Paper No. _______
`Filed: August 17, 2015
`
`Filed on behalf of: Google Inc.
`
`By: Naveen Modi (Google-Silverstate-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Joseph E. Palys (Google-Silverstate-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Daniel Zeilberger (Google-Silverstate-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,650,234
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SILVER STATE INTELLECTUAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`
`____________________
`
`

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

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 34
`
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 34
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 37
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10. Claim 11 .................................................................................... 38
`
`11. Claim 12 .................................................................................... 38
`
`12. Claim 13 .................................................................................... 38
`
`13. Claim 14 .................................................................................... 38
`
`14. Claim 15 .................................................................................... 39
`
`15. Claim 17 .................................................................................... 39
`
`16. Claim 18 .................................................................................... 43
`
`17. Claim 19 .................................................................................... 43
`
`18. Claim 20 .................................................................................... 43
`
`19. Claim 21 .................................................................................... 44
`
`20. Claim 23 .................................................................................... 44
`
`21. Claim 24 .................................................................................... 44
`
`22. Claim 25 .................................................................................... 46
`
`23. Claim 26 .................................................................................... 46
`
`24. Claim 27 .................................................................................... 47
`
`25. Claim 28 .................................................................................... 47
`
`26. Claim 30 .................................................................................... 47
`
`B. Ground 2: Xu and Trovato Render Claims 8, 16, 22, and 29 Obvious
` ............................................................................................................. 47
`
`1.
`
`Claims 8 and 16 ......................................................................... 47
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Claims 22 and 29....................................................................... 50
`
`2.
`
`C. Ground 3: Xu and Golding Render Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-28,
`and 30 Obvious .................................................................................... 51
`
`D. Ground 4: Xu, Golding, and Trovato Render Claims 8, 16, 22, and 29
`Obvious ............................................................................................... 56
`
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 57
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Brose N. Am., Inc. v. Uusi, LLC,
`IPR2014-00417, Paper No. 49 (July 20, 2015) .................................................. 14
`
`Ex parte Erol,
`No. 2011-001143, 2013 WL 1341107 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2013) .......................... 15
`
`Ex parte Lakkala,
`No. 2011-001526, 2013 WL 1341108 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2013) .......................... 15
`
`Ex parte Smith,
`No. 2012-007631, 2013 WL 1341109 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2013) .......................... 15
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 50, 56
`
`Nintendo of America Inc. v. Motion Games, LLC,
`IPR2014-00164, Paper No. 12 (May 19, 2014) ...................................... 14, 15, 16
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 U.S. App.
`LEXIS 10082 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) ....................................................... 14, 15
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................... 13, 14, 15, 16
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`v
`
`
`

