Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Date: August 10, 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 IPR2017-00815
`Patent No. 6,480,783 B1
`_______________________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Date: August 10, 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 IPR2017-00815
`Patent No. 6,480,783 B1
`_______________________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`Google, LLC1 (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1 and 3 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,480,783 B1 (“the ’783 patent”). Paper 2. Makor Issues &
`Rights Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6.
`Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter
`partes review of all challenged claims but not on all challenged grounds of
`unpatentability. (Paper 7, “Dec.”).
`During the trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 19, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner also filed a Motion for
`Observations on the Cross-Examination of Dr. Michael S. Braasch (Paper
`22), to which Petitioner responded (Paper 24). An oral hearing was held on
`May 3, 2018, and a copy of the transcript has been made part of the record.
`Paper 27 (“Tr.”).2
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in
`the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). On
`April 26, 2018, the Office issued Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA
`Trial Proceedings, which states that “if the PTAB institutes a trial, the PTAB
`will institute on all challenges raised in the petition.”
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-
`board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial. Subsequently, on May 8, 2018,
`
`
`1 Petitioner submitted an updated mandatory notice indicating that
`“Google Inc., converted from a corporation to a limited liability company
`and changed its name to Google LLC, on September 30, 2017.” Paper 10.
`2 Both parties requested to present arguments collectively for IPR2017-
`00815–818. See Papers 21, 23.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`we issued an Order modifying the Decision on Institution to include review
`of all challenged claims and all grounds presented in the Petition. Paper 26.
`Specifically, the ground challenging claims 1 and 3 as unpatentable based on
`TravTek and Seda under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was included in the trial. Id.; see
`also Paper 28 (ordering supplemental briefing). The parties submitted
`supplemental briefing addressing this added ground – Patent Owner’s
`Supplemental Response (Paper 29, “PO Supp. Resp.”) and thereafter
`Petitioner’s Supplemental Reply (Paper 30, “Pet. Supp. Reply”). The parties
`jointly agreed to waive supplemental oral hearing related to the additional
`issues. See Ex. 3001.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Decision is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the
`claims for which we instituted trial. Based on the final trial record, we
`determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence,
`that claims 1 and 3 of the ’783 patent are unpatentable.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. Real Party in Interest
`Petitioner names itself and Waze Inc. as the real parties-in-interest.
`Pet. 1.
`
`B. The ʼ783 patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ʼ783 patent is titled “Real Time Vehicle Guidance and
`Forecasting System Under Traffic Jam Conditions.” Ex. 1001, (54). The
`’783 patent issued on November 12, 2002, from U.S. Patent Application
`No. 09/528,134 filed on March 17, 2000. Id. at (45), (21), (22).
`The ’783 patent generally relates to “[a] system and method for real
`time vehicle guidance by [a] Central Traffic Unit [(CTU)].” Id. at Abst.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`(57). The Specification describes a vehicle guidance system, which includes
`vehicles equipped with Individual Mobile Units (IMUs) including Global
`Positioning System (GPS) units for determining their present position. Id.
`The IMUs are linked communicatively to the CTU computer server. Id.
`The system uses a group of Sample Mobile Units (SMUs) equipped with RF
`transmitters that communicate their position to the CTU at predetermined
`time intervals. Id. The CTU uses the reported positions of the sample
`vehicles to create and maintain a network of real time traffic load disposition
`information for various geographical areas. Id. The IMUs may use the real
`time traffic load disposition information to determine an optimal travel
`route. Id. As explained in the ’783 patent, “[t]he CTU broadcasts the
`updated traffic data collected from a number of sample vehicles via
`Multicast Broadcasting System thereby enabling the IMUs to dynamically
`update the desired optimal travel routes.” Ex. 1001, 1:10–14.
`The Specification of the ’783 patent also describes the ability to detect
`a bottleneck or traffic jam situation when it arises and to estimate a current
`travel time for a corresponding section of road. Id. at Abst. (57). The
`’783 patent describes three methods for determining travel time over a road
`segment: (i) theoretical travel times, (ii) regular empirical travel times, and
`(iii) current travel times. Ex. 1001, 11:46–12:38. Theoretical travel times
`are based on a calculation of road or section length and maximum speed
`allowed on the section. Id. at 11:46–58. Theoretical travel times are
`replaced by regular empirical travel times after the CTU monitors all SMU
`vehicles and records their travel times along sections of roads. Id. at
`11:59–62. These regular travel times are averaged and transformed into
`empirical speed coefficients and stored in a central database associated with
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`a number of categories such as type of road, day of the week, or month. Id.
