Denso Corporationv.Beacon Navigation GmbH

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 2, 2013

08580150 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2013)

Trials@uspto.gov
571-272-7822
Paper 12
Entered: 2 April 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

DENSO CORPORATION
Petitioner

v.

BEACON NAVIGATION GmbH
Patent Owner
____________

Case IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511
____________

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

PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

2

I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Denso Corporation (“Denso”) requests inter partes review of
claims 1-17 of US Patent 5,862,511 patent (“'511 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§§ 311 et seq. Patent Owner, Beacon Navigation GmbH (“Beacon”), submitted a
patent owner preliminary response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) on January 21,
2013. Paper No. 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
§ 314(a) which provides as follows:
THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter
partes review to be instituted unless the Director
determines that the information presented in the petition
filed under section 311 and any response filed under
section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
1 of the claims challenged in the petition.

Petitioner challenges claims 1-9 and 13-16 as being anticipated (35 U.S.C. §
102). Petitioner also challenges claims 9-12 and 17 as being obvious (35 U.S.C. §
103). For the reasons that follow, the Petition is denied.

II. BACKGROUND
A. The '511 patent (Exhibit 1001)
The ‘511 patent describes a navigation system and method in which a GPS-
derived velocity vector, including speed and heading components, is used for
propagating a “previous position” to a “current position.” If a GPS-derived
velocity vector is not available, speed and heading information derived from an
orthogonal axes accelerometer and other sensors, is used to propagate vehicle
position. Because the GPS information is almost always available, less reliance on
accelerometers is needed, thereby allowing the use of less expensive
IPR201
Patent 5

accelero
derived
F
diagram
G
receptio
include
store 30
keyboar

3-00027
,862,511
meters. Th
velocity d
igure 2a o
of a veh
PS receiv
n of satell
a 2 or 3 ax
stores ma
d. See ‘51
e accelero
ata. See '5
f the '511
icle navi
er 18 prov
ite signals
is accelero
p informat
1 patent 5
meters ar
11 patent
patent, re
gation sy
'511 p
ides inform
via GPS a
meter 28
ion. A us
:25-49.
3
e repeated
, Abstract
produced
stem acco
atent Fig.
ation abo
ntenna 14
and an opt
er interfac
ly calibrat
.
below, i
rding to
2a
ut vehicle
. Vehicle
ional odom
e 32 includ
ed using th
ncludes a
the inven

movemen
on-board s
eter 29.
es a displ
e GPS-
block
tion.
t based on
ensors
A bulk da
ay and
the
ta
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

4

B. Illustrative Claims
Each of the independent claims of the ‘511 patent falls into at least one of
the following categories: 1) those requiring utilizing map data to adjust the
heading of a GPS-derived velocity vector used to propagate a previous position to
a current position; and 2) those that require use of an orthogonal axes
accelerometer to provide data for propagating a previous position to a current
position.
Independent claims 1-4 and 15 belong to the first category. Claim 1,
reproduced below (with paragraphing added), is illustrative.

1. An improved vehicle navigation system comprising:

[a] a map database with map information, said vehicle
navigation system derives a map heading from said map
information; and

[b] a GPS receiver which provides GPS velocity
information including a heading,

[c] said vehicle navigation system uses said velocity
information to propagate a previous position to a current position
and interrogates said map database to obtain said map heading
information;

[d] said vehicle navigation system updates said velocity
information with said map heading for propagating said previous
position to said current position if the difference between the
heading of said velocity information and said map heading are
within a threshold,

[e] wherein said system rotates said velocity to align with
said map heading and integrates the rotated velocity to obtain
displacements;

IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

5

[f] said system obtains said current position by applying
said displacements to said previous position.

Per paragraph [d] of claim 1, GPS-derived velocity information is updated
using map data. The updated GPS-derived velocity information is then used to
propagate a previous position to a current position. As is evident from the
references cited by Petitioner, there are ways other than as required by claim 1 to
make use of map data in a process for determining a current position.
Independent claims 5-6, 8, 11-13, 15-16, and 17 belong to the second
category, requiring the use of an orthogonal axes accelerometer to provide
information for propagating a previous position to a current position. Claim 5,
reproduced below (with paragraphing added), is illustrative.

