Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`IPR2017‐00946
`U.S. Patent No. 7,268,703 B1
`FLIR Systems, Inc., et al. v. Garmin Switzerland GmbH
`
`(Oral Hearing – April 11, 2018)
`
`1
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.001
`
`
`
`IPR2017‐00946
`U.S. Patent No. 7,268,703 B1
`FLIR Systems, Inc., et al. v. Garmin Switzerland GmbH
`
`(Oral Hearing – April 11, 2018)
`
`1
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.001
`
`
`
`Procedural History
`
`• The 703 patent issued with 50 claims
`
`• FLIR challenged the patentability of claims 1–7, 12–23, 25–29,
`and 41–45, and the Board instituted trial on all challenged claims
`
`• Garmin’s POR asserted three claim construction‐based
`arguments, and was accompanied by a contingent Motion to
`Amend
`
`2
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.002
`
`
`
`Procedural History (cont’d)
`
`Issues not contested in Garmin’s POR:
`
`• The prior art status of petitioner’s references
`• The motivation to combine de Jong (Ex. 1005)
`and Tetley (Ex. 1006)
`• The prior art’s disclosure of the limitations in
`all of the challenged dependent claims
`• de Jong discloses an automated algorithm that
`identifies the “critical”* limitation: non‐user
`selected waypoints
`
`* Ex. 1022.010
`
`3
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.003
`
`
`
`703 Patent – Claim 1
`
`1. A method for marine navigation, comprising:
`receiving one or more preselected conditions from a user;
`identifying a potential waypoint; and
`performing a marine route calculation algorithm to route a
`course between a first location and the potential waypoint
`avoiding the preselected conditions, including analyzing
`cartographic data between the first location and the potential
`waypoint and re‐routing the course to avoid the preselected
`conditions by identifying one or more non‐user selected
`waypoints.
`
`4
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.004
`
`
`
`703 Patent – Claim 12
`
`12. A computer readable medium having a set of computer
`readable instructions, the set of computer readable instructions
`comprising instructions for:
`receiving one or more preselected conditions from a user;
`identifying a potential waypoint upon a first event; and
`performing a marine route calculation algorithm to analyze a
`course between a first location and the potential waypoint
`avoiding the preselected conditions, including analyzing
`cartographic data between the first location and the potential
`waypoint and re‐routing the course to avoid the preselected
`conditions by identifying one or more non‐user selected
`waypoints.
`
`5
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.005
`
`
`
`703 Patent – Claim 20
`
`20. An electronic marine navigation device, comprising:
`a processor;
`a user interface operatively coupled to the processor, wherein the user
`interface receives one or more preselected conditions from a user;
`
`a location input operatively coupled to the processor, wherein the location
`input receives a first location and a potential waypoint separate from the first
`location; and
`a memory operatively coupled to the processor and the location input, the
`memory having cartographic data including data related to the preselected
`conditions, wherein the processor operates on a marine route calculation
`algorithm to analyze a course between the first location and the potential
`waypoint in view of the preselected conditions of the cartographic data and
`re‐route the course to avoid the preselected conditions by identifying one or
`more non‐user selected waypoints.
`
`6
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.006
`
`
`
`703 Patent – Claim 27
`
`27. A method for marine navigation, comprising:
`identifying a potential waypoint; and
`performing a marine route calculation algorithm to analyze a
`course between a first location and the potential waypoint in
`order to avoid preselected conditions received from a user and
`re‐route the course to avoid the preselected conditions by
`identifying one or more non‐user selected waypoints.
`
`7
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.007
`
`
`
`703 Patent – Claim 28
`
`28. A method for marine navigation, comprising:
`receiving indication of a minimum water depth from a user;
`
`identifying a potential waypoint; and
`performing a marine route calculation algorithm to route a
`course between a first location and the potential waypoint
`avoiding water depth less than the minimum water depth by
`identifying one or more non‐user selected waypoints.
`
`8
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.008
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`de Jong (EX-1005)
`
`AUTOMATED ROUTE PLANNING
`
`A NETWORK-BASED ROUTE PLANNING SOLUTION FOR
`MARINE NAVIGATION
`
`N. Bonnor, Air Commodore
`
`Author:
`Wichert J. de Jong, LTZ3
`
`Supervisor Royal Netherlands Naval College:
`H. Sabelis, KTZ ir.
