`
`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 RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`A. Summary of the ’703 Patent ........................................................................... 1
`
`B. Summary of de Jong ....................................................................................... 2
`
`C. Summary of Patentability Arguments .......................................................... 6
`
`D. Level of a POSITA and Comparison of Garmin’s and FLIR’s Experts
`
`Expert Satisfies the Board’s Adopted Level of a POSITA .................................. 9
`
`1. Brief Summary of Capt. Browne’s Qualifications ........................................ 9
`
`2. Capt. Browne Meets the Level of POSITA Applied By the Board and
`
`Garmin’s Proposed Level of a POSITA ............................................................... 9
`
`3. FLIR’s Expert Does Not Meet Garmin’s Level of a POSITA .................... 11
`
`4. The Board Should Reconsider the Adopted Level of a POSITA ............... 13
`
`II. Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 14
`
`A. “re-rout[ing]” – Claims 1, 12, 20, and 27 .................................................... 15
`
`B. “course” – Claims 1, 2, 12-13, 20-21, 26-29, and 41-45 .............................. 21
`
`III. Claims 1, 12, 20, and 27: de Jong Does Not Teach or Suggest “re-routing the
`
`course” ....................................................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The “Route Network Data Set” Is the Set of All Possible Routes, and the
`
`“Filtered Route Network” Is the Set of All Navigable Routes After Applying
`
`the Sailing Order, But No Route Within Either Set Is Ever Re-Routed .......... 28
`
`IV. Claims 1, 12, 20, and 27: de Jong Does Not Teach or Suggest “Avoiding the
`
`Preselected Conditions” ............................................................................................ 39
`
`V. Claims 1, 12, 20, 27, and 28: de Jong Does Not Teach Routing or Re-
`
`Routing a “Course” .................................................................................................. 49
`
`A. de Jong Defines a Route to Include a Track and that the Route Is an
`
`Outline of the Areas the Ship Is to Pass .............................................................. 49
`
`B. The Claimed “Course” Is Used to Mean “Track” ..................................... 51
`
`VI. Patent Owner Does Not Consent to the PTAB Adjudicating the
`
`Patentability or Validity of the Challenged Claims of the ’703 Patent ................ 54
`
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No(s).
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)
`Kruse Tech. Partnership v. Volkswagen AG, 544 Fed. Appx. 943
` (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC,
`No. 16-712, 2017 WL 2507340 (June 12, 2017)
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`Regulations:
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6
`
`
`14
`
`45
`15
`
`59
`19
`
`14
`61
`61
`62
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Introduction
`
`Summary of the ’703 Patent
`
`A.
`
`The Challenged Claims recite a marine route calculation algorithm that routes a
`
`course between a first location and a potential waypoint. This routing includes
`
`identifying any preselected conditions that may be along the course. If preselected
`
`conditions are identified, the marine route calculation algorithm re-routes the course
`
`relative to the previous routing to avoid the identified preselected conditions. The re-
`
`routed course includes non-user selected waypoints. This process is summarized by
`
`the ’703 Patent as follows:
`
`As shown in FIG. 6, a method for marine navigation is provided.
`The method includes identifying a potential waypoint at 600. In the
`various embodiments, identifying the potential waypoint can be
`accomplished by identifying the potential waypoint on or through a
`display. Cartographic data, including the marine craft data, for the area
`between a first location and the potential waypoint can be analyzed for
`preselected conditions at 610. In one example, analyzing the area
`between the first location and the potential waypoint includes identifying
`one or more preselected conditions in the area between the first location
`and the potential waypoint. [¶] The one or more preselected conditions
`identified in the analysis can be used, along with other factors, in
`performing the marine route calculation algorithm to calculate the course
`so as to best avoid preselected conditions between the first location and
`the potential waypoint at 620. One approach to avoiding the preselected
`conditions includes re-routing the course to avoid the preselected
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conditions when the marine route calculation algorithm identifies one or
`more preselected conditions between the first location and the potential
`waypoint.
`Id. at 11:31-53 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Summary of de Jong
`
`A detailed discussion of de Jong was provided in Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response, and Garmin incorporates by reference such discussion. (Paper 6, 8-18). For
`
`purposes of the present paper, it is helpful to recall a few key details of de Jong’s
`
`route planning algorithm.
