UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 5,845,000
`Issue Date: December 1, 1998
`Title: OPTICAL IDENTIFICATION AND MONITORING SYSTEM USING
`PATTERN RECOGNITION FOR USE WITH VEHICLES
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,845,000
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00424
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ........................................................ 1
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ............................................. 1
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ....................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) .................... 2
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ......................................................... 2
`II.
`III. Requirements For IPR (37 C.F.R. § 42.104) ............................................... 3
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ............................................. 3
`B.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and
`Relief Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) ................................................... 3
`C.
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ............................................ 6
`Summary of the ’000 Patent ...................................................................... 14
`IV.
`V. How Challenged Claims are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. §§
`42.104(b)(4)-(5)) ......................................................................................... 16
`A. Ground 1: Claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 are
`Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) By Lemelson ................................. 16
`Ground 2: Claims 10, 11, 19, and 23 are Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Lemelson in View of Asayama ............................... 30
`C. Ground 3: Claims 10, 11, 19, and 23 are Anticipated Under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) By Pomerleau ................................................................ 32
`D. Ground 4: Claims 16, 17, and 20 are Anticipated Under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(a) By Mizukoshi ...................................................................... 41
`E. Ground 5: Claims 16, 17, and 20 are Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Mizukoshi In View of the Knowledge
`of One of Ordinary Skill ............................................................................... 49
`Ground 6: Claims 16 and 17 are Anticipated Under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b) By Yanagawa ...................................................................... 50
`G. Ground 7: Claims 16 and 17 are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) Over Yanagawa In View of the Knowledge of One
`of Ordinary Skill ............................................................................................ 56
`
`B.
`
`F.
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`I.
`
`H. Ground 8: Claims 16, 17, and 20 are Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Yanagawa in View of Lemelson ............................. 57
`Ground 9: Claim 20 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Over Yanagawa In View of Mizukoshi ...................................................... 59
`VI. Conclusion ................................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1001
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,845,000 to Breed
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,553,130 to Lemelson
`
`File History of U.S. App. No. 08/105,304 to Lemelson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,214,408 to Asayama
`
`Pomerleau, Dean, “Neural Networking Perception for
`Mobile Robot Guidance,” CMU-CS-92-115, AD-A249927,
`February 16, 1992
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication JP-
`H06-267303 to Mizukoshi
`
`Certified English Translation of Japanese Unexamined
`Patent Application Publication JP-H06-267303 to
`Mizukoshi
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication JP-
`S62-131837 to Yanagawa
`
`Certified English Translation of Japanese Unexamined
`Patent Application Publication JP-S62-131837 to Yanagawa
`
`File History of U.S. App. No. 08/247,760 to Breed
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,057 to Breed
`
`Infringement Contentions of American Vehicular Sciences
`LLC with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,845,000 in the
`litigation captioned American Vehicular Sciences LLC v.
`Toyota Motor Corporation et al., 12-cv-00406 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. Part 42, real party in interest,
`
`Toyota Motor Corporation (“Toyota” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) of claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,845,000
`
`(“the ’000 patent”), filed June 7, 1995 and issued December 1, 1998 to David S.
`
`BREED, and currently assigned to American Vehicular Sciences LLC (“AVS” or “the
`
`Patent Owner”) according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“the US PTO”)
`
`assignment records. For the reasons set forth below, there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in this Petition.
`
`I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`A. Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Petitioner, Toyota, is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’000 patent is currently the subject of the following litigations: American
`
`Vehicular Sciences LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., No. 6:12-CV-406 (E.D. Tex.) (“AVS
`
`406 Litigation”); American Vehicular Sciences LLC v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int’l, Inc., Case
`
`No. 6:13-CV-308 (E.D. Tex.); and American Vehicular Sciences LLC v. BMW Group,
`
`Case No. 6:12-CV-413 (E.D. Tex.). Petitioner is a named defendant in the AVS 406
`
`Litigation. The earliest that Petitioner or any of its subsidiaries was served with the
`
`complaint was July 26, 2012. This Petition is also being filed with IPR2013-00419, -
`
`00420, -00421, -00422 and -00423, which address patents that were asserted against
`
`Toyota in a related case: American Vehicular Sciences LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., 12-
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CV-410 (E.D. Tex.) (“AVS 410 Litigation”). Petitioner is not aware of any other
`
`pending judicial or administrative matter that would affect, or be affected by, a
`
`decision in this proceeding.
`
`C.
`Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`Lead Counsel:
`Matt Berkowitz (Reg. No. 57,215)
`
`Back-up Counsel: Thomas R. Makin (pro hac to be requested upon authorization)
`
`Petitioner requests authorization to file a motion for Thomas R. Makin to
`
`appear pro hac vice as backup counsel. Mr. Makin is an experienced litigation attorney
`
`in patent cases, admitted to practice law in New York, and in several United States
`
`District Courts and Courts of Appeal. Mr. Makin has an established familiarity with
`
`the subject matter at issue and represents Petitioner as a defendant in the related AVS
`
`406 Litigation, identified above.
`
`Electronic Service Information: ptab@kenyon.com and mberkowitz@kenyon.com
`
`Post and Delivery: Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, One Broadway, New York, NY 10004
`
`Telephone: 212-425-7200 Facsimile: 212-425-5288
`
`II.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`The US PTO is authorized to charge the filing fee for this Petition, as well as
`
`any other fees that may be required in connection with this petition or these
`
`proceedings on behalf of Petitioner, to the deposit account of Kenyon & Kenyon
`
`LLP, Deposit Account 11-0600.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`III. Requirements For IPR (37 C.F.R. § 42.104)
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the ’000 patent (Ex. 1001), is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
`Petitioner challenges claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 of the ’000 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 on the grounds set forth below. Cancellation of these
`
`claims is requested.
`
`The ’000 patent (Ex. 1001) was filed as U.S. Patent App. No. 08/474,786 on
`
`June 7, 1995 and is identified as a continuation-in-part of a chain of applications, the
`
`earliest of which is U.S. Patent App. No. 878,571, which was filed May 5, 1992 and is
`
`abandoned. The ’000 patent is also identified as a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent
`
`App. No. 08/247,760 filed on May 23, 1994. In the AVS 406 litigation, AVS
`
`contended that the earliest priority date available for claims 10, 11, 19, and 23 is May
`
`23, 1994, and that the earliest priority date available for claims 16, 17, and 20 is June 7,
`
`1995. Accordingly, Petitioner contends that claims 10, 11, 19, and 23 are not entitled
`
`to a priority date earlier than May 23, 1994, and that claims 16, 17, and 20 are not
`
`entitled to a priority date earlier than June 7, 1995.
`
`Petitioner relies on the following patents and publications. None of them were
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`of record during prosecution of the ’000 patent.
`
`1) U.S. Patent No. 6,553,130 (“Lemelson,” Ex. 1002) issued on April 22, 2003 from
`
`U.S. Appl. No. 08/671,853 (“’853 app.”), filed on June 28, 1996. The ’853 application
`
`is a continuation of U.S. Appl. No. 08/105,304 (“’304 app.,” Ex. 1003), which was
`
`filed on Aug. 11, 1993. As indicated where applicable throughout this petition, the
`
`originally filed specification of the ’304 app. contains the same relevant disclosure as
`
`that of Lemelson. Therefore, Lemelson qualifies as prior art against the ’000 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23.
`
`2) U.S. Patent No. 5,214,408 to Asayama (“Asayama,” Ex. 1004) was filed on Oct. 24,
`
`1991, and issued on May 25, 1993. It qualifies as prior art against the ’000 patent
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for claims 10, 11, 19 and 23, and under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) for claims 16, 17, and 20.
`
`3) Pomerleau, D., “Neural Network Perception for Mobile Robot Guidance,” Ph. D.
`
`Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU-CS-92-115, AD-A249927, February 16,
`
`1992 (“Pomerleau,” Ex. 1005). Pomerleau was unclassified and published by the
`
`Defense Technical Information Center by May 12, 1992, as evidenced by the date-
`
`stamp on p. 1. It qualifies as prior art against the ’000 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`for claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23.
`
`4) Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. H06-267303 to
`
`Mizukoshi (“Mizukoshi,” Ex. 1006) published Sept. 22, 1994, and therefore qualifies
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`as prior art against the ’000 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) for at least claims 16, 17
`
`and 20. Mizukoshi was published in Japanese. Pursuant to 35 C.F.C. § 42.63(b), an
`
`English translation and associated affidavit accompanies this Petition as Exhibit 1007.
`
`5) Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. S62-131837 to
`
`Yanagawa (“Yanagawa,” Ex. 1008) published June 15, 1987, and qualifies as prior art
`
`against the ’000 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Yanagawa was published in
`
`Japanese. Pursuant to 35 C.F.C. § 42.63(b), an English translation and associated
`
`affidavit accompanies this Petition as Exhibit 1009.