`at 11:62–66. After sufficient data has been accumulated to estimate
`accurately regular empirical travel times along a section, the CTU will
`provide those regular empirical travel times rather than theoretical travel
`times. Id. at 12:5–10.
`Current travel times are times obtained from a number of vehicles that
`have recently traveled along a section of road. Ex. 1001, 12:11–22. The
`travel times are monitored in real time and the corresponding data for these
`times are stored in special data structures. Id. The data structures for the
`current travel times contain Exit Lists (EXLs), which are multicasted at short
`time intervals from the CTU to end-user databases and made available for
`use by route-finding routines. Id. at 12:12–22. A goal of the current travel
`time monitoring and use “is to detect bottleneck situations, and to modify
`estimated Current Travel Time (CTT) accordingly.” Id. at 12:29–31. The
`’783 patent describes “[t]he criterion for using CTT rather than Regular
`Travel Times (RTT) for various sections is that EXL contains recent enough
`data.” Id. at 12:31–33.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 is independent and claim 3 is dependent from claim 1. Claim
`1 is illustrative of the claims at issue and reproduced below:
`1. Multi-layer vehicular navigation system, where preferred
`starting point and destination point of the navigation route are
`significantly geographically different from each other, the
`system comprising:
`a wireless communications system for communicating
`with client vehicles, and a computer system operatively
`connected to the communications system, the computer system
`performing a hierarchically computed route search based on
`current and statistical section data by choosing roads with fastest
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`classifications first, the computer system further combining data
`from intermediate layers subsequently and slowest rated roads
`last and then applying predicted road section coefficients
`corresponding to each route section;
`receiving device for collecting GPS data at predetermined
`time intervals from sample vehicles moving within a predefined
`geographical region;
`map database containing digital road maps of a predefined
`geographical region together with predetermined relevant data
`on road factors;
`said computer system operatively connected to the
`communications system capable of processing in real time said
`GPS data and transforming them into appropriately structured
`data suitable for being stored on the computer;
`a database suitable for storing and updating statistical data
`on traffic loads on individual roads;
`statistical application for collecting structured GPS data,
`computing individual statistical travel time estimates (regular
`times) for predetermined roads, and storing the results;
`statistical means application for periodical updating of the
`said statistical data using statistical criteria for determining
`volumes of data necessary for obtaining valid and reliable
`estimates; and
`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.
`Id. at 19:30–20:2.
`
`D. Related Proceedings
`The parties state that the ʼ783 patent is asserted in Makor Issues &
`Rights Ltd. v. Google Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00100 (D. Del.). Pet. 2; Paper
`4. Including the instant proceeding, Petitioner has filed the following related
`petitions:
`
`1. IPR2016-01535 (U.S. Patent No. 6,480,783 B1);
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`2. IPR2016-01536 (U.S. Patent No. 6,615,130 B1);
`3. IPR2016-01537 (U.S. Patent No. 6,615,130 B1);
`4. IPR2017-00815 (U.S. Patent No. 6,480,783 B1);
`5. IPR2017-00816 (U.S. Patent No. 6,480,783 B1);
`6. IPR2017-00817 (U.S. Patent No. 6,480,783 B1);
`7. IPR2017-00818 (U.S. Patent No. 6,615,130 B1).
`E. Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`U.S. Patent No. 6,401,027 B1, filed May 24, 1999, issued June 4,
`2002 (Ex. 1006, “Xu”);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,845,227, filed Feb. 9, 1996, issued Dec. 1, 1998
`(Ex. 1007, “Peterson”);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,519,619, filed Mar. 14, 1994, issued May 21, 1996
`(Ex. 1019, “Seda”);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,475,387, filed Jan. 6, 1995, issued Dec. 12, 1995
`(Ex. 1020, “Matsumoto”); and,
`TravTek System Architecture Evaluation, July 1995 (Ex. 1004,
`“TravTek”).
`Petitioner relies on the declaration and rebuttal declaration of Michael
`S. Braasch, Ph.D. (Exs. 1003, 1023). Patent Owner relies on the
`declarations of Alex A. Kurzhanskiy, Ph.D. (Exs. 2001, 2003). The parties
`rely on other exhibits as discussed below.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`F. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability. See Dec. 31–32, Paper 26, 3.
