`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CAPTAIN STEVEN BROWNE
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 4
`III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................... 12
`IV. OPINION .................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`A. Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................... 13
`
`B. Opinions Regarding Claim Construction ................................................ 16
`
`1.
`
` “Course” ................................................................................................... 16
`
`2.
`
` “Navigation” ............................................................................................. 24
`
`C. Opinions Regarding de Jong ..................................................................... 28
`
`1.
`
` Summary of de Jong ................................................................................. 28
`
`2.
`
` Opinions Regarding de Jong Teaching “re-routing the course” ............... 36
`
`3.
`
` Opinions Regarding de Jong Teaching “Avoiding the Preselected
`
`Conditions” ...................................................................................................... 40
`
`4.
`
` Opinions Regarding de Jong Teaching Routing or Re-Routing
`
`a “Course” ........................................................................................................ 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 2
`
`
`
`I, Steven Browne, hereby declare the following:
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`
`
`I, Steven Browne, have been retained by counsel for Garmin
`
`Switzerland GmbH (“Garmin”) as a technical expert in the above-captioned case.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to render certain opinions in regards to the Patent
`
`Owner Response with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,268,703 B1 (“the ’703 Patent”)
`
`in response to the IPR Petition submitted by FLIR Systems, Inc. and FLIR
`
`Maritime US, Inc. (f/k/a Raymarine, Inc) (“FLIR”). I understand that the
`
`Challenged Claims are claims 1-7, 12-23, 25-29, and 41-45. My opinions are
`
`limited to those Challenged Claims.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`In reaching my opinions in this matter, I have reviewed the following
`
`materials:
`
`• Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,268,703 (Paper 1)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,268,703 (EX_1001)
`
`• Declaration of Dr. Michael S. Braasch (EX_1003)
`
`• W.J. de Jong, Automated Route Planning – A Network-Based Route
`
`Planning Solution for Marine Navigation, University of Nottingham
`
`(December 2001) (“de Jong”) (EX_1005)
`
`• Tetley et al., Electronic Navigation Systems, 3d Ed. (Butterworth-
`
`Heinemann 2001) (“Tetley”) (excerpts) (EX_1006)
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 3
`
`
`
`• Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to Petition For Inter Partes
`
`Review (Paper 6)
`
`• Decision - Institution of Inter Partes Review (Paper 7)
`
`• Bowditch, The American Practical Navigator; EX_1018 and EX_2001
`
`(selected portions cited herein)
`
`3.
`
`
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $200/hour for each hour of service
`
`related to preparation, review, and analysis, and at a rate of $300/hour for each
`
`hour of service related to deposition preparation or taking of a deposition. My
`
`compensation does not depend in any way on the content of my testimony and is
`
`not affected by the outcome of the case. If called to testify as to the contents of this
`
`report, I can and would testify truthfully and competently.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
` My qualifications
`
`to
`
`testify about
`
`the patent-in-suit, relevant
`
`technology, and the prior art are set forth in my curriculum vitae (“CV”), which is
`
`attached hereto as Appendix 1. My CV includes my educational background and
`
`work history.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`I have over thirty years of professional experience in the field of
`
`marine navigation as an officer in the US Navy and in the US Merchant Marine,
`
`including almost 20 years in maritime education. I have served as an expert
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 4
`
`
`
`witness in a previous admiralty law case in a matter involving a collision at sea
`
`between vessels.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`I hold a merchant mariner credential as Master Mariner issued by the
`
`United States Coast Guard. With that credential I am qualified to serve as Master
`
`(often called “captain”) of vessels of unlimited tonnage upon the oceans and
`
`connected waterways. That credential meets the international Standards of
`
`Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW).
`
`7.
`
`
`
`I have been working as a professional mariner for more than 30 years.
