UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,719,038
`Issue Date: May 6, 2014
`Title: COMPUTERIZED INFORMATION AND
`DISPLAY APPARATUS
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00146
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,719,038
`Issue Date: May 6, 2014
`Title: COMPUTERIZED INFORMATION AND
`DISPLAY APPARATUS
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00146
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,719,038 to Gazdzinski
`
`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`
`Notice of Allowance, dated November 25, 2013 in U.S.
`Patent Application Serial No. 13/752,222
`
`The Network Vehicle – A Glimpse into the Future of
`Mobile Multi-Media, by R. Lind et al., The 17th DASC –
`The AIAA/IEEE/SAE Digital Avionics Systems
`Conference – Bellevue, WA – Oct. 31-Nov. 7, 1998 –
`Proceedings
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,740 to Ito et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,230,132 to Class et al.
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. 0 829 704
`to Fujiwara et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,323 to Ishii et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,157,705 to Perrone
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,201,544 to Ezaki
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,283,559 to Kalendra et al.
`
`“Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant West View Research,
`LLC’s Revised Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions, Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3.1
`and the June 10, 2015 Court Order,” dated June 26, 2015
`
`U.S. Copyright Registration No. TX 4-900-822, “1998
`IEEE/AIAA 17th Digital Avionics Systems Conference -
`Oct 31, 1998 - Bellevue, WA - (98CH36267),” dated
`December 8, 1998
`
`i
`
`
`
`Library of Congress Public Catalog Information, 17th
`DASC: The AIAA/IEEE/SAE Digital Avionics Systems
`Conference: Proceedings: [Electronics in motion]:
`Bellevue, WA, Oct. 31-Nov. 7, 1998
`
`MARC Tags corresponding to Library of Congress
`Public Catalog Information, 17th DASC: The
`AIAA/IEEE/SAE Digital Avionics Systems Conference:
`Proceedings: [Electronics in motion]: Bellevue, WA, Oct.
`31-Nov. 7, 1998
`
`The Network Vehicle - A Glimpse into the Future of
`Mobile Multi-Media, by R. Lind et al., SAE Technical
`Paper Series 982901
`
`U.S. Copyright Registration No. TX 5-149-812,
`“November 1998 Quarterly Technical Papers on
`Microfiche (MICQ-N98),” dated June 2, 2000
`
`U.S. Copyright Office Public Catalog Information,
`“Quarterly technical papers on microfiche,” ISSN 0148-
`7191
`
`Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Abstract, “The
`Network Vehicle - A Glimpse into the Future of Mobile
`Multimedia,” Paper No. 982901, http://papers.sae.org/
`982901/
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,274,560 to LaRue
`
`“Order Granting Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings”
`in West View Research, LLC v. Tesla Motors, Inc., Case
`No. 3:14-cv-02679, dated December 11, 2015
`
`“Order Granting Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings”
`in West View Research, LLC v. Audi AG, et al., Case No.
`3:14-cv-02668 (S.D. Cal.), The March 31, 2016
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 1014
`
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`Exhibit 1016
`
`
`Exhibit 1017
`
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`Exhibit 1020
`
`Exhibit 1021
`
`
`Exhibit 1022
`
`
`
`
`
`“Judgment” in West View Research, LLC v. Audi AG, et
`al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02668 (S.D. Cal.), dated March 31,
`2016
`
`“Notice of Appeal” in West View Research, LLC v. Audi
`AG, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02668 (S.D. Cal.), dated
`The April 29, 2016
`
`“Notice of Docketing” in West View Research, LLC v.
