`
`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. 2039, page 1
`
`
`
`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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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—7z3.) One such
`
`sensor is “crash sensor accelerometer 73L” shown in Figure 1C. The system of the
`
`OWNER Ex. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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 23—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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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. 2039, page 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 veh