`Headof the department of Nautical Sciences.
`
`Supervisor University of Nottingham:
`
`Bergen, December 2001
`
`9
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.009
`
`
`
`703 patent and de Jong
`
`“Many times, however, there can
`be quite a lot of information for
`the boater to consider in
`planning and navigating a course
`for the boat. For example, which
`courses might be preferable, or
`even available, for the size and
`type of boat being used. In
`addition, a user may inadvert‐
`ently overlook one or more
`hazards in planning their course.”
`
`“The planning of a voyage is rightly
`contemplated as a time consuming
`and laborious activity. The great
`diversity of sources of information
`that have to be consulted during the
`planning process makes the process
`cluttered and difficult.”
`
`Pet. at 3, 7, 17, 18; Ex. 1003, ¶ 89
`
`Ex. 1001.013 (1:21‐26)
`
`Ex. 1005.006
`
`10
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.010
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`“The present developments in navigation are especially dealing with
`automation. Even the conservative world of marine navigation is at the
`threshold of the computerised environment. A great deal of effort is
`being put into integrating navigation systems, developing the one‐man‐
`bridge and using computers as the new medium for publications. A large
`share of this effort is ascribed to the Electronic Chart Display and
`Information System (ECDIS), since the possibilities for development of
`this system are endless. In addition to the electronically displayed
`nautical chart, with the real‐time presentation of the own ship’s position
`and the projection of radar … information on top of the chart, having
`other kinds of information, such as sailing directions … at the users’
`disposal interactively should be possible in the future.”
`
`Pet. at 17, 18, 36, 45, 47, 54, 68; Opp. to MTA at 8, 12, 15
`
`Ex. 1005.006
`
`11
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.011
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`“ECDIS is the main component of modern bridge design. ECDIS will play
`a large role in modernizing marine navigation, especially in automating
`the provision of information and supporting tools that underpin the
`traditional navigation phases that require this information…. ECDIS as a
`basis for automated voyage planning is the only logical choice.”
`
`Ex. 1005.090
`
`“ECDIS Standards are well defined in a few documents. The IMO
`Performance Standard was issued in December 1995 in IMO resolution
`A.817 (19). [IMO, 1995]”
`
`Pet. at 45; Opp. to MTA at 7, 8, 9, 12; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 35, 36, 180
`
`Ex. 1005.020
`
`12
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.012
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`Pet. at 6‐7; Opp. to MTA at 8; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 35, 36; Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 78‐81, 121
`
`Ex. 1011.001, 003, 008
`
`13
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.013
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`“The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has set the present
`standard in the ‘Guide to the planning and conduct of passages’. [IMO,
`1978(i)] …
`‘… both planning of passages and the close and
`continuous monitoring of position during the execution
`of such plans are necessary and highly important in the
`interest of the safety of navigation.’
`
`Still, many casualties occur, of which many are due to the lack of a
`thorough planning of the passage. Especially groundings and
`strandings could be avoided if the planning is carried out correctly.”
`
`Opp. to MTA at 9; Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 82, 157
`
`Ex. 1005.011
`
`14
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.014
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`“…it is important to state the objectives that can be achieved by
`planning a voyage. In the first place, the preparation provides a
`reference for the voyage enabling sensible monitoring of the ship’s
`position. Monitoring the ship’s state vector is only useful when all the
`safety limits and other important external factors in the vicinity of the
`ship are well defined. In the second place, dangerous situations and
`potential conflicts can be foreseen and hence prevented. When the
`mariner is aware of these situations and can identify the areas where
`potential conflicts can occur in advance, he can avoid these. Thirdly,
`planning is meant to provide a detailed scenario for the execution of a
`passage.”
`
`Opp. to MTA at 9; Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 82, 157
`
`Ex. 1005.011
`
`15
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.015
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`“The final step would be the presentation of the route‐
`alternatives. Ideally, the alternatives should be displayed on
`a map, which provides the user with a good overview.”
