UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Patent of AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,772,057
`
`Issue Date: August 3, 2004
`
`Title: VEHICLE MONITORING SYSTEMS USING IMAGE PROCESSING
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,772,057 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 42.107
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00419
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘057 PATENT AND DEFICIENCIES IN
`ASSERTED REFERENCES ........................................................................... 2
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`IV. NO REVIEW SHOULD BE INSTITUTED WITH RESPECT TO THE
`GROUNDS RAISED BY PETITIONER ...................................................... 18
`A. Proposed rejection of claims 1-4, 7-10, 40, 41, 43, 46, 48, 49, 56, 59-
`61, and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) or § 102(e) over Lemelson .................. 20
`B. Ground 2. Proposed rejection of claims 30-34, 37-39, and 62 under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Lemelson in view of Borcherts .............................. 24
`C. Ground 3. Proposed rejection of claims 4, 43, and 59 under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Lemelson in view of Asayama ............................... 28
`D. Ground 4. Proposed rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`(a) over Lemelson in view of Borcherts and further in view of
`Asayama. ....................................................................................................... 29
`E. Ground 5. Proposed rejection of claims 30, 32, 34, 37-40, 43, 48,
`and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) over Watanabe. ........................................ 30
`F. Ground 6. Proposed rejection of claims 33, 34, 43, and 46 under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Watanabe in view of Asayama. ............................. 34
`G. Ground 7. Proposed rejection of claims 30 and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 (b) over Borcherts. ............................................................................... 36
`H. Ground 8. Proposed rejection of claims 40, 43, 46, and 48 under
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) over Asayama ............................................................. 38
`I. Ground 9. Proposed rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 40, 41,
`46, 48, 49, 56, 59, 61, and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) over
`Pomerleau ..................................................................................................... 39
`J. Ground 10. Proposed rejection of claims 8, 30, 31, 37-39, 60, and
`62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Pomerleau in view of Rombaut ........ 42
`
` 
`
`i
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`K. Ground 11. Proposed rejection of claims 3 and 43 under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Pomerleau in view of Asayama ............................. 47
`L. Ground 12. Proposed rejection of claims 32, 33, and 34 under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Pomerleau in view of Asayama and
`further in view of Rombaut ......................................................................... 49
`M. Ground 13. Proposed rejection of claims 30, 32, 37, and 38
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) over Suzuki ...................................................... 51
`N. Ground 14. Proposed rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-10, 56, 60, 61,
`and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Yamamura .................................... 54
`O. Ground 15. Proposed rejection of claims 3, 4, and 59 under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Yamamura in view of Asayama ............................ 57
`P. Ground 16. Proposed rejection of claims 30-32, 37-39, and 62
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Yamamura in view of Borcherts ............ 58
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`ii
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`In re Bond,
`910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .............................................. 22
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970) .................................................... 21
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................ 21
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226, 9 USPQ2d 1913 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .............................................. 21
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628, 2 USPQ2d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................................. 21
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................. 10, 13
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 1
`Other Authorities 
`MPEP § 2111 ........................................................................................................ 7, 21
`MPEP § 2112 ............................................................................................................ 23
`MPEP § 2121 ........................................................................................... 9, 43, 44, 50
`MPEP § 2131 ............................................................................................................ 21
`MPEP § 2143 ..................................................................................................... passim
`MPEP § 2145 ...................................................................................................... 28, 46
`MPEP § 2181 ............................................................................................................ 10
`Rules 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
` 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner American Vehicular Sciences (“American”) submits the
`
`following preliminary response to the Petition filed by Toyota Motor Corporation
`
`(“Toyota”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1-4, 7-10, 30-34, 37-41, 43,
`
`46, 48, 49, 56, 59-62, and 64 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,772,057 (“the ‘057 patent”). This
`
`filing is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 because it is filed
`
`within three months of the July 17, 2013 mailing date of the Notice granting the
`
`Petition a July 8, 2013 filing date.
`
`“The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted
`
`unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed
`
`under section 311 . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged . . . .” 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a) (emphasis added). Here, the prior art cited by Toyota, either alone or in
`
`combination, fails to disclose each and every limitation of claims 1-4, 7-10, 30-34,
`
`37-41, 43, 46, 48, 49, 56, 59-62, and 64 of the ‘501 patent. Indeed, not a single
`
`ground raised by Toyota in its Petition is likely to succeed. As such, Toyota’s
`
`proposed grounds for inter partes review do not give rise to a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Toyota will prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims of the ‘057
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`patent. American therefore respectfully requests that the Board decline to institute
`
`inter partes review of the ‘057 patent.1
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’057 PATENT AND DEFICIENCIES IN
`ASSERTED REFERENCES
`
`The ’057 patent claims the benefit of an initial priority application filed June
`
`7, 1995, which disclosed a vehicle diagnostic and prognostic system positioned on
`
`the vehicle. (See ’057 patent at p. 1, claiming priority to U.S. Pat. App. No.
