UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________________
`
`IPR2022-00442 (Patent No. 10,820,147)
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 10,820,147
`
`
`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.
`II. TRAXCELL AND THE INVENTION OF THE ‘147 PATENT .................... 1
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’147 PATENT (EX. 1001) .......................................... 2
`A. The ’147 Patent File History ............................................................................ 2
`B. Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 4
`IV. PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART .................................................................... 6
`V. THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ....................................................................... 6
`A. Myr (Ex. 1007) ................................................................................................... 6
`B. Yiu (Ex. 1006) .................................................................................................... 8
`C. Machida (Ex. 1009) ............................................................................................ 8
`D. Uehara (Ex. 1005) .............................................................................................. 9
`VI. PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS FOR THE GROUNDS ADVANCED IN THE
`PETITION ......................................................................................................11
`A. Requirements for Showing Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103...................11
`B. Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground I that Challenged Claims 1, 5-8, 11-12,
`and 17-19 are Obvious Over Myr in View of Yiu .........................................12
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................12
`2. Claims 5, 7 and 8 .........................................................................................23
`3. Claim 11 ......................................................................................................23
`4. Claims 12 and 17-19 ....................................................................................24
`C. 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 ........................24
`1. Claims 2 and 6 .............................................................................................24
`2. Claims 13 and 16 .........................................................................................26
`3. Claim 22 ......................................................................................................27
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`D. 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 ...........28
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................28
`2. Claim 11 ......................................................................................................32
`3. Claims 5 and 7-8 ..........................................................................................33
`4. Claims 12 and 17-19 ....................................................................................33
`E. Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground IV that Challenged Claim 22 is
`Obvious Over Uehara in View of Yiu, Myr and Machida .............................33
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................12
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966)................................................. 11, 22
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................12
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) .....................................................................................................................12
`
`Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly Co., 849
`
`F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................12
`
`Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................11
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .........22
`
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012, 217 USPQ 193, 199
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1983) .....................................................................................................31
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.P.R. § 42.107 wee eeeecsseeseeseecssecsseessessseessesssesssseessesesescseeseseeesesesascsaeceuesaeeeaeees 1
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2001 Declaration of with Attachment A of Curriculum Vitae
`
`
`Description
`
`2002 Navigation Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
`
`Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/navigation
`
`2003 NAVIGATION | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
`
`Source:
`
`https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/navigation
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On January 18, 2022, Google LLC. (“Google” or “Petitioner”) submitted a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,820,147 (Ex.
`
`1001, “The ’147 Patent”, “Ex. 1001”), challenging claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11-13, 16-19
`
`and 22 (“Challenged Claims”). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC (“Traxcell” or “Patent Owner”) files this Preliminary
`
`Patent Owner Response to the Petition, setting forth reasons the Board should deny
`
`institution.
`
`The ’147 Patent generally discloses a directional navigation system using
`
`mobile devices. Several of the various implementations of the directional navigation
`
`system disclosed in the ’147 Patent are claimed as a mobile device, wireless network
`
`and their method of navigation. Routing according to the navigation system can be
`
`controlled by traffic congestion measurements made by the wireless network that
`
`allow the navigation system to select the optimum route.
`
`Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that the Challenged Claims
`
`are unpatentable. Patent Owner will specifically address each of Petitioners
`
`arguments in the following sections.
`
`II. TRAXCELL AND THE INVENTION OF 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 cable of rendering up-to-date maps including routing information (as well as
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`live traffic data and other information) while a user travels from one location to
`
`another. 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. See Ex. 2001, 8.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’147 PATENT (EX. 1001)
`
`
`The ’147 Patent File History
`A.
`The application that issued as the ’147 Patent was filed on February 12, 2020.
`
`
`
`The priority date of the ’147 Patent is October 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`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 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. See Ex. 2001, 4-5.
`
`
`
`References cited by the applicant and considered by the Examiner include
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,492,944 (Stilp). On May 26, 2020, “A Notice of Allowance” was
`
`mailed allowing claims 1-24. Ex. 1002 at 43-62.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`B. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`According to 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b), in an 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 and the
`
`prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety
`
`of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification,
`
`drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a
`
`claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the
`
`specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The words of the claim must be given their plain
`
`meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz,
`
`893 F.2d 319, 321, 13USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Chef America, Inc. v.
`
`Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir.2004).
`
`In accordance with these principles, Patent Owner submits that the terms of
`
`the ’147 Patent are clear on their face, except the following claim term which should
`
`be construed as follows:
`
`a. “navigation information” (Claims 1, 11, 22)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`An ordinary meaning of 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 way from one place to another”. Thus term “navigation
`
`information” includes at least “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. See Ex. 2001, 13-17.
`
`b. “preference flags”
`
`The Eastern District of Texas previously construed the term “preference
`
`flags” recited in independent claims 1 and 11 in a related patent as “two or more
`
`flags to control access to tracking of the user.” Ex. 1008, 54-55; applies this
`
`construction in this preliminary response.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent Owner reserves all rights to raise claim construction arguments in
`
`district court and in this proceeding should the Board grant institution.
`
`IV. PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the filing would
`
`have at least a Master of Science (“MS”) Degree in Computer Science, Computer
`
`Engineering, Cartography, or equivalent work experience in the field of computer
`
`networks, along with knowledge of
`
`the general structure of networked
`
`communication systems, its hardware and software components and underlying
`
`communications technologies. In addition, a POSITA would be familiar with the
`
`latest communications standards. Ex. 2001, 7.
`
`V.
`
`THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`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
`
`Traffic Unit broadcasts the updated traffic patterns in real time thereby enabling the
`
`Individual Mobile Units to dynamically calculate the desired optimal travel paths.
`
`Ex. 1007 at Abstract. Ex. 2001, 8-9.