`Audi AG et al., Case No. 16-1947 (Fed. Cir.), dated May
`2, 2016
`
`“Order Consolidating Appeals” in West View Research,
`LLC v. Audi AG, et al., Case No. 16-1947 (Fed. Cir.),
`date May 9, 2016
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit 1023
`
`
`Exhibit 1024
`
`
`Exhibit 1025
`
`
`Exhibit 1026
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`The Cited Prior Art Renders Unpatentable Each of the
`Challenged Claims, Under the Broadest Reasonable Construction
`of Those Claims ................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Construction of the term “digitized representation” was
`properly presented in the Petition ........................................... 2
`
`Construction of the term “selection of advertising content”
`was properly presented in the Petition ................................... 6
`
`Construction of the term “identification of ...” was properly
`presented in the Petition ........................................................... 7
`
`Construction of the terms, “determine a location associated
`with the one of the possible matches [for the name of the
`organization or entity],” “identify . . . a location associated
`with the entity,” and “identify . . . a location associated with
`the [one] entity” were properly presented in the Petition ... 10
`
`Construction of the term “the location comprises a location
`within a building” was properly presented in the Petition . 12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Prior Art Describes Claims 1, 5, 12, 54, and 66 ...................... 14
`
`The Petition Provides Express Reasons to Combine the Cited
`Prior Art ............................................................................................. 18
`
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This Petitioner’s Reply is responsive to the Patent Owner’s Response (the
`
`“Response”) filed by West View Research, LLC (“WVR”).
`
`As set forth in the Petition, the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,719,038 (the “’038 patent”) are invalid in view of the prior art cited therein,
`
`including The Network Vehicle – A Glimpse into the Future of Mobile Multi-
`
`Media, R. Lind, et al. (Exhibit 1004, “Lind”), U.S. Patent No. 6,249,740 (Exhibit
`
`1005, “Ito”), U.S. Patent No. 6,230,132 (Exhibit 1006, “Class”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,201,544 (Ex. 1010, “Ezaki”), and European Patent Application Publication No. 0
`
`829 704 (Exhibit 1007, “Fujiwara”).
`
`WVR argues that the Petition fails to construe the terms, “digitized
`
`representation,” “selection of advertising content,” and “identification of …,” and
`
`that it assumes unreasonable constructions for several terms. The Petition,
`
`however, stated that the challenged claims should be given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction in view of the specification. WVR does not dispute that the
`
`challenged claims should be given their broadest reasonable construction, or that
`
`the specification and prosecution history of the ’038 patent lack special definitions
`
`for these claim terms. Further, WVR does not propose any claim construction
`
`positions of its own. Instead, the Response suggests that certain terms are
`
`1
`
`
`
`“arguably relevant to [an] understanding of the claims” (at 35, 39), or “may be
`
`highly relevant to the analysis of obviousness” (at 40).
`
`WVR further argues that the Petition relies on impermissible hindsight.
`
`However, WVR fails to address the evidence of obviousness presented in the
`
`Petition.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Cited Prior Art Renders Unpatentable Each of the
`Challenged Claims, Under the Broadest Reasonable Construction
`of Those Claims
`
`The Petition explains in detail, e.g., at pp. 7-16, and 24-60, how Lind, Ito,
`
`and Class render obvious claims 54 and 66, how Lind, Ito, Class, and Ezaki render
`
`obvious claim 5, and how Lind, Ito, Class, and Fujiwara render obvious claim 12.
`
`1.
`
`Construction of the term “digitized representation” was
`properly presented in the Petition
`As described in the Petition (e.g., at 11, 20, 28), the cited prior art describes
`
`“digitization of the user’s speech received via the microphone to produce a digital
`
`representation thereof,” as recited, for example, in claim 54. Lind describes
`
`“advanced speech recognition software” to receive “voice commands” that will
`
`“understand most drivers instantly.” Ex. 1004, p. I21-3; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 4, 6. Ito
`
`describes “a data input device using voice recognition” for the user to “use his/her
`
`voice to input corresponding data and commands,” including “information about
`
`2
`
`
`
`the destination, such as facility name, telephone number and address thereof.” Ex.
`
`1005, 10:39-47, 15:50-54; Ex. 1002, ¶ 6. Class discloses “input dialogues for
`
`speech input of a destination address for a navigation system.” Ex. 1006, 6:30-32;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 6. For software to process speech input, the speech input must be
`
`digitized. See, e.g., Ex. 1020, 5:17-30. Moreover, WVR has admitted that “all
`
`speech recognition systems inherently digitize the speaker’s analog voice.” Ex.
`
`1012, at 729.
