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
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. Overview of the ’839 Patent .............................................................................. 2
`III. Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Statement of Facts .......................... 18
`A. Petitioner’s Characterization of the Invention .......................................... 18
`IV. Argument .......................................................................................................... 19
`A. Petitioner Has Failed to Provide Claim Constructions for Several Key
`Terms, and Has Not Met Its Prima Facie Burden of Obviousness. .............. 20
`B. Petitioner Has Failed to Provide A Structural Analysis for the
`Independent Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and Hence Has Not Met Its
`Burden of Prima Facie Obviousness. ........................................................... 32
`C. Petitioner Has Assumed “Broadest Reasonable” Claim Constructions for
`Several Key Terms that are Unreasonable, and Has Not Met Its Burden of
`Prima Facie Obviousness .............................................................................. 38
`D. Petitioner’s Proposed Combination of the References Fail to Teach Each
`and Every Element of Independent Claims 1 and 35 .................................... 44
`E. Petitioner’s Proposed Reasons for Combining the Teachings of the
`References Rely on Impermissible Hindsight, Hence Petitioner’s
`Obviousness Analysis is Defective. .............................................................. 53
`V. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`Ulrich Hackenberg’s biographical information
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`Hackenberg explains VW’s new infotainment architecture
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,539,775 to Tuttle et al.
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,629,981 to Nerlikar
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,311,834 to Gazdzinski
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,301,456 to Gazdzinski
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`IEEE 802.11 from Wikipedia website
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`GPRS & EDGE from 3GPP website
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`Mobile broadband from Wikipedia website
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................... 2, 49, 53
`
`Blackberry Corp. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC,
`IPR2013-00036, Paper 65 (Mar. 7, 2014) ............................................... 20, 33
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............................................... 20-21
`
`Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 21
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................ 21
`
`In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ......................................................... 22
`
`Pride Solutions, LLC v. Not Dead Yet Manufacturing, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00627, Paper 14 (Mar. 17, 2014) ............................................. 33, 37
`
`In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) .............................. 33
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............. 33
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................... 33, 49, 53
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) ............................. 34
`
`Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands,
`555 F.3d 984, 89 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................ 34
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339,
`115 USPQ2d 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) .............................................. 35
`
`Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ....................................... 35
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission,
`161 F. 3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...................................................................... 35
`
`Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2014-01170, Paper 9 (Feb. 17, 2015) ...................................................... 35
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................... 37
`
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.,
`382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................... 37
`
`Retractable Technologies v. Becton, Dickinson and Company,
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 40
`
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........... 53
`
`In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ................................................ 53
`
`In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................... 53
`
`In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1971) ..................................................... 59
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ....................................................................... 59
`
`In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..................................................... 59
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 59
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ................................................................................................. 32
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................. 19-20
`
`RULES AND REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..............................................................................................
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............................................................................................... 20
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........ 20, 38
`
`MPEP § 2103(I)(C) .................................................................................................. 32
`
`MPEP § 2111 ..................................................................................................... 21, 38
`
`MPEP § 2181 ........................................................................................................... 34
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) has filed an inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) petition against U.S. Patent 8,781,839 (the “’839 Patent”) owned
`
`by West View Research, LLC (“Patent Owner”). Petitioner has also filed IPR
`
`petitions against seven other patents owned by Patent Owner. The other petitions,
`
`which involve a computerized information system like the system described in the
`
`’839 Patent, were filed in IPR2015-01941 (Patent 8,065,156), IPR2016-00123
`
`(Patent 8,719,037), IPR2016-00124 (Patent 8,706,504), IPR2016-00125 (Patent
`
`8,290,778),
`
`IPR2016-00137
`
`(Patent 8,682,673),
`
`IPR2016-00146
`
`(Patent
`
`8,719,038), and IPR2016-00156 (Patent 8,296,146). All of the foregoing petitions
`
`have been granted by the Board.
