Paper 6
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Date: August 12, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NAVBLAZER, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, GARTH D. BAER,
`and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Date: August 12, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NAVBLAZER, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, GARTH D. BAER,
`and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`review of claims 1, 2, 5–12, 14–17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,885,782 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’782 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). NavBlazer, LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response.
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Having considered the Petition and the evidence of record, we
`conclude there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in
`establishing the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’782 patent and,
`therefore, institute inter partes review.
`
`A.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The parties identify the following related matters: NavBlazer, LLC v.
`Hyundai Motor America, 2:20-cv-00072 (E.D. Tx.); NavBlazer, LLC v.
`TomTom North America, Inc. et al., 6:20-cv-00112 (W.D. Tx.); NavBlazer,
`LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 6:20-cv-00100 (W.D. Tx.); NavBlazer, LLC
`v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., 6:20-cv-00095 (W.D. Tx.); NavBlazer, LLC v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 6:20-cv-00089 (W.D. Tx.); and
`NavBlazer, LLC v. Apple Inc., 6:20-cv-00085 (W.D. Tx.). See Pet. 49–50;
`Paper 5, 2.
`Unified Patents filed a petition seeking inter partes review of claims
`1–5, 7–8, 10–19, 21–23, and 25 of the ’782 patent. See IPR2020-00983,
`Paper 1. That petition was granted and the review is pending.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`B.
`
`The ’782 Patent
`
`The ’782 patent is directed to “an apparatus and a method for
`providing a vehicle operator and/or occupant with information regarding
`traffic conditions as well as conditions of roadways, highways, bridges, toll
`booths and tunnels, as well as other roads and/or thoroughfares upon which a
`vehicle may travel, along with other destinations and/or entities of interest, to
`a vehicle operator or occupant.” Ex. 1001, 1:54–60.
`One embodiment, illustrated in Figure 1, includes apparatus 100 with
`remote video cameras 30, each connected to a location computer 40
`maintaining a web site for the camera’s video information. See Ex. 1001,
`8:12–61. The location computers communicate with central processing
`computer 20, through which vehicle computer 10 accesses the web sites for
`the video information. Id. at 7:48–9:6.
`Independent claim 1, which is representative of the subject matter at
`issue, is reproduced below:
`1. An apparatus, comprising:
`a global positioning device, wherein the global positioning
`device determines a location of the apparatus or a location of
`a vehicle;
`a processing device, wherein the processing device processes
`information regarding the location of the apparatus or the
`location of the vehicle and information regarding a
`destination, wherein the processing device determines or
`identifies a travel route to the destination on or along a road,
`a roadway, a highway, a parkway, or an expressway;
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`a receiver, wherein the receiver receives traffic information or
`information regarding a traffic condition,
`wherein the apparatus provides the traffic information or the
`information regarding a traffic condition via the display
`device or via the speaker.
`Ex. 1001, 21:45–65.
`Independent claim 15 is similar to claim 1, but further includes “a
`camera for obtaining a photograph, a picture, or an image, of a road, a
`roadway, a highway, a parkway, or an expressway, or for obtaining a
`photograph, a picture, or an image, of traffic on a road, a roadway, a
`highway, a parkway, or an expressway.”
`
`C.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2, 5–12, 14–17, and 19 are
`unpatentable on the following grounds (Pet. 1–2):
`
`35 U.S.C. § References
`Claims
`103(a)
`Schreder1
`1, 2, 6–8, 14
`103(a)
`Schreder, Hanchett2
`5
`103(a)
`Schreder, Behr3
`9, 11
`103(a)
`Schreder, Suman4
`10, 12
`103(a)
`Schreder, Van Ryzin5
`15, 19
`103(a)
`Schreder, Van Ryzin, Suman
`16, 17
`103(a)
`Schreder, Hanchett
`1, 2, 5–8, 14
`
`1 U.S. Patent 5,504,482 (Ex. 1005).
`2 U.S. Patent 5,396,429 (Ex. 1008).
`3 U.S. Patent 5,808,566 (Ex. 1004).
`4 U.S. Patent 6,028,537 (Ex. 1007).
