UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`—————————————
`
`
`
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`—————————————
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00003
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`
`—————————————
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`
`
`—————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`—————————————
`
`
`
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`—————————————
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00003
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`
`—————————————
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH
`
`I, Ivan Zatkovich, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
`
`Introduction
`A.
`
`Scope of Assignment
`
`
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`I was retained by the law firm of Jones Day, on behalf of the
`
`Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Progressive”), to render opinions
`
`regarding technology described and claimed in the ‘358 patent and the references
`
`cited as prior art against the ‘358 patent claims and to render opinions regarding
`
`support in U.S. Patent Application No. 09/571,650 (the “’650 application”) and
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/764,076 (the “’076 application) for certain terms in
`
`the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,140,358 (the “’358 patent”).
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`Scope of Declaration
`
`The following are materials discussed in this declaration:
`
` The ’358 patent (Ex. 1001).
`
` The ’650 application (Ex. 2004).
`
` The ‘076 application (Ex. 2012).
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0128882 (“Nakagawa”).
`
` CBM 2012-00003 – Sep. 16, 2012, Petition for CBM Review (Paper 1).
`
` CBM 2012-00003 – Dec. 12, 2012, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`(Paper 13).
`
` CBM2012-00003 – Feb. 12, 2013, PTAB Decision Instituting Review
`
`(Paper 15).
`
` CBM 2012-00003 – Sep 15, 2012, Declaration of Scott Andrews (Ex.
`
`1025).
`
` Other materials referenced herein.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to render opinions regarding technology described
`
`and claimed in the ‘358 patent and the references cited as prior art against the ‘358
`
`patent claims. I have been asked, with regard to the priority date of the ’358 patent
`
`claims, to opine on whether the ’650 application and the ‘076 application disclose
`
`the subject matter of the independent claims of the ’358 patent.
`
`C. Background and Experience
`
`4.
`
`The following is a summary of my professional experience and
`
`qualifications. My complete curriculum vitae is provided as Exhibit 2008.
`
` I have more than 4 years experience designing and implementing vehicle
`
`telematics systems and have designed and implemented ecommerce
`
`computer systems for the insurance industry, such as for Geico and
`
`Hartford.
`
` I have over thirty-one years experience in computer science, network
`
`communications, and software development, which includes eight years
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`of experience in the design and development of financial and insurance
`
`business applications including development of claims processing
`
`systems, policyholder systems, financial network products, and electronic
`
`transaction products.
`
` I received a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, with a minor in
`
`Electrical Engineering Digital Circuit Design, from the University of
`
`Pittsburgh in 1980. I completed a master’s thesis in Computer Networks.
`
` In addition to a master’s thesis, my other publications include articles on
`
`network design in Byte Magazine and programming techniques and
`
`tutorials in Sync Magazine. I also presented a paper concerning High
`
`Volume Web Content at the Momentum conference in August 2003. I
`
`have given presentations on ICGS Computer Graphic Standards at the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) SigGraph
`
`Conference, as well as on Internet publishing standards at the Momentum
`
`Conference.
`
` My professional memberships include IEEE, International Internet
`
`Society, and Association for Computing Machinery.
`
` I have served as a committee member for ISO and ANSI standards
`
`organizations where I had the responsibility of defining disk and network
`
`communication standards.
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
` My certifications include IBM Websphere Certified Solutions Expert,
`
`Capability Maturity Model (CMM), and Project Management
`
`Professional (PMP).
`
`5.
`
`Specific systems that I have designed and developed include:
`
` Utility Partners – Customized Wireless Telematics Systems for Gas and
`
`Electric utility companies. These systems contained:
`o Wireless communications between the field service trucks and the
`
`remote central dispatch system.
`o Monitoring of the status of the field service representatives and
`
`truck location.
`o Wireless transmission and receiving of work order information and
`
`status to and from the field service truck.
`
` GEICO – Designed and developed eCommerce website for GEICO
`
`Policyholders to:
`o Allow policyholders to retrieve policy information, coverage and
`
`premium information.
`o Recommend and change policy parameters and re-estimate
`
`premiums.
`o Provide on-line policy quotes to new visitors.
