You are on page 1of 61

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531

U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234


Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
By: Ashraf A. Fawzy, Reg. 67,914
Jonathan Stroud, Reg. 72,518
Unified Patents Inc.
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
Washington, DC, 20009
Tel: (202) 871-0110
Email: afawzy@unifiedpatents.com
Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________________________

UNIFIED PATENTS INC.


Petitioner

v.

SILVER STATE INTELLECTUAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


Patent Owner

____________________________

Case IPR2017-01531
Patent 7,650,234

____________________________

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,650,234


Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. 42.8 ..................................................... 1
III. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. 42.15(a) and 42.103 .......................... 3
IV. Grounds for Standing .................................................................................... 3
V. Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................ 3
A. Claims for Which Review Is Requested ....................................................... 3
B. Statutory Grounds of Challenge .................................................................... 3
C. The Proposed Grounds Are Not Redundant ................................................. 5
VI. Background and Overview of the 234 Patent .............................................. 7
VII. Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 9
A. searching the database ............................................................................. 10
B. navigation coverage ................................................................................. 11
C. coverage area ........................................................................................... 12
D. Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms ............................................................ 13
VIII. Detailed Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability ................................ 16
A. Ground 1: Xu Anticipates Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-28, and 30 ............ 16
1. Claim 1 .................................................................................................... 16
2. Claim 2 .................................................................................................... 26
3. Claim 3 .................................................................................................... 28
4. Claim 4 .................................................................................................... 28
5. Claim 5 .................................................................................................... 29
6. Claim 6 .................................................................................................... 30
7. Claim 7 .................................................................................................... 31
8. Claim 9 .................................................................................................... 32
9. Claim 10 .................................................................................................. 35
10. Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 35
11. Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 35
12. Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 35
13. Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 36
14. Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 36
15. Claim 17 .............................................................................................. 36
16. Claim 18 .............................................................................................. 40
17. Claim 19 .............................................................................................. 40
18. Claim 20 .............................................................................................. 40
19. Claim 21 .............................................................................................. 41

i
Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
20. Claim 23 .............................................................................................. 41
21. Claim 24 .............................................................................................. 41
22. Claim 25 .............................................................................................. 43
23. Claim 26 .............................................................................................. 43
24. Claim 27 .............................................................................................. 44
25. Claim 28 .............................................................................................. 44
26. Claim 30 .............................................................................................. 44
B. Ground 2: Xu and Trovato Render Claims 8, 16, 22, and 29 Obvious ...... 44
1. Claims 8 and 16 ...................................................................................... 44
2. Claims 22 and 29 .................................................................................... 47
C. Ground 3: Xu and Golding Render Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-28, and 30
Obvious ............................................................................................................... 48
D. Ground 4: Xu, Golding, and Trovato Render Claims 8, 16, 22, and 29
Obvious ............................................................................................................... 53
IX. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 54

ii
Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Brose N. Am., Inc. v. Uusi, LLC,


IPR2014-00417, Paper No. 49 (July 20, 2015) .................................................. 14

Ex parte Erol,
No. 2011-001143, 2013 WL 1341107 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2013) ........................... 14

Ex parte Lakkala,
No. 2011-001526, 2013 WL 1341108 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2013) ........................... 14

Ex parte Smith,
No. 2012-007631, 2013 WL 1341109 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2013)........................... 14

KSR Intl Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,


550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 47, 53

Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,


No. 2013-1130, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10082 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) ......... 14

Statutes

35 U.S.C. 102(a) .................................................................................................... 4

35 U.S.C. 102(e) .................................................................................................... 4

35 U.S.C. 103(a) .................................................................................................... 4

Regulations

37 C.F.R. 42.8 ........................................................................................................ 1

37 C.F.R. 42.15 ...................................................................................................... 3

37 C.F.R. 42.104 .............................................................................................. 3, 13

37 C.F.R. 42.103 .................................................................................................... 3

37 C.F.R. 42.100 .................................................................................................... 9

iii
Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
LIST OF EXHIBITS

1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234 (the 234 patent)

1002 File History of the 234 Patent

1003 Assignment of the 234 Patent

1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,401,027 to Xu et al. (Xu)

1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,835,881 to Trovato et al. (Trovato)

1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,933,100 to Golding (Golding)

1007 Order in Silver State Intellectual Techs, Inc. v. Garmin Intl Inc., 2:11-
cv-1578 (Nev. Aug. 13, 2013)

1008 Declaration of Dr. William R. Michalson, Ph.D. (Aug. 14, 2015)

1009 UK Patent Application GB 2079453 A

1010 Wootton et al., The Experience of Developing and Providing Driver


Route Information Systems, IEEE 1989 Vehicle Navigation and
Information Systems Conference, pp. 71-75

1011 Saito et al., Automobile Navigation System Using Beacon


Information, IEEE 1989 Vehicle Navigation and Information Systems
Conference, pp. 139-145

1012 Second Declaration of William R. Michalson, Ph.D. (June 5, 2017)

1013 Petitioners Voluntary Interrogatory Responses

iv
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
I. INTRODUCTION

Unified Patents Inc. (Petitioner) requests inter partes review of claims 1-30

of U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234 (the 234 patent) (Ex. 1001) assigned on its face to

American Calcar, Inc., but reassigned to Silver State Intellectual Technologies, Inc.

(Patent Owner). (See Ex. 1003). This Petition shows that there is a reasonable

likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on claims 1-30 of the 234 patent based on

prior art that the Office did not have before it during original prosecution. This

Petition also shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior art anticipates

and renders obvious claims 1-30 of the 234 patent. Claims 1-30 of the 234 patent

should be found unpatentable and cancelled.

The 234 patent was also the subject of an inter partes review petition filed

on August 17, 2015: Google Inc. v. Silver State Intellectual Technologies, Inc.,

IPR2015-01738. Prior to a decision on institution, the parties filed a joint motion to

terminate in view of settlement, which was granted. This petition is substantively

similar to that earlier-filed petition. Further, this petition relies on a second

declaration from Dr. William R. Michalson, Ph.D. (Ex. 1012) that reaffirms and

swears that he supports his earlier-filed declaration (Ex. 1008) in IPR2015-01738.

II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.8

Real Party-in-Interest: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies

that Unified Patents Inc. is the real party-in-interest, and further certifies that no other

1
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
information is Unified Patents Inc., 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10,

Washington, D.C. 20009, Telephone: 202-871-0110, E-mail:

afawzy@unifiedpatents.com and jonathan@unifiedpatents.com. Petitioner consents

to electronic service.

III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.15(a) AND 42.103

Petitioner submits the required fees with this Petition. Please charge any

additional fees required during this proceeding to Deposit Account No. 50-6990.

IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING

Petitioner certifies that, under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(a), the 234 patent is

available for inter partes review, and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from

requesting inter partes review of the 234 patent on the grounds identified.

V. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED

A. Claims for Which Review Is Requested

Petitioner respectfully requests review of claims 1-30 of the 234 patent, and

cancellation of these claims as unpatentable.

B. Statutory Grounds of Challenge

Claims 1-30 should be cancelled as unpatentable in view of the following prior

art1:

1
For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner has assumed that the 234 patent is entitled

to a priority date of October 19, 1999.

3
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
Reference 1: U.S. Patent No. 6,401,027 to Xu et al. (Xu) (Ex. 1004) was

filed on May 24, 1999, and is prior art to the 234 patent at least under pre-AIA 35

U.S.C. 102(e).

Reference 2: U.S. Patent No. 5,835,881 to Trovato et al. (Trovato) (Ex.

1005) was filed on January 16, 1996 and issued on November 10, 1998, and is prior

art to the 234 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (e).

Reference 3: U.S. Patent No. 5,933,100 to Golding (Golding) (Ex. 1006)

was filed on December 27, 1995 and issued on August 3, 1999, and is prior art to the

234 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (e).

Claims 1-30 of the 234 patent should be cancelled as unpatentable on the

following grounds:

Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-28, and 30 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.

102(e) in view of Xu.

Ground 2: Claims 8, 16, 22, and 29 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)

based on Xu in view of Trovato.

Ground 3: Claim 1-7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-28, and 30 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.

