UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,036,788
`Issue Date: October 11, 2011
`Title: VEHICLE DIAGNOSTIC OR PROGNOSTIC MESSAGE
`TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00417
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00417 - 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. 8,036,788 (“the
`
`’788 patent”), in Inter Partes Review case number IPR2013-00417.
`
`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 22-31 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 22-31. 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 ’788 patent (Exhibit
`
`1001) and its prosecution history (Exhibit 1007); (ii) the declaration of Ralph Wilhelm,
`
`Jr. PhD. (Exhibit 1008), (iii) the Board’s Institution Decision in connection with the
`
`’788 patent (Paper 14), (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
`
`’788 patent, including:
`
`(a) U.S. Pat. No. 5,400,018 to Scholl et al. (“Scholl”) (Exhibit 1002);
`
`(b)
`
`an English translation of Japanese Patent Publication No. H01-
`197145 to Ishihara et al. (Exhibit. 1004);
`
`(c) 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”) (Exhibit 1005);
`(d) U.S. Pat. No. 4,267,569 to Baumann et al. (“Baumann”) (Exhibit
`1020);
`
`(e) U.S. Pat. No. 5,592,614 to Peters (“Peters”) (Exhibit 1021);
`
`(f) U.S. Pat. No. 5,450,321 to Crane (“Crane”) (Exhibit 1022);
`
`-4-
`
`5
`
`

`

`(g)
`
`Bryant, “A Review of the Potential for Vehicle On-Board
`Diagnostic Safety Systems,” SAE Technical Paper 921596
`(“Bryant”) (Exhibit 1023);
`
`(h)
`
`the owner’s manual for the 1988 Buick Riviera (“Riviera manual”)
`(Exhibit 1019);
`
`(i) 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 1024).
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS
`
`16. AVS has proposed to substitute claims 22-31 for claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8,
`
`11, 15, 16, and 18 of the ’788 patent.
`
`17.
`
`Proposed amended claims 22-31 are reproduced below for reference.
`
`The added limitations are indicated with underlining:
`
`Claim 22 (substitute for claim 1): A method for providing status
`data for vehicle maintenance, comprising:
`
`monitoring for a triggering event on a vehicle during operation of
`the vehicle on a road having a wireless communications unit, the
`triggering event relating to a diagnostic or prognostic analysis of at
`least one of a plurality of different components or subsystems of
`the vehicle; and
`
`initiating a wireless transmission between the communications
`unit and a remote site separate and apart from the vehicle in
`response to the triggering event, the transmission including a
`diagnostic or prognostic message about the at
`least one
`component or subsystem;
`
`includes an
`wherein the diagnostic or prognostic message
`identification of the at least one component or subsystem and an
`identification of whether the at least one component or subsystem
`should be either repaired or replaced.
`
`-5-
`
`6
`
`

`

`Claim 23 (substitute for claim 3) The method of claim [1] 22,
`wherein the triggering event is a failure, predicted failure or fault code
`generation of the at least one component or subsystem.
`Claim 24 (substitute for claim 4) A system for providing status
`data for vehicle maintenance, comprising:
`
`a diagnostic module including at least one sensor for monitoring a
`plurality of different components or subsystems of
`the
`vehicle during operation of the vehicle on a road, said diagnostic
`module being arranged to analyze monitoring data provided by
`said at least one sensor and detect a triggering event relating to a
`diagnostic or prognostic analysis of at least one of the plurality of
`different components or subsystems of the vehicle; and
`
`a wireless communications unit arranged to interface with a
`wireless communications network, said communications unit
`being coupled to said diagnostic module and initiating a wireless
`transmission between said communications unit and a remote site
`separate and apart from the vehicle in response to the triggering
`event, the transmission including a diagnostic or prognostic
`message about the at least one component or subsystem, wherein
`the diagnostic or prognostic message includes an identification of
`the at least one of the plurality of different components or
`subsystems of the vehicle and an identification of whether the at
`least one of the plurality of different components or subsystems
`of the vehicle should be either repaired or replaced.
`Claim 25 (substitute for claim 6) The system of claim [4] 24,
`wherein the triggering event is a failure, predicted failure or fault code
`generation of the at least one component or subsystem.
`Claim 26 (substitute for claim 7) The method of claim [1] 22,
`wherein the step of monitoring for the triggering event comprises
`providing at least one sensor that monitors the at least one component
`or subsystem.
`Claim 27 (substitute for claim 8) The method of claim [7] 26,
`wherein the at least one sensor is part of 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 diagnose operability
`
`-6-
`
`7
`
`

