`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________________
`
`IPR2022-00442 (Patent No. 10,820,147)
`_________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT VAN ESSEN
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 
`I.  
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................................... 3 
`II. 
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ............................................................................................... 3 
`III. 
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LAW ....................................................................... 4 
`A.  Priority Date and Prior Art ............................................................................... 4 
`B.  Claim Interpretation .......................................................................................... 6 
`V. 
`THE ’147 PATENT ............................................................................................................. 8 
`VI.   SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................... 8 
`A.   Myr (Ex. 1007) ................................................................................................. 8 
`B.   Yiu (Ex. 1006) ................................................................................................ 10 
`C.   Machida (Ex. 1009) ........................................................................................ 11 
`D.   Uehara (Ex. 1005) ........................................................................................... 12 
`VII.   CLAIM INTERPRETATION ............................................................................................ 13 
`VIII.  OPINIONS REGARDING ASSERTED GROUNDS ....................................................... 14 
`A. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 17-19 are not Obvious Over Myr in View of Yiu
` ......................................................................................................................... 14 
`Claim 1 .................................................................................................................................. 14 
`B.  Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground II that Challenged Claims 2, 6, 13, 16
`and 22 are Obvious Over Myr in View of Yiu and Machida ........................ 23 
`Claims 2 and 6 ....................................................................................................................... 23 
`Claims 13 and 16 ................................................................................................................... 25 
`Claim 22 ................................................................................................................................ 26 
`C. Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground III that Challenged Claims 1, 5, 7, 8,
`11-12 and 17-19 are Obvious Over Uehara in View of Yiu and Myr ........... 27 
`1.  Claim 1 ........................................................................................................................... 27 
`2.  Claim 11 ......................................................................................................................... 31 
`3.  Claims 5 and 7-8 ............................................................................................................ 32 
`4.  Claims 12 and 17-19 ...................................................................................................... 32 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`D. Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground IV that Challenged Claim 22 is
`Obvious Over Uehara in View of Yiu, Myr and Machida ............................. 32 
`VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 33 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`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. 10,820,147 (“the ’147 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 1-2, 5-8, 11-13, 16-19, and 22 of the ’147 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has asserted invalidity based on the
`
`following references:
`
`Reference
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0002036
`(Uehara)
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,928,291 (Yiu)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,480,783 (Myr)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2001/0002036
`(“Machida”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Exhibit
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1009
`
`

`

`I understand that Petitioner has asserted the following “grounds” of invalidity
`
`based on these references:
`
`Ground Challenged Claims
`1
`1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 17-19
`2
`2, 6, 13, 16, and 22
`
`1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 17-19
`22
`
`3
`4
`
`
`
`Alleged Basis Asserted References
`Obviousness Myr, Yiu
`Obviousness Myr, Yiu, Machida
`
`Obviousness Uehara, Myr, Yiu
`Obviousness Uehara, Myr, Yiu,
`Machida
`
`As set forth in this Declaration, I do not agree that the identified combinations
`
`of references render obvious the challenged claims of the ’147 Patent.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have considered, among other things, the materials
`
`cited or discussed in this Declaration, the ’147 Patent, the corresponding file history,
`
`Google’s IPR Petition, Michalson’s Declaration (Ex. 1003), and the references and
`
`exhibits on which Petitioner and Michalson rely. 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`
`I am currently a self-employed Geospatial Consultant.
`
`I earned a Masters, Geography, Major: Cartography from Utrecht University
`
`in 1989.
`
`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 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 startups. 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.
`
`I have more than 30 years of experience in geospatial technology.
`
`Additional details regarding my background and qualifications are set forth in
`
`my curriculum vitae in Attachment A.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Based on my analysis, as set forth in this Declaration, I conclude:
`
`(a) Myr and Yiu do not render claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 17-19 of the
`
`’147 Patent obvious (as Petitioner asserts in Ground 1);
`
`(b) Myr, Yiu, and Machida do not render claims 2, 6, 13, 16, and 22 of the
`
`’147 Patent obvious (as Petitioner asserts in Ground 2);
`
`(c) Myr, Yiu, and Uehara do not render claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 17-19
`
`of the ’147 Patent obvious (as Petitioner asserts in Ground 3); and
`
`(d) Myr, Yiu, Uehara, and Machida do not render claim 22 of the ’147
`
`Patent obvious (as Petitioner asserts in Ground 4);
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LAW
`
`I am neither a lawyer nor a 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 applied this understanding in rendering
`
`my opinions in this Declaration.