`
`As an officer in the US Navy, I navigated two submarines, a frigate, a destroyer, a
`
`cruiser and a helicopter carrier. While aboard those vessels, I served for 8 to 10
`
`hours each day at sea as a navigation watch officer (Officer of the Deck),
`
`responsible for overseeing the safe navigation of the ship. As a civilian in the US
`
`Merchant Marine, I have worked on passenger ships and a maritime academy
`
`training ship, serving as an Officer in Charge of a Navigation Watch (OICNW),
`
`standing two navigation watches per day on the navigation bridge. I have served as
`
`Navigation Officer (Second Mate) aboard three ships. In this position, my primary
`
`responsibility was navigation planning and execution. This involved acquiring and
`
`updating charts and publications, creating voyage plans, and maintaining bridge
`
`equipment. I also served as Master of MV Doulos, a 6,800-ton passenger vessel
`
`flagged in Malta. As the ship’s captain, it was my responsibility to give voyage
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 5
`
`
`
`planning guidance to the Second Mate, to carefully check his or her voyage plan to
`
`ensure safety, and to supervise the navigation watch officers in the course of their
`
`duties.
`
`8.
`
` Although I have been a university professor for many years, I continue
`
`to go to sea for several months each year. During the summer term at California
`
`State University Maritime Academy (Cal Maritime), I work aboard the Training
`
`Ship Golden Bear for 65 days. I have completed 13 trans-Pacific or trans-Atlantic
`
`voyages on the Golden Bear, serving as the Navigation Officer (2nd Mate), Officer
`
`in Charge of a Navigation Watch, or Celestial Navigation Training Officer. In
`
`addition, I was awarded a sabbatical in 2015 and during that time I spent three
`
`months working as the Navigation Officer aboard MV Logos Hope, a 12,500-ton
`
`passenger vessel.
`
`9.
`
` Over the course of my 30 year career of going to sea, I have navigated
`
`vessels using multiple methods. In the beginning, I utilized paper charts, inertial
`
`navigation systems and visual bearings. Shortly thereafter, radar navigation and the
`
`Global Positioning System were added to my tools, still in conjunction with paper
`
`charts. In the 1990’s, I began to incorporate the use of navigation route overlays in
`
`radar systems and early Electronic Chart Systems (ECS). After the turn of the
`
`century I began to use, and teach, Electronic Chart Display and Information
`
`Systems (ECDIS). ECDIS is now the primary means of navigation aboard the
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 6
`
`
`
`Training Ship Golden Bear, although we still utilize celestial navigation and paper
`
`charts for training purposes. MV Logos Hope, where I served as the Navigation
`
`Officer of in 2015, is an ECDIS-only vessel. As such, there are no paper charts or
`
`navigation publications on the ship.
`
`10.
`
` Currently, I am a Professor of Marine Transportation at the California
`
`State University Maritime Academy and serve as the chair of that department. In
`
`that role I have worked extensively in the field marine navigation and during the
`
`past 14 years have taught every navigation course the university offers. These
`
`courses include Navigation I, Advanced Navigation, Celestial Navigation, and
`
`Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS). My research has
`
`largely been focused on the pedagogy of electronic navigation systems such as
`
`ECDIS, radar, Automatic Radar Plotting Aids (ARPA), and e-Navigation.
`
`11.
`
`
`
`I have a bachelor’s degree in Computer Studies from Northwestern
`
`University. That degree required extensive work in computer programming and
`
`development of algorithms. During one project I developed a Japanese-to-English
`
`translation algorithm. At Northwestern I also took courses in Marine Navigation
`
`and spent my summers at sea training to be a navigating officer aboard Navy ships.
`
`In 1997, while still in the Navy, I earned a Master of Engineering Management
`
`degree, also from Northwestern. During that program I utilized shortest distance
`
`and traveling salesman algorithms, which are pertinent to the matter at hand.
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 7
`
`
`
`12.
`
`
`
`I began active duty service in the Navy as a Surface Warfare Officer in
`
`1989. I completed the Navy’s Surface Warfare Officer Course, which included
`
`extensive training on marine navigation. I served for five years as a navigation
`
`watch officer aboard three warships and served in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf
`
`War of 1990-91. From 1995 to 1997, I served as Assistant Professor of Naval
`
`Science at Northwestern University and taught courses in Marine Navigation and
`
`Celestial Navigation while pursuing my Master’s degree.