`
`
`
`As explained above, the specification of the ’038 patent does not present any
`
`special definition of the term “digitized representation,” nor does the prosecution
`
`history include any claim construction arguments, so the term “digitized
`
`representation” should be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
`
`the specification. For the purposes of this proceeding, the voice recognition
`
`systems described by Lind, Ito, and Class should be considered to disclose the
`
`“digitized representation,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`WVR does not dispute that voice recognition software requires digitization.
`
`Response, at 25-32. Instead, WVR argues that “‘digitization’ is not synonymous
`
`with ‘recognition,’” that the Andrews Declaration (Ex. 1002) does not state
`
`“where/by what components” the speech is digitized or recognized, and that
`
`“modern architectures” transmit digitized speech to a remote entity for recognition.
`
`Response, at 26 (emphasis in original). Neither the Petitioner, nor the Board,
`
`3
`
`
`
`proposes to equate digitization with recognition; instead, as WVR has admitted, for
`
`speech to be recognized, it must be digitized. Ex. 1012, at 729 (“All speech
`
`recognition systems inherently digitize the speaker’s analog voice”). Further,
`
`claims 54 and 66 do not specify where, or by what components, the speech input is
`
`digitized. Ex. 1001, Claim 54 (“digitization of the user’s speech received via the
`
`microphone to produce a digital representation thereof; … digitization of the
`
`subsequent speech input to produce a digital representation thereof.”), Claim 66
`
`(“digitization of the user’s speech received via the microphone to produce a digital
`
`representation thereof.”).
`
`WVR then argues that the location of recognizing the speech input is
`
`relevant because the resulting device would be rendered “completely non-
`
`functional” if a user’s unrecognized speech were transmitted over a wireless
`
`interface of limited bandwidth. See Response, at 25-31. First, WVR does not argue
`
`that Ito, Lind, or Class describes a wireless interface of such limited bandwidth, so
`
`that WVR has not shown that this argument has any bearing on patentability in
`
`view of the prior art. WVR refers to “circa mid-1999 technology” in this context
`
`(id. at 28), but provides no discussion of a circa mid-1999 wireless interface having
`
`such limited bandwidth. Second, WVR is referring to limitations that are not
`
`included in claims 54 or 66. These claims do not include any minimum bandwidth
`
`4
`
`
`
`requirements, nor do they state where the recognition of digitized speech takes
`
`place.1
`
`Claims 54 and 66 only require the digitization of a speech input. The
`
`Petition and supporting evidence, including the Andrews Declaration and WVR’s
`
`admission that “all speech recognition systems inherently digitize the speaker’s
`
`analog voice,” demonstrate that the cited prior art describe speech recognition
`
`software systems, and that speech recognition software systems require digitization
`
`of speech input. Therefore, because speech recognition software systems were
`
`well-known, digitized representations of speech input were also well-known.
`
`WVR does not present an alternative claim construction position, does not
`
`dispute that the specification and prosecution history of the ’038 patent lack special
`
`definitions for this claim term, and does not explain why the ’038 patent
`
`specification excludes the systems of Lind, Ito, and Class from the broadest
`
`1 WVR points to the claim term “causation” as indicating that “the smart
`
`apparatus merely causes performance,” (as opposed to “conducting,” which,
`
`according to WVR, would indicate that the performance takes place on the smart
`
`apparatus). Id. at 31. However, WVR does not explain why a smart apparatus
`
`cannot “cause” a performance of a function on the smart apparatus. Nor does the
`
`specification nor the prosecution history of the ’038 patent provide special
`
`definitions for the term “causation.”
`
`5
`
`
`
`reasonable interpretation of this term. Id. at 25-32. WVR’s attempt to raise an issue
`
`where none exists should be given no weight.
`
`2.
`
`Construction of the term “selection of advertising content”
`was properly presented in the Petition
`As described in the Petition (e.g., at 57), the cited prior art describes
`
`“selection of advertising content relating at least in part to the function associated
`
`with the selected at least one soft function key,” as recited in claim 12. Fujiwara
`
`describes a display side communication device 21 that communicates with and
`
`obtains information from an information offering device 2, including, for example,
`
`sale information of a store (i.e., advertising). Ex. 1007, 5:53-6:2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 50.
