Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`
`Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
`By: Ashraf A. Fawzy, Reg. 67,914
`
`Jonathan Stroud, Reg. 72,518
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, DC, 20009
`Tel: (202) 871-0110
`Email: afawzy@unifiedpatents.com
`Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SILVER STATE INTELLECTUAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01531
`Patent 7,650,234
`
`____________________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,650,234
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................... 1
`III.
`Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103 .......................... 3
`IV.
`Grounds for Standing .................................................................................... 3
`V.
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................ 3
`A. Claims for Which Review Is Requested ....................................................... 3
`B. Statutory Grounds of Challenge .................................................................... 3
`C. The Proposed Grounds Are Not Redundant ................................................. 5
`VI.
`Background and Overview of the ’234 Patent .............................................. 7
`VII. Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 9
`A. “searching the database” ............................................................................. 10
`B.
`“navigation coverage” ................................................................................. 11
`C. “coverage area” ........................................................................................... 12
`D. Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms ............................................................ 13
`VIII. Detailed Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability ................................ 16
`A. Ground 1: Xu Anticipates Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-28, and 30 ............ 16
`1. Claim 1 .................................................................................................... 16
`2. Claim 2 .................................................................................................... 26
`3. Claim 3 .................................................................................................... 28
`4. Claim 4 .................................................................................................... 28
`5. Claim 5 .................................................................................................... 29
`6. Claim 6 .................................................................................................... 30
`7. Claim 7 .................................................................................................... 31
`8. Claim 9 .................................................................................................... 32
`9. Claim 10 .................................................................................................. 35
`10.
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 35
`11.
`Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 35
`12.
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 35
`13.
`Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 36
`14.
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 36
`15.
`Claim 17 .............................................................................................. 36
`16.
`Claim 18 .............................................................................................. 40
`17.
`Claim 19 .............................................................................................. 40
`18.
`Claim 20 .............................................................................................. 40
`19.
`Claim 21 .............................................................................................. 41
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Claim 23 .............................................................................................. 41
`20.
`Claim 24 .............................................................................................. 41
`21.
`Claim 25 .............................................................................................. 43
`22.
`Claim 26 .............................................................................................. 43
`23.
`Claim 27 .............................................................................................. 44
`24.
`Claim 28 .............................................................................................. 44
`25.
`Claim 30 .............................................................................................. 44
`26.
`B. Ground 2: Xu and Trovato Render Claims 8, 16, 22, and 29 Obvious ...... 44
`1. Claims 8 and 16 ...................................................................................... 44
`2. Claims 22 and 29 .................................................................................... 47
`C. Ground 3: Xu and Golding Render Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-28, and 30
`Obvious ............................................................................................................... 48
`D. Ground 4: Xu, Golding, and Trovato Render Claims 8, 16, 22, and 29
`Obvious ............................................................................................................... 53
`IX.