`
`08/474,786, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,845,000.) That application disclosed a system for
`
`monitoring and classifying objects in the path of a vehicle using a receiver to
`
`detect reflected waves from an object and a processor utilizing trained pattern
`
`detection programming. (See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 5,845,000 at claims.) Later
`
`continuation-in-part applications added disclosure not at issue in the asserted ‘057
`
`patent claims.
`
`The ‘057 patent in particular relates to an arrangement for monitoring an
`
`environment exterior of a vehicle, where the vehicle determines if any object is in
`
`the path of vehicle, classifies or identifies the object, and affects other systems in
`
`                                                            
`1 In its Preliminary Patent Owner’s Response, American has set forth preliminary
`
`positions in response to grounds recited in Toyota’s Petition. Should the Board
`
`decide to institute a trial, American reserves the right to set forth additional
`
`reasons, arguments and evidence in support of patentability.
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`the vehicle in response to the classification or identification of the object. The
`
`‘057 patent invention, however, is much more than just, for example, a range-
`
`finder for forward cars, an adaptive cruise control monitor, or even a road lane
`
`monitor. Examples of inventive elements of the ‘057 patent lacking in the art
`
`asserted by Petitioner Toyota include:
`
`
`
`“A processor. . . for processing the signal to provide a classification,
`
`identification, or location of the exterior object” (‘057 patent at independent
`
`claims 1, 40, 56), or a “processor . . . arranged to classify or identify the exterior
`
`object” (‘057 patent at independent claim 30). In other words, the ‘057 patent
`
`invention comprises more than just detecting an object or the distance to an object.
`
`Claims 1, 40, and 56 recite classifying, identifying, or locating the object, while
`
`claim 30 recites classification or identification. (See, e.g., ‘057 patent at 12:37-46,
`
`33:42-45 (disclosing detecting the “contours” of an object to classify or identify
`
`what the object).) As discussed below, most of the references asserted by
`
`Petitioner Toyota, at most, disclose detecting the presence of an unidentified
`
`object, simple distance measurement, or detecting the road. They do not disclose
`
`processing a signal to classify, identify, or locate an object.
`
`
`
`“A processor . . . arranged to apply a trained pattern recognition
`
`algorithm generated from data of possible exterior objects and patterns of received
`
`waves from the possible exterior objects.” (‘057 patent at independent claim 1,
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`dependent claim 30, dependent claim 41, independent claim 56.) The ‘057
`
`patent’s trained pattern recognition processor does not simply compare images
`
`stored in the vehicle computer with current images. The ‘057 patent’s trained
`
`pattern recognition processor is trained with data of possible exterior objects and
`
`patterns of received waves. (See, e.g., ‘057 at 14:17-25, 35:36-37:58, 39:63-40:9
`
`(disclosing training the program to recognize the wave patterns of headlights or
`
`taillights).) In other words, the ‘057 patent’s programming is trained to recognize
`
`how waves behave when they are received from a given object, for example, by
`
`training the program with examples of objects. Each of the references asserted by
`
`Toyota either (a) fails to disclosed trained pattern recognition, or (b) fails to
`
`disclose the specific requirement of the ‘057 patent of training the pattern
`
`recognition program using “data of possible exterior objects and patterns of
`
`received waves from the possible exterior objects.”
`
`
`
` “A transmitter for transmitting waves into the environment . . .
`
`whereby said at least one receiver is arranged to receive waves transmitted by said
`
`transmitter and reflected by any exterior objects.” (‘057 patent at dependent
`
`claims 4, 43, 59.) The ‘057 patent discloses that for some object recognition, such
`
`as recognizing the headlights or taillights of a vehicle ahead, a receiver can simply
`
`detect the light emitting from the headlights or taillights. (See, e.g., ‘057 patent at
`
`39:63-40:9.) For recognizing other objects, however, that do not transmit their
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`own waves (such as a pedestrian, obstruction, etc.), the ‘057 patent discloses using
`
`an electromagnetic wave transmitter. (See, e.g., ‘057 patent at 38:6-11, 39:7-31.)
