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. 8,781,839
`Issue Date: July 15, 2014
`Title: COMPUTERIZED INFORMATION AND
`DISPLAY APPARATUS
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00177
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,781,839
`Issue Date: July 15, 2014
`Title: COMPUTERIZED INFORMATION AND
`DISPLAY APPARATUS
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00177
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1014
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,781,839 to Gazdzinski
`
`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,740 to Ito et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,201,544 to Ezaki
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,091,956 to Hollenberg
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,574,443 to Hsieh
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,323 to Ishii et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,558,300 to Goldman
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,211,777 to Greenwood 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.
`
`“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
`
`“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
`i
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`Exhibit 1016
`
`
`
`“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
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Claims Do Not Require Construction Pursuant to §
`112, ¶ 6 .................................................................................................. 2
`
`The Cited Prior Art Renders Unpatentable Each of the Challenged
`Claims, Under the Broadest Reasonable Construction of Those Claims
` ............................................................................................................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Construction of the term “digitized speech input” was properly
`presented in the Petition .............................................................. 4
`
`Construction of the term “identification of a location” was
`properly presented in the Petition ............................................... 7
`
`Construction of the term “graphical or visual representation”
`was properly presented in the Petition ........................................ 9
`
`Construction of the term “identification of a location associated
`with the organization or entity ... the location being inside of
`the building or structure” was properly presented in the Petition
` ................................................................................................... 10
`
`Construction of the term “wireless interface” was properly
`presented in the Petition ............................................................ 13
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Prior Art Describes Claims 1 and 35 ........................................... 15
`
`The Petition Provides Express Reasons to Combine the Cited Prior
`Art ........................................................................................................ 20
`
`III. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 25
`
`iii
`
`
`
`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.
`
`8,781,839 (the “’839 patent”) are invalid in view of the prior art cited therein,
`
`including U.S. Patent No. 6,249,740 (Exhibit 1003, “Ito”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,201,544 (Exhibit 1004, “Ezaki”), U.S. Patent No. 6,091,956 (Exhibit 1005,
`
`“Hollenberg”), and U.S. Patent No. 5,574,443 (Exhibit 1006, “Hsieh”).
`
`WVR argues that the Petition fails to construe the terms “digitized speech
`
`input,” “identification of a location,” and “graphical or visual representation,” fails
`
`to perform an analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6, and 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, nor does WVR dispute that the specification
`
`and prosecution history of the ’839 patent lack special definitions for these claim
`
`terms.
`
`WVR further argues that the prior art does not describe all of the limitations
`
`of the claims, that the Petition ignores an express teaching away, and that it relies
`
`on impermissible hindsight. However, WVR does not present any evidence of
`
`1
`
`
`
`express teaching away, nor does WVR address the evidence of obviousness
`
`presented in the Petition. Further, a finding of obviousness does not require that the
`
`prior art describe the most desirable combination of teachings.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Challenged Claims Do Not Require Construction Pursuant to
`§ 112, ¶ 6
`
`WVR argues (at 32-38) that portions of claims 1 and 35 are wholly
`
`functional, and include “textbook recitations of purely functional language with no
`
`recited structure.” Response, at 32-38. WVR does not include any authority for this
`
`conclusion, nor does WVR present an analysis of the claims under § 112, ¶ 6 (e.g.,
`
`identifying corresponding structure from the specification, and applying it to the
`
`cited prior art). WVR only argues that the absence of such analysis prevents a
`
`prima facie showing of obviousness.
