UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,738,697
`Issue Date: May 18, 2004
`Title: TELEMATICS SYSTEM FOR VEHICLE DIAGNOSTICS
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00412
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00412 - Ex. 1008
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,738,697
`Issue Date: May 18, 2004
`Title: TELEMATICS SYSTEM FOR VEHICLE DIAGNOSTICS
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00412
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00412 - Ex. 1008
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`
`
`
`I, Scott Andrews, hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I am currently a consultant for Cogenia Partners, LLC, focusing on
`
`systems engineering, business development and technical strategy supporting
`
`automotive and information technology. I have been in this position since 2001. In
`
`one of my active engagements, I serve as a co-principal investigator in a research
`
`program funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), called Integrated
`
`Advanced Transportation System. I also serve as a technical consultant in multiple
`
`FHWA projects with ARINC and Booz Allen related to connected vehicle technology
`
`research.
`
`2.
`
`I have over 30 years of professional experience in the field automotive
`
`technologies and systems, including vehicle information systems and vehicle safety
`
`and control systems. Further, I have authored numerous published technical papers
`
`and am a named inventor on 11 U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from
`
`University of California, Irvine in 1977 and a Master of Science degree in Electronic
`
`Engineering from Stanford University in 1982.
`
`4.
`
`From 1977 to 1979, I worked at Ford Aerospace where I designed,
`
`tested and delivered microwave radar receiver systems.
`
`5.
`
`From 1979 to 1983, I worked at Teledyne Microwave, where I
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`developed high reliability microwave components and developed CAD tools.
`
`6.
`
`From 1983 to 1996, I worked at TRW, Inc., having held various
`
`positions. From 1983 to 1993, I was a Manager of MMIC (monolithic-microwave-
`
`integrated-circuit) Products Organization. In this role, I developed business strategy
`
`and managed customer and R&D programs. During this time, I also developed the
`
`first single chip 94 GHz Radar, used for automotive cruise control and anti-collision
`
`systems. In 1993 I transferred to the TRW Automotive Electronics Group, and
`
`managed about 30 engineers in the Systems Engineering and Advanced Product
`
`Development organization. In this role, I managed advanced development programs
`
`such as automotive radar, adaptive cruise control, occupant sensing, automatic crash
`
`notification systems, in-vehicle information systems, and other emerging
`
`transportation products.
`
`7.
`
`From 1996 to 2000, I was a Project General Manager in the R&D
`
`Management Division at Toyota Motor Corporation in Japan. In that role, I
`
`developed multimedia and new technology products and services for Toyota’s future
`
`generations of passenger vehicles for the United States and Europe. I also established
`
`the Automotive Multimedia Interface Collaboration, under the direction of Toyota’s
`
`board members.
`
`8.
`
`In 2000, I founded Cogenia, Inc. to develop enterprise class data
`
`management software systems. I served as the company’s Chief Executive Officer
`
`until 2001, when I created Cogenia Partners, my current consulting firm.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`9.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto, and it includes a listing of
`
`my prior experience in litigation matters as an expert.
`
`II. ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`10.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of the Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,738,697 (“the ’697 patent”), No. IPR2013-00412.
`
`11.
`
`I am not an employee of Toyota Motor Corporation (“Toyota”) or any
`
`affiliate or subsidiary thereof.
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at a rate of $425 per hour. My
`
`compensation is in no way dependent upon the substance of the opinions I offer
`
`below, or upon the outcome of Toyota’s petition for inter partes review (or the
`
`outcome of such an inter partes review, if a trial is initiated).
`
`13.
`
`I have been asked to provide certain opinions relating to the patentability
`
`of the ’697 patent. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding (i)
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’697 patent pertains and (ii) the
`
`patentability of claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 17-21, 26, 27, 32, 40, and 61.
`
`14. The opinions expressed in this declaration are not exhaustive of my
`
`opinions on the patentability of claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 17-21, 26, 27, 32, 40, and 61.
