`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent Number: 8,036,788
`Title: VEHICLE DIAGNOSTIC OR PROGNOSTIC MESSAGE
`TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00417
`
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... ii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE 788 PATENT ............................................................. 2
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR WHICH REVIEW HAS BEEN INSTITUTED ................ 4
`
`IV. ORIGINAL CLAIM 9 IS PATENTABLE OVER FRY ................................ 6
`
`A. Legal Standards ..................................................................................... 6
`
`B. Toyota Failed To Prove That Fry Is Prior Art ....................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Ajinomoto Co. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.,
`No. 95-218, 1998 WL 151411 (D. Del. Mar. 13, 1998) ...................................... 12
`
`Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co.,
`804 F.2d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ......................................................................... 7, 12
`
`DH Tech., Inc. v. Synergystex Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 92-3307, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5301 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 1994) ............... 10
`
`Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`271 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D Mich. 2003) .................................................................. 9
`
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .............................................................................. 6
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litig.,
`490 F. Supp. 2d 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) .................................................................... 8
`
`Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................................................... 8, 14
`
`Santec Indus. v. Micro-Waste Corp.,
`No. 04-3066, 2006 WL 3455000 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2006) ................... 8, 10, 12
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..........................................................................6, 7
`
`Statutes
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP § 2128 .................................................................................................... 10, 11
`
`MPEP § 2128.02 ........................................................................................... 7, 10, 13
`
`Rules
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 1002 ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801 ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901 ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Patent Owner American Vehicular Sciences LLC (“AVS”) submits the
`
`following response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 to the Petition filed by Toyota Motor
`
`Corporation (“Toyota”) requesting inter partes review of certain claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,036,788 (“the 788 patent”). This filing is timely pursuant to the
`
`Board’s Scheduling Order and the parties’ stipulation to extend the deadline for
`
`AVS to file its response to March 24, 2104. (See Paper 15, Scheduling Order;
`
`Paper 26, Joint Notice of Stipulation to Adjust Schedule.)
`
`In this inter partes review, the Board instituted review of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7,
`
`8, 9, 11, 15, 16, and 18 of the 788 patent. (Paper 14, Board Decision at 34.)
`
`Review of claim 9 was instituted on only one ground—anticipation based on an
`
`article entitled “Diesel Locomotive Reliability Improvement By System
`
`Monitoring,” by Fry (“Fry”). (Id.) Despite multiple opportunities to prove that
`
`Fry is prior art to the claims of the 788 patent, namely, it was publicly accessible
`
`prior to the June 7, 1995 priority date, Toyota failed to do so.
`
`Because Toyota has failed to show that Fry is prior art to the claims of the
`
`788 patent, AVS respectfully submits that the Board should confirm the
`
`patentability of claim 9.1
`
`1 Concurrently with its Patent Owner’s Response, AVS is filing a Motion to
`
`Amend. In its Motion to Amend, AVS is requesting cancellation of claims 1, 3, 4,
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`II.
`SUMMARY OF THE 788 PATENT
`
`
`
`The application that issued as the 788 patent was filed on August 9, 2007.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 1.) The application, however, is part of a chain that claims priority
`
`back to an application filed on June 7, 1995. (Id.) Toyota agrees that the claims of
`
`the 788 patent are entitled to a June 7, 1995 priority date. (Toyota Pet. at 4; Ex.
`
`1008 at, e.g., ¶ 77.)
`
`Both the 1995 priority application and the 788 patent generally disclose a
`
`system on-board a vehicle for providing status data relating to vehicle
`
`maintenance. (See Ex. 1001 at claim 1.) In particular, the claims of the 788 patent
`
`relate generally to diagnostic and prognostic analysis of components or subsystems
`
`of a vehicle. (See Ex. 1001 at claims.) This diagnostic or prognostic analysis
`
`occurs on-board the vehicle and is much more comprehensive than any on-board
`
`analysis that occurred in the prior art. (Id. at 11:25-45.) For example, the on-board
`
`analysis disclosed by the 788 patent is able to predict that a component or
`
`subsystem of the vehicle is going to fail. (Id.; see also claim 9.) The results of this
`
`analysis are then wirelessly transmitted to a remote site, such as a dealership. (Id.
`
`at claims.)