`

`of the at least one component of subsystem and generate the triggering
`event based on diagnostic criteria.
`Claim 28 (substitute for claim 11) The method of claim [1] 22,
`wherein the step of monitoring for the triggering event comprises
`providing a plurality of different sensors that monitor the at least one
`component or subsystem.
`Claim 29 (substitute for claim 15) The system of claim [4] 24,
`wherein said diagnostic module is arranged to analyze monitoring data
`provided by said at least one sensor and detect the triggering event
`relating to predictive, prognostic analysis of the at least one component.
`Claim 30 (substitute for claim 16) The system of claim [4] 24,
`wherein said diagnostic module is arranged to analyze monitoring data
`provided by said at least one sensor and detect the triggering event
`relating to diagnostic analysis of the at least one component or
`subsystem of the vehicle.
`Claim 31 (substitute for claim 18) The system of claim [4] 24,
`wherein said diagnostic module comprises a plurality of different,
`sensors.
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`18.
`
`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 ’788 patent’s claim terms.
`
`19.
`
`I have considered and applied the construction and treatment of the
`
`terms of the ’788 patent set forth in the Board’s institution decision. This includes the
`
`Board’s construction and treatment of the terms “component,” “sensor,” “triggering
`
`event,” and “diagnostic or prognostic message.”
`
`20.
`
`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
`
`-7-
`
`8
`
`

`

`each individual word, I note that proposed amended claim 22 provides that the
`
`“diagnostic or prognostic message includes an identification of the at least one
`
`component or subsystem and an identification of whether the at least one component
`
`or subsystem should be either repaired or replaced.” Proposed amended claim 24
`
`includes similar language. 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.
`
`21. With respect to the other terms in the ’788 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
`
`22.
`
`In my opinion, the limitations AVS proposes adding to the claims of the
`
`’788 patent do not distinguish the claims from the prior art or render them patentable
`
`over the prior art.
`
`23.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`-8-
`
`9
`
`

`

`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.
`
`24.
`
`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.
`
`-9-
`
`10
`
`

`

`A.
`25.
`
`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.
`
`26.
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, in June of 1995, a person with ordinary skill in the art
`
`with respect to the technology disclosed by the ’788 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.
`
`28. 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 ’788 patent.
`
`-10-
`
`11
`
`

`

`B.
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`29. 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).
`
`30.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art as of June 1995 would
`
`have considered Scholl, Ishihara, Fry, 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 ’788 patent. Further, all of these references would be
`
`considered highly relevant prior art to the claims of the ’788 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
`31. 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
`
`outputs a “diagnostic or prognostic message [that] includes an identification of the at
`
`least one component or subsystem and an identification of whether the at least one
`
`component or subsystem should be either repaired or replaced.”
`
`32.
`
`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 output a
`
`message relating to this, were common and well known in the prior art as of June
`
`1995.
`
`-11-
`
`12
`
`

`

`33.
`
`For example, Crane (Exhibit 1022) 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 ’788 patent pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`34. Crane discloses an onboard system that “continuously” monitors a
`
`“powered vehicle[’s]” components while the “vehicle is being driven.” (Ex. 1022,
`
`Crane, Abstract; col. 10, ll. 7-9.) Crane’s system includes an on-board
`
`“microprocessor” that receives signals from sensors. (Id. at Abstract.)
`
`35. 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.)
`
`36. 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.)
`
`37. 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.)
`
`38. 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;
`
`col. 18, ll. 22-46; Figs. 4, 6.)
`
`39.
`
`Several example components are discussed. For example, Crane’s
`
`-12-
`
`13
`
`

`

`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 motor needs repair, or if 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.)
`
`40. 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.)
`
`Diagnostic information can also be transmitted to a remote location using a
`
`“transmitter/receiver 64” that communicates with the remote location over a satellite
`
`-13-
`
`14
`
`

`

`link. (Id. at col. 8, ll. 29-41.)
`
`41. Bryant (Exhibit 1023) likewise discloses a system that informs a vehicle
`
`driver of the need to repair or replace certain vehicle components.
`
`42. 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
`
`’788 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`43. 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. 1023, Bryant, at 100-101.)
`
`44.
`
`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 100-101)..
`
`45. 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.)
`
`46. Baumann (Exhibit 1020) also discloses a system on-board a vehicle that
`
`is able to make determinations regarding the need for component repair or
`
`replacement.
`
`47. Baumann issued May 12, 1981. Since this is more than a year before
`
`June 1995, I understand that Baumann is prior art to the ’788 patent pursuant to 35
`
`-14-
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`48. Baumann discloses a system which functions “during operation of the
`
`vehicle.” (Ex. 1020, Baumann, col. 4, ll. 12-20.)
`
`49. 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.)
`
`50. 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.)
`
`51. 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.)
`
`52.
`
`Peters (Exhibit 1021) also discloses the type of messages relating to
`
`repair or replacement AVS now seeks to insert into claims 22 and 24.
`
`53.
`
`Peters was filed September 4, 1991, and issued January 7, 1997. Because
`
`-15-
`
`16
`
`