`
` Hartford Insurance – Designed and developed eCommerce website for
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Policyholders and Claims adjusters for:
`o Online submission of auto insurance claims.
`o Automation of claims processing.
`o Performing subrogation application to determine the share of
`
`settlements for multiple policy coverage.
`
` Smith Barney – Developed remote access network infrastructure &
`
`wireless PDA financial system.
`
`6.
`
`Examples of cases where I have previously testified are:
`
` Swapalease v. Sublease Exchange.com (Patent Litigation)
`
`Opined on the infringement of eCommerce systems and online exchange
`
`of auto lease contracts and the provision or transfer of auto insurance for
`
`auto lease requirements.
`
` ABC inc. v. Cisco WebEx (Patent Litigation)
`
`Opined on the use and transmission of data from a remote module to a
`
`central location for the purposes of viewing information from that remote
`
`module and sending back control commands.
`
` Ronald A. Katz v. Fifth Third Bank (Patent Litigation)
`
`Opined on call center systems, automated processing of banking,
`
`mortgage, and credit cards transactions.
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Exhibit 2008 details my experiences with these companies. Based on
`
`my years of hands-on experience with wireless transmission of data, including
`
`vehicle data, and the processing of calculation of insurance premiums, I am very
`
`familiar with technology associated with the ’358 patent.
`
`8.
`
`Unless noted otherwise, my statements and opinions reflect the
`
`understanding as of May 2000 of a person of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by
`
`Petitioner, as follows: The field of art relevant to the ’358 patent is insurance, and
`
`more particularly insurance rating based on telematics data; a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (a “POSITA”) concerning the vehicle telematics aspects pertinent to
`
`the ’358 Patent (apart from the insurance risk aspects), as of January 1996, would
`
`have at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science or the equivalent thereof and at least one to two years of
`
`experience with telematics systems for vehicles, particularly, telematics systems
`
`including communications and locations technologies.
`
`9.
`
`eComp Consultants is being compensated at a rate of $350 per hour
`
`for my services.
`
`II. Opinions as to Nakagawa
`A. Overview of Nakagawa
`10. U.S. Patent Application 2002/0128882 (“Nakagawa”) (Ex. 1005) is
`
`titled “Vehicle Insurance Premium Calculation System, On-Board Apparatus, and
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Server Apparatus” and was filed February 27, 2002. Nakagawa discloses “a
`
`vehicle insurance calculation system that calculates the appropriate vehicle
`
`insurance premium by taking into account the maintenance and management status
`
`of the vehicle.” (Nakagawa at ¶ [0002].) In particular, the Nakagawa system “aims
`
`to calculate [] appropriate vehicle insurance premiums by taking into account the
`
`maintenance and servicing history of the vehicle.” (Id. at ¶ [0005].) Although
`
`multiple embodiments are disclosed in Nakagawa, Petitioner has attempted to map
`
`the ’358 patent claims onto the First Embodiment, described beginning at ¶ [0047].
`
`Figure 1 of Nakagawa shows the concept of the first embodiment (id. at ¶ [0048]),
`
`and a block diagram of its components is shown in Figure 2. (id. at ¶ [0052]).
`
`Both on-board apparatus 4 loaded into a car and maintenance data management
`
`means 5 installed at a contract repair facility communicate with a server apparatus
`
`6 installed at an insurance company.
`
`11. On-board apparatus 6 includes an operation status detection means 7
`
`for collecting information relating to the operating status of the car and an
`
`installation status detection means 8 for collecting information regarding the
`
`installation status of car safety equipment. (Id. at ¶¶ [0052-0055].) Certain data
`
`obtained from these two detection means 7 and 8 is sent by the on-board radio part
`
`9 to the server apparatus 6. The on-board control part 12 controls the entire on-
`
`board apparatus 4. (Id. at ¶ [0058].)
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`12. The maintenance data management means 5 installed at the contract
`
`repair factory manages data relating to whether or not the car has been properly
`
`maintained. (Nakagawa at ¶ [0059].) Information resulting from an inspection of
`
`car components that wear and need replacement, such as the condition of fluids,
`
`brake pads, timing belts, tires, etc. is entered into the inspection information input
`
`means 15 and sent to the insurance company using sending means 16. (Id. at ¶
`
`[0060].)