`Conclusion .................................................................................................. 54
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Brose N. Am., Inc. v. Uusi, LLC,
` IPR2014-00417, Paper No. 49 (July 20, 2015) .................................................. 14
`
`Ex parte Erol,
`No. 2011-001143, 2013 WL 1341107 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2013) ........................... 14
`
`Ex parte Lakkala,
`No. 2011-001526, 2013 WL 1341108 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2013) ........................... 14
`
`Ex parte Smith,
`No. 2012-007631, 2013 WL 1341109 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2013) ........................... 14
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 47, 53
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`No. 2013-1130, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10082 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) ......... 14
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .............................................................................................. 3, 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 .................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234 (“the ’234 patent”)
`
`File History of the ’234 Patent
`
`Assignment of the ’234 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,401,027 to Xu et al. (“Xu”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,835,881 to Trovato et al. (“Trovato”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,933,100 to Golding (“Golding”)
`
`Order in Silver State Intellectual Techs, Inc. v. Garmin Int’l Inc., 2:11-
`cv-1578 (Nev. Aug. 13, 2013)
`
`Declaration of Dr. William R. Michalson, Ph.D. (Aug. 14, 2015)
`
`UK Patent Application GB 2079453 A
`
`Wootton et al., “The Experience of Developing and Providing Driver
`Route Information Systems,” IEEE 1989 Vehicle Navigation and
`Information Systems Conference, pp. 71-75
`
`Saito et al., “Automobile Navigation System Using Beacon
`Information,” IEEE 1989 Vehicle Navigation and Information Systems
`Conference, pp. 139-145
`
`Second Declaration of William R. Michalson, Ph.D. (June 5, 2017)
`
`Petitioner’s Voluntary Interrogatory Responses
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`
`Unified Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-30
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234 (“the ’234 patent”) (Ex. 1001) assigned on its face to
`
`American Calcar, Inc., but reassigned to Silver State Intellectual Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”). (See Ex. 1003). This Petition shows that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on claims 1-30 of the ’234 patent based on
`
`prior art that the Office did not have before it during original prosecution. This
`
`Petition also shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior art anticipates
`
`and renders obvious claims 1-30 of the ’234 patent. Claims 1-30 of the ’234 patent
`
`should be found unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`The ’234 patent was also the subject of an inter partes review petition filed
`
`on August 17, 2015: Google Inc. v. Silver State Intellectual Technologies, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-01738. Prior to a decision on institution, the parties filed a joint motion to
`
`terminate in view of settlement, which was granted. This petition is substantively
`
`similar to that earlier-filed petition. Further, this petition relies on a second
`
`declaration from Dr. William R. Michalson, Ph.D. (Ex. 1012) that reaffirms and
`
`swears that he supports his earlier-filed declaration (Ex. 1008) in IPR2015-01738.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Party-in-Interest: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies
`
`that Unified Patents Inc. is the real party-in-interest, and further certifies that no other
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`party exercised control or could exercise control over Petitioner’s participation in
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-015 3 1
`
`US. Patent No. 7,650,234
`
`this proceeding, the filing of this petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial. In this
`
`regard, Petitioner has submitted voluntary discovery- (Ex. 1013.)
`
`Related Matters: The ’234 patent has been asserted in the litigations below,
`
`each of which has been terminated.
`
`Silver State Intellectual Technologies, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al., No. 4/30/14
`
`1:14—cv-662 (D. Nev.)
`
`Silver State Intellectual Technologies, Inc. v. Apple Inc. , No. 2: 13-
`
`5/30/13
`
`cv-957 (D. Nev.)
`
`Silver State Intellectual Technologies, Inc. v. Garmin International,
`
`9/29/11
`
`Inc. et al., No. 2:11—cv-1578 (D. Nev.)
`
`Silver State Intellectual Technologies, Inc. v. Tomtom, Inc. , No.
`
`9/29/11
`
`2:11—cv-1581 (D. Nev.)
`
`
`
`As noted above, the ’234 patent was also the subject of an inter partes review
`
`petition filed by Google Inc. on August 17, 2015: Google Inc. v. Silver State
`
`Intellectual Technologies, Inc., IPR2015-01738. Prior to a decision on institution,
`
`the parties filed a joint motion to terminate in View of settlement, which was granted.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel is Ashraf
`
`Fawzy (Reg. 67,914) and backup counsel is Jonathan Stroud (Reg. 72,518). Service
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`information is Unified Patents Inc., 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10,
`
`
`
`Washington,
`
`D.C.
`
`20009,
`
`Telephone:
`
`202-871-0110,
`
`E-mail:
`
`afawzy@unifiedpatents.com and jonathan@unifiedpatents.com. Petitioner consents
`
`to electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) AND 42.103
`Petitioner submits the required fees with this Petition. Please charge any
`
`additional fees required during this proceeding to Deposit Account No. 50-6990.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), the ’234 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review of the ’234 patent on the grounds identified.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Claims for Which Review Is Requested
`Petitioner respectfully requests review of claims 1-30 of the ’234 patent, and
`
`cancellation of these claims as unpatentable.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`B.
