throbber
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
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R.
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS ON BEHALF OF
`PETITIONER LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. REGARDING U.S.
`PATENT NO. 8,140,358
`
`I, Scott Andrews, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
`
`I have previously been asked by Liberty Mutual Insurance (“Liberty”) to testify
`
`as an expert witness in this action. As part of my work in this action, I have been
`
`asked by Liberty to respond to certain assertions and opinions offered by Mr. Ivan
`
`Zatkovich and Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. (“Progressive”) in this proceeding
`
`concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,140,358 (“the ‘358 patent”).
`
`
`
`
`
`Liberty Mutual Exhibit 1034
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive
`CBM2012-00003
`Page 00001
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Prior Testimony
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I am the same Scott Andrews who provided a Declaration in this matter
`
`executed on September 15, 2012 as Exhibit 1025.
`
`II. Experience, Qualifications, and Compensation
`
`2. My information regarding experience, qualifications, and compensation
`
`are provided along with my prior Declaration, Exhibit 1025, and CV, Exhibit 1026.
`
`III. Scope of Study and Rebuttal Opinions
`
`A. Questions Presented
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to respond to certain assertions and opinions of Mr.
`
`Ivan Zatkovich expressed in his declaration of June 11, 2013 as Exhibit 2007, and
`
`certain assertions of Progressive in its Patent Owner’s Response of June 12, 2013.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`
`4.
`
`In developing my opinions below, and in addition to the materials
`
`identified in my prior Declaration at paragraph 13, I have considered the following
`
`materials:1
`
` Declaration of Mr. Ivan Zatkovich (Ex. 2007);
`
` CV of Mr. Ivan Zatkovich (Ex. 2008)
`
` The ‘076 application (Ex. 2012);
`
` The ‘650 application (Ex. 2004);
`
`
`1 Unless noted, all emphases in cited portions are added.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 00002
`
`

`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Response Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.220 (Paper 33)
`(“Opposition” or “Opp.”);
`
` Board’s Decision on Institution of Covered Business Method Review
`(Paper 15);
`
` Excerpts from Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Ed. (Ex.
`2010; Ex 1036);
`
` All other materials referenced as exhibits herein.
`IV. Analysis and Opinions
`
`A. Mr. Zatkovich’s Opinions Regarding Nakagawa’s Disclosure of
`Storing and Transmitting Selected Vehicle Data
`
`5.
`
`Progressive admits that Nakagawa “does collect ‘vehicle data’ from a
`
`control bus, using ‘various sensors to detect how a user is operating [the] car.’” Opp.
`
`21 (emphasis original). Mr. Zatkovich states that this detected data is “converted to
`
`point values on the vehicle, and those point values are stored as usage data…and
`
`subsequently transmitted to the server.” Ex. 2007, ¶ 42. Mr. Zatkovich opines that
`
`such “point values” are not “selected vehicle data” because they do not “represent
`
`recognizable aspects of operating the vehicle as required by claim 1.” Ex. 2007, ¶ 42-
`
`43. I do not agree. As explained below, Nakagawa discloses storing and transmitting
`
`“selected vehicle data.”
`
`6.
`
`To begin with, Nakagawa expressly and repeatedly discloses that the on-
`
`board device stores and transmits the detected/collected vehicle data: “When the user uses
`
`car 1, an on-board apparatus (on-board) apparatus installed in car 1 collects, via various
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 00003
`
`

`
`
`
`
`sensors, information relating to the operation of car 1 by the user and information relating to the
`
`installation status of safety equipment. The collected information is provided from the on-board
`
`apparatus to the car insurance company 2.” (Ex. 1005, [0048]); “Data collected by the operating
`
`status detection means 7 and installation status detection means 8 is sent to the on-board radio
`
`part 9 via a control bus 11 while control by the on-board control part 12 is being
`
`received. The on-board radio part 9 sends data detected as above to server apparatus 6,
`
`installed at the car insurance company 2, via radio.” (Ex. 1005, [0056]); “The on-board
`
`control part 12 controls the entire on-board apparatus 4. Also, the on-board control
`
`part 12 contains memory that is not pictured. This memory stores data collected by operating
`
`status detection means 7 and installation status detection means 8 and data received via
`
`radio by the on-board radio part 9.” (Ex. 1005, [0058]).
`
`7.
`
`In fact, Mr. Zatkovich actually acknowledges that the on-board device
`
`stores and transmits the detected data when he states: “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.” Ex. 2007, ¶ 11.
`
`8.
`
`Nakagawa further discloses that the data received from the on-board
`
`device and stored at the server as “user data” includes data that represents particular
`
`detected aspects of operating the vehicle: “Specifically, when the user data includes data
`
`relating to speeding and the length of time for which speeding occurs, non-use or inappropriate use
`
`of seatbelts, application of ABS other than during an accident, sudden acceleration and
`
`deceleration, or data showing that brake pads have not been replaced despite being worn,
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 00004
`
`

