`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MEL NAVIP LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971 to Machino
`
`Case No.: IPR2024-00173
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID H. WILLIAMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 1 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1
`II.
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED ................................................................... 8
`III.
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................. 8
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art and Effective Filing Date ............. 8
`B.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 10
`C.
`Anticipation ......................................................................................... 11
`D. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 12
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 15
`V.
`VI. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ................................................................. 16
`VII. TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................ 16
`A. Navigation System Architecture. ........................................................ 17
`B.
`Off Route Or Route Deviation Messages Were Well-Known In
`The Art................................................................................................. 23
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘971 PATENT .......................................................... 28
`A.
`Priority Date (Earliest Effective Filing Date). .................................... 28
`B.
`Overview Of The ‘971 Patent. ............................................................ 28
`C.
`The Prosecution History Of The ‘971 Patent. ..................................... 34
`D.
`The Challenged Claims. ...................................................................... 35
`E.
`Claim Construction. ............................................................................ 37
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 38
`A. Khavakh (EX1005).............................................................................. 38
`B.
`Lefebvre (EX1006).............................................................................. 39
`C.
`RDX (EX1007). ................................................................................... 42
`X. ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 44
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 2 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`A. Ground 1: Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre And The
`Knowledge Of A POSITA Renders Obvious Challenged Claims
`1-2, 7-12, 16-17, And 19. .................................................................... 44
`1. Motivation to Combine Khavakh With Lefebvre. .................... 44
`2.
`Challenged Claims 1 And 19. ................................................... 56
`a)
`Khavakh Discloses “A navigation method performed by
`utilizing a navigation apparatus” And “A navigation
`device.” ..................................................................................... 57
`Khavakh Discloses “setting, by utilizing a setting unit of
`the navigation apparatus, waypoints and a destination”
`And “a setting unit configured to set waypoints and a
`destination.” .............................................................................. 59
`Khavakh Discloses “searching, by utilizing a route
`searching unit of the navigation apparatus, for a whole
`route leading to the destination via the waypoints set by
`said setting step” And “a route searching unit configured
`to search for a whole route leading to the destination via
`the waypoints set by said setting unit.” ..................................... 67
`Khavakh Discloses “carrying out, by utilizing a route
`guidance unit of the navigation apparatus, route guidance
`according to the whole route which is searched for by
`said route searching step” And “a route guidance unit
`configured to carry out route guidance according to the
`whole route which is searched for by said route searching
`unit.” .......................................................................................... 73
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre And The
`Knowledge Of A POSITA Teaches And Renders
`Obvious “outputting, by utilizing an output unit of the
`navigation apparatus, a message showing that a vehicle
`has deviated from a route leading to a first next waypoint
`toward which the vehicle has been heading when, by said
`route guidance step, it is determined that the vehicle has
`deviated from the route to a predetermined distance or
`more and is traveling along a route after said first next
`waypoint” And “an output unit configured to output a
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 3 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`
`
`f)
`
`3.
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`message showing that a vehicle has deviated from a route
`leading to a first next waypoint toward which the vehicle
`has been heading when said route guidance unit
`determines that the vehicle has deviated from the route to
`a predetermined distance or more and is traveling along a
`route after said first next waypoint.” ........................................ 77
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre Teaches And
`Renders Obvious “inputting, by utilizing an input unit of
`the navigation apparatus, a command indicating whether
`or not to travel via said first next waypoint in response to
`the outputted message” And “an input unit configured to
`input a command indicating whether or not to travel via
`said first next waypoint in response to the message
`outputted by said output unit.” .................................................. 98
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre And The
`Knowledge Of A POSITA Renders Obvious Dependent
`Challenged Claims 2, 7-12, And 16-17. .................................105
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre Teaches And
`Renders Obvious The Additional Limitations of
`Challenged Claim 2. ................................................................105
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre Teaches And
`Renders Obvious The Additional Limitations Of
`Challenged Claim 7. ................................................................106
