`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 5,845,000
`
`Issue Date: December 1, 1998
`
`Title: OPTICAL IDENTIFICATION AND MONITORING SYSTEM USING
`PATTERN RECOGNITION FOR USE WITH VEHICLES
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 42.120
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00424
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’000 PATENT, SCOPE AND CONTENT OF
`THE PRIOR ART, AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL........................... 5
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR WHICH REVIEW HAS BEEN INSTITUTED ................. 9
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`
`V.
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD CONFIRM VALIDITY OF CLAIMS 10,
`11, 16, 17, 19, 20 AND 23 OVER THE GROUNDS ASSERTED IN
`THE PETITION ............................................................................................. 12
`
`A. None of the References Raised In The Review Disclose a
`“Pattern Recognition Algorithm Generated From Data of
`Possible Exterior Objects and Patterns of Received
`Electromagnetic Illumination From the Possible Exterior
`Objects” (Claims 10, 11, 19, and 23) or a “Pattern Recognition
`Algorithm Generated From Data of Possible Sources of
`Radiation Including Lights of Vehicles and Patterns of
`Received Radiation From the Possible Sources” (Claims 16,
`17, and 20) ........................................................................................... 12
`
`(1) Lemelson ................................................................................... 13
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Lemelson does not expressly disclose the claim
`limitation ......................................................................... 14
`
`The Board’s decision to grant review based on
`Lemelson relied on the doctrine of inherency ................ 14
`
`Lemelson does not inherently disclose the claim
`limitation—it could have involved generating the
`algorithm with simulated data ........................................ 16
`
`Lemelson does not inherently disclose the claim
`limitation—it also could have involved generating
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`an algorithm with data and waves not representing
`exterior objects to be detected ........................................ 20
`
`e.
`
`Toyota’s expert’s belated attempt at his deposition
`to
`read extra disclosure
`into Lemelson
`is
`unavailing ....................................................................... 21
`
`(2) Asayama .................................................................................... 25
`
`(3) Yanagawa .................................................................................. 25
`
`(4) Other References Cited In the Petition But For Which
`Review Was Not Granted ......................................................... 26
`
`None of the Obviousness Grounds Raised In The Review Fix
`The Failure To Disclose a “Pattern Recognition Algorithm
`Generated From Data of Possible Exterior Objects and
`Patterns of Received Electromagnetic Illumination From the
`Possible Exterior Objects” (Claims 10, 11, 19, and 23) or a
`“Pattern Recognition Algorithm Generated From Data of
`Possible Sources of Radiation Including Lights of Vehicles and
`Patterns of Received Radiation From the Possible Sources”
`(Claims 16, 17, and 20) ....................................................................... 28
`
`(1) Lemelson and Asayama ............................................................ 28
`
`(2) Lemelson and Yanagawa .......................................................... 29
`
`B.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`Case IPR2012-00026 (PTAB, Feb. 19, 2014) .............................................. 15, 28
`
`Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, LLC.,
`178 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc.,
`290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .............................................................................. 13
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................................ 26
`
`Rules
`
`37 CFR §42.120 ......................................................................................... 1, 9, 27, 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner American Vehicular Sciences (“AVS”) submits the following
`
`response under 37 CFR §42.120 to the Petition filed by Toyota Motor Corporation
`
`(“Toyota”) requesting inter partes review of certain claims of U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,845,000 (“the ‘000 patent”). This filing is timely pursuant to the Board’s
`
`Scheduling Order and the parties’ stipulation extending the deadline to March 24,
`
`2014. (See Paper 17, Scheduling Order at 2 (“The parties may stipulate to different
`
`dates for DUE DATES 1 through 3 (earlier or later, but no later than DUE DATE
`
`4).”); Paper 26, Notice of Stipulation).)
`
`
`
`AVS respectfully submits that the arguments presented and the additional
`
`evidence submitted, such as testimony from AVS expert Professor Cris
`
`Koutsougeras, PhD, show that at least claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 of the
`
`‘000 patent are not anticipated or obvious in view of the grounds for review.
