Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`. extracting one or more data elements from at least one sensor
`Claim 6: “. .
`wherein the one or more elements are of at least one operating state ofthe vehicle
`and the at least one human ’s actions during a data collection period; .
`.
`.
`wherein the output data value is used to compute an insurance ratingfor the
`vehicle for the data collection period.” Ex. A at Col. 11:40-12:40.
`
`2.
`
`The Specific Features the Applicants Emphasized During Prosecution
`to Obtain Allowance of the ‘970 Patent Existed Long Before Any
`Claimed Priority Date for the ‘970 Patent, As Shown By the New
`Technical Teachings of the Cited References, Which Thus Raise
`Substantial New Questions of Patentability
`
`During the prosecution of ‘970 patent, as describe above, the Applicants wanted
`
`the Patent Office to believe there were no systems or methods available to “determin[e]
`
`insurance costs for a certain period based upon how the vehicle is operated during that very
`
`same time period.” Ex. B, Amend. D at 5-6 (emphasis added).
`
`In fact, this was the single
`
`supposedly inventive element of all of the independent claims.
`
`In truth, however,
`
`long before the application for the ‘970 was filed, several
`
`systems and methods were known that taught insurance rating for the monitored time period.
`
`These references, which provide the teaching the Applicants argued was missing during original
`
`prosecution, thus raise substantial new questions of patentability that were not considered by the
`
`original Examiner.
`
`In fact, roughly 70 years before any claimed priority date for the ‘970 patent,
`
`Dorweiler taught a method for determining “premium bases” using data from “devices” to
`
`assess exposure retrospectively, i.e., collecting data during one period that affects an insurance
`
`rate during the same period. Ex. F at 339. The article states that when hazard media such as
`
`“mileage, car-hour, or fuel-consumption exposure” are used in “rate making,” they would
`
`“require a final adjustment which would be determined retrospectively” for the period
`
`monitored. Id. at 339 (emphasis added).
`
`-15-
`
`Page 002725
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`Likewise, in the late 1980s, the Pettersen reference described that vehicle data
`
`related to the “driving pattern of a motor vehicle” may be used to provide a “bonus” to persons
`
`with measured safe driving characteristics, specifically, a “more fair bonus arrangement, i.e.,
`
`that policy holders having a ‘careful’ driving pattern — low speeds and low accelerations — may
`
`be allotted a higher bonus.” Ex. H at 3 (emphasis added). One of ordinary skill at the time
`
`would naturally have understood Pettersen’s disclosure of this “bonus” in its ordinary sense to
`
`include at least a possible reward for performance in the monitored period, and would thus have
`
`recognized Pettersen to be disclosing an insurance scheme where the policyholder receives such
`
`a “bonus” or rebate for good driver behavior during the measured time period against the
`
`premium for that period. Id.
`
`Finally,
`
`in the early 1990s, the Kosaka reference disclosed a risk evaluation
`
`device “for evaluating risk in moving bodies (vehicles) or insurance customers,” and an
`
`“insurance premium determination device that employs this risk evaluation device.” Ex. C at 2
`
`(emphasis added). The information gathered and evaluated by these devices is then used to
`
`determine a “real time” insurance premium. Id. at 4, 7.
`
`The Dorweiler, Kosaka and Pettersen references all demonstrate that it was well
`
`known to perform insurance rating for the monitored time period — long before the application
`
`for the ‘970 patent or the parent application was filed. Thus, each of these references discloses
`
`what the Applicants argued was missing from the prior art during the original examination
`
`leading to the ‘970 patent. Each of the seven substantial new questions of patentability raised by
`
`the Requester relies on these new teachings of one of these three references, which are at least
`
`for this reason more pertinent than the prior art previously considered and were not previously
`
`-16-
`
`Page 002726
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`before the Examiner (Kosaka, Dorweiler) or were not considered in this new light by the
`
`Examiner (Petterson) during the original prosecution of the ‘970 patent.
`
`C.