`
`Notably, the ‘057 patent discloses that these “transmitters” are what one
`
`would commonly understand to be a transmitter—a device to transmit non-visible
`
`waves. In common English usage, visible light sources such as vehicle headlights
`
`are not regarded as being transmitters any more than a standard flashlight is
`
`referred to as a transmitter. Each of the examples in the ‘057 patent of a
`
`“transmitter” is a non-visible wave emitter, including infrared, radar, laser, and
`
`acoustical transmitters. (See, e.g., ‘057 patent at 38:6-11, 39:7-31.) Indeed, the
`
`‘057 patent distinguishes between being able to detect oncoming vehicles in the
`
`dark through recognition of their headlights/taillights versus detecting all other
`
`objects or objects during the day via a “transmitter.” (See ‘057 patent at 39:63-
`
`40:9.) Most of the references asserted by Toyota fail to disclose a transmitter. For
`
`example, Toyota relies heavily on several references that disclose only headlights,
`
`which it alleges, in conclusory fashion, somehow qualify as a “transmitter” (even
`
`though the references do not necessarily even disclose headlights for use in
`
`conjunction with an exterior object-recognition system). Several other references
`
`asserted by Toyota do not disclose any kind of transmitter.
`
`
`
`A receiver “arranged on a rear view mirror of the vehicle.” (‘057
`
`patent at independent claim 30, dependent claim 62.) Several claims of the ‘057
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`patent recite that the receiver for recognizing exterior objects is arranged on the
`
`vehicle’s rear-view mirror. (See ‘057 patent at claims 30-34, 37-39, 62.) As such,
`
`the receiver is necessarily small enough to fit on a rearview mirror. The references
`
`asserted by Toyota disclose only large, bulky receivers, receivers mounted on the
`
`exterior of the vehicle, or receivers mounted only near or adjacent to the rear view
`
`mirror (not “on” the rear view mirror).
`
`
`
`Various dependent claims specify particular features such as the use
`
`of infrared wave receivers (claims 3, 33), displaying an image or icon of an
`
`exterior object (claims 7, 46, 61), or radar or laser systems (dependent claims 10,
`
`49.) Toyota’s asserted references variously fail to disclose these features as well.
`
`For these reasons and other reasons discussed below, and because the art
`
`relied upon by Toyota does not disclose, either alone or in combination, all of the
`
`claim limitations of even a single claim, Toyota’s Petition should be denied.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The ‘057 patent specification provides express definitions for a number of
`
`claim terms, which Respondent American does not dispute. In addition, however,
`
`Petitioner Toyota has proposed constructions for several other claim terms. (See
`
`Petition at 6-10.) In several cases, American does not disagree with Toyota’s
`
`constructions. But in several other instances, Toyota’s constructions depart from
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms. See MPEP § 2111.01 (“Under
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain
`
`meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.”). Toyota, for
`
`example, proposes certain constructions divorced from the language of the claim
`
`terms, or constructions that consist of complete re-writes of plain claim terms.
`
`Respondent American also proposes constructions for several additional terms,
`
`which Toyota simply misapplied without offering an express claim construction.
`
`Because Toyota has applied these terms incorrectly, Respondent American has
`
`identified the broadest reasonable construction of these claim terms.
`
`(1) Pattern recognition algorithm
`
`Claim Term
`
`
`pattern recognition
`algorithm
`
`Petitioner Toyota’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`
`Determines whether or not
`an object is a member of
`but a single particular
`class.
`
`
`Respondent American’s
`Correct Construction
`
`
`An algorithm that processes
`a signal that is generated by
`an object, or is modified by
`interacting with an object, in
`order to determine which
`one of a set of classes that
`the object belongs to.
`
`
`As Petitioner notes, the ‘057 patent expressly defines the term “pattern
`
`recognition” as “any system which processes a signal that is generated by an
`
`object, or is modified by interacting with an object, in order to determine which
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`one of a set of classes that the object belongs to.”2 (See Petition at 7, citing ‘057
`
`patent at 4:18-26.) A pattern recognition algorithm, therefore, is necessarily “an
`
`algorithm which processes a signal that is generated by an object, or is modified
`
`by interacting with an object, in order to determine which one of a set of classes
`
`that the object belongs to.” Toyota seeks to instead use a “definition” allegedly
`
`provided by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences during prosecution of
`
`the parent ‘760 application. (See Petition at 7.) But contrary to Toyota’s
`
`assertion, the cited statement from the Board was not purporting to provide a
`
`definition—it was merely describing an example that falls within the definition,
`
`while citing to the above definition of “pattern recognition.” (See Petitioner’s
`
`Exhibit 1014 at pp. 188-89.)