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of Claims 1, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, 29,
`
`and 35 of the ’839 Patent solely on the basis of obviousness. The Board instituted
`
`an inter partes review of Claims 1, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, and 35 of the ’839 Patent on
`
`the proposed combination of Ito, Hollenberg and Ezaki, and Claim 29 of the ’839
`
`Patent on the proposed combination of Ito, Hollenberg, Ezaki and Hsieh.
`
`However, as further detailed below, Petitioner fails to (i) perform statutorily
`
`mandated analysis of certain of the claims; (ii) propose reasonable interpretations
`
`for a number of material claim limitations, and (iii) set forth a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness for any of the challenged claims. None of the specific grounds of
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`obviousness and combinations identified by the Petitioner and the Board presents
`
`an “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`
`conclusion of obviousness.” See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed Cir. 2006).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of showing that any
`
`challenged claim of the ’839 Patent is unpatentable due to obviousness. Thus, the
`
`Board should find Claims 1, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, 29, and 35 of the ’839 Patent valid.
`
`II. Overview of the ’839 Patent
`inter alia, 1 an
`The ’839 Patent discloses,
`
`improved computerized
`
`information system for adaptively and rapidly providing user-specific and other
`
`information to users within a mobile transport apparatus (e.g., a land-mobile
`
`shuttle or other such vehicle) within a contracted period of time, including for use
`
`on their personnel electronic device or PED, such as e.g., after leaving the vehicle.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Abstract, 2:49-58, 11:67-12:4. Generally, users of such transport
`
`vehicles need a means to intuitively (and quickly) converge on information
`
`enabling them to, for instance, find an entity (e.g., business) of interest. Id. at 2:59-
`
`                                                            
`
`    1
`
` The ’839 Patent is one of twenty-six (26) currently issued U.S. Patents claiming
`
`priority from the common 09/330,101 parent application filed on June 10, 1999.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`3:5.
`
`Problematically, such users may have neither (i) any pre-existing familiarity
`
`of how the information system of the vehicle operates (having never been in the
`
`vehicle before); nor (ii) any pre-existing familiarity of where the desired entity is
`
`located (including relative to their current location or the transport vehicle itself).
`
`Id. at 2:59-65.
`
`Information pertinent to the user’s activities after egress from the vehicle
`
`may include e.g., directions to a local restaurant or transportation facility, weather
`
`information for their locale, etc. Id. at 2:49-58.
`
`Moreover, such users
`
`require a degree of
`
`individual,
`
`repeatable
`
`“personalization”, such that their identity (and preselected preferences) can be
`
`applied to information they obtain each different time they enter the same (or
`
`different) transportation modality. Id. at 4:11, 13:36-38, 21:10-42. Hence, certain
`
`preferences should be applied to that individual user regardless of the particular
`
`platform they select for transport (e.g., one of several available elevator cars in a
`
`building, a different vehicle they happen to use on a given day, etc.), also known as
`
`“platform agnosticism”.
`
`FIG. 1 of the ’839 Patent, an annotated version of which is reproduced
`
`below, shows one exemplary embodiment of the computerized information system,
`
`which includes, inter alia, a central processing unit (e.g., microprocessor), digital
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`graphics co-processor, digital signal processor (DSP) and associated speech
`
`processing (digitization/recognition) computer programs, a capacitive touch screen
`
`input and display device, an entity database (not shown), a speech synthesis
`
`module, a high-speed data interface to e.g., a user portable device or PED, and a
`
`high-speed network interface (see e.g., FIG. 3 reproduced and annotated below,
`
`showing one embodiment of a wireless interface using an IEEE Std. 802.11 (aka
`
`“Wi-Fi”) wireless interface). Id. at 9:18-22.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`
`
`
`The apparatus of FIG. 1 is an embodiment of a specific architecture
`
`optimized for speed, utilizing only then (circa mid-1999) recently available state-
`
`of-the-art technologies including use of data compression (e.g., code-excited linear
`
`prediction, or CELP) to, inter alia, reduce wireless data bandwidth requirements,
`
`Hidden Markov Modeling (HMM)-based speech recognition, at least four digital
`
`processors (a DSP, a separate graphics co-processor, a CPU/microprocessor, as
`
`well as a microcontroller), direct memory access (DMA) for the CPU which
`
`expedites data accesses to/from RAM, a (then) very high-bandwidth wireless
`
`interface (i.e., IEEE Std. 802.11) to enable rapid wireless transmission or receipt of
`
`large data structures such as image files, and a capacitive touch-screen input and
`
`display device with supporting iconic-based software (and pre-grouped topical
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`areas of information) to enable rapid user intuition/assimilation for ease of use. Id.