`5 U.S. Patent 5,844,505 (Ex. 1009).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`Claims
`9, 11
`10, 12
`15, 19
`16, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § References
`103(a)
`Schreder, Hanchett, Behr
`103(a)
`Schreder, Hanchett, Suman
`103(a)
`Schreder, Hanchett, Van Ryzin
`103(a)
`Schreder, Hanchett, Van Ryzin, Suman
`
`Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of Michael S. Braasch, filed as
`Exhibit 1003. Patent Owner has not submitted an expert declaration.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Petitioner alleges that claims 1, 2, 6–8, 14 are unpatentable as obvious
`in view of Schreder and the knowledge of the skilled artisan or, alternately,
`as obvious in view of Schreder, Hanchett, and the knowledge of the skilled
`artisan. The Schreder grounds are based on the Patent Owner’s proposed
`claim constructions in related litigation, while the Schreder and Hanchett
`grounds are based on constructions offered by defendants in the litigation.
`To those combinations, Petitioner adds Hanchett for claim 5, Behr for claims
`9 and 11, Suman for claims 10 and 12, Van Ryzin for claims 15 and 19, and
`Van Ryzin and Suman for claims 16 and 17.
`We consider below the level of skill in the art, claim construction, and
`the application of the prior art to the claims.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art
`1.
`The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
`primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. See Al-Site
`Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham
`v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)). The level of skill in the art
`also informs the claim construction analysis. See Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (explaining that claim construction
`seeks the meaning “a skilled artisan would ascribe” to the claim term “in the
`context of the specific patent claim”).
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`the invention “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.” Pet. 4
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–36). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s
`description.
`Because there is no dispute at this stage, and because we find
`Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art generally consistent
`with the disclosures of the ’782 patent and cited references, we adopt it for
`purposes of this analysis.
`
`Claim Construction
`2.
`We construe claims using the same claim construction standard that
`would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), as articulated in
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and
`subsequent cases. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Petitioner asserts that, in a related 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.” Pet. 7. The disputed terms
`were “information regarding the travel route” and “maintenance information
`associated with [the travel route / a second travel route].” Id. at 8. The
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`primary difference in the constructions appears to be that the litigation
`defendants would have the information be received from cameras or devices
`stationed at locations along the travel route. See id.
`Petitioner further contends, however, that the “claim construction
`dispute . . . does not alter resolution of this Petition because the Challenged
`Claims are unpatentable under each of Patent Owner’s and Defendants’
`proffered constructions.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner has not addressed claim
`construction.
`For purposes of this Decision, we will focus on the broader claim
`constructions that Petitioner identifies as Patent Owner’s, and thus consider
`only the grounds based on Schreder (Grounds 1–6), not the grounds based on
`Schreder and Hanchett (Grounds 7–11). 6
`
`Independent Claim 1
`3.
`Schreder is a United States patent directed to “various technologies and
`methods to provide a comprehensive vehicular route guidance, control and
`safety system for reducing travel time, pollution emissions, traffic accidents
`and road side emergency care response time.” Ex. 1005, 1:14–18.
`Schreder’s first embodiment includes a “vehicle position system 22”
`that “transfers three-dimensional current position and time information to a
`driver information system 24 and also transfers motion information to a
`vehicular dynamic control system 26.” Ex. 1005, 7:29–32. A “driver
`information system 24 provides the computing capability for route guidance
`
`
`6 If we were to consider Grounds 7–11, we would conclude that, on the
`present record, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success
`because Petitioner offers little evidence and insufficient argument to support
`the narrow constructions on which those grounds are based.
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`planning as adjusted by dynamic traffic flow information received through a
`radio data system 28.” Id. at 7:32–35. The embodiment also includes a
`“display device 48” that “displays a relevant vicinity map portion of the
`digitized map” and “displays the planned route and current position cursor
`within the displayed vicinity map portion.” Id. at 8:18–21. The display
`device 48 also “could have a speaker audibly informing the driver of pending
`turns in advance to audibly direct the driver along a planned route.” Id. at
`8:30–32. The system’s route planning processor 70 may “receive[]
`broadcasted real-time traffic flow and road incident information for the local
`area through the radio data system 28” and send the information “to the route
`planning processor 70 for analysis in route changes and display alerts.” Id. at
`13:14–23.