`
`13. The server apparatus 6 includes a fixed radio part 18 that receives data
`
`from the on-board apparatus 4 and a reception means 19 that receives data relating
`
`to car maintenance from sending means 16 in the maintenance data management
`
`means 5. An insurance premium calculation means 20 calculates insurance
`
`premiums based on the data received from those two components of the system.
`
`(Id. at ¶ [0061].)
`
`14. The operation of the on-board apparatus 4 of the first embodiment of
`
`Nakagawa is described with reference to Figure 3 at ¶ [0063]. When the on-board
`
`control part 12 determines that information collection will start, various sensors
`
`begin to collect information about how the user is operating the car and whether
`
`certain safety equipment is installed and outputs this as data to the on-board control
`
`part 12. (Id. at ¶ [0064].) In the next step (S2), “the on-board control part 12
`
`determines whether the operation and installation statuses are safe or dangerous
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`based on data collected from operating status detection means 7 and installation
`
`status detection means 8.” (Id. at ¶ [0065].) The result of these determinations by
`
`the on-board control part 12 is that the vehicle data obtained from the sensors is
`
`converted into points, and those point values are then stored in memory as “usage
`
`data.” (Id.) That is, when the on-board control part 12:
`
`determines that both the operating and installation
`statuses are safe, the degree of safe operation is recorded
`in point form (step S3). When it determines that the
`statuses are dangerous, the danger status is recorded in
`point form (step S4). The data stored in steps S3 and S4
`are stored in the memory provided in the on-board
`control part 12 as “usage data” (step S5). (Id.)
`
`The vehicle information collection process continues in this same manner until the
`
`on-board control part 12 determines otherwise. (Id. at ¶ [0066].)
`
`15. Maintenance information is collected in a contract repair factory,
`
`which services and/or conducts an inspection of the car. (Nakagawa at ¶ [0067].)
`
`Results of the inspection and service are entered via the inspection information
`
`input means 15, which is stored in memory and sent to server apparatus 6 for use in
`
`calculating insurance premiums. (Id. at ¶¶ [0068-0069].)
`
`16.
`
`Insurance premiums are calculated by the server apparatus in
`
`accordance with the flow chart shown in Figure 5. (Id. at ¶ [0069].) The on-board
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`apparatus 4 has converted vehicle data obtained from the vehicle sensors to point
`
`values that represent the degree of safe operation or danger status. (Id. at ¶ [0065].)
`
`These point values (referred to by Nakagawa as “usage data”) are stored in
`
`memory. (Id.) These point values determined by the on-board control part 12
`
`reflect the degree of safety or danger, and are transmitted to the server apparatus 6
`
`by the on-board radio part 9:
`
`Firstly, in the on-board apparatus 4, “usage data” is read
`from the memory in the on-board control part 12 (steps
`ST1 and ST2). The on-board radio part 9 sends the usage
`data thus read and an ID to the server apparatus 6 (step
`ST3). (Id. at ¶ [0069].)
`
`The “usage data” (i.e., point values), together with the data received from the
`
`contract repair factory corresponding to a particular user ID, is stored in memory in
`
`the server apparatus 6. (Id.) This collective data is termed “user data.” (Id.)
`
`17. An insurance premium calculation part 20 calculates an insurance
`
`premium for the next policy term based on the “user data” stored in memory in the
`
`server side control part 22 which corresponds to the user ID. (Id. at ¶ [0070].) The
`
`calculated premium data is sent by radio to the on-board apparatus 4, where it may
`
`be displayed. (Id. at ¶ [0073].) The display in the on-board apparatus shows
`
`“operating levels,” along with rates for insurance premiums. (Id. at ¶ [0076].) The
`
`“operating levels” that are displayed “show driving techniques and the level of safe
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`driving as points . . . .” (Id). As discussed above, the “degree of safe operation” is
`
`determined in the on-board control part 12, “recorded in point form,” and “stored
`
`in the memory provided in the on-board control part 12.” (Id. at ¶ [0065].) This is
`
`the only disclosure of the calculation of “points” in Nakagawa. Thus, the
`
`“operating levels” displayed as points on the display screen of the on board
`
`apparatus are those points that have been determined in the on-board apparatus.