`
`
`
`Additionally, however, Toyota seeks to read into the express definition an
`
`additional provision that certain technologies are or are not a “pattern recognition
`
`algorithm.” That is, in the first instance, not a matter for claim construction, but
`
`rather is something more properly done in the context of applying the claims to
`                                                            
`2  American notes that this express definition appears in the ‘057, but does not
`
`appear in certain other unrelated American patents for which Toyota has filed co-
`
`pending inter partes review petitions, which also refer to pattern recognition. As
`
`such, the express definition of the ‘057 patent applies to that patent only and does
`
`not apply to other unrelated patents.  
`
` 
`
`8
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`the prior art. But in any event, Toyota’s arguments that a “pattern recognition
`
`algorithm” is always and necessarily met by disclosure of “a neural network,
`
`fuzzy logic, or sensor fusion” is unsupported. The ‘057 patent provides
`
`examples of neural networks, fuzzy logic, or sensor fusion that constitute pattern
`
`recognition algorithms, but that do not mean that these always constitute a
`
`pattern recognition algorithm as contemplated by the ‘057 patent. By analogy, a
`
`pattern recognition algorithm can be computer software, but that does not mean
`
`that all computer software is a pattern recognition algorithm. Mere “disclosure”
`
`of a neural network, fuzzy logic, or sensor fusion without more would fail to
`
`satisfy the requirement of an enabling disclosure of a pattern recognition
`
`algorithm in the context of the ‘057 patent. See, e.g., MPEP § 2121.01.
`
`(2) “Trained pattern recognition algorithm”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Respondent American’s
`Correct Construction
`
` A
`
`recognition
`pattern
`
`algorithm (See supra) which
`is taught various patterns by
`subjecting the system to a
`variety of examples.
`
`
`trained pattern
`recognition algorithm
`
`Petitioner Toyota’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`
`§112, ¶6 means plus
`function term
`
`Claimed functions carry
`their ordinary meaning.
`
`Claimed structure is a
`neural computer,
`processor, or equivalents
`thereof.
`
` 
`
`9
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`Toyota’s position is unclear as to the separate terms “trained pattern
`
`recognition algorithm” and “trained pattern recognition means.” With respect to
`
`the term “trained pattern recognition algorithm,” that is not a means-plus-
`
`function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). See MPEP § 2181 (“a claim
`
`limitation that does not use the phrase ‘means for’ or ‘step for’ will trigger the
`
`rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph [now 112(f)] does not
`
`apply”). Rather, that term is defined in the ‘057 patent specification. (See ‘057
`
`patent at 4:32-35 (“A trainable or a trained pattern recognition system as used
`
`herein means a pattern recognition system which is taught various patterns by
`
`subjecting the system to a variety of examples.”).)
`
`(3) “Trained pattern recognition means” (claim 1, 31, 41)
`
`Claim Term
`
`
`trained pattern
`recognition means
`
` 
`
`Petitioner Toyota’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`
`§112, ¶6 means plus
`function term
`
`Claimed function:
`processing the signal to
`provide a classification,
`identification, or location
`of the exterior object and
`applying a trained pattern
`recognition algorithm
`generated from data of
`possible exterior objects
`and patterns of received
`waves from the possible
`exterior objects.
`10
`
`Respondent American’s
`Correct Construction
`
`
`§112(f) means plus function
`term
`
`Claimed function:
`processing the signal to
`provide a classification,
`identification, or location of
`the exterior object and
`applying a trained pattern
`recognition algorithm
`generated from data of
`possible exterior objects and
`patterns of received waves
`from the possible exterior
`objects (claims 1, 41) and
`
`

`

`
`Claimed structure is a
`neural computer,
`processor, or equivalents
`thereof.
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`processing the signal to
`provide a classification or
`identification of the exterior
`object and applying a trained
`pattern recognition
`algorithm generated from
`data of possible exterior
`objects and patterns of
`received waves from the
`possible exterior objects3
`(claim 31).
