`
`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