Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.v.Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.Download PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 201412132487 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper 78 571-272-7822 Entered: February 11, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. Petitioner v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. Patent Owner ____________ Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 ____________ Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges. LEE, Administrative Patent Judge. FINAL WRITTEN DECISION 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 2 I. INTRODUCTION Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty”) filed a petition on September 16, 2012, requesting a covered business method patent review of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,140,358 (“the ’358 patent”) pursuant to section 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). 1 Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Because the petition raised a total of 422 grounds of unpatentability against 20 claims, the Board considered the petition as containing redundant grounds, and required Liberty to select a subset of those grounds to pursue in this proceeding. Paper 7. Also, prior to receiving a preliminary response from the patent owner, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Progressive”), the Board issued a decision declining to institute review on 196 of the 422 grounds of unpatentability. Paper 8. On November 1, 2012, Liberty filed a paper indicating its selection of a subset of grounds of unpatentability to pursue in this proceeding. Paper 9. On November 26, 2012, the Board issued an order which (1) denied those non-selected grounds which previously were not denied in Paper 8, (2) summarized the alleged grounds of unpatentability remaining in this proceeding, and (3) instructed Progressive to respond only to the remaining alleged grounds of unpatentability. Paper 12. Progressive filed a patent owner preliminary response. Paper 13 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Taking into account Progressive’s preliminary response, the Board determined that the information presented in Liberty’s petition 1 Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011). Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 3 demonstrates that it is more likely than not that each of claims 1-20 of the ’358 patent is unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324, the Board instituted this trial on February 12, 2013, as to claims 1-20 of the ’358 patent. Paper 15 (“Dec.”). During the trial, Progressive filed a patent owner response (Paper 33, “PO Resp.”), and Liberty filed a reply to the patent owner response (Paper 39, “Reply”). Oral hearing was held on October 15, 2013. 2 The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This decision is a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) as to the patentability of claims 1-20 of the ’358 patent. For reasons discussed below, Liberty has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2-18 of the ’358 patent are unpatentable, but not proved that claims 1, 19, and 20 are unpatentable. Therefore, claims 2-18 are herein cancelled. A final written decision in Case CBM2013-00009 is entered concurrently with this decision. A. The ’358 Patent The ’358 patent relates to a vehicle monitoring system. Ex. 1001, Title. A data logging device is disclosed, which tracks the operation of a vehicle and/or operator behavior. Ex. 1001, 1:33-34. A processor reads data from an automotive bus that transfers data from vehicle sensors to other 2 The oral arguments for the instant trial and for CBM2013-00009 were merged and conducted at the same time. A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record as Paper 76. Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 4 components. Id. at 1:40-42. The processor writes data that reflects a level of safety to a storage device. Id. at 1:42-44. A communication device links the data logging device to a network of computers. Id. at 1:44-45. In the Background of the Invention portion of the disclosure of the ’358 patent, preexisting methods for determining cost of insurance are acknowledged, and it is indicated that they gather data from “personal interviews and legacy sources.” Ex. 1001, 1:20-21. It is further indicated that such data may be used to classify applicants into actuarial classes that may be associated with insurance rates. Id. at 1:21-23. According to the ’358 patent, some of such data used to classify risk “is not verified and has little relevance to measuring risk.” Id. at 1:24-25. It is stated in the ’358 patent that the data may not be validated, may be outdated, and may not support new or dynamic risk assessments. Id. at 1:27-29. “Systems may accumulate and analyze significant amounts of data and yet discover that the data does not accurately predict losses.” Id. at 1:25-27. The claims of the ’358 patent are directed to a system that monitors and facilitates a review of data collected from a vehicle that is used to determine a level of safety or cost of insurance. E.g., Ex. 1001, Claim 1. Claim 1 is the only independent claim. Claims 2-20 each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A system that monitors and facilitates a review of data collected from a vehicle that is used to determine a level of safety or cost of insurance comprising: a processor that collects vehicle data from a vehicle bus that represents aspects of operating the vehicle; Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 5 a memory that stores selected vehicle data related to a level of safety or an insurable risk in operating a vehicle; a wireless transmitter configured to transfer the selected vehicle data retained within the memory to a distributed network and a server; a database operatively linked to the server to store the selected vehicle data transmitted by the wireless transmitter, the database comprising a storage system remote from the wireless transmitter and the memory comprising records with operations for searching the records and other functions; where the server is configured to process selected vehicle data that represents one or more aspects of operating the vehicle with data that reflects how the selected vehicle data affects a premium of an insurance policy, safety or level of risk; and where the server is further configured to generate a rating factor based on the selected vehicle data stored in the database. B. Related Proceedings Liberty indicates that the ’358 patent was asserted against it in Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., Case No. 1:10-cv-01370 (N.D. Ohio). Pet. 7. The ’358 patent also is subject to a covered business method patent review in CBM2013-00009. C. Covered Business Method Patent Upon consideration of Liberty’s contentions in the petition and Progressive’s arguments in the preliminary response, the Board, in the Decision on Institution, determined that the ’358 patent is a covered business method patent as defined in section 18(a)(1)(E) of the AIA and 37 C.F.R. § 42.301, because at least one claim of the ’358 patent is directed to a Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 6 covered business method. Dec. 7-16. The Board concluded that the ’358 patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review. Id. at 16. In its patent owner response, Progressive argues that the Board must conduct a claim-by-claim analysis and determine that every challenged claim is directed to a covered business method, before it is authorized, under section 18(a)(1)(E) of the AIA, to review all of the challenged claims. PO Resp. 3-4, n.1. Progressive asserts that the Board exceeded its statutory authority by instituting review of patent claims which the Board has not determined to be directed to a covered business method. Id. Progressive’s argument is based on an erroneous statutory construction that would interpret the word “patent” as “claim” in the statutory provision on what is subject to review. We decline to adopt such an interpretation. As in any statutory construction analysis, we begin with the language of the statute. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 172 (2001); Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 158 (1990); In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “In the absence of a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, the language of the statute itself must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” United States v. James, 478 U.S. 597, 606 (1986) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “It is well settled law that the plain and unambiguous meaning of the words used by Congress prevails in the absence of a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary.” Hoechst AG v. Quigg, 917 F.2d 522, 526 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 7 Section 18(d)(1) of the AIA defines the term “covered business method patent” to mean (emphasis added): [A] patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions. If Congress intended to limit the availability of the covered business method patent review on a claim-by-claim basis, as urged by Progressive, it could have used the term “claim” rather than “patent.” Notably, when specifying the subject matter for review, Congress could have used the language “a claim that is directed to a method or corresponding apparatus” rather than “a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus.” Section 18(d)(1) of the AIA sets forth a single threshold based on just one claim—the satisfaction of which qualifies an entire patent as eligible for review—rather than a test which must be applied on a claim-by-claim basis to justify review of each claim. 3 Therefore, a patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review if the subject matter of at least one claim is directed to a covered business method. Nothing in the legislative history, or other parts of the AIA, requires us to deviate from the plain meaning of the definition set forth in section 18(d)(1) of the AIA, as proposed by Progressive. Moreover, Progressive has not identified any statutory 3 See also Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents – Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012). Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 8 provision or legislative history that requires “each” claim for which trial is instituted to meet the test for a covered business method patent. With respect to Progressive’s argument concerning the Board’s determination that at least one claim of the ’358 patent is directed to a covered business method, Progressive provides no meaningful explanation as to why the Board’s analysis with regard to claim 1 was incorrect. PO Resp. 3-4, n.1. For the foregoing reasons, we disagree with Progressive that the Board exceeded its statutory authority by instituting a covered business method patent review as to claims 2-20 of the ’358 patent. We find no error in the covered business method patent determination set forth in the Decision on Institution. D. Prior Art Relied Upon For the grounds of unpatentability over which the Board instituted review of the ’358 patent, Liberty relies upon the following prior art: Nakagawa U.S. Pub. App. 2002/0128882 Sept. 12, 2002 (Ex. 1005) Stanifer U.S. Patent No. 5,243,530 Sept. 7, 1993 (Ex. 1007) Chang U.S. Patent No. 5,446,757 Aug. 29, 1995 (Ex. 1008) Beaverton U.S. Patent No. 5,210,854 May 11, 1993 (Ex. 1009) Hunt U.S. Patent No. 6,957,133 Oct. 18, 2005 (Ex. 1010) Lowrey U.S. Patent No. 7,228,211 B1 June 5, 2007 (Ex. 1011) Bouchard U.S. Patent No. 5,465,079 Nov. 7, 1995 (Ex. 1014) Kosaka Jap. Pub. App. H4-182868 June 30, 1992 (Ex. 1003) Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 9 Dimitris A. Scapinakis and William L. Garrison, Communications And Positioning Systems In The Motor Carrier Industry, California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH), Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley (January 1, 1992). (“Scapinakis”) (Ex. 1016) QUALCOMM’s MSM6500 Multimedia Single-Chip Solution Enables High-Performance Multimode Handsets Supporting CDMA2000 1X, 1xEV- DO and GSM/GPRS, PR Newswire (November 12, 2002) (“Qualcomm MSM6500”) (Ex. 1019) Nakagawa has a filing date of February 27, 2002. Ex. 1005, Cover. Progressive asserts that claims 1, 9, 19, and 20 of the ’358 patent are entitled to the filing date of grandparent application 09/571,650, filed on May 15, 2000, and therefore, Nakagawa is not prior art as to claims 1, 9, 19, and 20. In Section II.D. below, we determine that Progressive has shown that claims 1, 19, and 20 are entitled to the May 15, 2000, filing date of grandparent application 09/571,650. Thus, Nakagawa is not prior art as to claims 1, 19, and 20. But we determine that Nakagawa is prior art as to claims 2-18. E. Grounds of Unpatentability The Board instituted this covered business method patent review based on the following grounds of unpatentability: Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 10 Claims Basis References 1, 19, 20 § 102 Nakagawa 2 § 103 Nakagawa and Chang 3, 6, 7 § 103 Nakagawa and Stanifer 4 § 103 Nakagawa and Beaverton 5, 8 § 103 Nakagawa and Scapinakis 9 § 103 Nakagawa and Hunt 10, 11, 13-15 § 103 Nakagawa and Lowrey 12 § 103 Nakagawa, Lowrey, and Qualcomm MSM6500 16, 17, 18 § 103 Nakagawa and Bouchard 19, 20 § 103 Nakagawa and Kosaka II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction In a covered business method patent review, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claims terms are 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). A particular embodiment appearing in the written