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre And The
`Knowledge Of A POSITA Teaches And Renders
`Obvious The Additional Limitations Of Challenged
`Claim 8. ...................................................................................107
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre And The
`Knowledge Of A POSITA Renders Obvious The
`Additional Limitations Of Challenged Claim 9. .....................109
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre Teaches And
`Renders Obvious The Additional Limitations Of
`Challenged Claim 10. ..............................................................111
`Khavakh Teaches The Additional Limitations Of
`Challenged Claim 11. ..............................................................112
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 4 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`
`
`g)
`
`h)
`
`i)
`
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre Teaches And
`Renders Obvious The Additional Limitations Of
`Challenged Claim 12. ..............................................................113
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre And The
`Knowledge Of A POSITA Renders Obvious The
`Additional Limitations Of Challenged Claim 16. ...................114
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre And The
`Knowledge Of A POSITA Renders Obvious The
`Additional Limitations Of Challenged Claim 17. ...................115
`Ground 2: Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre, RDX, And
`The Knowledge Of A POSITA Renders Obvious Challenged
`Claims 3-4 And 14. ...........................................................................117
`1. Motivation to Combine Khavakh And Lefebvre With
`RDX. .......................................................................................117
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre And RDX
`Teaches And Renders Obvious The Additional
`Limitations Of Challenged Claim 3. .......................................121
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre And RDX
`Teaches And Renders Obvious The Additional
`Limitations Of Challenged Claim 4. .......................................124
`Khavakh In Combination With Lefebvre And RDX
`Teaches And Renders Obvious The Additional
`Limitations Of Challenged Claim 14. .....................................126
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................128
`
`
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 5 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971 (“the ‘971 patent”)
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`Curriculum Vitae of David H. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 7,054,742 to Khavakh et al. (“Khavakh”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,243,528 to Lefebvre (“Lefebvre”)
`2008 RDX Navigation Manual (Unlinked) (“RDX”)
`Chart comparing the limitations of Challenged Claims 1 and 19 of
`the ‘971 patent
`Exhibit D to MEL NavIP LLC’s Infringement Contentions in MEL
`NavIP LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al., Case No. 23-cv-
`00176 (E.D. Tex.)
`Exhibit C to MEL NavIP LLC’s Infringement Contentions in MEL
`NavIP LLC v. General Motors Company et al., Case No. 23-cv-
`00175 (E.D. Tex.)
`MEL NavIP LLC’s Response-in-Opposition to Toyota’s Motion to
`Dismiss in MEL NavIP LLC v. Toyota Motor North America,
`Inc. et al., Case No. 22-cv-00152 (E.D. Tex.)
`Declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`U.S. Patent No. 5,262,775 to Tamai et al. (“Tamai”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,757,289 to Nimura et al. (“Nimura”)
`Pioneer AVIC-Z1 Operation Manual (“AVIC-Z1”)
`European Patent No. EP1146496B1 (“EP ‘496”)
`European Patent No. EP1611416B1 (“EP ‘416”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,149,625 to Mathews et al. (“Mathews”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0116818 to Chao et al. (“Chao”)
`Docket Control Order in MEL NavIP LLC v. Hyundai Motor
`Company et al., Case No. 23-cv-00176 (E.D. Tex.)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,643,917 to Kolletzki (“Kolletzki”)
`Canadian Patent App. Pub. No. CA2511765A1 (“CA ‘765”)
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 6 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`I, David H. Williams, declare as follows:
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained by Hyundai Motor Company (“Hyundai” or
`
`“Petitioner”) as an independent expert consultant in this inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).
`
`
`
`I have been asked by Hyundai’s counsel (“Counsel”) to provide my
`
`opinions regarding the unpatentability and invalidity of claims 1-4, 7-12, 14, 16-17,
`
`and 19 (collectively, the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971 (“the
`
`‘971 patent”) (EX1001). My opinions and the bases for my opinions are set forth
`
`below.
`
` My compensation in this matter is $635 per hour without regard to the
`
`outcome of this proceeding. I am not, and never have been, an employee of Hyundai.
`
`I am not receiving compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly fees
`
`based on my time actually spent analyzing and documenting my opinions on the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ‘971 patent.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`All of my opinions stated in this Declaration are based on my own
`
`personal knowledge and professional judgment. In forming my opinions, I have
`
`relied on my knowledge and experience in designing, developing, researching, and
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 7 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`
`teaching the technology referenced in this Declaration.
`
`
`
`I am over 18 years of age and, if I am called upon to do so, I would be
`
`competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein. My background,
`
`qualifications, and educational and employment history are set forth in my
`
`curriculum vitae, which is attached hereto as EX1004. My curriculum vitae also
`
`sets forth my deposition and trial testimony over the last four years. In this
`
`Declaration I have also provided a brief overview of some of my experience that I
`
`believe is relevant to the matters set forth in this Declaration.
`
`
`
`I was awarded an MBA in Information Systems Management in 1987
`
`from the University of Texas at Austin where I was the first in my graduating class.
