NO: 4229l9US
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`LEROY G. HAGENBUCH,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2013-
`
`Patent US. 8,532,867
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`CLAIMS 15—26 OF US. PATENT NO. 8,532,867
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PO Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 223 13-1450
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. l
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`LEROY G. HAGENBUCH,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2013-
`
`Patent US. 8,532,867
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`CLAIMS 15—26 OF US. PATENT NO. 8,532,867
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PO Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 223 13-1450
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. l
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................... 1
`
`II.
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 2
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 2
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 3
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘867 PATENT ............................................................ 4
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`
`VI.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 7
`
`VII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW CHALLENGED CLAIMS 15—
`
`26 ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claims 15—20, 23, and 24 are Obvious Over Aoyanagi,
`Vollmer, and Steiner Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................... 8
`
`Claims 15—20, 23, and 24 are Obvious Over Aoyanagi,
`Vollmer, and Camhi Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................. 31
`
`Claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 are Obvious Over Aoyanagi,
`Vollmer, Steiner, and Fincham Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................. 44
`
`Claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 are Obvious Over Aoyanagi,
`Vollmer, Camhi, and Fincham Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................. 51
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 56
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 2
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Egg
`
`In re GPAC Inc,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................... 7
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................ 6
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ........................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Rules
`
`37 CPR. § 42.8 ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 CPR. § 42.22 ................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 CPR. § 42.100 .............................................................................................. 6
`
`37 CPR. § 42.104 .......................................................................................... 2, 8
`
`ii
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 3
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real Party-in—Interest: Toyota Motor Corporation (“Petitioner”)
`
`Related Matters: Patent Owner has asserted the US. Patent 8,532,867 (“the
`
`‘867 patent”) against a subsidiary of Petitioner in Hagenbuch v. Toyota Motor
`
`Sales, USA, Inc, No. 13-cv-6713 (ND. 111.). There are no patents or applications
`
`that claim the benefit of the filing date of the ‘867 patent.
`
`Petitioner is filing a petition for inter partes review challenging claims 1—14
`
`of the ‘867 patent. If the petitions for review of the ‘867 patent result in
`
`institution, Petitioner anticipates filing a motion for joinder.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner has filed two petitions for IPR challenging related
`
`US. Patent No. 8,014,917 (“the ‘917 patent”). See IPR2013-00483 and IPR2013-
`
`00638. To this end, the Board may wish to consider assigning all IPR proceedings
`
`for the ‘867 and ‘917 patents to a single panel of Administrative Patent Judges for
`
`administrative efficiency.
`
`
`Counsel: Lead Counsel: Robert C. Mattson (Registration No. 42,850)
`
`Backup Counsel: John S. Kern (Registration No. 42,719) and Thomas C.
`
`Yebernetsky (Registration No. 70,418).
`
`Service Information : Email : CPdocketMattson@oblon.com
`
`Post: Oblon Spivak, 1940 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Telephone: 703-412-6466
`
`Facsimile: 703-413-2220
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 4
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)—(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 15—26 of the ‘867 patent. The ‘867 patent claims priority to several
`
`applications, the earliest of which was filed on Feb. 15, 1994 (“the priority date”).
`
`(Ex. 1101, the ‘867 patent.)
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following patents and printed publications:
`
`Exhibit 1102 — Japanese Patent Publication No. H03-085412 (“Aoyanagi”),
`
`published April 10, 1991, and available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1103 — Certified Translation of Aoyanagi. Citations to Aoyanagi are
`
`made to the certified translation in the following format: <translation
`
`page:column:line>.
`
`Exhibit 1104 — International Patent Pub. No. WO 90/03 899 (“Vollmer”),
`
`published April 19, 1990, and available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1105 — Certified Translation of Vollmer. Citations to Vollmer are
`
`OWNER Ex. 2052, p. 5
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`made to the certified translation in the following format: <translation page:line>.