`
`Therefore, the fact that I do not address a particular point should not be understood
`
`to indicate any agreement on my part that any claim otherwise complies with the
`
`patentability requirements.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`15.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed (i) the ’697 patent and its
`
`prosecution history; and (ii) prior art to the ’697 patent, including:
`
`(a) Fry, “Diesel Locomotive Reliability Improvement by System
`
`Monitoring,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
`
`Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, Vol. 209,
`
`Jan. 1, 1995 (“Fry”);
`
`(b)
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. H01-197145 to Ishihara et al. and
`
`a translation of the same (“Ishihara”); and
`
`(c) U.S. Pat. No. 5,157,610 to Asano et al. (“Asano”).
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’697 PATENT
`
`16. The ’697 patent names David S. Breed as its sole inventor. It is entitled
`
`“Telematics System for Vehicle Diagnostics.” The ’697 patent states that it was filed
`
`on July 3, 2002, and issued May 18, 2004. The ’697 patent also identifies itself as a
`
`continuation-in-part of numerous other applications, the earliest of which is U.S. App.
`
`No. 08/476,077, which was filed June 7, 1995 and issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,809,437.
`
`17. The ’697 patent generally relates to a diagnostic system and method on a
`
`vehicle that diagnoses the state of the vehicle or the state of a component of the
`
`vehicle, generates an output representative of the diagnosis, and then employs a
`
`communications device to automatically connect to a remote facility in order to
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`wirelessly transfer the output to the remote facility. (’697 patent, col. 1, ll. 37-42; col.
`
`2, ll. 16-37; col. 11, ll. 26-67; col. 13, ll. 34-42; col. 13, ll. 54-58; col. 14, ll. 14-33; col.
`
`14, l. 66 to col. 15, l. 7.)
`
`18. The diagnosed “state of the vehicle” is a “diagnosis of the condition of
`
`the vehicle with respect to its stability and proper running and operating condition.”
`
`(’697 patent, col. 10, ll. 29-32.) This can include “excessive angular inclination,” “a
`
`crash,” or “skidding.” (’697 patent, col. 10, ll. 32-41; see also id. at col. 14, ll. 35-38.)
`
`19. According to the ’697 patent, the system and method can also determine
`
`if “one of the parts of the vehicle, e.g., a component, system or subsystem, is
`
`operating abnormally.” (’697 patent, col. 10, ll. 39-42.)
`
`20. The ’697 patent provides a variety of examples of components that can
`
`be monitored and diagnosed by the vehicle’s monitoring system. These components
`
`include, for example:
`
`Engine; transmission; brakes and associated brake assembly; tires; wheel;
`steering wheel and steering column assembly; water pump; alternator;
`shock absorber; wheel mounting assembly; radiator; battery; oil pump;
`fuel pump; air conditioner compressor; differential gear; exhaust system;
`fan belts; engine valves; steering assembly; vehicle suspension including
`shock absorbers; vehicle wiring system; and engine cooling fan assembly.
`
`(’697 patent, col. 30, l. 58 – col. 31, l. 23.)
`
`21. According to the ’697 patent, in some cases the system can employ a
`
`processor and sensors. (’697 patent, col. 13, ll. 8-14.) A variety of different types of
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`sensors can be used, including:
`
`Airbag crash sensor; accelerometer; microphone; camera; antenna,
`capacitance sensor or other electromagnetic wave sensor; stress or strain
`sensor; pressure sensor; weight sensor; magnetic field sensor; coolant
`thermometer; oil pressure sensor; oil level sensor; air flow meter;
`voltmeter; ammeter; humidity sensor; engine knock sensor; oil turbidity
`sensor; throttle position sensor; steering wheel torque sensor; wheel
`speed sensor; tachometer; speedometer; other velocity sensors; other
`position or displacement sensors; oxygen sensor; yaw, pitch and roll
`angular sensors; clock; odometer; power steering pressure sensor;
`pollution sensor; fuel gauge; cabin thermometer; transmission fluid level
`sensor; gyroscopes or other angular rate sensors including yaw, pitch and
`roll rate sensors; coolant level sensor; transmission fluid turbidity sensor;
`brake pressure sensor; tire pressure sensor; tire temperature sensor, and
`coolant pressure sensor.
`
`(’697 patent, col. 31, l. 24 – col. 32, l. 11.)