`
`Claimed structure: a neural
`computer or processor
`taught various patterns by
`being subjected to a variety
`of examples, and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`
`Toyota and American largely agree on the construction of this term with
`
`the exception that Toyota’s construction ignores the claim requirement of a
`
`“trained” pattern recognition means. In other words, the claimed structure is not
`
`simply a neural computer or processor, but rather one trained for pattern
`
`recognition. (See ‘057 patent at claims 1, 31, 41, 56.) The ‘057 patent defines a
`
`“trainable or a trained pattern recognition system” as “a pattern recognition
`
`system which is taught various patterns by subjecting the system to a variety of
`
`examples.” (See ‘057 patent at 4:32-35.)
`                                                            
`3 Petitioner Toyota’s proposed definition of the claimed function fails to recognize
`
`that claims 1 and 41 include “location” in the claim, while claim 31 does not. 
`
` 
`
`11
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`(4) “identify”/ “identification” (claims 1, 30, 31, 40, 41, 56)
`
`Claim Term
`
`Respondent American’s
`Correct Construction
`
`
`To determine that the object
`belongs to a particular set or
`class.
`
`Petitioner Toyota’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`
`To determine that the
`object belongs to a
`particular set or class. The
`class may be one
`containing, for example, all
`rear facing child seats, one
`containing all human
`occupants, or all human
`occupants not sitting in a
`rear facing child seat
`depending on the purpose
`of the system. In the case
`where a particular person
`is to be recognized, the set
`or class will contain only a
`single element, i.e., the
`person to be recognized.
`
`
`identify /
`identification
`
`Toyota correctly points out that the ‘057 patent specification expressly
`
`defines “identify” as “to determine that the object belongs to a particular set or
`
`class.” (‘057 patent at 4:47-48.) What follows in Toyota’s construction,
`
`however, is, at best, merely an example of identification that is not a limiting part
`
`of the definition. (See id. at 4:49-55.)
`
`(5) “measurement means for measuring a distance between the
`exterior object and the vehicle” (claims 9, 38, 48, 64)
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`
`measurement means
`
` 
`
`Petitioner Toyota’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`
`§112, ¶6 means plus
`
`Respondent American’s
`Correct Construction
`
`
`§112(f) means plus function
`
`12
`
`

`

`for measuring a
`distance between the
`exterior object and
`the vehicle
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`
`function term
`
`Claimed function: plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`Claimed structure: a laser
`radar system, a radar
`system, and/or a pair of
`cameras.
` 
`
`term
`
`Claimed function:
`measuring a distance
`between the exterior object
`and the vehicle.
`
`Claimed structure: pulsed
`laser radar, radar, or a pulsed
`laser radar system along with
`a CCD array or pair of CCD
`arrays or acoustical system,
`and equivalents.
`
`
`American agrees that this claim term is a means-plus-function claim term
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. American also agrees that the claimed function
`
`should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning (the function recited in the
`
`claim is “measuring a distance between the exterior object and the vehicle).
`
`American disagrees, however, with Toyota’s assertion of what is disclosed in the
`
`‘057 as being corresponding structure. Contrary to Toyota’s construction, the
`
`‘057 patent never discloses using just a pair of cameras (or even cameras at all)
`
`for distance measurement. The passage that Toyota cites reads as follows:
`
`To complete the process, distance information is also required as well
`as velocity information, which can in general be obtained by
`differentiating the position data. This can be accomplished by anyone
`of the several methods discussed above, such as with a pulsed laser
`radar system, as well as with a radar system. . . . One particularly
`advantageous mode of practicing the invention for these cases,
`
` 
`
`13
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`therefore, is to use radar, and a second advantageous mode is the
`pulsed laser radar system, along with a CCD array, although the use of
`two CCD arrays or the acoustical systems are also good choices.
`
`(‘057 patent at 39:1-20.) In other words, the ‘057 patent discloses (1) pulsed laser
`
`radar, (2) radar, and (3) pulsed laser radar along with a CCD or two CCD arrays or
`
`acoustical systems. The literal scope also includes equivalents thereof. 
`
`(6) “rear view mirror” (claims 30, 62)
`
`Claim Term
`
`
`rear view mirror
`
`Petitioner Toyota’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`
`Both the rear-facing mirror
`located at the center of the
`windshield as well as the
`non-rear-facing side
`mirrors.
` 
`
`Respondent American’s
`Correct Construction
`
`
`The rear-facing mirror
`located at the windshield as
`well as rear-facing side
`mirrors.
`
`
`
`
`American agrees that this claim term includes the rear-facing mirror located
`
`at the center of the windshield. American also agrees that the ‘057 patent discloses
`
`that a mirror attached to “the door window trim panel” is also considered a rear
`
`view mirror. (See ‘057 patent at 38:22-25.) That side mirror, however, still faces
`
`to the side and rear, and is not a “non-rear-facing side mirror” as Toyota argues.
