UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,748,317
`Case IPR No.: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`II.
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ................................................................... 4
`III.
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 5
`A.
`Claim Interpretation .............................................................................. 5
`B.
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 6
`C.
`Anticipation ........................................................................................... 7
`D. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 7
`i.
`Motivation to Combine ............................................................... 8
`ii.
`KSR Factors ................................................................................ 9
`iii.
`Secondary Considerations ......................................................... 11
`iv. Date of Invention ...................................................................... 12
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications .......................................... 13
`E.
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 14
`VI. SCOPE OF THE PRIOR ART ...................................................................... 30
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 31
`A.
`“Means-plus-function” claims under § 112, ¶ 6 ................................. 31
`VIII. OPINIONS ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................ 33
`A.
`“portable terminal” (Claims 1, 6, 10) .................................................. 33
`B.
`“inputting a destination” ...................................................................... 33
`C.
`“said display changes according to a change of said direction of said
`portable terminal orientation for walking navigation” (Claims 1, 10) 34
`“connected to a server” (Claim 6) ....................................................... 35
`“A portable terminal according to claim 6, wherein said information is
`stores or roads information.” (Claim 7) .............................................. 36
`“wherein said display displays positions of said destination and said
`present place” (Claim 10) .................................................................... 37
`“A portable terminal with walking navigation according to claim 15,
`wherein said display further displays said grid information of said
`route” (Claim 16) ................................................................................. 39
`IX. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................... 40
`X.
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’317 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 41
`A. Overview of the Prior Art .................................................................... 41
`i.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,781,150 (“Norris”) ....................................... 41
`ii.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,173,709 (“Lauro”) ........................................ 47
`iii. U.S. Patent No. 5,592,382 (“Colley”) ....................................... 49
`iv.
`Japanese Publication No. H10-232992 (“Nojima”) .................. 53
`
`D.
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`ii
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 2
`
`

`

`E.
`
`F.
`
`B.
`
`v.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,552,989 (“Bertrand”) ................................... 59
`vi. US. Patent No. 6,125,326 (“Ohmura”) ..................................... 61
`vii. U.S. Patent No. 5,543,789 (“Behr”) ......................................... 65
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 10, and 15-16 of the ’317 Patent are rendered
`obvious by Norris ................................................................................ 68
`i.
`Summary ................................................................................... 68
`ii.
`Claim Element Analysis ........................................................... 69
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 10 and 15-16 are anticipated by Norris .......... 93
`C.
`D. Ground 3: Claims 1-3, 10, and 15-16 of the ’317 Patent are rendered
`obvious by Norris in combination with Lauro .................................... 94
`i.
`Summary ................................................................................... 94
`ii.
`Claim Element Analysis ........................................................... 94
`iii.
`The Combination of Norris and Lauro ................................... 128
`Ground 4: Claims 17 and 20 of the ’317 Patent are rendered obvious
`by Norris in combination with Colley ............................................... 131
`i.
`Summary ................................................................................. 131
`ii.
`Claim Element Analysis ......................................................... 131
`iii.
`The Combination of Norris and Colley .................................. 174
`Gound 5: Claims 17 and 20 are obvious over Norris, Lauro, and
`Colley ................................................................................................ 177
`G. Ground 6: Claims 6-8 of the ’317 Patent are rendered obvious by
`Nojima ............................................................................................... 179
`i.
`Summary ................................................................................. 179
`ii.
`Claim Element Analysis ......................................................... 180
`H. Ground 7: Claims 6-8 are anticipated by Nojima ............................. 194
`I.
`Ground 8: Claims 6-8 of the ’317 Patent are rendered obvious by Behr
`in combination with Bertrand ............................................................ 194
`i.
`Summary ................................................................................. 194
`ii.
`Claim Element Analysis ......................................................... 194
`iii.
`The Combination of Behr and Bertrand ................................. 217
`Ground 9: Claims 1-3, 15-17, and 20 of the ’317 Patent are rendered
`obvious by Ohmura in combination with Colley .............................. 221
`i.
`Summary ................................................................................. 221
`ii.
`Claim Element Analysis ......................................................... 221
`i.
`The Combination of Ohmura and Colley ............................... 259
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 262
`
`J.
`
`iii
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA)
`
`Inc. (“ZTE”or “Petitioner”), and asked to review and provide my opinion on the
`
`patentability of claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 15-17, and 20 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,748,317. (EX1001, “’317 Patent”). This declaration accompanies the
`
`petition for inter partes review of the ‘317 Patent (“Petition”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at an hourly consulting rate for time actually
`
`spent reviewing materials and performing my analysis of the technical issues
`
`relevant to this matter. My compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this
`
`proceeding or the content of my opinions.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`3.