`
`A.
`
`Priority Date and Prior Art
`
`In the context of an inter partes review, the prior art to the challenged patent
`
`includes patents and printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority
`
`date of the patent.
`
`
`
`I understand that the application that issued as the ’147 Patent was filed on
`
`February 12, 2020. Ex. 2001 at ¶17. The priority date of the ’147 Patent is October
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`4, 2001. The ’147 Patent is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`16/557,277, filed Aug. 30, 2019 and Published as U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 20200015039 on Jan. 9, 2020, which is a Continuation of U.S. patent
`
`application Ser. No. 16/116,215 filed on Aug. 29, 2018 and issued as U.S. Pat. No.
`
`10,448,209 on Oct. 15, 2019, which is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser.
`
`No. 15/880,852 filed on Jan. 26, 2018 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 10,390,175 on
`
`Aug. 20, 2019, which is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.
`
`15/717,138 filed on Sep. 27, 2017 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,918,196 on Mar. 13,
`
`2018, which is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/468,265 filed
`
`on Mar. 24, 2017 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,888,353 on Feb. 6, 2018, which is a
`
`Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/297,222, filed on Oct. 19, 2016,
`
`and issued as U.S. 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. Provisional Application No. 60/352,761 filed on Jan. 29, 2002, U.S. Provisional
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`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
`
`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
`
`It is my understanding that 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 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
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`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 non-obviousness.
`
`D. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`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 ’147 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 contemporary communications standards.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`V.
`
`THE ’147 PATENT
`
`Traxcell holds a portfolio of fundamental patents in wireless technology. The
`
`navigational technology first developed by Traxcell helps provide a communication
`
`device displaying up-to-date maps including routing information as a user of the
`
`communication device travels from one location to the next,
`
`as well as
`
`live
`
`traffic data and more. The United States Patent and Trademark 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 ’147 Patent. The patent
`
`family is at the core of Traxcell’s wireless technology.
`
`VI. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies on the Myr, Yiu, Machida, and Uehara references to support
`
`Petitioner’s invalidity arguments. Before addressing my opinions in relation to
`
`Petitioner’s arguments, I provide some background information on the cited
`
`references.
`
`A. Myr (Ex. 1007)
`
`Myr is directed to providing a Guidance system for real time vehicle guidance.
`
`The system includes a plurality of vehicles equipped with Individual Mobile Units
`
`and communicatively linked to the Central Traffic Unit computer server. The Central
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Traffic Unit (CTU) broadcasts the updated traffic patterns in real time thereby
`
`enabling the Individual Mobile Units (IMU) to dynamically calculate the desired
`
`optimal travel paths. Ex. 1007 at Abstract.
`
`The Guidance System consists of CTU and a fleet of IMUs. In order to have
`
`an updated data on traffic situations, the vehicle fleet is divided into two categories:
`
`sample vehicles SMU and all other client vehicles CMU. In general, CMUs are only
`
`clients that “consume” traffic congestion data provided by the CTU. The sample
`
`vehicles, on the other hand can be both clients and serve also as antennas or tentacles
`
`for collecting real time data on traffic situations, which can be used by all end users
`
`for updating their optimal routes. This data collection is performed by permanent
`
`monitoring of GPS signals obtained from SMUs and by concurrent measuring of
`
`their current travel times along a broad range of roads. Ex. 1007, 2:50-62.
`
`Myr discloses the information exchange between CTU and IMUs in the
`
`Guidance System as “[T]he data transfer from SMUs to CTU is done by wireless RF
`
`communication, and from CTU to both SMUs and CMUs by one-to-many
`
`multicasting system. The SMU vehicles communicate to CTU their GPS data: the
`
`present positions, the position time, their IDs, and their speed vectors at specific time
`
`intervals. After processing the information, CTU sends to CMUs updated
`
`information on traffic bottleneck situations (i.e., road ID, current time, and travel
`
`times of the latest n vehicles). At any given moment, the CTU also maintains the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`database containing travel times for all sections of roads at a particular time of the
`
`day, for a particular of day of the week, etc.” Ex. 1007, 2:63-3:8.
