Denso Corporation and Clarion Co. Ltd. v Beacon Navigation GmbH

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2014

8579902 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 34
571-272-7822 Entered: March 14, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

DENSO CORPORATION AND CLARION CO. Ltd.
Petitioners

v.

BEACON NAVIGATION GmbH
Patent Owner
____________

Case IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111
____________

Before GLENN J. PERRY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

2

I. BACKGROUND
A. Introduction
Petitioners, Denso Corporation (“Denso”) and Clarion Co., Ltd.
(“Clarion”), filed a Petition on October 18, 2012 for inter partes review of
claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 6,029,111 patent (“the ’111 patent”)1
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319.
On March 18, 2013 we granted the petition, and instituted this inter
partes review of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-13, 17-20, and 22 on fewer than all of
the grounds of unpatentability alleged. Paper 12. During the course of this
inter partes review, claims 1, 10, and 17 were cancelled as a result of an ex
parte reexamination,2 leaving only claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11-13, 18-20, and 22 for
continued consideration.
Patent Owner, Beacon Navigation GmbH (“Beacon”), filed a Patent
Owner Response. Paper 19 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a reply. Paper 25
(“Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner did not file a motion to amend claims.
Counsel for both Petitioners and Patent Owner were present and
presented argument at an oral hearing3 held on December 13, 2013.
The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims
2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18-20, and 22 are unpatentable.

1 The ’111 patent issued on February 22, 2000 on an application filed
December 28, 1995.
2 A Reexamination Certificate issued March 28, 2013 in ex parte
reexamination 90/012,070, which was initiated prior to institution of this
inter partes review. Ex. 3001
3 A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record. Paper 33.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

3

B. The ’111 Patent
The ’111 patent describes a navigation system in which “information
from a Global Positioning System4 (GPS) [is used] to obtain velocity
vectors, which include speed and heading components, for propagating or
‘dead reckoning’ the vehicle position from a previous position to a current
position.” Ex. 1001, 2:28-33.
The ’111 patent states that:
GPS position data alone is not accurate enough for
certain applications, such as turn-by-turn route guidance in
automobile applications, because its error may be 100
[meters] and there is considerable position drift, even
when stationary. GPS velocities are much more accurate
than the position data, 1 [meter per second] or thereabouts,
and can be used to propagate a known position forward
and be more accurate over time then the GPS position
solution.

Ex. 1001, Abstract; 2:36-43.
The ’111 patent invention “uses information from a GPS to obtain
velocity vectors, which include speed and heading components.” Ex. 1001,
2:28-31. These velocity vectors are used in place of sensor5 signals to add
dead reckoning capability to a GPS navigation system and allow a vehicle's
current position to be “calculated by adding displacements obtained from the
GPS velocities to the previous position.” Ex. 1001, 2:45-47.
Figure 3 of the ’111 patent is reproduced below.

4 The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based satellite navigation
system that provides data to a GPS receiver enabling it to determine its
position and velocity.
5 E.g., speed sensor (speedometer), accelerometer, odometer (distance), and
heading sensor, etc.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

4

Figure 3 of the ’111 patent is a block/data flow diagram of an embodiment
of the invention.

GPS receiver 18 provides position information, velocity information,
pseudo-ranges, and delta pseudo-ranges to a sensor integrator 40. Sensor
integrator 40 uses the velocity information to determine a current position
for the vehicle. GPS velocity information is derived from a set of delta
ranges. Sensors including accelerometer 28, odometer 29, speed sensor 34,
and heading sensor 36 provide input independent of GPS-determined
position and velocity. Sensors are calibrated by sensor calibration 44 based
on GPS receiver 18 measurement data. See generally Ex. 1001, 5:27 to
10:19.

IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

5

C. Prior Art References Alleged to Support Unpatentability
The following table summarizes the prior art references asserted in instituted
grounds:

Name Description Date Exhibit
Maki 5,193,064 Oct. 9, 1990 Ex. 1004
Geier 5,416,712 May 28, 1993 Ex. 1005
Anderson 5,684,476 May 8, 1995 Ex. 1008
Endo6 JP App. No. 1992-121618
(English translation)
April 22, 1992 Ex. 1012

D. Grounds of Unpatentability
The following table summarizes the challenges to patentability:

Claims Grounds Reference
Claims 2, 6, and 18 § 102 Maki
Claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 18, and 20 § 102 Geier
Claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 18-20, and
22
§ 102 Anderson
Claims 2, 3, 11, 18, and 20 § 102 Endo

II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
A. Principles of Law
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14,

6 This reference previously was referred to by Petitioner in Denso Corp. and
Clarion Co. Ltd. v. Beacon Navigation GmbH, and reflected in our Decision
to Institute in IPR2013-00026, Paper 12 (Mar. 18, 2013) as “Yoshinori”
which is the inventor’s given name.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

6

2012). Claim terms are also given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
as is recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net
MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2001).
If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must
be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contends that
the specification of the ’111 patent, as filed, coined a new meaning for any
term, different from the ordinary recognized meaning for any term.
However, as discussed below, Patent Owner contends that “position” has a
meaning limited by its particular usage in the patent.