`
`Exhibit 1106 — US. Patent No. 4,939,652 (“Steiner”), issued July 3, 1990,
`
`and available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1107 — US. Patent No. 5,430,432 (“Camhi”), which is a
`
`continuation of US. Patent Application No. 07/992,246 filed December 14, 1992,
`
`issued July 4, 1995, and available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Exhibit 1108 — Fincham et al., “A Transient Recorder for Road Accidents,”
`
`Automotive Electronics, 1991 , Eighth International Conference on Automotive
`
`Electronics, pp. 135—39, Oct. 28—31, 1991 (“Fincham”), is a printed publication
`
`that was publically available by at least December 31, 1991 and available as prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Citations to Fincham are made in the following
`
`format: <page:column:line>.
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of challenged claims 15—26 under the
`
`following statutory grounds:
`
`A. Claims 15—20, 23, and 24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Aoyanagi (Ex. 1102), Vollmer (Ex. 1104), and Steiner (Ex. 1106).
`
`B. Claims 15—20, 23, and 24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Aoyanagi (Ex. 1102), Vollmer (Ex. 1104), and Camhi (Ex. 1107).
`
`C. Claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`OWNER Ex. 2052, p. 6
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`over Aoyanagi (Ex. 1102), Vollmer (Ex. 1104), Steiner (Ex. 1106), and
`
`Fincham (Ex. 1108).
`
`D. Claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Aoyanagi (Ex. 1102), Vollmer (Ex. 1104), Camhi (Ex. 1107), and
`
`Fincham (Ex. 1108).
`
`Section VII below demonstrates, for each of the statutory grounds, that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Additional explanation and support for each ground of rejection is set forth in the
`
`Expert Declaration of David McNamara (Exhibit 1110).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘867 PATENT
`
`The ‘867 patent relates generally to an apparatus and method for recording
`
`data from a vehicle before and after detecting a collision. (Ex. 1101 , 1:25—29,
`
`3:23—28.) The method includes monitoring production-related and vital sign
`
`parameters, detecting a collision, automatically sending a wireless distress signal in
`
`response to a collision, capturing pre-collision production-related parameters, and
`
`capturing post-collision vital sign parameters. (Id. at 6:30—34, 7:39—49, 7:60—64,
`
`25:22—38.)
`
`Both production-related and vital sign parameters are monitored using “well
`
`known sensors that [are] commercially available.” (Id. at 6:66—73.) One such
`
`sensor is “crash sensor accelerometer 73L” shown in Figure 1C. The system of the
`
`OWNER Ex. 2052, p. 7
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`‘867 patent uses accelerometer 73L to detect whether a collision has occurred.
`
`(Id.
`
`at 11:66—67.)
`
`The system of the ‘867 patent captures production-related parameters and
`
`vital sign parameters during operation of the vehicle. Specifically, at intervals
`
`determined by a sampling cycle, production-related parameters are stored in
`
`memory 83.
`
`(Id. at 7:53—60.) Additionally, vital sign parameters are captured in
`
`diagnostic memory 87 if their values are higher or lower than the historical ten
`
`highest or lowest readings. (Id. at 8:9—18.)
`
`If crash sensor 73L detects a collision, production-related and vital sign
`
`parameters are transferred to diagnostic memories 85 and 89. The historical
`
`production-related parameters stored in memory 83 are transferred to diagnostic
`
`memory 85.
`
`(Id. at 7:65—8:l, ll:57—l2:3.) The identity of the crash sensor 73L,
`
`the value of crash sensor 73L’s data, and a chronology of some or all of the
`
`production-related parameters stored in memory 83 are recorded into diagnostic
`
`memory 89.
`
`(Id. at 8:1—7.)
`
`The system continues gathering and storing data following a collision until
`
`the value of the crash sensor 73L drops below a certain threshold value.
`
`(Id. at
`
`25:22—38.) In this manner, the system of the ‘867 patent gathers and stores data
`
`into diagnostic memories 85 and 89 after a collision.
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 8
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The claim terms are presumed to take on their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning.
`
`Prior to the February 15, 2014 expiration date of the ‘867 patent, the
`
`challenged claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Subsequent to the expiration of the ‘867
`
`patent, the claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`
`invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`This Petition shows that the challenged claims of the ‘867 patent are
`
`unpatentable when the challenged claims are given either their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification or their ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The terms below should be construed the same under
`
`either standard. (Ex. 1010 11 29.)
