Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 25
`Date: September 7, 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 IPR2017-00818
`Patent No. 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 25
`Date: September 7, 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 IPR2017-00818
`Patent No. 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 IPR2017-00818
`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 claim 6 (the “challenged
`claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,615,130 B2 (“the ’130 patent”). Paper 2
`(“Pet.”). Makor Issues & Rights Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6. 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 claim 6 of the ’130 patent. Paper 7
`(“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 19,
`“Reply”). We ordered (Paper 9) the parties to concurrently submit a claim
`construction brief addressing whether any limitation of the challenged claim
`is subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Papers 11, 12. Petitioner filed evidentiary objections
`to certain of Patent Owner’s Exhibits (Paper 15) but did not file a motion to
`exclude, which is required to preserve any evidentiary objection. See 37
`C.F.R. § 42.64(c). A transcript of the oral hearing held on May 3, 2018 has
`been entered into the record as Paper 24 (“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 demonstrated, by
`
`
`1 Petitioner submitted an updated mandatory notice indicating that Google
`Inc., changed its name to Google LLC on September 30, 2017. Paper 10.
`2 Both parties requested to present arguments collectively for IPR2017-
`00815, IPR2017-00816, IPR2017-00817, and IPR2017-00818. Paper 21.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 6 of the ’130 patent is
`unpatentable.
`
`A. Real Party in Interest
`Petitioner names itself and Waze Inc. as the real parties-in-interest.
`Pet. 1.
`
`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 both 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.
`IPR2016-01537 (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)
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`vehicles with mobile phones connected to the communication system.” Id.
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`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
`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 predictable changes in road
`conditions, and (iii) sudden unpredictable changes in road conditions. Ex.
`1001, 11:52–12:11. The stable or 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`replaced by statistical or empirical travel times. Id. To account for traffic
`conditions arising from sudden and unexpected circumstances, which result
`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,
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`use of algorithm Z for route planning “leads to considerable reduction in
`search times.” Id. at 16:63–64.
`
`C. The Challenged Claim
`Claim 6 is independent and is reproduced below:
`6. 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;
`map database containing digital road maps of a predefined
`geographical region together with predetermined relevant
`data on road factors;
`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 individual roads as sensed by the
`sample vehicles;
`
`
`
` statistical application for collecting said structured 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; 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;
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`
`telephone
`utilizing wireless mobile
`system
`the
`telecommunications for the purpose of providing reliable
`connection among the CTU, telecommunications operator
`stations, and MGUs wherein:
`
`said COS is capable of transmitting location data from
`MGUs
`to CTU via
`telecommunications service
`operator stations when relevant handset units are
`located in the client vehicles;
`
`said COS is capable of transmitting client requests from
`MGUs to CTU for a fastest route from a given location
`to a desired destination;
`said COS is capable of transmitting appropriately coded
`information on calculated routes from CTU to MGUs
`for displaying
`it on
`the PC unit screen and
`communicating it by voice on the car navigational
`terminal.
`Id. at 21:54–22:35.
`
`D. Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`References
`Patents
`Date3
`Angwin
`6,246,688 B1
`Jan. 29, 1999
`Xu
`6,401,027 B1
`June 4, 2002
`Durocher4 WO 98/45823
`Oct. 15, 1998
`TravTek
`TravTek System
`July, 1995
`Architecture
`Evaluation, Publ. No.
`FHWA-RD-94-141,
`U.S. Dept. of
`Transportation
`
`Exhibits
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1004
`
`
`3 Petitioner relies on the filing date of Angwin and Xu, asserting that both
`qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 3–4.
`4 Petitioner entered the English translation of Durocher into the record as
`Exhibit 1008, with citations to Ex. 1007.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`
`Additionally, Petitioner also relies on the declaration and rebuttal
`declaration of Michael S. Braasch, Ph.D. (Exs. 1003, 1024) and Patent
`Owner relies on the declaration of Alex A. Kurzhanskiy, Ph. D (Ex. 2003).
`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. 33):
`References
`TravTek and Angwin
`
`Claim Challenged
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)5
`
`6
`
`Xu and Durocher
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`6
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`We analyze the instituted grounds of unpatentability in accordance
`with the principles stated below.
`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.
`
`
`5 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 IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`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).
