`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 32
`Date: February 12, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent No. 6,480,783 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`Google, LLC1 (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of certain claims of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,480,783 B1 (“the ’783 patent”). Paper 12.2 Makor Issues &
`Rights Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7.
`Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter
`partes review of all challenged claims. (Paper 13, “Dec.”).
`During the trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 18, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 20, “Pet. Reply”). An oral hearing was held on October 19,
`2017, and a copy of the transcript has been made part of the record. Paper
`31 (“Tr.”). 3
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Decision is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the
`claims for which we instituted trial. Based on the record before us, we
`determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence,
`that claims 12–14, and 18 of the ’783 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner has
`not shown, however, that claims 15, 16, and 19 of the ’783 patent are
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner submitted an updated mandatory notice indicating that “Google
`Inc. converted from a corporation to a limited liability company and changed
`its name to Google LLC on September 30, 2017.” Paper 28.
`2 The Petition (Paper 12) was refiled pursuant to our Order of December 12,
`2016, because the original Petition (Paper 2) exceeded the allotted word
`count by over 5,000 words. Paper 11, 2.
`3 Both parties requested to present arguments collectively for IPR2016-
`01535, IPR2016-01536, and IPR2016-01537. Papers 23, 24, 26, 31.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. Real Party in Interest
`Petitioner names itself and Waze Inc. as the real parties-in-interest.
`Pet. 2.
`
`B. The ʼ783 patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ʼ783 patent is titled “Real Time Vehicle Guidance and
`Forecasting System Under Traffic Jam Conditions.” Ex. 1001, (54). The
`’783 patent issued on November 12, 2002, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`09/528,134 filed on March 17, 2000. Id. at (45), (21), (22).
`The ’783 patent generally relates to “[a] system and method for real
`time vehicle guidance by [a] Central Traffic Unit [(CTU)].” Id. at Abst.
`(57). The specification describes a vehicle guidance system, which includes
`vehicles equipped with Individual Mobile Units (IMUs) including Global
`Positioning System (GPS) units for determining their present position. Id.
`The IMUs are linked communicatively to the CTU computer server. Id.
`The system uses a group of Sample Mobile Units (SMUs) equipped with RF
`transmitters that communicate their position to the CTU at predetermined
`time intervals. Id. The CTU uses the reported positions of the sample
`vehicles to create and maintain a network of real time traffic load disposition
`information for various geographical areas. Id. The IMUs may use the real
`time traffic load disposition information to determine an optimal travel
`route. Id. As explained in the ’783 patent, “[t]he CTU broadcasts the
`updated traffic data collected from a number of sample vehicles via
`Multicast Broadcasting System thereby enabling the IMUs to dynamically
`update the desired optimal travel routes.” Ex. 1001, 1:10–14.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`The Specification of the ’783 patent also describes the ability to detect
`a bottleneck or traffic jam situation when it arises and to estimate a current
`travel time for a corresponding section of road. Id. at Abst. (57). The ’783
`patent describes three methods for determining travel time over a road
`segment: (i) theoretical travel times, (ii) regular empirical travel times, and
`(iii) current travel times. Ex. 1001, 11:46–12:38. Theoretical travel times
`are based on a calculation of road or section length and maximum speed
`allowed on the section. Id. at 11:46–58. Theoretical travel times are
`replaced by regular empirical travel times after the CTU monitors all SMU
`vehicles and records their travel times along sections of roads. Id. at 11:59–
`62. These regular travel times are averaged and transformed into empirical
`speed coefficients and stored in a central database associated with a number
`of categories such as type of road, day of the week, or month. Id. at 11:62–
`66. After sufficient data has been accumulated to estimate accurately
`regular empirical travel times along a section, the CTU will provide those
`regular empirical travel times rather than theoretical travel times. Id. at
`12:5–10.