`
`Specifically, none of the prior art raised in the grounds for review discloses
`
`or teaches at least one key requirement in claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 of
`
`the ‘000 patent: a “trained pattern recognition means” that is “structured and
`
`arranged to apply a pattern recognition algorithm generated from data of possible
`
`exterior objects and patterns of received electromagnetic illumination from the
`
`possible exterior objects” (claims 10, 11, and 19); “trained pattern recognition
`
`means” that is “structured and arranged to apply a pattern recognition algorithm
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`generated from data of possible sources of radiation including lights of vehicles
`
`and patterns of received radiation from the possible sources” (claims 16, 17, and
`
`20); and “generating a pattern recognition algorithm from data of possible exterior
`
`objects and patterns of received electromagnetic illumination from the possible
`
`exterior objects” (claim 23). (See Ex. 1001, ‘000 patent at independent claims 10,
`
`16, and 23 (emphasis added).) In other words, these claims require a pattern
`
`recognition algorithm that must be generated in this particular way. Toyota and its
`
`expert glossed over this claim requirement, suggesting that just any pattern
`
`recognition algorithm would suffice. But as AVS’s expert explains, and illustrates
`
`with evidentiary support, there are numerous different ways that a pattern
`
`recognition algorithm can be generated that would not satisfy this claim limitation.
`
`Of the three grounds that were granted, Toyota and its expert had only
`
`alleged that two out of the three prior art references in the three granted grounds
`
`that it asserted in its Petition (Lemelson and Yanagawa) disclosed a “pattern
`
`recognition algorithm” at all (much less one generated as required by the above-
`
`listed ‘000 patent claims). (See Paper 3, Toyota’s Petition at 16-32 and 50-59.)
`
`Out of those two references, the Board found that Yanagawa did not disclose
`
`or teach “trained pattern recognition means” or “a pattern recognition algorithm.”
`
`(See, e.g., Paper 16, Board Decision at 44.) The Board therefore substantively
`
`denied review based on the grounds of anticipation by Yanagawa or obviousness
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`based on Yanagawa in view of the alleged knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. (Id.)
`
`With respect to Lemelson, Toyota and its expert emphasized a single
`
`sentence in Lemelson that refers to how the pattern recognition algorithm is
`
`generated—a sentence that states that the training of Lemelson’s network involved
`
`“providing known inputs to the network resulting in desired output responses.”
`
`(See Paper 3, Toyota’s Petition at 19.) Toyota glossed over the failure in Lemelson
`
`to disclose whether those “known inputs” included the specific inputs required by
`
`claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23.
`
`As discussed below, Toyota’s arguments, and the Board’s comments in
`
`response, implicitly rest on the doctrine of inherency. In other words, because
`
`Lemelson does not expressly disclose generating a trained pattern recognition
`
`algorithm “from data of possible exterior objects and patterns of received waves
`
`from the possible exterior objects,” in order to find anticipation, Toyota was
`
`required to show that Lemelson “necessarily” included that type of algorithm
`
`generation (i.e., not that it was merely possible or probable that Lemelson used the
`
`claimed type of algorithm generation). Toyota, however, did not establish this
`
`requirement, and could not establish this requirement, because there are several
`
`types of “known inputs” that Lemelson could have been referring to other than the
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`inputs required by the subject ‘000 patent claims, although Lemelson, Yanagawa,
`
`and Asayama are silent as to any of these types of “known inputs.”
`
`For example, Lemelson could have used, but does not teach, simulated data
`
`to generate a pattern recognition algorithm, which would not involve “data of
`
`possible exterior objects and patterns of received waves from the possible exterior
`
`objects.” Or, although Lemelson does not teach this, it could have used data or
`
`wave patterns relating to something other than “the possible exterior objects” for
`
`which the system is trying to provide a “classification, identification, or location.”
`
`For example, instead of training the system with data and patterns of received
`
`waves from cars, it could have involved training with images of license plates or
`
`rectangles of a size indicative of license plates, which would fail to satisfy the
`
`claims.
`
`As such, the instituted grounds for review do not establish anticipation or
`
`obviousness of at least claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 of the ‘000 patent. If
`
`the Board agrees that Lemelson does not “necessarily” disclose the claimed
`
`manner of generating an algorithm, then the instituted ground for review of claims
`
`10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 based on anticipation by Lemelson fails, as do the
`
`instituted grounds for review of obviousness of claims 10, 11, 19, and 23 (in view
`
`of Lemelson in combination with Asayama) and claims 16, 17, and 20 (in view of
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`Lemelson in combination with Yanagawa) since the other two references, as
`
`asserted, also fail to overcome the deficiencies of Lemelson.
