Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Inre patent of Martell ef al, Attomey Docket No: RGS876 § US. Patent 6,917,876 § § IssueDate: July 12, 2005 § Customer No.: 165774 § Filing Date: May 6, 2002 § 8 For. ROUTE GUIDANCE FOR 8 VEHICLES § REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION OF U.S. PATENT 6,917,876 Mail Stop “Ex Parte Reexam” Attn: Central Reexamination Unit ‘Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 301-307, Unified Patents, LLC (“Requester”) hereby requests an ex parte reexamination of claims 1-7, 11-12, 14-19, 24, 26-29, 33-39, 41-44, and 49 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent 6,917,876 (the "876 Patent, Ex. 1001), which issued on July 12, 2005 to Martell et al. from U.S. Patent Application 10/138,418 (the “418 Application”), filed on May 6, 2002, The ’418 Patent claims priority to GB 0110890, which was filed May 4, 2001.' The "876 Patent is currently assigned to Route Guidance Systems LLC. ' At this time, Requester assumes May 4, 2001 to be the priority date. Further, Patent Owner expressly confirmed May 4, 2001 as the priority date during prosecution of the °876 Patent. U.S. File History (Ex. 1002), 116 (noting that two references were “not prior art to this application, as each of these have filing or priority dates which are later than the priority date of the application in suit, which is 4 May 2001.”). Requester reserves the right to challenge the priority date in a different proceeding.Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 (“RGS"” or “Patent Owner”). The assignment is recorded in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (CUSPTO”) at reel/frame 048439/0789. Requester submits that this Request presents prior art references and analyses that are noncumulative of the prior art that was before the Examiner during the original prosecution of the *876 Patent and that the Challenged Claims are invalid over these references. Requester therefore requests that an order for reexamination and an Office Action rejecting claims 1-7, 11-12, 14-19, 24, 26-29, 33-39, 41-44, and 49 be issued. Parte Patent Reexamination Filing Requirements Pursuant to 37 CFR. § 1.510(b)(1), statements pointing out at least one substantial new question of patentability based on material, non-cumulative reference patents and printed publications for the Challenged Claims of the °876 Patent are provided in Section II of this Request. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(2), reexamination of the Challenged Claims of the 876 Patent is requested, and a detailed explanation of the pertinence and manner of applying the cited references to the Challenged Claims is provided in Section III of this Request. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(3), copies of every patent or printed publication relied upon or referred to in the statement pointing out each substantial new question of patentability or in the detailed explanation of the pertinence and manner of applying the cited references are provided as Exhibits 1001-1033 and AA-BB of this Request. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §1.510(b)(4), a copy of the °876 Patent is provided as Exhil it 1001 of this Request, along with a copy of any disclaimer, certificate of correction, and reexamination certificate issued corresponding to the patent. Pursuant to 37 CER. § 1.510(b)(5), the attached Certificate of Service indicates that a copy of this Request, in its entirety, has been served on Patent Owner at the following address of record for Patent Owner, in accordance with 37 CFR. §1.33(c): Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP IP Department One Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2300 301 South College Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.201(1), submitted herewith is the fee set forth in Pursuant to 37 CFR. § 1.510(b)(6), Requester hereby certifies that the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 3151(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 3251()) do not prohibit Requester from filingRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 this ex parte patent reexamination request.c H Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 TABLE OF CONTENTS Substant 1 New Questions of Patentability. US. Patent 6,917,876 1 1. Summary 1 2. Prosecution History 8 Claim Construction 10 1. “means for supplying . ..” (“supplying means” (claims 1, 3, 4, and 6) 10 2. “means for receiving...” (claim 1) 12 3. “means for presenting...” | “presenting means” (claim 1) 12 4, “means for communicating” |“communicating means” (claims 2, 5, and 6) 13, 5. “means for informing...” |“informing means” (claims 11, 14, and 17). 15 6. “means for storing...” {storing means” (claim 12) 16 Listing of Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications 16 Ground 1: Knockeart in view of Gee Presents Substantial New Questions of Patentability 17 1. Overview of Prior Art 18 2. Motivation to Combine Knockeart and Gee 25 Ground 2: Knockeart in view of Gee and Schuessler Presents Substantial New Questions of Patentabili 30 1. Overview of Schuessler 30 2. Motivation to Combine Knockeart, Gee, and Schuessler 32, Ground 3: Knockeart in view of Gee and Fowler Presents Substantial New Questions of Patentability 36 1. Overview of the Prior Art 37 2. Motivation to Combine Knockeart, Gee, and Fowler. 38 Ground 4: Behr in view of Schuessler Presents Substantial New Questions of Patentability 40 1. Overview of the Prior Art 40 2. Motivation to Combine Behr and Schuessler 43 Ground 5: Behr in view of Schuessler and Knockeart Presents Substantial New Questions of Patentability 45 1, Overview of the Prior Art 46. Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 2. Motivation to Combine Behr, Schuessler, and Knockeart. 46 Ground 6: Behr in view of Schuessler, Knockeart, and Fowler Presents Substantial New Questions of Patentability sl 1. Overview of the Prior Art 52 2. Motivation to Combine Behr, Schuessler, Knockeart, and Fowler 52 Ground 7: Behr in view of Schuessler and Gee Presents Substantial New Questions of Patentability 52 1. Overview of the Prior Art 33 2. Motivation to Combine Behr, Schuessler, and Gee. 53 Ground 8; Behr in view of Schuessler, Knockeart, and Gee Presents Substantial New Questions of Patentability 54 Detailed Applic: n of the Prior Art to Every Claim for which Reexamination = 54 Proposed Rejections of the 54 Ground 1 (Knockeart in view of Gee) 55 Ground 2 (Knockeart in view of Gee and Schuessler) 61 Ground 3 (Knockeart in view of Gee and Fowler) 2 Ground 4 (Behr in view of Schuessler) 68 Ground 5 (Behr in view of Schuessler and Knockeart) 65 Ground 6 (Behr in view of Schuessler, Knockeart, and Fowler) 70 Ground 7 (Behr in view of Schuessler and Gee) 1 Ground 8 (Behr in view of Schuessler, Knockeart, and Gee) n Secondary Considerations n Disclosure of Concurrent Litigation, Reexamination, and Related Proceedings....72 Conelusion..... wTRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibi Description Ex. 1001 |U-S. Patent No. 6,917,876 to Martell et al. (the “°876 Patent”) [Ex. 1002 _[U.S. File History of the "876 Patent “U.S. File History”) IEx. 1003 [Declaration of Scott Andrews (“Andrews Decl.”) Ex. 1004 |U.S. Patent No. 6,680,694 to Knockeart et al. (“Knockeart”) [Ex. 1005 |U'S. Patent No. 6,421,607 to Gee et al. Gee") Ex. 1006 [U.S. Patent No. 5,818,356 to Schuessler (“Schuessler™) Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,212,474 to Fowler et al. (“Fowler”) IEx. 1008 [U'S. Patent No. 5,808,556 to Behr et al. Behr”) Ex. 1009 [European Patent No. EP1262936B1 (“EU °936 Patent”) [Ex. 1010 _ [File History of European Patent No. EP1262936B1 (“European File History") Ex. 1011 [Andrews CV Ex. 1012 _ [Map Navigation Software of the Electro-Multivision of the °91 Toyota Soarer,” Kunihiro Ishikawa, Michima Ogawa, Shiegtoshi Azuma, and Tooru Ito, IEEE ‘Vehicle Navigation and Information Systems Conference, 463-473, 1991 (“Ishikawa”) [Ex. 1013 |TravTek System Architecture Evaluation (Publication No. FAWA-RD-94-141 July 1995) (“TravTek2”) IE. 1014 _ |TravTek Global Evaluation and Executive Summary (Publication No. FHWA-RD- {96-031 March 1996) (“TravTek1") Ex, 1015 |TravTek Evaluation Orlando Test Network Study (Publication No, FAWA-RD-95- 162 January 1996) (“TravTek3”) [Ex 1016 [U'S. Patent No. 6,490,521 (Wiener) Ex. 1017 |U-S. Patent No. 6,526,349 Bullock”) [Ex. 1018 [Philips CARIN 520 Interactive Car Navigation System Enters the Automobile Aftermarket, available at hhttps://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19970825/press005622.html (August 1997) (“Philips PR”) Ex. 1019 |U.S. Patent No. 6,112,200 Livschutz") Ex. 1020 |U.S. Patent No. 5,991,689 (“Aito”) [Ex. 1021 US. Patent No. 5,559,511 (Ito) Ex. 1022 |U-S. Patent No. 6,101,443 Kato") iiiRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 [Ex. 1023 ]Steinbugl, J., Evolution Toward Third Generation Wireless Networks (November 1999) available at http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~jain/cis788- 99/3g_wireless/index. html (“Steinbugl”) IEx. 1024 _[Tannenbaum, A, Computer Networks, Prentice-Hall Intemational (1996) (“Tannenbaum”) Ex, 1025 Billingsley, R., Analysis of digital cellular standards, Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive (1996) (“Pruitt-Billingsley”) [Ex. 1026 |Somogyi, S., Orthogonal Codes in CDMA: Generation and Simulation, (December 2000) available at http://www ece ualberta.ca/~elliott/eeS52/studentAppNotes/2000f/misc/CDMA/ Somogyi”) Ex. 1027 |IS-95 North American Standard — A CDMA Based Digital Cellular System (Lin) Ex, 1028 |Hara, S., Overview of Multicarrier CDMA, IEEE Communications Magazine (December 1997) (“Hara”) Ex. 1029 |U.S. Patent No. 6,347,278 (“Takashi”) Ex. 1030 |U.S. Patent No. 5,504,482 (“Schreder”) [Ex. 1031 _ [Navigation Technologies Corporation Company Profile, Wireless Networks Online (March 28, 2001) (“NavTech Profile”) [Ex. 1032 _ [Navigation Technologies & infoUSA com Sign Licensing Agreement, NavTech Website — Company Information (April 2000) (“NavTech Press Release”) Ex. 1033 _ [CARIN 522/520 Manual (“CARIN Manual”) Ex. AA [Exhibit AA: Claim chart comparing claims 1-7, 11-12, 14-19, 24, 26-29, 33-39, 41-44, and 49 to Knockeart, Gee, Schuessler, and Fowler as set forth in Grounds 13 [Ex. BB [Exhibit BB: Claim chart comparing claims 1-7, 11-12, 14-19, 24, 26-29, 33-39, 41-44, and 49 to Behr, Schuessler, Knockeart, Fowler, and Gee as set forth in Grounds 4-8Request for Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 L SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTIONS OF PATENTABILITY Prior to describing the substantial new questions of patentability presented in this Request, provided below is an overview of the "876 Patent, a discussion of claim construction, and a summary of the prior art being discussed in the present Request. A. U.S. Patent 6,917,876 Summary The *876 Patent is directed to a “route guidance system for vehicles.” '876 Patent (Ex. 1001), 1:3-4, Copies of the 876 Patent and its file history are provided as Exhibits 1001 and 1002, respectively. For the sake of reference, the claims for which reexamination is requested are reproduced below. Claims 1 and 26 are the independent claims, while the remaining challenged claims depend directly or indirectly from these claims. 1, A route guidance system for guiding a driver of a vehicle to a desired destination ona road network, comprising a central computer adapted to calculate route guidance data providing a route for the vehicle to the desired destination; means for supplying the vehicle with the route guidance data calculated by the central computer, providing a channel of communication which is opened to transmit said route guidance data to the vehicle in a short burst and is then closed, so that transmission to the vehicle via said channel ceases, unless and until a need for further transmission ja said channel to the vehicle arises; means far receiving” the route guidance data calculated by the casual computer; and Ina Certificate of Correction, “means far recei 1g” was changed to “means for receiving.” '876 Patent (Ex. 1001), Certificate of Correction, 8. Requester refers to the corrected claim language throughout the remainder of this Request, including the attached claim charts, 3 In a Certificate of Correction, “the casual computer” was changed to “the central computer.” ‘876 Patent (Ex. 1001), Certificate of Correction, 8. Requester refers to the corrected claim language throughout the remainder of this Request, including the attached claim charts.Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 means for presenting respective instructions to the vehicle as to the route to be taken to the desired destination 2. A system according to claim | also including means for communicating with the central computer in order to inform the central computer of the position of the vehicle on the road network and the desired destination of the vehicle 3. A system according to claim 2, wherein the means for supplying the route guidance data serves to transmit route guidance data corresponding to the entire calculated route from the position of the vehicle to the desired destination 4. A system according to claim 3, wherein said means for supplying the vehicles with route guidance data not only serves to transmit said route guidance data in said short burst but also then ceases transmitting to the vehicle any data whatsoever, unless said until? said need arises. 5. A system according to claim 2, wherein said communicating means is usable by the alerted driver to cause the central computer to be requested to supply the vehicle with route guidance data for a new route taking into account the traffic congestion changes. 6. A system according to claim 2, wherein the means for communicating with the central computer and the means for supplying the vehicle with route guidance data use a single channel of communication. 7. A system according to claim 1 wherein the route guidance data comprises position data identifying a plurality of route points along the calculated route for the vehicle from the actual position of the vehicle on the road network to the desired destination 11, A system according to claim | further including means for informing at least one of the central computer and the driver as to traffic congestion on said network 4Inac icate of Correction, “unless said until” was changed to “unless and until.” '876 Patent (Ex, 1001), Certificate of Correction, 8. Requester refers to the corrected claim language throughout the remainder of this Request, including the attached claim charts.Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 12, A system according to claim 11, further including means for storing historical traffic information, and a map database in which representative data representing expected speeds of traffic along respective links of the road network is stored, the representative data in the map database forming the basis for calculation by the central computer of said routes unless said central computer overrides said representative data with historical traffic information from said historical traffic information storing means or with real time traffic information provided by the inf rming means.