`
`de Jong’s stated goal is to develop a route planning algorithm based on a route
`
`network data set of all possible routes and determine an optimal route from this data
`
`set: “The main goal of [the de Jong] project is the development of a route-planning
`
`tool, which, based on a route-network, calculates an optimal route from the point of
`
`departure to the point of arrival.” (EX_1005.007, ¶ 4). Prior to executing the route
`
`planning algorithm, the route network data set must be developed. Id. at 1005.022,
`
`¶ 1 (“In order to develop a route-network that provides a good basis for route
`
`planning, a clear description of the relevant aspects is needed.”); .025 (“In
`
`conclusion, all the historically and geographically formed routes produce an existing
`
`web of lanes, areas and crossings, which can provide the basis of a route-network.”);
`
`.009 (“Chapter three then concentrates on the first research question, concerning the
`
`route-network. It starts with the analysis of the existing routes at sea, and how they
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`were formed historically. These routes are used as a basis for positioning the required
`
`route-network components, that are discussed in the next paragraph.”); 003, ¶ 3
`
`(“Existing routes at sea are historically formed by depth and land contours, positions
`
`of harbours and international and national regulations. When analysing these, it
`
`shows that a network is already formed by the existing routes.”). Thus, the route
`
`planning algorithm begins with developing the route network data set, which is a set
`
`of all possible routes without regard to a ship’s or a mission’s characteristics:
`
`The input of the algorithm consists of the route network data set and the
`sailing order. In the sailing order, requirements, mission characteristics
`and ship’s characteristics are stated by the navigator (as discussed in
`paragraph IV.1). The [route network] data set contains all possible
`routes. The information is still enclosed in the ENC and has to be
`gathered by GIS queries. Therefore, the data should be prepared first,
`before entering the route calculation algorithm. The preparation of the
`data is done in the filter algorithm. The filter algorithm also contains the
`filter that deletes the unnavigable options, and the calculation module (in
`order to calculate time and distance, for example). The output of the
`filter algorithm is the filtered route network, which only contains
`navigable passages with all the characteristics. The filtered route
`network is the input for the route calculation algorithm. [¶] The route
`calculation algorithm is the module that actually generates route
`alternatives.
`(EX_1005.063-064) (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original); see also id. at .032-
`
`.033 (discussing “basic rules” for developing the route network data set, including
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`that the route network data set “cannot contain unsuitable or unnavigable waters
`
`(land, drying heights, large sandbanks etcetera) within the boundaries.”). Thus, de
`
`Jong’s route planning algorithm does not include in the route network data set
`
`unnavigable waters, wherein the unnavigable waters are determined without regard to
`
`the Sailing Order (e.g., the ship’s characteristics) or any other criteria associated with
`
`a voyage. As described in the above-quoted paragraph, once the route network data
`
`set is developed, the data set, along with the Sailing Order, is the input to the route
`
`planning algorithm.
`
`Once the route network data set is developed, de Jong’s route planning
`
`algorithm employs a two-step process for route planning: (1) applying the filter
`
`algorithm; and (2) applying the route calculation algorithm that generates route-
`
`alternatives by weighting criteria of preference. de Jong’s route planning algorithm
`
`successively eliminates routes from the route network data set via the two-step
`
`process.
`
`The first step of applying the filter algorithm eliminates unnavigable routes
`
`based on the filter criteria, where the filter criteria includes the Sailing Order
`
`comprising ship and mission characteristics: “the filter algorithm collects the
`
`information from the sailing order, route network data set and the ENC.” Id. at .065;
`
`see also id. at
`
`.063-.064 (“In the sailing order, the requirements, mission
`
`characteristics and ship’s characteristics are stated by the navigator ….”). The filter
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`algorithm “delete[s] the unnavigable routes from the data set. This is done by
`
`comparing route characteristics with the characteristics as specified in the sailing
`
`order. The characteristics that prohibit passage are stated in the filter criteria.” Id. at
`
`.066. The result of the filter algorithm is the filtered route network. Id. at .064, ¶ 1
`
`(“The output of the filter algorithm is the filtered route network, which only contains
`
`navigable passages with all the characteristics. The filtered route network is the input
`
`for the route calculation algorithm.”) (emphasis in original).
`
`The second step of applying the route calculation algorithm includes two sub-
`
`steps, with the first step being narrowing the routes within the filtered route network
`
`based on time and distance margins. Id. at 1005.065 (“The route generator calculates
`
`the shortest possible route and then generates all possible routes within the set
`
`margins for time and/or distance ….”). The second sub-step applies the weighted
`
`criteria of preference to optimize the resulting routes. Id. at .071, ¶ 5 (discussing
`
`criteria of preference).
