`
`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
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`70052.680
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
`Customer No.:
`
`Real Party in Interest: Raymarine, Inc.
`
`
`
`27683
`
`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 3, 10-11, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46-53, 56-62, and 69
`
`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 has recently been assigned to Navico Holding AS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`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 ............................................................................................. 5
`
`1. Overview ................................................................................................. 5
`
`2. Prosecution History ................................................................................. 7
`
`C. Identification of Challenges........................................................................ 10
`
`1. Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 10
`
`2. Statutory Grounds for Challenges ......................................................... 10
`
`3. Claim Construction ................................................................................ 11
`
`4. Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable ............................. 13
`
`i. Challenge #1: Claims 3, 10-11, 26, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46, 49-53, 56-62,
`and 69 are obvious over Hydrography in view of
`Adams. .................................................................... 13
`
`ii. Challenge #2: Claims 3, 10-11, 26, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46, 49-53, 56-62,
`and 69 are obvious over Hydrography in view of
`Boucher ‘552 and Adams. ...................................... 34
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`iii. Challenge #3: Claims 3, 10-11, 26, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46, 49-53, 56-62,
`and 69 are obvious over Hydrography in view of
`Boucher ‘798, DeRoos, and Adams. ...................... 40
`
`iv. Challenge #4: Claims 24 and 47-48 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Hydrography in view of Adams,
`Chiang, and E-Series .............................................. 46
`
`v. Challenge #5: Claims 24 and 47-48 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Hydrography in view of Boucher ‘552,
`Adams, Chiang, and E-Series ................................. 51
`
`vi. Challenge #6: Claims 24 and 47-48 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Hydrography in view of Boucher ‘798,
`DeRoos, Adams, Chiang, and E-Series .................. 54
`
`V. Conclusion .........................................................................................................58
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`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 real
`
`party-in-interest in Navico, Inc. v. Raymarine, Inc. 4:13-cv-00251 (N.D. Okla.).
`
`Petitioner filed petition IPR2013-00355 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 on June 13, 2013.
`
`Concurrently with this petition, Petitioner is filing a petition for inter partes review
`
`of claims 4, 6, 8-9, 12-15, 22, 27-28, 34-37, 43, 54-55, 63, and 65-68 of the ‘840
`
`Patent.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`
`Phillip B. Philbin
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`II. Grounds for Standing
`
`Phone: (214) 651-5684
`Fax: (214) 200-0672
`phillip.philbin.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 35,979
`
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’840 Patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`Petitioner is not estopped or barred from requesting inter partes review of the ’840
`
`Patent. A complaint asserting that Petitioner infringes the ‘840 Patent was filed on
`
`April 29, 2013, but Petitioner has not yet been served. Petitioner has not initiated a
`
`civil action challenging validity of any claim of the ‘840 Patent.
`
`III. Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art, analysis,
`
`and declarations, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims 3, 10-11, 24, 26,
`
`29, 31, 33, 44, 46-53, 56-62, and 69 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
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`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
`
`direction. Similar to virtually all sonar systems, the transducer repeatedly emits
`
`sonar beams (in this case, fan-shaped sonar beams, because the transducer has a
`
`rectangular shape) 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. For example, 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. Furthermore, aiming any type of
`
`transducer (and particularly transducers producing fan-shaped beams) in any
`
`variety of directions, including “downscan,” was also commonly known. As noted
`
`in DeRoos (RAY-1008):
`
`…forward-look sonar would be used in much the same manner as would side-
`
`scan sonar. The main difference is the orientation of the sonar relative to the
`
`vehicle on which it is mounted. Where the side-scan sonar is mounted to look
`
`out toward the sides of the vehicle, the forward-look sonar would be mounted to
`
`image the area in front of the vehicle. […] Bathymetric, or down-looking
`
`sonars, are used for bottom contour mapping, depth sensing, fish finding,
`
`altitude sensing, and other similar tasks. The bathymetric sonars are very
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`similar to forward-look sonars except they are aimed downward. The
`
`transmitted beam is narrow along the travel path of the sonar and wide in the
`
`plane normal to the direction of travel [e.g., the transmitted beams are “fan-
`
`shaped”] (RAY-1008, p.129)
`
`Thus, side-scan, forward-scan, and down-looking (“downscan”) sonar systems are
`
`all effectively interchangeable, and there is no special technique or novelty
`
`involved in aiming a rectangular transducer downward. (RAY-1010, ¶23; RAY-
`
`1011, ¶23)
`
`The references cited as evidence in this petition, alone or in combination,
`
`anticipate or render obvious the claims of the ’840 Patent. The references include
`
`references omitted from the Examiner’s review, along with references buried in the
`
`flood of over 300 patent and non-patent publications presented during prosecution
`
`and never used in a rejection. To explain, the Examiner for the ‘840 Patent stated,
`
`on the record, that the number of references submitted in the ‘840 Patent was an
`
`“excessive number,” and because most were provided without citations or
`
`indications of relevance, he was forced to provide only “cursory review.” Thus,
`
`the Examiner was unable to articulate an effective rejection of the ‘840 Patent, due
`
`at least in part to an inability to investigate all the cited references fully while
`
`attempting to perform a substantive prior art search.
