Paper No. 1
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`Issued: June 8, 2004
`Inventor(s): Kishiko Maruyama; Shigeru Shimada; Toshiichirou Sasaki
`
`Title: PORTABLE TERMINAL WITH THE FUNCTION OF WALKING
`NAVIGATION
`
`Inter Partes Review No. _____
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,748,317 PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1) ........................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Parties In Interest 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1) ...................................... 1
`
`Related Matters 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) ................................................. 1
`
`Lead Counsel and Back-Up Counsel 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) ................ 1
`
`Service Information 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4) ........................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103 ........................................ 2
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’317 PATENT ............................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background ........................................................................................... 2
`
`The Prosecution History ........................................................................ 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’317 Patent ........................................................................... 3
`
`The ’999 Patent ........................................................................... 5
`
`The ’498 Patent ........................................................................... 6
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 7
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. §42.104 ................................................................................................. 8
`
`A. Grounds for standing under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ................................ 8
`
`B.
`
`Identification of challenge under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) and
`relief requested ...................................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims for Which Inter Partes Review Is Requested (37 C.F.R.
`§42.104(b)(1) .............................................................................. 9
`
`The Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the
`Challenge Is Based Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2) ................... 9
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`How the challenged claims are to be construed (37 C.F.R.
`§42.104(b)(3)) ........................................................................... 10
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`“portable terminal” (Claims 1, 6, 10) ............................. 10
`
`“inputting a destination” (Claim 1) ................................ 11
`
`“said display changes according to a change of said
`direction of said portable terminal orientation for walking
`navigation” (Claims 1, 10) .............................................. 12
`
`“connected to a server” (Claim 6) .................................. 12
`
`“A portable terminal according to claim 6, wherein said
`information is stores or roads information.” (Claim 7) .. 13
`
`“wherein said display displays positions of said
`destination and said present place” (Claim 10) .............. 13
`
`“A portable terminal with walking navigation according
`to claim 15, wherein said display further displays said
`grid information of said route.” (Claim 16).................... 14
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`How the construed claims are unpatentable (37 C.F.R.
`§42.104(b)(4)) ........................................................................... 14
`
`Supporting evidence (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5)) ....................... 14
`
`V.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................ 15
`
`A. Norris (Ex. 1005) ................................................................................. 15
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Lauro (Ex. 1006) ................................................................................. 16
`
`Colley (Ex. 1007) ................................................................................ 17
`
`D. Nojima (Ex. 1008) ............................................................................... 17
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Behr (Ex. 1009) ................................................................................... 19
`
`Bertrand (Ex. 1010) ............................................................................. 20
`
`G. Ohmura (Ex. 1011) .............................................................................. 21
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY .................................................................................. 22
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 10, 15-16 Are Obvious Over Norris ............. 22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 28
`
`Claims 2-3 ................................................................................. 33
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 34
`
`Claims 15-16 ............................................................................. 35
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 10 and 15-16 are anticipated by Norris ......... 37
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-3, 10, and 15-16 are obvious over Norris
`and Lauro ............................................................................................. 37
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 17 and 20 are obvious over Norris and
`Colley .................................................................................................. 39
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 17 and 20 are obvious over Norris, Lauro,
`and Colley ............................................................................................ 42
`
`Ground 6: Claims 6-8 are obvious over Nojima ................................ 44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 48
`
`Claims 7-8 ................................................................................. 52
`
`G. Ground 7: Claims 6-8 are anticipated by Nojima .............................. 53
`
`H. Ground 8: Claims 6-8 are obvious over Behr and Bertrand .............. 53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 58
`
`Claims 7-8 ................................................................................. 61
`
`I.
`
`Ground 9: Claims 1-3, 15-17, and 20 are obvious over Ohmura
`and Colley ............................................................................................ 62
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 68
`
`Claims 2-3 ................................................................................. 73
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 15-16 ............................................................................. 74
`
`Claims 17 and 20....................................................................... 75
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 77
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Chore-Time Equipment Inc. v. Cumberland Corp.,
`713 F.2d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .............................................................................. 8
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 10
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation et al.,
`No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS (EDTX, filed Nov. 18, 2016) ...................................... 1
`
`Statutes
`
`United States Code
`Title 35, section 102(b) ................................................................................... 6, 10
`Title 35, section 102(e) ....................................................................................... 10
`Title 35, section 102(pre-AIA) ............................................................................. 9
`Title 35, section 103(a) ......................................................................................... 6
`Title 35, section 311–319 ...................................................................................... 1
`Title 35, sections 102-103 ................................................................................... 10
`
`Regulations
`
`Code of Federal Regulations
`Title 37, section 42.100 ......................................................................................... 1
`Title 37, section 42.100(b) .................................................................................. 10
`Title 37, section 42.103 ......................................................................................... 2
`Title 37, section 42.104 ......................................................................................... 8
`Title 37, section 42.104(a) .................................................................................... 8
`Title 37, section 42.104(b) .................................................................................... 9
`Title 37, section 42.104(b)(1) ............................................................................... 9
`Title 37, section 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................................... 9
`Title 37, section 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................. 10
`Title 37, section 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................. 14
`Title 37, section 42.104(b)(5) ............................................................................. 14
`Title 37, section 42.15(a) ...................................................................................... 2
`Title 37, section 42.8(a)(1) ................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Title 37, section 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................... 1
`Title 37, section 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................... 1
`Title 37, section 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................... 1
`Title 37, section 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................... 2
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
`Section 2111.02 .................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`Description of Exhibit
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317 to Kishiko Maruyama et al.
`Declaration of Dr. Scott Andrews (“Andrews Declaration”)
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317
`District Court Complaint
`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”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,580,999 to Kishiko Maruyama et al.
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,580,999
`U.S. Patent No. 6,430,498 to Kishiko Maruyama et al.
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,430,498
`Joint Claim Construction Chart in Case No. 5:16-cv-00178-RWS
`TravTek Global Evaluation and Executive Summary, March 1996
`TravTek System Architecture Evaluation, July 1995
`TravTek Evaluation – Orlando Test Network Study, January 1996
`Certified translation of JP 08-202982 (“Takashi”) and Affidavit
`certifying translation of Takashi
`1021
`U.S. Patent No. 5,627,547 (“Ramaswamy”)
`1022
`U.S. Patent No. 5,923,294 (“Bacelon”)
`1023 Magellon NAV 1000 GPS Receiver, 1988
`https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/magellan-nav-
`1000-gps-receiver-1988
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`1024
`
`1025
`1026
`
`Description of Exhibit
`New Systems Keep You Safe And On Track, Chicago Tribune,
`January 22,1995
`http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-01-
`22/travel/9501220175_1_delco-electronics-aftermarket-system-radio-
`slot
`U.S. Patent No. 6,414,630 (“Sony”).
`Fundamentals of mapping
`http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/map_projections.html#grid_amg.
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioners, ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc., respectfully request inter
`
`partes review in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, et
`
`seq. of claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 15-17 and 20 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,748,317 (“the ’317 Patent”, (Ex. 1001)), which issued June 8, 2004 and is
`
`purportedly assigned to Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”). There is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail on at least one Challenged
`
`Claim.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1)
`
`A. Real Parties In Interest 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. are real parties of interest.
`
`B. Related Matters 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)
`
`The ’317 Patent is involved in Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation et al., No.
`
`5:16-cv-00179-RWS (EDTX, filed Nov. 18, 2016). Ex. 1004.