`
`Pet. at 22, 27, 29, 38, 40, 55, 57, 70; Opp. to MTA at 12, 14
`
`EX‐1005.016
`
`16
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.016
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`Pet. at 18; Opp. to MTA at 5‐6; Ex. 1003, ¶ 94
`
`Ex. 1005.028‐30
`
`17
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.017
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`Ex. 1005.030
`
`Route‐
`points
`
`Pet. at 18; Opp. to MTA at 5‐6; Ex. 1003, ¶ 94
`
`18
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.018
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`de Jong (EX-1005)
`
`NEIWORK
`
`DATABASE
`
`Collect data
`from ENC
`
`Filtered network
`
`Shortest route
`
`All possible routes
`within margin
`
`Multiple criteria
`K - shortest
`Dikstra
`Networkfilter
`
`
`algorithm
`route algonthmalgorithm decision algorithm
`
`ALTERNATIVES
`
`Filter
`cnteria
`
`Pet. at 21, 22, 41, 60
`
`Set interval
`
`riterta of
`preference
`
`BEST ROUTE-
`
`EX‐1005.066
`
`19
`
`Figure V-2: Sequence of the route planning algorithm.
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.019
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`de Jong (EX-1005)
`
`NETWORK
`
`DATABASE
`
`Collect data
`from ENC
`
`Filtered network
`
`Shortest route
`
`All possible routes
`within margin
`
`Dijkstra
`algorithm
`
`K - shortest
`route algorithm
`
`Multiple criteria
`decision algonthm
`
`Network filter
`algorithm
` Filter
`
`criteria
`
`ALTERNATIVES
`
`/
`
`Pet. at 21, 22, 41, 60
`|
`
`Setinterval
`
`“ritertaof
`
`preference
`
`BESTROUTE-
`
`EX‐1005.066
`
`20
`
`Figure V-2: Sequence of the route planning algorithm.
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.020
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`“The definition of the sailing order
`starts the voyage planning process. The
`sailing order contains all the initial
`conditions, demands and constraints
`that apply for the oncoming journey.”
`
`“The sailing order can be divided into
`two types of characteristics, namely
`mission and ship’s characteristics.”
`
`Pet. at 18, 19, 26, 27, 40, 55
`
`EX‐1005.043
`
`21
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.021
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`“[Mission:] This source contains
`information on port of destination,
`intermediate destinations, [and] time
`requirements…. Destination
`characteristics provide information on
`ports of call and port of destination, or
`better, position of departure and
`position of destination.”
`
`Pet. at 18, 19, 26, 27, 40, 55
`
`EX‐1005.043‐44
`
`22
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.022
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`“The second part of the sailing order is the
`ship’s characteristics definition…. The size of the
`ship consists of length, width, tonnage, height
`and observer height…. The draught of the ship
`is the draught at the position of propellers,
`rudders and domes…. In combination with
`draught, the minimum Under Keel Clearance
`(UKC) should be stated. Minimum Under Keel
`Clearance is the safety margin on top of the
`ship's draught. UKC plus draught determines
`the minimum waterdepth needed for the
`conduct of a passage, setting the depth safety
`contours.”
`
`Pet. at 18, 19, 26, 27, 40, 55
`
`EX‐1005.045
`
`23
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.023
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`de Jong (EX-1005)
`
`NETWORK
`
`DATABASE
`
`Collect data
`from ENC
`
`Ne
`
`Filtered network
`
`Shortest route
`
`All possible routes
`within margin
`
`Network filter
`aloorithm
`
`Dijkstra
`algorithm
`
`K - shortest
`route algorithm
`
`Multiple criteria
`decision algonthm
`
`Filter
`
`criteria
`
`Set interval
`
`Pet. at 21, 22, 41, 60
`
`Triterta of
`preference
`
`BEST ROUTE-
`
`ALTERNATIVES
`
`EX‐1005.066
`
`24
`
`Figure V-2: Sequence of the route planning algorithm.
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.024
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`“Information such as depths, buoys,
`wrecks and lights can be obtained from
`the ENC by using some sort of query.”
`
`“Clearly, the water‐depth of a passage
`is the most important aspect. Not
`enough water is simply the reason to
`avoid a passage…. Chart depth is
`implemented in the ECDIS structure (as
`soundings).”