`
`13.
`
` After completing my naval service, I obtained certification from the
`
`US Coast Guard as a merchant marine officer at the rank of Third Mate, Unlimited
`
`Tonnage, Upon Oceans, but, in short order, increased my level of licensure to
`
`Second Mate, then to Chief Mate, and finally, to Master Mariner, the highest level
`
`of license in my profession. I served aboard the passenger ship MV Doulos, a
`
`6818-ton vessel flagged in Malta, from 1998 to 2002. After one year, I was
`
`promoted from Third Officer to Second Officer, the navigator of the vessel. As
`
`navigator, I acquired and maintained the charts, publications and navigational
`
`equipment and planned the vessel’s voyages around Asia, the Persian Gulf, Africa,
`
`the Pacific Island nations, Australia and New Zealand. I also served as Chief
`
`Officer and then as Master (Captain) of the Doulos in 2002.
`
`14.
`
`
`
`In 2002 I accepted a position as Director of Training at the Houston
`
`Marine International Training Center in New Orleans. I was responsible for hiring
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 8
`
`
`
`and supervising a staff of instructors for US Coast Guard-approved maritime
`
`training courses. I taught many of the courses myself, including Navigation and
`
`Celestial Navigation.
`
`15.
`
`
`
`I joined the faculty of Cal Maritime as Assistant Professor of Marine
`
`Transportation in 2004. I was promoted to associate professor in 2008 and to
`
`professor in 2012. In 2014, I was Cal Maritime’s first recipient of the Outstanding
`
`Professor award and the following year was appointed Chair of the Department of
`
`Marine Transportation.
`
`16.
`
`
`
`I am the author of Nautical Rules of the Road, 4th edition (Cornell
`
`Maritime Press, 2006). This commentary on the US Coast Guard’s navigation rules
`
`is one of the standard texts of the maritime industry and is required reading at
`
`several US maritime academies, including Cal Maritime. I am a co-author of E-
`
`Navigation Course: Research and Development (IAMU, 2011), a publication on
`
`the development of a model course for e-Navigation, a project that was funded by
`
`the International Association of Maritime Universities.
`
`17.
`
`
`
`In recent years, my expertise in navigation and maritime issues have
`
`been recognized at national and international levels. I’ve twice been appointed by
`
`the US Coast Guard to be an advisor to the United States’ delegation to the
`
`International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO, headquartered in London, is
`
`a specialized agency of the United Nations charged with creating the regulatory
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 9
`
`
`
`framework for the safety and security of shipping worldwide. In my role as advisor
`
`to the US government delegation, I worked with the Sub-Committee on Human
`
`Element, Training and Watchkeeping on several issues, including the development
`
`and evaluation of an international model course on Radar Navigation at the
`
`Operational Level.
`
`18.
`
`
`
`I serve as a member of the international Academic Affairs Committee
`
`of the International Association of Maritime Universities, the global network of
`
`leading maritime universities. I am one of three professors on the Working Group
`
`for Research Projects. This working group awards research grants, up to $200,000
`
`per year, for maritime projects throughout the world, and evaluates the results of
`
`those projects upon completion.
`
`19.
`
`
`
`In the past decade I have authored several peer-reviewed papers and
`
`made conference presentations in the areas of navigation and the use of electronics
`
`in maritime education, and these include:
`
`• S. Browne, et al: “The Estuary as a classroom: Harnessing
`
`interdepartmental synergies, campus location, and facilities, to improve
`
`student engagement in Marine Transportation and Marine Science.”
`
`Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Universities
`
`General Assembly, Varna, Bulgaria, 2017.
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 10
`
`
`
`• S. Browne, et al: “Assessment of STCW competencies aboard a maritime
`
`academy training vessel.” Proceedings of the International Association of
`
`Maritime Universities General Assembly, Haiphong, Vietnam, 2016.
