`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2021-01004
`
` Patent 9,918,196
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT VAN ESSEN UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-1
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 5
`II. BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS ........................................ 7
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .............................................................. 8
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LAW ............................... 9
`A.
`Priority Date and Prior Art ...................................................10
`B.
`Claim Interpretation ...............................................................11
`C. Obviousness .............................................................................11
`D.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................13
`THE ‘196 PATENT ...........................................................................13
`V.
`VI. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART .........................14
`A. Hancock (Ex. 1005) .................................................................14
`B. Karp (Ex. 1006) .......................................................................15
`C. Rayburn (Ex. 1010) .................................................................16
`D. Takaki (Ex. 1007) ....................................................................17
`E. Enzmann (Ex. 1008) ................................................................17
`F. Behr (Ex. 1009) .........................................................................17
`VII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION .........................................................18
`VIII. OPINIONS REGARDING ASSERTED GROUNDS ...................18
`A.
`Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground 1 that Challenged
`Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18-20, 22, 24 and 25 are
`Obvious Over Hancock in View of Karp ..............................18
`1.
`Claim 1 ...........................................................................19
`a. Element [1b] ............................................................19
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-2
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`b. Element [1c] ............................................................20
`c. Element [1d] ............................................................29
`d. Element [1e] ............................................................30
`Claim 15 .........................................................................33
`2.
`Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 ..........................................33
`3.
`Claims 18-20, 22, 24 and 25 .........................................35
`4.
`Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground 2 that Challenged
`Claims 2-3, 16-17, and 29-30 are Obvious Over Hancock in
`View of Karp and Rayburn ....................................................36
`1.
`Claims 2 and 3 ...............................................................36
`2.
`Claims 16 and 17 ...........................................................42
`3.
`Claim 29 .........................................................................45
`4.
`Claim 30 .........................................................................51
`Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground 3 that Challenged
`Claims 6, 9, 13, 21, 23, and 27 are Obvious Over Hancock in
`View of Karp and Takaki .......................................................55
`1.
`Claim 6 ...........................................................................55
`2.
`Claim 9 ...........................................................................58
`3.
`Claim 13 .........................................................................59
`4.
`Claims 21, 23, and 27 ....................................................60
`Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground 4 that Challenged
`Claims 12 and 26 are Obvious Over Hancock in View of
`Karp and Enzmann .................................................................62
`1.
`Claim 12 .........................................................................62
`2.
`Claim 26 .........................................................................64
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-3
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground 5 that Challenged
`Claims 14 and 28 are Obvious Over Hancock in View of
`Karp, Takaki, and Enzmann .................................................66
`1.
`Claim 14 .........................................................................66
`2.
`Claim 28 .........................................................................68
`Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground 6 that Challenged
`Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 18-20, 22 and 24-26 are
`Obvious Over Behr in View of Karp .....................................71
`1.
`Claim 1 ...........................................................................71
`a. Element [1b] ............................................................71
`b. Element [1c] ............................................................72
`c. Element [1d] ............................................................75
`d. Element [1e] ............................................................76
`Claim 15 .........................................................................77
`2.
`Claims 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10-12 ...........................................79
`3.
`Claims 18-20, 22, and 24-26 .........................................80
`4.
`Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground 7 that Challenged
`Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23 and 27-30 are Obvious
`Over Behr in View of Karp and Rayburn ............................81
`1.
`Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 13, and 14 ..........................................81
`2.
`Claims 16-17, 21, 23, and 27-28 ...................................83
`3.
`Claim 29 .........................................................................85
`4.
`Claim 30 .........................................................................88
`IX. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................92
`
`G.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-4
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`I, Robert van Essen, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
` 1. I have been retained as an expert on behalf of Patent Owner
`
`Traxcell Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner” or “Traxcell”) in this inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) proceeding of U.S. Patent No. 9,918,196 (“the
`
`‘196 Patent”). I understand this proceeding was initiated by Petitioner
`
`Google LLC (“Petitioner” or “Google”).
`
`2. I have set forth my professional qualifications and relevant
`
`experience in Section II of this Declaration, and a copy of my curriculum
`
`vitae is available at Attachment A.