`
`In sum, de Jong’s route planning algorithm begins with a set of all possible
`
`routes (the route network data set) without regard to the ship or mission
`
`characteristics. This set of all possible routes is then filtered based on the ship and
`
`mission characteristics to eliminate unnavigable routes, with the resulting set of
`
`routes being the filtered route network. The filtered route network is further refined
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`based on time and distance margins. Finally, the route alternatives are generated from
`
`the refined data set based on weighted criteria of preference.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Patentability Arguments
`
`Challenged independent claims 1, 12, 20, and 27 recite “re-route the course” or
`
`“re-routing the course.” Garmin submits that “re-route the course” (independent
`
`claims 20 and 27) or “re-routing the course” (independent claims 1 and 12) means “to
`
`change at least a portion of the route of the course relative to a previous routing.” de
`
`Jong does not anticipate claims 1, 12, 20, and 27 because de Jong does not teach “re-
`
`routing” a course. That is, de Jong does not teach changing at least a portion of the
`
`route of the course relative to a previous routing. Instead, de Jong begins with a route
`
`network data set of all possible routes, without regard to a particular ship’s
`
`characteristics or a particular mission’s characteristics. This route network data set of
`
`all possible routes is narrowed and refined based on the filter criteria, including the
`
`Sailing Order comprising the ship and mission characteristics. The resulting filtered
`
`route network is further narrowed by applying time and distance margins provided by
`
`the navigator. Finally, the set of route alternatives is generated by applying the
`
`weighted criteria of preference. This narrowing of the route network data set to the
`
`set of route alternatives can be illustrated as follows:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Importantly, none of the steps in the route planning algorithm ever changes any
`
`portion, in whole or in part, of a route from the route network data set. Because the
`
`route network data set represents all possible routes, there is no need to ever re-route
`
`any route within the route network data set. Instead, de Jong’s algorithm merely
`
`needs to successively eliminate routes and then present the route alternatives of
`
`navigable and weighted routes.
`
`de Jong also does not anticipate claims 1, 12, 20, and 27 because de Jong does
`
`not avoid all preselected conditions. Assuming arguendo that de Jong teaches
`
`analyzing data commensurate with the claimed preselected conditions, de Jong is
`
`express that not all the preselected conditions are avoided. As discussed in detail
`
`below, de Jong’s route alternatives listed in the Testcase 3_1 proffered by FLIR as
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`meeting the claimed limitation expressly state that certain preselected conditions are
`
`encountered—not avoided. For example, fog (which is a weather condition) is
`
`encountered in ranked route 1. Obstacles and prohibited areas, represented by ITZ
`
`and DWR are encountered in ranked routes 37 and 91, for example. Because de Jong
`
`is concerned with optimizing routes (EX_1005.071, last paragraph), and further
`
`because the route represents only the outline of the waters to be passed (id. at .013, ¶
`
`1), as discussed below, de Jong is not concerned with ensuring all mapped
`
`preselected conditions are avoided.
`
`Finally, de Jong does not anticipate each of the Challenged Claims because de
`
`Jong does not route or re-route a “course.” Garmin submits that “course,” as properly
`
`construed, means “the path of intended travel of a craft with respect to the earth.” de
`
`Jong makes clear that each route within its set of route alternatives is merely an
`
`outline of the waters to be passed, and that the mariner must still determine the track
`
`or path the ship is to travel.
`
`As fully detailed below, de Jong does not teach each feature recited in the
`
`challenged independent claims, nor does de Jong arrange or combine its teachings in
`
`the same way as recited in the challenged independent claims. Consequently, FLIR
`
`fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that de Jong anticipates the
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Level of a POSITA and Comparison of Garmin’s and FLIR’s
`Experts Expert Satisfies the Board’s Adopted Level of a POSITA
`
`1.
`
`Brief Summary of Capt. Browne’s Qualifications
`
`Capt. Browne’s qualifications are set forth in detail in his Declaration,
`
`EX_2003, ¶¶ 4-19. In brief, he has 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. He holds a merchant
`
`mariner credential as Master Mariner issued by the United States Coast Guard. As an
`
`officer in the US Navy, he navigated two submarines, a frigate, a destroyer, a cruiser
`
`and a helicopter carrier. While aboard those vessels, he 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,
`
`he has 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. He has served as Navigation Officer
`
`(Second Mate) aboard three ships. In this position, his primary responsibility was
`
`navigation planning and execution. This involved acquiring and updating charts and
`
`publications, creating voyage plans, and maintaining bridge equipment.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Capt. Browne Meets the Level of POSITA Applied By the Board
`and Garmin’s Proposed Level of a POSITA
`
`
`In the Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Garmin proposed that a POSITA
`
`would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`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 or technical training may offset less formal education, while
`
`advanced degrees or additional formal education may offset lesser levels of industry
`
`experience. (Paper 6, 19).
