US 10551208

I'll research US patent 10551208 across the requested sources.

Let me dig deeper into the litigation activity and the claim text.

US Patent No. 10,551,208 ("the '208 patent")

Bibliographic data (verified against the full patent text and Google Patents)

Continuation chain (per the patent's own Cross‑Reference section): 16/517,566 ← 16/377,228 ← 15/887,989 (now 10,274,337) ← 15/657,141 (9,921,077) ← 15/435,283 (9,746,341) ← 14/997,521 (9,607,346) ← 14/067,415 (9,354,069) ← 13/346,265 (8,577,390) ← 12/929,458 (8,095,152) ← 12/484,091 (7,881,730) ← division of 10/410,740 (7,565,155) ← provisional 60/371,941 (2002‑04‑10). Note: one third‑party aggregator (Unified Patents, for the sibling application 13/346,265) lists a priority date of 2002‑04‑09 and an original assignee of Telecommunication Systems Inc.; I flag this as a discrepancy in one non‑authoritative source rather than asserting it. The '208 patent itself lists Bluestone Ventures, Inc. and a 2002‑04‑10 priority.

Abstract (verbatim)

"The preferred embodiments of the present invention are directed to methods and systems for dynamic route estimation and prediction using discrete sampled location updates from various mobile devices for the purpose of providing a graphical representation of a mobile device's route along a known network path of map data. The embodiments also provide supplemental route metrics, such as traveled distance, elapsed time, etc., and the capability to assign destination points for the purpose of providing the ability to modify location update points in an application, such as a route planner, and/or to store the dynamically generated route based on various preferences for later retrieval."

Plain‑language overview of the independent claims

Caveat: I was able to verify the identities and some quoted language of the independent claims from litigation documents that quote the '208 patent with column/line cites (e.g., Claim 1 at 19:39–64), but I did not retrieve the complete verbatim claim set from USPTO Patent Center in this session. The overview below is therefore a paraphrase; the exact wording should be confirmed against the granted claim text.

Independent Claim 1 (columns 19:39–64 per the complaint) — a computer-implemented method of dynamically estimating/predicting and displaying a route:

• Receive/obtain discrete location updates (e.g., GPS fixes) for a mobile computing device, including a starting location and a destination location.
• Determine a plurality of possible routes from the starting location to the destination location by performing a route computation using map data (i.e., actual road‑network paths rather than straight lines between GPS dots).
• Display those possible routes on a map along with the device's current location.
• As the device moves, dynamically update the display: display a new possible route from the current location on the map and remove a previously displayed possible route so the display reflects the path actually being taken.

Independent Claim 13 — also independent and asserted in the current litigation; per the complaint it likewise covers the route‑computation‑on‑map‑data approach, and (per plaintiff's characterization) additionally requires modifying/removing routes based on the map data and the current location. I do not have its verbatim limitations and will not fabricate them.

Supporting themes appearing across the specification and reflected in dependent claims: snapping location fixes to the nearest road segment (map‑matching to a common datum); route preferences (driving speeds, fastest vs. shortest, avoid highways/tolls); predictive routing between updates using heading/speed/road speed limits/turn restrictions; route metrics such as total distance and elapsed time; peer‑to‑peer, peer‑to‑server/server‑to‑peer, and local‑storage transfer architectures; converting breadcrumb points into origin/via/stop/destination points in a route planner; and multi‑vehicle ranking ("satellite" devices to a "central" point, e.g., taxi dispatch).

Litigation found (as of 2026‑04‑26)

• Bluestone Ventures, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 7:25‑cv‑00569, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division (Judge David Counts); complaint filed 2025‑12‑12. The '208 patent is one of four patents asserted (with U.S. 9,746,341; 10,274,337; and a "’513" patent). The complaint asserts validity under § 101 and accuses Google Maps/Google Pixel products.
• Docket activity through late April 2026: Answer filed, Rule 26(f) report (2026‑04‑13), Scheduling Order entered 2026‑04‑22, and a sealed motion plus a "Transfer Case" entry on 2026‑04‑24. That transfer entry is notable — a § 1404 venue transfer could relocate the case out of W.D. Tex., and I cannot confirm from the available snippets where it went.
• The Google Patents family page also flags this family as having first worldwide family litigation (Darts‑IP family 34395939), consistent with the above.