`
`Pet. at 19, 30‐31, 38, 60, 68
`
`EX‐1005.047, 050
`
`25
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.025
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`de Jong (EX-1005)
`
`NETWORK
`
`DATABASE
`
`Collect data
`from ENC
`
`Filtered network
`
`Shortest route
`
`All possible routes
`within margin
`
`Dijkstra
`algorithm
`
`K - shortest
`route algorithm
`
`Multiple criteria
`decision algonthm
`
`ALTERNATIVES
`
`Filter
`criteria
`
`Pet. at 21, 22, 41, 60
`
`Set interval
`
`Triterta of
`preference
`
`BEST ROUTE-
`
`EX‐1005.066
`
`26
`
`Figure V-2: Sequence of the route planning algorithm.
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.026
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`“Some combinations of Sailing Order and
`passage characteristics should deny the use of
`the particular passage…. Elimination of
`passages is, in terms of algorithms, typically a
`filtering operation.”
`
`“The first combination causing an unfeasible
`segment is when depth of the passage is not
`enough. This occurs when the water depth
`(which is chart depth plus tidal rise) is less than
`the required depth, which is the ship’s draught
`increased by the appropriate safety margin
`(UKC).”
`
`Pet. at 20, 30, 34, 38, 41
`
`EX‐1005.056
`
`27
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.027
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`Harbour A
`(1)
`
`Route‐Point 27
`
`Harbour B
`(68)
`
`Pet. at 23, 29, 32
`
`EX‐1005.120
`
`28
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.028
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`Pet. at 24, 30, 32‐33, 41; Opp. to MTA at 15
`
`EX‐1005.132
`
`29
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.029
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`“The first case is to calculate a route from route‐point 27 to harbour B (test case 3_1). To every
`route‐segment some extra characteristics are added (see appendix). The results show that the
`best route considering all the criteria avoids perfectly all the unfavourable segments.”
`
`Pet. at 24, 30, 32‐33, 35, 41‐42; Opp. to MTA at 15; Reply at 21
`
`EX‐1005.087, 132
`
`30
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.030
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`Pet. at 23‐24, 27, 29, 30; Reply at 17‐19, 21; Opp. to MTA at 15‐16; Ex. 1003, ¶ 109; Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 38‐42
`
`EX‐1005.121
`
`31
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.031
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`“The first scenario was
`developed in order to test
`the filter algorithm and the
`Dijktra algorithm for
`shortest paths. The start
`position of scenario 1 is
`route‐point 1 (harbour A);
`end position is route‐point
`68 (harbour B)…. The first
`test (testcase1_1) shows
`that the shortest path
`algorithm works well
`without any restrictions.”
`
`Pet. at 23‐24, 27, 29, 30; Reply at 17‐19, 21; Opp. to MTA at 15‐16; Ex. 1003, ¶ 109; Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 38‐42
`
`EX‐1005.083, 121
`
`32
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.032
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`Pet. at 23‐24, 27, 29, 30; Reply at 17‐19, 21; Opp. to MTA at 15‐16; Ex. 1003, ¶ 109; Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 38‐42
`
`EX‐1005.122
`
`33
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.033
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`“In the fourth test (testcase1_
`4), the depth filter is tested.
`Eight segments are now
`considered to have a depth of
`5 metres; the speed limitations
`are removed. As we can see,
`the segments with insufficient
`water depths are avoided.”
`
`“We can now conclude that
`the filter algorithm and the
`Dijktra’s algorithm for shortest
`paths work properly; the
`results are all according to
`expectations.”
