`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`v.
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 5,845,000
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE BY PATENT OWNER
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`Before: Administrative Patent Judge Jameson Lee
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ʼ000 PATENT ............................................................ 2 
`
`III.  OVERVIEW OF THE PETITION ................................................................. 3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`The Prior Art ........................................................................................ 3 
`
`Toyota Statements Regarding Mandatory Notices .............................. 4 
`
`Toyota Statements Regarding Standing ............................................... 4 
`
`Toyota Asserted Challenges And Requested Relief ............................ 5 
`
`Toyota’s Statement Regarding The ʼ000 patent................................... 7 
`
`1.
` 
`
`2.
` 
`
`Effective Filing Date of The ʼ000 patent ................................... 7 
`
`Claim Construction .................................................................... 7 
`
`IV.  REASONS WHY INTER PARTES REVIEW SHOULD NOT BE
`INSTITUTED ............................................................................................... 27 
`
`A.  Ground 1: Lemelson Does Not Anticipate Claims 10, 11, 16,
`17, 19, 20 And 23 ............................................................................... 29 
`
`1.
` 
`
`2.
` 
`
`3.
` 
`
`Lemelson Does Not Disclose The Claimed Transmitter
`Means ....................................................................................... 29 
`
`Lemelson Does Not Disclose Reception Means ...................... 32 
`
`Lemelson Does Not Disclose A Pattern Recognition
`Algorithm Generated From Patterns of Received
`Electromagnetic Illumination From Possible Exterior
`Objects ..................................................................................... 33 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`Ground 2: The Combination Of Lemelson And Asayama Does
`Not Render Claims 10, 11, 19, And 23 Obvious ............................... 34 
`
`C. 
`
`Ground 3: Pomerleau Does Not Anticipate Claims 10, 11, 19,
`And 23 ................................................................................................ 35 
`
`D.  Ground 4: Mizukoshi Does Not Anticipate Claims 16, 17 and
`20 ........................................................................................................ 37 
`
`E. 
`
`Ground 5: The Combination Of Mizukoshi And Alleged
`Knowledge Of One Of Ordinary Skill Does Not Render Claims
`16, 17, And 20 Obvious ..................................................................... 41 
`
`F. 
`
`Ground 6: Yanagawa Does Not Anticipate Claims 16 And 17 ......... 44 
`
`G.  Ground 7: The Combination Of Yanagawa And Alleged
`Knowledge Of One Of Ordinary Skill Does Not Render Claims
`16 And 17 Obvious............................................................................. 45 
`
`H.  Ground 8: The Combination Of Yanagawa And Lemelson Does
`Not Render Claims 16, 17, And 20 Obvious ..................................... 47 
`
`I. 
`
`Ground 9: The Combination Of Yanagawa And Mizukoshi
`Does Not Render Claim 20 Obvious .................................................. 48 
`
`V. 
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 49 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES 
`Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................... 24
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ........................................................................................... 28
`
`IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc.,
`206 F.3d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ..................................................................... 26
`
`In re Bond,
`910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ......................................... 27
`
`In re Grasselli,
`713 F.2d. 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................ 35
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 28
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) .................................................................. 27, 28
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970) ...................................... 27
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)....................................................................................... 28
`
`KSR, 550 U.S. 398 at 418 ........................................................................................ 28
`
`O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co.,
`115 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ..................................................................... 26
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................. 27
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................ 27
`
`Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1075, (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 28
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628, 2 USPQ2d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ........................................... 27
`
`STATUTES 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .................................................................................... 5, 6, 37, 41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .............................................................................................. 5, 35
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ............................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §112(f) ............................................................................................. passim
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES 
`
`MPEP § 2111 ...................................................................................................... 8, 28
`
`MPEP § 2111.01 ........................................................................................................ 8
`
`MPEP § 2121.01 ...................................................................................................... 11
`
`MPEP § 2131 ........................................................................................................... 28
`
`MPEP § 2143.03 ............................................................................................... 28, 29
`
`MPEP § 2145(X)(D)(2) ........................................................................................... 36
`
`MPEP 2111.01 ......................................................................................................... 24
`
`REGULATIONS 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`iv
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`American Vehicular Sciences LLC (“American”) submits the following
`
`preliminary response to the Petition filed by Toyota Motor Corporation (“Toyota”)
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,845,000 (“’000 patent”). This filing is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 because it is being filed within three months of the July 17,
`
`2013 mailing date of the Notice granting the Petition a July 12, 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 Toyota would
`
`prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged . . . .” 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a)(emphasis added). Here, the ’000 patent relates generally to an innovative
`
`system and method for monitoring objects outside of the vehicle in which the
`
`information related to the monitored objects can affect the operation of some
`
`systems in the vehicle. (See Ex. 1001 at Abstract.) Toyota cites to four allegedly
`
`anticipatory references. Two of those references (Lemelson and Pomerleau) fail to
`
`teach “transmitter means,” as recited by one of the challenged independent claims.