`Because Patent Owner does not provide evidence regarding secondary
`considerations, our determination is based on the first three factors. See
`generally PO Resp.
`As the Supreme Court explained in KSR, an invention “composed of
`several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of
`its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” 550 U.S. at 418.
`Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the
`way the claimed new invention does.” Id. In other words, “there must be
`some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
`legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
`988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
`Federal Circuit has made clear that a petitioner in an inter partes review
`proceeding cannot “satisfy its burden of proving obviousness” by
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`“employ[ing] mere conclusory statements” and “must instead articulate
`specific reasoning, based on evidence of record” to support an obviousness
`determination. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, 829 F.3d 1364, 1380–81 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016).
`
`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;
`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 ¶ 19. Patent Owner does not opine on the level of ordinary skill in
`the art. See PO Resp.
`Based on the entire record, 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.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claims in an unexpired
`patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016). Under
`that standard, and absent any special definitions, we generally give claim
`terms 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. See 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 the claim term “GPS data” in its
`Petition. Pet. 7. In turn, Patent Owner proposes a construction for the claim
`term “traffic jam.” PO Resp. 4–9. We determined in our Decision on
`Institution that express construction of the terms “GPS data” and “traffic
`jam” was necessary. Dec. 9–13. Now, having considered the entire record,
`we determine that express construction of the terms “GPS data” and “traffic
`jam” are necessary for purposes of this Final Written 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 note Petitioner asserts that some claim elements
`“recite purely functional software/data untethered from any tangible
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`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.
`7–8. Based on this assertion, we requested that the parties submit additional
`claim construction briefing as to whether certain claim terms such as
`“receiving device for,” “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 9,
`3–4. 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 11, 12). Petitioner argues that “[n]one of the claim
`language recites a ‘means for’ (or ‘step for’) performing a recited function,
`so the law requires that such limitations are presumed to not be in means-
`plus-function format.” Paper 12, 1 (citing Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp
`Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). 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
`11, 2. Having reviewed the parties’ additional claim construction in light of
`the record developed during trial, we agree that construction of these terms
`is not necessary to resolve the present controversy.
`1. “GPS data”
`Claim 6 requires a “receiving device for collecting GPS data at
`predetermined time intervals from sample vehicles moving within a
`predetermined travel region.” Ex. 1001, 21:64–67.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`
`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. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). Petitioner relies on the
`Specification for support, which provides examples of GPS data as: “the
`present position, the position time, and their IDs.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001,
`7:3). In view of the specification, Petitioner concludes that “information
`sent from the vehicles to a centralized computer system that are derived
`from GPS satellite signals qualify as GPS data.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36).
`In our Decision on Institution, we determined that the additional
`language (“or that is related to use of such signals”) proposed by Petitioner
`is not reasonable. Dec. 10–11. Namely, because Petitioner had not provided
`“sufficient arguments or credible evidence demonstrating that the term ‘GPS
`data’ ‘is intended to have a broad meaning encompassing various types of
`data beyond pure/raw GPS coordinates.’” Id. (citing Pet. 7). 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 ’130 patent.” Id. at 11. 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. Id.
`2. “Traffic Jam”
`Claim 6 also 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, 22:18–21. In our Decision on Institution, we preliminarily
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`construed “traffic jam,” “as a slowdown of traffic on a segment as compared
`to individual statistical travel time estimates (regular times).” Dec. 13.
`Patent Owner partially disagrees with this construction, arguing 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 congestion, e.g., the typical daily slowdown
`during rush hour, does not qualify as a ‘traffic jam’ within the
`ambit of the ’130 Patent claims.
`PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner asserts that its proposed construction
`distinguishes “traffic jam” and “routine congestion” based on the language
`of claim 6 as well as the Specification. Id. at 4–9. Specifically, Patent
`Owner argues that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`that the ‘statistical data on traffic parameters’ refers to regularly-occurring
`congestion.” Id. at 5. Patent Owner supports its position by first noting that
`“claim 6 goes on to further recite the automatic identification of ‘traffic
`jams,’ by using ‘the sample vehicles for measuring time delays,’ which a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand is distinct from regular,
`statistical, congestion.” Id. at 5 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 7).