`
`This advertising information, i.e., sale information of a store, is related to the
`
`selected function (navigation), as the store is part of the navigation information.
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 50. As explained above, and in the Petition, the specification of the
`
`’038 patent does not present any special definition of the term “selection of
`
`advertising content,” nor does the prosecution history include any claim
`
`construction arguments, so the term “selection of advertising content” should be
`
`given its broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. For the
`
`purposes of this proceeding, the sale information of a store as described by
`
`Fujiwara should be considered to disclose “selection of advertising content,” under
`
`its broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`6
`
`
`
`WVR asserts that Fujiwara’s sale information of a store equates to an
`
`“argument,” and not a “function,” which it contends the ’038 patent discloses.
`
`WVR asserts that the claim requires advertising “relating to the contextual topic of
`
`the key, and not the argument or search term entered.” See Response, at 33-34.
`
`However, WVR refers only to the specification, and not the language of claim 12.
`
`WVR refers to a portion of the specification which states that “where the user
`
`selects the ‘Weather’ function key on the keypad 116 … subsystem 1800 …
`
`retriev[es] and display[s] advertising graphics relating to weather (such as for a
`
`local television station’s weather reports).” Id. at 33-34 (citing Ex. 1001 at 25:26-
`
`33). But claim 12 does not recite “relating to the contextual topic of the key,” nor
`
`does claim 12 recite a local television station’s weather reports. WVR does not
`
`assert that the cited portion of the specification constitutes a special definition or
`
`disclaimer. Further, WVR does not present any alternative claim construction
`
`position, and instead merely refers to hypothetical function keys and advertising
`
`content. Id. at 34-35. WVR’s attempt to raise an issue where none exists should be
`
`given no weight.
`
`3.
`
`Construction of the term “identification of …” was properly
`presented in the Petition
`
`As described in the Petition (e.g., 12-14, 29, and 32), the prior art describes
`
`“a subsequent input in order to aid in identification of one of the plurality of
`
`7
`
`
`
`possible matches which best correlates to the desired organization or entity,” as
`
`recited in disclaimed claim 1, “the subsequent input [used] to identify one of the
`
`plurality of entities which correlates to the entity to which the user wishes to
`
`navigate,” as recited in claim 54, and “the subsequent speech input comprising at
`
`least one additional piece of information useful in identification of the entity,” as
`
`recited in claim 66. Class describes methods for reducing the number of potential
`
`matches by requesting additional user input, such as by asking the user to confirm
`
`that a particular location is the desired destination (Ex. 1006, 8:23-32, 9:21-31), by
`
`a series of “interrogation dialogs” asking the user to input additional information,
`
`such as, e.g., postal code (id., 10:43-11:60), or, if no more than a certain number of
`
`potential matches are left, by way of a list that is either read out or displayed for
`
`the user’s selection (id., 10:57-59, 9:50-10:11); Ex. 1002, ¶ 8. Ito describes a
`
`method for resolving ambiguities in which a user enters, for example, only the first
`
`several digits of a telephone area code as the information for the navigation
`
`destination, and several facilities may match those digits. Ex. 1005, 16:5-19. The
`
`method further includes a list of matching facilities that is “displayed at the
`
`vehicle” such that “the user views such facilities to decide whether or not the
`
`destination is included in the searched facilities, and then selects the appropriate
`
`destination from the plurality of searched facilities.” Id. at 16:5-19; Ex. 1002, ¶ 8.
`
`As explained above, and in the Petition, the specification of the ’038 patent does
`
`8
`
`
`
`not present any special definition of the term “identification of …” nor does the
`
`prosecution history include any claim construction arguments, so the term
`
`“identification of …” should be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in view
`
`of the specification. The interrogation dialogs and lists described by Class and Ito
`
`should be considered to constitute “identification of…,” under its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation.
