Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 8
`
`Entered: May 13, 2016
`
`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.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
` Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 8
`
`Entered: May 13, 2016
`
`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.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
` Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Volkswagen Group of America, Incorporated
`(“Volkswagen”), filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of
`claims 1, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, 29, and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 8,781,839 B1
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’839 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, West View
`Research, Limited Liability Corporation (“West View”), filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the arguments
`presented in West View’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the
`information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Volkswagen would prevail in challenging claims 1, 10, 11,
`16, 22, 23, 29, and 35 of the ’839 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a). Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review as to
`these claims of the ’839 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The ’839 patent is involved in, or may be affected by, the following
`
`district court cases: (1) West View Research, LLC v. Audi AG, No. 3:14-cv-
`02668-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal.); (2) West View Research, LLC v. Bayerische
`Motoren Werk AG, No. 3:14-cv-02670 (S.D. Cal.); (3) West View Research,
`LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co., No. 3:14-cv-02675 (S.D. Cal.); (4) West View
`Research, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., No. 3:14-cv-02677 (S.D. Cal.); and (5)
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`West View Research, LLC v. Tesla Motor, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-02679 (S.D.
`Cal.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2.
`In addition to this Petition, Volkswagen filed other petitions
`challenging the patentability of certain subsets of claims in the following
`patents owned by West View: (1) U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156 B2 (Case
`IPR2015-01941); (2) U.S. Patent No. 8,719,037 B2 (Case IPR2016-00123);
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 8,706,504 B2 (Case IPR2016-00124); (4) U.S. Patent
`No. 8,290,778 B2 (Case IPR2016-00125); (5) U.S. Patent No. 8,682,673 B2
`(Case IPR2016-00137); (6) U.S. Patent No. 8,719,038 B1 (Case IPR2016-
`00146); and (7) U.S. Patent No. 8,296,146 B2 (Case IPR2016-00156). Pet.
`1–2.
`
`B. The ’839 Patent
`
`The ’839 patent, titled “Computerized Information and Display
`Apparatus,” issued July 15, 2014, from U.S. Patent Application
`No. 13/746,266, filed on January 21, 2013. Ex. 1001, at [54], [45], [21],
`[22]. The ’839 patent has an extensive chain of continuations and at least
`one divisional that ultimately claims the benefit of U.S. Patent Application
`No. 09/330,101, filed on June 10, 1999—now U.S. Patent No. 6,615,175 B1.
`Id. at [60], 1:4–27.
`The ’839 patent generally relates to a personnel transport apparatus
`and, in particular, to elevators or other types of personnel transport devices
`that incorporate various information technologies. Ex. 1001, 2:32–35, 6:61–
`67. According to the ’839 patent, one problem associated with using these
`devices relates to determining the location of a person, firm, or store within a
`building or structure. Id. at 2:59–60. For instance, conventional building
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`directories require a user to locate manually or visually the name of the
`desired person, firm, or store, and often do not provide precise location
`information other than a floor or suite number. Id. at 2:61–67. The ’839
`patent discloses that recent advancements in data networking, thin or flat
`panel displays, personal electronics, and speech recognition/compression
`algorithms and corresponding processing, as enhancing the ability of a user
`to address the aforementioned problem. Id. at 3:62–4:2.
`The ’839 patent proposes to use these recent advancements to create
`an apparatus for locating an organization or entity disposed within a building
`or structure. Ex. 1001, 4:17–19. Figure 1 of the ’839 patent, reproduced
`below, illustrates a block diagram of one embodiment of an information and
`control system that is used, e.g., within an elevator car. Id. at 5:62–64, 7:5–
`6.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, system 100 includes, among other things, input
`
`device 102, speech recognition (“SR”) module 104, central processor 106,
`non-volatile storage device 108 containing a database, audio amplifier and
`speaker module 111, speech synthesis module 112, micro-controller 123,
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`and display device 113. Ex. 1001, 7:7–15. SR module 104 further includes
`microphone 118, analog-to-digital converter (“ADC”) 141, and an algorithm
`run on digital signal processor (“DSP”) 125 having an associated SR module
`random access memory (“RAM”) 127. Id. at 7:27–32.
`
`The ’839 patent discloses that microphone 118 generates signals that
`are digitized by ADC 141, which, in turn, are processed using the SR
`algorithm and DSP 125 to produce digital representations of the user’s
`speech. Ex. 1001, 7:59–63. DSP 125 uses a speech library or dictionary
`stored within SR module RAM 127 to match phenome strings resulting from
`linear predictive coding analysis with known words. Id. at 7:63–66. Once a
`match is identified, central processor 106 and micro-controller 123
`implement the desired functionality, such as retrieving one or more data files
`from non-volatile storage device 108 for display on display device 113. Id.
`at 7:66–8:2, Fig. 2.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 and 35 are independent.
`
`Independent claim 1 is directed to a computerized apparatus useful for
`locating an organization or entity, the organization or entity being disposed
`within a building or structure. Independent claim 35 is directed to a
`computerized apparatus. Claims 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, and 29 directly or
`indirectly depend from independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 is
`illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`1.
`Computerized apparatus useful for locating an
`organization or entity, the organization or entity being disposed
`within a building or structure, the apparatus comprising:
`a wireless interface;
`data processing apparatus;
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`
`a touch-screen input and display device;
`a speech digitization apparatus in data communication
`with the data processing apparatus; and
`a storage apparatus in data communication with the data
`processing apparatus, said storage apparatus comprising at least
`one computer program, said at least one program being
`configured to:
`receive a digitized speech input via the speech digitization
`apparatus, the input relating to an organization or entity which a
`user wishes to locate;
`based at least in part on the input, causing recognition of
`at least one word therein relating to the organization or entity,
`and identification of a location associated with the organization
`or entity based at least in part on the at least one recognized word,
`the location being inside of the building or structure; and
`provide a graphical or visual representation of the location
`on the touch screen input and display device in order to aid a user
`in finding the organization or entity, the graphical or visual
`representation of the location also comprising a graphical or
`visual representation of at least the immediate surroundings of
`the organization or entity, the immediate surroundings being
`inside the building or structure.
`
`Ex. 1001, 26:11–40.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Volkswagen relies upon the following prior art references:
`Goldman
`US 4,558,300
`Dec. 10, 1985
`
`Ex. 1008
`Hsieh
`
`US 5,574,443
`Nov. 12, 1996
`
`Ex. 1006
`Hollenberg
`US 6,091,956
`July 18, 2000
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(filed June 12, 1997)
`Ezaki
`
`US 6,201,544 B1 Mar. 13, 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(filed Aug. 10, 1998)
`Greenwood
`US 6,211,777 B1 Apr. 3, 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(filed Nov. 30, 1998)
`Ito
`
`US 6,249,740 B1 June 19, 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(filed Jan. 21, 1999)
`
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Volkswagen challenges claims 1, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, 29, and 35 of the
`
`’839 patent based on the asserted grounds of unpatentability (“grounds”) set
`forth in the table below. Pet. 5–59.
`References
`Ito, Ezaki, and Hollenberg
`Ito, Ezaki, Hollenberg, and
`Hsieh
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`Basis
`§ 103(a) 1, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, and 35
`§ 103(a) 29
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, we construe claims by applying the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015),
`cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890
`(mem.) (2016). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and
`absent any special definitions, claim terms or phrases are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`In its Petition, Volkswagen contends that claim terms are presumed to
`take on their ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 5. Volkswagen further
`argues that the specification of the ’839 patent does not include any special
`definitions for any claim terms, nor does the prosecution history of the ’839
`patent include any claim construction arguments. Id. Volkswagen then
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`asserts that all the claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable
`interpretation. Id. We understand Volkswagen to argue that, because there
`are no special definitions for any claim terms in the specification of the ’839
`patent and no relevant prosecution history, each claim term or phrase should
`be given its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art, and need not be construed explicitly at this
`time.
`
`1. Alleged Deficient Petition Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`West View contends that Volkswagen fails to provide proposed
`constructions for several key claim terms of the ’839 patent and, therefore,
`the Petition includes a fatal defect. Prelim. Resp. 21. In particular, West
`View argues that Volkswagen’s failure to propose constructions for several
`key claim terms is contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), which requires a
`petitioner to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” Id.
`West View further argues that Volkswagen has inferred certain meanings for
`certain claim terms, but has not explained adequately why those inferences
`are appropriate. Id. at 24. West View then directs us to several examples
`where Volkswagen purportedly inferred a construction for a claim term
`without providing any analysis. Id. at 24–32.
`At the outset, we note that the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
`indicates that, where appropriate, the requirement imposed by § 42.104(b)(3)
`may be satisfied by including a “simple statement that the claim terms are to
`be given their broadest reasonable interpretation.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). Based on the particular circumstances of this case,
`Volkswagen’s contentions reproduced above are sufficient to satisfy the
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`requirement imposed by § 42.104(b)(3). For purposes of completeness, we
`now address each of the examples identified by West View in turn.
`a. “digitized speech input” (all challenged claims)
`West View contends that Volkswagen infers a construction of the
`claim phrase “digitized speech input” that is contrary to its proper
`construction, which, according to West View, includes (a) digitized speech
`that has not yet been recognized; (b) digitized speech that also has been run
`through a speech recognition algorithm; or (c) both (a) and (b). Prelim.
`Resp. 24. West View then argues that Volkswagen and its Declarant, Mr.
`Scott Andrews, improperly infer that “digitization” is synonymous with
`“recognition,” which, in turn, led Volkswagen to infer improperly that the
`computerized information systems of independent claims 1 and 35 must
`necessarily perform recognition. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 7:59–63; Pet. 13).
`As an initial matter, we do not share West View’s view that, when
`presenting arguments in the Petition to address the limitations in
`independent claims 1 and 35 that include the claim phrase “digitized speech
`input,” Volkswagen somehow has inferred or implied a construction for this
`claim phrase. In its Petition, Volkswagen simply states that “Ito discloses
`that the input 105 [illustrated in Figure 1] may be a data input device that
`uses voice recognition.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:39–47), 28 (stating the
`same). We do not view this statement, by itself, as an explanation as to how
`Volkswagen intends to construe the claim phrase “digitized speech input.”
`Instead, we view this statement as an argument advanced by Volkswagen
`that the voice recognition used by Ito’s input 105 properly accounts for the
`“digitized speech input,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 35.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`
`In any event, as we explained above, we understand Volkswagen to
`argue that, because there are no special definitions for the claim phrase
`“digitized speech input” in the specification of the ’839 patent, this claim
`phrase should be given its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the entire disclosure
`of the ’839 patent. See Pet. 5. To the extent that we must determine whether
`the position taken by Volkswagen in its Petition is consistent with the
`ordinary and customary meaning of the claim phrase “digitized speech
`input,” as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of
`the entire disclosure of the ’839 patent, we note that the evidence of record
`supports a finding that Ito’s input 105 that uses voice recognition necessarily
`requires converting the commands spoken by a user from analog-to-digital
`form. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 729 (admitting in Exhibit H of West View’s
`Revised Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions in a
`related district court case that “all speech recognition systems inherently
`digitize the speaker’s analog voice”).
`b. “a graphical or visual representation of the location ”
`(all challenged claims)
`West View contends that that Volkswagen does not provide a
`construction for the claim phrase “a graphical or visual representation of the
`location,” but instead performs a cursory “hand wave” as to the meaning of
`this claim phrase. Prelim. Resp. 25. West View further argues that
`Volkswagen and its Declarant, Mr. Andrews, do not explain adequately how
`the combined disclosures of Ezaki and Hollenberg account for the elements
`included in this claim phrase. Id. at 26. Instead, West View argues that
`Volkswagen simply has broken the elements of this claim phrase into
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`disparate parts and attempted to provide an index as to where each part is
`taught in the prior art. Id. West View asserts that evaluating the scope of
`the challenged claims by evaluating elements of the claims in isolation is
`improper. Id.
`
`We do not share West View’s view that Volkswagen has resorted to a
`cursory “hand wave” as to the meaning of claim phrase “a graphical or
`visual representation of the location,” much less improperly evaluated the
`scope of this claim phrase by focusing on elements in isolation. As we
`explained above, we understand Volkswagen to argue that, because there are
`no special definitions for this claim phrase in the specification of the ’839
`patent, it should be given its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the entire disclosure
`of the ’839 patent. See Pet. 5. We agree with Volkswagen in that we cannot
`discern how construing the claim phrase “a graphical or visual
`representation of the location” would add any clarity to the claim phrase
`itself, which, in our view, is self-explanatory. For purposes of this decision,
`no explicit construction is necessary beyond its ordinary and customary
`meaning.