103(a) based on Xu in view of Golding.

Ground 4: Claims 8, 16, 22, and 29 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)

based on Xu in view of Golding and Trovato.

4
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
C. The Proposed Grounds Are Not Redundant

Petitioners proposed grounds for institution are not redundant because there

are several significant differences between the grounds. For example, whereas

Ground 1 relies on anticipation, Ground 3 relies on obviousness. Therefore, different

defenses may be available to the Patent Owner during the course of this proceeding

for each Ground.

In addition, Ground 1 addresses the claims in a different way than Ground 3.

For example, in Ground 1, Xu addresses the claimed searching the database

limitations, as recited in independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 24, because of its block

flagging operations performed at a client-side in-vehicle device. (See infra Parts

VIII.A.1.f, VIII.A.8.f, VIII.A.15.e, VIII.A.21.e.) On the other hand, Ground 3 relies

on a disclosure in Golding that renders obvious performing the claimed searching

the database limitations at a database, remote from the clients device. (See infra

Part VIII.C.) Thus, in one way, the strength of Ground 1 is that it addresses the

searching the database limitations to the extent such searching features are

interpreted in a way that includes searching the database client-side or the like. On

the other hand, the strength of Ground 3 is that it addresses the searching the

database limitations to the extent such searching features are interpreted in a way

that includes searching the database database-side.

The differences in the strengths of the prior art identified in these grounds

5
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
warrant institution of both grounds given that finding redundancy in the grounds

may detrimentally affect Petitioners ability to demonstrate the unpatentability of the

claims. For instance, should the Board institute inter partes review based on an

initial interpretation of the searching the database limitations that include client-

side type operations and thus decline to institute Ground 3, but then later changes its

construction to preclude such features, Petitioner may not be able to demonstrate

fully why non-client-side type searching would have been obvious as presented in

Ground 3. The same situation arises should the Board decline to institute review on

Ground 1 as being redundant to Ground 3. Adopting both grounds will allow the

Board to consider positions from both Patent Owner and Petitioner after institution

regarding how the prior art discloses the searching the database limitations.2

Ground 2 stems from the rejections in Ground 1, and Ground 4 stems from

the rejections in Ground 3. Therefore, Grounds 2 and 4 are not redundant for the

same reasons set forth for Grounds 1 and 3. For at least these reasons, Petitioner

respectfully requests the Board adopt all proposed Grounds.

2
Indeed, Patent Owner may reserve positions from a Preliminary Response that the

Board may not see until after any institution that may have bearing on the prior art

and the interpretation of the searching the database limitations.

6
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
VI. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE 234 PATENT

The 234 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 11/971,193 (the 193

application) and is directed to a navigation device [that] utilizes stored user

profiles to navigate a user who may be driving in a vehicle, on foot, or in other mode

of transportation. (Ex. 1001 at Abstract.)

The 234 patent discloses that a system that includes a navigator arrangement

100 that may be docked or connected to another device or system to enhance its

functionality, which may include a terminal, workstation, computer system, or an

automobile system. (Id., 3:29-33.) The navigator arrangement 100 includes

processor 103, memory 108, display driver 111, display 113, user interface 115,

external interfaces 117, GPS receiver 119, communication unit 120. (Id., 3:36-39.)

To the extent possible, databases in arrangement 100 are pre- populated with data.

(Id., 4:30-32.) However, arrangement 100 allows for downloading of data from a

remote source to supplement and update the databases in arrangement 100, and to

provide thereto just-in-time information, including, e.g., latest traffic, weather, map

and other information. (Id., 4:33-37.)

The 234 patent discloses a NAVIGATE option 657 for navigation by

arrangement 100. (Id., 9:56-57.) The NAVIGATE option provides the user with an

interface to enter an origination and destination address, with the users current

location being the default origination: the user adopts the default response to query

7
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
903 which is the location identified by the GPS data in section 511 of record 400.

Otherwise, the user may enter a different origination address. The user is also

prompted to enter a destination address at query 905. (Id., 10:5-10.) After learning

the origination address and destination address . . . processor 103 determines

whether a geographic area called the navigation coverage includes the

origination and destination addresses, and whether the stored map and related

information is fresh. (Id., 10:27-34.) If the navigation coverage includes the

origination and destination addresses in question . . . processor 103 at step 1006

selects the route from the origination address to the destination address which is the

most time-efficient, i.e., fastest by automobile in this instance, taking into account

the relevant weather, traffic, and road conditions along the selected route, together

with any roadblocks set up by the user in a manner to be described. (Id., 10:35-46.)

Otherwise, if the navigation coverage area does not cover the origination and/or

destination address in question, and/or if the map and related information is not

fresh, processor 103 . . . establishes a communication connection to navigation server

630 [and] causes a transmission of a request for fresh map and related information

for an appropriate navigation coverage through the established connection. (Id.,

10:55-61.) (See also Ex. 1008, 16-24 (discussing Exs. 1009, 1010, 1011).)

Only one office action issued during prosecution of the 193 application, and

that office action only noted that the applications abstract was improper. (Ex. 1002

8
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
at 61-65.) The office action did not include a single prior art rejection, and in fact

did not cite a single prior art reference. (Id.) The only prior art explicitly considered

during prosecution of the 193 application was prior art that the applicant made of

record. (Id., 67-77.) None of the references relied upon for grounds in this Petition

were ever considered during prosecution of the 193 application. (See Ex. 1001 at

References Cited.)

VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

A claim subject to inter partes review receives the broadest reasonable

construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.

37 C.F.R. 42.100(b). Throughout this Petition, as required by the rules governing

it, Petitioner applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim terms

appropriate for these proceedings, including claim terms for which a claim

construction is not explicitly discussed. Claim constructions appropriate for these

proceedings may be different than claim constructions appropriate in a federal

district court. Thus, claim constructions relied upon in this Petition do not

necessarily reflect the claim constructions that Petitioner believes should be adopted

by a district court. Any term not construed below should be interpreted in accordance

with its plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable construction.

Petitioner applies this understanding in its analysis of the claims of the 234 patent.

9
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
A. searching the database

Claims 1, 9, 17, and 24 recite the phrase searching the database. (Ex. 1001

at 13:65-67, 14:6-7, 14:35-37, 15:1-3, 15:8-10, 16:3-5 and 16:10-12.) For purposes

of this proceeding, searching the database should be construed as analyzing data

from the database. This understanding is consistent with the claims and

specification of the 234 patent. The 234 patent does not define or even use the term

searching anywhere in its specification. However, the 234 patent does disclose a

scenario in which a server analyzes data from a database (Ex. 1001 at 8:26-55), and

a scenario in which data is transmitted from a database of a server to a processor of

a navigator arrangement and then the data from the database is analyzed at the

navigator arrangement (id., 10:27-11:14). The common factor in both scenarios is

that data from a database is analyzed. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation

of the term should reflect the same. This understanding is consistent with the

language of the claims. Claims 1, 9, 17, and 24 do not place any explicit limits on

how or where the searching the database feature is performed. Interpreting the

term as noted above is thus consistent with how the term is used in the specification

and the claims. This understanding is also consistent with how one of ordinary skill

in the art would have understood searching the database in the context of the 234

10
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
3
patent. (See also Ex. 1008 at 26.)

B. navigation coverage

Claims 1, 9, 17, and 24 recite the phrase navigation coverage. (Ex. 1001 at

14:4, 14:41, 15:7, 16:9.) For purposes of this proceeding, navigation coverage

should be construed as the geographic area over which the navigation system

operates. The 234 patent repeatedly refers to a navigation coverage as being a

geographic area over which the navigation system operates. For example, the 234

patent describes a scenario in which processor 103 determines whether the

navigation coverage based on the map layer corresponding to automobile

travelincludes the origination and destination addresses in question. (Ex. 1001 at

10:30-35 (emphasis added).) If so, processor 103selects [a] route from the

origination address to the destination address. (Id., 10:35-42.) However, if the

stored mapdoes not cover the origination and/or destination address in

questionprocessor 103 causes a transmission of a request for fresh map and related

information for an appropriate navigation coverage. (Id., 10:55-62 (emphasis

3
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been an engineer having at least a

bachelors degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a degree in a related

field, with approximately two or more years of experience in the design and

implementation of navigation systems and/or routing. (Ex. 1008 at 15.)