B. “Position”
All of the claims, either directly or through claim dependency, include
the term “position.” Patent Owner offers a construction of “position” on
which it bases arguments distinguishing the claims at issue from the prior art
references. For example, in distinguishing Maki, Patent Owner argues that
as used in the ’111 patent, the term “position” refers to “a geographical
location that is ultimately displayed on a map.” PO Resp. 9.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

7

In support of its construction, Patent Owner points to the ’111 patent
embodiment illustrated in Figures 4A-4C. Figure 4A is reproduced below.

Ex. 1001 Figure 4A
The ’111 patent describes Figures 4A and 4C as showing “graphic plots of
vehicle position using raw GPS position data, and Figures 4B and 4D show
graphic plots of vehicle position using GPS velocity information.”
Ex. 1001, 3:26-29. Patent Owner argues that position refers only to
longitude and latitude as plotted on a map such as shown in Figure 4A. We
are not persuaded by this argument. Although we agree that the use of
latitude/longitude/altitude coordinates is an often-utilized way to describe
position, it is not the only way to do so.
Patent Owner notes the use of “position” in the following
specification text as supporting its construction that “position” only refers to
“a geographical location that is ultimately displayed on a map”:
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

8

The map matching block 42 provides road segment
information for the road segment that the vehicle is
determined to be travelling on, such as heading, and a
suggested position. The sensor integrator 40 can update
the heading component of the velocity information with
the heading provided by the map matching block 42 to
update the current position. If the map matching block 42
indicates a good match, then the map matched position can
replace the current position. If not, the sensor integrator
propagates the previous position to the current position
using the velocity information. As such, the sensor
integrator 40 determines the current position and provides
the current position to a user interface and/or route
guidance block 46.

PO Resp. 9-10 quoting Ex. 1001, 6:13-28.
The ’111 patent does not provide a specific definition of the word
“position.” It uses the word “position” in various ways and manners
throughout the specification, not all of which refer to a position plotted or to
be plotted on a map. For example, the patent states “[f]rom this information,
the user computes the satellite's precise position and clock offset.” Ex.
1001, 1:38-40. (emphasis added). Here, the word “position” refers to the
position of a satellite, not to the position of a GPS receiver being plotting on
a map. The satellite’s position is never plotted on a map. Another example
is found in the description of Figures 4A and 4C of the patent. That
description uses “position” to refer to “raw data” that is not plotted on a
map, but used as an intermediate value to calculate data that is plotted on a
map. Another example is a portion of the specification that describes
correcting bias errors in differential GPS: “A [r]eference [s]tation receiver
measures ranges from all visible satellites to its surveyed position.” Ex.
1001, 4:59-61. (emphasis added). The surveyed position is a fixed position
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

9

of a reference station, not the position of a GPS receiver being plotted on a
map. Thus, within the four corners of the ’111 patent, we find uses of the
word “position” that are outside of Patent Owner’s construction. Based on
this intrinsic evidence alone, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is too
narrow.
Petitioner argues that claim 2 puts no further limitation on the term
“position.” Pet. Reply 1. We agree.
We construe the word “position” as referring to a location.7 Our
construction does not require that “position” only refer to a location that is
ultimately plotted on a map. For example, a “position” may be that of a GPS
satellite or a location represented by a signal that is used in an intermediate
calculation.
Our construction of the term “position” includes a location actually
plotted on a map and more. Based on context, a signal can represent a
“position” that is not ultimately displayed on a map. In GPS technology,
numerous position calculations and determinations are made that never are
plotted on a map. For example, ephemeris data describing the orbit of a
GPS satellite need not be plotted on a map in order to provide a useful basis
from which to determine the position of a GPS receiver on the earth. The
ephemeris data describing satellite position must be known in order for GPS
to provide its determinations, but the GPS receiver does not plot satellite
position on a map.

7 Typically position is described with respect to some reference frame or an
object whose location is known.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

10

It is well known how to translate a position given in one coordinate
system to an equivalent representation in another coordinate system by
mathematical transformation using matrix and other mathematical
techniques well known to GPS engineers.
No persuasive evidence has been presented that the ’111 patent
inventor acted as his or her own lexicographer, and crafted a narrow
definition of “position” limiting it to a geographical location that is
ultimately displayed on a map.

III. DISCUSSION
A. Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
Patent Owner argues that this inter partes review should be dismissed
for non-compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) in that Petitioners have not
identified all real parties-in-interest.
According to Patent Owner, at least Mazda Motor Corporation and
Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (“Mazda”), who are represented by Denso’s
inter partes review counsel in related litigation and who have sought a stay
in the related litigation on the basis of the Petition for inter partes review,
are in cooperation with Petitioner Denso. PO Resp. 5-6. According to
Patent Owner, Mazda has engaged in the strategic planning, preparation, and
review of the Petition for inter partes review, thereby making them related
parties-in-interest to this proceeding. Id. at 5. Likewise, according to
Patent Owner, Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., and Nissan North America, Inc.
(“Nissan”), who are represented by Clarion’s inter partes review counsel in
related litigation and who have sought a stay in the related litigation on the
basis of the Petition for inter partes review, are in cooperation with Clarion
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

11

and have engaged in the strategic planning, preparation, and review of the
present petition for inter partes review, thereby making them related parties
in interest to this proceeding. Id. 5. Patent Owner further states: “It is also
likely that other parties in the litigations regarding infringement of the ’111
patent are in privity with Denso and Clarion.” Id. 5. We disagree with
Patent Owner’s conclusion. The only relationship alleged by Patent Owners
between the named real parties-in-interest and the alleged real parties-in-
interest not named is that of being co-defendants or concurrent defendants in
related litigation. The mere fact that parties are co-defendants or concurrent
defendants in litigation does not make them real parties-in-interest. See
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48759.
Patent Owner argues that the alleged additional real parties-in-interest
have engaged in strategic planning, preparation, and review of the Petition.
There is, however, no evidence that the alleged real parties-in-interest guide
or otherwise control this inter parties review. See Office Patent Trial
Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48759.
We are not persuaded that any real parties-in-interest have been
omitted.