`
`• S. Browne: “The effect of shipboard marine simulation on student
`
`success in radar courses.” Proceedings of the International Association of
`
`Maritime Universities General Assembly, Constantia, Romania, 2013.
`
`• S. Browne, et al: “Combining advanced marine simulation with real
`
`mode capacity to enhance OICNW shipboard training.” Proceedings of
`
`the International Navigation Simulator Lecturers’ Conference, Rostock,
`
`Germany, 2012.
`
`• S. Browne, et al: “Enhancing OICNW shipboard training: Advanced
`
`marine simulation on a training ship.” Proceedings of MARSIM 2012,
`
`Singapore, 2012.
`
`• S. Browne, et al: “The use of marine simulators in developing the
`
`concepts and
`
`technology of e-navigation.” Proceedings of
`
`the
`
`International Navigation Simulator Lecturers’ Conference, Dalian, China,
`
`2010.
`
`• S. Browne: “e-Navigation.” Presentation at the International Association
`
`of Maritime Universities General Assembly, Busan, South Korea, 2010.
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 11
`
`
`
`• S. Browne: “The effect of radar and ECDIS display mode on navigational
`
`accuracy and situational awareness: A bridge simulation experiment.”
`
`Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Universities
`
`General Assembly, Busan, South Korea, 2010
`
`• S. Browne, et al: “ECDIS and error trapping: A bridge simulation
`
`experiment.” Proceedings of MARSIM 2009, Panama City, Panama,
`
`2009.
`
`• S. Browne, et al: “Integration of technology into bridge resource
`
`management: Human factor perceptions.” Research paper presented at
`
`the
`
`International Association of Maritime Universities General
`
`Assembly, San Francisco, 2008.
`
`III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`20.
`
`
`
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel has informed me that in proceedings before the USPTO the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
`
`the specification from the perspective of one skilled in the art. The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation.
`
`Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition
`
`in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 12
`
`
`
`specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would
`
`reach. I have been informed that the ’703 Patent has not expired.
`
`IV. OPINION
`
`A. Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`21.
`
`
`
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art of the ’703 Patent at the time of the claimed invention, which
`
`counsel has informed me is September 18, 2003, I considered several factors,
`
`including the type of problems encountered in the art, the solutions to those
`
`problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made in the field, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the education level of active workers in the
`
`field. I also placed myself back in the time frame of the claimed invention and
`
`considered the colleagues with whom I had worked at that time.
`
`22.
`
` Counsel has informed me that in the Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response, Garmin submitted a level for a POSITA. (Paper 6, 19). The proposed
`
`level was that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had:
`
`in electrical engineering, computer
`(1) a bachelor’s degree
`engineering, or an equivalent science or engineering field; (2) a
`working knowledge of marine navigation devices and their associated
`hardware and software; and (3) at least two years of experience
`designing marine navigation systems. Additional industry experience
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 13
`
`
`
`or technical training may offset less formal education, while advanced
`degrees or additional formal education may offset lesser levels of
`industry experience.
`
`In my experience, Garmin’s proposed level of a POSITA is consistent
`23.
`
`with the level of education, training, and experience for a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art of developing or using marine navigation systems. Given the unique
`
`considerations of marine navigation, it is my opinion that industry experience in
`
`marine navigation, whether it be as a professional navigator, as a professor of
`
`maritime navigation, or as a developer of marine navigation systems, would be
`
`particularly beneficial in recognizing the problems unique to marine navigation
`
`over other types of navigation, such as road or avionic navigation.
`
`24.
`
` An example of the unique considerations in marine navigation is at
`
`issue in the present matter. For example, one of the issues I have been asked to
`
`opine on is the construction of “course” as used in the ’703 Patent versus the term
`
`as understood to a skilled person. Relevant to this analysis is the use of other
`
`marine navigation-specific terms in de Jong, such as “route,” “track,” “route-
`
`segment,” etc. Additionally, I opine on obstacles and hazards specific to marine
`
`navigation and how a mariner establishes its navigable path, including setting a
`
`margin around the path within which safe travel can be made. Furthermore, de
`
`Jong discusses ECDIS and how its route planning system could be used within the
`
`confines of ECDIS. ECDIS is specific to marine navigation.
