`
`BE1r'*'C.)RH TI-IE P;"\’I'EN’i‘ TRIAL AND :'\P13EAL BOARD
`
`'1‘OYO'1"A MOTOR CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`_«-KMERIC.-='\N V]*II-IICULJXR SCIIFINCIES LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,772,057
`
`Issue Date: August 3, 2004
`
`Titlcz VI7.HICUL..=\R MONITORING SYSTIJIB/IS USING IBLXCE-IL PROCESSING
`
`NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`Case No. IPR2013—00419
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 142 and 37 C.F.R. § 90.2, notice is hereby given that
`
`the petitioner in the above-captioned inter parts; review proceeding, Toyota Motor
`
`Corporation (“Petitioner”), appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit from the Final Written Decision entered by the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“Board”) on January 12, 2015, including all reviewable decisions and
`
`orders underlying that Final Written Decision.
`
`In compliance with 37 C.l*'.R. §90.2(a)(3)(i.i), Petitioner anticipates that the
`
`following issues will be raised on appeal:
`
`1. Whether the Board erred when it determined that Lemelson (Ex. 1002)
`
`did not disclose a “trained pattern recognition algorithm generated from
`
`data of possible exterior objects and patterns of received waves from the
`
`possible exterior objects.”
`
`2. Whether the Board erred when it determined that a process term in
`
`apparatus claims, “generated from data of possible exterior objects and
`
`patterns of received waves from the possible exterior objects,” was a
`
`limitation for the purpose of assessing patentability over the prior art,
`
`and when it construed that limitation to require an algorithm generated
`
`from data of, and patterns of received waves from, actual objects.
`
`
`
`3. Further to (2), whether the Board erred by placing the burden on
`
`Petitioner to demonstrate that the disputed term was not a limitation,
`
`and b T determjnin that Petitionefs at
`3
`8
`
`8‘-‘m
`
`ent was untimcl .
`Y
`
`4. Whether the Board erred when it determined that Petitioner had not met
`
`its burden ofproving that claims 1-4, 7-10, 31, 41, 56, 59-62, and 64 are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`Dated: 1\*Iarch 16, 2015
`
`Matt Berkowitz (Reg. No. 57,215)
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Kenyon 8: Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel: 212-425-7200
`
`Fax: 212-425-5288
`
`Thomas R. Makin
`A. Antony Pfeffer (Reg. No. 43,857)
`Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`
`Tel: 212-425-7200
`
`Fax: 212-425-5288
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby confirms that the foregoing Notice of Appeal was
`
`served on March 16, 2015 via e—mail upon the following counsel of record for Patent
`
`Owner:
`
`Thomas]. Wimbiscus
`Scott P. McBride
`
`Christopher M. Scharff
`twimbiscus@rncandrews -ip .com
`smcbride@rncandrews—ip.com
`cscharff@rncandrews—ip.com
`AVS—IPR@mcandrews-ip.com
`MCr'\NDRJ_*'.\‘(/S I-IELD <3-5 l\/L*“rLLOY, LTD.
`500 W’. Madison St, 34th Floor
`Chicago, l'L 60661
`
`The undersigned hereby confinns that the original of the foregoing Notice of
`
`Appeal was filed on March 16, 2015 with the Director of the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office via Express Mail (Priority Mail Express) (label # BK 670019756
`
`US) at the following address (in addition to being filed with the Board via PRPS):
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`do Office of the General Counsel
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`l-‘.0. Box. 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby confirms that three (3) true and correct copies of the
`
`foregoing Notice of Appeal were filed in the Clerk’s Office of the United States Court
`
`of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Via Express Mail (Priority Mail Express) (label #
`
`ILK 670019787 US), with the $500 docketing fee, at the following address:
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`717 Madison Place, N.W., Suite 401
`Washington, DC 20439
`
`/5/ 1-2
`
`oseph M. Purcell, Jr.
`Kenyon & Kenyon LL13’
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`
`Tel: 212-425-7200
`
`Fax: 212-425-5288