`Claims 1-30 should be cancelled as unpatentable in view of the following prior
`
`art1:
`
`
`1 For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner has assumed that the ’234 patent is entitled
`
`to a priority date of October 19, 1999.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Reference 1: U.S. Patent No. 6,401,027 to Xu et al. (“Xu”) (Ex. 1004) was
`
`filed on May 24, 1999, and is prior art to the ’234 patent at least under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Reference 2: U.S. Patent No. 5,835,881 to Trovato et al. (“Trovato”) (Ex.
`
`1005) was filed on January 16, 1996 and issued on November 10, 1998, and is prior
`
`art to the ’234 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e).
`
`Reference 3: U.S. Patent No. 5,933,100 to Golding (“Golding”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`was filed on December 27, 1995 and issued on August 3, 1999, and is prior art to the
`
`’234 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e).
`
`Claims 1-30 of the ’234 patent should be cancelled as unpatentable on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-28, and 30 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) in view of Xu.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 8, 16, 22, and 29 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`based on Xu in view of Trovato.
`
`Ground 3: Claim 1-7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-28, and 30 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) based on Xu in view of Golding.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 8, 16, 22, and 29 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`based on Xu in view of Golding and Trovato.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`C. The Proposed Grounds Are Not Redundant
`Petitioner’s proposed grounds for institution are not redundant because there
`
`are several significant differences between the grounds. For example, whereas
`
`Ground 1 relies on anticipation, Ground 3 relies on obviousness. Therefore, different
`
`defenses may be available to the Patent Owner during the course of this proceeding
`
`for each Ground.
`
`In addition, Ground 1 addresses the claims in a different way than Ground 3.
`
`For example, in Ground 1, Xu addresses the claimed “searching the database”
`
`limitations, as recited in independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 24, because of its block
`
`flagging operations performed at a client-side in-vehicle device. (See infra Parts
`
`VIII.A.1.f, VIII.A.8.f, VIII.A.15.e, VIII.A.21.e.) On the other hand, Ground 3 relies
`
`on a disclosure in Golding that renders obvious performing the claimed “searching
`
`the database” limitations at a database, remote from the client’s device. (See infra
`
`Part VIII.C.) Thus, in one way, the strength of Ground 1 is that it addresses the
`
`“searching the database” limitations to the extent such “searching” features are
`
`interpreted in a way that includes searching the database client-side or the like. On
`
`the other hand, the strength of Ground 3 is that it addresses the “searching the
`
`database” limitations to the extent such “searching” features are interpreted in a way
`
`that includes searching the database database-side.
`
`The differences in the strengths of the prior art identified in these grounds
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`warrant institution of both grounds given that finding redundancy in the grounds
`
`
`
`may detrimentally affect Petitioner’s ability to demonstrate the unpatentability of the
`
`claims. For instance, should the Board institute inter partes review based on an
`
`initial interpretation of the “searching the database” limitations that include client-
`
`side type operations and thus decline to institute Ground 3, but then later changes its
`
`construction to preclude such features, Petitioner may not be able to demonstrate
`
`fully why non-client-side type searching would have been obvious as presented in
`
`Ground 3. The same situation arises should the Board decline to institute review on
`
`Ground 1 as being redundant to Ground 3. Adopting both grounds will allow the
`
`Board to consider positions from both Patent Owner and Petitioner after institution
`
`regarding how the prior art discloses the “searching the database” limitations.2
`
`
`
`Ground 2 stems from the rejections in Ground 1, and Ground 4 stems from
`
`the rejections in Ground 3. Therefore, Grounds 2 and 4 are not redundant for the
`
`same reasons set forth for Grounds 1 and 3. For at least these reasons, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests the Board adopt all proposed Grounds.
