NO: 423227US
`
`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 U.S. 8,532,867
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`CLAIMS 1-14 OF U.S. 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. 2038, page 1
`
`
`
`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 U.S. 8,532,867
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`CLAIMS 1-14 OF U.S. 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. 2038, page 1
`
`
`
`U.S. 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 1-14
`
`ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................................................................... .. 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claims 1-7, 10, and 11 are Obvious Over Aoyanagi,
`Vollmer, and Steiner Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................. ..8
`
`Claims 1-7, 10, and 11 are Obvious Over Aoyanagi,
`Vollmer, and Camhi Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................ ..29
`
`Claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 are Obvious Over Aoyanagi,
`Vollmer, Steiner, and Fincham Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............... ..41
`
`Claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 are Obvious Over Aoyanagi,
`Vollmer, Camhi, and Fincham Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................ ..48
`
`Claim 12 is Obvious Over Aoyanagi, Vollmer, Steiner,
`and Sorden Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .............................................. ..53
`
`Claim 12 is Obvious Over Aoyanagi, Vollmer, Camhi,
`and Sorden Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .............................................. ..56
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ ..58
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`figs
`
`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) .................................................................................... ..passz'm
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................. .. 4
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................................................................. .. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ............................................................................................... .. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................ .. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................................................................ .. 2, 8
`
`ii
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 3
`
`
`
`U.S. 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 U.S. Patent 8,532,867 (“the
`
`‘867 patent”) against a subsidiary of Petitioner in Hagenbuch v. Toyota Motor
`
`Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 13-cv-6713 (N.D. 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 15-
`
`26 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
`
`U.S. 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. 2038, page 4
`
`
`
`U.S. 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)(l) and 42.104(b)(1)—(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-14 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. 1001, the ‘867 patent.)
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following patents and printed publications:
`
`Exhibit 1002 — Japanese Patent Publication No. H03-085412 (“Aoyanagi”),
`
`published April 10, 1991, and available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1003 — Certified Translation of Aoyanagi. Citations to Aoyanagi are
`
`made to the certified translation in the following format: <translation
`
`page:column:line>.
`
`Exhibit 1004 — 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 1005 — Certified Translation of Vollmer. Citations to Vollmer are
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`made to the certified translation in the following format: <translation page:line>.
`
`Exhibit 1006 - U.S. Patent No. 4,939,652 (“Steiner”), issued July 3, 1990,
`
`and available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1007 - U.S. Patent No. 5,430,432 (“Camhi”), which is a
`
`continuation of U.S. 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 1008 - 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>.
`
`Exhibit 1009 - U.S. Patent No. 5,311,197 (“Sorden”), filed February 1,
`
`1993, issued May 10, 1994, and available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of challenged claims 1-14 under the
`
`following statutory grounds:
`
`A. Claims 1-7, 10, and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Aoyanagi (Ex. 1002), Vollmer (Ex. 1004), and Steiner (Ex. 1006).
`
`B. Claims 1-7, 10, and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`over Aoyanagi (Ex. 1002), Vollmer (Ex. 1004), and Camhi (Ex. 1007).
`
`C. Claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Aoyanagi (Ex. 1002), Vollmer (Ex. 1004), Steiner (Ex. 1006), and
`
`Fincham (Ex. 1008).
`
`D. Claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Aoyanagi (Ex. 1002), Vollmer (Ex. 1004), Camhi (Ex. 1007), and
`
`Fincham (Ex. 1008).
`
`E. Claim 12 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Aoyanagi
`
`(Ex. 1002), Vollmer (Ex. 1004), Steiner (Ex. 1006), and Sorden (Ex. 1009).
`
`F. Claim 12 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Aoyanagi
`
`(Ex. 1002), Vollmer (Ex. 1004), Camhi (Ex. 1007), and Sorden (Ex. 1009).
`
`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 1010).
`
`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. 1001, 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
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 7
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 6:66-7:3.) One such
`
`sensor is “crash sensor accelerometer 73L” shown in Figure 1C. The system of the
`
`‘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 7:65-8:1, 11:57-12:3.) 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
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 8
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`memory 89.
`
`(Id. at 811-7.)
`
`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.
`
`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.l00(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.)
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 9
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“Monitoring Production-Related Parameters”: This term in claims 1-14
`
`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. 1001,
`
`7:54-57; see also id. at 1:45-47, 2:67-3:3, 6:32-49; EX. 1010 1] 30.)