`
`C. Lead Counsel and Back-Up Counsel 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Steven A. Moore (Reg. No. 55,462)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address
`501 West Broadway, Suite 1100
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: 619-544-3112
`Facsimile: 619-236-1995
`Email: steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`
`
`1
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Cheng (Jack) Ko (Reg. No. 54,227)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address
`501 West Broadway, Suite 1100
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: 619-544-5000
`Facsimile: 619-236-1995
`Email: jack.ko@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`

`

`
`
`Brian Nash (Reg. No. 58,105)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`Post and Hand Delivery Address
`111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: 512.580.9626
`Facsimile: 512.580.9601
`Email: brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Howard N. Wisnia (Reg. No. 37,502)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address
`501 West Broadway, Suite 1100
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: 619-544-3120
`Facsimile: 619-236-1995
`Email: howard.wisnia@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`D.
`
`Service Information 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)
`
`Service of any documents by hand-delivery may be made at the postal
`
`mailing address of the respective lead or back-up counsel designated above with
`
`courtesy email copies to the email addresses and docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge Deposit Account No.
`
`033975 for the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R §42.15(a) for this Petition. The
`
`undersigned further authorizes payment for any additional fees due in connection
`
`with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced Deposit Account.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE ’317 PATENT
`A. Background
`
`The ’317 Patent was filed on May 5, 2003 and issued June 8, 2004. The ’317
`
`Patent includes three independent claims (1, 6, and 10), all of which are being
`
`challenged. The ’317 Patent also includes 17 dependent claims, 8 of which are
`
`being challenged.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’317 Patent describes “a portable terminal provided with the function of
`
`walking navigation, which can supply location-related information to the walking
`
`user.” Ex. 1001, 1:16-18. Because “the maps, when displayed on small-size screen
`
`of portable telephones and PHS terminals, are not displayed clearly” to a walking
`
`user, the ’317 Patent provides a portable terminal that can “supply location
`
`information easier for the user to understand during walking with use of a narrow
`
`screen” and “realize a user-friendly interface that enables the walker (user) to
`
`understand inputs of retrieving conditions intuitively.” Ex. 1001, 1:50-52; 2:53-55;
`
`2:59-61. Specifically, the portable terminal obtains location information and
`
`direction information of the terminal and displays the positions of the portable
`
`terminal and the destination. Ex. 1001, 3:1-3. In addition, the direction of a
`
`destination is displayed by an indicating arrow that always points in the direction
`
`of the destination. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The ’317 Patent further describes using the
`
`location and direction information to retrieve information from a connected server,
`
`and then displaying the retrieved information. Id.
`
`As detailed below and in the Andrews Declaration (Ex. 1002), all the alleged
`
`inventive features of the ’317 Patent were well known to a skilled artisan by the
`
`time of the invention of the ’317 Patent. Ex. 1002, ¶¶35-66.
`
`B.
`
`The Prosecution History
`
`1.
`
`The ’317 Patent
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’317 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/428,755 (“the
`
`’755 Application”) filed on May 5, 2003. Ex. 1001. The ’755 Application claims
`
`the benefit of the U.S. Patent Application No. 10/173,423 (“the ’423 Application”)
`
`filed on June 18, 2002, which is now U.S. Patent No. 6,580,999 (“the ’999 Patent”,
`
`Ex. 1012), which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/613,634 (“the
`
`’634 Application”) filed on July 11, 2000, which is now U.S. Patent 6,430,498
`
`(“the ’498 Patent”, Ex. 1014). The ’498 Patent claims priority to a Japanese
`
`Application JPH11-197010 filed on July 12, 1999. Thus, the earliest potential
`
`priority date for the ’317 Patent is July 12, 1999.