`
`
`2 Indeed, Patent Owner may reserve positions from a Preliminary Response that the
`
`Board may not see until after any institution that may have bearing on the prior art
`
`and the interpretation of the “searching the database” limitations.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`VI. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’234 PATENT
`The ’234 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 11/971,193 (“the ’193
`
`
`
`application”) and is directed to a “navigation device [that] utilizes stored user
`
`profiles to navigate a user who may be driving in a vehicle, on foot, or in other mode
`
`of transportation.” (Ex. 1001 at Abstract.)
`
`The ’234 patent discloses that a system that includes a “navigator arrangement
`
`100” that “may be ‘docked’ or connected to another device or system to enhance its
`
`functionality, which may include a terminal, workstation, computer system, or an
`
`automobile system.” (Id., 3:29-33.) The “navigator arrangement 100 includes
`
`processor 103, memory 108, display driver 111, display 113, user interface 115,
`
`external interfaces 117, GPS receiver 119, communication unit 120.” (Id., 3:36-39.)
`
`“To the extent possible, databases in arrangement 100 are pre- populated with data.”
`
`(Id., 4:30-32.) However, “arrangement 100 allows for downloading of data from a
`
`remote source to supplement and update the databases in arrangement 100, and to
`
`provide thereto just-in-time information, including, e.g., latest traffic, weather, map
`
`and other information.” (Id., 4:33-37.)
`
`The ’234 patent discloses a “NAVIGATE option 657 for navigation by
`
`arrangement 100.” (Id., 9:56-57.) The NAVIGATE option provides the user with an
`
`interface to enter an origination and destination address, with the user’s current
`
`location being the default origination: “the user adopts the default response to query
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`903 which is the location identified by the GPS data in section 511 of record 400.
`
`
`
`Otherwise, the user may enter a different origination address. The user is also
`
`prompted to enter a destination address at query 905.” (Id., 10:5-10.) “After learning
`
`the origination address and destination address . . . processor 103 determines
`
`whether” a geographic area called the “navigation coverage” “includes the
`
`origination and destination addresses, and whether the stored map and related
`
`information is fresh.” (Id., 10:27-34.) “If the navigation coverage includes the
`
`origination and destination addresses in question . . . processor 103 at step 1006
`
`selects the route from the origination address to the destination address which is the
`
`most time-efficient, i.e., fastest by automobile in this instance, taking into account
`
`the relevant weather, traffic, and road conditions along the selected route, together
`
`with any roadblocks set up by the user in a manner to be described.” (Id., 10:35-46.)
`
`Otherwise, if the “navigation coverage” area “does not cover the origination and/or
`
`destination address in question, and/or if the map and related information is not
`
`fresh, processor 103 . . . establishes a communication connection to navigation server
`
`630 [and] causes a transmission of a request for fresh map and related information
`
`for an appropriate navigation coverage through the established connection.” (Id.,
`
`10:55-61.) (See also Ex. 1008, ¶¶ 16-24 (discussing Exs. 1009, 1010, 1011).)
`
`Only one office action issued during prosecution of the ’193 application, and
`
`that office action only noted that the application’s abstract was improper. (Ex. 1002
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`at 61-65.) The office action did not include a single prior art rejection, and in fact
`
`
`
`did not cite a single prior art reference. (Id.) The only prior art explicitly considered
`
`during prosecution of the ’193 application was prior art that the applicant made of
`
`record. (Id., 67-77.) None of the references relied upon for grounds in this Petition
`
`were ever considered during prosecution of the ’193 application. (See Ex. 1001 at
`
`References Cited.)
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Throughout this Petition, as required by the rules governing
`
`it, Petitioner applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim terms
`
`appropriate for these proceedings, including claim terms for which a claim
`
`construction is not explicitly discussed. Claim constructions appropriate for these
`
`proceedings may be different than claim constructions appropriate in a federal
`
`district court. Thus, claim constructions relied upon in this Petition do not
`
`necessarily reflect the claim constructions that Petitioner believes should be adopted
`
`by a district court. Any term not construed below should be interpreted in accordance
`
`with its plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable construction.