11
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
added).) In other words, in the 234 patent, maps associated with an appropriate

navigation coverage are selected to conform to the geographic area over which the

navigation system operates. This understanding of the term navigation coverage

is consistent with a district courts claim construction during litigation involving the

234 patent. (Ex. 1007 at 33.) This understanding is also consistent with how one of

ordinary skill in the art would have understood navigation coverage in the context

of the 234 patent. (See also Ex. 1008 at 27.)

C. coverage area

Claims 1, 9, 17, and 24 recite the phrase coverage area. (Ex. 1001 at 13:66,

14:3, 14:36, 14:40, 15:2, 15:6, 16:4, 16:8.) For purposes of this proceeding,

coverage area should be construed as the geographic area that the vehicle is

located in, which is a subset of the geographic area over which the navigation system

operates. The term coverage area does not appear in the specification of the 234

patent. However, in the context of claims 1, 9, 17, and 24, coverage area is a subset

of the navigation coverage, which is addressed above. For example, claim 1 refers

to a coverage area including the location of the navigation device. (Id., 13:65-67.)

Claim 1 also characterizes a scenario in which the coverage area is different from

one or more areas in navigation coverage defined by the origination and destination,

suggesting that the coverage area is a subset of the overall navigation coverage.

(Id., 14:3-5.) Claims 9, 17, and 24 characterize the coverage area in substantively

12
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
the same manner. This understanding of the term coverage area is consistent with

a district courts claim construction during litigation involving the 234 patent. (Ex.

1007 at 33-34.) This understanding is also consistent with how one of ordinary skill

in the art would have understood coverage area in the context of the 234 patent.

(See also Ex. 1008 at 28.)

D. Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms

The 234 patent includes means-plus-function claim terms. As required by 37

C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3), to the extent disclosed, Petitioner identifies portions of the

234 patent that describe corresponding structure for the recited functions.

Claim 17 recites a processing unit for searching the database for traffic

information specific to a coverage area including the location of the vehicle. (Ex.

1001 at 15:1-3.) Similarly, claim 24 recites a processing unit for searching the

database for weather information specific to a coverage area including the location

of the vehicle. (Id., 16:3-5.) For purposes of this proceeding, both processing unit

for searching the database . . . terms should be interpreted as means-plus- function

terms.

When a claim term lacks the word means, the presumption [that 112,

para. 6 does not apply] can be overcome and 112, para. 6 will apply if the

challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite

structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing

13
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
that function. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 U.S. App.

LEXIS 10082 at *16 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (citing Watts v. XL Sys., 232 F.3d

877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Claim 17 does not define any structure associated with a

processing unit or its function of searching the database for traffic information

specific to a coverage area including the location of the vehicle. Similarly, claim

24 does not define structure associated with a processing unit or its function of

searching the database for weather information specific to a coverage area

including the location of the vehicle. Moreover, a processing unit is a term that

does not in itself suggest any particular structure. See, e.g., Brose N. Am., Inc. v.

Uusi, LLC, IPR2014-00417, Paper No. 49 at 12 (July 20, 2015) (explaining that unit

for is a non-structural generic placeholder[] that may invoke 112, para. 6); see

also Nintendo of America Inc. v. Motion Games, LLC, IPR2014-00164, Paper No.

12 at 6 (May 19, 2014) (finding a processing means limitation to invoke means-

plus-function). Indeed, in March 2013, a five-judge PTAB panel issued three

decisions, all holding that processor invokes means-plus-function because

processor fails to connote a sufficiently definite structure. Ex parte Erol, No.

2011-001143, 2013 WL 1341107, at *8-9 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2013); Ex parte Lakkala,

No. 2011-001526, 2013 WL 1341108, at * 6-7 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2013); Ex parte

Smith, No. 2012-007631, 2013 WL 1341109, at *7-8 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2013).

Therefore, a processing unit for searching the database . . ., as recited in claims 17

14
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
and 24, should be interpreted under 112, para. 6.

The identified function of the processing unit in claim 17 is searching the

database for traffic information specific to a coverage area including the location of

the vehicle, and the identified function of the processing unit in claim 24 is

searching the database for weather information specific to a coverage area including

the location of the vehicle. (Ex. 1001 at 15:1-3, 16:3-5.)4 The 234 patent discloses

a remote server or a processor of a navigation device called a navigator

arrangement (id., 8:26-55, 10:27-11:14) performs the identified functions of

searching the database (i.e., analyzing data from the database). (See also supra Part

VII.A.) Thus, for purposes of this proceeding, the corresponding structure for the

identified function of searching the database for traffic information specific to a

coverage area including the location of the vehicle, and the identified function of

searching the database for weather information specific to a coverage area including

the location of the vehicle, is a server, a processor of a navigation device, or

equivalents thereof.

4
As discussed above in Part VII.A, searching the database in the context of the

234 patent means analyzing data from the database. (See supra Part VII.A.)

15
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
VIII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
UNPATENTABILITY

A. Ground 1: Xu Anticipates Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-28, and 30

1. Claim 1

a) A method for navigation using a navigation device which


includes a location-sensing element therein, the method
comprising:

To the extent the preamble is construed to be limiting, Xu discloses this

limitation. For example, Xu discloses a traffic data remote collection and intelligent

vehicle highway system that performs a method for navigation. (Ex. 1004 at 6:26-

28.) Figure 1 illustrates one example of the system.

16
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
(Id., 6:26-28, Fig. 1.) The system includes a group of vehicles 20 [that] travel a

roadway system 10, wherein [e]ach vehicle 20 is equipped with an in-vehicle

device 21. (Id., 6:28-32.) The in-vehicle device 21 has a vehicle support sub-

system 30, which includes a road network locator 32 (hereinafter locator 32) and

a road explorer 34Also included in the in-vehicle device 21 are a computer system

26 for operating the sub-systems and storing the digitized road network map. (Id.,

7:21-28, Fig. 2.) The locator 32 computes the geographical location of the

vehicle, using data received from the GPS receiver 22, and converts it to a

position on the digitized road network map, which is broadcast from the traffic

service center 60 via the communication station 50 and stored in the computer

system 26. (Id., 7:32-37, Fig. 2 (emphasis added).) A block diagram of in-vehicle

device 21 is shown below:

17
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
(Id., Fig. 2.)

The digitized road network map includes nodes 14 and links 16 indicating a

traffic direction. The node 14 may represent an intersection of two or more roads, an

entry to a parking lot, a junction of a highway with an entry or exit ramp, a starting

or an endpoint of a bridge, a tunnel, an overpass or an arbitrary location on a road.

A link 16 represents a road segment with an orientation indication, which connects

two nodes 14 of the road network. (Id., 8:58-65.)

Xu explains that it uses in-vehicle device 21 for navigation:

From time to time, the mobile radio sub-system 24 transmits


vehicle position data processed by the locator 32 to the
communication station 50 which forwards road traffic data
reported from all vehicles 20 travelling the roadway system 10
to the traffic service center 60 for further processing. The
processed data is used for forecasting road traffic conditions.
The mobile radio system 24 in the vehicle 20 also receives data
broadcast by the communication station 50. The broadcast data
includes digitized road network map and traffic forecasts. The
data received by the mobile radio sub-system 24 is stored by the
computer system 26 and the road network explorer 34 uses the
data in conjunction with driver's instructions received from
the driver interface 28 to provide intelligent route guidance.
The intelligent route guidance, such as an optimum travel
route based on real-time traffic conditions, is displayed on
the screen display (not shown) of the driver interface 28.

18
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
(Id., 7:37-53 (emphasis added).) Therefore, Xu discloses a method for navigation

using a navigation device (in-vehicle device 21) which includes a location-sensing

element (locator 32 and GPS receiver 22). (See also citations and analysis below in

Parts VIII.A.1(b)-(h); Ex. 1008 at 31-35, 41.)

b) forming a database storing traffic information for


extraction thereof with respect to areas;

Xu discloses this limitation. (See Ex. 1008 at 41.) The system in Xu includes

a traffic service center 60, as shown in Figure 3, which includes collections of data

that disclose the claimed database.

