UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`ZTE CORPORATION AND ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2018-00235
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`_______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 3 
`A. 
`Technology Background ...................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`Overview of the ’317 Patent Invention ................................................ 3 
`C. 
`Summary of Petitioner’s Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`and the References Cited ...................................................................... 5 
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 6 
`A. 
`Petitioner Fails to Properly Apply the Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation ........................................................................................ 8 
`1. 
`“Inputting a Destination” (Claim 1) ........................................... 8 
`2. 
`“said display changes according to a change of said
`direction of said portable terminal orientation for walking
`navigation” (Claims 1, 10)” ....................................................... 9 
`The Term “said device connected to said server outputting said
`location information and said direction information and
`receiving retrieved information based on said outputted
`information at said server” (claim 6) is a Means-Plus-Function
`Term For Which Petitioner Has Failed to Provide A Proposed
`Construction ....................................................................................... 11 
`IV.  LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................. 12 
`V. 
`THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF PREVAILING WITH RESPECT TO ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM ............................................................................. 13 
`A.  Ground 1: Petitioner Failed To Establish That Claims 1-3, 10,
`and 15-16 are Obvious Over Norris. .................................................. 13 
`1. 
`Ground 1 Has No Reasonable Likelihood of Succeeding
`Because Norris Does Not Disclose or Suggest Each and
`Every Element of the Challenged Claims. ............................... 14 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`Ground 1 Has No Reasonable Likelihood of Succeeding
`Because Petitioner Does Not Articulate Any Rational
`Underpinning for Petitioner’s Obviousness Arguments
`for Norris Alone. ...................................................................... 22 
`Ground 2: Petitioner Failed to Establish That Claims 1-3, 10,
`and 15-16 are Anticipated By Norris. ................................................ 26 
`Ground 3: Petitioner Failed to Established That Claims 1-3, 10,
`and 15-16 are Rendered Obvious By Norris in view of Lauro. ......... 27 
`1. 
`Ground 3 Has No Likelihood of Succeeding Because
`Norris in View of Lauro Does Not Disclose or Suggest
`Each and Every Element of the Challenged Claims. ............... 28 
`Ground 3 Has No Reasonable Likelihood of Succeeding
`Because Petitioner Does Not Articulate Any Rational
`Underpinning for Petitioner’s Obviousness Combination
`of Norris With Lauro. .............................................................. 30 
`D.  Ground 4: Petitioner Failed to Established That Claims 17 and
`20 are Rendered Obvious By Norris in view of Colley. .................... 32 
`1. 
`Ground 4 Has No Reasonable Likelihood of Succeeding
`Because Norris in view of Colley Does Not Disclose or
`Suggest Each and Every Element of the Challenged
`Claims. ..................................................................................... 32 
`Ground 4 Has No Reasonable Likelihood of Succeeding
`Because Petitioner Does Not Articulate Any Rational
`Underpinning for Petitioner’s Obviousness Combination
`of Norris With Colley. ............................................................. 35 
`Ground 5: Petitioner Failed to Established That Claims 17 and
`20 are Rendered Obvious by Norris in view of Lauro and
`Colley. ................................................................................................ 38 
`Ground 6: Petitioner Failed to Established That Claims 6-8 are
`Rendered Obvious By Nojima. .......................................................... 40 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`Ground 6 Has No Likelihood of Succeeding Because
`Nojima Does Not Disclose or Suggest Each and Every
`Element of the Challenged Claims. ......................................... 40 
`Ground 6 Has No Likelihood of Succeeding Because
`Petitioner Does Not Articulate Any Rational
`Underpinning for Petitioner’s Obviousness Modifications
`to Nojima .................................................................................. 43 
`G.  Ground 7: Petitioner Failed to Established That Claims 6-8 are
`Anticipated By Nojima. ...................................................................... 45 
`H.  Ground 8: Petitioner Failed to Established That Claims 6-8 are
`Rendered Obvious by Behr in view of Bertrand. ............................... 46 
`1. 
`Ground 8 Has No Likelihood of Succeeding Because
`Behr in view of Bertrand Does Not Disclose or Suggest
`Each and Every Element of the Challenged Claims. ............... 47 
`Ground 8 Has No Likelihood of Succeeding Because
`Petitioner Does Not Articulate Any Rational
`Underpinning for Petitioner’s Obviousness Combination
`of Behr With Bertrand. ............................................................ 47 
`Ground 9: Petitioner Failed to Established That Claims 1-3, 15-
`17, and 20 are Rendered Obvious Ohmura in view of Colley. .......... 48 
`1. 