CAFC 2026 dockets

No Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2026 docket or opinion involving US 10,551,208 was found. The only CAFC 2026 document returned by my searches was an unrelated non‑precedential Rule 36 judgment, Sentient Sensors LLC v. Xilinx, Inc. et al., No. 2025‑1058 (Apr. 10, 2026). Because the district case is still at the scheduling/venue stage as of April 2026, no appeal of the '208 patent would yet be ripe — so the absence of a CAFC docket is expected, not anomalous.

Uncertainty statements

• I could not verify a verbatim full claim set (all independent and dependent claims) for the '208 patent in this session; claim 1 and claim 13 are confirmed as the independent claims by the complaint, and claim 1's gist is corroborated by quoted language and a column/line cite.
• I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket for patent 10,551,208 — I am reporting the negative result rather than implying one exists.
• The '208 patent's "Expired – Fee Related" status and 2023‑04‑10 anticipated expiration are Google Patents' annotations, which the site itself labels as assumptions; they should be confirmed in USPTO Patent Center if relied upon.
• The 2002‑04‑09 vs. 2002‑04‑10 priority date discrepancy noted above comes from a third‑party aggregator and is not resolved here.
• I did not locate a USPTO Patent Center page directly in these searches; the bibliographic data above is taken from the authoritative full patent text you supplied plus the Google Patents and Espacenet records for the same family (family 034395939).

I'll research litigation involving US 10551208, starting with the litigation reference already flagged in the patent record and expanding from there.

The initial search confirms one case. Let me gather details and check for additional cases.

I found a second potential case (Bluestone v. Uber). Let me verify it and look for others.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,551,208

Methodology / sources consulted: Unified Patents litigation caselist (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), RPX Insight, CourtListener/RECAP (PACER mirror), Docket Alarm, Justia Dockets, and the patent's own Google Patents record (which carries a litigation/hyperlink citation). I searched the specific number 10,551,208 and verified each hit against the actual complaint/specimen rather than relying on a number match.

One confirmed case

Confirmation that the '208 patent is actually asserted: The complaint in 7:25-cv-00569 expressly pleads the patent — "On February 4, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 10,551,208 ('the '208 patent') entitled 'Method and System for Dynamic Estimation and Predictive Route Generation' to inventors Michael Sheha, Angie Sheha, Stephen Petilli, and Arun Yarlagadda. A true and correct copy of the '208 patent is attached as Exhibit 3." (Compl. ¶ 75, CourtListener RECAP doc. gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879830.1.0). Bluestone also pleads ownership of the '208 patent (¶ 77) and pleads § 101 eligibility for it at ¶¶ 79–81. The complaint additionally asserts related family members U.S. 9,746,341 ("the '341 patent") and 10,274,337 ("the '337 patent"); the accused products/services are Google's mapping/navigation services and Google Pixel devices (per the complaint analysis at the Ex Parte case page).

Procedural posture as of April 2026 (from the CourtListener/RECAP docket):

• Dec. 12, 2025 — Complaint filed (Filing fee receipt no. ATXWDC-21092454); Rule 7 disclosure statement filed; case assigned to Judge Counts.
• Dec. 15, 2025 — Order referring case to Magistrate Judge Gilliland; summons issued.
• Jan. 19–20, 2026 — Google granted extension of time to answer.
• Jan. 26, 2026 — Summons returned executed.
• Mar. 23–30, 2026 — Pro hac vice appearances; Answer to Complaint filed (~Mar. 30, 2026).
• Apr. 1–23, 2026 — Initial pretrial conference setting, Rule 26(f) report/case management plan, and Scheduling Order entered (Apr. 22, 2026); docket also shows a "Transfer Case" entry (Apr. 23, 2026) and a sealed motion (Apr. 24, 2026).

No appeal (no CAFC matter) and no PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) directed to the '208 patent appeared in my searches. The patent's Google Patents record currently shows legal status "Expired – Fee Related," with an anticipated expiration of 2023-04-10.

Important negative finding — beware the similar-number decoys

The Unified Patents caselist filter for "10502" and the patent-family trail both surface a Bluestone Ventures Inc. v. Uber Technologies Inc. case (W.D. Tex., No. 6:21-cv-00685, filed June 2021; now closed). That case does not involve U.S. 10,551,208. The Uber complaint asserts U.S. 9,921,077 and U.S. 10,502,583 — the number 10,502,583 is what triggers the "10502" filter match, and it is a different patent (albeit from the same specification/family). Per your instruction not to return results for similar numbers, I have excluded the Uber case as '208 litigation and list it here only to flag the false-positive.

Bottom line

Based on the sources available, the only known litigation currently asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,551,208 is Bluestone Ventures, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00569 (W.D. Tex.), filed December 12, 2025, status: pending/open (answer filed, scheduling order entered, case in early pretrial stages).

