UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`IPR2022-00429
`U.S. Patent 9,291,475
`
`———————
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER K. WILSON UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,291,475
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 1 of 54
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 4
`II.
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................ 7
`IV.
`THE ’475 PATENT ........................................................................................ 9
`A.
`Summary and Prosecution History ....................................................... 9
`B.
`Background of the Art ........................................................................ 10
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 17
`C.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 18
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................ 19
`A.
`Prior Art .............................................................................................. 20
`B.
`Computing Device/Remote Computing System/Remote
`Computing Device .............................................................................. 21
`Posted Speed Limit ............................................................................. 26
`Non-transitory Computer-readable Medium . . . Comprising
`Instructions ......................................................................................... 26
`Processing Module ............................................................................. 29
`Transmission Module .......................................................................... 34
`Browser ............................................................................................... 36
`Notify a Recipient About the Violation/Sending a
`Communication to the Recipient ......................................................... 40
`VII. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 46
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 47
`
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`C.
`D.
`
` i
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 2 of 54
`
`

`

`I, Christopher K. Wilson, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified” or
`
`“Petitioner”) as an independent expert witness for the above-captioned Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475 (“the ’475 patent”). I am
`
`being compensated at my usual and customary rate for the time I spend in connection
`
`with this IPR. My compensation is not affected by the outcome of this IPR. I make
`
`this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and, if called upon to
`
`testify, would testify competently to the matters stated herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-
`
`20 (each a “Challenged Claim” and collectively the “Challenged Claims”) of the
`
`’475 patent are unpatentable as they would have been anticipated by the prior art or
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the earliest
`
`claimed priority date of the ’475 patent. It is my opinion that all of the Challenged
`
`Claims would have been obvious to a POSITA, after reviewing the prior art
`
`discussed below.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`EX1001, the ’475 patent;
`
`the prior art references discussed below:
`
` 1
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 3 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`● U.S. Patent 5,952,941 (filed February 20, 1998, issued
`
`September 14, 1999) (“Mardirossian” (EX1003)));
`
`● International Publication WO02/31729 (filed October 3,
`
`2001, published April 18, 2002) (“Calva” (EX1004));
`
`● U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0236476 (filed
`
`February 27, 2004, published November 25, 2004)
`
`(“Chowdhary” (EX1005)); and
`
`● U.S. Patent 6,714,894 (filed September 13, 2001, issued
`
`March 3, 2004) (“Tobey” (EX1006)); and
`
`EX1007, the file history of the ’475 patent; and
`
`any other document cited below.
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`4.
`
`I understand that the ’475 patent issued on March 22, 2016 from U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 14/618,739 (“the ’739 application”), filed on February 10,
`
`2015. I understand that the ’739 application is a continuation of U.S. Application
`
`14/057,713, filed October 18, 2013, which is a continuation of U.S. Application
`
`13/738,133, filed January 10, 2013, which is a continuation of U.S. Application
`
`12/770,225, filed April 29, 2010, which is a continuation of U.S. Application
`
`11/233,199, filed on September 22, 2005. The face of the ’475 Patent lists Leigh M.
`
`Rothschild as the purported inventor. I understand that Intellectual Ventures II, LLC
`
`is the current assignee of the ’475 patent.
`
`2
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 4 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`5.
`
`To the best of my knowledge, I have no financial interest in Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that Intellectual Ventures II, LLC purports to
`
`own the ’475 patent. To the best of my knowledge, I have no financial interest in
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC. To the best of my knowledge, I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’475 patent. To the extent any mutual funds or other
`
`investments that I own have a financial interest in the Petitioner, Unified Patents,
`
`LLC, the Patent Owner, Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, or the ’475 patent, I am not
`
`aware of, nor do I have control over, any financial interest that would affect or bias
`
`my judgment.
`
`6.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and experience in the relevant field of art, and have considered the
`
`viewpoint of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), as of September 22,
`
`2005. I have also considered:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`the documents listed above,
`
`any additional documents and references cited in the analysis
`
`below,
`
`c)
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standards for
`
`anticipation and obviousness, and
`
`d)
`
`my knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area
`
`as described below.
`
`3
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 5 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`7.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are construed according to the same
`
`claim construction standard as one would use in a District Court proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`8.
`
`My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached as Appendix A to this
`
`declaration. The following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and
`
`professional experience.