`Ground 9 Has No Likelihood of Succeeding Because
`Ohmura in View of Colley Does Not Disclose or Suggest
`Each and Every Element of the Challenged Claims. ............... 49 
`Ground 9 Has No Likelihood of Succeeding Because
`Petitioner Does Not Articulate Any Rational
`Underpinning for Petitioner’s Obviousness Combination
`of Ohmura With Colley. .......................................................... 51 
`The Board Should Disregard Mr. Andrews’s Conclusory
`Declaration ......................................................................................... 55 
`VI.  THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT EXCEEDS
`THE WORD LIMIT BY IMPROPERLY INCORPORATING
`ARGUMENTS BY REFERENCE ............................................................... 57 
`iii
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`VII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 58 
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Description
`Agreed-Upon Construction Chart, Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei
`Device USA Inc., et al., 5:16-cv-00178-RWS (Oct. 23, 2017) (Dkt.
`108-2)
`Disputed Construction Chart, Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device
`USA Inc., et al., 5:16-cv-00178-RWS (Oct. 23, 2017) (Dkt. 108-1)
`Scott Andrews Declaration, Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device
`USA Inc., et al., 5:16-cv-00178-RWS (Oct. 23, 2017) (Dkt. 100-6)
`Claim Construction Order, Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA
`Inc., et al., 5:16-cv-00178-RWS (Oct. 23, 2017) (Dkt. 175)
`Defendants’ Claim Construction Brief, Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei
`Device USA Inc., et al., 5:16-cv-00178-RWS (Oct. 23, 2017) (Dkt.
`100)
`“Selective Availability,” found at
`https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/sa/ (last visited
`March 1, 2018)
`Oxford Living Dictionary definition of “route” found
`https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/route at (last visited March
`1, 2018)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit #
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`A. C. Dispensing Equipment Inc. v. Prince Castle LLC,
`IPR2014-00511, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. March 17, 2014) ................................ 29, 58
`
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 7
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Comm’s, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 22
`
`In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Apple Inc., v. Immersion Corporation,
`IPR2016-01372, Paper 7 (January 11, 2017) ..................................................... 11
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2017-01004, Paper No. 13 (Aug. 29, 2017) ................................................. 11
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2017-01006, Paper No. 14 (Aug. 29, 2017) ................................................. 11
`
`Ferring B.V. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida,
`764 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 23
`
`Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.,
`737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 20
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 59 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2013) ....................................... 7, 8
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................... 13, 24, 56
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co., Ltd. v. Aspen Aerogels, Inc.,
`Case IPR2017-00152, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017) ...................... 23, 24, 37
`
`Innogenetics, N. V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 22, 55
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 13
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 39
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 22
`
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Sol’ns, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00529, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2014) ........................................... 56
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC,
`IPR2016-00197, Paper No. 7 (PTAB Apr. 29, 2016)................................... 24, 25
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Progressive Casualty
`Insurance Company,
`CBM2012- 00003, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 16, 2012) ....................................... 58
`
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 13
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 6
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................ 6, 7
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Pride Solutions LLC v. Not Dead Yet Manufacturing, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00627, Paper No. 14 (March 17, 2014) ............................................... 11
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 8
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 7
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 23
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 23
`
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper12 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2013) ............................................ 57
`
`Statutes, Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ............................................................................................. 2, 55
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 11
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ......................................................................................... 5, 12, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`37 C.P.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 57
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Maxell, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) respectfully requests that the
`
`Board deny institution because Petitioner ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`(hereinafter “Petitioner”) have failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of
`
`success on the grounds submitted in its Petition for challenging the patentability of
`
`claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 15-17, and 20 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,748,317 (“the ’317 patent”).
`
`First, Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing because
`
`it has not shown that the cited references anticipate or render obvious claims 1-3,
`
`6-8, 10, 15-17, and 20 of the ’317 patent. Neither Norris nor Nojima disclose the
`
`arrangement of claims as set forth in the Petition. Further, none of Petitioner’s
`
`obviousness arguments, whether modifications of Norris or Nojima alone, or the
`
`Norris/Lauro, Norris/Colley, Norris/Lauro/Colley,
`
`Behr/Bertrand,
`
`and
`
`Ohmura/Colley combinations, disclose each claim limitation.
