DOCKET NO: 420717US
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`PATENT: 8,014,917
`
`INVENTOR: HAGENBUCH
`
`FILED: MARCH 19, 2010
`
`TITLE: APPARATUS FOR TRACKING TRIAL NO.: UNASSIGNED
`AND RECORDING VITAL SIGNS AND
`TASK-RELATED INFORMATION OF A
`VEHICLE TO IDENTIFY OPERATING
`PATTERNS
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 6, 2011
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MCNAMARA
`
`I, David McNamara, make this declaration in connection with a second petition for inter
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,014,917 (“the ‘917 patent”; Exhibit 1101 to the petition). All
`
`statements herein made of my own knowledge are true, and all statements herein made based on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true. I am over 21 and otherwise competent to make
`
`this declaration. Although I am being compensated for my time in preparing this declaration, the
`
`opinions herein are my own, and I have no stake in the outcome of the inter partes review
`
`proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`Attachment A to this declaration is my curriculum vitae. As shown in my curriculum
`
`vitae, I have devoted my career to the field of automotive electronics. I earned my Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Michigan in 1973 and my
`
`Master of Engineering degree in Solid State Physics from the University of Florida in 1976.
`
`3.
`
`Further, as shown in my curriculum vitae, I have professional and academic experience
`
`in the field of automotive electronics and transportation systems acquired over a career spanning
`
` 
`
`1
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 1
`
`

`
`36 years. In particular, during this period, I have worked and otherwise interacted with
`
`professionals and students of various experience and expertise levels in the automotive
`
`electronics field. Yet, throughout, my primary focus has related to identifying, demonstrating,
`
`testing, and manufacturing new automotive and transportation systems embodied in complex
`
`hardware and software products. For example, I have been involved in the development and
`
`integration of various motor vehicle technologies, such as: embedded vehicle controllers; sensors
`
`and actuators as key elements in an engine control system; diagnostic/maintenance algorithms;
`
`multiplexes (or buses) to reduce wiring, provide a test/diagnostic capability, and to provide
`
`control for new convenience features (e.g., power seat controls); and user interface hardware and
`
`software to implement voice-driven features/technology, audio systems, digital media and
`
`wireless communications. I also have conducted extensive research on motor vehicle interfaces
`
`to permit the safe and easy integration of new electronic devices within a motor vehicle
`
`environment. Recently, I have worked on vehicle diagnostic systems that monitor a wide range
`
`of vehicle parameters and estimate useful component life, commonly called prognostics. More
`
`specifically, I have worked on modifying existing vehicle diagnostic systems to add the
`
`capability of predicting component life and providing the data to engineers who are managing
`
`fleets of hydrogen-fueled vehicles from a remote base station.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a consultant for McNamara Technology Solutions LLC and work with
`
`clients in active safety (e.g., mmWave radar based systems), automotive electrical/electronics
`
`architecture, and automotive wireless technology.
`
`5.
`
`I also am an active member of the Society of Automotive Engineers and the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and I have been an invited speaker to various
`
`conferences, including the Telematics Update Events (www.telematicsupdate.com), at which I
`
` 
`
`2
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 2
`
`

`
`interact with various members of the technical community. I participate in the annual Telematics
`
`Update Events-sponsored conferences called “Insurance Telematics,” during which I am
`
`apprised of recent developments in vehicle diagnostics, such as new monitoring approaches as
`
`applied to vehicle performance and driver behavior. I periodically publish reports on observed
`
`trends in automotive electronics, and also co-authored an invited paper for the Proceedings of the
`
`IEEE along with former Ford Research colleagues. I have contributed articles to the Intelligent
`
`Transport System (ITS) International Magazine (www.itsiternational.com), on
`
`Diagnostics/Prognostics and on the 2009 Consumer Electronics Show (CES). I report on
`
`consumer trends and sensor technology impacting the automotive industry as part of my annual
`
`CES report, which has been published since 2007.
`
`6.
`
`I am a named inventor on five U.S. patents (U.S. Patent No. 4,377,851; U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,446,447; U.S. Patent No. 5,060,156; U.S. Patent No. 5,003,801; and U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,175,803) that resulted from the development of products for high-volume production. Of
`
`these, U.S. Patent No. 4,377,851 and U.S. Patent No. 4,446,447 relate to pressure sensors used in
`
`Ford vehicles, and U.S. Patent No. 5,060,156 relates to the oil change detection system used by
`
`Ford in high-volume production for several years.
`
`Understanding of the Law
`
`7.
`
`For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about certain aspects of the law
`
`that are relevant to my analysis and opinions, as set forth in this section of my declaration.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that “claim construction” is the process of determining a patent claim’s
`
`meaning. I also have been informed and understand that the proper construction of a claim term
`
`is the meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., the technical field to which the
`
`patent relates) would have given to that term at the patent’s filing date. My opinion and analysis
`
` 
`
`3
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 3
`
`