`
`
`
`
`processing will occur to increase the standard insurance premium by a certain
`
`percentage and calculate an increased premium. In contrast, when the user data includes
`
`data relating to driving within the speed limit, appropriate use of seatbelts and head rests, and
`
`appropriate replacement of brakes and hoses, processing will occur to discount the standard
`
`insurance premium by a certain percentage and calculate a discounted premium.” Ex.
`
`1005, [0072]. These types of “user data” disclosed in Nakagawa are the same types of
`
`vehicle data disclosed in the ‘358 Patent: “[O]ne or more recorded aspects of machine
`
`operation may include speed, acceleration events, deceleration events…seat belt use…” Ex.
`
`1001, 16:7-14. They clearly “represent recognizable aspects of operating the vehicle as
`
`required by claim 1.” Cf. Ex. 2007 ¶ 42.
`
`9.
`
`Second, the additional numeric “usage data” disclosed in Nakagawa also
`
`satisfies the “selected vehicle data” limitation. The numeric “usage data” are—even
`
`as Mr. Zatkovich reads Nakagawa—at a minimum, calculated or derived from vehicle
`
`sensors, and therefore are still “vehicle data” according to the ‘358 Patent. See Ex.
`
`1001 7:12-13 (disclosing that vehicle data “monitored and/or recorded by [in-vehicle]
`
`device 300 include [not only] raw data elements [but also] calculated data elements,
`
`derived data elements, and subsets of these elements.”). These data are derived from
`
`vehicle data that “represents aspects of operating the vehicle” and are thus “related to
`
`a level of safety or an insurable risk in operating a vehicle” because, for example, they
`
`represent the “degree of safe operation” and “danger status.” Ex. 1005, [0065].
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 00005
`
`

`
`
`
`
`10. Mr. Zatkovich also claims that Nakagawa’s “usage data” is not vehicle
`
`data because Nakagawa describes storing information in “point form.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 40,
`
`42. This is no different from the ‘358 Patent, which states: “[O]ne or more recorded
`
`aspects of machine operation may include speed, acceleration events, deceleration
`
`events…seat belt use…” Ex 1001, 16:7-14. A POSITA would understand that events,
`
`such as seat belts being used or not, or deceleration above a pre-defined threshold, are
`
`simply represented by numeric values, that may be normalized scores or “points”,
`
`indicating that some monitored value has occurred or exceeded a threshold. One
`
`skilled in the art would understand that it is not necessary to store all monitored
`
`values of a parameter of interest. Instead this POSITA would understand that
`
`recording the events where monitored parameters satisfy some event criteria (too fast,
`
`too hard, seatbelts buckled, etc.) is just as representative of vehicle data, and is much
`
`more efficient than simply monitoring and storing all of the sensor values all of the
`
`time. The fact that “usage data” may be calculated or derived from certain measured
`
`data simply allows the certain measured data to be stored efficiently and presented in a
`
`meaningful way to the user, but these individual parameter point values are still related
`
`directly to the parameters (e.g., “vehicle data”) that they represent, and are generally
`
`more directly related to, for example, a level of safety in operating a vehicle. Another
`
`way to understand this is that at least some of Nakagawa’s usage data is in relation to
`
`pre-set standards or thresholds. For example, while Nakagawa may measure the
`
`height of the headrest, the goal of the measurement, and the resulting usage data that
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 00006
`
`