`
`WVR does not present an alternative claim construction position, does not
`
`dispute that the specification and prosecution history of the ’038 patent lack special
`
`definitions for the term, and does not explain why the ’038 patent specification
`
`excludes the interrogation dialogs and lists of Class and Ito from the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the term. Response, at 35-38. WVR only argues that
`
`the Petition does not explain how the additional user inputs of Class and Ito can be
`
`considered within the scope of the claimed “subsequent [user] input.” According to
`
`WVR, the subsequent input must be limited by the specification, otherwise “the
`
`recited claim element could literally relate to any subsequent input, such breadth
`
`which clearly would not be supported by the specification, or within the realm of
`
`reason.” Response, at 37.
`
`As discussed above, and in the Petition, Class describes, for example, a
`
`series of “interrogation dialogs” asking the user to input additional information,
`
`such as, e.g., postal code, area code, state, etc. (Ex. 1006, 11:18-23), and both Ito
`
`9
`
`
`
`and Class describe asking a user to confirm whether a possible match is actually
`
`the location sought (Ex. 1005, 16:5-19; Ex. 1006, 8:23-32, 9:21-31). In each case,
`
`this additional information is subsequent user input that further defines the inquiry.
`
`The portion of the specification identified by WVR (Ex. 1001, at 10:47-57) only
`
`refers to “defining information,” and provides examples of “ABC Corporation” or
`
`“John.” Response, at 36-37. Because, e.g., postal code, area code, and state
`
`information may further define the search, they constitute “defining information,”
`
`as described by the ’038 patent. Though WVR does not suggest that the
`
`specification includes an express definition or disclaimer, even relying on the
`
`specification fails to exclude the interrogation dialogs and lists described by Class
`
`and Ito. WVR’s attempt to raise an issue where none exists should be given no
`
`weight.
`
`4.
`
`Construction of the terms, “determine a location associated
`with the one of the possible matches [for the name of the
`organization or entity],” “identify … a location associated
`with the entity,” and “identify … a location associated with
`the [one] entity” were properly presented in the Petition
`As described in the Petition (e.g., at 14, 29, and 32), the prior art cited
`
`therein describes “determin[ing] a location associated with the one of the possible
`
`matches [for the name of the organization or entity],” as recited in disclaimed
`
`claim 1, “identify[ing] … a location associated with the entity,” as recited in claim
`
`54, and “identify[ing] … a location associated with the [one] entity,” as recited in
`
`10
`
`
`
`claim 66. Class describes exemplary destination locations such as a city, “a street
`
`or a special destination, for example the railroad station, airport, downtown, etc.”
`
`Ex. 1006, 7:11-34; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 5, 11. As explained above, and in the Petition, the
`
`specification of the ’038 patent does not present any special definition of the above
`
`terms, nor does the prosecution history include any claim construction arguments,
`
`so that the above terms should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`view of the specification. In particular, the claimed “location associated with” an
`
`entity, for the purposes of this proceeding, should at least include a place name,
`
`city, street, or special destination such as a railroad station, airport, or downtown,
`
`as described by Class. The claims only require that the location is “associated
`
`with” the entity.
`
`WVR does not present any alternative claim construction position.
`
`Response, at 39-40. WVR refers to a portion of the specification which states, “a
`
`person, firm, or store within a building.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:52-60). But
`
`disclaimed claim 1, and claims 54 and 66 do not recite a person, firm, or store
`
`within a building, and WVR does not assert that the cited portion of the
`
`specification constitutes a special definition or disclaimer. WVR’s attempt to raise
`
`an issue where none exists should be given no weight.
`
`11
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Construction of the term “the location comprises a location
`within a building” was properly presented in the Petition
`
`As described in the Petition, (e.g., at 52), the prior art cited therein describes
`
`“the location comprises a location within a building,” as recited in claim 5. Ezaki
`
`describes displaying “the floor number of a floor, in a building, on which a target
`
`institution is located to reliably guide a user to the target institution.” Ex. 1010,
`
`2:62-65; Ex. 1002, ¶ 44. As explained above, and in the Petition, the specification
`
`of the ’038 patent does not present any special definition of the term, “location
`
`within a building,” nor does the prosecution history include any claim construction
`
`arguments, so the term should be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`view of the specification. For the purposes of this proceeding, the floor number of
`
`a floor within a building as described by Ezaki should be considered to disclose a
`
`“location within a building,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`WVR asserts that the Petition’s construction is “explicitly criticized and
`
`distinguished in the background section of the ’038 patent” (Response, at 40),
`
`which states:
`
`An associated problem relates to determining the location
`of a person, firm, or store within a building when
`unfamiliar. Building directories are often posted in the
`lobby of the building, yet these require the user to
`manually or visually locate the name of the person, firm,
`or store which they are looking for, and remember the
`
`12
`
`
`
`location information associated therewith. Additionally,
`such directories often do not provide precise location
`information, but rather merely a floor number and/or
`suite number.