`
`Secondary Considerations and Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`As demonstrated in this Request, many claims of the ‘97O patent are anticipated
`
`by Kosaka, and “secondary considerations” are irrelevant to the invalidity of these claims under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`This Request also demonstrates that all of the claims of the ‘970 patent are
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combinations of references presented here. As
`
`discussed below, these overwhelming and old teachings in the prior art of the same insurance
`
`policy feature that the Applicants argued was their basis for patentability — “determining
`
`insurance costs for a certain period based upon how the vehicle is operated during that very same
`
`period” — cannot be overcome by “secondary considerations.”
`
`The “ultimate determination of whether an invention is obvious is a legal question
`
`based on the totality of the evidence.” See Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris,
`
`Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1131, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1456, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Richara’son—Vicks
`
`Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483, 44 U.S.P.Q.2d 1181, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). As set
`
`forth in Graham v. John Deere C0,, 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 U.S.P.Q. 459, 467 (1966), those fact
`
`determinations involve (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claimed invention, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4)
`
`additional evidence, which may serve as indicia of non—obviousness. This “additional evidence”
`
`with respect
`
`to obviousness may include “secondary considerations [such] as commercial
`
`success, long felt but unsolved needs, [and] failure of others.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17, 148
`
`U.S.P.Q. at 467. However, a lack of invention cannot be outweighed by secondary factors.
`
`-17-
`
`Page 002727
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 324 U.S. 320, 64 U.S.P.Q. 412 (1945).
`
`See also GreatAtl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp, 340 U.S. 147, 153, 87 U.S.P.Q.
`
`303, 306 (1950) (“[C]ommercial success without invention will not make patentability.”); Brown
`
`& Williamson, 229 F.3d at 1131, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1465 (“indicators of nonobviousness cannot
`
`overcome the strong evidence of obviousness”) (citing Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. C0,, 864 F.2d
`
`757, 769, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1417, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“finding obviousness despite strong
`
`evidence of commercial success”)).
`
`Here, despite the passage of more than a decade, there is no commercial success
`
`associated with the supposed invention of the ‘970 patent. The patent owner’s one known
`
`attempt to commercialize something resembling the claims of the ‘970 patent was a pilot
`
`program called “Autograph,” and Progressive pulled Autograph from the market by 2002. While
`
`Progressive has recently begun to offer what it terms “usage based insurance,” these insurance
`
`policies such as “MyRate” and “Snapshot” — which determine future insurance costs based on
`
`past driving behavior — do not even practice the claimed invention of the ‘970 patent. But even
`
`if they did, these policies certainly would not demonstrate commercial success: more than 12
`
`years after the Applicants filed their application for the ‘970 patent, these insurance policies are
`
`not even approved or offered in most states, and they represent at most a tiny fraction of issued
`
`auto policies.
`
`Any supposed evidence of commercial success is also unavailing without a
`
`concrete correlation between the merits of the invention and the alleged success. Richardson-
`
`Vicks Inc., 122 F.3d at 1483, 44 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1186 (“evidence of commercial success proffered
`
`by plaintiff is limited to sales data, and does not include evidence of market share, of growth in
`
`market share, of replacing earlier units sold by others or of dollar amounts, and no evidence of a
`
`-18-
`
`Page 002728
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`nexus between the sales and the merits of the invention”) (internal quotation omitted). Here,
`
`Progressive can show neither a commercial success, nor any nexus to the supposed merits of its
`
`‘970 patent’s claims. As noted above, Progressive’s available “usage based” insurance policies
`
`do not even practice the claimed invention: they use past driving behavior to determine future
`
`insurance costs, not
`
`to determine insurance costs for the same monitored period. And
`
`Progressive’s Applicants admitted, during prosecution of the ‘970 patent, that this was already
`
`known before their supposed invention: collecting vehicle driver data and using it to assess
`
`insurance rates for upcoming periods was taught by the prior art.
`
`In order to show the required nexus to the claimed invention for an argument of
`
`commercial success, Progressive would need to show both (1) that customers are actually buying
`
`insurance policies that use vehicle monitoring data to adjust and apply insurance ratings, costs,
`
`and premiums to the same monitored time period, and (2) that customers are choosing those
`
`insurance policies because of this policy feature of using monitored data to adjust and apply
`
`insurance costs, premiums and ratings to the same monitored time period. Mere suggestions that
`
`there are “usage based” insurance policies in existence that use monitored data to adjust future
`
`insurance costs are irrelevant, as this was admittedly known before the ‘970 patent. And, even if
`
`there were policies making data-based adjustments and applications to insurance ratings, costs
`
`and premiums in the same monitored period, and even if these policies were shown to be a
`
`significant marketplace success, this would be pertinent to a “commercial success” argument for
`
`obviousness purposes only if Progressive could prove it was this feature, and not others, that was
`
`driving demand. Again, Progressive cannot do so.