`
`
`
`
`can be calculated or derived, is to determine if the headrest is at the correct (i.e., safe)
`
`height. This is determined by measuring the height, but the value that is stored is not
`
`necessarily the height, but rather, an indication of the correctness of the height.
`
`B. Mr. Zatkovich’s Opinions Regarding Nakagawa’s Disclosure of a
`Database
`
`11. Mr. Zatkovich opines that Nakagawa does not disclose a database. See
`
`Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 26, 31, 33, 41, 49-50, 56. I do not agree. As explained below, a POSITA
`
`would understand Nakagawa to disclose a database.
`
`12. Mr. Zatkovich defines a “database” according to the definition set forth
`
`in Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Ed. (Ex. 2010), which is “a file
`
`composed of records, each containing fields together with a set of operations for
`
`searching, sorting, recombining, and other functions.” Ex. 2007, ¶ 21. I note that Mr.
`
`Zatkovich’s definition contains additional functions not recited in claim 1, which
`
`states “a database…comprising records with operations for searching the records and
`
`other functions.”
`
`13. Mr. Zatkovich acknowledges that a POSITA would understand
`
`Nakagawa to disclose storing data in “Direct Access Storage” or “General-purpose
`
`data storage device such as Disk storage or Memory.” Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 34-36. But Mr.
`
`Zatkovich argues Nakagawa does not disclose a database because of the symbols used
`
`in its drawings. In particular, Mr. Zatkovich attempts to differentiate the data storage
`
`symbols used by Nakagawa (horizontal cylinder) from one of the data storage symbols
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 00007
`
`

`
`
`
`
`used in the patent (upright cylinder) by noting that the horizontal cylinder is a
`
`standard ISO symbol for “Direct Access Memory,” while asserting that the upright
`
`cylinder is the symbol for a database. It should first be pointed out that the ISO
`
`standard that Mr. Zatkovich cites (ISO 5807) as the source for the direct access
`
`memory includes no symbols for a database whatsoever. While an upright cylinder
`
`symbol may commonly be used to denote a variety of data storage components (e.g.,
`
`disk drive, general storage and databases) this symbol is not part of the set of
`
`internationally recognized symbols provided in ISO 5807, as cited by Mr. Zatkovich
`
`(Ex. 2009)--nor is it included in ISO 8790, discussed below. In addition, symbol
`
`definitions vary considerably, with many inconsistencies in conventional use.
`
`14. Mr. Zatkovich’s argument that direct access memory cannot be a
`
`database is baseless. First, the term “direct access memory” simply means that the
`
`data stored in such a memory can be accessed directly, as opposed to sequentially (as
`
`one would need to access data on a storage tape, a “First In First Out”, or “Last In
`
`First Out” memory device). Thus, the specific type of memory disclosed by Nakagawa
`
`is not at all inconsistent with a database.
`
`15. Two standards, ISO 5807 and ISO 8790 (Ex. 1035) 2 define various
`
`symbols for flowcharts and information technology system documentation. See Ex.
`
`
`2 The document attached at Exhibit 1035 is a true and correct copy of ISO8790-1987
`– “Information Processing Systems – Computer System Configuration Diagram
`Symbols and Conventions,” published by the International Organization for
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 00008
`
`

`
`
`
`
`2009, Ex. 1035. Both of these standards include the horizontal cylinder and define
`
`this as “direct access storage”, meaning that the data is directly available as opposed
`
`to, for example, sequentially available. Ex. 2009, 3; Ex. 1035, 3. The definition from
`
`ISO 8790 is reproduced below.
`
`
`16. Thus Nakagawa has simply used the international standard symbol for
`
`the type of memory used to store the collected data, and in doing so has not implied
`
`that this data is not stored in a database. A POSITA would not infer from the use of
`
`this (horizontal cylinder) symbol that the data in Nakagawa was not stored in a
`
`database; such a person would simply infer that this data, and any of its associated
`
`database aspects would be stored in direct access memory. There are many examples
`
`of databases stored in direct access memory. For example, the ISO 5807 cited by Mr.
`
`Zatkovich uses horizontal cylinders to designate items (e.g., customer file, inventory
`
`
`(...Continued)
`Standardization (ISO) in 1987 (1st ed.), which I downloaded from the official ISO web
`site (www.iso.org) on August 15, 2013.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 00009
`
`