* 14, A system according to claim 11, wherein the informing means alerts the driver to changes in traffic congestion on said network along its calculated route 15. A system according to claim 14, wherein the information as to change in traffic congestion and the route guidance data are supplied through a single channel of communication 16, A system according to claim 15, wherein the channel of communication opens automatically upon detection of a change in traffic congestion, 17. A system according to claim 11, wherein said informing means serves to inform the central computer of changes in traffic congestion on said network and said central computer serves to automatically supply to the vehicle, by way of said means for supplying route guidance data, a new calculated route taking into account the traffic congestion changes, said central computer serves to supply said route guidance data in the form of a compressed data message comprised of a stream of route points along the calculated route 19. A system according to claim 18, wherein said presenting means includes a speech synthesiser and the data message includes, for at least some of the route points, 5 In a Certificate of Correction, “the inf rming means” was changed to “the informing means.” '876 Patem (Ex. 1001), Certificate of Correction 8, Requester refers to the corrected claim language throughout the remainder of this Request, including the attached claim charts.Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 respective strings of tokens representing words or phrases of respective spoken instructions to the driver. 24, A system according to claim 1, further including a call centre for manning by human operators and an arranged’ to be interposed between the driver and the central ‘computer for relaying to the central computer information given orally by the driver as to the desired destination 26. A route guidance method for a vehicle, comprising: supplying to the vehicle route guidance data calculated by a central computer as to the route for the vehicle to take to a desired destination by opening a channel of communication to transmit the route guidance data to the vehicle in a short burst and then closing said channel of communication so that transmission to that vehicle via said channel ceases, unless and until a need for further transmission via said channel to said vehicle arises, and presenting instructions to the driver of the vehicle as to the route to be taken to the desired destination 27. A method according to claim 26, including the further steps of informing the central computer of the position of the vehicle on a road network; and informing said central computer as to the desired destination of the vehicle. 28. A method according to claim 27, whereby a single channel of communication is used to convey the route guidance data and the information as to position and desired destination of the vehicle 29. A method according to claim 26 wherein the route guidance data comprises position data identifying a plurality of route points along the route for the vehicle from the actual position of the vehicle on the road network to the desired destination © In a Certificate of Correction, “and an arranged” was changed to “and arranged.” °876 Patent (Ex, 1001), Certificate of Correction, 8. Requester refers to the corrected claim language throughout the remainder of this Request, including the attached claim charts.Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 33, A method according to claim 26 further including informing at least one of said central computer and the driver as to traffic congestion on said network 34, A method according to claim 33, wherein said informing of said central computer as to traffic congestion on said network includes informing said central computer of changes in traffic congestion on said network, said method further comprising alerting the driver to traffic congestion changes along the existing route for the vehicle. 35. A method according to claim 34, wherein the alerted driver causes the central computer to supply to the vehicle route guidance data for a new route taking into account the traflic congestion changes, 36, A method according to claim 33, wherein the central computer is informed as to traffic congestion on said network and changes in traffic congestion on said network, said method further including automatically supplying to said vehicle a new route taking into account the traffic congestion changes. 37. A method according to claim 33, whereby a single channel of communication in used to convey the information as to change in traffic congestion and the route guidance data 38. A method according to claim 37, wherein the channel of communication opens automatically upon detection of a change in traffic congestion 39, A method according to claim 26, wherein said supplying of said route guidance data to the vehicle comprises transmitting route guidance data for the entire route from the position of the vehicle on the road network to the desired destination. 41. A method according to claim 26, further including storing historical traffic information, storing representative data representing expected speeds of traffic along respective links of the road network, and using said representative data for calculation of said route by said central computer unless said central computer overrides said representative data with said historical traffic information or with real time traffic information as to said traffic congestion.Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 42, A method according to claim 41, wherein said storing of said representative data is in the form of default road link impedances and said representative data is overridden by changing said impedances, 43, A method according to claim 26, wherein said route guidance data is supplied in the form of a compressed data message comprised of a stream of route points along the best route 44, A method according to claim 43, wherein said message includes, for at least some of said route points, respective strings of tokens representing words or phrases of respective spoken instructions to the driver and the strings of tokens are translated into speech by a speech synthesiser. 49. A method according to claim 26, wherein information given orally to human operators by the driver as to the desired destination is relayed by the human operators to the central computer. In general, the claims of the ’876 Patent are directed to systems and methods for providing route guidance to vehicles. /d. at Abstract, 1:3-6, 1:23-24. Specifically, the ’876 Patent discloses aa system that includes a central computer 6 in communi ion with an in-vehicle device 4 and a central computer 8 for traffic congestion. Jd. at 2:42-46, 3:6-10. The in-vehicle device includes a GPS receiver, which tracks the location of the vehicle, /d. at 2:47-52. The in-vehicle device communicates with central computer 6 via a channel of communication of a mobile telephone network, which allows the driver to communicate the current location of the in-vehicle device and a desired destination to central computer 6. /d. at 3:61-67. The components of the route guidance vehicle system taught by the °876 Patent are shown in the figure belowRequest for Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 _vermat espace 3, | Id, at Fig, 1. The central computer receives the current location and desired destination from the in-vehicle device and calculates a route between the current location of the vehicle and desired destination of the vehicle, /d. at 3:67-4:3. The calculated route is then transmitted from the central computer to the in-vehicle device. Id. at 4:3-15. Upon receipt of a calculated route, the in-vehicle device presents the route to the vehicle using a voice synthesizer to instruct the driver about which action to take (e.g,, “turn left”). Id. ‘The ’876 Patent discloses that the calculated route is sent to the in-vehicle device in a short burst over the channel of a communication such as provided by a mobile telephone network. Id. at 1:40-43, 1:64-67, 2 17, 4:3-10. Following transmission, the channel of communication is closed. Ia. at 1:43-45, 1:64-67, 2:17-19, 4:15-17. The channel of communication is not re-opened unless the driver requests a different route or destination or unless traffic conditions have changed Id, at 145-47, 1:67-2:2, 2:19-20, 4:17-20. For example, if central computer 8 determines that traffic conditions have changed, the channel of communication may be re-opened, and the driver will be alerted of the change. /d. at 4:26-29. The driver may then request the calculation of a new route, which will then be downloaded and presented. /d. Similarly, if the device 4 determines that the vehicle has left the calculated route, the device 4 warns the driver. Jd. at 4:35-45. The driverRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 may then request a re-route to the desired destination and obtain a new best route from computer 6. Id. at 4-45-48. As explained by the °876 Patent, providing a channel of communication for transmitting route guidance information in a short burst and then closing the channel of communication is advantageous because it is easy to use and inexpensive with regards to running costs. Id. at 4:53-60. The following table summarizes the specification of the °876 Patent: U.S. Patent 6,917,876 Summary of invention Description of in-vehicle devices Description of call center Description of detection of traffic conditions Description of method of implementing embodiment 1 Description of initial route request, calculation, and guidance Description of detection of deviation from route and calculation of new route Advantages of system 2. Prosecution History a. US. Prosecution History The ’876 Patent issued from U.S. Application 10/138,418. In a non-final office action, the examiner rejected all independent claims as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,091,956 to Hollenberg (“Hollenberg”). U.S. File History (Ex. 1002), 91. In response, the applicant traversed the rejection, arguing that Hollenberg did not teach the provision of route guidance data, but only taught the provision of traffic information from which the driver must determine their own route. Id, at 117. Inaddition, the applicant argued that Hollenberg did not teach the provision of a channel of communication for transmitting the route guidance data in a short burst and then closed, which the applicant alleged as inventive over the prior art, fd. at 116, Specifically, the applicant argued that the prior art relied on frequent use (e.g., open for long periods of time) of the mobile telephone connection for updating the central computer, which increases costs of the user’s phone bill, Jd. at 116, 118. In contrast, because in the alleged invention the route guidance data is provided in a short burst over the channel of communication, which is then closed, the user’s phone bill isRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 reduced. /d. at 118. In a Notice of Allowability, the examiner provided a statement of reasons for allowance noting that “the applicant’s particular system and associated method comprising [a channel of ‘communication opened to transmit route guidance data to a vehicle in a short burst and is then closed]... in combination with the other limitations of the claims, was not disclosed by, would not have been obvious over, nor would have been fairly suggested by the prior art of record.” Id. at 158 b. European Prosecution History ‘The "876 Patent claims priority to GB 0110890 (“GB "890"). European Patent EP1262936 (CEP °936") also cl: s of EP *936 are substantially similar to the claims of the °876 Patent, including “provid[ing] a channel of s priority to GB °890, EP "936 (Ex. 1009), (30). The clai communication which is opened to transmit said route guidance data to the vehicle in a short burst and is then closed, so that transmission to the vehicle via said channel ceases, unless and until a EP File History (Ex need for further transmission via said channel to said vehicle arises.” See e.g., 1010), 18; EP 936 (Ex. 1009), claim 1 During prosecution, the examiner rejected the claims based on several prior art references EP File History (Ex. 1003), 137-38. Relevant here, the examiner found that “Inter-Vehicle Communications Protocol for Group Cooperative Driving” by Fujii H., et al. (“Fujii”)? and “An Evolutionary IVHS Communication Architecture” to Kady M. A., et al. (“Kady”)* taught communication in burst mode and found that such features were well-known for a POSITA, Id. at 139, In response, the applicant distinguished the alleged invention over the cited prior art, arguing that Fujii and Kady did not teach a single short burst, as claimed. Jd. at 144-47. Specifically, the applicant argued that both Fujii and Kady referred to TDMA technology and because TDMA Fujii H.; Akiyama M.; Tokuda K.; “Inter-Vehicle Communications Protocol for Group Cooperative Driving,” Vehicular Technology Conference (1999), IEEE VTS $0" Amsterdam, Netherlands 19-22 (Sept. 1999) ® Kady M. A.; Ristenbatt M. P.; “An Evolutionary IVHS Communication Architecture,” Vehicle IEE Ottawa, Navigation and Information Systems Conference, (1993), Proceedings of the IEE] Ont., Canada 12-15 (Oct. 1993),Request for Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 technology involves splitting several signals into small, fixed length time slots, such technology did not teach a short burst, but rather several short bursts. Jd. Following this communication, a notice of intention to grant a European patent was issued. /d, at 201 B. Claim Construction Because the present Request relates to an expired patent, the claims should be construed according to same standard applied by Article III courts, outlined in Phillips v. AWH Corp. 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane), See In re CSB-System Int'l, Inc., 832 F.3d 1335, 1341 (Fed Cir. 2016). Under this standard, claims are given their ordinary and customary meaning unless the patentee “has clearly set forth an explicit definition of the term” in the specification or disclaimed scope of coverage using expressions of “manifest exclusion or restriction” during prosecution. Id, 1319-20 The present Request presents the following claim analysis in a manner that is consistent with the standard applied by Article III courts. Requester reserves the right to advocate a different claim interpretation in any other forum if necessary. The claims of the "876 include limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C, §112(f) (“112(f)”). 35 USCC. § 112( (limitations “may be expressed as a means ... for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such [limitation] shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and ‘equivalents thereof.”). “In making the assessment of whether the limitation in question is a means- plus- function term... [,] the essential inquiry is... whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 1. “means for supplying...” !