`
`Capt. Browne meets Garmin’s proposed level for a POSITA. Capt. Browne has
`
`a B.A. in computer studies and a Master’s degree in Engineering Management. Capt.
`
`Browne’s computer studies degree is, at the least, an equivalent science or
`
`engineering field to, at the least, computer engineering. Specifically, Capt. Browne’s
`
`bachelor’s degree was an
`
`interdisciplinary degree
`
`focusing on computer
`
`programming. (EX_2003, ¶ 11). Additionally, Capt. Browne has extensive working
`
`knowledge of marine navigational devices and their associated hardware, as set forth
`
`in his Declaration. Id. at ¶¶ 5-10, 12-19. Finally, Capt. Browne has extensive
`
`experience operating and teaching marine navigation systems, along with experience
`
`troubleshooting marine navigation systems. Id. At the very least, Capt. Browne’s
`
`significant experience with marine navigation systems, including his over 30 years of
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`serving as a navigator, Chief Mate, and Captain on ocean-going vessels, offsets any
`
`lesser education.
`
`Capt. Browne also meets FLIR’s proposed level of a POSITA, which the Board
`
`adopted and applied. (Pet 12-13). FLIR suggests a POSITA would have a B.S. in
`
`Electrical Engineering or a related discipline and 3-5 years of experience in
`
`navigation engineering. (Pet 12, FN 3). Capt. Browne’s B.A. in computer studies and
`
`Master’s in Engineering Management satisfy the related discipline to electrical
`
`engineering, especially considering that the subject matter of the ’703 Patent is
`
`marine navigation methods and systems. Moreover, as noted above, Capt. Browne
`
`has significant industry and teaching experience in marine navigation as of the ’703
`
`Patent’s priority date.
`
`3.
`
`FLIR’s Expert Does Not Meet Garmin’s Level of a POSITA
`
`
`FLIR’s expert, Dr. Braasch, has extensive experience in avionics and avionic
`
`navigation. If the ’703 Patent was regarding navigation systems for avionics, Dr.
`
`Braasch would be a qualified expert. However, Dr. Braasch has no discernible
`
`experience in marine navigation. During his deposition, Dr. Braasch was asked about
`
`his experience with ECDIS, to which he responded that he has attended “various
`
`conferences where marine navigation was discussed. I’ve read articles in technical
`
`publications, things of that nature. Those are the primary modes in which I’ve been
`
`staying apprised of ECDIS.” (EX_2004, 27:6-15). In response to his testimony that
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`he had “read articles in technical publications,” he was asked if he could provide a
`
`listing. Id. at 28:18-23. His response was “Not off the top of my head. It’s been too
`
`long now.” Id. He also could not identify any other modes of staying apprised of
`
`ECDIS (id. at 29:12-16), has never worked on an ECDIS system (id. at 29:17-18),
`
`and only saw an ECDIS system once when he toured the bridge of a cruise ship while
`
`on a Caribbean cruise (id. at 29:19-25). In response to being asked what was his
`
`experience with maritime navigation, he answered “I’ve kept apprised of
`
`developments
`
`in maritime navigation
`
`through participation, attendance
`
`in
`
`conferences, reading technical articles in journals and things of that nature.” Id. at
`
`30:5-14. However, Dr. Braasch has never written any papers, whether short articles or
`
`for academic journals, on maritime navigation (id. at 30:1-4), never taught a class
`
`regarding maritime navigation (id. at 30:22-24), never gave any type of presentation
`
`on maritime navigation (id. at 30:25–31:5), and never taken a class regarding
`
`maritime navigation (id. at 31:6-8). When asked what in his background makes him
`
`knowledgeable to opine on maritime navigation as of September 2003, he pointed to
`
`his experience in aircraft navigation systems and his attendance at conferences “in
`
`which maritime navigation technology was discussed.” Id. at 34:24–35:13. Finally, in
`
`response to a question as to how long it would take to plot a route that is 250 nautical
`
`miles long, Dr. Braasch answered that he had never “commanded a ship of my own
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`and have not engaged in that activity. So I can’t answer that question sitting here
`
`today.” Id. at 36:20–37:2.
