Paper 12
`Entered: March 13, 2013
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS US, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and MICHAEL W. KIM
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Background
`Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. and Schrader Electronics, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Schrader” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-5
`and 7-11 of US Patent 6,998,973 (“’973 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311 et seq.1 The Patent Owner, Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
`(“Continental” or “Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response in opposition to
`Schrader’s request.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a) which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes review
`to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information
`presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response
`filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.
`B. Summary of the Invention
`The ’973 Patent sets forth that its disclosed invention (’973 Patent, col. 1, ll.
`
`6-11):
`[R]elates 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.
`
`
`
`
`1
`See Schrader’s “Petition for Inter Partes Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100”
`filed October 8, 2012 (“Pet.”) (Paper 1).
`
`See Continental’s “Preliminary Response of Patent Owner” filed January 10,
`
`2013 (“Prelim. Resp.”) (Paper 11).
`
`
` 2
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`
`
`a data transmission phase in parking mode, over a first
`
`period; and
`
`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`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. (’973 Patent, 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 internal clocks, for instance RC-type oscillating
`circuits, in each wheel unit, which clocks are of “relatively poor precision.” (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 (id. at col. 4,
`
`ll. 7-19):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`
`
`
`
`collisions between transmissions from the various wheel units
`of one and the same vehicle.
`C. Involved Prior Art
`Schrader challenges the patentability of claims 1-5 and 7-11 on the basis of
`
`the following items of prior art:
`
`US 6,271,748 B1 (“Derbyshire”)
`
`US 6,404,246 B1 (“Estakhri”)
`
`
`US 5,883,582 (“Bowers”)
`
`
`US 6,486,773 B1 (“Bailie”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`August 7, 2001
`
`June 11, 2002
`
`March 16, 1999
`November 26, 2002
`
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`Schrader asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`a.
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Derbyshire.
`b.
`Claims 3, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Derbyshire.
`c.
`Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Derbyshire and Estakhri.
`d.
`Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Derbyshire and Bowers.
`e.
`Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Derbyshire and Bailie.
`f.
`Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9-11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Bailie.
`g.
`Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Bailie and Estakhri.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`
`Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`h.
`as obvious over Bailie and Bowers.
`i.
`Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Derbyshire, Bailie, and Bowers.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`The preliminary inquiry before the Board at this stage of the inter partes
`
`review proceeding is whether Schrader has established that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that it will prevail in proving the unpatentability of at least one claim of
`the ’973 Patent. If it has done so, then the institution of a trial is appropriate. In
`making the inquiry, we observe that the final clause of Continental’s claim 1 is at
`the center of the dispute between the parties. The noted clause reads:
`
`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.
`
`
`Indeed, Continental, in urging that trial should not be instituted, characterizes that
`clause as constituting the “main dispute” in the proceeding. (Prelim. Resp., p. 4.)
`The clause is required by all of Continental’s claims 1-5 and 7-11 involved in this
`inter partes review.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`The Board construes a claim 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. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claims terms usually are given their ordinary
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`in the context of the underlying patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). However, an inventor may also 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 nevertheless entirely
`appropriate 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).
`
`In assessing the merits of Schrader’s petition, we find it necessary to
`construe the terms “natural time lag” and “used to prevent collisions” in light of
`the specification of the ’973 Patent.
`
`1. “Natural time lag”
`
`At the outset, we observe that Schrader proffers an interpretation of “natural
`
`time lag” that is alleged to correspond to a position taken by Continental in
`infringement litigation. (Pet., 4-5; 9.) In particular, according to Schrader,
`Continental’s litigation position was that “sensors with any amount of imprecision,
`even lower than +/- 1%, creates a sufficient ‘natural lag’ to be covered by the
`claim.” (Id. at 9.) Although Schrader characterizes that position as being an
`“overly board interpretation of the ‘973 Patent claims” and thus, presumably,
`unreasonable, Schrader nevertheless urges the Board to adopt that position in this
`inter partes review. (Id. at 5.)