`
`I also received a BSEE in 1983 from Purdue University with top honors and an
`
`emphasis in digital system design.
`
`
`
`I have over 35 years of experience in wireless location services,
`
`including experience designing, implementing, and managing numerous location-
`
`based service (LBS) applications such as navigation, telematics, ride sharing, mobile
`
`social networking, family tracking, local search, games and gaming, mobile resource
`
`management, asset tracking and management, as well as working in all fields within
`
`the location services ecosystem including all forms of location determination
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 8 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`
`technologies, map data, handset
`
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`technologies, and associated Information
`
`Technology systems including identification, authentication, privacy, security, and
`
`other related capabilities such as network engineering and operations.
`
`
`
`I am currently the President of the company E911-LBS Consulting, and
`
`I have been with the company since 2002. As the President of E911-LBS
`
`Consulting, I provide services across the entire wireless value chain, particularly
`
`with respect to technology and business strategic planning and product design and
`
`development associated with LBS, Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) systems,
`
`E911, WiFi-Based and other medium/long-range Real-Time Location Systems
`
`(RTLS), Radio Frequency
`
`Identification
`
`(RFID), Bluetooth, Near Field
`
`Communications
`
`(NFC),
`
`and
`
`beacon-based
`
`and
`
`other
`
`short-range
`
`communications/location systems, and other location determination and sensing
`
`technologies and services. I am also President of E911-LBS Forensics Engineering,
`
`which utilizes the above technologies in assisting in criminal and civil cases.
`
`
`
`I have extensive expertise in all aspects of LBS delivery across the
`
`wireless location ecosystem including enabling network, map data, geospatial
`
`platform, chipset, data management, device, and
`
`location determination
`
`infrastructure and integration providers. I have extensive experience in all related
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 9 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`
`aspects of LBS, including data privacy and security management.
`
`
`
`In the 1995 to 2000 timeframe, as an Associate Partner in the
`
`Communications & High Technology Practice of Accenture (one of the world’s
`
`leading technology companies), I focused on using wireless location technologies to
`
`provide services to the public sector and commercial markets. From 1998 to 2000,
`
`I led the development of the LBS product/technology strategy and roadmap for
`
`Nextel Communications, Inc. My work with Nextel resulted in some of the earliest
`
`LBS applications in the U.S. market and included extensive research into the
`
`potential use of various technologies to provide and enable a wide array of LBS,
`
`including Mobile Resource Management (MRM) worker navigation, tracking, and
`
`vehicle/fleet management applications. This work also included leading the
`
`development of the underlying network and Information Technology architectures
`
`that would be required to support the LBS applications product strategy and
`
`roadmap.
`
`
`
`In 2003, I led the development of part of AT&T Wireless’s E911
`
`infrastructure, including the development of systems, processes, and reporting
`
`infrastructure to manage and track the deployment of time difference of arrival-
`
`based location determination technologies. I managed the testing and Federal
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 10 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`
`Communications Commission reporting of network location inaccuracies, with a
`
`particular focus on detecting and
`
`troubleshooting out-of-norm
`
`technology
`
`deployment and inaccurate location conditions.
`
` From 2005 to 2007, I worked with NAVTEQ—the leading provider of
`
`map data and services essential to creating LBS applications—to develop the
`
`company’s web developer website content and tools. I designed and managed the
`
`site map and overall content, including the development of comprehensive technical
`
`and business web content for all NAVTEQ map product and service lines. Through
`
`the developer site, application developers and business managers became intimately
`
`familiar with map data and associated attributes, Geographical Information System
`
`(GIS) platforms, and LBS to successfully develop and launch their LBS applications.
`
`For example, I developed the content to highlight key types of map data and to
`
`provide technical details on how NAVTEQ tools can be used in LBS design for
`
`various consumer and business applications. My NAVTEQ development work
`
`included the use of various attributes, rules and comparison capabilities, and
`
`routing/route optimization enablers to monitor and guide people, places, and things
`
`and to generate a variety of guidance instructions and time and/or event-based alerts
`
`and notifications. My NAVTEQ development work also included the distribution
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 11 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`
`of this technology using a variety of networks and user interface mechanisms.
`
`
`
`I have other LBS application product design and implementation
`
`experience, which includes data privacy and security management. From 2007 to
`
`2010, I managed the design, development, and launch of several consumer and
`
`business-oriented LBS applications for AT&T Mobility. These LBS applications
`
`included navigation (AT&T Navigator), mobile social networking (Loopt), family
`
`tracking (AT&T FamilyMap), local search (Slifter), 411-with-LBS, mobile resource
`
`management (TeleNav), and asset tracking (various providers). At AT&T Mobility,
`
`I also developed corporate-wide location data privacy policies and associated system
`
`implementation for all LBS customers.