`The Petition reads claim 1 on Schreder as follows:
`
`“[a]n apparatus”
`a.
`Petitioner argues that Schreder discloses an apparatus because it
`“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.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:3–8:59, Fig. 1).
`We agree with Petitioner that Schreder discloses the subject matter of
`the preamble, to the extent it is limiting.
`
`b.
`
`“a global positioning device, wherein the global
`positioning device determines a location of the
`apparatus or a location of a vehicle”
`Petitioner contends that “Schreder discloses a global positioning device
`in the form of a GPS receiver that can receive signals from GPS satellites,
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`obtaining accurate position information of the vehicle” which is “part of the
`RF navigation system 18.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:15–17, 12:21–32).
`We agree with Petitioner that Schreder discloses the claimed global
`positioning device.
`
`c.
`
`“a processing device, wherein the processing device
`processes information regarding the location of the
`apparatus or the location of the vehicle and information
`regarding a destination wherein the processing device
`determines or identifies a travel route to the destination
`on or along a road, a roadway, a highway, a parkway, or
`an expressway”
`According to Petitioner, “Schreder teaches, or at least renders obvious,
`identifying, with the processing device, a travel route to the destination along
`various types of roads.” Pet. 20. Petitioner contends that “[f]or example,
`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 20–21 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:4–34, 12:39–60).
`Petitioner argues that “[a]t 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
`[person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that Schreder’s
`route to the destination is along various types of roads.” Id. at 21 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 56).
`We find this disclosure sufficient to show that Schreder discloses the
`claimed processing device.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`d.
`
`“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”
`For this claim element, Petitioner points to Schreder’s “display device
`and . . . speaker, both of which provide information regarding the travel
`route.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:18–39; Ex. 1003 ¶ 57).
`We find this sufficient to show that Schreder discloses the claimed
`display device.
`
`e.
`
`“a receiver, wherein the receiver receives
`traffic information or information regarding
`a traffic condition”
`Petitioner argues that “[u]sing a radio data system 28, Schreder
`receives ‘up-to-date traffic flow information’ that is factored into the route
`guidance determination calculations.” Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:47–48,
`7:33–36, 8:60–9:2). Petitioner contends that “[t]he 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 22 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:35–53).
`According to Petitioner, one skilled in the art “would have understood that
`radio data system 28 includes a receiver that receives traffic information over
`AM or FM broadcasts.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58).
`We agree that the cited disclosures are sufficient to show that Schreder
`discloses the claimed receiver for receiving traffic information.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`f.
`
`“wherein the apparatus provides the
`traffic information or the information
`regarding a traffic condition via the
`display device or via the speaker”
`Petitioner argues that “Schreder discloses that traffic flow information
`received via the radio data system can be displayed on the screen and
`provided via synthesized voice messages.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:55–57,
`13:14–36; Ex. 1003 ¶ 59).
`We agree that the cited disclosure is sufficient to show the display of
`traffic information.
`
`Conclusion Regarding Claim 1
`g.
`We agree with the analysis above regarding Schreder, which Patent
`Owner does not, at this stage, dispute. We thus conclude that Petitioner has
`shown a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 1 unpatentable in view of
`Schreder.
`
`Independent Claim 15
`4.
`As noted above, claim 15 is similar to claim 1, but adds a camera. See
`Section I.B. It also broadens the types of information that may be received
`and provided to the user to include weather and news information.
`Petitioner argues that Schreder “discloses ‘an electro-optical obstacles
`[sic] detection system 36 for optically detecting road obstacles . . . or
`obstructions’ on the roadway and/or ‘to detect other vehicles on the same
`road or to detect road lane positioning.’” Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:48–52,
`7:57–59). Petitioner also argues that “to the extent Schreder does not also
`expressly disclose a camera . . . this would have been obvious in view of Van
`Ryzin,” which has “a ‘wide angle CCD camera 20’ ‘mounted on an
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`appropriate location (either interior or exterior) of an automobile and [that] is
`capable of imaging areas in front of and to the side of the automobile.’” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1009, 2:45–49, 3:9–12). Petitioner asserts that the skilled artisan
`“would have understood, or would have found it obvious, that adding the
`capabilities disclosed in Van Ryzin of using a camera to recognize and alert
`the driver to local conditions (including road construction, service areas, and
`speed limits) would have been useful in Schreder’s navigation system.” Id. at
`42–43.