`Current travel times are times obtained from a number of vehicles that
`have recently traveled along a section of road. Ex. 1001 12:11–22. The
`travel times are monitored in real time and the corresponding data for these
`times are stored in special data structures. Id. The data structures for the
`current travel times contain Exit Lists (EXLs), which are multicasted at short
`time intervals from the CTU to end-user databases and made available for
`use by route-finding routines. Id. at 12:12–22. A goal of the current travel
`time monitoring and use “is to detect bottleneck situations, and to modify
`estimated Current Travel Time (CTT) accordingly.” Id. at 12:29–31. The
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`’783 patent describes “[t]he criterion for using CTT rather than Regular
`Travel Times (RTT) for various sections is that EXL contains recent enough
`data.” Id. at 12:31–33.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 12 is independent and illustrative of the claims at issue:
`12. Method of operating a central traffic guidance unit
`comprising method of calculating an optimal fastest short and
`long range composite travel route for a predetermined extended
`time period corresponding to client’s position or requested
`starting and destination points;
`collecting GPS data at predetermined time intervals from
`sample vehicles moving within a predefined geographical
`region;
`providing a map database containing digital road maps of a
`predefined geographical region together with predetermined
`relevant data on road factors;
`processing in real time said GPS data and transforming them
`into appropriately structured data suitable for being stored on
`using a computer system operatively connected
`to a
`communications system;
`storing and updating statistical data on traffic loads on
`individual roads;
`subdividing said statistical data into subdivisions according
`to time factors;
`collecting GPS data and computing individual statistical
`travel time estimates (regular times) for predetermined roads,
`and storing the results according to said subdivisions;
`periodical updating of the said statistical data using statistical
`criteria for determining volumes of data necessary for obtaining
`valid and reliable estimates;
`computing real time traffic jam identification at various
`locations of the individual roads by utilizing the sample vehicles
`for measuring time delays; and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`transmitting real time traffic load data updates.
`Id. at 22:50–23:14.
`
`D. Related Proceedings
`The parties state that the ʼ783 patent is asserted in Makor Issues &
`Rights Ltd. v. Google Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00100 (D. Del.). Pet. 2; Paper
`6, 1. Petitioner has filed the following related petitions:
`1. IPR2016-01536 (U.S. Patent No. 6,615,130 B1);
`2. IPR2016-01537 (U.S. Patent No. 6,615,130 B1);
`3. IPR2017-00815 (U.S. Patent No. 6,480,783 B1);
`4. IPR2017-00816 (U.S. Patent No. 6,480,783 B1);
`5. IPR2017-00817 (U.S. Patent No. 6,480,783 B1);
`6. IPR2017-00818 (U.S. Patent No. 6,615,130 B1).
`E. Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`U.S. Patent No. 6,401,027 B1, filed May 24, 1999, issued June 4,
`2002 (Ex. 1006, “Xu”);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,845,227, filed Feb. 9, 1996, issued Dec. 1, 1998
`(Ex. 1007, “Peterson”);
`TravTek System Architecture Evaluation, July 1995 (Ex. 1004,
`“TravTek”);
`Danko A. Roozemond, Forecasting Travel Times Based on Actuated
`and Historic Data (1997) (Ex. 1005, “Roozemond”)
`Petitioner relies on the declaration and rebuttal declaration of Michael
`S. Braasch, Ph.D. (Exs. 1003, 1026). Patent Owner relies on the declaration
`of Alex A. Kurzhanskiy, Ph.D. (Ex. 2002). The parties rely on other
`exhibits as discussed below.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`F. Instituted Ground of Unpatentability
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Dec. 20, 25–27):
`Basis
`Reference(s)
`TravTek and Roozemond § 103(a)4
`
`Claims Challenged
`12–16, 18, and 19
`
`Xu and Peterson
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`12–14 and 18
`
`
`
`G. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard). Under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard, and absent any special definitions, claim terms are
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one
`of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special
`definitions for claim terms or phrases must be set forth with reasonable
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to
`be read from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988
`F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`
`4 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the application from which the ’783 patent issued was filed
`before that date, our citations to Title 35 are to its pre-AIA version.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for two claim terms — “GPS data”
`and “standard travel times.” Pet. 8, 9. In turn, Patent Owner proposes a
`construction of the claim limitation “traffic jam.” PO Resp. 4. Having
`considered the evidence presented, we determine that express construction
`of the terms “GPS data” and “traffic jam” are necessary for purposes of this
`Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be construed that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).5
`1. “GPS data”
`Claim 12 requires the method of operating a central traffic guidance
`unit, to comprise, in pertinent part, the step of “collecting GPS data at
`predetermined time intervals from sample vehicles moving within a
`predefined geographical region.” Ex. 1001, 22:55–57.