`
` My AT&T work
`
`involved various aspects of worker and
`
`telematics/vehicle/fleet management tracking. I was the Product Manager for the
`
`several of the joint AT&T-TeleNav Mobile Resource Management applications, as
`
`well as various fleet management solutions. My roles required extensive knowledge
`
`of how the various applications worked, both generally as well as what design
`
`modifications were required so that the applications I was working on “fit into”
`
`AT&T’s product, network and IT infrastructure. I also needed to ensure that
`
`AT&T’s privacy and security policies were implemented. My AT&T work also
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 12 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`
`included the design and modification of AT&T’s network and IT infrastructure to
`
`enable the applications to work seamlessly with AT&T’s location infrastructure and
`
`the various IT systems that were used for Sales, Customer Care, Fulfillment,
`
`Billing/Accounts Receivable functions, along with a variety of network and IT
`
`operations. My efforts included working closely with AT&T Legal to develop and
`
`implement AT&T’s location privacy policies.
`
`
`
`I have authored five books on wireless location, including The
`
`Definitive Guide to IoT Sensors (In Development), The Definitive Guide to GPS,
`
`RFID, Wi-Fi, and Other Wireless Location-Based Services (two versions, third in
`
`development), The Definitive Guide to Wireless E911, and (co-authored) The
`
`Definitive Guide to Mobile Positioning and Location Management. I have authored
`
`dozens of research reports, and track and analyze leading companies in the LBS,
`
`IoT, and public safety industries, particularly with respect to their product and
`
`technology strategies, competitive capabilities and implementation issues. I am also
`
`a named inventor on eight patents relating to networking/communications, control,
`
`and information technology solutions design, selection, and implementation. I have
`
`also been published and quoted by leading magazines and newspapers, including
`
`The New York Times, CBS News.com, The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, The Boston
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 13 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`
`Globe, Computerworld, Directions Mag, Mission Critical Communications, Popular
`
`Mechanics, and RFID Journal.
`
`
`
`I have extensive experience in LBS applications, enabling location
`
`technologies, wireless communications, privacy and security, and information
`
`technology.
`
`
`
`I consider myself an expert in the field of navigation systems, and the
`
`topic areas of the ‘971 patent generally.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have considered the materials and
`
`Exhibits discussed and cited herein, including the ‘971 patent and the prosecution
`
`history of the ‘971 patent. In addition, my opinions are based on my education,
`
`training, experience, and knowledge in the relevant field.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`I am not an attorney and I do not legal opinions. For the purposes of
`
`this Declaration, Counsel has informed me of certain aspects of the law that are
`
`relevant to my analysis, as summarized below.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art and Effective Filing Date
`I understand that a patent is evaluated from the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the patent’s earliest effective filing date.
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 14 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`
`Here, the ‘971 patent claims priority to a Japanese patent application filed on April
`
`2, 2008. (EX1001 at [30].) Thus, I understand that the ‘971 patent’s earliest
`
`effective filing date is April 2, 2008.
`
`
`
`I understand that my assessment of the claims of the ‘971 patent must
`
`be undertaken from the perspective of what would have been known or understood
`
`by a POSITA as of the ‘971 patent’s earliest effective filing date, taking into account
`
`the specification and file history of the ‘971 patent.
`
`
`
`I further understand that the disclosures and teachings of the prior art
`
`are evaluated from the perspective of a POSITA as of a patent’s earliest effective
`
`filing date, i.e., as of April 2, 2008, for the ‘971 patent.
`
`
`
`I understand that a POSITA is not a specific real individual, but rather
`
`a hypothetical individual. This hypothetical person has knowledge of all prior art in
`
`the relevant field and takes from each reference what it would teach to a person
`
`having the skills of a POSITA.
`
`
`
`I understand that the factors considered in determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art include: (i) the levels of education and experience of persons
`
`working in the field; (ii) the types of problems encountered in the field; and (iii) the
`
`sophistication of the technology. I may also consider, if available, the education
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 15 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`
`level of the inventor, prior art solutions to the problems encountered in the art, and
`
`the rapidity with which innovations are made in the relevant art.