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 14
`
`
`
`25.
`
` Counsel has informed me that the Board adopted a slightly different
`
`level of a POSITA in the Institution Decision. Specifically, the Board adopted
`
`Petitioner’s proposed level of a POSITA:
`
`a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering (or related discipline) and 3 to
`5 years of experience in navigation engineering, or a person holding a
`more advanced degree but less experience (e.g., a Master’s degree and
`1 to 2 years of experience).
`Counsel has also informed me that Petitioner described the field as “computer-
`
`assisted navigation.” I generally agree with the proposed level of a POSITA
`
`adopted by the Board, except for one point. The field is broadened to navigation
`
`without any specific requirement that the navigation be marine navigation. As
`
`noted in the previous paragraph, marine navigation presents unique considerations.
`
`Moreover, marine navigation includes its own extensive vocabulary and concepts
`
`that are, in my opinion, not always transferable to other fields of navigation.
`
`Therefore, in my opinion, and as noted above, a POSITA would have at least two
`
`years experience or education in professionally using, teaching, or developing
`
`marine navigation systems.
`
`26.
`
` Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the
`
`field of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention, regardless of
`
`whether the level adopted by the Board or the level proposed by Patent Owner is
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 15
`
`
`
`applied. Additionally, I was at least a person having ordinary skill in the art (again,
`
`at both levels) as of the September 18, 2003, priority date of the ’703 Patent. For
`
`example, I have extensive experience with “computer-assisted navigation” due to
`
`my many years of actual experience as navigating officer and Chief Mate on
`
`ocean-going vessels, along with my numerous years (since 2004) as a professor of
`
`maritime education.
`
`B. Opinions Regarding Claim Construction
`
`1.
`
`
`
`“Course”
`
`I have been asked to opine on the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`
`27.
`
`
`
`(“BRI”) for the claim term “course” recited in claims 1, 2, 12-13, 20-21, 26-29,
`
`and 41-45. It is my opinion that the BRI for “course” is “the path of intended travel
`
`of a craft with respect to the earth.” The ’703 Patent supports this construction, as
`
`well as definitions provided in well-known marine navigation texts, as discussed
`
`below.
`
`28.
`
` A professional mariner commonly uses the term “course” in a different
`
`manner than does the ’703 Patent. Bowditch, a standard reference for marine
`
`navigation, explains that a course “is the horizontal direction in which a vessel is
`
`intended to be steered, expressed as angular distance from north clockwise through
`
`360 degrees.” (EX_2001, 16, § 107). For example, a vessel on course 045 degrees
`
`True is being steered towards the north east, or in a direction 45 degrees clockwise
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 16
`
`
`
`from True North. That is not, however, how the term “course” is used in the ’703
`
`Patent. This is understood because the ’703 Patent does not discuss a direction of
`
`steering the marine craft. As another example, claim 41 discusses “displaying the
`
`course from the first location to the potential waypoint via the non-user selected
`
`waypoints.” It is clear to me, as a person skilled in the art of marine navigation,
`
`that what is being discussed in claim 41 (and others) is not a “horizontal direction
`
`in which a vessel is intended to be steered.” Claim 41 refers to “the course”
`
`between the waypoints, but, a vessel would need to be steered on a series of
`
`courses (i.e., directions), as defined by Bowditch, not just one, to travel from a first
`
`location to another waypoint, via multiple (more than one) non-user selected
`
`waypoints, changing course as each waypoint is reached in turn. Instead, it is my
`
`opinion that the BRI for “course” is “the path of intended travel of a craft with
`
`respect to the earth,” rather than the direction of travel. This definition is closely
`
`related to the navigation term “track.” In my experience, the two terms are often
`
`used interchangeably, though incorrectly so, by non-professional mariners, such as
`
`recreational boaters.