`
`The ’317 Patent was rejected once during prosecution based on obviousness-
`
`type double patenting against the ’999 Patent; Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer
`
`and amended independent claims 1 and 10 to add the limitation of “said display
`
`displays positions of said destination and said present place, and a relation of said
`
`direction and a direction from said present place to said destination, and said
`
`display changes according to a change of said direction of said portable terminal
`
`orientation for walking navigation.” Ex. 1003, pp. 101-115. In response, the
`
`USPTO issued a Notice of Allowance on January 29, 2004. The stated reason for
`
`allowance was:
`
`The prior art of record fail to teach a portable terminal
`comprising, among other limitations, getting location information
`denoting a present place of the terminal; a device for getting
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`direction information denoting an orientation of the terminal; and a
`display displaying positions of the destination and the present
`place and a relation of the direction and a direction from the
`present position place to the destination, wherein the display
`changes according to a change of the direction of the terminal
`orientation for walking navigation; the device for getting direction
`being connected to a server outputting the location information and
`the direction information and receiving retrieved information based
`upon the outputted information at the server - the display further
`displaying the retrieved information.
`Ex. 1003, p. 128.
`
`2.
`
`The ’999 Patent
`
`The ’999 Patent was rejected twice during prosecution basically based on
`
`obviousness-type double patenting against the ’498 Patent; Applicant filed a
`
`terminal disclaimer to overcome this issue. In response, the USPTO issued a
`
`Notice of Allowance on February 4, 2003. The stated reason for allowance was:
`
`Specifically, the prior art of record fail to suggest a portable
`terminal with the function of walking navigation, comprising,
`among other limitations, a device denoting an orientation of the
`terminal, a device for getting location information of another
`portable terminal, a direction from a present place to the location
`of the other portable terminal being displayed with distance
`information between locations, wherein the direction is denoted
`with an orientation of line and the distance is denoted with number,
`and wherein the direction from a present place to the location of
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`said another portable terminal is displayed using symbols denoting
`an orientation of a line that is distinguished between starting and
`ending points.
`Ex. 1013, p. 112.
`
`3.
`
`The ’498 Patent
`
`The ’498 Patent was rejected twice during prosecution. In the first rejection,
`
`the ’498 Patent was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) as being anticipated by U.S
`
`Patent 5,146,231 (“Ghaem”) and under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Ghaem. Ex. 1015, pp. 112-113. Applicant amended independent claim 1 to
`
`add the limitation of “display of walking navigation information provided from an
`
`application server is controlled to match actual spatial location of said portable
`
`terminal according to said location information and said direction information.”
`
`Ex. 1015, pp. 127.
`
`In the second rejection, the ’498 Patent was rejected under 35 U.S.C.103(a)
`
`as being unpatentable Ghaem in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,124,826 (“Garthwaite”).
`
`Ex. 1015, pp. 136-137. Applicant cancelled the original claims and added new
`
`claims, wherein the new independent claims 15, 19 and 24 were added with the
`
`limitation of “wherein a direction and a distance of a destination from said present
`
`place are denoted with an orientation and a length of a line that is distinguished
`
`between starting and ending points to supply route guidance information as said
`
`walking navigation information”; “a local route around the present place being
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`shown with a bent line and direction of movement is shown with an arrow on the
`
`bent line to supply the route guidance walking information”; and “a full route from
`
`said starting point to said destination is shown with a bent line that is distinguished
`
`between starting and ending points and said present place is shown with a symbol
`
`on said line to supply said route guidance information as said walking navigation
`
`information.” Ex. 1015, pp. 139-143. In response, the USPTO issued a Notice of
`
`Allowance on March 18, 2002. The stated reason for allowance was:
`
`Specifically, the prior art of record fail to fairly suggest a
`portable terminal with the function of walking navigation,
`comprising, a direction and a distance of a destination from said
`present place are denoted with an orientation and a length of a line
`that is distinguished between starting and ending points to supply
`route guidance
`information as
`said walking navigation
`information; a local route around the present place being shown
`with a bent line and direction of movement is shown with an arrow
`on the bent line to supply the route guidance walking information;
`and a full route from said starting point to said destination is shown
`with a bent line and the present place is shown with a symbol on
`the bent line to supply the information.
`Ex. 1015, p. 149.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`C.
`The field of the claimed invention relates generally to navigation/position
`
`information, navigational guidance, and navigational display systems. A person
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) for the ’317 Patent would have at
`
`least a Bachelor of Science in Electrical or Computer Engineering or the
`
`equivalent, plus two years of experience with electronic navigational systems,
`
`navigational display systems, or similar experience. Ex. 1002, ¶92. The prior art
`
`references discussed herein also reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art at the
`
`relevant time. Chore-Time Equipment Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774,
`
`779 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. §42.104
`A. Grounds for standing under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’317 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the ’317 Patent claims on the grounds identified herein. Further,
`
`Petitioners certify that Petitioners have not filed a civil action challenging the
`
`validity of a claim of the ’317 Patent, and this Petition is filed less than one year
`
`after the date on which Petitioners, Petitioners’ real-party-interest, or a privy of
`
`Petitioners was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’317 Patent.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Identification of challenge under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) and
`relief requested
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`The precise relief requested by the Petitioners is that claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 15-
`
`17 and 20 of the ’317 Patent be found unpatentable.
`
`1.
`
`Claims for Which Inter Partes Review Is Requested (37 C.F.R.
`§42.104(b)(1)
`
`Inter partes review of claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 15-17 and 20 is requested.
`
`2.
`
`The Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the
`Challenge Is Based Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2)
`
`Inter partes review is requested in view of the following references:
`
`Patent/Application Number
`
`Date Of Prior Art
`
`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 October 13, 1995
`
`Filed on June 3, 1991
`
`Filed on March 10, 1995
`
`Published on Sept. 2, 1998
`
`Filed on Jun 24, 1994
`
`Filed on April 28, 1994
`
`Filed on Sept. 19, 1997
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Each of these references qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(pre-
`
`AIA). None of these references was cited in a rejection by the Examiner during the
`
`prosecution of the ’317 Patent. Norris, Lauro, Colley, Nojima, Bertrand, and Behr
`
`are §102(b) references; Ohmura is a §102(e) reference. The following specific
`
`grounds of rejection are asserted under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 -103:
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Claims and References
`Ground
`Ground 1 Claims 1-3, 10, 15-16 are obvious over Norris
`Ground 2 Claims 1-3, 10, 15-16 are anticipated by Norris
`Ground 3 Claims 1-3, 10, and 15-16 are obvious over Norris and Lauro
`Ground 4 Claims 17 and 20 are obvious over Norris and Colley
`Ground 5 Claims 17 and 20 are obvious over Norris, Lauro, and Colley
`Ground 6 Claims 6-8 are obvious over Nojima
`Ground 7 Claims 6-8 are anticipated by Nojima
`Ground 8 Claims 6-8 are obvious over Bher and Bertrand
`Ground 9 Claims 1-3, 15-17, and 20 are obvious over Ohmura and Colley
`
`3.
`
`How the challenged claims are to be construed (37
`C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC
`
`v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard). Petitioners propose the following constructions.
`
`For any terms not specifically construed, Petitioners propose they do not require
`
`specific construction and should be interpreted according to their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would have been understood by a PHOSITA at the time of
`
`the invention.
`
`
`
`a.
`
`“portable terminal” (Claims 1, 6, 10)
`
`Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the preambles of independent
`
`claims 1, 6, and 10 are non-limiting. District courts may construe preambles as
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`either limiting or non-limiting, on a case-by-case basis. (MPEP § 2111.02).
`
`Construing the preambles as non-limiting is a broader interpretation than
`
`construing the preambles to be limiting. As a district court generally has the option
`
`to construe preambles as non-limiting, the Board should examine the Challenged
`
`Claims on inter partes review as if the preambles are non-limiting to avoid using a
`
`narrower construction than might be used in a district court proceeding.
`
`In case the Board construes the preambles as limiting, Petitioner also shows
`
`how the preambles of the Challenged Claims are met by the prior art.
`
`The ’317 Patent describes the “portable terminal” to include a portable
`
`telephone, a Personal Handyphyone System (PHS), and a personal data assistance
`
`(PDA). Ex. 1001, 1:10-15. In addition, FIG. 10 of the ’317 Patent describes the
`
`“portable terminal” as including an external memory device 75 in the form of a
`
`DVD drive; thereby contemplating a device similar to a laptop computer. Ex. 1001,
`
`9:40-47. Thus, if the Board construes the preambles as limiting, “portable
`
`terminal” should mean “a device that can be transported.” Ex. 1002, ¶73.
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`“inputting a destination” (Claim 1)
`
`The ’317 Patent describes various ways to input information for the
`
`destination; the “destination, for example, can be set with a text input with use of
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`button keys or a pen and/or with a voice input from a microphone.” Ex. 1001,
`
`6:41-43. The ’317 Patent also describes that “destination” can be specified “by
`
`turning the tip of the portable terminal in the direction directly” Ex. 1001, 7:64-66;
`
`or by setting the phone number of another walking partner as the destination. Ex.
`
`1001, 8:31. Thus, “inputting a destination” should mean “inputting information
`
`relating to, representing, or identifying a location.” Ex. 1002, ¶¶74-75.
`
`c.
`
`“said display changes according to a change of said
`direction of said portable terminal orientation for
`walking navigation” (Claims 1, 10)
`
`The ’317 Patent describes “the present invention enables the direction of the
`
`destination in the actual space to be controlled so as to be adjusted to the
`
`orientation of the arrow displayed on the screen. If the walker 10 inquires the
`
`system of a direction by turning his/her portable terminal as shown [in FIG. 1] with
`
`the compressed information item 12, 13, or 14, the screen display is controlled so
`
`that the arrow always points the direction of the destination.” Ex. 1001, 5:33-40.
`
`Thus, this phrase means “when the orientation of the device changes, the display of
`
`the direction of the destination also changes.” Ex. 1002, ¶¶76-77.
`
`
`
`d.
`
`“connected to a server” (Claim 6)
`
`The ’317 Patent describes “a server that supplies necessary information on
`
`the Internet/intranet” to supply the navigation services; and “Just like the Internet
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`services available through portable telephones or PHS terminals, each portable
`
`terminal, wireless network, a gateway server, the Internet/intranet, and the
`
`application server are sequentially connected.” Ex. 1001, 3:44-47. As shown in
`
`FIG. 9, the portable terminal is “connected” to various “servers” such as “gateway
`
`server 64”, “WWW server 66”, and “application server 67” that includes a “spatial
`
`information database 67c.” Ex. 1001, FIG. 9. Thus, “connected” includes both
`
`direct and indirect connection (e.g., via a network or gateway); and “server” means
`
`“a device or database that provides information or services.” Ex. 1002, ¶¶78-81.
`
`e.
`
`“A portable terminal according to claim 6, wherein said
`information is stores or roads information.” (Claim 7)
`
`Initially, it is unclear what “said information” of claim 6 is referenced in
`
`claim 7; however, in the context of the ’317 Patent and claim 6, a PHOSITA would
`
`understand “said information” to refer to the “retrieved information.” Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶82-85.
`
`f.
`
`“wherein said display displays positions of said
`destination and said present place” (Claim 10)
`
`Claim 10 makes no reference to any “destination” and initially, it is unclear
`
`what “said destination” refers to; however, in the context of the ’317 Patent and
`
`claim 10, a PHOSITA would understand “said destination” to refer to the “location
`
`information of another portable terminal.” Ex. 1002, ¶¶86-87.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`g.
`
`“A portable terminal with walking navigation according
`to claim 15, wherein said display further displays said
`grid information of said route.” (Claim 16)
`
`Initially, it is unclear what “said grid information” refers to. Claim 16 and its
`
`antecedent claims make no reference to any “grid information” and the ’317 Patent
`
`specification mentions no “grid” or “grid information.” However, in the context of
`
`navigational systems, a PHOSITA would understand “displays said grid
`
`information of said route” to mean “a visual representation by city grid, road
`
`intersection, line division, or coordinate information.