`Petitioner contends that “GPS data” means “data that was determined
`using signals received from GPS satellites or that is related to use of such
`signals.” Pet. 8. Petitioner relies on the Specification, which provides
`examples of GPS data as: “present positions, the position time, their IDs, and
`their speed vectors at specific time intervals.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:67–
`3:3). Petitioner argues that these examples demonstrate that information
`
`
`5 On September 20, 2018, the Board requested additional claim construction
`briefing related to whether a specific claim limitation should be interpreted
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (Paper 25), and both parties submitted
`subsequent briefing (Paper 29 (Petitioner), Paper 30 (Patent Owner)). Both
`parties agreed that this claim limitation was not subject to the requirements
`of ¶ 6 and therefore, we agree with the parties’ assessment and determine no
`further construction is required for this term.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`may either be generated from a GPS signal, derived from multiple GPS
`signals over time, or that are related to use of such signals. Id. at 8–9.
`In our Institution Decision, we disagreed that the additional language
`“or that is related to use of such signals” should be part of the construction
`because it was unnecessarily vague in scope. Dec. 8–9. Based on the final
`trial record before us, we maintain that the additional language (“or that is
`related to use of such signals”) is not reasonable. Our review of the passage
`in the ’783 patent cited by Petitioner (Ex. 1001, 2:67–3:3) reveals that it
`discloses how “SMU vehicles communicate to CTU their GPS data” and not
`as Petitioner suggests how the GPS data is determined. Thus, the additional
`clause Petitioner proposes extends the meaning of GPS data to capture data
`or information that is outside the scope of the ’783 patent. Based on the
`final record, we construe “GPS data” to mean data that was determined
`using signals received from GPS satellites.
`2. “Traffic jam”
`Claim 12 requires “computing real time traffic jam identification at
`various locations of the individual roads by utilizing the sample vehicles for
`measuring time delays.” Ex. 1001, 23:11–13.
`Patent Owner’s Contentions
`Patent Owner contends that
`“traffic jam” means an abnormal slowdown or bottleneck – one
`that is worse than a statistically computed, regular travel time on
`a section of a route. . . . A typical or routine slowdown, e.g., the
`typical daily congestion during rush hour, does not qualify as a
`“traffic jam” within the ambit of the ’783 Patent claims.
`PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner asserts that its proposed construction
`distinguishes “traffic jam” and “routine congestion” based on the language
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`of claim 12 as well as the Specification. Id. Specifically, Patent Owner
`argues that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`‘statistical travel time estimates (regular times) for predetermined roads’
`would necessarily include regularly-occurring congestion.” Id. at 5. Patent
`Owner supports its position by first noting that “claim 12 further goes on to
`recite the computation of ‘traffic jams,’ by using ‘sample vehicles to
`measure time delays,’ which a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand must therefore be distinct from regular, statistical, congestion.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 7).
`Patent Owner also directs us to column 12 of the ’783 patent that
`distinguishes between the use of “Current Travel Times” and “Regular
`Travel Times” – the latter being typically used for route guidance using
`empirical statistical travel times, but the former being used when an
`unpredictable change in traffic conditions is detected. Id. Patent Owner
`notes that in the absence of a bottleneck, the “Regular Travel Times” will be
`used for route guidance. Id. at 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:35–38). Patent
`Owner argues that “[o]nly during atypical slowdowns are ‘current travel
`times, which reflect sudden and unpredictable changes in traffic conditions,’
`used instead of Regular Travel Times.” Id. at 6. Patent Owner points to two
`such examples, (1) when “there is a sufficient number of vehicles reporting a
`bottleneck in a sufficiently recent time period,” and (2) when vehicles have
`spent considerably more time in a section than a corresponding Regular
`Travel Time. Id. at 5 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:31–35, 12:35–38). Patent Owner
`concludes that “[t]he ‘traffic jam’ determination that is disclosed and
`claimed in the ’783 Patent is a determination of an abnormal slowdown.” Id.
