Paper No.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`FLIR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`FLIR MARITIME US, INC. (F/K/A RAYMARINE, INC.), and
`NAVICO, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GARMIN SWITZERLAND GmbH,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00946
`
`Patent 7,268,703 B11
`__________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO AMEND UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`Navico, Inc. was joined as a party to this proceeding via a Motion for
`1
`Joinder in IPR2017-02051.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`FLIR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`FLIR MARITIME US, INC. (F/K/A RAYMARINE, INC.), and
`NAVICO, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GARMIN SWITZERLAND GmbH,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00946
`
`Patent 7,268,703 B11
`__________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO AMEND UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`Navico, Inc. was joined as a party to this proceeding via a Motion for
`1
`Joinder in IPR2017-02051.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND OF THE 703 PATENT AND PRIOR ART ....................... 2
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 4
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 4
`V.
`THE PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS ARE INVALID ............................ 5
`A. Application of the Prior Art to the Proposed Claims ............................ 7
`1.
`The Proposed Amended Claims Are Not Valid Under §
`103 ............................................................................................. 12
`The Proposed Claims Violate 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶¶ 1, 2 ...................... 24
`1.
`The Proposed Claims are Indefinite .......................................... 24
`2.
`Garmin Does Not Show That the Proposed Claims Have
`Written Description Support ..................................................... 25
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`703 patent
`
`Petition
`
`
`
`POR
`
`
`
`MTA
`
`
`
`De Jong
`
`
`
`
`
`Tetley
`
`
`
`POSITA
`
`Emphasis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,268,703 B1
`
`FLIR Systems, Inc. and FLIR Maritime US, Inc.’s
`Petition for Inter Partes Review filed February 17, 2017
`
`Garmin’s Patent Owner Response, filed November 15,
`2017
`
`Garmin’s Motion to Amend Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121,
`filed November 15, 2017
`
`Ex. 1005: W.J. de Jong, Automated Route Planning – A
`Network-Based Route Planning Solution for Marine
`Navigation, University of Nottingham (December 2001)
`
`Ex. 1006: Tetley et al., Electronic Navigation Systems,
`3d. Ed. (Butterworth-Heinemann 2001) (excerpts)
`
`“Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art”
`
`All emphasis added unless otherwise stated
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Recognizing the issues it faces with respect to the issued claims, Garmin has
`
`contingently moved to amend (“MTA”) the independent claims of the 703 patent.
`
`As explained herein, Garmin’s proposed amendments do nothing to correct the
`
`fatal deficiencies in the existing claims, and thus its motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`Garmin contends that the proposed claims are patentable because they now
`
`explicitly require: (1) a “marine navigational device,” coupled with Garmin’s
`
`proposed construction of “navigation” (the “process of planning a course and
`
`directing a craft or vehicle along the course from one place to another”); and (2)
`
`both “routing” and “re-routing” steps. Garmin alleges that these limitations are
`
`missing from the prior art.
`
`
`
`As explained herein, that is demonstrably not the case, as the proposed
`
`claims are plainly obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the unchallenged prior
`
`art of record, de Jong (Ex. 1005) and Tetley (Ex. 1006). First, marine navigational
`
`devices that both planned a course and “directed a craft along the course” are
`
`ubiquitous in the prior art. Tetley discloses numerous examples, including
`
`Garmin’s own GPSMap 215/225 product. The manual for that product (Ex. 1033)
`
`explicitly discloses a “marine navigational device” as Garmin construes it. Garmin
`
`did not in its MTA bring its manuals to the Board’s attention, and failed to address
`
`the teachings in Tetley. Second, Garmin’s attempt to break the “marine route
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`calculation algorithm” into distinct “routing” and “re-routing” steps is futile,
`
`because there can be no doubt that de Jong discloses precisely that same
`
`combination of steps. See pp. 14-16, infra.
`
`
`
`Garmin’s MTA also fails because the proposed claims violate 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112, ¶¶ 1, 2. The claims are indefinite because they require “navigating the user,”
`
`which is a nonsensical limitation in the field of vehicle navigation science.
`
`Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 607 F.3d 776, 781 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010). And the claims do not comply with the written description requirement
`
`because Garmin failed to show written description support for the “entire proposed
`
`substitute claim” as it was required to do. Doc. 14 at 4.