`
`Pet. at 23‐24, 27, 29, 30; Reply at 17‐19, 21; Opp. to MTA at 15‐16; Ex. 1003, ¶ 109; Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 38‐42
`
`EX‐1005.083‐84, 122
`
`34
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.034
`
`
`
`de Jong (EX‐1005)
`
`Pet. at 23‐24, 27, 29, 30; Reply at 17‐19, 21; Opp. to MTA at 15‐16; Ex. 1003, ¶ 109; Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 38‐42
`
`EX‐1005.121‐22
`
`35
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.035
`
`
`
`Tetley (EX‐1006)
`
`Tetley (EX-1006)
`
`
`
`Electronic Navigation
`Systems
`
`
`
`Laurie Tetley eng FIEIE
`Principal Lecturer in Navigation and Communication Systems
`
`and
`
`David Calcutt Phd msc DipEE CEng MIEE
`Formerly Senior Lecturer, Departmentof Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
`University of Portsmouth
`
`Butterworth-Heinémann
`
`Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP
`225 Wildwood Avenue, Woburn, MA 01801-2041
`A division of Reed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd
`
`AR A memberof the Reed Elsevier plc group
`
`First published Electronic Aids to Navigation 1986
`Reprinted 1988
`Second edition published as Electronic Aidsto Navigation: Position Fixing 1991
`Third edition 2001
`
`EX‐1006.006‐07
`
`36
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.036
`
`
`
`Tetley (EX‐1006)
`
`Tetley describes the state of the art concerning navigation
`systems that were capable of directing a craft with respect to a
`planned course
`
`“The NAV 1 screen shown is a
`graphic depiction of the vessel’s
`relationship to the intended
`course…. An arrow intersecting the
`screen centre indicates the ship’s
`current heading (course over
`ground (COG)) relative to the
`destination. When this arrow points
`at the next waypoint… the ship is
`heading in the correct direction.”
`
`EX‐1006.044‐45
`
`37
`
`Opp. to MTA at 9‐10, 13
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.037
`
`
`
`Tetley (EX‐1006)
`
`“[T]he GPSMAP Highway page … provides … graphic steering guidance to an active
`waypoint via a planned highway. The active destination point is displayed at the top
`of the screen…. The Highway page … provides visual guidance to the destination
`waypoint and keeps the vessel on the intended course line. The vessel’s course is
`represented by a centre line down the middle of the graphic highway. As the vessel
`progresses towards its destination, the highway perspective changes to indicate
`progress and which direction should be steered to remain on course.”
`Opp. to MTA at 9‐10, 13
`
`EX‐1006.052‐53
`
`38
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.038
`
`
`
`Tetley (EX‐1006)
`
`“ANTS” is a “system which automatically keeps a ship along a safe pre‐planned track.”
`
`EX‐1006.092
`
`Opp. to MTA at 11
`
`EX‐1006.077
`
`39
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.039
`
`
`
`Tetley (EX‐1006)
`
`Tetley (EX-1006)
`
`ECDIS
`DISPLAY
`
`GPS/DGPS
`
`SPEED
`
`OFFICIAL ©
`
`
`fen=s2s0=n ams foeSeeeeeee sewee eee
`: 3-52 COMPLIANT DATA :
`8 pee eee eeeeee2
`CHART
`
`- UPDATES
`
`LORAN-C
`"§-57COMPLIANT|p @|SYSTEM ELECTRONIC
`
`A|NAVIGATIONAL CHART
`(SENC)
`
`
`
`HEADING
`
`Pet. at 44, 61, 63
`
`ELECTRONIC
`NAVIGATIONAL
`CHART (ENC)
`
`. §-57 COMPLIANT
`
`Figure 7.4 Block diagrain of an ECDIS. (Reproduced courtesy of Warsash Maritime Centre.)
`
`EX‐1006.109
`
`40
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.040
`
`
`
`Tetley (EX‐1006)
`
`Tetley (EX-1006)
`
`The basic ECDIS requirements can be summarized asfollows.
`
`@ ENC data. This is to be supplied by government-authorized hydrographic offices and updated
`regularly in accordance with [HO standards.
`
`@ OwnShip’s Position. The ECDIS should showownship’spositiononthedisplay.Such a position
`is the result of positional input data received from suitable sensors and should be continuously
`updated on the display.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e Safety Depth/Contour. The mariner canselectsafetydepth,wherebyallsoundingslessthanor
`
`
`equaltothesafetydeptharehighlighted,or safety contour whereby the contour is highlighted over
`other depth contours.
`
`
`e Route Planning. The mariner should be able to undertake theplanningofasuitableroute,
`which should be capable of being amended as required. It
`
`includingtheprovisionofwaypoints
`
`
`
`should be possible for the mariner tospecifyalimitofdeviationtheplannedrouteatwhichfrom
`
`
`activationofanautomaticoff-trackalarmoccurs.
`e Route Monitoring. ECDIS should show own ship’s position when the display covers the area
`involved. The user should be able to ‘look-ahead’ while in this mode but be able to restore own
`EX‐1006.108
`Pet. at 7, 44, 46, 48, 49‐50, 51, 53, 56, 61, 62
`
`
`
`ship’s position using a ‘single operatoraction’.Thedatadisplayedincludecontinuousshould
`
`indicationofship’sposition, course and speed and any other information, such as time-to-go, past
`track history etc., considered necessary by the user. Indication/alarms should feature using
`parameters set by the mariner.