“supplying means” (claims 1, 3, 4, and 6) Claim 1 of the °876 Patent recites “means for supplying the vehicle with the route guidance data calculated by the central computer.” Because the limitation recites only “means” and no other terms that may connote specific structure, 112(f) applies. Williamson v, Citric Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The "876 Patent discloses that computer 6 (Le., a central compute) of an off-board call centre 2 supplies route guidance data to vehicles. ‘876 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:5-13, 1:23-39, 1:48- 56. The call centre 2 and vehicles communicate “via respective connections 3 of respective channels 1 of communication provided by a mobile telephone network.” Id. at 2:42-46 10Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 Specifically, computer 6 transmits a route to a desired destination to an in-vehicle system via connection 5. Id. at 2:52-55, 4:3-10. “[T]he connections 3, 5 and 26 for one device 4 are shown as separate connections but, in practice, they will all be a single channel 1 of communication, for example a single mobile telephone connection.” /d. at 3:56-60. Accordingly, Requester proposes that corresponding structure performing the claimed function of supplying the vehicle with the route guidance data calculated by the central computer includes a mobile telephone network, a computer capable of communication via a mobile telephone connection, and equivalents thereof, Claim 3 of the ’876 Patent further recites “[a] system according to claim 2, wherein the means for supplying the route guidance data serves to transmit route guidance data corresponding to the entire calculated route from the position of the vehicle to the desired destination.” The °876 Patent discloses that a driver uses an in-vehicle device to provide an intended destination and its GPS position of the vehicle to a computer 6. Jd. at 361-66. Claim 3 does not modify the function performed by the means for supplying. Accordingly, Requester proposes that corresponding structure remains the same (¢g, a mobile telephone network, a computer capable of communication via a mobile telephone connection, and equivalents thereof). Claim 4 of the °876 Patent further recites “[a] system according to claim 3, wherein said means for supplying the vehicles with route guidance data not only serves to transmit said route guidance data in said short burst but also then ceases transmitting to the vehicle any data ‘whatsoever, unless and until said need arises.” Claim 4 does not modify the function performed by the means for supplying. Accordingly, Requester proposes that corresponding structure remains the same (e.g,, a mobile telephone network, a computer capable of communication via a mobile telephone connection, and equivalents thereof). Claim 6 of the °876 Patent further recites, “[a] system according to claim 2, wherein the ‘means for communicating with the central computer and the means for supplying the vehicle with route guidance data use a single channel of communication.” Claim 6 does not modify the function of the means for supplying. Accordingly, Requester proposes that corresponding structure remains the same (e.g., a mobile telephone network, a computer capable of communication via a mobile * Requester notes that the claim language “serves to” recites nothing more than an intended use or intended result. Such statements should not be given patentable weight. Boehringer Ingelheim Veimedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F 3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). ulRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 telephone connection, and equivalents thereof). 2. “means for receiving ...” (claim 1) Claim 1 of the "876 Patent recites “means for receiving the route guidance data calculated by the central computer.” Because the limitation recites only “means” and no other terms that may connote specific structure, 112(f) applies. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. The '876 Patent discloses that in-vehicle devices receive route guidance data calculated by a computer 6 of call centre 2. '876 Patent (Ex. 1001), 4:3-10. The call centre 2 and vehicles communicate “ respective connections 3 of respective channels 1 of communication provided by a mobile telephone network.” /d. at 2:42-46. In-vehicle devices include “a GPS (Global Positioning System) receiver, a mobile telephone device, a speech synthesiser, a control ‘microprocessor and a memory for speech synthesis.” /d. at 2:47-S1, The in-vehicle devices receive the calculated route to a desired destination to an in-vehicle system via connection 5. /d. at 2:55- 60 (“The compressed data message is received by the in-vehicle device 4 at the commencement of the journey . ..), 4:3-10. “[T]he connections 3, 5 and 26 for one device 4 are shown as separate connections but, in practice, they will all be a single channel 1 of communication, for example a single mobile telephone connection.” Id. at 3:56-60 Accordingly, Requester proposes that the corresponding structure performing the claimed function of receiving the route guidance data calculated by the central computer includes a mobile telephone network, a mobile telephone device capable of communication via a mobile telephone connection, and equivalents thereof. 3. “means for presenting...” / “presenting means” (claim 1) Claim 1 of the °876 Patent recites “means for presenting respective instructions to the vehicle as to the route to be taken to the desired destination.” Because the limitation recites only “means” and no other terms that may connote specific structure, 112(f) applies. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. ‘The '876 Patent discloses that in-vehicle devices present instructions to the vehicle as to the route to be taken to the desired destination. “876 Parent (Ex. 1001), 1:18-22, 1:33-35, 2:60- 3:5, 4:20-26, In-vehicle devices (e.g, device 4) includes a S, a speech synthesizer, a control microprocessor, and a memory, storing a vocabulary of words and phrases, for speech synthesisRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 Id. at 2:47-52. Computer 6 downloads a route to the device 4 as a “compressed data message including all route points in respect of the entire best route to the desired destination, these route points including ‘trigger’ points along the route where strings of tokens attached to the trigger points will cause the driver to be given spoken instructions by the speech synthesiser.” Jd. at 4:3- 10, “The words or phrases stored in the memory of device 4 are activated by these tokens. Jd. at 2:52-55. “A string of tokens generates speech in at least one spoken sentence by assembling the words and phrases in the order that the relevant tokens are triggered by the arrival of the vehicle at a given latitude and longitude.” fd. at 3:1-5. When the vehicle reaches a trigger point (as identified by the GPS of device 4), “the control microprocessor in the device 4 identifies the relevant position, whereupon the relevant token(s) cause(s) the speech synthesiser to instruct the driver as to what action to take (for example, at a roundabout, “tun left’, ‘turn right’, or ‘straight over’).” Jd. at 4:20-29. Accordingly, Requester proposes that the corresponding structure performing the claimed function of presenting respective instructions to the vehicle as to the route to be taken to the desired destination includes a speech synthesizer and equivalents thereof. 4. “means for communicating” “communicating means” (claims 2, 8, and 6) Claim 2 of the ’876 Patent recites “means for communicating with the central computer in order to inform the central computer of the position of the vehicle on the road network and the desired destination of the vehicle.” Because the limitation recites only “means” and no other terms that may connote specific structure, 112(f) applies. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. In-vehicle devices include “a GPS (Global Positioning System) receiver, a mobile telephone device, a speech synthesiser, a control microprocessor and a memory for speech synthesis.” ‘876 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 2:47-51, “A driver in a vehicle uses the device 4 to telephone the call centre operator, giving his intended destination” to the operator via a connection 3, fd. at 3:61-63, Fig. 1, At this time, the device 4 also automatically supplies its calling line identify (CLI) and GPS position of the vehicle to computer 6 via connection 5. Jd. at 3:63-66, “[T]he connections 3, S and 26 for one device 4 are shown as separate connections but, in practice, they will all be a single channel 1 of communication, for example a single mobile telephone connection.” Jd. at 3:56-60. The operator then relays the desired destination to the central computer, which calculates a route from the current location to the destination. Jd. at 3:66-4:10.Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 Accordingly, Requester proposes that the corresponding structure performing the claimed function of informing the central computer of the position of the vehicle on the road network and the desired destination of the vehicle includes a mobile telephone network, a mobile telephone device including a GPS receiver and capable of communication via a mobile telephone connection, and equivalents thereof. Claim 5 of the °876 Patent further recites “[a] system according to claim 2, wherein said communicating means is usable by the alerted driver to cause the central computer to be requested to supply the vehicle with route guidance data for a new route taking into account the traffic congestion changes.” “Communicating means” refers back to the “means for communicating” recited in claim 2, which performs the function of informing the central computer of the position of the vehicle on the road network and the desired destination of the vehicle. The *876 Patent discloses that a user is alerted of a change in traffic conditions by the channel 1 being re-opened Id, at 4:15-20. “If the driver is alerted to a change of traffic conditions by the computer 8 re- ‘opening the channel 1, he can, by simply pressing a button of the device 4, request to have a new best route calculated and downloaded from the computer 6.” Id. at 4:26-30. Accordingly, Requester proposes that the corresponding structure performing the claimed functions of informing the central computer of the position of the vehicle on the road network and the desired destination of the vehicle and causing the central computer to be requested to supply the vehicle with route guidance data for a new route taking into account the traffic congestion changes when used by the alerted driver includes a mobile telephone network, Accordingly, the corresponding structure includes a mobile telephone device including a GPS receiver and capable of communication via a mobile telephone connection, and equivalents thereof Claim 6 of the ’876 Patent further recites, “[a] system according to claim 2, wherein the means for communicating with the central computer and the means for supplying the vehicle with route guidance data use a single channel of communication.” The specification discloses the same structures identified above as being able to communicate using a single channel of communication. Id. at 3:56-60. Accordingly, Requester proposes that the corresponding structure remains the same (eg, a mobile telephone network, a mobile telephone device, including a GPS receiver and capable of communication via a mobile telephone connection, and equivalents thereof) 14Request for Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 5. “means for informing . ..” | “informing means” (claims 11, 14, and 17) Claim 11 of the °876 Patent recites “means for informing at least one of the central computer and the driver as to traffic congestion on said network.” Because the limitation recites only “means” and no other terms that may connote specific structure, 112(f) applies. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. The '876 Patent discloses a computer 8 which receives information as to traffic congestion from sources, including roadside speed sensors and traffic reports for a road network. '876 Patent (Ex. 1001), 3:10-12. Computer 8 intercommunicates with central computer 6 so as to supply RTTI (real time traffic information) and HTI (historical traffic information) to central computer 6. [d. at 312-15, “[CJomputer 8 can also communicate directly with each in-vehicle device via a connection 26, Jd. at 3:55-56. For example, computer 8 may alert a driver to a change of traffic conditions by re-opening channel 1, Id. at 4:26-28. Accordingly, Requester proposes that the corresponding structure performing the claimed function of informii 1g at least one of the central computer and the driver as to traffic congestion on said network includes a computer with access to roadside sensors, traffic reports, or a database of historical traffic information, and equivalents thereof. Claim 14 of the °876 Patent further recites “[a] system according to claim 11, wherein the informing means alerts the driver to changes in traffic congestion on said network along its calculated route.” “Informing means” refers back to the “means for informing” recited in claim 11, which performs the function of informing at least one of the central computer and the driver as to traffic congestion on said network. The °876 Patent discloses that in the event that traffic conditions change, a user is alerted by re-opening channel I. '876 Patent (Ex. 1001), 4:18-20. Accordingly, Requester proposes that the corresponding structure performing the claimed functions of informing at least one of the central computer and the driver as to traffic congestion on said network and alerting the driver to changes in traffic congestion on said network along its calculated route includes a computer with access to roadside sensors, traffic reports, or a database of historical traffic information, and equivalents thereof. Claim 17 of the '876 Patent further recites “[a] system according to claim 11, wherein said informing means serves to inform the central computer of changes in traffic congestion on said network and said central computer serves to automatically supply to the vehicle, by way of said ‘means for supplying route guidance data, a new calculated route taking into account the traffic 15Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 congestion changes.” Claim 17 does not change the function of the means for informing. Accordingly, Requester proposes that the corresponding structure performing for means for informing remains the same (e.g., a computer with access to roadside sensors, traffic reports, or a database of historical traffic information, and equivalents thereof). 6. “means for storing...” /*‘storing means” (claim 12) Claim 12 of the '876 Patent recites information.” ‘means for storing historical traffi Because the limitation recites only “means” and no other terms that may connote specific structure, 112(f) applies. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348, The °876 Patent discloses that “[t]he computer 6 intercommunicates . . . with an off-board traffic repository 12 which stores historical traffic information and road closures data that overrides the default link impedances (speeds) from an off- board map database 16.” '876 Patent (Ex. 1001), 3:17-23. Accordingly, Requester proposes that the corresponding structure performing the claimed function of storing historical traffic information is a repository and equivalents thereof. Li g of Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Reexamination of the Challenged Claims is requested in view of the following references: ‘+ Ex. 1004 (“Knockeart”): U.S. Patent No. 6,680,694 to Knockeart ef al. was filed on August 19, 1998 and published on January 20, 2004. Knockeart claims priority to Provisional application No. 60/056,150, which was filed on August 19, 1997. Knockeart is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). © Ex. 1005 (“Gee”): US. Patent No, 6,421,607 to Gee er al. was filed on September 22, 2000 and issued on July 16, 2002. Gee is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). ‘+ Ex. 1006 (“Schuessler”): U.S. Patent No. 5,818,356 to Schuessler was filed on October 25, 1996 and issued on October 6, 1998, Schuessler is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e), » Requester notes that the claim language “serves to” recites nothing more than an intended use or intended result. Such statements should not be given patentable weight. Boehringer Ingelheim Veimedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F 3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 16Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 + Ex, 1007 (“Fowler”): U.S. Patent No, 6,212,474 to Fowler ef al. was filed on November 19, 1998 and ©). © Ex. 1008 (“Behr”): U.S. Patent No. 5,808,566 to Behr e¢ al. was filed on June 23, 1995 and issued on September 15, 1998. Behr is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e) sued on April 3, 2001, Fowler is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and None of the references listed above were cited during prosecution of the °876 Patent. A Form SB-08 and copies of the cited references are submitted herewith. This request is also supported by the declaration of Scott Andrews. (Ex. 1003), To the extent that additional references are discussed in Scott Andrews’s declaration, copies of these additional references are also being submitted, and are included on Form SB-08. As shown below, Requester submits that the prior art references raise a new “substantial question of patental because “the teaching of the (prior art) patents and printed publications is such that a reasonable examiner would consider the teaching to be important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable.” See MPEP 2242. For example, the references discussed below and in further detail in the attached charts, when considered as an ordered combination, teach each limite ion of the Challenged Claims, including the idea of “providing a channel of communication which is opened to transmit said route guidance data to the vehicle in a short burst and is then closed so that transmission to the vehicle via said channel ceases, unless and umil a need for further transmission via said channel to the vehicle arises.” Further, they are new. These references were not previously considered; the “same question. of patentability as to the claim has not been decided by the Office in an earlier concluded examination or review of the patent” at least because none of the art referenced in this request was before the Office during prosecution of the °876 Patent or during a prior post-grant proceeding challenging any claim of the °876 Patent, any of which that are known to Requester have been listed below in Section IIL, infra. D. Ground 1: Knockeart in view of Gee Prest Patentability ts Substantial New Questions of As shown below, Requester submits that Knockeart in view of Gee raises a new “substantial question of patentability” as to claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-12, 14-16, 18, 24, 26-29, 32-34, 37-39, 41-43, and 49 because “the teaching of the (prior art) patents and printed publications is such that a reasonable examiner would consider the teaching to be important in deciding whether 17Request for Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 or not the claim is patentable. See MPEP 2242. For example, the references discussed below and in further detail in the attached charts (see Exhibit AA), when considered as an ordered combination, teach each limitation of the claims, including opening a channel of communication to transmit route guidance data in a short burst and then closing the communication channel unless and until a further need arises. For example, Knockeart in view of Gee teaches opening a cellular communication link to transmit route guidance data via CDMA and then closing the cellular communication link unless certain conditions arise, such as the detection of an exceptional traffic condition or the vehicle has deviated from the calculated route, Further neither Knockeart or Gee was previously considered during prosecution, and, therefore, the “same question of patentability as to the claim has not been decided by the Office in an earlier concluded examination or review of the patent” at least because none of the art referenced in this Ground was before the Office during prosecution of the °876 Patent or during a prior post-grant proceeding challenging any claim of the °876 Patent, any of which that are known to Requester have been listed in the attached Information Disclosure Statement (“IDS”), Form SB-08. See id. 1, Overview of Prior Art Overview of Knockeart Knockeart (Ex. 1004, U.S. Patent No. 6,680,694) discloses a vehicle information system which provides services to operators of vehicles, including route planning and guidance (i.e, navigation) services. Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 1:66-2:2, 3:42-45, 7-41-45, Knockeart’s vehicle information system includes a centralized server system 125, an in-vehicle system 105, and an extemal information system 130. 7:45-49, 8:53-63. The components of Knockeart’s vehicle information system are shown in the figure below: 18Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 Id. at Fig. 1 Centralized server system 125 includes, among other things, a central server 120, a server computer 310, a telephone interface 320, a processor 312, a working memory 314, and a static memory 316, /d. at 14:53-58, 15:26-29. Telephone interface 320 is used to communicate with in- vehicle systems 105 (or in-vehicle devices) either via connection to modem 256 or via direct, connection to cellular network 350, Jd. at 14:64-15:4, Static memory 316 stores information, such as map information, used to compute route. /d. at 15:27-29. The memory of server computer 310 also stores software, such as navigation application 512, which is used to compute routes for vehicles. Jd. at 7:41-45, 14:53-55, 20:39-42, 21:3-5, 33:45-48. The components of Knockeart’s centralized server system 125 are shown in the figure below: 19Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 om ae | amet "| syee| * | = | at Actes i (Se | (e Sees AG. 3 Id. at Figs. 3, 5. The in-vehicle system 105 includes a computer 210 (including processor 212), input/output devices 240, and a communication system 250. /d. at 12:55-63. Input/output devices 240 include an input device 244, such as push buttons, which are used by the operator of the in-vehicle system to input information. Jd. at 13:55-61; see also id. at 13:62-14:6 (describing integrated /O device 241), Input/output devices 240 also include an output device 246, which provides audio output of speech commands using a speech synthesizer. Jd, at 12:59-61, 14:7-11. Communication system 250 includes a GPS receiver 252 and cellular transceiver 254. Id. at 14:26-28, 14:41-42. GPS receiver 252 (coupled to GPS antenna 253) receives GPS satellite signals, which are used to track the location of the vehicle. Jd. at 14:26-34. Cellular transceiver 254 (coupled to cellular antenna 255) allows the in-vehicle system 105 to communicate with centralized server 125 over a cellular telephone line via modem 256. Jd. at 14:41-47. The components of Knockeart’s in-vehicle system 105 are shown in the figure below: 20Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 Id. at Fig. 2 Knockeart discloses that an operator (or user) requests a route from a current location to a desired destination using /0 240 of in-vehicle system 105, Id. at 6:36-41, 9:64-65, 8:10-13, 13:55- 61, Figs. 2A-2C. In-vehicle system communicates with server system 125 using a wireless communication link (e.g., link 110), such as over a cellular telephone system. Jd. at Abstract, 8:14- 20, 8:64-9:19. Upon receipt of the current location and desired destination from the in-vehicle system 105, the central server 120 calculates a route to the desired destination and transmits a specification of the route to the vehicle. /d. at Abstract, 2:1-6, 10:4-13, 10:43-47, 10:55-57, 22:42- 44, Next, the in-vehicle system receives the planned route and the communication session between the server and in-vehicle unit is closed. /d. at 4:35-39, 8:26-30, 22:42-48., This process is depicted in the figure below 21Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 ssi Plan Route Serve: 6er—_Aetept Communion Sonsion wih Veto 1552 Reoswve Oesieaton Speciation an Caret Lectan Data fom Vetice 1596 Celemine OPS Caracton Daa {set Datarine Vetiie Location 1588 Desthalon Spcieaon Requkes Father Oprtorbput THEN ‘sot Dotomine Seccedary Destnason Specteaton Data 1858 ‘Send Secondary Destination Speciation Catan Vehice 859 Receive Secondary Destination Spacieston tom Vehicle 130 ENF 151 Determine Planned Rute fo Specie Destaton 1352 Delorine Spt Map nese VaicsLecaton 1863 Sand Planned Rout, Spot Map, and OGPS Data Wohi 1st Chte Comnsniaton Seasios wh Vehicle FIG. 15B ehicle system guides the operator along the route Id, at Fig, 15B. Using the received route, the in by providing aural instructions to the operator. /d. at 7:63-8:2, 12:34-44, 14:7-11, 32:14-16, 32:44- 49, 32:61-64; Fig. 17. Knockeart teaches that communication between the server system 125 and vehicle is typically completed following the download of the planned route to the in-vehicle system and the in-vehicle system typically does not require further communication or interaetion with the server system. /d. at 8:26-30, 10:4-8. However, Knockeart teaches that there are some exceptions that may require further communication with the central server. For example, Knockeart teaches that a channel may be opened again if the in-vehicle system detects traffic exceptions, at which time it notifies the server system. Jd. at 34:6-11, 35:39-44, Additionally, the server system may open a channel of communication to communicate exceptional traffic conditions to the in-vehicle system regarding a path specified by the in-vehicle system. /d. at 6:47-49, 41:14-27. Further, Knockeart teaches that in some embodiments the in-vehicle system will open a channel of communication to request a new route from the server, if it is determined that the vehicle has deviated from the calculated route. Id. at 43:22-27. Knockeart is analogous art to the °876 Patent, Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), $9) 75-80 The °876 Patent is in the field of “route guidance system|s] for vehicles.” °876 Patent (Ex. 1001), Abstract, 1:3-4, Just like the "876 Patent, Knockeart is in the field of vehicle route guidanceRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 systems. See, e.g., Knockeart (Ex. 1004), Abstract, 1:66-2:2, 3:42-45, 7:41-45. Further, Knockeart is reasonably pertinent to at least one problem concerning the inventor of the °876 Patent. For example, the '876 Patent states that advantages of the invention are a reduction in running costs due to limiting communication between the central computer and in-vehicle device. ‘876 Patent (Ex. 1001), 4:53-60. Si ongoing communication with the server to carry out guidance funetions. Knockeart (Ex. 1004), rly, Knockeart reduces running costs because it does not require 4:40-43 Overview of Gee Gee (Ex. 1005, U.S, Patent No, 6,421,607) discloses a distributed navigation service that provides driving instructions to a user. Gee (Ex. 1005), Abstract, 3:37-39, Figs. 1, 3, 4, Gee's navigation service includes a service center 45 and a client device 10. /d. at 2:46-63, Fig. 1 “[Slervice center 45 includes a navigation server 40 and a service center workstation 50,” “a device to transmit both data and voice information from the navigation server and workstation,” and “a map and directional information,” Jd. at 2:54-59. “A human operator can operate the workstation 50, which is connected to the navigation server.” Jd. at 2-59-60. Client device 10 is located in a vehicle 8 and is includes a voice command and control system 12, which allow a user to request services from service center 45, such as directions to a desired destination. Jd. at 2:47-48, 2:64- 3:2, 4:37-41, 5:5-6, “[Cllient device 10 isa telematic unit that has the capability to transmit signals 32 and receive signals 30 through a wireless communication network or infrastructure 34” via data network access device 22, and also includes a positioning system 20, such as a GPS. Id. at 2:49- 51, 3:65-4:6, 4:2-12, Fig, 2. 23Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 Id. at Fig. 1 Gee's service center 45 receives a desired destination and a current position from a user via client device 10 and calculates a route from the user's location to the desired destination. /d. at 4:45-48, 5:5-11, 5:19-22. Specifically, “the customer or user initiates the service 70 by using a push-to-talk button or the like located on the client device 10 located in the vehicle 8.” fd, at 4:37- 39, Using the cellular voice and data network access device 22, client device 10 sends a message 78 to the service center 45 which includes the position of client device 10 (obtained using data obtained from the GPS unit 20) and establishes a voice call 76 to the service center 45, Id. at 4:45- 52, Through the voice connection, the user provides a service representative with a desired destination and requests that the service representative calculate a route to the destination 90. d. at 5:1-6, The service representative enters the destination 92 into the service center workstation 50 Id, at 5:7-11, “The voice call is terminated 94 and . .. [t]he service representative initiates route calculation 98 at the service center 45, which performs the task of calculating the route.” Jd. at 5:18-21, Service center 45 then transmits the calculated route to the user using a wireless communication standard such as CDMA. /d. at 4:6-11, 5:22-25. Client device 10 then provides navigational instructions to the user based on the received route. Id. at 5:34-39. Gee is analogous art to the °876 Patent. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), $f 81-85, Gee is within 24Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 the dof endeavor of the °876 Patent because it relates to vehicle navigation (i.e, route guidance) systems. See, ¢.g., Gee (Ex. 1005), Abstract, 1:5-10. Further, Gee is reasonably pertinent to at least one problem concerning the inventor of the '876 Patent. For example, the °876 Patent states that one advantage of the invention is a reduction in costs “because a minimal amount of equipment is provided in-vehicle.” °876 Patent (Ex. 1001), 4:53-60. also requires only @ minimal amount of equipment to be provided in vehicles. Gee (Ex. 1005), 2:7- larly, Gee's route guidance system 16 2. Motivation to Combine Knockeart and Gee a, Independent Claims 1 and 26 i, Modification of Knockeart with Gee A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Knockeart to utilize CDMA protocols for communication between a mobile unit (e.g, Knockeart’s in-vehicle unit 105) and a base unit (e.g., Knockeart’s central server system 125), as taught by Gee. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), $f] 86- 94, Combined with the teachings from Gee, Knockeart renders obvious providing a channel of ‘communication which is opened to transmit said route guidance data to the vehicle in a short burst and is then closed. /d. at §¥] 86-94 In more detail, Knockeart teaches in-vehicle system 105 communicates with centralized server system 125 over a wireless communication link 110, such as a cellular telephone system. Knockeart (Ex. 1004), Abstract, 8:34-20, For example, a data session or channel of communication is provided using modulated data signals that are passed over a standard analog cellular telephone system (ie., using the Advanced Mobile Phone Service (AMPS) standard) or alternatively digital cellular telephone links, satellite-based communication sys fem, other wireless data communication systems (e.g., ARDIS, RAM, CDPD, GSM), “short message” capability typically provided by wireless communication systems. /d. at 8:34-20, 8:64-9:16. Gee discloses a distributed navigation service that includes a service center which receives a desired destination from a user, calculates a route from the user's location to the desired destination, and transmits the calculated route to the user using a wireless communication standard such as CDMA (i-e., a short burst). Gee (Ex. 1005), 4:6-11, 4:45-48, 5:5-11, $:19-25; Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), $9 87, 92, 68-70, A POSITA would by Gee Id. at $f 86-87. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Gee's teachings related to have modified Knockeart to utilize CDMA for wireless transmission of the route as ta 25Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 data transmission protocols for at least the following reasons First, a POSITA would have modified Knockeart to utilize CDMA for wireless transmission of the route as taught by Gee in light of Knockeart’s teachings relating to methods of wireless communication, Jd. at | 88. Knockeart teaches “use of standard analog cellular telephone links is useful due to the broad geographic coverage in North America of the infrastructure needed to support such links.” Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 8:66-9:1. However, Knockeart notes that “[iJn other parts of the world, digital cellular telephone links may be more appropriate if the necessary infrastructure is available” and that “[sJuch a digital-based infrastructure is expected to be available in North America in the future.” /d. at 9:1-5, see also id. at 9:5-16 (specifically naming other types of wireless data communication systems). A POSITA would have understood that CDMA was one such alternative wireless data communication system available at the time of the alleged invention of the "876 Patent. Andrews Decl (Ex. 1003), {¥] 88, 68-70. Further, in light of Gee's teachings, a POSITA would have known that CDMA was used to provide route guidance information from a central computer to an in-vehicle system. Jd. at 88. Thus, in tnt of Gee's teachings, a POSITA would have modified Knockeart to utilize CDMA for wireless transmission of the route as taught by Gee. {| 88. As modified pursuant to Gee's teachings, Knockeart would send route guidance information to a vehicle via a CDMA connection (e.g, & short burst) and following transmission, the connection would be closed, unless and until further need arose, as taught by Knockeart. /d. at 86-88. Second, a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Knockeart to utilize CDMA because CDMA offers several advantages includes increased user capacity and increased user resources such as bandwidth and broadband capabilities. Jd. at $¥[ 89, 70 (citing Lin, Hara). These were well-known advantages of CDMA systems at the time of the alleged invention of the °876 Patent. Jd, Third, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification because Knockeart contemplates utilizing many different known wireless transmission techniques and CDMA was one such known wireless transmission technique Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), {{] 90, 68-70. Accordingly, the use of CDMA in the system of Knockeart is the substitution of one known wireless data communication system (e.g., analog cellular and other systems expressly named by Knockeart) with another known wireless data ‘communication system (e.g, CDMA taught by Gee). Id. at $90. Such a simple modification would 26Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 not have required undue experimentation and would have yielded the predictable result of transmitting the route guidance data in a short burst via CDMA channel (as taught by Gee), and subsequent closure of the channel (as taught by Knockeart). /d. A POSITA would also have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification given the similarities between the systems of Knockeart and Gee. 1d. at | 91. For example, both Knockeart and Gee involve central servers (¢.g., centralized server system 125 of Knockeart and service center 45 of Gee) which calculate routes and transmit the routes, wirelessly, to requesting vehicles (e.g., in- vehicle system 105 of Knockeart and client device 10 of Gee), /d. Thus, the proposed modification would have been straightforward and well-within the skillset of a POSITA. Jd. ii, The Proposed Combination Transmits Route Guidance Data in a Short Burst A POSITA would have recognized that the proposed modification results in the system of Knockeart transmitting the route guidance data to a vehicle over a channel of communication in a short burst. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), §] 92. A POSITA would have been familiar with CDMA technology and its use for cellular transmissions at the time of the "876 Patent. /d. at {| 92, 68-70. And a POSITA would have recognized that CDMA transmission are short bursts. /d. at {J 92, 68- 70. For example, a POSITA would have understood that in CDMA transmissions, data is transmitted all at once (i.e., ina single transmission). Jd. at $¥] 92, 68-69. And this transmission is done without consuming channel resources for any longer than is required to send the data (e.g, POSITA would have recognized that a CDMA transmission is a is short). /d. at $f] 92, 70. Thus, short burst, Id. at § 92. A POSITA would further have understood that the transmission of the route guidance data in the Knockeart-Gee system would have occurred in a short burst because Knockeart teaches the transmission of compact or compressed route data, Knockeart (Ex, 1004), 29:17-26, 29:61-63. A POSITA would have understood that compact or compressed data is transmitted more quickly because the size is small. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), § 92. Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood that the transmission of a compact or compressed route via CDMA, such as the route taught by Knockeart, would have been short, Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), $ 92. iii, Closure of the Communication Channel in the Proposed Combination A POSITA would have understood that Knockeart’s teachings that a communication 27Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 channel is closed following transmission of the route would have occurred in the Knockeart-Gee system described above. /d. at 993-94. A POSITA would have closed the communication channel following transmission of the route in light of Knockeart’s and Gee's express teachings. Both Knockeart and Gee expressly teach closing or terminating the communication channel following transmission of the route. Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 4:35-39; 22:45-48; Gee (Ex. 1005), $:26-27 Further, Knockeart expressly teaches that one advantage to the system is limiting communication between the server and the in-vehicle system or device. Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 4:40-43. A POSITA would have understood that this was an advantage because mobile telephone calls at the time of the patent application were billed on a per minute rate, Id, at $f 93, 72-74. Thus, holding the channel open would cause the duration of the call to be longer and therefore costlier. Id. at §9 93, B Further, as noted above (id. at {{] 92, 68-70), a POSITA would have been familiar with CDMA transmissions, A POSITA would have known that during CDMA transmissions, the communication medium (1e., communication channel) is only accessed at the time the data is being sent. /d. at {| 94, 68-69, Indeed, it was common in CDMA transmissions to close or release the communication channel when transmissions were no longer needed in order to provide additional bandwidth for use by other users. Jd. at {f] 94, 69, Because when using CDMA, the communication medium is only accessed at the time that data is being sent, a POSITA would have understood that clothe communication channel is closed following transmission. Jd. at 94 Further, it was known in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’876 Patent that reduction in communication traffic was desirable because it minimizes the communication cost and the total power consumption as a whole. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), $f] 94, 72-74 (citing Takashi, Schreder, Wiener). Indeed, Knockeart seeks to reduce costs by limiting required communication between the server and in-vehicle system. Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 29:21-23 (“In order to reduce the download time needed, this data is represented as a compact data structure.”), 29:61-63 (“This route download format provides a compact representation that can be downloaded quickly from the server to the vehicle.” 4:40-43 (“Advantages of this method include providing aa server based route planning service to a vehicle, without requiri ongoing communication with the server ...”). Thus, in the system of Knockeart modified with Gee’s CDMA teachings, a channel of communication is closed following transmission of route guidance data. Andrews Decl. (Ex 1003), 1194. 28Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 b. Dependent Claims 24 and 49 A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Knockeart’s system such that a user of the in-vehicle system 105 would provide a destination to a human operator, as taught by Gee. Andrews Decl. (Ex, 1003), $9 114-118, For example, in the proposed combination, the in-vehicle system would contact the server system by initiating a call to the server, as taught by Knockeart Id. at $115. However, a human operator would work at the call center and receive the destination information from the user, as taught by Gee. Jd Then, as taught by Gee, the human operator would enter the destination into the central server system 125 and advise the user that the route will be calculated. /d, Transmission of the route would take place in the manner taught by Knockeart (as ‘modified by Gee pursuant to Section I.D.2.b. /d. A POSITA would have been motivated to make the proposed modification for the following reasons. A POSITA would have been motivated to make such a modification because a POSITA would have recognized the benefits of providing alternative methods of inputting a desired des (Ex. 1003), $116, A POSITA would have recognized that the input of a destination was a known ination (e.g, simplification, reduction in driver distraction, driver preference). Andrews Decl. problem in navigation systems with a number of different approaches used to solve the problem. Id. at §§ 116, 54. A POSITA would have recognized that providing the destination to an operator ‘was one solution providing several benefits. /d. at {| 116. For example, providing the destination to a human operator would have simplified the system. Jd. Additionally, a POSITA would have recognized that interacting with a human would allow a user an opportunity to more easily troubleshoot if there were an issue in entering the desired destination. Jd. Further, interacting with ‘a human would be a safer method for inputting a destination if the user where physically driving at the time. By allowing the user to provide an operator with the destination, driver distraction is reduced (because the user does not need to look at a display to enter a destination) while the driver is able to provide the destination without needing to pull over. Id A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification because such functionality was well-known in the prior art, including as taught by Gee. /d, at 117. Indeed, Gee acknowledges the prevalence of such functionality in the prior art. Gee (Ex. 1005), 1:64-2:16. Accordingly, implementation of such functionality would have been straightforward and well-within the skillset of a POSITA. /d. at § 117, Further a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification because 29Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 Knockeart already includes an operator at the server who provides additional services including emergency and roadside assistance, remote door unlocking, and vehicle immobilization Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 39:28-52, 40:2-9, 40:31-35, 40:37-45, Figs. 21A-21B. Thus, modification would have been simple and would have been achieved using components already included in Knockeart’s system. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), { 118. E. Ground 2: Knockeart in view of Gee and Schuessler Presents Substantial New Questions of Patentability Requester incorporates by reference the disclosures related to Knockeart and Gee above with respect to Ground I. As shown below, Requester submits that Knockeart in view of Gee in further view of Schuessler raises a new “substantial question of patentability” as to claims 5, 17, 35, and 36, because “the teaching of the (prior art) patents and printed publications is such that a reasonable examiner would consider the teaching to be important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable. See MPEP 2242. Claims 5, 17, 35, and 36 are dependent claims which add known elements to the independent claims of the °876 Patent, Schuessler provides and express teaching of these known elements. The references discussed below and in further detail in the attached charts (see Exhibit AA), when considered as an ordered combination, teach each limitati n of the claims. Further Schuessler was not previously considered during prosecution, and, therefore, the “same question of patentability as to the claim has not been decided by the Office in an earlier concluded examination or review of the patent” at least because none of the art referenced in this Ground was before the Office during prosecution of the °876 Patent or during a prior post-grant proceeding challenging any claim of the °876 Patent. 