`
`Petitioner applies this understanding in its analysis of the claims of the ’234 patent.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`
`“searching the database”
`
`A.
`Claims 1, 9, 17, and 24 recite the phrase “searching the database.” (Ex. 1001
`
`at 13:65-67, 14:6-7, 14:35-37, 15:1-3, 15:8-10, 16:3-5 and 16:10-12.) For purposes
`
`of this proceeding, “searching the database” should be construed as “analyzing data
`
`from the database.” This understanding is consistent with the claims and
`
`specification of the ’234 patent. The ’234 patent does not define or even use the term
`
`“searching” anywhere in its specification. However, the ’234 patent does disclose a
`
`scenario in which a server analyzes data from a database (Ex. 1001 at 8:26-55), and
`
`a scenario in which data is transmitted from a database of a server to a processor of
`
`a “navigator arrangement” and then the data from the database is analyzed at the
`
`“navigator arrangement” (id., 10:27-11:14). The common factor in both scenarios is
`
`that data from a database is analyzed. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of the term should reflect the same. This understanding is consistent with the
`
`language of the claims. Claims 1, 9, 17, and 24 do not place any explicit limits on
`
`how or where the “searching the database” feature is performed. Interpreting the
`
`term as noted above is thus consistent with how the term is used in the specification
`
`and the claims. This understanding is also consistent with how one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood “searching the database” in the context of the ’234
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`
`patent.3 (See also Ex. 1008 at ¶ 26.)
`
`“navigation coverage”
`
`B.
`Claims 1, 9, 17, and 24 recite the phrase “navigation coverage.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`14:4, 14:41, 15:7, 16:9.) For purposes of this proceeding, “navigation coverage”
`
`should be construed as “the geographic area over which the navigation system
`
`operates.” The ’234 patent repeatedly refers to a “navigation coverage” as being a
`
`geographic area over which the navigation system operates. For example, the ’234
`
`patent describes a scenario in which “processor 103 determines whether the
`
`navigation coverage based on the map layer corresponding to automobile
`
`travel…includes the origination and destination addresses in question.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`10:30-35 (emphasis added).) If so, “processor 103…selects [a] route from the
`
`origination address to the destination address.” (Id., 10:35-42.) However, “if the
`
`stored map…does not cover the origination and/or destination address in
`
`question…processor 103 causes a transmission of a request for fresh map and related
`
`information for an appropriate navigation coverage.” (Id., 10:55-62 (emphasis
`
`
`3 A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been an engineer having at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a degree in a related
`
`field, with approximately two or more years of experience in the design and
`
`implementation of navigation systems and/or routing. (Ex. 1008 at ¶ 15.)
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`added).) In other words, in the ’234 patent, maps associated with an appropriate
`
`
`
`navigation coverage are selected to conform to the geographic area over which the
`
`navigation system operates. This understanding of the term “navigation coverage”
`
`is consistent with a district court’s claim construction during litigation involving the
`
`’234 patent. (Ex. 1007 at 33.) This understanding is also consistent with how one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood “navigation coverage” in the context
`
`of the ’234 patent. (See also Ex. 1008 at ¶ 27.)
`
`“coverage area”
`
`C.
`Claims 1, 9, 17, and 24 recite the phrase “coverage area.” (Ex. 1001 at 13:66,
`
`14:3, 14:36, 14:40, 15:2, 15:6, 16:4, 16:8.) For purposes of this proceeding,
`
`“coverage area” should be construed as “the geographic area that the vehicle is
`
`located in, which is a subset of the geographic area over which the navigation system
`
`operates.” The term “coverage area” does not appear in the specification of the ’234
`
`patent. However, in the context of claims 1, 9, 17, and 24, “coverage area” is a subset
`
`of the “navigation coverage,” which is addressed above. For example, claim 1 refers
`
`to a “coverage area including the location of the navigation device.” (Id., 13:65-67.)
`
`Claim 1 also characterizes a scenario in which “the coverage area is different from
`
`one or more areas in navigation coverage defined by the origination and destination,”
`
`suggesting that the “coverage area” is a subset of the overall navigation coverage.