`at 6 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 8–9). Based on its understanding, Patent Owner
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`thus defines “traffic jam” as an “unpredictable (irregular or abnormal)
`slowdown of all traffic on a segment during a time frame, relative to the
`regular, statistically established travel time for that segment during that time
`frame.” Id. at 7; see also Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 10–11.
`Petitioner’s Contentions
`Petitioner did not propose a construction for the term “traffic jam” in
`its Petition, but addresses Patent Owner’s position in its Reply. See Pet.
`Reply 1–7. Petitioner contends that we should adopt the “plain and
`ordinary” meaning of “traffic jam,” and that Patent Owner has proposed an
`“overly-narrow construction of ‘traffic jam.’” Id. at 1; Tr. 10:15–17.
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is also not
`supported by the Specification, extrinsic evidence, and it is inconsistent with
`Patent Owner’s own expert testimony. Id.
`
`Petitioner first contends that Patent Owner’s construction is overly
`narrow and therefore improper “because the patent uses the term more
`broadly than Makor’s narrow construction.” Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:48–
`52 representing “that a ‘jam’ encompasses situations where ‘the average
`speed is less than a predetermined value’”). Petitioner next argues that the
`Specification’s discussion of “Current Travel Times” and “bottlenecks”
`cannot be used to import limitations into the claim term “traffic jam”
`because the claim language does not refer to the former two terms. Id.
`Also, Petitioner argues that “the Abstract (cited by Makor) indicates that a
`‘traffic jam’ and a ‘bottleneck’ are alternative species or otherwise not
`coextensive.” Id. at 2–3 (quoting Ex. 1001, Abst. (“information on current
`traffic jams and slow-down bottleneck situations”)) (citing id. at 2:31–38).
`Petitioner contends that the Specification describes how “‘Current Travel
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`Times’ are used in route calculations, without referring to ‘traffic jams,’”
`and thus, “the portions cited by Makor represent at most a description of
`‘Current Travel Times’ or ‘bottleneck’—not a lexicographer definition of
`‘traffic jam.’” Id. at 3. Petitioner similarly contends that “even if the
`patent’s ‘Current Travel Times’ were only used during atypical slowdowns,
`these portions do not refer to a ‘traffic jam’ and the outermost boundaries of
`‘traffic jam’ would thus not be limited.” Id.
`Finally, Petitioner contends that a “traffic jam” does not have to be
`calculated using the “Current Travel Times.” Id. Petitioner argues that the
`calculation of “Current Travel Times” “involves a ‘linear regression’
`technique that generates ‘Current Travel Times’ from real-time data.” Id. at
`3–4 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:52–67, 13:50–63). Petitioner relies on an
`embodiment that discusses using “‘current travel times data’ in a Starting
`Point zone and other types of data for different zones,” but also selecting a
`route using current travel times for certain roads and other data for different
`roads. Id. at 4. According to Petitioner, “using real-time data to calculate
`‘Current Travel Times’ is merely a preferred embodiment in the ’783 patent
`and not a requirement to be imported into the claims.” Id. (citing Ex. 1026
`¶¶ 7–9). Thus, Petitioner argues “the specification does not limit the
`outermost bounds of ‘traffic jam’ to a slowdown ‘that is worse than a
`statistically computed, regular travel time on a section of a route.’” Id. at 4.
`Petitioner does not provide a specific definition of “traffic jam,” (Tr.
`10:15–17) but at oral argument indicated that “the idea that a traffic jam,
`which I think is consistent with the claimed ordinary meaning of the term,
`can be identified as a comparison between what is currently going on and
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`some set of expectations defined in some way but can also be defined as any
`predetermined value.” Tr. 8:11–15.
