Denso Corporationv.Beacon Navigation GmbH

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2013

08580150 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2013)

Trials@uspto.gov
571-272-7822
Paper 16
Entered: 24 June 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

DENSO CORPORATION
Petitioner

v.

BEACON NAVIGATION GmbH
Patent Owner
____________

Case IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, GLENN J. PERRY, and
THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION

Request for Rehearing
37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)

IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

2

I. BACKGROUND
Denso Corporation (“Denso”), filed a request for rehearing
(Paper 13, “Req.”) of the decision not to institute inter partes review
(Paper 12, “Dec.”). Denso asks that we institute inter partes review of claims 1-4
of US Patent 5,862,511 patent (“'511 patent”) (See Req. 1).
1
In particular, Denso
asks that we institute an inter partes review as follows:
1. Sewaki anticipates claims 3 and 4; and
2. Yoshinori anticipates claims 1-4. (Req. 2-3).
The Petition set forth “argument” in the form of claim charts that merely
pointed to various portions of the references with no narrative explaining how the
reference portions meet the limitations of the claims. No claim constructions were
proposed. The arguments now presented in the Request were not presented in the
Petition. For the reasons that follow, the Board denies the requested relief.

II. DISCUSSION
The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in
37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part:
A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for
rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The
burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the
party challenging the decision. The request must specifically
identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended
or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously
addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply.

The Request does not point out the place where each matter now argued was
previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. Each of the Request’s

1
The Petition set forth 60 grounds of unpatentability based on 10 references.
Other portions of the Decision are not challenged.
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

3

arguments is presented for the first time. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Nevertheless,
we will address Petitioner’s arguments.

A. The Invention
Claims 1-4 share a common theme. The heading portion of a velocity
vector,
2
used to propagate a previous position to a current position, is updated by
referencing map data when the velocity vector’s heading coincides, within a
threshold, to a corresponding map heading. The summary portion of the ‘511
patent illuminates the meaning of these claims. It explains that “. . . an improved
vehicle navigation system interrogates a map database to obtain heading
information for the mapped path segment which the vehicle is moving on . . .
updates the heading component for the velocity with the heading information from
the map database. The updated velocity is used to propagate the vehicle position.”
Exhibit 1001, 3:7-13.

B. Denso’s Contention that Yoshinori Anticipates Claims 1-4 of the ‘511 Patent

1. Denso’s Contention that The Order of the Rotation and Projection Steps
and the Integration Step in the ‘511 Patent is Not Limiting

Denso argues that claims 1-4 do not require any particular order of the
rotation or projection and integration. Petitioner points to the grammar of portions
of claims 1-4 and notes the use of the conjunctive “and.”
We do not agree that the grammar of claims 1-4 is order neutral. Denso
omits mention of the past tense verb in each of the cited claim portions. Claim 1
“integrates the rotated velocity.” Claim 2 calls for “integrating said projected

2
A velocity vector includes a heading (direction) and a speed.
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

4

velocity.” Claim 3 calls for “integrating rotated velocity.” Claim 4 calls for
“integrating said projected velocity.”
No argument was presented in the Petition related to the order of events
described in claims 1-4. Without any convincing argument to the contrary
presented in the Petition, it was and remains reasonable to infer from the claim
grammar that the claims require integration to occur after updating the heading of
the velocity vector by reference to map data. This grammatically-suggested order
of events is supported by the final paragraph of the “Summary” portion of the ’511
patent quoted above.
Petitioner next argues that evaluating the claims mathematically, as one
skilled in the relevant art would do, also establishes that the order of claimed steps
is not limiting. Req. 5. We are not persuaded by the proffer of this mathematical
proof.
Neither the Petition nor the Request relates the proffered proof to the
teachings of Yoshinori and to the claim language supposedly anticipated so as to
establish that Yoshinori meets the claim language. Furthermore, the mathematical
proof relies on the assumption that “θ (angle of rotation), is “constant” thereby
allowing it to be moved outside the integral.” Req. 5. Petitioner has not presented
persuasive evidence that this presumption is valid for the circumstances being
described and compared.
The Petition “argument” with respect to Yoshinori anticipating claims 1-4 is
set forth at pages 40-43 in the form of a claim chart that points to various pages of
Yoshinori with no narrative explaining the significance of any of the portions of
Yoshinori pointed to. The extent of original argument with respect to Yoshinori
for limitation [f] of claim 1 is simply “Id., 10.” The claim chart portions relating to
claims 2-4 on Yoshinori simply refer back to claim chart entries for claim 1.
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

