`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Unified Patents Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`Location Based Services, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2017-.01965
`U.S. Patent 7,860,648
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER K. WILSON
`
`Page 1 of 97
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1004
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2045
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`Contents
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`.1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................1
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED........................................................................3
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS.............................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art.................................................................................................5
`
`Anticipation: 35 U.S.C. § 102 ...............................................................5
`Obviousness: 35 U.S.C. § 103...............................................................6
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ...................................................................7
`
`VI. THE '648 PATENT .......................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Overview of the Disclosure...................................................................8
`
`State of the Art ....................................................................................12
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art.......................................................14
`
`VII. MEANING OF CERTAIN CLAIM TERMS ...............................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`"Map" (Claims 1 and 9)......................................................................15
`
`"Location Interaction Rules" (Claims 1 and 9)...................................16
`
`"Monitoring Device" (Claims 1 and 9)...............................................16
`
`VIII. EACH ELEMENT OF CLAIMS 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, AND 141S
`TAUGHT OR RENDERED OBVIOUS BY THE PRIOR ART..................17
`
`A. Grounds 1 and 2: Gellberg anticipates or render obvious claims
`1-4,6,9,10, and 13 .............................................................................17
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Gellberg...............................................................17
`
`Page 2 of 97
`
`11
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2045
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Gel/berg Discloses or Suggests the Elements of
`Independent Claim 1.................................................................23
`
`Gel/berg Discloses or Suggests the Elements of Claim 2........43
`
`Gel/berg Discloses or Suggests the Element of Claim 3..........44
`
`Gel/berg Discloses or Suggests the Features of Claim 4..........47
`
`Ge/lberg Discloses or Suggests the Features of Claim 6..........49
`
`Gel/berg Discloses or Suggests the Elements of Claims 9,
`10, and l3. ................................................................................. 54
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Gel/berg and Schroeder render obvious claims 7 and
`14.........................................................................................................57
`
`Ground 4: DeKock Renders Obvious Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13,
`and14..................................................................................................60
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Overview of DeKock.................................................................60
`
`DeKock Discloses or Suggests the Elements of Claim 1..........64
`
`DeKock Discloses or Suggests the Elements of Claim 2..........82
`
`DeKock Discloses or Suggests the Elements of Claim 3..........83
`
`DeKock Discloses or Suggests the Elements of Claim 4..........83
`
`DeKock Discloses or Suggests the Elements of Claims 6
`and7. ......................................................................................... 85
`
`DeKock Discloses or Suggests the Element of Claims 9,
`10, 13, and 14............................................................................87
`
`IX. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................90
`
`Page 3 of 97
`
`111
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2045
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,860,648
`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson
`
`I, Christopher K. Wilson, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained by Unified Patents Inc. ("Unified" or "Petitioner") as an
`
`independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office. Although I am being compensated at my usual rate of $350
`
`per hour for the time I spend on this matter, no part of my compensation depends
`
`on the outcome of this proceeding, and I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I have a bachelor's degree in Physics from Princeton University and
`
`one year of graduate school in Physics at the University of California, San Diego.
`
`My qualifications and professional experienced are described in my curriculum
`
`vitae, attached to my declaration as Appendix A.
`
`2.
`
`I am currently an independent consultant to the transportation industry
`
`focused on the use of vehicle data and analytics to provide cloud services in
`
`support of safety systems in automated and semi-automated vehicles.
`
`3.
`
`I have 23 years of experience in the automotive safety technology
`
`field working for tier 1 suppliers (TRW and TomTom) and vehicle manufacturers
`
`(Mercedes Benz), as well as working with other vehicle manufacturers and
`
`government in consortia developing pre-competitive technologies and performance
`
`metrics for vehicle safety systems, and consulting.
`
`Page 4 of 97
`
`1
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2045
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,860,648
`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson
`
`4.
`
`I worked on the development of traffic management systems in San
`
`Francisco, Atlanta and Houston where I advocated the use of vehicle data for
`
`managing the system.
`
`5.
`
`In the early 2000s, I was a nationally recognized advocate for
`
`connected vehicle technology within transportation businesses, and have been
`
`working with transportation departments on deployment models as recently as
`
`2014. I worked closely with traffic engineers throughout this period, specifically
`
`identifying vehicle data that could be shared with traffic engineers to improve a
`
`transportation system.
`
`6.
`
`As related to this case, I developed one of the first telematics systems
`
`intended for a production vehicle ca. 1993. This system used a paging network to
`
`send the vehicle's location to emergency responders in the event of an airbag
`
`deployment, as well as supporting text based navigation customers. The system
`
`was very similar to GM's OnStar. As part of this effort I worked with standards
`
`organizations to develop standards for vehicle location to support both emergency
`
`response and navigation, and the dissemination of vehicle location and speed to
`
`traffic providers. Our system, and others at the time, were developed to both
`
`provide information to drivers and to collect information on traffic that could
`
`improve the information sent to drivers. My work on traffic management systems
`
`was attempting to deploy such feedback systems in various metropolitan systems.
`
`Page 5 of 97
`
`2
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2045
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,860,648
`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson
`
`7.
`
`I am the named inventor on five US and several international patents
`
`related to various aspects of navigation including improving a vehicle positioning
`
`system and methods for creating maps and uses for map content.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`8.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent 7,860,648 ("the
`
`'648 patent," EX1001). I understand that the '648 patent granted from U.S. patent
`
`application no. 12/406,478, filed March 18, 2009. I understand that the '648 patent
`
`application claims priority as a continuation to U.S. application no. 11/124,626,
`
`filed April 30, 2005 (now U.S. Patent 7,522,996).
`
`9.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether certain prior art references
`
`disclose or suggest the features recited in certain '648 patent claims. I have also
`
`been asked to consider the state of the art of mapping and navigations systems in
`
`the 2005 timeframe, and to compare the claimed systems and methods of the '648
`
`patent to the prior art available at that time. My opinions are provided below.
`
`10.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have considered:
`
`Exhibit
`EX 1001
`EX1002
`EX1003
`EX1005
`
`EX1006
`
`EX1007
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,860.648 (the '648 patent").
`File History of the '648 patent.
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,522,996 ("the '996 patent").
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 0 1/55994 to
`Gellberg ("Gellberg").
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0069691 to Schroeder
`("Schroeder").
`U.S. Patent No. 6,574,548 to DeKock et at. ("DeKock").
`
`Page 6 of 97
`
`3
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2045
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 6 of 6
`
`