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

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Introduction
`Google Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-30 of
`
`I.
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234 (“the ’234 patent”) (Ex. 1001) assigned on its face to
`
`American Calcar, Inc., but reassigned to Silver State Intellectual Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”). (See Ex. 1003). This Petition shows that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on claims 1-30 of the ’234 patent based on
`
`prior art that the Office did not have before it during original prosecution. This
`
`Petition also shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior art anticipates
`
`and renders obvious claims 1-30 of the ’234 patent. Claims 1-30 of the ’234 patent
`
`should be found unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Party-in-Interest: Google Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: Patent Owner asserted the ’234 patent against the Petitioner
`
`in a patent infringement litigation filed on April 30, 2014, in the District of Nevada
`
`(case no. 2:14-cv-00662), which remains pending. Petitioner is also filing petitions
`
`for inter partes review of the following patents asserted by Patent Owner in that
`
`same district court action: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,525,768, 6,529,824, 8,538,498, and
`
`8,700,312.
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The Patent Owner also asserted the ’234 patent against Apple Inc. in a patent
`
`infringement litigation filed on May 30, 2013, in the District of Nevada (case no.
`
`2:13-cv-00957). That litigation was dismissed.
`
`The Patent Owner also asserted the ’234 patent against Garmin International,
`
`Inc., and Garmin USA, Inc., in a patent infringement litigation filed on September
`
`29, 2011, in the District of Nevada (case no. 2:11-cv-01578). All claims and
`
`counterclaims based on the ’234 patent were dismissed prior to a jury finding all
`
`considered claims of other asserted patents invalid.
`
`The Patent Owner also asserted the ’234 patent against TomTom, Inc., in a
`
`patent infringement litigation filed on September 29, 2011, in the District of
`
`Nevada (case no. 2:11-cv-01581). That litigation was dismissed.
`
`To the Petitioner’s knowledge, the ’234 patent has not undergone any prior
`
`post grant review or any inter partes review.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel is
`
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224), and Backup counsel is (1) Joseph E. Palys (Reg.
`
`No. 46,508) and (2) Daniel Zeilberger (Reg. No. 65,349). Service information is
`
`Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, Telephone:
`
`(202) 551-1700, Fax: (202) 551-1705, E-mail: Google-Silverstate-
`
`IPR@paulhastings.com. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`III. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103
`Petitioner submits the required fees with this Petition. Please charge any
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`additional fees required during this proceeding to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), the ’234 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review of the ’234 patent on the grounds identified.
`
`V.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested
`A. Claims for Which Review Is Requested
`Petitioner respectfully requests review of claims 1-30 of the ’234 patent, and
`
`cancellation of these claims as unpatentable.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`B.
`Claims 1-30 should be cancelled as unpatentable in view of the following
`
`prior art1:
`
`Reference 1: U.S. Patent No. 6,401,027 to Xu et al. (“Xu”) (Ex. 1004) was filed on
`
`May 24, 1999, and is prior art to the ’234 patent at least under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`1 For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner has assumed that the ’234 patent is
`
`entitled to a priority date of October 19, 1999.
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`Reference 2: U.S. Patent No. 5,835,881 to Trovato et al. (“Trovato”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`was filed on January 16, 1996 and issued on November 10, 1998, and is
`
`prior art to the ’234 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e).
`
`Reference 3: U.S. Patent No. 5,933,100 to Golding (“Golding”) (Ex. 1006) was
`
`filed on December 27, 1995 and issued on August 3, 1999, and is prior art to
`
`the ’234 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e).
`
`Claims 1-30 of the ’234 patent should be cancelled as unpatentable on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-28, and 30 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) in view of Xu.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 8, 16, 22, and 29 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
`
`Xu in view of Trovato.
`
`Ground 3: Claim 1-7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-28, and 30 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) based on Xu in view of Golding.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 8, 16, 22, and 29 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
`
`Xu in view of Golding and Trovato.
`
`C. The Proposed Grounds Are Not Redundant
`Petitioner’s proposed grounds for institution are not redundant because there
`
`are several significant differences between the grounds. For example, whereas
`
`Ground 1 relies on anticipation, Ground 3 relies on obviousness. Therefore,
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`different defenses may be available to the Patent Owner during the course of this
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`proceeding for each Ground.
`
`In addition, Ground 1 addresses the claims in a different way than Ground 3.
`
`For example, in Ground 1, Xu addresses the claimed “searching the database”
`
`limitations, as recited in independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 24, because of its block
`
`flagging operations performed at a client-side in-vehicle device. (See infra Parts
`
`VIII.A.1.f, VIII.A.8.f, VIII.A.15.e, VIII.A.21.e.) On the other hand, Ground 3
`
`relies on a disclosure in Golding that renders obvious performing the claimed
`
`“searching the database” limitations at a database, remote from the client’s device.
`
`(See infra Part VIII.C.) Thus, in one way, the strength of Ground 1 is that it
`
`addresses the “searching the database” limitations to the extent such “searching”
`
`features are interpreted in a way that includes searching the database client-side or
`
`the like. On the other hand, the strength of Ground 3 is that it addresses the
`
`“searching the database” limitations to the extent such “searching” features are
`
`interpreted in a way that includes searching the database database-side.
`
`The differences in the strengths of the prior art identified in these grounds
`
`warrant institution of both grounds given that finding redundancy in the grounds
`
`may detrimentally affect Petitioner’s ability to demonstrate the unpatentability of
`
`the claims. For instance, should the Board institute inter partes review based on an
`
`initial interpretation of the “searching the database” limitations that include client-
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`side type operations and thus decline to institute Ground 3, but then later changes
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`its construction to preclude such features, Petitioner may not be able to
`
`demonstrate fully why non-client-side type searching would have been obvious as
`
`presented in Ground 3. The same situation arises should the Board decline to
`
`institute review on Ground 1 as being redundant to Ground 3. Adopting both
`
`grounds will allow the Board to consider positions from both Patent Owner and
`
`Petitioner after institution regarding how the prior art discloses the “searching the
`
`database” limitations.2
`
`Ground 2 stems from the rejections in Ground 1, and Ground 4 stems from
`
`the rejections in Ground 3. Therefore, Grounds 2 and 4 are not redundant for the
`
`same reasons set forth for Grounds 1 and 3. For at least these reasons, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests the Board adopt all proposed Grounds, particularly because
`
`not adopting one of the grounds may potentially have severe estoppel effects that
`
`preclude Petitioner from later asserting invalidity of the ’234 patent based on
`
`arguments presented herein.
`
`
`2 Indeed, Patent Owner may reserve positions from a Preliminary Response that the
`
`Board may not see until after any institution that may have bearing on the prior art
`
`and the interpretation of the “searching the database” limitations.
`
`6
`
`
`