`
` 3. I have been asked to provide my expert opinions regarding the
`
`validity or invalidity of claims 1-30 of the ‘196 Patent.
`
`4. I understand that Petitioner has asserted invalidity based on the
`
`following references: (Pet. at 3)
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 6,202,023 (“Hancock”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,591,242 (“Karp”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,029,069 (“Takaki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,130,630 (“Enzmann”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,107,944 (“Behr”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,937,869 (“Rayburn”)
`
`
`Exhibit
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-5
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`5. In particular, I understand that Petitioner has asserted the following
`
`“Grounds” of invalidity based on these references: (Pet. at 3)
`
`Ground Challenged
`Anticipation/
`Patent Claims
`Obviousness
`1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,
`Obviousness Hancock in view of Karp
`11, 15, 18-20, 22,
`24, and 25
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`1
`
`2-3, 16-17, and
`29-30
`
`Obviousness Hancock in view of Karp and
`Rayburn
`
`6, 9, 13, 21, 23,
`and 27
`
`Obviousness Hancock in view of Karp and
`Takaki
`
`12 and 26
`
`14 and 28
`
`1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-
`12, 15, 18, 20,
`22, and 24-26
`
`2, 3, 6, 9, 13, 14,
`16, 17, 21, 23,
`and 27-30
`
`Obviousness Hancock in view of Karp and
`Enzmann
`
`Obviousness Hancock in view of Karp,
`Takaki, and Enzmann
`
`Obviousness Behr in view of Karp
`
`Obviousness Behr in view of Karp and
`Rayburn
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`
`
`6. As set forth in this Declaration, I do not agree that the identified
`
`combinations of references render obvious the challenged claims of the ‘196
`
`Patent.
`
`7. In forming the opinions I express in this Declaration, I have
`
`considered, among other things, the materials cited or discussed in this
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-6
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`Declaration, the ‘196 Patent, the corresponding file history, Google’s IPR
`
`Petition, Michalson’s Declaration, the references and exhibits on which
`
`Petitioner and Michalson rely, and the Institution Decision of the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). Additionally, I have relied on my own
`
`knowledge, training, and more than 30 years of experience in geospatial
`
`technology.
`
`8. I am being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR
`
`at my standard consulting rate, and my compensation is not affected by the
`
`outcome of this matter.
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS
`
`9.
`
`I am currently a self-employed Geospatial Consultant.
`
`10.
`
`I received a Masters, Geography, Major: Cartography from
`
`Utrecht University in 1989.
`
`11.
`
`In 1991, I was a Research Assistant at the University of
`
`Utrecht in the Department of Cartography. Also in 1991, I was a Research
`
`Assistant – ITC – Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth
`
`Observations. From 1992-2009, I served as Project Manager; General
`
`Manager/Director/VP Research & Development; and Convenor
`
`ISO/TC204 SWG3.1 with Tele Atlas. From 2008-2017, I served as
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-7
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`Community Input Czar; Vice-President NDS; Vice-President, Enhanced
`
`Content Operations; Vice-President Quality Management, Business Unit
`
`Automotive; and Director New Products Development with TomTom
`
`NV. From 2017-2019, I served as a mentor of automated driving start-
`
`ups. In 2020, I founded Work Ride. In 2020, I became a member of the
`
`Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. In 2017, I became a
`
`geospatial consultant.
`
`12.
`
`I have more than 30 years of experience in geospatial
`
`technology.
`
`13. Additional details
`
`regarding my background
`
`and
`
`qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae in Attachment A.