`
`(Id.) This is confirmed by the following disclosure:
`
`For example, in the evaluation of driving techniques, G
`sensors installed in a car are used to detect whether or not
`deceleration occurs smoothly without any locking of tires
`and whether or not curves in the road are handled without
`unreasonable steering. The findings are then converted
`into points. In the evaluation of safe driving, inter-car
`distance sensors are used to detect whether or not a safe
`distance is being maintained between vehicles to suit the
`running speed. The finding is then converted into points.
`The operation level, as shown in points, is displayed as a
`bar graph as shown in FIG. 7. (Id. at ¶ [0076].)
`
`It is the on-board detection means 7 and 8 that collect vehicle data from sensors
`
`and the on-board control part 12 that converts it into points reflecting whether
`
`driving techniques are safe or dangerous. (Id. at ¶¶ [0064, 0065, 0076].
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Nakagawa Does Not Disclose the Database Limitation of Claim 1
`1. No explicit disclosure of a database comprising a storage system
`
`“comprising records with operations for searching records and other
`
`functions.”
`
`18. The petitioner asserts Claim Element (1e) of the ’358 Patent is
`
`disclosed by Nakagawa as follows (Petition at 24-25):
`
`
`
`Claim Element
`(1e) a database
`operatively linked to the
`server to store the
`selected vehicle data
`transmitted by the
`wireless transmitter, the
`database comprising a
`storage system remote
`from the wireless
`transmitter and the
`memory comprising
`records with operations
`for searching the records
`and other functions;
`
`Prior Art Disclosure
`Nakagawa discloses a database operatively linked
`to the server to store the selected vehicle data
`transmitted by the wireless transmitter, the
`database comprising a storage system remote from
`the wireless transmitter and the memory
`comprising records with operations for searching
`the records and other functions at ¶¶ [0061],
`[0069]:
`“The control part 22 on the server side is equipped
`with memory, which is not pictured, and data relating
`to car insurance subscribers is stored in this memory
`as ‘user data.’” (¶ [0061]); “FIG. 5 is a flowchart that
`shows the operation in which the car insurance
`premium calculation means 20 in server apparatus 6
`calculates car insurance premiums. Firstly, in the on-
`board apparatus 4, ‘usage data’ is read from the
`memory in the on-board control part 12 (steps STI and
`ST2). The on-board radio part 9 sends the usage data
`thus read and an ID to the server apparatus 6 (step
`ST3). The server apparatus 6 receives the usage data
`and ID sent by the fixed radio part 18 (step ST4). The
`control part 22 on the server side updates that ‘user
`data’ stored in memory that corresponds to received
`IDs (steps ST5 and ST6). This means that the latest
`data collected in the on-board apparatus 4 . . . is stored
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`in the memory in the control part 22 on the server side
`as ‘user data.’” (¶ [0069]).
`
`POSITA would have recognized that Nakagawa’s
`disclosure of storing selected vehicle data (e.g.,
`“usage data”) in a memory on the server and
`updating the data in memory explicitly teaches, or at a
`minimum inherently discloses, a database linked to the
`server that stores the selected vehicle data and
`comprises records with operations for searching the
`records, such as to update the “user data” stored in
`memory that correspond to an ID, and other functions.
`See Ex. 1025, Andrews Dec. ¶¶ 22, 25, 35-36
`
`
`
`a) How a POSITA would understand “a database comprising . . . records,”
`
`“operations for searching records” and “other functions.”
`
`19. Claim 1 of the ’358 Patent recites that records are contained within a
`
`database, and that certain operations must occur to the records. This includes
`
`“operations for searching records” and “other functions.”
`
`20.
`
`“Record” is a well-known term in the art. Specifically, as of 2000,
`
`records maintained within a database would have a set of predefined data fields.