(Ex. 1004 at Fig. 3 (depicting the traffic service center 60).)

The traffic service center 60 is formed to store collections of data including

traffic information for extraction thereof with respect to areas. (See Ex. 1008 at

41.) For example, the traffic service center 60 includes [a] data exchange interface

62 [] provided for connection of the communication station 50 for receiving the

19
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
vehicle position data and sending data respecting the digitized road network maps

and real-time traffic forecast data which are to be broadcast. (Id., 8:19-23 (emphasis

added).) In addition, [a]n external party interface 64 is provided to connect the

external party data sources 70 to receive real-time information about weather or

road conditions. The real-time information is processed by an external party data

integrator 65 for incorporation into real-time traffic forecasts. (Id., 8:23-28

(emphasis added).) Xu explains that traffic forecasts are computed by a traffic

forecaster 68 using the collected vehicle position data for normal road conditions.

The collected vehicle position data received from the data exchange interface 62 is

stored in a database 66 to be processed by the traffic forecaster 68. (Id., 8:28-33

(emphasis added).)

Xu further explains that the traffic forecaster 68 retrieves traffic data for two

adjacent nodes from the database 66, and determines a time at which the vehicle was

on the source node of the link and a time the vehicle was on the sink node of the

link, wherein the travel time of the vehicle for the link is determined by calculating

a difference between the two times and the travel speed for the link is determined

by dividing a length of the link by the travel time. (Id., 11:50- 57.) The data

including the travel time, or vehicle travel speed for each link are computed from

time to time from each vehicle 20 to provide a database for forecasting traffic

conditions for the roadway system 10. (Id., 11:57-60 (emphasis added).) A link

20
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
represents a road segment with an orientation indication, which connects two nodes

14 of the road network, wherein a node may represent an intersection of two or

more roads, an entry to a parking lot, a junction of a highway with an entry or exit

ramp, a starting or an endpoint of a bridge, a tunnel, an overpass or an arbitrary

location on a road. (Id., 8:58-65.) In other words, each link is associated with a

respective area. (Id.; see also id., 13:22-65 (explaining that the traffic information is

received by in-vehicle device 21 and can be extracted with respect to block areas of

the digitized road network map).)

c) receiving data concerning a location of the navigation


device which is determined using the location-sensing
element;

Xu discloses this limitation. (See Ex. 1008 at 41.) Xu discloses that [e]ach

vehicle 20 equipped with a GPS receiver [22] aligned to receive global positioning

information from the constellation of satellites 42 uses the GPS positioning

information to determine a vehicles geographical position. (Ex. 1004 at 9:66 -

10:2 (emphasis added).) This determination can be made by locator 32, which

computes the geographical location of the vehicle, using data received from the

GPS receiver 22, and converts it to a position on the digitized road network map.

(Id., 7:32-34.)

21
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
d) searching the database for traffic information specific to
a coverage area including the location of the navigation
device;

Xu discloses this limitation. (See Ex. 1008 at 41.) In particular, Xu discloses

that data from the collections of data at the traffic service center 60 is transmitted to

in-vehicle device 21 to be analyzed for traffic information specific to a coverage area

including the location of the in-vehicle device 21. (Id.)

Xu explains that traffic service center 60 divides the digitized road network

map 13 into smaller blocks (e.g., based on post code zones, or arbitrary street zones)

and associates the traffic information of respective links with a block number for

identifying where each link is located. (See Ex. 1004 at 13:30-37; Ex. 1008 at 41.)

The data is broadcast from the traffic service center 60 as a digitized road network

map 13 and received by the in-vehicle device 21. (Ex. 1004 at 13:48- 50.) Xu

discloses that geographical blocks are flagged based on the location of the in-vehicle

device 21 both before a request for planning a route is entered (id., 13:48-50, 13:66-

14:4) and after a request for planning a route is entered (id., 13:26-58). For example,

with respect to flagging that occurs before a request for planning a route is entered,

Xu explains that where the driver does not enter a destination for the trip, or where

the driver has no clear, determined destination, the locator 32 uses a configurable

radius, and a circle centered at the current vehicles position is made with the

given radius. Blocks within or partly within the circle are flagged. (Id., 13:66-

22
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
14:4 (emphasis added).) In-vehicle device 21 analyzes the received data, Xu

explaining that [t]he travel time forecast is received from the traffic service center

and traffic data relating to the flagged blocks is stored by the computer system 26,

with [t]raffic forecast data not related to the flagged blocks [] discarded. (Id.,

13:58-62.) Therefore, in-vehicle device 21 searches the collections of data of traffic

service center 60 (the database) for traffic forecast data (traffic information)

specific to geographical blocks including the geographic area that the in-vehicle

device 21 is located in, which is a subset of the geographic area over which the

navigation system operates (a coverage area including the location of the navigation

device). (See Ex. 1008 at 41.)

e) receiving a request for planning a route from an


origination to a destination;

Xu discloses this limitation. (See Ex. 1008 at 41.) For example, Xu discloses

that a destination for [a] trip may be entered by a driver using the driver interface

28. (Ex. 1004 at 13:53-55.) The locator 32 executes a program to find a block

chain that starts from the block where the vehicle is currently located, e.g., an

origination, and ends at a block in which the destination is located, e.g., a

destination. (Id., 13:55-58; see also id., 7:28-31, 7:49-50, 13:62-65 (explaining that

the driver can also change the route or destination).)

23
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
f) determining that the coverage area is different from one
or more areas in navigation coverage defined at least by
the origination and the destination;

Xu discloses this limitation. (See Ex. 1008 at 41.) For example, Xu discloses

that [t]he locator 32 executes a program to find a block chain that starts from the

block where the vehicle is currently located, and ends at a block in which the

destination is located. These chained blocks are flagged. (Ex. 1004 at 13:55-58.)

Moreover, Xu also discloses that [i]f the route or destination is changed by the

driver, the chained block list is re-computed and traffic forecast information for any

newly flagged blocks is screened from a traffic forecast at the next [Traffic

Broadcasting Interval]. (Id., 13:62-65.) Therefore, when a route is being planned,

Xu determines whether the initially flagged geographical blocks that included the in-

vehicle device 21s current location (i.e., the coverage area) are different from

newly flagged blocks formed from a new route or changed destination. In other

words, the block flagging process determines geographic areas associated with the

route between the origination and the destination that are different than the

geographic area previously determined to be associated with the location of the in-

vehicle device 21. (See Ex. 1008 at 41; see also supra Part VIII.A.1.c-d.)

g) searching the database for selected traffic information


specific to the one or more areas; and

Xu discloses this limitation. (See Ex. 1008 at 41.) For example, as discussed

above for claim element 1.d, Xu explains that traffic service center 60 divides the

24
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
digitized road network map 13 into smaller blocks (e.g., based on post code zones,

or arbitrary street zones) and associates the traffic information of respective links

with a block number for identifying where each link is located. (See Ex. 1004 at

13:30-37; Ex. 1008 at 41.) The data is broadcast from the traffic service center 60

as a digitized road network map 13 and received by the in-vehicle device 21. (Ex.

1004 at 13:48-50.) Xu discloses that geographical blocks are flagged based on the

location of the in-vehicle device 21 both before a request for planning a route is

entered (see id., 13:66-14:4) and after a request for planning a route is entered (see

id., 13:26-58). In-vehicle device 21 analyzes the received data, explaining that [t]he

travel time forecast is received from the traffic service center and traffic data relating

to the flagged blocks is stored by the computer system 26. Traffic forecast data not

related to the flagged blocks is discarded. (Id., 13:58-62; see also id., 11:43-53 (the

traffic service center 60 uses a simple calculation to compute the travel time of a

vehicle for a specific link or the vehicle travel speed on the link. The traffic

forecaster 68 retrieves traffic data for two adjacent nodes from the database 66, and

determines a time at which the vehicle was on the source node of the link and a time

the vehicle was on the sink node of the link).) Therefore, in-vehicle device 21

searches collections of data of traffic service center 60 (the database) for traffic

forecast data (selected traffic information) specific to the flagged blocks. (See Ex.