`Ex. 1001, 2:52-60.
`
`This portion of
`
`the specification only suggests “precise”
`
`location
`
`information may be more specific than a floor number in a directory within a
`
`building’s lobby. The challenged claim, however, does not describe “precise”
`
`location information. As explained above, neither the specification nor the
`
`prosecution history of the ’038 patent presents any special definition of the term,
`
`“location within a building.” As a result, the term should be given its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the scope of which, for
`
`purposes of this proceeding, should include the floor number of a floor in a
`
`building, as described by Ezaki.
`
`
`
`With respect to claim 5, WVR further asserts that the “presentation of a
`
`visual representation of the location, as well as at least an immediate surroundings
`
`thereof, … the visual representation further comprising visual representations of
`
`one or more other organizations or entities proximate to the location … the
`
`location and the one or more other organizations or entities are disposed on at least
`
`a common floor,” is not disclosed by Ezaki’s displayed “list of names of
`
`companies or tenants of the building.” See Response, at 44-45. However, WVR
`
`13
`
`
`
`mischaracterizes the Petition’s argument. As described in the Petition (e.g., 14-15),
`
`Lind describes display screens, including a center console that can display
`
`navigation maps viewable by a user, and Ito describes displaying guidance
`
`information on the presence or absence of facilities in the area around the
`
`destination. The Petition further explains that Ezaki describes displaying a list of
`
`names of companies or tenants of a building, and that it is obvious that large
`
`buildings have multiple entities on the same floor. Id. at 52-53 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`47). As a result, WVR’s attempt to raise an issue where none exists should be
`
`given no weight.
`
`B.
`
`The Prior Art Describes Claims 1, 5, 12, 54, and 66
`
`As set forth in the Petition, claims 1, 5, 12, 54, and 66 are obvious in view of
`
`the prior art cited in the Petition.
`
`WVR asserts that Lind, Ito, and Class do not describe (Response, at 41-43):
`
` “use at least the identified at least one word or phrase to identify a plurality
`
`of possible matches for the name [of the desired organization or entity]”
`
`(claim 1);
`
` “determine a location associated with the one of the possible matches that
`
`best correlates [to the desired organization or entity]” (claim 1);
`
`14
`
`
`
` “causation of use of the digitized representation to identify a plurality of
`
`entities which match at least a portion of the name [of the entity]” (claim
`
`54);
`
` “identify one of the plurality of entities which correlates to the entity to
`
`which the user wishes to navigate, and a location associated with the entity”
`
`(claim 54);
`
` “causation or generation of an audible communication to the user … in order
`
`to at least inform the user of the identification of the plurality of matches [of
`
`at least a portion of the name of the entity]” (claim 54);
`
` “identify one of a plurality of entities, the one entity which best correlates to
`
`the entity to which the user wishes to navigate, and a location associated
`
`with the one entity” (claim 66); and
`
` “causation of evaluation of the digitized representation to determine an
`
`appropriate subsequent audible communication to be provided to the user …
`
`in order to at least inform the user of the results” (claim 66).
