Paper No. 31
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`FLIR SYSTEMS, INC. and
`
`FLIR MARITIME US, INC. (F/K/A RAYMARINE, INC.),
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GARMIN SWITZERLAND GmbH,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00946
`
`Patent 7,268,703 B1
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REPLY WITNESS
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`FLIR SYSTEMS, INC. and
`
`FLIR MARITIME US, INC. (F/K/A RAYMARINE, INC.),
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GARMIN SWITZERLAND GmbH,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00946
`
`Patent 7,268,703 B1
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REPLY WITNESS
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order (Paper 8), Patent Owner Garmin
`
`Switzerland GmbH (“Garmin”) respectfully submits observations on the February
`
`8, 2018, cross-examination of Petitioner FLIR Systems, Inc. and FLIR Maritime
`
`US, Inc.’s (f/k/a Raymarine, Inc.) (“FLIR”) reply witness, Michael S. Braasch,
`
`Ph.D.
`
`II. OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Exhibit 2008, submitted with Patent Owner’s Reply to the Motion to
`
`Amend, is the transcript of the deposition of Dr. Braasch taken on February 8,
`
`2018. The following observations are with respect to Exhibit 2008.
`
`Observation #1:
`
`In Exhibit 2008, on page 38, line 25 through page 40, line 2, the witness
`
`testified as to his understanding of the disclosure of Figs. 4A and 4B of the ’703
`
`Patent. This testimony is relevant to the Patent Owner Response (Paper 16),
`
`Section II(A), on pages 15-21 regarding the claim construction for “re-
`
`routing”/“re-route.” This testimony is relevant because it evidences that FLIR’s
`
`expert understands the ’703 Patent (and specifically, FIGS. 4A and 4B and the
`
`related discussion in the ’703 Patent Specification) to disclose the following:
`
`(a)
`
`a straight line course [course 404] is drawn between 410 and 414;
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`a preselected condition is identified in the analysis of course 404
`
`(from Fig. 4A); and
`
`(c)
`
`course 403 (in Fig. 4B) is recalculated “relative to the original
`
`calculation of Course 404 shown in Figure 4A in order to avoid the
`
`island.” (EX_2008 at 39:11-13).
`
`Observation #2:
`
`In Exhibit 2008, on page 40, line 22 through page 41, line 9, the witness
`
`testified that his “understanding of the discussion in the 703 specification with
`
`respect to Figure 4A is that it’s analyzing if any preselected conditions occur on
`
`the line between Waypoint 410 and Waypoint 414.” This testimony is relevant to
`
`the Patent Owner Response (Paper 16), Section II(A), on pages 15-21 regarding
`
`the claim construction for “re-routing”/“re-route.” This testimony is relevant
`
`because it evidences FLIR’s expert understands Figs. 4A and 4B of the ’703 Patent
`
`as discussing that the marine route calculation algorithm analyzes the line between
`
`Waypoint 410 and Waypoint 414 for preselected conditions.
`
`Observation #3:
`
`In Exhibit 2008, on page 45, lines 10-18, the witness testified regarding
`
`“calculating” as used in the ’703 Patent (EX_1001 at 8:40-65; Figs. 4A-4B) being
`
`“synonymous” with “routing” and “recalculating” being “synonymous” with
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`“rerouting.” This testimony is relevant to the Patent Owner Response (Paper 16),
`
`Section II(A), on pages 15-21 regarding the claim construction for “re-
`
`routing”/“re-route.” This testimony is relevant because it evidences that FLIR’s
`
`expert understands routing and calculating to be synonymous and re-routing and
`
`recalculating to be synonymous, as used in the ’703 Patent. This testimony assists
`
`in further understanding the witness’s testimony at Exhibit 2008, on page 38, line
`
`25 through page 39, line 13, wherein the witness used the term “recalculating” in
`
`discussing the same section of the ’703 Patent.
`
`Observation #4:
`
`In Exhibit 2008, on page 49, lines 8-13, the witness testified regarding claim
`
`1 of the ’703 Patent. Specifically, in response to the question “So would you only
`
`reroute if you’ve identified preselected conditions in the analyzing step,” the
`
`witness testified “Yes. That’s fair. There is an analysis component of this
`
`limitation and a rerouting to avoid the preselected conditions.” This testimony is
`
`relevant to the Patent Owner Response (Paper 16), Section II(A), on pages 15-21
`
`regarding the claim construction for “re-routing”/“re-route.” This testimony is
`
`relevant because it evidences that FLIR’s expert interprets claim 1 of the ’703
`
`Patent as rerouting to avoid preselected conditions identified in the “analysis
`
`component,” of the claim. See also EX_2008 at 48:12-17, wherein the witness
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`agreed that claim 1 of the ’703 Patent includes as a “limitation” the step of
`
`“analyzing cartographic data between the first location and the potential
`
`waypoints.”
`
`Observation #5:
`
`In Exhibit 2008, on page 30, line 20 through page 31, line 11, the witness
`
`testified regarding whether “re-routing” as used in the original Challenged Claims
`
`should be construed differently as “re-routing” as used in the amended claims. This
`
`testimony is relevant to the Patent Owner Response (Paper 16), Section II(A), on
`
`pages 15-21 regarding the claim construction for “re-routing”/“re-route.” This
`
`testimony is relevant because it evidences that FLIR’s expert understands the same
`
`claim term used in the original claims versus the amended claims to have a
`
`different construction. Further, this testimony is relevant because it evidences
`
`FLIR’s expert to understand that “in the amended claim, it’s very clear that there is
`
`a first route, an analysis of that route, and then if there is an identification of
`
`preselected conditions along the routed course, there is then a rerouting step.”
`
`(EX_2008 at 31:7-11).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jennifer C. Bailey/
`Jennifer C. Bailey, Reg. No. 52,583
`Adam P. Seitz, Reg. No. 52,206
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Boulevard, Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Facsimile: (913) 777-5601
`Jennifer.Bailey@eriseip.com
`Adam.Seitz@eriseip.com
`PTAB@eriseip.com
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that a true copy of the
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REPLY WITNESS is served via Electronic Mail
`this 1st day of March 2018 on the following lead and back-up counsel for
`Petitioner, FLIR Systems, Inc. & FLIR Maritime US, Inc. (f/k/a Raymarine, Inc.):
`
`
`Brian Ferguson (Reg. No. 36,801)
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`Christopher Pepe (Reg. No. 73,851)
`Stephen P. Bosco, Pro Hac Vice
`Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 682-8000
`FLIR.703.IPR@weil.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/Jennifer C. Bailey/
`Jennifer C. Bailey, Reg. No. 52,583
`Adam P. Seitz, Reg. No. 52,206
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Boulevard, Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Facsimile: (913) 777-5601
`Jennifer.Bailey@eriseip.com
`Adam.Seitz@eriseip.com
`PTAB@eriseip.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