`

`Peters was filed before June 1995, I understand that it is prior art to the ’788 patent
`
`pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`54.
`
`Peters discloses a vehicle “fault identification system” “for identifying at
`
`least one faulty component.” (Ex. 1021, Peters, col. 2, l. 28.)
`
`55. 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.)
`
`56. Even commercially available vehicles were able to inform the driver of
`
`the need to repair or replace vehicle components long before June 1995.
`
`57.
`
`For instance, the 1988 Buick Riviera included an in-dash display that
`
`provided the driver with a variety of diagnostic information.
`
`58. This display, known as the “Electronic Control Center,” is described in
`
`the 1988 Buick Riviera’s owner’s manual (Exhibit 1019).
`
`59.
`
`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 ’788 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`60. As described in the owner’s manual, the Electronic Control Center
`
`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.
`
`-16-
`
`17
`
`

`

`61.
`
`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.
`
`62. 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. 1019, Riviera manual, at. 2-44.)
`63. Likewise, the diagnostic system also informed a driver to “Service” the
`
`vehicle (i.e., get the vehicle repaired) after detecting a “Brake Pump Problem”:
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`(Id. at 2-46.)
`64.
`
`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.)
`65. 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.);
`
`-18-
`
`19
`
`

`

`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`That a “climate control problem” had been detected, in particular a
`“climate sensor fault,” and “service check recommended,” (id.);
`
`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.); and
`
`That a “charging system problem detected” and “service check
`required,” (id.).
`
`66. A display like that employed by the Buick Riviera was also described in
`
`Ortega (Exhibit 1024).
`
`67. Ortega published in February 1987. As a result, I understand that it is
`
`prior art to the ’788 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`68. Ortega explains that it “summarize[s] the development of the Graphic
`
`Control Center (GCC)” which “is standard equipment on the 1986 Buick Riviera.”
`
`(Ex. 1024, 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.)
`
`69. 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 a “service check required”:
`
`-19-
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`(Id. at 9.)
`70. 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”:
`
`-20-
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(Id.)
`
`71.
`
`Further, the display could inform the driver that “climate control
`
`problem detected,” and “service check required”:
`
`(Id. 10.)
`72. Ortega’s system was also able to diagnose component failure and inform
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`22
`
`

`

`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”:
`
`(Id.)
`
`
`
`D.
`Substitute Claims 22-31 Are All Anticipated by Crane
`73. Regardless of whether the phrase “repaired or replaced” requires (i) a
`
`system able to distinguish between the need for repair versus the need for
`
`-22-
`
`23
`
`

`

`replacement or (ii) a system that merely determines the need for repair or
`
`replacement, in my opinion, proposed substitute claims 22-31 are all anticipated by
`
`Crane.
`
`74.
`
`In my opinion, Crane discloses all the limitations required by claims 22-
`
`31.
`
`75. Claims 22 and 24 are both independent claims and include similar
`
`limitations. Claim 22 is directed to “[a] method for providing status data for vehicle
`
`maintenance.” Claim 24 is directed to “[a] system for providing status data for vehicle
`
`maintenance.” Crane discloses the claimed system and method. Crane explains that it
`
`relates to “a realtime management system for identifying system inefficiencies and
`
`subsystems requiring repair through the use of realtime interactive computer analysis.”
`
`(Ex. 1022, Crane, at col. 1, ll. 17-21.)
`
`76. Claim 22 next requires “monitoring for a triggering event on a vehicle
`
`during operation of the vehicle on a road having a wireless communications unit, the
`
`triggering event relating to a diagnostic or prognostic analysis of at least one of a
`
`plurality of different components or subsystems of the vehicle.” Claim 24 similarly
`
`requires “a diagnostic module including at least one sensor for monitoring a plurality
`
`of different components or subsystems of the vehicle during operation of the vehicle
`
`on a road, said diagnostic module being arranged to analyze monitoring data provided
`
`by said at least one sensor and detect a triggering event relating to a diagnostic or
`
`prognostic analysis of at least one of the plurality of different components or
`
`-23-
`
`24
`
`

`

`subsystems of the vehicle.” Crane’s system engages in monitoring and includes the
`
`claimed diagno