B. Anticipation by Maki of claims 2, 6, and 18
1. Maki Disclosure
Maki describes a “method and arrangement for integrating a Global
Positioning System and an Inertial Navigating System without the use of
accelerometers to provide a velocity steering signal that is utilized in the
guidance of a flying vehicle, such as a space craft.” Ex. 1004, Abstract.
Maki Figure 1 is reproduced below.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

12

Maki Figure 1

Maki Figure 1 is a block diagram demonstrating how GPS-derived
signals from GPS 12 are used to develop a compensated velocity vector
steering signal (Velocity Steering Compensation 20 and Velocity Vector
Steering 24) to guide a spacecraft. Maki at 2:46-64 describes that a
preceding sampled GPS-derived position and velocity vectors is used to
predict current position and velocity vectors. These predicted position and
velocity vectors are used to determine a steering rate vector for guiding the
vehicle. Maki col. 3, line 55 to col. 4, line 7 describes how the predicted
velocity vector is determined using blocks 14, 16 and 18 shown in Maki
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

13

Figure 1. It further describes that
[t]hese computations are performed for each of the
three components of velocity. The current value of
position can be obtained by the same means, or by
integrating velocity over a time period and adding
it to the last GPS position update. (emphasis
added)

2. Claim 2
Claims 1 (which has been cancelled) and 2 are reproduced below with
disputed limitations emphasized.
1. An improved navigation system having a GPS receiver
which provides GPS velocity information, said navigation
system calculating a displacement based upon said GPS
velocity information over a time interval, said vehicle
navigation system adding said displacement to a previous
position to obtain a current position. (emphasis added).

2. The system of claim 1 wherein said system determines
east and north displacements from said GPS velocity
information and applies said east and north displacements
to said previous position to obtain said current position.
(emphasis added).
Petitioner points to Maki 2:46-64 and 3:55 to 4:7, described above, as
meeting the limitations of claim 2. Petitioner argues that Maki inherently
discloses “east and north displacements.” According to Petitioner’s expert,
Dr. Michalson, international regulations require airplane navigation to be
referenced to the WGS-848 reference frame. Ex. 1017 ¶ 18. He further
explains that displacement based on WGS-84 is indistinguishable from the
North-East-Down (“NED”) reference frame when a calculated displacement

8 “WGS” stands for the “World Geodetic System,” which is a standard for
use in cartography and navigation. The latest revision is WGS-84.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

14

covers a relatively short distance because a change in latitude in WGS-84
corresponds to a change in north displacement in NED. Ex. 1017 ¶ 20.
Further, Dr. Michalson testifies that it is a fundamental function of any
navigation system that disclosure of one reference frame inherently discloses
the others, and that the ’111 patent recognizes the equivalence of these
reference frames and the fundamental nature of the transformations between
them through its disclosure of the ECEF, WGS-84 and NED frames. Ex.
1017 ¶ 21 (citing’111 patent, 6:65-7:24). Patent Owner does not challenge
the Michalson assertions regarding WGS-84 and reference frame
equivalence.
Patent Owner argues that Maki does not anticipate claim 2 because
Maki does not disclose “said vehicle navigation system adding said
displacement to a previous position to obtain a current position” (emphasis
added). PO Resp. 9. According to Patent Owner, Maki’s “value of
position” is not an actual position consistent with its proposed construction
of “position,” it is a “variable” for input into calculations. There is no actual
conversion of the value of position to coordinates that can be plotted on a
map. PO Resp. 10.
We agree with Patent Owner’s understanding of Maki, that the
described “value of position” represents a location that is only used in an
intermediate calculation and is not plotted on a map. However, Maki also
describes integrating position to obtain a displacement. Ex. 1004, 4:2-7.
As we construe “position,” it does not matter that actual position
coordinates are not determined and plotted on a map. Maki clearly teaches
integrating velocity to obtain a displacement in position. The velocity that is
integrated is a GPS-derived velocity. The fact that Maki teaches how to
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