Caveat / confidence level: I have high confidence in the Google case identification because I verified the '208 patent is explicitly named in the complaint. I have lower confidence that no other case exists, because Bluestone has asserted this patent family in multiple suits and I was unable to complete an exhaustive sweep of every PACER district, the ITC, or state courts. If you need a certified-clean docket history for the '208 patent, I recommend (a) pulling a full PACER/RECAP docket search and (b) a Darts-IP or Lex Machina family report for U.S. patent 10,551,208 and its family (the Google Patents record lists a worldwide family identifier and a Texas Western District litigation link). I would not represent to a court or a client that this is a complete list without that additional confirmation.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before reporting.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10551208. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the assignment records and the corporate history.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,551,208 B2

Research caveat up front: I was unable to retrieve the reel/frame images directly from USPTO Assignment Center within this research pass (the Assignment Center UI is not directly queryable via web search, and no indexed snapshot of the reel/frame for this patent surfaced). Accordingly, I have not fabricated reel/frame numbers. Where I state a recorded conveyance, it is corroborated by Google Patents' legal‑events feed (which mirrors the assignment recordation) and by the CourtListener/PACER dockets. Anything I could not verify is flagged as such. Verify reel/frame directly at the USPTO Assignment Center (search "10551208") or the Patent Assignment Search.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern note: I cannot confirm a within-12-month inventor exodus. However, all four named inventors executed the chain-of-title assignment to Bluestone Ventures, Inc. in 2019 (recorded 2019-07-29 per Google Patents legal events), roughly 17 years after the 2002 priority date and immediately before the 2019 continuation (this application, filed 2019-07-20) went to issue. That timing — inventors personally assigning a mature portfolio to a "Ventures"-named entity — is the classic pre-assertion ownership consolidation, not an inventor-departure event. Separately, Michael Sheha's inventor profile lists only two assignees: TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (6 applications) and Bluestone Ventures, Inc. (1 application), suggesting the navigation portfolio passed through (or was spun out of) the NIM/TCS lineage before landing at Bluestone. (Source: patents-review inventor profile for Michael Sheha.)

Original assignee

Bluestone Ventures, Inc. (Reston, Virginia per aggregator data; described in press coverage of the 2021 Uber suit as "a Virginia company"). The issued patent names this entity as both original and current assignee on Google Patents.

• Product embodying the claims: No evidence of any commercial product or service offered by Bluestone Ventures. The entity's visible activity is patent assertion (see litigation below). The technology traces to Networks In Motion's navigation software, but the asserting entity is not the product company.
• Primary line of business: Patent licensing / assertion based on available evidence.
• Current status: Operating as a litigating patent holder as of the 2025 Google complaint. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition surfaced.

Important lineage caveat: The patent's priority chain runs to provisional 60/371,941 (2002-04-10) and original application 10/410,740 (filed 2003-04-10, now US 7,565,155). The historical operating assignee during the early years appears to have been Networks In Motion (later acquired by TeleCommunication Systems ~2010, itself acquired by Comtech ~2016). I could not confirm via a recorded instrument how/when the rights moved from any operating entity to the individual inventors and then to Bluestone — that link is the weakest part of this record and is a strong candidate for a missed/intermediated transfer. Treat the "original assignee = Bluestone" label as the assignee of record at issue, not as proof Bluestone authored the 2002 invention.

Assignment timeline

Note: Only one recorded conveyance could be corroborated. The reel/frame is not available to me, so it is marked as "reel/frame not retrieved."

• 2019-07-20 (application filed) — no assignment yet recorded at filing

  • The application US 16/517,566 was filed by Bluestone Ventures, Inc. as a continuation.

• 2019-07-29 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: PETILLI, STEPHEN; SHEHA, ANGIE; SHEHA, MICHAEL; YARLAGADDA, ARUN (all four named inventors, jointly)
  • Assignee: Bluestone Ventures, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from the indexed record — Assignment Center holds the recording attorney/agent of record, but it did not surface in any indexed source. This is the single most important field to pull manually.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter. The four individual inventors conveyed their entire interest to Bluestone Ventures nine days after the continuation was filed, consolidating clean title in the eventual plaintiff entity ahead of assertion. (Source: Google Patents legal events — "2019-07-29 Assigned to Bluestone Ventures, Inc. … Assignors: PETILLI, STEPHEN, SHEHA, ANGIE, SHEHA, MICHAEL, YARLAGADDA, ARUN.")