`
`with respect to claim construction are provided from the viewpoint of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which the ‘917 patent pertains at the earliest priority date for the ‘917 patent, which I have
`
`been informed to be February 15, 1994.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that claims in inter partes review proceedings are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, which is what I have done when
`
`performing my analysis in this declaration.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as obvious if the subject matter of the
`
`claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time
`
`of the invention at issue. I understand that the following factors must be evaluated to determine
`
`whether the claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
`
`difference or differences, if any, between the scope of the claim of the patent under consideration
`
`and the scope of the prior art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent
`
`was filed.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that prior art references can be combined to reject a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 when there was an objective reason for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the
`
`invention, to combine the references, which includes, but is not limited to (A) identifying a
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art references; (B) combining prior art
`
`methods according to known methods to yield predictable results; (C) substituting one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results; (D) using a known technique to improve a
`
`similar device in the same way; (E) applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; (F) trying a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; or (G) identifying that known work
`
`in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different
`
` 
`
`4
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 4
`
`

`
`one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`12. Moreover, I have been informed and I understand that so-called objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness, also known as “secondary considerations,” like the following are also to be
`
`considered when assessing obviousness: (1) commercial success; (2) long-felt but unresolved
`
`needs; (3) copying of the invention by others in the field; (4) initial expressions of disbelief by
`
`experts in the field; (5) failure of others to solve the problem that the inventor solved; and (6)
`
`unexpected results. I also understand that evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness must
`
`be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. I am not aware of any objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness for the ‘917 patent.
`
`Materials Considered
`
`13.
`
`I have read the ‘917 patent and its prosecution history. I have also reviewed U.S. Patent
`
`No. 4,839,835 to Hagenbuch (“Hagenbuch ‘835”; Exhibit 1108 to the petition); U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,430,432 to Camhi et al. (“Camhi”; Exhibit 1109 to the petition); U.S. Patent No. 4,939,652 to
`
`Steiner (“Steiner”; Exhibit 1110 to the petition); Japanese Patent Publication No. H03-085412 to
`
`Aoyanagi (“Aoyanagi”; Exhibit 1102 to the petition); Japanese Patent Publication No. S58-
`
`16399 to Oishi et al. (“Oishi”; Exhibit 1104 to the petition); and International Patent Publication
`
`No. WO 90/03899 to Vollmer et al. (“Vollmer”; Exhibit 1106 to the petition) along with their
`
`corresponding certified translations. Additionally, I have read G.B. Hamilton & M. Kirshenblatt,
`
`Real-Time Vehicle Systems Monitoring, 3 Microcomputers in Civil Engineering 45 (1988)
`
`(Exhibit 1112); Trevor O. Jones & Wallace K. Tsuha, Fully Integrated Truck Information and
`
`control Systems (TIACS), SAE Technical Paper 831775 (1983) (Exhibit 1113); Daniel Sellers &
`
`Thomas J. Benard, An Update on the OmniTRACSr Two-Way Satellite Mobile Communications
`
` 
`
`5
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 5
`
`