`References
`Basis
`TravTek and Seda
`§ 103(a)3
`
`Claims Challenged
`1 and 3
`
`Xu, Matsumoto, and
`Peterson
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1 and 3
`
`G. 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); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard). Under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard, and 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
`
`
`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 ’783 patent issued was filed
`before that date, our citations to Title 35 are to its pre-AIA version.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`be read from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988
`F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`Petitioner proposes a construction for two claim terms — “GPS data”
`and “road section coefficients.” Pet. 7–9. In Reply, Petitioner addresses
`whether certain terms are subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6,4 and provides a
`proposed claim interpretation of “traffic jam.” Pet. Reply 1–9, 17–25;
`Paper 11. In turn, Patent Owner proposes a construction of the claim
`limitation “traffic jam” as well as addressing whether certain other terms are
`subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. PO Resp. 5–13; Paper 12. Having
`considered the evidence presented, we determine that only express
`construction of the terms “GPS data,” “traffic jam,” and “road section
`coefficients” are 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”). Additionally, we address the issue of
`whether certain terms are in means-plus-function format.
`1. “GPS data”
`Claim 1 requires a “receiving device for collecting GPS data at
`predetermined time intervals from sample vehicles moving within a
`predefined geographical region.” Ex. 1001, 19:44–46.
`Petitioner contends that “GPS data” means “data that was determined
`using signals received from GPS satellites or that is related to use of such
`
`
`4 On September 20, 2017, the Board requested additional claim construction
`briefing related to whether specific claim limitations should be interpreted
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Paper 9. Petitioner and Patent Owner both
`submitted additional briefing (Papers 11, 12) related to § 112 issues.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`signals.” Pet. 8. Petitioner relies on the Specification, which provides
`examples of GPS data as: “present positions, the position time, their IDs, and
`their speed vectors at specific time intervals.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001,
`2:67–3:3). Petitioner argues that these examples demonstrate that
`information may either be generated from a GPS signal, derived from
`multiple GPS signals over time, or are related to use of such signals. Id.
`
`In our Decision on Institution, we determined that the additional
`language (“or that is related to use of such signals”) is not reasonable.
`Dec. 8–9. Our review of the passage in the ’783 patent cited by Petitioner
`(Ex. 1001, 2:67–3:3) reveals that it discloses how “SMU vehicles
`communicate to CTU their GPS data” and not as Petitioner suggests how the
`GPS data is determined. Dec. 9. Thus, we determined that the additional
`clause Petitioner proposes extends the meaning of GPS data to capture data
`or information in a manner unrelated to the ’783 patent. Id. Neither party
`has challenged our initial determination.
`Based on the final trial record, and for the reasons set forth in the
`Decision on Institution, we construe “GPS data” to mean data that was
`determined using signals received from GPS satellites. See Dec. 9.
`2. “Traffic jam”
`Claim 1 requires “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.” Ex. 1001,
`19:66–20:2.
`Patent Owner’s Contentions
`Patent Owner contends that
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`“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
`typical daily congestion during rush hour, does not qualify as a
`“traffic jam” within the ambit of the ’783 Patent claims.
`PO Resp. 5. Patent Owner asserts that its proposed construction
`distinguishes “traffic jam” and “routine congestion” based on the language
`of claim 1 as well as the Specification. Id. Specifically, Patent Owner
`argues that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`‘statistical travel time estimates (regular times) for predetermined roads’
`would necessarily include regularly-occurring congestion.” Id. Patent
`Owner supports its position by first noting that “claim 1 further goes on to
`recite the computation of ‘traffic jams,’ by using ‘sample vehicles to
`measure time delays,’ which a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand must therefore be distinct from regular, statistical, congestion.”
`Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 7).
`Patent Owner also directs us to column 12 of the ’783 patent that
`distinguishes between the use of “Current Travel Times” and “Regular
`Travel Times” – the former being used when an unpredictable change in
`traffic conditions is detected, but the latter being typically used for route
`guidance using empirical statistical travel times. Id. Patent Owner notes
`that in the absence of a bottleneck, the “Regular Travel Times” will be used
`for route guidance. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 12:35–38, 16:43–45). Patent
`Owner argues that “[i]t is during atypical slowdowns that ‘current travel
`times, which reflect sudden and unpredictable changes in traffic conditions,’
`are used instead of Regular Travel Times.” Id. at 7. Patent Owner points to
`two such examples, “when (1) there is a sufficient number of vehicles
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`reporting a bottleneck in a sufficiently recent time period,” and (2) when
`vehicles have spent considerably more time in a section than a
`corresponding Regular Travel Time. Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:31–38).
`Patent Owner concludes that “[t]he ‘traffic jam’ determination that is
`disclosed and claimed in the ’783 Patent is a determination of an abnormal
`slowdown.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 8–9). Based on its understanding,
`Patent Owner thus defines “traffic jam” as an “unpredictable (irregular or
`abnormal) slowdown of all traffic on a segment during a time frame, relative
`to the regular, statistically established travel time for that segment during
`that time frame.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 10–11).