1. Overview of Schuessler Schuessler (Ex. 1006), U.S. Patent No. 5,818,356) discloses systems and methods for vehicle guidance as a function of traffic. Schuessler (Ex. 1006), Abstract, 1:8-12. Schuessler's system includes a control center in communication with navigation devices, which are located in vehicles. /d, at 6:4-20. Schuessler’s control center includes a computer that is capable of dynamically determining routes for the vehicles utilizing road network data and incoming traffic data, /d. at 6:5-16, The navigation devices communicate with the control center via a mobile communication unit 5, Jd. at 6:17-33. The navigation devices also include I/O device 16 and a 30Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 navigation sensor 15, which it utilizes to determine its present position. /d. at 6:45-51. The components for Schuessler’s system are shown in the figure below: tb MEMORY 1 ‘COMPUTER | Aa V 2 § ~~ == eeaa BILE COMMUNICATION t 1 : 4 3UINTERFACE 97 17 @ INTERFACE UNIT. 1 ' = I fmm 5 I | DATA MEMORY q PROCESSOR |L wwe ————— [COMM PROCESSOR ‘MODEM =a = FIG.2 Id. at Fig. 2 The user of the navigation units enter data via the VO 16, including a desired destination to activate a guidance procedure, /d. at 6:48-62. A connection is then established with the control center and data relating to the request, including the destination and the present position of the user are then transmitted to the control center, /d. at 6:51-61, 7:16-19, 7:48-53. The control center then determines a route for the vehicle from the present position to the desired destination utilizing the map and traffic data, /d. at 7:54-59, The route is transmitted to the navigation unit as a stream of intermediate destinations (e.g., points). Jd. at 7:60-8:4, 8:19-22. Then the communication link between the navigation unit and the control center is cleared. /d. at 8:24-25. The navigation unit utilizes the received route data to provide route guidance to the vehicle, including in the form of audible instructions. /d. at 8:48-56. Schuessler discloses several variants for activating guidance procedures, such as the one described above. /d. at 7:25-36, Specifically, Schuessler teaches that a guidance procedure can be activated during a journey, in the event that the vehicle receives route-relevant traffic information 31Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 Id, at 7-28-31, Schuessler teaches that the guidance procedure can be triggered manually by the driver. Id. at 7:35-36. Additionally, Schuessler teaches that the guidance procedure can be triggered automatically by the control center during the journey when the control center receives 35. Such new routes take into account traffic route-relevant traffic information. Jd, at 7:3 congestion information, 7:60-8:4. Schuessler is analogous art to the °876 Patent. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), 121-124 Schuessler is within the field of endeavor of the "876 Patent because it relates to systems and methods for vehicle route guidance, See, e.g., Schuessler (Ex. 1006), Abstract, 1:8-12. Further, Schuessler is reasonably pertinent to at least one problem concerning the inventor of the °876 Patent. For example, the °876 Patent relates to determining a new route for a vehicle in the event that traffic congestion is detected along the vehi deviates from its specified route. ‘876 Patent (Ex. 1001), 4:15-29, 4:45-52. Similarly, Schuessler e's specified route, or in the event that the vehicle relates to determining a new route for a vehicle in response to trafic conditions, Schuessler (Ex 1006), 7:25-36, 7:60-8:4 2. Motivation to Combine Knockeart, Gee, and Schuessler a. Modification to provide a new route taking into account traffic congestion pursuant to claims 5, 17, 35, and 36 Each of claims 5, 17, 35, and 36 recites the provision of a new calculated route that takes into account traffic congestion changes to the vehicle. ‘876 Patent (Ex. 1001), 5:25-29, 6:16-22, 8:14-17, 8:18-23. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Knockeart’s central server system 125 supplies new route guidance data to a vehicle, taking into account the traffic congestion changes, pursuant to Schuessler’s teachings. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003) f] 125-130, 134-135 Specifically, Schuessler discloses a navigation system that includes a route replanning functionality where a central computer provides a new route, taking into account traffic congestion changes to a vehicle. Schuessler (Ex. 1006), 7:25-36. A POSITA would have been motivated to make the proposed modification for the following reasons. A POSITA would have been motivated to make the proposed modification to enhance Knockeart’s system, /d. at ff 127-130, 135, A POSITA would have recognized that Schuessler’s route replanning funetionality provides the advantage of replanning a route when unexpected traffic conditions are encountered. Andrew's Decl. (Ex, 1003) 128, Such functionality is beneficialRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 to users who may not know the best way to avoid traffic congestions (e.g., because the user is not familiar with the area). Jd. And a POSITA would have recognized that including Schuessler’s teachings in Knockeart’s system would have provided Knockeart’s system with those same advantages. Id. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination, [dat 129-130, 135. Knockeart’s server system 125 uses its traffic database to determine the current traffic conditions on the operator's trips and actively contacts the user (e.g, by calling the vehicle) if such traffic conditions are detected, Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 41:14-20 Knockeart also teaches a route replanning procedure. /d. at $:60-62, 12:27-31; see also id. at 32:65- 33:43 (describing replanning in detail). And Knockeart already teaches that the central server system 125 may perform the route replanning, Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 43:22-27. It would have been an obvious extension to allow the central server system 125 to replan the route in response to an excep! nal traffic condition according to Schuessler’s teachings. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), 129. Indeed, even though Knockeart does not expressly teaches that the server provides @ new route in response to newly detected traftic conditions, Knockeart already at least suggests the provision of alternate pre-generated routes based on traffic conditions, /d. (citing Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 41:14- 20, $:60-62, 12:27-31, 43:2: -27). Accordingly, providing a new route would have been an obvious modification. Jd, A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modifications given the similarities between the functionality and architecture of the Knockeart and Schuessler systems, /d. at $f] 130, 135. Given Knockeart’s teachings a POSITA would have recognized that Knockeart already includes the components and functionality necessary to carry out the route replanning procedure taught by Schuessler. fd. at $130, For example, because Knockeart already includes traffic notifications and route replanning, the proposed modification would have been simple and straightforward, /d. A POSITA would also have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination given the similarities between the architecture of Knockeart and Schuessler. Jd. Finally, it was well-known in the prior art to perform replan routes in response to both traffic conditions and route deviations, including as taught by Schuessler. /d. at $f] 130, 58. Modification to allow user to request new route pursuant to claims 5 and 35 and/or to automatically supply the new routeRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 pursuant to claims 17 and 36 Though claims 5, 17, 35, and 36 each recites the provision of a new calculated route that takes into account traffic congestion changes to the vehicle, the claims differ in the manner in which the new route is provided to the vehicle. Claims 5 and 35 require that a user request the route ('876 Patent (Ex. 1001), 5:25-29, 8:14-17), while claims 17 and 36 require that the central computer automatically provide the new route (id. at 6:16-22, 8:18-23), A POSITA would have been motivated to supply the alternate route in response to input from a user (as recited by claims 5 and 35) and/or automatically (as recited by claims 17 and 36), as discussed further blow. /d. at $4 131-133, 136-139. A POSITA would have recognized that there are a finite number of ways in which an alternate route can be supplied. /d. at 132, 137. Specifically, the route could be supplied automatically, or it could require that the user manually initiate the route replanning. /d. at ff] 132, 137. Both methods were well-known in the prior art. Jd. at J¥ 132, 137, 59-61 (citing Aito at 1:57-62 (“Moreover, in the above-described navigation apparatus, when the vehicle deviates from a predetermined route during route guidance, a new route from the present position of the vehicle to the destination is determined automatically or in response to an instruction from the user, to thereby provide proper route guidance."""), And Schuessler teaches the use of either method. /d. at §§| 132, 137. Thus, the proposed modification is the use of Schuessler’s known method for route replanning in Knockeart’s known system. Id. at 9132, 137. Claims § and 35 With respect to manual initiation of route replanning (e.g., input from a user) taught by Schuessler, a POSITA would have been motivated to allow a user to use Knockeart’s in-vehicle system 105 to make such a request in view of Schuessler’s teachings. /d. at { 131-133. Specifically, a POSITA would have modified Knockeart such that the user inputs the request for ‘anew route using Knockeart’s input device 244 of Knockeart’s in-vehicle system 105, pursuant to Schuessler’s teachings, which would transmit the request to the central server system 125 via communication system 250, including cellular transceiver 254 and GPS receiver 252. Id. at 131 As noted by Mr. Andrews, the GPS would have been used to provide the central server 125 with the current location of the user. Id. Unless otherwise noted, all emphases are added by Requester. 34Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 A POSITA would have been motivated to make the proposed modification in light of Schuessler’s express teachings and because it was common in the prior art to allow users to request new route, /d. at 132. Additionally, 2 POSITA would have recognized in the unmodified Knockeart system, triggering a new route would have been inconvenient (e.g., because it would have required re-entering destination information or purposely deviating from the route). /d. Thus, ‘modification with Schuessler’s teachings would have allowed users to obtain a new route quickly and easily. /d. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification because Knockeart already teaches many of the components necessary to provide such functionality. /d. at 133. For example, like Schuessler which teaches that a user makes a request for a new route based on traffic conditions using an in-vehicle device and the request is then transmitted, wirelessly, to a service center, Knockeart similarly teaches that the in-vehicle system makes a request for a new route wirelessly based on deviation from a route. Id. Accordingly, a POSITA would have recognized that such a modification would have been simple htforward. Id. Claims 17 and 36 and straig A POSITA would have modified Knockeart’s system such that the central computer supplies the new route automatically, as recited by claims 17 and 36, Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), 99 134-139, A POSITA would have been motivated to make the proposed combination because such functionality was well-known in the art. As noted above, a POSITA would have known it was common in the prior art to perform route recalculations or re-searches automatically, including as taught by Schuessler. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), ff] 137, 59-61. Thus, the proposed modification is the use of Schuessler’s known method for route replanning in Knockeart’s known system. Jd. at 4 137. Additionally, a POSITA would have recognized in the unmodified Knockeart system, triggering a new route would have been inconvenient (e.g., because it would have required re- entering destination information or purposely deviating from the route). fd. Thus, modification with Schuessler’s teachings would have allowed users to obtain a new route quickly and easily. /d. A POSITA also would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the includes automatic proposed modification in light of Knockeart’s teachings. Knockeart alread functionality. /d. at § 138. Specifically, Knockeart teaches that the server actively downloads 35Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 traffic information related to alternative trips to the in-vehicle system 105. Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 41-21-27; Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), §| 138. (explaining that a POSITA would have understood “active communi ition” is automatic). Accordingly, Knockeart teaches that the server automatically supplies traffic information to the in-vehicle system for route re-planning, /d. at J 138, Because Knockeart already includes automatic functionality, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of incorporating Schuessler’s similar automatic functionality in Knockeart’s system, Jd. Further, Knockeart teaches that the in-vehicle systems may not support autonomous route re-planning and instead the functionality is carried out by the server. Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 43:22-28. In light of Schuessler’s teachings, a POSITA would have modified Knockeart such that the server would actively download a new route to the in-vehicle system, rather than downloading traffic information, Jd. In the proposed combination, the route would have been supplied using Knockeart’s server computer 310 and telephone interface 320 of server system 125 to transmit the route over the wireless communication link (ie., means for supplying), as recited by claim 17. ld. at 139. Such a modification would have been obvious since server computer 310 and telephone interface 320 of server system 125 are already used to supply route guidance data. Jd. Thus, using the components to supply a new route would not have required undue experimentation and would have yielded predictable results. fd. Further, Schuessler teaches the provision of the route data via similar means (e.g., mobile radio link). Id. F. Ground 3: Knockeart in view of Gee Questions of Patentability Fowler Presents Substantial New Requester incorporates by reference the disclosures related to Knockeart and Gee above with respect to Ground 1. As shown below, Requester submits that Knockeart in view of Gee in further view of Fowler raises a new “substantial question of patentability” as to claims 19 and 44, because “the teaching of the (prior art) patents and printed publications is such that a reasonable examiner would consider the teaching to be important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable, See MPEP 2242. Claims 19 and 44 are dependent claims which add known elements to the independent claims of the ’876 Patent. Fowler provides and express teaching of these known elements. The references discussed below and in further detail in the attached charts (see Exhibit AA), when considered as an ordered combination, teach each limitation of the claims. Further Fowler was not previously considered during prosecution, and, therefore, the “same question of 36Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 patentability as to the claim has not been decided by the Office in an earlier concluded examination or review of the patent” at least because none of the art referenced in this Ground was before the Office during prosecution of the °876 Patent or during a prior post-grant proceeding challenging any claim of the '876 Patent. 1. Overview of the Prior Art Knockeart and Gee are described in detail above. See Sections L.D.1.a. (Knockeart). LD.1.b. (Gee), supra. Fowler (Ex. 1007), U.S. Patent No, 6,212,474) discloses a system and method for providing route guidance instructions to a user. Fow/er at Abstract, 3:13-15. Fowler's navigation system (e.g., navigation system 110) s used with a navigation application, such asa system located in a vehicle. /d. at 4:20-23. Navigation system 110 includes navigation programming 118, which includes software that carries out the functionality of the system, such as navigation application 210 and navigation tools 212. /d. at $:65-6:2, 6:31-34. Navigation application 210 provides user interface functions via user interface 131 and also includes positioning system 124, /d, at 635-41 Navigation tools 212 provide various navigation functions, including route calculation and route guidance. Jd. at 6:50-56. Fowler expressly teaches that na ation programming 118 may be located remotely to navigation system 110 over a communications system. Id. at 6:13-16, 28:33- 36. Specifically, Fowler describes route calculation tool 300, which receives an input identifying an origin and a destination from user interface 131 of navigation application 210 and determines a route between the locations. /d. at 7:26-32, 7-41-44, 7:61-8:7. The calculated route ‘output is @ route calculation object 342, which is a diagram representing components of the route and an ordered list identifying road segment data entities. Jd. at 8:8-15. The route output is provided to route guidance tool 400, which processes the data to provide guidance instruetions. Id. at 8:26-33, Route guidance tool 400 includes maneuver generation tool 500, token generator tool 600, and explication tool 700. /d. at 8:49-52. Maneuver generation tool 500 receives route calculation object 342 and determines which locations along the route should be explicated to the user with an instruction. Jd. at 8:54-56, 8:64-9:6. Maneuvering tool 500 forms a maneuver data structure $50 for each location determined by the maneuvering tool 500 to require explication, which contains the information needed to provide a maneuvering instruction to the user. /d. at 9:63-66, 9:66-10:4. As each data structure is formed, it is added to a maneuver generation object 37Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 540 in an ordered sequence. Jd. at 8:62-66, 12:21-23. The maneuver generation object is then passed to token generator tool 600, and is used to form token generator object 650, which is a token list comprised of an ordered sequence of tokens. Jd. at 12:27-34, 12:42-45, 17:64-18:5 Tokens are abstractions of data units used for explication (e.g., “TURN LEFT AT THE NEXT INTERSECTION.”). Jd, at 12:60-13:1, 13:45-56. The tokens in the token generator object 650 are arranged in the proper sequence for voice explication, Jd. at 14:50-15:2; 18:1-5 Token generator object 650 is used by explication tool 700 to form maneuvering instructions that are returned to the navigation application 210. Jd. at 12:35-41. Explication tool 700 includes voice guidance tool 800, which receives the token list included in the token generator object 650 from the token generator tool 600. Id. at 24:29-34, Using an index 808, the voice guidance tool 800 looks up the appropriate symbol audio data file associated with the symbol.” Id. at 24:66-25:1, “The voice guidance tool 800 accesses the appropriate symbol audio file and returns it to the navigation application.” /d, at 25:4-6. When the audio data files 802 represented by the tokens are returned to the navigation application 210, they are maintained in the order that corresponds in the tokens from which they were derived. Jd. at 25:10-14. At navigation application 210, the instructions are output to the user. /d. at 8:26-40, 13:6-17. Fowler is analogous art to the °876 Patent. Andrew's Decl. (Ex. 1003), {| 140-142. Just like the °876 Patent, Fowler relates to systems and methods for providing route guidance to vehicles See, e.g., Fowler (Ex. 1007), Abstract, 3:13-15, Thus, Fowler is in the same field of endeavor as the ’876 Patent, Further, Fowler is reasonably pertinent to at least one problem concerning the inventor of the °876 Patent. For example, the °876 Patent relates to a method for providing audio instructions to a user using tokens. '876 Patent (Ex. 1001), 2:51-60. Likewise, Fowler relates to a method for providing audio directions to a user using tokens. Fowler (Ex. 1007), 8:41-45 Motivation to Combine Knockeart, Gee, and Fowler A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Knockeart’s server system 125 to provide instructions to the in-vehicle system 105 in the form of tokens (as taught by Fowler), which ‘would then be processed by the in-vehicle system to provide aural instructions (as recited by claim 19). Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), $f] 143-147. Specifically, a POSITA would have modified the central server system 125 to provide audible instructions to the in-vehicle system 105 as Fowler’s “tokens,” /d. at 145, These tokens would be explicated to provide the maneuver messages. (e.g., 38Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 “turn information, encoded as an index representing messages,” as taught by Knockeart. Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 29:30-31, 18:63-19:9, Fig, 12. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Fowler’s teachings related to the provision of aural driving instructions for at least the following reasons. Though Knockeart teaches that a speech synthesizer is used to present aural driving instructions to a user (Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 14:8-11, 29:25-31, 42:61-64), Knockeart does not provide detail regarding the specifics of the provision of aural instructions. A POSIT would have looked to other references disclosing specific methods for generating oral instructions such as Fowler, Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), § 144. Fowler teaches the generation of a token list comprised ‘of an ordered sequence of tokens. Fowler (Ex. 1007), Abstract, 12:42-S4. Maneuvering instructions presented to a user are provided by explicating the tokens in the list of tokens. /d. at Abstract, 12:42-54, 15:3-15, Accordingly, the combination is the use of Fowler's known technique for providing route guidance instructions in a Knockeart’s known route guidance device. Jd. at § 144. A POSITA would have been both motivated to make the proposed modification and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification given the similarities between the systems of Knockeart and Fowler. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), § 146. For example, both references relate to presenting aural route guidance instructions to a user and both references describe using an index for the provision of instructions. Jd. Thus, the combination would have been straightforward, would not have required undue experimentation, and would have yielded predictable results. /d. Further, both Knockeart and Fowler disclose similar components, such as a remote computer performing the route calculation. Id. A POSITA would further have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Knockeart with the teachings of Fowler given the express advantages taught by Fowler. /d. at 147. For example, Fowler teaches that one advantage of Fowler’s guidance provision method is the provision of a universal route guidance module or tool that can be readily used in a variety of different software and hardware environments and platforms without the need for extensive revisions and customizations.” Fowler (Ex. 1007), 3:5-9, 7:1-9. Indeed, a POSITA would have recognized that Fowler’s tokens would have been easily implementable in the system of Knockeart given Fowler’s teachings that the method can be implemented in a variety of different software and hardware environments, Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), | 147. Additionally, because Knockeart 390Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 teaches the use of an index in the in-vehicle unit and Fowler also teaches explication of tokens is done using an index, a POSITA would have understood that Fowler's tokens would have been readily compatible with the in-vehicle navigation unit 105. /d. G. Ground 4: Behr in view of Schuessler Presents Substantial New Questions of Patentability As shown below, Requester submits that Behr in view of Schuessler raises a new “substantial question of patentability” as to claims 1-4, 6, 26-29, and 39, because “the teaching of the (prior art) patents and printed publications is such that a reasonable examiner would consider the teaching to be important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable. See MPEP 2242 For example, the references discussed below and in further detail in the attached charts (see Exhibit BB), when considered as an ordered combination, teach each limitation of the claims, including opening a channel of communication to transmit route guidance data in a short burst and then closing the communication channel unless and until a further need arises. For example, Behr in view of Schuessler teaches opening a cellular communication link to transmit route guidance data via burst mode and then closing the cellular communication link unless certain conditions arise, such as the determining a new route in response to route-relevant traffic information, Further neither Behr or Schuessler was previously considered during prosecution, and, therefore, the “same question of patentability as to the claim has not been decided by the Office in an earlier concluded examination or review of the patent” at least because none of the art referenced in this Ground was before the Office during prosecution of the °876 Patent or during a prior post-grant proceeding challenging any claim of the ’876 Patent. 1. Overview of the Prior Art Schuessler is described in detail above. See Section LE.1., supra. Behr (Ex. 1008), U.S. Patent No, 5,808,566) discloses “a method and system for providing route guidance and other information from a base unit to a remote unit in response to a request from the remote unit.” Behr (Ex. 1008), Abstract, 3:12-14. Specifically, Behr teaches a system 10 that includes a base unit 12 and mobile units 14. Jd. at 7:20-23. Base unit 12 includes a central processing unit, a route calculator 66, an 1/0 interface 62 (including telephone interface 74), a map database 72, and an on-line traffic and map updater 72U. /d. at 9:19-28. The remote units 14 may are portable units such as a personal computer, pager, or PDA and include a modem for communication with the 40Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 base unit, input and output devices, a microprocessor, and a position locator. Id. at $:18-21, 7:28- 32, 7:46-8:45. Base unit 12 and mobile units 14 communicate via a communication system such as a telephone link, cellular telephone, or radio frequency transmission. Jd. at 5:23-26. The ‘components of Behr’s system are shown in the image below: [RR RL = [feamon5| Jendvten] me u 8 82 i a Si nore] ieararon | [bance | — Toa (Rave a | leat uo rie | Stpy fl Samet Hl po ESTIMATOR 25~- Lol CBLua an Te | Jess ay y [2 pisriny| [oon Pes se bel 1 ee] |, Dees) gg Lesa} yo? ie *% i 209 7 Id. at Fig. 1 “To activate the system 10, a user manipulates the keyboard 28 to formulate a request” or query such as “a route between an origin and a destination” (e.g, a query for directions). fd. at 7.66-8:2. The user provides a desired destination via an input such as a keyboard (e.g., keyboard 28 or 44) while the origin is provided using the latitude and longitude information from a position locator (e.g., position locator 74). Jd. at 8:2-4, 8:28-43. The base unit 12 receives the query and the route calculator 66 utilizes map database 72 to calculate a response which includes a route between 4lRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 the origin and the destination. Jd. at 4:39-41, 4:51-55, 5:59-64, 12:47-50. The calculated route is then transmitted to the mobile unit 14 as a response. Jd. at 12:60-62. This query and response process is shown in the figure below. a ESTABLIGN COMMUNICATION 100 fFoRuat a QUERY FRaNsMIT OUERT] Dae REBOOT. 4, eo ‘UNRESOLVED PE] [Reentiny aueny 3 Id, at Fig, 2 Behr explains that the I/O interface 62 provides a means for the base station 12 to receive an origin and a destination from the mobile units 14 and for communicating a route from the base unit 12 to the mobile units 14, /d. at 9:28-37. Similarly, the mobile units 14 include a means for transmitting (e.g., modem 22, modem 34) the origin and the destination to the base unit 12 and a receiving means for receiving the responses, including the route, from the base unit 12. Jd. at 7:61- 64. Behr expressly teaches that the calculated route may transmitted to the mobile unit 14 using. 42Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 burst mode, in which the base unit 12 transmits a continuous stream of data to the mobile unit 14, as fast as possible, without waiting for requests from the mobile unit, Jd. at 15:35-45. Behr is analogous art to the °876 Patent. Jd. at §{] 148-150. Behr is within the field of endeavor of the °876 Patent because it relates to systems and methods for providing route guidance. See, e.g., Behr (Ex. 1008), Abstract, 3:12-14, Further, Behr is reasonably pertinent to at least one problem concerning the inventor of the 876 Patent, For example, the ’876 Patent relates to the transmission of route guidance information in a short burst. ‘876 Patent (Ex. 1001), 1:40-47. Behr similarly discloses transmitting route guidance information in a burst mode which transmits the information as quickly as possible. Behr (Ex. 1008), 15:35-45. 