`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`NavBlazer, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00503
`U.S. Patent No. 9,075,136
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U. S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`C. 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 
`SUMMARY OF THE ’136 PATENT ............................................................... 1 
`A.  Description of the ’136 Patent’s Alleged Invention ................................ 1 
`B. 
`The ’136 Patent’s Prosecution ................................................................. 3 
`C.  A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................. 4 
`III.  REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104 ............................................................................................................. 4 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42,104(a) ............................... 4 
`B.  Discretionary Considerations – 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................ 4 
`Parallel Petition ............................................................................. 4 
`i. 
`Identification of challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42,104(b) and relief
`requested .................................................................................................. 5 
`D. 
`Claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................... 7 
`IV.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .............................. 9 
`A. 
`Brief Overview of the Prior Art .............................................................. 9 
`Behr ............................................................................................... 9 
`i. 
`Schreder ...................................................................................... 11 
`ii. 
`Suman .......................................................................................... 13 
`iii. 
`iv.  Hanchett ...................................................................................... 14 
`B.  Grounds 2-4 ........................................................................................... 16 
`Ground 2: Schreder in view of the knowledge of a
`i. 
`PHOSITA renders obvious claims 55, 56, 60-62, 69-71,
`75-77, 82, 86, 89, 91, 93-95, and 98 ........................................... 17 
`Ground 3: Schreder in view of Behr renders obvious
`claims 63, 66, 78, 79, 85, 96, and 97 .......................................... 30 
`iii.  Ground 4: Schreder in view of Suman renders obvious
`claims 64, 67, 80, 87, and 88. ..................................................... 39 
`C.  Grounds 6-8 ........................................................................................... 45 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 48 
`-i-
`
`
`ii. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`VI.  MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ......... 48 
`A. 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest .................................... 48 
`B. 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................... 48 
`C. 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), (4): Lead And Back-Up Counsel And
`Service Information ............................................................................... 49 
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Google LLC (“Petitioner”) requests Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 55, 56, 60-64, 66, 67, 69-71, 75-80, 82, 85-89, 91, and 93-98 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,075,136 (“the ’136 Patent”).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’136 PATENT
`
`A. Description of the ’136 Patent’s Alleged Invention
`The ’136 Patent generally relates to providing information to a user in a vehicle,
`
`including route guidance and pertinent travel information such as current weather,
`
`maintenance services, and traffic. ’136 Patent (Ex. 1001), 1:14-20, 5:20-22, 16:15-18.
`
`As illustrated below in Fig. 2, the ’136 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 18, output device 19, and database 60), means by
`
`which information can be communicated to and from the apparatus (e.g., receiver 15
`
`and transmitter 14), and a global positioning device 50:
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 2, 8:60-67 (describing apparatus 10). Users interact with apparatus 10 via
`
`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 9:18-20. Alternatively, a microphone coupled
`
`with voice recognition software allows users to interact with apparatus 10 in a hands-
`
`free mode. Id. at 18:14-18. Information is output via a display device 17, a head up
`
`display device 18, or a speaker. Id. at 9:26-34, 18:14-28.
`
`Database 60 stores information about roadways, points of interest near roadways,
`
`and other location-based information. Id. at 9:66-10:11. 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 16:36-37. The vehicle computer 10 can also detect
`
`when the operator deviates from the planned route and will recompute a new route to
`
`the destination. Id. at 18:64-19:4. A second embodiment relies on a central processing
`
`computer 20 to compute travel routes. Id. at 19:13-18.
`
`The ’136 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 communications systems, personal communication
`
`services (PCS) systems, and satellite communication systems. Id. at 7:36-58. With this
`
`wireless connectivity, apparatus 10 can obtain “information regarding traffic
`
`conditions, weather conditions…, and any other useful information or news regarding
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`the selected location which may be of interest to the vehicle operator or occupant.” Id.
`
`at 16:5-10. See also, Braasch Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶¶ 24-31.
`
`B.
`The ’136 Patent’s Prosecution
`The Application that resulted in the ’136 Patent was filed on March 1, 1999 as
`
`U.S. App. No. 09/259,957, claiming priority to a provisional application No.
