PTAB

IPR2016-00022

Google Inc v. Porto Technology Co Ltd

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Method and Apparatus for Providing Time-Variant Geographical Information and a User Device Therefor
Brief Description: The ’413 patent describes a system for transmitting time-variant geographical information, such as traffic and routing data, to a user device. The system transmits vector data, referred to as Route Indication Information (RII), which includes a map identification and a plurality of graphic vectors with attributes for displaying route information on a map.

Prior Art Relied Upon: DeLorme (Patent 5,848,373), Lefebvre (Patent 5,243,528).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that DeLorme disclosed a computer-aided map location system that transmits recommended routes between locations. This transmitted information included a map identifier ("grid name"), graphic vectors ("vector data" for routing paths), a position designating statement (latitude/longitude), a shape designating statement (image shape), and an attribute designating statement ("loc/object type"). Petitioner contended that DeLorme's data structure met most limitations of claims 64 and 77. Lefebvre was introduced to teach the specific limitation of an attribute designating statement composed of an attribute designating command (e.g., "color") and at least one attribute value (e.g., "blue or green color").
- Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings to provide an "improved visual display" for the navigation route. Using a contrasting color, as taught by Lefebvre, was a known technique to improve similar mapping devices by allowing a user to more easily identify and comprehend the displayed route information on the map.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because adding color attributes to route data was a conventional and well-understood method for enhancing map displays, yielding predictable results.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Israni (Patent 5,968,109), Kakihara (Patent 5,274,387).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Israni disclosed a computer-based navigation system that provided geographic data organized into parcels. This data included map identification ("pointers" to cartographic parcels), graphic vectors ("segments" representing roads), a shape designating statement ("shape points" for bends in a segment), a position statement ("attributes identifying the location of the segment"), and various attribute statements (route type, speed category, etc.). To the extent Israni did not explicitly disclose an attribute command/value pair for visual display, Kakihara was cited for teaching this feature. Kakihara disclosed displaying a route in a "different color from that for the other roads" and using symbols to indicate traffic jams.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Israni's route data structure to include the color attribute taught by Kakihara. Israni explicitly contemplated "highlight[ing] a route," and Kakihara provided a known and readily implementable method for doing so via color differentiation. This combination would allow a driver to have a more "accurate grasp of the route," improving the usability of Israni's system.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Degawa (JP Patent No. JPH 08-7197), Maruoka (JP Patent No. JPH 09-16892).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Degawa disclosed a system for receiving and displaying road traffic information. The transmitted data included a map identifier ("mesh number") and time-variant data for road sections ("link number" and congestion type), which was superimposed on a map. Degawa's goal was to display information "different from the ordinary road condition" so it could be "easily grasped." Maruoka was cited for teaching the designation of different road segments in different colors based on traffic severity (e.g., red for a "traffic jam zone" and orange for a "congested zone").
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Maruoka's color-coding scheme into Degawa's system. Doing so would directly advance Degawa's stated goal of making traffic information "easily grasped" by allowing a user to immediately differentiate between the severity of traffic conditions, which is a more intuitive display than what Degawa alone provided.
- Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known display technique (color-coding by severity) to a known type of system (traffic information display) to achieve the predictable result of improved user comprehension.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional ground that claim 79 is anticipated by Furuya (Patent 5,257,023).

Means-Plus-Function Limitations (Claim 64): Petitioner argued that two terms in claim 64—"means for selecting a basic map..." and "means for producing a route-information containing image..."—are means-plus-function limitations under §112, ¶6. Petitioner contended that the ’413 patent specification failed to disclose the corresponding structure, specifically an algorithm, required to perform the claimed functions. Consequently, Petitioner argued the claim was not amenable to construction.
Alternative Construction: In the event the Board disagreed, Petitioner proposed that the corresponding structure should be construed as "any controller capable of" performing the recited functions, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
General Terms: For terms like "attribute designating statement," Petitioner argued they should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as an indication of an attribute for the route information, consistent with examples in the specification (e.g., color, line type, or thickness).

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 64, 77, and 79 of the ’413 patent as unpatentable.