`
`AVS therefore respectfully requests that the Board confirm claims 10, 11,
`
`16, 17, 19, 20, and 23.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’000 PATENT, SCOPE AND CONTENT OF
`THE PRIOR ART, AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`The ‘000 patent relates to a system for monitoring at least one object exterior
`
`to a vehicle and to a headlight dimming system. The system involves identifying
`
`objects or radiation sources outside the vehicle, and affecting other systems in the
`
`vehicle in response to the identification. But what made the ‘000 patent
`
`groundbreaking and superior to prior vehicle systems and methods was the specific
`
`way that it implemented the system. Claims 10, 11 and 19 require using a “trained
`
`pattern recognition means” that is “structured and arranged to apply a pattern
`
`recognition algorithm generated from data of possible exterior objects and patterns
`
`of received electromagnetic illumination from the possible exterior objects.”
`
`Claims 16, 17, and 20 require “trained pattern recognition means” that is
`
`“structured and arranged to apply a pattern recognition algorithm generated from
`
`data of possible sources of radiation including lights of vehicles and patterns of
`
`received radiation from the possible sources.” And claim 23 requires “generating a
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`pattern recognition algorithm from data of possible exterior objects and patterns of
`
`received electromagnetic illumination from the possible exterior objects.”
`
`As AVS’s expert explains in his declaration, a pattern recognition system
`
`such as a neural network, for example, is fundamentally different than just a
`
`computer program. (Exhibit 2002, Koutsougeras Decl. at ¶ 15.) A computer
`
`program can be used if a programmer can guarantee knowing all possible
`
`variables. (Id.) But in an object detection system, this can be very difficult. (Id. at
`
`¶¶ 15-16.) If the goal is to have the system detect whether an object is a car, it
`
`would be difficult to program such a system to compare a received image of a car
`
`to a database of images of all possible car models, in all possible colors, from all
`
`possible angles. (Id. at ¶ 18.)
`
`For that reason, the inventor of the ‘000 patent developed a way to perform
`
`this object recognition using a “pattern recognition algorithm” such as a neural
`
`network, for example. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-20.) A pattern recognition algorithm does not
`
`just compare detected car to a database to find a match. Rather, it calculates
`
`degrees of similarity between something it has been told (or “trained”) is a car,
`
`versus something it has been told is not a car. (Id. at ¶ 18.) The more positive and
`
`negative examples (the “training set”) that the system is given, the more accurate it
`
`will be. (Id.)
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`The inventor of the ‘000 patent also found that a specific type of training to
`
`generate the “training set” was the most effective. (See id. at ¶¶ 19, 20, 53.) The
`
`inventor disclosed and claimed generating the algorithm from (1) data of possible
`
`exterior objects (claims 10, 11, 19 and 23) or data of possible radiation sources
`
`(claims 16, 17, and 20) and (2) patterns of received waves (e.g., patterns of
`
`received electromagnetic illumination from the possible exterior objects (claims
`
`10, 11, 19, and 23) or patterns of received radiation from the possible sources
`
`(claims 16, 17, and 20). (Id.) For example, if the vehicle uses a radar receiver, a
`
`neural network, for example, could be trained with examples of received radar
`
`waves from possible objects such as cars, motorcycles, trucks, etc. (i.e., “patterns
`
`or received electromagnetic illumination from the possible exterior objects”), plus
`
`labels indicating the identification and possibly other information relating to the
`
`example object (i.e., “data”). (Id. at ¶¶ 19-20.) The examples of received radar
`
`waves from possible objects used to generate the algorithm can, therefore, be real
`
`radar waves or based on real radar waves, so that the system knows how to
`
`recognize radar waves received from that same object or a similar one when the
`
`vehicle is later driving down the road. (Id. at ¶ 20.) This can be done, for
`
`example, by putting actual examples of a possible object in front of a vehicle radar
`
`system, letting the system hit the object with radar waves that are thereafter
`
`received back by the system, and then telling the system the identity and
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`classification of the object.1 (Id.) This is in contrast to other ways to train a
`
`pattern recognition system, such as through completely simulated data (e.g., a
`
`computer simulation of radar waves). (Id. at ¶¶ 49 and 57-64.)
`
`As Professor Koutsougeras explains, therefore, the scope and content of the
`
`prior art to the ‘000 patent would have been narrower than that offered by Toyota
`
`and its expert, Dr. Papanikolopoulos. (Id. at ¶ 37.) Professor Koutsougeras
`
`explains that the scope and content of the prior art would not have included
`
`generically any “vehicle sensing systems,” as there are many vehicle sensing
`
`systems that have no relevance or application to external object or radiation source
`
`detection or pattern recognition systems. (Id.) Rather, the scope and content of the
`
`prior art would have included sensors and pattern recognition algorithms for object
`
`or radiation source identification, including those for automotive use. (Id.) AVS
`
`and Professor Koutsougeras, however, do not have any fundamental disagreement
`
`with the definition of the level of ordinary skill proposed by Toyota and Dr.