`
`Analysis
`In construing the claims, our analysis begins with, and remains
`centered on, the language of the claims themselves. See Interactive Gift
`Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`“‘[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be
`interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest
`reasonable interpretation.’” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802 (Fed. Cir.
`1983) (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548 (CCPA 1976)). “T]he
`broadest reasonable interpretation must be reasonable in light of the claims
`and specification.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF,
`LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The broadest reasonable
`interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation, our
`construction “cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
`evidence.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`The disagreement between the parties as to the scope of “traffic jam”
`is focused on whether the term should be construed in a broader lay sense as
`proposed by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 6) or whether the term should be
`construed in accordance with the more specific descriptions found in the
`Specification as proposed by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 4–5). As addressed in
`more detail below, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed claim
`construction in whole because it adds unnecessary ambiguity. For example,
`“irregular or abnormal” do not add clarity to the definition. If a feature is
`not necessary to give meaning to what the inventor means by a claim term, it
`would be “extraneous” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`The Specification, however, does convey that the term “traffic jam” is not
`used in a layman’s sense, but instead used as a description of a situation
`arising from a data comparison meeting certain criteria as discussed below.
`Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the traffic jam discussion in the
`Background of the Invention is not particularly probative of how that term
`should be construed in the context of the ’783 patent. The background
`explains how another patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,699,056) defines a situation
`as a jam. See Ex. 1001, 1:48–52. The context makes clear that the ’783
`patent distinguishes how it determines a traffic jam compared to the ’056
`patent. See id. at 1:53–2:10 (“solution contains a number of problematic
`points that require further development” and “[a]verage speeds will in this
`case give no indication of this dynamic change, the same being true of a
`dissipating jam”). Thus, we do not view the discussion of “a jam” in the
`Background of the Invention as particularly helpful in determining the scope
`of the claim term “traffic jam” because that description also teaches away
`from using average speeds that are “incapable of catching a trend.” Id. at
`2:7.
`We first examine the claim as a whole with a focus on the disputed
`language. The claim language itself requires “computing real time traffic
`jam identification.” Ex. 1001, 23:10 (emphasis added). By qualifying the
`claimed traffic jam as being determined in real time, and by also by using
`“sample vehicles to measure time delays,” a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would understand that traffic jams are more immediate, e.g., real time,
`than the regular, statistical, congestion described in the ’783 patent. See Ex.
`2002 ¶ 7 (“[C]laim 12 further goes on to recite the computation of ‘traffic
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`jams,’ by using ‘sample vehicles to measure time delays,’ which a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand must therefore be distinct from
`regular, statistical, congestion.”). The claim also requires “collecting GPS
`data and computing individual statistical travel time estimates (regular
`times) for predetermined roads.” Ex. 1001, 23:3–6; Tr. 27:16–29:17
`(discussing the relevance of this limitation). Reading the claim as a whole
`suggests that a “traffic jam” must be a sudden unpredictable change of
`traffic on a segment as compared to these regular times. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 7.
`The Specification confirms our interpretation. For example, the
`Specification describes a “real time traffic Guidance System, which is
`capable of providing [an] optimal route from the present position of a
`vehicle to a desired target destination when traffic jams may be present.” Id.
`at 2:13–21. The Specification also describes “a true real time system” that
`collects and stores three types of data, including: (1) temporary changes in
`road conditions, (2) regular predictable changes such as everyday
`slowdowns in rush hour, and (3) “sudden unpredictable changes such [as]
`traffic accidents, traffic congestion due to sudden and drastic changes in
`traffic arrangements.” Id. at 2:36–48. The Specification describes “Travel
`Times Data” similarly separated into three categories, including a third
`category of “[s]udden unpredictable changes such [as] traffic accidents,
`traffic congestion due to sudden and drastic changes in whether [sic]
`conditions, etc.” Id. at 9:47–10:7. The third category of data is meant to
`encompass traffic jam situations because the Specification further describes,
`“[a]s to factors in the third category, it appears that even empirical travel
`times may be unsuitable for describing traffic conditions arising from
`sudden and unexpected circumstances which might drastically influence
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`traffic conditions.” Id. at 10:37–50 (emphasis added). As explained in the
`Specification, “[t]his last feature provides the present invention with truly
`real time capabilities.” Id. Based on these descriptions, the term “traffic
`jam” is meant to convey real time traffic conditions arising from sudden and
`unexpected circumstances that might drastically influence traffic conditions.