5. An improved vehicle navigation system,
comprising

[a] an orthogonal axes accelerometer which
provides longitudinal and lateral acceleration information
and

[b] a GPS receiver which provides GPS velocity
information,

[c] said vehicle navigation system uses said lateral
acceleration information to derive heading change;

[d] said vehicle navigation system uses said
heading change to propagate a previous position to a
current position:

[e] said vehicle navigation system uses said GPS
velocity information to propagate said previous position
to said current position if GPS velocity information is
used;
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

6

[f] said vehicle navigation system determines
lateral and longitudinal calibration information from said
GPS velocity information to calibrate said orthogonal
axes accelerometer.

Illustrative claim 5 requires the use of an “orthogonal axes accelerometer” to
obtain longitudinal and lateral acceleration information. Acceleration information
is used to derive a heading change. GPS-derived velocity information is used to
calibrate the orthogonal axes accelerometer. See ¶¶ [a] and [f].

C. Related Matters
Petitioner identifies 10 lawsuits involving the '511 patent. See Petition 1-2.
In addition, there have been two requests to reexamine the patent. Reexamination
90/012,109 was requested Jan. 27, 2012 and has been concluded.1 Claims 1 and 3
were confirmed as patentable over five references including the Kaise reference
cited by Petitioner in this proceeding. Reexamination 90/012,743 was requested
on Dec. 17, 2012 and granted Jan. 23, 2013. We stayed the 90/012,743
reexamination pending the outcome of this proceeding.2

D. Prior Art
Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
Odagawa 5,087,919 July 6, 1990 Ex. 1003

Klein 5,541,845 Aug. 2, 1994 Ex. 1004

Anderson 5,684,476 May 8, 1995 Ex. 1005

1 Petitioner did not bring this reexamination to our attention in the Petition filed
Oct. 18, 2012.
2 See Order Paper No. 11.
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

7

Kaise 5,740,049 Dec. 4, 1995 Ex. 1006

Kato 5,796,613 Aug. 1, 1995 Ex. 1007

Koiwai JP 2-83224 Mar. 30, 1990 Ex. 1009

Yoshinori JP 1992-121618
(English
translation)

April 22, 1992 Ex. 1011
Sewaki JP 6-331369

May 24, 1993 Ex. 1013
Hoshino JP H6-094366

May 6, 1994 Ex. 1015
Lipp “Integrated GPS /
Fiber Optic Gyro
Land Navigation
System”

April, 1994 Ex. 1016
E. Alleged Grounds for Unpatentability
Petitioner asserts that the following references anticipate claims as indicated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Odagawa: claims 1-4.
Klein: claims 1, 3, 5-9, 13-14 and 16.
Anderson: claims 1-8 and 15.
Kaise: claims 1 and 3.
Kato: claims 1, 3 and 8.
Koiwai: claims 1-4.
Yoshinori: claims 1-9, 13-14 and 16.
Sewaki: claims 1-4.
Hoshino: claims 1-4.
Lipp: claims 5-8.
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

8

In addition, Petitioner asserts that the following references and combinations
of references render obvious claims as indicated under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Anderson (single reference): claims 10-11 and 17.
Anderson and Yoshinori: claim 12.
Lipp (single reference): claim 9

II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Petitioner has not provided a proposed construction of claim terms. We
therefore use the ordinary and customary meaning for all claim terms. In
particular, we construe the claim phrase “orthogonal axes accelerometer” as a
device that provides a measure of acceleration along at least two axes that are
orthogonal to one another. An orthogonal axes accelerometer would not
encompass a device that merely indicates positional/angular orientation, such as a
gyroscope.

III. UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-17
Petitioner has raised 55 separate and distinct anticipation contentions under
35 U.S.C. § 102 and five obviousness contentions under 35 U.S.C. § 103, four of
which are based on a single reference and one of which is based on a combination
of references.

A. Odagawa (Ex. 1003)
Petitioner contends that Odagawa anticipates claims 1-4. The claim charts
related to Odagawa appear at pages 16-18 of the Petition.

IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

9

1. Claim 1
Claim 1, set forth above, essentially requires that a velocity vector, obtained
from a GPS receiver, is used to propagate a previous position to obtain a current
position. It further requires that the velocity vector be “updated” (“rotates”) to
align with a map heading obtained by “interrogating” a map database to obtain a
map heading that aligns within a “threshold” of the velocity vector.
Odagawa Figures 2 and 3, and their accompanying specification text,
describe how Odagawa uses map data to correct inaccurately determined position
information provided by a GPS receiver. For example, Odagawa Figure 2
describes a manner of correcting a current position. It describes detecting direction
in which a vehicle runs (step S1). Longitude and latitude differences are
determined (step S3). From map data, positions are compared with road segments
to determine which road segment the vehicle is likely on (steps S4-S6). A likely
position on a road segment is selected as a “current position” and is established as
the current longitude and latitude regardless of the imprecise position determined
by the GPS receiver (steps S9-S11). The Odagawa Figure 3 embodiment describes
correcting position in a different manner.
However, none of the portions of the portions of the Odagawa specification
cited by Petitioner suggest correcting the GPS derived velocity vector by rotating it
in accordance with map data or otherwise. Petitioner cites particularly to col. 6,
lines 32-43 to support the alleged anticipation of the claim recitation “wherein said
system rotates said velocity to align with said map heading.” Yet, this section
describes only how the closest road segment is selected in the flowchart of
Figure 2. Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence that a GPS velocity
vector is updated based on map information. Correcting a GPS-derived position by
reference to map data and known locations is not the same as correcting the
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

10

heading portion of a velocity vector by rotating it and then using that corrected
velocity vector to propagate (dead reckon) a previous position to a current position.
Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that it will prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 1 to be
anticipated by Odagawa.

2. Claim 2
Petitioner’s claim charts for claim 2 point us to the same portions cited in
support of its anticipation contention with respect to claim 1. Claim 2, like claim
1, requires the velocity information from a GPS receiver to be updated based on
map heading and then using the updated velocity to propagate a “previous
position” to a “current position.” Thus, our analysis with respect to claim 1 applies
to claim 2. Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence that a GPS velocity
vector is updated based on map information. As such, we conclude that Petitioner
has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the
subject matter of claim 2 to be anticipated by Odagawa.

3. Claim 3
As with claims 1 and 2, independent method claim 3 requires “updating” the
GPS-determined velocity based on a “map heading.” As stated above, although
Odagawa describes correcting “position” based on a nearest-fit road segment,
Petitioner has not pointed to evidence demonstrating that a GPS-determined
velocity is updated. Nor has Petitioner pointed to evidence showing that an
updated velocity is used to propagate a “previous position” to a “current position.”
Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

11

that it will prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 3 to be anticipated by
Odagawa.

4. Claim 4
As with claims 1-3, independent method claim 4 requires that a GPS-
determined velocity be updated based on “map heading” information. Petitioner’s
claim chart does not point to any additional portion of Odagawa not previously
reviewed and considered. In view of the requirements of claim 4 similar to those
discussed above with respect to claims 1-3, we conclude that Petitioner has not
demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the subject
matter of claim 4 to be anticipated by Odagawa.

B. Klein (Ex. 1004)
Petitioner contends that Klein anticipates claims 1, 3, 5-9, 13-14 and 16.
The claim charts related to this reference appear at pages 19-24 of the Petition.

1. Claim 1
Claim 1, as described above with respect to Odagawa, essentially requires
that a velocity vector, obtained from a GPS receiver, is used to propagate a
previous position to obtain a current position. It further requires that the velocity
vector be “updated” (“rotates”) to align with a map heading obtained by
“interrogating” a map database to obtain a map heading that aligns within a
“threshold” of the velocity vector.
Klein recognizes a problem often encountered with the use of “dead
reckoning” in that vehicle heading “drifts” with the passage of time. Klein 7:18-
21. Klein therefore combines “dead-reckoning (DR)” and “snap-to-route (SR)”
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

12

techniques to provide periodic recalibration of the heading or direction cosine
coordinates. Klein 7:21-23. It does so by “adjusting the estimated heading
coordinates by the local direction cosines of the path segment PN at the snap-to-
route location of the perpendicular footer PiN.” See Klein 7:24-25. Thus, a
position determined by DR (integrating a velocity heading over time from a
previous position) is not accepted. Rather, the SR computation of position is
substituted for the DR-determined position, which may have drifted. Then, DR
resumes from the corrected position.
However, claim 1 requires
…said vehicle navigation system updates said velocity
information with said map heading for propagating said previous
position to said current position if the difference between the
heading of said velocity information and said map heading are
within a threshold,

wherein said system rotates said velocity to align with said
map heading and integrates the rotated velocity to obtain
displacements;

To meet the limitations of claim 1, the velocity vector heading must be corrected
by reference to map data before that velocity vector is used to propagate a previous
position to a current position. First propagating a previous position to a current
position and then correcting that current position by reference to map data does not
meet the terms of the claim. We therefore conclude that Petitioner has not
demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the subject
matter of claim 1 to be anticipated by Klein.

IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

13

2. Claim 3
Claim 3 also requires rotating the velocity vector based on correction
provided by map data. The updated velocity vector is used to dead reckon to a
next position. Thus, our analysis, supra, with respect to claim 1 applies also to
claim 3. We therefore conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that it will prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 3 to be
anticipated by Klein.

3. Claim 5
Unlike previously discussed claims, claim 5 does not require that GPS
velocity information be used to propagate a previous position to a current position.
However, claim 5 requires an “orthogonal axes accelerometer” which provides
longitudinal and lateral acceleration information.” Petitioner points to Klein col. 7
ll. 2-18 as disclosing this claim feature. We have reviewed the portion of Klein
cited and find no mention of an “orthogonal axes accelerometer.” The cited
passage describes a “second alternative” for dead reckoning that uses an on-board
“magnetometer” or other device that senses the present “direction” that a vehicle is
traveling. It also mentions use of a separate “speedometer” or other velocity
monitor that determines vehicle speed. No persuasive evidence is presented that
equates these disclosed devices to an “orthogonal axes accelerometer” which
would provide an indication of acceleration along at least two different axes that
are orthogonal to one another.
Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that it will prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 5 to be
anticipated by Klein.

IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

14

4. Claim 6
Claim 6 requires that calibration information from GPS velocity information
be used to calibrate an orthogonal axes accelerometer. For this recitation
Petitioner’s claim chart (at Pet. 21) refers us to “disclosures cited in response to
Claim 5[g].” The claim chart entry for Claim 5[g] in turn refers us to col. 7, ll. 2-
34 of Klein. We have reviewed col. 7, ll. 2-34, which describes a “second
alternative” for dead reckoning vehicle position. The purpose for such dead
reckoning is to determine a starting point for placing the vehicle on the assigned
route so that it can be “snapped” to the route. The velocities described in the
referred-to passage are velocities from sensors, not GPS-derived as recited in the
claim. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that it will prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 6 to be
anticipated by Klein.

5. Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and further requires “wherein said system
uses said longitudinal acceleration information and said heading change to
propagate a previous position to a current position if said GPS velocity information
is not used.” Petitioner cites no additional passages in support of its argument with
respect to claim 7. As in our analysis with respect to claim 6, supra, we are not
persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will
prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 6 to be anticipated by Klein.

6. Claim 8.
Claim 8 requires calibrating an orthogonal axes accelerometer from GPS
velocity data. Petitioner’s claim chart refers us to claim 5[g], which, in turn, points
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

15

to col. 7 ll. 2-34. As stated with respect to claim 6, col. 7, ll. 2-34 describes a
“second alternative” for dead reckoning vehicle position. The purpose for such
dead reckoning is to determine a starting point for placing the vehicle on the
assigned route so that it can be “snapped” to the route. The velocities described in
the referred-to passage are velocities from sensors, not a GPS-derived velocity
vector. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will
prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 8 to be anticipated by Klein.

7. Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and further requires “updating scale factors
for said orthogonal axes accelerometer using said lateral and longitudinal
calibration information.” Petitioner does not point to any portions of Klein not
already reviewed. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
that it will prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 9 to be anticipated by
Klein.

8. Claim 13
Claim 13 requires that calibration information from GPS velocity
information be used to calibrate an orthogonal axes accelerometer. Petitioner’s
claim chart (at Pet. 21) refers us to previously considered portions of Klein. As
previously concluded, Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence that Klein
teaches calibrating an orthogonal axes accelerometer using GPS-determined
velocity. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will
prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 13 to be anticipated by Klein.

IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

16

9. Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and further requires “wherein said system
determines heading change using said longitudinal acceleration information.”
Petitioner’s claim charts do not point to any portion of Klein not already
considered. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
will prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 14 to be anticipated by Klein.