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`14. Based on my analysis, as set forth in this Declaration, I conclude:
`
`(a) Hancock in view of Karp does not render obvious 1, 4,
`
`5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18-20, 22, 24, and 25 of the ‘196 Patent
`
`(as Petitioner asserts in Ground 1);
`
`(b) Handcock in view of Karp and Rayburn does not
`
`render obvious claims 2-3, 16-17, and 29-30 of the ‘196
`
`Patent (as Petitioner asserts in Ground 2);
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-8
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`(c) Hancock in view of Karp and Takaki does not render
`
`obvious claims 6, 9, 13, 21, 23, and 27 of the ‘196 Patent
`
`(as Petitioner asserts in Ground 3);
`
`(d) Hancock in view of Karp and Enzmann does not
`
`render obvious claims 12 and 26 of the ‘196 Patent (as
`
`Petitioner asserts in Ground 4);
`
`(e) Hancock in view of Karp, Takaki, and Enzmann does
`
`not render obvious claims 14 and 28 of the ‘196 Patent (as
`
`Petitioner asserts in Ground 5);
`
`(f) Behr in view of Karp does not render obvious claims
`
`1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10- 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, and 24-26 of the ‘196
`
`Patent (as Petitioner asserts in Ground 6).
`
`(g) Behr in view of Karp and Rayburn does not render
`
`obvious claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, and 27-30
`
`of the ‘196 Patent (as Petitioner asserts in Ground 7).
`
`
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LAW
`
`15.
`
`I am not a lawyer or legal expert, and I am not offering any
`
`opinions regarding applicable legal standards. I set forth below my
`
`understanding of the law, as it has been explained to me, and I have
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-9
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`applied this understanding in rendering my opinions in this Declaration.
`
`A.
`
`Priority Date and Prior Art
`
`16.
`
`In the context of an IPR, the prior art to the challenged patent
`
`includes patents and printed publications in the relevant art that predate
`
`the priority date of the patent.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the ‘196 Patent was filed on September 27,
`
`2017. The ‘196 Patent was filed on September 27, 2017. The ‘196 patent
`
`is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/468,265 filed Mar.
`
`24, 2017 and published as U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170195847 on
`
`Jul. 6, 2017, which is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`15/297,222, filed Oct. 19, 2016, and issued as Pat. No. 9,642,024 on May
`
`2, 2017, which is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`14/642,408, filed Mar. 9, 2015 and issued as Pat. 9,510,320 on Nov. 29,
`
`2016, which is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`11/505,578, filed Aug. 17, 2006 and issued as Pat. 8,977,284 on Mar. 10,
`
`2015, which is a Continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10/255,552, filed Sep. 24, 2002 and published as U.S. Patent Publication
`
`No. 20030134648 on Jul. 17, 2003, and claims priority to U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/327,327 filed on Oct. 4, 2001, U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/383,528 filed on May 28, 2002, U.S.
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-10
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/352,761 filed on Jan. 29, 2002, U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/335,203 filed on Oct. 23, 2001, U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/383,529 filed on May 28, 2002, U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/391,469 filed on Jun. 26, 2002, U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/353,379 filed on Jan. 30, 2002 and U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/381,249 filed on May 16, 2002.
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in construing or interpreting a patent claim,
`
`the words of the claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, which is the meaning that the words would have had to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.
`
`The person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term in
`
`the context of not only the particular claim in which the disputed term
`
`appears, but also in the context of the entire patent, including the other
`
`claims and the specification, as well as the prosecution history of the
`
`patent.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`19. To invalidate a patent claim as obvious in the context of an IPR
`
`proceeding, the petitioner bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that the differences between the invention and the prior art are such
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-11
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains at the time the claimed invention
`
`was made. Factors relevant to the determination of obviousness include (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention, (3) differences between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art, and (4) “secondary considerations” or objective evidence of obviousness
`
`or nonobviousness.
`
`20. Reason to Combine. Obviousness can be established by showing that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined or modified the teachings of
`
`the prior art to produce the claimed invention and would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in achieving the claimed subject matter. There is no
`
`requirement that the prior art provide an express teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`to combine elements of the prior art, but a determination of obviousness requires
`
`more than showing that each element of a patent claim was independently known in
`
`the prior art. Rather, the petitioner in an IPR must identify some apparent reason
`
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements or
`
`concepts from the prior art in the same way as in the claimed invention when
`
`considered as a whole. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be
`
`found in the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, from the nature of the
`
`problem to be solved, market demand, or common sense.