`
`
`
`
`file, and received order file) that a POSITA would understand as databases. Ex. 1036,
`
`24. Another such example is in the ‘358 patent itself.
`
`17.
`
`Indeed, the ‘358 patent uses three different symbols for the storage of data,
`
`and in each case a POSITA would interpret them as being associated with databases.
`
`For example, in Figure 5, the stored sensor data 502 and event data 500 are depicted
`
`using the direct access (horizontal cylinder) storage symbol, while data storage 518 is
`
`depicted using an upright cylinder. It is also useful to note than in relation to Figure 5,
`
`the ‘358 patent describes storage device 518 (depicted with a vertical cylinder) as a
`
`“non volatile memory.” Ex. 1001, 13:15-17 (“In some systems, data is stored 516 in a
`
`media or nonvolatile memory”).
`
`
`In Figure 6, this same data storage unit is referred to as a database, and a slightly
`different symbol (an upright cylinder with two rings around the top) is used.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 00010
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`18.
`
`
`In order for the stored sensor data 502 and event data 500 of Figure 5 of
`
`the ‘358 patent to be later stored in database 518, the relationships between the data
`
`value and the specific data parameter types (e.g., speed and the value of the speed)
`
`would need to be maintained when the data was stored in the direct access memory
`
`devices (500 and 502) shown in Figure 5. Thus, for the ‘358 patent to preserve the
`
`database structure of the collected data, these devices would themselves need to be
`
`structured as databases.
`
`19. A POSITA would also find that Nakagawa’s “user data” is necessarily
`
`stored in a database. Mr. Zatkovich acknowledges that “user data” is stored at the
`
`server. Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 17, 34-35. Nakagawa explicitly discloses that the “user data” is
`
`“recorded in the memory provided inside the control part 22 on the server side.” Ex.
`
`1005, [0068].
`
`20. As discussed above, Nakagawa also explicitly discloses that “user data”
`
`recorded in memory at the server includes multiple types of data and information,
`
`including, e.g., “data relating to speeding and the length of time for which speeding
`
`occurs, non-use or inappropriate use of seatbelts, application of ABS other than
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 00011
`
`

`
`
`
`
`during an accident, sudden acceleration and deceleration, or data showing that brake
`
`pads have not been replaced despite being worn,” as well as “data relating to driving
`
`within the speed limit, appropriate use of seatbelts and head rests, and appropriate
`
`replacement of brakes and hoses.” Ex 1005, [0072]. The data stored at the server
`
`also includes “user data” for multiple users/insurance subscribers keyed to a particular user
`
`“ID.” See, e.g., Ex 1005, [0061] (“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’.”); [0067], [0068] (“Here, the control part 22 on
`
`the server side updates the “user data” recorded in memory that corresponds to the received
`
`ID (step T4).”)
`
`21. Moreover, Nakagawa’s Figure 6 also illustrates that this user data must
`
`be stored in a database. Specifically, a database includes ordered values that bear some
`
`relationship to one another. At the most basic level these records may be simply a
`
`value and a name for the value, for example, “speed” (i.e., name) and “60” (i.e., value).
`
`If these values are not stored together (as a record) then their relationship will be lost,
`
`and it would not be possible to later (at the end of the month in the case of Figure 6)
`
`display the variety of measured parameters and their values, as is depicted in Figure 6,
`
`and thus Nakagawa’s user data is necessarily stored in a database.
`
`22.
`
`For these different types of “user data” to be recorded in “memory”
`
`(Ex. 1005 [0068]) (e.g., “Direct Access Storage” or “General-purpose data storage
`
`device such as Disk storage or Memory”) in a way that can be located and retrieved
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 00012
`
`