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE 703 PATENT AND PRIOR ART
`
`Garmin’s representation that the proposed amendments “distinguish the
`
`current invention, as claimed, from the art cited in the present IPR and art known
`
`to Patent Owner,” MTA at 3, is demonstrably false.
`
`
`
`The 703 patent file history shows that the claims were allowed only after
`
`Garmin added the limitation that required the “marine route calculation algorithm”
`
`to identify “one or more non-user selected waypoints.” Ex. 1002.257-.281. It was
`
`solely this limitation – non-user selected waypoints – that convinced the Examiner
`
`to allow the challenged claims. Ex.-1002.011-12. In fact, Garmin told a district
`
`court that non-user selected waypoints was a “critical[]” limitation in the claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ex.1022.010. But in this IPR, Garmin learned that it did not invent “non-user
`
`selected waypoints.” De Jong explicitly taught this. Ex. 1005.006; Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`107-112. Garmin did not dispute in its POR, and thus conceded, that de Jong
`
`teaches “non-user selected waypoints.”
`
`
`
`Garmin now asserts that the key to its proposed claims is “the newly-claimed
`
`navigation step.” MTA at 4. Garmin asserts that the proposed claims are not
`
`invalid because de Jong allegedly “does not teach or suggest a method for marine
`
`navigation or a marine navigational device….” Id.
`
`
`
`This is not true. Garmin studiously ignores de Jong’s teaching of using his
`
`marine route calculation algorithm with marine navigational devices, even as
`
`Garmin construes the term “navigation.” See pp. 8-9 infra. Garmin also ignores
`
`the fact that marine navigational devices were in widespread use well before the
`
`703 patent. This is confirmed by Tetley’s discussion of numerous commercially-
`
`available devices, and Garmin’s own GPSMap Manual (Ex. 1033.009, .019).2 It
`
`cannot be disputed that Tetley discloses “marine navigational devices” for
`
`
`2
`The GPSMap Manual has a copyright date of April 2000, “Rev. B.” Ex.
`
`1033.003. A Garmin witness testified that its manuals are included with the
`
`product sold and that the date of the manual represents when the product and
`
`manual were publicly available. See Ex. 1034.001-.009; Ex. 1035.001-.013.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`“planning a course and directing a craft or vehicle along the course from one place
`
`to another,” exactly as Garmin recites in the claims. See pp. 9-12 infra.
`
`
`
`It thus is clear that the 703 inventors merely proposed modifying an existing
`
`device, such as the Garmin GPSMap 215/225, to have the device select waypoints
`
`during route planning. But de Jong unquestionably disclosed the exact same thing.
`
`Accordingly, the proposed amended claims are not patentable.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Garmin’s attempt to ignore the explicit definitional statement in the 703
`
`patent of the level of ordinary skill should be rejected. The 703 patent makes it
`
`clear that the term “marine” – including as used in the claims – means “non-street
`
`based.” See Ex.-1001.013, 1:57-66. Thus, the 703 patent confirms that the level of
`
`skill is not limited to marine navigation and the Board’s determination of the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the Institution Decision should not be disturbed.3
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Garmin construes “navigation” and its variants as “the process of planning a
`
`course and directing a craft or vehicle along the course from one place to
`
`
`3
`Garmin’s own expert does not meet its proposed level, as his C.V. and
`
`declaration confirm he does not have experience “designing marine navigation
`
`systems” as Garmin requires. See Ex. 2003, pp. 4-12, 56-59. Further, Petitioners’
`
`expert clearly meets both the Board’s and Garmin’s levels. Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 5-10.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`another.”4 MTA at 19. Garmin relies extensively on definitions in the prior art of
`
`record, such as de Jong, Tetley, and Bowditch, which Garmin contends evidences
`
`the commonly-understood meaning. See MTA at 18-22. Of course, in so doing,
`
`Garmin must concede that the same prior art – including de Jong and Tetley – uses
`
`the term “navigation” as Garmin itself proposes. Indeed, both clearly disclose
`
`navigation devices as Garmin construes it. See pp. 6-12 infra. Because Garmin’s
`
`proposed construction is not material to validity, the Board need not construe the
`
`term. See Institution Decision at 7. For purposes of this Motion, Petitioners use
`
`Garmin’s construction of “navigation” in analyzing the prior art. Petitioners do not
`
`concede that any of Garmin’s constructions are correct, including those set forth in
`
`Garmin’s POR. See fn. 5 infra and Petitioners’ Reply Brief.