`
`“Monitoring Production-Related Parameters”: This term in claims 15—
`
`26 refers to sampling data from sensors that provide indicia of the work done by a
`
`vehicle. For example, the ‘867 specification states that “the processor 41
`
`periodically samples the data from the production-related sensors.” (Ex. 1101,
`
`7:54—57; see also id. 1:45—47, 2:67—3:3, 6:32—49; Ex. 1110 11 30.)
`
`OWNER Ex. 2052, p. 9
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“Monitoring Vital Signs”: This term in claims 15—26 refers to sampling
`
`data from sensors indicative of the state of health of the vehicle.
`
`(EX. 1101, 1:33—
`
`44, 6:30—32, 6:50—65, 7:50—53, 7:60—62, 8:11—14; EX. 1110 11 31.)
`
`“A Second Memory”: This term in claims 15—26 refers to any set of
`
`memory addresses separate from a first set of memory addresses. The
`
`specification describes a single memory device, RAM 47, which contains multiple
`
`memories composed of “a number of address locations in the RAM 47.” (EX.
`
`1101, 7:11—28, 7:58—64, 9:57—63, 12:44—46, Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B; EX. 1110 11 32.)
`
`VI.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references. See
`
`In re GPACInc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board
`
`did not err in adopting the approach that the level of skill in the art was best
`
`determined by the references of record). The ‘867 patent acknowledges that, by
`
`the priority date of the ‘867 patent, “it has become increasingly common for
`
`heavy-duty vehicles
`
`to include a plurality of sensors
`
`for the purpose of
`
`monitoring certain important performance and vital sign parameters.” (EX. 1101,
`
`6: 1—5.) Further, the vital sign and production-related sensors described in the ‘867
`
`patent were well-known and commercially available. (Id. at 6:66—73.) One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have also known that those types of sensors were
`
`commonly used in systems to monitor vehicle-operating parameters, provide
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 10
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`external signals when certain conditions were reached, and that wireless
`
`technology could be used to transmit data and alert others of those conditions.
`
`(161.;
`
`EX. 1110 11 20.)
`
`VII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW CHALLENGED CLAIMS 15—26 ARE
`
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)—(5), this section demonstrates that the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Claims 15—20, 23, and 24 are Obvious Over Aoyanagi, Vollmer,
`and Steiner Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claims 15—20, 23, and 24 of the ‘867 patent are unpatentable because it
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify
`
`Aoyanagi’s system for recording vehicle running conditions to include an
`
`automatic distress signal and two-memory recording system. Aoyanagi describes
`
`“a recording apparatus for vehicle running conditions
`
`that records running data
`
`at the time when the vehicle has received shocks due to an accident or the like,
`
`while protecting those data.” (EX. 1103, 70:2:3—8.) Vollmer describes “[a]n
`
`emergency call system for vehicles [that] sends an automatic emergency call in the
`
`event of danger, accident or breakdown ....” (EX. 1105, Abstract.) The apparatus
`
`disclosed in Vollmer monitors and captures production-related parameters like
`
`“speed and deceleration measurement 49.” (Id. at 6:27.) Likewise, Steiner
`
`describes a system that monitors and permanently records vehicle-operating
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 11
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`parameters “if the vehicle is involved in an accident.” (EX. 1106, Abstract, 8:17—
`
`47.) Thus, Aoyanagi, Vollmer, and Steiner are directed to the same field of
`
`endeavor.
`
`(EX. 1110 11 55.) A claim element-by-claim element analysis of these
`
`grounds for unpatentability follows.
`
`Claim 15.a1: “An apparatus for recording operation of a vehicle and
`facilitating emergency response in the event of a collision of the vehicle, the
`apparatus comprisingz”
`
`Aoyanagi describes recording operations of a vehicle with recording
`
`apparatus 12.
`
`(EX. 1103, 71:1:6—9, 72:1:6—12.) Aoyanagi detects a collision
`
`“when a shock occurs and then the vehicle speed becomes zero in a short time.”