`
`System and its Application to the Schneider National Truckload Fleet, Proceedings of the 1992
`
`International Congress on Transportation Electronics, Society of Automotive Engineers,
`
`Dearborn, MI, SAE P-260 (1992) (Exhibit 1114); and LeRoy G. Hagenbuch, Truck/Mobile
`
`Equipment Performance Monitoring Management Information Systems (MIS), SAE Technical
`
`Paper 861249 (1992) (Exhibit 1115).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`14.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding the “level of ordinary skill in the art”
`
`at the time of the invention, which I have been told is February 15, 1994.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is considered to have
`
`the normal skills and knowledge of a person in a certain technical field. I understand that factors
`
`that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the
`
`education level of the inventor; (2) the types of problems encountered in the art; (3) the prior art
`
`solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication
`
`of the technology; and (6) the education level of active workers in the field. I also understand
`
`that “the person of ordinary skill” is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of the
`
`universe of available prior art.
`
`16.
`
`It is my opinion that, in February 1994, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had one of the following: (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or computer
`
`science/engineering (or a closely related field) with at least four years of experience working
`
`with automotive electronics, (2) a master’s degree in electrical, mechanical or computer
`
`science/engineering (or a closely related field) with at least two years of experience working with
`
`automotive electronics, or (3) a PhD in electrical, mechanical or computer science/engineering
`
`(or a closely related field) focused on automotive electronic systems.
`
` 
`
`6
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 6
`
`

`
`17.
`
`Based on my experience and education, I consider myself to be a person of at least
`
`ordinary skill in the art with respect to the field of technology implicated by the ‘917 patent (as
`
`of 1994). Unless stated otherwise, my opinions herein are provided from the viewpoint of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in February 1994, i.e., at the time of the earliest priority date for the ‘917
`
`patent.
`
`Background on the State of the Art
`
`18.
`
`It is my experience that since the 1980s as capable and affordable embedded systems and
`
`sensors became available, augmented by wireless communications; these new capabilities were
`
`applied to the transportation industry. As reported by the researchers G.B. Hamilton and M.
`
`Kirshenblatt of Sypher: Mueller International Inc. in their 1988 paper, “Real-time Vehicle
`
`Systems Monitoring,” (Exhibit 1112). “The use of computer-based systems to monitor and
`
`display vehicle location is currently an area of strong interest, and a number of organizations
`
`have developed such systems…. Our requirement for vehicle data acquisition systems (DAS)
`
`was to monitor and store data on driving cycle, temperatures, pressures, engine stoichiometry,
`
`etc. In the course of working with fleets, it became clear that if vehicle systems data could be
`
`transmitted to a base station in real time, could be interpreted by base station software to provide
`
`a diagnostic capability, and could be combined with a map location display capability, then it
`
`would be of interest to a large number of fleets.” (Ex. 1112, 45). The figure below taken from
`
`the 1988 Hamilton paper contains all the elements of a modern fleet tracking and diagnostic
`
`system with communications capability.
`
` 
`
`7
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 7
`
`

`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 3 (annotated)).
`19.
`The seminal paper published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in 1983
`
`titled, “Fully Integrated Truck Information and Control Systems (TIACS)” by Trevor O. Jones
`
`and Wallace K. Tsuha of TRW Inc. (Exhibit 1113) “identifies the current, near term, and long
`
`range system requirements and suggests ideas for a fully integrated Truck Information And
`
`Control System (TIACS)….” (Ex. 1113, 1). The industry recognized the benefits of applying
`
`embedded systems and sensor technology to commercial vehicles for “optimizing asset
`
`utilization,” “improving productivity” and “reducing operating cost.” (Id.). Additionally, the
`
`industry recognized “the need to implement a recording and monitoring capability for improved
`
`asset management and reduction of diagnostic and maintenance costs.” (Id. at 7). In my
`
`opinion, this seminal paper represents the “state of the art” describing the need and approach to
`
`monitoring and recording production-related and vital sign parameters. As shown below, the
`
`elements (e.g., performance or task and maintenance or vital sign monitoring and recording) of a
`
` 
`
`8
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 8
`
`

`
`modern commercial fleet system are described.
`
`(Id. at Fig. 11).
`
`(Id. at Fig. 15).
`
` 
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 9
`
`