10. Claim 16
Claim 16 requires that calibration information from GPS velocity
information be used to calibrate an orthogonal axes accelerometer. Petitioner’s
claim chart (at Pet. 21) refers us to previously considered portions of Klein. As
previously concluded, Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence that Klein
teaches calibrating an orthogonal axes accelerometer using GPS-determined
velocity. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will
prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 16 to be anticipated by Klein.

C. Anderson (Ex. 1005)
Petitioner contends that Anderson anticipates claims 1-8 and 15 and renders
claims 10-11 and 17 obvious. The claim charts related to this reference appear at
pages 25-33 of the Petition.

1. Claims 1- 4 and 15
Claims 1-4 and 15 each require that a heading determined from a GPS
velocity vector is corrected by consulting a map database. Once corrected, the
corrected GPS velocity vector is used to propagate a previous position to a current
position (dead reckoning using the corrected heading). Anderson does not describe
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

17

correcting the heading portion of a velocity vector at all, much less using the
corrected velocity vector to propagate a previous position to a current position. To
the contrary, Anderson corrects “position” (rather than the heading portion of a
velocity vector) by reference to known locations. Furthermore, as to claim 15,
Anderson does not teach the use of an orthogonal axes accelerometer, as discussed
with respect to claims 5-8 below. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has not
demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the subject
matter of claims 1-4 and 15 to be anticipated by Anderson.

2. Claims 5-8
Claims 5-8 require that longitude and latitude information be derived from a
GPS receiver and used to calibrate an orthogonal axes accelerometer. Anderson
does not teach the use of an orthogonal axes accelerometer. Instead, Anderson
uses a “flux compass” to determine heading and a GPS receiver and radar to
determine speed. Because there is no orthogonal axes accelerometer disclosed in
Anderson, much less such a device that is calibrated in the manner required by the
claims, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
that it will prevail in proving the subject matter of claims 5-8 to be anticipated by
Anderson.

3. Claims 10 -11 and 17
Petitioner asserts that claim 10 is rendered obvious by Anderson (page 6
item 10); that claim 11 is rendered obvious by Anderson (see page 6, item 11); and
that claim 17 is rendered obvious by Anderson (see page 6, item 17). However,
Petitioner’s claim chart at pages 25-33 does not address claims 10-11 or 17.
Instead of a detailed analysis as required by the rules, Petitioner provides a “catch
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

18

all” statement on pages 10-11 and in other portions of the Petition that to the extent
that any claim element is not found in the references that it would be predictable
and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the area of navigation systems. See, e.g.,
Pet. 10.
The Petitioner must carry the burden of establishing a reason for
unpatentability sufficient to meet the threshold for instituting a trial. That has not
been done with respect to claims 10-11 and 17. Due to the lack of a detailed
presentation of evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the subject matter of claims 10-
11 and 17 to be obvious in view of Anderson.

D. Kaise (Ex. 1006)
Petitioner contends that Kaise anticipates claims 1 and 3. The claim charts
related to this reference appear at pages 33- 35 of the Petition. Petitioner’s claim
chart refers to various potions of Klein (Ex. 1004) rather than to portions of Kaise
(Ex. 1006). Thus, there is a failure to identify any evidence as to Kaise. Despite
Petitioner’s oversight, we have reviewed Kaise and determined that it does not
describe updating a velocity vector “heading” based on map data prior to the use of
that heading in propagating a previous position to a current position. Thus, we
conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will
prevail in proving the subject matter of claims 1 and 3 to be anticipated by Kaise.
Petitioner’s “Summary” of grounds indicates that claim 4 is anticipated by
Kaise. However, no argument is presented in support of this contention. Due to
the lack of adequate supporting evidence presented, we conclude that Petitioner
has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the
subject matter of claim 4 to be anticipated by Kaise.
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

19

E. Kato (Ex. 1007)
Petitioner contends that Kato anticipates claims 1, 3 and 8. The claim charts
related to this reference appear at pages 35-37 of the Petition.
Kato describes a navigation system for a vehicle that includes “present
position calculating means.” See Title. The system includes a distance sensor that
outputs “pulses” in proportion to the rotation of a wheel. See Abstract. A GPS
receiver calculates vehicle speed. A “distance correction coefficient calculating
unit” calculates GPS traveling distance from GPS speed and from a time difference
between two points. Id. It further calculates a “distance correction coefficient”
from the GPS-determined distance and the pulse difference between two points.
Id. A present position-calculating unit calculates present position based on a
corrected distance correction coefficient. Id.
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