`
`
`
`Petitioner requests that claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 23 be cancelled on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`1: Claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by
`
`Lemelson.
`
`2: Claims 10, 11, 19 and 23 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lemelson in
`
`view of Asayama.
`
`3: Claims 10, 11, 19 and 23 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Pomerleau.
`
`4: Claims 16, 17 and 20 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Mizukoshi.
`
`5: Claims 16, 17 and 20 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mizukoshi in view
`
`of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`6: Claims 16 and 17 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Yanagawa.
`
`7: Claims 16 and 17 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yanagawa in view of
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`8: Claims 16, 17 and 20 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yanagawa in view
`
`of Lemelson.
`
`9: Claim 20 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yanagawa in view of Mizukoshi.
`
`C.
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`A claim subject to IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`the specification of the patent in which it appears.” (37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).) The
`
`words of the claim are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless that
`
`meaning is inconsistent with the specification. (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1989).) Several claim terms, however, are defined in the specification or
`
`otherwise require further explanation. Unless explicitly discussed below, Petitioner
`
`contends that the claim terms should carry their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`1.
`“pattern recognition algorithm” (claims 10, 16)
`The ’000 patent defines “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 one of a set of classes that the object belongs to. Such a
`
`system might determine only that the object is or is not a member of one specified
`
`class, or it might attempt to assign the object to one of a larger class set of specified
`
`classes, or find that it is not a member of any of the classes in the set.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`3:21-28.) During prosecution of U.S. App No. 08/247,760 (“’760 app.”), to which
`
`the ’000 patent claims priority, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences held
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`that a “pattern recognition” system “determines whether or not an object is a member
`
`of but a single particular class.” (’760 app., Ex. 1010, pp. 188-189.) This definition
`
`should apply for purpose of this petition.
`
`Also, the ’000 patent indicates that a “neural network” is a type of pattern
`
`recognition system. (Ex. 1001, 3:32-36.) In U.S. Patent No. 6,772,057, which claims
`
`priority to the ’000 patent and which is the subject of another co-pending IPR petition
`
`filed by Petitioner (Case No. IPR2013-00419), “pattern recognition” is further defined
`
`to include “sensor fusion, fuzzy logic, etc.” (Ex. 1011, 4:43-46.) Accordingly, under
`
`the broadest reasonable construction, a “pattern recognition algorithm” is met by
`
`disclosure of a neural network, fuzzy logic or sensor fusion.
`
`2.
`
`“trained pattern recognition means for processing said
`electronic signal based on said received [claim 10:
`illumination from said exterior object to provide an
`identification of said exterior object][claim 16: received
`radiation to provide an identification of the source of the
`radiation] based thereon, said pattern recognition means
`being structured and arranged to apply a pattern recognition
`algorithm . . .” (claims 10, 16)
`The claim terms “trained pattern recognition means . . .” are written in means
`
`plus function format. (35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.) The specification states that a “neural
`
`computer” performs a pattern recognition determination based on signals received
`
`from receivers. (Ex. 1001, 18:36-38.) A “neural computer,” and equivalents thereof,
`
`should therefore be considered corresponding structure for purposes of this petition.
`
`The specification states that a “neural network” is the “most successful” “trained
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`pattern recognition system.” (Id. at 3:32-36.)
`
`The specification also states that a “microprocessor” can be used to implement
`
`a neural network (id. at 17:3-21; see also id. at 5:2-5), albeit not specifically for exterior
`
`object recognition. Such a “microprocessor,” and equivalents thereof, should be
`
`considered a corresponding structure (under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)), particularly since
`
`AVS has applied it in that manner in the AVS 406 Litigation. (Ex. 1012, p. 62 (“To
`
`the extent this element is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6, AVS identifies the collision
`
`determining computer or other processor . . .”) (emphasis added).) The stated
`
`functions of the “trained pattern recognition means . . .” terms should carry their plain
`
`and ordinary meaning except as otherwise stated herein with respect to
`
`“identification” and “pattern recognition algorithm.”
`
`3.
`“identify” / “identification” (claims 10, 16, 23)
`The ’000 patent defines “identify” to mean “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.” (Ex. 1001, 3:38-45.) This definition
`
`should apply for purposes of this Petition.
`
`4.
`
`“transmitter means for transmitting electromagnetic waves
`to illuminate the at least one exterior object” (claim 10)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`The claim term “transmitter means” is written in means plus function format.