15

compute a velocity steering signal does not diminish its teaching of
integrating a GPS-derived velocity to obtain a displacement. We, therefore,
find this argument unpersuasive.
Patent Owner further argues that Maki does not disclose “wherein said
system determines east and north displacements from said GPS velocity
information and applies said east and north displacements to said previous
position to obtain said current position.” PO Resp. 11. According to Patent
Owner, Maki does not specifically mention “east” and “north.” PO Resp.
12. We agree.
We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that east and north
displacements inherently are taught by Maki. Petitioner’s argument begins
with the proposition that international regulations require airplane navigation
to be referenced to the WGS-84 geodetic frame. Ex. 1017 ¶ 18. This may
be so, but Maki does not describe guidance for an airplane. It describes
guidance for a space vehicle. We find no mention of WGS-84 in Maki and
we are not persuaded to infer that WGS-84 is utilized.
As Petitioner argues, Maki describes a “velocity vector.” Patent
Owner’s expert, Dr. Dafesh, agrees that a velocity vector can be expressed in
components to the east and to the north, regardless of the direction in which
it points. Ex. 1019, 128:25 to 129:3. Further, Dr. Dafesh, admits that
“position” is “not limited to being relative to a geographical reference.” Ex.
1019, 74:22-75:4. However, there is no evidence presented demonstrating
that the position vector is resolved into components at all, a precursor to
resolving into “east” and “north” components. For this reason, we are not
persuaded that Maki inherently teaches east and north displacements as
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

16

claimed. Petitioner has not carried its burden with respect to anticipation by
Maki of claim 2.

3. Claim 6
Claim 6, depending from claim 1, additionally requires GPS velocity
information to be calculated from delta range measurements. Patent Owner
does not separately argue claim 6 with respect to Maki and relies on the
argument made with respect to claim 2 that Maki does not disclose “said
vehicle navigation system adding said displacement to a previous position to
obtain a current position.” We are not persuaded by this argument because
Maki describes integrating velocity to obtain a position displacement. No
arguments are directed to the limitation added by claim 6. We, therefore,
conclude that claim 6 is anticipated by Maki.

4. Claim 18
Claims 17 (which has been cancelled) and 18 are reproduced below
(with limitations in dispute italicized).
17. A method of determining a current position from a
previous position including the steps of:

providing GPS velocity information;

calculating a displacement based upon said GPS
velocity information over a time interval; and

using said displacement to propagate a previous
position to a current position.

18. The method of claim 17 wherein said displacement
comprises
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

17

east and north displacements said method further
including the step of
applying said east and north displacements to said
previous position to obtain said current position.
Claim 18, as with claim 2, requires resolving east and north position
displacements. For the same reasons stated with respect to claim 2, we are
not persuaded that Maki describes resolving the predicted position vector
into components. We, therefore, conclude that Petitioner has not met its
burden with respect to anticipation by Maki of claim 18.

C. Anticipation by Geier of claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 18 and 20
1. Geier Disclosure
Geier describes “global positioning system (GPS) devices that use
dead-reckoning [(DR)] apparatus to fill in as backup during periods of GPS
shadowing such as occur amongst obstacles, e.g., tall buildings in large
cities.” Ex. 1005 1:10-13; Abstract. As shown in Geier Figure 2,
reproduced below, a GPS “velocity solution” is derived from GPS
navigation computer 44.

IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

18

Geier Figure 2
Geier Figure 2 shows the use of a velocity solution from a GPS navigation
computer 44 by a dead reckoning calculator 60. Geier blends GPS solutions
and dead-reckoning using Kalman filters (Ex. 1005, 2:44-46) to solve the
problem of temporary loss of GPS satellite tracking. Ex. 1005, 1:51-63.

2. Claims 2 and 6
Patent Owner argues that Geier “blends” calculations from GPS
velocities with other velocity data and therefore does not teach using “GPS
velocity” information.” PO Resp. 18-20. We disagree. As explained in
Geier:
A velocity estimate (V) and a heading estimate (H)
are received by a dead reckoning (DR) calculator
60. A position filter 62 receives both a DR change
of position signal (Δp) and a GPS position solution
(pGPS). (emphasis added)

IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

19

Ex. 1005 at 5:1-4.
This passage indicates that dead reckoning calculator 60 provides a
dead reckoning position calculation that is a function of the velocity
estimate. Geier Figure 2 shows that a “velocity solution” is produced
upstream of dead reckoning calculator 60, which receives two inputs, both of
which are a function of the velocity solution. The velocity solution from
GPS navigation computer 44 is used by heading calculator 46 to provide an
input to dead reckoning calculator 60.
Claim 2 requires that the “system determines east and north
displacements from said GPS in response to claim velocity information and
applies east and north displacements from said GPS velocity information
and applies said east and north displacements to said previous position to
obtain said current position.” We have reviewed the portions of Geier cited
by Petitioner as describing the features of claim 2 (Ex. 1005, 2:30-41; 4:21-
26; 5:20-22; 4:56-62; 5:41-45 and Figure 2). Although there is no explicit
mention there of “east” and “north,” it is clear that position is resolved into
components for display. The ’111 patent discusses the equivalence of
various reference frames and the fundamental nature of the transformations
among them through its disclosure of the ECEF, WGS-84 and NED frames.
See Ex. 1001, 6:65-7:24. In our view, resolving vector components is so
well recognized that it usually goes unmentioned. We determine that one of
ordinary skill at the time of the ’111 patent invention would have inferred
the teaching of “east” and “north” vector components, even though Maki is
not explicit as to their use. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA
1968), which instructs us that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it
is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

20

also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom.”
Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that claim 2
is anticipated by Geier.
Patent Owner does not separately argue dependent claim 6. For the
reasons set forth above, we find that Petitioner also has demonstrated that
claim 6 is anticipated by Geier.