`
`29.
`
`
`
` With respect to the term “track,” the glossary in Bowditch provides
`
`two definitions: “1. The intended or desired horizontal direction of travel with
`
`respect to the earth.… 2. The path of intended travel with respect to the earth as
`
`drawn on the chart.” (EX_2001, 855 (Definition of “Track”)). The first definition
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 17
`
`
`
`of “track” is quite similar to the definition of “course” discussed in the previous
`
`paragraph, i.e., “the horizontal direction in which a vessel is intended to be
`
`steered.” This
`
`is
`
`likely
`
`the reason
`
`that
`
`the
`
`two
`
`terms are often used
`
`interchangeably. However, as discussed in the previous paragraph, it is clear that
`
`the second definition of track, namely the path of intended travel, rather than the
`
`direction of intended travel, fits better with the use of the term “course” in the ’703
`
`Patent. Bowditch, at EX_2001, 16, further states that a “track consists of one or a
`
`series of course lines, from the point of departure to the destination, along which
`
`one intends to proceed.” This is consistent with the use of “course” in several of
`
`the ’703 Patent’s claims, as previously discussed concerning claim 41.
`
`30.
`
`
`
`I also observe that de Jong includes a definition of track as “the
`
`intended navigable trajectory of the ship between the point of departure and the
`
`point of arrival; it is established within the safety margins by the whole of way-
`
`points and legs.” (EX_1005.101 (Definition of “Track”)). This is very similar to
`
`the manner in which the ’703 Patent uses the term “course.”
`
`31.
`
` As I opined above, the ’703 Patent does not use the term “course” as
`
`would a professional mariner. This is also understood because the ’703 Patent does
`
`not discuss a direction of steering the marine craft. Instead, in my opinion the term
`
`“course” as used in the ’703 Patent is used to mean the term of art “track,” where
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 18
`
`
`
`“track” and “path” can be used interchangeably. This opinion is based on several
`
`discussions in the ’703 Patent regarding the plotted course.
`
`32.
`
` The ’703 Patent discusses creating a buffer zone around the calculated
`
`course and analyzing the buffer zone for preselected conditions. In my opinion, it
`
`would only make sense to analyze the buffer zone around the course for
`
`preselected conditions if the course was the intended path of travel of the marine
`
`craft. If the course was merely a direction of travel, this does not inform the
`
`mariner of what the actual intended path is. For example, if the mariner is traveling
`
`030 degrees True, this encompasses a large possibility of particular paths along
`
`which the marine craft can travel in the direction 030 degrees True. Two vessels
`
`might simultaneously be on the same course, such as 030 degrees True, while
`
`being on tracks great distances apart. Their courses (i.e., their direction) are the
`
`same, but their tracks are very different.
`
`33.
`
` Additionally, the course is not a set of intermittent points along the
`
`path of intended travel, because it would not make sense to analyze a buffer zone
`
`around intermittent points. This would do the mariner no good in avoiding
`
`preselected conditions along the entire path of travel. Instead, if the course was
`
`merely intermittent points, then the buffer zone along the course is simply a buffer
`
`zone around each intermittent point. Perhaps analyzing the zone around each
`
`intermittent point would be helpful in avoiding preselected conditions at that point,
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 19
`
`
`
`but this analysis is unhelpful for the waters to be traversed between each
`
`intermittent point.
`
`34.
`
` The ’703 Patent also discusses “analyz[ing] a predetermined distance
`
`on either side of the calculated course for preselected conditions.” (EX_1001, 5:28-
`
`31). Analyzing a predetermined distance on either side of the calculated course
`
`further tells me that the course is the intended path of travel, as opposed to
`
`intermittent points along or an outline of a path of travel. In my opinion, a POSITA
`
`would not describe analyzing a zone around a point as analyzing a zone on either
`
`side of a point or on either side of an outline of the waters to be passed.