`
`The invention claimed by the 788 patent was a significant advancement over
`
`6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16 and 18 of the 788 patent. In place of those claims, AVS has
`
`proposed substitute amended claims.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`the prior art. Prior art systems typically did not conduct diagnostic or prognostic
`
`analysis on the vehicle, but rather sent raw data from the vehicle to a remote
`
`location for processing. (Ex. 1001 at 11:25-28 (“An important function that can be
`
`performed by the diagnostic system herein is to substantially diagnose the vehicle’s
`
`own problems rather then [sic] forwarding raw data to a central site for
`
`diagnosis.”).) In contrast, in the invention of the 788 patent, the raw data is
`
`processed on the vehicle for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. (Id. at claims.)
`
`The results of this analysis are then sent to a remote site, such as a dealership. (Id.)
`
`The 788 specification explains some of the advantages of this system/method:
`
`An advantage of the ability to transmit diagnostic and prognostic
`information from a vehicle to a remote site is that performance data
`from the components or subsystems being monitored can be collected.
`Since each sensor obtains a value of a measurable characteristic of the
`component or subsystem and these values are analyzed, e.g., by the
`diagnostic module 33, to determine that the component or subsystem
`has a fault condition, a diagnostic or prognostic message relating to
`the determination of the fault condition of the component or system is
`thus generated by the diagnostic module 33 and transmitted to the
`remote site via the communications unit 32. At the remote site, it now
`becomes possible to receive messages from multiple vehicles and thus
`compile statistics on a failure rate of the components or subsystems,
`most likely by the manufacturer as noted above. Additionally or
`alternatively, it is possible to notify a driver, vehicle owner,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`manufacturer or dealer of the fault condition of the component or
`subsystem . . . .
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 73:1-18; see also id. at 71:31-72:17.) The specification of the 788
`
`patent also specifically emphasized the advantages of having a system on-board the
`
`vehicle that could predict component failure:
`
`An important function that can be performed by the diagnostic system
`herein is to substantially diagnose the vehicle’s own problems rather
`then [sic] forwarding raw data to a central site for diagnosis.
`Eventually, a prediction as to the failure point of all significant
`components can be made and the owner can have a prediction that the
`fan belt will last another 20,000 miles, or that the tires should be
`rotated in 2,000 miles or replaced in 20,000 miles. . . . This can permit
`the vehicle manufacturer to guarantee that the owner will never
`experience a vehicle breakdown provided he or she permits the dealer
`to service the vehicle at appropriate times based on the output of the
`prognostic system.
`
`(Id. at 11:25-45.)
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR WHICH REVIEW HAS BEEN INSTITUTED
`Toyota’s Petition included four proposed grounds for invalidity, based on
`
`three prior art references. (See Toyota Pet. at 3-4.) Of those four proposed
`
`grounds, the Board granted review on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`
` Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16 and 18 for alleged anticipation by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,400,018 to Scholl;
`
` Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 16 and 18 for alleged anticipation by Unexamined
`
`Patent Application Publication JP H01-197145 to Ishihara; and
`
` Claims 9 and 15 for alleged anticipation by Fry.
`
`(Paper 14, Board Decision at 34.)
`
`Importantly, review of claim 9 was only instituted based on alleged
`
`anticipation by Fry. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 7 which is dependent on claim
`
`4. Claim 9 particularly relates to predicting component failure and recites:
`
`The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one sensor is part of
`9.
`a diagnostic module on the vehicle, further comprising configuring the
`diagnostic module to analyze data obtained by the at least one sensor
`in order to predict failure of the at least one component of subsystem
`and generate the triggering event based on prognostic criteria.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at claim 9.)
`
`The Board did not institute review of claim 9 based on Scholl and Ishihara
`
`because the Board found that both Scholl and Ishihara did not disclose predicting
`
`component failure as recited by claim 9. (See, e.g., Paper 14, Board Decision at 20
`
`(explaining that Scholl’s disclosure was insufficient because “[p]roducing a fault
`
`code related to prognostics, as disclosed in Scholl, is not predicting failure, as
`
`recited in claim 9”) 29-30 (explaining Ishihara’s insufficient disclosure).) While
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`the Board did initiate review of claim 9 based on Fry, the Board acknowledged
`
`AVS’s objection to Fry as prior art and indicated that the rules provided Toyota
`
`with an opportunity to cure any deficiency. (Id. at 33.) As explained below,
`
`however, Toyota did not cure the deficiency with its evidence.