`
`Specifically, WVR asserts that Class does not describe the name of an
`
`organization or entity, but instead describes “names of cities, states, regions, areas,
`
`and streets.” Response, at 42 (citing Ex. 1006 at 4:49-5:19); see also, Response, at
`
`42-43 (“None of the cities, streets, or any of the special destinations described in
`
`Class would best correlate to a name of a desired organization or entity;” “the
`
`15
`
`
`
`place names described in Class are not names of organizations or entities.”). First,
`
`WVR provides no basis for excluding “place names” or “names of cities, states,
`
`regions, areas, and streets” from the claimed “name of a desired organization or
`
`entity.” Second, even if the “place names” of Class are not considered to be the
`
`claimed “name of a desired organization or entity,” it would have been obvious to
`
`modify the system of Class to allow for the searching and identification of
`
`organizations or entities by “name,” at least because the ’038 patent does not
`
`describe any technical distinction between searching for the “name of a desired
`
`organization or entity” and searching for the “name” of a place, city, state, etc.
`
`Further, Lind describes “advanced speech recognition software,” which allows the
`
`user to “locate a restaurant or hotel” (Ex. 1004, I21-2-3), while Ito describes “voice
`
`recognition” to input, e.g., a “facility name” as a destination (Ex. 1005, 10:39-47,
`
`15:50-54), so that using speech recognition to search for the name of an
`
`“organization or entity” was well known before the earliest filing date of the ’038
`
`patent.
`
`WVR asserts that Lind, Ito, Class, and Ezaki do not describe (Response, at
`
`44-45):
`
` “cause presentation of a visual representation of the location [associated
`
`with the one of the possible matches that best correlates to the desired
`
`organization or entity], as well as at least an immediate surroundings thereof,
`
`16
`
`
`
`… the visual representation further comprising visual representations of one
`
`or more other organizations or entities proximate to the location” (claim 1);
`
`and
`
` “the location comprises a location within a building, the one or more other
`
`organizations or entities proximate to the location are disposed within the
`
`building, … and the location and the one or more other organizations or
`
`entities are disposed on at least a common floor” (claim 5).
`
`Specifically, WVR asserts
`
`that Ezaki does not describe “a visual
`
`representation of the inside of a building or structure that shows the location of the
`
`organization or entity and its immediate surroundings including other organizations
`
`and entities that are disposed on the same floor.” Response, at 44-45. However, as
`
`set forth in the Petition (e.g., at 15), Ito describes displaying area guidance for the
`
`area surrounding the destination point, including “guidance information on the
`
`presence or absence of parking and various facilities in the area around the
`
`destination” (Ex. 1005, 14:19-38; see also Figs. 9(b), 40(C), 44). The Petition
`
`relies on Ezaki for its disclosure of displaying the floor number in a building, and
`
`“three dimensionally displaying the indicated building with a height corresponding
`
`to the number of floors (Ex. 1010, 2:62-65, 3:21-30). The obviousness of claim 5
`
`in view of Lind, Ito, Class, and Ezaki is presented in the Petition, at 53.
`
`17
`
`
`
`WVR asserts that Lind, Ito, Class, and Fujiwara do not describe (Response,
`
`at 45-46):
`
` “based at least in part on a user’s selection of at least one of the soft function
`
`keys, enable selection of advertising content relating at least in part to the
`
`function associated with the selected at least one soft function key” (claim
`
`12).
`
`Specifically, WVR asserts that Fujiwara describes that “the information of a
`
`hotel and of a store is based on and related to the location on the map,” and not
`
`“based on the selection of the soft function key.” Response, at 45-46. However, the
`
`relevant limitation of claim 12 only requires that the advertising selection relate at
`
`least in part to the function of the selected SFK. As set forth in the Petition (at 56-
`
`57), Fujiwara describes “Hotel,” “Restaurant,” “Parking Lot” soft keys (Ex. 1007,
`
`FIG. 8), and information relating to those soft keys, including, as WVR points out,
`
`“vacant information of a hotel and of a store” (Ex. 1007, 5:53-6:7).
`
`C. The Petition Provides Express Reasons to Combine the Cited
`Prior Art
`
`As set forth in the Petition (e.g., 32-36, 53, and 58-59), following the
`
`framework laid out by the Supreme Court in KSR and Graham, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, at the time the alleged inventions of the claims under
`
`review were made, could have combined, and would have found it obvious to
`
`18
`
`
`
`combine, Lind, Ito, and Class; Lind, Ito, Class, and Ezaki; and Lind, Ito, Class, and
`
`Fujiwara.
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