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-12
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`21. A person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of invention. Factors that may
`
`be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include the
`
`educational level of the inventor, the type of problems encountered in the art, the
`
`prior solutions to the problems, the rapidity with which innovations were made, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the
`
`field. From my review of the patent, taking into account my education and
`
`experience, I am of the opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`at the time of the filing the ‘196 Patent would have at least a Master of Science
`
`(“MS”) Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Cartography, or
`
`equivalent work experience in the field of computer networks, along with knowledge
`
`of the general structure of networked communication systems, its hardware and
`
`software components and underlying communications technologies. In addition, a
`
`POSITA would be familiar with the latest communications standards.
`
`V. THE ‘196 PATENT
`
`22. Traxcell holds a portfolio of
`
`fundamental patents
`
`in wireless
`
`technology. The navigational technology first developed by Traxcell helps provide
`
`communication device with the up-to-date maps it displays as a user of the
`
`communication device travel from one location to the next, as well as the live traffic
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-13
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`data and more. The United States Patent Office has referenced Traxcell's patents
`
`and applications over 500 times. These references are included in patents issued to
`
`wireless equipment manufacturers such as Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent, Samsung,
`
`Huawei, and others. Traxcell owns several patents covering navigation systems and
`
`methods, including the ‘196 Patent. The patent family is at the core of Traxcell’s
`
`wireless technology.
`
`
`
`VI. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`23. Petitioner relies on the Hancock, Karp, Takaki, Enzmann, Behr, and
`
`Rayburn references to support their invalidity arguments. Before addressing my
`
`opinions in relation to these arguments, I provide some background information on
`
`these cited references, which informs and provides context for my opinions.
`
`A. Hancock (Ex. 1005)
`
`24. Hancock describes a method and system for automatically providing
`
`services over a computer network for users in a mobile environment based on their
`
`geographic location. Ex. 1005 at Abstract. A preferred embodiment of the
`
`geographical referencing system aspect of the present invention allows a point of
`
`interest (POI) within an arbitrary geographic area to be uniquely identified with a
`
`locational address, and the locational address to be related to other known global
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-14
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`referencing systems. Ex. 1005 at 5:53-58.
`
`25. Hancock discloses an automatic location system using the geographical
`
`referencing system Ex. 1005 at 23:30-32. “A portable-computing device 1302
`
`include an ALI device 1406, a wireless transceiver 1402 and a telephony device
`
`1410”. Ex. 1005 at 25:8-13. “automatic identification signals commonly used in
`
`land-line telephonic devices ("ANI" and the like), can be used in conjunction with a
`
`database lookup table to identify a callers fixed location”. Ex. 1005 at 24:1-4.
`
`B. Karp (Ex. 1006)
`
`26.
`
` Karp discloses a method and system for tracking clients as they visit
`
`the locations of various recipients. Karp discloses a system and method for
`
`communicating with a remote caller/client and then identifying details of a
`
`caller/clients visit including such details as identifying the caller/client and the
`
`caller/client's location. Ex. 1006 at 1:9-15.
`
`27.
`
` Karp teaches a system and method in which “a determination is made
`
`as to whether a wireless or fixed call is being received.” Ex. 1006 at 12:21-22.
`
`28. The system disclosed includes a location identification mechanism for
`
`recording locally recording or transmitting and then recording the location of a
`
`caller/client, and a caller/client identification mechanism which will only indicate
`
`the presence of the caller/client at a specific location when the caller/client is
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-15
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`physically present at that specific location. More particularly, the location
`
`identification mechanism may include a telephone accessed at the current location
`
`of the caller/client, or a global positioning Sensor carried by the caller/client, and a
`
`biometric identifier sensing device accessible to the caller/client at the caller/clients
`
`current location. Ex. 1006 at 2:19-31.
`
`29.
`
`In process 1106 the phone number of the fixed or wireless phone from
`
`which the call is placed is retrieved. Control is then passed to decision process 1108.