`
`(35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.) The specification states that an “infrared transmitter,” “radar,”
`
`or “laser radar” can perform the claimed function of “transmitting electromagnetic
`
`waves to illuminate the at least one exterior object.” (Ex. 1001, 18:16-27; 18:28-46;
`
`18:61-19:22.) This structure, and equivalents thereof, should apply for purposes of
`
`this Petition. The stated function should carry its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`5.
`
`“reception means for receiving [claim 10: reflected
`electromagnetic illumination from the at least one exterior
`object][claim 16: electromagnetic radiation from the exterior
`of the vehicle]” (claims 10, 16)
`The “reception means” terms are written in means plus function format. (35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.) The specification states that an infrared receiver, radar, laser radar
`
`or CCD transducers can perform the claimed function of “receiving reflected
`
`electromagnetic illumination from the at least one exterior object” and “receiving
`
`electromagnetic radiation from the exterior of the vehicle.” (Ex. 1001, 18:16-46;
`
`18:61-19:21.) A charge coupled device or CCD is “a type of TV camera.” (Id. at 5:37-
`
`39.) Therefore, TV cameras are within the scope of the “reception means” limitation.
`
`This structure, and equivalents thereof, should apply for purposes of this Petition.
`
`The stated functions should carry their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`6.
`
`“processor means . . . for processing [claim 10: said received
`illumination and creating an electronic signal characteristic
`of said exterior object based thereon][claim 16: the received
`radiation and creating an electronic signal characteristic of
`the received radiation]” (claims 10, 16)
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`The “processor means . . .” terms are written in means plus function format.
`
`(35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.) The specification discloses an “electronic module” that
`
`“contains circuitry 742 to drive transmitter 730 and circuitry 744 to process the
`
`returned signals from receivers 734 and 736 (FIG. 7A).” (Ex. 1001, 18:33-36.) As
`
`further described, “[c]ircuitry 744 contains a neural computer 745 which performs the
`
`pattern recognition determination based on signals from receivers 734 and 736.” (Id.
`
`at 18:36-38.) Therefore, the corresponding structure of “processor means . . .” should
`
`include “electronic modules, circuitry, and neural computers” and equivalents thereof.
`
`This structure should further include “[a]pplication-specific integrated [c]ircuit[s],”
`
`“CPU[s]” and “other similar circuitry or controller[s]” because AVS has applied it in
`
`this manner in the AVS 406 Litigation. (Ex. 1012, pp. 55; 72; 104; 107 (“To the
`
`extent this element is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, AVS identifies the Application
`
`Specific Integrated Circuit and CPU (or other similar circuitry and controller . . . .”).)
`
`The stated functions should carry their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`7.
`
`“categorization means . . . [claim 10: to identify said exterior
`object][claim 16: to identify a source of the radiation], said
`categorization means comprising trained pattern recognition
`means” (claims 10, 16)
`The “categorization means . . .” claim terms are written in means plus function
`
`format. (35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.) The specification is silent with regards to a description
`
`of a separate categorization means structure in the context of exterior monitoring for
`
`performing either of the aforementioned functions. However, the claimed
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`categorization means comprises “trained pattern recognition means” which should be
`
`construed to include a neural computer, neural network and microprocessor (as well
`
`as equivalents thereof) as described above in § III.C.2. This structure, and equivalents
`
`thereof, should apply for purposes of this Petition. The stated functions should carry
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning except as otherwise set forth herein with respect to
`
`“identify” and “trained pattern recognition means.”
`
`8.
`
`“output means . . .[claim 10: for affecting another system in
`the vehicle in response to the identification of said exterior
`object][claim 16: for dimming the headlights in said vehicle
`in response to the identification of the source of the
`radiation]” (claims 10, 16)
`The “output means” claim terms are written in means plus function format.
`
`(35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.) Claim 10 requires “output means” to perform the function of
`
`“affecting another system in the vehicle in response to the identification of said
`
`exterior object.” Claim 16 requires “output means” to perform the function of
`
`“dimming the headlights in said vehicle in response to the identification of the source
`
`of the radiation.”
`
`In the context of claim 10, the specification discloses both a display and a
`
`warning system. In the AVS 406 Litigation, AVS has also asserted that the
`
`corresponding structure includes seatbelt retraction and braking. (See, e.g., Ex. 1012, p.