20

Kato describes a scheme by which errors in speed and heading are
determined by calculations based on the pulses from a distance sensor wheel and a
time difference between two points. If it is determined that there is an intolerable
potential error in a GPS-derived speed and heading, this data is discarded in favor
of sensor data. Once presumed accurate heading and distance data are determined,
vehicle position is plotted on a map based on pre-stored map data. Kato states (at
13:18-21) that “by making a comparison with road bearing in map information,
more accurate map matching becomes possible. Accordingly, the reliability of the
navigation system can be improved.” However, Kato does not describe how map
data might be consulted in order to correct a GPS-derived velocity vector for dead
reckoning from a previous position to a current position as in the claims. Thus, we
conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will
prevail in proving the subject matter of claims 1-3 to be anticipated by Kato.
With regard to claim 8, there is no description in Kato of an “orthogonal
axes accelerometer.” A “heading sensor” as referenced in Figs. 1, 9 and 10 is
described as a “geomagnetic sensor.” The “distance sensor” is described as one
that generates pulses from a wheel. Thus, no orthogonal axes accelerometer is
described. We therefore conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 8 to
be anticipated by Kato.

F. Koiwai (Ex. 1009, English translation)
Petitioner contends that Koiwai anticipates claims 1-4. The claim charts
related to this reference appear at pages 37-40 of the Petition.
While it is true, as Petitioner suggests, that Kowai Fig. 2 demonstrates
correcting a course based on map data, essential features of claims 1-4 are missing.
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

21

We have reviewed Koiwai and find no description related to obtaining a velocity
vector from a GPS, much less correcting that velocity vector by reference to a map
and then integrating the corrected velocity vector to propagate a previous position
to a current position. Therefore we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the subject matter of claims 1-4
to be anticipated by Koiwai.

G. Yoshinori (Ex. 1011, English translation)
Petitioner contends that Yoshinori anticipates claims 1-9, 13-14 and 16.
Their claim charts related to this reference appear at pages 40-47 of the Petition.
We have reviewed the English translation of Yoshinori (Japanese) set forth as
Exhibit 1011. We refer to the page numbers listed at the bottom of the Exhibit
pages, beginning with page 107.

1. Claims 1-4
Yoshinori describes obtaining a “velocity vector” from a GPS. See
Yoshinori page 107. Yoshinori also describes “map matching.” The described
map matching (see Fig. 3) is carried out to determine whether or not a vehicle is
traveling on a mapped road. If it can identify a road it may correct an erroneously
determined position. None of the Petitioner-cited portions of Yoshinori suggest
altering a GPS-determined velocity vector and then using that altered vector to
project a previous position to a current position. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner
has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the
subject matter of claims 1-4 to be anticipated by Yoshinori.

IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

22

2. Claims 5-9 and 13
Claims 5-9 and 13 all require an “orthogonal axes accelerometer.” We find
no description in Yoshinori of such a device. Yoshinori describes a “gyro” that
provides bearing information. The only “calibration” described by Yoshinori is the
use of a multiplicative factor based on “slip rate” (e.g. tire slippage) that makes a
speed sensor less accurate. Thus, Petitioner is not likely to prevail as to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshinori does not describe determining a heading
change based on lateral acceleration. Yoshinori Fig. 2 suggests that the heading is
determined by the GPS velocity vector in one instance and by a “geomagnetic
sensor” in another instance. A gyro provides angular positional information.
Petitioner does not point to any description in the reference of acceleration, much
less “lateral acceleration” being used to change a heading.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and further requires “wherein said system
uses said longitudinal acceleration information and said heading change to
propagate a previous position to a current position if said GPS velocity information
is not used.” Petitioner has not cited to any portion of Yoshinori teaching this
limitation as well.
Similarly, there is no teaching in Yoshinori related to an orthogonal axes
accelerometer. Thus, the limitation relating to such a device is not met. Thus, we
conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will
prevail in proving the subject matter of claims 5-9 and 13 to be anticipated by
Yoshinori.

3. Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and further requires determining a heading
change using longitudinal acceleration information. We conclude that Petitioner
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

23

has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the
subject matter of claim 14 to be anticipated by Yoshinori for the same reasons
stated as to 13.

4. Claim 16
Claim 16 also requires an orthogonal axes accelerometer, which is not
described by Yoshinori. Furthermore, Yoshinori includes no teaching related to
determining a heading change using lateral acceleration information. Thus we
conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will
prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 16 to be anticipated by Yoshinori.

H. Sewaki (Ex. 1013, English translation)
Petitioner contends that Sewaki anticipates claims 1-4. The claim charts
related to this reference appear at pages 47-50 of the Petition. Petitioner’s claim
charts point to Sewaki paragraphs [0001], [0002], [0006], [0014], [0016], [0017],
[0020] and [0021]. We have reviewed Sewaki, paying particularly close attention
to the cited paragraphs. In paragraph [0001] Sewaki describes “a travel bearing
computation system, specifically, a travel bearing computation system of a
navigation system that adds a three-dimensional positioning function by GPS
(Global Positioning System) to an autonomic navigation method using a distance
sensor and an angle sensor.”
Sewaki describes a problem to be solved in paragraph [0002]. According to
Sewacki, map matching processing or induction course search processing are
carried out based on the road layer. It is known to determine vehicle position using
GPS and by using “distance” and “angle” sensor mounted on a vehicle.
Measurement of vehicle position by the “autonomic navigation method” is low
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

24

cost, but is incapable of highly-accurate measurement of position. The GPS
determines position more accurately, but the required radio waves are often
blocked by buildings, tunnels and the like. Thus, Sewaki explains a solution that
uses an “autonomic navigation method” aided by the addition of vehicle sensors
including “distance” and “angle” sensors.
Paragraph [0003] describes how signals from the distance and angle sensors
are used to determine a change in vehicle position. Sewacki describes the use of a
baseline bearing (“offset angle”) to determine actual travel bearing of a vehicle
from a starting point. However, using autonomic navigation, errors accumulate
and the computed vehicle position no longer corresponds to the road being traveled
as shown on map data. See [0006]. Map matching is used to correct these
accumulated errors. GPS is used to correct vehicle position when a GPS position
is available. See paragraph [0009].
Paragraph [0012] explains the Sewaki arrangement for solving the problem.
It describes that instead of continuously using the bearing measured by the angle
sensor, adjusted by offset angle, bearing data derived by GPS and previously
stored are substituted for the routinely computed bearing and offset provided by
the autonomic navigation method when map matching is not available. “By doing
so, the offset angle can be accurately revised without using old bearing data
preceding a preset period of time from the current time, with the result being that
the absolute travel bearing of the vehicle can be accurately computed.” Paragraph
[0013]. Autonomic navigation proceeds with a corrected bearing. The vehicle
speed is integrated along the corrected bearing to determine a current position.
The speed component integrated, albeit using a GPS-corrected bearing, is from the
vehicle speed sensor, not a speed component derived from the GPS. Thus, the
Sewaki solution does not meet the limitations of claims 1-4, which require that the
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

25

GPS derived velocity vector be integrated to project a previous position to a
current position.
Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that it will prevail in proving the subject matter of claims 1-4 to be
anticipated by Sewaki.

I. Hoshino (Ex. 1015, English translation)
Petitioner contends that Hoshino anticipates claims 1-4. Their claim charts
related to this reference appear at pages 50-53 of the Petition.
Hoshino describes “a navigation device mounted to a traveling body, such as
an automobile, and particularly to a technique for automatically correcting
measured values of gyroscope, sensors such as an earth magnetism sensor, and
vehicle speed sensor used for inertial navigation in a navigation device.” See
paragraph [0001]. Hoshino also describes that it was known to use GPS for
determining a current location and that it was also known to use “inertial
navigation” for finding a current location by integrating advancing azimuth and
moving distance. See paragraph [0002]. Furthermore, paragraph [0003] states it
was known to use these two different techniques together. Hoshino notes the
problem of inertial guidance, namely that integrating speed from a vehicle speed
sensor and bearing from a gyroscope, magnetism senor, etc. accumulate errors over
time. Thus position determined without correction becomes more inaccurate over
time. See paragraph [0005].
There are various ways to cope with this accumulating error as already noted
with respect to previously discussed references noted by Petitioner. The Hoshino
approach is to correct measured values (of vehicle sensors) using GPS (referred to
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

26

in the English translation Exhibit 1015 as “wave navigation”). See Exhibit 1015
paragraph [0006].
As described in Hoshino paragraph [0032] a “locator 16” displays a
calculated location using a map on a display 18. The vehicle driver then confirms
current location. This is the only description of how map data is used to “correct”
a location that may have been determined with some inaccuracy. There is no
description related to updating a GPS-determined velocity vector which is then
used to project a current position from a previous position. Thus we conclude that
Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in
proving the subject matter of claims 1-4 to be anticipated by Hoshino.