`
`“Monitoring Vital Sign Parameters”: This term in claims 1-14 refers to
`
`sampling data from sensors indicative of the state of health of the vehicle. (Ex.
`
`1001,1:33—44, 6:30-32, 6:50-65, 7:50-53, 7:60-62, 8:11-14; Ex. 1010 1] 31.)
`
`“A Permanent Memory”: This term in claims 1-14 refers to any set of
`
`memory addresses that are preserved so that they are not overwritten. The
`
`specification describes permanent memory 89 as “a number of address locations in
`
`the RAM 47 that preserves the data until an operator of the system removes it.”
`
`(Ex.1001, 9:57-63;Ex.1010 1] 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 GPAC Inc., 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
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`monitoring certain important performance and vital sign parameters.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`6: 1-5.) Further, the vital sign and production-related sensors described in the ‘867
`
`patent were well-known and commercially available. (Id. at 6:66-7:3.) 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
`
`external signals when certain conditions were reached, and that wireless
`
`technology could be used to transmit data and alert others of those conditions. (Id.;
`
`EX. 1010 11 20.)
`
`VII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW CHALLENGED CLAIMS 1-14 ARE
`
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), this section demonstrates that the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1-7, 10, and 11 are Obvious Over Aoyanagi, Vollmer, and
`Steiner Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claims 1-7, 10, and 11 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. 1003, 70:2:3-8.) Vollmer describes “[a]n emergency
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 11
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`call system for vehicles [that] sends an automatic emergency call in the event of
`
`danger, accident or breakdown. . ..” (Ex. 1005, 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 parameters “if the vehicle
`
`is involved in an accident.” (EX. 1006, Abstract, 8:17-47.) Thus, Aoyanagi,
`
`Vollmer, and Steiner are directed to the same field of endeavor. (Ex. 1010 1] 54.)
`
`A claim element-by-claim element analysis of these grounds for unpatentability
`
`follows.
`
`Claim 1.a1: “A method for recording operation of a vehicle and facilitating
`emergency response in the event of a collision of the vehicle, the method
`comprising:”
`
`Aoyanagi describes recording operations of a vehicle with recording
`
`apparatus 12. (Ex. 1003, 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. 1005, 5:21, 6:27.) The device facilitates
`
`1 The claims are subdivided into elements, 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, etc. corresponding to the
`
`rows in the claim charts, infra, for each ground for challenge.
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 12
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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.)
`
`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. 1010 1] 34.)
`
`Claim 1.b to .f: “monitoring production-related parameters of the vehicle,
`including a 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. 1003, 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 12:28), “engine
`
`10
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`the amount of hydraulic pressure detected indicates whether the braking system is
`
`on or off. (Ex. 1010 1111 36-38.)
`
`Claim 1.g: “monitoring vital sign parameters of the vehicle, including
`information indicative of a change in the velocity of the vehicle;”
`
`Aoyanagi’s system also monitors “vehicle acceleration and deceleration.”
`
`(Ex. 1003, 71:2:3.) Acceleration and deceleration are changes in velocity. (Ex.
`
`1010 11 39.) Aoyanagi’s system monitors acceleration using acceleration sensor 18.
`
`(Ex. 1003, 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 1.h: “capturing into a volatile memory values of the production-
`related parameters of the vehicle;”
`
`Aoyanagi teaches that the recording apparatus with integrated CPU (central
`
`processing unit), “captures [into memory] respective data that are input from
`
`respective sensors, for example, about every 0.1 seconds.” (Id. at 72: 1 162-64.)
`
`11
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 14
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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.1010 11 40.)
`
`Claim 1.i: “detecting a collision of the vehicle based on information
`obtained by monitoring one or more of the vital sign parameters;”
`
`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.” (EX. 1003, 72:2:21—23; EX. 1010 11 41.) As noted above, vehicle
`
`acceleration and deceleration are vital signs indicative of a change in velocity.
`
`Claim 1.j: “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; and”
`
`Vollmer describes “[a]n emergency call system for vehicles [that] sends an
`
`automatic emergency call in the event of danger, accident or breakdown...” (EX.
`
`1005, 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.) Furthermore, 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.” (Id. at 6:21-23.)
`
`12
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 15
`
`
`
`U.S. 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 for several reasons.
`
`(Ex. 1010 1111 44-48.) 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. 1005, 113-9.) Also, the automatic distress signal avoids
`
`problems that a person may have in making a call manually.