`
`c. “land-mobile transport apparatus” (claim 10)
`West View contends that the claim phrase “land-mobile transport
`apparatus” may be highly relevant to an obviousness evaluation, yet
`Volkswagen has not explained adequately how the disclosures in Ezaki and
`Hollenberg of automobiles/sports utility vehicles (“SUVs”) are germane to
`this claim phrase. Prelim. Resp. 26. West View asserts that Volkswagen
`leaves the answer to this claim construction issue, at best, completely to the
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`imagination and, at worst, contradictory to other assertions in its Petition.
`Id.
`
`We do not share West View’s view that an explicit construction of the
`claim phrase “land-mobile transport apparatus” is required to perform an
`obviousness evaluation. As we explained above, we understand
`Volkswagen to argue that, because there are no special definitions for this
`claim phrase in the specification of the ’839 patent, it should be given its
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art, in light of the entire disclosure of the ’839 patent. See Pet. 5.
`We agree with Volkswagen in that we cannot discern how construing the
`claim phrase “land-mobile transport apparatus” would add any clarity to the
`claim phrase itself, which, in our view, is self-explanatory. For purposes of
`this decision, no explicit construction is necessary beyond its ordinary and
`customary meaning.
`d. purported “means-plus-function” limitations
`Lastly, West View contends that Volkswagen provides no analysis as
`to whether certain limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 35 could
`be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Prelim. Resp. 27. West View
`argues that, pursuant to § 42.104(b)(3), an explicit construction of each
`means-plus-function limitation is required that should include the
`identification of corresponding structure disclosed in the specification that is
`necessary to perform each claimed function. Id. West View then directs us
`to the “storage apparatus” recited in independent claims 1 and 35 that
`includes “at least one computer program” configured to “receive a digitized
`speech input,” “cause identification of a location,” and “provide a graphical
`visual representation of the location,” and argues that it is at least facially
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`plausible that these portions of the challenged claims could be interpreted as
`means-plus-function limitations. Id. at 29–30. West View asserts that the
`Petition is deficient because it does not offer possible constructions for these
`functions under § 112 ¶ 6, much less direct us to the relevant portions of the
`specification of the ’839 patent that may apply in such constructions. Id. at
`31.
`
`In this case, because independent claims 1 and 35 do not use the
`phrase “means for,” “step for,” or a generic placeholder coupled with “for,”
`there is a presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. See Williamson v.
`Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in
`relevant part) (noting the failure to use the word “means” creates a
`rebuttable presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply); Lighting World, Inc.
`v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating
`the same). Here, the only basis that West View proffers for overcoming the
`presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply to these claims is an assertion that
`the computer program configured to “receive a digitized speech input,”
`“cause identification of a location,” and “provide a graphical visual
`representation of the location,” arguably recites no particular structure to
`perform these functions. Prelim. Resp. 30–31. These functions configured
`to be performed by the computer program, however, do not recite “means
`for,” nor does West View direct us to a nonce word, or verbal construct,
`devoid of a structure that is used as a substitute for “means for.” See
`Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1360. Consequently, based on this record, West
`View has not presented sufficient rebuttal evidence to overcome the
`presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply to the aforementioned limitations
`of independent claims 1 and 35.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`
`e. Summary
`In summary, we decline West View’s invitation to dismiss the Petition
`on the basis that Volkswagen’s contentions regarding claim construction are
`insufficient to satisfy the requirement imposed by § 42.104(b)(3), or because
`Volkswagen purportedly inferred a construction for a claim term without
`providing any analysis.
`2. Remaining Claim Construction Arguments
`West View also contends that, even under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard, Volkswagen assumes constructions for several key
`claim terms that are unreasonable and, as a consequence, the Petition
`includes a fatal defect. Prelim. Resp. 32–39. For instance, West View
`argues that Volkswagen unreasonably construes the claim phrases
`“identification of a location associated with the organization or entity” and
`“a wireless interface,” and then improperly relies upon the disclosures of Ito,
`Hollenberg, or the combined disclosures of these references to account for
`each claim phrase. Id. at 33–38. Although West View couches these
`arguments as predicated on Volkswagen’s purportedly unreasonable claim
`constructions, we nonetheless view them as being directed to the merits of
`the asserted grounds based on obviousness. We, therefore, address these
`arguments under the asserted grounds based on obviousness discussed
`below.
