[00:00:43] Speaker 01:
Okay, the next case is number 14-1427, in-ramp traffic information, LLC.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
When you're ready, Mr. Chair.

[00:01:04] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:01:08] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:01:10] Speaker 03:
My name is Gavin Russell and I represent Traffic Information LLC.

[00:01:15] Speaker 03:
And the two claims that issue this case are claims 10, 21 of the 862 patent.

[00:01:21] Speaker 03:
In essence, what claims 10 and 21 both generally claim is that there's a request for traffic information.

[00:01:30] Speaker 03:
And then in response to that particular request for traffic information, the system provides traffic information.

[00:01:38] Speaker 03:
Then as a subsequent

[00:01:40] Speaker 03:
part and claim 10 and 21, this requesting and providing is based upon the geographic data, namely that the request itself includes the geographic data that selects the traffic information, not the traffic information as of course generated from geographic data.

[00:02:04] Speaker 03:
So the issues in this case then becomes a case of anticipation with respect to Hollenberg as to whether or not

[00:02:10] Speaker 03:
it discloses traffic information.

[00:02:13] Speaker 03:
And then follow on to that whether it provides traffic information in response to a request.

[00:02:18] Speaker 03:
Our position, of course, is no.

[00:02:21] Speaker 03:
And also, whether the selection of that traffic information is pointed out is actually based on this geographic data via GPS data or geographic location, claims 10 and 21 respectively.

[00:02:34] Speaker 04:
Are you saying that at Holland Bridge there's no request for traffic data?

[00:02:39] Speaker 03:
there is no request for traffic data in Hollenberg, that is correct.

[00:02:45] Speaker 03:
And why there's no request in Hollenberg for traffic data, if we look at the appendix at pages 1365 and 1366, against the clearest graphical figures of Hollenberg, what Hollenberg has

[00:03:08] Speaker 03:
is that element 94 receives a request for services and it also provides the location.

[00:03:17] Speaker 03:
Then at 95 it processes that location data to generate internally to the server system this traffic information that we're talking about.

[00:03:31] Speaker 03:
Then it's not until after and then that traffic information at the option of the server if it decides it wants to.

[00:03:38] Speaker 03:
independently of the client side, it determines whether or not it's going to provide this traffic information to the user.

[00:03:50] Speaker 04:
And it's not until after... When you look at figure 13 of Holmberg, it seems to me that we have number 94, receive user data and request for services.

[00:04:04] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:04:06] Speaker 04:
Couldn't that be a request for traffic data services?

[00:04:10] Speaker 03:
No, it is not a request for traffic data services.

[00:04:13] Speaker 03:
Because what happens is that the location information is processed to help supplement the traffic data.

[00:04:22] Speaker 03:
If the server decides that, since the server actually keeps track of where the user's at, the server then determines whether or not this traffic data should be provided to the server.

[00:04:31] Speaker 03:
And it's not until after that occurs

[00:04:36] Speaker 03:
At step 97, that this request that you referenced in 94 is even processed.

[00:04:42] Speaker 03:
That request is not processed until 97.

[00:04:44] Speaker 03:
If the step is not processed until 97, our viewpoint is that merely because there's a correlation in the sequence that the boxes were listed in the figure, doesn't imply that one caused the other to occur.

[00:05:01] Speaker 03:
Namely that this request that you point out in 94

[00:05:07] Speaker 03:
this request is not processed until after the traffic information is sent to the user if the server decides to do so.

[00:05:17] Speaker 03:
Thus there would be no request for traffic information in the first place from the client.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
There's really no reason to do so.

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
And what I would follow up on that is that it seems to me that

[00:05:37] Speaker 03:
This is tacitly agreed to because in the briefing at pages 15 and 19 of the appellee, when you get to the part where it says, is there a request in Hollenberg for traffic information, rather than saying there is a request for traffic information, it's hedged by saying it fairly teaches a request for traffic information.

[00:06:03] Speaker 03:
It doesn't say it.

[00:06:04] Speaker 03:
Their statement fairly teaches request for traffic information.

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
And then we get to the part where it says, is there a response provided by the server for traffic information in response to the request, rather than showing where it's at, whether it's inherent or explicitly disclosed in here, what they say is one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the transmission of traffic information to be in response to the request, which in my opinion is tantamount to saying it has to be there because I say so.

[00:06:36] Speaker 03:
I don't see the evidence where it needs to be there.

[00:06:40] Speaker 03:
There's no inherent reason why it wouldn't work without that request because it's provided if the server decides to provide it to it.

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
And then the claims clearly require that the selection of this traffic information, not the generation of traffic information itself, but we're talking about this request for traffic information is based upon the geographic data, whether it be in claim 10 GPS,

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
or claims 21 geographic location.

[00:07:10] Speaker 03:
And that's all I have to say.

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
Do you have any questions?

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
Let's hear from the office and we'll save the rest of your time.

[00:07:21] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:07:33] Speaker 00:
May I please the court?

[00:07:35] Speaker 00:
The board's anticipation findings are supported by substantial evidence and they should be affirmed.

[00:07:40] Speaker 00:
Hollenberg does exactly what the claim convention does.

[00:07:43] Speaker 00:
It provides real-time traffic information to mobile users like automobiles, and it does it in exactly the same way.

[00:07:49] Speaker 00:
That is, mobile users can monitor their geographic location using GPS.

[00:07:54] Speaker 00:
They transmit their location data along with requests for information to the server.

[00:07:59] Speaker 00:
The server then collects data from multiple users

[00:08:02] Speaker 00:
and creates traffic information which it sends back to a requesting user.