2. Motivation to Combine Behr and Schuessler Independent Claims 1 and 26 Combined with the teachings from Schuessler, Behr renders obvious “providing a channel of communication which is opened to transmit said route guidance data to the vehicle in a short burst and is then closed, so that transmission to the vehicle via said channel ceases, unless and until a need for further transmission via said channel to the vehicle arises.” A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Schuessler’s teachings related to clearing (i.e. closing) the communication channel so that transmission to the vehicle via said channel ceases, unless and until a need for further transmission via said channel to the vehicle arises for at least the following reasons. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), $f 151-157, First, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Schuessler’s teachings that following transmission of a route, the channel is cleared. /d. at {| 154-155. Though Behr suggests that the communication channel is closed following route transmission, Behr does not expressly disclose closure of the channel. /d. at | 154. However, it was known in the prior art to close a ‘communication channel following route transmission, including as expressly taught by Schuessler. Id. at] 154, A POSITA would have recognized the benefits of closing the channel following route transmission because it would reduce communication traffic. /d. at ¢ 155. And it was known in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the °876 Patent that reduction in communication traffic was desirable because it minimizes the communication cost and the total power consumption as a whole. Id. at $1 , 72-74. A POSITA would have been further motivated to include Schuessler’s teachings regarding re-opening the channel to provide a new route in response to traffic 43Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 congestions changes to benefit users. /d. at 156. A POSITA would have understood that it would have been desirable to allow a user the ability to take alternate routes if traffic affecti 1g a route is detected to allow the user to save time in reaching a desired destination, Id. Second, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification, at least because such a modification would have been simple and straightforward, Id at {| 157, Indeed, Behr’s system was already capable of opening communication channels (as expressly taught by Behr) and would also have been capable of closing such channels. /d. Further, Behr’s system was also already capable of calculating a route, including calculating a route based on traffic conditions, which would have been required to implement Schuessler’s route guidance variant procedures. Jd. And because Behr’s system already has the components and functionality required to carry out Schuessler’s route guidance procedures, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modifications. /d. Dependent Claims 17 and 36 In the Behr-Schuessler combination, a POSITA would have included Schuessler's teachings regarding supplying to the vehicle a new calculated route taking into account the traffic congestion changes, as required by claims 17 and 36. Andrews Decl, (Ex. 1003), $9] 164-168. In the proposed combination, Behr’s base unit 12 would be informed as to traffic congestion and changes in traffic congestion, according to Behr’ teachings. /d. at | 165. In response to receiving relevant traffic information, base unit 12 would initiate a new route calculation, pursuant to Sheuessler’s teachings. /d. Modified as such, the new route would have been provided by the base unit 12 to the mobile unit 14 via /O interface 62 of Behr’s base unit 12 over a cellular telephone network. /d. A POSITA would have been motivated to include Schuessler’s teachings to enhance the Behr- ‘chuessler system. Jd. at 166. A POSITA would have recognized that users would benefit from computer-initiated route recalculation for the purposes of traffic avoidance. Jd. A POSITA would have understood that in Behr’s unmodified system, the user would be responsible for determining a route to avoid traffic. Jd. A POSITA would have understood that a user may not know an area well-enough to avoid traffic and thus a computer providing the calculations would better assist the user with avoiding traffic, Jd. Additionally, a POSITA would have recognized that 44Request for Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 ‘a computer would be more efficient at determining the best way to avoid traffic than a user. Id. Accordingly, a POSITA would have been motivated to include Schuessler’s route replanning in the Behr-Schuessler system. Id. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification because Behr already performs many of the functions necessary to carry out Schuessler’s teachings. /d. at § 167. For example, Behr receives traffic data and calculates routes taking into account changes in traffic congestion. Jd. Accordingly, modification of Behr to automatically supply a new route would have required only minor modifications to the Behr system and would have been well-within the skillset of a POSITA. /d. Additionally, such functionality was known in the prior art. Id. at § 58. A POSITA would have been motivated to supply the alternate route automatically in light of Schuessler’s teachings. /d. at § 168. A POSITA would have recognized that there are a finite number of ways in which an alternate route can be supplied: 1) automatically, or 2 could require that the user manually initiate the route replanning, /d. Automatic, computer-initiated route replanning methods were well-known in the prior art and expressly taught by Schuessler. /d. at $f 168, 59-61, Thus, the proposed modification is the use of Schuessler’s known method for route replanning in the Behr-Schuessler system, /d. A POSITA would have been motivated to make such a modification and would also have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification because Beht’s base unit 12 already receives traffic information. Jd. A POSITA would have recognized that modification of base unit 12 to initiate a route recalculation in response to this traffic information would have required only minor modifications and would have been well-within the skillset of a POSITA. /d, Additionally, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification because Behr’s base unit 12 already supplies routes to mobile units via 1/O interface 62 over a cellular telephone network Id. Thus, the proposed modification would have been straightforward and efficient. Jd. H Ground 5: Behr in view of Schuessler and Knockeart Presents Substantial New Questions of Patentability Requester incorporates by reference the disclosures related to Behr and Schuessler above with respect to Ground 1. As shown below, Requester submits that Behr in view of Schuessler in further view of Knockeart raises a new “substantial question of patentability” as to claims 1-7, 11- 12, 14-19, 29, 33-38, and 41-44, because “the teaching of the (prior art) patents and printed publications is such that a reasonable examiner would consider the teaching to be important in 45Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 deciding whether or not the claim is patentable. See MPEP 2242. Claims 1-7, 11-12, 14-19, 29, 33-38, and 41-44 are dependent claims which add known elements to the independent claims of the °876 Patent. Knockeart provides and express teaching of these known elements. The references discussed below and in further detail in the attached charts (see Exhibit BB), when considered as an ordered combination, teach each limitation of the claims. Further Fowler was not previously considered during prosecution, and, therefore, the “same question of patentability as to the claim has not been decided by the Office in an earlier concluded examination or review of the patent” at least because none of the art referenced in this Ground was before the Office during prosecution of the ’876 Patent or during a prior post-grant proceeding challenging any claim of the ’876 Patent. 1. Overview of the Prior Art Behr, Schuessler, and Knockeart are described above, See Sections 1,G.1, (Behr), LE.1 (Schuessler), LD. 1.a. (Knockeart), supra. Motivation to Combine Behr, Schuessler, and Knockeart a, Independent Claim 1 To the extent Behr alone does not satisfy a “means for presenting” as recited by claim [1(@)], Knockeart teaches a “means for presenting,” as claimed A POSITA would have been motivated to provide these audible instructions as taught by Behr via a speech synthesizer in light of Knockeart’s teachings. Andrew's Decl. (Ex. 1003), §] 170. While Behr expressly discloses that audible instructions are provided to a user via a digitally synthesized voice, Behr does not expressly teach a component for provi ng this output. Jed A POSITA would have been motivated to look to other references disclosing components for ‘outputting digitally synthesized speech, such as Knockeart. Jd. Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood that Knockeart’s speech synthesizer would have achieved Behr’s goal of outputting a digitally synthesized voice. Jd. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination given the similarities between Behr and Knockeart. Indeed, both Behr and Knockeart disclose navigation systems which provide audible driving directions to a user. Jd Further a POSITA would have been aware that it was common in the prior art to provide such instructions via a speech synthesizer. Id. 46Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 b. Dependent Claims 7, 18, 29, and 43 A POSITA would have modified the Behr-Schuessler system to transmit route information from the base unit to the vehicle in the form of a plurality of waypoints (e.g,, route points) from the starting position (i.e., the current pos ion of the subscriber unit as determined by a position parser and GPS receiver) to the desired destination, pursuant to Knockeart’s teachings. Andrews Decl. at §f] 171-174. In the proposed combination, a POSITA would have replaced the maneuver ams information taught by Behr with waypoints, as taught by Knockeart and transmitted Knockeart’s waypoints along with Behr’s tokens. /d. at 172. A POSITA would have been motivated to make the proposed modification in order to enhance Behr’s system. Id. at § 173. Specifically, such a modification would have allowed for additional functionality to be included in Behr’s system such as route deviation detection taught by Knockeart. Jd. Additionally, it was well-known in the art that to format route guidance data in this manner. /d. at ${] 173, 50. Further, a POSITA would have recognized transmission of route guidance data in this manner would achieve Behr’s goals. /d. Knockeart expressly teaches that route data is formatted in a compressed or compact form, which minimizes download time. Knockeart (Ex. 1004), 29:17-26, 29:61-63. And Behr expressly states that that transmitting route guidance information in a compact form is an object of the invention. Behr (Ex. 1008), 2:63-65 Thus, a POSITA would have been motivated to make the proposed modification. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expecta ion of success in making the proposed modification given the similarities between the systems of Behr and Knockeart. For example, both Knockeart and Behr disclose central computers (e.g,, central server system 125 of Knockeart and base unit 12 of Behr) which calculate routes and transmit the routes to in-vehicle devices (e.g,, in- vehicle systems 105 of Knockeart and mobile units 14 of Behr). /d. at § 174, Accordingly, the proposed modification would have been simple and straightforward. Id. A POSITA would have recognized that as modified by Knockeart, such route guidance data is supplied in the form of a compressed data message comprised of a stream of route points along the calculated route transmitted such route guidance data in the form of a compressed data message comprised of a stream of route points along the calculated best route, as required by claims 18 and 43. fd. at $9 175-177 Dependent Claims 11, 14-16, 33-34, and 37-38 47Request for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 6,917,876 Pursuant to Knockeart’s teachings, a POSITA would have modified the Behr-Schuessler system to inform the driver to changes in traffic congestion on said network along its calculated route (as required by claims 11 and 33). Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), {| 178-181. Specifically, a POSITA would have modified the Behr-Schuessler system with Knockeart’s teachings to receive notifications of traffic congestion at the mobile unit 14 from an external information source using base unit 12 as a gateway, as taught by Knockeart, /d. at {| 178. For example, a POSITA would have included Knockeart’s traffic information system 130 in the Behr-Schuessler system to provide such functionality, /d. at { 179. Alternatively, a POSITA would have modified Behr’s third-party data integrator 80 to perform the functions of Knockeart’s traffic information system 130 (¢.g., providing a paging service to vehicles to provide the vehicles with traffic information). dd. A POSITA would have been motivated to make the proposed modification to enhance the Behr-Schuessler system. /d. at § 180. For example, a POSITA would have recognized that providing this functionality would increase convenience for the driver by allowing the driver to avoid congested areas by providing the driver with a notification of upcoming traffic congestion Id. A POSITA would also have been motivated to make the proposed combination because it was known in the art to inform vehicles of changes in traffic, including as taught by Knockeart, a Indeed, Schuessler’s teachings also support inclusion of this modification because Schuessler teaches that passengers may receive traffic information from an extemal source via a radio channel. Schuessler (Ex, 1006), 7:25-31 A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification because the Behr-Schuessler system already includes many of the components necessary to carry out such functionality. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1003), 181. For example, the Behr- Schuessler the base unit 12 is already capable of communicating wirelessly with a mobile unit 14. Id. Accordingly, modification to re-open such communications would not have required undue experimentation and would have yielded predictable results, Id. Further, Behr’s system already includes third-party data integrator, which receives traffic information, /d. Accordingly, modifying Behr’s third-party data integrator to communicate with mobile units 14 would have been simple and straightforward. /d. Additionally, replacing third-party data integrator with Knockeart’s external information system 130 would have been the simple substitution of Behr’s known component for detecting traffic conditions with Knockeart’s known component for detecting 48,