`
`The claims should be given their broadest reasonable construction in view of
`
`the specification. See Petition, at 5. Claims 1 and 35 include a storage apparatus
`
`and at least one computer program. Neither claims 1 nor 35 recite “means,” so the
`
`Petition is reasonable in not applying § 112, ¶ 6. See, e.g., Williamson v. Citrix
`
`Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (maintaining the
`
`presumption that a limitation lacking the word “means” is not subject to § 112, ¶ 6,
`
`though abandoning the characterization of the presumption as “strong.”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Further, Federal Circuit and District Court cases show that the Petition is
`
`reasonable in not applying § 112, ¶ 6. The Federal Circuit has noted that
`
`“structure” in the context of computer software claims may not be physical
`
`structure. Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298-99 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(overruled by Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349, for applying a heightened bar for
`
`overcoming the presumption for applying § 112, ¶ 6). District Courts have
`
`repeatedly found that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply to computer-based claim terms
`
`such as “processor,” “instructions,” “computer code,” “program code,” or
`
`“executable software,” for performing certain functions, or “software configured
`
`to” perform certain functions. Syncpoint Imaging, LLC v. Nintendo of Am. Inc.,
`
`2:15-cv-00247-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 55118, at *23-24 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2016)
`
`(citing Affymetrix, Inc. v. Hyseq, Inc., 132 F.Supp.2d 1212, 1231-33 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2001); Trading Techs. Int’l v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04-c-5312, 2006 WL 3147697, at
`
`*10-14 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2006); Versata Software, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:06-cv-358, 2008 WL 3914098, at *13-14 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2008); Aloft
`
`Media, LLC v. Adobe Sys., 570 F.Supp.2d 887, 897-98 (E.D. Tex. 2008); Eolas
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 810 F.Supp.2d 795, 810 (E.D. Tex. 2011); RLIS,
`
`Inc. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-208, 2013 WL 3772472,
`
`at *13-17 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2013); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Samsung Elecs.
`
`Co., No. 1:12-cv-557, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184075, at *11-18 (E.D. Tex. June 4,
`
`3
`
`
`
`2014); SuperSpeed, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. H-12-1688, 2014 WL 129225, at
`
`*21-24 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2014)).
`
`Accordingly, it is sufficient for the Petition to state that the claims should be
`
`given their broadest reasonable construction in view of the specification. 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 157, 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). WVR does not assert that the allegedly
`
`required structural analysis would have any bearing on the patentability of the
`
`challenged claims. The challenged claims were properly considered, and, as set
`
`forth in the Petition, the prior art renders obvious the challenged claims.
`
`B.
`
`The Cited Prior Art Renders Unpatentable Each of the
`Challenged Claims, Under the Broadest Reasonable Construction
`of Those Claims
`1.
`Construction of the term “digitized speech input” was
`properly presented in the Petition
`
`As described in the Petition (e.g., at 13), the cited prior art describes at least
`
`one computer program 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,” as recited, for example, in claim 1. Ito discloses a data input
`
`device that uses voice recognition (Ex. 1003, 10:39-47), and that a user may input
`
`into a system information about a destination, such as a facility name, telephone
`
`number, address, and a route search request (id. at 15:47-58; Ex. 1002, ¶ 10; see
`
`also Ex. 1003, 9:33-37, 14:33-38). WVR has admitted that “all speech recognition
`
`systems inherently digitize the speaker’s analog voice.” Ex. 1010, at 729.
`
`4
`
`
`
`The specification of the ’839 patent does not present any special definition
`
`of the term “digitized speech input,” nor does the prosecution history include any
`
`claim construction arguments, so the term “digitized speech input” should be given
`
`its broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. For the purposes
`
`of this proceeding, the voice recognition system described by Ito constitutes a
`
`disclosure of “digitized speech input.”
`
`WVR does not dispute that voice recognition software requires digitization.
`
`Response, at 23-27. 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” remotely recognize digitized speech. Response, at 23-24
`
`(emphasis in original). Neither the Petitioner, nor the Board, proposes to equate
`
`digitization with recognition; instead, as WVR has admitted, for speech to be
`
`recognized, it must be digitized (Ex. 1010, at 729). Further, the claims do not
`
`specify where, or by what components, the speech input is digitized. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001, Claim 1 (“receive a digitized speech input via the speech digitization
`
`apparatus”), Claim 35 (“receive a digitized speech input via the speech recognition
`
`apparatus”).
`
`WVR then argues that the resulting device would be rendered “completely
`
`non-functional” if a user’s unrecognized speech were transmitted over a wireless
`
`5
`
`
`
`interface of limited bandwidth. See Response, at 25-26. First, WVR does not argue
`
`that Ito describes a wireless interface of such limited bandwidth. WVR only refers
`
`to “circa mid-1999 technology” (id. at 25) having “rates [that] were considered by
`
`the inventor of the ’839 [p]atent to be insufficient for the bandwidth requirements
`
`of the invention” (id. at 42 (citing Ex. 2008, at 1)). Second, WVR is referring to
`
`limitations that are not included in the claims; the claims do not include any
`
`minimum bandwidth requirements, nor do they state where the recognition of
`
`digitized speech takes place.