`
`Dr. Braasch’s lack of experience in marine navigation is particularly
`
`problematic given the prior art relied on by FLIR. The primary reference to de Jong is
`
`a dissertation regarding marine navigation. The de Jong reference includes extensive
`
`discussions using vocabulary and concepts unique to marine navigation. In fact, one
`
`of the central themes of FLIR’s argument is that ECDIS systems can be used to assist
`
`a mariner in route planning. (Pet 6-7). Yet, Dr. Braasch appears to have no experience
`
`with ECDIS systems, and his maritime navigation knowledge is limited to attending
`
`conferences where maritime navigation was discussed.
`
`In view of Dr. Braasch’s admitted negligible experience with maritime
`
`navigation, his opinions regarding the ’703 Patent and cited prior art should be
`
`weighted accordingly.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The Board Should Reconsider the Adopted Level of a POSITA
`
`In the Institution Decision, the Board adopted FLIR’s proposed level of a
`
`POSITA and stated that Garmin’s proposed level was “overlapping.” (Paper 7, 12).
`
`Garmin respectfully requests the Board reconsider the adoption of FLIR’s level of a
`
`POSITA. Because the level does not recognize the need for a skilled person with
`
`marine navigation knowledge, the level does not account for the unique requirements
`
`arising in marine navigation. See EX_2003, ¶ 24.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`FLIR will certainly note that the ’703 Patent states that “embodiments of the
`
`present invention (including the claims) could be replaced with the phrase ‘non-street
`
`based’, where non-street based can include a navigational method, system, and
`
`devices that do not necessarily rely on one or more roads, highways, streets, and/or
`
`freeways in providing navigational methods, systems and/or devices.” (EX_1001,
`
`1:61-67). Although certain devices, systems, and methods disclosed in the ’703
`
`Patent could be used for general non-street based navigation, the primary
`
`embodiment and, more importantly, the claims of the ’703 Patent are specific to
`
`marine navigation, recite terms used specifically for marine navigation, and consider
`
`problems unique
`
`to marine navigation, e.g., navigating
`
`through multiple
`
`obstacles/hazards in a confined area with no distinct road.
`
`Moreover, the prior art relied on by FLIR is most certainly directed to marine
`
`navigation. de Jong discusses concepts and uses term that are specific to marine
`
`navigation issues. (EX_2003, ¶ 24).
`
`In view of the above, Garmin respectfully requests the Board reconsider the
`
`required level of a POSITA and adopt Garmin’s proposed level of a POSITA.
`
`II. Claim Construction
`
`
`For purposes of inter partes review of an unexpired patent, a claim is to be
`
`given its “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent
`
`in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`2131, 2135 (2016). While the Board should apply the broadest reasonable
`
`construction, caution should be taken “to not read ‘reasonable’ out of the standard.
`
`This is to say that ‘[e]ven under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s
`
`construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence, and
`
`must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.’” Microsoft
`
`Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal citations
`
`omitted). The construction must be “consistent with the specification … and [the]
`
`claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). Claim terms are “given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning … that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`“re-rout[ing]” – Claims 1, 12, 20, and 27
`
`A.
`
`Garmin submits that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term
`
`“re-routing the course” (independent claims 1 and 12) and “re-route the course”
`
`(independent claims 20 and 27) is “to change at least a portion of the route of the
`
`course relative to a previous routing.” Thus, in claim 1, for example, the claimed
`
`“re-routing” step is read as follows:
`
`[changing at least a portion of the route of the course relative to a
`previous routing] to avoid the preselected conditions by identifying one
`or more non-user selected waypoints.
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’703 Patent supports this construction, as evidenced by comparing the step
`
`of the claimed marine route calculation algorithm disclosed in Fig. 4A to the step
`
`disclosed in Fig. 4B. Turning to Fig. 4A of the ’703 Patent, course 404 is routed using
`
`the first location 410 selected by the user and extending to potential waypoint 414:
`
`(EX_1001, Fig. 4A). As explained in the ’703 Patent, the course 404 traverses at least
`
`one preselected condition, namely land 416:
`
`
`
`FIG. 4A illustrates course 404 between a first location 410 and a
`potential waypoint 414 that passes through land 416. In the present
`embodiment, the first location 410 is shown as a first waypoint that has
`been selected by a user. As described herein, land can be classified as a
`preselected condition. As such, course 404 has been highlighted to
`indicate that at least one preselected condition has been identified in the
`analysis of course 404. Highlighting in the instant case is provided by a
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`bolding of the line representative course 404 in a region 418. At this
`point, the device can calculate one or more possible courses around the
`preselected condition.