`
`Those two references also fail to teach “a pattern recognition algorithm generated
`
`from data of possible exterior objects and patterns of received electromagnetic
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`illumination from the possible exterior objects,” as recited in one challenged
`
`independent claim and similarly recited in another challenged independent claim.
`
`In addition, two of the other references (Mizukoshi and Yanagawa) fail to teach
`
`“trained pattern recognition means,” as recited in another one of the challenged
`
`independent claims. Other limitations are also missing from the references. And,
`
`the five obviousness rejections proposed by Toyota still fail to teach each
`
`limitation in the challenged independent claims. As such, and for additional
`
`reasons discussed below, none of Toyota’s proposed grounds for inter partes
`
`review gives rise to a reasonable likelihood that Toyota will prevail with respect to
`
`any of the challenged claims of the ’000 patent.
`
`American therefore respectfully submits that the Board should decline to
`
`institute inter partes review of the ’000 patent.1
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ʼ000 PATENT
`
`The subject claims of the ʼ000 patent are directed to a vehicle system and
`
`method for monitoring objects outside of the vehicle. The ’000 patent describes a
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`vehicle system that uses a “trainable or a trained pattern recognition system” which
`
`is a pattern recognition system that is taught by subjecting the system to a variety
`
`of examples. (See Ex. 1001 at 3:33-37.) Systems in the vehicle, for example, can
`
`be affected in response to the identification of an object or a source of radiation.
`
`(See, e.g., id. at 8:37-51.)
`
`The ʼ000 patent was filed June 7, 1995, as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`08/474,786 (“ʼ786 application”), and was issued on December 1, 1998. The ʼ786
`
`application was filed as a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`07/878,571 (“ʼ571 application”), which has a filing date of May 5, 1992; U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 08/040,978 (“first ʼ978 application”), which has a filing
`
`date of March 31, 1993; U.S. Patent Application No. 08/247,760 (“ʼ760
`
`application”), which has a filing date of May 23, 1994; and U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 08/239,978 (“second ʼ978 application”), which has a filing date of May 9,
`
`1994.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PETITION
`A. The Prior Art
`Toyota cites to the following references: U.S. Patent No. 6,553,130, to
`
`Lemelson et al. (“Lemelson”), which was filed as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`08/671,853 (“ʼ853 application”) on June 28, 1996 and issued on April 22, 2003;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,214,408, to Asayama (“Asayama”), which was filed on October
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`24, 1991 and issued on May 25, 1993; Dean Pomerleau, “Neural Networking
`
`Perception for Mobile Robot Guidance,” School of Computer Science, Carnegie
`
`Mellon University, CMU-CS-92-115, AD-A249927, February 16, 1992
`
`(“Pomerleau”); Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. JP-H06-
`
`267303 to Mizukoshi Masashi (“Mizukoshi”), which was published on September
`
`22, 1994; and Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. S62-
`
`131837 to Hirohiko Yanagawa et al. (“Yanagawa”), published June 15, 1987. (See
`
`Pet. at iii and 4-6.)
`
`Toyota Statements Regarding Mandatory Notices
`
`B.
`American notes Toyota’s statements regarding real party-in-interest, related
`
`matters, lead and back-up counsel (for Toyota), service information, and payment
`
`fees, as mandated by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8. (See Pet. at 1-2.) American takes no
`
`position at this time regarding Toyota’s statements in this regard, but expressly
`
`reserves the right to address and/or challenge these statements in the future should
`
`the need arise (e.g., if the statements become relevant and/or are determined to be
`
`erroneous).
`
`C. Toyota Statements Regarding Standing
`American notes Toyota’s statements regarding grounds for standing, as
`
`mandated by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a). (See Pet. at 3.) American takes no position at
`
`this point regarding Toyota’s statements in this regard, but expressly reserves the
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`right to address and/or challenge these statements in the future should the need
`
`arise (e.g., if the statements become relevant and/or are determined to be
`
`erroneous).
