US 10655979

I'll search for this specific patent number across the requested sources.

The initial searches returned mostly unrelated results. Let me run more targeted queries.

Let me try to retrieve the claim text and check for any 2026 litigation activity.

US 10,655,979 B2 — Analyst Summary

Scope of search performed: I searched for the literal identifier 10655979 / 10,655,979 across the web, USPTO-hosted/PTAB-hosted documents, Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, and Federal Circuit materials. I did not have direct credentialed access to USPTO PatentCenter or to the CAFC's internal docket system, so the litigation check below is a best-effort open-web search, not a docket-certified result.

---

1. Bibliographic data (per Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, and the granted text supplied)

---

2. Abstract (as published/fetched)

"Some embodiments provide a method for an application that operates on a mobile device. The method predicts several likely destinations for a vehicle to which the mobile device is connected based on data from a several different sources. The method generates, for a display screen of the vehicle, a display that includes the several likely destinations. In some embodiments, the method receives a first type of input through a control of the vehicle to select one of the likely destinations, and enters a turn-by-turn navigation mode to the selected destination in response to the received input. In some embodiments, the display is for a first destination of the several likely destinations. The method receives a second type of input through a control of the vehicle to step through the set of likely destinations, and generates a display for a second destination in response to the input."

---

3. Overview of the disclosure (from the authoritative full text supplied)

The patent is a UI/navigation case about an integrated mapping application running on a mobile device (phone/tablet) that simultaneously generates two UIs: one for the phone screen and one for a connected vehicle dashboard screen. Core subject matter:

• Destination-centric vehicle UI. The vehicle interface is deliberately reduced relative to the phone interface, optimized to identify a navigation destination with minimal touch interaction (the user is presumed to be the driver).
• Screen-type adaptation. The app classifies the vehicle display as high-quality touchscreen, low-quality touchscreen, or non-touch, and auto-selects the appropriate UI via a lookup table keyed to vehicle make/model or display properties (touch latency, resolution, multi-touch capability, presence of knobs/joystick).
• Interaction differences. Swipe-to-scroll on high-quality touchscreens; tap-selectable scroll arrows (with quadrant mapping and diagonal-scroll resolution) on low-quality touchscreens; joystick/trackball/knob input on non-touch screens. Larger touch "buffers" around affordances on low-quality screens.
• Voice-only search in the vehicle UI (dictation, no keyboard), with ambiguity handling (list of choices), generic-result handling (multiple pins with step-through arrows), and a search order that first hits local databases (contacts, recents, bookmarks, harvested addresses) before a location-constrained web search.
• Recents and bookmarks, including porting a destination searched on the phone before connection into the vehicle recents list, and dynamically re-ordering recents by predicted likelihood (e.g., after the vehicle passes a turn).
• Predictive routing interface — several likely destinations, ordered by a predictive engine using travel history, calendar, contacts, harvested addresses and traffic; displayed as a filmstrip or stacked cards, with swipe/arrow/knob stepping and tap-to-navigate; live re-ranking and removal of no-longer-relevant routes.
• Turn-by-turn navigation mode with split displays (map + maneuver sign on the vehicle; maneuver instructions only on the phone), direction lists, overview mode, and behavior across power-save mode and home-page exits.

Note: the full text in the user message is truncated inside the FIG. 14 / process 1300 discussion and does not include the claims section. I therefore could not quote the granted claims from that source.

---

4. Independent claims — plain language

⚠️ Confidence caveat. The authoritative text supplied does not include the claim set, and I could not retrieve the granted claim column for US 10,655,979 B2 in this session. The independent claims below are taken from the pre-grant publication US 2014/0365125 A1 for application 14/081,911, which is the same application that issued as this patent. Claims are commonly amended during prosecution, so the granted claim set may differ in scope and numbering. Treat the following as a high-fidelity but unverified proxy for the issued independent claims, and note that independent claim 18 in the published set is marked "(canceled)."

Published independent claim 1 — Method (basic prediction + display)
An application on a mobile device (a) predicts multiple likely destinations for the vehicle the phone is connected to, using data from multiple different sources, and (b) generates a vehicle-screen display showing those likely destinations. This is the broadest independent claim: prediction plus vehicle-side presentation.

Published independent claim 8 — Method (stepping through destinations)
Predicts a set of likely destinations for the connected vehicle; displays the first destination on the vehicle screen; receives one type of vehicle-control input to step through the set; and in response displays the second destination. Dependent claims add that the first destination is ranked more likely than the second (claim 9), what sources feed the set — frequently traveled locations at the current time of day, scheduling-app events, addresses from electronic messages (claim 10), the input types — swipe (claim 11) or rotation of a built-in vehicle control (claim 12), re-ranking after updating predictions (claim 13), and probability-based ranking (claim 14).

Published independent claim 15 — Machine-readable medium (likelihood thresholds)
For each of a set of locations in an on-device database, computes a likelihood value that it is the next destination; identifies the locations whose likelihood exceeds a threshold; and generates a display of those identified locations as selectable destinations (in some embodiments to the connected vehicle's screen; claims 16–17 add the vehicle output and a metadata panel with route map plus indicators of how many locations exceeded the threshold).

Published independent claim 19 — Machine-readable medium (prediction engine + UI generator)
A stored program comprising (i) a prediction engine that uses a database of stored locations to identify likely destinations for the vehicle the phone connects to, and (ii) a user interface generator that builds a vehicle-screen UI presenting those destinations as selectable. Dependents add an input processor for vehicle controls (claim 20), one-at-a-time display with input to remove the first destination and surface the second (claim 21), and a second UI generator for the phone's own display (claim 22).

Published independent claim 23 — Machine-readable medium (pre-connection search carried into vehicle recents)
Identifies a location from a search performed on the phone before it is connected to the vehicle; detects the later connection plus selection of the app for the vehicle display; receives a vehicle-control selection to view recent destinations; and generates a vehicle-screen display listing that particular location among the recents. Dependents add likelihood-ordering of recents (claim 24), selection of a recent to produce a vehicle map centered on it (claim 25), and mirroring that map on the phone (claim 26).

---

5. Litigation / CAFC 2026 check

• No CAFC 2026 docket activity matching US 10,655,979 was found. Searches of Federal Circuit materials surfaced a July 2026 scheduled-cases list and general CAFC statistics, but nothing naming this patent number. I cannot rule out an unindexed or recently filed appeal.
• No USPTO PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) naming this patent was found in the open-web results. The PTAB documents that surfaced in my searches concerned unrelated patents (e.g., IPR2022-00131 on U.S. 8,639,267; memory-module IPRs involving Perego/JESD79-2).
• No district-court case naming this patent appeared in the results returned to me. (Note: Apple's mobile-device/vehicle-integration portfolio has been litigated extensively, so absence of a hit here reflects search coverage, not a verified negative.)
• Related Apple family members that did surface: US 10,579,939 B2 ("Mobile Device with Predictive Routing Engine") and US 11,874,128 B2 ("Mapping Application with Turn-by-turn Navigation Mode for Output to Vehicle Display").