`
`60/076,800 filed on March 4, 1998. ’136 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.
`
`The ’136 Patent did not issue until July 7, 2015—sixteen years after the
`
`application was filed. Id. From 1999 through 2011, the Examiner issued eight prior
`
`art-based office actions, including one that was affirmed on appeal, and a first Notice
`
`of Allowance issued on February 10, 2011. Excerpts of the ’136 Patent File History
`
`(Ex. 1002), at 172-75, 256-61, 307-11, 344-49, 418-22, 490-93, 978-90, 1053-65, 1074-
`
`81. Following this first Notice of Allowance, a total of nine additional Notices of
`
`Allowance issued before the ’136 Patent ultimately issued on July 7, 2015. Id. at 1153-
`
`76, 1182-94, 1364-78, 1387-1403, 1413-29, 1562-78, 1638-54, 1754-70, 1821-35. The
`
`claims were never again subject to a prior art-based office action. Instead, the Examiner
`
`repeatedly accepted claim amendments and new claims, each time issuing a “statement
`
`of reasons for allowance” that simply recited the full text of the independent claims. Id.
`
`at 1153-76, 1182-94, 1364-78, 1387-1403, 1413-29, 1562-78, 1638-54, 1754-70, 1821-
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`35. Nearly all the Challenged Claims resulted from this time period during which the
`
`claims were no longer being subject to the level of scrutiny applied in the early years of
`
`review.
`
`C. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the ’136
`
`Patent 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. Braasch Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶¶ 35-36.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42,104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’136 Patent is available for IPR and that the Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of the ’136 Patent
`
`on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B. Discretionary Considerations – 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`i.
`Parallel Petition
`Concurrently with this petition, Petitioner is filing a second IPR petition
`
`challenging claims 23, 24, 35-44, 48, and 51-54 of the ’136 Patent. See IPR2021-
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`00502. The second IPR petition is being filed because the total number of challenged
`
`claims cannot reasonably be addressed within the required 14000 word limit. The ’136
`
`Patent includes 98 claims, 48 of which are being challenged by the combination of this
`
`petition and the second IPR petition. The claims addressed in the second IPR petition
`
`are directed to a different embodiment and are therefore challenged based on a different
`
`combination of prior art. Consequently, there is no overlap between either the
`
`challenged claims or the grounds for unpatentability addressed in this petition and in
`
`the second IPR petition. Petitioner therefore submits that institution of two parallel IPR
`
`petitions is reasonable under these circumstances. Further, Petitioner is unable to rank
`
`the two petitions in order of priority for consideration, as requested by the Trial Practice
`
`Guide, because the claims in each petition are of different scope, there is no overlap
`
`between the asserted grounds, and Petitioner has already reduced the number of
`
`challenged claims as much as possible by only challenging 48 of the 98 claims in the
`
`’136 Patent.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42,104(b) and relief
`requested
`In view of the prior art and evidence presented, IPR of the Challenged Claims
`
`should be instituted and they should be found unpatentable and cancelled. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(1-2).
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`
`
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 21: U.S. Patent No. 5,504,482 to Schreder (“Schreder”)
`
`Exhibits
`
`in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA renders obvious claims
`
`55, 56, 60-62, 69-71, 75-77, 82, 86, 89, 91, 93-95, and 98 under
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Ground 3: Schreder in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,808,566 to
`
`Behr, et al. (“Behr”) renders obvious claims 63, 66, 78, 79, 85,
`
`96, and 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Ground 4 Schreder in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,028,537 to
`
`Suman, et al. (“Suman”) renders obvious claims 64, 67, 80, 87,
`
`and 88 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Ground 6: Schreder in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA
`
`and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,396,429 to Hanchett
`
`(“Hanchett”) renders obvious claims 55, 56, 60-62, 69-71, 75-
`
`77, 82, 86, 89, 91, 93-95, and 98 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Ex. 1005,
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005,
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1005,
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ground 7: Schreder in view of Behr and further in view of Ex. 1005,
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
` Grounds 1 and 5 are included in the second IPR petition challenging the ’136 Patent.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`
`Hanchett renders obvious claims 63, 66, 78, 79, 85, 96, and 97
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Ground 8: Schreder in view of Suman and further in view of
`
`Hanchett renders obvious claims 64, 67, 80, 87, and 88 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004,
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1005,
`Ex. 1007,
`Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`Section IV identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is found in
`
`the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence
`
`relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Section IV. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).
