼ130 patent has been asserted in Makor
`Issues & Rights Ltd. v. Google Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00100 (D. Del.). Pet.
`2; Paper 6, 1. Petitioner filed additional petitions challenging the
`patentability of the ’130 patent and a related patent:
`1.
`IPR2016-01535 (U.S. Patent No. 6,480,783)
`2.
`IPR2016-01536 (U.S. Patent No. 6,615,130)
`3.
`IPR2017-00815 (U.S. Patent No. 6,480,783)
`4.
`IPR2017-00816 (U.S. Patent No. 6,480,783)
`5.
`IPR2017-00817 (U.S. Patent No. 6,480,783)
`6.
`IPR2017-00818 (U.S. Patent No. 6,615,130)
`
`
`
`
`
`C. The ʼ130 patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ʼ130 patent is titled “Real Time Vehicle Guidance and Traffic
`Forecasting System.” Ex. 1001, (54). The ’130 patent issued on September
`2, 2003, from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/800,116 filed on March 6,
`2001, and is a continuation-in-part of application No. 09/528,134, filed on
`March 17, 2000. Id. at (45), (21), (22), and (63).
`The ’130 patent relates generally to “communication with vehicles for
`the purpose of supplying traffic condition information and analyzing data
`relating to traffic conditions.” Id. at 1:14–16. The specification describes a
`vehicle guidance system, which includes the Central Traffic Unit (“CTU”)
`and a fleet of vehicles or Mobile Guidance Units (“MGUs”), “i.e., traveling
`vehicles with mobile phones connected to the communication system.” Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`at 3:27–29. Vehicle position is monitored using a wireless technology, e.g.,
`“GSM/GPS” while the vehicle is moving, and “by concurrent measuring of
`their current travel times along a broad range of roads.” Id. at 3:35–36. The
`vehicle driver may request route guidance reflecting the fastest route to a
`destination, as well as an updated route based on real time traffic
`information as illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced below. Id. at 3:37–49.
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates information exchange in the guidance system.
`The CTU collects traffic congestion data using the location of MGUs
`mounted in a fleet of vehicles traveling throughout a broad range of road
`systems. Id. at 6:45–49. The location data is stored “on the GSM Network
`Server in Multiple-GPS Locator Packet (MGLP).” Id. at 6:49–51. The CTU
`processes the location data, converts into travel time data, and stores the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`travel time data in the database for use as regular travel time data and current
`travel time data, and for use in calculating the fastest route. Id. at 6:54–57.
`Updating of planned routes in the CTU is accomplished using “both
`statistical (empirical) travel times and current travel times.” Id. at 11:6–8.
`The ’130 patent discloses that current travel times are utilized in the vicinity
`of the present vehicle location and statistical travel times elsewhere. Id. at
`11:20–23. The ’130 patent also discloses that geographic areas may be
`subdivided into subregions, referred to as zones. Id. at 11:24–31. As a
`vehicle enters a zone, the IMU database receives updated information
`pertaining to traffic load in the neighborhood. Id. at 11:33–37. Updating of
`relevant traffic jam information is accomplished based on local zones. Id. at
`11:49–50.
`The ’130 patent describes three techniques for determining travel time
`over a road segment based on factors categorized as (i) generally stable
`changes in road conditions, (ii) regular or predictable changes in road
`conditions, and (iii) sudden unpredictable changes in road conditions. Ex.
`1001, 11:52–12:11. Theoretical travel times are based on a calculation of
`road or section length and maximum speed allowed on the section. Id. at
`11:52–67. Statistical or empirical travel times are considered better
`approximations to reality than theoretical travel times because factors in the
`second category of regular predictable changes in road conditions are taken
`into account. Id. at 12:28–32. The statistical or empirical travel times are
`averaged, transformed into empirical speed coefficients, and stored in a
`central database. Id. at 12:35–42. Eventually, theoretical travel times are
`replaced by statistical or empirical travel times. Id. To account for traffic
`conditions arising from sudden and unexpected circumstances, which result
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`in excessive travel times, these slowdowns “are identified and stored in the
`database for a limited period of time,” and utilized to provide real time
`capabilities. Id. at 12:51–52.
`Utilizing GSM/GPS or other wireless technologies, the CTU tracks
`the positions of MGUs and updates in real time the database of travel times
`for all roads. Id. at 12:57–60. The ’130 patent discloses that
`[i]n response to a request from a driver for a route update from
`his present position to a desired location, it calculates the desired
`fastest route by utilizing both the regular travel times along
`segments of roads and predicted current travel times found by
`using information collected from tracking routines. Thereafter,
`the route is communicated to the driver.