`
`The challenged claims only require the digitized 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 describes speech recognition
`
`software systems, and that speech recognition software systems require digitized
`
`speech input. Therefore, because speech recognition software systems were well-
`
`known, digitized speech input was also well-known.
`
`WVR does not present an alternative claim construction position, does not
`
`dispute that the specification and prosecution history of the ’839 patent lack special
`
`definitions for this claim term, and does not explain why the ’839 patent
`
`specification excludes the system of Ito from the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`6
`
`
`
`of this term. Id. at 23-27. WVR’s attempt to raise an issue where none exists
`
`should be given no weight.
`
`2.
`
`Construction of the term “identification of a location” was
`properly presented in the Petition
`As described in the Petition (e.g., at 14), the cited prior art describes the
`
`“identification of a location,” of claims 1 and 35. Ito discloses user inputs used to
`
`search a database of navigation data, which uses the inputs to extract a position of
`
`the destination, or “facility position.” Ex. 1003, 11:1-30; 15:50-67; Ex. 1002, ¶ 12.
`
`Ezaki discloses a navigation apparatus that displays a detailed map that provides
`
`directions to a target destination. Ex. 1004, 1:58-2:19; Ex. 1002, ¶ 12. Hollenberg
`
`discloses a location-finding mobile computer. Ex. 1005, 5:13-28; Ex. 1002, ¶ 12.
`
`As explained above, and in the Petition, the specification of the ’839 patent does
`
`not present any special definition of the term “identification of a location,” 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 user inputs, database of navigation data,
`
`navigation apparatus, and mobile computer, as described in Ito, Ezaki and
`
`Hollenberg, should constitute disclosure of “identification of a location,” under its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`WVR argues that whether the term “identification of a location” must be
`
`narrowed to include determining whether the “location” is an (i) address, (ii)
`
`7
`
`
`
`geographic or other coordinate, or (iii) otherwise, must be determined to
`
`understand, e.g., “how/what apparatus in the patent fulfills the ‘identification of a
`
`location’” to compare the prior art and the ’839 patent. Response, at 29 (emphasis
`
`in original). However, claims 1, 11, and 35 do not recite exactly how, or by what
`
`component, identification of a location is performed. Ex. 1001, Claim 1
`
`(“identification of a location associated with the organization or entity based at
`
`least in part on the at least one recognized word.”), Claim 11 (“identification of the
`
`location comprises accessing a remote server via a network in data communication
`
`with the computerized apparatus via the wireless interface.”), Claim 35
`
`(“identification of a location inside of the building or structure associated with the
`
`organization or entity.”).
`
`WVR’s discussion of whether Ito’s vehicle navigation apparatus 100
`
`“knows” a unique address is not tied to the claim language. Similarly, WVR’s
`
`contention that the ’839 patent claims “identify[ing a] database entry (with location
`
`data included therein) (id. at 30) instead of “extract[ing a] location data” is not tied
`
`to the claim language. WVR does not does not dispute that the specification and
`
`prosecution history of the ’839 patent lack special definitions for the term, and
`
`does not explain why the ’839 patent specification excludes the systems of Ito,
`
`Ezaki, and Hollenberg from the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Response, at 27-30. WVR’s attempt to raise an issue where none exists should be
`
`given no weight.
`
`3.
`
`Construction of the term “graphical or visual
`representation” was properly presented in the Petition
`As described in the Petition (e.g., at 14-18), the cited prior art describes “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,” as
`
`recited, for example, in claim 1. Ito discloses displaying detailed maps on a display
`
`device, including a recommended route to the selected destination on an output
`
`display. Ex. 1003, 16:24-27. Ezaki discloses a display device for displaying a map,
`
`which includes, for example, a visual display of a building’s floor by an L-shaped
`
`mark FL, in addition to a floor number. Ex. 1004, 7:14-20, Fig. 1. Hollenberg
`
`discloses a mobile computer with a graphical display on which users can receive
`
`services, such as maps and other aids, e.g., a retail store floor plan, to help them
`
`find their way around a store or shopping mall to the desired merchandise or store.