`
`41
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.041
`
`
`
`Tetley (EX‐1006)
`
`Pet. at 45, 54‐56, 62, 72; Opp. to MTA at 10, 13, 14, 17
`
`EX‐1006.121, 125
`42
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.042
`
`
`
`Tetley (EX‐1006)
`
`Pet. at 48, 69, 72, 73; Opp. to MTA at 10, 11, 13, 17
`
`EX‐1006.128
`EX‐1003.111
`43
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.043
`
`
`
`Tetley (EX‐1006)
`
`(EX-1006)
`
`Pet. at 56, 69‐70
`
`Figure 7.19 Use oflimits of deviation. (Reproduced courtesy of PC Maritime.)
`
`EX-1006.129
`
`EX‐1006.129
`EX‐1003.112
`44
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.044
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “re‐routing”
`
`Patent Owner
`To change at least a
`portion of the route
`of the course
`relative to a
`previous routing
`
`Petitioner
`Includes methods
`and devices in
`which a single
`route is calculated
`(i.e., does not
`require multiple
`routes)
`
`POR at 15
`Pet. Reply at 2‐9
`45
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.045
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “re‐routing”
`
`703 Patent, Claim 1
`
`“…performing a marine route
`calculation algorithm to route a
`course between a first location
`and the potential waypoint
`avoiding the preselected
`conditions, including analyzing
`cartographic data between the
`first location and the potential
`waypoint and re‐routing the
`course to avoid the preselected
`conditions by identifying one or
`more non‐user selected
`waypoints.”
`
`• Plain language of the claims require
`only a single “re‐routing” step
`• This “re‐routing” (by identifying non‐
`user waypoints) is how the “marine
`route calculation algorithm route[s] a
`course” between two points
`• Garmin’s argument requires a second
`step not in the claims
`
`46
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.046
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “re‐routing”
`
`12. A computer readable medium having a set of computer
`readable instructions, the set of computer readable instructions
`comprising instructions for:
`receiving one or more preselected conditions from a user;
`identifying a potential waypoint upon a first event; and
`performing a marine route calculation algorithm to analyze a
`course between a first location and the potential waypoint
`avoiding the preselected conditions, including analyzing
`cartographic data between the first location and the potential
`waypoint and re‐routing the course to avoid the preselected
`conditions by identifying one or more non‐user selected
`waypoints.
`
`47
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.047
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “re‐routing”
`
`First location
`
`Large island
`
`Potential waypoint
`
`POR at 16
`
`48
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.048
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “re‐routing”
`
`• Garmin told the district court during
`claim construction that the
`specification and claims “embrace”
`devices that calculate only a single
`route.
`
`Garmin’s District Court
`CC Briefing
`
`“Far from excluding devices
`‘in which a singular route is
`calculated, the claims and
`specification embrace
`them…. the specification
`discloses routing a single
`course avoiding a pre‐
`selected route condition
`(e.g., land).” EX‐1028.016
`
`Reply at 8
`
`49
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.049
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “re‐routing”
`
`Garmin’s District Court
`CC Briefing
`
`“According to Defendants,
`‘re‐routing the course’
`somehow excludes
`‘methods in which a
`singular route is calculated
`and drawn.’ There is no
`support for Defendants’
`construction.”
`
`EX‐1028.015
`
`• Garmin told the district court during
`claim construction that there was “no
`support” for a construction that
`excludes single‐route calculations.
`• “A patent may not, like a ‘nose of wax,’
`be twisted one way to avoid
`anticipation and another to find
`infringement.” Amazon.com, Inc. v.
`Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d
`1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`Reply at 8‐9
`
`50
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.050
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “re‐routing”
`
`Garmin’s infringement contentions identify a single routing step
`
`Reply at 5‐7
`
`EX‐1026.031‐32
`51
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.051
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “re‐routing”
`
`Garmin’s infringement contentions identify a single routing step
`
`Reply at 5‐7
`
`EX‐1026.031‐32
`52
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.052
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “re‐routing”
`
`Garmin’s infringement contentions do not treat claim 28 differently
`
`Garmin refers back to claim 1,
`which requires “re‐routing.”