`
`Elli!-lflI'I"il::|"|1l1|'.I.E'.I.l'l'|"l' IIEHJTIH
`
`f
`
`Ir-1.
`
`II
`
`fill. ‘I"1||.1 IEIIIIIIDII
`
`1!:
`
`- ‘Fahi ale ma. intenanc E
`Fig .
`syn I: ens
`cunnan ted
`tn
`nus tie
`Sari 3.1 fluuuun i.-ca tinns Link
`
`-and
`the
`
`=lil:E**
`TT-«E5
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 14).
`(Id. at Fig. 14).
`
`
`
`I:e1eeutu.I.:ni:at:I'.:.'-us satellite
`13 - '|i".'i.u
`Fig.
`the vehicle E-n"~hna.rd eumputar euuld trans-
`mit and receive messages
`from the dispatch
`center computer
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 18).
`(Id. at Fig. 18).
`
` 
`
`10
`10
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 10
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 10
`
`

`
`20.
`
`Those skilled in the art were aware of the need to combine data transmission with
`
`recording systems and, therefore, would have been motivated to do so. An example is the
`
`Qualcomm OmniTRACSr product first launched in 1988. It is my experience that from 1988 -
`
`1992 companies, such as Qualcomm, first developed and expanded the capability of on-board
`
`embedded systems to include two-way communications such as emergency messaging. The
`
`Qualcomm OmniTRACSr product for heavy trucks is an example and is described in the 1992
`
`Proceedings of the International Congress on Transportation Electronics, “An Update on the
`
`OmniTRACSr Two-Way Satellite Mobile Communications System and its Application to the
`
`Schneider National Truckload Fleet”, Daniel Sellers of Schneider National and Thomas J.
`
`Benard Qualcomm, October 1992. (Exhibit 1114).
`
`The ‘917 Patent
`
`21.
`
`The ‘917 patent (Ex. 1101) describes a system for monitoring production-related (e.g.,
`
`vehicle speed) and vital sign (e.g., crash detection) parameters, detecting a collision,
`
`automatically sending a distress signal if a collision is detected, and recording pre-collision
`
`production-related parameters and post-collision vital sign parameters. (Id. at 6:23–8:16).
`
`22.
`
`Figure 2A of the ‘917 patent illustrates the hardware architecture for the claimed system.
`
`The system is controlled by processor 41, which receives production-related inputs 67 and vital
`
`sign inputs 73. (Id. at 7:43–45, Fig. 2B). As noted in the ‘917 patent specification, a system for
`
`monitoring production-related and vital sign parameters was well-known at the time of the ‘917
`
`patent’s priority date:
`
`Recently, it has become increasingly common for heavy-duty vehicles such as the
`vehicle 11 in FIG. 1A to include a plurality of sensors distributed about the
`vehicle for the purpose of monitoring certain important performance and vital
`sign parameters.
`
` 
`
`11
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 11
`
`

`
`(Id. at 5:61–65).
`
`23.
`
`Likewise, the ‘917 patent specification acknowledges that the enumerated production-
`
`related and vital sign sensors were all well-known at the time of the ‘917 patent’s priority date:
`
`Each of the foregoing vital sign and production-related sensors 73 and 67 is a well
`known sensor that is commercially available.
`
`(Id. at 6:30–63).
`
`24.
`
`Regarding the system’s method for collision detection, the ‘917 patent specification
`
`describes only one method:
`
`[T]he system recognizes a crash when the value of the data sampled from the
`accelerometer 73L exceeds a pre-programmed critical value 116.
`
`(Id. at 25:8–10).
`
`25.
`
`Likewise, the wireless distress signal sent automatically in the event of a collision is only
`
`mentioned once in the specification of the ‘917 patent:
`
`[A] crash event sensed by the processor 41 as explained hereinafter may
`automatically key the transceiver 55 to download the data in the RAM 47 and also
`serve to broadcast a distress signal, which serves to alert other personnel (e.g., at a
`central station) that immediate aid may be required.
`
`(Id. at 7:36–41).
`
`26.
`
`Figure 2B of the ‘917 patent provides a functional diagram of the system. (Id. at Fig. 2B,
`
`7:42–43). As illustrated in Figure 2B, the processor receives data from both production-related
`
`and vital sign sensors at periodic sampling intervals. (Id. at 7: 43–45). The data received by the
`
`processor 41 is then stored inside the RAM 47, which includes chronology memory 83 and
`
`diagnostic memories 85, 87, 89. (Id. at Fig. 2B, 7:50–56). At periodic sampling intervals,
`
`processor 41 stores all production-related parameters into chronology memory 83. (Id. at 7:45–
`
`49, 11:15–18). Additionally, the processor 41 updated the diagnostic memory 87 if any of the
`
` 
`
`12
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 12
`
`

