UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,650,210
`Issue Date: January 19, 2010
`Title: REMOTE VEHICLE DIAGNOSTIC MANAGEMENT
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00415
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00415 - Ex. 1026
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`1
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,650,210
`Issue Date: January 19, 2010
`Title: REMOTE VEHICLE DIAGNOSTIC MANAGEMENT
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00415
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00415 - Ex. 1026
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`1
`
`
`
`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 Rockwell Collins and Booz Allen related to connected vehicle
`
`technology research.
`
`2.
`
`I have over 30 years of professional experience in the field of
`
`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-
`
`2
`
`
`
`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 1985 I was a member of the technical staff in the RF
`
`Communications Laboratory; from 1985 to 1988 I was a sub-project manager on a
`
`communications system; from 1988 to 1991 I was an assistant project manager on the
`
`USDOD MIMIC program, leading the development of microwave integrated circuit
`
`technology development; from 1991 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
`
`-2-
`
`3
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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 Toyota Motor Corporation’s
`
`(“Toyota’s”) opposition to Patent Owner American Vehicular Sciences, LLC’s
`
`(“AVS’s”) motion to amend certain of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,650,210 (“the
`
`’210 patent”), in Inter Partes Review case number IPR2013-00415.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`I am not an employee of Toyota or any affiliate or subsidiary thereof.
`
`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, the outcome
`
`of such an inter partes review, or the outcome of AVS’s motion to amend.
`
`13.
`
`I have been asked to provide certain opinions relating to the patentability
`
`of substitute claims 23 and 24 proposed by AVS in its motion to amend. Specifically,
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding (i) the scope and content of the
`
`relevant prior art as of June 7, 1995, (ii) the adequacy of AVS’s and its expert’s
`
`-3-
`
`4
`
`
`
`analysis of the patentability of AVS’s proposed amended claims (or, the “substitute
`
`claims”), and (iii) whether the substitute claims are patentable.
`
`14. The opinions expressed in this declaration are not exhaustive of my
`
`opinions on the patentability of proposed amended claims 23 and 24. 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.
`
`15.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed (i) the ’210 patent (Exhibit
`
`1001) and its prosecution history (Exhibit 1010); (ii) the declaration of Ralph Wilhelm,
`
`Jr. PhD. (Exhibit 1011), (iii) the Board’s Institution Decision in connection with the
`
`’210 patent (Paper 15), (iv) the Patent Owner’s motion to Amend Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.21 and the exhibits attached thereto (Paper 29), and (v) prior art to the
`
`’210 patent, including:
`
`(a) U.S. Pat. No. 5,400,018 to Scholl et al. (“Scholl”) (Exhibit 1002);
`
`(b) U.S. Patent No. 5,157,610 to Asano et al. (“Asano”) (Exhibit
`1003);
`
`(c)
`
`an English translation of Japanese Patent Publication No. H01-
`197145 to Ishihara et al. (Exhibit 1005);
`
`(d) U.S. Patent No. 4,675,675 to Corwin et al. (“Corwin”) (Exhibit
`1006);
`
`(e) U.S. Patent No. 5,531,122 to Chatham et al. (“Chatham”) (Exhibit
`1007);
`
`(f) U.S. Patent No. 4,926,331 to Windle et al. (“Windle”) (Exhibit
`1008);
`
`-4-
`
`5
`
`
`
`(g) Mogi, “Prospects for Failure Diagnostics of Automotive
`Electronic Control Systems,” Leading Change: the Transportation
`Electronic Revolution: Proceedings of the 1994 International
`Congress on Transportation Electronics, pp. 477-488, Oct. 1994
`(“Mogi”) (Exhibit 1009)
`(h) U.S. Pat. No. 4,267,569 to Baumann et al. (“Baumann”) (Exhibit
`1019);
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`(l)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,592,614 to Peters (“Peters”) (Exhibit 1020);
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,450,321 to Crane (“Crane”) (Exhibit 1021);
`
`Bryant, “A Review of the Potential for Vehicle On-Board
`Diagnostic Safety Systems,” SAE Technical Paper 921596
`(“Bryant”) (Exhibit 1022);
`
`the owner’s manual for the 1988 Buick Riviera (“Riviera manual”)
`(Exhibit 1018); and
`
`(m) Ortega et al., “An Interactive, Reconfigurable Display System for
`Automotive Instrumentation,” IEEE Transactions on Consumer
`Electronics, Vol. CE33, No. 1, pp. 1-13 (Feb. 1987) (“Ortega”)
`(Exhibit 1023).