`
`Records in a database can be searched, sorted, updated, added and deleted, among
`
`other actions. The data fields within a record would be associated to each other to
`
`describe an “entity.” An entity that would be described by a record in a database
`
`could be, for example, an Employee, a Purchase Order, or a Triggered Event. An
`
`Employee record, for example, would have data fields such as “First Name,” “Last
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Name,” “SS#,” and “Address.” The characteristics of records within a database
`
`described here were standard and would be present in any database that was
`
`implemented after 1990.
`
`21. From its use in the patent specification, it is apparent that the term
`
`“database” is used in its ordinary sense in the ’358 Patent claims. For example, in
`
`describing Figure 5, the patent explains that “a database 518 retains data from
`
`many customers and/or potential customers 206 and/or other drivers/operators.”
`
`(Col. 14:39-41.) The algorithms and relationship data may be retained in databases
`
`remote from the vehicle. (Id. at 14:45-47.) These and other disclosures are
`
`consistent with the ordinary meaning of a database as “a file composed of records,
`
`each containing fields together with a set of operations for searching, sorting,
`
`recombining, and other functions.” (Ex. 2010, Microsoft Press Computer
`
`Dictionary, (3d ed. 1997) at p. 129.)
`
`22. The most common databases of this time (and up till the present day)
`
`are relational databases. Relational databases allow you to relate information in
`
`one record with information in another record. For example, employee records can
`
`be related to salary payment records. This would allow one to identify what an
`
`employee was paid and when.
`
`23. AS of 2000, the definition of “record” in the context of a database
`
`record, according to the Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, was “A data
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`structure that is a collection of fields (elements), each with its own name and type.”
`
`(Ex. 2010, Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (3d ed. 1997) at p. 399.)
`
`24. Consistent with records made up of predefined data fields, the ’358
`
`Patent identifies examples of specific vehicle data fields that can be collected,
`
`transmitted, and stored in the server database. In the ’358 Patent (col. 37:28 – col.
`
`38:6) identifies various data fields related to vehicle data that can be collected,
`
`transmitted to the server, and stored in a database. These examples of data fields
`
`include:
`
` Unique user account ID (i.e., the driver)
`
` Date trip was started
`
` Time trip started
`
` Speed value
`
` Date trip was ended
`
` Measure of battery voltage
`
` Data of measurement
`
` Date and time data log was uploaded (i.e., when communication started)
`
` Data and time communications were disabled (completed)
`
`25. The ability to structure multiple records in a database with specific
`
`data fields allows the processor to store many events and many types of vehicle
`
`data over a period of time such as recording multiple trips, recording multiple
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`battery measurements, recording speed and acceleration values, and recording
`
`when each communication is sent from the on-board processor to the server.
`
`26. With respect to “usage data,” Nakagawa does not disclose records in a
`
`database with defined fields. Nor does Nakagawa disclose any type of data
`
`structure that would necessitate data being stored in a database. Nakagawa also
`
`does not disclose using the collected data beyond the calculation that produces a
`
`point value.
`
`b) How a POSITA would understand “operations for searching records.”
`27. The database must be capable of search operations on the database
`
`records in claim 1 of the ’358 Patent. Claim element (1e) states “…a database
`
`comprising a storage system remote from the wireless transmitter and the memory
`
`comprising records with operations for searching the records and other
`
`functions.”
`
`28. A POSITA would understand that searching the records in a database
`
`means the database operations have the ability to locate and retrieve one or more
`
`specific records from among the many records in the database.
`
`29. The ’358 Patent describes vehicle data and trigger events stored in the
`
`server database that contain many types of information (battery levels, speeds,
`
`trips, data transmission times, etc.). In other words, the database may store many
`
`records of raw data, calculated data, and derived data representing vehicle
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`operation data received from the vehicle. This would require the server database to
`
`have search capability, as claimed, to allow the retrieval of specific types of
`
`records from among the many records stored in the database.
`
`30. For example, the server may want to first search and retrieve all speed
`
`and acceleration records at the same time to determine the driver’s “speeding”
`
`habits, to determine adjustments to the policyholder’s premium. The system could
`
`also search and retrieve trip records to determine driving patterns, duration, and
`
`distance the driver travels within a given period of time. All of these operations
`
`require the ability to search specific types of information (records) in the database.