`
`
`
`
`later based on user ID (e.g., to update a particular piece of data) (cf. Opp. 25, Ex. 2007
`
`¶ 55), a POSITA would understand that such data is stored in a form that maintains
`
`this link to user ID, which is referred to, in the same Microsoft Press Dictionary relied
`
`upon by Mr. Zatkovich, as a “file”: “the basic unit of storage that enables a computer to
`
`distinguish one set of information from another. A file is the ‘glue’ that binds a
`
`conglomeration of instructions, numbers, words, or images into a coherent unit that a
`
`user can retrieve, change, delete, save, or send to an output device.” Ex. 1036, 194. This is
`
`consistent with the understanding of a POSITA.
`
`23.
`
`Furthermore, because the “user data” “represent[s] different types of
`
`information”—e.g., “speeding,” “use of seatbelts,” “acceleration,” etc. (Ex. 1004,
`
`[0072]), as well as information for different drivers (Id. [0061], [0068])—it must
`
`necessarily be stored in “records,” as defined by Progressive (Opp. 11). This is also
`
`defined in the Microsoft Press Dictionary relied on by Mr. Zatkovich. Ex. 2010, 399
`
`(defining “record” as “a data structure that is a collection of fields (elements), each
`
`with its own name and type. Unlike an array, whose elements all represent the same
`
`type of information and are accessed using an index, the elements of a record represent
`
`different types of information and are accessed by name.”). I believe the dictionary
`
`definition is incomplete because it excludes arrays (Ex. 2011 at 129:8-130:7), and I
`
`note Progressive does not exclude arrays in its definition of “record.” Opp. 11. See
`
`also; Ex. 2007 ¶ 23 (citing Microsoft definition but omitting “array” exclusion).
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 00013
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Regardless, a POSITA would understand that “user data” disclosed in Nakagawa is
`
`stored in a file that comprises “records.”
`
`24.
`
` Mr. Zatkovich, excluding “arrays” from his personal definition of
`
`“records,” opines that the functionality of Nakagawa could be achieved instead using
`
`“simple arrays” of data that use “indexes to reference a value stored in the array”
`
`because “there is only one type of data, a point value.” Ex. 2007, ¶ 55. I do not agree
`
`that storage of “user data” disclosed in Nakagawa can be achieved using “simple
`
`arrays” because, as described above, “user data” contains multiple types of data and
`
`information, and it would not be possible to generate the report of Figure 6 if that
`
`data were not stored in the form of records. More importantly, Mr. Zatkovich
`
`mistakes types of data with types of information. Even if “user data” contains one
`
`“type” of data (e.g., numerical values, rather than text, etc.), each of these data values
`
`“represent[] different types of information”—e.g., “speeding,” “use of seatbelts,”
`
`“acceleration,” etc., as well as information for different drivers. Ex. 1004, [0072], [0068].
`
`Accordingly, they would not be stored as “arrays” whose elements, as explained in
`
`this Microsoft definition, “all represent the same type of information.” Ex. 2010, 399.
`
`25. Moreover, even if the “user data” of Nakagawa were stored in “arrays”
`
`as described by Mr. Zatkovich, storage in such “arrays” is a type of database specifically
`
`disclosed in the ‘358 patent: “For longer term storage or data analysis, data may be
`
`retained in database(s) 2108 and 2114 (e.g., relational databases that may comprise one or
`
`more flat files (2-dimensional arrays) that may be transformed to form new combinations
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 00014
`
`

`
`
`
`
`because of relations between the data in the records or other databases.” Ex. 1001,
`
`31:36-41. A “flat file” is “a file consisting of records of a single record type.” Ex. 1036,
`
`199. Mr. Zatkovich further notes that the “most common databases of this time (and
`
`up till the present day) are “relational databases,” and that “characteristics of records
`
`within a database described here were standard and would be present in any database that
`
`was implemented after 1990.” Ex. 2007, ¶ 20.
`
`26. Therefore, even based on Mr. Zatkovich’s own declaration, the
`
`Microsoft Press Dictionary Mr. Zatkovich relies upon, and the ‘358 Patent itself, a
`
`POSITA would understand Nakagawa to disclose a database comprising records.
`
`27. Mr. Zatkovich further opines that Nakagawa does not disclose a
`
`database with “operations for searching the records” (Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 27-31), which he
`
`states a POSITA would understand to mean the “ability to locate and retrieve one or
`
`more specific records from among the many records in the database.” Ex. 2007, ¶ 28.
`
`28. However, Nakagawa does disclose this ability. As I pointed out in my
`
`prior Declaration, for example, Nakagawa discloses that “the control part 22 on the
`
`server side updates the “user data” recorded in memory that corresponds to the
`
`received ID.” Ex. 1005, [0068]; [0069]; see also Ex. 1025, ¶ 36. To update such stored
`
`data keyed to a particular user, the server must necessarily “locate and retrieve one or
`
`more specific records from among the many records” (see Ex. 2007 ¶ 28) so that the
`
`server can make changes to (i.e., update) that particular driver’s data. This is common
`
`sense and certainly would have been understood by a POSITA. To “update” stored
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 00015
`
`