`
`35.
`
` The ’703 Patent talks about how the size of the predetermined distance
`
`of the buffer zone can be based on the size, maneuverability, and steering
`
`characteristics of the marine craft. Id. at 5:36-41. This informs me that the buffer
`
`zone extends along the line or path of travel. A mariner would not be concerned
`
`with setting a buffer zone for a point or single location on the water based on the
`
`size, maneuverability, and/or steering characteristics of the marine craft. A mariner
`
`could easily manage navigation around the point, as it is merely a point on the
`
`water and the mariner could navigate the boat around the point. But, setting a
`
`series of points from a point of destination to a point of arrival does not actually set
`
`the path of intended travel, as the mariner still must navigate between each
`
`successive point. Thus,
`
`the ’703 Patent’s discussion about setting
`
`the
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 20
`
`
`
`predetermined distance based on marine craft characteristics would be needed if
`
`the buffer zone is extending along the path of travel, as the marine craft would
`
`need to sail within the predetermined distance. The craft’s characteristics then
`
`become applicable to what the predetermined distance is, because, for example, the
`
`distance obviously cannot have a width smaller than the width of the ship.
`
`36.
`
` The ’703 Patent discusses providing an alert for preselected conditions
`
`along the “plotted course.” (EX_1001, 7:63–8:3). It is my opinion this reference to
`
`the plotted course is a reference to the path of intended travel, where the path is the
`
`center of the buffer zone discussed above. de Jong, for example, discusses setting a
`
`safety zone around a track. (EX_1005.006 (discussing a safety zone around a
`
`track), .051 (discussing that the clearance between safety contours of a passage is
`
`the width of a fairway). The purpose of this path as the centerline of the safe
`
`margin or buffer zone is so the mariner can navigate the marine craft safely in real
`
`time within the safe margin and along the entirety of the track or path. In my
`
`experience, the buffer zone for a particular segment could be dependent on various
`
`factors. The ’703 Patent discusses the size of the vessel as a factor for determining
`
`the size of the buffer zone. (EX_1001, 5:37-41). Another factor is the type of water
`
`to be traversed. In a harbor that is heavily trafficked or with confined waters, the
`
`buffer zone may only be 1/10th of a mile, whereas in the open ocean, the width of
`
`the buffer zone may be five miles. If the mariner stays within the established safe
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 21
`
`
`
`margin or buffer zone, the mariner knows that the vessel can avoid obstacles or
`
`hazards or, in the case where there is an obstacle along the path and within the
`
`margin, the mariner knows to be aware of the particular area and closely monitor
`
`while traveling the particular area. This buffer zone would be unhelpful, of course,
`
`if it was merely for an outline of the path of travel or intermitted points along the
`
`path of travel. Again, as noted in ¶ 35, above, analyzing a buffer zone around
`
`intermittent points does the mariner no good in avoiding preselected conditions
`
`along the entire path of travel, as the mariner might not have sufficient time to
`
`evaluate any upcoming outlined area or point for obstacles or unsafe hazards.
`
`37.
`
` Additionally, the ’703 Patent discusses highlighting the “plotted
`
`course” on the map display of the screen of the navigational device. (EX_1001,
`
`7:60–8:1). The plotted course is highlighted to alert the user of preselected
`
`conditions along the course. Id. It is my opinion that a skilled person would
`
`understand the ’703 Patent to be displaying on the map display the path of travel so
`
`that the highlighted portions on the map display coincide with the alert for the
`
`intended path of travel. If the highlighted portions of the course were not for the
`
`intended path of travel, then they would be unhelpful to the user in alerting the user
`
`to a preselected condition. This would be particularly unsafe. If the “line of the
`
`plotted course” on the map display was merely an outline of the path of intended
`
`
`
`22
`
`IPR2017-00946
`Garmin EX2003 Page 22
`
`
`
`travel, alerting the user to this segment of the outline is unhelpful and potentially
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