6. Explicit uncertainties

1. Granted claims not verified. The claim overview in §4 comes from the pre-grant publication, not the issued patent, and prosecution amendments may have narrowed or renumbered the claims.
2. Dates. Google Patents lists priority as 2013-06-08 and filing as 2013-11-15; one aggregator (Unified Patents) showed a priority date of 2013-06-07. I've used the Google Patents dates and the specification's provisional reference.
3. Legal status ("Active," expiration 2033-11-15) is a database listing that the source itself labels a non-legal conclusion.
4. No docket-certified litigation search was possible; treat the litigation findings as negative search results rather than a clearance opinion.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10655979B2](/patent/US10655979B2)/en (full text supplied); https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[10655979](/patent/10655979).html; https://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20140365125 (published application and claims); https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-10655979-B2; https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/scheduled-cases/

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10655979.

Let me search more specifically on litigation databases.

Findings: Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,655,979

Bottom line: I found no litigation specifically involving U.S. Patent No. 10,655,979.

After searching the sources you directed me to (Unified Patents litigation portal, general web/patent-litigation coverage, and court-document aggregators like Docket Alarm and CourtListener), I could not identify any district court case, ITC investigation, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC appeal in which U.S. Patent No. 10,655,979 ("User interface for displaying predicted destinations," Apple Inc., filed 2013‑11‑15, granted 2020‑05‑19) was asserted, challenged, or otherwise placed at issue.

What I checked

Important — do not confuse these numbers (they are NOT this patent)

Several search results involve similar but distinct numbers. Per your rule to interpret identifiers literally, these are definitively not U.S. 10,655,979:

1. Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc. — U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117 (haptic/planar-motion transducer patents; the "Taptic Engine" case; S.D. Cal., 3:21‑cv‑00812; verdict ~Sept. 25, 2026). Different patent numbers, different technology.
2. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals v. Pfizer — references a "'979 Patent" that is an unrelated cationic lipid patent (D. Del. 1:22‑cv‑00336).
3. Any reference to US 6,175,559 (Motorola/Apple) — unrelated.
4. Search hits for 60/655,979, US 2006/0217338, and an unrelated Hungarian bankruptcy registration 10655979-2-03 — none are this patent.

Caveats on completeness and confidence

• I was unable to fully query PACER (paywalled) and could not retrieve an authoritative, exhaustive case list for this exact patent number.
• Litigation databases can lag (recently filed 2025–2026 complaints may not yet be indexed), and cases are sometimes filed that list patents only in exhibits, which these searches may not surface.
• Accordingly, I can state with reasonable but not absolute confidence that no litigation is publicly known for U.S. 10,655,979 as of the current date.

If you need a definitive negative confirmation, the authoritative next steps would be a PACER "search by patent number" query across all district courts and a Docket Alarm / Lex Machina report filtered strictly to 10655979.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" finding against public sources before drafting.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,655,979: 0. Breakdown by status: active — 0; claims invalidated — 0; claims sustained — 0; settled — 0; institution denied — 0. The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) structured block in this prompt returns no AIA trial proceedings, and targeted web checks of PTAB-related sources surface no petition, institution decision, final written decision, or appeal naming this patent. The bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB record at all — nothing has been canceled, nothing has been confirmed, and no petitioner has triggered the § 315(e)(2) estoppel machinery. This is not a "hardened by surviving IPRs" patent; it is an untested patent, which cuts both ways (see Strategic summary).

Because there are no proceedings, the per-proceeding template below is populated only with the negative findings and the specific false-positive traps I hit while verifying.

---

(none) — No petitioner v. Apple Inc. on record

• Type: N/A — no IPR, PGR, or CBM identified
• Filed: N/A
• Status: Not applicable — ODP returns no proceedings; no public docket entry located
• Judge panel: None assigned
• Petition grounds: None on file
• Institution decision: None
• Final Written Decision: None — no claim of US 10,655,979 has ever been adjudicated unpatentable at the Board
• Settlement / termination: None
• Appeal: None — no PTAB FWD exists to appeal, so no Federal Circuit docket number exists
• Defensive value: You cannot cite a PTAB disposition against this patent. Any invalidity position must be built from scratch — either as a fresh IPR petition (359 days' runway under § 311–319) or in district court.

Verification notes — near-miss numbers (do not conflate)

Two distinct identifiers surfaced during searching that are not this patent and should not be read into it:

1. US 10,659,885 — a Taction Technology patent asserted against Apple in S.D. Cal., where a jury returned a $5,721,961,750 verdict on 2026-09-26 (Reuters/CNBC coverage; see e.g. CourtListener docket search). This is a haptic-feedback transducer patent. It is one digit off from 10,655,979 and in the opposite posture (Apple is the defendant, not the owner). Nothing in that litigation involves US 10,655,979.
2. "'979 Patent" in BenedorTSE, LLC v. [[Amazon.com Services](/litigations/by-defendant/Amazon.com%20Services) LLC](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Amazon.com%20Services%20LLC) (D. Ga., filed 2026-09-11, per UniCourt) — the shorthand "'979" there is used alongside a "'713" patent and the complaint text is not shown in the search result. It is not established that this refers to US 10,655,979, and the caption/structure is far more consistent with a litigated NPE portfolio patent unrelated to Apple. I am explicitly flagging this as unverified and not treating it as an assertion of this patent.

No Unified Patents challenge, defensive-aggregator petition, or joinder appears in the record for this patent. (Unified's public portal does index the family — e.g. WO-2014151155-A4 — but indexing is not a challenge.)

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. No claim of US 10,655,979 — independent or dependent — has been canceled, confirmed, or even instituted upon in any AIA trial. The patent issued 2020-05-19 out of Application 14/081,911 (filed 2013-11-15), claiming priority to 2013-06-08, with anticipated expiration 2033-11-15. It remains Active per the source record. That means the full claim set is live on the face of the register, and a defendant cannot point to a single canceled claim. Note the practical consequence: the entire claim set is fair game for a fresh challenge, and equally, entirely available to the owner for assertion.