description must not be read into a claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If a feature is not necessary to give meaning to what the Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 11 inventor means by a claim term, it would be “extraneous” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 1. “rating factor”(independent claim 1) In its petition, Liberty urged that “rating factor” should be construed as meaning “a calculated insurance risk value such as a safety score or a usage discount.” Pet. 15:11-14. In support of that assertion, Liberty cited to portions of the specification of the ’358 patent. Pet. 15:14-20 (citing Ex. 1001, 22:23-24, 23:41-47, figs. 8 and 10). Progressive, in its patent owner preliminary response, presented no opposition to that proposed interpretation. In the Decision on Institution, the Board adopted Liberty’s proposed interpretation, but added the clarification that “an insurance risk value would be a value that reflects an associated level of insurance risk and, therefore, also a corresponding insurance premium.” Dec. 6:21-23. In its patent owner response, Progressive stated the following with regard to the Board’s construction of “rating factor”: A person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the Board’s reference to “insurance risk” to mean expected claims losses, and an “associated level of insurance risk” to describe rating factors associated with actuarial classes. PO Resp. 9:15-18 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 39). Progressive’s argument is misplaced. The Decision on Institution is not a patent disclosure or a scientific research paper. It is not written from Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 12 the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. Nor is it specifically written for one with ordinary skill in the art. When responding to an inquiry from the Board regarding the usefulness of such an argument and the cited expert testimony from Michael J. Miller (Ex. 2005 ¶ 39), counsel for Progressive attempted to recast the argument as Mr. Miller’s interpretation of “rating factor.” The pertinent portion of the exchange between the Board and counsel for Progressive is reproduced below: JUDGE LEE: Well, our opinion isn’t a patent document, it isn’t a patent specification, so I'm not sure what the value is for your expert to be interpreting our decision instituting trial from the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. MR. GRIFFITH: I understand, and a completely fair point. So, this is his interpretation of rating factor. Paper 76, 77:6-11. The cited testimony of Mr. Miller is reproduced below: 39. As mentioned above, an actuarial class inherently has associated with it a rate factor and a risk factor. These are calculated insurance risk values. Accordingly, use of an actuarial class within an insurance context necessarily involves generating and using a rating factor. Use of rate factors and risk factors is necessarily part of any insurance charges or premium determination algorithm for an auto insurance program using actuarial classes. Ex. 2005 ¶ 39. The above-quoted testimony does not reflect an opinion of Mr. Miller on what the term “rating factor” means to one with ordinary skill in the art. Mr. Miller is expressing an opinion that if “actuarial classes” are relied on Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 13 for calculating an insurance premium, it necessarily involves use of rate factors and risk factors. Thus, “rating factor” is construed to mean “a calculated insurance risk value such as a safety score or a usage discount,” with the clarification that “an insurance risk value would be a value that reflects an associated level of insurance risk and, therefore, also a corresponding insurance premium.” The construction is broad, and does not require the use or reliance on “actuarial classes” to generate a rating factor. Nothing from the disclosure of the ’358 patent requires importing such an extraneous requirement into the claims. Similarly, “a corresponding insurance premium” refers to a general level of insurance premium, not necessarily any specific dollar amount of premium. 2. “selected vehicle data” (independent claim 1) Claim 1 recites a processor that collects vehicle data from a vehicle bus that represents aspects of operating the vehicle, and a memory that stores “selected vehicle data” related to a level of safety or an insurable risk in operating a vehicle. Claim 1 further recites a wireless transmitter configured to transfer the “selected vehicle data” retained within the memory to a distributed network and a server. Claim 1 additionally requires a database operatively linked to the server to store the “selected vehicle data” transmitted by the wireless transmitter, and recites that the server is configured to process “selected vehicle data” that represents one or more aspects of operating the vehicle with data that reflects how the “selected vehicle data” affects a premium of an insurance policy, safety or level of Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 14 risk. Finally, claim 1 recites that the server is further configured to generate a rating factor based on the “selected vehicle data” stored in the database. Liberty, in its petition, did not propose an interpretation for “selected vehicle data.” Progressive, in its patent owner response, urges that “selected vehicle data” be interpreted as including “certain vehicle data that relates to a level of safety or an insurable risk in operating a vehicle.” PO Resp. 10:6- 8. The interpretation proposed by Progressive is not meaningful, as claim 1 itself expressly introduces “selected vehicle data” by the phrase: “a memory that stores selected vehicle data related to a level of safety or an insurable risk in operating a vehicle.” Ex. 1001, (emphasis added). Progressive does not explain any reasoning for according the term “selected vehicle data,” itself, the meaning provided by the above-emphasized descriptive phrase that immediately follows the term. We see no appropriate basis for doing so. Claim terms are not construed properly in a vacuum. It is appropriate to consider the surrounding context. Claim 1 begins by reciting: “a processor that collects vehicle data from a vehicle bus that represents aspects of operating the vehicle.” There is no mention in that introductory recitation of the vehicle data being “selected.” That recitation is followed by: “a memory that stores selected vehicle data related to a level of safety or an insurable risk in operating a vehicle,” which limits the referenced vehicle data to those that are related to a level of safety or an insurable risk in operating a vehicle. From that perspective, the vehicle data has undergone a selection. That could be the only reason why “vehicle data” is prefaced by the word “selected” in the recitation of the memory element. Under the rule Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 15 of broadest reasonable interpretation, “selected vehicle data” means nothing substantively more than “certain vehicle data.” In that regard, note that the interpretation urged by Progressive also starts with “certain vehicle data,” prior to repeating what already is specified elsewhere in the claim. Our interpretation is consistent with the disclosure of the ’358 patent. For instance, the disclosure states that vehicle data elements monitored and/or recorded include raw data elements, calculated data elements, and derived data elements. Ex. 1001, 7:11-13. It is evident that the term is meant to be inclusive, not restrictive. Thus, we do not limit “selected vehicle data” to just raw data sensed by sensors. Instead, it covers processed or calculated vehicle data. In summary, we reiterate that “selected vehicle data” means “certain vehicle data,” and note that it covers vehicle data transformed by processing or calculation. The particular forms of processing and calculation referenced in the specification merely are examples, and we do not consider them as limitations on the covered transformation, under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation. 3. “database” (independent claim 1) Liberty, in its petition, does not offer an interpretation for “database.” Progressive, in its patent owner response, states that the term “database” is used in its ordinary sense in the disclosure of the ’358 patent. PO Resp. 10:10-11. Progressive asserts, citing Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, that “database” means “a file composed of records, each containing fields together with a set of operations for searching, sorting, recombining, and Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 16 other functions.” PO Resp. 10:15-19 (citing Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 129 (3d ed. 1997) (Ex. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The assertion is supported by the declaration testimony of Ivan Zatkovich (Ex. 2007 ¶ 21), and is not specifically disputed by Liberty in its reply. We generally agree with Progressive’s proposed interpretation, except that under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, we determine that a basic database need not have all of the functions of searching, sorting, recombining, and additional unspecified “other functions.” Progressive’s expert witness, Mr. Zatkovich, does not explain where a line would be drawn, that denotes the bare minimum for a memory to qualify as a database. On the evidence before us, we construe a database as “a memory in which the stored data are searchable by the content of a particular field in the data entries stored therein.” Other more sophisticated functions, such as sorting and recombining are not required. 4. “record” (independent claim 1) Liberty, in its petition, does not offer an interpretation for “record.” Progressive, in its patent owner response, states that the term “record” should be accorded its ordinary meaning when used in the context of a database record, as is the case in the disclosure of the ’358 patent. PO Resp. 11:3-4. Citing Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Progressive asserts that “record” means “[a] data structure that is a collection of fields (elements) each with its own name and type.” PO Resp. 11:4-7 (citing Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 399 (3d ed. 1997) (internal quotation Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 17 marks omitted)). The assertion is supported, partially, by the declaration testimony of Ivan Zatkovich, Ex. 2007 ¶ 23. We say partially supported because Mr. Zatkovich refers to what was generally known, or the standard format for a database record. Mr. Zatkovich does not explain the bare minimum for qualifying a data entry as a database record. It is not clear from Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony (1) how many separate fields must a record include, and (2) whether each field must have both a “name” and “type” attribute. We agree with Progressive’s proposed interpretation, except that under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, we determine that a record need have only one searchable field, and that the searchable field need have only one associated attribute, such as “name” or “type.” Thus, a “record” in the context of the database recited in claim 1 is “a data entry item, having a structure that includes at least one searchable field with an associated attribute, such as name or type.” B. Alleged Anticipation of Claims 1, 19, and 20 Liberty asserts that claims 1, 19, and 20 are unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as anticipated by Nakagawa. Pet. 22, 70, 76. In support of that asserted ground of unpatentability, Liberty provides detailed explanations as to how each claim element, arranged as is recited in these claims, is disclosed by Nakagawa. Pet. 22-26, 70-71, 76. Liberty’s petition also relies on the declaration testimony of Mr. Scott Andrews (Ex. 1025). Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 18 Upon review of Liberty’s petition, Progressive’s response, and Liberty’s reply, we determine that Liberty has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each element of claims 1, 19, and 20, arranged as it is recited in the claims, is disclosed by Nakagawa. However, because claims 1, 19, and 20, are entitled to an effective filing date of May 15, 2000, as determined in Section II.D. below, Nakagawa is not prior art to claims 1, 19, and 20. Therefore, we determine that claims 1, 19, and 20 are not unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as anticipated by Nakagawa. Nevertheless, we proceed to discuss how each element of independent claim 1 is disclosed by Nakagawa, because those findings are the basis for the conclusion of obviousness of dependent claims 2-18 over respective prior art combinations, including Nakagawa as disclosing all of the elements of independent claim 1. 