`
`V. THE PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS ARE INVALID
`
`The proposed claims are invalid under § 103 based on the combined
`
`teachings of de Jong and Tetley. De Jong discloses an automated route planning
`
`algorithm that generates routes from point A to point B that avoid preselected
`
`
`4
`Garmin’s proposed construction confirms that the level of ordinary skill
`
`should not be limited to only marine navigation, as it includes directing a “craft or
`
`vehicle.” The term “vehicle” is plainly not limited to structures for carrying
`
`passengers or cargo over water. See Ex. 1036.003.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`conditions (e.g., water depth). Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 87-112. As Garmin concedes, de
`
`Jong’s algorithm identifies non-user selected waypoints in routing/re-routing a
`
`course to avoid preselected conditions. Id.; see Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 135-143. De Jong
`
`designed his algorithm for use with an “Electronic Chart Display and Information
`
`System” (ECDIS), which was an international standard by 1995. Id. at ¶¶ 78-84.
`
`
`
`ECDIS is a “navigational information system comprising hardware, display
`
`software” and maps called “ENCs” (electronic navigation charts). Id. at ¶¶ 78-89;
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 35-39. ECDIS works with GPS receivers and assists mariners in both
`
`route planning and navigating courses safely. Id.; see Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 87-113. Thus,
`
`ECDIS is used for route planning and directing a ship along the course from one
`
`place to another. Id. at ¶¶ 78-114.
`
`
`
`Tetley is a 2001 textbook titled Electronic Navigation Systems. Ex.-
`
`1006.001. It describes in detail the many types of marine navigational devices
`
`available to boaters. Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 85-113. In addition to providing an in-depth
`
`analysis of ECDIS, including publicly-available commercial products compatible
`
`with ECDIS, Tetley describes available GPS navigational devices, like the Garmin
`
`GPSMap, that were also used for planning a course and directing a craft or vehicle
`
`along the course from one place to another. Id.
`
`
`
`Garmin did not contest in its POR that a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to combine the teachings of de Jong and Tetley. To summarize, de
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Jong’s route-planning algorithm was designed to work with ECDIS. Ex. 1025, ¶
`
`116; see Ex. 1005.090: “ECDIS as a basis for automated voyage planning is the
`
`only logical choice.” Tetley discloses numerous ECDIS-compliant and other
`
`navigational devices that would be improved by de Jong’s automated algorithm
`
`functionality. Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 117-119. It would have been clear to a POSITA that de
`
`Jong’s teachings could be successfully combined with Tetley’s teachings regarding
`
`ECDIS and other navigational devices, and thus a motivation to make the
`
`combination plainly existed. Id.; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`
`417 (2007).
`
`A. Application of the Prior Art to the Proposed Claims5
`With proposed claim 51 as representative, Garmin adds limitations of a
`
`
`
`“marine navigational device” and “navigating the user by presenting, on the
`
`display screen of the marine navigational device, the re-routed course along which
`
`the navigational device is traveling.” Even applying Garmin’s construction of
`
`“navigation,” these limitations are found in both de Jong and Tetley.
`
`5
`In its POR, Garmin argues that de Jong does not meet certain claim
`
`limitations – “re-routing the course,” “avoiding the preselected conditions,” and
`
`“course.” Petitioners address each argument in the Reply. Because Garmin’s
`
`MTA is “contingent,” presumably the Board has already decided those arguments
`
`in Petitioners’ favor. Thus, Petitioners do not repeat the same arguments here.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Garmin’s argument that de Jong is “only” about route planning is wrong.