`
`D. Toyota Asserted Challenges And Requested Relief
`Toyota requests inter partes review (and cancellation) of claims 10, 11, 16,
`
`17, 19, 20, and 23 (“challenged claims”) of the ʼ000 patent on 9 different grounds
`
`of unpatentability (“Grounds 1-9”). (See Pet. at 5-6.) Specifically, Toyota has
`
`proposed the following grounds and rejections:
`
`Ground 1: Proposed cancellation of claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 for
`
`being allegedly anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Lemelson.
`
`Ground 2: Proposed cancellation of claims 10, 11, 19, and 23 for being
`
`allegedly obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Lemelson
`
`and Asayama.
`
`Ground 3: Proposed cancellation of claims 10, 11, 19, and 23 for being
`
`allegedly anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Pomerleau.
`
`Ground 4: Proposed cancellation of claims 16, 17, and 20 for being allegedly
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Mizukoshi.
`
`Ground 5: Proposed cancellation of claims 16, 17, and 20 for being allegedly
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Mizukoshi and
`
`alleged knowledge of one of ordinary skill.
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`Ground 6: Proposed cancellation of claims 16 and 17 for being allegedly
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Yanagawa.
`
`Ground 7: Proposed cancellation of claims 16 and 17 for being allegedly
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Yanagawa and
`
`alleged knowledge of one of ordinary skill.
`
`Ground 8: Proposed cancellation of claims 16 and 17 for being allegedly
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Yanagawa and
`
`Lemelson.
`
`Ground 9: Proposed cancellation of claim 20 for being allegedly obvious under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Yanagawa and Mizukoshi.
`
`In support of the asserted grounds, Toyota makes various statements
`
`regarding the ʼ000 patent, and cites certain prior art references (some of which
`
`were not of record). Further, Toyota presents claim charts along with additional
`
`explanation and support for each ground of unpatentability based on a declaration
`
`(Ex. 1013) by Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos, Ph.D., who Toyota cites as an expert.
`
`(See Pet. at iii; and Ex. 1013.) American addresses hereinafter some of Toyota’s
`
`statements with respect to the ʼ000 patent, the prior art references and other
`
`exhibits, and/or the grounds of unpatentability (see infra), and expressly reserves
`
`the right to address and/or challenge any and all remaining statements in the future
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`should the need arise (e.g., if the statements become relevant and/or are determined
`
`to be erroneous).
`
`E.
`
`Toyota’s Statement Regarding The ʼ000 patent
`
`1.
`American notes that the earliest application to which the ʼ000 patent claims
`
`Effective Filing Date of The ʼ000 patent
`
`benefit is the ʼ571 application, which has a filing date of May 5, 1992.
`
`Nonetheless, Toyota argues that, based on statements the Patent Owner made in a
`
`related litigation, priority for the challenged claims 10, 11, 19, and 23 may be
`
`claimed only back to the ʼ760 application, which was filed on May 23, 1994, and
`
`priority for the challenged claims 16, 17, and 20 may be claimed only back to the
`
`ʼ786 application, which was filed on June 7, 1995.
`
`American does not challenge the priority dates presumed by Toyota for the
`
`challenged claims at this time, but reserves the right to do so in the future if
`
`necessary.
`
`
`Claim Construction
`2.
`Toyota also presents proposed construction of several claim terms. (See Pet.
`
`at 6-14.)
`
` 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
`
`a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.”). Toyota
`
`claims to be relying on the ʼ000 patent specification, positions taken by American
`
`in litigation, or statements during prosecution. But in fact, Toyota’s claim
`
`constructions are in several instances unsupported, and depart from the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of straightforward claim terms. Toyota, for example, proposes
`
`certain constructions divorced from the language of the claim terms, and
`
`constructions that consist of complete re-writes of plain claim terms.
`
`American addresses herein some of Toyota’s statements, and expressly
`
`reserves the right to address and/or challenge any and all statements in the future
`
`should the need arise.
`
`a.
`
`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 Toyota notes, the ʼ000 patent expressly defines the term “pattern
`
`recognition” as “any system which processes a signal that is generated by an
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`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.”2 (See Pet. at 6, citing ʼ000 patent
`
`at 3:21-25.) A pattern recognition algorithm, therefore, is “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 ʼ760
`
`application. (See Pet. at 6.) 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. (See Ex. 1010 at 188-189,
`
`citing ʼ000 patent’s express definition of “pattern recognition.”)