`
`Ex. 1001–Ex. 1026 are also attached.
`
`D. Claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`In this proceeding, claims are interpreted under the same standard applied by
`
`Article III courts (i.e., the Phillips standard). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also 83
`
`Fed. Reg. 197 (Oct. 11, 2018); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc). Under this standard, words in a claim are given their plain meaning,
`
`which is the meaning understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
`
`patent and file history. Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13.
`
`Petitioner understands that in related district court litigation, Patent Owner and
`
`certain Defendants (not party to this IPR petition) disagreed on the constructions of
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`certain terms that are relevant to this Petition.2 In particular, the parties disclosed the
`
`following constructions:
`
`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”
`
`Defendants’ constructions are derived from and supported by the intrinsic record.
`
`See, e.g., ’136 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 2:47-54 (“The apparatus further comprises a
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (No.
`6:20-cv-00089), LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (No. 6:20-cv-
`00095), and Motorola Mobility LLC
`(No. 6:20-cv-00100)
`(collectively,
`“Defendants”) collectively proposed the constructions identified as “Defendants’
`Constructions” in their respective district court cases. The competing constructions
`for Defendants and Patent Owner are attached to this Petition at Exhibits 1011 and
`1012, respectively. The parties proposed additional constructions in the district court
`cases that are not discussed in this Petition, but Petitioner submits that these
`constructions do not affect the invalidity analysis.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`plurality of video cameras and location computers which are associated with each of
`
`the video cameras…. Video information, which is recorded by the respective video
`
`camera, is provided to the location computer which services the respective video
`
`camera.) (emphasis added); 3:44-53 (each device “is stationed” at appropriate locations
`
`“on, near, or at a location for viewing roadways, at entrances and exits to roadways, on
`
`highways….”) (emphasis added); see also id. 3:60-4:5, 14:41-54.
`
`This claim construction dispute, however, does not alter resolution of this
`
`Petition because the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under each of Patent Owner’s
`
`and Defendants’ proffered constructions. Indeed, Petitioner addresses each of these
`
`constructions herein under Grounds for Unpatentability 2-4 (Patent Owner’s
`
`constructions) and 6-8 (Defendants’ constructions), respectively. As discussed below,
`
`each of the Challenged Claims are invalid if the PTAB adopts either of Patent Owner’s
`
`or Defendants’ proffered constructions.
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Brief Overview of the Prior Art
`
`i.
`Behr
`Behr was filed on June 23, 1995, issued on September 15, 1998, and is prior art
`
`to the ’136 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA). Behr was not cited or
`
`considered during the prosecution of the ’136 Patent.
`
`Behr describes an “electronic navigation system and method” for “providing
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`route guidance and other information from a base unit to a remote unit in response to a
`
`request from the remote unit.” Behr (Ex. 1004) at Abstract. “Requested route guidance
`
`information is calculated at the base unit in response to the query, using a large up-to-
`
`date database located at the base unit… The response is then transmitted from the base
`
`unit to the remote unit for display.” Id. An example of the Behr navigation system is
`
`shown in Fig. 1, set forth below:
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`The Behr navigation system provides centralized route calculation using a
`
`powerful computer, such as “IBM RS/6000 series”, as the base unit. Id. at 7:23-28.
`
`Mobile units are equipped with microprocessors, location indicators, and modems and
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`antennas for communicating with the base unit. Id. at 8:27-55. A request for route
`
`guidance information is initiated at one of the mobile units, and transmitted to the
`
`centralized base unit over a communication network. Id. at 7:34-10:51 (describing a
`
`plurality of modes of operation of Behr system). Route calculation is then performed
`
`by a route calculator at the base unit, and route guidance information is transmitted back
`
`to the mobile unit where the information is displayed to the user. Id. In addition, the
`
`Behr navigation system allows mobile units to access third-party “on-line yellow page
`
`information or news, weather and/or traffic advisory information.” Id. at 6:57-60,
`
`11:18-21. See also, Braasch Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶¶ 40-41.
`
`ii.
`Schreder
`Schreder issued on April 2, 1996 and is prior art to the ’136 Patent under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA). Schreder was not cited or considered during the
`
`prosecution of the ’136 Patent.
`
`Schreder describes an automobile navigation system that includes GPS and a
`
`digitized street map system “for precise electronic positioning and route guidance,” and
`
`which includes RF receivers for receiving “updated traffic condition information” used
`
`to provide “dynamic rerouting.” Schreder (Ex. 1005), Abstract. The system
`
`components are illustrated below:
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`Schreder’s system calculates routes and provides turn-by-turn navigation
`
`instructions. Id. at 7:33-36, 8:37-39 (providing an example of turn-by-turn navigation
`
`prompts such as “turn left in 300 feet”), 8:66-9:2 (describing various route calculation
`
`algorithms). Schreder also receives traffic flow information via digitally encoded
`
`messages that are received by radio data system 28. Id. at 10:35-39. The encoded
`
`messages are decoded by the “radio data system message decoder processor 76,” which
`
`processes the messages and sends the decoded information to the route planning
`
`processor 70, which incorporates the traffic flow data into its route calculation and
`
`provides display or audible alerts to the driver. Id. at 13:14-36. Traffic flow data that
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`may be processed and provided to the user as described, includes “road construction,
`
`detours, congestion levels, traffic flow rates, hazardous material spills, parking
`
`capabilities, [and] weather conditions.” Id. at 6:48-53. See also, Braasch Decl. (Ex.
`
`1003), ¶¶ 42-43.
`
`iii.
`Suman
`Suman was filed on June 13, 1997, issued on February 22, 2000, and is prior art
`
`to the ’136 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA). Suman was not
`
`addressed during the prosecution of the ’136 Patent.
`
`Suman describes a “vehicle communication and control system” for “requesting
`
`and providing location-specific information…, [and] requesting and receiving
`
`navigational information” over a two-way communication link. Suman (Ex. 1007),
`
`Abstract. An example of the Suman vehicle communication and control system is
`
`shown in Fig. 1a, set forth below:
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1a.
`
`Route calculation is the Suman system can be performed at a “central service
`
`center”. Id. at 15:7-16. The driver sends a request message to the central service center
`
`with the vehicle’s current location and a desired destination, the “central service center
`
`receiving this message may then generate a step-by-step set of directions for reaching
`
`the desired destination and transmit this information to the vehicle in a return RF
`
`signal.” Id. Suman system’s route calculation can also be performed by navigation
`
`circuitry onboard the vehicle. Id. at 25:20-25 (describing a navigation system with a
`
`GPS receiver on the vehicle).
`
`Display devices in Suman system can be mounted in a plurality of locations in
`
`the vehicle, including on or adjacent to the dashboard and/or the console. Id. at Fig. 4
`
`(illustrating display 62), Fig. 9 (illustrating display 170), Fig. 22 (illustrating an LCD
`
`display), Figs. 27 and 28 (both illustrating display 424) and Fig. 42 (illustrating display
`
`619). In addition, the Suman system includes a microphone and voice recognition units
`
`for hands-free operation. Id. at 11:14-20 (describing hands-free voice commands with
`
`voice recognition unit 79 and microphone 82), 12:31-35 (describing hands-free
`
`interface with voice recognition unit 88 and microphone 82). See also, Braasch Decl.
`
`(Ex. 1003), ¶¶ 44-46.
`
`iv.
`Hanchett
`Hanchett filed on June 30, 1992 and issued on March 7, 1995, is prior art to the
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`’136 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a), (b) and (e) (pre-AIA). Hanchett was
`
`not cited or considered during the prosecution of the ’136 Patent.