3. Claims 3, 18, and 20
Patent Owner argues that Geier “does not teach that GPS velocity
information is not available.” PO Resp. 20-23. We disagree and note two
passages of Geier that describe blocking of GPS information:
Another advantage of the present invention is that
a system is provided that automatically switches to
a calibrated dead-reckoning solution when GPS
satellite signals are blocked for any reason.

See Ex. 1005, 2:61-64 (emphasis added).
In some situations, such blockage can prevent all
the overhead GPS satellites from being tracked and
such outages can last for several minutes. GPS
signals also become unavailable to vehicles when
moving through underground or underwater
tunnels.

See Ex. 1005, 1:53-58 (emphasis added).
Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dafesh, agrees that Geier explicitly
teaches instances where GPS velocity information is not available. Ex.
1019, 161:20-25.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

21

Claim 3 requires “sensors providing information used to propagate
position if said GPS velocity information is not available, said navigation
system determines calibration information from said GPS velocity
information to calibrate said sensors.” (emphasis added). According to
Geier, GPS-derived information is used to correct the “odometer scale
factor, thereby improving the estimate of distance traveled input to the dead
reckoning calculations.” Ex. 1005, 5:29-31.
Claim 20 requires that sensor information be used to propagate
position in the event GPS velocity is not available. It further requires that
calibration information from GPS velocity be used to calibrate sensors. For
the reasons discussed with respect to claim 3, containing similar features, we
conclude that claim 20 also is anticipated by Geier.
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and further requires that
displacements calculated are “east” and “north” displacements. For reasons
stated above with respect to claim 2, we determine that “east” and “north”
displacements would have been inferred by one of ordinary skill in the GPS
arts. We conclude, therefore, that claim 18 is also anticipated by Geier.

4. Claim 13
Claims 10 (cancelled, but from which claim 13 depends) and 13 are
reproduced below with disputed portions emphasized.
10. An improved navigation system comprising:

a GPS receiver which provides GPS velocity
information, said navigation system using GPS velocity
information to propagate a previous position to a current
position, said system determines east and north
displacements by integrating said GPS velocity
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

22

information and applies said east and north displacements
to said previous position to obtain said current position;
and

sensors providing information used to propagate
vehicle position if said GPS velocity information is not
available, said navigation system determines calibration
information from said GPS velocity information to
calibrate said sensors.

13. An improved navigation system according to claim 10
wherein said navigation system calculates said GPS
velocity based upon a plurality of delta range
measurements, said navigation system calculating each
said delta range measurement based upon a different pair
of pseudorange measurements, each said pair of
pseudorange measurements being received from a
different GPS satellite, said navigation system calculates
said displacement by integrating said GPS velocity over a
time interval between said first and second pseudorange
measurements. (emphasis added)

Patent Owner argues that claim 13 does not teach a “pair of pseudo-
range measurements being received from different GPS satellites,” and
calculating “displacement by integrating said GPS velocity over a time
interval between said first and second pseudo-range measurement.”
A GPS receiver determines its position and velocity by determining its
range (pseudo-range) with respect to each of multiple satellites, each of
which has a known position at a known time defined by ephemeris data
describing the satellite’s orbit. A GPS receiver computes its position and
velocity from these pseudo-range determinations.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

23

As Geier states:
GPS receiver 16 is such that it computes a
complete vehicle position/velocity solution from
signals received from at least three GPS satellites
and it computes pseudo ranges (PRs) and pseudo
range rates (PRRs) from signals received from
GPS satellites tracked by the receiver.

Ex. 1005, 4:21-26.

This passage describes that pseudo-ranges are determined with respect to
multiple satellites. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dafesh, in his deposition,
confirms that Geier teaches computing pseudo-ranges and pseudo-range
rates (rate of change of a pseudo-range) from signals received from multiple
satellites. Ex. 1019, 141:18-22.
With regard to the period of time during which pseudo-range
calculations are made, Geier Figure 2 shows the use of Kalman filters
(heading filter 48 and odometer calibration filter 58). Dr. Dafesh, at his
deposition, indicated that Kalman filters are “iterative.” Ex. 1019, 151:19-
25. According to Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Michalson, Kalman filters are
iterative filters that perform calculations based on current measurements and
most recent measurements and are calculated based on the time interval
between two measurements. Ex. 1017 ¶ 29. Dr. Michalson further testifies
that
“[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the calculations required for a
Kalman filter to update its state based on current
measurements must be completed before the next
set of measurements are sent to the filter. This
iterative process is fundamental to the operation of
a Kalman filter.”
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

24

Id. ¶ 29. “Since the outputs to calculator 60 are calculated over a time
interval between measurements, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the displacement Δp calculated by calculator 60 is
necessarily calculated over the time interval between measurements.” Id.
¶ 29. This testimony is unchallenged.
We, therefore, conclude that the limitations of claim 13 are disclosed
by Geier.