5

There is no basis for the panel now to determine the applicability and
efficacy of the purported mathematical proof. The Declaration of William
Michalson, Ph.D., supporting the Petition is not helpful in that it merely repeats the
claim chart portions set forth above. It does not provide any reasoning with respect
to significance of events order and how they may relate to Yoshinori. Paragraph
24, the only narrative provided by the Declaration with respect to Yoshinori, states:
In my opinion, at least the portions of Yoshinori cited
below anticipate claims 1–9, 13–14, and 16 of the ’511 patent.
To the extent that any element of the enumerated claims is not
disclosed by Yoshinori, explicitly or implicitly, the addition of
that element is a predictable variation that could have been
implemented by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention.

There is no discussion concerning significance of the order of steps of claims 1-4.

2. Denso’s Contention that Yoshinori Teaches the Integration Step and the
Rotation or Projection Step

a. Denso’s Contention that Yoshinori Teaches Integration

Petitioner argues that Yoshinori teaches integration. We agree. Yoshinori,
and many other references for that matter, teach integrating a velocity vector to
propagate a previous position to a current position. That is the basis for dead-
reckoning. However, claims 1-4 require more. They require that a heading of a
velocity vector, used to propagate a previous position to a current position, be
updated by referencing map data when it can be determined that it coincides,
within a threshold, to a respective map heading. The Petition and Declaration do
not establish persuasively that Yoshinori teaches adjusting the heading of a
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

6

velocity vector based on reference to map data and integrating along the adjusted
bearing to propagate one position to another.

b. Denso’s Contention that A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
Understands that Yoshinori Teaches Rotation or Projection

Petitioner points to a portion of Yoshinori describing “compulsory coincided
with the road” (Req. 7-8 citing Yoshinori Trans. 10) and argues that one of
ordinary skill in the relevant art would have understood that:
1. There are a limited number of methods to move the head of a
displacement vector to the road heading (rotation and projection).
2. The position in Yoshinori is coincided with the road somehow.
Therefore, the relevant ordinarily skilled artisan would have chosen either
rotation or projection.
The proffered ground of unpatentability is based on anticipation, not
obviousness. We are not persuaded by Denso’s logic that Yoshinori teaches
updating the heading of a velocity vector for propagating a previous position to a
current position. Persuasive evidence has not been presented in the Petition and
Declaration that “compulsory coinciding” of the moving vehicle to a map position
necessarily requires updating the velocity vector’s heading.
Petitioner argues that the required claim teachings are inherent in Yoshinori.
However, the Petition did not state that any required teachings were not explicit
and made no reliance upon the doctrine of inherency. Furthermore, Yoshinori does
not explain how the “compulsory coinciding” is carried out. Persuasive evidence
has not been presented that the “compulsory coinciding” described by Yoshinori
necessarily causes updating the velocity vector.
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

7

C. Denso’s Contention that Sewaki Anticipates Claims 3 and 4 of the ‘511 Patent

1. Denso’s Contention that Sewaki Discloses Using Velocity as Required by
Claims 3 and 4

Petitioner points out that claims 3 and 4 do not require that the velocity
vector be derived from a GPS. The panel agrees. However, that does not change
the outcome of our analysis. The Petition and Declaration do not persuasively
establish that it is reasonably likely that Sewaki teaches all of the limitations of
claims 3 and 4.
Claims 3 and 4 require updating
3
the heading portion of a velocity vector
based on a map heading. They further require propagating a previous position to a
current position by integrating the updated velocity vector
4
to obtain a
displacement to apply to a previous position. The heading portion of the velocity
vector is updated by map reference only if the velocity vector heading and the map
heading differ by no more than a threshold. Thus, the claim specifically requires
comparing the heading of the velocity vector and the heading specified by map
data. If they are within a threshold, the heading of the velocity vector is updated
based on map data.
The original Petition and Declaration do not present persuasive evidence that