`
`75 (“To the extent this element is governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6, AVS identifies the
`
`inherent controller or other component that based on the determination that a
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`collision is imminent is able to cause these vehicle response systems (giving an
`
`audible and visible warning to the driver, retracting the front seatbelts,
`
`initiating the pre-crash brake assist, and initiating the pre-crash brake) to
`
`activate.”)(emphasis added).) These structures, and equivalents thereof, should apply
`
`under the broadest reasonable construction. The stated function should carry its plain
`
`and ordinary meaning except as otherwise stated herein (with respect to
`
`“identification”).
`
`In the context of claim 16, the specification teaches that the “pattern
`
`recognition system is trained to recognize the pattern of the headlights of an
`
`oncoming vehicle or the tail lights of a vehicle in front of vehicle 810 and to then dim
`
`the headlights . . . .” (Ex. 1001, 19:35-38.) Therefore, any part of a “pattern
`
`recognition system,” including a “processor” (and equivalents thereof), should be
`
`considered to be corresponding structure for the function of “dimming the
`
`headlights.” Additionally, in the AVS 406 Litigation, AVS has applied the term to
`
`cover a “sensing ECU or other controller.” (See, e.g., Ex. 1012, p. 87 (“To the extent
`
`this element is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6, AVS identifies the Sensing ECU or
`
`other controller that based on the determination that a vehicle is in the driver’s
`
`path is able to cause these headlights to dim[.]” (emphasis added).) These
`
`structures, and equivalents thereof, should apply under the broadest reasonable
`
`construction. The stated functions should carry their plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`except as otherwise set forth herein with respect to “identification” and “dimming the
`
`headlights.”
`
`9.
`
`“measurement means for measuring the distance from the at
`least one exterior object to said vehicle, said measurement
`means comprising radar” (claim 11)
`The claim term “measurement means” is written in means plus function
`
`format. (35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.) Claim 11 further requires that a measurement means
`
`comprises a radar for performing the function of “measuring the distance from the at
`
`least one exterior object to said vehicle.” Therefore, “measurement means” should be
`
`construed to include radar and equivalents thereof under the broadest reasonable
`
`construction. The stated function should carry its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`10.
`“dimming the headlights” (claim 16)
`The specification does not provide any definition of “dimming the headlights,”
`
`but Petitioner discusses it here to presage the “broadest reasonable construction” of
`
`the term’s plain and ordinary meaning applied below. The specification does not
`
`discuss the difference between vehicle low beams or high beams such that dimming
`
`could arguably be limited to just switching from high to low. Rather, it simply refers
`
`to headlights generally. Accordingly, Petitioner contends that “dimming the
`
`headlights” covers any reduction (or any complete elimination) of headlight output.
`
`11.
`
`“wherein said categories further comprise radiation from
`taillights of a vehicle-in-front” (claim 17)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`The phrase “said categories” finds no antecedent basis in claim 16 (from which
`
`claim 17 depends). Nor is there a first category identified in claim 16 such that the
`
`“categories” of claim 17 could “further comprise” anything additional. Nevertheless,
`
`one reasonable way to interpret claim 17, which should apply under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100 for purposes of this Petition, is that a “category” (or categories) created by the
`
`“categorization means” of claim 16 “comprise[s] radiation from taillights of a vehicle-
`
`in-front.” In other words, the claim limitation is met if any category created by the
`
`“categorization means” includes taillight radiation. Because the word “comprise” is
`
`used, the limitation is open-ended and is met even if that “category” includes
`
`additional types of radiation (for example, a category consisting of both taillight and
`
`headlight radiation). In other words, it is immaterial for purposes of claim 17 whether
`
`the category includes just taillight radiation, or taillight radiation plus other types of
`
`radiation such as from headlights (i.e., all types of vehicle lights grouped together).
`
`IV. Summary of the ’000 Patent
`The ’000 patent is generally directed to monitoring the exterior and interior of a
`
`vehicle and affecting a vehicle subsystem in response to the identification of an object.
`
`(Ex. 1001, Abstract.) The claims at issue in this Petition only relate to exterior
`
`monitoring. The monitoring systems include various transmitters and receivers to
`
`sense the vehicle’s exterior including cameras, ultrasonic waves, radar or laser radar
`
`(lidar). (Id. at Abstract; 7:25-8:56.) In one embodiment, the circuitry “contains a
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`neural computer 745 which performs the pattern recognition determination based on
`
`signals from receivers 734 and 746.” (Id. at 18:36-38.)
`
`The ’000 patent also discloses a system for use in “detecting the headlights of
`
`an oncoming vehicle or the tail lights of a vehicle in front of vehicle” and dimming
`
`them in response thereto. (Id. at 19:26-38.) This system uses “trained pattern
`
`recognition algorithms,” particularly “the artificial neural network.” (Id. at 19:31-33.)
`
`The specification further enumerates three techniques that are used to dim the
`
`headlights: “(i) measurement of the spacing of the light sources, (ii) determination of
`
`the location of the light sources relative to the vehicle, and (iii) use of a red filter
`
`where the brightness of the light source through the filter is compared with the
`
`brightness of the unfiltered light.” (Id. at 19:42-47.) The specification does not
`
`disclose any other methods of identifying vehicle headlights or taillights.
`
`Petitioner challenges three independent claims, claims 10, 16 and 23.
`
`Independent claim 10 relates to a system for transmitting electromagnetic
`
`waves outside of a vehicle, receiving the reflected waves, processing the received
`
`electromagnetic radiation, and utilizing a categorization means comprising “trained
`
`pattern recognition means” to apply a “pattern recognition algorithm” to identify the
`
`exterior object. Claim 10 also requires output means to affect another vehicle system
`
`in response to the identification of the exterior object.
`
`Independent claim 16 is similar to claim 10, except that it does not require a
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`transmitter, and it is directed to affecting a particular vehicle system, the headlights.
`
`In particular, claim 16 requires a receiver to receive electromagnetic radiation, and a
`
`processing and categorization means comprising a trained pattern recognition means
`
`applying a pattern recognition algorithm to identify the source of the radiation.
`
`Independent claim 23 is essentially claim 10 rewritten as a method claim, except
`
`that claim 23 does not require “trained” pattern recognition; it requires “generating a
`
`pattern recognition algorithm from data of possible exterior objects and patterns of
`
`received electromagnetic illumination from the possible exterior objects, storing the
`
`algorithm within a pattern recognition system and applying the pattern recognition
`
`algorithm using the electronic signal as input to obtain the identification of the
`
`exterior object.”
`
`V. How Challenged Claims are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4)-(5))
`A. Ground 1: Claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 are Anticipated Under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) By Lemelson
`Claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 of the ’000 patent are anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) by Lemelson (Ex. 1002).1
`
`Lemelson relates to an exterior monitoring system for identifying objects
`
`outside of a moving vehicle and affecting a vehicle subsystem in response to that
`
`identification. (Ex. 1002, Abstract; 2:14-23; 2:53-3:39; 5:15-18; Fig. 1; Ex. 1003,
`
`1
`As noted above, Lemelson is a continuation of the ’304 app. (Ex. 1003).
`
`Parallel cites are provided to the ’304 app for showing disclosure continuity.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Abstract; pp. 7-10; 12; Fig. 1.)
`
`Figure 1 of Lemelson, reproduced below, depicts many aspects of the
`
`challenged claims, including, for example, a radar/lidar computer 14 for locating an
`
`exterior object based on received radar or lidar signals that includes both
`
`electromagnetic radiation emitters and receivers, camera receiver 16 to receive waves
`
`emitted from or reflected by objects in the exterior environment, a processor 19 for
`
`classifying and identifying exterior objects, and vehicle systems 33, 36, 41, and 42 that
`
`are affected depending on the identified exterior objects including a vehicle’s
`
`headlight system. (Ex. 1002, Fig. 1; 5:31-6:8; Ex. 1003, pp. 12-14.)
`
`
`
`Lemelson anticipates independent claim 10. First, as required by claim 10, the
`
`system of Lemelson utilizes a “transmitter means for transmitting electromagnetic
`
`waves to illuminate the at least one exterior object,” particularly the vehicle’s
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`“headlights.” (Ex. 1002, 3:29; 5:57; Ex. 1003, pp. 9; 13.) One of ordinary skill would
`
`have understood that headlights are at least an equivalent of the “infrared transmitter”
`
`structure described in the specification (see § III.C) because ordinary commercial
`
`headlights at the time that Lemelson was filed (and at the time the ’304 app. was filed)
`
`would have emitted infrared waves. (Ex. 1013, ¶ 52.) This is also true since Lemelson
`
`discloses “infrared imaging,” indicating that it was equipped to receive infrared waves
`
`(including those transmitted by headlights).
`
`Second, Lemelson discloses the “reception means . . .” limitation required by
`
`claim 10. Specifically, Lemelson discloses TV cameras that are preferably CCD arrays.
`
`(Ex. 1002, 5:31; 6:31-32; Ex.