`
`Progressive is also unable to demonstrate commercial success by pointing to
`
`licensing activity.
`
`“Licenses taken under the patent
`
`in suit may constitute evidence of
`
`-19-
`
`Page 002729
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`nonobviousness; however, only little weight can be attributed to such evidence if the patentee
`
`does not demonstrate ‘a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record.”’
`
`See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1116, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539, 218 U.S.P.Q. 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
`
`see also SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp, 225 F.3d 1349, 1358, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`1927, 1933 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“the mere existence of these licenses is insufficient to overcome the
`
`conclusion of obviousness”). While the Requester understands there may be a small number of
`
`licenses that include the ‘970 patent, the Requester is not aware of any licenses that are limited
`
`solely to the ‘970 patent, so Progressive cannot actually link these licenses to the merits of the
`
`claims of the ‘970 patent that are the subject of this Request. Furthermore, in view of the
`
`universe of hundreds of insurance companies offering vehicle insurance,
`
`this insignificant
`
`number of licenses is de minimis, and certainly does not prove commercial success. Even after
`
`the passage of more than a decade, the Requester is not aware of any significant licensing
`
`income that Progressive has received in connection with the ‘970 patent. Moreover,
`
`the
`
`Requester
`
`is unaware of My instance in which the ‘970 patent has been successfully
`
`commercialized by any U.S. licensee of the ‘970 patent — or for that matter that there has been
`
`any licensee with significant U.S. market share in vehicle insurance to begin with, let alone a
`
`nexus between a marketplace success and any merits of the ‘970 patent’s supposed “invention.”
`
`Indeed, licenses are often taken for reasons other than the presence of a valid and commercially
`
`significant patent, such as the avoidance of litigation, the minimal royalties at stake, a desire to
`
`acquire technology in addition to the patents, and the desire to foster a business relationship. As
`
`evidenced by the ongoing litigation between Progressive and the Requester, and the failure of
`
`other major vehicle insurers to take a license, there is certainly no industry acquiescence as to the
`
`-20-
`
`Page 002730
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`significance or validity of the ‘970 patent. Again, Progressive cannot demonstrate the
`
`connections required to support an argument of “commercial success.”
`
`One of the likely reasons there has not been a market success in commercializing
`
`the claims of the ‘970 patent is that the patent’s specification and claims simply do not describe
`
`or disclose how to actually use the monitored data elements in practice — z'.e., how to adjust and
`
`apply an insurance rating, cost or premium based on monitored data to the same monitored
`
`period. And if Progressive argues that such adjustments and applications would already have
`
`been known to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the ‘970 patent’s priority date, this will
`
`simply underscore that any commercial success is not actually linked to any patentable merits of
`
`Progressive’s claimed invention disclosed in the ‘970 patent.
`
`In sum, Progressive simply cannot
`
`show the required nexus.
`
`Finally, Progressive cannot base any claims of “commercial success” on a long
`
`felt but unsolved need and the failure of others to fulfill that need — factors that most often are
`
`treated together:
`
`If the patent in issue filled a need that was not only genuine, but
`long felt — that is, long consciously recognized — the inference is
`that for a long period of time actual artisans were attempting to
`solve the problem. The greater the need, and the longer it was felt,
`the stronger the inference. Actual documented failures of others
`enhance the inference that the patent iI1 issue is a “new display of
`ingenuity beyond the compass of the routineer .
`.
`. .” Kirsch
`Manufacturing Co. v. Gould Mersereau C0., 6 F.2d 793, 794 (2d
`Cir. 1925). The proposition, however, that the ordinary [skilled
`artisan’s] failure to solve a long-felt problem may be relied upon
`safely as the measure of obviousness is as seductive as it is flawed.
`
`Dickey—./ohn Corp. v. Int’! Tapetronics Corp, 710 F.2d 329, 346, 219 U.S.P.Q. 402, 416 (7th
`
`Cir. 1983).