`
`I have over 30 years of professional experience in the field of
`
`automotive technologies and systems, including vehicle information systems and
`
`vehicle safety and control systems. Further, I have authored numerous published
`
`technical papers and am a named inventor on 11 U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`4.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from University of California, Irvine in 1977 and a Master of Science degree in
`
`Electronic Engineering from Stanford University in 1982.
`
`5.
`
`From 1977 to 1979, I worked at Ford Aerospace where I designed,
`
`tested and delivered microwave radar receiver systems.
`
`1
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`6.
`
`From 1979 to 1983, I worked at Teledyne Microwave, where I
`
`developed high reliability microwave components and developed CAD tools.
`
`7.
`
`From 1983 to 1996, I worked at TRW, Inc., having held various
`
`positions. From 1983 to 1985, I was a Member of the technical staff and a
`
`Department Manager in the Space Electronics sector. Between 1985 and 1990 I
`
`was a project manager working on various communications systems projects
`
`including the US DoD Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA)
`
`MIMIC Program. Between 1990 and 1993 I was the Manager of MMIC
`
`(monolithic-microwave-integrated-circuit) Products Organization. In this role, I
`
`developed business strategy and managed customer and R&D programs. During
`
`this time, I also developed the first single chip 94 GHz Radar, used for automotive
`
`cruise control and anti-collision systems. In 1993, I transferred to the TRW
`
`Automotive Electronics Group, and managed about 30 engineers in the Systems
`
`Engineering and Advanced Product Development organization. In this role, I
`
`managed advanced development programs such as automotive radar, adaptive
`
`cruise control, occupant sensing, automatic crash notification systems, in-vehicle
`
`information systems, and other emerging transportation products.
`
`8.
`
`During this time, I also worked with various types of accelerometers.
`
`For example, I developed a system that sampled the acceleration signal over time,
`
`and applied this time series of samples as inputs to a neural network. We then
`
`2
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`adjusted the weights of the neural network so that the system would correctly
`
`discriminate between crash events and the events, for airbag activation. We also
`
`used accelerometers to determine and control airbag deployment parameters and
`
`timing, and to provide information about the crash severity to first responders.
`
`9.
`
`I was employed as a Project General Manager in the Electronics
`
`Division of Toyota Motor Corporation at Toyota headquarters in Toyota City,
`
`Japan from April 1996 to around April 2000. In this position, I was responsible for
`
`leading the development of vehicle telematics systems, infotainment systems,
`
`including on-board and off-board navigation systems, traffic information systems,
`
`vehicle communications systems, safety applications, and automated vehicle
`
`control systems.
`
`10.
`
`I am currently a consultant for Cogenia Partners, LLC, focusing on
`
`systems engineering, business development and technical strategy supporting
`
`automotive and information technology. I have been in this position since 2001. In
`
`one of my active engagements, I served as the technical lead on a project funded
`
`by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop
`
`requirements for connected vehicle safety systems in preparation for NHTSA
`
`regulations governing such systems. I also served as a technical consultant on
`
`multiple projects sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
`
`related to connected vehicle technology research.
`
`3
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`11.
`
`In the various positions mentioned above, I was responsible for
`
`research and development projects relating to numerous vehicle information
`
`systems, user interface systems, sensory systems, control systems and safety
`
`systems, and also had the opportunity to collaborate with numerous researchers
`
`and suppliers to the auto industry. I therefore believe that I have a detailed
`
`understanding of the state of the art during the relevant period, as well as a sound
`
`basis for opining how persons of skill in the art at that time would understand the
`
`technical issues in this case.
`
`12. A more complete summary of my experience, expertise, and
`
`publications is set forth in my curriculum vitae (Appendix A).
`
`III. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, the challenged claims of the ‘317 Patent are
`
`unpatentable. My opinions are based on my expertise in the technology of the ’317
`
`Patent and the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention, as well as my
`
`review of the ’317 Patent, its file history, and the prior art discussed in the Petition.
`
`If the patent owner is allowed to submit additional evidence pertaining to the
`
`validity of the ’317 Patent, I intend to review that as well and update my analysis
`
`and conclusions as appropriate and allowed under the rules of this proceeding.
`
`4
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`14.
`
`I reviewed and contributed to the Petition’s explanation as to why
`
`these claims are unpatentable. The Petition’s explanation as to why these claims
`
`are unpatentable reflects my understanding, and I incorporate it herein by reference.