[00:08:08] Speaker 00:
And that selected information is based on the user's location which is in turn based on GPS.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
The limitations that the appellant tends to rely on to distinguish over Hollenberg simply do not distinguish.

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
And in particular, the first thing that they submit is that there are no requests for traffic information and

[00:08:32] Speaker 00:
First of all, Column 21 doesn't even recite a request for traffic information.

[00:08:39] Speaker 00:
It recites only a request for information.

[00:08:43] Speaker 00:
And there's no question that Column 23, the specification clearly teaches requests for information at Line 17 to 18.

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
Moreover, repeatedly in lines 23 and 24, the specification teaches that the server processes and transmits to users traffic information that appears in column 23 at lines 33 in that 40 and column 24 at line 31.

[00:09:14] Speaker 00:
And so as the board correctly found an ordinarily skilled artisan upon reading the specification would appreciate that among the types of information that can be requested is traffic information.

[00:09:27] Speaker 00:
Secondly, the board correctly found that Hollenberg teaches that the traffic information is transmitted in response to requests.

[00:09:37] Speaker 00:
Again, at columns 23 and 24, and specifically in figures 13 and 14, the specification teaches that requests come in and thereafter the server responds by sending out information.

[00:09:55] Speaker 00:
And contrary to what the appellant has argued here, at step 94, information comes in in figure 13 and as taught at column 23, information is transmitted in step 96.

[00:10:14] Speaker 00:
And that is at column 23 beginning at around line 37.

[00:10:19] Speaker 00:
In addition, the specification teaches that filters can be established and that's what occurs at step 97.

[00:10:25] Speaker 00:
and in the server it takes those filters and those filters would, they can establish or limit the types of information that is requested and at steps 98 and 99 the server then selects and transmits the appropriate information.

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
And that's similarly at figure 14, requests come in at step 128 and

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
the server returns information in response to those requests.

[00:10:55] Speaker 00:
So I don't think there's any dispute that Hollenberg fairly teaches that the transmitted information is in response to the request.

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
And finally, with respect to the other argument that appellee, the other limitation, that selection must be based on a GPS signal, Hollenberg, like the A62 patent, teaches that selection is based on the location of the user

[00:11:20] Speaker 00:
And you'll see that, for example, in Figure 6 of Hollenberg.

[00:11:23] Speaker 00:
And that location is, in turn, based on GPS.

[00:11:27] Speaker 00:
And that is taught at Hollenberg at Line 18, Lines 31 to 33.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
And you'll see that in the 862 patent.

[00:11:35] Speaker 00:
Likewise, its location of the user that is determined based on GPS, and that's at Column 12, Lines 47 to 49.

[00:11:45] Speaker 00:
With all of that, I submit that there is substantial evidence supporting the board's decision and the board should be informed.

[00:11:55] Speaker 01:
Any questions for Ms.

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
Nelson?

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
Nelson.

[00:12:00] Speaker 01:
Mr. Russell.

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:12:12] Speaker 03:
I guess I would like to point out that

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
with reference to figure 13 of Hollenberg, it seems that there's no evidence.

[00:12:22] Speaker 03:
There's not substantial evidence.

[00:12:25] Speaker 03:
There's in fact no evidence that they point to that suggests that these requests that they receive at step 94, and they say that they're processed in 97, are used for providing the traffic information.

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
The traffic information is just done independently.

[00:12:45] Speaker 03:
get that feeling from the previous figures, from the previous embodiments of Hollenberg, where the traffic information is provided anonymously by the server, depending on whether or not the server determines the client could use the traffic information, whether it's appropriate.

[00:13:04] Speaker 03:
And then with reference to Figure 14 that was brought up in their briefing, Figure 14 merely shows

[00:13:12] Speaker 03:
that's 127 that there's a selection of filters.

[00:13:17] Speaker 03:
It sends a request to the provider which is figure 13.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
So 128 sends the request over to 94.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
And that request for data is that which is processed in 97.

[00:13:31] Speaker 03:
So it's not fair to characterize that the sending of 128 is a request for traffic information.

[00:13:37] Speaker 03:
Rather 128 is that which is received by the server.

[00:13:41] Speaker 03:
of that which is processed later after the traffic information has been provided.

[00:13:46] Speaker 03:
And the system works just fine without a request for traffic information.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
And I don't see anywhere in there where there's any express, implied request for traffic information.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
If there's not a request for traffic information, there's no traffic information provided in response and there's no geographic selection process.

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
Now with respect to the claims, just very briefly,

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
on claim, I think it was 21.

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
Part D, it's in, my reference is in the brief of the account on page 5.

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
But on Part D, it's this information, so it's the request for information, which is used in claim 21 as posted.

[00:14:36] Speaker 03:
And this information, and the server provides in response there too,

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
for this information, selected portions of the traffic information database and selected portions of the geographic database.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
Thus this information is referring back to the traffic information and the mobile users.

[00:14:58] Speaker 03:
And I believe my recollection is correct.

[00:15:02] Speaker 03:
There's an indented paragraph in our brief that points out even the examiner agreed that this is the request and response for traffic information, which is referred to as opposed

[00:15:12] Speaker 03:
any generic information because it still has to be the request is for information and the response is traffic information.

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
So the information that's referenced is traffic information in a relevant part.

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
That's all I have to say.

[00:15:24] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:15:24] Speaker 03:
Do you have any questions?

[00:15:30] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Mr. Russell and Ms.

[00:15:31] Speaker 01:
Nelson.

[00:15:31] Speaker 01:
The case is taken under submission and that concludes the argued cases.