`Petitioner’s Contentions
`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
`“improperly narrow construction” of traffic jam. Id. at 1. Petitioner argues
`that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is also not supported by the
`Specification, not supported by extrinsic evidence, and is inconsistent with
`Patent Owner’s own expert testimony. Id. at 1–7.
`
`Petitioner first contends that Patent Owner’s construction is improper
`“because it is narrower than Makor’s assertions during litigation.” Id. at 1.
`Petitioner next argues that the Specification does not provide a lexicographer
`definition for “traffic jam,” and further does not articulate the outermost
`boundaries for “traffic jam.” Id. at 2–3. Petitioner contends that the
`Specification’s discussion of “Current Travel Times” and “bottlenecks”
`cannot be used to import limitations into the claim term “traffic jam”
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`because the claim language does not refer to the former two terms. Id.
`Also, Petitioner argues that, although “traffic jam” and “bottleneck” may be
`overlapping, they are not otherwise coextensive because the “patent uses
`‘traffic jam’ and ‘bottleneck’ side-by-side in the same sentence.” Id. at 3–4
`(citing Ex. 1001, Abst. (“information on current traffic jams and slow-down
`bottleneck situations”)). Thus, according to Petitioner, “[e]ven if it was
`legally proper to construe ‘traffic jam’ and ‘bottleneck’ as coextensive
`(which it is not), the narrow constructions still could only be proper if the
`outermost limits of ‘bottleneck’ were narrowly limited [as] it is sometimes
`used in the preferred embodiment.” Id. at 4. Even still, Petitioner notes that
`the term “bottleneck” would also have to be construed according to its
`ordinary meaning, which Petitioner maintains is far broader than the narrow
`constructions. Id.
`
`According to Petitioner, the claim language does not impart a special
`meaning to “traffic jam” because the claim “simply recites ‘computing
`individual statistical travel time estimates,’ a computation which is
`necessary regardless which construction is applied.” Id. at 5 (citing
`Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 10–11). Next, Petitioner argues “the claimed ‘automatic
`identification of real time traffic conditions’ makes no reference to using the
`‘individual statistical travel time estimates.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001,
`12:26–35). Thus, according to Petitioner, “the claim is necessarily broader
`than solely contemplating a comparison of real time traffic to statistical
`travel times to identify traffic jams.” Id.
`Finally, Petitioner relies on dictionary definitions of “traffic jam” to
`argue the ordinary meaning encompasses any significant slowdown, such as
`“congestion, and resultant stoppage, of traffic, e.g. at a busy junction.” Pet.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`Reply 6 (quoting Ex. 1031, 4). Petitioner points out that Patent Owner’s
`expert similarly agreed that, in ordinary contexts, “traffic jam” would
`encompass “historical congestion or realtime congestion that also had a
`historical analog.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1028 and Ex. 1030, 19:16–20:17).
`Discussion
`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 as to the scope of “traffic jam”
`is focused on whether the term should be construed in a broader lay sense as
`proposed by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 5–7) or whether the term should be
`construed in accordance with the more specific descriptions found in the
`Specification as proposed by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 5–10). 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 to the definition. PO Resp. 8. If a
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`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). 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.
`We first examine the claim as a whole with a focus on the disputed
`language. The claim language itself requires “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.” Ex. 1001, 19:66–20:2 (emphasis added). By
`qualifying the claimed traffic jam as being determined in real time, and by
`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.,
`real time, than the regular, statistical, congestion described in the ’783
`patent. PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 7) (“[C]laim 1 further goes on to
`recite the computation of ‘traffic jams,’ by using ‘sample vehicles to
`measure time delays,’ which a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand must therefore be distinct from regular, statistical, congestion.”).
`The claim also requires “collecting structured GPS data” and “computing
`individual statistical travel time estimates (regular times) for predetermined
`roads.” Ex. 1001, 21:21–24. 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. 2003 ¶ 7.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`The Specification confirms our interpretation. For example, the
`Specification describes a “real time traffic Guidance System, which is
`capable of providing [an] optimal route from the present position of a
`vehicle to a desired target destination when traffic jams may be present.” Id.