`Moreover, the Specification describes using GPS data of vehicles to
`obtain “Regular Empirical Travel Times,” which are described as times
`correlated to regular predictable changes for a particular segment, such as
`everyday slowdowns in rush hour. Id. at 11:59–12:10. The Specification
`teaches that data from regular travel times may be stored in a central
`database as attached to sections of roads according to a number of categories
`such as type of road or day of the week. Id. at 11:60–12:4, 12:31–33. The
`regular travel time described in the Specification corresponds to the claim
`limitation of “collecting GPS data and computing individual statistical travel
`time estimates (regular times) for predetermined roads, and storing the
`results according to said subdivisions.” Id. at 23:3–6. This language
`specifically ties the regular time value to a “predetermined road,” and
`additional claim limitations require storing the results of the regular times
`according to subdivisions based on time factors. Id. at 23:1–6. As discussed
`below, regular times are used to determine whether a traffic jam situation
`exists.
`The Specification further describes detecting a “bottleneck situation,”
`which we determine is used synonymously with “traffic jam.” Id. at 12:26–
`38. For example, the Abstract describes updating travel times based on
`“new information on current traffic jams and slow-down bottlenecks.” Id. at
`Abst. The Specification uses the terms “traffic jam” and “slow-down
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`bottleneck” in the same context to convey situations where sample vehicles
`have spent considerably more time than “a regular time stored in the
`database.” Ex. 1001, Abst., 12:36–37 (“considerably more time on S than
`the corresponding [Regular Travel Times] RTT”). In one embodiment for
`detecting a bottleneck, or traffic jam, a “Current Travel Time” (CTT) is used
`and compared to the “Regular Travel Time” (RTT) when a time interval is
`“short enough to consider the detected bottleneck to be current” and when
`each vehicle “has spent considerably more time” on a segment “than the
`corresponding RTT.” Id. at 12:29–38. Such a situation is “interpreted as a
`bottleneck” or traffic jam. Id.
`Thus, the Specification consistently equates a traffic jam to situations
`where sudden and unpredictable changes in traffic conditions result in
`considerably more time on a segment as compared to regular times. See id.
`at Abst., 2:43–45, 10:5–7, 10:37–43, 12:36–37. Based on the Specification
`discussed above, and reading claim 12 as a whole, we determine that “traffic
`jam identification” based on measured time delays of sample vehicles
`requires a baseline “regular time” for comparison to determine whether or
`not a traffic jam condition exists. Based on the final trial record, we
`construe “traffic jam,” broadly, but reasonably, as a sudden unpredictable
`change of traffic in a segment as compared to regular times, i.e., individual
`statistical travel time estimates.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the
`challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent
`Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish the facts
`supporting its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`A. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We
`analyze the following grounds based on obviousness in accordance with the
`above-stated principles.
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Braasch, testifies
`that:
`
`a POSITA would have had a combination of experience and
`education in electrical engineering and navigation systems. This
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01535
`Patent 6,480,783 B1
`
`
`typically would consist of a minimum of a bachelor degree in
`electrical engineering or a related engineering field plus 2-5
`years of work and/or research experience in the field of electrical
`engineering and its subfield of navigation systems.
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner does not contest this level of skill for the
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`Based on the final trial record before us, we adopt generally Dr.
`Braasch’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Namely, that
`the person of ordinary skill in the art would have (1) a bachelor of science in
`electrical engineering or a related engineering field, and (2) 2-5 years of
`experience in the field of navigation systems.
`
`C. Obviousness Ground Based on TravTek and Roozemond
`We instituted review on the basis that claims 12–16, 18, and 19 would
`have been unpatentable as obvious over TravTek and Roozemond under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a). Dec. 20; Pet