`
`B. Yiu (Ex. 1006)
`
`Yiu, titled Method and Apparatus for Dynamically Controlling Release of
`
`Private Information Over a Network from a Wireless Device, discloses a proxy
`
`gateway coupled to one or more wireless hand-held devices over a wireless network
`
`and to one or more origin servers over a wired network. The proxy gateway
`
`determines when private information associated with a wireless device is needed or
`
`requested by another network entity, such as an origin server. In response to such
`
`determination, the proxy gateway communicates with the wireless device to enable
`
`the wireless device to present a user interface which allows a user of the wireless
`
`device to dynamically control release of the private information. Ex. 1006 at
`
`Abstract.
`
`The method includes determining that protected information associated with
`
`a hand-held wireless communication device is needed or requested by a remote
`
`network entity, and in response, enabling a user of the hand-held wireless
`
`communication device to dynamically control release of the protected information.
`
`Ex. 1006, 1:62-67.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`C. Machida (Ex. 1009)
`
`Machida is titled Geographic Information Output System. The Machida
`
`system includes a mobile station connected to a geographic information center 600
`
`through network. Ex.1009, ¶¶ [0030], [0034]. The geographic information center
`
`600 includes a geographic information analyzing server 603 that carries out
`
`operations for route finding and route analysis, a traffic database 606 storing real-
`
`time road information about accidents, traffic congestion and construction work that
`
`will change from time to time. Ex.1009 ¶ [0036].
`
`Machida describes a navigation system intended for use by various moving
`
`means such as a vehicle or a walker. Ex.1009 ¶ [0037].
`
`Machida describes a navigation procedure as follows: after set a start point
`
`and a destination and choose moving means, a route-finding request message is sent
`
`from mobile station to the analyzing server 603, a single route may be selected by
`
`referring to traffic information in the stage of route retrieval so as to avoid traffic
`
`congestion. Ex.1009, ¶¶ [0064] - [0070]. Navigation information is provided to
`
`the user in the following way: “The mobile station 100 receives the raster map
`
`data through the communication device 102 and stores the same in the map data
`
`storage area 107d of the RAM 107 (S511). The CPU 101 reads the raster map
`
`data and the movement time from the map data storage area 107d and displays the
`
`same by the display unit 104. Ex.1009 ¶ [0086].”
`
`11
`
`

`

`D. Uehara (Ex. 1005)
`
`Uehara provides a mobile radio communication system that consists of radio
`
`communications device 14, BT stationary station 16, and base station 18, all of
`
`which are connected over a wireless network as shown in Fig. 6, below. Ex.1005 ¶¶
`
`[0086] [0051], [0088], [0090]-[0092].
`
`
`
`Uehara, Fig. 6.
`
`The mobile radio communication system is configured to allow a user of radio
`
`communications device 14 to indicate a desire to receive position information from
`
`BT stationary station 16 and neighborhood information, including a map, from either
`
`BT stationary station 16 or base station 18. Ex.1005 ¶¶ [0078] - [0081], [0090] -
`
`[0091]. Additionally, Uehara’s radio communication system allows a user to indicate
`
`an “intended destination” and determine and provide (via display or sound) guidance
`
`or navigation information on radio communications device 14. Ex.1005 ¶ [0083].
`
`.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`VII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`
`
`I am given to understand that during inter partes review, claim terms are
`
`construed using the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b),
`
`including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (as of October
`
`4, 2001) and the prosecution history of the ’147 patent. Petitioner has noted that the
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas previously construed the term
`
`“preference flags” recited in claims 1 and 11 of a related patent as “two or more flags
`
`to control access to tracking of the user.” Pet. 3; Ex. 1008, 54-55; Michalson,
`
`[0035] - [0036]. In considering the claims of the ’147 patent, I have read the terms
`
`in accordance with my understanding of their ordinary and plain meaning.
`
`In accordance with these principles, in my view the claim terms of the ’147
`
`Patent are clear on their face, with the exception of the term “navigation
`
`information,” found in claims 1, 11, and 22.
`
`The term “navigation”, as known in the art, is defined in Merriam-Webster
`
`Dictionary (Ex. 2002) as “the science of getting ships, aircraft, or spacecraft from
`
`place to place especially : the method of determining position, course, and distance
`
`traveled”, or defined in the Cambridge English dictionary (Ex. 2003) as “the act of
`
`directing a ship, aircraft, etc. from one place to another, or the science of finding a
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`way from one place to another.” It is my opinion then, that the term “navigation
`
`information” would include “a course or way (route) from one place to another.”