1008 at 41.)

25
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
h) planning a route to the destination, taking into
consideration at least traffic conditions derived from the
selected traffic information.

Xu discloses this limitation. (See Ex. 1008 at 41.) For example Xu discloses

that [t]he data received by the mobile radio sub-system 24 is stored by the computer

system 26 and the road network explorer 34 uses the data in conjunction with driver's

instructions received from the driver interface 28 to provide intelligent route

guidance. The intelligent route guidance, such as an optimum travel route based on

real-time traffic conditions, is displayed on the screen display (not shown) of the

driver interface 28. (Ex. 1004 at 7:46-53 (emphasis added).) Xu also discloses that

[t]he in-vehicle device 21 on each vehicle 20 receives the traffic conditions from

traffic service center 60 and processes information included in the traffic condition

broadcasts to provide route planning to the driver by recommending real-time

optimum travel routes based on real-time or forecast traffic conditions. (Id., 7:55-

60.) Xu further discloses that after a destination for the trip [is] entered by a driver

using the driver interface 28, the locator 32 executes a program to find a block

chain that starts from the block where the vehicle is currently located, and ends

at a block in which the destination is located. (Id., 13:50-58 (emphasis added).)

2. Claim 2

a) The method of claim 1 wherein the database is external


to the navigation device.

Xu discloses this limitation. (See Ex. 1008 at 42.) For example, as shown in

26
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
Figure 1, traffic service center 60 is external to in-vehicle device 21.

(Ex. 1004 at Fig. 1 (annotated).) Xu explains that the "in-vehicle device 21

transmits the static road positions of the vehicle as radio frequency data to a

communication station 50 and the communication station 50 in turn transfers

the static vehicle positions through a transfer medium 52 to [the] traffic service

center 60." (Id. , 6:39 -44 ; see also id., 8:17-36 (describing the configuration of

the traffic service center 60).)

27
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
3. Claim 3

a) The method of claim 1 wherein the location of the


navigation device is defined by GPS coordinates.

Xu discloses this limitation. (See Ex. 1008 at 43.) For example, Xu discloses

that [t]he locator 32 computes the geographical location of the vehicle, using data

received from the GPS receiver 22. (Ex. 1004 at 7:32-33; see also id., 7:4-9 (The

GPS satellites 42 transmit global positioning information to the GPS receivers 22

installed in the vehicles 20. Each receiver 22 interprets the signals from three or

more satellites 42 and determines a geographical position with an accuracy within

an average of 20 meters.).)

4. Claim 4

a) The method of claim 1 wherein the navigation device is


used in a vehicle.

Xu discloses this limitation. (See Ex. 1008 at 44.) For example, Xu discloses

that [e]ach vehicle 20 is equipped with an in-vehicle device 21. (Ex. 1004 at 6:30-

31.) Xu further discloses that vehicle support sub-system 30 is provided in the in-

vehicle device 21, which includes a road network locator 32 (hereinafter locator

32) and a road explorer 34. (Id., 7:21-23.) A mobile radio sub-system 24 is

provided for exchanging radio frequency data with the traffic service center 60 via

the communication station 50. Also included in the in-vehicle device 21 are a

computer system 26 for operating the sub-systems and storing the digitized road

network map. A driver interface 28 includes a microphone, data entry pad, screen

28
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
display and loud-speaker to permit drivers to interact with the in-vehicle device 21.

(Id., 7:23-31.)

5. Claim 5

a) The method of claim 1 wherein road conditions are also


taken into consideration in planning the route.

Xu discloses this limitation. (See Ex. 1008 at 45.) For example, Xu discloses

that, prior to broadcasting travel time forecasts, the traffic service center 60 may

weigh [r]eal-time abnormal traffic conditions . . . in a plurality of ways. (Ex. 1004

at 12:54-55.) For example, a closed road segment, for example, may be assigned a

weight factor of 1000, the weight factor being used to calculate a predicted link travel

time. Therefore, a subsequent broadcast will show that link travel time is 1000 times

greater than a normal travel time and the road explorers 34 or drivers will realize the

link is impossible. (Id., 12:55-61.) As another example, a weight factor of 5 . . .

may be used to adjust a travel time for links which are in regions experiencing heavy

snow. (Id., 12:61-63.) A database is preferably established for storing weighting

factors associated with abnormal traffic and inclement weather conditions. (Id.,

12:63-65; see also id., claim 10 (reciting A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein

the predicted travel time is multiplied by a predetermined weighting factor

associated with road or weather conditions to adjust the predicted travel time for

link L1 at the time t on the day D when the road or weather conditions are

abnormal, and/or adjusted by current unusual congestion. (emphasis added).)

29
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
In addition, the current traffic conditions may also affect traffic forecasts,

such that [i]f there is congestion on a link which is not normally congested and the

congestion is completely due to traffic volume, the traffic service center receives a

plurality of traffic data indicating that the link is experiencing an unusual congestion,

by comparing the current traffic status with the normal traffic condition. This

unusual congestion is also used to adjust the next traffic forecast. (Id., 12:66-13:6.)

Xu explains that the in-vehicle device 21 on each vehicle 20 receives the

traffic conditions from traffic service center 60 and processes information included

in the traffic condition broadcasts to provide route planning to the driver by

recommending real-time optimum travel routes based on real-time or forecast traffic

conditions. (Id., 6:55-60.) Thus, the road conditions are taken into consideration

when in-vehicle device 21 is planning a route. (See Ex. 1008 at 45.)

6. Claim 6

a) The method of claim 1 wherein weather conditions are


also taken into consideration in planning the route.

Xu discloses this limitation. (See Ex. 1008 at 46.) For example, Xu discloses

that, prior to broadcasting travel time forecasts, the traffic service center 60 may

weigh [r]eal-time abnormal traffic conditions . . . in a plurality of ways. (Ex. 1004

at 12:54-55.) For example, a weight factor of 5 . . . may be used to adjust a travel

time for links which are in regions experiencing heavy snow. (Id., 12:61-63

(emphasis added).) A database is preferably established for storing weighting

30
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
factors associated with . . . inclement weather conditions. (Id., 12:63- 65

(emphasis added); see also id., claim 10 (reciting A method as claimed in claim 1

wherein the predicted travel time is multiplied by a predetermined weighting factor

associated with road or weather conditions to adjust the predicted travel time for

link L1 at the time t on the day D when the road or weather conditions are

abnormal, and/or adjusted by current unusual congestion.) (emphasis added).)

Xu explains that the in-vehicle device 21 on each vehicle 20 receives the

traffic conditions from traffic service center 60 and processes information included

in the traffic condition broadcasts to provide route planning to the driver by

recommending real-time optimum travel routes based on real-time or forecast traffic

conditions. (Id., 6:55-60.) Thus, the weather conditions are taken into consideration

when in-vehicle device 21 is planning a route. (See Ex. 1008 at 46.)

7. Claim 7

a) The method of claim 1 wherein the navigation device


includes a display element, and at least part of the planned
route is shown on the display element.

Xu discloses this limitation. (See Ex. 1008 at 47.) For example Xu discloses

that [t]he data received by the mobile radio sub-system 24 is stored by the computer

system 26 and the road network explorer 34 uses the data in conjunction with driver's

instructions received from the driver interface 28 to provide intelligent route

guidance. The intelligent route guidance, such as an optimum travel route based on

31
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
real-time traffic conditions, is displayed on the screen display (not shown) of the

driver interface 28. (Ex. 1004 at 7:46-53; see also id., claim 26 (the driver interface

includes a data entry mechanism adapted to enable the driver to enter a destination

point, and a display mechanism for displaying a recommended travel route between

a departure point and the destination point).)