D. Anticipation by Anderson of claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 18-20 and 22
1. Anderson Disclosure
Anderson discloses a “field navigation system” for locating a vehicle.
Ex. 1008 Title, Abstract. An embodiment shown in Anderson Figure 2,
reproduced below, locates a vehicle 50 in a field mapped on a Cartesian
coordinate system having a vertical axis labeled “N” (North). Ex. 1008,
Figure 2. By implication the horizontal axis represents “East.”
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

25

Exhibit 1008 Figure 2
The Anderson system includes sensors for measuring heading (flux
compass 12 shown in Anderson Figure 1) and speed (radar gun 24 shown in
Anderson Figure 1). It also includes a GPS Receiver (block 20 in Anderson
Figure 1). A “position computer” 18 receives input from the sensors and
from the GPS and drives a display 32 indicating vehicle position. Ex. 1008,
7:46-57. It is evident from this passage that speed is integrated to obtain a
displacement of position from a previous position to obtain a current
position. Anderson describes using GPS to derive a velocity signal.
Ex. 1008, 12:29-39. It is evident that Anderson updates speed from the
GPS. A new position is determined based on updated speed. Ex. 1008,
Figure 3 (block 84), 7:47-57, and 12:29-39. Anderson specifically mentions
north and east components of displacement at 12:50-55.

IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

26

2. Claims 2 and 18
With regard to claim 2, Patent Owner argues that Anderson does not
teach the claimed “current position” based on Patent Owner’s proposed
construction of “position,” which, according to Patent Owner should be
construed as a geographical location that is ultimately displayed on a map,
such as latitude and longitude coordinates, as shown in Figure 4A of the
’111 patent. PO Resp. 29. As stated above, we disagree with Patent
Owner’s narrow construction of “position.”
Patent Owner argues that the claimed “current position” is not taught
by Anderson. Id. According to Patent Owner, Anderson’s calculated north
and east displacements do not constitute latitude and longitude per Patent
Owner’s construction of “position” because a displacement is not a
coordinate. Petitioners point to Anderson’s Figure 3 description at 12:50-
55 for support:
[t]he updated speed from task 80 and the updated
heading from task 82 are received by a task 84
which calculates a new position of the vehicle at
selected time intervals. North and [E]ast
displacements from the initial position of the
vehicle in the corresponding selected time interval
are calculated using well known trigonometric
functions.

Ex. 1008, 12:50-55.
Our construction of “position” is not so limited. The difference
between an initial coordinate pair and a current coordinate pair constitutes a
displacement of position between those coordinate pairs. We determine,
therefore, that Anderson explicitly discloses obtaining a “position.”
Anderson uses an updated speed and updated heading from task 82 to
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

27

calculate “a new position of the vehicle at selected time intervals.” Ex. 1008,
12:50-52. Specifically, “[n]orth and east displacements from the initial
position of the vehicle in the corresponding selected time interval are
calculated.” Id., 12:52-55.
Figure 2 of Anderson, showing vehicle position, is nearly identical to
Figures 4B and 4D of the ’111 patent. Both use a Cartesian coordinate
system in which the Y-axis represents north and X-axis represents east.
Anderson Figure 3 shows that updated velocity is a direct input to task
84 which calculates a new position. Anderson states at 9:10-19:

Display 32 optionally reports system status to the
operator and prompts the operator for a response.
Display 32 optionally includes a map of all or part
of the area of vehicle operation along with the
current vehicle location. Position can be indicated
as a point on the map, as latitude and longitudinal,
or as a linear offset from the starting point In the
preferred embodiment, the current position is
displayed as north and east offsets from an initial
position represented as (0,0).

We, therefore, conclude that the limitations of claim 2 are disclosed
by Anderson.
Claim 18 also requires east and north displacements. With regard to
claim 18, Patent Owner repeats the same arguments made with respect to
claim 2. PO Resp. 36. For the same reasons stated with respect to claim 2,
we conclude that the limitations of claim 18 are disclosed by Anderson.

IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

28

3. Claims 3 and 20
Patent Owner argues with respect to claim 3 that Anderson does not
teach “sensors providing information used to propagate position if said GPS
velocity information is not available.” PO Resp. 30-31. We disagree.
Anderson describes situations in which GPS velocity information is
not available. See, for example, Ex. 1008, 5:23-27. We interpret
“obstructed” to represent one situation in which GPS velocity information is
not available. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dafesh, indicates on cross-
examination that this passage indicates that Anderson teaches GPS velocity
information not being available in some contexts. See Ex. 1019, 194:6-13.
Patent Owner points to Ex. 1008, 5:61-64:
A flux compass is used to provide the heading
information along with the GPS receiver 20
because GPS receivers such as the Tremble
Acutime receiver do not update heading
information at speeds below 8 k.p.h.

Patent Owner views this portion of Anderson as supporting its view that
Anderson does not teach using sensors to provide information when GPS
velocity information is not available. We draw the opposite conclusion.
Because GPS receivers are inaccurate at low speeds, this passage suggests
that a flux compass (another sensor) is used to provide heading information
when the GPS signal is unreliable (for practical purposes unavailable). In
our view, this portion supports Petitioner’s position that Anderson teaches
using other sources of information when GPS signals are not available.
Claim 20 depends from claim 17 and further requires sensors that are
calibrated based on GPS-derived velocity. Patent Owner makes the same
argument, made with respect to claim 2, that Anderson fails to describe
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

29

propagating “a previous position to a current position.” PO Resp. 37. For
reasons already stated, we are not persuaded by this argument.
Patent Owner also argues that Anderson does not teach “providing
sensor information used to propagate position if said GPS velocity
information is not available.” Id. For the same reasons we stated with
respect to claim 3, we are not persuaded by this argument.