Estoppel landscape: clean slate — no § 315(e)(2) bars attach to anyone. Because no IPR was ever instituted, no petitioner (or privy, or real party in interest) is estopped from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground. Conversely, no patent-owner statements in an IPR have narrowed the claims or created prosecution-history-style estoppel via Aylus Networks v. Apple, 856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) — the intrinsic record is just the original prosecution. Practically, this means a defendant retains the maximum available prior-art universe, including art that would otherwise have been "reasonably could have raised" in a prior IPR. Two timing notes: the PGR window closed ~2021-02-19 (9 months post-grant) so § 101/§ 112 grounds are no longer available at the Board; and CBM review is unavailable — it sunset for new petitions in September 2020 and this is a vehicle-navigation UI patent, not a financial-services business method. IPR is the only remaining AIA vehicle, and it is available to anyone at any time until expiration in 2033.

Pattern signals: none, and the reason matters. There is no serial-petitioner pattern because there is no petitioner at all. Critically, the patent owner here is Apple Inc. — a large operating company that practices the technology (Apple Maps / CarPlay), not an NPE. Well-asserted patents attract IPRs; never-asserted operating-company patents typically do not. Apple has not pursued any PTAB appeal on this patent because there is no adverse Board decision to appeal. The absence of PTAB activity is therefore best read as evidence that US 10,655,979 has not been asserted in litigation — not as evidence that it is weak. Sibling patents in the same family sit in the same posture: US 10,579,939 ("Mobile device with predictive routing engine"), US 11,874,128 ("Mapping application with turn-by-turn navigation mode for output to vehicle display"), and US 10,677,606 all appear to be un-challenged Apple assets.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing an assertion of US 10,655,979:

• Do not cite a PTAB outcome — there isn't one. Any brief or demand-letter response asserting that "claims 1–X were canceled" or "the patent survived IPR" would be a fabrication. There is no FWD to link to and no CourtListener/PTAB E2E record to quote.
• Run a fresh IPR analysis immediately. The § 315(b) one-year clock runs from service of the complaint, so docket the deadline the day you are served. With a 2013-06-08 priority date, the § 102/§ 103 art set is broad — the patent's own face cites Chelotti (US 2013/0238241, "Intelligent destination recommendations based on historical data") and Matas (US 8,607,167), both of which are candidate primary references worth testing against the predictive-destination and vehicle-UI-transition limitations.
• Consider the family. Because 10,655,979 shares a 2013-06-08 priority chain with 11,874,128 and 10,677,606, an IPR against the '979 will be judged on the '979's own claims. If a plaintiff has asserted multiple family members, a coordinated multi-patent petition strategy (and a § 315(e)(1) joinder/consolidation plan) is worth scoping before filing.
• No estoppel relief is available. You have not missed anything — but you also cannot free-ride on someone else's prior IPR.

If you are evaluating the patent defensively/for licensing:

• Treat it as an untested but live asset with a 2033-11-15 expiration. Value it on the strength of the claims and the 2013 priority date, not on any PTAB validation — there is none.
• A PGR-style § 101/§ 112 attack is not available at the PTAB; those grounds must be raised in district court or at the ITC.

Caveats on sourcing. The negative finding rests on (a) the ODP structured block in this prompt and (b) web searches that returned no PTAB records. Web coverage of very recently filed petitions is imperfect, and ODP ingest lags. If you need a gilt-edged answer, confirm directly against PTAB E2E / PTAB Center (ptacts.uspto.gov) for the patent number and against the Federal Circuit docket / CourtListener for any appeal — I could not complete a live docket-level confirmation within the available search budget, and I am flagging that limitation rather than asserting a stronger negative than the record supports.

I'll verify the ownership record from multiple angles before building the report.

Let me try to pin down the reel/frame for the sole recorded assignment and check for any assertion history.

Ownership Chain Analysis — US 10,655,979 B2

Patent: US 10,655,979 B2 — "User interface for displaying predicted destinations"
Application: 14/081,911 · filed 2013-11-15 · priority 2013-06-08 · issued 2020-05-19
Assignee of record: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, CA)
Source of record: USPTO Patent Assignment Search / Google Patents legal events

Retrieval caveat (read first). I was able to query the Google Patents legal‑events and PEDS‑derived records for this patent and cross‑reference the family, but I could not execute a live query against Assignment Center's UI from this session. Assignment Center and assignment.uspto.gov were both listed as the primary source; the only assignment event surfaced by every index I could reach is the inventor → Apple Inc. record described below. No post‑issuance assignment (any reel) appears in any index consulted. Treat that as a negative finding, not as proof of absence — a manual reel‑range check is the recommended confirmation step.

---

Inventors

All three named inventors executed an assignment of their entire right, title and interest to Apple Inc., recorded 2014-04-09 — i.e., roughly 5 months after the 2013-11-15 filing date and well before issuance (2020-05-19). The prosecuting attorney of record listed the real party in interest as Apple Inc. on the appeal brief (Ex parte Emanuele Vulcano, Bradford A. Moore, and Jorge Fino, Appeal 2018-009113, Appeal Br. filed 2018-05-18).

Unusual patterns: None. There is no evidence of any inventor departing with rights intact, no inventor‑held residual interest, and no reversion. The three inventors conveyed everything at the start and never reappear as assignors. The application was prosecuted to issuance by Apple's outside prosecution counsel (correspondence of record for prosecution: Invoke IP / Apple, 84 W Santa Clara St, Suite 500, San Jose, CA 95113; docket A00031N3) — note this is the prosecution correspondent, not an assignment correspondent, and should not be conflated with the assignment record.

---

Original assignee

Apple Inc. (One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, CA 95014).

• Line of business: Consumer electronics, software, and services. This patent sits squarely in Apple's Maps / CarPlay stack — the specification describes an integrated mapping and navigation application on a mobile device that generates a second UI on a connected vehicle's display, including predictive routing to likely destinations. Apple fielded this product line: Apple Maps (shipped 2012) and CarPlay (announced 2013, shipped 2014), which implement the mobile‑device‑to‑vehicle‑screen architecture described in the claims.
• Does Apple ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, on any reasonable reading — the mobile phone / vehicle head‑unit pairing and predicted‑destination UI are CarPlay and Maps features. Apple has not asserted this patent to my knowledge.
• Current status: Operating. Publicly traded (NASDAQ: AAPL), no bankruptcy, no assignment to a holding entity, active legal status per Google Patents ("Active"; anticipated expiration 2033-11-15).
• Family context: The application is one of several Apple filings in the same CarPlay cluster sharing the 2013‑06‑07/08 priority window, including US 9,891,068 ("Mapping application search function"), US 10,579,939 ("Mobile device with predictive routing engine"), and US 11,874,128 ("Mapping application with turn-by-turn navigation mode for output to vehicle display"), plus foreign counterparts WO 2014/151155 A1, EP 2,946,172 A1, and CN 105051496 B. All remain in Apple's name.

---

Assignment timeline

Only one recorded assignment is associated with this patent in any index consulted.

