`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 25
`Date: August 9, 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 IPR2017-00816
`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 IPR2017-00816
`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 4 and 6 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. (Paper 13, “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”). An oral hearing was held on May 3,
`
`2018, and a copy of the transcript has been made part of the record. Paper
`
`24 (“Tr.”).2
`
`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 4 and 6 of the ’783 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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, 22.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Real Party in Interest
`
`Petitioner names itself and Waze Inc. as the real parties-in-interest.
`
`Pet. 2.
`
`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.
`
`(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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`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 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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`’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 4 is independent and illustrative of the claims at issue:
`
`4. Client mobile unit guidance system for motor vehicles, the
`system comprising computing units capable of updating current
`travel times tables, predicted or estimated travel times tables and
`statistical travel times data tables continuously or according to
`predetermined time intervals from a central traffic unit, wherein
`the systems further includes:
`
`receiving device for allowing collection of 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;
`
`the
`to
`connected
`system operatively
`computer
`said
`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 real time traffic jam identification at
`various locations of the individual roads by utilizing the sample
`vehicles for measuring time delays,
`
`wherein the received data are used for estimating statistical
`models of traffic situations, and the client mobile units are
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`provided with optimal travel routes based on those statistical
`models.
`
`Id. at 21:1–35. Claim 6 depends from claim 4. Id. at 22:10–16.
`
`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. 2–3;
`
`Paper 4, 1. Including the instant proceeding, Petitioner has filed the
`
`following related petitions:
`
`1. IPR2016-01535 (U.S. Patent No. 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”);
`
`TravTek System Architecture Evaluation, July 1995 (Ex. 1004,
`
`“TravTek”);
`
`Danko A. Roozemond, Forecasting Travel Times Based on Actuated
`
`and Historic Data (1997) (Ex. 1005, “Roozemond”);
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`Brian L. Smith and Michael J. Demetsky, Short-Term Traffic Flow
`
`Prediction: Neural Network Approach, Transportation Research Record,
`
`1994 (Ex. 1019, “Smith”); and,
`
`A.T. Vemuri and M. M. Polycarpou, Short-Term Forecasting of
`
`Traffic Delays in Highway Construction Zones Using On-Line
`
`Approximators, Mathematical and Computer Modelling Vol. 27 (1998)
`
`(Ex. 1020, “Vemuri”).
`
`Petitioner relies on the declaration and rebuttal declaration of Michael
`
`S. Braasch, Ph.D. (Exs. 1003, 1034). Patent Owner relies on the
`
`declarations of Alex A. Kurzhanskiy, Ph.D. (Exs. 2001, 2003). The parties
`
`rely on other exhibits as discussed below.
`
`F. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Dec. 31–32):
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`TravTek and Smith
`
`§ 103(a)3
`
`TravTek, Smith, and
`Roozemond
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`4
`
`6
`
`Xu, Vemuri, and
`Peterson
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`4 and 6
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`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
`
`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 one claim term — “GPS data.”
`
`Pet. 8–10. 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, 18–25. In turn, Patent Owner proposes a
`
`construction of the claim limitation “traffic jam,” and Patent Owner also
`
`addresses whether certain other terms are subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. PO
`
`Resp. 4–13. Having considered the evidence presented, we determine that
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`only express construction of the terms “GPS data” and “traffic jam” 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 4 requires a “receiving device for allowing collection of GPS
`
`data at predetermined time intervals from sample vehicles moving within a
`
`predefined geographical region.” Ex. 1001, 21:7–9.
`
`Petitioner contends that “GPS data” means “data that was determined
`
`using signals received from GPS satellites or that is related to use of such
`
`signals.” Pet. 9. 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 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
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`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 therefore, we construe “GPS data” to mean data
`
`that was determined using signals received from GPS satellites. See Dec. 9.
`
`2. “Traffic jam”
`
`Claim 4 requires “computational tools for real time traffic jam
`
`identification at various locations of the individual roads by utilizing the
`
`sample vehicles for measuring time delays.” Ex. 1001, 21:29–31.
`
`Patent Owner’s Contentions
`
`Patent Owner contends that
`
`“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. 4–5. Patent Owner asserts that its proposed construction
`
`distinguishes “traffic jam” and “routine congestion” based on the language
`
`of claim 4 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. at 5. Patent
`
`Owner supports its position by first noting that “claim 4 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. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 7).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`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. at 5–6. Patent Owner
`
`notes that in the absence of a bottleneck, the “Regular Travel Times” will be
`
`used for route guidance. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 12:31–38, 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 6. Patent Owner points to
`
`two such examples, “when (1) there is a sufficient number of vehicles
`
`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. (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 6 (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; see also 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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`“improperly narrow construction” of traffic jam. Id. at 1. Petitioner argues
`
`that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is also not supported by the
`
`Specification, extrinsic evidence, and it 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 2.
`
`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 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”
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`individual statistical travel time estimates,’ a computation which is
`
`necessary regardless which construction is applied.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex.
`
`1034 ¶ 10). 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 “congestion, and resultant
`
`stoppage, of traffic, e.g. at a busy junction,” (Ex. 1031, 4) “a number of
`
`vehicles so obstructed that they can scarcely move,” (Ex. 1032, 3), and “a
`
`long line of vehicles on a road that cannot move, or that can only move very
`
`slowly,” (Ex. 1033, 3). Pet. Reply 7. 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 7 (citing Ex. 1029 and Ex. 1030, 19:16–20:17).
`
`Apart from arguing “the term must be given its ordinary meaning,” (Pet.
`
`Reply 5) and providing various dictionary definitions set forth above,
`
`Petitioner does not explicitly provide any definition for “traffic jam” or
`
`explain what the ordinary meaning should be within the bounds of the
`
`Specification. See generally Pet. Reply.
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`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. 4–10). 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. 7. 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). 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 real
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`time traffic jam identification at various locations of the individual roads by
`
`utilizing the sample vehicles for measuring time delays.” Ex. 1001, 21:29–
`
`31 (emphasis added). By qualifying the claimed traffic jam as being
`
`determined in real time, and by using “sample vehicles to measure 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. 5 (“[C]laim 4 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.”)
`
`(citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 7). 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`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
`
`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 as 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
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`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 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 4 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 unpredictable
`
`change of traffic in a segment as compared to regular times, i.e., individual
`
`statistical travel time estimates.
`
`3. “receiving device for allowing collection of GPS data at
`predetermined time intervals from sample vehicles moving within a
`predefined geographical region” [4.2]
`
`Pursuant to our request, the parties have also provided briefing
`
`addressing whether certain claim limitations fall within 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`The discussion below addresses those terms briefed at our request.
`
`Petitioner argues that this limitation is not subject to interpretation
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 6. Pet. Reply 18–19. Patent Owner contends
`
`“[t]his language is not in mean-plus-function format,” and “[t]here is
`
`sufficient structure recited in the limitation itself, which would be
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00816
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`We determine that this language is not in means-plus-function format
`
`and likewise find it unnecessary to otherwise construe the clause.
`
`4. “statistical application for collecting structured GPS data, computing
`individual statistical travel time estimates (regular times) for
`predetermined roads, and storing the results” [4.6]
`
`Patent Owner contends that “[t]his term is in means-plus-function
`
`format, requiring construction in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.”
`
`PO Resp. 11; Paper 12, 5. Patent Owner recognizes that “the limitation does
`
`not contain the word ‘means,’ giving rise to a presumption that § 112 ¶ 6
`
`should be applied,” but argues that “the term includes three functions,
`
`‘collecting structured GPS data,’ ‘computing individual statistical travel time
`
`estimates,’ and ‘storing the results.