`
`IV. ORIGINAL CLAIM 9 IS PATENTABLE OVER FRY
`Fry is a technical article that indicates on its face that it was copyrighted
`
`1995, with no more specific date given. (See Ex. 1005 at 2-12.) Because Toyota
`
`has not proven that Fry was accessible to the public before the June 7, 1995
`
`priority date, AVS respectfully requests that the Board confirm the patentability of
`
`claim 9.
`
`A. Legal Standards
`“The statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to mean that
`
`before the critical date the reference must have been sufficiently accessible to the
`
`public interested in the art . . . .” In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1989). “Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to
`
`the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in
`
`determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar . . . .” SRI
`
`Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also
`
`Cronyn, 890 F.2d at 1160 (“[D]issemination and public accessibility are the keys
`
`to the legal determination whether a prior art reference was ‘published.’”). “A
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such
`
`document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that
`
`persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising
`
`reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI, 511 F.3d at 1194. Importantly, “[a]
`
`publication disseminated by mail is not prior art until it is received by at least one
`
`member of the public. Thus, a magazine or technical journal is effective as of its
`
`date of publication (date when first person receives it) not the date it was mailed or
`
`sent to the publisher.” MPEP § 2128.02 (emphasis added). The proponent of the
`
`publication bears the burden of producing sufficient proof of dissemination or
`
`sufficient proof that the publication was otherwise available and accessible. See
`
`SRI, 511 F.3d at 1194; see also Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804
`
`F.2d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“[O]ne who wishes to characterize the information,
`
`in whatever form it may be, as a ‘printed publication’ should produce sufficient
`
`proof of its dissemination or that it has otherwise been available and accessible to
`
`persons concerned with the art to which the document relates . . . .”).
`
`Applying this well-established precedent, courts routinely hold that a
`
`reference does not constitute prior art where the proponent of the evidence fails to
`
`come forward with evidence regarding the public accessibility of the reference.
`
`See, e.g., Carella, 804 F.2d at 139 (no anticipation by an advertisement where
`
`“[n]o evidence was presented as to the date of receipt of the mailer by any of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`addressees”); Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(no anticipation because evidence of an organization’s “general practice” was
`
`insufficient to establish “actual availability” of the reference at issue); In re
`
`Omeprazole Patent Litig., 490 F. Supp. 2d 381, 520 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (references
`
`with publication dates of 1979 were not printed publications because “no party has
`
`presented any evidence that [the references] were accessible to the public prior to
`
`the critical date”); Santec Indus. v. Micro-Waste Corp., No. 04-3066, 2006 WL
`
`3455000, at *9 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2006) (“The Spring 1989 CE-E Journal Article
`
`is not dated, and the evidence is not clear and convincing that the Spring 1989 CE-
`
`Journal was disseminated and/or was publicly accessible before the April 16, 1989,
`
`critical date.”).
`
`Toyota Failed To Prove That Fry Is Prior Art
`
`B.
`On its face, Fry indicates that it was copyrighted in 1995 and appeared in the
`
`Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit in 1995. (Ex. 1005 at 2-12.) Fry itself
`
`(including the cover page from the journal) provides no further information
`
`regarding when Fry may have been published. (Id.) Although Toyota has offered
`
`various pieces of evidence in an attempt to establish the date on which Fry was
`
`publicly accessible, Toyota’s proffered evidence (assuming it is admissible) does
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`not address the only relevant inquiry under the law—the date when Fry was
`
`disseminated to or otherwise made available to the public.2
`
`
`
`As a threshold matter, Fry itself does not provide sufficient information
`
`regarding when it was publicly accessible. As stated above, Fry does not provide a
`
`specific date on its face. (Ex. 1005 at 2-12.) Rather, Fry only indicates it was
`
`copyrighted in 1995 and the journal it appeared in was purportedly published in
`
`1995. (Id.) Even if a copyright date and the date on the cover of a journal were
`
`sufficient evidence of public accessibility, a date of “1995” does not establish
`
`public accessibility before the 788 patent’s June 7, 1995 priority date, as a matter
`
`of law. Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 964, 974-77 (E.D.
`
`Mich. 2003) (finding that copyright dates were insufficient evidence); DH Tech.,
`
`
`2 For purposes of this response, AVS will assume that Toyota’s evidence (e.g., Exs.