`
`B. Obviousness Over the Combination of Ito, Ezaki, and Hollenberg
`
`Volkswagen contends that claims 1, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, and 35 of the
`
`’839 patent are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combination of Ito,
`Ezaki, and Hollenberg. Pet. 5–57. Volkswagen explains how this proffered
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`combination teaches the subject matter of each challenged claim (id.), and
`relies upon the Declaration of Mr. Andrews (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 4–26, 38–40) to
`support its positions. At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded by
`Volkswagen’s explanations and supporting evidence.
`
`We begin our analysis with the principles of law that generally apply
`to a ground based on obviousness, followed by brief overviews of Ito, Ezaki,
`and Hollenberg, and then we address the parties’ contentions with respect to
`each challenged claim.
`
`1. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;1 (3) the level of skill in
`the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze this
`
`
`1 Volkswagen and its Declarant, Mr. Andrews, testifies as to the level of
`skill in the art as of June 10, 1999—the earliest effective filing date of the
`’839 patent. Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–37). West View does not
`challenge this assessment of the level of skill in the art or propose an
`alternative to this assessment. For purposes of this Decision, and to the
`extent necessary, we accept the assessment offered by Volkswagen and Mr.
`Andrews.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`asserted ground based on obviousness with the principles identified above in
`mind.
`
`2. Ito Overview
`
`Ito generally relates to a communications navigation system that
`supplies navigation data necessary for route guidance from a navigation base
`to a moving body, such as a vehicle. Ex. 1003, 1:9–12. Figure 1 of Ito,
`reproduced below, illustrates one embodiment of the communications
`navigation system. Id. at 5:65–67, 8:11–13.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, the communications navigation system includes
`
`vehicle navigation apparatus 100 mounted in a vehicle and navigation base
`apparatus 150 arranged as a base. Ex. 1003, 8:13–16. Vehicle navigation
`apparatus 100 includes, among other things, input 105 and display 106. Id.
`at 9:53–58. Input 105 includes a data input device using voice recognition
`that allows a user to control the communications navigation system by using
`his/her voice to input corresponding data and commands. Id. at 10:39–47.
`Display 106 includes a liquid crystal display (“LCD”) or cathode-ray tube
`(“CRT”) display unit that is equipped with a touch panel. Id. at 10:48–50.
`Display 106 is capable of displaying detailed maps of the departure point,
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`course-change points along a recommended route, and the destination, as
`well as providing corresponding voice guidance. Id. at 18:62–67.
`
`3. Ezaki Overview
`
`Ezaki generally relates to display method for locating a floor number
`used in a navigation apparatus and, in particular, to a display method that
`visually displays the floor number of a floor in a building, along with
`detailed information regarding a target institution. Ex. 1004, 1:7–12, 4:36–
`59. Figure 2 of Ezaki illustrates the components of the navigation apparatus
`(not illustrated). Id. at 4:8–9, 4:60–61. The navigation apparatus includes,
`among other things, processor 18 for controlling the navigation apparatus as
`a whole, display controller 21 for generating a map image, and display
`device 27 for displaying an image output. Id. at 5:10–22.
`
`4. Hollenberg Overview
`
`Hollenberg generally relates to distributed information systems and, in
`particular, to systems that exchange information about places, associated
`events, and details with mobile computers and their users. Ex. 1005, 1:5–8.
`Figure 1 of Hollenberg illustrates the main components of such a system for
`a physical defined environment, such as shopping areas (not illustrated). Id.
`at 10:50–52. This system for communicating information includes, among
`other things, at least one mobile computer 18a–18c and at least one service
`provider, which further includes computer network 30a, transceivers 32a–
`32c, global positioning system (“GPS”) receiver 34a, control system 36a,
`data 38a, and memory 39a. Id. at 11:43–12:12, Fig. 1.
