PTAB

IPR2016-01537

Google Inc v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Real Time Vehicle Guidance and Traffic Forecasting System
  • Brief Description: The ’130 describes a computing system designed to provide real-time vehicle guidance by communicating with vehicles, supplying traffic information, and analyzing traffic data to calculate the fastest route to a destination. The system uses both current and historical traffic data collected from probe vehicles.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, and 4 are obvious over TravTek in view of Sumner and Roozemond.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: TravTek (Publication No. FHWA-RD-94-141), Sumner (Patent 5,164,904), and Roozemond (a 1997 article on forecasting travel times).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references taught every limitation of the challenged claims. TravTek, a 1995 report on a large-scale field test of a driver information system, was asserted to disclose the core architecture of the claimed system. This included a central traffic unit (a Traffic Management Center or TMC), mobile guidance units (probe vehicles), and a wireless communication system connecting them. TravTek’s system calculated routes using both "dynamic link travel times" (current data) and a "historical data base of link travel times" (statistical data). Petitioner contended that TravTek’s disclosure of an alternative "central architecture," where the TMC performs all major processing functions like route calculation, met the claims’ requirement for a centralized system. Sumner was introduced to teach dividing a geographical region into smaller zones or "cells" to manage data transmission. Sumner disclosed broadcasting traffic data only for the cell a vehicle is in and its adjacent cells, thus reducing the volume of data sent to each vehicle. Finally, Roozemond was asserted to teach the specific forecasting logic of using current, real-time data to predict travel times for the near future (e.g., <15 minutes ahead) and using historical data for predictions further in the future. This directly mapped to claim 1’s limitation of using current travel times for zones contiguous to a vehicle and statistical times for zones further away.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine TravTek with Sumner to solve the known problem of managing communication bandwidth. Since TravTek expressly sought to "minimize the quantity of data broadcast to the vehicles," applying Sumner's well-known cell-based data transmission method was a logical and predictable improvement. A POSITA would combine the resulting system with Roozemond’s teachings to improve the accuracy of travel time predictions. Because TravTek already used both current and historical data, applying Roozemond’s more refined logic for when to use each type of data was merely the application of a known technique to an existing system to achieve predictable, improved results.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying known techniques (data zoning from Sumner, forecasting logic from Roozemond) to a known system (TravTek) to achieve predictable benefits like reduced bandwidth and improved accuracy.

Ground 2: Claim 2 is obvious over TravTek in view of Sumner, Roozemond, and Booth.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: TravTek (Publication No. FHWA-RD-94-141), Sumner (Patent 5,164,904), Roozemond (1997 article), and Booth (WO 98/54682).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address the specific limitations of dependent claim 2, which added requirements for utilizing "wireless telephone technology" for determining vehicle location. Petitioner asserted that the primary combination already taught a wireless communication system. The Booth reference was introduced to demonstrate that using a vehicle's cellular phone or mobile transmitter for geolocation was a conventional and well-known practice before the ’130 patent's priority date. Booth explicitly disclosed determining a vehicle's location using techniques like Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) of a cellular phone's RF signals or by identifying the cell site to which the phone is connected.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Booth’s teachings into the TravTek system for several reasons. Booth explained that this approach allows for the collection of travel information without requiring special, dedicated geolocation equipment in the vehicle, instead leveraging the common cellular phone. This would reduce system cost and complexity. Furthermore, Booth taught that this method provided "special features," such as generating map databases that automatically reflect actually used roads and current travel patterns, which would be a clear and predictable improvement to the TravTek system.
    • Expectation of Success: The integration would be straightforward, as it involved substituting or augmenting TravTek's GPS-based location system with a known, alternative method of cellular geolocation to achieve the predictable benefits of lower cost and enhanced functionality described in Booth.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "GPS data" (claim 1): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "data that was determined using signals received from GPS satellites or that is related to use of such signals." Petitioner argued this broad interpretation was consistent with the specification and necessary because TravTek’s system used GPS signals to correct a primary dead-reckoning system, meaning the resulting location data was "related to" GPS use even if not directly derived from it.
  • Functional Language: Petitioner argued that several claim elements, such as those reciting software "for reducing volumes of traffic" or "thereby minimizing reliance on vehicle speed estimates," were merely statements of intended use or effect, not structural limitations. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these functional recitations should not be given patentable weight.

5. Relief Requested

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