`
`Second, Petitioner also fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`
`because the entire Petition relies on hindsight reconstruction of the invention
`
`without any explanation why a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)
`
`would have been motivated to modify and/or combine the primary references
`
`(Norris, Nojima, Behr, Ohmura) with various secondary references or purported
`
`knowledge of a PHOSITA, none of which disclose a limitation required by all of
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`the challenged claims. Often, Petitioner does not explain which elements from
`
`each reference it contends would have been obvious to combine with specified
`
`elements of the other references or knowledge of a PHOSITA. Rather, Petitioner
`
`states what a PHOSITA “would understand,” but such statements cannot satisfy
`
`the obviousness test under KSR. In the absence of such an identification, there can
`
`be no discussion at all of why those particular elements would or would not have
`
`been obvious to combine to arrive at the claimed invention. Petitioner therefore
`
`falls short of carrying its burden to explain the grounds of unpatentability on which
`
`its Petition is based.
`
`Finally, throughout the Petition, Petitioner makes a number of conclusory
`
`statements regarding its arguments. Additionally, the Declaration provided by Mr.
`
`Andrews simply parrots these same conclusory statements found in the Petition
`
`without any additional analysis. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that
`
`does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is
`
`entitled to little or no weight.”). These conclusory statements by Petitioner and
`
`Petitioner’s expert do not assist in demonstrating obviousness because they do not
`
`provide the rational underpinning necessary to establish obviousness. As the
`
`evidence discussed herein will show, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of
`
`showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing because the cited references simply
`
`do not disclose each and every element of the challenged claims and Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`expert provides no additional support for many of the conclusory statements
`
`located throughout the Petition.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should refuse to institute this inter partes review.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Technology Background
`The claims at issue in the ’317 Patent generally relates to a mobile device,
`
`such as a smartphone, that can determine the location and orientation of the device
`
`and directional information that a user can view to assist with walking navigation.
`
`In addition, one embodiment of the ‘317 Patent allows a user to get the location of
`
`location of another mobile device, such as another smartphone.
`
`B. Overview of the ’317 Patent Invention
`The ’317 Patent is entitled “Portable Terminal with the Function of Walking
`
`Navigation,” and has a priority date of no later than July 12, 1999. The ’317 Patent
`
`was filed on May 5, 2003, and issued on June 8, 2004.
`
`The ’317 Patent solves a problem that existed in conventional navigation
`
`systems at the time. Prior to the ’317 Patent, conventional navigation systems were
`
`unsuitable for walking navigation. Ex. 1001 at 1:31-43. Conventional systems were
`
`too large to be carried by a walking user, would not provide information about the
`
`direction and orientation of a user, and were unsuitable for display on the smaller
`
`screens of portable devices, among other problems. Id. at 1:31-52.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Recognizing these shortcomings with conventional systems, the inventors
`
`of the ’317 Patent conceived a portable terminal that would aid users who wished
`
`to have real-time directions while walking. Id. at 2:51-61. These inventors
`
`implemented a portable terminal that displays information about the direction a
`
`user is facing. Additionally, it displays navigation information that can be
`
`displayed on screens to aid the user to walk to a desired destination. These displays
`
`were of different sizes including, for example, a narrow screen of a portable
`
`terminal. Id. at 3:5-42.