`
`For example, the Examiner was not made aware of a 2002 textbook entitled
`
`Hydrography (RAY-1003), which includes a chapter dedicated to basic sonar
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`techniques and systems, including a watercraft-mounted, downward facing sonar
`
`transducer having a rectangular shape. Hydrography shows a rectangular
`
`transducer producing downward facing fan-shaped beams, perpendicular to the
`
`surface of the water, as the watercraft travels. Hydrography also teaches 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 (e.g., “linear”) transducer. The
`
`corresponding patents, (RAY-1005; RAY-1006), demonstrate that Airmar had
`
`previously developed a product that included a linear transducer for downward
`
`facing sonar.
`
`In summary, this petition demonstrates that at least claims 3, 10-11, 24, 26,
`
`29, 31, 33, 44, 46-53, 56-62, and 69 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 and three independent claims 1, 23, and
`
`73, each of which are separately challenged in petition IPR2013-00355, as noted
`
`above in Related Matters. Each independent claim is directed to a sonar assembly
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`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 watercraft, as
`
`shown in FIG. 8B. The third independent claim 73 also recites
`
`a rectangular transducer element, but without explicitly requiring the transducer
`
`element to be single or downward facing (“downscan”).
`
`Due to the rectangular geometry of the downward facing transducer, it
`
`inherently 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
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`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) 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, originally assigned to Navico, Inc. (“Applicant”) 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`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:
`
`[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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`transducer element,” and then amended independent claims 57 and 76 (issued
`
`claims 1 and 23) to recite a “single” linear “downscan” transducer element and to
`
`include a sonar signal processor for receiving return sonar signals and processing
`
`the signals to create an image. Applicant argued:
`
`Hamada requires the use of multiple transducer elements 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, Amnd.
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`history and the admitted prior art.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenges
`1.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 3, 10-11, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46-53, 56-62, and 69 of the ’840
`
`Patent are challenged in this petition. Claims 3 and 10-11 depend from and
`
`incorporate Claim 1, and Claims 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46-53, 56-62, and 69
`
`depend from and incorporate Claim 23. Claims 1 and 23 are addressed separately
`
`in each of Challenges 1-3 (and, as noted above, are separately challenged in
`
`petition IPR2013-00355).
`
`2.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 3, 10-11, 26, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46, 49-53, 56-62, and 69
`
`are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over de Jong, C.D. et al., Hydrography, (1st
`
`ed. 2002) (“Hydrography”), an introductory-level textbook published in 2002, in
`
`view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,184,330 to Adams et al. (“Adams”). Adams was filed June
`
`25, 1991, and both references are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (See, RAY-
`
`1004)
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 3, 10-11, 26, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46, 49-53, 56-62, and 69
`
`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”) and Adams. Boucher ‘522 was filed
`
`Aug. 28, 2008 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). (See, RAY-1005)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`Challenge #3: Claims 3, 10-11, 26, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46, 49-53, 56-62, and 69
`
`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”), DeRoos, Bradley G. et al., Technical
`
`Survey and Evaluation of Underwater Sensors and Remotely Operated Vehicles,
`
`(May 1993) (“DeRoos”), and Adams. Boucher ‘798 was filed Jul. 30, 2003, and
`
`all references are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (See, RAY-1006, RAY-
`
`1008)
`
`Challenge #4: Claims 24 and 47-48 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over Hydrography in view of Adams, U.S. Pat. No. 6,842,401 to Chiang et al.
`
`(“Chiang”) and Raymarine, E-Series Networked Display: Reference Manual,
`
`(March 2006) (“E-Series”). Chiang was filed on July 19, 2001, and all references
`
`are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (See, RAY-1007, RAY-1009)
`
`Challenge #5: Claims 24 and 47-48 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over Hydrography in view of Boucher ‘552, Adams, Chiang, and E-Series.
`
`Challenge #6: Claims 24 and 47-48 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over Hydrography in view of Boucher ‘798, DeRoos, Adams, Chiang, and E-
`
`Series.
`
`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. §
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`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
`
`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-1010, ¶26-28; RAY-1011, ¶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-1010,
`
`¶29-30; RAY-1011, ¶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
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`water over time. (RAY-1010, ¶31-32; RAY-1011, ¶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-1010, ¶33-
`
`34; RAY-1011, ¶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
`
`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 3, 10-11, 26, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46, 49-53, 56-
`62, and 69 are obvious over Hydrography in view of Adams.
