`
`DOCKET NO: 420717US
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 6, 2011
`
`
`
`PATENT: 8,014,917
`
`INVENTOR: HAGENBUCH
`
`FILED: MARCH 19, 2010
`
`TITLE: APPARATUS FOR TRACKING TRIAL NO.: IPR2013-00638
`AND RECORDING VITAL SIGNS AND
`TASK-RELATED INFORMATION OF A
`VEHICLE TO IDENTIFY OPERATING
`PATTERNS
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MCNAMARA
`
`
`1.
`
`I, David McNamara, make this declaration in connection with the inter
`
`partes review (IPR2013-00638) 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.
`
`As shown in my original declaration (Ex. 1111), I am an expert in the field
`
`of automotive electronics.
`
`
`
`1
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1124, page 1
`Toyota v. Hagenbuch
`IPR2013-00638
`
`
`
`
`
`“a load on the engine”
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide further information regarding the claim term:
`
`“a load on the engine.” In my previous declaration, I opined that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the phrase “a load on the engine” in claims 4 and 21
`
`should be any condition or parameter placing a demand on the engine that is
`
`affecting the amount of work done by the engine. The Board construed the term to
`
`mean “at least a portion of the power output from or being consumed by the
`
`engine.” (Decision at 12.) Importantly, the Board’s construction notes that “a load
`
`on the engine” can be just “at least a portion of the power output from or being
`
`consumed by the engine.” Accordingly, I believe the Board’s construction
`
`encompasses my previously proposed construction.
`
`4.
`
`In its decision to institute inter partes review, the Board questioned, “is the
`
`power output from the engine the same as that consumed in the process?”
`
`Consistent with the Board’s claim construction, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would generally consider the power output from the engine and the power being
`
`consumed by the engine to be the same. There are losses in every machine and in
`
`every process. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would generally
`
`consider the power being consumed by the engine to be equal to the power being
`
`output from the vehicle, i.e., the “loads on the engine”.
`
`
`
`2
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1124, page 2
`Toyota v. Hagenbuch
`IPR2013-00638
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`The Board further questioned, “how a person of skill in the art would have
`
`understood ‘a load on the engine,’ or how one would have monitored it”? One
`
`way that a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine the load on the
`
`engine would be by monitoring the position of the throttle, as explained in detail
`
`below.
`
`6.
`
`One of the fundamental references used in the industry and known to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the automotive industry is the Bosch Automotive
`
`Handbook. (Ex. 1116.) As this reference makes explicitly clear, “Engine power is
`
`thus determined by the position of the throttle valve.” (Ex. 1116 p. 362.) This is
`
`not the only reference that makes this point based on their understanding, as
`
`persons skilled in the art, of the basic operation of gasoline and diesel engines. For
`
`example, U.S. Patent No. 5,137,001, which is entitled “Control Apparatus for an
`
`Engine,” states that “[t]he judgement [sic] as to how much amount of load is
`
`applied to the engine depends on the throttle opening degree ….” (Ex. 1126, 4:12–
`
`14.) Additionally, Toyota’s Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication
`
`S63-240437 states that “Engine load refers to, e.g., the depression amount of the
`
`accelerator pedal, the aperture of the throttle valve, the measurement of air intake
`
`volume, etc.” (Ex. 1120 p. 246.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood from that statement in S63-240437 that the depression amount of the
`
`accelerator pedal and the aperture of the throttle valve are examples of parameters
`
`
`
`3
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1124, page 3
`Toyota v. Hagenbuch
`IPR2013-00638
`
`
`
`
`
`that indicate the load on the engine. Similarly, Japanese Unexamined Patent
`
`Application Publication H01-279150 states that “the engine loading mentioned
`
`above, other than being an engine loading detected based on the amount of
`
`accelerator pressure, the air suction pressure, or the degree of throttle aperture, may
`
`also include said amount of accelerator pressure, the air suction pressure or the
`
`degree of the throttle aperture.” (Ex. 1122 p. 367.) One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood from that statement in H01-279150 that the degree of
`
`throttle aperture is an example of a parameter that indicates the load on the engine.
`
`7.
`
`Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`the position of the throttle provides the load on the engine because the position of
`
`the throttle directly correlates to the rate of fuel being consumed by the engine.
`
`The amount of fuel consumed by the engine during a period of time indicates how
`
`hard the engine was working over that period of time and, accordingly, the load on
`
`the engine. As the load on the engine increases, the engine requires more fuel. As
`
`explained by the Bosch Automotive Handbook: “The driver actuates the throttle
`
`valve by means of the accelerator. The throttle valve controls the amount of air
`
`aspirated by the engine. The carburetor then meters an appropriate amount of fuel
`
`depending upon this quantity of air.” (Ex. 1116 p. 362.) Accordingly, by knowing
`
`the throttle position, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine
`
`the fuel consumption rate, which the Patent Owner acknowledges is the load on the
`
`
`
`4
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1124, page 4
`Toyota v. Hagenbuch
`IPR2013-00638
`
`
`
`
`
`engine. (PO Resp. 52, “Owner agrees with the Board that “fuel consumption rate
`
`corresponds to the load on the engine.”)