• 2020-02-04 (issue) — US 10,551,208 B2 granted.

  • No subsequent assignment, security interest, merger, or change-of-name has been recorded as of the patent page's captured legal events — the chain appears to terminate at Bluestone Ventures, Inc.

If Assignment Center shows additional links (e.g., a Network In Motion → inventor or TCS → Bluestone assignment, or a security agreement), they did not surface in any indexed source and should be captured manually. Absent those, the record is a single-link chain: inventors → Bluestone Ventures, Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10551208
    2002 : Priority provisional filed
    2003 : Parent application filed
    2019 : Continuation filed by Bluestone
         : Inventors assign rights to Bluestone
    2020 : Patent granted
    2021 : Bluestone sues Uber
    2025 : Bluestone sues Google

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present (moderate).
The sole recorded conveyance moves the entire right, title, and interest from four individual inventors to Bluestone Ventures, Inc., a "Ventures"-suffixed entity with no evidence of any product in commerce (see signal 2). Name suffix "Ventures" is one of the enumerated tells. However, the transfer was not from an operating assignee to a licensing LLC in the recorded instrument — it was from individuals — so I mark this moderate rather than strong. Registered-agent address and single-member status could not be verified.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present.
Unified Patents' litigation portal expressly classifies Bluestone Ventures Inc as plaintiff entity type "NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)" in case 6:21-cv-00685 (Bluestone v. Uber, filed 2021-06-29, W.D. Tex.). This is an affirmative classification by a named source in the task's source list, not an inference from naming. (Source: Unified Patents litigation case list.) Bluestone is not one of the enumerated marquee NPEs (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi‑LAN, etc.), but the Unified Patents NPE flag is concrete evidence.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear.
Only one assignment link is confirmed, so a same-correspondent recurrence on the record cannot be established. I could not retrieve the recording correspondent (the decisive field for this signal). Litigation counsel, however, is a repeat player: Raymond W. Mort, III / The Mort Law Firm, PLLC filed both the Uber‑era and the 2025 Google complaint (the Uber complaint also lists of‑counsel Daignault Iyer LLP). Mort Law Firm is a high-volume Texas patent-plaintiff firm; its recurrence across Bluestone's suits is worth flagging, but it is litigation counsel, not the assignment correspondent, so it is not a clean hit for this signal.

4. Cascading transfers — not present.
No chain of consecutive LLC-to-LLC transfers is in evidence. The record shows one assignment (inventors → Bluestone). Marked not present on the available record; re-check Assignment Center for hidden intermediate links.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present (borderline).
The recorded assignment (2019-07-29) predates the first Bluestone patent suit (2021-06-29) by roughly 23 months, outside the 6-month window. Marked not present. (If a later, closer-in-time transfer exists in Assignment Center that did not surface, this call would change.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present.
No Chapter 7/11 of an assignor surfaced, and the acquiring entity is not a bankruptcy estate. Not present.

7. Privateering — unclear.
Given inventor Michael Sheha's provenance (Networks In Motion → TCS → Comtech) and the inventors' direct 2019 assignment to the asserting entity, it is possible Bluestone is an inventor-affiliated monetization vehicle rather than an arm's-length purchaser. But I have no SEC filing, EFF/Patent Progress coverage, or record instrument linking Bluestone to an operating "principal" asserting on its behalf. Unclear — not a finding on current evidence.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. The inverse posture applies: Bluestone is itself the asserting party.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two independent strong signals converge: (i) Unified Patents affirmatively classifies Bluestone Ventures, Inc. as an "NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)" in 6:21-cv-00685, and (ii) the only recorded conveyance moves 100% of rights from the four individual inventors to a non-practicing "Ventures" entity (recorded 2019-07-29), which then asserted the portfolio against Uber (2021-06-29, W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00685) and Google (2025-12-12, W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00569) with no product of its own. The absence of any recorded post-2019 transfer, security interest, or merger reinforces that Bluestone is the terminal asserting holder rather than an operating company defending its own market.

Caveats to close before finalizing: pull the reel/frame and the recording correspondent for the 2019-07-29 assignment (the correspondent field is the highest-value tell and did not surface here); and confirm whether Assignment Center hides any Network In Motion / TCS → inventor → Bluestone intermediate links, which would convert the "origin" story and possibly trigger the pre-litigation-transfer and privateering signals.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search 10551208) and the mirrored search at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Litigation corroboration: RPX Insight – Bluestone v. Google; Unified Patents case list; CourtListener docket 7:25-cv-00569.

I'll search for the patent and its cited references.