`22. The system also includes a communications device, such as a “cellular
`
`telephone system” or “satellite” system that allows the output of the diagnostic system
`
`to be automatically transmitted to a remote location. (Id. at col. 13, ll. 35-43.) The
`
`remote location may be, for example, a “repair facility” or “emergency response
`
`station.” (Id. at col. 1, ll. 53-60.)
`
`23. The ’697 patent explains that, in addition to transmitting diagnostic
`
`information, a display or a warning system may also provide the vehicle occupants
`
`with information regarding the diagnosis. (’697 patent, col. 13, ll. 25-34; col. 14, ll. 39-
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`44; col. 38, ll. 51-59; col. 41, ll. 9-19; col. 53, ll. 23-27; col. 82, l. 64 – col. 83, l. 1; Fig.
`
`8.)
`
`24. Additionally, the system can further include a location determining
`
`system, including a GPS based system. This allows vehicle location information to be
`
`transmitted to the remote facility along with the diagnostic information. (Id. at col.
`
`13, ll. 54-58.)
`
`25. As noted above, I have also reviewed the prosecution history of the ’697
`
`patent.
`
`IV. CLAIMS OF THE ’697 PATENT
`
`26. The ’697 patent includes 62 claims. Claims 1 and 21 are independent.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 17-21, 26, 27, 32, 40, and 61 are at
`
`issue in this inter partes review. These claims are reproduced below for reference:
`
`1. A vehicle, comprising:
`a diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle to diagnose the state of the
`vehicle or the state of a component of the vehicle and generate an
`output indicative or representative thereof; and
`a communications device coupled to said diagnostic system and arranged
`to automatically establish a communications channel between the
`vehicle and a remote facility without manual intervention and
`wirelessly transmit the output of said diagnostic system to the remote
`facility.
`
`2. The vehicle of claim 1, wherein said diagnostic system comprises a
`plurality of vehicle sensors mounted on the vehicle, each of said
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`sensors providing a measurement related to a state of said sensor or a
`measurement related to a state of the mounting location and a
`processor coupled to said sensors and arranged to receive data from
`said sensors and process the data to generate the output indicative or
`representative of the state of the vehicle or the state of a component
`of the vehicle.
`
`5. The vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a display arranged in the
`vehicle in a position to be visible from the passenger compartment,
`said display being coupled to said diagnostic system and arranged to
`display the diagnosis of the state of the vehicle or the state of a
`component of the vehicle.
`
`10. The vehicle of claim 1, wherein said diagnostic system comprises a
`plurality of sensors mounted at different locations on the vehicle,
`each of said sensors providing a measurement related to a state of
`said sensor or a measurement related to a state of the mounting
`location and a processor coupled to said sensor systems and arranged
`to diagnose the state of the vehicle or the state of the component of
`the vehicle based on the measurements of said sensors.
`
`17. The vehicle of claim 2, wherein said processor is arranged to control
`at least one part of the vehicle based on the output indicative or
`representative of the state of the vehicle or the state of a component
`of the vehicle.
`
`18. The vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a warning device coupled
`to said diagnostic system for relaying a warning to an occupant of the
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`vehicle relating to the state of the vehicle or the state of the
`component of the vehicle as diagnosed by said diagnostic system.
`
`19. The vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a location determining
`system
`for determining
`the
`location of
`the vehicle, said
`communications device being coupled to said location determining
`system and arranged to transmit the determined location of the
`vehicle to the remote facility.
`
`20. The vehicle of claim 19, wherein said location determining system
`uses GPS technology.
`
`21. A method for monitoring a vehicle, comprising the steps of:
`diagnosing the state of the vehicle or the state of a component of the
`vehicle by means of a diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle;
`generating an output indicative or representative of the diagnosed state
`of the vehicle or the diagnosed state of the component of the vehicle;
`and
`transmitting the output indicative or representative of the diagnosed
`state of the vehicle or the diagnosed state of the component of the
`vehicle from the vehicle to a remote location.
`
`26. The method of claim 21, further comprising the steps of:
`arranging a display in the vehicle in a position to be visible from the
`passenger compartment; and
`displaying the state of the vehicle or the state of a component of the
`vehicle on the display.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`27. The method of claim 21, further comprising the step of relaying a
`warning to an occupant of the vehicle relating to the state of the
`vehicle.
`
`32. The method of claim 21, wherein the step of diagnosing the state of
`the vehicle or the state of the component of the vehicle comprises
`the steps of mounting a plurality of sensors on the vehicle, measuring
`a state of each sensor or a state of the mounting location of each
`sensor and diagnosing the state of the vehicle or the state of a
`component of the vehicle based on the measurements of the state of
`the sensors or the state of the mounting locations of the sensors.
`
`40. The method of claim 21, further comprising the steps of:
`determining the location of the vehicle; and
`transmitting the determined location of the vehicle to the remote
`location in conjunction with the output.
`
`61. The method of claim 21, wherein the step of transmitting the output
`to the emote [sic] facility comprises the step of automatically
`establishing a communications channel between the vehicle and the
`remote facility without manual intervention to thereby enable the
`output to be transmitted from the vehicle to the remote facility.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`28.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have considered
`
`what one of ordinary skill in the art would consider to be the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the ’697 patent’s claim terms.
`
`29.
`
`I note that the ’697 patent provides express definitions for five claim
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`terms.
`
`
`
`“Component,” part of claims 1 and 21, is defined to mean “any
`
`part or assembly of parts which is mounted to or a part of a
`
`motor vehicle and which is capable of emitting a signal
`
`representative of its operating state.” (’697 patent, col. 30, l. 58 –
`
`col. 31, l. 22.)
`
`
`
`“Part,” part of claim 17, is defined to mean “any component,
`
`sensor, system or subsystem of the vehicle such as the steering
`
`system, braking system, throttle system, navigation system, airbag
`
`system, seatbelt retractor, air bag inflation valve, air bag inflation
`
`controller and airbag vent valve, as well as those listed below in
`
`the definitions of ‘component’ and ‘sensor.’” (’697 patent, col. 10,
`
`ll. 51-57.)
`
`
`
`“Sensor,” part of claims 2, 10, and 32, is defined to mean “any
`
`measuring, detecting or sensing device mounted on a vehicle or
`
`any of its components including new sensors mounted in
`
`conjunction with the diagnostic module in accordance with the
`
`invention.” (’697 patent, col. 31, l. 24 – col. 32, l. 11.)
`
`
`
`“Sensor system,” part of claim 10, is defined to mean “any of the
`
`sensors listed below in the definition of ‘sensor’ as well as any
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`type of component or assembly of components which detect,
`
`sense or measure something.” (’697 patent, col. 10, ll. 58-61.)
`
`
`
`“State of the vehicle,” part of claims 1 and 21, is defined to mean
`
`“diagnosis of the condition of the vehicle with respect to its
`
`stability and proper running and operating condition.” (’697
`
`patent, col. 10, ll. 30-33.)
`
`I have applied these definitions when assessing the ’697 patent in view of the prior art.
`
`30.
`
` With respect to the other terms in the ’697 patent’s claims, I have
`
`applied the plain and ordinary meaning of those claim terms when comparing the
`
`claims to the prior art.
`
`VI.
`
`INVALIDITY ANALYSIS
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 17-21, 26, 27, 32, 40, and 61 of the ’697
`
`patent are all unpatentable and invalid as either anticipated by or obvious over the
`
`prior art.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is anticipated when a single piece of
`
`prior art describes every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
`
`inherently arranged in the same way as in the claim. For inherent anticipation to be
`
`found, it is required that the missing descriptive material is necessarily present in the
`
`prior art. I understand that, for the purpose of an inter partes review, prior art that
`
`anticipates a claim can include both patents and printed publications from anywhere
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`in the world.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable and invalid if the subject
`
`matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art of the claimed subject matter as of the time of the invention at issue. I
`
`understand that the following factors must be evaluated to determine whether the
`
`claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
`
`difference or differences, if any, between each claim of the patent and the prior art;
`
`and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed. Unlike
`
`anticipation, which allows consideration of only one item of prior art, I understand
`
`that obviousness may be shown by considering more than one item of prior art.
`
`Moreover, I have been informed and I understand that so-called objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness, also known as “secondary considerations,” like the following are
`
`also to be considered when assessing obviousness: (1) commercial success; (2) long-
`
`felt but unresolved needs; (3) copying of the invention by others in the field; (4) initial
`
`expressions of disbelief by experts in the field; (5) failure of others to solve the
`
`problem that the inventor solved; and (6) unexpected results. I also understand that
`
`evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope
`
`with the claimed subject matter.
`
`A.
`34.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that a patent must be written such that it can be
`
`understood by a “person of ordinary skill” in the field of the patent.
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`35.
`
`I understand that this hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`considered to have the normal skills and knowledge of a person in a certain technical
`
`field, as of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that factors that may be
`
`considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the
`
`education level of the inventor; (2) the types of problems encountered in the art; (3)
`
`the prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the education level of active
`
`workers in the field. I also understand that “the person of ordinary skill” is a
`
`hypothetical patent was filed.
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, in June of 1995, a person with ordinary skill in the art
`
`with respect to the technology disclosed by the ’697 patent would have at least a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or
`
`another technical field as well as two to three years of work experience in connection
`
`with automobile electronics and telematics.
`
`37. Based on my experience and education, I consider myself (both now and
`
`as of June 1995) to be a person of at least ordinary skill in the art with respect to the
`
`field of technology implicated by the ’697 patent.
`
`B.
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`38. The scope and content of the prior art as of June 1995 would have
`
`broadly included vehicle electronics, diagnostics, and communications (including
`
`automobile, truck, airplane, train, and other vehicle electronics, diagnostics, and
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`communications).
`
`39.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art as of June 1995 would
`
`have considered Fry, Ishihara, and Asano to be within the same technical field as the
`
`subject matter set forth in the ’697 patent. Further, all of these references would be
`
`considered highly relevant prior art to the claims of the ’697 patent.
`
`C.
`
`40.
`
`Fry Anticipates Claims 1, 2, 10, 17, 19-21, 32, 40, and 61 of the ’697
`Patent
`
`Fry published on Jan. 1, 1995. As a result, I understand that Fry is prior
`
`art to the ’697 patent pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because it was published
`
`prior to the earliest June 1995 filing date listed on the face of the ’697 patent.
`
`41.
`
`Fry is not listed on the face of the ’697 patent. Further, based on my
`
`review of the patent’s prosecution history, I note that Fry was not referenced or relied
`
`on by the examiner in rejecting or analyzing the claims.
`
`42.
`
`Fry generally relates to a train with an on-board diagnostic system that
`
`includes “a computer that continuously monitors the condition of the vehicle through
`
`sensors at key points.” (Fry, Abstract.)
`
`43.
`
`In my opinion, Fry discloses all the elements of claims 1, 2, 10, 17, 19-
`
`21, 32, 40, and 61 of the ’697 patent.
`
`
`1.
`
`Fry Discloses All the Elements of Claim 1
`
`44.
`
`Fry discloses a “vehicle.” In particular, Fry explains that its “System
`
`monitoring for reliability (SMR)” system can be applied to “[d]iesel locomotives”
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`(Abstract), or “other locomotive types” (Fry, p. 11, § 6).
`
`45.
`
`Fry discloses “a diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle to diagnose
`
`the state of the vehicle or the state of a component of the vehicle and generate an
`
`output indicative or representative thereof.” In particular, Fry explains that it relates
`
`to “System monitoring for reliability (SMR),” which “involves monitoring critical
`
`parts of a vehicle and informing the owning business of an impending fault. … The
`
`vehicle mounted equipment comprises a computer that continuously monitors the
`
`condition of the vehicle through sensors at key points. … The key elements in the
`
`success of the system are the automated analysis of data on-board the vehicle and its
`
`ability to call for help ahead of the occurrence of service failures.” (Fry, Abstract; see
`
`also id. at p. 4, § 2.3.) Further, Fry explains that its diagnostic system includes an on-
`
`board computer that receives sensor signals, (Fry, p. 5, § 3.1), and then utilizes
`
`software, (Fry, pp. 6-7, § 3.2), to diagnose “faults in equipment . . . down to the level
`
`of ‘replaceable unit’ or the level of action required to allow the vehicle to continue
`
`running, such as ‘top up with coolant,’” (Fry, p. 4, § 2.4). Fry also explains that its
`
`system can engage in both diagnostics (detecting component failures) and prognostics
`
`(predicting when failure will occur). (Fry, p. 7, § 3.2.) And, the diagnostic system can
`
`monitor a variety of vehicle components for failure, including the “[c]oolant,”
`
`“[f]uel,” “[b]attery,” “[o]il,” and “[e]ngine” systems, along with the monitoring system
`
`itself. (Fry, pp. 7-9, §§ 3.2.2-3.2.7.) In the event of a fault, Fry’s diagnostic system
`
`outputs “a file containing [a fault] message.” (Fry, pp. 6-7, § 3.2.) Fry’s “monitoring
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`equipment” with a “computer” that receives input from various sources on the
`
`vehicle is shown in Figure 3:
`
`
`Figure 4 provides an overview of the system and shows that the system directs data
`
`from “sensors” to “[d]ata analysis” hardware and software, and that it generates
`
`“Fault message files” as a result:
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Fry discloses “a communications device coupled to said diagnostic
`
`system and arranged to automatically establish a communications channel between the
`
`vehicle and a remote facility without manual intervention and wirelessly transmit the
`
`output of said diagnostic system to the remote facility.” In particular, Fry explains
`
`that its on-board diagnostic system is “connected to a radio telephone and modem”
`
`allowing the system to transmit fault messages to a remote site. (Fry, Abstract; p. 6, §
`
`3.1.2; p. 9, § 4.) This, according to Fry, allows the vehicle to “call for help ahead of
`
`the occurrence of service failures.” (Id. at Abstract; see also id. at p. 4, § 2.3.) The
`
`remote site may be an owning business or “business maintenance controllers.” (Fry,
`
`p. 5, § 2.4.) Fry further explains that “[f]or fault diagnosis,” “messages should be sent
`
`from the vehicle immediately.” (Fry, p. 5, § 2.4; see also id. at p. 7, § 3.2.) “[W]hen
`
`prognosis is involved,” Fry explains that “the approach has been to define a failure
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`limit and make predictions of the remaining time to failure. Messages can then be
`
`generated a set time before failure is estimated.” (Id.) Table 1 depicts various
`
`“[t]rigger condition[s]” and the resultant “messages from [the] vehicle” (Fry, p. 10, §
`
`4):
`
`
`Further, Figure 3 shows Fry’s “computer” connected to a “Vodec aerial” that allows
`
`for wireless communication:
`
`-19-
`
`
`
` Figure 4 shows a “CDLC [m]odem” that transmits generated “[f]ault message files”:
`
`
`
`
`2.
`Fry Discloses All the Elements of Claim 2
`47. Claim 2 of the ’697 patent depends on claim 1 and first requires “a
`
`plurality of vehicle sensors mounted on the vehicle, each of said sensors providing a
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`measurement related to a state of said sensor or a measurement related to a state of
`
`the mounting location.” Fry discloses this element. In particular, Fry explains that its
`
`“vehicle-mounted equipment comprises a computer that continuously monitors the
`
`condition of the vehicle through sensors at key points.” (Fry, Abstract; p. 5, § 3.1.)
`
`In other places, Fry likewise explains that “a number of transducers mounted directly
`
`on to existing components.” (Fry, p. 5, § 3.1.) Fry also provides examples of various
`
`sensors and other system inputs employed in connection with “[c]oolant monitoring,”
`
`“[f]uel monitoring,” “[b]attery monitoring,” “[o]il monitoring,” “[e]ngine monitoring,”
`
`and “[s]ystem self-monitoring.” (See Fry, pp. 7-9, §§ 3.2.2-3.2.7.) Figure 4 also
`
`indicates that Fry’s diagnostic system receives input from various sensors:
`
`
`48. Claim 2 next requires “a processor coupled to said sensors and arranged
`
`to receive data from said sensors and process the data to generate the output
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`indicative or representative of the state of the vehicle or the state of a component of
`
`the vehicle.” Fry also discloses this element. In particular, Fry explains that its
`
`diagnostic system includes an on-board computer that receives signals from the
`
`sensors, (Fry, p. 5, § 3.1; Abstract), and then utilizes software, (Fry, pp. 6-7, § 3.2), to
`
`diagnose “faults in equipment . . . down to the level of ‘replaceable unit’ or the level of
`
`action required to allow the vehicle to continue running, such as ‘top up with
`
`coolant,’” (Fry, p. 4, § 2.4). Fry also explains that its system can engage in both
`
`diagnostics (detecting component failures) and prognostics (predicting when failure
`
`will occur). (Fry, p. 7, § 3.2.) And, the diagnostic system can monitor a variety of
`
`vehicle components for failure, including the “[c]oolant,” “[f]uel,” “[b]attery,” “[o]il,”
`
`and “[e]ngine” systems, along with the monitoring system itself. (Fry, pp. 7-9, §§
`
`3.2.2-3.2.7.) In the event of a fault, Fry’s diagnostic system outputs “a file containing
`
`[a fault] message.” (Fry, pp. 6-7, § 3.2.) Figure 3 shows Fry’s “monitoring
`
`equipment” with a “computer” that receives input from various sources on the
`
`vehicle:
`
`-22-
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 provides an overview of the system and shows that the system directs data
`
`from “sensors” to “[d]ata analysis” hardware and software, and that it generates
`
`“[f]ault message files” as a result:
`
`
`
`-23-
`
`
`
`
`3.
`Fry Discloses All the Elements of Claim 10
`49. Claim 10 of the ’697 patent depends on claim 1 and further requires “a
`
`plurality of sensors mounted at different locations on the vehicle, each of said sensors
`
`providing a measurement related to a state of said sensor or a measurement related to
`
`a state of the mounting location.” In my opinion, Fry discloses this element for the
`
`same reasons I described above in connection with the “a plurality of vehicle sensors
`
`mounted on the vehicle, each of said sensors providing a measurement related to a
`
`state of said sensor or a measurement related to a state of the mounting location”
`
`element of claim 2.
`
`50. Claim 10 also requires “a processor coupled to said sensor systems and
`
`arranged to diagnose the state of the vehicle or the state of the component of the
`
`vehicle based on the measurements of said sensors.” In my opinion, Fry discloses this
`
`element for the same reasons I described above in connection with the “a processor
`
`coupled to said sensors and arranged to receive data from said sensors and process
`
`the data to generate the output indicative or representative of the state of the vehicle
`
`or the state of a component of the vehicle” element of claim 2.
`
`
`4.
`Fry Discloses All the Elements of Claim 17
`51. Claim 17 of the ’697 patent depends on claim 2 and further requires a
`
`“processor [that] is arranged to control at least one part of the vehicle based on the
`
`output indicative or representative of the state of the vehicle or the state of a
`
`component of the vehicle.” Fry discloses all the elements of this claim. In particular,
`
`-24-
`
`
`
`as explained above in connection with claim 1, Fry’s diagnostic system controls a
`
`wireless communications device located on the vehicle. Additionally, Fry’s system is
`
`able to “provid[e] information to the driver or train crew in those situations where it
`
`can be usefully acted upon.” (Fry, p. 4, § 2.3.)
`
`
`5.
`Fry Discloses All the Elements of Claim 19
`52. Claim 19 of the ’697 patent depends on claim 1 and further requires “a
`
`location determining system for determining the location of the vehicle, said
`
`communications device being coupled to said location determining system and
`
`arranged to transmit the determined location of the vehicle to the remote facility.”
`
`Fry discloses all the elements of this claim. In particular, Fry explains that its system
`
`includes a “‘Navstar’ XR5 GPS receiver which gives satellite-based positioning.
`
`Position information from the receiver, accurate to a mean error of 28 metres, is
`
`available to the on-board computer through a serial data link.” (Fry, p. 6, § 3.1.3; see
`
`also id. at Abstract; p. 5, § 3.1.) Further, as shown in Figure 5, “fault message[s]” sent
`
`from the vehicle to the remotely located “maintenance controller,” (see Fry, p. 5, § 2.4;
`
`p. 9, § 4; pp. 10-11, § 5), include vehicle location information:
`
`-25-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`Fry Discloses All the Elements of Claim 20
`53. Claim 20 of the ’697 patent depends on claim 19 and further requires a
`
`“location determining system [that] uses GPS technology.” In my opinion, Fry
`
`discloses this element for the same reasons I described above in connection with the
`
`“further comprising a location determining system for determining the location of the
`
`vehicle, said communications device being coupled to said location determining
`
`system and arranged to transmit the determine
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