`
`Ex. 1005, 7:31-40, Fig. 2, 10:52-55; Ex. 1002, ¶ 13; see also Ex. 1005 13:22-45.
`
`Further, as described in the Petition (e.g., at 16-19), the cited prior art
`
`describes “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,” as recited, for example, in claim 1. Ito describes displaying
`
`guidance information on parking and various facilities in the area around the
`
`9
`
`
`
`destination (Ex. 1003, 14:19-38), and Ezaki describes displaying a user name list
`
`of the tenants in a building on a display screen with map information (Ex. 1004,
`
`2:62-65, 3:21-24; Ex. 1002, ¶ 14). Further, Hollenberg describes displaying an
`
`urban plan (Ex. 1005, Fig. 4, 10:60-64, 14:65-15:8; Ex. 1002, ¶ 14), and floor-plan
`
`details such as the locations of nearby exit doors or an escalator around a user’s
`
`location (Ex. 1005, Fig. 2, 10:52-55, 13:22-46; Ex. 1002, ¶ 14).
`
`As explained above, and in the Petition, the specification of the ’839 patent
`
`does not present any special definition of the term “graphical or visual
`
`representation,” nor does the prosecution history include any claim construction
`
`arguments, so that the term “graphical or visual representation” should be given its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. For the purposes of
`
`this proceeding, the map, L-shaped mark, floor number, floor plan, floor plan
`
`details, guidance information, user name list of tenants, and urban plan described
`
`by Ito, Ezaki, and Hollenberg should be considered to constitute disclosure of a
`
`“graphical or visual representation,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`WVR’s attempt to raise an issue where none exists should be given no weight.
`
`4.
`
`Construction of the term “identification of a location
`associated with the organization or entity … the location
`being inside of the building or structure” was properly
`presented in the Petition
`As described in the Petition, (e.g., at 14, 30-31), the cited prior art describes
`
`“identification of a location associated with the organization or entity … the
`
`10
`
`
`
`location being inside of the building or structure” (claim 1), and “identification of a
`
`location inside of the building or structure associated with the organization or
`
`entity” (claim 35). Ito describes user inputs that are used to search a database of
`
`navigation data. Ex. 1003, 11:1-30, 15:50-67; Ex. 1002, ¶ 12. Ezaki discloses a
`
`detailed map that includes the shapes of buildings and roads, and that visually
`
`displays “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. 1004, 2:62-65; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 12; see also Ex. 1004, 7:14-20. Hollenberg discloses at least one mobile
`
`computer for location finding. Ex. 1005, 5:13-28; Ex. 1002, ¶ 12. As explained
`
`above, and in the Petition, the specification of the ’839 patent does not present any
`
`special definition of the term, “identification of a location associated with the
`
`organization or entity … the location being inside of the building or structure,” 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 in a building, as
`
`described by Ezaki, should be considered to constitute disclosure of “identification
`
`of a location associated with the organization or entity … the location being inside
`
`of the building or structure,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`11
`
`
`
`WVR asserts that the Petition’s construction is “explicitly criticized and
`
`distinguished in the background section of the ’839 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
`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, 2:59-67.
`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 ’839 patent presents any special definition of the term,
`
`“identification of a location associated with the organization or entity … the
`
`location being inside of the building or structure.” As a result, 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 in a building, as described
`
`12
`
`
`
`by Ezaki, should be considered to constitute disclosure of “identification of a
`
`location associated with the organization or entity … the location being inside of
`
`the building or structure,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation. As a result,
`
`WVR’s attempt to raise an issue where none exists should be given no weight.
`
`5.
`
`Construction of the term “wireless interface” was properly
`presented in the Petition
`As described in the Petition (e.g., at 9-10), the cited prior art describes a
`
`“wireless interface” as recited in claims 1 and 35. Ito discloses a transmitting and
`
`receiving section that interfaces with a wireless network, and that includes devices
`
`such as a wireless modem. Ex. 1003, 10:51-57; Ex. 1002, ¶ 5. Additionally, Ito
`
`discloses that the connection may utilize systems such as car phones and portable
`
`phones. Id. Hollenberg discloses a mobile computer with multiple transmitters and
`
`receivers that includes “a transceiver for wireless voice and data communications”
`
`(i.e., a wireless interface) that exchanges information with a computerized “known-
`
`location information service provider.” Ex. 1005, 5:13-28; see also id. at 12:13-15
`
`(“handheld computing and wireless communications device”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 5.