`
`De Jong’s algorithm is for use in ECDIS (Ex. 1005.006-07), and a POSITA knew
`
`that ECDIS is used on a ship for purposes of safely directing the ship along a
`
`course from one place to another. Id. at .090 (“ECDIS is the main component of
`
`modern bridge design”);6 id. at .006 (EDCIS provides on top of an ENC “the real-
`
`time presentation of own ship’s position” and should provide other kinds of
`
`information to the user, “such as sailing directions”); see Ex. 1011.003 (“The
`
`primary function of the ECDIS is to contribute to safe navigation.”); id. at .008
`
`(“[A]utomatic route monitoring functions (e.g., updating ship’s position, and
`
`providing alarms and indications) should be continuous.”); id. (“ECDIS should
`
`give an alarm or indication … if the ship … is going to cross the boundary of a
`
`prohibited area or of a geographical area for which special conditions exist.”); id.
`
`at .012-15 (describing the information that ECDIS should display, including
`
`information about the surrounding water, the boat (including its location, speed,
`
`position, and planned course), and the types of hazards that might trigger alarms).
`
`See also Ex.-1006.106-110 (describing ECDIS); Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 77-84.
`
`
`6
`The “bridge” is the “area from which the navigation and control of the ship
`
`is managed.” Ex. 1006.092.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`It was thus common knowledge that ECDIS provided the second aspect of
`
`Garmin’s definition of “navigation,” that is “directing a craft or vehicle along the
`
`course from one place to another.” Id., ¶¶ 78-91. It also met the first portion of
`
`Garmin’s definition, “planning a course.” See Ex. 1006.108 (using ECDIS, the
`
`“mariner should be able to undertake the planning of a suitable route, including the
`
`provision of waypoints which should be capable of being amended as required.”).
`
`Indeed, it was this aspect of ECDIS – route planning – that de Jong sought to
`
`improve. Ex. 1005.007; Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 82, 116-119.
`
`
`
`Thus, de Jong clearly discloses that his algorithm would be used in ECDIS
`
`and would enhance the use of ECDIS for safe navigation. Ex. 1005.011 (“[B]oth
`
`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.”); id. at .020; Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 78-84, 156-157. Garmin simply
`
`ignores this aspect of de Jong in arguing that it applies “only” to route planning.
`
`
`
`Tetley describes numerous devices that were commercially available and
`
`were used for “navigation” as Garmin defines it. Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 85-114, 123-125,
`
`146-155. Tetley notes that the computer “has become as common aboard ships as
`
`in our normal lives” and that the “new generation of ship’s officer has been trained
`
`to use computers… [for] safe and precise navigation.” Ex. 1006.012. Tetley
`
`describes existing GPS navigation devices, such as the Trimble NT300D and the
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Garmin GPSMap 225 (id. at .043-53), both of which had the ability to direct a craft
`
`along a course from one place to another. See id. at .044 (“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.”); id. at .050 (the Garmin
`
`device allows a user to “mark[] present GPS position and provides a return course
`
`with steering guidance”); id. at .052 (“[T]he GPSMAP Highway page … provides
`
`a large character display of navigation data and graphic steering guidance to an
`
`active waypoint via a planned highway. The active destination point is displayed at
`
`the top of the screen….”); id. at .053 (“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.”).
`
`
`
`Tetley also describes commercially available ECDIS-compliant products.
`
`Ex. 1006.073-083; .121-.131. For example, the Navmaster Professional meets
`
`Garmin’s definition of “navigation” and is thus a “marine navigation device.” Id.
`
`at .127 (noting that the user can “create a route;” “calculate a plan;” and “monitor
`
`by plotting track, viewing data in the Navigation Monitor panel and comparing
`
`progress with the plan”); see id. at .128 (the Navmaster Professional can calculate,
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`for each leg of a route, the “course to steer, allowing for variation, deviation, and
`
`tidal stream”); id. at .129-31 (the device allows “a deviation limit to be set. If the
`
`vessel position exceeds this limit a warning message is displayed and remains until
`
`the vessel returns inside the limit”);7 Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 90-91, 149-150.
`
`
`
`Tetley also describes commercially-available ECDIS-compliant integrated
`
`bridge navigation systems, including the Voyager and NINAS 900. Ex. 1006.073-
`
`.083. In addition to having all the features of ECDIS, see id. at .076-77, a function
`
`of the Voyager is to provide “automatic steering of the vessel.” Id. at .074; see id.