`
`vital sign parameters is “one of the historical ten highest or lowest readings” such that the
`
`diagnostic memory 87 maintains “the ten most extreme readings from each of the vital sign
`
`sensors 73.” (Id. at 8:1–16).
`
`27.
`
`Diagnostic memories 85 and 89 are used to store data if any one of the vital sign sensor
`
`73 readings exceed a pre-determined critical value. (Id. at 7:57–8:1). Specifically, when the
`
`system detects a collision, see supra at ¶ 24, processor 41 stores all the production-related
`
`parameters stored in chronology memory 83 into diagnostic memory 85. (Id. at 7:57–60, 11:59–
`
`63, 25:10–14). Likewise, if any of the vital sign sensors exceeds a pre-determined value,
`
`processor 41 stores the identity of the vital sign sensor, the value of the vital sign sensor, and a
`
`pre-determined amount of production related data into diagnostic memory 89. (Id. at 7:60–66).
`
`28.
`
`The ‘917 patent specification also “contemplates continuing to gather data and store the
`
`data to the memories 85 and 89 so long as the value of the vital sign parameter exceeds the
`
`critical value 116.” (Id. at 25:16–18). Accordingly, the ‘917 patent specification contemplates
`
`recording both production-related and vital sign parameters after a collision. (Id. at 25:15–30).
`
`Claim Construction
`
`29.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding the claim terms: “monitoring
`
`production-related parameters,” “monitoring vital sign parameters” or “monitoring vital signs,”
`
`“a load on the engine,” “a second memory,” and “a permanent memory.” I understand that, for
`
`purposes of my analysis, the terms appearing in the claims should be interpreted according to
`
`their “broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” I further understand that the words of the claims should be given their plain meaning
`
`unless that meaning is inconsistent with the specification. With this understanding in mind, I
`
`interpret “monitoring production-related parameters,” “monitoring vital sign parameters” or
`
` 
`
`13
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 13
`
`

`
`“monitoring vital signs,” “a load on the engine,” “a second memory,” and “a permanent
`
`memory.”
`
`30.
`
`Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the phrase
`
`“monitoring production-related parameters” in claims 4, 9–17, 21, and 26–34 should be
`
`construed to mean sampling data from sensors that provide indicia of the work done by a vehicle.
`
`The specification of the ‘917 patent supports this construction because the specification describes
`
`processor 41 which samples data from the production-related sensors 67 that measure
`
`parameters, such as engine RPM, throttle position, engine fuel consumption, distance traveled,
`
`ground speed, road incline, angle of turn, steering wheel, status of brake, vehicle direction, load,
`
`and dump. (Ex. 1101, 1:41–43, 2:63–66, 6:25–42, 7:42–49).
`
`31.
`
`Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the phrase
`
`“monitoring vital sign parameters” or “monitoring vital signs” in claims 4, 9–17, 21, and 26–34
`
`should be construed to mean sampling data from sensors indicative of the state of health of the
`
`vehicle. The specification of the ‘917 patent supports this construction because the specification
`
`describes processor 41 which samples data from the vital sign sensors 73 that measure
`
`parameters, such as engine oil temperature, engine oil pressure, engine coolant level, engine
`
`crankcase pressure, engine fuel pressure, transmission oil temperature, transmission oil level,
`
`differential oil temperature, differential oil level, current amperes to drive motor, drive motor
`
`temperature, crash (acceleration), and tire air pressure. (Id. at 1:29–40, 6:22–25, 6:43–58, 7:42–
`
`45, 7:52–54, 8:3–6).
`
`32.
`
`Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the phrase “a
`
`load on the engine” in claims 4 and 21 should be construed to mean any condition or parameter
`
`placing a demand on the engine that is affecting the amount of work done by the engine.
`
` 
`
`14
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 14
`
`