`
`In decision process 1108 a determination is made as to whether the received phone
`
`number is eligible for further processing, e.g., is contained in PSTN database 134C1
`
`(See FIG. 7A). In the event this determination is in the negative, control is passed to
`
`process 1110. In process 1110 the call is terminated. Subsequently control returns to
`
`process 1102 for the processing of the next call. Alternately if in decision process
`
`1108 an affirmative decision is reached, i.e., that the phone call is authorized, then
`
`control is passed to the next Subroutine. In an embodiment of the invention, call
`
`authentication involves checking the phone number of the incoming call against a
`
`list of approved phone numbers. Ex. 1006 at 11:1-15.
`
`
`
`C. Rayburn (Ex. 1010)
`30. Rayburn discloses a route planning system for use in mobile
`
`telecommunications. Ex. 1010 at Abstract. The system includes a route planning
`
`service (RPAS) that locates the mobile device by sending a query to base station
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-16
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`controller of a wireless network (MSC), which is communicatively coupled to a
`
`Mobile Positioning Center (MPC) that stores and retrieves the location of the mobile
`
`device for use in route planning. Ex. 1010 at 5:54- 6:1.
`
`
`
`D. Takaki (Ex. 1007)
`31. Takaki is directed to provide navigation to a user on a portable
`
`communications device. Ex. 1007 at Abstract. The user may submit a navigation
`
`query, including a telephone number corresponding to the user’s desired destination.
`
`Ex. 1007 at 5:56-60. the telephone number, like an address, is a destination identifier
`
`that helps to inform the navigation route. Ex. 1007 at 3:20-24.
`
`
`
`E. Enzmann (Ex. 1008)
`32. Enzmann discloses a location query service receives a location query
`
`from a requestor for a network user, retrieves the location information of the network
`
`user, and returns the location information to the requestor. Within the query, the
`
`requestor provides an identification of the network user, such as a name, telephone
`
`number, Internet address, or electronic mail (email) address. Ex. 1008 at 2:16-27.
`
`
`
`F. Behr (Ex. 1009)
`33. Behr describes a method and system for providing route guidance and
`
`other information from a base unit to a remote unit in response to a request from the
`
`remote unit. Requested route guidance information is calculated at the base unit in
`
`response to the query, (Ex. 1009 at Abstract), using the devices, the user submits a
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-17
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`route guidance query using Internet protocol (Ex. 1009 at 9:54-58, 65-67) and
`
`receives route guidance. Ex. 1009 at 5:65-6:10.
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`34. Petitioner considered the plain and ordinary meaning of each term of the
`
`’196 Patent as it would have been understood by one skilled in the art as of October
`
`23, 2001. Pet. at 2; Ex. 1003 at 39. Patent Owner reserves all rights to raise claim
`
`construction arguments in district court and in this proceeding should the Board
`
`grant institution.
`
`
`
`VIII. OPINIONS REGARDING ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`35. I understand that Petitioner has raised seven grounds of invalidity, and I
`
`provide my opinions in relation to these grounds in the sections below. Because my
`
`background discussions above regarding the ‘196 Patent (Section V), the scope and
`
`content of the prior art (Section VI), and claim interpretation (Section VII) inform
`
`my opinions, I consider these discussions to be part of my opinions and incorporate
`
`them by reference here.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground 1 that Challenged Claims 1,
`A.
`4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18-20, 22, 24 and 25 are Obvious Over Hancock in View of
`Karp
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-18
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`1. Claim 1
`
`36. Independent claim 1 has been divided into elements for consideration by
`
`the Petitioner as follows:
`
`[a] A method of providing navigation assistance to a user of a
`
`communications device, the method comprising:
`
`[1a] receiving, by a directional assistance service, an Internet query initiated at
`the communications device and directed via the Internet to initiate a request for
`navigational assistance to a destination;
`[1b] responsive to receiving the Internet query, determining whether or not the
`communications device is a mobile wireless communications device;
`[1c] responsive to determining that the communications device is the mobile
`wireless communications device, the directional assistance service determining and
`using a present location of the mobile wireless communications device as a location
`of the communications device;
`[1d] responsive to determining that the communications device is not the mobile
`wireless communications device, obtaining a fixed location associated with the
`communications device to determine the location of the communications device; and
` [1e] the directional assistance service providing navigation information to the
`communications device in response to the Internet query, wherein the navigation
`provides directions for proceeding from the location of the communications device
`to a location of the destination. Ex. 1001 at Claim 1.