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS
`
`16. AVS has proposed to substitute claims 23 and 24 for claims 15 and 18 of
`
`the ’210 patent.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that AVS’s motion to amend is a contingent motion. Thus,
`
`AVS has requested that the Board consider its motion only after the Board has
`
`determined that claims 15 and 18 are unpatentable.
`
`18.
`
`Proposed amended claims 23 and 24 are reproduced below for
`
`reference. The added limitations are indicated with underlining:
`
`-5-
`
`6
`
`
`
`Claim 23 (substitute claim 15) A method for monitoring
`components of a vehicle, comprising:
`
`mounting sensors on the vehicle, each sensor providing a measurement
`related to a state of the sensor or a measurement related to a state of a
`mounting location of the sensor;
`
`processing data from the sensors using a processor on the vehicle during
`operation of the vehicle on a road to generate output indicative or
`representative of
`failure or expected
`failure of any of
`the
`components, wherein the output includes an identification of the
`component that has failed or is expected to fail and an identification of
`whether the component that has failed or is expected to fail should be
`either repaired or replaced; and
`
`directing the output indicative or representative of the failure or
`expected failure of any of the components to a remote location using a
`transmission device.
`
`Claim 24 (substitute for claim 18) The method of claim [15] 23, wherein
`the vehicle includes a passenger compartment, further comprising:
`
`arranging a display in the vehicle in a position to be visible from the
`passenger compartment; and
`
`displaying the output indicative or representative of the failure or
`expected failure of any of the components on the display.
`
`
`
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`19.
`
`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 ’210 patent’s claim terms.
`
`20.
`
`I have considered and applied the construction and treatment of the
`
`terms of the ’210 patent set forth in the Board’s institution decision. This includes the
`
`-6-
`
`7
`
`
`
`Board’s construction and treatment of the terms “component” and “sensor.”
`
`21.
`
`I note that AVS’s expert has proposed constructions for the terms
`
`“repair” and “replace.” While I do not disagree with the constructions provided for
`
`each individual word, I note that proposed amended claim 23 provides that the
`
`“output includes an identification of the component that has failed or is expected to
`
`fail and an identification of whether the component that has failed or is expected to
`
`fail should be either repaired or replaced.” It is not clear from this language whether
`
`the claims require: (1) a differentiation between the need for repair or replacement, or
`
`(2) a simple determination that repair or replacement of a component is needed. I
`
`have considered both of these possible understandings of the claim language when
`
`arriving at my opinions regarding the patentability of the proposed amended claims.
`
`22. With respect to the other terms in the ’210 patent’s claims, I have
`
`applied the plain and ordinary meaning of those claim terms when comparing the
`
`claims to the prior art.
`
`V.
`
`ANALYSIS OF AVS’S PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, the limitations AVS proposes adding to the claims of the
`
`’210 patent do not distinguish the claims from the prior art or render them patentable
`
`over the prior art.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable and invalid as
`
`anticipated when a single piece of prior art describes every element of the claimed
`
`-7-
`
`8
`
`
`
`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 single piece of 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 in the world.
`
`25.
`
`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
`
`-8-
`
`9
`
`
`
`with the claimed subject matter.
`
`A.
`26.
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`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 person who is presumed to be aware of the universe of available prior
`
`art.
`
`28.
`
`In my opinion, in June of 1995, a person with ordinary skill in the art
`
`with respect to the technology disclosed by the ’210 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.
`
`29. 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
`
`-9-
`
`10
`
`
`
`field of technology implicated by the ’210 patent.
`
`B.
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`30. 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
`
`communications).
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art as of June 1995 would
`
`have considered Scholl, Asano, Ishihara, Corwin, Chatham, Windle, Mogi, Peters,
`
`Baumann, Crane, Bryant, the 1988 Buick Riviera owner’s manual, and Ortega to be
`
`within the same technical field as the subject matter set forth in the ’210 patent.
`
`Further, all of these references would be considered highly relevant prior art to the
`
`claims of the ’210 patent.