`
`Additionally, however, Toyota seeks to read into the express definition an
`
`additional provision that given technologies are or are not a “pattern recognition
`
`algorithm.” That is, as an initial matter, not a matter for claim construction, but
`
`
`2 American notes that this express definition appears in the ʼ000 patent, but does
`
`not appear in 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 ’000 patent applies to that patent only and is not
`
`a limitation on other unrelated patents.
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`rather is something more properly done in the context of applying the claims to 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 ʼ000 patent provides examples of
`
`neural networks, fuzzy logic, or sensor fusion that constitute pattern recognition
`
`algorithms, but that does not mean that these always constitute a pattern
`
`recognition algorithm as contemplated by the ʼ000 patent. As an analogy, a pattern
`
`recognition algorithm can be computer software, but that does not mean that all
`
`computer software
`
`is a pattern recognition algorithm.
`
` Moreover, 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 ʼ000 patent. See, e.g., MPEP § 2121.01.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`b.
`
`for
`recognition means
`“Trained pattern
`processing said electronic signal based on said
`received illumination from said exterior object
`to provide an identification of said exterior
`object
`(claim 10)” and “trained pattern
`recognition means for processing said electronic
`signal based on received radiation to provide an
`identification of the source of the radiation
`based thereon” (claim 16)
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Claim Term(s)
`
`
`Claim 10: trained
`pattern recognition
`means for processing
`said electronic signal
`based on said
`received illumination
`from said exterior
`object to provide an
`identification of said
`exterior object
`
`Claim 16: trained
`pattern recognition
`means for processing
`said electronic signal
`based on received
`radiation to provide
`an identification of
`the source of the
`radiation based
`thereon
`
`Respondent American’s
`Correct Construction
`
`
`not §112(f)3 means plus
`function term
`
`Claim 10: trained pattern
`recognition algorithm for
`processing said electronic
`signal based on said
`received illumination from
`said exterior object to
`provide an identification of
`said exterior object
`
`Claim 16: trained pattern
`recognition algorithm for
`processing said electronic
`signal based on received
`radiation to provide an
`identification of the source
`of the radiation based
`thereon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Pursuant to the American Invents Act, §112, ¶ 6 has been amended to be §112(f).
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`The parties do not agree whether this claim term is a means-plus-function
`
`term. Although use of “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the limitation is means-plus-function to be construed according to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the presumption is rebutted if the claim recites sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts to perform the recited function. Cole v. Kimberly-Clark
`
`Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding “perforation means . . . for
`
`tearing” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim
`
`describes the structure supporting the tearing function (i.e., perforation)).
`
`Here, the “pattern recognition algorithm,” as recited in claims 10 and 16,
`
`respectively, is the recited structure that performs the recited function. Thus,
`
`“trained pattern recognition means” should not be construed under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(f). Further, 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
`
`Ex. 1001 at claims 10, 16.) The ʼ000 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 Ex. 1001
`
`at 3:32-35.)
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`c.
`
`“Identify”/ “identification” (claims 10, 16, 23)
`
`Respondent American’s
`Correct Construction
`
`
`To determine that the
`object belongs to a
`particular set or class.
`
`Claim Term(s)
`
`
`identify /
`identification
`
`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.
`
`
`Toyota correctly states that the ʼ000 patent specification expressly defines
`
`“identify” as “to determine that the object belongs to a particular set or class.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 3:37-38.) What follows, however, is merely argument as to whether a
`
`given situation is within the definition.
`
`d.
`
`transmitting
`for
`“Transmitter means
`electromagnetic waves to illuminate the at least
`one exterior object” (claim 10)
`
`Respondent American’s
`Correct Construction
`
`
`not § 112(f) means plus
`
`Petitioner Toyota’s
`Proposed Construction
`
` 112, ¶ 6 means plus
`13
`
`Claim Term
`
` §
`
`
`transmitter means for
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`transmitting
`electromagnetic
`waves to illuminate
`the at least one
`exterior object
`
`function term
`
`Claimed functions carry
`their ordinary meaning.
`
`Claimed structure is an
`infrared transmitter, radar,
`laser radar, or equivalents
`thereof.