`Id. at 8:40-51; see also id. at 5:41-51.
`
`The course is then recalculated “relative to the original calculation of course
`
`404,” as shown in Fig. 4B illustrating the course 404 going around the land 416:
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 4B. Specifically, for the portion of the course in Fig. 4A with the identified
`
`preselected conditions, the marine route calculation algorithm recalculates the course
`
`with “one or more additional waypoints” to allow the course “to avoid the preselected
`
`conditions”:
`
`FIG. 4B provides map display 400 having course 403 recalculated
`to avoid the one or more preselected conditions (e.g., avoid the land in
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`region 418 of the previous course 404). Recalculating of course 403
`relative to the original calculation of course 404 shown in FIG. 4A
`provides the recalculated course 403 with one or more additional
`waypoints, shown as 420. The additional waypoints 420 have been
`included to allow the course 403 to avoid the preselected conditions. The
`waypoints 420, in the present situation, are non-user waypoints. In other
`words, waypoints 420 were determined by the system, and not the user.
`Id. at 8:52-63 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`The ’703 Patent further discusses how calculation of a course is an iterative
`
`process, wherein the routing or calculation of the course (or portions thereof) is
`
`performed repeatedly until “a course that best avoids courses with preselected
`
`conditions” is obtained. Id. at 12:30-33. For example, the discussion of Fig. 4C
`
`contemplates a situation where the user changes the potential waypoint or selects a
`
`new potential waypoint, upon which “an additional portion of course 404 can be
`
`analyzed.” Id. at 9:9-23; Fig. 4C. The marine route calculation algorithm
`
`subsequently analyzes the additional portion of the course and identifies a preselected
`
`condition in region 434. Id. at 9:16-21. The marine navigational device then
`
`calculates a course around the preselected condition. Id. at 9:21-23. Thus, the course
`
`shown in Fig. 4C between points 430 and 414 is re-routed to avoid the preselected
`
`condition around area 434.
`
`The ’703 Patent describes that the re-routing or recalculation of the course can
`
`be performed repeatedly to avoid encountered preselected conditions: “The method
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`sequence shown in FIGS. 5-7 can be repeated as many times as necessary, without
`
`limitation, in order to achieve a desired course.” Id. at 12:16-18; see also id. at 12:30-
`
`33. Moreover, Fig. 4C and the commensurate discussion highlight that portions of the
`
`course may be re-routed as needed. Id. at 9:9-23, Fig. 4C.
`
`
`
`The ’703 Patent also describes how the re-routing of the course is relative to a
`
`previous routing, i.e., calculating, by the marine route calculation algorithm:
`
`[C]alculating the re-route can include calculating the re-route with a
`preference for avoiding one or more preselected conditions in any
`previous course. Thus, embodiments of the present invention provide
`methods by which one or more course and/or re-route analysis and/or
`calculations provide a course that best avoids courses with preselected
`conditions.
`Id. at 12:26-34 (emphasis added); id. at 8:52-55 (referring to Fig. 4B illustrating a
`
`recalculated course relative to the “previous course” illustrated in Fig. 4A). Yet
`
`further, the ’703 Patent differentiates between a course and a reroute calculation for
`
`the course: “Thus, the present invention provides a system, device and method by
`
`which information received for a course and a reroute calculation can be
`
`maintained.” Id. at 12:23-25 (emphases added).
`
`The ’703 Patent’s claims also highlight that a re-routing of the course is
`
`relative to a previous routing or calculation. In particular, claims 1, 12, 20, and 27
`
`recite “re-routing” or “re-route” of a course, whereas claim 28 recites “route a
`
`course.”
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Yet further, the ’703 Patent differentiates between analyzing a course, and then
`
`re-routing the course if preselected conditions are identified in the previous analysis,
`
`wherein the re-routed course avoids the preselected conditions:
`
`In a situation where the processor 310 operating on the marine
`route calculation algorithm identifies one or more preselected conditions
`in analyzing the course, the processor 310 operates on the route
`calculating algorithm to re-route the course to avoid the preselected
`conditions. In one embodiment, in routing and/or re-routing the course to
`avoid the preselected conditions, the processor operates on the route
`calculating algorithm to identify one or more non-user waypoints
`between the first location and the potential waypoint.
`Id. at 5:42-51. Thus, the ’703 Patent explains that “[i]n a situation” where preselected
`
`conditions are identified in the routed course, the algorithm “re-route[s] the course to
`
`avoid the preselected