`at 2:13–21. The Specification also describes “a true real time system” that
`collects and stores three types of data, including: (1) temporary changes in
`road conditions, (2) regular predictable changes such as everyday
`slowdowns in rush hour, and (3) “[s]udden unpredictable changes such [as]
`traffic accidents, traffic congestion due to sudden and drastic changes in
`traffic arrangements.” Id. at 2:36–48. The Specification describes “Travel
`Times Data” 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 9:47–10:7. 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
`sudden and unexpected circumstances which might drastically influence
`traffic conditions.” Id. at 10:37–50 (emphasis added). As explained in the
`Specification, “[t]his last feature provides the present invention with truly
`real time capabilities.” Id. Based on these descriptions, the term “traffic
`jam” is meant to convey real time traffic conditions arising from sudden and
`unexpected circumstances that might drastically 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
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`everyday slowdowns in rush hour. Id. at 11:59–12:10. 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 11:60–12:4,
`12:31–33. The regular travel time described in the Specification
`corresponds to the claim limitation of “collecting structured GPS data,
`computing individual statistical travel time estimates (regular times) for
`predetermined roads, and storing the results.” Id. at 21:21–24. This
`language specifically ties the regular time value to a “predetermined road,”
`and additional claim limitations require storing the results of the regular
`times according to subdivisions based on time factors. As discussed below,
`regular times are used to determine whether a traffic jam situation exists.
`The Specification further describes detecting a “bottleneck situation,”
`which we determine is used synonymously with “traffic jam.” Id. at 12:26–
`38. For example, the Abstract describes updating travel times based on
`“new information on current traffic jams and slow-down bottlenecks.” Id. at
`Abst. The Specification uses the terms “traffic jam” and “slow-down
`bottleneck” in the same context to convey situations where sample vehicles
`have spent considerably more time than “a regular time stored in the
`database.” Ex. 1001, Abst., 12:36–37 (“considerably more time on S than
`the corresponding [Regular Travel Times] RTT”). In one embodiment for
`detecting a bottleneck, or traffic jam, a “Current Travel Time” (CTT) is used
`and compared to the “Regular Travel Time” (RTT) when a time interval is
`“short enough to consider the detected bottleneck to be current” and when
`each vehicle “has spent considerably more time” on a segment “than the
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`corresponding RTT.” Id. at 12:29–38. Such a situation is “interpreted as a
`bottleneck” or traffic jam. Id.
`The traffic jam discussion in the Background of the Invention is not
`particularly probative of how that term should be construed in the context of
`the ’783 patent. The background explains how another patent (U.S. Patent
`No. 5,699,056) defines a situation as a jam. See Ex. 1001, 1:48–52 (“defines
`a situation as a jam if the average speed is less than a predetermined value”).
`The context makes clear that the ’783 patent distinguishes how it determines
`a traffic jam compared to the ’056 patent. See id. at 1:53–2:10 (“solution
`contains a number of problematic points that require further development”
`and “[a]verage speeds will in this case give no indication of this dynamic
`change, the same being true of a dissipating jam”). We do not view the
`discussion of “a jam” in the Background of the Invention as particularly
`helpful in determining the scope of the claim term “traffic jam” because that
`description also dissuades using average speeds that are “incapable of
`catching a trend.” Id. at 2:7.
`Thus, the Specification consistently equates a traffic jam to situations
`where sudden and unpredictable changes in traffic conditions result in
`considerably more time spent on a segment, as compared to regular times.
`See id. at Abst., 2:43–45, 10:5–7, 10:37–43, 12:36–37. Based on the
`Specification discussed above, and reading claim 1 as a whole, we determine
`that “traffic jam identification” based on measured time delays of sample
`vehicles requires a baseline “regular time” for comparison to determine
`whether or not a traffic jam condition exists. Based on the final trial record,
`we construe “traffic jam,” broadly, but reasonably, as a sudden
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00815
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`unpredictable change of traffic in a segment as compared to regular times,
`i.e., individual statistical travel time estimates.
`3. “predicted road section coefficients”
`Claim 1 requires “applying predicted road section coefficients
`corresponding to each route section.” Ex. 1001, 19:42–43.
`Relying on the testimony of Dr. Braasch, Petitioner contends that this
`claim limitation should be interpreted as “coefficients associated with road
`sections in a route search.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). Petitioner points
`out that the “patent specification never mentions the term ‘road section
`coefficient’ (and thus does not provide a lexicographic definition for the
`phrase), but it does refer to several other types of coefficients.” Id.
`Petitioner notes that the Specification discusses:
`• “traffic volume coefficients” (Ex. 1001, 8:23–25);
`• “speed coefficients” which include “empirical speed coefficients” and
`“theoretical speed coefficients” (id. at 9:48–55; 10:29–36; 11:26–34;
`11:62–65”); and,
`• “new time coefficie
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