`
`No “re‐routing limitation”
`
`Reply at 5‐7
`
`EX‐1026.105
`
`53
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.053
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “re‐routing”
`
`MTA at
`Claims App’x
`
`54
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.054
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “course”
`
`Petitioner
`route
`
`Patent Owner
`The path of intend‐
`ed travel of a craft
`with respect to the
`earth; not an out‐
`line of the areas
`where the craft is
`intended to pass
`but the actual path
`of intended travel
`
`POR at 21
`Pet. Reply at 9‐16
`55
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.055
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “course”
`
`703 Patent, Col. 7, lines
`23‐27
`
`“In one embodiment, the
`size of the area can be
`defined by radii extending
`along the course from the
`first location (e.g., a present
`location), such as a heading
`determined through the
`use of a track log.”
`
`• Garmin’s proposed construction relies
`on extrinsic evidence in an attempt to
`equate the terms “course,” “path,” and
`“track”
`
`• The word “path” does not appear in
`the patent
`
`• “Track” appears once
`
`56
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.056
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “course”
`
`• The BRI of “course” in the context of the 703 Patent is “route”
`
`• The claims are directed to a “marine route calculation algorithm”
`that “re‐routes” (or “routes”) a “course”
`
`• The specification uses the terms interchangeably. See EX‐
`1001.018 (col. 11, lines 44‐46); Figs. 5 and 6; and Abstract:
`“An electronic marine navigation device with marine course
`calculation capabilities includes a processor connected to a
`memory that includes cartographic data. A potential waypoint
`can be identified and a marine route calculation algorithm
`can be preformed [sic] to calculate a course….”
`
`Reply at 14
`
`57
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.057
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “course”
`
`“In view of the above disclosures in the ’703 Patent, the intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence support the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`‘navigation’ to mean ‘the process of planning a course and directing a
`craft or vehicle along the course from one place to another.”
`
`MTA at 22
`
`58
`
`Reply at 15
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.058
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “course”
`
`“In view of the above disclosures in the ’703 Patent, the intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence support the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`‘navigation’ to mean ‘the process of planning a course and directing a
`craft or vehicle along the course from one place to another.”
`
`MTA at 22
`
`“Garmin submits that the broadest reasonable interpretation for
`‘navigation’ as used in the ’703 Patent means ‘the process of
`planning a route and directing a craft or vehicle along the route from
`one place to another.”
`
`Reply at 15
`
`POPR at 24
`
`59
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.059
`
`
`
`Claim construction – “course”
`
`• Garmin told the district court during
`claim construction that the “end
`result” of the claimed invention was a
`“route.”
`
`Garmin’s District Court
`CC Briefing
`“…the invention in the 703
`Patent improved upon prior
`… algorithms by having an
`algorithm analyze a poten‐
`tial course for undesirable
`route conditions and …
`recalculating that portion
`of the route…. The end
`result is a marine route
`that avoids unfavorable
`conditions.” EX‐1027.005
`
`Reply at 15‐16
`
`60
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.060
`
`
`
`Unpatentability in view of de Jong
`
`“receiving one or more preselected conditions from a user”
`
`PO Infringement Contentions
`“The preselected conditions from the
`user include, for example only, ‘boat
`details’ such as minimum safe depth,
`minimum safe beam and minimum safe
`height.” [EX‐1026.017]
`
`de Jong
`Sailing order includes the vessel’s
`“length, width, tonnage, height and
`observer height” and Minimum Under
`Keel Clearance (UKC), wherein “UKC
`plus draught determines the minimum
`waterdepth needed for the conduct of
`a passage, setting the depth safety
`contours.” [EX‐1005.045‐46]
`
`Reply at 6‐7; Pet. at 18, 26, 40
`
`61