`
`(Id. at 113-213.)
`
`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, 1116-18, 315-13.) 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 1.k to .1: “recording into a permanent memory values of three or
`more of the production-related parameters of the vehicle captured over a
`finite period of time before detection of the collision and values of one or
`more of the vital sign parameters over a finite period of time after
`detection of the collision.”
`
`As noted above, Aoyanagi records three or more production-related
`
`parameters prior to the collision. (Ex. 1003, 7111147-721113.) Those production-
`
`13
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 16
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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—3 5). Furthermore, as noted above, Aoyanagi’s system also records
`
`the vital sign parameters of “vehicle acceleration and deceleration.” (Id. at 71:2:3.)
`
`Aoyanagi records both production-related and vital sign parameters before
`
`and after the collision. Aoyanagi records the production-related and vital sign
`
`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.)
`
`Additionally, Aoyanagi’s system continues to 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
`
`and the like.” (Id. at 72:1:33—36.) The specific period of time is a “finite period of
`
`time,” as claimed.
`
`Aoyanagi preserves recorded data in the memory by ceasing to update it.
`
`(Id. at 72:1:67—72:2:4.) Aoyanagi does not state whether preserving the data
`
`14
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 17
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`includes storing it in a second, permanent memory location. However, Steiner
`
`discloses a system that monitors and permanently records vehicle-operating
`
`parameters “if the vehicle is involved in an accident.” (EX. 1006, 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, permanent memory is a “separate area in data memory
`
`506, [which] is allocated for 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 further modify Aoyanagi to include a
`
`second, permanent memory to receive information from the first memory, as taught
`
`by Steiner, for several reasons. (Ex. 1010 1111 53-56.) 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. 1006, 217-13, 8: 1-47.) Furthermore, recording data into a separate memory
`
`to preserve it, as taught by Steiner, was a known and predictable alternative to
`
`15
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 18
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Aoyanagi’s technique of preserving the data in the same memory locations by not
`
`overwriting it, as taught by Aoyanagi. (Ex. 1010 111] 53-56.)
`
`Claim 2: “The method of claim 1 wherein: the production-related
`parameters are monitored after detection of the collision; and values of the
`production-related parameters following detection of the collision are
`captured.”
`
`Aoyanagi’s system continues to monitor and record production-related
`
`parameters after a collision: “when an accident occurs, the recording apparatus can
`
`keep recording for a specific period of time after receiving shocks and the like.”
`
`(Ex. 1003, 72: 1:33-36.) As noted above with respect to claim elements 1.k and
`
`1.1, Steiner captures vehicle operation parameters by preserving them in the second
`
`memory. (Ex. 1010 1111 51-52.)
`
`Claim 3: “The method of claim 1 wherein the distress signal includes
`additional information indicating whether aid may be required.”
`
`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. 1005, 6:21-23.) A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this data indicates
`
`whether aid may be required. (Ex. 1010 1] 64.)
`
`Claim 4: “The method of claim 3 wherein: the production-related
`parameters are monitored after detection of the collision; and values of the
`production-related parameters following detection of the collision are
`captured.”
`
`16
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 19
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`and the like.” (Ex. 1003, 72: 1 133-36.) As noted above with respect to claim
`
`elements 1.k and 1.1, Steiner captures vehicle operation parameters by preserving
`
`them in the second memory.
`
`(EX. 1010 111] 51-52.)
`
`Claim 5: “The method of claim 3 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. 1005, 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
`
`what Vollmer refers to as “important data with respect to the emergency situation.”
`
`(Id. at 6:21-23; Ex. 1010 1] 72.)
`
`Claim 6: “The method of claim 3 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
`
`17
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 20
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`information in order to ascertain whether aid may be required. (Ex. 1005, 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. 1010 1] 76.)
`
`Claim 7: “The method of claim 3 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. 1005, 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.
`
`101011 80.)
`
`Claim 10: “The method of claim 3 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. 1005, 6:27.)
`
`18
`
`OWNER Ex. 2038, page 21
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,532,867
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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. 1010 1] 84.)
`
`Claim 11: “The method of claim 3 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 after a collision. Vollmer teaches transmitting vehicle speed
`
`information in order to ascertain whether aid may be required. (Ex. 1005, 6:27.)
`
`With respect to transmitting speed information, Vollmer further descri
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