4. Claims 5, 12, and 19
Claim 5 recites “a zero motion detection system which provides a zero
motion signal upon detecting a zero motion state to resolve ambiguity of low
velocity GPS information.” An embodiment of the ’111 patent “zero motion
detect system” is shown in Figure 5 of Ex. 1001 and described at 10:20-44.
Patent Owner correctly notes that the zero motion detect system
compares motion signals to a threshold to determine whether a “zero motion
state” exists. However, that threshold is not necessarily zero. Rather, the
threshold is set to establish a zero motion state when the GPS velocity is too
low to be reliable.
Patent Owner argues that Anderson does not disclose a “zero motion
detection system which provides a zero motion signal upon detecting a zero
motion state to resolve ambiguity of low velocity GPS information.” PO
Resp. 33. Anderson states:
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

30

In addition, at low speeds under 1 m.p.h. the radar
speed signal 26 provided by radar gun 24 is used
by position computer 18 as the main speed
measurement of the vehicle speed even if selective
availability is turned off. This is because at speeds
below 1 m.p.h. GPS receiver 20 does not provide
adequate accuracy.
Ex. 1008, 5:27-32. Patent Owner argued during the hearing that “1” (as in
“below one m.p.h.”) is not “zero” (as in “zero motion”), and that an
anticipation challenge cannot be based on the language of the reference.
Hearing Transcript, Paper 33, pp. 38-42. We disagree. See In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). We determine that one of ordinary skill in the
GPS arts would recognize (and in fact the references tell us) that at low
speeds, GPS velocity is inaccurate and would also recognize that the
Anderson discussion referring to “below 1 m.p.h.” refers to the same
condition described in other texts (including the ’111 patent) as “zero
motion.” See e.g. Anderson 5:27-32.
Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and further requires zero motion
detection to resolve ambiguity of low velocity GPS information. Patent
Owner repeats the argument made with respect to claim 5 that Anderson
fails to teach propagating “a previous position to a current position.” PO
Resp. 36. As stated with respect to claim 5, a radar gun is used to provide a
more accurate measure of speed than can be provided by the GPS. The
claim language (similar to that of claim 5) encompasses the teaching of
Anderson.
With respect to claim 19, Patent Owner repeats its argument made
with respect to claim 2 that Anderson fails to anticipate propagating “a
previous position to a current position.” PO Resp. 36.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

31

Patent Owner also argues with respect to claim 19 that Anderson does
not teach the claimed “zero motion state.” PO Resp. 37. For the reasons set
forth above, we are not persuaded by this argument.
We conclude that claims 5, 12 and 19 are anticipated by Anderson.

5. Claims 11 and 22
Claim 11 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized.
11. The system of claim 10 wherein said sensors is an
orthogonal axes accelerometer. (emphasis added)

Patent Owner argues that Anderson’s reference to “accelerometers
and altimeters” does not teach specifically “orthogonal axes accelerometer”
as recited in claim 11. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dafesh, indicates in his
declaration that there are many different types of accelerometers besides
orthogonal axes accelerometers. Ex. 2005, 6-7. According to Patent Owner,
it does not necessarily follow that Anderson uses an “orthogonal axes
accelerometer.” PO Resp. 34-35. We disagree.
Anderson states: “Accelerometers and altimeters are other optional
supplements to location system 10.” Ex. 1008, 11:24-25. We read the
Anderson disclosure from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the GPS
art. Such a person would understand the use of the word “accelerometers”
in context to mean orthogonal axes accelerometers which are commonly
used in navigation systems to develop a signal representing resolved
components of acceleration. Navigation systems depend upon resolving
displacements and velocities along orthogonal axes. Thus, Anderson
discloses to one of ordinary skill in the GPS art an orthogonal axes
accelerometer.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

32

Independent claim 22 reads as follows (with disputed portions
emphasized):

22. A method of determining a current
position from a previous vehicle position including
the steps of:

providing GPS velocity information;

determining east and north displacements by
integrating said GPS velocity information over a
time interval;

applying said east and north displacements to said
previous position to obtain said current position;

providing longitudinal and lateral acceleration
information by an orthogonal axes accelerometer;

determining longitudinal and lateral calibration
information from said GPS velocity information;
and

calibrating said orthogonal axes accelerometer
with said calibration information.

Patent Owner acknowledges the similarity of claim 22 to claims 1, 10
and 17. PO Resp. 38. Patent Owner argues, as it did with respect to claim
11, that Anderson fails to teach an “orthogonal axes accelerometer. PO
Resp. 39. For the reasons stated with respect to claim 11, we are not
persuaded by this argument.
We conclude that claims 11 and 22 are anticipated by Anderson.

IPR2
Paten

E. A
sens
(usin
desc
Ex. 1
sens
geom
desc
a pro
right
error
calcu
013-0002
t 6,029,1
nticipation
1. Endo
Endo de
ors. Endo
Endo de
g input fro
ribes navig
012, 107.
or (sensing
agnetism
ribed that
blem of se
column o
:
“[P]ositi
lates a sel
6
11
by Endo
Disclosur
scribes a n
Figure 1 i
scribes nav
m sensors
ating usin
The syste
change in
sensor (di
utilize both
nsor error
f page 109
on determ
f-location
of claims 2
e
avigation
s reproduc
End
igating us
) as being
g GPS tec
m include
direction
rection). E
self-cont
in a self-c
. Endo als
ining mean
by adding
33
, 3, 11, 18
apparatus
ed below.
o Figure 1
ing a self-
subject to
hnology th
s a wheel
), an optic
x. 1012, 1
ained and
ontained n
o describe
s integrat
the relativ
and 20
using both

contained
accumula
at is subje
speed sens
al fiber gy
08. Embo
GPS syste
avigation
s correctio
es the first
e position
GPS tech
navigation
ted error.
ct to accu
or, steerin
ro (headin
diments a
ms. Endo
system, al
n of such
velocity v
informati
nology an
system
It also
racy limits
g angle
g), and a
re
identifies
so in the
sensor
ector and
on to the
d

.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

34

initial position.” Ex. 1012, 110, left column.