`
`Papanikolopoulos, and therefore have applied that definition of the level of
`
`ordinary skill for purposes of this IPR.
`
`
`1 This is not to say, of course, that every individual vehicle must be trained in this
`
`way. Once a single system has been trained, those saved examples of waves and
`
`label data can be transferred to other systems.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`III. GROUNDS FOR WHICH REVIEW HAS BEEN INSTITUTED
`Toyota’s Petition included nine proposed grounds for invalidity, based on
`
`five different prior art references. (See Paper 3, Toyota’s Petition at 5-6.) Of those
`
`nine proposed grounds, the Board granted review based on three of those grounds.
`
`Specifically, the Board granted review on the following grounds:
`
` Claims 10, 11, 19, and 23 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`
`Lemelson;
`
` Claims 10, 11, 19, and 23 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Lemelson and Asayama; and
`
` Claims 16, 17, and 20 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lemelson
`
`and Yanagawa.
`
`(Paper 16, Board Decision at 45.)
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §42.120, AVS is addressing only the grounds for which
`
`review was instituted, for select claims. (See 37 CFR §42.120 (“A patent owner
`
`may file a response to the petition addressing any ground for unpatentability not
`
`already denied.”).)
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For purposes of this IPR only, AVS does not contest the Board’s claim
`
`constructions. Any disagreements that AVS might have with the Board’s claim
`
`constructions are not material to the arguments in this Response.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`In particular, the Board provided the following constructions for the
`
` “pattern recognition algorithm” is construed as an algorithm which
`
`following terms:
`
`
`
`processes a signal that is generated by an object, or is modified by interacting with
`
`an object, for determining to which one of a set of classes the object belongs;
`
`
`
`“trained pattern recognition means” is construed as a neural computer
`
`or microprocessor trained for pattern recognition, and equivalents thereof;
`
`
`
`“identify” and “identification” is construed as determining that the
`
`object belongs to a particular set or class;
`
`
`
`“transmitter means
`
`for
`
`transmitting electromagnetic waves
`
`to
`
`illuminate the at least one exterior object” is construed as a transmitter, which
`
`covers infrared, radar, and pulsed GaAs laser systems and transmitters which emit
`
`visible light;
`
`
`
`“reception means for receiving reflected electromagnetic illumination
`
`from the at least one exterior object” and “reception means for receiving
`
`electromagnetic radiation from the exterior of the vehicle” is construed as a CCD
`
`array and CCD transducer;
`
`
`
`“processor means coupled to said reception means for processing
`
`said received illumination and creating an electronic signal characteristic of said
`
`exterior object based thereon” and “processor means coupled to said reception
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`means for processing the received radiation and creating an electronic signal
`
`characteristic of the received radiation” is construed as a processor;
`
`
`
`“categorization means coupled
`
`to said processor means
`
`for
`
`categorizing said electronic signal
`
`to
`
`identify said exterior object, said
`
`categorization means comprising
`
`trained pattern recognition means” and
`
`“categorization means coupled to said processor means for categorizing said
`
`electronic signal to identify a source of the radiation, said categorization means
`
`comprising trained pattern recognition means” is construed as a neural computer,
`
`a microprocessor, and their equivalents;
`
`
`
`“output means coupled to said categorization means for affecting
`
`another system in the vehicle in response to the identification of said exterior
`
`object” and “output means coupled to said categorization means for dimming the
`
`headlights in said vehicle in response to the identification of the source of the
`
`radiation” is construed as an electronic circuit or circuits capable of outputting a
`
`signal to another vehicle system;
`
`
`
`“measurement means for measuring the distance from the at least one
`
`exterior object to said vehicle, said measuring means comprising radar” is
`
`construed as radar;
`
`
`
`“dimming the headlights” is construed as decreasing the intensity or
`
`output of the headlight to a lower level of illumination; and
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`“wherein said categories further comprise radiation from taillights of
`
`
`
`a vehicle-in-front” is construed as categorizing radiation from taillights of a
`
`vehicle-in-front, which may include additional types of radiation.