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.061
`
`
`
`Unpatentability in view of de Jong
`
`“identifying a potential waypoint”
`
`PO Infringement Contentions
`“For example, Raymarine a78 MFD
`identifies an endpoint (e.g., ‘a potential
`waypoint’) by receiving user input via a
`touchscreen.” [EX‐1026.025]
`
`de Jong
`“…obviously, starting position and
`position of destination should be input;
`also intermediate positions can be
`implemented…”
`
`“…sailing order information should be
`input at the start of the process. A
`window where all the data can be filled
`in is a good option. [EX‐1005.059, .046]
`
`Reply at 6‐7; Pet. at 27, 29, 37
`
`62
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.062
`
`
`
`Unpatentability in view of de Jong
`
`“rout[ing]/“re‐routing the course”
`
`PO Infringement Contentions
`“… a Raymarine a78 MFD performs
`calculations to determine a safe route
`between a starting point (e.g., ‘a first
`location’) and the endpoint. The Raymarine
`a78 MFD analyzes cartographic data
`provided by Navionics or Jeppesen/C‐MAP
`charts between the starting point and the
`endpoint. The Raymarine a78 MFD re‐routes
`the course along a safe route, avoiding water
`depth less than the minimum water depth,
`along one or more waypoints that were
`not selected by the user.” [EX‐1026.105]
`
`de Jong
`“Some combinations will have the effect of
`eliminating a certain passage from the
`optional routes, because it simply cannot or
`may not be conducted. These routes are
`then considered to be not suitable or
`feasible for the available vessel…The first
`combination causing an unfeasible segment
`is when depth of the passage is not
`enough. This occurs when the water depth
`(which is chart depth plus tidal rise) is less
`than the required depth, which is the ship's
`draught increased by the appropriate safety
`margin (UKC).” [EX‐1005.056]
`
`Reply at 6‐7; Pet. at 20, 30, 34, 38, 41
`
`63
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.063
`
`
`
`Unpatentability in view of de Jong
`
`Pet. at 24, 30, 32‐33, 35, 41‐42; Opp. to MTA at 15; Reply at 21
`
`EX‐1005.132
`
`64
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.064
`
`
`
`Unpatentability in view of de Jong
`
`Test Case 1_1: 1‐2‐4‐7‐12‐17‐22‐27‐36‐42‐46‐53‐54‐58‐59‐63‐65‐68
`
`Test Case 1_4: 1‐2‐4‐7‐10‐15‐20‐27‐36‐42‐46‐53‐54‐58‐59‐63‐65‐68
`EX‐1005.121‐22
`
`“It should be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that one or more of the
`methods provided herein may be executed in a different order than that described
`herein. That is, elements of each method claim do not need to be executed in the order
`shown unless it is stated herein that such order is explicitly required.”
`EX‐1001.017 [Col. 10, lines 48‐55]
`
`Q: Now, it's also true, is it not, that an algorithm isn't required to follow the exact same
`steps every time; correct?
`A. Often an algorithm will involve a decision tree, which, depending on the flow through
`the decision tree, in a specific circumstance, various steps might be performed or not
`performed on a specific iteration.
`
`Pet. at 23‐24, 27, 29, 30; Reply at 17‐19, 20, 21; Opp. to MTA at 15‐16; Ex. 1003, ¶ 109; Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 38‐42
`
`EX‐1032.006
`
`65
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.065
`
`
`
`Unpatentability in view of de Jong
`
`Pet. at 21, 22, 41, 60
`
`EX‐1005.066
`
`66
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.066
`
`
`
`Unpatentability in view of de Jong
`
`de Jong: “path of intended travel”
`
`Pet. at 18; Opp. to MTA at 5‐6; Ex. 1003, ¶ 94
`
`EX‐1005.030, 120; Pet. at 23‐25
`
`67
`
`IPR2017-00946
`FLIR EXHIBIT 1041.067
`
`
`
`Unpatentability in view of de Jong
`
`de Jong: “avoid[ing] the preselected conditions”
`
`“The first case is to calculate a route from route‐point 27 to harbour B (test case
`3_1). To every route‐segment some extra characteristics are added (see appendix).
`The results show that the best route considering all the criteria avoids perfectly all
`the unfavourable segments.”
`
`EX‐1005.087
`
`“In proper navigational practice, areas with a probability of encountering ice,
`should be avoided if possible, even if the ship's ice strengthening allows passage.
`Therefore, this criterion of preference is meant to provide avoidance of (possible)
`iced regions.”
`
`Pet. at 24, 32, 35, 41‐42; Reply at 22‐2
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
