PTAB

IPR2013-00027

Denso Corp v. Beacon Navigation GmbH

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: VEHICLE NAVIGATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
  • Brief Description: The ’511 patent discloses a vehicle navigation system and method that uses information from a Global Positioning System (GPS) to obtain velocity vectors, including speed and heading. These vectors are used for propagating or "dead reckoning" the vehicle's current position from a previously known position.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Anderson - Claims 1-8 and 15 are anticipated by Anderson, and claims 10-11 and 17 are obvious over Anderson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anderson (Patent 5,684,476).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Anderson discloses every limitation of independent claims 1 and 3, and their asserted dependents. Anderson teaches a GPS-based navigation system that uses a map database and map matching to correct position. It explicitly describes using GPS velocity information (speed and heading) to perform dead reckoning, propagating a previous position to a current one by integrating velocity over time. Anderson further discloses interrogating the map database to obtain a map heading and updating the system's heading to align with the map heading, thereby rotating the velocity vector before integration, which directly maps to the core limitations of claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For claims 10-11 and 17, which add limitations related to an accelerometer with zero offsets, Petitioner contended these are obvious modifications. Anderson already discloses an orthogonal axes accelerometer. Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have known that accelerometers inherently have offsets that must be compensated or "zeroed" for accurate dead reckoning. A POSITA would combine Anderson’s teachings with common knowledge of accelerometer calibration to achieve the predictable result of improved accuracy.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying known methods to zero out accelerometer offsets to an existing navigation system like Anderson’s was a standard practice, and a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Anderson in view of Yoshinori - Claim 12 is obvious over the combination of Anderson and Yoshinori.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anderson (Patent 5,684,476) and Yoshinori (JP App. No. H4-121618).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Anderson provides the primary navigation system, teaching the use of GPS and an accelerometer for dead reckoning, as established in Ground 1. Claim 12 adds limitations requiring an odometer for displacement information and using its data for position propagation when GPS is unavailable. Yoshinori was cited to supply these missing elements, as it explicitly teaches a navigation system that integrates an odometer (vehicle wheel speed sensor) and uses its output to improve dead reckoning. Yoshinori also teaches calibrating the odometer using GPS data, a feature of dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA seeking to improve the reliability of the navigation system in Anderson would be motivated to add an odometer as taught by Yoshinori. It was well-known in the art that relying on GPS and accelerometers alone was susceptible to errors, especially during GPS signal loss. Combining Anderson’s system with Yoshinori’s use of an odometer was a predictable solution to improve dead-reckoning accuracy and robustness.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating odometer data with GPS and accelerometer data was a common and well-understood technique in vehicle navigation systems. A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in combining the systems of Anderson and Yoshinori to create a more reliable product.

Ground 3: Anticipation over Klein - Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 13-14, and 16 are anticipated by Klein.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Klein (Patent 5,541,845).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Klein independently discloses a complete basis for unpatentability for a large subset of the challenged claims. Klein describes a vehicle navigation system that integrates GPS data with data from an orthogonal axes accelerometer and a map database. Critically, Klein teaches using lateral acceleration information to derive heading change and using GPS velocity data to calibrate the accelerometer. The system propagates position using GPS when available and switches to dead reckoning using the accelerometer-derived heading when GPS is unavailable, directly teaching the limitations of claims 5, 6, and 8. Klein’s disclosure of map matching and updating vehicle heading based on map data was argued to anticipate the limitations of claims 1 and 3.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous other anticipation challenges against various claims based on Odagawa (Patent 5,087,919), Kato (Patent 5,796,613), Koiwai (JP H3-282323), Yoshinori (JP App. No. H4-121618), Sewaki (JP H6-331369), and Hoshino (JP H7-301541). Petitioner also asserted obviousness of claim 9 over Lipp (an IEEE publication from 1994).

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-17 of the ’511 patent as unpatentable.