`
`V. THE BOARD SHOULD CONFIRM VALIDITY OF CLAIMS 10, 11,
`16, 17, 19, 20 AND 23 OVER THE GROUNDS ASSERTED IN THE
`PETITION
`A. None of the References Raised In The Review Disclose a “Pattern
`Recognition Algorithm Generated From Data of Possible Exterior
`Objects and Patterns of Received Electromagnetic Illumination
`From the Possible Exterior Objects” (Claims 10, 11, 19, and 23) or
`a “Pattern Recognition Algorithm Generated From Data of Possible
`Sources of Radiation Including Lights of Vehicles and Patterns of
`Received Radiation From the Possible Sources” (Claims 16, 17, and
`20)
`
`As discussed, independent claims 10 and 23 and dependent claims 11 and 19
`
`require a specific type of training of the pattern recognition algorithm. These
`
`claims require a pattern recognition algorithm generated “from data of possible
`
`exterior objects and patterns of received electromagnetic illumination from the
`
`possible exterior objects.” (See Exhibit 1001, ‘000 patent at claims 10, 11, 19, and
`
`23.) Independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17 and 20 require “a pattern
`
`recognition algorithm generated from data of possible sources of radiation
`
`including lights of vehicles and patterns of received radiation from the possible
`
`sources.” (See Exhibit 1001, ‘000 patent at claims 10, 11, 19, and 23.)
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`None of the references at issue in the instituted grounds for review (i.e.,
`
`Lemelson, Asayama, or Yanagawa) disclose these claim limitations, either
`
`expressly or inherently. See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814
`
`F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every
`
`element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
`
`described, in a single prior art reference.”).
`
`(1) Lemelson
`
`The only reference that the Board found might disclose a “pattern
`
`recognition algorithm generated from data of possible exterior objects and patterns
`
`of received electromagnetic illumination from the possible exterior objects” or
`
`generated from “data of possible sources of radiation” and “patterns of received
`
`radiation from the possible sources” is Lemelson. (See Paper 19, Board’s Decision
`
`at 31, 32 and 44.) Review of claims 10, 11, 19, and 23 was instituted for
`
`anticipation by Lemelson. Review of claims 10, 11, 19, and 23 was instituted for
`
`obviousness over Lemelson and Asayama. And review of claims 16, 17, and 20
`
`was also instituted for obviousness over Lemelson and Yanagawa.
`
`However, Lemelson, the only reference asserted to disclose the claimed
`
`pattern recognition algorithm, does not expressly disclose the nature and manner of
`
`how its neural network algorithm is generated, and it does not inherently (i.e.,
`
`“necessarily”) disclose that its neural network was generated as claimed.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`Lemelson does not expressly disclose the claim limitation
`
`Lemelson discloses a system for identifying objects exterior to a vehicle.
`
`a.
`
`(See Exhibit 1002, Lemelson at Abstract.) And it does disclose using a type of
`
`pattern recognition algorithm (a neural network) for identifying objects. (See
`
`Lemelson at 5:35-45.) The only discussion in Lemelson, however, relating to
`
`generating the neural network, merely states that “[t]raining involves providing
`
`known inputs to the network resulting in desired output responses.” (See Exhibit
`
`2002, Koutsougeras Decl. at ¶ 46.)
`
`This is the only sentence from Lemelson that Toyota cited in its Petition as
`
`relating to the nature of Lemelson’s pattern recognition algorithm generation or
`
`training. (See Paper 3, Toyota’s Petition at 19.) And it is the only sentence that
`
`Toyota’s expert, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, cites in his declaration with respect to how
`
`the trained pattern recognition algorithm in Lemelson is generated. (See Exhibit
`
`1016, Papanikolopoulos Decl. at ¶¶ 50-65.)
`
` Nowhere else
`
`in Dr.
`
`Papanikolopoulos’s declaration does he allege that Lemelson discloses how its
`
`pattern recognition algorithm was generated. (See id.)
`
`b.
`
`The Board’s decision to grant review based on Lemelson
`relied on the doctrine of inherency
`
`
`The Board also did not rely on any express disclosure in Lemelson with
`
`respect to the “algorithm generated from” requirement of the subject ‘000 patent
`
`claims. The Board found that Lemelson discloses training a neural network with
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`“known inputs.” (Paper 16, Board Decision at 31-32.) From that, the Board only
`
`stated that “Lemelson discloses algorithms that are trained using known inputs to
`
`identify and differentiate the types of radiation received.” (Id. at 32). Since the
`
`Board and Toyota do not point to any particular disclosure in Lemelson that
`
`discloses the nature of these known inputs, the basis for this statement must rest
`
`upon application of the doctrine of inherency with respect to the disclosure of, for
`
`example, a “pattern recognition algorithm generated from data of possible exterior
`
`objects and patterns of received electromagnetic illumination from the possible
`
`exterior objects.” (See Exhibit 1001, ‘000 patent at claims 10, 11, 19, and 23.)