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

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

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Only one office action issued during prosecution of the ’193 application, and
`
`that office action only noted that the application’s abstract was improper. (Ex.
`
`1002 at 61-65.) The office action did not include a single prior art rejection, and in
`
`fact did not cite a single prior art reference. (Id.) The only prior art explicitly
`
`considered during prosecution of the ’193 application was prior art that the
`
`applicant made of record. (Id., 67-77.) None of the references relied upon for
`
`grounds in this Petition were ever considered during prosecution of the ’193
`
`application. (See Ex. 1001 at References Cited.)
`
`VII. Claim Construction
`A claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Throughout this Petition, as required by the rules governing it,
`
`Petitioner applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim terms
`
`appropriate for these proceedings, including claim terms for which a claim
`
`construction is not explicitly discussed. Claim constructions appropriate for these
`
`proceedings may be different than claim constructions appropriate in a federal
`
`district court. Thus, claim constructions relied upon in this Petition do not
`
`necessarily reflect the claim constructions that Petitioner believes should be
`
`adopted by a district court. Any term not construed below should be interpreted in
`
`accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable
`
`9
`
`
`

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

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

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

`
`overall navigation coverage. (Id., 14:3-5.) Claims 9, 17, and 24 characterize the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`“coverage area” in substantively the same manner. This understanding of the term
`
`“coverage area” is consistent with a district court’s claim construction during
`
`litigation involving the ’234 patent. (Ex. 1007 at 33-34.) This understanding is also
`
`consistent with how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`“coverage area” in the context of the ’234 patent. (See also Ex. 1008 at ¶ 28.)
`
`D. Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms
`The ’234 patent includes means-plus-function claim terms. Petitioner does
`
`not believe the ’234 patent properly describes any “structure” corresponding to the
`
`claimed function of each such term. However, as required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 104(b)(3), and without conceding that any claim of the ’234 patent is valid under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, Petitioner identifies portions of the ’234 patent that Patent Owner
`
`may argue describe such “structure.”
`
`Claim 17 recites a “processing unit for searching the database for traffic
`
`information specific to a coverage area including the location of the vehicle.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 15:1-3.) Similarly, claim 24 recites a “processing unit for searching the
`
`database for weather information specific to a coverage area including the location
`
`of the vehicle.” (Id., 16:3-5.) For purposes of this proceeding, both “processing
`
`unit for searching the database . . .” terms should be interpreted as means-plus-
`
`function terms.
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`“When a claim term lacks the word ‘means,’ the presumption [that § 112,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`para. 6 does not apply] can be overcome and § 112, para. 6 will apply if the
`
`challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite
`
`structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for
`
`performing that function.’” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130,
`
`2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10082 at *16 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (citing Watts v. XL
`
`Sys., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Claim 17 does not define any structure
`
`associated with a “processing unit” or its function of “searching the database for
`
`traffic information specific to a coverage area including the location of the
`
`vehicle.” Similarly, claim 24 does not define structure associated with a
`
`“processing unit” or its function of “searching the database for weather information
`
`specific to a coverage area including the location of the vehicle.” Moreover, a
`
`“processing unit” is a generic term that does not in itself suggest any particular
`
`structure. See, e.g., Brose N. Am., Inc. v. Uusi, LLC, IPR2014-00417, Paper No. 49
`
`at 12 (July 20, 2015) (explaining that “unit for” is a “non-structural generic
`
`placeholder[]” that may invoke § 112, para. 6); see also Nintendo of America Inc.
`
`v. Motion Games, LLC, IPR2014-00164, Paper No. 12 at 6 (May 19, 2014)
`
`(finding “a processing means” limitation to invoke means-plus-function). Indeed,
`
`in March 2013, a five-judge PTAB panel issued three decisions, all holding that
`
`“processor” invokes means-plus-function because “processor” fails to connote a
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`sufficiently definite structure. Ex parte Erol, No. 2011-001143, 2013 WL 1341107,
`
`at *8-9 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2013); Ex parte Lakkala, No. 2011-001526, 2013 WL
`
`1341108, at * 6-7 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2013); Ex parte Smith, No. 2012-007631, 2013
`
`WL 1341109, at *7-8 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2013). Therefore, a “processing unit for
`
`searching the database . . .,” as recited in claims 17 and 24, should be interpreted
`
`under § 112, para. 6.
`
`Construing a means-plus-function claim term requires that the function
`
`recited in the claim term be first identified, and then the written description of the
`
`specification must be consulted to identify the corresponding structure that
`
`performs the identified function and equivalents thereof. See Williamson, 2015
`
`U.S. App. LEXIS 10082 at *12, *20. For a computer-implemented means-plus-
`
`function claim limitation, “the specification must disclose a specific algorithm used
`
`by the computer to perform the recited function,” unless “the function is a generic
`
`function, such as ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ and can be performed by
`
`any general-purpose computer without special programming.” Nintendo of
`
`America Inc., IPR2014-00164, Paper No. 12 at 6-7.
`
`The identified function of the “processing unit” in claim 17 is “searching the
`
`database for traffic information specific to a coverage area including the location
`
`of the vehicle,” and the identified function of the “processing unit” in claim 24 is
`
`“searching the database for weather information specific to a coverage area
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`including the location of the vehicle.” (Ex. 1001 at 15:1-3, 16:3-5.)4 In the ’234
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`patent, Patent Owner will most likely argue that a remote server or a processor of a
`
`navigation device called a “navigator arrangement” (id., 8:26-55, 10:27-11:14)
`
`performs the identified functions of searching the database (i.e