`
`
`
`The popularity and use of smart phones with GPS functionality has made
`
`traditional GPS standalone systems obsolete, and GPS is now considered a
`
`necessary feature for smart phones. End users of smart phones expect to be able to
`
`use their phones to get walking directions, instead of relying on maps. The ’317
`
`Patent addressed this need and provides a solution to the problem of providing
`
`walking navigation including orientation of the user while walking such that the
`
`position information is updated precisely and in real time. The inventors conceived
`
`these solutions as early as July 12, 1999–well before the wide acceptance of smart
`
`phones and eight years before the first release of the first iPhone in June 2007.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Petitioner’s Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`and the References Cited
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 15-17, and 20 would have been
`
`obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petition raises nine grounds of
`
`alleged invalidity based on the following seven references.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,781,150 (“Norris”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,173,709 (“Lauro”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,92,382 (“Colley”)
`
`Certified translation of JP H10-232992 (“Nojima”)
`and Affidavit certifying translation of Nojima
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,543,789 (“Behr”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,552,989 (“Bertrand”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,125,326 (“Ohmura”)
`
`The Petition asserts the following nine anticipation and/or obviousness grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`’317 Patent
`Claims
`1-3, 10, 15-16
`1-3, 10, 15-16
`1-3, 10, 15-16
`17, 20
`17, 20
`6-8
`6-8
`
`
`
`Type of
`Challenge
`§ 103
`§ 102
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 102
`
`5
`
`Primary
`Reference
`Norris
`Norris
`Norris
`Norris
`Norris
`Nojima
`Nojima
`
`Secondary
`Reference
`---
`
`Lauro
`Colley
`Lauro, Colley
`---
`---
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`8
`9
`
`6-8
`1-3, 10, 15-17, 20
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Behr
`Ohmura
`
`Bertrand
`Colley
`
`
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`When considering whether to institute a patent trial, the Board has indicated
`
`that it will interpret the claims of a challenged patent using a “broadest reasonable
`
`construction” approach. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756,
`
`48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). In applying such a standard, it is important to recognize
`
`that the broadest reasonable construction of claim language is not one that permits
`
`any reading thereof. Instead, it is one that must be made “in light of the
`
`specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
`
`Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re
`
`NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (vacating Board decision based on
`
`erroneous claim construction; “While the Board must give the terms their broadest
`
`reasonable construction, the construction cannot be divorced from the specification
`
`and the record evidence” (internal citation omitted)). Moreover, the Board “should
`
`also consult
`
`the patent’s prosecution history
`
`in
`
`[inter partes
`
`review]
`
`proceedings . . . .” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted). Of course, patent claims must “conform to
`
`the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the
`
`description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by
`
`reference to the description.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1). That is, “[c]laim terms are
`
`also given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.” Garmin Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper 59 at 8 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13,
`
`2013) (citing In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
`
`Given that claims are construed in the context of the description of the
`
`invention, it is error to construe claims in a way that conflicts with the description.
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (vacating Board
`
`decision based on erroneous claim construction and stating: “The broadest-
`
`construction rubric coupled with the term ‘comprising’ does not give the PTO an
`
`unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the
`
`claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in light of the
`
`specification and teachings in the underlying patent.”); see also, In re NTP, Inc.,
`
`654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (vacating Board decision based on erroneous
`
`claim construction and stating: “While the Board must give the terms their
`
`broadest reasonable construction, the construction cannot be divorced from the
`
`specification and the record evidence.”); In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d
`
`1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (vacating Board decision based on erroneous claim
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`construction and stating: “Although the PTO emphasizes that it was required to
`
`give all claims their broadest reasonable construction, . . . this court has instructed
`
`that any such construction be consistent with the specification, and that claim
`
`language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art.” (quoting In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d at
`
`1260) (ellipses in original)). Ultimately, “[t]he construction that stays true to the
`
`claim language and most naturally aligns with the inventor’s description is likely
`
`the correct interpretation.” Garmin Int’l, Inc., IPR2012-00001, Paper 59 at 8
`
`(citing Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998)).
`
`Patent Owner objects to certain of Petitioner’s proposed constructions as set
`
`forth below.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Properly Apply the Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation
`1.
`In the district court litigation, neither Petitioner nor its expert asked for
`
`“Inputting a Destination” (Claim 1)
`
`and/or provided a construction of this term. Rather, Petitioner agreed that the term
`
`“an input device for inputting a destination” should have a “plain and ordinary
`
`meaning” construction. See Ex. 2001, Agreed-Upon Construction Chart, at B-7.
`
`Now, where the broadest reasonable interpretation standard applies, Petitioner
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`takes a narrower position on this term. But Petitioner’s proposed construction is
`
`circular, unnecessary, and does not assist the Board in resolving the invalidity
`
`arguments raised in the petition. Petitioner’s addition of the unnecessary verbiage
`
`“relating to, representing, or identifying” into the proposed construction is a
`
`transparent attempt to bolster its invalidity arguments improperly. For example,
`
`one of Petitioner’s references, Norris (Ex. 1005) includes a tuner for tuning to a
`
`frequency that represents a GPS device. See Ex. 1005, 6:49-57. But, as described
`
`below, Norris does not input a destination—it inputs a frequency. See id. Under a
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of “destination,” a frequency is not a destination.