`
`9.
`
`I have a bachelor’s degree in Physics from Princeton University and
`
`one year of graduate school in Physics at the University of California, San Diego.
`
`10.
`
`I am currently an independent consultant to the transportation industry
`
`focused on the use of vehicle data and analytics to provide cloud services in support
`
`of safety systems in automated and semi-automated vehicles.
`
`11.
`
`I have 28 years of experience in the automotive telematics and safety
`
`technology field working for tier 1 suppliers (TRW and TomTom) and vehicle
`
`manufacturers (DaimlerChrysler), as well as working with other vehicle
`
`manufacturers and government
`
`in consortia developing pre-competitive
`
`technologies and performance metrics for vehicle safety systems, and consulting. At
`
`TRW, I developed one of the first off-board navigation systems, known as TRW’s
`
`In-Vehicle Information System, in 1995.
`
`4
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 6 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`12.
`
`I worked on the development of traffic management systems in San
`
`Francisco, Atlanta and Houston where I advocated the use of vehicle data for
`
`managing the system.
`
`13. At Fastline (Information Access Inc.), in or around 1996, I developed
`
`techniques for integrating a PDA (Sony Magic Link) with various vehicle telematics
`
`and display systems. The primary application was to collect speed data and display
`
`local traffic data to drivers, either through the “brought in” device, or through an
`
`associated vehicle display.
`
`14.
`
`From 1996 to 2008, I worked for DaimlerChrysler (under a number of
`
`different names) developing telematics systems for various safety and infotainment
`
`applications. Many of these systems involved collecting data from vehicles (e.g.,
`
`speed, location, diagnostics) using wireless data links, processing the data in the
`
`infrastructure, and providing synthesized data back to vehicles and infrastructure and
`
`fleet managers. I also led a consortia of automotive manufacturers in developing
`
`protocols for sharing data between vehicles and infrastructure, known as the Vehicle
`
`Infrastructure Integration Consortium, where I worked very closely with
`
`transportation departments and other interested parties. I was specifically involved
`
`in the use of collected speed data to determine traffic conditions and identify the
`
`locations of stop signs, and to notify various parties if the speed data indicated
`
`“running” the stop sign.
`
`5
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 7 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`
`15.
`
`In 2008, I began to work for TomTom BV., a manufacturer of
`
`navigation systems. While at TomTom I worked on protocols for collecting data
`
`from vehicles to develop various map attributes, including the speed limit attribute
`
`to support speed limit advisory applications..
`
`16.
`
`I am the named inventor on ten US and several international patents
`
`related to various aspects of navigation including methods for utilizing wirelessly
`
`collected vehicle data (including speed data) to produce and provide information to
`
`various parties.
`
`17.
`
`In summary, I have extensive familiarity with fields involving
`
`collection of vehicle data (including speed data collected wirelessly) and the
`
`processing and use of that data for various purposes, including notifications. I am
`
`familiar with what the state of this field was at the relevant time up to the time the
`
`’475 patent was filed.1
`
`
`1 I have been informed and understand that the ’475 patent was effectively filed on
`
`September 22, 2005 because it is a continuation of an application filed on this date.
`
`When I refer to the “time the patent was filed” or “time the ’475 patent was filed”
`
`throughout this Declaration, I am referring to the September 22, 2005 filing date of
`
`the ’475 patent.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 8 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`18.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but in my work, I have
`
`had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims from the
`
`perspective of a person skilled in the art. I am also a named inventor on at least 10
`
`U.S. patents. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about certain
`
`aspects of the law that are relevant to forming my opinions. My understanding of the
`
`law is as follows:
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious. I
`
`understand that anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim is
`
`disclosed expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the
`
`claim. Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that for a claimed limitation to be
`
`inherently present, the prior art need not expressly disclose the limitation, so long as
`
`the claimed limitation necessarily flows from a disclosure in the prior art.
`
`20. Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a claim
`
`are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`application was filed.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 9 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`
`21. Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that a determination of whether a
`
`claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
`the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
`• what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`22. Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that a single reference can
`
`render a patent claim obvious if any differences between that reference and the
`
`claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Alternatively, the teachings of two or more references may be combined in the
`
`same way as disclosed in the claims, if such a combination would have been
`
`obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. In determining whether a
`
`combination based on either a single reference or multiple references would have
`
`been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among other factors:
`
`• whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`• whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a predictable
`
`variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 10 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`
`• whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of known
`
`design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of success by
`
`those skilled in the art;
`
`• whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`• whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`• whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`23. Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art has ordinary creativity, and is not an automaton. Petitioner’s counsel has
`
`informed me that in considering obviousness, it is important not to determine
`
`obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being considered.