2. Claims 2, 3, 18, and 20
Patent Owner argues that Endo does not anticipate claims 2, 3, 11, 18
and 20. PO Resp. 39-42.
With regard to claims 2, 3 and 18, Patent Owner argues that Endo
does not anticipate based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of
“position.” PO Resp. 40. Patent Owner asserts that “position” is limited to a
geographical location ultimately displayed on a map, such as latitude and
longitude coordinates.” PO Resp. 40. According to Patent Owner, Endo
does not describe “adding said displacement to a previous position to obtain
a current position.” Id. Also, according to Patent Owner, determining
distance along the X- and Y-axes does not correlate to coordinates such and
latitude and longitude. Id. Therefore, Patent Owner argues, Endo does not
teach obtaining the “current position” of claim 2. PO Resp. 41. We are not
persuaded by Patent Owner’s assertions.
Endo Figure 3 is reproduced below.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

35

Endo Figure 3
Endo describes integrating velocity to obtain a position displacement:
The current position (X’, Y’) can be calculated by
integrating the distance traveled per unit time
along X axis and Y axis from the initial position
(X, Y) by the time between the start of navigation
and the current time.
…

In Figure 3, the positive direction of X-axis is east,
the positive direction of Y axis is north, initial
position is (X, Y) and current position is (X’, Y’).
Also, the velocity vector obtained from the GPS
receiver is shown as Ai, which is the distance
traveled per each unit time, and direction.

Ex. 1012, 113. Upon cross-examination, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dafesh,
agreed that these passages teach obtaining a current position by adding
displacement to a previous position. Ex. 1019, 198:4-7.
We, therefore, conclude that Petitioner has established that the
limitations of claims 2, 3, 18, and 20 are disclosed by Endo.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

36

3. Claim 11
Patent Owner repeats the above argument made with respect to claims
2 and 3 regarding “current position” with respect to claim 11. PO Resp. 41.
For the same reasons, we are not persuaded.
In addition, Patent Owner argues that Endo does not disclose an
“orthogonal axes accelerometer.” Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dafesh, states
that Endo does not mention among its recitation of sensors an accelerometer.
Ex. 2005 ¶ 26. We agree. Unlike Anderson, Endo does not disclose an
accelerometer of any kind.
According to Petitioner, the use of orthogonal axes accelerometers
were well known automotive sensors to one having skill in the art at the time
of Endo. Therefore, Petitioner argues, the claims represent a “predictable
variation” of what is taught by Endo. Pet. Reply 15. That may be so.
However, Petitioner’s challenge is based on anticipation, which requires the
reference to disclose expressly or inherently all features of the claim.
With respect to Anderson, we determined that explicit mention of an
accelerometer infers to one of ordinary skill the use of an orthogonal axes
accelerometer. However, in Endo there is no mention of an accelerometer.
Furthermore, there is no persuasive evidence to suggest that as to
Endo, the presence of an orthogonal axes accelerometer is inherent. Nor is
there evidence to suggest that the use of an orthogonal axes accelerometer
would have been inferred by one of ordinary skill at the time of the
invention. Unlike Anderson, which described an accelerometer, Endo does
not.
IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

37

As such, Petitioner has not met its burden in establishing
unpatentability of claim 11 based on Endo.

IV. CONCLUSION
The ’111 patent issued with claims 1-28. Our Decision to Institute
instituted inter partes review of claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-12, 17-20 and 22.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 were cancelled by separate reexamination which
concluded during the course of this inter partes review.
Petitioner has met its burden of proof, by a preponderance of the
evidence, in showing that:
A. Claim 6 of the ’111 patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) over Maki;
B. Claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 18 and 20 of the ’111 patent are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Geier;
C. Claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 18-20 and 22 of the ’111 patent are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Anderson; and
D. Claims 2, 3, 18 and 20 of the ’111 patent are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) over Endo.
Petitioner has not met its burden in establishing that claims 2 and 18
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Maki and that claim 11
is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Endo.
This is a final decision.

IPR2013-00026
Patent 6,029,111

38

V. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11-13, and 18-20 and 22 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,029,111 are determined to be UNPATENTABLE; and
FURTHER ORDERED that because this is a final written decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

For PETITIONER:

Paul R. Steadman
Matthew D. Satchwell
DLA Piper
paul.steadman@dlapiper.com
matthew.satchwell@dlapiper.com

Mark K. Weinstein
Robert S. Hill
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
marcweinstein@quinnemanuel.com
roberthall@quinnemanuel.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Lance D. Reich
LEE & HAYES, PLLC
lance@leehayes.com
lhdocket@leehayes.com