`Patent Owner also directs us to columns 13–14 of the ’130 patent that
`distinguish between normal congestion and abnormal traffic jams in its 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. Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 8–9).
`Specifically, that
`Current Travel Times are used when (1) there is a
`sufficient number of vehicles reporting a bottleneck in a
`sufficiently recent time period (’130 Patent at 14:54-59) and, (2)
`when “each of [the vehicles] has spent considerably more time
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`
`on [a section] S than the corresponding [Regular Travel Time],
`then the situation can be interpreted as a bottleneck on the section
`S.” (’130 Patent at 14:59-61.)
`Id. Patent Owner notes that in the absence of a bottleneck slowing down
`traffic more than Regular Traffic Times, the Regular Travel Times will be
`used for route guidance. Id. at 6. Patent Owner argues 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. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:17–23)), and that the claimed traffic jam
`determination “is a determination of an abnormal slowdown” (id. (citing
`Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 8–9)).
`Patent Owner cites the Abstract of the ’130 patent for support, which
`describes detecting a bottleneck situation and estimating a current travel
`time for the corresponding section of road. Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1001,
`Abstract)). In particular, that the bottleneck situations are when the “times
`those vehicles have spent on the section differ considerably from a regular
`travel time stored in the database.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract).
`Additionally, Patent Owner contends that the ’130 patent categorizes
`the data used for route guidance as “(1) temporary changes in road
`conditions, known in advance, such as construction, (2) ‘Regular predictable
`changes like everyday slowdowns in rush hours,’ and (3) ‘Sudden
`unpredictable changes such traffic accidents.”’ Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:14–
`25; 12:3–11). Patent Owner understand the ’130 patent as “contrast[ing]
`regular, predictable changes, such as rush hour, with sudden, unpredictable
`changes, such as accidents.” Id. at 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 10). Based on this
`understanding, Patent Owner defines “traffic jam” as an “unpredictable
`(irregular or abnormal) slowdown of all traffic on a segment during a time
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`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 disputes Patent Owner’s position in its Reply. See Reply 1–
`11. Petitioner argues the plain and ordinary meaning of “traffic jam” should
`be adopted, and not Patent Owner’s narrow construction. Id. at 1. Petitioner
`first contends that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is improper
`“because it is narrower than Makor’s assertions during litigation.” Id. at 2–3
`(citations omitted). Petitioner next argues that the Specification does not
`provide a lexicographer definition for “traffic jam,” nor does it “articulate[]
`the outermost boundaries to its scope.” Id. at 3–4 (citations omitted).
`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. at 4. Also, Petitioner argues that, the ’130 patent does not
`require that the scope of “traffic jam” and “bottleneck” be identical. Id.
`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
`construction could still only be proper if the outermost limits of
`‘bottleneck’ were narrowly limited in a manner it is sometimes
`used in the preferred embodiment [] rather than by its ordinary
`meaning.
`Id. at 4–5. 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 Patent Owner’s proposed
`narrow constructions. Id. at 5 (citations omitted).
`According to Petitioner, the language of claim 6 does not impart a
`special meaning to “traffic jam” because the claim “simply recites
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`‘computing individual statistical travel time estimates,’ a computation which
`is necessary regardless which construction is applied.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex.
`1024 ¶¶ 10–11). Petitioner notes that “the claimed ‘automatic identification
`of real time traffic conditions’ makes no reference to using the ‘individual
`statistical travel time estimates.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 14:49–67). 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” in
`arguing the ordinary meaning encompasses any significant slowdown, e.g.,
`“congestion, and resultant stoppage, of traffic, e.g. at a busy junction.”
`Reply 7 (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 8 (citing Ex. 1028, 14:17–15:14; Ex. 1030, 19:16–
`20:17).
`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
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`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 concerning the scope of “traffic
`jam” centers on whether the term 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. We decline, however, to adopt Patent Owner’s
`proposed claim construction in whole because it adds unnecessary
`ambiguity. For example, terms such as “abnormal” do not add clarity to the
`definition. PO Resp. 9. 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). Our perception of the Specification is that
`the term “traffic jam” is not used in a layman’s sense, but instead 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. Here, 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, 22:18–21 (emphases 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 ’130
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00818
`Patent 6,615,130 B2
`
`patent. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 7) (“[C]laim 6 goes on to further
`recite
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
