Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 32
`Date: March 12, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`and SCHRADER ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS US, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Summary
`
`
`
`Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. and Schrader Electronics, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Schrader”) filed a Petition on October 8, 2012 (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1-5 and 7-11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,973
`
`(“the ’973 patent”) (Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319. On March 13,
`
`2013, the Board instituted a trial for each of claims 1-5 and 7-11 on one ground of
`
`unpatentability.1
`
`
`
`After institution of trial, the Patent Owner, Continental Automotive Systems
`
`US, Inc. (“Continental”), filed a Patent Owner Response (“PO Resp.”) to the
`
`Petition. Paper 19. Schrader filed a Reply to Continental’s Response on
`
`September 12, 2013. Paper 20.
`
`
`
`
`
`Oral hearing was conducted on December 11, 2013.2
`
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 318(a), this decision is “a final written decision with respect to the patentability
`
`of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner.”
`
`
`
`
`
`Schrader has shown that claims 1-5 and 7-11 are unpatentable.
`
`B. The Invention of the ’973 Patent
`
`The ’973 patent sets forth that its disclosed invention “relates to a data
`
`transmission method for a tire-pressure monitoring system of a vehicle. More
`
`particularly, it relates to a method for preventing collisions between the data
`
`transmitted by the wheel units of one and the same vehicle.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll.
`
`
`1 See Paper 12 (“Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”).
`
` 2
`
` A transcript of the oral hearing has been entered into the record as Paper 31
`(“Hr’g. Tr.”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`6-11.
`
`
`
`As explained in the ’973 patent, in the art of tire-pressure monitoring
`
`systems for vehicles, there is a known disadvantage in transmitting sensed data
`
`from each wheel unit of a vehicle “simultaneously” to a central computer for
`
`processing of the data. Id. at col. 1, ll. 15-48. As a result of such simultaneous
`
`transmissions, “scrambling” of the data may occur (id. at col. 1, ll. 43-47), also
`
`characterized as data “collision” (id. at col.1, ll. 56-58), which may render the data
`
`unusable. To alleviate the data collision problem, the invention of the ’973 patent
`
`incorporates in each wheel unit internal clocks of “relatively poor precision,” for
`
`instance, RC-type oscillating circuits. Id. at col. 2, ll. 17-26. The poor precision of
`
`the clocks introduces what is characterized as a “natural time lag” of the data
`
`transmission of each wheel unit, so as to impose time shifting of the transmissions.
`
`Such time shifting is not generally present in internal clocks recognized in the art
`
`as “extremely precise.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 27-34.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tire-pressure
`for a
`transmission method
`A data
`1.
`monitoring system (10) of a vehicle, said data being
`transmitted by wheel units (12) to a central computer (13)
`located in the vehicle, said method comprising:
`
`a data transmission phase in parking mode, over a first
`
`period; and
`
`a data transmission phase in running mode, over a second
`
`period shorter than the first period; said method being
`characterized in that:
`
`a natural time lag between various internal clocks with
`
`which each wheel unit (12) is equipped is used to prevent
`collisions between transmissions from the various wheel units
`of one and the same vehicle.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`
`Id. at col. 4, ll. 7-19.