`
`Petitioner does not provide any substantive analysis for why this term should
`
`be construed as proposed in view of intrinsic evidence, even under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard. Thus, Petitioner’s proposed construction should
`
`be rejected.
`
`2.
`
`“said display changes according to a change of said
`direction of said portable terminal orientation for walking
`navigation” (Claims 1, 10)”
`
`In the district court litigation, neither Petitioner nor its expert asked for or
`
`provided a construction of this term. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, Agreed-Upon
`
`Construction Chart, Ex. 2002, Disputed Construction Chart. However, here,
`
`Petitioner takes a narrower position and forwards a construction for this term under
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation that governs here. From one citation to the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`preferred embodiment of ’317 Patent that relates to “the arrow always points the
`
`direction of the destination” (Pet. at 12), Petitioner argues that the construction of
`
`the larger term relating to the display in the context of the orientation of the
`
`portable terminal to mean “when the orientation of the device changes, the display
`
`of the direction of the destination also changes.” See id. This improper narrowing
`
`was only done to assist Petitioner with its arguments as to the prior art, which
`
`disclose only arrows pointing in directions of the destination rather than
`
`determining the orientation of the portable device. See e.g., Norris, Lauro infra.
`
`In addition, Petitioner ignores the “walking navigation” component of this
`
`term, which is directly contrary to the positions it and its expert Mr. Andrews took
`
`during the district court litigation. See Ex. 2002, Disputed Construction Chart, at
`
`A-10. There, Petitioner argued that “walking navigation” meant “display of
`
`information to assist a user in walking, not driving, in a system that is not usable in
`
`an object car that is running on a road.” See id. Indeed, Petitioner’s expert here,
`
`Mr. Andrews, also submitted a claim construction declaration supporting that
`
`construction, noting “[t]he ’317 patent specification repeatedly and exclusively
`
`describes its system as one for walking navigation…. Here, ‘walking’ means
`
`something.” Ex. 2003, Andrews’ Claim Const. Dec., at 9-12. The district court,
`
`however, ultimately rejected Petitioner’s inclusion of the negative clauses relating
`
`to driving/car. See Ex. 2004, Claim Construction Order.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`In sum, Petitioner (and its expert) has taken wildly different positions on this
`
`phrase, in whole or in part, depending on the situation. The Board should not
`
`condone such slipperiness in reading the ’317 Patent and reject Petitioner’s
`
`proposed construction.
`
`B.
`
`The Term “said device connected to said server outputting said
`location information and said direction information and receiving
`retrieved information based on said outputted information at said
`server” (claim 6) is a Means-Plus-Function Term For Which
`Petitioner Has Failed to Provide A Proposed Construction
`
`If a challenged claim has a means-plus-function term, the petitioner is
`
`required to “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the
`
`structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(3). The Board has routinely denied
`
`institution or
`
`terminated
`
`proceedings for failure to identify the corresponding structure in the specification.
`
`See, e.g. Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2017-01006, Paper
`
`No. 14 (Aug. 29, 2017); Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`
`IPR2017-01004, Paper No. 13 (Aug. 29, 2017); Apple Inc., v. Immersion
`
`Corporation, IPR2016-01372, Paper 7 (January 11, 2017); Pride Solutions LLC v.
`
`Not Dead Yet Manufacturing, Inc., IPR2013-00627, Paper No. 14 (March 17,
`
`2014).
`
`In the district court litigation, Petitioner argued that this term was governed
`
`by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. See Ex. 2005, Defendants’ Markman Brief, at 36.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,748,317
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Petitioner’s same expert here, Mr. Andrews, provided a claim construction
`
`declaration in the district court case stating the same. See Ex. 2003, Andrews’
`
`Claim Const. Dec., at 12-15. The district court agreed that this term is a means-
`
`plus-function term. See Ex. 2004, Claim Construction Order, at 71-74.
`
`Here, however, the Petition fails to provide a construction for this means-
`
`plus-function term and never states what it believes the corresponding structure
`
`should be. Accordingly, the Board should deny institution as to claim 6 and those
`
`claims (7 and 8) that depend on claim 6.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner has further objections to Petitioner’s proposed or
`
`implicit constructions, such objections are not pertinent to this Preliminary
`
`Response. Accordingly, Patent Owner reserves all rights to provide additional
`
`arguments relating to Petitioner’s claim construction positions if institution occurs.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD
`A claim is not patentable if the differences between it and the prior art are
`
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA).
`
`Obviousness requ