`
`
`
`I understand that a POSITA is a person of ordinary creativity, but not
`
`an automaton, and that a POSITA can often fit multiple patents or prior art references
`
`together like pieces of a puzzle as a result of this ordinary creativity. I also
`
`understand that I may consider the inferences and creative steps that a POSITA
`
`would employ. In addition, I understand that a POSITA would necessarily have
`
`been capable of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable
`
`to the pertinent art. I also understand that when I consider what would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA, I am not considering what would have been obvious to me at
`
`the time, nor to the inventors, judges, laymen, those skilled in other arts, or to
`
`geniuses in the art.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`It is my understanding that the purpose of the claim construction
`
`process is to determine the meaning of the terms in the claims of the ‘971 patent to
`
`a POSITA as of the time that the patent application was filed. I also understand that
`
`the words of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history are to be
`
`primarily considered in order to construe the claims. These three sources are
`
`comm.only referred to as “intrinsic evidence,” while everything else is referred to as
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 16 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`
`“extrinsic evidence.”
`
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`
`
`
`It is my understanding that in an IPR the words of a claim are generally
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning to a POSITA as of the time that the
`
`patent application containing the claimed invention was filed.
`
`
`
`It is my further understanding that the same words and phrases within
`
`a claim or claims are presumed to have the same meaning. It is also my
`
`understanding that different words and phrases within a claim or claims are
`
`presumed to have different meanings. Similarly, all words in a claim have meaning,
`
`and a word or phrase in a claim should not be interpreted so as to render other words
`
`or phrases in the claim superfluous.
`
`
`
`It is also my understanding that a POSITA is deemed to read the claim
`
`term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term
`
`appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification and the
`
`prosecution history.
`
`C. Anticipation
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable and invalid as
`
`anticipated if each and every limitation of the claim is disclosed, either expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference. Claim limitations that are not expressly
`
`found in a prior art reference may be inherent if the prior art necessarily functions in
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 17 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`
`accordance with, or includes, the claim limitations. It is acceptable to examine
`
`evidence outside the prior art reference (extrinsic evidence) to determine whether or
`
`not a feature, while not expressly discussed in the reference, is necessarily present
`
`in it.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable and invalid if the
`
`invention recited in the claim would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time the
`
`invention was made in view of a prior art reference, or in view of a combination of
`
`prior art references. I understand that obviousness is determined from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA, and that the claims of the patent should be read from the
`
`point of view of such a person at the time the claimed invention was made. I also
`
`understand that a prior art reference should be viewed as a whole. I further
`
`understand that a POSITA is assumed to know and to have all relevant prior art in the
`
`field of endeavor covered by the challenged patent and all analogous prior art.
`
`
`
`In considering whether the Challenged Claims of the ‘971 patent are
`
`obvious, I have been asked to consider (a) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the claimed inventions, (b) the scope and content of the prior art, and (c) any
`
`differences between the prior art and the Challenged Claims. I further understand
`
`that the patent owner may show “secondary factors” related to nonobviousness,
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 18 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`
`including commercial success, long-felt but unresolved need, failure of others,
`
`copying, praise by others, and unexpected results.
`
`
`
`I understand that obviousness in an IPR proceeding is evaluated using
`
`a preponderance of the evidence standard, which means that the claims must be more
`
`likely obvious than nonobvious.
`
`
`
`I understand that in considering whether patent claim would have been
`
`obvious, I may assess whether there are apparent reasons to combine known elements
`
`in the prior art in the manner claimed in view of the interrelated teachings of multiple
`
`prior art references, the effects of demands known to the design community or
`
`present in the marketplace, and/or the background knowledge possessed by a
`
`POSITA. I also understand that other principles may be relied on in evaluating
`
`whether a claimed invention would have been obvious, and that these principles
`
`include the following:
`
` A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely
`
`to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results;
`
` When a device or technology is available in one field of endeavor, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
`
`same field or in a different one, so that if a POSITA can implement a
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1003, Page 19 of 135
`Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLC
`IPR2024-00173
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00173
`U.S. Patent No. 8,649,971
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Williams
`predictable variation, the variation is likely obvious;
`
` If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a POSITA would
`
`have recognized that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`
`using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
`
`her skill;
`
` An explicit or implicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine two
`
`prior art references to form the claimed combination may demonstrate
`
`obviousness, but proof of obviousness does not depend on or require
`
`showing a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine;
`
` Market demand, rather than scientific literature, can drive design trends and
`
`may show obviousness;
`
` One of the ways in which a patent’s subject can be proved obvious is by
`
`noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which
`
`there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims;
`
` Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention
`
`and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements
`
`in the manner claimed;
`
` “Common sense