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`15. My opinions are limited to what I believe a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood the meaning of certain claim terms to be based on
`
`the patent documents. I use the principles below, however, as a guide in
`
`formulating my opinions.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that it is a basic principle of patent law that assessing the
`
`validity of a patent claim involves a two-step analysis. In the first step, the claim
`
`language must be properly construed to determine its scope and meaning. In the
`
`second step, the claim as properly construed, must be compared to the alleged prior
`
`art to determine whether the claim is valid.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the words of a patent claim have their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning for a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention. This
`
`meaning must be ascertained from a reading of the patent documents, paying
`
`special attention to the language of the claims, the written specifications, and the
`
`prosecution history. I understand that an inventor may attribute special meanings
`
`5
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`to some terms by defining those terms or by otherwise incorporating such
`
`meanings in these documents.
`
`18. My methodology for determining the meaning of claim phrases was
`
`first to carefully study the patent. In particular, I studied the claims themselves,
`
`followed by a study of the background, detailed specification, figures, and other
`
`patent content. Next, I reviewed the file histories looking for any clarifications or
`
`limitations that might be attached to claim terms. In some circumstances, I looked
`
`at other documents, such as references applied by the patent office, and considered
`
`how one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would understand
`
`the claim terms or phrases.
`
`B.
`
`19.
`
`Prior Art
`
`It is my understanding that only information which satisfies one of the
`
`categories of prior art set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 102 may be used in any invalidity
`
`analysis under §§ 102 or 103. Therefore, if information is not properly classified as
`
`prior art under one of the subsections of § 102 of the Patent Code, then it may not
`
`be considered in an anticipation or obviousness determination. It is also my
`
`understanding that, for inter partes review, applicable prior art is limited to patents
`
`and printed publications.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the alleged priority date for the ’317 Patent is July
`
`12, 1999, based on a Japanese application. I also understand that prior art
`
`6
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`references published more than one year before the date of the application for the
`
`earliest related parent patent of the ’317 Patent are always considered prior art to
`
`the ’317 Patent.
`
`C. Anticipation
`
`21.
`
`I understand that to anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a
`
`single asserted prior art reference must disclose each and every element of the
`
`claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently, to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. I understand that a disclosure of an asserted prior art reference can be
`
`“inherent” if the missing element is necessarily present or is the inevitable outcome
`
`of the process and/or thing that is explicitly described in the asserted prior art
`
`reference.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been
`
`obvious, at the time the invention was made, to “a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art” (“PHOSITA”) to which the claimed invention pertains. I understand that in
`
`the Graham v. John Deere decision, the U.S. Supreme Court outlined three issues
`
`that must be resolved in the obviousness determination: (1) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art, (2) the scope and content of the prior art, (3) differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims at issue. “Objective” considerations, such as
`
`7
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`commercial success and praise of the alleged invention, may also be considered in
`
`the obviousness analysis.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a PHOSITA is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. Such a
`
`hypothetical person would have the capability of understanding the scientific and
`
`engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art of the claimed invention.
`
`Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`include: (A) the type of problems encountered in the art; (B) prior art solutions to
`
`those problems; (C) rapidity with which innovations are made; (D) sophistication
`
`of the technology; and (E) educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`24.
`
`I also understand that in the KSR v. Teleflex decision, the U.S.
`
`Supreme Court outlined a variety of factors to consider in determining whether a
`
`claimed combination of components is obvious. These factors are set forth below
`
`in this declaration:
`
`i.
`
`Motivation to Combine
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention may be obvious if some
`
`teaching, suggestion or motivation exists that would have led a PHOSITA to
`
`combine the invalidating references. I also understand that this suggestion or
`
`motivation may come from such sources such as explicit statements in the prior art,
`
`or from the knowledge of a PHOSITA. Alternatively, any need or problem known
`
`8
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`in the field at the time and addressed by the patent may provide a reason for
`
`combining elements of the prior art. I also understand that when there is a design
`
`need or market pressure, and there are a finite number of predictable solutions, a
`
`PHOSITA may be motivated to apply both his skill and common sense in trying to
`
`combine the known options in order to solve the problem.
`
`26. Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating that it would have
`
`been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to create the
`
`patented invention. Obviousness may be shown by showing that it would have
`
`been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of prior art. In
`
`determining whether a piece of prior art could have been combined with other prior
`
`art or with other information within the knowledge of a PHOSITA, I understand
`
`the following are examples of approaches and rationales that may be considered:
`
`ii.
`
`KSR Factors
`
`27. One or more of the following principles set out in KSR may support
`
`the obviousness analysis disclosed below, and would render the challenged claims
`
`of the ’317 Patent obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`KSR
`Factor No.
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`KSR Factor Description
`The identified prior art includes an express or inherent suggestion
`to modify or combine the reference in a way that renders the
`claimed invention obvious.
`The combination of familiar elements of the challenged claims is
`obvious because it does no more than yield predictable results.
`The patents simply arrange old elements with each performing the
`
`9
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`KSR
`Factor No.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`KSR Factor Description
`same function it had been known to perform and yields no more
`than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination
`is obvious.
`Because the subject matter of the patents is available in one field
`of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
`variations of it, either in the same field or a different one,
`rendering the combination obvious.
`Because the technique of the patents has been used to improve one
`device, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
`would improve similar devices in the same way, and thus using the
`technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
`her skill.
`I may consider the interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the
`effects of demands known to the design community or present in
`the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a
`person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine
`whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known
`elements in the fashion claimed by the patents at issue.
`Market demand has driven design trends to render the claimed
`invention of the patents obvious.
`The subject matter of the patents extends to what is obvious, and is
`therefore invalid.
`The claimed subject matter of the patents is an obvious solution to
`a problem that was known at the time of invention.
`The familiar items of the claims of the patents have obvious uses
`beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill will
`be able to fit the teachings of prior art references together like
`pieces of a puzzle to demonstrate that the challenged claims are
`obvious.
`The need and problem known in the field at the time of invention
`of the patent, and addressed by the patent, provides a reason for
`combining known prior art elements in the manner claimed in the
`patent.
`There was a design need and/or market pressure to solve the
`problem addressed by the patents. Because there was a finite
`number of identified, predictable solutions to the problem
`addressed in the patents, a person of ordinary skill would have had
`
`10
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`KSR
`Factor No.
`
`KSR Factor Description
`good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`technical grasp. Such a pursuit would have led to the anticipated
`success, making it likely that the product was not of innovation but
`of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a
`combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious.
`
`iii.
`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`28.
`
`I understand that certain objective factors, sometimes known as
`
`"secondary considerations," may also be taken into account in determining whether
`
`a claimed invention would have been obvious. In most instances, these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness are raised by the patentee. In that context, the
`
`patentee argues an invention would not have been obvious in view of these
`
`considerations, which include: (a) commercial success of a product due to the
`
`merits of the claimed invention; (b) a long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the
`
`invention; (c) failure of others to find the solution provided by the claimed
`
`invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention by others; (e) unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (g)
`
`lack of independent simultaneous invention within a comparatively short space of
`
`time; (h) teaching away from the invention in the prior art. I also understand that
`
`these objective indications are only relevant to obviousness if there is a connection,
`
`or nexus, between them and the invention covered by the patent claims.
`
`11
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`29.
`
`I understand that certain "secondary considerations," such as
`
`independent invention by others within a comparatively short space of time,
`
`indicates obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I also understand that secondary considerations of non-obviousness
`
`are inadequate to overcome a strong showing on the primary considerations of
`
`obviousness. For example, where the inventions represented no more than the
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, the
`
`secondary considerations are inadequate to establish non-obviousness.
`
`iv.
`
`Date of Invention
`
`31.
`
`I understand that absent clear and convincing evidence of invention
`
`date prior to the filing date of a patent, the invention date of the patent is presumed
`
`to be its filing date. A prior invention requires a complete conception of the
`
`invention and a reduction to practice of that invention. The patentee has the
`
`burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence a date of conception
`
`earlier than the filing date of the patent.
`
`32. Conception is the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite
`
`and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. Conception must be
`
`proved by corroborating evidence which shows that the inventor disclosed to
`
`others his complete thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable those skilled
`
`in the art to make the claimed invention. The inventor must also show possession
`
`12
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`of every feature recited in the claims, and that every limitation was known to the
`
`inventor at the time of the alleged conception. Furthermore, the patentee must
`
`show that he or she has exercised reasonable diligence in later reducing the
`
`invention to practice, either actual or constructive. The filing of a patent
`
`application can serve as a constructive reduction to practice.
`
`E.
`33.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`I am informed that the ’317 Patent (Ex. 1001) allegedly claims
`
`priority to U.S. Patent Application Number No. 09/613,634, filed on Jul. 11, 2000
`
`(now Pat. No. 6,430,498), which in turn claims priority to a Japanese application
`
`(11-197010) filed on July 12, 1999.
`
`34.
