PTAB

IPR2017-00818

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 discloses a computing system designed to communicate with vehicles to supply traffic information and analyze traffic data. The system's purpose is to provide users with a real-time travel guidance system capable of calculating the fastest route to a destination.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over TravTek and Angwin - Claim 6 is obvious over TravTek in view of Angwin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: TravTek (U.S. Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-RD-94-141 (July 1995)) and Angwin (Patent 6,246,688).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that TravTek, a real-world vehicle navigation project, discloses nearly every element of claim 6. TravTek’s system used a central "traffic management center" (TMC) and in-vehicle "probe vehicles" (mapping to the claimed CTU and MGUs) that communicated wirelessly. The system calculated routes using both a "historical data base of link travel times" (statistical data) and "dynamic link travel times" from probe vehicles (current data). TravTek also disclosed an alternative "central architecture" where all major processing, including route calculation, would be performed at the TMC. Probe vehicles reported GPS-derived data like position and link travel time at regular intervals. Angwin was cited to supply the teaching of using a standard cellular phone as a network gateway for in-vehicle devices, including "vehicle navigation processors," to provide wireless connectivity to a central server.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine TravTek with Angwin's teachings for several predictable reasons. The primary motivations included minimizing retail and manufacturing costs by eliminating the need for a dedicated data radio in every vehicle, reducing subscription costs for users, reusing the existing communication capabilities of a user's own cellular phone, and improving system scalability. This combination represented the application of a known technique (using a cellphone as a gateway) to a known system (TravTek's navigation) to achieve the predictable benefits of cost reduction and enhanced functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination simply integrated a well-understood communication method (a cellular gateway) into an existing navigation system architecture to perform its conventional function without changing the system's core operation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Xu and Durocher - Claim 6 is obvious over Xu in view of Durocher.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Xu (Patent 6,401,027) and Durocher (WO 1998/045823).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Xu teaches a remote traffic data collection and guidance system with a "traffic service center" (CTU) and GPS-equipped vehicles (MGUs). Xu's system forecasts traffic based on projections from "archived data" (statistical) adjusted by factors related to "real-time situations" (current). While Xu teaches route computation, Durocher was introduced to explicitly disclose performing this computation at a centralized server. Durocher describes a navigation system where an in-vehicle unit uses a detachable "mobile telephone" to send a route request to a central server, which then calculates the "fastest" route based on real-time traffic conditions and transmits it back to the vehicle.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Xu's traffic forecasting system with Durocher's centralized route calculation method for several reasons. This approach would reduce the required processing power and memory of the in-vehicle units, thereby lowering their cost, size, and power consumption. It would also reduce the amount of data (e.g., maps, traffic data) that needed to be broadcast to and stored in each vehicle, simplifying updates and further reducing costs. This represented a predictable design choice between two known options (vehicle-side vs. server-side processing) to optimize system performance and cost-efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because centralized route calculation was a known, viable alternative to in-vehicle processing. Applying Durocher’s server-side method to Xu's system was a straightforward implementation that would predictably yield the known benefits of offloading computational tasks from the vehicle.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "GPS data": Petitioner proposed construing this term 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 critical because it encompasses not only raw coordinates but also derived information such as vehicle ID, latitude, longitude, heading, and link travel times, all of which were disclosed as being reported by the probe vehicles in the TravTek reference.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Non-Functional Descriptive Material: Petitioner argued that several claim limitations reciting software or data elements (e.g., "map database," "statistical application," "computational tools") are purely functional and untethered from any tangible structure. As such, Petitioner contended these recitations constitute non-functional descriptive material that should not be given patentable weight in a system claim.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Non-Redundancy of Petition: Petitioner acknowledged prior IPRs filed against claims 1-4 of the ’130 patent. However, it argued that this petition was not redundant and should not be denied because it challenges a different, independent claim (claim 6) for the first time. Furthermore, the grounds asserted in this petition rely on different prior art combinations that were not raised in the previous proceedings.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claim 6 of the ’130 patent as unpatentable.