1. Nakagawa Nakagawa’s disclosed invention relates to a vehicle insurance premium calculation system, onboard apparatus, and server apparatus. Ex. 1005, Title. The system includes a usage status detection means for detecting the usage status of a vehicle, a data input means for inputting data relating to the maintenance or management of a vehicle, and an insurance premium calculation means for calculating vehicle insurance premium based on detection results and inputted data. Ex. 1005, Abst; ¶ 0006. In its description of related art, Nakagawa refers to another insurance premium calculation system, that is based on the monitoring, recording, and communication of data showing the operating characteristics of the operator Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 19 and vehicle, and that retroactively adjusts the insurance premium by linking operating characteristics to prescribed safety standards, as well as sets the future premium. Id. at ¶ 0004. That other system includes a process that monitors a multiplicity of data elements showing the actions of operators or how the car is being operated. Id. Selected data elements having a prescribed relationship with a prescribed safety standard are recorded, for determining any additional charge or discount that should be applied to the basic premium, when the recorded data are processed in an insurance company profile. Id. With regard to the related art, Nakagawa states that it has been difficult for insurance companies to prove that a vehicle has been maintained and serviced properly because the premium is calculated based solely on information relating to the vehicle’s operation and history of use of safety equipment. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0005. In that regard, Nakagawa states: That is, it was not possible to calculate car insurance premiums that took into account whether or not components such as tires and brake pads, used to run a vehicle safely, have been serviced or maintained. This system aims to calculate appropriate vehicle insurance premiums by taking into account the maintenance and servicing history of the vehicle. Id. Thus, Nakagawa discloses a system and method for calculating insurance premium based on both (1) detected data indicating the usage status of a vehicle as detected by a detecting means, and also (2) inputted data relating to vehicle servicing or maintenance. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 0006, 0007. Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 20 In that regard, Nakagawa describes that the usage status of a vehicle refers to the way in which a vehicle is operated by the driver or to the installation status of equipment for protecting passengers. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0007. Nakagawa’s Figure 1 is reproduced below: Figure 1 illustrates a broad conceptual diagram of Nakagawa’s system and method for calculating vehicle insurance premium. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 0036, 0048. An onboard apparatus is installed on the vehicle, which collects, via various sensors, information relating to the driver’s operation of the vehicle, and information relating to the installation status of safety equipment. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0048. That collected information is transmitted from onboard the vehicle to the insurance company via radio communication. Id. Contract repair factory 3 is aware of whether or not the user of the vehicle has serviced the vehicle regularly at the facility. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0049. When vehicle inspection and service is carried out at contract repair factory 3, that information is sent from contract repair factory 3 to the insurance company, via either radio or wired communication. Id. The insurance company Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 21 calculates the insurance premium, based on the information transmitted from the vehicle and the information transmitted from the contract repair factory, in the form of an increase or decrease of a base premium. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0050. Information relating to any adjustment in premium is transmitted via radio communication from the insurance company to the vehicle, and then displayed for viewing by the user of the vehicle. Id. Figure 2 of Nakagawa is reproduced below: The technical components of one embodiment of Nakagawa’s system for calculating vehicle insurance premiums are illustrated in Figure 2. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 0037, 0052. They include onboard apparatus 4 in the vehicle, maintenance data management means 5 in contract repair factory 3, and server apparatus 6 at the car insurance company. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0052. Onboard apparatus 4 includes operation status detection means or detector 7 that detects how a car is being operated by a user, installation status detection Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 22 means or detector 8 that detects whether or not equipment for protecting passengers has been installed, onboard radio part 9 that sends and receives data by radio, and display means 10 that displays data. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0053. Those components are all connected via control bus 11 to onboard control part 12, which is a processor. Id. The disclosure of Nakagawa describes the operating status of a vehicle by a user, as well as the installation status of equipment for protecting passengers, as “vehicle usage status.” Id. The following description conveys the nature of the vehicle usage status information collected by operation status detection means 7: The operating status detection means 7 consists of various sensors. It detects how the accelerator is used by the user of car 1, the speed at which the car is driven, how the anti- lock braking (or brake) system (ABS) is working, the time, changes in engine revolutions, transmission settings (parking, reverse, drive, neutral), and use of left and right indicators and of headlamps. It then outputs this information as data. It can detect the current location of a car using a global positioning satellite (or system) (GPS) and uses a G sensor to detect deceleration and acceleration and braking. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0054. The following description conveys the nature of the vehicle usage status information collected by installation status detection means 8: The installation status detection means 8 consists of various sensors that detect the installation status of safety equipment. It detects seatbelts installation status, child seat installation status, and the position in which head rests are used and outputs information as data. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0055. Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 23 Nakagawa states that onboard control part 12 contains a memory, which is not shown in the drawings. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0058. Nakagawa further states: “[t]his memory stores data collected by operating status detection means 7 and installation status detection means 8 and data received via radio by on-board radio part 9.” Id. Also, according to the Nakagawa, data collected by operating status detection means 7 and installation status detection means 8 are sent to radio part 9, via control bus 11 under the control of onboard control part 12, and radio part 9 sends such data to server apparatus 6 at insurance company 2. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0056. Server apparatus 6 calculates an insurance premium based on data received from onboard apparatus 4 and maintenance data management means 5. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0061. Nakagawa’s Figure 5 is reproduced below: Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 24 Figure 5 is a flowchart illustrating the operation in which vehicle insurance premium calculation means 20 in server apparatus 6 calculates vehicle insurance premiums. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0069. Specifically, in onboard apparatus 4, “usage data” is read from the memory in onboard control part 12, and onboard radio part 9 sends the data—read from memory—together with an associated User ID, to server apparatus 6 located at the insurance company. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0069. Thereafter, control part 22 at the insurance company updates the user data stored in memory, at the insurance company, that correspond to the received User ID, with the data received from onboard apparatus 4. Id. In that regard, Nakagawa describes that the latest data collected by onboard apparatus 4 and the latest data collected at contract repair factory 3 are stored within control part 22 at the insurance company as user data. Id. Next, insurance premium calculation part 20 reads the “user data,” corresponding to a User ID, in the memory of control part 22, and calculates the insurance premium applicable to the associated user for the next insurance term. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0070. Nakagawa describes that the insurance premium is calculated by determining a discount or a surcharge based on a prescribed standard value. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0072. For instance, when user data indicate speeding, non-use or misuse of seatbelts, or worn brake pads, the calculation will result in an increased premium. Id. When user data indicate appropriate driving, appropriate use of seatbelts, and timely replacement of brake pads and hoses, the calculation will result in a discount from the standard premium. Id. The results of insurance premium calculation are sent, by radio, to onboard Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 25 apparatus 4, and display means 10 displays the calculated insurance premium. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0073. 2. Discussion 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). Our analysis will focus on each of the three deficiencies alleged by Progressive in its patent owner response with regard to claim 1. Progressive identifies three elements of claim 1, as not disclosed by Nakagawa. Progressive asserts that Nakagawa does not disclose that (a) “selected vehicle data,” retained within memory, is transferred to a distributed network and a server; (b) a database operatively linked to the server; and (c) the server being configured to generate a rating factor. a. Selected Vehicle Data, Retained within Memory, is Transferred As correctly noted by Progressive (PO Resp. 20-21), claim 1 recites (1) a processor that collects vehicle data from a vehicle bus that represents aspects of operating the vehicle; (2) a memory that stores selected vehicle data related to a level of safety or an insurable risk of operating the vehicle; and (3) a wireless transmitter configured to transfer the selected vehicle data retained within the memory to a distributed network and a server. Progressive asserts, however, that there is no disclosure in Nakagawa that “selected vehicle data” is stored within memory and transferred by the Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 26 wireless transmitter to a network and server. PO Resp. 21:8-10. Citing to the declaration testimony of Ivan Zatkovich (Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 39-43) for support, Progressive states that although Nakagawa does collect vehicle data from a control bus, using various sensors to detect how a user is operating the car, Nakagawa does not disclose storing “selected vehicle data” in memory and transferring that “selected vehicle data” by wireless transmitter. PO Resp. 21:11-15. For reasons discussed below, the argument is unpersuasive. It is true that, according to claim 1, the selected vehicle data that is stored in memory has to be related to a level of safety or an insurable risk of operating the vehicle. It does not matter whether that characteristic of the stored data is derived from the meaning of “selected vehicle data,” as argued by Progressive, or from a separate limitation recited in the claim, as we have determined above in the section of the decision on claim interpretation. What Progressive argues is that Nakagawa does not disclose storing in memory, or transferring to a distributed network and a server, certain vehicle data which are related to a level of safety or an insurable risk of operating the vehicle. The argument is unpersuasive. It is contradicted by our findings on Nakagawa’s disclosure, as discussed below. Nakagawa describes the operating status of a vehicle by a user, as well as the installation status of equipment for protecting passengers, as “vehicle usage status.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 0053. Nakagawa describes that the usage status of a vehicle refers to the way in which a vehicle is operated by the driver or the installation status of equipment for protecting passengers. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0007. Nakagawa describes that its vehicle insurance premium Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 27 calculation system comprises a usage status detection means that detects the usage status of a vehicle, a data input means through which data relating to vehicle servicing or maintenance is input, and an insurance premium calculation means that calculates vehicle insurance premiums based on the detection results and input data. Ex. 1005, Abst.; ¶ 0006. Thus, whether or not expressly referred to as vehicle “usage data,” the information detected by the usage status detection means, which reflects the “usage status” of the vehicle, is vehicle “usage data.” This usage status detection means, described in the Summary of the Invention portion of Nakagawa, is broken down into two parts in the Description of Preferred Embodiments portion of Nakagawa, i.e., operating status detection means and installation status detection means. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 0053-55. Nakagawa’s operating status detection means detects how a car is operated by a user, such as how the accelerator is used, how fast is the vehicle being driven, and how the anti-lock braking system or braking system is working, whereas Nakagawa’s installation status detection means detects the installation status of safety equipment such as seatbelts, child seats, and head rests. Id. Thus, the data collected by Nakagawa’s operating status means and Nakagawa’s installation status detection means are related to a level of safety or an insurable risk of operating the vehicle, and thus, constitute “selected vehicle data” related to a level of safety or an insurable risk of operating the vehicle. Nakagawa describes that onboard control part 12 includes a memory, which stores the data collected by the operating status detection means and Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 28 the installation status detection means. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0058. Nakagawa also describes that data collected by the operating status detecting means and installation status detection means are sent to onboard radio part 9, which sends the information to an insurance company. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0056. In another part of its disclosure, Nakagawa describes, in connection with the overall operational flowchart illustrated in Figure 5, that vehicle “usage data” is read from the memory within onboard control part 12, and radio part 9 sends the usage data, thus read, together with an associated User ID, to server apparatus 6 at the insurance company. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0069. The operational flowchart of Figure 5 illustrates no other transmission from the vehicle. Progressive’s argument (PO Resp. 21:18 to 22:6), and the supporting testimony of its expert witness Mr. Zatkovich (Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 40, 41), both narrowly focus on only one paragraph of Nakagawa’s disclosure, i.e., ¶ 0065, which is reproduced below: In step S2, the on-board control part 12 determines whether the operation and installation statuses of a vehicle are safe or dangerous based on data collected from operating status detection means 7 and installation status detection means 8. When it determines that both the operating and installation statuses are safe, the degree of safe operation is recorded in point form (step S3). When it determines that the statuses are dangerous, the danger status is recorded in point form (step S4). The data stored in steps S3 and S4 are stored in the memory provided in the on-board control part 12 as “usage data” (step S5). Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 29 We agree with Liberty (Reply 4:4 to 5:9) that the above-quoted paragraph is disclosure additional to all the description in Nakagawa of collecting information on vehicle usage status, storing them, and transferring them. Note, in particular, the description in ¶ 0056 of Nakagawa that data collected by the operating status detection means and the installation status detection means are sent to the onboard radio for transfer to the insurance company, and the description in ¶ 0058 that a memory in onboard control part 12 stores the data collected by the operating status detection means and the installation status detection means. Progressive does not explain adequately why information about the usage status of the vehicle, as collected by what Nakagawa refers to in its Summary of the Invention as usage status detection means, implemented in Nakagawa’s preferred embodiments as operating status detection means and installation status detection means, are not vehicle “usage data.” Progressive also does not explain adequately why the description in ¶ 0068 of Nakagawa that vehicle “usage data” is read from memory and sent, when “thus read,” by radio part 9 to the insurance company, refers only to the point scores described in ¶ 0065 of Nakagawa. Progressive does not explain adequately why vehicle “usage data” does not cover data collected by the operating status detection means and the installation status detection means, which are stored in memory as described in ¶ 0058 of Nakagawa. Nakagawa’s ¶ 0065 expressly labels the point scores as “usage data.” That, however, does not change the fact that information collected by a “usage status detection means,” implemented in Nakagawa as operating Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 30 status detection means and installation status detection means, about the “usage status” of the vehicle, is vehicle “usage data.” The point scores, by their nature, are even one step more removed from being usage data, than the collected data themselves, because of the application of additional processing to produce the point scores. The collected data does not require express labeling to constitute “usage data.” Furthermore, Nakagawa’s ¶ 0069 does not follow immediately from ¶ 0065, and does not expressly refer to the point scores noted in ¶ 0065. Nakagawa’s ¶ 0069 discusses an overview of the entire system for calculating insurance premium by beginning with the language: “Next, the operation in which the server apparatus 6 calculates the car insurance premiums will be explained. FIG. 5 is a flowchart that shows the operation in which the car insurance premium calculation means 20 in server apparatus 6 calculates car insurance premiums.” The only transmission of data from the vehicle to the insurance company, as illustrated in Figure 5, is vehicle usage data and an associated User ID. That fact logically reflects that the reference in Nakagawa’s ¶ 0069 to reading usage data from memory and sending data, thus read, to the insurance company, is directed not only to the point scores discussed in ¶ 0065, but also to the usage status information collected by the operating status detection means and the installation status detection means. In that connection, Progressive has not offered a reasoned explanation as to why that is not the case. In any event, on the basis of our construction of the claim phrase “selected vehicle data” as sufficiently broad to cover vehicle data Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 31 transformed by processing or calculation, we agree with Liberty’s contention that the point scores described in ¶ 0065 of Nakagawa themselves constitute “selected vehicle data.” Therefore, for that reason as well, Progressive’s argument that the “usage data” referred to in Nakagawa’s ¶ 0068 are merely the point scores described in Nakagawa’s ¶ 0065, are unavailing. The point scores are stored in memory, read from memory, and sent, thus read, to server apparatus 6 at the insurance company through radio part 9. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0068. b. A Database Operatively Linked to the Server Claim 1 requires that there be a database operatively linked to the server to store the selected vehicle data transmitted by the wireless transmitter, and specifies that the database comprises records with operations for searching the records and other functions. The language is broad, particularly with respect to “and other functions,” which is met simply with storage and retrieval functionality, apart from searching. With regard to the term “database,” we have construed it as “a memory in which the stored data are searchable by the content of a particular field in the data entries stored therein.” We have construed the term “record,” in the context of the database, as “a data entry item, having a structure that includes at least one searchable field with an associated attribute, such as name or type.” Therefore, a memory in Nakagawa’s disclosed server would be a “database,” if its data entries have a structure that includes at least one searchable field, and if the memory is searchable by the content within that field. Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 32 Citing the testimony of its expert witness Scott Andrews (Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 22, 25, 35, 36), Liberty, in its petition, asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Nakagawa’s disclosure of storing selected vehicle data in a memory on the server, and updating that stored data corresponding to an ID, explicitly teaches, or inherently discloses, use of a database. Pet. 25:2:18-24. Progressive, on the other hand, cites the testimony of its expert witness Mr. Ivan Zatkovich (Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 35, 36, 49, 55), and asserts that the Nakagawa disclosure, relied on by Liberty, merely discloses a generic memory, which may or may not be a database, and only describes the general updating of stored data within the memory that have corresponding User IDs also transferred from the vehicle. PO Resp. 24:15- 18, 25:1-3. Progressive asserts that general disclosure of “updating” stored data, which corresponds to a received User ID, does not teach storage of records in a database or operations for searching the records. PO Resp. 25:1-6. According to Progressive, Nakagawa does not describe the format, if any, in which any data is stored in the memory within the server. PO Resp. 24:18- 20. In that connection, Mr. Zatkovich testifies that the step of adding a corresponding User ID to the data being transferred from the vehicle to the remote server “does not introduce any database requirements for that data.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 49. For reasons discussed below, Liberty has established that the memory in Nakagawa’s server apparatus 6 is a database. We credit the testimony of Mr. Andrews over that of Mr. Zatkovich. According to Mr. Andrews, Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 33 Nakagawa discloses storing, in the server, the corresponding User ID together with the vehicle data. Ex. 1025 ¶ 36. We do not take Mr. Andrews’s testimony as meaning that the User ID must be stored at a location contiguous to the location storing the corresponding vehicle data. That is not Mr. Andrews’s testimony. Rather, Mr. Andrews testifies that, in Nakagawa, the User ID also is stored and that a link is maintained between the stored vehicle usage data and the corresponding user ID. Id. That testimony supports Liberty’s contention that Nakagawa’s server memory is searchable by User ID. Paragraph 36 of the declaration of Mr. Andrews is reproduced below: Nakagawa discloses storing a driver’s vehicle data (“usage data”) in a memory on a server along with an ID for that driver. Id. at ¶ [0069]. Nakagawa also describes updating the driver’s usage data stored in the server’s memory that corresponds to the ID. Id. These data are thus stored so as to create a correspondence between a driver’s stored “usage data” and an ID. Such a correspondence would be understood by one skilled in the art as indicating a database. Ex. 1025 ¶ 36. Mr. Andrews also testifies that for the stored user data to be recorded in memory in a way that can be located and retrieved later based on a corresponding User ID, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such data are stored in a form that maintains a link between the user data and the corresponding User ID. Ex. 1034 ¶ 22. Mr. Andrews further testifies that Nakagawa discloses the functionality of searching the user data within the server memory. Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 28, 31. Mr. Andrews refers to Nakagawa’s disclosure that control part 22 Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 34 “updates” the user data recorded in the server memory that corresponds to the received ID, and then explains that, to update such stored data keyed to a particular user, the server necessarily must locate and retrieve, i.e., search, one or more specific records from among the many records so that changes can be made to a particular driver’s data. Ex. 1034 ¶ 28. The above-noted testimony of Mr. Andrews is persuasive. Because the data entries corresponding to particular User IDs have to be updated later, it is logical that the User IDs have to be stored, that a link has to be maintained between each data entry and its corresponding User ID, and that the entries are searchable by User ID. Because of the presence of a link between each User ID and the data corresponding to that User ID, each data entry item has a field, the content of which is the User ID, which represents a name for the corresponding data entry. Mr. Zatkovich does not explain sufficiently his testimony (Ex. 2007 ¶ 49) that adding a corresponding User ID to the vehicle data sent by onboard radio part 9 to server apparatus 6 does not introduce any disclosure about a database in server apparatus 6. For instance, he does not explain why a link need not be maintained between each User ID and the corresponding user data, such that each data entry item includes a field containing the corresponding User ID, by which the data entry is searchable. Mr. Zatkovich states that data need not be stored as records to be stored in memory. Ex. 2007 ¶ 49. However, Mr. Zatkovich’s reference to a “record” is based on Progressive’s proposed construction of a “record,” and not on the Board’s construction of “record.” Mr. Zatkovich does not refute adequately Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 35 all the evidence discussed above supporting a finding that Nakagawa discloses storing both vehicle data, as well as the User ID to which the vehicle data corresponds, and maintaining a link between each vehicle data item and its corresponding User ID. That disclosure sufficiently accounts for the requirements of a database “record.” There is no requirement that the actual data and its corresponding User ID be stored in contiguous physical locations. Mr. Zatkovich testifies that Nakagawa’s server functionality can be achieved with simple arrays, which use indexes to reference a value stored in an array, because what are stored in Nakagawa’s server are merely point values rather than different types of data. Ex. 2007 ¶ 55. For several reasons, that testimony is not helpful for Progressive’s contention that Liberty has not shown that Nakagawa’s server memory is a database. First, we have determined above that Nakagawa’s onboard device does not merely send certain point values, converted from vehicle data, but also sends different types of vehicle data to the server apparatus. Second, Progressive has not shown why the combination of an array and its index does not constitute a “database” under the Board’s construction of the term. In that regard, Progressive does not explain why it is not the case that the use of an index to reference the array contents indicates that the User IDs are stored in the index, that the index holds the name field linked to each of the data entries in the array, and that the array is searchable by the field in the index. Third, the ’358 patent itself regards arrays as a database. Ex. 1001, 31:36-41. Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 36 For all of the foregoing reasons, Liberty has shown, not by principles of inherent disclosure, but direct disclosure, that Nakagawa’s server apparatus 6 is operatively linked to a database, as is required by claim 1 of the ’358 patent. c. Server Configured to Generate a Rating Factor Claim 1 recites that “the server is further configured to generate a rating factor based on the selected vehicle data stored in the database.” Progressive’s argument that Nakagawa’s server does not generate any rating factor is unpersuasive. Progressive contends that a “rating factor” must be tied, somehow, to expected claim losses or actuarial classes. PO Resp. 29. That argument is unpersuasive, because it presents an issue of claim interpretation, and we have rejected Progressive’s position on the meaning of “rating factor.” We have construed “rating factor” to mean “a calculated insurance risk value such as a safety score or a usage discount,” where “an insurance risk value would be a value that reflects an associated level of insurance risk and, therefore, also a corresponding insurance premium.” In that context, “a corresponding insurance premium” refers to a general level of insurance premium, not necessarily any specific dollar amount of premium. Liberty, in its petition (Pet. 26:2:12-37), correctly regards the aggregate “operating levels” described in Nakagawa’s ¶ 0076 as constituting a “rating factor.” Nakagawa’s ¶ 0076 is reproduced below: Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 37 FIG.7 shows an example of a screen display in step ST10 in FIG. 5. Here, user operating levels and discount rates for insurance premiums up until the previous month are shown in graph form based on data relating to the driving operation of the car from the start of the month to the present. That is, at the end of each month, the evaluation of operating levels for one month is calculated in numeric form and displayed to reflect the amount by which the insurance premium will be multiplied. The operating levels show driving techniques and the level of safe driving as points which are then evaluated as numbers. For example, in the evaluation of driving techniques, G sensors installed in a car are used to detect whether or not deceleration occurs smoothly without any locking of tires and whether or not curves in the road are handled without unreasonable steering. The findings are then converted into points. In the evaluation of safe driving, inter-car distance sensors are used to detect whether or not a safe distance is being maintained between vehicles to suit the running speed. The finding is then converted into points. The operation level, as shown in points, is displayed as a bar graph as shown in FIG. 7. It can be seen that operating levels improved in September when compared to May. The discount rates applied to the insurance are displayed in a broken line graph. Thus it can be seen that as operating levels improve, the discount applied to the insurance increases and the car insurance premium payable by the user decreases. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0076. The above-quoted text refers to a sample screen display according to step ST10 in Nakagawa’s Figure 5, which states: “DISPLAY RESULTS.” Step ST7 states: “CALCULATE INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR NEXT TERM.” Ex. 1005, Fig. 5. Step ST8 states: “SEND RESULTS INFORMATION.” Id. Step ST9 states: “RECEIVE RESULTS INFORMATION.” Id. Nakagawa describes that in step ST7, it is insurance Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 38 premium calculation part 20 on the server side, which calculates the insurance premium. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0070. Nakagawa describes that when insurance premium calculation part 20 on the server side has calculated the car insurance premium, it sends the results, in step ST8, to onboard apparatus 4. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0073. Nakagawa further describes that display means 10 on the vehicle then displays the received information. Id. Another portion of Nakagawa also describes that insurance premium is calculated on the server side, sent back to the vehicle, and then displayed onboard. Ex. 1005 ¶ 0062. Based on the foregoing, it is the server apparatus which generates the operating levels and calculates an appropriate insurance premium on the basis of that operating level. Progressive, however, argues that it is the onboard apparatus which determines the operating levels referred to in Nakagawa’s ¶ 0076. The argument is unpersuasive. Progressive relies on the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich (Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 39, 40), which narrowly focuses on ¶ 0065 of Nakagawa’s disclosure, as it has with regard to its earlier argument that Nakagawa does not send selected vehicle data to a remote server. PO Resp. 28. As we have discussed above, Nakagawa’s ¶ 0065 does describe the generation, onboard the vehicle, of certain point scores reflecting the safety or danger status of the vehicle. But Progressive has not shown that negates or replaces the processing described in Nakagawa’s ¶ 0076 in connection with the calculation of an insurance premium, which occurs within server apparatus 6. Indeed, ¶ 0076 of Nakagawa refers to the actual evaluation of data and subsequent conversion Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 39 of the findings of the evaluation into point scores, and not simply reading certain point values already generated by the onboard apparatus and transmitted to the server. Furthermore, Liberty correctly notes that the point scores referred to in Nakagawa’s ¶ 0076 are aggregate values over an extended time period, e.g., one month, which can affect or influence the level of insurance premium, whereas that is not the case for the individual point scores referred to in Nakagawa’s ¶ 0065. In any event, Progressive has not shown that the point scores described in Nakagawa’s ¶ 0065 are the same point scores described in Nakagawa’s ¶ 0076, or that the process described in Nakagawa’s ¶ 0076 refers to the onboard procedure described in Nakagawa’s ¶ 0065. 3. Conclusion For reasons discussed above, Liberty has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each element of independent claim 1, arranged as is recited in the claim, is disclosed by Nakagawa. C. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 2-20 Each of claims 2-20 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Each of claims 2-20 is subject to an alleged ground of unpatentability based on Nakagawa and one or more additional prior art references. However, because claims 19 and 20 are entitled to an effective filing date of May 15, 2000, as determined in Section II.D. below, Nakagawa is not prior art to Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 40 claims 19 and 20. Therefore, we determine that claims 19 and 20 are not unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, over Nakagawa and Kosaka. With regard to dependent claims 2-18, Liberty’s petition contains arguments and evidence supporting each assertion of obviousness. Progressive has not presented rebuttal arguments directed to the alleged unpatentability of claims 2-18, on the various obviousness grounds over which we instituted review of claims 2-18, except to argue that Nakagawa does not disclose all the elements of independent claim 1. That argument already has been considered and rejected above in the discussion concerning the alleged anticipation of claim 1 by Nakagawa. The level of ordinary skill is reflected by the prior art of record. See, e.g., In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). We have considered the arguments and evidence before us, and conclude that Liberty has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2-18 are unpatentable for obviousness, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, on the various claim/ground combinations listed below: Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 41 Claims Basis References 2 § 103 Nakagawa and Chang 3, 6, 7 § 103 Nakagawa and Stanifer 4 § 103 Nakagawa and Beaverton 5, 8 § 103 Nakagawa and Scapinakis 9 § 103 Nakagawa and Hunt 10, 11, 13-15 § 103 Nakagawa and Lowrey 12 § 103 Nakagawa, Lowrey, and Qualcomm MSM6500 16-18 § 103 Nakagawa and Bouchard D. Priority Date of the ’358 Patent Progressive asserts that claims 1, 9, 19, and 20 of the ’358 patent are entitled to an effective filing date of May 15, 2000. For reasons discussed below, we determine that Progressive has shown that claims 1, 19, and 20 are entitled to an effective filing date of May 15, 2000, but has not shown that claim 9 is entitled an effective filing date of May 15, 2000. For an application to be entitled to the earlier filing date of an ancestral application, under 35 U.S.C. § 120, one of the requirements is that the earlier-filed application contain a disclosure that complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for the claims in the later-filed application. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Transco Prod. Inc. v. Performance Contracting Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 556 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For instance, if a continuation-in-part Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 42 application has a claim reciting a feature not described in the earlier-filed application, then that claim is entitled only to the later filing date of the continuation-in-part application. In re Van Lagenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136 (CCPA 1972). Also, where there is a chain of continuing applications, if any application in the chain fails to make the requisite disclosure of the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, then the claim is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the applications preceding the break in disclosure. Hollmer v. Harari, 681 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012). For a claim to gain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to that earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 609 (CCPA 1977); In re Schneider, 481 F.2d 1350, 1356 (CCPA 1973). The ’358 patent issued from an application which is a continuation-in- part of Application 10/764,076 (“the ’076 application”), filed January 23, 2004, which is a continuation-in-part of application 09/571,650 (“the ’650 application”), filed May 15, 2000. In its Preliminary Response, Progressive asserted that its claims 1, 9, 19, and 20 are entitled to the earlier filing date of the ’650 application, and attempted to make an adequate showing in that regard. Prelim. Resp. 23-31, 34-38. The Board evaluated the showings in Progressive’s Preliminary Response and, in the Decision on Institution, Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 43 identified five features the description of which was not accounted sufficiently by Progressive in the ancestral applications. Dec. 19-21. Two features are from claim 1, and the remaining three are from claims 9, 19, and 20, respectively. The test for determining satisfaction of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is whether the application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the claimed invention at the time of the original disclosure of the application. Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Products, Inc., 424 F.3d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The specification must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that as of the filing date of the application the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The following discussion is based on the arguments and showings presented in Progressive’s patent owner response and Liberty’s reply. We discuss the five above-noted features, with regard to the disclosure of both the ’650 application and the ’076 application. 