`
`The specification of the ’839 patent does not present any special definition
`
`of the term “wireless interface,” nor does the prosecution history include any claim
`
`construction arguments, so the term “wireless interface” should be given its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. For the purposes of
`
`this proceeding, the wireless modem, described by Ito, and the transceiver,
`
`13
`
`
`
`described by Hollenberg, should be considered to constitute disclosure of a
`
`“wireless interface,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`WVR asserts that Ito’s transmitting and receiving section 108 does not
`
`describe a “terrestrial high-data bandwidth interface specifically chosen to support,
`
`inter alia, the bandwidth requirements of the information system of the invention.”
`
`Response, at 40-44 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:18-25). Claims 1 and 35 do not recite a
`
`terrestrial high-data bandwidth interface specifically chosen to support certain
`
`bandwidth requirements, and WVR does not assert that the cited portion of the
`
`specification constitutes a special definition or disclaimer. WVR’s citation to the
`
`specification does not identify any non-obvious distinction between the claims of
`
`the ’839 patent under review and the wireless interface of Ito, as the cited portion
`
`of the specification only indicates that “any wireless interface capable of
`
`accommodating the bandwidth requirements of the system 100 may be used.” ’839
`
`patent, 9:18-25.
`
`Similarly, WVR asserts that Hollenberg’s transceiver does not describe the
`
`“terrestrial high-data bandwidth interface specifically chosen to support, inter alia,
`
`the explicit temporal requirements of the information system of the invention (i.e.,
`
`having to converge on an entity location or other desired information within ‘only
`
`seconds’).” Response, at 40-44 (citing the ’839 patent, 12:3-4). Claims 1, 10-11,
`
`16, 22-23, 29, and 35 do not recite a terrestrial high-data bandwidth interface
`
`14
`
`
`
`specifically chosen to support temporal requirements, and WVR does not assert
`
`that the cited portion of the specification constitutes a special definition or
`
`disclaimer of the term “wireless interface.” Again, WVR’s citation to the
`
`specification does not identify any non-obvious distinction between the claims of
`
`the ’839 patent under review and the transceiver of Hollenberg, as the cited portion
`
`of the specification only indicates that “most users will have only seconds to
`
`locate, interpret, and remember the desired information.” ’839 patent, 12:3-4.
`
`WVR does not present an alternative claim construction position, and does
`
`not dispute that the specification and prosecution history of the ’839 patent lack
`
`special definitions for the term “wireless interface.” Nor does WVR explain why
`
`the ’839 patent specification should limit the claims to exclude the systems of Ito
`
`and Hollenberg from the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “wireless
`
`interface.” Id. at 40-44. WVR’s attempt to raise an issue where none exists should
`
`be given no weight.
`
`C.
`
`The Prior Art Describes Claims 1 and 35
`
`As set forth in the Petition, claims 1 and 35 are obvious in view of the prior
`
`art.
`
`WVR asserts that Ito, Ezaki, and Hollenberg do not describe several
`
`limitations of claims 1 and 35 (Response, at 44-45). Specifically, WVR asserts that
`
`“Petitioner’s interpretation of the location inside of the building or structure
`
`15
`
`
`
`associated with the organization or entity as meaning ‘the floor number of a floor,
`
`in a building’ is not a precise location as required by the ’839 Patent specification.”
`
`Response, at 45-46 (emphasis in original). However, as explained above, and in the
`
`Petition (e.g., at 14, 30-31), claims 1 and 35 do not describe “precise” location
`
`information. Further, neither the specification nor the prosecution history of the
`
`’839 patent presents any special definition of the term.
`
`WVR further asserts that the “identification of a location inside of the
`
`building or structure associated with the organization or entity,” as recited in claim
`
`35, is not disclosed by Hollenberg’s transponding transceiver for location finding
`
`within a shopping mall. See Response, at 45-46. However, WVR mischaracterizes
`
`the Petition’s argument. As described in the Petition (at 7-9), Hollenberg describes
`
`a transceiver for location finding in a building such as a shopping mall (Ex. 1005,
`
`5:13-28; Ex. 1002, ¶ 4). In other words, the system described by Hollenberg assists
`
`customers with finding their way around the inside of a building or structure such
`
`as a shopping mall. See Petition, at 38 (citing Ex. 1005).