`
`at 3:62-4:2, 7:42-58, 8:3-13, 11:67-12:4.
`
`Patent Owner notes anecdotally in passing that the technology of the ’839
`
`Patent is now largely ubiquitous; numerous modern “smartphones”, tablet
`
`computers, and in fact vehicles have now (more than 16 years later) whole-sale
`
`adopted such an architecture, and specifically the foregoing combination of user
`
`interface elements (e.g., icon-based capacitive touch screen and speech input),
`
`processing elements, and wireless
`
`technologies. Dr. Ulrich Hackenberg,
`
`responsible for the technical development of all of Volkswagen Group Brands (of
`
`which Petitioner is one)2, recently stated the following:
`
`The use of touch screens on smartphone has really been an
`overwhelming success; we will consistently use them in our vehicles
`as well. …Volkswagen is currently working on integration that allows
`the use of safe, familiar controls during driving.
`
`                                                            
`
`    2
`
` “Since July 1, 2013, he has been a member of the Board of Management of AUDI
`
`AG with responsibility for Audi’s Technical Development. In addition, he is also
`
`responsible for the technical development of all the Volkswagen Group’s brands.”
`
`Ex. 2001 at 2.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`
`Ex. 2002 at 3 (emphasis added).
`
`Interaction by touch is …mainly impressive because it is easy to learn
`and offers direct, immediate interaction with the elements that are
`presented. Moreover, the customer is accustomed to touch controls in
`other areas. At Volkswagen, we are clearly relying on touch as a
`cross-segment, brand-shaping element for the control of information
`and communication systems in our vehicles.
`
`Id. at 2 (emphasis added). The reader need only pick up their smartphone and
`
`invoke the resident “maps” program via the touchscreen and say “Starbucks” or the
`
`like to attest to this ubiquity.
`
`FIG. 15 of the ’839 Patent (reproduced and annotated below) illustrates one
`
`exemplary embodiment of a wireless interface useful as part of the computerized
`
`system of FIG. 1 for e.g., “automatic personalization” of the aforementioned
`
`functions when the user is proximate to or within the vehicle.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`
`Further, the ’839 Patent incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 5,539,775
`
`(Ex. 2003), which discloses a method and system in which a pseudo noise (PN)
`
`sequence is generated for use within a wireless interface, and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,629,981 (Ex. 2004), which discloses a method and system in which authorizes
`
`and maintains information security across a wireless interface, such as that shown
`
`in FIG. 15. Ex. 1001 at 19:45-53; Ex. 2003 at 3:18-25; Ex. 2004 at 6:9-19.
`
`
`
`The exemplary computerized information system disclosed in the ’839
`
`Patent improves upon previous vehicular information systems (circa mid-1999) by,
`
`inter alia, providing a completely intuitive user interface which permits greatly
`
`simplified input to the system when the user is within the transport apparatus (e.g.,
`
`via a simple spoken name, or touch on a touch screen correlating to a limited
`
`number of prescribed categories of information). Ex. 1001 at 9:37-11:37, FIG. 4.
`
`The ’839 Patent technology allows the user to converge on the desired entity from
`
`multiple possibilities in a short period of time due to its simplified user interface,
`
`and spatially orient themselves relative to the transport apparatus and the desired
`
`entity or organization using intuitive and localized imagery, so that the user can
`
`merely utilize the image to find the entity (and not have to remember complicated
`
`lists of directions, addresses, etc.). Id. at 9:37-11:37, 2:59-3:5, FIG. 4, FIG. 5. The
`
`heavily hierarchical menu structures of prior art systems, e.g., first activate the
`
`system, then select or say the top-level function (e.g., “navigation”), then select or
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`say the sub-function (e.g., “restaurants”), then enter a geographic region (e.g.,
`
`“San Diego, CA”), then enter a street name or address (e.g., “Broadway”), etc.,
`
`were completely obviated in the ’839 Patent, since such paradigms were
`
`incompatible with, inter alia, having to converge on an entity location or other
`
`desired information within “only seconds”. Id. at 11:67-12:4.
`
`The ’839 Patent provides the foregoing features in the exemplary
`
`embodiment with a specific user interface and voice protocol algorithm (see e.g.,
`
`FIG. 4, reproduced and annotated below) which obviates the user from having to
`
`have any prior knowledge of how to operate the system (e.g., the user need not
`
`have ever used the system before, since it is completely intuitive how to operate it),
`
`and need only know a name or part of a name of the desired entity for which they
`
`seek to obtain information. Id. at 9:60-63. The algorithm includes specific
`
`protocols for each of (i) audio interchange with the user (e.g., speech), (ii) tactile
`
`interchange with the user (e.g., touch screen), and (iii) combinations of (i) and (ii).
`
`Id. at 9:37-10:38.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`
`
`
`In the “voice prompt” branch (left side of FIG. 4 flowchart), the user is
`
`prompted through a series of audible prompts to enter information (which may be
`
`entered via speech of the user or the exemplary touch screen) until they converge
`
`on a particular desired match from results obtained from a database (which may be
`
`a single match, or several possible matches). Id. at 10:22-32. Once the desired
`
`“match” is identified by the information system, the appropriate graphic or image
`
`is automatically selected for retrieval (e.g., from a networked server) and displayed
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`to the user to provide spatial orientation and a graphic representation of directions.
`
`Id. at 10:19-22, 11:15-28. The provided image or graphic is highly localized, so as
`
`to immediately spatially orient the user to their local surroundings, including in the
`
`exemplary embodiment the image or graphic rendering at least a portion indoors to
`
`a building or structure. Id. at 11:15-28.
`
`Moreover, with regard to enabling the user to find the desired information
`
`(e.g., directions or a map to a local restaurant) and easily “take it with them” after
`
`egress from the transport apparatus on their portable device, such functionality
`
`obviates the user having to establish a separate wireless or other connection to a
`
`network via the portable device. Users within transport apparatus (and/or less
`
`capable portable devices such as the exemplary Palm Pilot devices prevalent circa
`
`1999) may not have an ability, or time, to establish a separate wired or wireless
`
`connection. Id. at 12:50-53. The exemplary embodiment of the ’839 Patent
`
`information system solves that issue by providing a vehicle-indigenous interface
`
`such that desired data can be conveniently transferred to portable devices via e.g.,
`
`preset “one touch” touch-screen or application software commands. Id. at 12:43-
`
`13:38, FIG. 7.
`
`FIG. 7 of the ’839 Patent (reproduced and annotated below) illustrates one
`
`exemplary embodiment of the information system of FIG. 1, configured with the
`
`capacitive touch screen input and display device and the high-speed data interface
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPPR2016-00177
`
`
`
`(e.g., Unniversal Seerial Bus pprotocol viaa a multi-ppin connecttor). Id. at
`
`
`
`12:57-13:
`
`4. In
`
`
`
`
`Patent 88,781,839
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the illusstrated exaample, touuch-sensitivve functionns correspponding too a pluralitty of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“pre-designated” iinformatioon types (e..g., weatheer, directorry for a buiilding, etc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`) are
`
`s the
`
`shown,
`
`
`
`
`so as to ennable “one touch” seaarch and d
`
`
`
`
`
`ownload ccapability ffor the userr. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 13:188-27.
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicaation softwware residennt on the uuser’s portaable devicee may alsoo be used a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`basis off both (i) iinstigation
`
`
`
`
`
`of a searcch of the rremote dat
`
`
`
`
`
`abase(s) vvia the netwwork
`
`
`
`
`
`interface and the
`
`
`
`informatioon system,
`
`and/or (ii
`
`
`
`) downloaad of desireed informaation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to the portable devvice. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`12:57-62.