• 2013-11-XX (executed) / recorded 2014-04-09 — Reel not captured (verify at Assignment Center)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (new assignment, not a merger, name change, or security interest — Google Patents legal events labels it "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Jorge Fino; Bradford A. Moore; Emanuele Vulcano (all three, jointly)
  • Assignee: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, CA)
  • Correspondent: Not captured from the sources reachable here. This is the single most important gap in this report — the assignment correspondent of record is exactly the datum that would reveal a repeat‑player filer, and I could not retrieve it. Do not treat the absence as meaningful. The prosecution correspondent (Invoke IP / Apple, San Jose, CA) appears on the 2019 PTAB notice but is a different record type.
  • Context: Standard employee‑inventor assignment to the operating company — the ordinary first link in a corporate chain of title, executed in the same window as the 2013-11-15 filing. Not an acquisition, not a fire‑sale, not a reorg, not a transfer to an asserter.

No subsequent assignments of any kind were found — no security agreement, no license, no merger, no change of name, no release, no correction. If Assignment Center's records are complete, Apple Inc. is and always has been the sole owner of US 10,655,979, from pre‑grant through issuance to today.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center — search patent 10,655,979 · assignment.uspto.gov patent search · Google Patents legal events · USPTO PatentCenter for 14/081,911

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10655979
    2013 : Provisional priority 8 June
         : Non provisional application filed
         : Inventors assign rights to Apple
    2014 : Assignment recorded at USPTO
    2020 : Patent issued to Apple Inc

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (no records beyond the original assignment).

The entire recorded chain is a single inventor→employer conveyance by Jorge Fino, Bradford A. Moore, and Emanuele Vulcano to Apple Inc., recorded 2014-04-09, and Apple Inc. remains the assignee of record through issuance on 2020-05-19 with no subsequent assignments of any type. Every NPE indicator on the checklist is either not present or, in one case (signal 3), unassessable for lack of a second chain link. This is the textbook absence of an NPE pattern: the patent never left the operating company that built the product it covers, and Apple has not asserted it. The one open item is administrative rather than substantive — the assignment correspondent of record and the reel/frame were not retrievable from the sources available to me, and should be pulled manually from Assignment Center to close out this report; nothing in the available evidence suggests that pull will change the verdict.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 10,655,979. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Let me pull the full cited-references list and details on the key references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,655,979

0. Two flags before the substance

Flag 1 — Date contradiction. The task prompt says "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while my session context says 2026-09-28, and the previously-generated litigation section in this file references a verdict "~Sept. 25, 2026." These cannot all be right. Per the operating rules I am flagging the contradiction rather than silently reconciling it. It does not change the analysis below (none of the references turn on the last few months), but any "as of" statement should be read as as of the latest date in my environment, 2026-09-28.

Flag 2 — the authoritative document I was given is truncated before the citation section. The full patent text supplied in this thread ends mid-sentence in the description of process 1300 ("…if the selection input is within the minimum range that includes the entirety of" — then nothing). The "References Cited" / "US Patent Documents" block of US 10,655,979 is therefore NOT present in the authoritative source I was given. I could not read the citations off the patent itself. Everything in §3 below is reconstructed from secondary databases (FreePatentsOnline, Google Patents, Justia, EPO Global Patent Index) and is flagged for confidence. I also could not run a direct USPTO Patent Center / Patent Examination Data System (PEDS) query — I have no USPTO-native search tool; the closest I could get is the Google Patents copy of the USPTO record.

---

1. Confirmation that I have the right patent (identifier discipline)

I am working only with U.S. Patent No. 10,655,979 B2, and I have not auto-corrected any number. Confirmed bibliographic data:

Discrepancy to note (not corrected): Google Patents states "Priority date 2013-06-08" and "Prior art date 2013-06-08"; the Unified Patents aggregator page (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20050247320-A1) listed this patent with priority 2013-06-07. Secondary sources disagree by one day. The specification self-identifies the provisional as 61/832,818, filed June 8, 2013, and I use 2013-06-08 as the effective filing date, since that is what the patent's own text says. If it were 2013-06-07, nothing in the analysis changes.

Because the application was filed 2013-11-15 (after 2013-03-16), this patent is an AIA patent — § 102 means the amended AIA § 102, i.e. § 102(a)(1) (publicly available before the effective filing date) and § 102(a)(2) (U.S. patents / published applications / WIPO publications "effectively filed" before the effective filing date). This matters enormously below, because a large fraction of the cited art published after June 8, 2013 and can only be § 102(a)(2) art.

Aggregator contamination warning (identifier discipline). Several databases mix this patent up with unrelated ones. I saw US 10,655,979 listed alongside gastro-esophageal-implant and obesity-treatment patents (US 2005/0247320, US 7,846,174, US 7,702,456, etc.) on https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-10655979-B2 and on Unified Patents. Those are not citations of this patent — they are artifacts of "Referenced By" lists being merged across unrelated families. I have excluded them, and I flag the one place where I suspect the same artifact inside my primary source (see US 8,529,431, §3.12).

For completeness, the same-family applications (legally related, not prior art) are: WO 2014/151155 A1 (PCT/US2014/025121), EP 2946172 A1, AU 2014235248 B2, CN 105051496 B, and the U.S. continuations/siblings US 10,579,939 ("Mobile device with predictive routing engine") and US 11,874,128 ("Mapping application with turn-by-turn navigation mode for output to vehicle display").

---

2. The claim set I am mapping against (needed for the § 102 column)

The granted claim text was not in my authoritative source, so I mapped against the published application claims of US 2014/0365125 A1 (https://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20140365125). I flag that granted claims may differ from the published claims; if they do, the per-claim mappings below shift.

Five independent claims:

• Claim 1 — method: predicting a plurality of likely destinations for a vehicle to which the mobile device is connected based on data from a plurality of different sources; generating for the vehicle's display screen a display comprising the plurality of likely destinations.
• Claim 8 — method: predicting a set of likely destinations; generating a display for a first destination; receiving input to step through; generating a display for a second destination.
• Claim 15 — CRM: determining a likelihood value for each of a set of stored locations; identifying those above a threshold; generating a display of the identified locations as selectable destinations.
• Claim 19 — CRM: a prediction engine using a database of stored locations; a UI generator for a vehicle display comprising the identified destinations.
• Claim 23 — CRM: identifying a location from a search performed on the mobile device before connection to the vehicle; on later connection + selection of the app, surfacing that location in the "recents" list on the vehicle display.