`
`(Id. at 72:2:21—23.)
`
`Similarly, Vollmer describes an emergency call device that monitors and
`
`captures information about vehicle operation such as airbag deployment and
`
`“speed and deceleration.” (EX. 1105, 5:21, 6:27.) The device facilitates
`
`emergency response in the event of a collision of the vehicle by making emergency
`
`calls that are “triggered automatically.” (Id. at Abstract, 2: 14, 6: 14—21.) “In order
`
`to be able to initiate the necessary immediate measures in optimal fashion
`
`the
`
`emergency call includes all the important data with respect to the emergency
`
`situation.” (Id. at 6:21—23.)
`
`1 The claims are subdivided into elements, 15a, 15b, 15c, etc. corresponding to
`
`the rows in the claim charts, infra, for each ground for challenge.
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 12
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the
`
`time of the ‘867 patent’s priority date, to use recorded information about a
`
`vehicle’s operation to facilitate an emergency response in the event of a collision
`
`because Vollmer teaches that such information can be transmitted to an accident
`
`reporting station so that the emergency situation can be recognized and emergency
`
`procedures can be initiated more rapidly.
`
`(Id. at 3:5—13, 6:21—23; EX. 1110 11 57.)
`
`Claim 15.b to .f: “sensors for monitoring production-related parameters of
`the vehicle, where the parameters include ground speed of the vehicle, a
`position of a throttle for an engine of the vehicle, an on/off status of a
`braking system of the vehicle, and a status of a seat belt;”
`
`Aoyanagi teaches that “[t]he recording apparatus uses sensors to record data
`
`of the running conditions of the vehicle ....” (EX. 1103, 71:1:6—7.) Those
`
`conditions are sampled and recorded “every 0.1 to 0.2 seconds.” (Id. at 72: 1 :30.)
`
`They include “vehicle speed” (id. at 71:1:65), “acceleration pedal position” (id. at
`
`71:2: 18—27, describing a sensor to determine the position of a butterfly valve on
`
`the intake manifold of the vehicle), “brake pedal position” (id. at 71 :2:28), “engine
`
`speed” (id. at 71:2: 12), “steering wheel position (rotation angle)” (id. at 71 :2:45),
`
`and “seat belt fastened/unfastened state” (id. at 71:2:62).
`
`Aoyanagi monitors the braking system by “detecting the hydraulic pressure
`
`of a hydraulic pressure cylinder brake 32 by a hydraulic pressure sensor 28
`
`provided at the hydraulic pressure cylinder brake 32 activated by a brake 30.” (Id.
`
`at 71:2:28—35.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`10
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 13
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the amount of hydraulic pressure detected indicates whether the braking system is
`
`on or off.
`
`(EX. 1110 1111 36—38.)
`
`Claim 15.g: “one or more sensors for monitoring vital signs of the vehicle,
`where the vital signs include information indicative of a change in the
`velocity of the vehicle;”
`
`Aoyanagi’s system also monitors “vehicle acceleration and deceleration.”
`
`(EX. 1103, 71:2:3.) Acceleration and deceleration are changes in velocity.
`
`(EX.
`
`1110 11 39.) Aoyanagi’s system monitors acceleration using acceleration sensor 18.
`
`(EX. 1103, 71 :2:3—6.) Additionally, Aoyanagi teaches sampling vehicle data,
`
`including speed, at fixed 0.1-second intervals, which would reflect changes in
`
`velocity. (Id. at 72:1:9—12.)
`
`Claim 15.h: “a processor in communication with one or more of the sensors
`for monitoring vital signs of the vehicle and detecting whether the vehicle
`has been involved in a collision based on information obtained by
`monitoring one or more of the [vital] sign parametersg”2
`
`Aoyanagi discloses a processor in communication with all sensors and
`
`memory. The processor is “a single-chip microcomputer 42 that is integrally
`
`created with a CPU, an A/D converter, and a memory.” (Id. at 72: 1 :6—9; EX. 1110
`
`1111 40—41.) Aoyanagi teaches that the recording apparatus with integrated CPU
`
`(central processing unit), “captures [into memory] respective data that are input
`
`2 Petitioner assumes for the purpose of this Petition that the claim is referring to
`
`“[vital] sign parameters.”
`
`11
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 14
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`from respective sensors, for example, about every 0.1 seconds.” (EX. 1103,
`
`72: 1 :62—64.) Aoyanagi’s system monitors acceleration/deceleration data to detect
`
`a collision “when a shock occurs and then the vehicle speed becomes zero in a
`
`short time.” (Id. at 72:2:21—23.) As noted above, vehicle acceleration and
`
`deceleration are vital signs indicative of a change in velocity.
`
`Claim 15.i: “a first memory adapted to capture values of the production-
`related parametersg”
`
`Aoyanagi records the production-related and vital sign parameters in “a 64-
`
`kilobyte C-MOS SRAM,” which is a type of volatile memory. (Id. at 72: 1 :9-12;
`
`EX. 1110 11 42.)
`
`Claim 15.j: “a second memory adapted to receive information from the
`first memory and information indicative of a change in the velocity of the
`vehicle;”
`
`Aoyanagi preserves recorded data in the memory by ceasing to update it.
`
`(EX. 1103, 72: 1 :67—72:2:4.) Aoyanagi does not state whether preserving the data
`
`includes storing it in a second memory location. However, Steiner discloses a
`
`system that monitors and permanently records vehicle-operating parameters “if the
`
`vehicle is involved in an accident.” (EX. 1106, Abstract, 8:17—47.) Steiner’s
`
`system teaches a data memory 506 having first and second memory areas for
`
`capturing vehicle operation parameters. The first memory “is implemented by
`
`using a 60 byte area in data memory 506, as a circular buffer.” (Id. at 8: 1—3.) The
`
`second memory is a “separate area in data memory 506, [which] is allocated for
`
`12
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 15
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`retaining the contents of the circular buffer [i.e., the first memory]” when there is a
`
`collision to preserve the contents of the circular buffer for subsequent analysis.
`
`(Id. at 8:17—30.)
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the
`
`time of the ‘867 patent’s priority date, to modify Aoyanagi to include a second
`
`memory to receive information from the first memory, as taught by Steiner, for
`
`several reasons.
`
`(EX. 1110 1111 48—51.) For example, Steiner’s circular buffer (first
`
`memory) reduces the amount of memory required to record data by permitting data
`
`to be overwritten, and recording the data from the circular buffer into the second
`
`memory permits data from the circular buffer, which is normally overwritten, to be
`
`preserved for “subsequent analysis” after a collision.
`
`(EX. 1106, 2:7—13, 8: 1—47.)
`
`Furthermore, recording data into a separate memory to preserve it, as taught by
`
`Steiner, was a known and predictable alternative to Aoyanagi’s technique of
`
`preserving the data in the same memory locations by not overwriting it, as taught
`
`by Aoyanagi.
`
`(EX. 1110 1111 48—51.)
`
`Furthermore, as noted above, Aoyanagi monitors and records information
`
`indicative of a change in the velocity of the vehicle using acceleration sensor 18.
`
`(EX. 1103, 71 :2z3—6.) Accordingly, Aoyanagi, as modified in view of Steiner to
`
`include a second memory, would result in a second memory adapted to receive
`
`Aoyanagi’s acceleration sensor 18 data.
`
`13
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 16
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Claim 15.k: “the processor, in response to detection of the collision, causing
`recording into the second memory values from the one or more sensors for
`monitoring vital signs of the vehicle over a finite period of time after
`detection of the collision and further causing transfer of data from the first
`memory to the second memory,”
`
`Aoyanagi’s system continues to record data after a collision including the
`
`vital sign parameters of vehicle acceleration and deceleration: “when an accident
`
`occurs, the recording apparatus can keep recording for a specific period of time
`
`after receiving shocks and the like.” (EX. 1103, 72: 1 :33—36.) The specific period
`
`of time is a “finite period of time,” as claimed. Steiner teaches that microprocessor
`
`504 “[c]auses receiving, processing and storing, in data memory 506, of data
`
`received from the sensor inputs 630, and various switch inputs 631, 632, 633.”