`
`We, however, do not discern from the record before us how Schrader arrived
`at its conclusion that Continental’s position in litigation amounted to a statement
`that simply “any imprecision” as between internal clocks necessarily creates the
`“natural time lag” required by the claims of the ’973 Patent. Nor do we discern
`from the record why the Board should focus on a precision of “+/- 1 %.”
`6
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`Furthermore, as discussed above, a claim of a patent subject to inter partes review
`is given its “broadest reasonable construction” in light of the underlying
`specification of the patent in which it appears. Construction of a claim term of the
`’973 Patent in a manner that is overly or unreasonably broad in light of the
`specification would thus not be appropriate. Yet, that is what is being advocated
`by Schrader here in connection with applying the prior art to Continental’s claims.
`We are therefore not persuaded by Schrader’s arguments based on Continental’s
`alleged litigation position.
`
`As noted above, it is the description in the specification underlying a given
`claim that usually will serve as an authoritative guide in ascertaining the meaning
`of claim terminology. The specification of the ’973 Patent gives guidance with
`respect to the meaning of the claimed “natural time lag” as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, the ’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 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
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`“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.)
`
`With the above discussion informing our understanding as to the meaning
`here of “natural time lag,” we construe that term 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 sufficiently poor, so as to automatically
`and randomly induce time shifting of transmissions from the clocks.
`
`
`
`2. “Used to Prevent Collisions”
`
`Schrader also offers a construction of “used to prevent collisions.” In
`
`particular, Schrader proposes that the term establishes that the involved natural
`time lag operates to “reduce” collisions. (Pet., 10.) Continental does not dispute
`that meaning. Although Schrader then disparages the meaning as arising from a
`litigation position of Continental and one that is “overly broad” (id. at 10-11), we
`think it is one appropriately consistent with the specification of the ’973 Patent.
`
`Specifically, the specification of the ’973 Patent sets forth that the invention
`“makes it possible to avoid (or minimize) the risk of a collision between”
`transmitted data from multiple transmission sources. (’973 Patent, col. 3, ll. 39-
`44.) Thus, in view of the ’973 Patent, the “prevent[ion] of collisions” would be
`accomplished in a situation in which risk of the collisions actually occurring is
`avoided or otherwise minimized. That the collisions are described as being
`avoided or minimized supports Schrader’s construction that the prevention of
`collisions means that they are reduced. Accordingly, we interpret “used to prevent
`collision” as meaning that the occurrence of collisions is reduced.
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`All other terms of claims 1-5 and 7-11 are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning.3
`
`
`
`B. Anticipation
`Schrader presents two grounds of unpatentability with respect to
`
`anticipation. The grounds involve Derbyshire and Bailie. Derbyshire and Bailie
`are each directed to systems for transmitting data in connection with tire pressure
`of the wheels of a vehicle. (Derbyshire, Abstract; Bailie, Abstract.) In accounting
`for the required “natural time lag” that arises from the various internal clocks
`associated with a wheel unit of each wheel, Schrader takes a similar approach in
`urging that each of Derbyshire and Bailie constitutes anticipating references of
`claim 1. In that regard, Schrader provides the following contentions (Pet., p. 12;
`pp. 13-14):
`[I]nherent in the Derbyshire system and method of using a less precise
`RC oscillator clocks in the remaining imprecision and resulting
`potential natural time lag between various internal clocks based on
`inherent differences between the clocks.
`---
`[I]nherent in the Bailie method is any relative natural time lag
`between the various internal clocks based on differences in the clocks.
`Bailie discloses the natural tolerance of the clocks used in remote tire
`pressure sensors, specifically disclosing a variance of +/- 1 %. Thus
`Bailie discloses the inherent imprecision in clocks as disclosed in the
`‘973 Patent, which provides the claimed lag between clocks.
