Paper 16
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
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