`
`function term
`
`transmitter for transmitting
`electromagnetic waves to
`illuminate the at least one
`exterior object
`
`The parties do not agree whether this claim term is a means-plus-function
`
`term. Although use of “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the limitation is means-plus-function to be construed according to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the presumption is rebutted if the claim recites sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts to perform the recited function. Cole v. Kimberly-Clark
`
`Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding “perforation means . . . for
`
`tearing” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim
`
`describes the structure supporting the tearing function (i.e., perforation)).
`
`Here, the “transmitter” in “transmitter means” is the structure that performs
`
`the recited function, thereby taking “transmitter means” outside the scope of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112(f). Toyota asserts that “transmitter means” finds support in the
`
`specification of the ʼ000 patent at 18:16-27, 18:28-46, and 18:61-19:22. American
`
`agrees that the “transmitter” is supported, for example, in the specification of the
`
`ʼ000 patent at 18:16-27, 18:28-46, and 18:61-19:22 by disclosing an “infrared
`
`transmitter.” With respect to other embodiments, the ʼ000 patent discloses “radar”
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`and a “pulsed GaAs laser system.” (See Ex. 1001 at 18:61-19:22.) All three
`
`embodiments, however, are properly construed as transmitters that transmit
`
`electromagnetic waves that are primarily outside of the visible spectrum. Thus,
`
`“transmitter” should be further construed as a “transmitter that transmits
`
`electromagnetic waves that are primarily outside of the visible spectrum.”
`
`Notably, claim 10 is different from claim 16, which does encompass
`
`detection of visible light (e.g., tail-lights of a vehicle), because the light comes
`
`from an external source without any “transmitter” on the vehicle. The transmitter
`
`of claim 10, however, is contemplated by the ʼ000 patent as being used when the
`
`receiver is not sensitive to visible light. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 19:27-31 (“In this
`
`embodiment, the CCD array is designed to be sensitive to visible light and a
`
`separate source of illumination is not used.”).)
`
`e.
`
`for receiving reflected
`“Reception means
`electromagnetic illumination from the at least
`one exterior of the vehicle” (claim 10) or
`“reception means for receiving electromagnetic
`radiation from exterior of the vehicle” (claim
`16)
`
`Claim Term(s)
`
`
`Claim 10:
`Reception means
`for receiving
`reflected
`
`Petitioner Toyota’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`§112, ¶6 means plus
`function term
`
`Claimed functions
`
`Respondent American’s
`Correct Construction
`
`
`§112(f) means plus function
`term
`
`Claimed function: receiving
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`electromagnetic
`illumination from
`the at least one
`exterior of the
`vehicle”
`
`Claim 16:
`“reception means
`for receiving
`electromagnetic
`radiation from
`exterior of the
`vehicle”
`
`carry their ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Claimed structure is an
`infrared receiver, radar,
`laser radar, CCD
`transducers, as well as
`any TV camera.
`
`
`reflected electromagnetic
`illumination from the at least
`one exterior of the vehicle
`(claim 10) or receiving
`electromagnetic radiation from
`exterior of the vehicle (claim
`16).
`
`Claimed structure: a CCD
`transducer, or equivalents
`thereof.
`
`
`To the extent that Toyota asserts that “reception means” is written in means-
`
`plus-function format, American does not challenge that assertion at this time, but
`
`expressly reserves the right to do so in the future should the need arise. Toyota
`
`asserts that “receiver means” finds support in the specification of the ʼ000 patent at
`
`18:16-27, 18:28-46, and 18:61-19:22, and that the receiver can therefore be an
`
`infrared receiver, radar, laser radar, or CCD transducer. (See Pet. at 9.) Toyota’s
`
`arguments are incorrect and distort the ʼ000 patent. Contrary to Toyota’s
`
`arguments, there is no disclosure in the ʼ000 patent of an “infrared receiver,”
`
`“radar,” or “laser radar” as receivers. (See Ex. 1001 at 18:16-27, 18:28-46, and
`
`18:61-19:22.) The ʼ000 patent discloses, for example, that the receiver used in
`
`conjunction with a GaAs laser is a CCD transducer—the receiver is not the laser
`
`itself. (See id. at 5:31-39.) The same is true when an infrared transmitter or radar
`
`transmitter is used—the receiver is disclosed again as a CCD transducer, and not a
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Serial Number 5,845,000
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`more general “infrared receiver” or “radar receiver.” (See id. at 18:16-27 (“In this
`
`system, an infrared transmitter and CCD array receiver 6