`
`
`
`
`data, the particular data to be updated must necessarily be “located” and “retrieved.”
`
`A POSITA would thus understand Nakagawa to disclose a database with “operations
`
`for searching the records”–-Nakagawa’s discussion of updating a particular user’s data
`
`necessarily discloses such a database. Similarly, to generate the display of Figure 6 the
`
`system would at a minimum need to locate the record corresponding to, for example,
`
`headrest height, and then read the score associated with that record. Thus the system
`
`would require searching, sorting and the ability to retrieve the specific data elements
`
`and their values associated with the display.
`
`29. Mr. Zatkovich further opines that Nakagawa does not disclose a
`
`database with “other functions.” Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 32-33. Mr. Zatkovich states that a
`
`POSITA would understand “other functions” to include “standard databases
`
`operations such as sorting records, updating records, adding records, or deleting
`
`records.” However, Mr. Zatkovich does not provide any support for this statement.
`
`The ‘358 Patent also does not recite these functions or what the “other functions”
`
`include.
`
`30.
`
`In any event, as discussed above Nakagawa does disclose, at minimum,
`
`“updating records”: its server “updates the ‘user data’ recorded in memory.” Ex.
`
`1005, [0068]. In addition, as discussed above, a POSITA would understand
`
`Nakagawa to disclose storing the “user data” in a “file” containing records, which
`
`necessarily allows a user to “retrieve, change, delete, save, or send [the stored information]
`
`to an output device,” such as shown in the user display of Figure 6. Ex. 1036, 194.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 00016
`
`

`
`
`
`
`31. Therefore, for at least the reasons stated above, a POSITA would
`
`understand Nakagawa to disclose a database comprised of records with operations for
`
`searching the records and other functions.
`
`32. Mr. Zatkovich’s position that Nakagawa does not disclose a database is
`
`entirely contrary to his position (in the same Declaration) that the ‘650 application
`
`inherently discloses a database with functionality for searching records and other
`
`functions. For example, Mr. Zatkovich opines that “searching records functionality is
`
`exhibited by the need for the web server 220 and the charges algorithm 530 to access
`
`selected vehicle data stored in data storage 518.” Ex. 2007, ¶ 93. He further opines
`
`that the “data storage 518 must necessarily further include other functionality, such as the
`
`ability to write records into data storage, as evidenced by reference number 516,
`
`where all events and data are stored in data storage 518. To store records in the
`
`database 518, the database must have record writing functionality, which falls within
`
`the scope of ‘other functions.’” Id. According to Mr. Zatkovich, the mere need to
`
`store and access data in data storage is sufficient to disclose a database with searching
`
`and “other” functionalities, and thus by Mr. Zatkovich’s own testimony these
`
`limitations are certainly disclosed by Nakagawa.
`
`C. Mr. Zatkovich’s Opinions Regarding Nakagawa’s Disclosure of
`Generating “Operating Level” at the Server
`
`33. Mr. Zatkovich opines that “the operating levels point values shown in
`
`the Vehicle display of Figure 7 either came from the Usage Data that was already
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 00017
`
`

`
`
`
`
`preprocessed in the vehicle, or that they are the same operating level point values that
`
`were preprocessed on the vehicle, transmitted from the vehicle in step ST1 of Figure
`
`5, and then sent back down to the vehicle in step ST10 of Figure 5.” Ex. 2007, ¶ 60.
`
`I do not agree with Mr. Zatkovich’s reading of Nakagawa. As explained below,
`
`Nakagawa discloses generating the “operating level” at the server.
`
`34.
`
`First, Progressive and Mr. Zatkovich suggest that the vehicle “display
`
`means” displays simply “usage data” already stored on the vehicle as “operating levels.”
`
`Id.; Opp. 28. This is unsupported by Nakagawa’s disclosure. Nakagawa discloses that
`
`the “display means” displays “data relating to the car insurance premium” that is
`
`received from the server. See Ex. 1005 [0073] (“When the insurance premium
`
`calculation means 20 has calculated the car insurance premium…the fixed radio part
`
`18 sends, by radio, the data relating to the calculated car insurance premium to the on-board
`
`apparatus 4…The on-board apparatus 4 receives the data relating to the car insurance
`
`premium…and the display means 10 displays the data relating to the car insurance premium”).
`
`For example, Figure 5 clearly show that what is displayed at ST 10 is the “results
`
`information” received from the server at ST9:
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 00018
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35.
`
`Second, Mr. Zatkovich opines that the “operating levels” displayed on
`
`the “display means” are the same “points” determined by the on-board apparatus.
`
`Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 17, 60. This is also unsupported by Nakagawa’s disclosure. Nakagawa
`
`discloses that displayed data received from the server contains “evaluation of
`
`operating levels for one month [that] is calculated in numeric form and displayed to reflect the
`
`amount by which the insurance premium will be multiplied.” Ex. 1005, [0076]. As shown in
`
`Figure 7, this information is displayed in a graph form where the calculated total
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 00019
`
`