`
`C. The Prior Art Disclosed Vehicles with On-Board Systems Able to
`Determine If Vehicle Components Need to Be Repaired or
`Replaced While the Vehicle Is Operating on the Road
`32. AVS’s proposed amended claims now require a vehicle with a
`
`monitoring system that operates “during operation of the vehicle on a road,” and that
`
`generates “output” that “includes an identification of the component that has failed or
`
`is expected to fail and an identification of whether the component that has failed or is
`
`expected to fail should be either repaired or replaced.”
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, systems of the type claimed by AVS, including those able
`
`to determine if vehicle components need to be repaired or replaced and generate
`
`-10-
`
`11
`
`
`
`output identifying such components, were common and well known in the prior art as
`
`of June 1995.
`
`34.
`
`For example, Crane (Exhibit 1021) was filed July 29, 1993, and published
`
`September 12, 1995. As a result, since Crane was filed before June 1995, I understand
`
`that it is prior art to the ’210 patent pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`35. Crane discloses an onboard system that “continuously” monitors a
`
`“powered vehicle[’s]” components while the “vehicle is being driven.” (Ex. 1021,
`
`Crane, Abstract; col. 10, ll. 7-9.) Crane’s system includes an on-board
`
`“microprocessor” that receives signals from sensors. (Id. at Abstract.)
`
`36. According to Crane, the on-board microprocessor receives and analyzes
`
`the sensor data to make “diagnostic” determinations. (Id. at col. 7, ll. 3-6; col. 8, ll. 10-
`
`19; col. 18, ll. 43-46.)
`
`37. This can include, for instance, a determination of “parts degradation,” a
`
`“defective” component, or the “breakdown of a component.” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 35-37;
`
`col. 14, ll. 11-36; col. 18, ll. 31-35.)
`
`38. Once it has made a diagnostic determination, Crane’s system outputs a
`
`diagnostic “signal related to the condition information of the components of the
`
`powered vehicle.” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 58-59.)
`
`39. This, according to Crane, can include information regarding which
`
`specific components require either repair or replacement. (Id. at col. 5, ll. 45-47; col.
`
`10, l. 57 – col. 11, l. 29; col. 12, ll. 7-24; col. 12, l. 64 – col. 13, l. 45; col. 14, ll. 17-26;
`
`-11-
`
`12
`
`
`
`col. 18, ll. 22-46; Figs. 4, 6.)
`
`40.
`
`Several example components are discussed. For example, Crane’s
`
`system can determine if the alternator motor or belt needs to be repaired by
`
`monitoring the “alternator belt” and an “alternator motor sensor.” (Id. at col. 8, ll. 49-
`
`51, 60-63; col. 13, ll. 11-45.) Further, a “starter motor noise sensor,” “starter motor
`
`voltage sensor,” “starter solenoid sensor,” “starter switch sensor,” and “battery
`
`sensor,” are all monitored to determine if the starter needs repair, or if starter switch
`
`replacement is needed. (Id. at col. 10, ll. 60-65; col. 11, ll. 8-29.) Additionally, Crane
`
`discusses monitoring a “water pump belt sensor,” “water temperature sensor,” “water
`
`pump sensor,” and “water pressure sensor” to determine if repair of the “radiator or
`
`hoses” is necessary, or if the belt needs to be replaced. (Id. at col. 9, ll. 25-29, col. 11,
`
`l. 47 – col. 12, l. 30.)
`
`41. Crane’s system provides a “continual update of system or parts
`
`degradation” to allow the “operator” to “mak[e] a proper decision of the need for
`
`repairs” or “whether or not to replace” components. (Id. at col. 5, ll. 35-47.) This
`
`information can be relayed to the operator using an in-vehicle “display.” (Id. at col. 6,
`
`ll. 31-52.) For instance, “the display 106 provides information to the operator of the
`
`powered vehicle as to the status of the starter system and the repair needed for the
`
`starter system problems.” (Id. at col. 10, ll. 57-60; see also id. at col. 11, ll. 27-29, 64-
`
`66.) Alternatively, the display can inform the driver to “Replace” various
`
`components. (Id. at col. 12, ll. 7-9, 23-30; col. 14, ll. 32-35; col. 18, ll. 22-28.)
`
`-12-
`
`13
`
`
`
`Diagnostic information can also be transmitted to a remote location using a
`
`“transmitter/receiver 64” that communicates with the remote location over a satellite
`
`link. (Id. at col. 8, ll. 29-41.)
`
`42. Bryant (Exhibit 1022) likewise discloses a system that informs a vehicle
`
`driver of the need to repair or replace certain vehicle components.
`
`43. Bryant published August 1, 1992. As a result, since Bryant was
`
`published more than a year before June 1995, I understand that it is prior art to the
`
`’210 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`44. Bryant explains that “[i]t is a fairly easy technological exercise to use
`
`sensors to detect brake pad wear, tire tread depth, tire temperature, inflation, or even
`
`steering system wear.” (Ex. 1022, Bryant, at 100-01.)
`
`45.
`
`Further, “[i]t is also reasonably easy to supply that data to the driver and
`
`predict service requirements using illuminated displays, i.e., ‘tire rotation due in 1,000
`
`miles,’ or, ‘LF tire will need replacement in 5,000 miles’, or ‘Check LF tire condition’,”
`
`(id. at 100-01).
`
`46. Thus, Bryant discusses making diagnostic determinations regarding the
`
`vehicle’s tires, and informing the driver of the need for repair or replacement. (See id.
`
`at 100-101.)
`
`47. Baumann (Exhibit 1019) also discloses a system on-board a vehicle that
`
`is able to make determinations regarding the need for component repair or
`
`replacement.
`
`-13-
`
`14
`
`
`
`48. Baumann issued May 12, 1981. Since this is more than a year before
`
`June 1995, I understand that Baumann is prior art to the ’210 patent pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`49. Baumann discloses a system which functions “during operation of the
`
`vehicle.” (Ex. 1019, Baumann, col. 4, ll. 12-20.)
`
`50. This system “permit[s] diagnosis of operation and function parameters
`
`in a motor vehicle,” and provides “to an operator [via] a display” the “resulting
`
`information . . . includ[ing] various instructions, e.g.[,] repair instructions or a trouble
`
`shooting sequence based on the diagnosis.” (Id. at Abstract.) Baumann’s system can
`
`also provide the vehicle operator with “a replacement parts list.” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 58-
`
`61.)
`
`51. Baumann’s system employs “[v]arious sensors.” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 15; Fig.
`
`1.) These sensors measure engine parameters, such as “speed of rotation,”
`
`“crankshaft position,” battery “voltage,” “temperature,” “intake air volume,” “throttle
`
`plate setting,” and engine “starting switch.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 7-22; Fig. 1.)
`
`52. A “microcomputer system” compares “the diagnostic program data with
`
`actual function dependent vehicle data” in order to output to the driver a “diagnosis,”
`
`which includes “information regarding defects which may have appeared, and which
`
`repairs should be made and/or which parts ordered replaced.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 66-68;
`
`col. 5, ll. 2-9, 12-15.)
`
`53.
`
`Peters (Exhibit 1020) also discloses the type of output identifying
`
`-14-
`
`15
`
`
`
`components in need of repair or replacement AVS now seeks to insert into claim 23.
`
`54.
`
`Peters was filed September 4, 1991, and issued January 7, 1997. Because
`
`Peters was filed before June 1995, I understand that it is prior art to the ’210 patent
`
`pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`55.
`
`Peters discloses a vehicle “fault identification system” “for identifying at
`
`least one faulty component.” (Ex. 1020, Peters, col. 2, l. 28.)
`
`56. According to Peters, this system “is extensible and may be connected to
`
`allied systems such as on-line workshop manuals, parts ordering systems, and systems
`
`intended to decide whether to replace or repair.” (Id. at col. 10, l. 67 – col. 11, l. 4.)
`
`57. Even commercially available vehicles were able to inform the driver of
`
`the need to repair or replace vehicle components long before June 1995.
`
`58.
`
`For instance, the 1988 Buick Riviera included an in-dash display that
`
`provided the driver with a variety of diagnostic information.
`
`59. This display, known as the “Electronic Control Center,” is described in
`
`the 1988 Buick Riviera’s owner’s manual (Exhibit 1018).
`
`60.
`
`In my experience, a copy of a vehicle’s owner’s manual is provided to a
`
`customer every time a vehicle is purchased. Thus, the 1988 Buick Riviera’s owner’s
`
`manual would have been widely distributed to the public as of 1988, when this
`
`particular model of Buick went on sale. In view of its 1988 date of publication, the
`
`owner’s manual is prior art to the ’210 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`61. As described in the owner’s manual, the Electronic Control Center
`
`-15-
`
`16
`
`
`
`provided the driver with diagnostic information regarding the vehicle’s climate control
`
`system, engine, and other components. This is shown, for example, on page 2-43.
`
`62.
`
`In my opinion, and based on my knowledge of automobile diagnostics as
`
`of this time, the diagnostic information displayed by the Electronic Control Center
`
`was generated on-board the vehicle using a processor that assessed sensor data.
`
`63. Among other things, the Electronic Control Center was able to detect an
`
`impending problem with the vehicle’s air conditioning system, and inform the driver
`
`that repair was needed. This is shown in the below example diagnostic displays from
`
`the user manual. As can be seen, the vehicle’s diagnostic system has determined that
`
`“A/C system performance may be degraded” and instructs the driver to “Service A/C
`
`soon”:
`
`(Ex. 1018, Riviera manual, p. 2-44.)
`64. Likewise, the diagnostic system also informed a driver to “Service” the
`
`vehicle (i.e., get the vehicle repaired) after detecting a “Brake Pump Problem”:
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at 2-46.)
`65.
`
`Further, the diagnostic system was able to detect impending failure of
`
`the brake system and suggest a repair. In particular, as shown in the manual, the
`
`vehicle’s diagnostic system could determine that “brake fluid [is] low” and instruct the
`
`driver to repair the vehicle by replacing the brake fluid with “DOT 3 Fluid from a
`
`Sealed Container”:
`
`
`
`(Id. at 2-48.)
`66. The Buick Riviera also displayed a variety of other diagnostic
`
`information. For instance, the display indicated the following:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`That a “climate control problem” had been detected causing an “Engine
`hot” situation, and “service check required,” (id. at 2-44);
`
`That a “climate control problem” had been detected, in particular that
`“A/C refrigerant overheated,” and “service check required,” (id. at 2-44);
`
`-17-
`
`18
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`That a “climate control problem” had been detected, in particular a
`“climate sensor fault,” and “service check recommended,” (id. at 2-44);
`
`That an “anti-lock brakes” issue has been detected, in particular “low
`brake pressure,” and “service check required,” (id. at 2-46);
`
`That an “engine controls problem detected,” in particular an “electrical
`problem,” and “service check required,” (id. at 2-50);
`
`That a “cruise control system problem” has been detected and that “if
`malfunction persists,” then “service check required,” (id. at 2-50); and
`
`That a “charging system problem detected,” and “service check
`required,” (id. at 2-50).
`
`67. A display like that employed by the Buick Riviera was also described in
`
`Ortega (Exhibit 1023).
`
`68. Ortega published in February 1987. As a result, I understand that it is
`
`prior art to the ’210 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`69. Ortega explains that it “summarize[s] the development of the Graphic
`
`Control Center (GCC)” which “is standard equipment on the 1986 Buick Riviera.”
`
`(Ex. 1023, Ortega, at 1.) Ortega describes a “universal display” that is able to display,
`
`among other things, “Diagnostics (vehicle status, failure codes, service, etc.).” (Id. at
`
`2; see also id. at 3.)
`
`70. Ortega provides numerous examples of diagnostic displays. For
`
`instance, Ortega’s system could inform the driver that “engine controls problem
`
`detected,” that there was an “instrument panel controls problem,” or that a “charging
`
`system problem detected,” and “service check required”:
`
`-18-
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at 9.)
`71. Additionally, the display could inform the driver that the “engine
`
`overheated,” the “engine oil pressure low,” or that “brake fluid level low.” In all
`
`cases, the driver was informed to “service now”:
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id.)
`
`72.
`
`Further, the display could inform the driver that “climate control
`
`problem detected,” and “service check required”:
`
`
`
`(Id. at 10.)
`73. Ortega’s system was also able to diagnose component failure and inform
`
`the driver to replace certain vehicle components. For instance, Ortega’s display could
`
`indicate that “headlamp problem detected,” “tail lamp problem detected,” or “parking
`
`lamp problem detected,” and that the specified bulbs should be “replace[d] if
`
`necessary”:
`
`-20-
`
`21
`
`
`
`(Id.)
`
`
`
`D.
`Substitute Claims 23 and 24 Are Anticipated by Crane
`74. Regardless of whether the phrase “repaired or replaced” requires (i) a
`
`system able to distinguish between the need for repair versus the need for
`
`replacement or (ii) a system that merely determines the need for repair or
`
`replacement, in my opinion, proposed substitute claims 23 and 24 are both
`
`anticipated by Crane.
`
`75.
`
`In my opinion, Crane discloses all the limitations required by claims 23
`
`-21-
`
`22
`
`
`
`and 24.
`
`76. Claim 23 is an independent claim and is directed to a “method for
`
`monitoring components of a vehicle.” Crane discloses such a method. In particular,
`
`Crane relates to “a realtime management system for identifying system inefficiencies
`
`and subsystems requiring repair through the use of realtime interactive computer
`
`analysis.” (Ex. 1021, Crane, col. 1, ll. 17-21.)
`
`77. Claim 23 next requires “mounting sensors on the vehicle, each sensor
`
`providing a measurement related to a state of the sensor or a measurement related to
`
`a state of a mounting location of the sensor.” Crane discloses the claimed use of
`
`sensors. In particular, Crane’s vehicle includes a “microprocessor” that receives
`
`“input” from “[a] plurality of input sensors . . . connected to components of the
`
`powered vehicle” and utilizes “programs” to assess those sensor inputs. (Id. at
`
`Abstract; col. 1, ll. 17-21; col. 2, ll. 27-30.) Further, “[a]s long as the vehicle is being
`
`driven, the system is continually analyzing and sensing the realtime inputs 54. This
`
`provides the operator of the vehicle with information never before available.” (Id. at
`
`col. 10, ll. 7-11.)
`
`78. Claim 23 also requires “processing data from the sensors using a
`
`processor on the vehicle during operation of the vehicle on a road to generate output
`
`indicative or representative of failure or expected failure of any of the components,
`
`wherein the output includes an identification of the component that has failed or is
`
`expected to fail and an identification of whether the component that has failed or is
`
`-22-
`
`23
`
`
`
`expected to fail should be either repaired or replaced.” Crane’s system engages in the
`
`claimed type of “processing.” Again, Crane’s system employs a “microprocessor”
`
`with “programs” to assess sensor data. (Id. at Abstract; col. 1, ll. 17-21; col. 2, ll. 27-
`
`30.) This allows Crane to “provide[] an automatic, realtime, continuous evaluation of
`
`systems within the powered vehicle” and which will “continuously tell the operator of
`
`the degradation of the system or of an actual breakdown of a component that
`
`prevents the system from functioning properly. . . . [T]he present invention acts as a
`
`diagnostic instrument and allows the unskilled operator of the powered vehicle to
`
`determine the repair which is necessary.” (Id. at col. 18, ll. 29-46.) In particular,
`
`Crane explains that its system provides a “continual update of system or parts
`
`degradation” to allow the “operator” to “mak[e] a proper decision of the need for
`
`repairs” or “whether or not to replace” vehicle components. (Id. at col. 5, ll. 35-47;
`
`col. 6, ll. 31-52.) This can include, for instance, a diagnosis of a “bad starter motor”
`
`and an output from the microprocessor and display of the need to “Repair Starter
`
`Motor,” or an instruction to “repair the radiator or hoses” or “Replace Belt.” (Id. at
`
`col. 10, ll. 57-60; col. 11, ll. 27-29, 64-66; col. 12, ll. 7-9, 23-30.)
`
`79. The last limitation of claim 23 requires “directing the output indicative
`
`or representative of the failure or expected failure of any of the components to a
`
`remote location using a transmission device.” Crane’s system engages in the claimed
`
`transmission. In particular, Crane explains that its system provides a “continual
`
`update of system or parts degradation” to allow the “operator” to “mak[e] a proper
`
`-23-
`
`24
`
`
`
`decision of the need for repairs” or “whether or not to replace” vehicle components.
`
`(Id. at col. 5, ll. 35-47; col. 6, ll. 31-52; col. 10, ll. 57-60; col. 11, ll. 27-29, 64-66; col. 12,
`
`ll. 7-9, 23-30.) Further, Crane explains that “[i]f the management system 50 is used in
`
`connection with an external monitoring system, then the microprocessor 52 may be
`
`connected to a transmitter/receiver 62. The transmitter
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