`
`31. Nakagawa discloses neither the presence of a database nor the ability
`
`to search records on the server.
`
`c) How a POSITA would understand “other functions.”
`32. A POSITA as of 2000 would understand that “other functions”
`
`identified in Claim 1 would include standard database operations such as sorting
`
`records, updating records, adding records, or deleting records. Because of the
`
`volume of data stored and processed in such a system (vehicle data / trigger
`
`events), these database operations would allow the system to maintain and process
`
`the data in the database in an efficient manner.
`
`33. Nakagawa does not disclose a database or any functions that might
`
`indicate the presence of a database, such as adding records, or deleting records.
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`d) What Nakagawa explicitly discloses.
`
`(1) Nakagawa discloses Direct Access memory, not a Database.
`
`34. Nakagawa explicitly discloses, and the Petitioner cites, the following
`
`in ¶ [0069]:
`
`FIG. 5 is a flowchart that shows the operation in which
`the car insurance premium calculation means 20 in server
`apparatus 6 calculates car insurance premiums. Firstly, in
`the on-board apparatus 4, “usage data” is read from the
`memory in the on-board control part 12 (steps STI and
`ST2). The on-board radio part 9 sends the usage data thus
`read and an ID to the server apparatus 6 (step ST3). The
`server apparatus 6 receives the usage data and ID sent by
`the fixed radio part 18 (step ST4). The control part 22 on
`the server side updates that “user data” stored in
`memory that corresponds to received IDs (steps ST5 and
`ST6). This means that the latest data collected in the on-
`board apparatus 4 . . . is stored in the memory in the
`control part 22 on the server side as “user data.”
`
`35. This means that Nakagawa starts with “usage data” on the vehicle,
`
`transmits that data to a server along with an “ID,” and then stores that data as “user
`
`data.” There is, however, no mention of a database. There is only mention of
`
`“memory.” This is reinforced by the symbols illustrated in Figure 5.
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Nakagawa - Figure 5
`
`
`
`36. Both the “usage data” on the vehicle and the “user data” on the server
`
`are illustrated with the same symbol that identifies direct access storage (memory):
`
`
`
`
`
`‘Direct Access Storage’ symbol
`
`This is a standard symbol for Direct Access storage. It has been used for many
`
`years for this purpose and has been standardized as such in the ISO-5807 standard.
`
`The ISO-5807 states: “This symbol represents data directly accessible, the medium
`
`being for example, magnetic disk, drum, flexible disk.” (Ex. 2009 at 3.) A
`
`POSITA recognizes this as a General-purpose data storage device such as Disk
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`
`storage or Memory. It can represent many types of data storage but there is no
`
`requirement that it represent a database.
`
`37. The Direct Access Storage symbol (above) is similar but notably
`
`different that the standard symbol for a Database, which is:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Standard Database Symbol
`
`This is also recognized by a POSITA as a disk or permanent storage device
`
`containing a database.
`
`(2) Nakagawa converts data into points not recognizable as vehicle
`
`data before storing and later transmitting the points.
`
`38. Claim 1 refers to a processor that “collects vehicle data from a vehicle
`
`bus that represents aspects of operating the vehicle.” The ’358 patent provides an
`
`extensive list of exemplary “vehicle data” that may be collected. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`7:11-8:32.) Claim 1 then recites “a memory that stores selected vehicle data
`
`related to a level of safety or an insurable risk in operating a vehicle.” In other
`
`words, “selected vehicle data” comprises certain vehicle data that relates to a level
`
`of safety or an insurable risk in operating a vehicle.
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`
`39.
`
`In the vehicle, Nakagawa processes vehicle data it collects into points
`
`that are not readable as specific types of vehicle data. In other words Nakagawa
`
`does not store and transmit raw data, calculated data, or derived data that
`
`represents vehicle operation data, or even a summary thereof. Rather, it collects
`
`data from the vehicle, and then processes the vehicle data to convert it to numeric
`
`data representing a “safe driving” or “danger status” operating level, which is then
`
`stored. That “usage data” (i.e., points that mean “safe” event or “danger” event) is
`
`thus no longer recognizable vehicle data that represents a particular aspect of
`
`operating the vehicle. This is depicted in Figure 3 below.