`
`IV. THE ’475 PATENT
`
`A.
`24.
`
`Summary and Prosecution History
`I have reviewed, had input into, and endorse the discussions in the
`
`Summary and Prosecution History sections of the Petition (Sections IV.A. and
`
`IV.D.), which I hereby incorporate by reference.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 11 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`
`B.
`25.
`
`Background of the Art
`I have reviewed, had input into, and endorse the discussions in the
`
`Background of the Art section of the Petition (Section IV.B.). In addition, I have
`
`personal experience related to the background of this technology area as discussed
`
`below.
`
`26. The ’475 patent relies on three technologies that were maturing in the
`
`1990s and were widely available and deployed by the priority data of the ’475
`
`patent. These technologies were 1) inexpensive vehicle location technology (e.g.,
`
`GPS) 2) practical wireless data communications technology, suitable for personal
`
`vehicles, (e.g., cellular data) and 3) map database technology (e.g., a speed limit
`
`attribute). In addition, there was the ongoing development of computer and
`
`communications technology in general, and the incorporation of that technology
`
`into vehicles specifically. The ’475 patent does not advance any of the core
`
`technologies disclosed, nor does it assert to do so. It merely asserts a combination
`
`of these technologies in a manner that was well understood by those skilled in the
`
`art.
`
`27. Based on my experience, the ability to use the above technologies to
`
`notify a driver or other entity, via a remote service, when a speed limit was
`
`violated was well understood by practitioners, and implemented in several
`
`contexts. One implementation of the ’475 technology would have been automated
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 12 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`ticketing for speed limit violations. While widely understood, this implementation
`
`was not deployed nor widely publicized as a speed enforcement mechanism for
`
`two reasons. Most companies and government entities in the US that were involved
`
`in the deployment of the relevant systems from 1990 to 2005 were not interested in
`
`using this technology to enforce speed limits. It was widely believed that
`
`customers would not welcome speeding tickets and that, if a company or system
`
`were seen to be enabling the delivery of speeding tickets, this would inhibit sales
`
`of the equipment or service the company wished to provide. Furthermore, the
`
`vehicle manufacturers, and the transportation departments, were very worried
`
`about the appearance and legality of monitoring speed limit compliance, both “big
`
`brother” and privacy issues are front and center here. Both commercial and public
`
`entities developing the technology were leery of any type of enforcement, nor did
`
`they want to have records of speeding events and potentially be subject to
`
`subpoenas for that information.2
`
`
`2 At some point prior to 2005 I was a participant in a conversation with the
`
`California Highway Patrol on automated enforcement and they agreed that the
`
`widescale deployment of “telematics” technologies was more beneficial to their
`
`mission of safer roads than automated enforcement (using the same technologies)
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 13 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`
`28. The first widely deployed systems utilizing these technologies were
`
`Automatic Collision Notification Systems, such as OnStar from GM, which was
`
`first deployed in Cadillac vehicles in 1996. These in-car systems were triggered
`
`when an airbag deployed and would automatically place a call to the OnStar
`
`service center and provide the vehicle location (based on GPS) and information
`
`about the vehicle and the deployment. This information would then be relayed to
`
`emergency response authorities as appropriate.
`
`29. Another industry actively collecting vehicle data is the insurance
`
`industry. For example, in 1996 a Usage Based auto insurance patent was filed by
`
`Progressive Insurance (U.S. Patent 5,797,134, filed Jan 29, 1996). EX1011. This
`
`patent discloses insurance premiums “based upon monitoring, recording and
`
`communicating data representative of operator and vehicle driving characteristics.”
`
`Id., ABSTRACT. Data elements collected from the vehicle include “observance of
`
`speed limits” (id., 4:45, 5:9) and “vehicle speed in excess of speed limit”, (id.,
`
`8:20). The speed limit, as described in the patent, is determined from an
`
`“information database” stored in the vehicle. Id., 10:66-11:3. The data collected
`
`can be “immediately communicated to a central control station.” Id., 11:59-62.
