UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`NavBlazer, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`Case No. – Not Yet Assigned
`U.S. Patent No. 9,885,782
`__________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL S. BRAASCH
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael S. Braasch, Ph.D.
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Professional Background ................................................................................. 3 
`I. 
`Relevant Legal Standards ................................................................................ 8 
`II. 
`III.  Technology Background ................................................................................ 11 
`IV.  THE ’782 PATENT ....................................................................................... 14 
`A.  Overview of the ’782 Patent ................................................................ 14 
`B. 
`Prosecution History of the ’782 Patent ............................................... 16 
`Level of Skill in the Art ................................................................................. 18 
`V. 
`VI.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 18 
`VII.  The challenged claims are unpatentable ........................................................ 20 
`A.  Overview of the Prior Art .................................................................... 20 
`Behr ........................................................................................... 20 
`i. 
`Schreder .................................................................................... 21 
`ii. 
`Suman ........................................................................................ 23 
`iii. 
`iv.  Hanchett .................................................................................... 24 
`Van Ryzin .................................................................................. 26 
`v. 
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability ................................................. 28 
`Grounds 1-6 ......................................................................................... 29 
`Ground 1: Schreder in View of the Knowledge of a PHOSITA
`i. 
`Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 14 ............................... 30 
`Ground 2: Schreder in View of Hanchett Renders Obvious
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 43 
`iii.  Ground 3: Schreder in View of Behr Renders Obvious Claims
`9 and 11 ..................................................................................... 46 
`iv.  Ground 4: Schreder in View of Suman Renders Obvious
`Claims 10 and 12....................................................................... 53 
`Ground 5: Schreder in View of Van Ryzin Renders Obvious
`Claims 15 and 19....................................................................... 59 
`vi.  Ground 6: Schreder in View of Van Ryzin and further in View
`of Suman Renders Obvious Claims 16 and 17 ......................... 64 
`D.  Grounds 7-11 ....................................................................................... 66 
`VIII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 69 
`
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`ii. 
`
`v. 
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Google LLC (“Google”)
`
`in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,885,782 (“the ’782
`
`Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate of $500 for consulting services. My compensation in no way depends
`
`on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I considered all materials cited in the
`
`body of this Declaration, which includes but is not limited to the following:
`
`a.
`b.
`
`c.
`d.
`e.
`f.
`g.
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`the ’782 Patent (Ex. 1001) and its file history (Ex. 1002);
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of the U.S. Patent No. 9,885,782
`(“Petition”);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,808,566 to Behr, et al. (“Behr”) (Ex. 1004);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,504,482 to Schreder (“Schreder”) (Ex. 1005);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,028,537 to Suman (“Suman”) (Ex. 1007);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,396,429 to Hanchett (“Hanchett”) (Ex. 1008);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,844,505 to Van Ryzin (“Van Ryzin”) (Ex. 1009);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,161,002 to Migliaccio, et al. (“Migliaccio”) (Ex.
`1010);
`Defendants’ Proposed Claim Constructions, dated October 2, 2020
`(Ex. 1011);
`NavBlazer’s Proposed Claim Constructions, dated October 2, 2020
`(Ex. 1012);
`French, Robert L., “Land Vehicle Navigation and Tracking,” Global
`Positioning System: Theory and Applications Vol. II, Volume 164
`
`-1-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics (1996) (“French”) (Ex.
`1014);
`Caskey, David L., “The Potential of Intelligent Vehicle Highway
`Systems for Enhanced Traveler Security,” 1993 International Carnahan
`Conference on Security Technology, Ottawa, Canada (October 13-15,
`1993) (“Caskey”) (Ex. 1015);
`Inman, V., et al., TravTek Evaluation Yoked Driver Study, Publication
`No. FHWA-RD-94-139 (October 1995) (“Inman”) (Ex. 1016);
`Blumentritt, C., et al., TravTek System Architecture Evaluation,
`Publication No. FHWA-RD-94-141 (July 1995) (“Blumentritt”) (Ex.