Key dependent claims: 2 (tap input to select → enter turn-by-turn), 3 (touchscreen tap), 4 (filmstrip view, one at a time), 5 (per-destination map route + destination data), 6 (name / source / ETA / frequency), 7 (stackable cards), 9 (probability ordering), 10 (frequent destination at time of day / calendar event / address from an electronic message), 11 (gestural swipe), 12 (rotation of a built-in vehicle control), 13 (dynamic re-ordering of predictions), 14 (calculated probabilities), 16–17 (vehicle output; highest-likelihood panel + indicator dots), 20–22 (vehicle input processor; one-at-a-time stepping; second UI for the mobile device), 24–26 (recents ordering by likelihood; recent-selection synchronizes both displays).

The Google Patents "prior art keywords" for this patent — vehicle, user, destination, mobile device, map — confirm the examiner's search was centred on the vehicle/mobile-display + destination-prediction combination.

---

3. The cited references, each with citation, date, description, and § 102 exposure

Rows marked [SP] "sibling"/in-family are not prior art. Rows marked [?] are ones where I could not verify the effective filing date and therefore cannot say whether § 102(a)(1) or § 102(a)(2) applies.

I have ordered these roughly by strength of § 102 significance, not by number.

3.1 — US 2013/0166096 A1 — Jotanovic — "Predictive destination entry for a navigation system"

• Published 2013-06-27; listed as a cited U.S. patent reference in FPO's US Patent References table.
• Describes a navigation system that automatically predicts a likely destination (and populates the destination entry) rather than requiring the user to type it.
• § 102 exposure: This is the single most on-point piece for the prediction concept. It reads directly on claim 1's "predicting a plurality of likely destinations … based on data from a plurality of different sources" if its predictions are vehicle-side. It also bears on claims 8, 9, 13, 14.
• Timing caveat: it published after the June 8, 2013 effective filing date, so it is not § 102(a)(1) art. It can only be § 102(a)(2) art if the underlying application was effectively filed before 2013-06-08 — plausible for a 2013-06-27 publication (likely filed ~Dec 2011), but I could not verify the filing date, so I mark this [?].

3.2 — US 2013/0238241 A1 — Chelotti et al. — "Intelligent destination recommendations based on historical data"

• Published 2013-09-12.
• Recommends destinations to a user from historical travel/usage data — squarely the "predict likely destinations from data sources" idea.
• § 102 exposure: Strongest general-art candidate against claim 1 and against claims 8, 9, 10, 14. If the reference's recommendation engine outputs to a vehicle-attached/navigation display, claim 1's "for a display screen of the vehicle" is met; if it is purely a phone-side recommendation, claim 1 is not anticipated but claims 9/10/14 remain exposed.
• Timing caveat: same as 3.1 — post-June-8-2013 publication, so § 102(a)(2) only, and its effective filing date is [?] to me.

3.3 — US 8,606,516 B2 — Vertelney et al. — "User interface system and method for a vehicle navigation device"

• Issued 2013-12-10.
• Vehicle navigation user interface with on-screen selectable destination/POI entries and step-through of choices.
• § 102 exposure: Best candidate for the vehicle-side UI limitations in claims 1, 8, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21 and for the "selectable destinations" language of claim 15. On its own it does not appear to disclose prediction from multiple heterogeneous sources, so it is better read as § 103 material against claims 1/8/19 and as § 102 material against the UI-dependent claims (15, 17, 20, 21).
• Timing: issued after the effective filing date but it is a U.S. patent, so § 102(a)(2) applies on its (much earlier) effective filing date; that is unproblematic.

3.4 — US 8,607,167 B2 — Matas et al. — "Portable multifunction device, method, and graphical user interface for providing maps and directions"

• Issued 2013-12-10 (Apple).
• Portable-device map/directions UI: search, recents list, dropped pins, route display, map centred on a selected destination.
• § 102 exposure: Reads on claims 5, 15, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26 (the "mobile device also shows a map centred on the selected destination" and recents-list behaviour). It is the closest cited art to claim 23, but claim 23's specific sequence (search on the phone before connection → recents entry appears on the vehicle display after connection) is an integration behaviour I do not believe 8,607,167 discloses.
• Timing: § 102(a)(2), fine.

3.5 — US 8,464,182 B2 — Blumenberg et al. — "Device, method, and graphical user interface for providing maps, directions, and location-based information"

• Issued 2013-06-11 (Apple).
• Related map/directions information-presentation UI on a portable device.
• § 102 exposure: claims 5, 15, 16, 22, 23, 25 at the "present map + route + destination information in a selectable UI" level. Cumulative with 3.4.

3.6 — US 2013/0190978 A1 — Kato et al. — "In-Car Information System, In-Car Device, and Information Terminal"

• Published 2013-07-25.
• An in-car device cooperates with an information terminal (phone) to present information in the vehicle.
• § 102 exposure: The architecture claims — claim 19 (prediction engine + UI generator for vehicle display), claim 20 (input processor for vehicle controls), claim 22 (second UI generator for the mobile device), claim 16. Not a prediction reference; it is an integration reference.
• Timing: post-6/8/2013 publication → § 102(a)(2) only, filing date [?].

3.7 — US 2013/0191020 A1 — Emani et al. — "Adaptable navigation device"

• Published 2013-07-25.
• Navigation device that adapts its UI/behaviour — relevant to the patent's "different UIs for different vehicle display types" theme (though that theme is in the specification, not the claims).
• § 102 exposure: claims 1, 8, 19 at a generic level. Timing: § 102(a)(2), filing date [?].

3.8 — US 2013/0158855 A1 — Weir et al. — "Journey learning system"

• Published 2013-06-20.
• Learns a user's journeys and reuses learned destination/route data.
• § 102 exposure: claims 1, 9, 10, 14 (learning → likelihood of a next destination). Timing: § 102(a)(2), filing date [?].

3.9 — US 2013/0110842 A1 — Donneau-Golencer et al. — "Tools and techniques for extracting knowledge from unstructured data retrieved from personal data sources"

• Published 2013-05-02 — this one pre-dates June 8, 2013, so it is clean § 102(a)(1) art.
• Extracts structured facts (incl. addresses/locations) from personal unstructured data such as e-mail and messages.
• § 102 exposure: claims 10 and 23 (address received in an electronic message / harvested locations feeding predictions and recents). This is a genuine § 102(a)(1) reference for the data-source limitations.

3.10 — US 8,428,871 B2 — Matthews et al. — "Using routing symbols to describe a driving maneuver"

• Issued 2013-04-23 (Apple).
• Graphical maneuver "road-sign" symbols for a route.
• § 102 exposure: relevant to the turn-by-turn navigation UI that claim 2 imports ("entering a turn-by-turn navigation mode"), i.e. claim 2 in combination. Not a prediction reference.

3.11 — US 8,423,052 B2 — "Communication device, information presentation device, communication method, program…" (FPO entry truncated)

• Issued 2013-04-16.
• Presenting information from a communication device to a vehicle-side presentation device.
• § 102 exposure: claims 1, 16, 19 at the "output a UI to the vehicle device" level. I could not retrieve the full title/assignee; treat as low-confidence.

3.12 — US 8,529,431 B2 — Baker et al. — "Bariatric device and method"

• Issued 2013-09-10.
• Not in this field. A gastric/bariatric medical device.
• § 102 exposure: none. It cannot anticipate or render obvious any claim of US 10,655,979. Given that I observed the identical artifact (medical-device patents merged into this patent's reference lists) on the PubChem and Unified Patents aggregator pages, I treat this entry as suspect contamination of the FPO list rather than a genuine examiner citation. Even if genuine, its § 102 value is zero.

3.13 — US 8,509,816 B2 — Branch et al. — "Data pre-fetching based on user demographics"

• Issued 2013-08-13. Predictive pre-fetching of data. § 102 exposure: marginal, against claim 1 at the "predict what the user will need" abstraction. Low.

3.14 — US 8,463,289 B2 — Shklarski et al. — "Depersonalizing location traces"

• Issued 2013-06-11. § 102 exposure: marginal, against claim 10 (location-history-derived predictions). Low.

3.15 — US 8,639,654 B2 — Vervaet et al. — "Method for updating digital maps"

• Issued 2014-01-28. § 102 exposure: marginal, against claim 5 (route/map generation). Low.

3.16 — US 2014/0095066 A1 — Bouillet et al. — "Estimation of arrival times at transit stops"

• Published 2014-04-03. § 102 exposure: marginal, against claim 6 ("estimated travel time"). Low.

3.17 — US 8,694,791 B2 — Rohrweck et al. — "Transitioning between access states of a computing device"

• Issued 2014-04-08. § 102 exposure: marginal, against the "detecting connection to the vehicle" step implicit in claims 1/19/23. Low.

3.18 — US 2014/0277937 A1 — Scholz et al. — "In-vehicle access of mobile device functions"

• Published 2014-09-18. Mobile-device functions surfaced through the in-vehicle system. § 102 exposure: claims 1, 19, 20, 22 at the integration level. Timing: § 102(a)(2) only, filing date [?] — and post-dating the filing date of 2013-11-15 makes this a tight call; I cannot confirm it qualifies. Treat with low confidence.

3.19 — US 2014/0281955 A1 — Sprenger et al. — "Sharing information between computing devices"

• Published 2014-09-18. § 102 exposure: claim 23 / claim 26 (a location identified on one device surfacing on another). Same timing caution as 3.18. Low confidence.

3.20 — US 9,223,494 B2 — DeSalvo et al. — "User interfaces for wearable computers"

• Issued 2015-12-29. § 102 exposure: essentially none against the prediction claims; potentially cited as general UI-generation art. Low.

3.21 — US 8,584,050 B2 and US 8,510,665 B2 — Ording et al. — "Methods and graphical user interfaces for editing on a multifunction device with a touch screen display"

• Issued 2013-11-12 and 2013-08-13. Touchscreen gesture manipulation generally. § 102 exposure: only the touch-input-dependent claims 3 and 11, and only cumulatively. These read as "background/boilerplate" citations for touch UI.

3.22 — US 8,564,544 B2 — Jobs et al. — "Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for customizing display of content category icons"

• Issued 2013-10-22. § 102 exposure: only claim 3 touchscreen framing. Background art.

3.23 — US 2013/0191790 A1 — Kawalkar — "Intelligent gesture-based user's instantaneous interaction and task requirements recognition system and method"

• Published 2013-07-25. § 102 exposure: claims 11 and 12 (gesture input / rotation of a control). Background art. Timing [§ 102(a)(2), filing date [?]].

3.24–3.26 — Additional references considered against the European counterpart (EP 2 946 172 A1), which claims priority to the same U.S. application 14/081,911

These are not on the U.S. face of the patent, but they are the references the EPO examiners actually relied on and are therefore the most important human-validated prior art for this invention:

• WO 2011/084156 A2 — Apple Inc. — published 2011-07-14. Cited in EP examination. Mobile-device/vehicle-integration art. § 102 exposure: claims 1, 19, 22 (dual-display mobile+vehicle architecture). Pre-2013 publication → genuine prior art.
• Diewald, S. et al., "Mobile Device Integration and Interaction in the Automotive Domain," 29 Nov. 2011, pp. 1–4, XP002732023. Non-patent literature cited in EP examination. § 102 exposure: claims 1, 16, 19 (the mobile-device-to-vehicle-screen architecture generally). Pre-2013 → genuine prior art.
• Source: http://data.epo.org/gpi/EP2946172A1-USER-INTERFACE-FOR-DISPLAYING-PREDICTED-DESTINATIONS.html

---

4. Assessment: what is actually the most relevant § 102 art

Shortlist of highest-relevance prior art, by strength:

1. US 2013/0166096 A1 (Jotanovic) — predicted destinations for a navigation system.
2. US 2013/0238241 A1 (Chelotti) — destination recommendations from historical data.
3. US 8,606,516 B2 (Vertelney) — vehicle navigation UI with selectable destinations and step-through.
4. US 8,607,167 B2 (Matas) and US 8,464,182 B2 (Blumenberg) — portable-device maps/directions/recents UI (Apple's own earlier work).
5. US 2013/0190978 A1 (Kato) — in-car device + information terminal integration.
6. US 2013/0110842 A1 (Donneau-Golencer) — address harvesting from personal data (the only clean § 102(a)(1) candidate on this list).
7. WO 2011/084156 A2 (Apple) and Diewald et al. (2011) — the EPO's chosen art for the same invention.

Bottom line on anticipation: No single reference I retrieved discloses all the limitations of any independent claim. In particular, the combination that gives this patent its novelty — (i) predicting plural likely destinations from plural heterogeneous data sources (calendar, travel history, harvested messages), and (ii) rendering them on the vehicle's display screen with stepping between them and one-tap entry into turn-by-turn, and and (iii) carrying a pre-connection phone-side search into the vehicle's recents list — is not found assembled in any one of the cited documents. On this record:

• Claims 1, 8, 19 — potentially anticipated by US 2013/0166096 or US 2013/0238241 only if those references' vehicle-display and multi-source aspects are read broadly, and only if they qualify as § 102(a)(2) art. More realistically they are § 103 material in view of Vertelney/Kato.
• Claims 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 — most exposed to US 8,606,516 (Vertelney) as § 102 art (selectable-destination UI with stepping).
• Claims 5, 6, 23, 25, 26 — most exposed to US 8,607,167 and US 8,464,182 (Matas/Blumenberg) as § 102 art.
• Claims 9, 10, 13, 14 — most exposed to US 2013/0238241 (Chelotti), US 2013/0158855 (Weir) and US 2013/0110842 (Donneau-Golencer).
• Claims 3, 11, 12 — exposed only to the boilerplate touch/gesture art (Ording, Jobs, Kawalkar).
• Claims 2, 4, 7 — exposed to US 8,428,871 (Matthews) for the maneuver graphics of claim 2; claims 4/7 (filmstrip / stacked cards) I did not find anticipated by any retrieved reference.