`Hollenberg discloses at least one embodiment where the mobile
`computer, e.g., mobile computers 18a–18c, may be mounted in a vehicle for
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`use by visitors in a city to view traffic information and area attractions near a
`particular hotel. Ex. 1005, 6:31–54. The mobile computer may be removed
`from the vehicle so that it may be carried by a visitor as he/she explores the
`city on foot and used by the visitor to learn about the city as he/she
`approaches historical sites and attractions. Id. at 6:50–54. The mobile
`computer also may be used to find locations in topographically complex
`areas surrounded by buildings and enclosed within a building, such as
`shopping malls. Id. at 5:13–28, 7:36–39, Figs. 2, 4.
`
`5. Claims 1 and 35
`a. Limitations
`
`In its Petition, Volkswagen relies upon the collective teachings of Ito,
`
`Ezaki, and Hollenberg to account for all the limitations recited in
`independent claim 1. Pet. 8–19, 39–57. For instance, Volkswagen contends
`that Ito’s vehicle navigation apparatus 100, Ezaki’s navigation apparatus,
`and Hollenberg’s mobile computers 18a–18c all qualify as a “computerized
`apparatus,” as recited in the preamble of independent claim 1. Id. at 8–9,
`39–40. Volkswagen then argues that Ito’s vehicle navigation apparatus 100,
`which uses transmitting and receiving section 108 to interface with a
`wireless network, and Hollenberg’s wireless system that provides services or
`information about places or events to mobile computers 18a–18c, each teach
`“a wireless interface,” as recited in independent claim 1. Id. at 9–10, 40.
`
`Next, Volkswagen contends that Ito’s processing section 101 or main
`component of its navigation apparatus 100, Ezaki’s processor that controls
`the navigation apparatus, and Hollenberg’s computer together teach the
`“data processing apparatus,” as recited in independent claim 1. Pet. 10, 40–
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`41. Volkswagen also argues that Ito’s display 106, which includes a LCD or
`CRT display unit, and Hollenberg’s touch-screen graphical display unit, both
`teach “a touch-screen input and display device,” as recited in independent
`claim 1. Id. at 10–11, 41. Volkswagen further argues that Ito’s input section
`105 that uses voice recognition, in conjunction with West View’s admission
`that “all speech recognition systems inherently digitize the speaker’s analog
`voice,” teach “a speech digitization apparatus in data communication with
`the data processing apparatus,” as recited in independent claim 1. Id. at 11,
`41. Volkswagen further argues that Ito’s program storage section 102 serves
`as memory for storing programs, Ezaki’s read-only memory (“ROM”) that
`stores various types of programs, and Hollenberg’s memory that stores
`computer programs all teach “a storage apparatus in data communication
`with the data processing apparatus, said storage apparatus comprising at
`least one computer program,” as recited in independent claim 1. Id. at 12,
`41–42.
`Lastly, Volkswagen relies upon Ito’s input 105 that uses voice
`recognition, together with Ito’s display device 106 that displays detailed
`maps, Ezaki’s navigation apparatus that displays detailed maps, and
`Hollenberg’s mobile computers 18a–18c that displays topographically
`complex locations, such as shopping malls, to teach “at least one computer
`program” configured to “receive a digitized speech input,” “cause
`identification of a location,” and “provide a graphical visual representation
`of the location,” as recited in independent claim 1. Pet. 13–19, 42–46. With
`a few exceptions, Volkswagen relies upon essentially the same teachings of
`Ito, Ezaki, and Hollenberg to account for all the limitations recited in
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839 B1
`
`independent claim 35. Compare id. at 8–19, 39–46, with id. at 28–36, 53–
`57.
`In its Patent Owner Response, West View contends that Volkswagen
`
`does not explain adequately how Ito and Hollenberg, individually or
`collectively, teach the “wireless interface,” as recited in independent claims
`1 and 35. Prelim Resp. 34. In particular, West View argues that the wireless
`interface disclosed in the specification of the ’839 patent is a terrestrial high-
`data bandwidth information that specifically supports certain bandwidth
`requirements. Id. at 35–38 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:18–25, 12:3–4; Ex. 2007, 2–
`4; Ex. 2008, 1; Ex. 2009, 2). West View then asserts that the wireless
`interfaces purportedly taught by Ito and Hollenberg do not teach a high
`bandwidth, generally ubiquitous single wireless interface described in the
`exemplary embodiment of the ’839 patent. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:51–
`58).
`On the current record, we decline West View’s invitation to limit the
`
`“wireless interface,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 35, to a specific
`type of wireless interface described in the exem
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