`
`Claims 3, 10-11, 26, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46, 49-53, 56-62, and 69 are obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hydrography in view of Adams. This combination
`
`is proposed to supplement the teachings of Hydrography with respect to creation of
`
`an image and various display features. The analysis of the independent claims
`
`from which the challenged claims depend is provided for completeness.
`
`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.” Hydrography, published seven years before the filing
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`date of the ‘840 Patent, discloses just such a “downscan” or downward facing
`
`transducer. Specifically, chapter 11 of Hydrography teaches the use of a sonar
`
`assembly with a single linear downscan transducer element that produces fan-
`
`shaped beams for imaging an underwater environment. (RAY-1010, ¶35-40;
`
`RAY-1011, ¶35-40; 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 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-1010, ¶35-
`
`40; RAY-1011, ¶35-40)
`
`Adams teaches a streamlined transducer comprising a number of elements
`
`arranged roughly in a rectangular shape longitudinally aligned fore-to-aft and
`
`producing a downward facing fan shaped beam with a wide beamwidth extending
`
`port-to-starboard. (RAY-1004, 4:46-57, 7:61-66, FIGs. 1, 4, 5) Notably, the
`
`elements are not coupled as a phased array, and thus can act in conjunction
`
`substantially similar to a single linear transducer to produce a downward facing fan
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`shaped beam. (RAY-1004, 4:46-57, 7:61-66, FIGs. 1, 4, 5) During prosecution of
`
`the ’840 Patent, a single linear downscan transducer was construed to include a
`
`transducer including multiple crystals. (RAY-1002, Amnd. After Final dated Feb.
`
`21, 2012)
`
`Reasons to Combine: It would have been obvious to combine the prior art
`
`elements of a linear downscan transducer (e.g., the assembly of Hydrography) with
`
`specific teachings for the creation of images from the processed transducer beams,
`
`for the combination of linear and circular transducers (e.g., the system of Adams),
`
`and for providing various display features, because it would have been a use of
`
`known techniques to improve a similar device in the same way. (RAY-1010, ¶35-
`
`40; RAY-1011, ¶35-40); see M.P.E.P. § 2143(C). Hydrography and Adams both
`
`teach sonar systems for surveying underwater environments using roughly
`
`rectangular transducer elements. (RAY-1003, p. 325-326; RAY-1005;RAY-1004,
`
`7:59-66, 11:9-11) Since Adams addresses the same problem of Hydrography
`
`concerning the use of linear downscan transducers for echo sounding, it would
`
`have been common sense to a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Adams
`
`for variations on ways to create images using the sonar returns and to use the linear
`
`transducer elements in combination with circular transducers. (RAY-1010, ¶35-
`
`40; RAY-1011, ¶35-40) Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`combine the known elements of Hydrography and Adams because the combination
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`would have used known techniques to improve a similar system in the same way.
`
`(Id.)
`
`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 describes echo sounder systems generally,
`
`teaches 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
`
`watercraft
`traveling
`
`recorded
`image of
`underwater
`environment
`
`underwater environment is imaged as the watercraft travels on the surface of a
`
`body of water. (RAY-1003, p. 323 annotated) Thus, Hydrography teaches [1.0].
`
`(RAY-1010, ¶35-40; RAY-1011, ¶35-40; [charts are included in the paragraphs])
`
`[1.1] a housing mountable to the watercraft
`
`Hydrography teaches 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)
`
`Hydrography at FIG. 11.3 depicts the housing with a transducer mounted therein.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`Thus, Hydrography teaches [1.1]. (RAY-1010, ¶35-
`
`40; RAY-1011, ¶35-40)
`
`[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, teaches 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
`
`wide
`beamwidth
`
`rectangular shape
`
`fan-shaped
`beam
`
`contemplated in these
`
`narrow beamwidth
`
`portions of
`
`Hydrography are directed generally vertically downward. (RAY-1003, p.326, FIG.
`
`11.12, annotated) Thus, Hydrography teaches [1.2]. (RAY-1010, ¶35-40; RAY-
`
`1011, ¶35-40)
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
` [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 wide beamwidth β1 and the
`
`narrow beamwidth β2 of a rectangular transducer, both expressed in degrees, are
`
`given respectively by . (RAY-1003, p.326)
`
`
`
`Note that FIG. 11.12 of Hydrography should indicate L1 as the shorter
`
`dimension and L2 as the longer dimension to correctly correspond to the cited text
`
`of Hydrography. One skilled in the art would recognize this error as a simple
`
`typographical error in the printing of the book. Thus, Hydrography teaches [1.3].
`
`(RAY-1010,¶35-40; RAY-1011,¶35-40)
`
`[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
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840
`
`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 is very unlikely
`
`aft
`