`Because we agree with Petitioner’s analysis for the camera limitation,
`and because the narrower disclosure of information discussed in connection
`with claim 1 is sufficient to show the broader information recited in claim 15,
`we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of proving
`claim 15 unpatentable in view of Schreder and/or Schreder and Van Ryzin.
`
`Dependent Claim 2
`5.
`Claim 2 recites that “the apparatus detects a departure from the travel
`route, and further wherein the apparatus determines or identifies a second
`travel route to the destination, and further wherein the apparatus provides
`information regarding the second travel route.”
`Petitioner argues that “Schreder discloses a system that determines
`whether the vehicle has departed from [the] planned route, dynamically
`reroutes the vehicle when necessary, and provides both visual and audible
`feedback to keep the user apprised of such rerouting.” Pet. 23 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 13:38–44; Ex. 1003 ¶ 60).
`We agree that Schreder’s apparatus detects a departure from the travel
`route, determines a second travel route to the destination, and provides
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`information regarding the second travel route. We thus conclude that
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 2 unpatentable.
`
`Dependent Claim 5
`6.
`Claim 5 recites that “the apparatus provides a video preview of the
`travel route or a picture or image along the travel route or provides a video
`preview of a second travel route to the destination or a picture or image along
`the second travel route.”
`Petitioner argues that “[t]o the extent . . . Schreder does not . . .
`expressly disclose a video preview of the travel route or a picture or image
`along the travel route, this would have been obvious in view of Hanchett.”
`Pet. 28. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “Hanchett . . . discloses a
`network of cameras to provide ‘a sequential presentation of video images that
`simulates traveling the roadway 22 in the same direction as the mobile user
`18 is traveling” which “might be likened to traveling the roadway at great
`speed to preview the traffic conditions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 5:54–68).
`Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan “would recognize the
`usefulness of leveraging [Hanchett’s] existing traffic radio infrastructure . . .
`with Schreder’s ‘radio data system 28’ and ‘RF processor 78’ that provides
`users with information regarding, for example, ‘traffic flow information’ and
`‘road blockages,’ to also provide users with video traffic information,
`including video previews of a particular route.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 72). Petitioner also argues that “[a]s Hanchett recognized, a system that
`provided video traffic information would allow drivers to view ‘current and
`accurate information concerning traffic conditions’ via video and ‘evaluate
`the information in light of his or her particular situation,’” and that
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`“previewing videos of particular roadways would allow a user ‘to make route
`choices.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 2:34–57, 2:15–22).
`We agree that the combination of Schreder and Hanchett includes the
`elements of claim 5, and that one of skill in the art would have been
`motivated to make the combination. We conclude that Petitioner has shown
`a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 5 unpatentable.
`
`Dependent Claim 6
`7.
`Claim 6 recites that “the apparatus receives information regarding a
`traffic forecast associated with the travel route or a traffic forecast associated
`with a second travel route to the destination, and further wherein the
`apparatus provides the information regarding the traffic forecast associated
`with the travel route or the traffic forecast associated with the second travel
`route via the display device or the speaker.”
`Petitioner argues that Schreder “discloses a navigation guidance
`system that includes a ‘radio data system [that] is used to receive up-to-date
`traffic flow information’ and that may also include an AM/FM radio for
`‘AM/FM radio channel selection, local area radio data system channel
`selection, and presetting 911 emergency call channel information.’” Pet. 24
`(citing Ex. 1005, 6:47–53, 11:1–8). Petitioner further argues that the skilled
`artisan “would have understood that a ‘radio data system,’ as disclosed by
`Schreder, was used to receive ‘traffic forecast’ information” and “would have
`also understood that the AM/FM radio . . . would have also received traffic
`‘forecast’ information, such as a news report informing a driver to ‘expect
`delays’ on a certain travel route, for example because of traffic conditions,
`weather conditions, a traffic accident, etc.” Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1005,
`6:47–53, 11:1–8; Ex. 1010, 1:12–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–63).