8. Claim 9

a) A method for navigation using a navigation device which


includes a location-sensing element therein, the method
comprising:

To the extent the preamble is limiting, Xu discloses this limitation for at least

the same reasons discussed above for claim element 1.a. (See supra Part VIII.A.1.a;

see also citations and analysis below in Parts VIII.A.8(b)-(h); Ex. 1008 at 48.)

b) forming a database storing weather information for


extraction thereof with respect to areas;

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 1.b and claim 6. (See supra Parts VIII.A.1.b, VIII.A.6; Ex. 1008 at

48.) With respect to weather information, Xu specifically explains that an

external party interface 64 is provided to connect the external party data sources 70

to receive real-time information about weather or road conditions. The real- time

information is processed by an external party data integrator 65 for incorporation

into real-time traffic forecasts. (Ex. 1004 at 8:23-28 (emphasis added).)

Moreover, Xu also explains that the traffic service center 60 may weigh [r]eal-time

32
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
abnormal traffic conditions . . . in a plurality of ways. (Id., 12:54-55.) For example,

a weight factor of 5 . . . may be used to adjust a travel time for links which are in

regions experiencing heavy snow. (Id., 12:61-63 (emphasis added).) A database

is preferably established [by traffic service center 60] for storing weighting factors

associated with . . . inclement weather conditions. (Id., 12:63-65; see also id., claim

10 (reciting A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the predicted travel time is

multiplied by a predetermined weighting factor associated with road or weather

conditions to adjust the predicted travel time for link L1 at the time t on the day D

when the road or weather conditions are abnormal, and/or adjusted by current

unusual congestion.) (emphasis added).) Therefore, for these reasons, in addition

to the reasons discussed above with respect to claim element 1.b and claim 6, traffic

service center 60 is formed to store weather information for extraction thereof with

respect to areas.

c) receiving data concerning a location of the navigation


device which is determined using the location-sensing
element;

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 1.c. (See supra Part VIII.A.1.c; Ex. 1008 at 48.)

d) searching the database for weather information specific


to a coverage area including the location of the navigation
device;

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

33
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
claim element 1.d. (See supra Part VIII.A.1.d; Ex. 1008 at 48.) In particular, as

discussed for claim element 9.b, the traffic information discussed above for claim

element 1.d includes weather information. (See supra Part 8.b.)

e) receiving a request for planning a route from an


origination to a destination;

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 1.e. (See supra Part VIII.A.1.e; Ex. 1008 at 48.)

f) determining that the coverage area is different from one


or more areas in navigation coverage defined at least by
the origination and the destination;

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 1.f. (See supra Part VIII.A.1.f; Ex. 1008 at 48.)

g) searching the database for selected weather information


specific to the one or more areas; and

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 1.g. (See supra Part VIII.A.1.d; Ex. 1008 at 48.) In particular, as

discussed for claim element 8.b, the traffic information discussed above for claim

element 1.g includes weather information. (See supra Part 8.b.)

h) planning a route to the destination, taking into


consideration at least weather conditions derived from the
selected weather information.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 1.h. (See supra Part VIII.A.1.h; Ex. 1008 at 48.) In particular, as

discussed for claim element 9.b, the traffic information discussed above for claim

34
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
element 1.g includes weather information. (See supra Part 8.b.)

9. Claim 10

a) The method of claim 9 wherein the database is external


to the navigation device.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 2. (See supra Part VIII.A.2; Ex. 1008 at 49.)

10. Claim 11

a) The method of claim 9 wherein the location of the


navigation device is defined by GPS coordinates.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 3. (See supra Part VIII.A.3; Ex. 1008 at 50.)

11. Claim 12

a) The method of claim 9 wherein the navigation device is


used in a vehicle.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 4. (See supra Part VIII.A.4; Ex. 1008 at 51.)

12. Claim 13

a) The method of claim 9 wherein road conditions are also


taken into consideration in planning the route.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 5. (See supra Part VIII.A.5; Ex. 1008 at 52.)

35
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
13. Claim 14

a) The method of claim 9 wherein traffic conditions are also


taken into consideration in planning the route.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 5. (See supra Part VIII.A.5; Ex. 1008 at 53.) In particular, as discussed

above, the road conditions in Xu include traffic conditions.

14. Claim 15

a) The method of claim 9 wherein the navigation device


includes a display element, and at least part of the planned
route is shown on the display element.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 7. (See supra Part VIII.A.7; Ex. 1008 at 54.)

15. Claim 17

a) A navigation system for a user traveling in a vehicle,


comprising:

To the extent the preamble is construed to be limiting, Xu discloses this

limitation. For example, Xu discloses a traffic data remote collection and intelligent

vehicle highway system. (Ex. 1004 at 6:26-28.) Figure 1 illustrates one example of

the navigation system.

36
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234

(Id., 6:26-28, Fig. 1.) The system includes a group of vehicles 20 [that] travel a

roadway system 10, wherein [e]ach vehicle 20 is equipped with an in-vehicle

device 21. (Id., 6:28-32.) The in-vehicle device 21 has a vehicle support sub-

system 30, which includes includes a road network locator 32 (hereinafter locator

32) and a road explorer 34Also included in the in-vehicle device 21 are a computer

system 26 for operating the sub-systems and storing the digitized road network

map. (Id., 7:21-28, Fig. 2.) The locator 32 computes the geographical location of

the vehicle, using data received from the GPS receiver 22, and converts it to a

position on the digitized road network map, which is broadcast from the traffic

37
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
service center 60 via the communication station 50 and stored in the computer

system 26. (Id., 7:32-37, Fig. 2.) Therefore, Xu discloses a navigation system (e.g.,

a traffic data remote collection and intelligent vehicle highway system) for a user

traveling in a vehicle (e.g., vehicle 20). (See also citations and analysis below in

Parts VIII.A.15(b)-(f); Ex. 1008 at 55.)

b) a database formed to store traffic information for


extraction thereof with respect to areas;

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 1.b. (See supra Parts VIII.A.1.b; Ex. 1008 at 55.)

c) a processing unit for searching the database for traffic


information specific to a coverage area including the
location of the vehicle; and

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim elements 1.c-d. (See supra Parts VIII.A.1.c-d; Ex. 1008 at 55.) As discussed

above in Part VII.D, Petitioner has assumed the corresponding structure for the

identified function of the claimed processing unit is a server, a processor of a

navigation device, or equivalents thereof. (See supra Part VII.D.1.) Consistent with

these structures, Xu discloses that the in-vehicle device 21 includes a computer

system 26 for operating the sub-systems and storing the digitized road network

map, and thus the computer system 26 would perform the claimed searching, as

discussed above for claim element 1.d. (See Ex. 1004 at 7:26-28.) The computer

system 26 is thus a processing unit for searching the database as recited in this claim

38
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
element.

d) an interface for receiving a request for planning a route


from an origination to a destination,

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 1.e. (See supra Parts VIII.A.1.e; Ex. 1008 at 55.) In particular, Xu

discloses that a destination for [a] trip may be entered by a driver using the driver

interface 28. (Ex. 1004 at 13:53-55.) The locator 32 executes a program to find a

block chain that starts from the block where the vehicle is currently located, e.g.,

an origination, and ends at a block in which the destination is located, e.g., a

destination. (Id., 13:55-58; see also id., 7:28-31, 7:49-50, 13:62-65 (explaining that

the driver can also change the route or destination); claim 26 (the driver interface

includes a data entry mechanism adapted to enable the driver to enter a destination

point, and a display mechanism for displaying a recommended travel route between

a departure point and the destination point).)

e) wherein when it is determined that the coverage area is


different from one or more areas in navigation coverage
defined at least by the origination and the destination, the
processing unit searches the database for selected traffic
information specific to the one or more areas, and

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim elements 1.f-g. (See supra Parts VIII.A.1.f-g; Ex. 1008 at 55.) In particular,

Xu discloses that the in-vehicle device 21 includes a computer system 26 for

operating the sub-systems and storing the digitized road network map, and thus the

39
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
computer system 26 performs the claimed searching, as discussed above for claim

element 1.g. (See Ex. 1004 at 7:26-28.)

f) wherein a route to the destination is planned, taking into


consideration at least traffic conditions derived from the
selected traffic information.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 1.h. (See supra Parts VIII.A.1.h; Ex. 1008 at 55.)

16. Claim 18

a) The system of claim 17 wherein the location of the vehicle


is defined by GPS coordinates.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 3. (See supra Parts VIII.A.3; Ex. 1008 at 56.)