`
`The words of claim 1 recite “the first processor further sends the user
`
`navigation information to the network as a number of segments.” The specification
`
`of the ’147 Patent states that “Each segment of a route could be analyzed and
`
`assigned a numerical figure representing the expected amount of time to travel
`
`through the segment.” Ex.1001 at 118: 18-21. Thus, a POSITA would have
`
`understood from the ’147 Patent and an ordinary meaning that the term “navigation
`
`information” means the information of a route directed from one place to another
`
`composed of a number of segments.
`
`VIII. OPINIONS REGARDING ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`I understand that Petitioner has raised four grounds of invalidity. I provide my
`
`opinions in relation to these grounds in the sections below. Because my background,
`
`discussions above regarding the ’147 Patent, the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`and claim interpretation inform my opinions, I consider these discussions to be part
`
`of my opinions and incorporate them by reference here.
`
`A. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 17-19 are not Obvious Over Myr in View
`of Yiu
`
`
`Claim 1
`Petitioner divides claim 1 into elements as follows:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`[pre] A wireless communications system including:
`
`[1a] a first radio-frequency transceiver within a wireless mobile communications
`
`device and an associated first antenna to which the first radio-frequency transceiver
`
`is coupled,
`
`[1b] wherein the first radio-frequency transceiver is configured for radio-frequency
`
`communication with a wireless communications network;
`
`[1c] a first processor within the wireless mobile communications device coupled to
`
`the at least one first radio-frequency transceiver programmed to receive information
`
`indicative of a location of the wireless mobile communications device and generate
`
`an indication of a location of the wireless mobile communications device with
`
`respect to geographic features according to mapping information stored within the
`
`wireless mobile communications device, and
`
`[1d] wherein the first processor determines user navigation information and displays
`
`the user navigation information according to the location of the wireless mobile
`
`communications device with respect to the geographic features and a destination
`
`specified at the wireless mobile communications device, and
`
`[1e] wherein the first processor further sends the user navigation information to the
`
`network as a number of segments, wherein at least one other processor outside the
`
`network updates the user navigation information in conformity with traffic
`
`congestion information accessible to the at least one other processor outside the
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`network by computing a numerical value for the segments corresponding to the
`
`expected time to travel through the segments, updates the user navigation
`
`information in conformity with the numerical values for the segments, and sends the
`
`updated user navigation information to the wireless mobile communications device;
`
`[1f] at least one second radio-frequency transceiver and an associated at least one
`
`second antenna of the wireless communications network to which the second radio-
`
`frequency transceiver is coupled; and
`
`[1g] a second processor coupled to the at least one second radio-frequency
`
`transceiver programmed to acquire the information indicative of a location of the
`
`wireless mobile communications device,
`
`[1h] wherein the second processor selectively acquires the information indicative of
`
`a location of the wireless mobile communications device dependent on the setting
`
`of preference flags, wherein the second processor acquires the information
`
`indicative of a location of the wireless mobile communications device if the
`
`preference flags are set to a state that permits tracking of the wireless mobile
`
`communications device, and
`
` [1i] wherein the second processor does not acquire the information indicative of the
`
`location of the wireless mobile communications device if the preference flags are set
`
`to a state that prohibits tracking of the wireless mobile communications device.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`a.
`
`Element [1e]
`Myr in view of Yiu does not teach the element [1e].
`
`As to the limitation “the first processor further sends the user navigation
`
`information to the network as a number of segments”, Petitioner proffers that
`
`“Myr’s CTU receives GPS data from a plurality of on-vehicle computers and stores
`
`this data in “a database containing travel times for all sections of roads.” Myr, 2:65-
`
`3:9. Myr’s CTU assigns each segment a determined “travel time.” Myr, 2:65-3:9”;
`
`Petitioner cites Michalson, (“These sections are the segments.”). See Michalson,
`
`[0066] - [0071].” Pet. 17.
`
`Petitioner mistakenly reads the “GPS data” in Myr onto “navigation
`
`information” claimed in the ’147 Patent. Patent owner submits that they are totally
`
`different.
`
`For the reasons I gave above, “navigation information” in terms of the ’147
`
`patent covers “information of a route directed from one place to another composed
`
`of a number of segments.” Navigation information, as claimed, includes start point
`
`and destination and a route from start point to the destination. On the other hand,
`
`vehicle “GPS data” is simply positional information generated by a processor in a
`
`GPS chip on basis of information received from GPS satellites. GPS data can be (and
`
`is generally) used to determine a start point (when the current position of the user is
`
`taken as a start point), which serves as input to a process to generate navigation
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`information. Other inputs to this process are a destination, a map of the road network
`
`and possibly traffic information, which are distinctly different from GPS
`
`information.