`
`Hanchett describes a “traffic condition information system” that includes “[a]
`
`series of image sensors” … “spaced along a roadway at particular intervals to provide
`
`images of the traffic” to mobile user units in vehicles travelling the roadway. Hanchett
`
`(Ex. 1008), Abstract. The mobile user units “include a receiver which displays the
`
`images so that the user may preview the roadway ahead to make route choices.” Id.
`
`The traffic condition information system is illustrated below:
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`The mobile user unit of Hanchett’s system receives video/image traffic
`
`information about a route using a TV receiver. Id. at 8:54-9:4, Fig. 4 (schematically
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`illustrating a user unit of Fig. 1 with a television receiver). Each Hanchett monitor
`
`station has a camera to obtain video images of traffic along the roadway. Id. at 4:54-
`
`56, 5:37-68, Fig. 2. The video is transmitted to Hanchett mobile user units via a main
`
`station. Id. at 6:67-7:17, 7:18-8:53. Hanchett mobile units provide the user an
`
`“opportunity … to look ahead at the roadway to be traveled” and “view the display to
`
`see the images from the monitor station closest to the user and continue viewing to see
`
`traffic conditions at monitor stations ahead on the roadway.” Id. at 10:64-11:5, Fig. 5
`
`(reproduced below) (illustrating a video display format of Hanchett traffic information
`
`signal).
`
`Id. at Fig. 5. See also, Braasch Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶¶ 47-48.
`
`
`
`B. Grounds 2-4
`Grounds 2-4 address unpatentability of the Challenged Claims under the claim
`
`constructions proposed by Patent Owner in district court litigation, as detailed above in
`
`Section III.D. Unpatentability under the claim constructions proposed by Defendants
`
`in district court litigation is shown in Grounds 6-8, set forth below in Section IV.C. As
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`demonstrated,
`
`interpretation.
`
`the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under either claim
`
`i.
`
`Ground 2: Schreder in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA
`renders obvious claims 55, 56, 60-62, 69-71, 75-77, 82, 86, 89,
`91, 93-95, and 98
`(a) Claim 55
`55[P] An apparatus, comprising:
`
`To the extent that the preamble is limiting, Schreder discloses an apparatus. For
`
`example, Schreder describes an “automobile navigation guidance, control and safety
`
`system” that includes display device 48, map storage system 46, as well as “processors
`
`and programmed memories” to implement the various functionalities described.
`
`Schreder (Ex. 1005), 7:3-8:59, Fig. 1.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner argues Schreder’s system is not an “apparatus”
`
`because it comprises multiple components, such a narrow interpretation of “apparatus”
`
`is inconsistent with the ’136 intrinsic record. Indeed, the ’136 Patent notes that
`
`“apparatus 100 includes a vehicle computer 10” and explains that vehicle computer 10
`
`“should… have its display and user input device located on, in, or adjacent to, the
`
`vehicle dashboard or console.” ’136 Patent (Ex. 1001), 7:13-26. The ’136 Patent
`
`further notes that its disclosed “apparatus 100” not only includes the various computing
`
`components located within the vehicle, but also “may contain any number of central
`
`processing computer 20,” noting the “central processing computer(s) 20 and the vehicle
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`computer 10 can communicate with one another over a wireless communication
`
`network.” Id. at 7:27-47. Based at least on these teachings, a PHOSITA would have
`
`understood that the claimed “apparatus” is not limited to a single, self-contained device,
`
`but must instead be interpreted broadly enough to capture systems comprising multiple
`
`different components. See Braasch Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶¶ 137-138.
`
`[55(a)] a global positioning device, wherein the global positioning device determines
`a location of the apparatus or a location of a vehicle;
`Schreder discloses a global positioning device in the form of a GPS receiver that
`
`can receive signals from GPS satellites, obtaining accurate position information of the
`
`vehicle. Schreder (Ex. 1005), 12:21-32. This GPS receiver is part of the RF navigation
`
`system 18. Id. at 7:15-17. This RF navigation system is shown in Fig. 1 of Schreder:
`
`Id. at Fig. 1 (annotated to highlight the RF navigation system 18). See also, Braasch
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶ 139.