`
`a. Element [1b]
`
`37. Hancock in view of Karp does not teach the limitation “responsive to
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-19
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`receiving the Internet query, determining whether or not the communications device
`
`is a mobile wireless communications device”.
`
`38. Petitioner agrees that Hancock fails
`
`to determine whether the
`
`communication device is mobile or not. Pet. at 11. Petitioner adds Karp to Hancock
`
`in an attempt to show determining the device type. However, the Karp system is
`
`designed for visit verification (Ex. 1006 at Abstract), not for navigation assistance.
`
`Karp also fails to disclose the DAN (directional assistance network). Karp
`
`determines whether a call is initiated from a wireless or fixed device based on
`
`information received in the incoming packets. However, in an embodiment of the
`
`‘196 Patent, the DAN (directional assistance service) determines whether the
`
`communications device is a mobile wireless communications device or not, from the
`
`wireless network. The ‘196 Patent states, “Still referring to FIG. 70, BOX 7003, if
`
`the DAN 8100 determines that the user is calling from a wireless communication
`
`device (WCD) 8205, such as, for example, a cellular phone, a Personal Digital
`
`Assistant (PDA), wireless navigational system, etc., then DAN 8100 queries a
`
`wireless network's ULD 900 in order to determine the user's location within the
`
`wireless network.” Ex. 1001 at 100:32-38. Karp’s determination of a wireless device
`
`or not is not responsive to an Internet query.
`
`b. Element [1c]
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-20
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`39. Hancock in view of Karp fail to teach “responsive to determining that the
`
`communications device is the mobile wireless communications device, the
`
`directional assistance service determining and using a present location of the mobile
`
`wireless communications device as a location of the communications device;”.
`
`40. In some embodiments, the “communications device” in claim 1 means
`
`any communications device that can access and communicate with the directional
`
`assistance service (DAN 8100) via the Internet, irrespective of which service
`
`provider provides the Internet, irrespective of which telecommunications network
`
`(wireless networks, fixed-line/wired networks etc.) the communications device is
`
`subscribed to for telecommunications, and irrespective of whether the Internet is
`
`provided by a telecommunications network (wireless networks, fixed-line/wired
`
`networks etc.) the communications device is subscribed to for telecommunications.
`
`41. The burden on the directional assistance service (DAN 8100) in an
`
`embodiment of the ‘196 Patent is to determine the present location (location
`
`information) of a querying “mobile wireless communications device”, irrespective
`
`of which wireless network the “mobile wireless communications device” is
`
`subscribed to or being served by for telecommunications, by itself, without requiring
`
`the said location information or information sufficient to calculate the said location
`
`information to be communicated to it in or along with the Internet query received
`
`from the communications device, and without requiring any wireless network
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-21
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`component to provide the said information to it pro-actively in response to (or
`
`triggered by) the initiation of the Internet query.
`
`42. In an embodiment, for a system to satisfy “the directional assistance
`
`service determining and using a present location of the mobile wireless
`
`communications device as a location of the communications device” of claim 1 of
`
`the ‘196 Patent, a remotely located server or computer (or a network of servers or
`
`computers) of the said system that communicates navigation assistance information
`
`to a querying mobile wireless communications device in response to an Internet
`
`query received from said mobile wireless communications device can –
`
`• determine or obtain the present location (location information) of a
`
`querying mobile wireless communications device all by itself without
`
`requiring the said location information or information sufficient to
`
`calculate the said location information to be communicated to it in or along
`
`with the Internet query received from the communications device, and
`
`without requiring any wireless network component to provide the said
`
`information to it pro-actively in response to (or triggered by) the initiation
`
`of the Internet query; and
`
`• determine or obtain the present location (location information) of the
`
`querying mobile wireless communications device, irrespective of which
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC Ex. 2001-22
`Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC IPR2021-01004
`
`
`
`wireless network the “mobile wireless communications device” is
`
`subscribed to or being served by for telecommunications.
`
`In various embodiments of the ‘196 Patent, this occurs via the network (see claim
`
`3). However, it is not limited to the dire
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