`
`The “GPS data” is also used to generate traffic information for all sections of
`
`roads. For this, the CTU needs to match the individual GPS locations to the road
`
`segments in the database they belong to (a process called map matching) and
`
`calculate (vehicle) travel times for each section of roads. The CTU need not to know
`
`“start point and destination” of a “navigation information” Therefore, there is no
`
`need that CTU receives “start point and destination” of a “navigation information.”
`
`Therefore, Myr does not teach the limitation “the first processor further sends
`
`the user navigation information to the network as a number of segments.”
`
`Yiu describes a proxy gateway coupled to one or more wireless hand-held
`
`devices over a wireless network and to one or more origin servers over a wired
`
`network. The proxy gateway determines when private information associated with a
`
`wireless device is needed or requested by another network entity, such as an origin
`
`server. Ex. 1006 at Abstract.
`
` Yiu’s technological solution is irrelevant to navigation, and, Yiu does not
`
`teach the limitation “the first processor further sends the user navigation information
`
`to the network as a number of segments.”
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petitioner argues that “Myr discloses a fleet of travelling vehicles, including
`
`mobile units, which contain an “end-user on-vehicle computer” that receives traffic
`
`congestion data from a central processor unit (CTU). (Myr, 3:20-28, Fig. 1.” Pet.15);
`
`that “Myr’s CTU receives GPS data from a plurality of on-vehicle computers and
`
`stores this data in “a database containing travel times for all sections of roads” (Myr,
`
`2:65-3:9); and that Myr’s CTU assigns each segment a determined “travel time.”
`
`(Myr, 2:65-3:9). Petitioner quotes Michalson for the proposition that these “sections
`
`are the segments.” See Michalson, ¶¶ [0066] - [0071]; Pet. 17.
`
`The above argument shows that Petitioner confuses “traffic congestion data”
`
`with “navigation information”. As already made clear above, they have distinct
`
`meanings.
`
`The language of the limitation “at least one other processor outside the
`
`network updates the user navigation information in conformity with traffic
`
`congestion information accessible to the at least one other processor outside the
`
`network by computing a numerical value for the segments corresponding to the
`
`expected time to travel through the segments” of claim 1 shows that, the one other
`
`processor processes the traffic congestion information “by computing a numerical
`
`value for the segments corresponding to the expected time to travel through the
`
`segments” and then gets the “user navigation information.” Which means, although
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`“user navigation information” is relative to “traffic congestion information”, they
`
`are distinct.
`
` Myr discloses “When a vehicle enters a square, say, square 6, its IMU database
`
`receives the updated information required for optimal navigation in that
`
`particular square and in its neighborhood (1,2,3,5,6,7,9,10,11). This information is
`
`specific traffic load data pertaining to that neighborhood.” Myr, 9:23-27.
`
`The written description of Myr also shows “traffic congestion information”
`
`(specific traffic load data) is used to optimize navigation. “User navigation
`
`information” is thus distinct from “traffic congestion information.”
`
`Thus, it is clear that CTU of Myr (corresponding to at least one other processor
`
`in the ’147 Patent) does not optimize the navigation; it only sends “traffic congestion
`
`information” to the vehicle, the vehicle optimizes the navigation in its processor
`
`(corresponding to a first processor within the wireless mobile communications
`
`device). On the other hand, as recited in claim 1, the one other processor optimizes
`
`the navigation and send the “user navigation information” to the first processor
`
`within the wireless mobile communications device.
`
`Myr recites “This invention provides real time traffic Guidance System, which
`
`is capable of providing optimal route from the present position of a vehicle to a
`
`desired target destination when traffic jams may be present, thereby reducing the
`
`burden upon the driver when the vehicle is traveling at high speeds on unfamiliar
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`roads. Thereafter the optimal route found is communicated to the driver and
`
`displayed on the vehicle's computer screen featuring the digital map of the relevant
`
`region and/or via audio instructions.” Myr, 2:13-21. However, the language “The
`
`optimal route found is communicated to the driver” does not mean the optimal route
`
`is communicated from CTU to the driver. Rather, the optimal route is communicated
`
`from the vehicle's computer to the vehicle's computer screen. Myr does not teach
`
`that an optimal route is communicated from CTU to the vehicle's computer.
`
`The advantages of the Claim 1, among others, include providing the wireless
`
`mobile communica