`
`
`
`
`“operating level” for each month is shown along with the amount by which the
`
`insurance premium will be multiplied:
`
`[0076] (“the evaluation of operating levels for one month is calculated in numeric
`
`form and displayed to reflect the amount by which the insurance premium will be
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 7,
`
`multiplied”).
`
`36. Therefore, even if individual “operating levels” were deemed to be the
`
`same “usage data” calculated at the vehicle, the server must necessarily aggregate and
`
`process the “usage data” to arrive at the total “operating level” for each month that is
`
`sent to the vehicle and displayed.
`
`37.
`
`For example, the types of data that Mr. Zatcovich contends are
`
`“operating levels” calculated at the vehicle include at least two types of “evaluations”:
`
`(1) “evaluation of driving techniques,” including “deceleration” and “unreasonable
`
`steering,” and (2) “evaluation of safe driving” such as “whether…safe distance is
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 00020
`
`

`
`
`
`
`being maintained.” Ex. 2007, ¶ 17. At a minimum, then, the server must calculate a
`
`monthly total “operating level” for each of these evaluations to determine the amount
`
`of premiums that will be changed and to send the results to the user for display at the
`
`vehicle.
`
`38.
`
`Finally, Mr. Zatkovich opines that the total “operating level” calculations
`
`displayed for each month “are the same operating level point values that were
`
`preprocessed on the vehicle, transmitted from the vehicle in step ST1 of Figure 5, and
`
`then sent back down to the vehicle in step ST10 of Figure 5.” Ex. 2007, ¶ 60. This is
`
`also unsupported by Nakagawa’s disclosure. There is no disclosure in Nakagawa of
`
`“calculat[ing] in numeric form” the “operating levels for one month” except in connection
`
`with the server-determined information that is sent to the vehicle and then displayed. In fact, if the
`
`total operating levels for a month were already calculated at the vehicle, there would
`
`be no need for the server to download, store, and update all of the user data relating
`
`to various operations of the vehicle, or to calculate premiums based on such user data.
`
`Moreover, there would be no need for the operating levels to be “sent back down to
`
`the vehicle” (as Mr. Zatkovich contends), if they are already stored at the vehicle.
`
`This would be, to put it mildly, a ridiculously unnecessary exercise that no POSITA
`
`would undertake: it certainly would be subject to Mr. Zatkovich’s caution that a
`
`POSITA would avoid adding “expensive and unnecessary complexity.” Ex. 2007,
`
`¶ 54. No POSITA would read Nakagawa to be teaching such an unnecessary and
`
`wasteful transfer of data, but instead would understand Nakagawa to mean what it
`
`
`
`21
`
`Page 00021
`
`

`
`
`
`
`says: these monthly operating level results are calculated at the server and sent to the
`
`vehicle for display.
`
`D. Mr. Zatkovich’s Opinions Regarding
`‘650 and
`the
`Applications’ Inherent Disclosure of Server Functionality
`
`‘076
`
`39. The following explanation was provided to me to
`
`inform the
`
`development of my opinions concerning whether the ‘650 and ‘076 applications
`
`inherently disclose certain claim limitations of the ‘358 patent: when an explicit
`
`limitation in a claim is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought,
`
`it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time
`
`the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.
`
`40. Mr. Zatkovich opines that the ‘650 application “necessarily” discloses (1)
`
`processing the “selected vehicle data” (2) at the server as required by claim 1.3 Ex.
`
`2007 ¶¶ 95-102. For example, Mr. Zatkovich opines:
`
` Ex. 2007 ¶ 99: “[T]o generate a cost for the unit of risk based on the
`
`relevant sensor data and event data, the charges algorithm 530 must necessarily
`
`process that selected vehicle data with data that reflects how the selected
`
`vehicle data affects a premium of an insurance policy.”
`
`
`3 For this limitation, claim 1 recites: “where the server is configured to process
`selected vehicle data that represents one or more aspects of operating the vehicle with
`data that reflects how the selected vehicle

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket