`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In re patent of: Maguire
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`Issued: November 6, 2012
`
`Title: DOWNSCAN IMAGING
`SONAR
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes
`Review
`
`Case: IPR2013-00355
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
`Customer No.:
`
`Real Party in Interest: Raymarine, Inc.
`
`70052.667
`
`27683
`
`
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`
`Pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319, Raymarine, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) hereby petitions the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1-2, 5, 7, 16-21, 23, 25, 30, 32, 38-42, 45, 64, and 70-
`
`73 of United States Patent No. 8,305,840 (“the ’840 Patent,” Exhibit RAY-1001)
`
`that issued on November 6, 2012, to Brian T. Maguire, resulting from U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 12/460,139, filed on July 14, 2009. According to USPTO records,
`
`the ’840 Patent is currently assigned to Navico, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................... 1
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest .................................................................................... 1
`
`B. Related Matters ............................................................................................. 1
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ................................... 1
`
`II. Grounds for Standing ........................................................................................... 2
`
`III. Relief Requested .................................................................................................. 2
`
`IV. The Reasons for the Requested Relief ................................................................. 2
`
`A. Summary of Reasons .................................................................................... 2
`
`B. The ’840 Patent ............................................................................................. 4
`
`1. Overview ................................................................................................. 4
`
`2. Prosecution History ................................................................................. 6
`
`C. Identification of Challenges.......................................................................... 9
`
`1. Challenged Claims .................................................................................. 9
`
`2. Statutory Grounds for Challenges ........................................................... 9
`
`3. Claim Construction ................................................................................ 10
`
`4. Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable ............................. 12
`
`i. Challenge #1: Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 16, 20-21, 23, 25, 32, 38-39, 45, 64
`and 73 are anticipated by Hydrography ................. 12
`
`ii. Challenge #2: Claims 1-2, 23, 30, and 73 are obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hydrography in view of
`Boucher ’552 .......................................................... 28
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`iii. Challenge #3: Claims 1-2, 23, 30, and 73 are obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hydrography in view of
`Lustig. ..................................................................... 36
`
`iv. Challenge #4: Claims 1, 16-19, 23, 39-42, and 70-73 are obvious
`over Hydrography in view of Adams. .................... 41
`
`v. Challenge #5: Claims 16-17, 39, 42, and 70-71 are obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hydrography in view of
`Sato ......................................................................... 49
`
`vi. Challenge #6: Claims 1, 23, and 73 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Hydrography in view of Boucher ‘79852
`
`V. Conclusion .........................................................................................................58
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`
`
`I. Mandatory Notices
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The real party-in-interest is Raymarine, Inc. a subsidiary of FLIR Systems, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`As of the filing date of this petition, the ’840 patent was asserted against the party-
`
`in-interest in Navico, Inc. v. Raymarine, Inc. 4:13-cv-00251 (N.D. Okla.).
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`
`
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Julie M. Nickols
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Greg Michelson
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`18100 Von Karman Ave.
`Suite 750
`Irvine, California 92612
`
`Phillip B. Philbin
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`Phone: (972) 739-8636
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 32,271
`
`
`Phone: (972) 739-8640
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`julie.nickols.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,826
`
`Phone: (949) 202-3022
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`greg.michelson@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 44,940
`
`Phone: (214) 651-5684
`Fax: (214) 200-0672
`phillip.philbin.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 35,979
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`II. Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’840 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and Petitioner is not estopped or barred from requesting inter partes review of the
`
`’840 Patent. A complaint asserting that the Petitioner infringes the ’840 patent was
`
`filed on April 29, 2013, but the Petitioner has not yet been served. Petitioner has
`
`not initiated a civil action challenging validity of any claim of the ’840 patent.
`
`Petitioner also certifies that the ’840 patent is eligible for inter partes review.