17. Claim 19

a) The system of claim 17 wherein road conditions are also


taken into consideration in planning the route.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 5. (See supra Parts VIII.A.5; Ex. 1008 at 57.)

18. Claim 20

a) The system of claim 17 wherein weather conditions are


also taken into consideration in planning the route.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 6. (See supra Parts VIII.A.6; Ex. 1008 at 58.)

40
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
19. Claim 21

a) The system of claim 17 wherein at least part of the


planned route is shown on a display.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 7. (See supra Parts VIII.A.7; Ex. 1008 at 59.)

20. Claim 23

a) The system of claim 17 wherein the database is external


to the vehicle.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 2. (See supra Parts VIII.A.2; Ex. 1008 at 60.)

21. Claim 24

a) A navigation system for a user traveling in a vehicle,


comprising:

To the extent the preamble is limiting, Xu discloses this limitation for at least

the same reasons discussed above for claim element 17.a. (See supra Part

VIII.A.15.a; see also citations and analysis below in Parts VIII.A.21(b)-(f); Ex. 1008

at 61.)

b) a database formed to store weather information for


extraction thereof with respect to areas;

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 17.b and claim 20. (See supra Parts VIII.A.15.b, VIII.A.18; Ex. 1008

at 61.) With respect to weather information, Xu specifically explains that an

external party interface 64 is provided to connect the external party data sources 70

41
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
to receive real-time information about weather or road conditions. The real-time

information is processed by an external party data integrator 65 for incorporation

into real-time traffic forecasts. (Ex. 1004 at 8:23-28 (emphasis added).)

Moreover, Xu also explains that the traffic service center 60 may weigh [r]eal-time

abnormal traffic conditions . . . in a plurality of ways. (Id., 12:54-55.) For example,

a weight factor of 5 . . . may be used to adjust a travel time for links which are in

regions experiencing heavy snow. (Id., 12:61-63.) A database is preferably

established for storing weighting factors associated with . . . inclement weather

conditions. (Id., 12:63-65.)

c) a processing unit for searching the database for weather


information specific to a coverage area including the
location of the vehicle; and

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 17.c. (See supra Part VIII.A.15.c; Ex. 1008 at 61.) In particular, as

discussed for claim element 24.b, the traffic information discussed above for claim

element 17.c includes weather information. (See supra Part 21.b.)

d) an interface for receiving a request for planning a route


from an origination to a destination,

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 17.d. (See supra Part VIII.A.15.d; Ex. 1008 at 61.)

42
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
e) wherein when it is determined that the coverage area is
different from one or more areas in navigation coverage
defined at least by the origination and the destination, the
processing unit searches the database for selected weather
information specific to the one or more areas, and

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 17.e. (See supra Part VIII.A.15.e; Ex. 1008 at 61.) In particular, as

discussed for claim element 24.b, the traffic information discussed above for claim

element 17.e includes weather information. (See supra Part 21.b.)

f) wherein a route to the destination is planned, taking into


consideration at least traffic conditions derived from the
selected weather information.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim element 17.f. (See supra Part VIII.A.15.f; Ex. 1008 at 61.)

22. Claim 25

a) The system of claim 24 wherein the location of the vehicle


is defined by GPS coordinates.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 18. (See supra Part VIII.A.16; Ex. 1008 at 62.)

23. Claim 26

a) The system of claim 24 wherein road conditions are also


taken into consideration in planning the route.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 19. (See supra Part VIII.A.17; Ex. 1008 at 63.)

43
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
24. Claim 27

a) The system of claim 24 wherein traffic conditions are


also taken into consideration in planning the route.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 19. (See supra Part VIII.A.17; Ex. 1008 at 64.) In particular, as discussed

above, the road conditions in Xu include traffic conditions.

25. Claim 28

a) The system of claim 24 wherein at least part of the


planned route is shown on a display.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 21. (See supra Part VIII.A.19; Ex. 1008 at 65.)

26. Claim 30

a) The system of claim 24 wherein the database is external


to the vehicle.

Xu discloses this limitation for at least the same reasons discussed above for

claim 23. (See supra Part VIII.A.20; Ex. 1008 at 66.)

B. Ground 2: Xu and Trovato Render Claims 8, 16, 22, and 29


Obvious

1. Claims 8 and 16

a) The method of claim [1 or 9] wherein turn-by-turn


instructions are communicated via audio media to a user
of the navigation device when traversing the planned
route.

As discussed above, Xu discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9. (See

supra Part VIII.A.1, VIII.A.8.) In addition, Xu discloses that the driver interface 28

44
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
includes a microphone . . . and loud-speaker to permit drivers to interact with the in-

vehicle device 21. (Ex. 1004 at 7:28-31.) Xu does not explicitly recite turn-by-turn

instructions are communicated via audio media to a user of the navigation device

when traversing the planned route. However, it would have been obvious to one of

ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention to modify Xu to include

this limitation in view of Trovato.

Trovato is directed to a travel direction speaking system. (Ex. 1005 at

Abstract.) Trovato discloses that a computer prepares driving instructions based on

the route with each driving instruction including the spatial position (longitude and

latitude) of the turn at which the driving instruction applies. (Id., 2:8-11.) Trovato

explains that its system includes a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit that

provides the GPS determined position of the laptop computer. The computer

compares the GPS reading to the spatial position or setpoint and outputs the

instruction when the two positions are within a specified range of each other. (Id.,

2:11-16.) The range can be determined based on a time period required to travel

from the current position to a position associated with a speech initiation point at

which the instructions should be spoken. The time period accounts for the amount

of time required to speak the directions, for the reaction time of the driver at the

speed that the laptop computer is moving, as well as driving conditions, road

conditions, personal preference, etc. (Id., 2:16-27.) The system in Trovato includes

45
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
a text to voice unit that converts the text driving instructions into a voice signal.

(Id., 2:34-35.) Trovato discloses that, by performing its operations, it can ensure that

there is enough time to speak the directions sufficiently in advance of the turn to

allow the driver to make the turn. (Id., 1:58-60.) (See also Ex. 1008 at 38-39, 75-

76.)

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Xu

such that turn-by-turn instructions are communicated via audio media to a user of

the navigation device when traversing the planned route, similar to the manner

disclosed in Trovato. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that both Xu and

Trovato are in the same field of navigation devices (see, e.g., Ex. 1004 at Abstract;

Ex. 1005 at Abstract), including navigation devices that take into account road and

traffic conditions to plan routes (see, e.g., Ex. 1004 at Abstract; Ex. 1005 at 2:26-

27). (See Ex. 1008 at 77-79.) One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to

modify Xu to include such turn-by-turn audio instructions since Trovato suggests

that doing so can help ensure that a driver has enough time to listen to the

instructions and make the change in direction. (Ex. 1005 at 1:35-36.) Moreover,

one of ordinary skill would have recognized that Xu was ready for improvement to

include this feature since Xu already includes a driver interface 28 [that] includes a

microphone . . . and loud-speaker to permit drivers to interact with the in-vehicle

device 21. (Ex. 1004 at 7:28-31.) In addition, one of ordinary skill would have

46
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
recognized that using turn-by-turn audio instructions as in Trovato improves the

usability and safety of the route planning system as drivers can keep their view on

the traffic in front of them, rather than reading text directions. (See Ex. 1008 at

77-79.) Thus, modifying driver interface 28 to also provide turn-by-turn instructions

that are communicated via audio media (e.g., by converting text driving instructions

into a voice signal, as in Trovato) to a user of the navigation device when traversing

the planned route, would have been a predictable modification of Xu that would not

have otherwise affected Xus operation. (See Ex. 1008 at 77-79.) Accordingly,

one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that implementing such a

modification would have been common sense, predictable, and within the realm of

knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time of the alleged invention. See KSR Intl

Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 420, 421 (2007).

2. Claims 22 and 29

a) The system of claim [17 or 24] wherein turn-by-turn


instructions are communicated via audio media to the
user.

As discussed above, Xu discloses all of the limitations of claims 17 and 24.

