Patent Law

Bad Coordinates

By Gary Odom and Jordan Kuhn

Vehicle IP sued General Motors and others over 6,535,743, claiming "a system for providing directions." The defendants evaded infringement in summary judgment over construction of the term "coordinate." The district court construed a coordinate as multiple numbers. The defendants' systems used a single scalar value. 2-1, the CAFC agreed.

Vehicle IP (VIP) v. General Motors, OnStar, Verizon Wireless and Networks in Motion (CAFC 2008-1259) non-precedential

Judge Prost wrote the opinion that Judge Bryson triangulated with.

Although not explicitly included in its definition, in discussing the term the court found that "[f]or something to be a coordinate it must have a partner so that together the coordinates can provide the location of a point." Vehicle IP, 578 F. Supp. 2d at 1117. The court therefore found that a "mere numeric value like 200 feet[] cannot be a coordinate without a partner." Id.

To compare a notification coordinate to the mobile unit's location, as required by the claims, the notification coordinate necessarily must be of the same kind or type as the mobile unit location coordinates. The location of the mobile unit is expressed in terms of latitude and longitude, and cannot "substantially correspond" to a scalar value, such as 500 meters. No meaningful comparison between the two is possible. The plain language of the claims precludes the possibility that a coordinate can be a scalar.

The specification use of coordinates reads nominally, as having a number for each dimension, such as (x,y) for a planar coordinate.

In one embodiment, the origination location of mobile unit 12 is the current location of mobile unit 12, and may be represented as "from" geographical coordinates.

The directions may comprise a series of commands, geographical coordinates, regions, zones, or any other suitable indicators of location that define a particular path or route of travel.

The prosecution history supported that conclusion.

Affirmed.

Judge Mayer convened math class in dissent. Too bad basic geometry eluded him.

The plain ordinary meaning of "coordinate" is quite broad and not limited to a longitude latitude pair. In mathematics, there are many types of coordinate systems and the common ground is that they all define a point... A coordinate should not be construed to exclude defining a point by an offset from another point along a known path.

Any point described by one coordinate system may be easily converted to another coordinate system for direct comparison.

Further support is found in the claims because a notification region is defined by a plurality of notification coordinates. A plurality of points is required to define a region in space. It is consistent to use coordinate in the singular to describe a single point within such a region. Also, the specification often uses coordinate in the singular in the term "geographical coordinate," which is clearly a point in space.

Nominally, a point, or coordinate, in three dimensional space requires three numbers (x,y,z).

coordinate (ca. 1823) - any of a set of numbers used in specifying the location of a point on a line, on a surface, or in space

Prosecutors have the opportunity to act as their own lexicographer, to define their own terms. The specification had done so for "directions," but not "coordinate." If the prosecutor had intended a two- or three-dimensional coordinate as a scalar, a single simple sentence would have sufficed.

A coordinate may be defined as any single or plurality of numbers that establish location.

Claim terms should be construed to take their ordinary meaning if no definition is provided.

Full post as published by The Patent Prospector on January 11, 2009 (boomark / email).