`Id. at 12:60–66.
`The ’130 patent discloses that rapid, unpredictable changes in road
`conditions may be accounted for in calculating real time optimal routes. Id.
`at 13:36–40. As described in the ’130 patent, the guidance system maintains
`special data structures associated with certain road types that make it
`possible to store information about changed traffic conditions and use the
`information for predicting future traffic conditions within a short time range
`by using travel times of vehicles that have recently left the corresponding
`section in the CTU database. Id. Additionally, the ’130 patent describes a
`method for route planning referred to as algorithm Z that “utilizes
`stratification of road networks into a hierarchy of layers, executes searches
`separately on each layer, and then combines the obtained results to produce a
`solution route.” Id. at 16:60–64. According to the ’130 patent, use of
`algorithm Z for route planning “leads to considerable reduction in search
`times.” Id. at 16:63–64.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 is independent and claims 2–4 depend therefrom. Claim 1 is
`illustrative of the claims at issue and is reproduced below:
`1. A system for real time vehicle guidance and forecasting travel
`times within a predetermined
`travel region, the system
`comprising:
`central traffic unit (CTU), mobile guidance units (MGU), and
`communication system (COS)
`the COS providing wireless communications for communicating
`with client vehicles;
`the CTU operatively connected to the communications system,
`the CTU performing a computed route search based on
`current and statistical section data;
`a receiving device for collecting GPS data at predetermined time
`intervals
`from sample vehicles moving within
`the
`predetermined travel region, and operatively connected to the
`CTU;
`said CTU operatively connected to the communications system
`capable of processing in real time said GPS data and
`transforming them into appropriately structured data;
`a database suitable for storing and updating statistical data on
`traffic parameters on at least a limited number of individual
`roads as sensed by the sample vehicles;
`computational tools for automatic identification of real time
`traffic jam conditions at various locations of the individual
`roads by utilizing the sample vehicles for measuring time
`delays; and
`the central traffic unit further comprising:
`a map database containing digital road maps of a predetermined
`geographical region together with predetermined relevant
`data on road factors, including data on speed limits, road
`capacity,
`road
`intersections,
`and
`street directional
`designations;
`a server for processing the location data received from MGUs
`and transforming them into structured data suitable for
`storage;
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`
`a database suitable for storing and updating statistical data on
`traffic parameters on at least a limited number of individual
`roads as sensed by the sample vehicles;
`a table of administrator wherein said statistical data is further
`subdivided according to time into subdivisions;
`statistical application for collecting said structured data,
`computing individual statistical travel time estimates for at
`least said limited number of individual roads, and storing the
`results in the table of administrator according to said
`subdivisions;
`statistical application for collecting structured GPS data,
`computing individual statistical travel time estimates (regular
`times) for predetermined roads, and storing the results, the
`statistical application periodically updating the statistical data
`using statistical criteria for determining volumes of data
`necessary for obtaining valid and reliable estimates, the
`estimates having a predetermined validity;
`computational tools for dividing said geographical region into a
`number of smaller geographical zones for reducing volumes
`of traffic parameter data broadcast to client vehicles;
`software for calculation of said current travel times in traffic
`congestion based on said travel time traffic updates, thereby
`minimizing reliance on vehicle speed estimates, thereby
`increasing the reliability and stability of resulting statistical
`estimates; and
`software for calculation of fastest travel routes using said current
`travel time estimates in the zones contiguous to the vehicle
`while using statistical travel times in the zones situated further
`from the vehicle.
`Id. at 19:31–20:34.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Date
`July, 1995
`
`Exhibits
`1004
`
`1997
`
`1005
`
`1010
`
`Nov. 17,
`1992
`Dec. 3, 1998 1011
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`
`D. Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`References Patents
`TravTek
`TravTek System Architecture
`Evaluation by U.S. Dept. of
`Transportation, Pub. No.
`FHWA-RD-94-141 (July, 1995).
`Roozemond Danko A. Roozemond, Forecasting
`Travel Times Based on Actuated
`and Historic Data.
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,164,904
`
`Sumner
`
`PCT Pat. Pub. WO 98/54682
`
`Booth
`
`Additionally, Petitioner relies on the declaration and rebuttal
`declaration of Michael S. Braasch, Ph.D. (Exs. 1003, 1026) and Patent
`Owner relies on the declaration of Alex A. Kurzhanskiy, Ph. D. (Ex. 2002).
`The parties rely on other exhibits as discussed below.
`
`
`E. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`unpatentability (Dec. 27):
`References
`TravTek, Sumner, and
`Roozemond
`TravTek, Sumner, Roozemond,
`and Booth
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`Basis
`§ 103(a)3 1, 3, and 4
`
`§ 103(a) 2
`
`
`3 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the application from which the ’130 patent issued was filed
`before that date, our citations to Title 35 are to its pre-AIA version.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Legal Principles
`In inter partes reviews, petitioner bears the burden of proving
`unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never
`shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail in this proceeding,
`Petitioner must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35
`U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). Accordingly, all of our findings and
`conclusions are based on a preponderance of the evidence.
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) 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 said subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness 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; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`We analyze the following ground based on obviousness in accordance
`with the above-stated principles.
`
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Braasch, testifies
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have had a combination of experience and education in
`electrical engineering and navigation systems. This typically
`would consist of a minimum of a bachelor degree in electrical
`engineering or a related engineering field plus 2-5 years of work
`and/or research experience in the field of electrical engineering
`and its subfield of navigation systems.
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner does not opine on the level of ordinary skill in
`the art. See generally PO Resp.
`As such, we adopt generally Petitioner’s assessment of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art. Namely, we find that the person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have (1) a bachelor of science in electrical engineering or a
`related engineering field, and (2) 2–5 years of experience in the field of
`navigation systems.
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that Congress
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`enacting the AIA”), aff’d, Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131
`(2016); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766
`(Aug. 14, 2012). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`absent any special definitions, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms or
`phrases must be set forth 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. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`(Fed. Cir. 1993).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “GPS data” (Pet.
`9–10); “computational tools for dividing said geographical region into a
`number of smaller geographical zones for reducing volumes of traffic
`parameter data broadcast to client vehicles” (id. at 10–11) and “software for
`calculation of said current travel times in traffic congestion based on said
`travel time traffic updates, thereby minimizing reliance on vehicle speed
`estimates; thereby increasing the reliability and stability of resulting
`statistical estimates” (id. at 11–12). Patent Owner does not challenge
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions in its Patent Owner Response. PO Resp.
`4–7. Instead, Patent Owner proposes a construction for the term “traffic
`jam.” Id.
`Additionally, Petitioner asserts that some claim elements “recite
`purely functional software untethered from any tangible medium” and may
`be subject to construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, but does not otherwise
`identify these claim terms or proffer a construction. Pet. 12. Based on this
`assertion, we requested that the parties submit additional claim construction
`briefing as to whether claim terms such as “receiving device for,”
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`“computational tools for automatic identification of real time traffic jam
`conditions,” “statistical application for collecting structured GPS data,” and
`“statistical application for collecting said structured data” could potentially
`fall within the realm of § 112 ¶ 6. Paper 21. Specifically, whether
`“receiving device for,” “computational tools for,” and “statistical application
`for” could potentially be “nonce” words––serving the same purpose of
`“means.” Id. at 4–6. The parties each submitted briefing (Papers 25, 26).
`Petitioner argues that we need not reach the § 112 ¶ 6 issue because such
`determination would have no effect in resolving this controversy. Paper 25,
`8. Patent Owner argues that none of these terms “contains the word
`‘means,’ and thus none of the terms carry a presumption that 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112 ¶ 6 may apply.” Paper 26, 2. Having reviewed the parties’ additional
`claim construction positions in light of the record developed during trial, we
`agree that construction of these terms is not necessary to resolve the present
`controversy.
`Having considered the evidence presented, we determine that express
`construction of the term “traffic jam” is necessary for purposes of this
`Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be construed that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`Claim 1 recites “computational tools for automatic identification of
`real time traffic jam conditions.” Ex. 1001, 19:53–54 (“automatic
`identification of real time traffic jam limitation”). Patent Owner argues:
`‘traffic jam’ means an abnormal slowdown or bottleneck – one
`that is worse than a statistically computed, regular travel time on
`a section of a route. A typical or routine slowdown, e.g., the
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`
`typical daily congestion during rush hour, does not qualify as a
`‘traffic jam’ within the ’130 Patent.
`PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner asserts that its proposed construction
`distinguishes between a “traffic jam” and “routine congestion” based on the
`language of claim 1 as well as the Specification. Id. at 4–5. Specifically,
`Patent Owner argues that the recitation in claim 1 of “a database suitable for
`storing and updating statistical data on traffic parameters . . . as sensed by
`the sample vehicles,” would include regularly occurring traffic congestion.
`Id. (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 6–7).
`
`Patent Owner also directs us to the Specification of the ’130 patent,
`which distinguishes between normal congestion and abnormal traffic
`conditions in its discussion of “Current Travel Times.” PO Resp. 5. For
`example, Current Travel times are used
`when (1) there is a sufficient number of vehicles reporting a
`bottleneck in a sufficiently recent time period and, (2) when
`‘each of [the vehicles] has spent considerably more time on [a
`section] S than the corresponding [Regular Travel Time], then
`the situation can be interpreted as a bottleneck on the section S.’
`Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 14:59-61). Otherwise, Regular Travel Times are
`utilized for route guidance. Id. Relying on the testimony of Dr.
`Kurzhanskiy, Patent Owner explains that “[o]nly during atypical slowdowns
`are ‘current travel times, which reflect sudden and unpredictable changes in
`traffic conditions,’ used instead of Regular Travel Times.” Id. at 5–6 (citing
`Ex. 2002 ¶ 9). Patent Owner also directs us to the passage in the
`Specification describing the requirement that each vehicle must have
`experienced a specified slowdown. Id. at 6–7 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:1–6).
` Based on its understanding, Patent Owner defines “traffic jam” as an
`“unpredictable (irregular or abnormal) slowdown of all traffic on a segment
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`during a time frame, relative to the regular, statistically established travel
`time for that segment during that time frame.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶
`10–11).
`Petitioner did not propose a construction for the term “traffic jam” in
`its Petition, but addresses Patent Owner’s position in its Reply. See Pet.
`Reply 1–8. Petitioner contends that we should adopt the “plain and
`ordinary” meaning of “traffic jam,” and that Patent Owner has proposed an
`“overly-narrow construction of ‘traffic jam.’” Id. at 1; Tr. 10:15–17.
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is not supported
`by the Specification, extrinsic evidence, and it is inconsistent with Patent
`Owner’s own expert testimony. Pet. Reply 1. Petitioner notes that Patent
`Owner proposed a different construction in the related district court
`litigation. Id. (citing Ex. 1031, 13).
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s construction is overly narrow
`and not supported by the Specification of the ’130 patent or extrinsic
`evidence. Id. Specifically, that Patent Owner’s interpretation is factually
`and legally erroneous because (1) “[t]he ’130 patent does not provide a
`lexicographer’s definition of ‘traffic jam’” (id. at 2); (2) “[t]he plain
`language of claim 1 does not impart a specialized meaning onto the term
`‘traffic jam”’ (id. at 6); and (3) Patent Owner’s “construction is inconsistent
`with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘traffic jam”’ (id. at 7).
`Although Petitioner does not provide a specific definition of “traffic
`jam,” (Tr. 10:15–17) Petitioner indicated at oral argument that “the idea that
`a traffic jam, which I think is consistent with the claimed ordinary meaning
`of the term, can be identified as a comparison between what is currently
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`going on and some set of expectations defined in some way but can also be
`defined as any predetermined value.” Tr. 8:11–15.
`In construing the claims, our analysis begins with, and remains
`centered on, the language of the claims themselves. See Interactive Gift
`Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`“‘[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be
`interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest
`reasonable interpretation.’” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802 (Fed. Cir.
`1983) (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548 (CCPA 1976)). “T]he
`broadest reasonable interpretation must be reasonable in light of the claims
`and specification.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF,
`LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The broadest reasonable
`interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation, our
`construction “cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
`evidence.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`The disagreement between the parties centers on whether “traffic jam”
`should be construed in a broader lay sense as proposed by Petitioner or
`whether the term should be construed in accordance with the more specific
`descriptions found in the Specification, as proposed by Patent Owner. As
`addressed in more detail below, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s
`proposed claim construction in whole because it adds unnecessary
`ambiguity. For example, “irregular or abnormal” do not add clarity or
`meaning to the definition. If a feature is not necessary to give meaning to
`what the inventor means by a claim term, it would be “extraneous” and
`should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per
`Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The
`Specification, however, does convey that the term “traffic jam” is not used
`in a layman’s sense, but instead used as a description of a situation arising
`from a data comparison meeting certain criteria as discussed below.
`Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the discussion regarding “a jam” in
`the Background of the Invention is not particularly probative of how that
`term should be construed in the context of the ’130 patent. The background
`explains how another patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,699,056 (“the ’056 patent”))
`defines a situation as “a jam.” See Ex. 1001, 1:38–43. The context makes
`clear that the ’130 patent distinguishes how it determines a traffic jam as
`compared to the ’056 patent. See id. at 1:43–64. Namely, that the ’056
`patent averages vehicle speeds over a block, and the average value may be
`inaccurate because the speed value of the vehicles may be zero. Id. at 1:59–
`61. Thus, we do not view the discussion of “a jam” in the Background of
`the Invention with respect to another patent as particularly helpful in
`determining the scope of the claim term “traffic jam” as to the ’130 patent.
`We next examine the claim as a whole, focusing on the disputed
`language. The claim language itself requires “computational tools for
`automatic identification of real time traffic jam conditions.” Ex. 1001,
`19:53–54 (emphasis added). By qualifying the claimed traffic jam as being
`determined in real time, and by also using “sample vehicles for measuring
`time delays,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`traffic jams are more immediate, e.g., in real time, than the regular,
`statistical, congestion described in the ’130 patent. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 7
`(“[C]laim 1 further goes on to recite the automatic identification of ‘traffic
`jams,’ by using ‘the sample vehicles for measuring time delays,’ which a
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand must therefore be
`distinct from regular, statistical, congestion.”). Claim 1 also requires, among
`other elements, “a receiving device for collecting GPS data at predetermined
`time intervals moving within the predetermined region,” and “computing
`individual statistical travel time estimates (regular times) for predetermined
`roads.” Ex. 1001, 19:41–42, 20:12–13; Tr. 27:16–29:17. Reading the claim
`as a whole suggests that a “traffic jam” must be a sudden unpredictable
`change of traffic on a segment as compared to these regular times. See Ex.
`2002 ¶ 7.
`The Specification confirms our interpretation. For example, the
`Specification describes “a real time vehicle Guidance System is capable of
`providing optimal route from the present position of a vehicle to a desired
`target destination when traffic jams may be present.” Ex. 1001, 2:54–57.
`The Specification also describes “a true real time system” that collects and
`stores three types of data, including: (1) “temporary changes in road
`conditions known in advance,” (2) regular predictable changes such as
`everyday slowdowns in rush hour, and (3) “sudden unpredictable changes
`such [as] traffic accidents, traffic congestion due to sudden and drastic
`changes in traffic arrangements.” Id. at 3:14–22. The Specification
`describes “Travel Times Data” as similarly separated into three categories,
`including a third category of “[s]udden unpredictable changes such [as]
`traffic accidents, traffic congestion due to sudden and drastic changes in
`whether [sic] conditions, etc.” Id. at 12:9–11. The third category of data is
`meant to encompass traffic jam situations because the Specification further
`describes, “[a]s to factors in the third category, it appears that even empirical
`travel times may be unsuitable for describing traffic conditions arising from
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`sudden and unexpected circumstances which might drastically influence
`traffic conditions.” Id. at 12:43–47 (emphasis added). As explained in the
`Specification, “[t]his last feature provides the present invention with truly
`real time capabilities.” Id. at 12:54–57. Based on these descriptions in the
`Specification, we understand that the term “traffic jam” is used to convey
`real time traffic conditions arising from sudden and unexpected
`circumstances tending to influence traffic conditions.
`Moreover, the Specification describes using GPS data of vehicles to
`obtain “Regular Empirical Travel Times,” which are described as times
`correlated to regular predictable changes for a particular segment, such as
`everyday slowdowns in rush hour. Id. at 14:15–33. The Specification
`teaches that data from regular travel times may be stored in a central
`database and attached to sections of roads according to a number of
`categories, such as type of road or day of the week. Id. at 14:18–26. The
`regular travel time described in the Specification corresponds to the claim
`limitation of a receiving device for collecting GPS data at predetermined
`time intervals moving within the predetermined region, and collecting
`structured GPS data for “computing individual statistical travel time
`estimates (regular times) for predetermined roads.” Id. at 19:41–43, 20:12–
`13.
`The Specification further describes detecting a “bottleneck situation
`when it arises and to estimate a current travel time for corresponding section
`of road,” which we determine is used synonymously with “traffic jam.” Id.
`at Abstract. The Specification uses the term “bottleneck” in a similar
`context to convey situations where sample vehicles have spent considerably
`more time than “a regular time stored in the database.” Id. In one
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01537
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`embodiment for detecting a bottlen
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
