In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that all remaining claims of the ’111 Patent that were instituted for review (claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18-20, and 22) are unpatentable. The ’111 Patent describes a navigation system in which “information from a Global Position System (GPS) [is used] to obtain velocity vectors, which include speed and heading components, for propagating or ‘dead reckoning’ the vehicle position from a previous position to a current position.”
The Board began by construing the necessary claim term. The Board stated that claim terms are interpreted in their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. The Board then cited to Federal Circuit precedent that claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, and the inventor can act as his or her own lexicographer. The only claim term that was challenged as meaning anything other than its ordinary meaning was “position,” which is included in each and every claim. Patent Owner offered a construction of “position” on which it based its arguments distinguishing the claims at issue from the prior art. The Board rejected Patent Owner’s assertion that the ’111 Patent provides a narrow definition of the word, pointing to various ways that “position” is used throughout the specification. Therefore, the Board construed “position” more broadly than the definition proposed by Patent Owner.
As to the substance of the Final Written Decision, the Board first discussed Patent Owner’s argument that the inter partes review should be dismissed for non-compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) in that Petitioners have not identified all real parties-in-interest. Patent Owner asserted that at least Mazda Motor Corporation and Mazda Motor of America, Inc. are cooperating with Denso, and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. and Nissan North America, Inc. are cooperating with Clarion. The Board was not persuaded by Patent Owner’s assertions, finding that the only relationship alleged by Patent Owner is that of being co-defendants or concurrent defendants in related litigation and that fact alone does not make them real parties-in-interest. Further, the Board found that there is no evidence that the alleged real parties-in-interest guide or otherwise control the review.
The Board then turned to the anticipation arguments. Stating that it was not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, the Board found that claim 6 is anticipated by Maki (U.S. Patent No. 5,193,064). However, the Board found that Petitioner had not met its burden as to anticipation of claims 2 and 18 by Maki. Focusing again on Patent Owner’s arguments, the Board found that claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 18, and 20 are anticipated by Geier (U.S. Patent No. 5,416,712); claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 18-20, and 22 are anticipated by Anderson (U.S. Patent No. 5,684,476); and claims 2, 3, and 18 are anticipated by Endo (JP App. No. 1992-121618). However, the Board found that Petitioner had not met its burden in establishing unpatentability of claim 11 based on Endo.
Denso Corp. and Clarion Co. Ltd. v. Beacon Navigation GmbH, IPR2013-00026
Paper 34: Final Written Decision
Dated: March 14, 2014
Patent 6,029,111
Before: Glenn J. Perry, Thomas L. Giannetti, and Trevor M. Jefferson
Written by: Perry