`
`(Id., 14:3-5.) Claims 9, 17, and 24 characterize the “coverage area” in substantively
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`the same manner. This understanding of the term “coverage area” is consistent with
`
`
`
`a district court’s claim construction during litigation involving the ’234 patent. (Ex.
`
`1007 at 33-34.) This understanding is also consistent with how one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood “coverage area” in the context of the ’234 patent.
`
`(See also Ex. 1008 at ¶ 28.)
`
`D. Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms
`The ’234 patent includes means-plus-function claim terms. As required by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), to the extent disclosed, Petitioner identifies portions of the
`
`’234 patent that describe corresponding structure for the recited functions.
`
`Claim 17 recites a “processing unit for searching the database for traffic
`
`information specific to a coverage area including the location of the vehicle.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 15:1-3.) Similarly, claim 24 recites a “processing unit for searching the
`
`database for weather information specific to a coverage area including the location
`
`of the vehicle.” (Id., 16:3-5.) For purposes of this proceeding, both “processing unit
`
`for searching the database . . .” terms should be interpreted as means-plus- function
`
`terms.
`
`“When a claim term lacks the word ‘means,’ the presumption [that § 112,
`
`para. 6 does not apply] can be overcome and § 112, para. 6 will apply if the
`
`challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite
`
`structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`that function.’” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 U.S. App.
`
`
`
`LEXIS 10082 at *16 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (citing Watts v. XL Sys., 232 F.3d
`
`877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Claim 17 does not define any structure associated with a
`
`“processing unit” or its function of “searching the database for traffic information
`
`specific to a coverage area including the location of the vehicle.” Similarly, claim
`
`24 does not define structure associated with a “processing unit” or its function of
`
`“searching the database for weather information specific to a coverage area
`
`including the location of the vehicle.” Moreover, a “processing unit” is a term that
`
`does not in itself suggest any particular structure. See, e.g., Brose N. Am., Inc. v.
`
`Uusi, LLC, IPR2014-00417, Paper No. 49 at 12 (July 20, 2015) (explaining that “unit
`
`for” is a “non-structural generic placeholder[]” that may invoke § 112, para. 6); see
`
`also Nintendo of America Inc. v. Motion Games, LLC, IPR2014-00164, Paper No.
`
`12 at 6 (May 19, 2014) (finding “a processing means” limitation to invoke means-
`
`plus-function). Indeed, in March 2013, a five-judge PTAB panel issued three
`
`decisions, all holding that “processor” invokes means-plus-function because
`
`“processor” fails to connote a sufficiently definite structure. Ex parte Erol, No.
`
`2011-001143, 2013 WL 1341107, at *8-9 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2013); Ex parte Lakkala,
`
`No. 2011-001526, 2013 WL 1341108, at * 6-7 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2013); Ex parte
`
`Smith, No. 2012-007631, 2013 WL 1341109, at *7-8 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2013).
`
`Therefore, a “processing unit for searching the database . . .,” as recited in claims 17
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`P
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`
`and 24, should be interpreted under § 112, para. 6.
`
`The identified function of the “processing unit” in claim 17 is “searching the
`
`database for traffic information specific to a coverage area including the location of
`
`the vehicle,” and the identified function of the “processing unit” in claim 24 is
`
`“searching the database for weather information specific to a coverage area including
`
`the location of the vehicle.” (Ex. 1001 at 15:1-3, 16:3-5.)4 The ’234 patent discloses
`
`a remote server or a processor of a navigation device called a “navigator
`
`arrangement” (id., 8:26-55, 10:27-11:14) performs the identified functions of
`
`searching the database (i.e., analyzing data from the database). (See also supra Part
`
`VII.A.) Thus, for purposes of this proceeding, the corresponding structure for the
`
`identified function of “searching the database for traffic information specific to a
`
`coverage area including the location of the vehicle,” and the identified fun