`
`Inherency, however, requires that a claimed limitation be “necessarily” and
`
`“inevitably” present. See Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d
`
`1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Inherent” anticipation is appropriate only when the
`
`prior art necessarily includes a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed.). It
`
`is not enough that a claim limitation was possibly or probably present in a prior art
`
`reference. See Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, LLC., 178 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999) (invalidity based on inherency is not established by mere “probabilities or
`
`possibilities”). See also, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Case IPR2012-
`
`00026 (PTAB, Feb. 19, 2014) (“A finding of anticipation by inherency requires
`
`more than probabilities or possibilities. Based on the evidence discussed above, it
`
`is possible to infer that Perlman describes such permanent storage memory.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`However, Microsoft has not presented evidence that the computers or routers
`
`described by Perlman necessarily use permanent storage memory as recited in
`
`claims 1 and 3.”).
`
`Here, the only way that Lemelson could inherently disclose, for example, a
`
`“pattern recognition algorithm generated from data of possible exterior objects and
`
`patterns of received electromagnetic illumination from the possible exterior
`
`objects,” would be if the “known inputs” referenced in Lemelson necessarily
`
`included “data of possible exterior objects and patterns of received waves from the
`
`possible exterior objects.”
`
`Further, it is not enough to merely show that Lemelson discloses a “trained
`
`pattern recognition algorithm” when there are numerous different ways to generate
`
`such an algorithm, which are not taught in Lemelson, other than the manner
`
`required by the claims. The ‘000 patent claims do not just claim a “pattern
`
`recognition algorithm,” period. The added requirement that the algorithm be
`
`“generated from data of possible exterior objects and patterns of received
`
`electromagnetic illumination from the possible exterior objects” must be also
`
`disclosed in the prior art for there to be anticipation.
`
`the claim
`inherently disclose
`Lemelson does not
`limitation—it could have
`involved generating
`the
`algorithm with simulated data
`
`c.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`Lemelson does not inherently disclose the claimed manner of generating a
`
`pattern recognition algorithm because there are several other ways that Lemelson
`
`could have generated its pattern recognition algorithm, although Lemelson does
`
`not teach any of these ways. First, the system in Lemelson could have been
`
`generated using completely simulated data, rather than data from possible exterior
`
`objects and patterns of
`
`received waves
`
`(e.g.,
`
`received electromagnetic
`
`illumination) from the possible exterior objects. (See Exhibit 2002, Koutsougeras
`
`Decl. at ¶¶ 60-64.)
`
`Simulated data is data that does not include any “patterns of electromagnetic
`
`illumination from the possible exterior objects” or “patterns of received radiation
`
`from the possible sources” of radiation. (Id.) Rather, it is generated by computer
`
`programs that simulate what sensors would be reading if they were detecting an
`
`object. (Id.) As Professor Koutsougeras explains, “[s]imulated data is therefore
`
`not data from objects or patterns of waves from objects—it is completely made-up
`
`data.” (Id. at ¶ 58.) In his declaration, he explains that as an analogy, simulated
`
`data is similar to a movie made with actors versus a cartoon. The cartoon would
`
`provide a rough approximation for what a person is expected to look like, but not
`
`nearly as accurate as a video with a real actor. (See id. at ¶ 59.)
`
`Professor Koutsougeras also explains that using simulated data for
`
`generating a pattern recognition algorithm for a vehicle could very well have been
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`IPR2013-00424
`the “known inputs” referenced by Lemelson, although Lemelson is silent as the
`
`known inputs. (See id. at ¶¶ 57-64.)
`
`Professor Koutsougeras also discusses how the use of simulated data for
`
`training a neural network was used in other contexts or fields. For example, he
`
`cites to U.S. Pat. No. 5,537,327, which involved the use of a trained neural
`
`network to detect impedance faults on a power line. (See Exhibit 2002,
`
`Koutsougeras Decl. at ¶ 60.) That patent included claim 4 “wherein said neural
`
`network training is accomplished by the use of simulated data.” (See Exhibit 2004,
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,537,327 at claims 1 and 4) (emphasis added).
`
`One reason why the “known inputs” of Lemelson may have been simulated
`
`data is because
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