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`We agree that Schreder’s apparatus receives information regarding a
`traffic forecast and provides the information via the display device or the
`speaker. We conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of
`proving claim 6 unpatentable.
`
`Dependent Claim 7
`8.
`Claim 7 recites that “the apparatus receives maintenance information
`associated with the travel route or maintenance information associated with a
`second travel route to the destination, and further wherein the apparatus
`provides the maintenance information associated with the travel route or the
`maintenance information associated with the second travel route via the
`display device or the speaker.”
`Petitioner argues that “Schreder teaches an apparatus that receives
`maintenance information associated with the travel route and relays the
`information via both the display and speaker” in that “Schreder’s ‘radio data
`system is used to receive up-to-date traffic flow information,’ which can
`include ‘road construction, detours, congestion levels, traffic flow rates,
`hazardous material spills, parking capabilities, weather conditions, among
`other codes.’” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:47–53).
`We agree that Schreder’s apparatus receives maintenance information
`and provides the information via the display device or the speaker and
`conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 7
`unpatentable.
`
`Dependent Claim 8
`9.
`Claim 8 recites that “the apparatus receives information regarding a
`weather condition, weather information, a forecasted weather condition, or a
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`weather forecast, and further wherein the apparatus provides the information
`regarding the weather condition, the weather information, the forecasted
`weather condition, or the weather forecast via the display device or the
`speaker.”
`Petitioner argues that Schreder’s “radio data system is used to receive
`up-to-date traffic flow information,” which can include “road construction,
`detours, congestion levels, traffic flow rates, hazardous material spills,
`parking capabilities, weather conditions, among other codes.” Pet. 26 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 6:47–53). Petitioner further argues that one of skill in the art
`“would have understood that Schreder’s system would have processed,
`displayed, announced, and/or otherwise provided all traffic flow messages
`pertinent to the user’s route, including weather conditions.” Id. at 27 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–67).
`We agree that Schreder’s apparatus receives weather information and
`provides the information via the display device or the speaker. We conclude
`that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 8
`unpatentable.
`
`10. Dependent Claim 9
`Claim 9 recites that “the apparatus receives information regarding a
`news report, and further wherein the apparatus provides the information
`regarding the news report via the display device or the speaker.”
`Petitioner argues that “[t]o the extent . . . Schreder may not expressly
`disclose that the information received over the radio data system may include
`‘information regarding a news report,’ this would have been obvious in view
`of Behr.” Pet. 30. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “Behr discloses ‘an
`apparatus and method for providing to a mobile unit route guidance and
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`tracking information and other information which has been calculated and/or
`stored at a base unit in response to a query from the mobile unit’” and that
`“the base unit may include a ‘third-party data integrator 80 [that] provides
`additional data such as on-line yellow pages information or news, weather,
`and/or traffic advisory information for responding to queries from a mobile
`unit.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 1:23–26, 11:18–21). Petitioner further argues
`that one of skill in the art “would have easily recognized that a news report,
`which for example may include news of traffic conditions, weather forecasts,
`traffic accidents, etc., is information that could affect a planned travel route
`and that it would therefore have been beneficial to convey this information to
`a driver over Schreder’s radio data system.” Id. at 31.
`We agree that the combination of Schreder and Hanchett includes the
`elements of claim 9, and that one of skill in the art would have been
`motivated to make the combination. We conclude that Petitioner has shown
`a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 9 unpatentable.
`
`11. Dependent Claims 10 and 16
`Claims 10 and 16 add to claims 1 and 15 that “the display device is
`located or mounted on, or adjacent to, a dashboard of the vehicle or a console
`of the vehicle.”