`
`Toyota has put forth no reason why, in the ‘057 patent, “rear view mirror” should
`
`be construed to include a “non-rear-facing side mirror.”
`
`
`
` 
`
`14
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`(7) “exterior object” (claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 30, 31, 38, 40, 41, 43, 46,
`48, 56, 59, 61, 64)
`
`Respondent American’s
`Correct Construction
`
` A
`
` material thing capable of
`collision with the vehicle.
`
`
`Petitioner Toyota’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`
`No construction proposed,
`but “exterior object”
`allegedly includes road
`lines.
` 
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`
`exterior object
`
`The ‘057 patent claims require “classification, identification, or location” of
`
`exterior objects or “classify[ing] or identify[ing]” exterior objects. (See ‘057
`
`patent at claims 1, 30, 40, 56.) The ‘057 patent specification, however, makes it
`
`clear that not just anything outside of the vehicle are recognized. The ‘057 patent
`
`does not disclose anything about classification, identification, or location
`
`measurement of, for example, trees or buildings remote from the road, small stones
`
`or sticks on a road, or as Petitioner Toyota points to in some of the asserted
`
`references, road lines. See, e.g., MPEP 2111.01 (“The specification should also be
`
`relied on for more than just explicit lexicography or clear disavowal of claim scope
`
`to determine the meaning of a claim term when applicant acts as his or her own
`
`lexicographer; the meaning of a particular claim term may be defined by
`
`implication, that is, according to the usage of the term in the context in the
`
`specification.”).
`
`A purpose of object recognition in the ‘057 patent is not to overwhelm a
`
` 
`
`15
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`driver with information about everything that is outside of the vehicle, but rather to
`
`recognize material things capable of colliding with the vehicle to, for example,
`
`avoid collision or for headlight adjustment. (See, e.g., ‘057 patent at 5:15-26
`
`(recognition of exterior objects such as trees, an approaching vehicle, or a wall).)
`
`Respondent American’s
`Correct Construction
`
` A
`
` device for transmitting
`primarily non-visible waves.
`
`
`
`transmitter
`
`(8) “transmitter” (claims 4, 43, 59)
`
`Claim Term
`
`Petitioner Toyota’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`
`No construction proposed,
`but “transmitter” allegedly
`includes vehicle
`headlights.
` 
`
`Claims 4, 43, and 59 relate to the use of a transmitter in conjunction with a
`
`receiver, such that the receiver collects waves emitted by the transmitter and
`
`reflected from an exterior object. The ‘057 patent discloses that for some object
`
`recognition, such as recognizing the headlights or taillights of a vehicle ahead, a
`
`receiver can simply detect the light emitting from the headlights or taillights. (See,
`
`e.g., ‘057 patent at 39:63-40:9.) For recognizing other objects, however, that do
`
`not transmit their own waves (such as a pedestrian, obstruction, etc.), the ‘057
`
`patent discloses using an electromagnetic wave transmitter. (See, e.g., ‘057 patent
`
`at 38:6-11, 39:7-31.)
`
`Again, the ‘057 patent discloses that these “transmitters” are what one would
`
`commonly understand to be a transmitter—a device to transmit non-visible waves.
`
` 
`
`16
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`IPR2013-00419
`In common English usage, visible light sources such as vehicle headlights are not
`
`regarded as being transmitters any more than a standard flashlight is referred to as
`
`a transmitter. Each of the examples in the ‘057 patent of a “transmitter” is a non-
`
`visible wave emitter, including infrared, radar, laser, and acoustical transmitters.
`
`(See, e.g., ‘057 patent at 38:6-11, 39:7-31.) The ‘057 patent distinguishes between
`
`being able to detect oncoming vehicles in the dark through recognition of their
`
`headlights/taillights versus detecting all other objects or objects during the day via
`
`a “transmitter.” (See ‘057 patent at 39:63-40:9.) Further, as a matter of common
`
`sense, in daylight, headlights would be useless as a transmitter, as any light would
`
`be dissipated and indistinguishable from ambient light. And the prior art teaches
`
`away from the use of visible light in “transmitters” for object recognition, because
`
`using them in that manner might “dazzle” an approaching driver. (See Asayama at
`
`2:20-24 (“there is a fear that the passengers including the driver in the preceding
`
`vehicle are dazzled by the light from the light emitting element, making it diffi