`1017);
`Kaysi, Isam, et al., “Integrated Approach to Vehicle Routing and
`Congestion Prediction for Real-Time Driver Guidance,” Transportation
`Research Record No. 1408: Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems
`(1993) (“Kaysi”) (Ex. 1018);
`Roozemond, Danko A., “Forecasting Travel Times Based on Actuated
`and Historic Data,” Transactions on the Built Environment vol. 30
`(1997) (“Roozemond”) (Ex. 1019);
`Garnto, Ira W., System Performance Test Report from the Independent
`Evaluation of the Atlanta Driver Advisory System (ADAS) (September
`1997) (“Garnto”) (Ex. 1020);
`Davies, Peter, et al., “Standards for the Radio Data System—Traffic
`Message Channel,” SAE Technical Paper Series No. 891684, Future
`Transportation Technology Conference and Exposition, Vancouver,
`BC, Canada (August 7-10, 1989) (“Davies”) (Ex. 1021);
`Zavoli, W., et al., “Map Matching Augmented Dead Reckoning,” IEEE
`Vehicular Technology Conference (May 1986) (“Zavoli”) (Ex. 1023);
`
`l.
`
`m.
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`r.
`
`s.
`
`-2-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`u.
`
`v.
`
`t.
`
`Umeda, Yukihiko, et al., “Development of the New Toyota Electro-
`Multivision,” SAE Technical Paper Series No. 920601, International
`Congress & Exposition, Detroit, Michigan (February 24-28, 1992)
`(“Umeda”) (Ex. 1024);
`Hirata, Toru, et al., “The Development of a New Multi-AV System
`Incorporating an On-Board Navigation Function,” SAE Technical
`Paper Series No. 930455, International Congress and Exposition,
`Detroit, Michigan (March 1-5, 1993) (“Hirata”) (Ex. 1025);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,470 to Rudrapatna, et al. (“Rudrapatna”) (Ex.
`1026);
`w. U.S. Patent No. 5,381,236 to Morgan (“Morgan”) (Ex. 1027);
`x.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,275,327 to Watkins, et al. (“Watkins”) (Ex. 1028);
`y.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,604,534 to Hedges, et al. (“Hedges”) (Ex. 1029);
`z.
`any other documents referenced in this Declaration.
`
`I.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`4.
`I am currently a Professor with tenure in the School of Electrical
`
`Engineering and Computer Science at Ohio University.
`
`5.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees in
`
`Electrical Engineering from the Ohio University in 1988 and 1989 respectively. In
`
`1992, I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering also from Ohio University.
`
`During that time, my post-baccalaureate and doctoral work focused on navigation
`
`systems.
`
`6.
`
`From 1989 to 1993, I was a research engineer in the Avionics
`
`Engineering Center at Ohio University. I became an adjunct assistant professor in
`
`-3-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Ohio University in 1993
`
`and have been on the faculty at Ohio University since that time. I have held the title
`
`of Professor in the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science since
`
`2003 and was appointed as the Thomas Professor of Electrical Engineering in 2004.
`
`As a professor of Electrical Engineering, I have taught courses in navigation.
`
`7.
`
`I am a Licensed Professional Engineer (P.E.) in the State of Ohio. In
`
`my professional career, I have specialized in the areas of electronic navigation
`
`receiver design, electronic navigation system engineering, satellite-based navigation
`
`systems, inertial navigation systems, and integrated navigation systems.
`
`8.
`
`Since the mid-1980s, I have been involved with research related to
`
`navigation and transportation systems including navigation system computer
`
`modeling and validation; characterization of GPS error sources and development of
`
`mitigation strategies; design, development and testing of software-defined GPS
`
`receiver architectures; design, development and flight testing of advanced cockpit
`
`displays; and analysis of safety-certification issues in unmanned aerial vehicle
`
`operations. I have been the recipient of over 65 research grants and contracts,
`
`including grants from companies such as Boeing, Honeywell, and Rockwell,
`
`government agencies such as NASA and the Department of Transportation, and
`
`branches of the U.S. military such as the Air Force, all to perform research and
`
`investigate improved navigation and GPS/D-GPS systems. In 1992, I received the
`
`-4-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`RTCA (formerly known as the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics)
`
`William E. Jackson Award in recognition of an outstanding aviation electronics
`
`publication.
`
`9.
`
`I have published over 80 journal articles, book chapters, conference
`
`papers, and workshop papers, most of which were related to navigation systems. I
`
`have authored journal articles directed to navigation and GPS and I have authored
`
`or co-authored various academic publications in the areas of graphical display
`
`systems, electronic navigation system engineering, satellite-based navigation
`
`systems with emphasis in GPS, and integrated navigation systems. These
`
`publications include book chapters that were included in Global Positioning System:
`
`Theory and Applications, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
`
`Washington, D.C. (1996). A complete list of my publications is included in my
`
`curriculum vitae (Exhibit 1013).
`
`10.
`
`I have given numerous presentations at various conferences and
`
`universities worldwide on these topics. In particular, I have been invited to speak
`
`and publish in connection with conference proceedings on the navigation systems at
`
`venues around the world, and have presented approximately 50 conference papers
`
`on the subjects of navigation and GPS systems. Additional contributions of mine to
`
`the field are set forth in my current curriculum vitae.
`
`-5-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`11. As part of my experience, I have designed electronic navigation
`
`receivers and electronic navigation systems. I have been the advisor to over 25
`
`graduate students whose thesis topics were directed at improvements in navigation
`
`systems. I have taught numerous undergraduate and graduate courses concerning
`
`navigation, including: Inertial Navigation Systems; Satellite-Based Navigation
`
`Systems; Integrated Navigation Systems; Navigation Receiver Design; GPS
`
`Multipath; GPS/INS Integration; GPS Receiver Design; GPS Receiver Signal
`
`Processing; and GPS Software Receivers. I have chaired symposiums on navigation
`
`systems, acted as a referee and/or judge for organizations and professional journals
`
`such as the Institute of Navigation, the IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and
`
`Electronic Systems, NAVIGATION: Journal of the Institute of Navigation, and GPS
`
`Solutions.
`
`12.
`
`In addition to gaining expertise via my academic training, professional
`
`experiences, and research accomplishments described above, I have kept abreast of
`
`various sub-disciplines within the field of navigation systems by reading technical
`
`literature, attending and presenting at conferences, and attending and presenting at
`
`symposia. I have been invited to participate in the peer review process for various
`
`technical journals, and conferences, and have reviewed manuscripts submitted by
`
`other engineers relating to navigation system technology. Furthermore, I have
`
`-6-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`collaborated with or have communicated with many of the engineers in the field of
`
`navigation systems.
`
`13.
`
`I have been accepted as an expert in the field of navigation systems in
`
`courts on several occasions. In 2008, I testified at an International Trade
`
`Commission hearing in relation to Investigation Number 337-TA-596, In the Matter
`
`of Certain GPS Chips, Associated Software and Systems, and Products Containing
`
`Same. In 2008, I also testified at an International Trade Commission hearing in
`
`relation to Investigation Number 337-TA-602, In the Matter of Certain GPS Devices
`
`and Products Containing Same. In 2009, I testified at an International Trade
`
`Commission hearing in relation to Investigation Number 337-TA-657, “In the
`
`Matter of Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems,
`
`Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same.” In 2018, I testified at trial in
`
`the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, in the
`
`matter of Maxell, LTD. vs. ZTE USA, Inc. (Docket No. 5:16-cv-179). For the 2018
`
`matter I was admitted by Judge Schroeder to give expert testimony regarding the
`
`validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317 to Maruyama, et al. “Portable Terminal with
`
`the Function of Walking Navigation.”
`
`14. A detailed description of my professional qualifications, including a
`
`listing of my specialties/expertise and professional activities, is contained in my
`
`curriculum vitae, a copy of which is included at Exhibit 1013.
`
`-7-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`15.
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether claims 1, 2, 5-
`
`12, 14-17, and 19 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’782 Patent are anticipated by
`
`the prior art or would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“PHOSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention, in view of the prior art.
`
`16.
`
`I am an engineer by education and profession. The opinions I am
`
`expressing in this Declaration involve the application of my engineering knowledge
`
`and experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the ’782 Patent.
`
`Aside from my experience in litigation support, my knowledge of patent law is no
`
`different than that of any lay person. Therefore, I have requested that the attorneys
`
`from Jones Day, who represent Google, provide me with guidance as to the
`
`applicable patent law in this matter. The paragraphs below express my
`
`understanding of how I must apply current principles related to patentability.
`
`17.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art in an inter partes review (IPR)
`
`proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) gives claims their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning, or the meaning that the term would have to a PHOSITA at
`
`the time of the invention in view of the intrinsic record. I understand that the claim
`
`language, specification, and prosecution history are relevant to determine the
`
`meaning of a claim term. I understand that the prosecution history of a patent
`
`-8-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`provides the record of the examination of a patent application before the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (PTO). The prosecution history provides evidence of how
`
`the patent examiner and the inventors understood the patent application and the
`
`claims, and can therefore be instructive on how to interpret the claims. My
`
`understanding is that extrinsic evidence may also be used in understanding the
`
`meaning of a claim term. Extrinsic evidence includes dictionaries, treatises, expert
`
`testimony, and prior art. But it is my understanding that one should first look to the
`
`intrinsic evidence in construing claims.
`
`18. My understanding is that there are at least two circumstances where the
`
`words in a patent claim may differ from and not be given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. One circumstance is when the applicants act as their own lexicographer
`
`by clearly setting forth a definition of a claim term that may differ from the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. Another circumstance is when the
`
`applicant includes or provides an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim
`
`scope. My understanding is that an applicant may act as their own lexicographer, or
`
`disclaim or disavow claim scope, in either the specification or the prosecution
`
`history of the patent. My understanding is also that the applicant may act as a
`
`lexicographer, or disclaim or disavow claim scope, by making amendments to the
`
`claims during prosecution, or by making assertions to the PTO about the differences
`
`between the claimed inventions and the prior art.
`
`-9-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`19.
`
`It
`
`is my understanding
`
`that a claim
`
`is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element and limitation of the claim is found either
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.
`
`20.
`
`It
`
`is my understanding
`
`that a claim
`
`is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I also
`
`understand that an obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art,
`
`and the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`21.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered appropriate prior art if it falls within the
`
`field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior art if it is reasonably
`
`pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. A
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have commended itself to an
`
`inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a reference relates to the same
`
`problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of the reference as prior art in
`
`an obviousness analysis.
`
`22. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires that the claimed
`
`invention be considered as a whole. I also understand that a finding of obviousness
`
`-10-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`requires more than merely demonstrating that each claim element was known in the
`
`prior art. Obviousness requires showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art to achieve the
`
`claimed invention and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing
`
`so.
`
`23.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show the
`
`obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include: combining
`
`prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; a
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions;
`
`applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and some
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`24. The history of route guidance systems goes back almost as far as the
`
`invention of the automobile itself (e.g., the 1909 Jones Live-Map and the 1910
`
`-11-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Chadwick Road Guide). See, e.g., French (Ex. 1014), at 281-82. However, these
`
`early systems relied solely on odometry (distance traveled) to update vehicle
`
`position and assumed the driver stayed on the pre-programmed route loaded into the
`
`guide. Id. More sophisticated positioning techniques did not become available until
`
`the 1970s (e.g., map-matching) and widespread implementation did not happen until
`
`the maturation of GPS occurred in the early 1990s. Id. at 276, 282-84.
`
`25. The desire to ease the growing problem of traffic congestion led to the
`
`Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS) program which was a portion of the
`
`Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Caskey (Ex. 1015), at 1.
`
`A wide variety of research and development in IVHS, later termed Intelligent
`
`Transportation Systems (ITS), was conducted in the early to mid 1990s. French (Ex.
`
`1014), at 279-81. One such effort was the TravTek program which implemented a
`
`prototype IVHS in the Orlando metro area over the period of March 1992 to March
`
`1993. Id. at 297-98. TravTek demonstrated numerous functions of so-called
`
`‘advanced traveler information systems (ATIS)’ such as navigation, route selection
`
`and guidance and traffic information along with ‘yellow pages’ and tourist
`
`information. Id. With its accurate real-time positioning capability, the TravTek
`
`system automatically detected if a vehicle departed from the planned route and
`
`would then suggest an alternate route to the destination. Inman (Ex. 1016), at 13,
`
`Figure 4.
`
`-12-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`26. Another major feature of the TravTek system was its ability to adapt to
`
`real-time traffic conditions. If congestion or a traffic incident affected a selected
`
`route, the system would inform the driver and suggest an alternate route. Blumentritt
`
`(Ex. 1017), at 60-62. In addition to text and graphical displays, TravTek also
`
`provided optional audible guidance cues and audible traffic reports relevant to the
`
`selected route. Id. at 62-65, 68.
`
`27. Besides TravTek, numerous other research and development projects
`
`were performed in the early to mid 1990s in support of IVHS and ITS. Among these
`
`were efforts to forecast traffic conditions (e.g., congestion). See, e.g., Kaysi (Ex.
`
`1018) and Roozemond (Ex. 1019). It was also recognized that the infrastructure that
`
`enabled the provision of traffic information could also be used to provide other types
`
`of information. The Atlanta Driver Advisory System (ADAS), another ITS project
`
`conducted in the mid 1990s, not only provided information related to traffic
`
`incidents and congestion, it also provided travelers with weather information and
`
`news in the form of recent sports scores. Garnto (Ex. 1020), at 1-5.
`
`28. As the aforementioned work on IVHS and ITS progressed, patent
`
`applications were filed, and patents were granted, in a variety of supporting
`
`technologies. As will be described further below, U.S. Patent No. 5,808,566 to Behr,
`
`et al, describes a particular route guidance information system and method. It is
`
`worth noting that the assignee of that patent, Navigation Technologies Corporation
`
`-13-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`(also known as NavTech), supported the TravTek program by providing a navigable
`
`map data base Blumentritt (Ex. 1017), at 12, 61, 102. Also described further below,
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,504,482 to Schreder describes a system that provides alternate routes
`
`(rerouting guidance), if needed, based on the current traffic situation and/or route
`
`departures. Also described further below is U.S. Pat. No. 6,028,537 to Suman, et al.
`
`Suman describes a variety of vehicle communications functions including provision
`
`of navigational information, hands-free operation via voice recognition and a variety
`
`of mounting options for the in-vehicle system.
`
`IV. THE ’782 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’782 Patent
`29. The ‘Field of the Invention’ section of the specification notes the ‘782
`
`Patent is directed to the provision of information to a vehicle operator or occupant and
`
`specifically recites traffic conditions, road conditions and traffic flow as examples.
`
`’782 Patent (Ex. 1001), 1:22-28. Additional examples of information recited in the
`
`specification include weather conditions (Id. at 5:40), forecasted traffic conditions and
`
`forecasted weather conditions (Id. at 16:48-49), and news and/or maintenance
`
`information pertinent to a given location (Id. at 16:56-59). As illustrated below in Fig.
`
`2, the ’782 Patent describes an apparatus 10 that includes standard computing
`
`components (e.g., CPU 11, ROM 12, RAM 13, input device 16, display device 17,
`
`heads-up display device 18, output device 19, and database 60), means by which
`
`-14-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`information can be communicated to and from the apparatus (e.g., receiver 15 and
`
`transmitter 14), and a global positioning device 50:
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 2, 9:13-28; 11:22-23 (describing apparatus 10). Users input data to
`
`apparatus 10 through user input device 16, which can include a keypad and a pointing
`
`device, such as a mouse, a roll ball, or a touch pad. Id. at 9:39-46. In an alternative
`
`embodiment, a microphone coupled with voice recognition software allows users to
`
`interact with apparatus 10 in a hands-free mode. Id. at 18:62-19:9. Information is
`
`output via a display device 17, a head up display device 18, or a speaker. Id. at 9:47-
`
`61, 18:66-19:9.
`
`30. Database 60 stores information about roadways, points of interest near
`
`roadways, and other location-based information. Id. at 10:30-38. When the operator
`
`selects a destination, the system can assist in selecting the “most optimal or the least
`
`congested route to [the] destination.” Id. at 17:9-12. The vehicle computer 10 can
`
`also detect when the operator deviates from the planned route and will re-compute a
`
`-15-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`new route to the destination. Id. at 19:46-53. Another embodiment relies on a central
`
`processing computer 20 to compute travel routes. Id. at 19:62-20:2.
`
`31. The ’782 Patent generally relates to providing users with information
`
`pertinent to travel. For example, apparatus 10 communicates wirelessly with external
`
`“central processing computer(s) 20” using available wireless data communications
`
`infrastructure such as telephone communication systems, personal communication
`
`services (PCS) systems, and satellite communication systems. ’782 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001), 7:57-8:11. With this wireless connectivity, apparatus 10 can obtain
`
`“information regarding traffic conditions, weather conditions…, and any other useful
`
`information or news regarding the selected location which may be of interest to the
`
`vehicle operator or occupant.” Id. at 16:46-51.
`
`B.
`32.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’782 Patent
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the ’782 Patent. Following
`
`is a brief summary.
`
`33. The Application that resulted in the ’782 Patent was filed on January 23,
`
`2012 as U.S. App. No. 13/374,915, as a continuation of application No. 09/259,957,
`
`which was filed on March 1, 1999. The application claims priority to a provisional
`
`application filed on March 4, 1998. ’782 Patent (Ex. 1001). For purposes of this
`
`proceeding, Petitioner applies March 4, 1998 as the priority date for the Challenged
`
`Claims, but reserves its right to challenge priority in this or other proceedings.
`
`-16-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`34. No office actions issued during prosecution that resulted in the ’782
`
`Patent. Instead, the Examiner issued five separate notices of allowances during
`
`prosecution prior to a sixth and final notice of allowance that preceded the ’782 Patent
`
`issuing. ’782 Patent File History (Ex. 1002), 147-156, 193-203, 235-244, 277-286,
`
`319-327, 365-380. In each case, the Examiner provided a “statement of reasons for
`
`allowance” that recited the full text of the independent claims and contended no prior
`
`art of record taught or suggested the claimed matter. Id. After each of the first four
`
`notices of allowance, the Applicant filed Requests for Continued Examination and
`
`submitted claim amendments and/or new claims for consideration.1 Id. at 166-184,
`
`211-228, 252-270, 294-312. Pertinent to the Challenged Claims, Claims 1 and 15
`
`(then, proposed Claims 41 and 61, respectively) was amended to remove a limitation
`
`that required traffic information be received from a “computer, a transmitter, or a
`
`device, located at a location remote from the apparatus or remote from the vehicle.”
`
`Id. at 216-225. Additionally, Claims 6-9 and 11 (then, proposed Claims 46-49, 51)
`
`were amended to require specific information be provided to the user “via the display
`
`device or the speaker.” Id. at 259-261.
`
`
`1 The application went abandoned after the fifth Notice of Allowance, but
`was ultimately revived, leading to the sixth Notice of Allowance. Id. at 335-380.
`
`-17-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`V. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`35.
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ’782
`
`Patent, I must do so based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`relevant priority date. I understand that the earliest priority date for the ’782 Patent
`
`is March 4, 1998. For the purpose of this proceeding, I will consider March 4, 1998
`
`to be the relevant date to ascertain the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, a PHOSITA as of March 4, 1998 would have been a
`
`person having at least a Bachelor’s Degree in an Engineering discipline such as
`
`Electrical or Computer Engineering, or a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science or
`
`equivalent degree, and at least two years of relevant experience in the research,
`
`design, development and/or testing of navigation systems, embedded systems or the
`
`equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`37.
`It is my understanding that the claims of the ’782 Patent should be given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning, and that claim terms should be given the
`
`meaning that the terms would have to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention. This
`
`is the meaning that I have applied to the claims in my analysis.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that in related district court litigation, Patent Owner and
`
`certain Defendants (not party to this IPR petition) disagreed on the constructions of
`
`certain terms that are relevant to this Petition. In particular, it is my understanding
`
`-18-
`
`Google Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`that the parties disclosed the following constructions (among others that are not
`
`pertinent to my analysis here):
`
`Term
`
`“information
`regarding the
`travel route”
`
`“maintenance
`information
`associated with
`[the travel route /
`a second travel
`route]”
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`“Data associated with or
`representing a determined or
`identified path to a
`destination.”
`“Data associated with or
`representative of a work
`condition, a repair condition,
`or a maintenance condition
`on, of, associated with, or
`involving a travel route
`(defined herein) or a second
`travel route (defined herein).”
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`“information received from
`cameras or devices stationed
`at locations on the travel
`route”
`“information about
`maintenance services received
`from cameras or devices
`stationed at locations on the
`travel route / a second travel
`route”
`
`39. This claim construction dispute, however, does not alter my opinion
`
`because the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under each of Patent Owner’s and
`
`Defendants’ proffered constructions. Each of these constructions is addressed herein
`
`under Grounds for Unpatentability 1-6 (Patent Owner’s constructions) and 7-11
`
`(Defendants’ constructions), respectively. As discussed