`
`at .078 (“automatic steering” includes “precision track steering with pre-
`
`memorized waypoints”); id. at .077 (showing block diagram of the Voyager
`
`“automatic navigation and track-keeping system (ANTS)”); id. at .092 (an
`
`“ANTS” is a “system which automatically keeps a ship along a safe pre-planned
`
`track”). The NINAS 900 also had all the features of ECDIS, id. at .079-.082, as
`
`well as “automated route sailing” and a “route safety zone function which provides
`
`a three-dimensional guard zone” against insufficient water depths to “improve
`
`safety when on passage or route planning.” Id. at .081; Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 104-112, 151-
`
`152.
`
`7
`Garmin’s expert agreed that setting a deviation limit and providing a
`
`warning when the ship exceeded it is an example of directing a vessel along a
`
`course from one place to another. Ex. 1032.012.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that “marine navigational devices”
`
`and “methods for navigation,” as construed by Garmin, were commonly in use and
`
`part of the modern (e.g., before August 2002) mariner’s standard set of equipment.
`
`Tetley and de Jong both confirm this.
`
`The Proposed Amended Claims Are Not Valid Under § 103
`1.
`The combined teachings of de Jong and Tetley invalidate as obvious the
`
`
`
`proposed claims. Proposed claim 51 is analyzed below:
`
`[51.1] A method for marine navigation performed by a marine navigational
`device including a display screen that presents a re-routed course along which
`the navigational device is traveling, comprising:
`
`
`
`As explained above (pp. 7-11), both de Jong and Tetley disclose “marine
`
`navigational devices” as construed by Garmin. Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 121-126. De Jong
`
`teaches a “route planning solution for marine navigation.” Ex. 1005.001. His
`
`algorithm works with ECDIS, which again is a device used in marine navigation.
`
`Id. at .002-03; .006-07; .016-21. De Jong teaches that the output of his algorithm
`
`(which is the claimed “re-routed course,” see analysis of limitation 51.4 below)
`
`should be displayed on an electronic map, which is necessarily shown on the
`
`ECDIS display screen. Id. at .016; .020-21.8
`
`
`8
`ECDIS provides “electronic chart display and information.” Ex. 1005.020.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Tetley also teaches marine navigational devices. Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 123-126; Ex.
`
`1006.012 (noting that computers on board ships “assist in the business of safe and
`
`precise navigation”). Tetley describes commercially-available marine navigation
`
`devices. Id. at .043-54. These devices display the course along which the device is
`
`traveling, as claimed. Id. at .046-47 (the Trimble device “holds the data necessary
`
`to give a screen display in the form of a maritime chart for a specified geographical
`
`area. The display then integrates the GPS data with the chart data, producing a
`
`recognizable nautical chart and the vessel’s course and speed.”); id. at .051-53 (the
`
`Garmin device, as shown in Fig. 5.32, has “the MAP page,” “showing own vessel
`
`and track;” and as shown in Fig. 5.35, the “Highway page” is used “when
`
`navigating a route to an active waypoint”).
`
`
`
`Tetley also teaches that the Navmaster Professional is an ECDIS-compliant
`
`“electronic navigation system” that provides a “continuous display of vessel
`
`positions received from GPS and plotted on official electronic charts.” Id. at .121;
`
`see id. at .122; id. at .127 (the user monitors the ship’s progress by “plotting track,
`
`viewing data in the Navigation monitor panel and comparing progress with the
`
`plan”); id. at .128-31 (Fig. 7.17 shows a ship’s current location against the planned
`
`course on a map for monitoring “the vessel’s progress against the planned route”).
`
`
`
`Thus de Jong and Tetley both disclose a “marine navigational device” that
`
`presents on a display screen a re-routed course along which the device is traveling.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`[51.2] receiving, via an input of the marine navigational device, one or more
`pre-selected conditions from a user;
`
`
`
`Both de Jong and Tetley disclose the ability of the user to input one or more
`
`“pre-selected conditions,” which Garmin interprets as including “conditions
`
`relating to the size of the boat.” See Ex. 1021.020, ¶ 57; Ex. 1026.017; Ex.
`
`1005.016, .044-46 (de Jong); Ex. 1006.122 (Tetley, noting that PCNavmaster
`
`provides “menu commands to enter vessel information for use when calculating
`
`plans”); see Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 127-130.
