PTAB

IPR2016-01536

Google Inc v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Real Time Vehicle Guidance and Traffic Forecasting System
  • Brief Description: The ’130 patent describes a computing system that communicates with vehicles to supply traffic condition information and analyze traffic data. The system aims to provide real-time travel guidance and calculate the fastest route to a destination by using a combination of current and historical traffic data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3-4 are obvious over Xu in view of Peterson and Israni.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Xu (Patent 6,401,027), Peterson (Patent 5,845,227), and Israni (Patent 5,968,109).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Xu and Peterson disclosed all structural and functional elements of the challenged claims. Xu was cited for its disclosure of a remote traffic data collection system that uses both "archived data" (statistical) and adjustments for "real-time situations" to provide traffic forecasts and route guidance. Peterson was cited for its similar system that calculates a "shortest elapsed time route" by explicitly teaching the use of real-time "sensor data in the near horizon and historical in the far horizon." Petitioner asserted this combination directly teaches the core novelty argued by the patent owner during prosecution—the blending of current and historical traffic data. Israni was added to teach the then-conventional practice of including specific road data, such as speed limits and road capacity, in a map database, a feature recited in claim 1 but not explicitly detailed in Xu or Peterson.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Xu and Peterson because they address the same problem using similar systems, and Peterson's method of weighting near-horizon (current) and far-horizon (historical) data offered a predictable improvement to Xu's route calculation engine. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Israni's teachings into the Xu/Peterson system to provide more useful navigation features and to estimate travel times on road segments where real-time or historical probe data was unavailable, which was a known problem with a conventional solution.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success was expected because the combination involved applying known techniques (Peterson's data weighting, Israni's database content) to a known system (Xu's traffic forecasting system) to achieve predictable results and improved performance.

Ground 2: Claim 2 is obvious over Xu in view of Peterson, Israni, and Watters.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Xu (Patent 6,401,027), Peterson (Patent 5,845,227), Israni (Patent 5,968,109), and Watters (Patent 5,982,324).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address the additional limitations of claim 2, which recites utilizing "wireless telephone technology for determination of location." While Xu and Peterson taught communication with vehicles (e.g., via cellular systems), Watters was introduced for its explicit teaching of a system that combines GPS and cellular technology to determine a device's location. Watters specifically addressed overcoming the known deficiencies of GPS-only systems, such as signal loss in "urban canyons," by using cellular network infrastructure as an alternative or supplementary location source.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Watters with the base Xu/Peterson/Israni system to improve the reliability and accuracy of vehicle location tracking. Since the base system relies on vehicle location data, addressing the known problem of GPS signal loss with the known solution taught by Watters (using cellular location data) would have been a logical and predictable enhancement to the overall system's robustness.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would have been expected, as this modification involved integrating a well-known location-determination technology (cellular positioning) into a navigation system to solve a common, well-understood problem (GPS unreliability), leading to the predictable benefit of more consistent and accurate location data.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "GPS data" (claim 1): Petitioner proposed this term be construed broadly as "data that was determined using signals received from GPS satellites or that is related to use of such signals." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification, which equates "GPS data" with a vehicle's real-time position data and acknowledges the use of industry-standard systems beyond "pure" GPS technology. This broader interpretation prevents a narrow reading limited to only raw satellite coordinates, thereby encompassing processed location data as taught in the prior art.
  • Functional Language in "software" claims: For several claim elements beginning with "software for calculation..." or "computational tools for...", Petitioner argued that the subsequent recitations (e.g., "thereby minimizing reliance on vehicle speed estimates") are merely statements of intended use or effect, not structural limitations. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard, Petitioner contended these functional statements should not be given patentable weight in the obviousness analysis.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 of the ’130 patent as unpatentable.