`
`Here, the Applicants did not satisfy any long felt need, nor was there a failure of
`
`-21-
`
`Page 002731
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`others to satisfy any long-felt need. To the contrary, as reflected in the prior art submitted
`
`herewith, this is a long—standing art with broad disclosures from multiple sources addressing —
`
`well before the application for the ‘970 patent was filed — monitoring vehicle behavior and using
`
`that information to assess insurance rates for the same monitored time period (z'.e., the very
`
`insurance policy feature the Applicants argued as their basis for patentability). The broad, clear
`
`teachings of prior art preceding the ‘970 patent’s earliest filing date belie any claim of failure by
`
`others. Moreover,
`
`the patent owner’s own apparent failure over more than a decade to
`
`successfully commercialize the invention claimed in the ‘970 patent further discredits any
`
`suggestion that the Applicants filled some long—felt and unmet need.
`
`The bottom line is that the ‘970 patent claims are based on an insurance policy
`
`feature that was old at the time the Applicants filed for a patent. They are rendered obvious by
`
`multiple prior art references. The overwhelming invalidity of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`cannot be rebutted with secondary considerations, because there is no evidence more than 12
`
`years after its filing date that the ‘970 patent made any substantive contributions to the relevant
`
`art.
`
`III.
`
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE PERTINENCE AND MANNER OF
`APPLYING THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES TO EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH
`
`REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED
`
`As required under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§
`
`l.5l0(b)(2), a detailed explanation of the
`
`pertinence and manner of applying the prior art references to the claims is provided here with
`
`Requester’s proposed rejections. This detailed explanation is divided into four sections, three of
`
`which are based on the primary references, Kosaka (Section III.A), Lemelson (Section III.B),
`
`and Bouchard (Section III.C). The fourth, Section III.B describes admitted prior art (pursuant to
`
`MPEP § 2217) based on statements the Applicants made during prosecution of the ‘970 patent
`
`application.
`
`-22-
`
`Page 002732
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`As noted above, for purposes of this request, the Requester construes claim
`
`language according to MPEP 2111, such that claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation.
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364. When the claims are
`
`construed in this manner, or even in a narrower, more reasonable manner, all the claims are
`
`unpatentable in view of the prior art references presented herein.
`
`In construing the claim
`
`language in this manner or as otherwise set forth explicitly or implicitly herein, the Requester
`
`expressly reserves the right to argue a different claim construction in the pending litigation as
`
`appropriate to that proceeding.
`
`A.
`
`Kosaka and Black Magic
`
`1.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Kosaka
`
`“Kosaka” (Ex. C) is Japanese Patent JP-A-4/ 182868, filed on November
`
`19, 1990 and published on June 30, 1992.
`
`2.
`
`Like the ‘970 patent, the Kosaka reference is directed to a risk evaluation
`7
`
`device “for evaluating risk in moving bodies (vehicles) or insurance customers,’ and to an
`
`“insurance premium determination device that employs this risk evaluation device.” Id. at 2.
`
`3.
`
`The combined system in Kosaka includes: (1) sensors that detect states
`
`that contribute to risk, such as speed and driver operations; (2) a fuzzy logic deduction unit that
`
`continuously computes an assessment of risk using the sensor data and stores the risk evaluation
`
`values in memory; and (3) an insurance premium calculation unit that uses the stored risk
`
`evaluation values to determine and adjust an insurance premium.
`
`Id. at 4. All of the units
`
`operate in “real time,” such that the “insurance premiums can be increased or decreased by
`
`continually determining insurance premium changes through the detection of states that lead to
`
`risk in the insurance customer.” Id. at 2-3. Kosaka thus discloses monitoring and recording data
`
`-23-
`
`Page 002733
`
`

`
`for a particular time period and using that information to assess an insurance premium for the
`
`same time period.
`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`
`
`.
`
`:
`
`u . .
`
`.'*»
`.
`i
`~=
`':;;: '~..._,.:_...,
`J
`5 ‘en
`
`\
`
`
`
`‘
`
`‘
`
`46
`‘.if;
`i
`H
`m....1“
`;
`....._...
`_
`‘\'.\\\\2\\\
`%m% REU $44 MEM§
`l.......i.-,~
`ll
`.
`
`_
`mi
`
`s...-‘
`
`t
`
`_..,.,,.....‘..__.._.__.
`
`4.
`
`Figure 5 (above) is a “configuration diagram of a device that employs an
`
`insurance premium determination system in a risk evaluation device installed in a vehicle
`
`(automobile).” Id. at 6. Operator and vehicle characteristics are detected by “the doppler radar
`
`main unit 30, the speed detector 38, the main engine rotation rate detector 43, and the control
`
`operation detection part 44.” Id. at 7. The “speed detector” for example, measures “ground
`
`speed,” While the “control operation detection part 44 detects clearly intentional operations, for
`
`example, when there is a deviation in the rudder operation mechanism that is at or above a set
`
`value.” Id. Thus, Kosaka teaches relating the driving characteristics to safety standards (e. g.,
`
`deviation above a safety value).
`
`5.
`
`The “output V0” of the speed detector 38 is also conducted to the “system
`
`activation control part 39.” This system activation control part “keeps the system in an operating
`
`state when the ‘self’ speed V0 exceeds a set value.” Id. at 7 (emphasis added). As a result, the
`
`risk evaluation system in Kosaka may be activated and remains in an “operating state” while the
`
`-24-
`
`Page 002734
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`detected speed exceeds a set value. Therefore, “selected” data, such as the evaluated risk value
`
`corresponding to speed exceeding the set value, is stored.
`
`6.
`
`The monitored data is “output to the risk evaluation unit 42.”
`
`Id. The
`
`risk evaluation unit 42 then “performs real-time evaluation of the degree of risk during operation
`
`from the state signals of the automobile .
`
`.
`
`. using a signal processing process including fuzzy
`
`logic.” A “fuzzy memory” (not pictured) “stores risk evaluation values.” Id. at 4.
`
`The
`
`information is then used to determine a “real time” insurance premium. Id. at 4, 7. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kosaka teaches storing collected information
`
`in a “database” in order to facilitate the retrieval and analysis of the data elements.
`
`7.
`
`The monetary amount file part 46 “erases, from [a] prepayment money
`
`balance” stored in a memory,
`
`the “insurance premium change corresponding to the risk
`
`evaluation value output from the risk evaluation unit 42.” Id. As a result,
`
`this real-time
`
`determination and deduction of insurance premium “allows risk evaluations that change from
`
`hour to hour during travel to be reflected in the insurance premium.” Id.
`
`8.
`
`In addition, the Kosaka reference discloses a means for generating and
`
`communicating a warning “when the risk value exceeds a set value,” id. at 7, thus indicating the
`
`determination of a “trigger event” (exceeding the set value) and generation of a signal
`
`corresponding to the trigger event.
`
`2.
`
`9.
`
`Overview of Black Magic
`
`The article entitled “An Interest in Black Magic — Motor Technology” was
`
`published on January 1, l994 in Insurance Age magazine. An Interest in Black Magic — Motor
`
`Technology, Insurance Age, Jan. 1, 1994 (Ex. D). Black Magic discusses the use of “black box
`
`recorders” to monitor vehicle fleets to determine “driving speed, time and distance traveled and
`
`fuel consumption” and “at the end of each shift, data from the cartridge is downloaded to a
`
`-25-
`
`Page 002735
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`6
`
`personal computer.”
`
`Id. at 1. The fleet manager can then ‘use the information to assess
`
`operating efficiency and to analyze the performance of drivers in terms of exceeding maximum
`
`speeds, engine idling time and harsh deceleration.” Id.
`
`10.
`
`Years before any claimed priority date for the ‘970 patent, Black Magic
`
`also taught that global position systems (GPS) have “wider implications for the insurance
`
`industry, as [they] can produce all the data a black box can and record the vehicle’s location.”
`
`Id. at 2.
`
`11.
`
`According to the article, “most
`
`insurers agree that
`
`the device is an
`
`invaluable aid to risk management .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.” Indeed, “the information could be used to accurately
`
`rate premiums according to the styles of driving and locality of use.” Id. at 2.
`
`12.