`
`[51.3] identifying a potential waypoint;
`
`
`
`Both de Jong and Tetley disclose identifying a potential waypoint, e.g., the
`
`point of destination. See Ex. 1005.015; .044 (the sailing order includes
`
`information on the intended “position of destination”); .059; .083; .086;
`
`Ex.1006.124-26 (“routes may be created and edited, using waypoints from a
`
`chartpoint database”); Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 131-134.
`
`[51.4] performing a marine route calculation algorithm to route a course
`between a first location and the potential waypoint avoiding the preselected
`conditions, including: routing the course between the first location and the
`potential waypoint; analyzing cartographic data between the first location and
`the potential waypoint, including identifying the preselected conditions along
`the routed course; and re-routing the course to avoid the preselected
`conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints along the
`re-routed course;
`
`
`
`De Jong discloses a “marine route calculation algorithm” that includes the
`
`steps identified in this claim limitation. Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 135-143. De Jong’s
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`algorithm “analyzes and combines all information” and “calculates and optimizes
`
`route-alternatives.” Ex. 1005.006-07; see id. at .061-.079 (disclosing the details of
`
`the algorithm). De Jong teaches that his algorithm avoids preselected conditions,
`
`such as water depth. Id. at .015; .061-62; .066; .056 (the algorithm will avoid a
`
`route segment “when depth of the passage is not enough. This occurs when the
`
`water depth…is less than the required depth….”). Preselected conditions such as
`
`water depth are included in “cartographic data,” e.g., the ENCs used in ECDIS. Id.
`
`at .003; .047; .065-067. De Jong’s algorithm also identifies non-user selected
`
`waypoints in identifying routes, as claimed. See id. at .120. In test case 3_1, from
`
`waypoint 27 to harbour B (waypoint 68), “the results show that the best route
`
`considering all the criteria avoids perfectly all the unfavourable segments.” Id. at
`
`.087. Moreover, the proposed routes identify non-user selected intermediate route-
`
`points (waypoints) between the starting route-point 27 and the end route-point 68.
`
`See id. at .132 (results showing the start route-point, end route-point, and top
`
`ranked routes); Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 135-139.
`
`
`
`De Jong also “routes” the course, and then “re-routes” it to avoid preselected
`
`conditions, as claimed. Id., ¶¶ 140-143. For example, in test case 1_1, de Jong
`
`used the algorithm to find the shortest path between route-point 1 and route-point
`
`68. Id. at .121; see also id. at .080-84. The algorithm calculated the “optimal”
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`shortest distance route between points 1 and 68 as being the following (with
`
`intermediate, non-user selected waypoints):
`
`1-2-4-7-12-17-22-27-36-42-46-53-54-58-59-63-65-68
`
`Id. Then, de Jong re-routed the course to avoid the preselected condition of water
`
`depth (test case 1_4). Id. at .122. This resulted in a different route:
`
`1-2-4-7-10-15-20-27-36-42-46-53-54-58-59-63-65-68
`
`Id. In particular, as shown above, the portion of the original route between
`
`waypoints 7-27 was altered because the segments between waypoints 12, 17, 22
`
`violated the user-selected depth restriction, and in re-routing the course the
`
`algorithm successfully avoided them by generating waypoints 10, 15, 20. Id.; see
`
`also .083 (“as we can see, the segments with insufficient water depths are
`
`avoided”). Thus, de Jong discloses both “routing” a course, and then “re-routing”
`
`the course to avoid preselected conditions such as water depth, by identifying one
`
`or more non-user selected waypoints along the re-routed course, exactly as
`
`claimed. Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 140-143.
`
`[51.5] and navigating the user by presenting, on the display screen of the
`marine navigational device, the re-routed course along which the navigational
`device is traveling.
`
`
`
`The combined teachings of de Jong and Tetley teach that the re-routed
`
`course is presented on the display screen of the marine navigational device. Ex.
`
`1025, ¶¶ 144-159. This limitation is not materially different from existing
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`dependent claims 41 through 45. See, e.g., claim 43 (“The electronic marine
`
`navigation device of claim 20, further including a display for displaying the course
`
`from the first location to the potential waypoint via the non-user selected
`
`waypoints.”). Garmin did not separately argue for the patentability of claims 41-
`
`45 in its POR, thereby admitting that the limitations in those claims were found in
`
`the de Jong and/or Tetley. See Petition at 70-73. In particular, Tetley shows in
`
`Fig. 7-17 an example of a calculated route overlaid on a map as claimed. Ex.