(See supra Part VIII.A.15, VIII.A.21.) In addition, Xu discloses that the driver

interface 28 includes a microphone . . . and loud-speaker to permit drivers to interact

with the in-vehicle device 21. (Ex. 1004 at 7:28-31.) Xu does not explicitly recite

turn-by-turn instructions are communicated via audio media to a user. However,

47
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged

invention to modify Xu to include this limitation in view of Trovato, for the reasons

discussed above for claims 8 and 16. (See supra Part VIII.B.1; see also Ex. 1008 at

80-81.)

C. Ground 3: Xu and Golding Render Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-28,


and 30 Obvious

As discussed above, Xu discloses all of the limitations of claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-

21, 23-28, and 30. (See supra Parts VIII.A.1-26.) However, during the course of this

proceeding, Patent Owner may argue that Xu does not disclose searching the

database for [traffic information or weather information] specific to a coverage area

including the location of the navigation device, determining that the coverage area

is different from one or more areas in navigation coverage defined at least by the

origination and the destination, and searching the database for selected traffic

information specific to the one or more areas, as recited in independent claims 1

and 9, or similarly recited in independent claims 17 and 24.

In particular, Patent Owner may argue at some point during the course of this

proceeding that the searching the database limitations must be performed at the

database (whereas Xu performs such operations at the client) and/or that the flagged

geographical blocks including the location of in-vehicle device 21 in Xu do not

48
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
5
correspond to a coverage area, as claimed. However, it would have been obvious

to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention to modify Xu to

include this limitation in view of Golding.

Golding is directed to a system located in an automobile [that] provides

personalized traffic information and route planning capabilities. (Ex. 1006 at

Abstract.) Golding discloses that a central database [2] would collect and store

travel time information for the various street segments [and] when updated, the

travel time information can be transferred from [the] central database to the

individual automobiles. (Id., 3:33-37.) Golding also discloses that a best route

from a starting point to a destination location can be determined by [a] route advisor

13. (Id., 4:49-50.) For example, a route planning system [can] use[] the travel time

information to determine a route having minimum travel time. (Id., 3:29-31.)

5
For example, Patent Owner may attempt to reserve this argument until after

institution should the Board do so. Thus, as explained above in Part V.C, Ground 3

should be instituted even if Patent Owner does not raise this argument in a

Preliminary Response.

49
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234

(Id., Fig. 1.) Golding explains that central database 2 includes a database retrieval

procedure 22 (id., 4:31-33, 5:29-31, Fig. 1), and the client-side vehicle navigation

system 1 includes a route advisor 13 (id., 4:31-33, 4:49-50, Fig. 1).

According to Golding, in order to limit the required memory, the route

advisor [13] can have travel time information for only a portion of the map database

in which the automobile is presently located. The route advisory could then obtain

any additional travel time information from the central database, as needed. (Id.,

4:53-58.) For example, [w]hen planning a route, the route advisor 13 can contact

the central database 2 to obtain updated information for the locations of interest.

50
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
(Id., 6:32-34.) (See also Ex. 1008 at 36-37, 67-70.) Thus, like Xu (see, e.g., Ex.

1004 at 13:26-14:4), Golding starts its route planning process by analyzing data from

central database 2 regarding a geographic area within which the vehicle is currently

located (searching the database for traffic information specific to a coverage area

including the location of the navigation device). If the needed information to plan

a route is not in this coverage area (determining that the coverage area is different

from one or more areas in navigation coverage defined at least by the origination

and the destination), Golding discloses retrieving traffic and map data for additional

geographic areas from central database 2 (searching the database for selected traffic

information specific to the one or more areas). (Ex. 1006 at 4:53-58, 6:32-34; see

also Ex. 1001 at 10:35-62 (describing a similar process).)

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Xu to

analyze data from the database for [traffic information or weather information]

specific to a coverage area including the location of the navigation device (at the

database), determine that the coverage area is different from one or more areas in

navigation coverage defined at least by the origination and the destination, and

analyze data from the database for selected traffic information specific to the one or

more areas in the navigation coverage (at the database), similar to the operation

disclosed in Golding. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify

Xu in this way to limit the required memory at in-vehicle device 21, as suggested by

51
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
Golding. (Ex. 1006 at 4:53-58; see also Ex. 1008 at 71-73.) In particular, as

suggested by Golding, to achieve a reduction in required memory at a vehicle

navigation device, a determination is performed to determine that the coverage area

is different from one or more areas in navigation coverage defined at least by the

origination and the destination. (See Ex. 1006 at 4:53-58, 6:32-34; see also Ex. 1008

at 71-73.) This allows the vehicle navigation device to find any additional data

needed after a request for planning a route is received, whereby the database, which

provides the additional data, also searches for and sends the data. (See Ex. 1006 at

4:53-58, 6:32-34; see also Ex. 1008 at 71-73.) One of ordinary skill also would

have been motivated to modify Xu in this way to limit the amount of processing

required to be performed at in-vehicle device 21, limiting the need to determine data

from the database that is or is not applicable to in-vehicle device 21s current

navigation needs. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the operations

in Golding are similar to the block flagging performed in Xu, and thus that modifying

Xu in this way would have had predictable results. (Ex. 1008 at 71-73.) As

modified, one of ordinary skill would have understood that in-vehicle device 21

would, like in Golding, contact traffic service center 60 to obtain additional and

updated information for the locations of interest. (Ex. 1008 at 71-73; see also Ex.

1006 at 6:32-34) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood

that implementing such a modification would have been common sense, predictable,

52
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
and within the realm of knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time of the alleged

invention. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 420, 421.

D. Ground 4: Xu, Golding, and Trovato Render Claims 8, 16, 22, and
29 Obvious

As discussed above, the combination of Xu and Trovato discloses all of the

limitations of claims 18, 16, 22, and 29. (See supra Parts VIII.B.1-2.) However,

during the course of this proceeding, Patent Owner may argue that Xu does not

disclose searching the database for [traffic information or weather information]

specific to a coverage area including the location of the navigation device,

determining that the coverage area is different from one or more areas in navigation

coverage defined at least by the origination and the destination, and searching the

database for selected traffic information specific to the one or more areas, as recited

in independent claims 1 and 9, or similarly recited in independent claims 17 and 24.

However, as discussed above in Part VIII.C, it also would have been obvious to one

of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention to modify Xu to include

this limitation in view of Golding. It would have been obvious to modify the

combination of Xu and Golding to include the limitations of claims 8, 16, 22, and

29, in view of Trovato, for at least the same reasons discussed above in Part VIII.B.1-

2. The resulting combination of Xu, Golding, and Trovato would thus include a

system that performs the processes recited in claims 8, 16, 22, and 29. (See also Ex.

1008 at 82-84.)

53
P

Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531


U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
IX. CONCLUSION

For the reasons given above, Petitioner requests inter partes review of the

234 patent and cancellation of claims 1-30 of the 234 patent.6

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Ashraf A. Fawzy


Ashraf A. Fawzy
Registration No. 67,914

6
Petitioner has not necessarily raised all challenges to the 234 patent, given the

limitations placed by the Rules. Petitioner reserves all rights and defenses.

54
Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
CERTIFICATE UNDER 37 CFR 42.24(d)

Under the provisions of 37 CFR 42.24(d), the undersigned hereby certifies

that the word count for the foregoing Petition for Inter Partes Review totals 11,602

which is less than the 14,000 words allowed under 37 CFR 42.24(a)(i).

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 7, 2017 /s/ Ashraf A. Fawzy


Ashraf A. Fawzy
Registration No. 67,914

Unified Patents Inc.


1875 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20009
Tel: (202) 871-0110
Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01531
U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 7, 2017, I caused a true and correct copy of the

foregoing materials:

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234, including

Exhibit list

Exhibits for Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234

Power of Attorney

Word Count Certification Under 37 CFR 42.24(d)

to be served via Priority Mail Express on the following correspondent of record

as listed on PAIR:

Klein, ONeill & Singh, LLP


c/o Daniel Cavanagh
16755 Von Karman Ave, Suite 275
Irvine, CA 92606

/s/ Ashraf A. Fawzy


Ashraf A. Fawzy
Registration No. 67,914