`
`Although the specification of the ‘917 patent never discusses “a load on the engine,” this
`
`construction is consistent with the specification because it describes several production related
`
`sensors that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to indicate “a load on the
`
`engine,” such as: throttle position 67B, engine fuel consumption 67C, inclinometer 67F, and
`
`load sensor 67K. (Id. at 6:30–41).
`
`33.
`
`Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the phrase “a
`
`second memory” in claims 9–17 and 26–34 should be construed to mean any set of memory
`
`addresses separate from a first set of memory addresses. The specification of the ‘917 patent is
`
`consistent with this construction because it describes a single memory device, RAM 47, that
`
`contains multiple memories composed of “a number of address locations in the RAM 47.” (Id. at
`
`7:3–20, 7:50–56, 9:51–57, 12:37–39, Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B).
`
`34.
`
`Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the phrase “a
`
`permanent memory” in claims 10 and 27 should be construed to mean any set of memory
`
`addresses that are preserved so that they are not overwritten. The specification of the ‘917 patent
`
`is consistent with this construction because it 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.” (Id. at 9:51–57).
`
`Claims 4 and 21 are Obvious Over Aoyanagi in View of
`Oishi and Steiner
`
`It is my opinion that claims 4 and 21, which depend from claims 1 and 18, respectively,
`
`35.
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over Aoyanagi in view of Oishi and
`
`Steiner. My analysis of the scope and content of the prior art references follows. Additionally, I
`
`have compared the prior art references with claims 4 and 21 of the ‘917 patent, noting
`
` 
`
`15
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 15
`
`

`
`differences, or lack thereof. My analysis begins with the independent claims, claims 1 and 18,
`
`from which claims 4 and 21 depend.
`
`36.
`
`Aoyanagi is directed to “a recording apparatus for vehicle running conditions, especially
`
`to a recording apparatus for vehicle running conditions (hereinafter referred to as a recording
`
`apparatus) that records running data at the time when the vehicle has received shocks due to an
`
`accident or the like, while protecting those data from corruption.” (Ex. 1103, 70:2:3–9).
`
`Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the normal
`
`operations of the Aoyanagi recording apparatus would include a “method for recording
`
`operations of a vehicle,” as recited in claims 1 and 18.
`
`37.
`
`The Aoyanagi recording apparatus monitors specific vehicle running parameters by using
`
`a variety of sensors. (Id. at 71:1:50–72:1:2). Specifically, Aoyanagi monitors the sensor data by
`
`“record[ing] data of the running conditions of the vehicle from these sensors….” (Id. at 71:1:6–
`
`8). Aoyanagi discusses monitoring vehicle ground speed by using, for example, vehicle wheel
`
`speed sensors. (Id. at 71:1:65–71:2:2). As seen in Figure 2 reproduced below, Aoyanagi
`
`describes monitoring engine throttle position “by detecting the butterfly position of an intake
`
`manifold 22a activated by an accelerator 26 through a rotation angle sensor 24 mounted within
`
`the intake manifold 22a of the engine 22.” (Id. at 71:2:20–23, Fig. 2). Aoyanagi discusses using
`
`accelerator pedal position and wheel rotation speed to detect vehicle acceleration/deceleration
`
`(i.e., a collision). (Id. at 71:2:6–10). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that the normal operations of the Aoyanagi recording apparatus would include
`
`“monitoring production-related parameters of the vehicle, including a ground speed of the
`
`vehicle, [and] a position of a throttle of an engine of the vehicle…,” as recited in claims 1 and
`
`18.
`
` 
`
`16
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 16
`
`