`
`8.
`
`The fundamental relationship between throttle position and engine load can
`
`best be understood with a practical example. If the accelerator pedal position is
`
`unchanged as the load on the vehicle increases (i.e., the vehicle goes up a hill), the
`
`vehicle will slow down because the power output of the engine is unchanged. If
`
`the driver wants to maintain constant vehicle speed when the load on the vehicle
`
`increases (i.e., the vehicle goes up a hill), the driver of the vehicle would have to
`
`provide a corresponding increase in accelerator pedal position to compensate for
`
`the increase in vehicle load. In a similar manner, to maintain constant speed going
`
`down a hill, the driver will need to close the engine throttle by decreasing pedal
`
`position to compensate for the decrease in vehicle load.
`
`9.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand Aoyanagi to teach
`
`monitoring and recording “a load on the engine.” As seen in Figure 2, 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.” (Ex. 1103,
`
`71:2:20–23, Fig. 2). A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ‘917
`
`patent’s priority date would have understood that by monitoring the engine throttle
`
`position, one would have a direct indication of load on the engine. Accordingly, a
`
`
`
`5
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1124, page 5
`Toyota v. Hagenbuch
`IPR2013-00638
`
`
`
`
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the normal
`
`operations of the Aoyanagi recording apparatus would include “a load on the
`
`engine” as one of the “production-related parameters,” as recited in claims 4 and
`
`21.
`
`10. Furthermore, Steiner teaches “a system for monitoring, recording and
`
`displaying vehicle operating parameters….” (Ex. 1110, Abstract). The Steiner
`
`system monitors and permanently records vehicle-operating parameters “if the
`
`vehicle is involved in an accident.” (Ex. 1110, Abstract, 8:17–47). Specifically,
`
`Steiner’s system describes three different “sensor inputs 630”: distance, RPM, and
`
`Fuel. (Ex. 1110, Fig. 1, 7:23–29). Steiner states that “[d]istance is chosen as the
`
`primary function in this embodiment,” however, either of the two other sensor
`
`inputs, e.g., the fuel sensor, could be used as a “primary function.” With “real-
`
`time” fuel consumption data being stored every 15 to 60 seconds, Steiner’s system
`
`monitors and records the engine’s fuel consumption rate.
`
`11. As stated in my previous declaration, “a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Steiner’s
`
`engine fuel consumption monitoring and recording feature with Aoyanagi’s vehicle
`
`recording apparatus so that the benefits of that feature could be combined in a
`
`vehicle.” (Ex. 1111 ¶ 58.) Rather than combining two different data retention
`
`schemes, a person of ordinary skill in the art would preferably just import the fuel
`
`
`
`6
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1124, page 6
`Toyota v. Hagenbuch
`IPR2013-00638
`
`
`
`
`
`sensor of Steiner into Aoyanagi’s data monitoring/recording scheme which
`
`samples the sensors at 0.1 second intervals. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that this combined system would monitor and capture a fuel
`
`consumption rate, with the fuel level recorded at 0.1 second intervals.
`
`12. As discussed in my previous declaration, it would have been obvious to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the ‘917 patent’s priority date, to combine
`
`the teachings of Aoyanagi and Oishi with Steiner. Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`these benefits or argue that it would not be obvious to add an engine fuel
`
`consumption sensor, as taught by Steiner, to Aoyanagi.
`
`13. Likewise, as discussed in my previous declaration, it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the ‘917 patent’s priority
`
`date, to combine the teachings of Aoyanagi and Vollmer with Steiner. Patent
`
`Owner does not dispute these benefits or argue that it would not be obvious to add
`
`an engine fuel consumption sensor, as taught by Steiner, to Aoyanagi.
`
`14. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`the normal operations of the Aoyanagi recording apparatus in combination with
`
`Steiner would include “a load on the engine” as one of the “production-related
`
`parameters,” as recited in claims 4 and 21.
`
`15.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1124, page 7
`Toyota v. Hagenbuch
`IPR2013-00638
`
`
`
`Executed on October 6, 2014
`
`.,
`'\
`I
`7
`‘3 219,04 M pH‘UL/ZLU")
`
`David McNamara
`
`
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1124, page 8
`Toyota v. Hagenbuch
`|PR2013-00638
`
`TOYOTA Ex. 1124, page 8
`Toyota v. Hagenbuch
`IPR2013-00638
`
`
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