`
`
`
`3 Schrader sets forth the term in claim 2 of “Precision of an RC-type oscillator”
`under a separate heading, suggesting a separate claim construction. (Pet., 11.)
`However, we do not discern from the record that there is any dispute over
`construction of the term. We conclude that the construction that is advanced for
`the term, namely an “RC oscillator [which] functions as a clock by oscillating at a
`given frequency” and which has “some notable level of imprecision,” is a meaning
`that is readily understood as the ordinary and customary meaning.
`9
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`Thus, Schrader’s alleged anticipation involving each of Derbyshire and
`
`Bailie is not predicated on an explicit disclosure in each reference as to the “natural
`time lag” between wheel unit internal clocks, but rather relies on implicit
`disclosures, i.e., inherency.
`
`
`With the above in mind, and given our construction of “natural time lag” and
`“used to prevent collisions,” we evaluate the disclosure of each of Derbyshire and
`Bailie in assessing the merits of Schrader’s proposed grounds of anticipation.
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Derbyshire
`Derbyshire discloses a tire condition monitoring system including a “wheel
`
`transmitter unit” associated with each wheel of a vehicle. (Derbyshire, col. 1, ll.
`61-64.) Derbyshire discloses that the wheel transmitter units may each 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). Schrader does not direct us to any portion of Derbyshire indicating that the
`reference is concerned with the problem of data collision. Neither do we discern
`from our review of the content of Derbyshire that the issue of data collision is
`recognized therein.
`
`Schrader’s position that Derbyshire inherently discloses the presence of the
`required natural time lag between the various clocks of the wheel units is premised
`on Derbyshire’s disclosure of a “relatively large tolerance” for, and the “relatively
`inaccurate” nature of, the RC oscillator. (Pet., 15-16; App’x A-1.) However, we
`10
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`think that Schrader has neglected to consider the entirety of the teachings of
`Derbyshire. Schrader fails to consider that the tolerance and inaccuracy of the RC
`oscillator disclosed in Derbyshire are in relation to the “relatively small” tolerance
`of the ceramic resonator type clock. (Derbyshire, col. 15, ll. 2-9.) That tolerance is
`understood as having increased accuracy of data transmission. (Id. at col. 14, ll.
`44-47.) Schrader takes no position that the embodiment incorporating the ceramic
`resonator clocks satisfies the “natural time lag” requirement of Continental’s
`claims.
`
`Derbyshire itself teaches implementing RC oscillator components with
`suitable correction of its noted inaccuracies. To that end, Derbyshire discloses the
`use of corrective techniques applied to RC oscillators concerning their
`transmission of data. For instance, Derbyshire describes one such technique as a
`“Manchester encoded on-off keying technique” employed to “accommodate[]” the
`inaccuracies of the RC oscillators and allow “transmission efficiency to be
`improved.” (Derbyshire, col. 14, ll. 41-56.) The purpose of that technique is to
`bring the operating performance of the RC oscillator into line with that of the
`ceramic resonator, which is itself already sufficiently accurate without the need for
`additional corrective encoding techniques. (Id.)
`Thus, although Derbyshire recognizes that a particular clock oscillator, i.e.,
`
`an RC oscillator, may have some level of heightened inaccuracy as compared with
`another known clock, i.e., a ceramic resonator, when either clock component is
`actually implemented in a wheel transmission unit, there are comparable levels of
`accuracy as far as data transmission from the units is concerned. There is no
`teaching in Derbyshire that during operation, any clock oscillators disclosed would
`necessarily function in a manner in which their tolerance is appropriately large, or
`their precision sufficiently poor, that delay in transmissions as between the wheel
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`units would be sufficiently substantial so as to induce time shifting of
`transmissions from the clocks automatically and randomly and reduce the risk of
`data collision. That, however, is what would be required to make out a case of
`inherency. See MEHL/Biophile International Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362,
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Inherency” requires that a given fact must necessarily
`result, and not be established based on mere probability or possibility.)
`
`Upon review of the record, and taking into account our interpretation of the
`term “natural time lag” and “used to prevent collisions,” we are not persuaded that
`Schrader has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in establishing that
`Derbyshire anticipates any of Continental’s claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11.
`
`2. Bailie
`
`Schrader also relies on Bailie as a reference that is anticipatory of
`
`Continental’s claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9-11. (Pet., 21; App’x. B-1.) As noted above,
`Schrader’s ground of unpatentability in that regard is also based, at least-in-part, on
`its “overly broad” construction of the term “natural time lag.” See supra.
`According to Schrader, Bailie discloses a “+/- 1% tolerance” in clock circuits that
`“inherently” contributes to a lag between the sensors. (Id. at 21, ll. 10-11.)
`However, as was discussed above, we do not discern how Schrader’s interpretation
`is adequately supported by record evidence.
`
`Like Derbyshire, Bailie’s invention is also 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 sometimes occur. (Bailie, col. 1, ll. 28-34.) Bailie
`summarizes its invention as incorporating two embodiments which employ
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`techniques for overcoming the clashing problem. That summary is reproduced
`below (id. at col. 1, ll. 63-col. 2, l. 4):
`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 transmission of data. Because the
`transmitters begin
`transmitting at differing
`times,
`the
`likelihood of overlapping
`transmission by two or more transmitters is reduced.
`
`
`In the above-noted first embodiment, “aperiodic” time windows allow
`
`transmission of signals in time windows which occur “sequentially,” but the
`spacing in time of the signals is “not defined by regular periodicity.” (Id. at col. 3,
`ll. 35-38.) While there is not a common periodicity of the time windows for
`transmission, they are, nevertheless, timed “in response to a predetermined
`duration code.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 38-40.) Thus, rather than signal transmission
`delay due to randomly time shifted signals arising from poor precision or
`substantial tolerance of clock components, the delay is based on a code or protocol
`which is “predetermined.”
`
`Similarly, in the above-noted second embodiment, the “variable time delay”
`establishes time transmission windows that, while “variable”, are “determined”
`based on a “repeating pattern.” (Id. at col 7, ll. 7-41.) The “predetermined
`pattern” (id. at 7:40) is used to establish a given variable delay for a transmitter
`contained in a storage location, such as a memory. (Id. at col. 7, ll. 38-40.) A time
`delay as between the various transmission units associated with a vehicle which is
`established based on a “predetermined pattern” is not reasonably understood as
`arising due to the random shifting of time signals because of poor precision or
`substantial tolerance of internal clocks.
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Schrader has not demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing in establishing that Bailie anticipates any of Continental’s
`claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9-11.
`
`
`
`C. Obviousness
`Schrader also contends that all of Continental’s involved claims, i.e., claims
`
`1-5 and 7-11, are unpatentable due to obviousness. In that regard, Schrader
`proposes seven separate grounds of unpatentability. One such ground urges the
`obviousness of claims 1-5 and 7-11 based on the combined teachings of
`Derbyshire, Bailie, and Bowers (Pet., 23-24.) We turn first to that ground.
`
`
`1. Derbyshire, Bailie, and Bowers
`At the outset, it is apparent that the above-noted ground is not premised on
`
`Schrader’s “overly board” interpretation of the term “natural time lag” which was
`offered in connection with its anticipation grounds. To that end, Schrader
`characterizes Bowers as teaching “the use of RC clock circuits with large
`tolerances on the order of +/- 20%[.]” (Pet., 13; see also 18.) It is readily apparent
`that a tolerance of +/- 20% for a clock circuit squarely encompasses a suitable
`“natural time lag” as between a plurality of such clock components when
`transmitting data. Indeed, we do not discern that there is any dispute in that regard.
`
`Bowers is titled “Anticollision Protocol for Reading Multiple RFID Tags.”
`Bowers’ Abstract is reproduced below:
`A method of reading multiple RFID tags located in a field of
`interrogating antenna is based on periodic transmission 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.
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`Thus, Bowers’ invention operates to provide an “anticollision” benefit
`
`concerning the transmission of data where the benefit arises due to “manufacturing
`tolerances” of involved electrical components. In particular, in describing an
`embodiment of the invention which incorporates transmission devices each with a
`“timing circuit,” Bowers discloses the following (Bowers, col. 8, ll. 19-37):
`[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 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 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.
`
`
`The teaching of the above-quoted portion is clear. The manufacturing
`
`tolerances for the timing circuits of associated transmission devices when +/- 20%
`are expressed as 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.
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`Combining Bowers’ teachings with those of Derbyshire and Bailie, we are
`
`persuaded that Schrader has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`the obviousness of Continental’s claims 1-5 and 7-11. Although Derbyshire does
`not recognize the 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 and one in need of solution. In that regard, Bailie
`conveys that (Bailie, col. 1, ll. 49-51):
`
`[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.
`
`
`While embodiments of Bailie’s invention provide solutions to the problem
`
`which 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 the data collision problem. As discussed
`above, Bowers’ solution is the implementation of timing components associated
`with each transmission unit which are of suitable imprecision to mitigate data
`collision.
`
`We have considered Continental’s contention that Schrader’s presentation of
`this ground of unpatentability is so ambiguous as to preclude any meaningful
`response. (Prelim. Resp., 8 and 55-56.) However, we think the underlying basis
`for the ground is sufficiently clear. In that regard, it is apparent that Schrader relies
`on Derbyshire as disclosing the majority of the features required by claims 1-5 and
`7-11, coupled with Bailie’s recognition in the art that reducing data collisions is a
`desired outcome, and further coupled with Bowers’ teachings as to particular
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`involved clock precision levels which accomplish the desired data collision
`avoidance.
`
`Continental also challenges the rationale for combining the teachings of the
`above-noted prior art. In that regard, Continental contends that Bowers’ teachings
`cannot be combined with either Derbyshire or Bailie based on the following
`allegations: (1) Bowers is non-analogous art (Prelim. Resp., 32-36; 53); (2)
`Derbyshire “teaches against” combination with Bowers (id. at 37); and (3) there is
`“no reason” to combine Bowers with either Derbyshire or Bailie (id. at 38; 53).
`We are not persuaded by any of these arguments offered by Continental.
`
`With respect to non-analogous art, the argument is premised on the
`observation that “Bowers has nothing to do with tire pressure monitoring . . . .”
`(Prelim. Resp., p. 32.) In essence, Continental’s position is that Bowers is not in
`the same field of endeavor as that of the ’973 Patent. The test for analogous art,
`however, is two-pronged. A reference is analogous art if it is 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). Thus, whether or not a prior art reference is in the same
`field as an inventor’s endeavor, it may provide technical knowledge that is
`reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the invention.
`
`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’ invention
`incorporates various transmission units with timing circuits having suitable
`manufacturing tolerances so as to avoid data collisions. That Bowers may not
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2013-00014
`Patent 6,998,973
`
`
`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’ invention addresses the same problem it is reasonably pertinent to the
`problem addressed in the ’973 Patent.
`
`Continental’s “teaching against” argument is also unavailing. The portion of
`Derbyshire relied upon by Continental in that regard (e.g., see Pet., p. 38 citing col.
`14, ll. 41-56 of Derbyshire) does not support its argument. The portion associates
`each of improved transmission efficiency and increased frequency modulation with
`a benefit in reducing overall power consumption of Derbyshire’s wheel units so as
`to increase their installation life. While Derbyshire may recognize a particular
`preferred benefit associated with one or more aspects of its invention, in this case
`decreased power consumption, that does not seemingly operate to criticize,
`discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into other viable benefits, such as
`the data collision avoidance discussed in Bowers.