`
`1005 and 1011-1014) is admissible. AVS has objected to Toyota’s evidence as
`
`inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403, 602, 801, 802, 901 and 1002. (See
`
`Paper 21, Patent Owner’s Amended Objections To Evidence Submitted By Toyota
`
`Motor Corporation; Paper 25, Patent Owner’s Objections To February 18, 2014
`
`Supplemental Evidence Submitted By Toyota Motor Corporation.) AVS plans to
`
`file a motion to exclude this evidence at the appropriate time, in accordance with
`
`the Board’s Scheduling Order.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`Inc. v. Synergystex Int’l, Inc., No. 92-3307, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5301, at *4
`
`(N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 1333 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998) (“[T]he June 1989 notation on the manual’s cover does not identify the
`
`date in June 1989 on which the manual was published, or if the manual was
`
`actually published in June 1989”); MPEP § 2128.02 (“[A] magazine or technical
`
`journal is effective as of its date of publication (date when first person receives it)
`
`not the date it was mailed or sent to the publisher.”); Santec, 2006 WL 3455000, at
`
`*9 (“The Spring 1989 CE-E Journal Article is not dated, and the evidence is not
`
`clear and convincing that the Spring 1989 CE-Journal was disseminated and/or was
`
`publicly accessible before the April 16, 1989, critical date.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`Toyota’s other evidence regarding the public accessibility of Fry is likewise
`
`deficient. For example, Toyota appears to argue that Fry was published on January
`
`1, 1995 because years later, in 2013, an internet web-site (Sage Publications)
`
`recorded the publication date as being January 1, 1995. (See Ex. 1005 at 1, 13; see
`
`also Ex. 1012.) Sage Publications was not the original publisher of Fry in 1995,
`
`i.e., Sage Publications did not publish Fry on the Internet in 1995. (See Ex. 1014 at
`
`¶ 3.) Because Sage Publications did not publicly post Fry on the Internet on
`
`January 1, 1995, the January 1, 1995 date now appearing on the Sage Publications
`
`web-site is not evidence of public accessibility. See MPEP § 2128 (“Prior art
`
`disclosures on the Internet or on an online database are considered to be publicly
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`available as of the date the item was publicly posted. Absent evidence of the date
`
`that the disclosure was publicly posted, if the publication itself does not include a
`
`publication date (or retrieval date), it cannot be relied upon as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. 102(a) or (b).”).
`
`Moreover, it is highly unlikely that Fry was published on January 1, 1995
`
`because Toyota’s proffered evidence appears to show that Fry was not accepted for
`
`publication until December 22, 1994. (Ex. 1005 at 13.) Thus, it is highly unlikely
`
`that the reference was published and publicly available by January 1, 1995—less
`
`than ten days later (as asserted by Toyota). Nor have Toyota’s witnesses
`
`corroborated the January 1, 1995 date, assigned years later by Sage Publications.
`
`(See Ex. 1013 at ¶¶ 3-5; Ex. 1014 at ¶ 6.) Rather, it is likely that the January 1,
`
`1995 date was merely a recording convention of Sage Publications used in
`
`connection with its 2013 database (e.g., assigning a date for articles that do not
`
`identify a specific date of publication, but identify only a year). Toyota’s Internet
`
`print outs (e.g., Ex. 1005 and Ex. 1012), therefore, do not establish the date on
`
`which Fry was publicly accessible in 1995. See, e.g., MPEP § 2128.
`
`
`
`The declaration from Kevin Fry submitted by Toyota (Ex. 1013) is likewise
`
`insufficient to prove when Fry was actually publicly accessible. Mr. Fry states that
`
`because he received an award in 1995 related to his article and because Sage
`
`Publications now records the publication date of his article as in January 1995, he
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`has “refreshed [his] recollection that the Fry paper was published in January
`
`1995.”3 (Ex. 1013 at ¶ 5.) Again, Mr. Fry’s declaration offers no relevant
`
`information, namely when Fry was publicly accessible (e.g., received by a member
`
`of the public, accessible in a library, etc.). It is, therefore, insufficient as a matter
`
`of law. See Ajinomoto Co. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., No. 95-218, 1998 WL
`
`151411, at *38 (D. Del. Mar. 13, 1998) (finding testimony by the author of a thesis
`
`insufficient to establish public accessibility because he “had no actual first-hand
`
`knowledge of the procedures employed by the university libraries, being a doctoral
`
`candidate not a member of the library personnel”); Carella, 804 F.2d at 139 (no
`
`anticipation by an advertisement where “[n]o evidence was presented as to the date
`
`of receipt of the mailer by any of the addressees”); Santec, 2006 WL 3455000, at
`
`*9 (journal dated “Spring 1989” was not proven “disseminated and/or . . . publicly
`
`
`3 Mr. Fry implies that he received the award related to his article in January 1995.
`
`(See Ex. 1013 at ¶ 3.) The award, like the article itself, merely indicates that Fry
`
`was published in “1995.” (Ex. 1011.) There is no reference to “January 1995” on
`
`the face of the award. (Id.) Mr. Fry provides no further evidence to corroborate
`
`his claim that he received this award in January 1995. And, in any event, the date
`
`on an award is not evidence of the date on which someone in the public actually
`
`received Fry.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`accessible before the April 16, 1989, critical date.”); MPEP § 2128.02 (“[A]
`
`magazine or technical journal is effective as of its date of publication (date when
`
`first person receives it) not the date it was mailed or sent to the publisher.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`Nor is Toyota’s final piece of evidence, the affidavit of Sarah Broadhurst,
`
`adequate to show when Fry was publicly accessible. Ms. Broadhurst currently
`
`works for the organization that arranges for the publication of Fry—she does not
`
`work for the organization that actually published Fry in 1995 or the organization
`
`that currently publishes Fry. (See Ex. 1014 at ¶¶ 1, 3.) Not surprisingly, therefore,
`
`Ms. Broadhurst’s vague and conclusory statement that Fry “was made available to
`
`the public as of January 1995” appears to be supported only by her review of the
`
`information currently on Sage Publications’ website. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6 (indicating that
`
`“the Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ records” she reviewed were “on Sage
`
`Publications’ website”).) As explained above, what Sage Publications currently
`
`records as the publication date is not evidence of when Fry was actually published
`
`in 1995. And, in any event, Ms. Broadhurst’s statement does not address the
`
`relevant inquiry—e.g., when Fry was received by a member of the public or made
`
`available at a library. (See generally id.) Indeed, because Ms. Broadhurst’s
`
`employer was not even the publisher of Fry in 1995, she logically would not have
`
`information regarding the date on which Fry was actually accessible to the public.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`Ms. Broadhurst’s statement regarding general publication practices for the
`
`journal in which Fry appeared is likewise misplaced. (See id. at ¶ 7.) Again, since
`
`Ms. Broadhurst’s employer is not the actual publisher of the journal in which Fry
`
`appeared, Ms. Broadhurst does not possess foundational or indeed any information
`
`about when volumes of that journal were actually accessible to the public. Finally,
`
`in any event, unsupported statements regarding an organization’s general practice
`
`are not sufficient to prove public accessibility of a specific reference. See, e.g.,
`
`Norian, 363 F.3d at 1330 (finding that testimony regarding “general practice” was
`
`not sufficient evidence of “actual availability” of the prior art).
`
`* * *
`
`Toyota had multiple opportunities to submit evidence regarding when Fry
`
`was publicly accessible. Toyota failed to do so. Because Toyota has not provided
`
`sufficient evidence that establishes that Fry was publicly accessible prior to the
`
`June 7, 1995 priority date, Fry cannot be considered prior art to 788 patent. Fry
`
`therefore cannot be used as grounds to cancel claim 9 of the 788 patent.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`Toyota argued that three separate prior art references invalidated claim 9.
`
`The Board found that the two references did not disclose predicting component
`
`failure as recited in claim 9. For the reasons set forth above, Toyota has failed to
`
`show that its third reference, Fry, is in fact prior art to the 788 patent. AVS
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`therefore respectfully submits that the Board should confirm the patentability of
`
`claim 9 of the 788 patent.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Thomas J. Wimbiscus/
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Reg. No. 36,059
`Attorney for Patent Owner,
`American Vehicular Sciences LLC
`
`
`
`Dated: March 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`500 West Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Telephone: (312) 775-8000
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00417
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that Patent Owner’s Response Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`
`
`42.120 and Exhibits 2011 through 2013 in connection with Inter Partes Review
`
`Case IPR2013-00417 was served on this 24th day of March by electronic mail to
`
`the following:
`
`
`A. Antony Pfeffer
`apfeffer@kenyon.com
`Thomas R. Makin
`tmakin@kenyon.com
`Matt Berkowitz
`mberkowitz@kenyon.com
`ptab@kenyon.com
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel: 212-425-7200
`
`
`MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Telephone: 312-775-8000
`
`
`
`Facsimile: 312-775-8100
`
`
`
`
`/Thomas J. Wimbiscus/
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Registration No. 36,059
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CUSTOMER NUMBER: 23446
`
`Date: March 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`