Let me get the specific citation lists for this patent.

Let me try to access the specific citation data for this patent.

US 10,551,208 — Prior‑Art Analysis

Confidence & sourcing note up front: I was able to verify the bibliographic record and the immediate family structure for US 10,551,208 from the authoritative full text you supplied (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑24) plus corroborating third‑party records. However, I was not able to retrieve the patent's on‑face "(56) References Cited" list within the search budget available. The full‑text dump you provided contains the specification, claims, abstract, classifications, and "Definitions" sections, but it excludes the front‑page citation block. I will not invent citation numbers. What follows separates verified fact from field‑level candidate art that would need to be confirmed against the actual front page / file wrapper before being cited as "the citations for 10551208."

1. Verified record for US 10,551,208 (literal reading, no auto‑correction)

Priority/§ 102 cutoff. Because the '208 patent is a continuation claiming benefit back to provisional 60/371,941, the effective prior‑art cutoff for § 102 is April 10, 2002 (April 10, 2003 for the earliest non‑provisional filing), subject to the In re Hilmer / pre‑AIA § 102(e) lineage rules and to whether each intervening continuation properly carries the disclosure forward. Any reference that post‑dates April 10, 2002 cannot be § 102 art unless it is a § 102(e)/(g) reference; anything after April 10, 2003 is available only under § 102(e)/§ 103 theory. This is the single most important gating fact for the whole exercise, and it is why the near‑contemporaneous DeLorme/route‑calculation art is the relevant universe.

Claim targets for § 102. Independent claims 1 and 13 (and the parallel apparatus claims 7/19, per the litigation pleading in the record describing claims 1–6 and 13–18 as parallel method/apparatus sets). The legally operative limitations are:

• (1) receiving a starting location "in reference to map data";
• (2) receiving a destination location in reference to the map data;
• (3) determining a plurality of possible routes by route computation on map data (claim 13 adds "point on a map");
• (4) obtaining a travel time for each of the possible routes;
• (5) in response to travel, determining plural locations from location information obtained from the device, and causing display of (a) the possible routes, (b) travel time, (c) indication of the plural locations; and (6) either displaying a new possible route from current position to destination or removing a previously displayed route. Claim 13 frames the final step as modifying or removing a route based on map data and current location and displaying an indication of that modification/removal. Claims 3–4 / 15–16 add route preferences; claims 5–6 add location sharing over P2P / P2S / S2P / local‑storage architectures.

Under § 102 the analysis is strict: a single reference must disclose every one of these elements, including the dynamic add/remove of a computed road‑network route (not merely drawing straight breadcrumb lines). That last limitation is the novelty hook the family has relied on, and it is also the element most prior art fails to reach — which is why the specification itself spends its "Description of the Related Art" distinguishing line‑connected breadcrumb trails from true route computation.

2. What I could confirm about the citation record — and the limit of it

• The sibling patent US 10,677,608 B2 (application 16/747,460, granted 2020‑06‑09, same inventor group/assignee) is recorded by Unified Patents with "Patent Art (8), Non‑Patent Literature (0), Referenced By (2)." (portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/10677608). The '208 and '608 are both continuations out of the same Sheha chain, so the examiner‑cited art across the family is expected to be substantially overlapping — but the '608 count is not proof of the '208 list, and I am not treating it as such.
• No PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM) against US 10,551,208 surfaced in any of my searches. Recall that the previously generated "PTAB challenges" section is a stub ("I'll verify the structured data against public sources before reporting"). Building on it: the structured data I retrieved shows district‑court activity (W.D. Tex. 7:25‑cv‑00569; earlier family litigation), not a Patent Trial and Appeal Board challenge. If you need a definitive negative, that must be confirmed against the PTAB API / PTAB Trials database, which I could not query here.

Flagged inconsistency (not an auto‑correction): the record contains a CourtListener pleading captioned "United States Patent No. 9,746,341" whose body asserts the '208 patent. These are two distinct family members (the '341 and the '208 are separate continuations). The caption/body mismatch is a document‑labeling artifact, not evidence that the patent numbers are equivalent — treat 9,746,341 and 10,551,208 as distinct numbers, as instructed.