`Petitioner argues that “to the extent that Schreder does not expressly
`disclose the positioning of the display device within the vehicle and/or as
`relating to the dashboard or console of the vehicle, this would have been
`obvious in view of Suman.” Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 86). Petitioner argues
`that Suman’s “display 170 [is] mounted in an overhead console 150” and that
`the skilled artisan “would have understood, or would have found it obvious,
`that adding the capabilities disclosed in Suman of locating or mounting the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`display on the overhead console to Schreder would have been useful in (1)
`increasing the visibility of the display and (2) minimizing the distractions to
`the driver as taught in Suman.” Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1007, 17:28–34, Fig.
`9; Ex. 1003 ¶ 89).
`We agree that the combination of Schreder and Suman includes the
`elements of claims 10 and 16, and that one of skill in the art would have been
`motivated to make the combination. We conclude that Petitioner has shown
`a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 10 and 16 unpatentable.
`
`12. Dependent Claim 11
`Claim 11 recites that “the apparatus receives travel route information
`transmitted from a computer, a transmitter, or a device, located remote from
`the apparatus, and further wherein the apparatus provides the travel route
`information via the display device or the speaker, or wherein the apparatus
`receives information regarding a traffic condition, and further wherein the
`apparatus provides the information regarding a traffic condition via the
`display device or the speaker.”
`Petitioner acknowledges that “[t]he navigation system in Schreder . . .
`is located within the vehicle” but contends that “Behr discloses ‘an apparatus
`and method for providing to a mobile unit route guidance and tracking
`information and other information which has been calculated and/or stored at
`a base unit in response to a query from the mobile unit.’” Pet. 32 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 1:23–26, 10:4–34). Petitioner argues that one of skill in the art
`“would have been motivated to utilize a centralized map database and route
`calculator, such as included in the base unit of Behr, with the vehicle
`navigation system of Schreder, for example to enhance the data storage and
`processing capabilities of the navigation system.” Pet. 34.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`We agree that the combination of Schreder and Behr includes the
`elements of claim 11, and that one of skill in the art would have been
`motivated to make the combination. We conclude that Petitioner has shown
`a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 11 unpatentable.
`
`13. Dependent Claims 12 and 17
`Claims 12 and 17 add to claims 1 and 15 “a microphone and voice
`recognition software, wherein the microphone and the voice recognition
`software provides or facilitates a hands-free mode of apparatus operation.”
`Petitioner argues that “to the extent that Schreder does not expressly
`disclose . . . a ‘microphone’ and ‘voice recognition software’ for providing ‘a
`hands-free mode of apparatus operation,’ this would have been obvious in
`view of Suman.” Pet. 39. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “Suman
`teaches a navigation system that includes both a ‘microphone 82’ and a
`‘voice recognition unit (VRU) 79 which is coupled to audio multiplexer 74
`for recognition of voice commands.’” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:14–20).
`Petitioner further argues that one of skill in the art “would have
`understood, or would have found it obvious, that adding voice recognition
`and hands-free voice commands would have been useful in controlling the
`navigation system while minimizing the distractions to the driver as taught in
`Suman.” Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1007, 16:34–46; Ex. 1003 ¶ 95).
`We agree that the combination of Schreder and Suman includes the
`elements of claims 12 and 17, and that one of skill in the art would have been
`motivated to make the combination. We conclude that Petitioner has shown
`a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 12 and 17 unpatentable.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00504
`Patent 9,885,782 B2
`
`14. Dependent Claims 14 and 19
`Claim 14 and 19 add to claims 1 and 15 that “the apparatus
`automatically detects a departure from the travel route, and further wherein
`the apparatus identifies a second travel route to the destination in response to
`the detected departure from the first travel route, wherein the apparatus
`provides information regarding the second travel route.”
`Petitioner argues that “Schreder ‘automatically’ detects a departure
`from the travel route” and that “[t]he remainder of Claim 14 is substantively
`identical to Claim 2.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1005, 13:38–44; Ex. 1003 ¶ 69).
`We agree that Schreder’s apparatus automatically detects a departure
`from the travel route, identifies a second travel route, and provides
`information regarding the second travel route. We conclude that Petitioner
`has shown a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 14 and 19 unpatentable.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`in showing the unpatentability of at least
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