1. Claim 1 recites a wireless transmitter configured “to transfer the selected vehicle data retained within the memory to a distributed network and a server.” The recited functionality of the configured transmitter is specific. According to the claim, it must be that data retained within the memory which is transferred, not data which will be retained in memory, and not data which is being written into memory. Essentially, the Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 44 functionality required is that selected vehicle data is read from memory, and then the data, thus read, is transferred by the wireless transmitter. That also is the interpretation of the claim feature as it was read onto the disclosure of Nakagawa. Progressive refers to Figure 4 of the ’650 application, which is reproduced below: Figure 4 is a block diagram of a vehicle onboard computer and recording system which communicates with a remote operations control center. Ex. 2004, 9:13-15. As explained by Progressive (PO Resp. 35:1-2), device 300 in Figure 4 interfaces with vehicle data bus and/or sensors 412. That is true, as depicted. Progressive asserts, however, that Figure 4 Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 45 “depicts device 300 receiving data from vehicle database and/or sensors 412 in order to provide the sensor data information to the operations control center 416 through communication link 418.” PO Resp. 35:2-4. That assertion, in light of other disclosures cited by Progressive, is persuasive that stored vehicle data from a memory is read to provide selected vehicle data to the transmitter, which according to Figure 4 of the ’650 application can be a wireless transmitter, for sending to remote operations control center 416. While box 412 in Figure 4 is labeled “Vehicle databus and/or Sensors,” that disclosure by itself is general and means no more than that a communication path exists to both the vehicle databus and sensors. It does not mean, necessarily, that when box 412 provides information to device 300 for sending to remote operations control center 416, the information is read from a memory that is connected to the vehicle databus. However, Progressive cites to other disclosure in the ’650 application, which must be read in conjunction with the illustration in Figure 4. Progressive cites (PO Resp. 35:5-7) to this descriptive text in the ’650 application: “An on-board computer 300 monitors and records various sensors and operator actions to acquire the desired data for determining a fair cost of insurance.” Ex. 2004, 11:9-11. That description indicates that sensed vehicle data is stored in an onboard memory, as a part of the operations for determining a fair cost of insurance. In that regard, the ’650 application describes the insurer, remote from the vehicle, as the entity generating, on the basis of all the acquired data, a cost of insurance. Ex. 2004, 19:20-20:6. Progressive also cites (PO Resp. 38:2-4) to this Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 46 descriptive text in the ’650 application: “The unit of risk 200 is primarily concerned with transferring three classes of data between it and the insurer. The event data 500 and stored sensor data 502 have been discussed with reference to FIG. 1.” Ex. 2004, 19:8-10. That description of data transferred between the vehicle and the insurer as “stored sensor data” indicates that the data sent to the insurer from the vehicle is, indeed, read from a memory. We have considered ¶¶ 75-82 of the declaration testimony of Mr. Zatkovich (Ex. 2007), which cites to the same portions of the ’650 application discussed above, as well as Figure 5 of the ’650 application. The testimony supports the position taken by Progressive, as discussed above. We also have considered the declaration testimony of Mr. Andrews, in his rebuttal declaration, which accompanied Liberty’s reply, specifically ¶¶ 49- 50 of that declaration. Ex. 1034. We are not persuaded by the testimony of Mr. Andrews, because it does not address sufficiently the various portions of the disclosure of the ’650 application relied on by Progressive, as we have discussed above. For example, Mr. Andrews states that Mr. Zatkovich provides no support to show that the referenced “stored sensor data” in the ’650 application is the “selected vehicle data” required by claim 1. Ex. 1034 ¶ 50. But Mr. Zatkovich does cite (Ex. 2007 ¶ 75) to this significant disclosure of the ’650 application: “An on-board computer 300 monitors and records various sensors and operator actions to acquire the desired data for determining a fair cost of insurance.” Ex. 2004, 11:9-11. Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 47 Mr. Andrews refers to Figure 1 of the ’650 application as not disclosing the sending of recorded vehicle data to a distributed network and a server. Ex. 1034 ¶ 50. But Figure 1 is a general flowchart only of the “data capture process” performed “within the vehicle.” Ex. 2004, 14:27-29. It does not purport to describe what happens after action performed by the last action box in Figure 1, box 110, labeled as “Record Data.” What Figure 1 discloses about trigger event processing that occurs prior to box 110, as explained by Mr. Andrews, is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich. We also credit Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony over that of Mr. Andrews, on whether the wireless transmission in the disclosure of the ’650 application is to a “distributed network and a server.” Mr. Zatkovich identifies (Ex. 2007 ¶ 77) wireless communications link 418, disclosed in the ’650 application as a cellular telephone, radio, or satellite system, as the wireless transmitter, and explains (Ex. 2007 ¶ 81) that a cellular telephone system is an example of a distributed network. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Progressive has shown that there is written description in the ’650 application to support the recitation in claim 1 of “a wireless transmitter configured to transfer the selected vehicle data retained within the memory to a distributed network and a server.” With regard to the disclosure of the ’076 application, Progressive explains, persuasively, that concerning the feature of “a wireless transmitter configured to transfer the selected vehicle data retained within the memory Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 48 to a distributed network and a server,” the disclosure of the ’076 application “is nearly identical” to the relevant portions of the disclosure of the ’650 application. PO Resp. 57-58. With regard to this feature, Liberty does not identify any pertinent, substantive difference between the two disclosures, and does not make arguments apart from those discussed and rejected above in the context of the ’650 application. Accordingly, we determine that Progressive has shown that there is written description in the ’076 application to support the recitation in claim 1 of “a wireless transmitter configured to transfer the selected vehicle data retained within the memory to a distributed network and a server.” 2. Claim 1 recites a server as the recipient of the wireless transmission of selected vehicle data, and further requires (a) a database operatively linked to the server to store the selected vehicle data transmitted by the wireless transmitter, (b) where the server is configured to process selected vehicle data that represents one or more aspects of operating the vehicle with data that reflects how the selected vehicle data affects a premium of an insurance policy, safety or level of risk, and (c) where the server is further configured to generate a rating factor based on the selected vehicle data stored in the database. In pages 38-49 of its patent owner response, Progressive provides detailed explanations, with citations to the record and to the supporting testimony of Mr. Zatkovich and Mr. Miller, of why there is written description in the disclosure of the ’650 application for each of the above- Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 49 noted features concerning a server. With the exception of Progressive’s contention on page 49 of the patent owner response that an actual calculated amount of premium surcharge or discount constitutes a rating factor, Progressive’s arguments are persuasive. An actual premium or surcharge is not a “rating factor” as we have construed the term. A “rating factor” reflects an associated level of risk and, therefore, a general level of premium, but is not itself an amount of insurance premium, surcharge, or discount. It is at least one step removed from an actual amount of insurance premium, surcharge, or discount. Herein below, we focus on the arguments of Liberty as presented in its reply, which are unpersuasive. Fewer Figures and Columns Liberty notes that the ’358 patent disclosure, as compared to the disclosure of the ’650 application, contains nineteen more figures and twenty-six more columns of text. Reply 14. However, that, in itself, does not establish the specific material that was added. The additional material may be drawn to the subject matter of claims 2-8 and 10-18, with respect to which Progressive does not contend that it is entitled to the earlier filing date of the ’650 application. Generating a Rating Factor Liberty correctly notes that claim 1 requires the generation by the server of a “rating factor,” which is not yet the insurance premium. Reply 10. As explained above, however, the Board’s construction of “rating factor” is the broadest reasonable construction. It is “a calculated insurance Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 50 risk value such as a safety score or a usage discount,” with the clarification that “an insurance risk value would be a value that reflects an associated level of insurance risk and, therefore, also a corresponding insurance premium.” Liberty argues that the disclosure of the ’650 application only refers to insurance premium determination generally, and nowhere refers to the calculation of a “rating factor.” Reply 10. That argument is unpersuasive. Satisfaction of the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, does not require the description to be literally the same as the claim language at issue. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265 (CCPA 1976); In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969 (CCPA 1971). Rather, by whatever language, the specification only must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date of the application, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563-64. Progressive identifies (PO Resp. 48) the following disclosure in the ’650 application: “The subject invention will base insurance charges with regard to current material data representative of actual operating characteristics to provide a classification rating of an operator or the unit in an actuarial class which has vastly reduced rating error over conventional insurance cost systems.” Ex. 2004, 6:15-18. That cited disclosure is significant, as it reasonably conveys that the inventors were in possession of basing the calculation of insurance charges on the rating of an operator in an actuarial class. The general disclosure of calculating an insurance premium is augmented by this disclosure that the calculation of insurance charges will Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 51 be based on the placement of an operator into an actuarial class with a corresponding rating. Progressive further identifies (PO Resp. 48, n.3) the following disclosure in the ’650 application: “It is another object of the present invention to generate actuarial classes and operator profiles relative thereto based upon actual driving characteristics of the vehicle and driver, as represented by the monitored and recorded data elements for providing a more knowledgeable, enhanced insurance rating precision.” Ex. 2004, 8:12- 15. That cited disclosure also is significant, because it also reasonably conveys that the inventors were in possession of basing the calculation of insurance charges on the rating of an operator in an actuarial class. Citing the declaration testimony of Mr. Michael J. Miller (Ex. 2005 ¶ 39), Progressive explains that an actuarial class inherently has associated with it a rate factor and a risk factor. PO Resp. 48. Also citing the declaration testimony of Mr. Miller (Ex. 2005 ¶ 39), Progressive explains that use of an actuarial class within the context of insurance necessarily involves generating and using a rating factor. PO Resp. 48. These contentions are supported by the cited testimony of Mr. Miller. Additionally, Mr. Miller refers to the above-noted portions of the disclosure of the ’650 application, and concludes that the ’650 application inherently discloses the generation of rating factors. Ex. 2005 ¶ 42. The testimony is persuasive, because the cited portions of the disclosure of the ’650 application reasonably convey that insurance cost would be determined by placing an insured in a corresponding actuarial class. Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 52 Liberty argues that the disclosure of the ’650 application nowhere explains how to calculate actuarial classes. Reply 11. However, it is well established that a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Liberty contends that insurance costs may be determined based on detected driving characteristics without necessarily generating a rating factor prior to such determination. Reply 11. That contention is supported by the declaration testimony of Ms. Mary L. O’Neil. Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 22, 24. However, both Liberty’s contention and the cited testimony of Ms. O’Neil are not on point. The pertinent issue that should be addressed by Liberty is not the general one—whether insurance costs may be determined based on detected driving characteristics without necessarily generating a rating factor prior to such determination. Instead, it is the more specific one—whether insurance costs determined by placing operators into actuarial classes necessarily involve the generation of a rating factor. Accordingly, the testimony in ¶¶ 22 and 24 of Ms. O’Neil’s declaration is inapposite, and Liberty’s assertion is not persuasive. Paragraph 23 of the declaration of Ms. O’Neil (Ex. 1032) is more apposite but still unpersuasive. It is reproduced below: 23. In the absence of specific mention of the calculation of rating factors, a POSITA could conclude that direct calculation of insurance costs was intended by the ’650 patent application. For example, the ’650 application discloses Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 53 types of roads driven as an example of monitored vehicle data. If type of roads driven was utilized to identify two appropriate actuarial classes, high risk and low risk, it would not be necessary to generate rating factors in order to determine the cost of insurance for each group. Instead each group could be analyzed separately and an appropriate insurance cost could be derived directly using standard actuarial ratemaking procedures, e.g., using each group’s premium experience, claim loss experience, and expense experience. The same concept would apply to each of the examples of monitored data provided. Hence, there would be no requirement to generate a rating factor. At the outset, it is noted that the portion of Liberty’s reply (Reply 11) citing to ¶¶ 20-25 of the declaration of Ms. O’Neil does not make the argument that determining insurance costs based on actuarial class does not require the generation of rating factors. Rather, it simply states that insurance costs may be determined based on detected driving characteristics without necessarily generating a rating factor prior to the determination. Thus, the specific contention in the above-quoted testimony regarding determining insurance cost based on actuarial classes was not made by Liberty and need not be addressed. Even considering the argument, however, for reasons discussed below, we find the above-quoted testimony unpersuasive. The argument essentially is that one could determine a representative claim loss experience for the group in an actuarial class, or a representative expense experience for the group in an actuarial class, and then use those values to determine the insurance cost for the operator, as though the values Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 54 are the operator’s own values. However, we have construed “rating factor” as a “calculated insurance risk value such as a safety score or a usage discount,” and further clarified that “an insurance risk value would be a value that reflects an associated level of insurance risk and, therefore, also a corresponding insurance premium.” Given that meaning of “rating factor,” which essentially is what Liberty proposed in its petition, the representative and determined group experience in each actuarial class is itself a “rating factor.” Therefore, even in the scenario described in ¶ 23 of the declaration of Ms. O’Neil, rating factors still are generated for calculating the insurance premium for an operator. Remote Server Generating a Rating Factor Liberty argues that, even assuming that a rating factor is generated, the ’650 application does not necessarily disclose that it is generated at a remote server, as is required by claim 1. Reply 11. The argument and the supporting testimony of Mr. Andrews (Ex. 1034, ¶¶ 40-43, 45-48) are unpersuasive, for reasons discussed below. According to Liberty, the ’650 application discloses that “charges/billing” algorithm “530,” “rating algorithms 522,” and “processing logic” are developed by the insurer, but actually communicated to, and located on, the on-board computer of each vehicle. Reply 11. In support of that contention, Mr. Andrews cites (Ex. 1034 ¶ 47) to the following statement in the ’650 application: Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 55 An insurer can over time use the accumulated underwriting and rating information from individual customers 520 to develop improved rating algorithms 522. Such improved algorithms can be regularly communicated to the units of risk 200 for improved insurance cost computation accuracies. The improved rating algorithms can be communicated 524 to the units of risk on-board device 300 (FIG. 4). Ex. 2004, 20:30-21:3. Mr. Andrews also cites (Ex. 1034 ¶ 47) to the part of the disclosure of the ’650 application which indicates that certain specialized data processing logic, necessary for acquiring specialized data from the vehicle, can be transferred from the insurer to the unit of risk. Ex. 2004, 19:10-13. We find Liberty’s argument and the supporting testimony of Mr. Andrews to be unpersuasive because they narrowly focus on a small part of the disclosure of the ’650 application, to the exclusion of all other parts identified and discussed by Progressive and its expert witness. Based on Liberty’s narrow focus, the cited portions of the disclosure of the ’650 application supplements the disclosures relied on by Progressive, rather than contradict them. Nothing precludes the individual units of risk, i.e., the vehicles, from also possessing the rating algorithms. Progressive has presented persuasive evidence that insurance cost computation occurs at the insurer, whether or not the rating algorithm also is communicated to individual units of risk. For instance, Figure 5 of the ’650 application is reproduced below: Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 56 Figure 5 is a block diagram illustrating the operations performed on acquired vehicle data, wherein unit of risk 200 designates an individual vehicle. Ex. 2004, 9:16-17, 19:6-7. In connection with the operations illustrated in Figure 5, the ’650 application describes that the insurer receives sensor data 510, processes the raw data, and stores all relevant data in storage device 518. Ex. 2004, 19:20-24. The ’650 application also describes, while discussing operations at the insurer, that billing algorithm 530, shown in Figure 4 as located at the insurer, accesses the data stored in storage device 518 to generate an insurance cost for the unit of risk. Ex. 2004, 19:30-20:6. None of that is contradicted also by sending the rating algorithm and specialized processing logic to the vehicle. Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 57 We do not see Progressive as arguing that insurance premium calculation inherently occurs at the insurer. Rather, it simply takes the position that the ’650 application directly discloses insurance premium calculation at the insurer. In that regard, Liberty points to three locations in Progressive’s patent owner response where inherency is argued. Reply 12 (citing PO Resp. 39, 43, 48). But those arguments concern whether there is a server at the insurer, whether the insurer’s storage unit provides a searching function, and whether calculating insurance cost by use of actuarial classes necessarily involves generation of a rating factor, not whether insurance cost computation necessarily and inherently must be performed at the insurer. We also are not persuaded by Mr. Andrews’ testimony (Ex. 1034 ¶ 46) that the ’650 application does not disclose that it is a “server” at the insurer, which performs the calculation of insurance cost. According to Mr. Andrews, a “server” is a processor, but a processor is not necessarily a server. Ex. 1034 ¶ 46. Mr. Andrews cites to this dictionary definition of “server” (Ex. 1036, 430): “a computer or program that responds to commands from a client.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 46 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Andrews testifies: “Nowhere is there any description [in the ’650 application] that any charging and billing processes are requested by a client device and are then served by a server.” Id. The contention is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, Mr. Andrews does not explain why a command must be explicit, literal, or specific, and why it is not an implicit command to a computer Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 58 simply to send it information, which is expected to trigger a series of predetermined actions. The rule of broadest reasonable interpretation applies in the construction of a “server.” Liberty does not explain why the data transfer from the on-board computer to the insurer does not constitute an implicit command for a computer at the insurer to take predetermined actions based on that transferred data. Also, in that connection, a computer need not be comprised of only a single processor. Liberty does not explain why multiple processors in one system may not be regarded as a computer. Second, even assuming that a server must respond to an explicit, literal, and specific command from a client, claim 1 does not require that that command be, specifically, an instruction to generate a rating factor or to calculate an insurance premium. The command can be for any other action, such as for a client to have access to stored information associated with the client. The ’650 application describes: “Another important feature of the subject invention illustrated in FIG. 5 is that the insurer provides a Webserver 220 to allow a customer to access via Internet 218 communication, the relevant sensor data and event data associated with the customer.” Ex. 2004, 20:7-9. Therefore, in any event, the customer does send a command to the insurer, which then responds to the command. In that regard, Progressive and its expert witness Mr. Zatkovich identify unit 208 in Figure 2 of the ’650 application as the “server.” PO Resp. 39:1-8; Ex. 2007 ¶ 84. Unit 208 performs the rating, billing, and processing functions of the insurer. Ex. 2007 ¶ 84. It also includes web server 220, Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 59 which responds to user request to access stored information. Id. On that basis, unit 208 qualifies as a “server.” For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Progressive has shown that there is written description in the disclosure of the ’650 application to support the various limitations in claim 1 regarding the server and its functionalities. With regard to the claim features concerning server, as discussed above in connection with the disclosure of the ’650 application, Progressive explains, persuasively, that the disclosure of the ’076 application “contains substantially similar disclosure” as that of the ’650 application. PO Resp. 58-61. With regard to the evidence relied on by Progressive, Liberty does not identify any disclosure that is contained in the ’650 application disclosure, but not the ’076 application disclosure. Furthermore, with regard to the generation of a rating factor, Progressive identifies (PO Resp. 60-61) additional disclosure in the ’076 application, including the following: In the exemplary embodiment, the discount section 818 of the operational summary 814 indicates that a total discount 852 is based upon a calculation including an upload bonus 854, a rating factor, such as a safety score 856 and a usage discount 858. Ex. 2012, 32:23-25. Liberty does not refute specifically the additional disclosures from the ’076 application, as cited by Progressive. Instead, Liberty’s arguments pertaining to the ’076 application are essentially the same as those discussed and rejected above in the context of the discussion of the disclosure of the ’650 application. Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 60 Accordingly, we determine that Progressive has shown that there is written description in the ’076 application to support the various server features required by claim 1. 3. Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and recites “where the processor, the memory, and the wireless transmitter are in communication within a portable device.” Progressive identifies onboard computer 300 shown in Figure 3 of the ’650 application as the portable device including the processor, the memory, and the wireless transmitter. PO Resp. 50. Citing the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich (Ex. 2007 ¶ 109), Progressive argues that onboard computer 300 is portable because (1) it is relatively small in size, as shown in Figure 3, comparable to the size of a gas tank cover, and (2) the ’650 application discloses that it employs plug-and-play type of connectors to connect to other components. PO Resp. 50. The arguments are unpersuasive. Patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is silent on the issue. Hockerson-Halberstadt Inc. v. Avia Group, Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The disclosure of the ’650 application is otherwise silent on the issue of the size of unit 300. Also, small size of a unit facilitates the unit’s portability, but does not require it. Progressive does not discuss the benefits of small size to units which are not portable, and does not represent that there is none. The same is true with respect to the argument that onboard computer 300 uses plug-and-play type of connectors. Using plug-and-play type of connectors facilitates the unit’s Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 61 portability, but does not require it. Progressive does not discuss the benefits of plug-and-play connectors in units which are not portable, and does not represent that there is none. Progressive further notes that in Figure 4 of the ’650 application, onboard computer is labeled as “on-board data logging and/or communication device.” PO Resp. 50 (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). Citing the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich (Ex. 2007 ¶ 110), Progressive asserts that the name discloses that the chipset for the wireless transmitter is present within onboard computer 300. PO Resp. 50-51. The argument, as well as the supporting testimony of Mr. Zatkovich, is not persuasive for two reasons. First, the disclosure of the ’650 application itself states: “The communications link to a central control station is accomplished through the cellular telephone, radio, satellite or other wireless communication system 314.” Ex. 2004, 11:20-22. As shown in Fig. 3 of the ’650 application, device 314 is external to onboard computer 300. Second, the “communication” part of the name for unit 300, as shown in Fig. 4, likely refers to communication with other onboard devices, and not with the remote central control station. In that regard, note that the disclosure of the ’650 application states: “The computer 300 essentially communicates with a number of on-board vehicle devices for acquisition of information representative of various actual vehicle operating characteristics.” Ex. 2004, 11:28-30. Accordingly, we determine that Progressive has not shown that there is written description in the ’650 application to support the feature recited in Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 62 claim 9 requiring a portable device containing the processor, the memory, and the wireless transmitter. With regard to the claim feature concerning portability of a device containing the processor, the memory, and the wireless transmitter, Progressive asserts, persuasively, that the disclosure of the ’076 application “contains substantially similar disclosure” as that of the ’650 application. PO Resp. 61. Progressive relies on the same arguments it asserted in the context of the disclosure of the ’650 application, which we have determined to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, we determine that Progressive has not shown that there is written description in the ’076 application to support the feature recited in claim 9 requiring a portable device containing the processor, the memory, and the wireless transmitter. 