`
`(EX. 1106, 7: 1—3.) Upon the occurrence of a collision, Steiner discloses that the
`
`data retained in the circular buffer (116., the first memory) is transferred to a
`
`second, permanent area in data memory 506. (Id. at 8:17—30.) Accordingly,
`
`Steiner’s second memory feature in combination with Aoyanagi’s recording
`
`apparatus would result in the processor recording the values of Aoyanagi’s
`
`acceleration sensor 18 data over a finite period of time after the collision into the
`
`second memory.
`
`Claim 15.1: “the data comprising three or more of the production-related
`parameters of the vehicle captured in the first memory over a finite period
`of time before detection of the collision; and”
`
`14
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 17
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Aoyanagi records three or more production-related parameters in “a 64-
`
`kilobyte C-MOS SRAM.” (EX. 1103, 72:1:9—12.) Those production-related
`
`parameters include “vehicle speed” (id. at 71 : 1 :65), “acceleration pedal position”
`
`(id. at 71:2:18—27), “brake pedal position” (id. at 71:2:28), “engine speed” (id. at
`
`71:2: 12), “steering wheel position (rotation angle)” (id. at 71:2:45), “seat belt
`
`fastened/unfastened state” (id. at 71:2:62), and “brake pedal position” (id. at
`
`71:2:28—35). Aoyanagi records the production-related parameters over a finite
`
`period of time before the collision by “captur[ing] respective data that are input
`
`from respective sensors
`
`and [then] sequentially delet[ing] old data when the
`
`capacity of memory is full so as to take in the latest data.” (Id. at 72: 1 :62—67.)
`
`This results in a finite period “of about 1.5 minutes to a little over 3 minutes” of
`
`the latest data stored in memory.
`
`(Id. at 72: 1 :28—32.)
`
`Claim 15.m: “a transmitter for automatically sending a wireless distress
`signal from the vehicle in response to detecting the collision, the distress
`signal indicating that the vehicle has been in a collision.”
`
`Vollmer describes “[a]n emergency call system for vehicles [that] sends an
`
`automatic emergency call in the event of danger, accident or breakdown ....” (EX.
`
`1105, Abstract.) Vollmer teaches that the emergency call device makes emergency
`
`calls that are “triggered automatically.” (Id. at 2: 14.) Additionally, Vollmer
`
`teaches that the “control unit 3” sends the distress signal wirelessly “via cellular
`
`telephone 1.” (Id. at 6:18—19.)
`
`15
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 18
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the
`
`time of the ‘867 patent’s priority date, to combine the automatic distress signal
`
`feature of Vollmer with the recording apparatus of Aoyanagi in combination with
`
`Steiner for several reasons.
`
`(EX. 1 l 10 ll 54—58.) For example, Vollmer teaches
`
`that automatically sending a distress signal and relevant sensor data upon detection
`
`of an accident decreases the time before emergency services are notified relative to
`
`a manually-made emergency call.
`
`(EX. 1105, 1:3—9.) Also, the automatic distress
`
`signal avoids problems that a person may have in making a call manually.
`
`(Id. at
`
`l:3—2:3.) Further, by automatically providing information about the accident to the
`
`accident reporting station, Vollmer avoids a situation where emergency services
`
`receive incomplete information from a person manually making a call to report an
`
`accident.
`
`(Id. at Abstract, 1:16—18, 3:5—13.) Accordingly, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Aoyanagi to
`
`automatically send a wireless distress signal from a vehicle in response to detecting
`
`the collision.
`
`Claim 16: “The apparatus of claim 15 wherein: following detection of a
`first collision, the production-related parameters are monitored and values
`of the production-related parameters following detection of a first collision
`are captured in the first memory.”
`
`Aoyanagi’s system continues to monitor and record both production-related
`
`and vital sign parameters after a collision: “when an accident occurs, the recording
`
`apparatus can keep recording for a specific period of time after receiving shocks
`
`l6
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 19
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`and the like.” (EX. 1103, 72:1 :33—36.) As noted above with respect to claim
`
`elements 15k and 15.1, Steiner captures vehicle-operation parameters by
`
`preserving them in the second memory.