3. Prior art of interest — clearly labeled as candidates, not confirmed face citations

Because I could not pull the on‑face list, I will not present the following as "the citations for 10551208." They are the field‑level references that a § 102 analysis of these specific claims must run against, given the 2002 priority date and the CPC neighborhood (G01C21/34–21/36, G08G1/20). Each requires confirmation on the patent's front page or in the file wrapper before being cited:

Analytical bottom line on anticipation: For the independent claims as written, the dynamic "display a new possible route from the current location to the destination and/or remove a previously displayed possible route" step (claim 1) and the "modify or remove… based on the map data and a current location" step (claim 13) are the discriminating limitations. Most pre‑2002 mapping/GPS art discloses computing a route and tracking a position, but not re‑computing and dynamically adding/removing route legs on the display as breadcrumb updates arrive. That is where a § 102 anticipation would most plausibly land, and where an obviousness combination would most plausibly be built. Any reference set that merely shows "connect the GPS dots" or "recalculate route on deviation" (classic turn‑by‑turn re‑routing) does not meet the "plurality of possible routes … display … remove" structure and should be characterized as § 103 material, not § 102.

4. What I recommend to close the gap

To produce a citation‑by‑citation § 102 table (full citation, publication/filing date, description, mapped claims), the following are needed and were not obtainable within this session:

1. The (56) References Cited block of the US 10,551,208 front page (patentimages.google.com / USPTO PatentCenter PDF), and
2. The file wrapper (USPTO PatentCenter for 16/517,566) to capture examiner citations and any 892 notices that did not appear on the face.

If you supply that front‑page image or the PatentCenter document list, I can immediately build the requested table for each reference with literal numbers preserved and § 102 element‑mapping to claims 1, 7, 13, and 19.

I want to be explicit rather than fabricate: I do not have high‑confidence recall of the specific reference numbers on the face of US 10,551,208, and I have therefore not listed any as authoritative.

I'll ground this analysis in actual prior-art references rather than relying on memory. Let me search.

I have solid map-matching and route-replanning references. Let me fill the remaining gaps: route reconstruction between two fixes, predictive route extrapolation, location sharing, and dispatch ranking.

Before the analysis: three scope caveats you need to know

1. You asked me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." The Google Patents page you supplied does not contain a Prior Art listing. Its only prior-art-related fields are the machine-extracted "Prior art keywords" (computing device, location, mobile computing, route, possible routes) and the incorporated-by-reference "Definitions" paragraph about the parent patents. Those are not references. I therefore ran my own prior-art search and grounded the analysis in the references below. If you have a separate OA/IDS/PAIR "References Cited" list, send it — my grounds should be re-run against it.

2. The claim text I anchored on is the family's, not verified as the '208's verbatim set. Earlier sections flagged that only Claim 1 (19:39–64) and Claim 13 were confirmed, by column/line cite in the complaint. In this session I retrieved complete family claim language from the sibling continuations — US 8,577,390 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8577390#6) and US 10,996,071 (https://patents.justia.com/patent/10996071#3). Those claims are close to, but not necessarily identical to, the '208's. Everything below maps to the family claim language and must be re-verified against the granted '208 claims (or pre-grant pub. US 2019/0339090 A1) before it is used in a filing. I flag this again in the weaknesses section.

3. Prior-art window. If the '208 claims are entitled to the 2002‑04‑10 provisional, the window is Art < 2002‑04‑10 (plus pre-AIA § 102(e) art with earlier filing dates). I apply that window and flag any reference that may fall outside it.

Source contradiction flagged: the earlier summary noted a 2002‑04‑09 priority and a Telecommunication Systems Inc. assignee from a third-party aggregator for sibling 13/346,265. That is a different application and does not change this analysis, which uses the '208's stated 2002‑04‑10 date. No contradiction otherwise.

§ 103 obviousness analysis — US 10,551,208

A. Reference set (all verified in this session unless marked)

B. Element-by-element mapping to the family claim language

Claim 1 as it appears in the family (verbatim from US 10,996,071, patents.justia.com/patent/10996071#3):

Dependent claims (5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 23, 25, 32, 34, etc.) — snapping to nearest road pathway/segment; dynamic route estimation; predictive route calculations; GPS; sharing location with a second computing device; inferred speed/heading/road speed limit/turn restriction metrics — map as follows:

• Snapping → US 5,488,559 claim 17 (nearest road, with heading) and US 5,270,937 step 24.
• Predictive route → DE 198 03 662 C2 + WO 94/08250 (dead reckoning when absolute positioning unavailable; predicted speeds adjusted from measured performance); EP 1 376 060 A1 if its date holds up.
• Inferred speed/heading/road speed limit/turn restriction → WO 94/08250 (class-of-road speed, traffic-message data, node/one-way/unlawful-turn handling in the claims).
• Sharing with a second computing device → US 7,149,625 (distributed navigation) + the admitted AVL art.
• Route preferences (fastest vs. shortest; avoid highways/tolls; device-specific) → US 6,622,087, US 6,615,133, US 2002/0128773.

C. Proposed combination grounds

Ground 1 — Base: US 5,270,937 in view of WO 94/08250

Covers at least claim 1 and dependent claims 5, 6, 13, 22, 23, 31, 32, 40, 41.

US 5,270,937 discloses the map-data route computation, the destination input, the map-matched position on the road network, the map display of the route with the vehicle position, and heading-aided matching. WO 94/08250 supplies precisely what the '208 frames as its contribution over breadcrumbs: (i) route recalculation on every node traversal and explicit Off-Route detection/replanning — i.e., modifying the displayed route "based on the map data and a subsequent location"; and (ii) continually updated ETA and remaining distance.

Motivation (KSR): Both are vehicle route-guidance systems addressing the same problem — a displayed route that no longer matches where the vehicle actually is. WO '250 states its own reason ("It cannot always be assumed that the driver has correctly followed the instructions"), which is the classic "a recognized problem, obvious solution" rationale. Combining a known router + display with a known re-planning/monitoring routine is "a combination of familiar elements according to known methods" yielding predictable results (KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 416, 417). No reference teaches away; WO '250's own claims presuppose a map-data router of the US '937 type.

Ground 2 — Ground 1 further in view of US 2002/0128773 (+ US 6,622,087 / US 6,615,133)

Adds the "plurality of possible routes … travel time to the destination for each" limitations.

US 2002/0128773 (filed 2001‑03‑09, pre-priority; § 102(e) date is its filing date for what it describes) provides the multiple-route generation and real-time-parameter selection; US 6,622,087 and US 6,615,133 provide history-derived, device-specific route preferences — the '208's "Driving Speeds / Route Optimization Goal / Road Preferences" idea.

Motivation: US '773 is in the same field of route guidance and its stated purpose (giving drivers alternatives under user preferences and real-time conditions) is the same problem the '208 addresses. A PHOSITA retasked with showing the driver more than one candidate path would find it obvious to compute and label each with the travel time already produced by WO '250's link-time model. Predictable-result + design-incentive rationales.

Ground 3 — Snapping/path-matching layer: US 5,488,559 and/or EP 0 393 935 B1

Covers claims 5/14/23/32 (snapping) and the "estimated route from breadcrumb points" theme.

US 5,488,559 claim 17 expressly recites updating a position to "a location and heading on a road segment most proximate" the device's position — the claimed snap-to-road. EP 0 393 935 B1 goes further: it matches a path pattern built from a series of estimated locations to road patterns and picks the highest-similarity road, which is route reconstruction along the road network from discrete fixes.

Motivation: The '208 spec supplies the motivation itself — "since both the mobile device and the map data typically have some positional error … the map data is preferably used as the datum, and the mobile device's location information is 'snapped-to' the nearest point or segment." A PHOSITA needing route computation to be accurate against a given map datum would obviously apply the known snapping technique of US '559/EP '935.

Ground 4 — Predictive routing between updates: WO 94/08250 + DE 198 03 662 C2 (+ EP 1 376 060 if dated pre-priority)

Covers dependent claims reciting "predictive route calculations" (family claims 7, 16, 25, 34).

WO '250 recites dead reckoning "when data derived from the absolute positioning system is not available" and adjusts predicted link speeds using the vehicle's actual measured performance; DE 198 03 662 C2 is the express dead-reckoning-position art. EP 1 376 060 A1 discloses routing from a predicted future vehicle position computed from the current speed — but as a likely-2004 publication it is a § 102(a)/102(e) problem for a 2002 priority date, and I could not verify its filing date within this session. Do not rely on EP '060 without date verification.

Ground 5 — Dispatch/ranking claims (if the '208 has claims of this scope)

The '208 spec admits that "Line‑Of‑Sight (LOS) distance calculations … are currently used in the prior art" for deciding which vehicle is closest, and frames the invention as substituting map-based route/time computation. That admission, combined with WO '250's route-time-per-link computation, makes ranking a set of mobile devices by computed on-road travel time to a central point an obvious substitution of a better-known metric for a coarser one — the "substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results" rationale. I did not locate a pre-2002 granted dispatch-route reference in this session (the dispatch hits I got — US 10,217,069, US 2015/0161752, JP 2013‑076643 — are all far too late to matter), so this ground is weaker as currently evidenced and needs a pre-2002 AVL/dispatch search.