`
`III. Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims 1-2, 5, 7, 16-21, 23, 25,
`
`30, 32, 38-42, 45, 64, and 70-73 of the ’840 Patent, and cancel those claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`IV. The Reasons for the Requested Relief
`
`The full statement of the reasons for the relief requested is as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Reasons
`
`The ’840 Patent relates to a downward facing (referred to as “downscan” in
`
`the ‘840 Patent) imaging sonar system utilizing a rectangular (referred to as
`
`“linear” in the ‘840 Patent) transducer element to provide images of the sea floor
`
`and other objects in the water column beneath a vessel. In general, the ’840 Patent
`
`describes a sonar assembly with a conventional transducer having a rectangular
`
`shape, with the longitudinal length of the transducer positioned in a fore-to-aft
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`direction. The transducer repeatedly emits fan-shaped sonar beams perpendicular
`
`to the surface of the water as the watercraft travels. A signal processor receives the
`
`sonar returns and creates an image from a composite of images of the fan shaped
`
`regions of the underwater environment. All these features were known in the art
`
`prior to 2009, when the application that issued as the ’840 Patent was filed.
`
`Single transducer elements in all shapes and sizes and mounted to watercraft
`
`in a wide variety of orientations (of course including the default “vertically down”
`
`orientation) were known to persons of ordinary skill in the art before 2009. The
`
`references cited as evidence in this petition include references omitted from the
`
`Examiner’s review, along with references selected from the flood of over 300
`
`patent and non-patent publications presented during prosecution. The Examiner
`
`for the ‘840 Patent is on the record stating that this was an “excessive number,”
`
`and that because many were provided without citations or indications of relevance,
`
`he was forced to provide only “cursory review.”
`
`The references cited in this petition, alone or in combination, anticipate or
`
`render obvious the claims of the ’840 Patent. The Examiner was not made aware
`
`of a 2002 textbook entitled Hydrography (RAY-1003), which includes a chapter
`
`dedicated to basic sonar techniques and systems, including a watercraft-mounted,
`
`downward facing sonar transducer having a rectangular shape. Hydrography
`
`shows the rectangular transducer producing downward facing fan-shaped beams,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`perpendicular to the surface of the water, as the watercraft travels. Hydrography
`
`also discloses that sonar returns are used conventionally to generate a composite
`
`image of the underwater environment over which the watercraft has traveled. The
`
`Examiner was also not made aware of either of two prior-filed US patent
`
`applications by Airmar Technology Corporation disclosing systems including a
`
`downward facing rectangular or linear transducer. The corresponding patents,
`
`(RAY-1004; RAY-1008), demonstrate that Airmar had previously developed a
`
`product that included a linear transducer for downward facing sonar. This petition
`
`demonstrates that at least claims 1-2, 5, 7, 16-21, 23, 25, 30, 32, 38-42, 45, 64, and
`
`70-73 all recite features that were known in the prior art and, therefore, are
`
`anticipated by or rendered obvious over one or more references cited herein.
`
`B.
`
`The ’840 Patent
`1. Overview
`
`The ’840 Patent includes 73 claims (total) with three independent claims 1,
`
`23, and 73. Each independent claim is directed to a sonar assembly comprising a
`
`rectangular/ linear transducer element positioned in a housing mountable to a
`
`watercraft. The first two independent claims 1 and 23 recite a downward facing
`
`single rectangular transducer element positioned within a housing mountable to a
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`watercraft, as shown in FIG. 8B. The third independent claim 73 also recites a
`
`rectangular transducer element, but without requiring the transducer element to be
`
`single or downward facing.
`
`The downward facing rectangular transducer projects a fan-shaped sonar
`
`beam perpendicular to the plane of the surface of the body of water as shown in
`
`FIG. 9A (e.g., the middle one of the three transducers). The fan-shaped sonar
`
`beams are repeatedly emitted as the watercraft travels, and the sonar returns are
`
`processed by a sonar signal processor to create an image of the underwater
`
`environment from a composite of images arranged in the progressive order of the
`
`travelling watercraft. Although the ’840 patent does not use the term “composite
`
`of images” to describe creating an image using a single transducer element
`
`(“composite” is used only once in the description of the ‘840 Patent, at 13:59), one
`
`example which apparently uses a composite of images is provided at FIG. 12B. In
`
`FIG. 12B, “[b]oat position is represented by the numeral 0, or some other desirable
`
`icon, for the most recent sonar pings, and the oldest sonar pings are presented by
`
`the left side of the screen, presenting a scrolling image as the boat (and transducer)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`composite image produced
`by down facing
`rectangular element with
`oldest sonar pings to the
`left and most recent sonar
`pings to the right
`
`move across the water surface over time.” None of the recited features were novel
`
`and nonobvious when the’840 Patent was filed on July 14, 2009.
`
`2.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’840 Patent, now assigned to Navico, Inc. (“Applicant”) was filed on
`
`July 14, 2009 and issued on November 6, 2012. Applicant submitted over 300
`
`references in six Information Disclosure Statements, an amount characterized by
`
`the Examiner as an “excessive number of references . . .[that] have only been given
`
`a cursory review to gather relevance to the claimed inventions.” (RAY-1002, Final
`
`Rejection dated Dec. 20, 2011)
`
`Early in prosecution, Applicant elected to prosecute Species II described in
`
`Claims 57-99 directed to “a linear transducer array and a sonar system including
`
`the linear transducer array.” The first substantive Office Action rejected all of the
`
`claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over US Pat. No. 5,561,641 to Nishimori in view
`
`of US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0002232 to Shah et al., together or in combination
`
`with other prior art references. An Examiner interview was conducted in which
`
`the Applicant explained its only alleged point of novelty was pointing a rectangular
`
`transducer downward from a watercraft:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`[I]t was conventional in the prior art to aim a conical beam straight down from
`
`the watercraft, for purposes of depth sounding as well as acquiring images of
`
`water-borne objects such as fish. It was further explained that linear or
`
`rectangular transducers were conventionally used for side scan purposes, using
`
`the fan-shaped beams produced by such linear transducers to insonify regions to
`
`the port and starboard sides of a watercraft. As presently understood by
`
`Applicant, however, no prior art reference cited by Applicant or the
`
`Examiner has a linear transducer used for downscan as described in
`
`Applicant’s application. (RAY-1002, Amendment dated Nov. 30, 2011,
`
`emphasis added)
`
`In a written response, Applicant distinguished Nishimori as failing to
`
`disclose a linear transducer element producing fan-shaped beams in a direction
`
`substantially perpendicular to the plane of the surface of the water. Applicant also
`
`added 38 new claims. A final Office Action was then issued with an additional
`
`election of species requirement and a rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over US Pat. No. 5,805,528 to Hamada in view of a publication describing
`
`an Imagenex Model 855 sonar system, together or in combination with other
`
`references. Applicant responded by electing the species directed toward “a
`
`singular downscan linear transducer element with optional conical downscan
`
`transducer element,” and then amended independent claims 57 and 76 (issued
`
`claims 1 and 23) to recite a “single” linear “downscan” transducer and to include a
`
`sonar signal processor for receiving return sonar signals and processing the signals
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`to create an image. Applicant argued: “Hamada requires the use of multiple
`
`transducer element that are physically distributed in an array, as distinct from a
`
`single linear transducer element. . . . In contrast, Applicant’s claimed invention
`
`uses a single linear transducer element to produce a single-transmission fan-shaped
`
`beam directed beneath the boat, and sonar returns from the narrow region
`
`insonified by the fan-shaped beam are received with no phased-array beam steering
`
`required.” (RAY-1002, Amendment After Final dated Feb. 21, 2012) Applicant
`
`then explained the meaning of a single linear downscan transducer element:
`
` It will be understood, of course, that the recitation of a "single linear downscan
`
`transducer element" does not require the single element to be a monolithic
`
`structure formed of a single crystal of material. It is well known in the
`
`transducer field that a plurality of such crystals can be arranged (e.g., end-to-
`
`end) and can be electrically connected to circuitry such that the plurality of
`
`crystals act together as if they were a single crystal or element. Claims 57 and 76
`
`encompass any "single downscan transducer element" (whether monolithic or
`
`not) as distinct from a multi-element phased array-type transducer. (Id.)
`
`A Notice of Allowance subsequently issued without providing Reasons for
`
`Allowance. Petitioner notes that issued claim 73 does not expressly recite the
`
`“single” and “downscan” limitations, which is inconsistent with the prosecution
`
`history and the admitted prior art.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenges
`1.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 16-21, 23, 25, 30, 32, 38-42, 45, 64, and 70-73 of the ’840
`
`Patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`2.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 16, 20-21, 23, 25, 32, 38-39, 45, 64 and 73
`
`are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by de Jong, C.D. et al., Hydrography, (1st
`
`ed. 2002) (“Hydrography”), an introductory-level textbook published in 2002.
`
`(See, RAY-1003)
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 1-2, 23, 30, and 73 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over Hydrography in view of U.S. Pat. No. 7,961,552 to Boucher et al.
`
`(“Boucher ’552”) Boucher ‘522 is an issued patent filed Aug. 28, 2008 and is prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). (See, RAY-1004)
`
`Challenge #3: Claims 1-2, 23, 30, and 73 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over Hydrography in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,144,631 to Lustig et al.
`
`(“Lustig”) Lustig is an issued patent filed Jan. 9, 1962 and is prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). (See, RAY-1005)
`
`Challenge #4: Claims 1, 16-19, 23, 39-42, and 70-73 are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hydrography in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,184,330 to Adams et
`
`al. (“Adams”) Adams is an issued patent filed June 25, 1991 and is prior art under
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (See, RAY-1006)
`
`Challenge #5: Claims 16-17, 39, 42, 70, and 71 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Hydrography in view of Japanese Utility Model No. 54-54365 to
`
`Sato (“Sato”). Sato is a Japanese Utility Model Registration Application published
`
`April 14, 1979 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (See, RAY-1007)
`
`Challenge #6: Claims 1, 23, and 73 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over Hydrography in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,904,798 to Boucher et al. (“Boucher
`
`‘798”) Boucher ‘798 is an issued patent filed Jul. 30, 2003 and is prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (See, RAY-1008)
`
`3.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`This petition presents claim analysis in a manner that is consistent with the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). Claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as would
`
`be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, unless the inventor, as a
`
`lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning for a term. Multiform Desiccants,
`
`Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); York Prods., Inc. v.
`
`Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`In the ’840 Patent, the inventor did not act as a lexicographer and did not provide a
`
`special meaning for any of the claim terms. Accordingly, using the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, the terms should be given their ordinary and
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`custom meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art:
`
`• “a single linear downscan transducer”: a downwardly directed transducer
`
`comprising either a single monolithic rectangular shaped transducer element or a
`
`plurality of transducer elements arranged end-to-end and electrically connected to
`
`act as a single rectangular element. (RAY-1009, ¶26-28; RAY-1010, ¶26-28;
`
`RAY-1001, 2:66-3:3, 9:36-46; RAY-1002, Feb. 21, 2012 Amnd. After Final)
`
`• “fan-shaped sonar beam”: a sonar beam with a narrow beamwidth in one
`
`direction and a wide beamwidth in the other perpendicular direction. (RAY-1009,
`
`¶29-30; RAY-1010, ¶29-30; RAY-1001, 10:21-25)
`
`• “sequentially insonify different fan-shaped regions of the underwater
`
`environment”: emit sonar pulses into an underwater environment and detect echo
`
`returns from the underwater environment as the transducer is moved across the
`
`water over time. (RAY-1009, ¶31-32; RAY-1010, ¶31-32; RAY-1001, 3:7-8 and
`
`13:55-61)
`
`• “composite of images of the fan-shaped regions”: sonar reflection data from
`
`multiple fan-shaped regions represented on a common display. (RAY-1009, ¶33-
`
`34; RAY-1010, ¶33-34; RAY-1001, 13:53-64)
`
`The foregoing proposed claim construction is presented by Petitioner using the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard applied for purposes of inter partes
`
`review. Petitioner reserves the right to advocate a different claim interpretation in
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`district court or any other forum in accordance with the claim construction
`
`standards applied in such forum.
`
`4.
`Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`i. Challenge #1: Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 16, 20-21, 23, 25, 32, 38-39, 45,
`
`64 and 73 are anticipated by Hydrography
`
`
`Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 16, 20-21, 23, 25, 32, 38-39, 45, 64 and 73 are anticipated under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Hydrography. Hydrography (RAY-1003) was published in
`
`2002. During prosecution, the Applicant stated that, “no prior art reference cited by
`
`Applicant or the Examiner has a linear transducer used for downscan as described
`
`in Applicant’s application.” However, Hydrography, published seven years before
`
`the filing date of the ’840 patent, discloses just such a “downscan” or downward
`
`facing transducer. Specifically, chapter 11 of Hydrography discloses the use of a
`
`sonar assembly with a single linear downscan transducer element that produces
`
`fan-shaped beams for imaging an underwater environment. (RAY-1009, ¶35-36;
`
`RAY-1010, ¶35-36; RAY-1003, p. 325-326) Hydrography is laid out in several
`
`basic sections that build upon the previous sections. Section 11.1 introduces the
`
`basic aspects of echo-sounding generally and explains how to use transducers to
`
`image the area below and around a vessel. Section 11.1 discusses transducers
`
`generally, noting: “[c]eramics can be molded in any desired shape.” (RAY-1003,
`
`p. 321) Section 11.2 details how beam shapes are selected and introduces two
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`main transducer shapes – circular and rectangular/linear. Section 11.3 discusses
`
`using single beam transducers, and Section 11.4 introduces the concept of multi-
`
`beam transducers.” (RAY-1009, ¶36; RAY-1010, ¶36)
`
`Claim 1 [1.0] A sonar assembly for imaging an underwater environment beneath
`
`a watercraft traveling on a surface of a body of water, the sonar assembly
`
`comprising
`
`Section 11.1 of Hydrography, which again describes echo sounder systems
`
`generally, discloses sonar assemblies: “An acoustic pulse transmitted by a
`
`transducer travels through the column of water and is reflected by the target (sea
`
`floor) back to the hydrophone.” (RAY-1003, p.319) “The transducer is mounted
`
`on the ship’s hull and is in contact with water.” (RAY-1003, p. 320) As shown in
`
`FIG. 11.8, the underwater environment is imaged as the watercraft travels on the
`
`surface of a body of water. (RAY-1003, p. 323 annotated)
`
`watercraft
`traveling
`
`recorded
`image of
`underwater
`environment
`
`Thus, Hydrography discloses [1.0]. (RAY-1009, ¶37w/chart; RAY-1010, ¶37)
`
`[1.1] a housing mountable to the watercraft
`
`Hydrography discloses a housing mounted to the watercraft: “The transducer is
`
`mounted on the ship’s hull and is in contact with water.” (RAY-1003, p.320)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`Hydrography at FIG. 11.3 depicts the housing with a transducer mounted therein.
`
`Thus, Hydrography discloses [1.1]. (RAY-1009, ¶37 w/chart; RAY-1010, ¶37)
`
`
`
`[1.2] a single linear downscan transducer element positioned within the housing
`
`Section 11.2 of Hydrography, which discusses the two main transducer shapes
`
`used in echo sounding, discloses the use of a single linear downscan transducer
`
`element as claimed. “A single point source radiates energy omni-directionally. In
`
`the case of transducers used for hydrography, energy is normally concentrated
`
`along the axis that is perpendicular to the radiating surface.” (RAY-1003, p.324)
`
`FIG. 11.12 (below) illustrates a single linear downscan transducer element. As
`
`indicated by its shape, proportion, and arrangement within FIG. 11.12, the beam
`
`footprint is shown directly vertically beneath the linear or rectangular transducer.
`
`Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 11.8 (see [1.0]) and 11.9 (see [1.4]) the sonar
`
`beams contemplated in these portions of Hydrography are directed generally
`
`vertically downward. (RAY-1003, p.326, FIG. 11.12, annotated) Thus,
`
`Hydrography discloses [1.2]. (RAY-1009, ¶37 w/chart; RAY-1010, ¶37)
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`wide
`beamwidth
`
`rectangular shape
`
`fan-shaped
`beam
`
`narrow beamwidth
`
`
`
` [1.3] the linear downscan transducer element having a substantially rectangular
`
`shape configured to produce a fan-shaped sonar beam having a relatively
`
`narrow beamwidth in a direction parallel to a longitudinal length of the linear
`
`downscan transducer element and a relatively wide beamwidth in a direction
`
`perpendicular to the longitudinal length of the transducer element,
`
`Section 11.2 of Hydrography teaches:
`
` “A rectangular transducer will produce a different beamwidth in each of its two
`
`principal axes. Consider a rectangular transducer of dimension L1 (shorter
`
`dimension) by L2 (longer dimension). The beam footprint will be narrow in the
`
`direction parallel to the long direction of the transducer. By contrast, the
`
`footprint will be wide in the direction orthogonal to the long direction of the
`
`transducer (i.e., parallel to the short dimension of the transducer), as shown in
`
`Figure 11.12 above for claim element [1.2]. The narrow (sic) beamwidth β1 and
`
`the wide (sic) beamwidth β2 of a rectangular transducer, both expressed in
`
`degrees, are given respectively by
`
` .” (RAY-1003, p.326)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
` Thus, Hydrography discloses [1.3].(RAY-1009,¶37 w/chart; RAY-1010,¶37)
`
`[1.4] the linear downscan transducer element being positioned with the
`
`longitudinal length thereof extending in a fore-to-aft direction of the housing
`
`As shown in FIG. 11.12 of Hydrography, the linear downscan transducer produces
`
`a wide beamwidth in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal length of the
`
`transducer. In order to provide the wide fan-shaped beam and maximize seabed
`
`coverage for the fore-to-aft positioned ship shown in FIG. 11.9, the transducer of
`
`FIG. 11.12 must be positioned with the longitudinal length in the fore-to-aft
`
`direction. (RAY-1003, FIG. 11.9 and FIG. 11.12 annotated) It would be very
`
`unlikely that such a transducer would be by default oriented with the longitudinal
`
`length in other directions, as those types of orientations would produce fan-shaped
`
`beams inefficiently sweeping out relatively narrow portions of the sea bed/water
`
`column beneath the vessel as the vessel traveled in its normal fore-to-aft direction.
`
`aft
`
`fore
`
`Thus, Hydrography discloses [1.4].(RAY-1009,¶37 w/chart;RAY-1010,¶37)
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`[1.5] wherein the linear downscan transducer element is positioned within the
`
`housing to project fan-shaped sonar beams in a direction substantially
`
`perpendicular to a plane corresponding to the surface of the body of water,
`
`General section 11.1 of Hydrography discloses, “[a] single point source radiates
`
`energy omni-directionally. In the case of transducers used for hydrography, energy
`
`is normally concentrated along the axis that is perpendicular to the radiating
`
`surface.” (RAY-1003, p. 324) As shown in FIGs. 11.8, 9, and 12 of Hydrography
`
`(see [1.4], [1.6]), the axis perpendicular to the radiating surface is directed
`
`downward generating a “beam footprint” on the sea floor directly below the water
`
`vessel as viewed from all orientations. The fan-shaped beam is therefore projected
`
`in the direction perpendicular to the surface of the water. Thus, Hydrography
`
`discloses [1.5]. (RAY-1009, ¶37 w/chart; RAY-1010, ¶37)
`
`[1.6] said sonar beams being repeatedly emitted so as to sequentially insonify
`
`different fan-shaped regions of the underwater environment as the watercraft
`
`travels; and
`
`As shown in FIG. 11.8, and set forth in the general echo sounder Section 11.1 of
`
`Hydrography, sonar beams are repeatedly emitted to sequentially insonify different
`
`watercraft
`traveling while
`sequentially
`insonifying the
`water under the
`watercraft
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`underwater fan-shaped regions as the watercraft “pass[es] across” the sea floor.
`
`One skilled in the art would recognize that the regions could be fan-shaped,
`
`conical, or otherwise shaped as taught by Hydrography, and produce a recorded
`
`profile with some amount of hyperbolic echo, as shown in exaggerated form in
`
`FIG. 11.8. Hydrography also discloses that “[t]he T/R [transmitter/receiver] switch
`
`is used to trigger a pulse with a specific length. Normally the pulse length varies
`
`from 0.1 to 50 ms. In shallow water, a single short pulse of length of 0.2 ms is
`
`transmitted and received before the next pulse is transmitted. In deep water, many
`
`pulses of lengths varying from 1 ms to 40 ms are generated and are in the water at
`
`any time.” (RAY-1003, p320) Thus, Hydrography discloses [1.6]. (RAY-1009,¶37
`
`w/chart; RAY-1010, ¶37)
`
`[1.7] a sonar signal processor receiving signals representative of sonar returns
`
`resulting from each of the fan-shaped sonar beams and processing the signals to
`
`produce sonar image data for each fan-shaped region and to create an image of
`
`the underwater environment as a composite of images of the fan-shaped regions
`
`arranged in a progressive order corresponding to the travel of the watercraft.
`
`Section 11.1 of Hydrography discloses, “[a] recorder which controls the signal
`
`emission, measures the travel time of the acoustic signal, stores the data, and
`
`converts time intervals into ranges. (RAY-1003, p.320) Further, FIG. 11.1
`
`illustrates that signals are sent to the “Recorder” where an “echo trace” image is
`
`created. It is clear from Hydrography that the image is generated based on the
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`beam returns as the watercraft travels. Hydrography FIG. 11.1 depicts a generic
`
`transducer which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand, based upon
`
`Hydrography, could be of any of the described shapes, including rectangular. Thus,
`
`a rectangular transducer produces a fan-shaped region, and the image generated
`
`would be from sequential fan-shaped regions. FIG. 11.8 of Hydrography, shown
`
`above at claim element [1.6], illustrates a “recorded profile” (i.e., a composite of
`
`images) with a composite of profiles of “hyperbolic echo” images arranged in
`
`progressive order corresponding to the travel of the watercraft. Thus, Hydrography
`
`discloses [1.7]. (RAY-1009, ¶37 w/chart; RAY-1010, ¶37)
`
`Claim 2: [2.0] The sonar assembly of claim 1, wherein the linear downscan
`
`transducer element is configured to operate at a selected one of at least two
`
`selectable operating frequencies.
`
`Hydrography teaches “Modern echo sounders usually offer a choice of two to three
`
`transmitting frequencies …” It was well understood in the art that echo sounders
`
`would have two or more operating frequencies. Thus, Hydrography discloses [2.0]
`
`(RAY-1003, p.320) (RAY-1009, ¶37 w/chart; RAY-1010, ¶37)
`
`Claim 5: [5.0] The sonar assembly of claim 1, wherein the linear downscan
`
`transducer element is configured to communicate with a single transceiver.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`FIG. 11.1 of Hydrography (see [1.7]) teaches a transducer communicating with a
`
`single transceiver. Thus, Hydrography discloses [5.0] (RAY-1009, ¶37 w/chart;
`
`RAY-1010, ¶37)
`
`Claim 7: [7.0] The sonar assem