`
`The following items of prior art are involved in this inter partes review:
`
`C. Prior Art
`
`US 6,271,748 B1 (“Derbyshire”)
`
`August 7, 2001
`
`US 5,883,582 (“Bowers”)
`
`US 6,486,773 B1 (“Bailie”)
`
`
`
`
`
`March 16, 1999
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`November 26, 2002
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. The Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`The Board instituted trial on the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Derbyshire, Bailie, and Bowers.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’973 patent is the only independent claim and is directed to a
`
`data transmission method in connection with a tire-pressure monitoring system of a
`
`vehicle. It is the following feature associated with claim 1 that lies at the heart of
`
`this inter partes review: “a natural time lag between various internal clocks with
`
`which each wheel unit (12) is equipped is used to prevent collisions between
`
`transmissions from the various wheel units of one and the same vehicle.” The
`
`limitation is required by all of claims 1-5 and 7-11 in the ’973 patent.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`The Board construes a claim of an unexpired patent in an inter partes review
`
`using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claim terms usually are
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the underlying patent disclosure. In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor,
`
`however, also may act as his or her own lexicographer and give a claim term a
`
`special meaning. Even where, as here, no such lexicographic definition is
`
`presented, it is appropriate, nevertheless, to rely on the written description for
`
`guidance in determining claim meaning. See id. Indeed, the construction that
`
`stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the inventor’s
`
`description is likely to be the correct construction. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
`
`Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`
`
`All claim terms have been given their ordinary meaning as would be
`
`understood by a skilled artisan in light of the ’973 patent. For clarity in this
`
`Decision, however, we explicitly set forth the ordinary meaning for the terms
`
`“natural time lag” and “used to prevent collisions.”
`
`1. “Natural time lag”
`
`
`
`In instituting trial in this inter partes review, the Board determined that the
`
`specification of the ’973 patent sheds light on the meaning of the term “natural
`
`time lag,” as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 7.
`
`In that regard, we observed:
`
`[T]he ’973 Patent sets forth that “natural time lag” of the transmission
`of data from the individual clock components of each wheel arises due
`to “substantial tolerance” possessed by each clock, and “minimize[s]
`the risk of simultaneously transmitting several information items” by
`“randomly time-shifting each frame transmission from a wheel unit
`relative to the other wheel units.” (’973 Patent, col. 3, ll. 39-51.) The
`“substantial tolerance” is elsewhere characterized as “poor precision”
`of the internal clocks, which operates “to automatically time-shift
`(randomly) the transmissions from the wheel units.” (Id. at col. 2, ll.
`17-24.) While a suitable or preferred “degree of precision” of the
`invention is expressed as “± 15%” (id. at col. 3, ll. 26-27), the ’973
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`Patent also conveys that “the degree of precision may be different
`from ± 15%, provided that this automatically induces a time lag in the
`transmissions, thus avoiding any risk of a collision” (id. at col. 3, ll.
`55-58). Furthermore, the ’973 Patent also differentiates clocks having
`“poor precision” from those that are characterized as “extremely
`precise” and use such extreme precision to prevent data collision in a
`manner distinguished from that using “natural time lag.” (Id. at col. 2,
`ll. 17-34.)
`
`
`
`
`Inst. Dec. 7-8. Given the guidance provided by the ’973 patent, we construed the
`
`term “natural time lag,” in connection with internal clocks of a wheel unit, “as
`
`requiring that tolerance of the clocks is sufficiently substantial, or, stated
`
`alternatively, that the precision [is] sufficiently poor, so as to automatically and
`
`randomly induce time shifting of transmissions from the clocks.” Id. at 8. Neither
`
`party has expressed any disagreement with the construction of the term “natural
`
`time lag” that was adopted by the Board. That construction is appropriate also
`
`with respect to this final written decision.
`
`2. “Used to prevent collisions”
`
`
`
`In conjunction with the claim term “used to prevent collisions,” there is also
`
`no dispute by the parties as to the Board’s construction of the term. In light of the
`
`specification of the ’973 patent, the Board construed the term as meaning that, in
`
`connection with transmitted data, “the occurrence of collisions is reduced.” Inst.
`
`Dec. 8. We also maintain that construction in connection with this final written
`
`decision.
`
`B. Derbyshire, Bailie, and Bowers
`
`
`
`As set forth in its Petition, Continental has represented that the combined
`
`teachings of Derbyshire, Bailie, and Bowers account for all the features of claims
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`1-5 and 7-11 of the ’973 patent, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had sufficient reason to combine those teachings.