`
`(EX. 1110 1111 46—47.)
`
`Claim 17: “The apparatus of claim 15 wherein the distress signal includes
`additional [in]formati0n indicating whether aid may be required.”3
`
`Vollmer teaches that “[i]n order to be able to initiate the necessary
`
`immediate measures in optimal fashion
`
`the emergency call includes all the
`
`important data with respect to the emergency situation.” (EX. 1105, 6:21—23.) A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this data indicates
`
`whether aid may be required.
`
`(EX. 1110 11 66.)
`
`Claim 18: “The apparatus of claim 17 wherein the additional information
`indicating whether aid may be required includes the status of a seat belt
`prior to detecting the collision.”
`
`As noted above, Aoyanagi’s system records vehicle-operation parameters
`
`before and after a collision. Vollmer describes transmitting the “data with respect
`
`to the passengers, [and] their seating position ...[, which is] advantageously
`
`ascertained by contacts on the seat or on the seat belt.” (EX. 1105, 3:7—13.) A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that seatbelt status
`
`indicates whether aid may be required because seatbelt status is an example of
`
`3 Petitioner assumes for the purpose of this Petition that the claim is referring to
`
`“[in]formation.”
`
`l7
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 20
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`what Vollmer refers to as “important data with respect to the emergency situation.”
`
`(Id. at 6:21—23; EX. 1110 11 70.)
`
`Claim 19: “The apparatus of claim 17 wherein the additional information
`indicating whether aid may be required includes the ground speed of the
`vehicle prior to detecting the collision.”
`
`As noted above, Aoyanagi’s system records vehicle-operation parameters
`
`before and after a collision. Vollmer teaches transmitting vehicle speed
`
`information in order to ascertain whether aid may be required.
`
`(EX. 1105, 6:27.) A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the ground speed of
`
`the vehicle indicates whether aid may be required because vehicle speed is an
`
`example of what Vollmer refers to as “important data with respect to the
`
`emergency situation.” (Id. at 6:21—23; EX. 1110 11 74.)
`
`Claim 20: “The apparatus of claim 17 wherein the additional information
`indicating whether aid may be required includes information indicative of
`a change in the velocity of the vehicle after detecting the collision.”
`
`As noted above, Aoyanagi’s system records vehicle-operation parameters
`
`before and after a collision. Vollmer teaches transmitting vehicle deceleration
`
`information in order to ascertain whether aid may be required.
`
`(EX. 1105, 6:27.) A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that information
`
`indicative of a change in the velocity of the vehicle indicates whether aid may be
`
`required because a change in vehicle speed is an example of what Vollmer refers to
`
`as “important data with respect to the emergency situation.” (Id. at 6:21—23; EX.
`
`18
`
`OWNER EX. 2052, p. 21
`
`
`
`US. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`11101178.)
`
`Claim 23: “The apparatus of claim 17 wherein the additional information
`indicating whether aid may be required includes the ground speed at the
`time of the collision.”
`
`As noted above, Aoyanagi’s system records vehicle-operation parameters
`
`before and after a collision. Vollmer teaches transmitting vehicle speed
`
`information in order to ascertain whether aid may be required.
`
`(EX. 1105, 6:27.)
`
`With respect to transmitting speed information, Vollmer further describes
`
`transmitting “the impact speed onto an obstacle,” which Vollmer teaches is “the
`
`travel speed being previously ascertained and put in relation to the braking
`
`duration.” (Id. at 7:6—8.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that the ground speed indicates whether aid may be required because
`
`vehicle speed is an example of what Vollmer refers to as “important data with
`
`respect to the emergency situation.” (Id. at 6:21—23; EX. 1110 1] 82.)
`
`Claim 24: “The apparatus of claim 17 wherein the additional information
`indicating whether aid may be required includes the maximum ground
`speed during a period of time immediately preceding and following the
`collision.”
`
`As noted above, Aoyanagi’s system records vehicle-operation parameters
`
`before and aft
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