D. Motivation to combine — consolidated narrative

A PHOSITA at the 2002 priority date (an engineer in vehicle navigation / AVL / GIS) would combine these because:

1. Same field, same problem, same users. All the primary references are road-navigation or fleet-tracking systems; the field is unitary (CPC G01C 21/xx, G08G 1/xx). KSR permits combination where references are in the same field and address the same problem.
2. The '208's own specification supplies the motives. It states the need to snap fixes to map data (motive to use US '559/EP '935), states that breadcrumb-only displays are inadequate (motive to use map-based routing per US '937/WO '250), and states that LOS dispatch sorting is inferior (motive to use route-time metrics).
3. Predictable combination. Router + map-matched fixes + periodic re-plan + metric display is an assembly of known elements each performing its known function — the classic KSR formulation.
4. Design incentive / consumer demand. Real-time tracking, dispatch safety (police/fire/rescue, per the spec) and telematics demand produced strong market pressure in 1993–2001 to update a displayed route live and to switch from straight-line to on-road metrics.
5. No teaching away. Nothing in US '937, US '559, EP '935 or WO '250 disparages route re-planning, snapping, or multi-route display.

E. Where the case is weakest — argue these before filing

1. Claim-text mismatch risk (highest priority). My mapping uses the sibling continuations' claims. If the granted '208 claims differ — e.g., the earlier summary's characterization of Claim 1 as "receive discrete location updates … including a starting location and a destination location" with a removal step — re-map every element. Get the verbatim '208 claims from USPTO Patent Center or US 2019/0339090 A1.
2. "Display an indication of the modification or the removal." Element (e) is the element most likely to be argued as a display-specific contribution. WO '250 + routine GUI update is a serviceable but not airtight answer; look for a pre-2002 reference expressly showing a changed route being re-drawn/flagged.
3. "Determining a travel time for each of the plurality of possible routes" as a positive recitation. US '773's disclosure content (beyond its title) is unverified by me; confirm it actually computes per-route travel times.
4. Predictive routing claims. Only weak pre-2002 support (DE 198 03 662 / WO '250 dead reckoning). EP 1 376 060 is likely post-priority — verify before citing.
5. Dispatch/ranking claims. No pre-2002 granted route-based dispatch reference located. The admitted LOS art helps, but the 2013–2019 dispatch hits are useless and citing them would be a credibility problem.
6. References of record you should mine first. The family's own IDS already cites US 5,819,227 (Obuchi, 1998), US 5,948,040 (DeLorme, 1999) and US 6,085,148 (Jamison, 2000) — all pre-2002 and presumably reviewed by the examiner at allowance. Their content is the single most likely source of an unconsidered-art problem, and I did not retrieve it here.
7. Enabling date discipline. Every secondary reference must be characterized with its actual § 102 date (issue vs. filing) under pre-AIA rules; US 2002/0128773's publication date is after 2002‑04‑10 but its filing date is before it.
8. Procedural reality check. Consistent with the earlier section, the only identified controversy is Bluestone Ventures v. Google LLC, No. 7:25‑cv‑00569 (W.D. Tex.) with a "Transfer Case" docket entry (2026‑04‑24). I found no IPR/PGR against the '208 in the material available, so the claims have apparently never been validity-tested at the PTAB. That is where a § 103 challenge would be most efficient — but note the patent is annotated "Expired – Fee Related" with anticipated expiration 2023‑04‑10, which normally eliminates IPR as a tool and makes § 103 live only in the pending litigation and in any enforcement campaign against products whose conduct continues.

F. Bottom line

On the merits, the family claim language looks highly vulnerable under § 103. US 5,270,937 (map-data routing + map-matched position + route display) in view of WO 94/08250 (route recalculation on every node, off-route detection and re-planning, continually updated ETA/remaining distance) renders the core "compute on map data → display → modify/remove as the vehicle moves" sequence obvious, with US 5,488,559 / EP 0 393 935 B1 supplying snapping and path-matching and US 2002/0128773 / US 6,622,087 / US 6,615,133 supplying the plurality-of-routes and preference elements. The residual risk is in (i) claim-vs-family text fidelity, (ii) the display-of-modification element, and (iii) the predictive-routing and dispatch subsets, where my pre-2002 evidence is thin and in one case (EP 1 376 060) possibly time-barred.

Single most valuable next step: pull the '208's verbatim claims plus its complete "References Cited" from USPTO Patent Center / US 2019/0339090 A1 — the examiner's cited art (US 5,819,227; 5,948,040; 6,085,148) is pre-2002 and is the likeliest source of an efficiently provable § 103 ground.