`
`Black Magic also states that “Ford is developing GPS system that will
`
`combine an emergency location facility with a stolen vehicle tracking system. Both these
`
`functions use the vehicle’s GPS receiver to locate its position, and this information is relayed to a
`
`central base using cellular telephony.” Black Magic thus discloses communicating data
`
`representative of operator and vehicle driving characteristics to a remote system. Id. at l.
`
`3.
`
`Kosaka
`
`13.
`
`A claim is anticipated if “each and every element as set forth in the claim
`9
`is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.’ Verdegaal
`
`Bros. v. Union 01'! C0. 0fCalzf0rm'a, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also MPEP §2l3l.
`
`The Kosaka reference teaches explicitly,
`
`inherently, or implicitly each and every element
`
`required by independent claims 4, 5 and 6. The Kosaka reference likewise discloses each and
`
`every element required by dependent claims 7, 8 (“trigger events”), and 10 (“safety standards”).
`
`Kosaka similarly discloses each and every element
`
`required by dependent claim 13
`
`-26-
`
`Page 002736
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`(“underwriting costs”) because it teaches using an analysis of the data to assess actuarial and
`
`underwriting risks according to conventional, well—established insurance practices.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 4-8, 10, and 13 Should be Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
`Anticipated by Kosaka
`
`(a)
`
`Independent Claim 4
`
`14.
`
`An overview of the reasons for rejection of claim 4 in light of Kosaka is
`
`set forth below. A more detailed explanation is provided in the claim chart included at the end of
`
`this section.
`
`15.
`
`Independent claim 4 is reproduced below, with labels added in brackets
`
`for the purpose of referencing the claim elements in the following analysis:
`
`[4.l] A method of insuring a vehicle operator for a selected period
`based upon operator driving characteristics during the period, comprising, steps
`0f‘
`
`[4.2] generating an initial operator profile;
`
`[4.3] monitoring operator driving characteristics during the
`selected period;
`
`[4.4] and deciding a cost of vehicle insurance for the period based
`upon the operating characteristics monitored in that period.
`
`16.
`
`Element [4.1] of claim 4 is a preamble that describes “A method of
`
`insuring a vehicle operator for a selected period based upon operator driving characteristics
`
`during the period.” To the extent this preamble is considered a limitation of the claim,9 Kosaka
`
`discloses determining an insurance premium for a selected period based upon operator driving
`
`characteristics during the period. The insurance premium determination operates in “real time.”
`
`Ex. C at 3. The risk evaluation unit performs “real-time” evaluation of the degree of risk and a
`
`See MPEP § 2111.02 Effect of Preamble (“The determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made
`9
`on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case”). For ease of discussion, Requester addresses in the
`context of the preamble certain terms that also appear elsewhere.
`
`-27-
`
`Page 002737
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`“monetary amount file” deducts the “insurance premium change” from a “prepayment balance.”
`
`Id. at 7. As a result, “insurance premiums can be increased or decreased by continually
`
`determining insurance premium changes through the detection of states that lead to risk.” Id. at
`
`2.
`
`17.
`
`Element [4.2] of claim 4 recites “generating an initial operator profile.”
`
`Kosaka teaches generating an initial operator profile, disclosing that a “prepayment amount that
`
`has been paid in advance” is “stored” and the insurance premium change is deducted from this
`
`prepayment amount.
`
`Id. at 5-6. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
`
`storing a “prepayment” in advance explicitly teaches, or at a minimum inherently discloses,
`
`generating, in advance, an initial operator profile so that the appropriate prepayment can be
`
`calculated for the insured operator.
`
`18.
`
`Element
`
`[4.3] of claim 4
`
`recites
`
`“monitoring operator driving
`
`characteristics during the selected period.” Kosaka teaches monitoring operator driving
`
`characteristics of the particular operator by disclosing monitoring “states in the operator or
`
`moving body used as the subject of risk evaluation which contribute to risk” using sensors,
`
`which include “a doppler radar main unit, the speed detector, the main engine rotation rate
`
`detector, and the control operation detection part.”
`
`Id. at 4, 7. The sensors monitor data
`
`representative of an operating state of a vehicle or an action of the operator, such as the speed.
`
`Id. at 3, 7. The sensors “operate in real time,” such that the data is monitored continuously.