`
`1. Derbyshire
`
`
`
`Derbyshire discloses a tire condition monitoring system including a “wheel
`
`transmitter unit” associated with each wheel of a vehicle. Ex. 1003, col. 1, ll. 61-
`
`64. Derbyshire describes that each of the wheel transmitter units may incorporate
`
`an internal clock component termed a “clock oscillator,” and sets forth that
`
`examples of such oscillators include an “RC oscillator” and a “ceramic resonator.”
`
`Id. at col. 14, ll. 41-47. The “RC oscillator” is acknowledged as being “relatively
`
`inaccurate” (id. at col. 14, ll. 43-44) or having a “relatively large tolerance” (id. at
`
`col. 15, l. 4), as compared with the ceramic resonator, which is described as having
`
`a “relatively small tolerance” (id. at col. 15, l. 9) and providing “increases [in] the
`
`accuracy of data transmission,” as compared to the RC oscillator (id. at col. 14, ll.
`
`44-47).
`
`2. Bailie
`
`
`
`Like Derbyshire, Bailie also is directed to communicating data in connection
`
`with a tire pressure monitoring system. Bailie recognizes that in its transmission
`
`units associated with the tires of a vehicle, which convey parameters of the tire
`
`such as a tire pressure, “overlap” or “clashing” of data from multiple transmission
`
`units may occur sometimes. Ex. 1006, col. 1, ll. 28-34. Bailie summarizes at least
`
`two embodiments that employ techniques for overcoming the clashing problem as
`
`follows:
`
`In one embodiment, each transmitter sends the data during a
`
`sequence of aperiodic time windows. Because the time windows are
`aperiodic, the likelihood of simultaneous or overlapping transmission
`by two or more transmitters is reduced. In another embodiment, each
`transmitter waits a variable
`time delay before beginning
`its
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`transmission of data. Because the transmitters begin transmitting at
`differing times, the likelihood of overlapping transmission by two or
`more transmitters is reduced.
`
`
`Id. at col. 1, ll. 63-2:4.
`
`3. Bowers
`
`
`
`Bowers is titled “Anticollision Protocol for Reading Multiple RFID Tags.”
`
`Bowers’s Abstract is reproduced below:
`
`A method of reading multiple RFID tags located in a field of an
`
`interrogating antenna is based on periodic transmissions from the tags
`with large, non-transmission intervals between transmissions. The
`non-transmission intervals are fixed for a given tag, but are random
`between
`tags due
`to manufacturing
`tolerances
`in electrical
`components from which the tag is constructed, such that no
`coordination of transmissions from the interrogating antenna is
`required.
`
`Ex. 1005, Abstract.
`
`
`
`Thus, Bowers’s system operates to provide an “anticollision” benefit
`
`concerning the transmission of data that arises due to “manufacturing tolerances”
`
`of involved electrical components. In particular, in describing an embodiment that
`
`incorporates transmission devices, each with a “timing circuit,” Bowers states:
`
`[I]t has been determined that by constructing the timing circuit
`
`19 using electrical components of a predetermined tolerance level,
`such as a +/- 20% tolerance, that although the non-transmission
`interval 38 is a fixed length for a particular device, the length of the
`non-transmission interval varies among a plurality [of] devices due
`solely to the manufacturing tolerance, which decreases the probability
`that two or more devices will transmit their memory data 36 at the
`same instant in time. That is, varying the length of the non-
`transmission interval 38 among various devices 10 desynchronizes
`transmission between devices 10. In contrast, if the timing circuit 19
`is constructed using electrical components with a tighter tolerance
`level, such as +/- 5%, then the timing circuits in different devices are
`more likely to have the same length non-transmission interval and
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`consequently, it is more likely that two or more devices within an
`interrogation zone will simultaneously transmit their memory 36, thus
`causing a data collision.
`
`
`Ex. 1005, col. 8, ll. 19-37. The teaching of the above-quoted portion is clear; the
`
`manufacturing tolerances for the timing circuits of associated transmission devices,
`
`when +/- 20%, are sufficient to “desynchronize[]” data transmissions from multiple
`
`devices with the purpose of avoiding data collision. Furthermore, Bowers also
`
`provides guidance as to a range of acceptable tolerance variations that will satisfy
`
`the desynchronization purpose. In particular, while +/- 20% is an acceptable
`
`tolerance level, in contrast, a “tighter tolerance level” of “+/- 5%” makes data
`
`collision more likely.
`
`4. Reasons to Combine the References
`
`
`
`Although Derbyshire does not recognize a data collision problem in
`
`connection with its disclosed tire pressure data transmissions, it is clear from the
`
`content of Bailie that it is a problem known in the art in need of solution. In that
`
`regard, Bailie conveys that: “[T]here is a need for an improved method and
`
`apparatus for transmitting data in a remote tire pressure monitoring system which
`
`reduces clashing of data.” Ex. 1006, col. 1, ll. 49-52. Although embodiments of
`
`Bailie’s system provide solutions to the problem that do not take advantage of
`
`imprecise clocks with appropriately large tolerances, Bailie does not offer those
`
`particular solutions to the preclusion of other known and viable ones that would
`
`have been appreciated by a skilled artisan. Bowers proposes another solution to
`
`such a data collision problem. As discussed above, Bowers’s solution is the
`
`implementation of timing components associated with each transmission unit that
`
`are of suitable imprecision to mitigate data collision.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`
`In its Petition, Schrader explained that it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to implement Bowers’s known data collision avoidance
`
`techniques in the data transmission systems of tire pressure monitoring devices,
`
`such as Derbyshire and Bailie, for the specific purpose of alleviating data collision
`
`for which such detrimental collision is a recognized problem. E.g., Pet. 22-24.
`
`C. Continental’s Arguments
`
`
`
`In its Preliminary Patent Owner Response, Continental made various
`
`arguments to the Board under the premise that there is insufficient reason to
`
`combine the teachings of Derbyshire, Bailie, and Bowers. In its Response
`
`submitted pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, Continental does not rely on additional
`
`evidence, such as the declaration testimony of an expert, and offers similarly
`
`themed arguments as presented in the Preliminary Patent Owner Response
`
`challenging the rationale to combine the references. PO Resp. 7-36. Continental
`
`also contends that the limitations of claims 3 and 8 are absent from the teachings of
`
`Derbyshire, Bailie, and Bowers. Id. at 37-38. For the reasons that follow, we
`
`conclude that the teachings of Derbyshire, Bailie, and Bowers account adequately
`
`for all the features of the claims, and a skilled artisan would have had adequate
`
`reason to combine those teachings.
`
`1. Adequate reason to combine
`
`
`
`Continental represents to the Board that there is “no reason” to combine the
`
`teachings of Derbyshire and Bowers. PO Resp. 7. The basis for that
`
`representation stems from an alleged distinction, as expressed by Continental,
`
`between “critical data” and “non-critical data.” See, e.g., id. at 8-28. In that
`
`regard, Continental characterizes “critical data” as “data related to a change in the
`
`tire pressure and/or temperature indicating a problematic tire,” and “non-critical
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`data” as “periodic and mundane transmissions of update or communication
`
`maintenance messages.” Id. at 8. According to Continental, a combination of
`
`Derbyshire and Bowers “will have no effect in preventing collisions involving
`
`critical data and will potentially have negative effects for the reception of non-
`
`critical data.” Id. at 7-8 (emphasis removed).
`
`
`
`At the outset, we observe that the claims of the ’973 patent do not
`
`distinguish, or otherwise limit, the content of the transmissions from the various
`
`wheel units. That is, there is no requirement in the claims that the transmissions of
`
`any one particular data category are intended to be prevented from collision to the
`
`exclusion of other data categories. In other words, the claims encompass within
`
`their scope the prevention of collisions of any data content for the transmissions
`
`from various wheel units.
`
`
`
`Derbyshire describes that the wheel transmitter units for each wheel
`
`periodically transmit data to a microprocessor residing in a vehicle. E.g., Ex. 1003,
`
`col. 3, l. 60 – col. 4, l. 15. By way of example, Derbyshire explains that the wheel
`
`units may transmit data “at least every ten minutes,” but also may transmit data
`
`“more frequently if there has been a significant change in the data since the
`
`previous transmission.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 50-54. Derbyshire also provides that less
`
`frequent transmission (e.g., every sixty minutes), at times, may be preferable to
`
`reduce power consumption of the wheel transmitter units. Thus, Derbyshire
`
`provides that the periodicity of transmission is variable, and there is a trade-off
`
`when selecting the transmission period, i.e., more frequent transmissions for more
`
`up-to-date information at the processor versus less frequent transmissions to reduce
`
`power consumption. Continental also recognizes that in Derbyshire there is a
`
`“choice” in establishing the desired frequency of transmission. PO Resp. 9.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`
`Derbyshire is silent as to the prevalence of data collision between various
`
`wheel unit transmissions. However, there is no dispute that such collision is
`
`known to occur in certain circumstances in the system set forth in Derbyshire.
`
`Indeed, at oral hearing, counsel for Continental represented to the Board that data
`
`collision “would be a concern” in such a system, even if likely not to occur. Hr’g.
`
`Tr. 27. That data collision may occur in Derbyshire is consistent with other
`
`evidence of record, for instance, the teachings of Bailie and Bowers. Bailie, as
`
`discussed above, recognizes in the art that “overlap” or “clashing” of data from
`
`multiple transmission units sometimes may occur in tire pressure monitoring
`
`systems. Ex. 1006, col. 1, ll. 28-34. Similarly, Bowers conveys that periodic
`
`transmissions of data from multiple transmission units may give rise to “data
`
`collisions.” E.g., Ex. 1005, col. 1, l. 55- col. 2, l. 16. To overcome or reduce the
`
`data collision problem, Bowers provides particular timing circuits associated with
`
`each of its transmissions units. Id. at col. 8, ll. 19-37.
`
`
`
`Articulated reasoning with rational underpinning is sufficient to support a
`
`conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here,
`
`Schrader’s reasoning to implement Bowers’s timing circuits in the tire pressure
`
`monitoring system of Derbyshire so as to harness the benefit disclosed in Bowers
`
`of preventing data collision is rational and reasonable and is supported sufficiently
`
`by the record. Continental’s argument that Derbyshire’s system may deal
`
`implicitly, to some extent, with the data collision problem such that Derbyshire
`
`would “not benefit” from Bowers’s timing circuits (PO Resp. 28) is unpersuasive.
`
`The argument is speculative and lacks adequate support in the record.
`
`
`
`Furthermore, even if Continental is correct that Derbyshire’s system does
`
`have some capacity to minimize data collision, the record establishes that there are
`
`a limited number of techniques for confronting such collision issues, and Bowers’s
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`approach, using a particular variant of timing circuits having higher manufacturing
`
`tolerance levels, is a known, viable option. See Ex. 1005, col. 8, ll. 19-37. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to incorporate a
`
`known approach for reducing or alleviating the problem of data collision. See KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“When there is a design need
`
`or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
`
`known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated
`
`success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
`
`sense.”).
`
`
`
`We have considered the arguments offered by Continental in connection
`
`with its position that there is “no reason” to combine the teachings of Derbyshire
`
`and Bowers, but conclude that they are unavailing.
`
`2. “Teaching against”
`
`
`
`Continental also contends that Derbyshire “teaches against” combination
`
`with Bowers. PO Resp. 29-30. According to Continental, Derbyshire mandates
`
`that its tire pressure monitoring system use “close tolerance components” and that
`
`one skilled in the art would not substitute such components with the “high
`
`tolerance” components set forth in Bowers. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, col. 19, ll. 23-27).
`
`The argument is unpersuasive.
`
`The referenced portion of Derbyshire is reproduced below:
`
`In some applications it is necessary that the data be acquired
`
`with high reliability. Reliability rates of just one or two transmission
`errors in 50,000 miles are of course possible using the above
`described wheel transmitter units and central receiver, but at the cost
`of using expensive, close tolerance components.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`Ex. 1003, col. 19, ll. 21-26. Thus, Derbyshire sets forth that, in some applications,
`
`the “reliability” attributed to “close tolerance components” is desired. It does not,
`
`as Continental contends, require that Derbyshire’s system must only incorporate
`
`close tolerance timing components to the exclusion of timing components of other
`
`tolerance values. That only “some applications” need to use close tolerance
`
`components suggests that, in other applications, close tolerance components are
`
`not necessary. The above-quoted portion of Derbyshire also recognizes that there
`
`is a detriment to close tolerance components because of their expense. Thus,
`
`Derbyshire sets forth that there is a trade-off to be considered when selecting
`
`transmitter components, i.e., reliability juxtaposed with cost.
`
`
`
`Moreover, even if Derbyshire does express a general preference for close
`
`tolerance components, that itself does not operate to criticize, discredit, or
`
`otherwise discourage investigation into the use of other timing components that are
`
`less close or precise, such as the timing circuits of Bowers. See DePuy Spine, Inc.
`
`v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A
`
`reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference
`
`for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise
`
`discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.”). In other words, that
`
`Derbyshire may place a premium on higher reliability over reduced cost would not
`
`have limited a person of ordinary skill in the art to placing such a premium.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Derbyshire teaches away from the
`
`use of Bowers’s timing circuits as a part of a tire pressure monitoring system.
`
`3. “Non-analogous art”
`
`
`
`Continental contends that Bowers is non-analogous art and, thus, not
`
`available as a reference for consideration in evaluating the patentability of the
`
`claims of the ’973 patent. PO Resp. 30-31. A reference is analogous art if it is
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`either: (1) in the field of the inventor’s endeavor; or (2) is “reasonably pertinent”
`
`to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. Wyers v. Master
`
`Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed.Cir. 2010).
`
`
`
`In the Institution Decision, the Board determined that even if Bowers is not
`
`in the same field of endeavor as the ’973 patent, Bowers is still analogous art. Inst.
`
`Dec. 17. In particular, the Board assessed the following in connection with the
`
`particular problem with which the inventors of the ’973 patent were concerned:
`
`Here, the problem faced by the inventors of the ’973 Patent was
`
`how to prevent collisions of data from multiple transmission sources
`associated with tire pressure monitoring systems in a manner that is
`“less expensive and less difficult to implement” than known
`techniques employing “extremely precise internal clocks.” (’973
`Patent, col. 2, ll. 27-34.) As discussed above, Bowers’[s] invention
`incorporates various transmission units with timing circuits having
`suitable manufacturing tolerances so as to avoid data collisions. That
`Bowers may not make particular reference to transmission units that
`are associated with tire pressure monitoring systems does not end the
`analogous art inquiry. In our view, one with ordinary skill in the art
`would have readily appreciated that because Bowers’[s] invention
`addresses the same problem it is reasonably pertinent to the problem
`addressed in the ’973 Patent.
`
`Id. at 17-18. In its Response, Continental contends that the above represented a
`
`“narrowly-stated problem” that “fails to take into account an unstated but clearly
`
`more preeminent measure of success – that the resultant tire pressure monitor is
`
`safe and reliable.” PO Resp. 31. In that regard, according to Continental:
`
`[W]e respectfully submit that a more appropriate statement of the
`problem faced by the inventors of the ’973 Patent was how to prevent
`collisions of data from multiple transmission sources associated with
`tire pressure monitoring system in a manner that is less expensive and
`less difficult to implement without compromising safety.
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`Id. Thus, although Continental maintains that the Board’s assessment of the
`
`problem is “narrowly-stated,” Continental offers a statement of the problem that is
`
`narrower still. That is, in addition to expense and difficulty of implementation, the
`
`involved problem, according to Continental, also takes into account “safety.”
`
`Notably absent from Continental’s response is citation to the record establishing
`
`that “compromising safety” was a concern with known prior art tire-pressure
`
`monitoring devices. The ’973 patent, itself, characterizes the alleged benefit of the
`
`invention as one that addresses expense and difficulty of implementation, as
`
`compared to the prior art, and does not describe that “safety” is an additional
`
`factor. See Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 27-34.
`
`
`
`In any event, even assuming that Continental’s characterization of the
`
`problem faced by the inventors of the ’973 patent is correct, Continental seemingly
`
`neglects to consider fully the nature of the second prong of the test for analogous
`
`art. In that regard, a reference is analogous art if it is “reasonably pertinent” to the
`
`particular involved problem. Continental does not explain persuasively why
`
`Bowers, which is a reference directed to minimizing collision of transmissions
`
`from multiple transmitters, would not have been considered reasonably pertinent to
`
`preventing data collision in tire pressure monitoring systems, even if a general
`
`concern for “safety” is of lesser, or even minimal, import in Bowers’s area of
`
`technology. Bowers is concerned with preventing data collision among multiple,
`
`substantially simultaneous transmissions in a manner that addresses “cost” issues
`
`in the prior art and strives to produce transmissions that may be “accurately read.”
`
`Ex. 1005, col. 1, l. 55 – col. 2, l. 24. Those disclosures are sufficient to have
`
`conveyed to a skilled artisan that Bowers is “reasonably pertinent” to the problem
`
`faced by the inventors of the ’973 patent.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`4. “Vetted” versus “Unvetted”
`
`
`
`Continental also contends that the combination of Derbyshire, Bailie, and
`
`Bowers is deficient under a theory that “Bailie demands a vetted approach while
`
`the Bowers approach must practically be unvetted.” PO Resp. 33 (emphasis
`
`omitted). According to Continental, the purported dichotomy between Bailie’s
`
`alleged “vetted approach” and Bowers’s alleged “unvetted approach” would
`
`“completely discourage the person of ordinary skill in the art from adopting
`
`[Bowers’s approach] in the context of Derbyshire’s tire pressure monitors.” Id. at
`
`35.
`
`
`
`At the outset, it is not apparent what Continental means in its
`
`characterization of a “vetted” approach versus one that is “unvetted.” Those terms
`
`do not appear in either Bailie or Bowers, nor do we discern that they appear
`
`anywhere else in the record other than Continental’s response and Schrader’s
`
`ensuing reply. As support for its characterization of Bailie as requiring a “vetted
`
`approach,” Continental relies on a portion of Bailie at column 4, lines 26-36. PO
`
`Resp. 33-34. That portion, which describes the version of Bailie’s system
`
`illustrated in Figure 2, is reproduced below:
`
`The time delay for each respective data word is defined
`according to the repeating pattern. As noted above, the repeating
`pattern is preferably common to the plurality of tires by using the
`same code at the different tires. However, a different pattern may be
`used. The duration code or repeating pattern illustrated in the drawing
`has been determined by simulation to be beneficial at reducing
`clashing of data at a receiver in a remote tire pressure monitoring
`system. However, other patterns may be used for transmitting data
`words responsive to collective data during a plurality of aperiodic
`time windows.
`
`Ex. 1006, col. 4, ll. 26-36. The description above simply sets forth that in one
`
`embodiment of Bailie’s system, data transmission may occur in any of a variety of
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`“patterns” from wheel units. It does not limit the possible transmission schemes in
`
`Bailie to any one particular pattern. In its Response, Continental emphasizes that
`
`the pattern “has been determined by simulation to be beneficial at reducing
`
`clashing of data.” PO Resp. 33. Continental then concludes the following:
`
`Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art who reads Bailie in
`
`its entirety will understand that not just any pa