`
`
`
`FFIGS. 6a annd 6b of thhe ’839 Paatent furtheer illustratee examplees of such ““one
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`touch” iinformation selectionn available to users o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`f the informmation sysstem.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPPR2016-00177
`
`
`
`
`Patent 88,781,839
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ed in the ’m disclosetion systemd informatThe commputerized
`
`
`
`
`
`839 Patennt specificaation
`
`
`
`further
`
`improves
`
`
`
`upon prrevious (mmid-1999 aand prior)) vehiculaar informaation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systemss by providding a nummber of otheer features
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, includingg inter aliaa:
`
`
`
`
`
`integrateed use off short-rannge wireleess technoology (e.gg., RFID)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`
`
`associateed protoccols
`
`
`
`for
`
`
`
`authentication of uusers (Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 20066);
`
`
`
`automattic wireleess
`
`
`
`
`
`identtification
`
`and
`
`
`
`1001 at 199:17-21:422; see alsoo Ex. 20055 and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`same display) of
`
`
`
`secondaryy content tto a user
`
`
`
`
`
`(e.g., a usser selectinng a
`
`
`
`
`
`given toopical cateegory via
`
`
`
`h screen
`the touch
`
`or other
`
`
`
`input willl be
`
`
`
`automatiically pressented withh contextuually relevvant “seconndary” conntent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such as
`
`
`
`advertising, in addittion to thee requestedd “primaryy” informattion)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`
`
`automatiic “contexxt” determmination, seelection, aand presenntation (onn the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPPR2016-00177
`
`
`
`
`Patent 88,781,839
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 10001 at Absttract, 16:53-18:10, 221:43-25:5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5, 26:45-555, FIGS.
`
`18a-
`
`
`
`18d); annd
`
`(iii)
`
`
`
`integrateed use of vvarious visual-band,
`
`
`
`
`
`in data
`
`
`
`communnication wwith the
`
`
`
`
`
`infra-red, aand/or ultrrasonic sennsors
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`informatioon systemm that ennable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`monitoriing of areaas externall to the veehicle (andd display oof such datta on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the displlay device)), such as ffor securityty purposess (Id. at 166:53-18:10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`; see
`
`
`
`also Id. at FIG. 13 (reproducced and annnotated bellow)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ent are repe ’839 Pateaims of theThe chaallenged cl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`roduced beelow for reeference:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Coomputerizeed apparattus useful ffor locatinng an orgaanization
`building
`
`
`
`
`
`or entity, thhe organizzation or eentity beingg disposedd within a
`
`
`
`or structuree, the appaaratus compprising:
`
`o o
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`
`a wireless interface;
`data processing apparatus;
`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.
`10. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the computerized
`apparatus is mounted on or proximate to a surface of a land-mobile
`transport apparatus such that an operator of the transport apparatus
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`
`can view and access a touch screen of the touch screen input and
`display device, and make input to the speech digitization apparatus,
`while operating the transport apparatus.
`11. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the identification of the
`location comprises accessing a remote server via a network in data
`communication with the computerized apparatus via the wireless
`interface.
`16. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the computerized
`apparatus is further configured to display advertising content selected
`by one or more remote servers accessed via a network in data
`communication with the computerized apparatus via the wireless
`interface.
`22. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one computer
`program is further configured to generate on the touch-screen input
`and display device a plurality of soft function keys or icons, at least
`one of the soft function keys or icons having a function associated
`therewith relating to obtaining directions, and at least one of the soft
`function keys or icons having a function associated therewith relating
`to points of interest.
`23. The apparatus of claim 22, wherein the at least one of the
`soft function keys or icons having a function associated therewith
`relating to directions comprises a function for obtaining directions
`from a current location of the user.
`29. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising video data
`apparatus in data communication with the processing apparatus and
`configured to enable video data to be generated and displayed on the
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`
`display device.
`35. Computerized apparatus comprising:
`a wireless interface;
`data processing apparatus;
`a touch-screen input and display device;
`a speech recognition 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
`recognition apparatus, the input relating to an organization or
`entity disposed within a building or structure which a user
`wishes to locate;
`based at least in part on the input, cause identification of
`a location inside of the building or structure associated with the
`organization or entity; 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 comprising a map
`graphic showing the location of the organization or entity
`relative to other organizations or entities proximate thereto
`inside of the building or structure;
`wherein the digitized speech is generated based at least in part
`on user speech received via a microphone in communication with the
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`
`speech recognition apparatus, the microphone being mounted within
`the computerized apparatus proximate the touch-screen input and
`display device so that the user can speak into the microphone while
`viewing the touch-screen input and display device; and
`wherein the computerized apparatus:
`is further configured to provide a user a graphical
`representation of directions from their current location to the
`organization or entity,
`the graphical representation of
`directions comprising the map graphic displayed on the touch-
`screen input and display device having at least one arrow
`showing the path for the user to follow inside of the building or
`structure; and
`comprises an interface compliant with an IEEE 802.11
`standard.
`
`Id. at 26:10-40, 27:14-24, 27:41-45, 28:9-20, 28:43-46, 29:1-45.
`
`III. Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Statement of Facts
`Patent Owner first provides the following responses to various statements set
`
`forth by Petitioner in Section III.A of the Petition.
`
`Petitioner’s Characterization of the Invention
`
`A.
`As noted in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Petitioner characterizes
`
`the invention as follows:
`
`The ’839 patent describes an interactive display in an elevator that is
`responsive to verbal commands.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`Pet. at 3. However, the foregoing characterization of the invention is incomplete,
`
`and has substantive omissions so as to be misleading. Specifically, the ’839 Patent
`
`specification states:
`
`The present invention relates to the field of personnel transport
`apparatus, and specifically to elevators and similar devices for
`transporting people from one location to another which incorporate
`various information technologies.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:32-35.
`
` It is noted that while the system and methods of the invention
`disclosed herein are described primarily with respect to an elevator
`car, certain aspects of the invention may be useful in other
`applications, including, without limitation, other types of personnel
`transport devices such as trams or shuttles…
`
`Id. at 6:61-65. Hence, the specification as originally filed clearly contemplated
`
`application of the various aspects of the invention(s) to, inter alia, other types of
`
`transport apparatus and transport devices.
`
`IV. Argument
`As noted in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, the Board may only
`
`grant a petition for inter partes review where “the information presented in the
`
`petition … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
`
`prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00177
`Patent 8,781,839
`
`§ 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Petitioner bears the burden of showing that this
`
`statutory threshold has been met. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,756, (Aug. 14, 2012) [hereinafter “Practice Guide”] (“The Board … may
`
`institute a trial where the petitioner establishes that the standards for instituting the
`
`requested trial are met….”).
`
`For each of the following reasons, Patent Owner believes that the petition
`
`was fatally deficient. Notwithstanding such deficiency, Patent Owner further
`
`submits that the Petitioner has not met its prima facie burden of demonstrating
`
`obviousness (the sole basis of challenge by Petitioner) based on the Ito,
`
`Hollengerg, Ezaki, and Hsieh references.
`
`A.
`Petitioner Has Failed to Provide Claim Constructions for Several
`Key Terms, and Has Not Met Its Prima Facie Burden of Obviousness.
`
`The need to set forth a proposed construction of the claims is a necessary
`
`requirement for any analysis of the claims vis-à-vis the prior art. See, e.g.,
`
`Blackberry Corp. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC, IPR2013-00036, Paper 65 at 20
`
`(Mar. 7, 2014) (recognizing that one cannot conduct a necessary factual inquiry for
`
`determining obviousness—ascertaining differences between the claimed subject
`
`matter and the prior art—without arriving at a proper construction of the claims).
`
`A proper construction includes viewing the claims from the perspective of “a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Case IPR