`
`1006.128 (showing in Fig. 7.17 an electronic chart “overlaid with a route” and
`
`“illustrating waypoints entered for the planned route,” and that it is possible to
`
`“monitor the vessel’s progress against the planned route”).
`
`
`
`To the extent Garmin argues that this limitation is distinguishable because it
`
`requires “navigating the user” applying Garmin’s construction of navigation, that is
`
`plainly disclosed in both de Jong and Tetley. See pp. 7-11, supra. For example,
`
`Tetley teaches that the ECDIS-compliant Navmaster Professional can calculate for
`
`each leg of a route the “course to steer, allowing for variation, deviation, and tidal
`
`stream.” Ex. 1006.128; id. at .129-31 (Navmaster Professional allows “a deviation
`
`limit to be set. If the vessel position exceeds this limit a warning message is
`
`displayed and remains until the vessel returns inside the limit”). Tetley discloses
`
`other commercially available devices that likewise provided “navigation” functions
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`as Garmin construes it. See pp. 9-11 supra. Thus, de Jong and Tetley disclose
`
`“navigating the user” as claimed.
`
`
`
`The other proposed independent claims are likewise obvious. Although
`
`there is some variation in the claim language in proposed claims 58, 66, 72, and 73,
`
`the substantive issues are not different. The table below shows each claim and
`
`identifies the paragraphs in Petitioners’ expert’s declaration (Ex. 1025) wherein he
`
`cites the applicable portions of de Jong and/or Tetley that disclose the limitation in
`
`question, and/or otherwise refers to the previous analysis above with respect to the
`
`limitations in proposed claim 51:
`
`Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 161-162
`
`
`Ex. 1025, ¶ 163; see analysis of
`limitation 51.2 above
`
`Ex. 1025, ¶ 164; see analysis of
`limitation 51.3 above
`Ex. 1025, ¶ 165; see analysis of
`limitation 51.4 above
`
`[58.1] A computer readable medium having a
`set of computer readable instructions, the set
`of computer readable instructions comprising
`instructions for:
`[58.2] receiving, via an input of a marine
`navigational device, one or more preselected
`conditions from a user;
`[58.3] identifying a potential waypoint upon a
`first event;
`[58.4] performing a marine route calculation
`algorithm to analyze a course between a first
`location and the potential waypoint avoiding
`the preselected conditions, including: routing
`the course between the first location and the
`potential waypoint; analyzing cartographic
`data between the first location and the
`potential waypoint, including identifying the
`preselected conditions along the routed course;
`and re-routing the course to avoid the
`preselected conditions by identifying one or
`more non-user selected waypoints;
`[58.5] navigating the user by presenting, on a Ex. 1025, ¶ 166; see analysis of
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`display screen of the marine navigational
`device, the re-routed course along which the
`navigational device is traveling.
`
`[66.1] An electronic marine navigational
`device comprising:
`[66.2] a processor;
`
`[66.3] a display screen operatively coupled to
`the processor, wherein the display screen
`displays at least one map display;
`[66.4] a user interface operatively coupled to
`the processor, wherein the user interface
`receives one or more preselected conditions
`from a user;
`[66.5] 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;
`[66.6] a memory operatively coupled to the
`processor and the location input, the memory
`having cartographic data including data related
`to the preselected conditions,
`[66.7] wherein the processor operates on a
`marine route calculation algorithm to: route a
`course between the first location and the
`potential waypoint; analyze the course
`between the first location and the potential
`waypoint in view of the preselected conditions
`of the cartographic data; re-route the course to
`avoid the preselected conditions by identifying
`one or more non-user selected waypoints; and
`[66.8] navigate the user by presenting, on the
`display screen of the marine navigational
`device, the re-routed course along which the
`navigational device is traveling.
`
`[72.1] A method for marine navigation
`performed by a marine navigational device
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`limitation 51.5 above
`
`
`
`Ex. 1025, ¶ 167; see also id. ¶¶
`76-114, 121-126, 144-158
`Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 168-169
`
`Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 170-176
`
`
`Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 177-181; see also id.
`at ¶¶ 173-176; see analysis of
`limitation 51.2 abo
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