`
`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:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`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. See Ex.
`
`2001, 9-10.
`
`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
`
`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. See Ex. 2001, 9-
`
`10.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`B. Yiu (Ex. 1006)
`
`Yiu is titled “Method and apparatus for dynamically controlling release of
`
`private information over a network from a wireless device” and 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. See Ex. 2001, 10.
`
`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. See Ex. 2001, 10.
`
`
`
`C. Machida (Ex. 1009)
`
`
`
`Machida is titled “Geographic information output system”. The system
`
`includes a mobile station connected to a geographic information center 600 through
`
`network. Ex.1009, ¶¶ [0030], [0034]. See Ex. 2001, 23. The geographic information
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`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]. Ex. 2001, 11.
`
`Machida includes a navigation system intended for use by various moving
`
`means such as a vehicle or a walker. Ex.1009, ¶ [0037]. See Ex. 2001, 11.
`
`Machida describes a navigation procedure: 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 making
`
`reference 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]. See Ex. 2001, 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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`which are connected over a wireless network as shown in Fig. 6, below. Ex.1005 ¶¶
`
`[0051], [0086], [0088], [0090]- [0092]. See Ex. 2001, 12.
`
`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 display guidance or navigation
`
`information on radio communications device 14. Ex.1005 ¶ [0083]. See Ex. 2001,
`
`12.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`VI. PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS FOR THE GROUNDS ADVANCED IN THE
`PETITION
` A. Requirements for Showing Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`
`
`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., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Ex. 2001 at ¶72. The Board has held that
`
`a failure to identify the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior
`
`art is fatal to an obviousness challenge. See, Apple, Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings,
`
`Inc., IPR2015-00355, Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper 9
`
`at 9-10 (P.T.A.B. June 26, 2015 (denying institution for failure to identify the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art).
`
`
`
`In arriving at an obviousness determination, the Board must sufficiently
`
`explain and support the conclusions that the prior art references disclose all the
`
`elements recited in the Challenged Claims and a relevant skilled artisan not only
`
`could have made but would have been motivated to combine all the prior-art
`
`references in the way the patent claims. Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848
`
`F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017). That is, even if all the claim elements are found
`
`across a number of references, an obviousness determination must consider whether
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine those
`
`references. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359,
`
`1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016; Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr.
`
`v. Eli Lilly Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (vacating and remanding an
`
`obviousness determination, in part, because the Board did not make factual findings
`
`as to whether there was an apparent reason to combine all three prior art references
`
`to achieve the claimed invention and whether a POSITA would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success from such a combination). This combination
`
`determination, as supported by an articulated motivation to combine, requires a
`
`plausible rationale as to why those prior art references would have worked together.
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Absent
`
`some articulated rationale, a “common sense” finding is no different than the
`
`conclusory statement “would have been obvious.” In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017). Of additional importance, “knowledge of a problem and motivation
`
`to solve it are entirely different from motivation to combine particular references.”
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`B. Petitioner Fails to Establish in Ground I that Challenged Claims 1, 5-8, 11-
`12, and 17-19 are Obvious Over Myr in View of Yiu
`1. Claim 1
`
` The Petitioner has divided claim 1 into elements for consideration as follows:
`
`[pre] A wireless communications system including:
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`[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
`
`network by computing a numerical value for the segments corresponding to the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`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.
`
`a.
`
`Element [1e]
`
`Myr in view of Yiu does not teach the element [1e].
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`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.” Ex. 1007,
`
`2:65-3:9. Myr’s CTU assigns each segment a determined “travel time.” Ex. 1007,
`
`2:65-3:9”; and quotes Michalson that “These sections are the segments. Michalson,
`
`[0066]-[0071]. ” Pet. 17.
`
`It is clear that Petitioner equates the “GPS data” in Myr with “navigation
`
`information” in the ’147 Patent. Patent Owner submits that they are totally different.
`
`As set forth above, the term “navigation information” in the claims of the ’147
`
`is directed to “information of a route directed from one place to another composed
`
`of a number of segments”. Navigation information, as claimed, includes a start point
`
`and destination and a route from start point to the destination. Section III.B. a., supra.
`
`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 information. Other inputs to this process are a destination, a map
`
`of the road network and possibly traffic information, which are quite different from
`
`GPS information. See Ex. 2001, 17-18.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`The “GPS data” is also used to generate traffic information for 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.”
`
`See Ex. 2001, 18.
`
`Accordingly, although “sections” in Myr might be regarded as “segments” in
`
`the ’147 Patent, “all sections of roads” in Myr cannot equate with the “navigation
`
`information as a number of segments”.
`
`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. See Ex. 2001, 23.
`
`Thus, Yiu does not teach the limitation “the first processor further sends the user
`
`navigation information to the network as a number of segments”.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Regarding the limitation “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
`
`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”,
`
`it recites that at least one other processor outside the network updates the user
`
`navigation information (optimize the path) in conformity with traffic congestion
`
`information and sends the updated (optimized) user navigation information to the
`
`wireless mobile communications device.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`The foregoing argument shows that Petitioner confuses “traffic congestion
`
`data” with “navigation information,”, whereas these terms have different meanings.
`
`Ex. 2001, 18.
`
`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
`
`“user navigation information” is relative to “traffic congestion information”, they
`
`are distinct. See Ex. 2001, 19-20.
`
` 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”.
`
`Ex. 1007, 9:23-27. See Ex. 2001, 20.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`The written description of Myr also shows “traffic congestion information”
`
`(specific traffic load data) is used to optimize navigation, such that “user navigation
`
`information” is distinct from “traffic congestion information”. See Ex. 2001, 20.
`
`Thus, it is clear that CTU of Myr (corresponding to at least one other processor
`
`in the ’147 Patent) does not