4. Claim 19 depends on claim 1 and further recites “where the server is further configured to calculate an insured’s premium under the insured’s insurance policy based on the rating factor, or a surcharge or a discount to the insured’s premium, based on the rating factor.” Progressive provides detailed explanations, with citations to the record and to the supporting testimony of Mr. Zatkovich and Mr. Miller, of why there is written description in the disclosures of the ’650 application and the ’076 application to support the above-quoted recitation of claim 19. PO Resp. 51- 52, 61-62. Progressive’s arguments are persuasive, and Liberty presents no argument beyond those already discussed above in the discussion of claim 1. Accordingly, we determine that Progressive has shown that there is written Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 63 description in the ’650 application and the ’076 application to support the above-quoted recitation of claim 19. 5. Claim 20 depends on claim 1 and further recites “where the server is further configured to process selected vehicle data that represents one or more aspects of operating the vehicle with data that reflects how the selected vehicle data affects an insured’s premium under an insured’s insurance policy.” In pages 52-53 and 62-63 of its patent owner response, Progressive provides detailed explanations, with citations to the record and to the supporting testimony of Mr. Zatkovich and Mr. Miller, of why there is written description in the disclosures of the ’650 application and the ’076 application to support the above-quoted recitation of claim 20. Progressive’s arguments are persuasive, and Liberty presents no argument beyond those already discussed above in the discussion of claim 1. Accordingly, we determine that Progressive has shown that there is written description in the ’650 application and the ’076 application to support the above-quoted recitation of claim 20. E. Liberty’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Liberty seeks to exclude certain declaration testimony of Progressive’s expert witnesses Ivan Zatkovich (Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 10-149) and Michael J. Miller (Ex. 2005 ¶ 15 and Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 2-5). Paper 55 (“Pet. Mot.”) at 4. As the movant, Liberty has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 64 Citing to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“Fed. R. Evid.”), Liberty argues that Mr. Zatkovich lacks the necessary scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge on insurance and telematics issues pertinent to the ’358 Patent to provide testimony on those subjects.” Pet. Mot. 5. Liberty also argues that, even as to the subject of telematics only, Mr. Zatkovich’s qualifying experience must have been acquired as of the date of invention of the ’358 Patent, e.g., the January 1996 filing date of the earliest ancestral patent application in the chain of applications leading back from the ’358 patent. Pet. Mot. 6. We disagree that Mr. Zatkovich must be qualified both in the field of insurance and in the field of vehicle telematics to give useful testimony in this proceeding. It is only the “hypothetical” person of ordinary skill in the art who possesses ordinary skill in each of the fields involved in a claimed invention. The qualifications of Mr. Zatkovich, as summarized in his curriculum vitae (Ex. 2008), qualifies him to give expert testimony on the subject of vehicle telematics, computer systems, and network communications. With regard to Mr. Zatkovich’s alleged lack of ordinary skill on the specific subject of insurance, the Board weighs his testimony accordingly, taking into account the limited extent of his expertise. We also disagree that Mr. Zatkovich’s technical experience must have been acquired prior to January 1996. Liberty cites no authority supporting its position in that regard. Liberty seeks to exclude ¶ 15 of Mr. Miller’s declaration (Ex. 2005) and ¶¶ 2-5 of Mr. Miller’s supplemental declaration (Ex. 2013). Pet. Mot. 6- Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 65 7. The basis of Liberty’s underlying objection is that, although Mr. Miller in ¶ 15 of his declaration (Ex. 2005) referred to a publication titled “Risk Classification Statement of Principles,” published by the American Academy of Actuaries in 1980, with which his testimony is allegedly consistent, Progressive did not provide timely a copy of the publication to Liberty. Instead, in response to Liberty’s objection, Progressive filed a supplemental declaration of Mr. Miller (Ex. 2013), which in ¶¶ 2-5 indicates (1) that Mr. Miller was a member of the American Academy of Actuaries from 1975 to 2010, (2) that Exhibit 2012 in CBM2012-00002 is a true and correct copy of a publication titled “Risk Classification Statement of Principles,” published by the American Academy of Actuaries in 1980, (3) that Exhibit 2012 in CBM2012-00002 is widely accepted and followed by members of the actuarial profession, and (4) that Exhibit 2012 in CBM2012- 00002 is the same publication referred to in ¶ 15 of Mr. Miller’s declaration (Ex. 2005). Progressive ultimately filed a copy of the publication at issue, as Exhibit 2018, together with its opposition to Liberty’s motion to exclude evidence. Progressive should have served a copy of the publication at the time it filed the patent owner response, or at the time it filed the supplemental declaration of Mr. Miller, and not waited until the time of its opposition to Liberty’s motion to exclude evidence. Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(1)(i), “[u]nless previously served or otherwise by agreement of the parties, any exhibit cited in a paper or in testimony must be served with the citing paper or testimony.” The wording “previously served” in Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 66 37 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(1)(i) is construed to mean within the same proceeding before the Board, and does not cover related proceedings. Liberty does not dispute that prior to the filing of the patent owner response, Progressive had served Liberty, in related proceeding CBM2012- 00002, a copy of Exhibit 2012 in CBM2012-00002. Liberty also does not dispute that Exhibit 2012 in CBM2012-00002 is the publication referenced in ¶ 15 of Mr. Miller’s declaration (Ex. 2005). Given that Progressive, through the supplemental declaration of Mr. Miller, informed Liberty that the publication at issue is the same as Exhibit 2012 in CBM2012-00002, there is no prejudice to Liberty for not having been served, at the time of Progressive’s patent owner response, with the publication. Under the totality of these circumstances, and given that there is no pattern of repeated violations of 37 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(1)(i) by Progressive, we decline to exclude the testimony of Mr. Miller. Liberty’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is denied. F. Progressive’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Progressive seeks to exclude the reply declarations of Liberty’s expert witnesses, i.e., Exhibit 1032, the reply declaration of Mary L. O’Neil, and Exhibit 1034, the reply declaration of Scott Andrews. Paper 58 (“PO Mot.”). For reasons discussed below, the motion is denied. Progressive asserts that the reply declarations of Ms. O’Neil and Mr. Andrews are improper because they cite to evidence not relied on originally in Liberty’s petition. According to Progressive, if Liberty wanted Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 67 to rely on such evidence, it should have done so in its petition, and not waited until the time of filing of Liberty’s reply. In that regard, Progressive cites to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304(b)(4) and 42.304(b)(5), and asserts that a petition to institute a covered business method patent review must be accompanied by all of the evidence upon which the Petitioner relies in challenging patentability. PO Mot. 2:3-5. The mere fact that the reply declarations cite to evidence not specifically referred to or discussed in Liberty’s petition is insufficient to establish impropriety of such evidence, much less inadmissibility under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The very nature of a reply is to respond to the opposition, which in this case is the patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). The need for relying on evidence not previously discussed in the petition may not have existed until a certain point has been raised in the patent owner response. Much depends on the specific arguments made in the patent owner response. For instance, if the patent owner response simply states that the petition is lacking because it fails to address a certain claim limitation, then it would be too late to address that limitation, for the first time, in the reply. On the other hand, if the Patent Owner Response makes an argument that reasonably could not have been anticipated by Petitioner, the Petitioner properly may, as a part of its reply, rely on new evidence or cite to different portions of the same prior art reference. As the movant, Progressive has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Here, notably, Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 68 Progressive’s motion does not contain any meaningful discussion of the arguments Progressive has made in its patent owner response, which reasonably might or might not have triggered Liberty’s reliance on the testimony Progressive now seeks to exclude. Without such an analysis, Progressive has not shown that the reply declarations of Mary L. O’Neil and Scott Andrews exceed the proper scope of reply evidence. Progressive asserts that Liberty needs the evidence relied on in the reply to make out a prima facie case for the petition. PO Mot. 2-3. However, without meaningful explanation from Progressive, it is not apparent to us, and we do not determine that to be the case. In that regard, note that in the Decision on Institution, the Board determined that Liberty had shown that it was more likely than not that it would prevail in showing unpatentability of claims 1-20 of the ’358 patent. Furthermore, while Progressive’s motion specifically discusses only selected paragraphs of the reply declarations of Ms. O’Neil and Mr. Andrews, it seeks to exclude the entirety of the reply declarations. PO Mot. 2-4. That, in itself, is sufficient basis to deny the relief requested. As the moving party, Progressive should ensure that the relief requested is commensurate in scope with its substantive analysis and supporting evidence. Finally, Progressive cites to no authority applying the Federal Rules of Evidence to the situation of a motion to exclude reply evidence allegedly exceeding its proper scope. A motion to exclude evidence is not the vehicle intended for resolution of such an issue. Note, for instance, that a motion to Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 69 exclude evidence must identify where in the record an objection was originally made. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). Progressive’s motion to exclude does not identify where in the record an objection originally was made about the reply declarations allegedly exceeding their proper scope. Progressive’s Motion to Exclude Evidence denied. III. CONCLUSION Liberty has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2-18 of the ’358 patent are unpatentable based on each of the ground of unpatentability on the basis of which this trial was instituted with respect to claims 2-18, as listed below: Claims Basis References 2 § 103 Nakagawa and Chang 3, 6, 7 § 103 Nakagawa and Stanifer 4 § 103 Nakagawa and Beaverton 5, 8 § 103 Nakagawa and Scapinakis 9 § 103 Nakagawa and Hunt 10, 11, 13-15 § 103 Nakagawa and Lowrey 12 § 103 Nakagawa, Lowrey, and Qualcomm MSM6500 16, 17, 18 § 103 Nakagawa and Bouchard Case CBM2012-00003 Patent 8,140,358 70 IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that claims 2-18 of the ’358 patent are CANCELLED; FURTHER ORDERED that Liberty’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is denied; and FURTHER ORDERED that Progressive’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is denied. PETITIONER: J. Steven Baughman James R. Myers Nicole M. Jantzi Ropes & Gray Email: steven.baughman@ropesgray.com Email: james.myers@ropesgray.com Email: nicole.jantzi@ropesgray.com PATENT OWNER: Calvin P. Griffith James L. Wamsley, III John V. Biernacki Jones Day Email: cpgriffith@jonesday.com Email: jlwamsleyiii@jonesday.com Email: jvbiernacki@jonesday.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation