`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`§ Att’y Docket Nos.: LMIC—018—801
`
`Customer No. 28120
`
`§ §
`
`§
`§ Petitioner: Liberty Mutual
`§
`Insurance Company
`§
`
`Covered Business Method Review Petition
`of United States Patent No.: 6,064,970
`
`Patent Owner: Progressive Casualty
`Insurance Co.
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`I, Scott Andrews, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`Qualifications
`
`I am currently the Technical Partner of Cogenia Partners, LLC (“Cogenia” , an
`
`independent consulting firm specializing in systems engineering and services
`
`for intelligent transportation systems, safety applications, mobile devices, and
`
`vehicle technologies, which I founded in 2001.
`
`I have over 35 years of
`
`experience developing and managing high technology projects, and 20 years of
`
`experience focusing on intelligent transportation systems. My CV is attached at
`
`Ex. 1013.
`
`2.
`
`Cogenia Partner’s clients include the automotive industry, Fortune 100 service
`
`enterprises,
`
`telecommunications
`
`equipment manufacturers,
`
`the U.S.
`
`Department of Transportation, state and local transportation entities, university
`
`transportation centers, and startups seeking to enter the broad mobility and
`
`transportation technology and location based services market.
`
` Liberty Mutual
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`Page 000001
`
`
`
`In my role at Cogenia Partners, I have consulted with many of the major
`
`carmakers, and leading consumer products and services companies in support
`
`of the creation and delivery of mobile vehicle features and services.
`
`My previous related work experience includes positions at TRW, Inc. and
`
`Toyota Motor Corp.
`
`At Toyota Motor Corporation in Japan, my responsibilities included the
`
`conceptualization and development of multimedia and new technology
`
`products and services for Toyota’s future generations of passenger vehicles in
`
`the United States and Europe. Heavy emphasis was placed on strategy for
`
`information systems, and on development of technical concepts for computing
`
`and Internet oriented systems. Working under the direction of Toyota board
`
`members, I established the Automotive Multimedia Interface Collaboration, a
`
`partnership of the world’s car makers to develop a uniform computing
`
`architecture for vehicle multimedia systems, and led all early technical, planning
`
`and organizational work.
`
`At TRW, Inc., I held a series of positions dealing with emerging transportation
`
`products such as in—vehicle information systems.
`
`In 1991 and 1992, while
`
`employed in the Space and Defense sector, I worked with the automotive
`
`division to develop location—based information delivery systems. The first
`
`Page 000002
`
`
`
`system TRW developed used the Teletrac vehicle location system. This used a
`
`“return link” Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) triangulation scheme (the
`
`system determines the position of the device using signals returned from the
`
`device). This is slightly different from LORAN, which is a “forward link”
`
`TDOA system (the terminal determines its location from the base station
`
`signals), although the two systems are technically similar.
`
`In early 1996, I was in the TRW Automotive Electronics Group and was
`
`working on a variety of automotive electronic systems,
`
`including wireless
`
`vehicle location and information systems,
`
`such as Mayday and remote
`
`diagnostics, navigation systems, and various driver information and vehicle
`
`safety systems.
`
`In April of 1996, I moved to Japan and was employed by
`
`Toyota Motor Corporation and continued to work on a variety of wireless
`
`Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
`
`I have also worked with several
`
`law firms in a consulting and/ or expert
`
`capacity. My attached CV lists all the matters in which I was involved,
`
`including my testimonial experience. EX. 1013.
`
`I am also a member of the following professional societies: Society of
`
`Automotive Engineers
`
`(SAE),
`
`International
`
`Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronic Engineers
`
`(IEEE),
`
`IEEE Standards Association,
`
`Intelligent
`
`Page 000003
`
`
`
`Transportation Society of America (ITSA), Intelligent Transportation Society
`
`of California (ITSC), Institute of Navigation (ION), and International Counsel
`
`on Systems Engineering (INCOSE).
`
`10.
`
`My education includes a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of
`
`California,
`
`Irvine, and an M.S.
`
`in Electronic Engineering from Stanford
`
`University.
`
`11.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Petitioner and real party in interest, Liberty
`
`Mutual Insurance Company (“Petitioner” or “Liberty Mutual”),
`
`to offer
`
`statements and opinions regarding the understanding of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (discussed below) as it relates to the identified patent assigned to
`
`Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Progressive”), as well as other
`
`references presented to me by counsel for Petitioner.
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $300 per hour for my services, exclusive of
`
`any third party expert service fees. My compensation does not depend on the
`
`outcome of this Business Method Review Petition or the pending litigation
`
`between Petitioner and Progressive in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
`
`District of Ohio.
`
`II.
`
`Materials Considered
`
`Page 000004
`
`
`
`13.
`
`In developing my opinions below relating to Progressive’s ‘970 Patent, I have
`
`considered the following materials:
`
`0 Progressive’s U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970 (“the ‘970 Patent”) with
`January 10, 2012 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`1001);
`
`0 A certified English translation of Japanese Patent Publ’n H4—182868
`(“Kosaka”)
`1004);
`
`From?,
`Come
`It
`Background—Where’d
`o OBD—II
`http://www.OBDii.com/background.html (under “\X/here’d it come
`from?”)
`1014);
`
`from Shuji Mizutani, Car Electronics,
`o Excerpt
`(Nippondenso Co. Ltd. 1992)
`1015); and
`
`page
`
`250
`
`o Excerpt from David S. Boehner, Automotive Microcontrollers, in
`Automotive Electronics Handbook, pages 11.24-11.29 (Ronald K.
`Jurgen ed., 1995)
`1016).
`
`Level of Ordinagg Skill for the ‘970 Patent
`
`I have read Progressive’s ‘970 Patent, which I understand was filed on August
`
`17, 1998, issued on May 16, 2000, and claims priority to an application filed on
`
`January 29, 1996.
`
`I also understand that the ‘970 Patent went through exparfe
`
`reexamination from November 24, 2010 to January 10, 2012, and that many of
`
`the claims were amended.
`
`III.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`The ‘970 Patent purports to cover methods and systems for setting insurance
`
`costs based on vehicle telematics data.
`
`See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001 at Abstract.
`
`Generally, vehicle data is monitored and recorded and the data is then used to
`
`produce a vehicle insurance cost for the period in which monitoring occurred.
`
`See, e.g., claims 1, 4-6, 18.
`
`Page 000005
`
`
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the factors that may be considered in determining the
`
`ordinary level of skill
`
`in the art include:
`
`(1)
`
`the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field;
`
`(2)
`
`the types of problems
`
`encountered in the field; and (3)
`
`the sophistication of the technology.
`
`I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is not a specific real
`
`individual, but rather a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by
`
`the factors above.
`
`17.
`
`The field of art relevant to the ‘970 patent is insurance, and more particularly
`
`determining a cost of vehicle insurance based on telematics data.
`
`In my
`
`opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the vehicle telematics aspects pertinent to
`
`the ‘970 patent (apart from the insurance cost aspects), as of January 1996,
`
`would have at
`
`least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, computer science or the equivalent thereof and at least one to two
`
`years of experience with telematics systems for vehicles.
`
`18.
`
`I base this opinion on: the level of technical training I believe is required to
`
`reduce to practice the concepts described in the ‘970 patent and the relevant
`
`prior art; my own experience in hiring and supervising about 30 engineers
`
`engaged in the development of these types of systems by January 1996; my
`
`experience working with developers of these types of systems at Toyota Motor
`
`Corporation in Japan; and my experience working with a technical staff drawn
`
`-5-
`
`Page 000006
`
`
`
`from about 20 different automaker and automotive electronic suppliers as a
`
`part of the development of a set of industry telematics standards.
`
`19.
`
`For purposes of this Declaration, unless otherwise noted, my statements and
`
`opinions below, such as those regarding my experience and the understanding
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art generally (and specifically related to the
`
`references I consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as
`
`ofJanuary 1996.
`
`IV.
`
`20.
`
`State of the Art in the Vehicle Telematics Industgg by Ianuagg 1996
`
`By 1996, several companies had developed vehicle telematics systems that
`
`measured vehicle data, such as speed, acceleration, time of day, etc. These
`
`systems commonly included in—vehicle data monitoring devices that would
`
`monitor the data, store it, and/ or transmit it to a remote location outside of the
`
`vehicle. The telematics data could be used for a variety of purposes, including
`
`insurance purposes, such as for setting insurance premiums.
`
`21.
`
`These in—vehicle data monitoring devices were well known in the art and
`
`included a variety of functions. For example, depending on the type or
`
`purpose of an in—vehicle monitoring device, it may have had sensors and other
`
`components within the device (e.g., an accelerometer) able to measure and
`
`collect operating data, or it may have been designed to collect data from
`
`sensors in the vehicle using a hardwire connection or through a vehicle bus. In
`
`-7-
`
`Page 000007