`
`Id.
`
`at 3. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that monitoring data in “real
`
`time” explicitly teaches monitoring data for a selected (current) time period.
`
`19.
`
`Element [4.4] of claim 4 recites “and deciding a cost of vehicle insurance
`
`for the period based upon the operating characteristics monitored in that period.” Kosaka
`
`-28-
`
`Page 002738
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`teaches deciding a cost of vehicle insurance based upon operating characteristics. A “fuzzy
`
`logic” risk evaluation unit continuously computes an assessment of risk, the “risk evaluation
`
`values,” using the monitored data and stores the risk evaluation values in “fuzzy memory.” Id. at
`
`4. A “premium calculation” unit performs “temporal integration” using the risk evaluation
`5
`
`values, and “calculates insurance premiums.’
`
`Id. Kosaka further discloses that the insurance
`
`premium determined is for the period monitored because the insurance premium determination
`3
`
`operates in “real time.’
`
`Id. at 3. The risk evaluation unit performs “real-time” evaluation of the
`
`degree of risk and a “monetary amount file” deducts the “insurance premium change” from a
`3
`
`“prepayment balance.’
`
`Id. at 7. As a result, “insurance premiums can be increased or decreased
`
`by continually determining insurance premium changes through the detection of states that lead
`
`to risk.” Id. at 2.
`
`20.
`
`The following claim chart demonstrates,
`
`in further detail, how each
`
`element is disclosed by Kosaka.
`
`Claim Element
`
`4. A method of insuring a vehicle operator for a
`selected period based upon operator driving
`characteristics during the period, comprising,
`steps of:
`
`=
`
`=
`
`3 generating an initial operator profile;
`‘
`
` , To the extent this preamble is considered a limitation to
`
`the claim, Kosaka discloses insuring a vehicle operator for
`a selected period based upon operator driving
`5 characteristics during the period at 2:
`“The present invention relates to a risk evaluation device for
`evaluating risk in moving bodies (vehicles) or insurance
`customers, and an insurance premium determination device
`: that employs this risk evaluation device.” “[A]n objective of
`the invention is to provide an insurance premium
`determination device whereby insurance premiums can be
`increased or decreased by continually determining
`5 insurance premium changes through the detection ofstates
`that lead to risk in the insurance customer.”
`
`,,..,..,,..,,..,..,,..,,..,..,,..,,..,..,,..,,..,..,,..,,..,..,,..,,..,..,,.u,..,..
`
`Kosaka discloses generating an initial operator profile at
`5-6:
`“The prepayment amount that has been paid in advance .
`stored in the logic part 21, and a process is carried out in
`which a unit fee is taken from this prepayment amount.”
`
`.
`
`. is
`
`Storing a “prepayment” in advance explicitly teaches, or at a
`minimum inherently discloses, generating, in advance, an
`initial operator profile so that the appropriate prepayment
`
`R\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \x\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
`\\\\\\x\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
`, can be calculatedfor the insured operator.
`
`-29-
`
`Page 002739
`
`

`
`Re quest for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970
`
`4
`I/IA
`
`
`
`
`mom onng opera or
`iving c arac ens 1CS
`=
`0s
`
`during the selected period;
`characteristics at 3:
`“[T]he risk contributing state detection means has a relative
`speed detection means and integration means thereof that
`detects speed relative to a preceding moving body and a
`means for detecting the reflected wave level from the
`preceding moving body.”
`
`..,,..,,..,..,,..,,..,..,,..,,..,..,,..,,..,..,,..,,..,..,,..,,..,..,,..,,..,..,,..;,.
`
`Kosaka discloses monitoring in real time at 3:
`“[T]he risk contributing state detection means and the risk
`evaluation means operate in real time.”
`
`Monitoring data in real-time (e.g. continuously) explicitly
`
`
`
`5 Kosaka discloses deciding a cost of insurance for the
`period based upon operating characteristics monitored in
`that period at 7:
`“The risk evaluation unit 42 then performs real-time
`evaluation of the degree of risk during operation from the
`state signals of the automobile [] using a signal processing
`process including fuzzy logic. .
`.
`. [A] monetary amount file
`part 46 erases, from the prepayment money balance, the
`insurance premium change corresponding