`
`[55(b)] a processing device, wherein the processing device processes information
`regarding the position or the location of the vehicle and information regarding a
`destination to which the vehicle can travel on at least one of a road, a roadway, a
`highway, a parkway, and an expressway, and further wherein the processing device
`determines or identifies a travel route to the destination;
`Schreder teaches a “route planning processor 70” that uses the location of the
`
`vehicle, a user-entered destination, digitized road map information, and dynamic traffic
`
`flow information to calculate a travel route to the destination on or along roads. Id. at
`
`10:4-34 (noting “[t]he route planning processor 70 receives three types of information
`
`including current position…, current dynamic traffic flow information…, and digitized
`
`map and destination information from the entry controller 68, to plan vehicular routes”);
`
`see also id. at 12:39-60. At least because Schreder discloses that digitized road maps
`
`are used to calculate routes to a destination and because traffic flow and road incident
`
`information is used to route and reroute the vehicle, a PHOSITA would have understood
`
`that Schreder’s route to the destination is along various types of roads. See Braasch
`
`Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶ 140.
`
`[55(c)] a display device or a speaker, wherein the display device displays information
`regarding the travel route or the speaker provides audio information regarding the
`travel route; and
`Schreder teaches a display device and a speaker, both of which provide
`
`information regarding the travel route:
`
`The display device 48 displays the planned route and current position
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`
`cursor within the displayed vicinity map portion. . . .
`Additionally or alternatively, the display device 48 could have a speaker
`audibly informing the driver of pending turns in advance to audibly
`direct the driver along a planned route. . . . For example, a message may
`be “turn left in 300 feet”, then later, “turn left in 100 feet”, as the vehicle
`approaches a planned left turn.
`
`Schreder (Ex. 1005), 8:18-39 (emphasis added). See also, Braasch Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶
`
`141.
`
`[55(d)(i)] a receiver, wherein the receiver receives traffic information or information
`regarding a traffic condition,
`Using a radio data system 28, Schreder receives “up-to-date traffic flow
`
`information” that is factored into the route guidance determination calculations. Id. at
`
`6:47-48, 7:33-36, 8:60-9:2. The radio data system 28 includes an “RF processor 78 for
`
`receiving incoming RF transmissions digitally encoded with traffic flow information”
`
`and utilizes “pre-set synthesizer 80” to isolate signals on a specific AM or FM channel
`
`containing the desired traffic flow information. Id. at 10:35-53 (also describing
`
`demodulator 82 and a radio data system message decoder processor 76). A PHOSITA
`
`would have understood that radio data system 28 includes a receiver that receives traffic
`
`information over AM or FM broadcasts. Braasch Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶ 142.
`
`[55(d)(ii)] wherein the traffic information or the information regarding a traffic
`condition is transmitted from a computer, a transmitter, or a device, located at a
`location remote from the vehicle,
`Schreder’s traffic flow information is received via radio data system 28 that
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,136
`
`
`transmits traffic flow messages “over an AM radio channel or an FM radio channel”
`
`and those messages are received and processed with RF processor 78 and associated
`
`RF hardware. Schreder (Ex. 1005), 10:35-53. Schreder contemplates geographically-
`
`specific broadcasts such that each “broadcasting transmitter” distributes traffic flow
`
`messages that describe nearby/local conditions. Id. at 10:54-67. A PHOSITA would
`
`have understood that the described “broadcasting transmitter(s)” are located remotely
`
`from the vehicle. Braasch Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶ 143.
`
`[55(e)] wherein the apparatus provides the traffic information or the information
`regarding a traffic condition at the vehicle via the display device or via the speaker.
`Schreder discloses that traffic flow information received via the radio data
`
`system can be displayed on the screen and provided via synthesized voice messages.
`
`Schreder (Ex. 1005), 13:14-36 (noting the radio data system processes received traffic
`
`flow messages and sends pertinent traffic flow information to the “route planning
`
`processor 70”, which “may display additional information to the driver” such as
`
`“flash[ing] warning road blockages” and may “alternatively provide synthesized voice
`
`messages of blockages”); see also id. at 4:55-57 (describing “congested traffic points
`
`on a digitized map having a large number of road coordinate points”). See also,
`
`Braasch Decl. (Ex. 1003