`
`WVR asserts that Ezaki “does not even come close to disclosing a graphical
`
`or 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.” Response, at 47. However, WVR
`
`mischaracterizes the Petition’s argument. As described in the Petition (e.g., 16-19),
`
`16
`
`
`
`Ito describes displaying guidance information on parking and various facilities in
`
`the area around the destination (Ex. 1003, 14:19-38), and Ezaki describes
`
`displaying a user name list of the tenants in a building on a display screen with
`
`map information (Ex. 1004, 2:62-65, 3:21-24; Ex. 1002, ¶ 14). Further, Hollenberg
`
`describes displaying an urban plan (Ex. 1005, Fig. 4, 10:60-64, 14:65-15:8, Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 14), and floor-plan details such as the locations of nearby exit doors or an
`
`escalator around a user’s location (Ex. 1005, Fig. 2, 10:52-55, 13:22-46; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶ 14).
`
`WVR further asserts that none of Hollenberg’s “maps, aids, and floor plans
`
`show the location of the organization or entity and its immediate surroundings
`
`including other organizations and entities in order to aid a user in finding the
`
`organization or entity,” and that Hollenberg’s Fig. 2 displays information that
`
`“relates to the user’s location and the user’s immediate surroundings, not the
`
`location of the organization or entity that the user wishes to locate via a speech
`
`input.” Response, at 47-48 (emphasis in original). However, as described in the
`
`Petition (e.g., at 16), Hollenberg discloses a mobile computer with a graphical
`
`display on which users can receive services, such as maps and other aids, e.g., a
`
`retail store floor plan, to help them find their way around a store or shopping mall
`
`to the desired merchandise or store. Ex. 1005, 7:31-40, Fig. 2, 10:52-55; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶ 13; see also Ex. 1005 13:22-45.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Further, WVR asserts (at 51-52), that “[n]one of the references relied upon
`
`by Petitioner in its obviousness analysis teaches a map graphic having an arrow
`
`showing the path for the user to follow inside of the building or structure.”
`
`Response, at 51-52 (emphasis in original). However, as described in the Petition
`
`(e.g., at 34-35), and as shown below, Ito describes the displayed map of Fig. 9(B),
`
`which depicts “the area around the departure point PD,” and road R1, which is
`
`“highlighted by markings MA, and in this way the searched route is indicated.” Ex.
`
`1003, 17:10-14; Fig. 9(B); Ex. 1002, ¶ 25.
`
`
`
`See also Ex. 1003, Figs. 10(A), 10(B), 29(B), 30(B), 31(B), 32(B), 40(A) to (C),
`
`each illustrating a displayed map image having an arrow showing a path for the
`
`recommended route. Ex. 1002, ¶ 25.
`
`Hollenberg describes a map which includes “a device location and direction
`
`symbol 6a” that represents the current location of the user on the map. Ex. 1005,
`
`18
`
`
`
`12:22-40. As shown in Fig. 2 below, the direction symbol includes an arrow. Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 25.
`
`
`
`WVR further asserts that Ito, Ezaki, and Hollenberg do not describe an IEEE
`
`802.11-compliant interface of claim 35 (Response, at 52-53). Specifically, WVR
`
`asserts that “Ito and Hollenberg’s wireless telephone interfaces are a far cry from
`
`the high bandwidth wireless interface compliant with IEEE 802.11 standard as
`
`recited in claim 35.” Response, at 52. However, as described in the Petition (e.g., at
`
`35-36), Ito discloses a transmitting and receiving section that interfaces with a
`
`wireless network, and that includes devices such as a wireless modem. Ex. 1003,
`
`10:51-57; Ex. 1002, ¶ 26. Additionally, Ito discloses that the connection may
`
`utilize systems such as car phones and portable phones. Id. Hollenberg discloses a
`
`mobile computer with multiple transmitters and receivers that includes “a
`
`transceiver for wireless voice and data communications”
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