Explicit non-findings: I found no cited reference that anticipates claims 4 (filmstrip), 7 (stackable cards), 12 (knob/control rotation), or 23's full pre-connection-search→vehicle-recents sequence.

---

5. Confidence and limits — read this before relying on the table

1. I could not read the patent's own "References Cited" block. The authoritative document in this thread is truncated. My citation list is recovered from FreePatentsOnline's "US Patent References" table (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/10655979.html), which I could only retrieve in part — it is sorted by publication date descending and my retrieval cut off around US 8,423,052 (2013-04-16). References earlier than April 2013 almost certainly exist on the face of the patent and are missing from my list.
2. Effective filing dates are unverified for most references. Because the effective filing date is 2013-06-08, references published after that date are § 102(a)(2)-only. For the seven rows marked [?] I could not confirm an earlier effective filing date, so I cannot state that they are prior art at all.
3. I could not query PACER or the USPTO Patent Center directly; I have no USPTO-native search tool. The closest authoritative artifact is Google Patents' copy of the USPTO record.
4. One row (US 8,529,431) is almost certainly contamination, and the same artifact pattern appears on PubChem/Unified Patents. Do not treat aggregator "related patent" lists as this patent's citations.
5. I mapped against the published application claims, not the granted claims. If Apple amended the claims during 2013–2020 prosecution, the per-claim § 102 columns must be re-run.
6. This is a technical prior-art landscape, not a legal opinion on validity, infringement, or claim construction.

Next steps for a definitive answer if you need one: (a) retrieve the PDF of US 10,655,979 from https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ and read the "References Cited" block directly; (b) pull the file wrapper for 14/081,911 from USPTO Patent Center to see exactly which references the examiner applied in § 102/§ 103 rejections and which the applicant traversed; (c) pull the EP 2 946 172 A1 examination report, which explicitly names WO 2011/084156 A2 and Diewald et al. as the examination citations.

I'll start by pulling the actual claim set and the prior-art references cited on this patent's face, since the provided full text is truncated before the claims and before any "Prior Art" section.

I have the family's published claims and part of the granted claims. Since the granted claims were materially amended, I need the full granted claim set — let me pull it.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,655,979 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

0. Scope, sources, and three caveats you should read first

(a) I could not obtain the page's own "Prior Art" section. The full text you supplied is truncated mid‑sentence in the FIG. 13 discussion (Section II.B), i.e., before the claims and before any "References Cited"/"Similar Documents" listing. My fetch of patents.google.com/patent/US10655979B2/en likewise returned bibliographic data but not the cited‑art list. Accordingly, the prior‑art input I use below is reconstructed from three sources, each cited:

• The References Cited list for US 10,655,979 as surfaced by Justia (patents.justia.com/patent/10655979) — U.S. pre‑grant publications 2009–2014, foreign patents (CN/DE/EP/JP/TW/WO), and the non‑patent‑literature ("NPL") list.
• The citations of record in the family's EPO prosecution for EP 2,946,172 / WO 2014/151155 A1 (EPO Global Patent Index): WO 2011/084156 A2 (Apple Inc.) and Diewald et al., "Mobile Device Integration and Interaction in the Automotive Domain" (AutomotiveUI '11).
• Cross‑citations appearing on the Google Patents pages (e.g., US 9,163,952 B2 "Suggestive mapping" appearing in the citation tables).

This list may not be identical to the page's "Prior Art" section. Verify against the granted patent's front page before relying on it.

(b) Contradiction flagged — the claim sets differ. The published application (US 2014/0365125 A1) has 26 claims, the independent claims of which are broad:

• Pub. cl. 1: "predicting a plurality of likely destinations for a vehicle to which the mobile device is connected based on data from a plurality of different sources; and generating, for a display screen of the vehicle, a display comprising the plurality of likely destinations."
• Pub. cl. 15: "determining, for each of a set of different locations identified from a database on the mobile device, a likelihood value… identifying a plurality… above a threshold value…."
• Pub. cl. 23: recents including a location searched on the phone before vehicle connection.

The granted claims were materially narrowed. From the granted text I could retrieve (Justia, claims 10–14), the granted independent claims recite, e.g.:

"…generating, for a display screen of the vehicle separate from the mobile device, a user interface (UI) that displays at least a portion of different, separate informational display areas for each of a plurality of predicted likely destinations, the informational display area for each … comprising (i) a portion of a map including a route from the current location of the vehicle to the likely destination, and (ii) additional metadata …; outputting the generated UI to an interactive vehicle system …; receiving, at the mobile device, a command from the interactive vehicle system selecting one of the likely destinations … based on a particular type of input at a control of the vehicle; and entering a turn‑by‑turn navigation mode…" (granted cl. 10)

and granted cl. 14: "…determining using a GPS sensor, a current location … predicting a plurality of likely destinations … each likely destination predicted to be a likely next destination of the vehicle based on the current location; generating … a UI that comprises a set of stackable cards …, each stackable card … comprising (i) a portion of a map including a route from the current location … and (ii) additional metadata…."

I could not retrieve granted claims 1–9 (and any claims after 14). My element analysis below therefore covers the limitations I verified, and flags where the analysis must be re‑run once the full granted set is confirmed. Note that the earlier "Litigation summary" section found no litigation involving this patent, so there are no adversarial claim charts or constructions to lean on — this is an independent technical analysis, not a legal opinion.

(c) Dates. Effective filing date is at least June 8, 2013 (benefit of prov. 61/832,818; the page lists "Prior art date 2013‑06‑08"), potentially March 15, 2013 for subject matter supported by prov. 61/800,908 (per the EP family listing). The application was filed Nov 15, 2013, so the AIA governs: § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) with the effective filing date as the critical date, and § 102(b)(2)(C) (commonly‑owned‑disclosure exception) in play.

---

1. Person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A bachelor's degree in computer science or electrical engineering plus ~2–3 years' experience in one or both of (i) mobile mapping/navigation application and GUI development and (ii) in‑vehicle infotainment (IVI) HMI integration (phone‑to‑head‑unit connectivity such as USB/BT mirroring and control). This is a predictable‑arts case: software GUIs, GPS navigation, and phone‑to‑vehicle display integration.

---

2. Verified claimed limitations decomposed

---

3. Candidate prior art and what it teaches

Confidence key: H = I can characterize the teaching from the reference itself/title with high confidence; M = title/topic‑level inference, verify against the document; L = cited on the record but I have not verified content — do not rely on it without reading.

Critical screening point: the Apple sibling documents are almost certainly excluded — they published after the effective filing date (so no § 102(a)(1) use), and if cited under § 102(a)(2) they fall within the § 102(b)(2)(C) common‑ownership exception. Any invalidity theory built on them is defectively pleaded. Similarly, cited items published after June 8, 2013 in the References Cited list (e.g., US 2013/0238241 Chelotti, Sept 12, 2013; US 2014/0095066, Apr 3, 2014; US 2014/0277937 and US 2014/0281955, Sept 18, 2014) are only available if effectively filed before the effective filing date and not commonly owned.

---

4. Obviousness combinations

Combination 1 (primary): Garmin nüvi manual + Diewald/MirrorLink + Ridhawi

Motivation (KSR‑sufficient): (1) Same field, same problem — both the IVI nav units and Diewald/MirrorLink address "get me routed while driving with minimal interaction." (2) Design incentive — the references themselves (Diewald; Toyota/Garmin manuals' safety language) identify driver distraction/manual destination entry as the problem to be reduced; substituting predicted destinations for manually entered or historical ones reduces keystrokes/steps and is the very purpose of prediction (Ridhawi). (3) Predictable substitution — populating an existing destination‑selection screen with predicted entries, keeping the same map‑preview + metadata and the same one‑tap guidance control, is "the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions" (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417). (4) Market/competitive forces — the record NPL (MirrorLink, Mimics, Mercedes, Blaupunkt/NNG) shows an industry‑wide race to move phone apps onto car screens in 2011–2012.

Combination 2: Google Maps Navigation (Android guide/Moren) + phone‑to‑head‑unit integration (Diewald/MirrorLink) + Ridhawi/Archibald

Motivation: the phone's nav app already had voice destination entry, recents/starred destinations, map + ETA and one‑tap Navigate (L2, L7, partial L4, L8 environment). MirrorLink‑class integration supplies L1/L5/L6. Prediction supplies L3. Where the user has no more input bandwidth in the car than at the desktop, moving the "what destination?" decision from user input to device prediction is an obvious efficiency improvement. This combination also maps to the published claims 1–15 and 23 reasonably directly; it is weaker against the granted claims because the granted claims require the separate informational display areas per destination simultaneously presented with map+metadata.

Combination 3: Fuji/KSR "three‑reference automotive" theory — Garmin/Magellan (IVI paradigm) + Android/Google Maps (phone nav) + Diewald (integration)

The most defensible motivation story for the granted "software‑only" claims, because it avoids relying on a single reference for the phone‑driven‑car‑screen architecture.

Why "common sense" alone is not enough here

The granted claims' distinctive elements are UI layout choices (filmstrip (cl. 11), side‑by‑side panels (cl. 12), stackable cards (cl. 14), separate informational areas per destination). A combination resting only on the assertion that "card layouts were well known" is exposed under Arendi S.A. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (commonsense substitute for reasoned analysis / evidentiary support). Any such position should be anchored in documentary art (e.g., Garmin/Magellan destination‑preview screens, or carousel/list UI disclosures in the cited WO and U.S. publications whose content I have not verified).

---

5. Where the patent owner has room to resist (and what to verify)

1. Numerals × arrangement. The granted claims require different, separate informational display areas for each of a plurality of predicted destinations, each with both a route‑bearing map portion and metadata, plus the vehicle‑control command path into turn‑by‑turn. A theory that shows only a single preview (Garmin's "Go!" preview) does not meet L4; the combination must supply the plural, per‑destination areas.
2. "Separate from the mobile device" and the two‑UI aspect (cf. pub. cl. 22) — confirm whether this survived into the granted independent claims; it concentrates the case on the Diewald/MirrorLink art.
3. "Data from a plurality of different sources" (cl. 1 pub. / L3) — calendar, travel history, message‑harvested addresses. Ridhawi teaches history‑based prediction only; the patent owner will argue the multi‑source fusion (calendar + messages + history) is the inventive contribution. The listed Apple provisional 61/832,850 "Harvesting Addresses" is a common‑ownership document and cannot supply it.
4. Common ownership / § 102(b)(2)(C) removes the nearest Apple family art from the picture.
5. Objective indicia. Expect arguments on commercial success of CarPlay and industry praise, and the recognized need to reduce driver distraction. Nexus is the battleground, and the cited Diewald/manuals show the same problem was already framed in the art.
6. Verification checklist (must do): (i) pull the full granted claim set from the USPTO PatentCenter/publication and re‑run the element tables; (ii) read WO 2011/084156 A2 and Diewald et al. in full; (iii) confirm dates for US 9,163,952 and each cited 2013–2014 publication; (iv) confirm the exhibit/manual page citations for the Garmin, Toyota, Magellan and Mazda manuals (destination‑preview screens with ETA + one‑tap guidance) before relying on them; (v) confirm there is no post‑issuance Certificate of Correction or reexamination altering the claims (the long 2013→2020 pendency and the amended claim style suggest substantial prosecution amendment).

---

6. Bottom line

• On the published (broader) claim set, the art of record — Garmin/Magellan/Toyota IVI navigation, Google Maps Navigation NPL, and Diewald/MirrorLink phone‑to‑vehicle integration — makes claims 1–14 reasonably vulnerable to § 103 as a predictable combination, with a well‑supportable motivation (reduce driver input by predicting destinations already derived in the location‑prediction art of Ridhawi/Archibald, and reuse the existing destination‑list/preview/one‑tap‑guidance paradigm).
• On the granted claim set, the analysis turns on the specific per‑destination separated display areas with map+route+metadata, the filmstrip/side‑by‑side/stackable‑card implementations (cl. 11, 12, 14), and the vehicle‑control→phone→turn‑by‑turn path. Those limitations are not squarely met by any single reference in the list I could reconstruct; they require a two‑ or three‑reference combination, and the Apple family art that would meet them most directly is likely excluded under § 102(b)(2)(C).
• Strongest single anchor on the record: Diewald et al. (2011) + its EPO citation for the phone‑generated‑UI‑on‑vehicle‑screen architecture, coupled with Garmin/MirrorLink‑class destination‑preview + one‑tap guidance and Ridhawi (2009) for the prediction step.
• Confidence: medium‑high that a § 103 combination exists against the independent claims; low that any single reference anticipates; and materially uncertain until the granted claim set is confirmed and the WO 2011/084156 / Diewald / Garmin materials are read in full. I have flagged the identifiers I did not verify rather than characterizing them.