`
`I rely upon the following references, all of which I understand are
`
`prior art to all claims of the ’317 Patent:
`
`Patent/Application Number
`
`Date Of Prior Art
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Filed on October 13, 1995
`Filed on June 3, 1991
`Filed on March 10, 1995
`
`Published on Sept. 2, 1998
`
`US 5,781,150 by Norris et. al (“Norris)
`US 5,173,709 by Lauro et. al (“Lauro”)
`US 5,592,382 by Colley et. al
`(“Colley”)
`JP H10-232992 by Nojima et. al
`(“Nojima”)
`US 5,543,789 by Behr et al. (“Behr”)
`US 5,552,989 by Bertrand et. al
`(“Bertrand”)
`US 6,125,326 by Ohmura (“Ohmura”) Filed on September 19, 1997
`
`Filed on Jun 24, 1994
`Filed on April 28, 1994
`
`
`
`13
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`A. Background of the Technology
`
`35.
`
`I have been asked to briefly summarize the background of the prior art
`
`from the standpoint of a PHOSITA, which person I have defined below, prior to
`
`the invention of the ’317 Patent.
`
`36. The navigational/positional information systems described in the ’317
`
`Patent were well known for many years prior to July 12, 1999.
`
`37. Development in the field of electronic navigation systems began in
`
`earnest in the 1980s with the activation of the Global Positioning System (GPS).
`
`Even early navigation systems were able to provide positional and navigational
`
`information to the user.
`
`38. One of the earliest production handheld GPS navigation devices was
`
`the Magellan NAV 1000. This device was introduced for public sale in 19881. Ex.
`
`1023. The unit, illustrated below, included a flip up GPS antenna, an LCD display,
`
`and a keypad for data input.
`
`
`1 See, e.g., https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/magellan-nav-1000-
`
`gps-receiver-1988 (accessed 11/19/2017)
`
`14
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`
`39. The NAV 100 operated generally from geographic coordinates, so the
`
`user would specify the latitude and longitude of their destination, including any
`
`waypoints; the device would then determine its current position, and provide
`
`distance to the destination, and distance to any of the waypoints, as well as the
`
`current heading or direction required to travel from the current position to the next
`
`waypoint. Since the display was entirely alphanumeric, this course heading was
`
`presented as a numerical value in degrees (i.e., as a compass heading).
`
`40. While the ‘317 patent describes its invention as pertaining to
`
`providing navigational guidance to pedestrians (i.e., “walking navigation”), the
`
`basic functional elements used in the system do not differ substantively from early
`
`navigation systems used in air, marine, or vehicle navigation systems.
`
`15
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`41. For example, in 1995 Delco Electronics produced and sold publicly
`
`the Telepath 1002. Ex. 1024. This was a small in-car unit that was intended to fit in
`
`the standard sized 1-DIN radio opening found in most cars of that era. Because of
`
`its small size the display was necessarily also rather small, and because of the low
`
`target price point the system did not provide a full moving map display, as was
`
`typical of full featured in-vehicle navigation systems of the time (mostly found in
`
`Japanese vehicles in the 1995 time frame). I attended a demonstration of the
`
`Telepath 100 system at an industry conference in about 1996. I also purchased a
`
`used unit which is presented in the photograph below.
`
`(Photograph of Telepath 100 unit in my possession)
`
`
`
`42. This unit used a map database resident on a PCMCIA memory card
`
`that the user would place in the slot below the screen. In operation, the system did
`
`not provide turn by turn driving instructions, nor did it display a map. Instead, it
`
`
`2 See, e.g., New Systems Keep You Safe And On Track Chicago Tribune, January
`22, 1995, By Jim Mateja. Accessed 11/19/2017 at
`http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-01-22/travel/9501220175_1_delco-
`electronics-aftermarket-system-radio-slot
`
`16
`
`ZTE Exhibit 1002 - 19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`
`
`
`presented a graphical arrow that pointed in the direction of the destination, and also
`
`indicated the “as the crow flies” distance from the destination. This is the same
`
`basic functionality that was claimed by the ‘317 patent, four years later. This
`
`functionality can be seen diagrammatically in the figure below, reproduced from
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,627,547, which is a Delco Electronics patent on this same
`
`product.
`
`
`43. As can be appreciated in the figure, the destination is set to “East
`
`
`
`Mall”. The arrow points from the current position in the direction of this
`
`destination, and the distance from the current location to the destination is
`
`displayed in a numerical format.
`
`44. One navigation system combining vehicle navigation and cellular
`
`communications was the TravTek system developed in the early 1990s3. Ex. 1018.
`
`3 See e.g., TravTek System Architecture Evaluation