`
`
`would be. They agreed not to pursue the technology for purposes of automated
`
`enforcement as they understood this might retard deployment.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 14 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`
`30. The inclusion of “speed in excess of the speed limit” is consistent with
`
`the common understanding that excessive speed is a major consideration in the
`
`field of vehicle safety. There is a general consensus, and has been for many years,
`
`that speed is a major contributor to both accident likelihood and severity. EX1012.
`
`31. Progressive Insurance deployed TripSense in August of 2004. This
`
`was a system installed within a vehicle that recorded any driving over 75 mph,
`
`reported this to the Progressive computing system, and then notified, and
`
`penalized, drivers for time spent violating the 75-mph threshold. EX1013;
`
`EX1014. This was all done online and not through insurance agents, as the
`
`reporting was necessarily done electronically. This system was reported in trade
`
`journals, as well as general news sources such as USA Today. EX1013; EX1014.
`
`This system raised privacy concerns. EX1015.
`
`32. Rental car companies also used these technologies as early as 2001.
`
`For example, ACME Rent-A-Car was publicly chastised in 2001 for charging high
`
`fees to their customers for driving over a speed threshold. EX1016; EX1017.
`
`ACME installed GPS devices in their vehicles and charged their customers (a
`
`notification) each time they exceeded a speed of 79 mph for two consecutive
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 15 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`minutes (a violation).3 EX1016; EX1017. This was brought to the attention of the
`
`courts in a 2001 suit under the Connecticut Consumer Protection Act, and was
`
`reported widely in news outlets including WIRED and the New York Times.
`
`EX1016; EX1017. This issue led to several state legislatures addressing privacy
`
`issues around data collected from cars, and by the time of the ’475 patent, several
`
`states had passed laws prohibiting rental car companies from charging fees based
`
`on certain GPS data from vehicles, including speed information. EX1018; EX1019.
`
`33. By 2003 I was involved in extensive discussions between car
`
`manufacturers, tolling and roadway authorities, and federal and state transportation
`
`departments about protocols for sharing speed data between vehicles and
`
`infrastructure, and for providing speed limit information from roadways to
`
`vehicles. EX1020. A significant portion of the work was on assuring the privacy of
`
`individual vehicles specifically so that they could not be given speeding tickets by
`
`remote authorities.
`
`34.
`
`It was understood that databases (such as a speed limit database)
`
`could be used to influence driving, either through direct control of the vehicle, or
`
`
`3 Based on my experience, data from the rental vehicles would have been collected
`
`by a Telematics Service Provider (who managed the wireless aspects) and any
`
`violations were then sent to ACME car rental.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 16 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`through indirect methods, such as a driver advisory (notification). The Final
`
`Report for the Enhanced Digital Map Project conducted by several automotive
`
`companies in conjunction with the US DoT, (and of which I was one of the
`
`authors) discusses a “Speed Limit Assistant” based on speed limit data in a digital
`
`map. See, e.g., EX1021. This application had two embodiments:
`
`A- The advisory role of the application warns the driver when the
`vehicle speed exceeds the legal speed limit of the road.
`C- The control role of the application regulates the speed of the
`vehicle so that the legal speed limit is not exceeded (unless
`countermanded by the driver).
`Id., 37. It was clear to me and to others involved in this project, that the “advisory”
`
`role could include notifications in real time (the focus of the project) or through
`
`various non-real-time methods (via remote services) for training and or
`
`enforcement.
`
`35. By 2005 there were many programs, both in research and
`
`commercially deployed, that would take data from vehicles in normal use and
`
`provide that data wirelessly to a central facility where it would have been
`
`amalgamated. These techniques were called either “floating car data” or “probe
`
`data”, and generally were used to synthesize traffic information or weather
`
`information, but other information, such as map databases (including speed limits)
`
`were also contemplated. Over a dozen programs in the US, Europe and Japan are
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 17 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`described in Richard Bishop’s 2005 book “Intelligent Vehicle Technology and
`
`Trends”, and I am aware of many others, as would have been anyone active in the
`
`field at that time. EX1022, 272-88 (Chapter 11).
`
`36.
`
`Intelligent Speed Adaptation is the generally accepted term for a
`
`system that ensures vehicle speeds do not exceed a safe or legally enforced speed.