`
`
`
`38.
`
`As seen in Figure 3 reproduced below, Aoyanagi discloses monitoring the status of the
`
`vehicle’s 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, Fig. 3). The brake pedal position is detected from
`
`the hydraulic pressure and recorded. (Id. at 71:1:6–9, 71:2:28–35).
`
`a.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ‘917 patent’s priority date
`
`would have understood that when no pressure is applied to the brake pedal, the
`
`hydraulic pressure sensor 28 would detect an amount of pressure that corresponds
`
`to an “off” state of the braking system, i.e. when no braking pressure is applied to
`
`the brake 30. On the other hand, when pressure is applied to the brake pedal, the
`
`hydraulic pressure sensor 28 would detect an increased amount of pressure that
`
`corresponds to an “on” state of the braking system.
`
`b.
`
`Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the ‘917 patent’s priority date to make a straight forward modification
`
`to Aoyanagi’s brake monitoring method to create a simpler system that only
`
`monitors the braking system for an on or off status. A person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have made Aoyanagi’s apparatus recognize the braking system as
`
`“off” when the hydraulic pressure was at its rest state (i.e., no pressure applied to
`
` 
`
`17
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 17
`
`

`
`the brake pedal). Conversely, the apparatus would recognize the system as “on”
`
`for all hydraulic pressure readings above the rest state pressure (i.e., pressure is
`
`being applied to the brake pedal, or non-zero pressure is applied). A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Aoyanagi’s brake
`
`sensors to monitor only the on/off status in order to create a simpler system for
`
`applications that only need to record whether or not the brakes were applied.
`
`Aoyanagi discusses using brake pedal position to detect vehicle
`
`acceleration/deceleration (i.e., a collision). (Id. at 71:2:6–10). Accordingly, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the normal
`
`operations of the Aoyanagi recording apparatus would include “monitoring
`
`production-related parameters of the vehicle, including … an on/off status of a
`
`braking system of the vehicle,” as recited in claim 18.
`
`
`
`39.
`
`Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the‘917 patent’s priority
`
`date would have understood that Aoyanagi’s method for monitoring the vehicles braking system
`
`would provide a “degree of braking.” Specifically, the hydraulic pressure sensor would provide
`
`a pressure value between full pressure and no pressure. The digitized pressure value provides a
`
`degree of braking (i.e., the value would indicate how much pressure was applied to the brakes).
`
`(Ex. 1103, 72:2:9-14). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
` 
`
`18
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1111, page 18
`
`

`
`that the normal operations of the Aoyanagi recording apparatus would include “monitoring
`
`production-related parameters of the vehicle, including… a degree of braking of the vehicle,” as
`
`recited in claim 1.
`
`40.
`
`The Aoyanagi recording apparatus monitors vital sign parameters of the vehicle.
`
`Specifically, the Aoyanagi apparatus monitors vehicle acceleration and deceleration. (Id. at
`
`71:2:3). Additionally, Aoyanagi teaches using acceleration sensor 18 to measure impact force
`
`and direction of a collision. (Id. at 71:2:65–72:1:2). Alternatively, engine speed, accelerator
`
`pedal position, brake pedal position, and other sensors can be used in place of sensor 18 to
`
`measure acceleration/deceleration. (Id. at 71:2:3–11). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood that the normal operations of the Aoyanagi recording apparatus
`
`would include “monitoring vital sign parameters of the vehicle, including information indicative
`
`of a change in the velocity of the vehicle,” as recited in claims 1 and 18.
`
`41.
`
`The Aoyanagi recording apparatus detects a vehicle collision using acceleration sensor
`
`18, which “detects the impact force and its direction.” (Id. at 71:2:65–72:1:2). A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an acceleration sensor is used to detect a
`
`collision because of the rapid decrease in vehicle velocity over a short period of time during a
`
`collision. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
`
`normal operations of the Aoyanagi recording apparatus would include “detecting a collision of
`
`the vehicle in response to a sudden change in the velocity of the vehicle,” as recited in claims 1
`
`and 18.
`
`42.
`
`As seen in Figure 6, the Aoyanagi recording apparatus records data before and after a
`
`collision is detected. (Id. at Fig. 6). The Aoyanagi recording apparatus records all inputted
`
`sensor d