3
Claim 3 requires updating by “rotating” and claim 4 requires updating by
“projecting.”
4
Integration is with respect to time based on the speed portion of the velocity
vector to obtain a distance displacement.
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

8

Sewaki teaches this. The Petition points to Sewaki [0021]
5
as teaching limitation
[d] of claims 3 and 4.
This paragraph suggests to us that, if available, map matching is used to
“move” the vehicle onto the map (correct error in vehicle position). After this
event occurs, the vehicle position-bearing computation member 6c computes the
position data and the sensor bearing. This paragraph does not state that the
heading of the velocity vector is compared with the heading of the map data.
Further, it does not state that if the heading comparison is within a threshold that
the heading of the velocity vector is updated based on the map heading.
Petitioner now argues that the map matching described by Sewaki (described
at Sewaki [0006]) inherently requires rotating the velocity vector. This is a newly
presented argument. The Petition, as filed, did not rely on inherency. It merely
pointed to various paragraphs of Sewaki without any explanation as to what they
meant or implied. Even if we accept that one must rotate a locus of positional
points to pattern match to map data, this does not necessarily suggest that what is
called for in the claim must be carried out. It does not require that a bearing of the
velocity vector be updated based on the map data. There are many ways to map
match and many ways that map matching is used in navigation. Petitioner’s own
exhibits confirm this. Sewaki talks about more than one manner of map matching.
Petitioner also argues that the use of a threshold is inherently disclosed by
Sewaki (otherwise how would one determine whether map matching were
possible). Again, this is a newly presented argument, not found in the originally
filed Petition. Petitioner now provides a drawing showing one possible manner in
which map matching might take place. This is not a drawing from Sewaki.

5
Petitioner claim chart at page 49 says: “See the disclosures cited in response to
Claim 1[f]” which in turn points to Sewaki [0021]. No explanation about what this
paragraph teaches is provided.
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

9

Sewaki describes a first map matching method as a pattern matching method. It
does not describe the use of a threshold mechanism that compares the bearing of a
velocity vector with a bearing specified by map data. There are many possible
threshold mechanisms that might be employed. For example, one might compare
the distance from a calculated position to the closest point on a known road.
Petitioner now reads into Sewaki considerable teaching that was not argued in the
Petition. No evidence has been presented that the map matching taught by Sewaki
requires correcting the bearing of a velocity vector that is used to propagate to a
next position. One can move a compass showing an incorrect bearing to a new
location. But if it continues to show an incorrect bearing, following that bearing
will again lead the user astray and positional error will again accumulate.

2. Denso’s Contention that Sewaki Inherently Discloses Rotating Velocity as
Required by Claim 3

Petitioner argues that Sewaki inherently discloses 1) rotating velocity as
required by claim 3; and 2) the use of a threshold. Petitioner relies on Sewaki
[0006] as establishing that Sewaki teaches rotating the velocity vector. Req. 10.
Petitioner interprets this paragraph as requiring rotation of the velocity
vector by providing an illustration at the top of page 11 of the Request purports to
explain how pattern matching must be carried out. Yet, Sewaki itself explains that
there are various ways to carry out map matching. Inherent disclosure may not be
established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581
(CCPA 1981).
Petitioner made no argument in the Petition regarding inherency. If
Petitioner intended to so rely, argument should have been presented in the Petition.
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

10

Even if we consider the argument presented for the first time in the
Reconsideration Request, it does not established that it is inherent in Sewaki that
map matching is used to update a velocity vector used to propagate a previous
position to a current position as required by the claim.
The same is true for the threshold. There are various ways that thresholds
are used to map match. For example, one could simply compare the distance of a
supposed position to a nearest map position and apply a distance threshold. Claim
4 requires:
. . .
updating said velocity with said man heading if the
difference between the heading of said velocity and said
map heading are within a threshold; and
. . . (emphasis added)

Claim 4 requires the use of a specific threshold, namely, that the difference
between the “heading” of the velocity vector and a map heading be within a
threshold. No persuasive evidence has been provided that Yoshinori teaches the
comparison of these two headings.

III. CONCLUSIION
Denso’s request for rehearing is denied.

IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

11

Petitioner:

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

Patent Owner:

Lance D. Reich
Lee & Hayes, PLLC
Email: lance@leehayes.com
Email: lhdocket@leehayes.com