`
`While not extensively pursued in the US, there were significant tests of this
`
`technology in the Nordic countries and the Netherlands around the year 2000. One
`
`survey report from 2002 (based on a 2001 report in Dutch) states that:
`
`An ISA system consists of GPS to determine the car’s
`
`position, a CD-ROM in the car containing information of
`
`a road network including the prevailing speed limit of
`
`each road section, and feedback to the driver.
`
`Experiments in Sweden are testing several options, from
`
`warning the driver to a resisting force exerted by the
`
`accelerator pedal that can be countered by the driver. In
`
`the Netherlands the system intervenes so the limit cannot
`
`be exceeded. Experiments in Sweden have recently been
`
`concluded and an evaluation is in progress. In the
`
`Netherlands the project was concluded early 2001.
`
`EX1023, ABSTRACT.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 18 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`
`C.
`37.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the prior
`
`art of record, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to which the
`
`claimed subject matter pertains would have the capability of understanding the
`
`scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art. I understand
`
`that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary creativity, and is not a robot.
`
`38.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at and before
`
`the priority date for the ’475 patent (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics,
`
`or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in vehicle
`
`telematics. A lack of experience can be remedied with additional education (e.g., a
`
`Master’s degree), and likewise, a lack of education can be remedied with
`
`additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).
`
`39. Based on my professional experience, I have an understanding of the
`
`capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. As mentioned above,
`
`I have 28 years of experience in the development of in-vehicle systems that use
`
`wireless communication systems. Further, as detailed in Section II, I myself
`
`qualified as at least a POSITA at the time the ’475 patent was filed.
`
`40. The analysis set forth herein evaluates anticipation, obviousness, and
`
`priority issues consistent with the legal principles provided to me by counsel and
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 19 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`through the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the ’475 patent was
`
`filed.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`41.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’475 patent,
`
`the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that the
`
`claims are to be construed according to the same claim construction standard that
`
`district courts use. Thus, it is my understanding that claim terms are construed
`
`according to their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`42.
`
`In order to construe the claims, I have reviewed the entirety of the ’475
`
`patent along with portions of the prosecution history of the ’475 patent (EX1007).
`
`Consistent with the ’475 patent disclosure, I have given the terms in the Challenged
`
`Claims their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`43.
`
`I reviewed and contributed to the constructions proposed by petitioner
`
`in the Petition. The Petition’s explanation in Section V as to why these claims should
`
`be construed as proposed for this proceeding reflects my understanding of how I use
`
`them in this declaration, and I incorporate it herein by reference.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 20 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS4
`
`
`44.
`
` In my opinion, claims 1-20 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’475
`
`patent are unpatentable because they would have been anticipated, or at least
`
`obvious, to a POSITA at the time the ’475 patent was filed. My opinions are based
`
`on my expertise in the technology of the ’475 patent at the time the ’475 patent was
`
`filed, as well as my review of the ’475 patent, its file history, and the prior art
`
`discussed in the Petition. If the patent owner is allowed to submit additional evidence
`
`pertaining to the validity of the ’475 patent, I intend to review that as well and update
`
`my analysis and conclusions as appropriate and allowed under the rules of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`45.
`
`I reviewed and contributed to the Petition’s explanation as to why these
`
`claims are unpatentable. The Petition’s explanation in Section VI as to why these
`
`claims are unpatentable reflects my understanding, and I incorporate it herein by
`
`reference.
`
`46. The Petition sets forth my reasons for my opinion that the Challenged
`
`Claims would have been anticipated or obvious. Below I elaborate on certain points
`
`
`4 Unless otherwise specified, all bold emphasis below has been added. Text in italics
`
`is used to signify claim language, while reference names are also italicized.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 21 of 54
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,475
`
`raised in the discussion of the Petition from the perspective of a POSITA at the time
`
`of the ’475 priority date.
`
`A.
`
`47.
`
`Prior Art
`
`In my opinion, the systems described in Mardirossian (as detailed for
`
`Grounds 1 and 2), Mardirossian in view of Calva (as detailed for Ground 3),
`
`Chowdhary (as detailed for Grounds 4 and 5), and Chowdhary in view of Tobey (as
`
`detailed for Ground 6) had all of the key components and performed all of the same
`
`basic functions as the system described in the ’475 patent.
`
`1. Mardirossian
`
`48. An overview of Mardirossian is provided i