`
`Nakagawa Figure 3
`
`
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`
`
`40.
`
`In Figure 3 of Nakagawa the on-board controller collects the vehicle
`
`“safe” or “dangerous” indications and stores them in a numeric format in the Usage
`
`Data (S5), as described in ¶ [0065]:
`
`[0065] In step S2, the on-board control part 12
`determines whether the operation and installation statuses
`of a vehicle are safe or dangerous based on data collected
`from operating status detection means 7 and installation
`status detection means 8. When it determines that both
`the operating and installation statuses are safe, the degree
`of safe operation is recorded in point form (step S3).
`When it determines that the statuses are dangerous, the
`danger status is recorded in point form (step S4). The
`data stored in steps S3 and S4 are stored in the memory
`provided in the on-board control part 12 as "usage data"
`(step S5).
`
`41. Nakagawa converts the vehicle data into a “Safe” or “Dangerous”
`
`operating level (numeric value) at the vehicle, and then the numeric value is stored
`
`in the usage data, before transmission to the server. The conversion of the vehicle
`
`data to simple numeric values (“safe” or “dangerous” points) eliminates the need to
`
`store data in a database at the server. If the data requires little or no additional
`
`processing on the server, a database is not required in Nakagawa to search, add, or
`
`delete database records. This is further indication that Nakagawa neither discloses
`
`nor requires a database on the server.
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`
`
`(3) Nakagawa does not store and transmit the collected vehicle data.
`
`42. Nakagawa discloses that any vehicle data representing aspects of
`
`operating the vehicle is converted to point values on the vehicle, and those point
`
`values are stored as usage data, as described in ¶ [0065], and subsequently
`
`transmitted to the server. Nakagawa does not disclose that collected vehicle data is
`
`stored and transmitted to a server. Claim 1 requires that the vehicle data that is
`
`transmitted by the wireless transmitter represents aspects of operating the vehicle.
`
`The usage data point does not represent recognizable aspects of operating the
`
`vehicle as required by claim 1. “Safe” or “unsafe” is not vehicle data. They are
`
`general evaluations of the driver’s performance.
`
`43. Because the usage data transmitted by Nakagawa is not vehicle data, I
`
`find that Nakagawa does not disclose the claimed wireless transmitter configured
`
`to transfer the selected vehicle data retained within the memory to a distributed
`
`network and server.
`
`(4) Andrews does not explain the existence of a database.
`
`44. The petition for CBM review cites the Andrews Declaration (Ex.
`
`1025) at ¶¶ 22, 25, 35-36 as indicating a POSITA would have recognized the
`
`presence of a database. I disagree. The Andrews Declaration states:
`
`
`CLI-2116166
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`
`
`22. . . . In particular, vehicle telematics analysis requires
`evaluation of changing data points over time (e.g.,
`changes in speed or acceleration). Thus, in order to
`retrieve varying data points to manipulate them, analyze
`them, compare them, etc., they must be stored in a way
`that would make them available for retrieval and analysis
`in a meaningful way, that is, in relation to other data
`collected at the same time or under similar circumstances.
`
`45. However, Figure 3 of Nakagawa, as described above, processes the
`
`individual data elements collected from the vehicle and rates them individually as
`
`“safe driving” or “danger status.” There is no discussion of retrieving “varying
`
`data points to manipulate them, analyze them, compare them.” In addition the
`
`individual data elements are converted to points, and the point are stored, rendering
`
`it unnecessary to “make them available for retrieval and analysis in a meaningful
`
`way, that is, in relation to other data collected at the same time or under similar
`
`circumstances” as asserted by Mr. Andrews.
`
`46. The Andrews Declaration also states:
`
`25. . . . Thus, in addition to an in-vehicle device with
`memory in which data points are associated and
`retrievable, a remote database to store the telematics data
`after transmission was also well known in the art. Among
`other things, such a database for a telematics system
`would have made the data available in a meaningful way
`
`
`CLI-2116166
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