J. Lipp (Ex. 1016)
Petitioner contends that Lipp anticipates claims 5-8 and renders claim 9
obvious. Their claim charts related to this reference appear at pages 53-56 of the
Petition.

1. Claims 5-8
Claims 5-8 require calibrating an “orthogonal axes accelerometer” using
GPS velocity-derived lateral and longitudinal calibration information. Petitioner’s
claim chart points us to Lipp page 448 as describing this claim feature. Page 448
describes that during GPS-aided dead reckoning navigation, data delivered from a
GPS receiver are compared and integrated in a Kalman filter. This comparison
results in an update of position, heading angle, and “odometer calibration data.”
There is no convincing evidence cited to suggest that an odometer, which provides
a measure of distance traveled, is the equivalent of an orthogonal axes
accelerometer as required by claims 5-8. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

27

not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the subject
matter of claims 5-8 to be anticipated by Lipp.

2. Claim 9
Petitioner asserts that claim 9 is rendered obvious by Lipp (single reference)
because “calibration inherently requires updating information stored in the
accelerometers, and scale factors are a well-known method to store calibration
information that one skilled in the art would think to use.” As stated with respect
to claims 5-8, Lipp does not describe the use of an orthogonal axes accelerometer
that is calibrated using lateral and longitudinal calibration information. Thus, we
conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will
prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 9 to be obvious in view of Lipp
alone.

K. Combination of Anderson and Yoshinori – claim 12
Neither Anderson nor Yoshinori explicitly describes an “orthogonal axes
accelerometer.” Anderson describes a “flux compass 12” for determining direction
and a “radar gun 24” for determining speed. See Anderson Fig. 1. Anderson
describes the potential use of “accelerometers” as an “optional supplement” at
column 11 lines 24-25. Yoshinori describes a “gyro 8” for providing “angle
information,” a “geomagnetic sensor 7” for providing directional information and a
“vehicle wheel speed sensor 5” for providing speed information. See Yoshinori
Fig. 1. To bridge the gap from these descriptions in Anderson and Yoshinori,
Petitioner proffers the declaration of William Michalson. Ex. 1021. Dr.
Michalson states at page 46 of his declaration that “This element is an obvious
modification of the cited reference. The reference discloses an orthogonal axes
IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

28

accelerometer having longitudinal and lateral acceleration information. See
Anderson at c. 11 ll. 21–25; JP App. No. H4- 121618 at 8. One of ordinary skill in
the art would know that accelerometers inherently have offsets, that offsets must be
compensated or ‘zeroed,’ and that methods are available in the art to zero the
accelerometer. One of skill in the art would have a strong motivation to combine
these known references and techniques, and knowledge of how to do so, in order to
achieve their anticipated results.” Because Dr. Michalson has cited to two
different references (Anderson and Yoshinori), it is not clear to which he refers.
However, there is no persuasive evidence presented that either the structures of
Anderson or the structures of Yoshinori suggest an “orthogonal axes
accelerometer.” Furthermore, no persuasive evidence has been presented that
either Anderson or Yoshinori “updates said GPS velocity information with heading
before propagating said previous position to a current position” as required by
claim 12.
For at least these reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the subject matter of claim 12
to be obvious in view of Anderson and Yoshinori.

IV. SUMMARY
We have not identified any of Petitioner’s proposed reasons for
unpatentability on which Petitioner will likely prevail. Petitioner has failed to
demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions as to any of the
challenged claims.

IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

29

V. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims.
FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.

IPR2013-00027
Patent 5,862,511

30

Petitioner:

Paul R. Steadman
Matthew D. Satchwell
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
Email: paul.steadman@kirkland.com
Email: matthew.satchwell@kirkland.com

Patent Owner:

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