Toyota Motor Corp.
`v.
`LeRoy G. Hagenbuch
`
`IPR2014-00123
`IPR2014-00124
`Patent 8,532,867
`Trial Hearing
`
`Patent Owner LeRoy G. Hagenbuch’s Demonstrative
`Exhibits 1 through 21 for
`January 12, 2015 Oral Argument
`
`
`
`
`v.
`LeRoy G. Hagenbuch
`
`IPR2014-00123
`IPR2014-00124
`Patent 8,532,867
`Trial Hearing
`
`Patent Owner LeRoy G. Hagenbuch’s Demonstrative
`Exhibits 1 through 21 for
`January 12, 2015 Oral Argument
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 15 – Parameters
`15. An apparatus…comprising:
`
`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, and
`on/off status of a braking system of the vehicle, and a status of a
`seat belt;
`
`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;
`
` a
`
` processor in communication with one or more of the sensors
`for monitoring vital signs…and detecting whether the vehicle
`has been involved in a collision based on information obtained by
`monitoring one or more of the [vital] sign parameters….
`
`Source: Ex. 1001 & 1101 at Claim 15 (emphasis added)
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 1
`
`
`
`Claim 15 – Further Requirements
`15. An apparatus…comprising…a first memory adapted to
`capture values of the production related parameters;
`
` a
`
` second memory adapted to receive information from the first
`memory and information indicative of a change in the velocity of
`the vehicle;
`
`the processor, in response to detection of the collision, causing
`recording into the second memory…vital signs…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…
`
` a
`
` transmitter for automatically sending a wireless distress
`signal…in response to detecting the collision….
`
`
`Source: Ex. 1001 & 1101 at Claim 15 (emphasis added)
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 2
`
`
`
`Aoyanagi’s Brake Sensor
`
`(8) Brake Pedal Position
` As shown in Fig. 3, the brake pedal position is
`calculated from 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.
`
`Source: Ex. 1003 &1103 at Fig. 3 and 71:2
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 3
`
`
`
`Types of Pressure Sensors
`
`“[T]he use of brake oil pressure to determine the on/off status of
`the braking system was the universally adopted method of
`activating the brake-lights of automotive vehicles. As recognized by
`WO1993016899, published September 2, 1993, ‘This contact-
`switch will cause the brake-lights to glow, as soon as, but not
`before, pressure has been created in the hydraulic circuit….’”
`
`Source: Petitioner’s Reply at 1-2 (citations omitted, emphasis added)
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 4
`
`
`
`Stille’s Pressure-Sensitive Contact Switch
`
`“At the present time, the universally adopted method of activating
`the brake-lights of automotive vehicles in general, is to use a ‘dumb’
`brake-pedal and to incorporate somewhere along the hydraulic
`circuit that activates the brakes, a pressure-sensitive switch. This
`contact-switch will cause the brake-lights to glow, as soon as, but
`not before, pressure has been created in the hydraulic circuit, due
`to the driver’s activation of the brake-pedal.”
`
`Source: Ex. 1016 & 1116 at 1:13-20 (emphasis added)
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 5
`
`
`
`Stille’s Pressure-Sensitive Contact Switch
`
`“[T]he invention as claimed, introduces the concept of activating
`the vehicle’s brake-lights through ‘live’ or ‘intelligent’ command-
`pedals, which either have pressure-sensitive contact-switches built
`into said pedals, or have such pressure-sensitive switches or
`electronic sensors attached to said command-pedals. These pedals
`do provide an instant response to the absence or presence of the
`pressure exerted thereon by the driver’s foot.”
`
`Source: Ex. 1016 & 1116 at 3:6-13 (emphasis added)
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 6
`
`
`
`Reservoir for a Braking System
`
`“With the brakes released, the two snifter holes guarantee that
`there can be temperature- and leakage-related changes in quantity
`and pressure between the fluid reservoir and the brake circuits.”
`
`Source: Ex. 1015 & 1115 at 526 (emphasis added), 527
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 7
`
`
`
`Brake Limitations
`
`• The Board held that “Monitoring” means “watching or keeping track of,
`or checking.”
`Source: Institution Decision (123 & 124 cases) at 9
`
`• Petitioner’s expert stated:
`
`“[I]t would have been obvious … 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 the brake pedal). . . . 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.”
`Source: Ex. 1010 & 1110 at ¶38 (emphasis added)
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 8
`
`
`
`Brake Limitations
`
`Source: Ex. 1001 & 1101 at Fig. 2B (excerpt)
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 9
`
`
`
`Brake Limitations
`
`Source: Ex. 1001 &1101, Fig. 1B
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 10
`
`
`
`EDR/ACN
`
`“Patent Owner … avoid[s] the express teachings in Vollmer as to why a
`
`POSITA would find wireless, automatic collision notification a desirable
`
`addition to a vehicle.”
`
`Source: Petitioner’s Reply at 6 (emphasis added)
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 11
`
`
`
`ACN – Toyota’s Prosecution
`• Claim 1 of Toyota’s patent application was “rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Greenwood et al, US Pat. No.
`6,211,777 B1 in view of WO 2004/062496 to Dewing et al.” (Source:
`Ex. 2022 at 39.)
`
`• Toyota’s application claim 1 recites:
`
`“An automatic crash notification system comprising:
`
`a crash detection system configured to detect a crash of a
`Vehicle;
`a wireless communication system configured to wirelessly
`
`transmit a message to and wirelessly receive a message from a remote
`location in conformance with the IEEE 802.16e standard which existed at
`the time this application was filed; and
`
`a processing system configured to transmit notice of a crash
`over the wireless communication system to the remote location in
`conformation with the IEEE 802,16e [sic] standard which existed at the
`time this application was filed, in response to a detection of the crash by
`the crash detection system.” (Source: Ex. 2022 at 39 (emphasis added).)
`
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 12
`
`
`
`ACN – Toyota’s Prosecution
`
`Greenwood discloses “[a] method for exchanging information between
`vehicles involved in or near a collision site. When a collision is sensed by
`one vehicle, a message is transmitted from the one vehicle to at least one of
`the other vehicles within a threshold distance of the one vehicle. The
`message contains at least the identity of the one vehicle and preferably
`driver information, insurance information, along with the time and place of
`the collision.” (Source: Ex. 2023 at Abstract (emphasis added).)
`
`Toyota responded to this reference by arguing: “Greenwood does not
`transmit notice of a crash, as required by claim 1. Greenwood merely
`transmits the current time, current location, and information about the
`drive, the vehicle, and the insurance company. Nor would there have been
`any reason for Greenwood to have transmitted notice of a crash. The
`recipient of the transmission is the other vehicle involved in the crash. It
`obviously already knows about the crash….” (Source: Ex. 2022 at 31
`(underscored emphasis original, other emphasis added).)
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 13
`
`
`
`EDR Design Considerations
`
`•
`
`“[I]t is desirable to record many different data signals for a long period of
`time.” (Source: Ex. 2056 at 1:30-31 (U.S. Patent No. 5,638,273, to Coiner, et
`al, (filed Mar. 1995)).)
`
` •
`
`“Aoyonagi was not the only example of a vehicular event data storage
`device available to persons having ordinary skill in the art. At that time, a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a virtually limitless
`range of vehicular parameters that could be selected for monitoring and
`capturing – parameters extending well beyond those disclosed by Aoyanagi.”
`(Source: Ex. 2064 & 2067 at ¶82.)
`
`• The ‘867 Patent admits that “vital sign and production-related sensors …
`[are] well known [and] commercially available.” (Source: Ex. 1001 &1101
`at 6:66-7:1.)
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 14
`
`
`
`EDR Design Considerations
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,638,273 to Coiner et al (filed Mar. 1995): “[M]emory concerns limit
`the amount of data which may be stored in an on-board device.” (Source: Ex. 2056 at
`1:30-33.)
`
`
`
`• U.S Patent No. 4,939,652 to Steiner (filed Mar. 1988): “At each time interval … a
`summary of the particular activity chosen is recorded in contiguous memory locations
`301. Thus, if the time interval is chosen to be one second, there would be 3600 records
`in each hour of use. Whereas, if the time interval is chosen to be one minute, there
`would only be 60 records in each hour of use. It is evident that the latter choice of
`interval use 60 times less memory than the former. However, the former choice of time
`interval being much shorter than the latter choice of time interval, results in a more
`accurate representation of the instantaneous value of the activity, and therefore has
`better resolution. The value of the time interval is thus a trade off between available
`memory and resolution.” (Source: Ex. 1006 & 1106 at 4:33-46 (emphasis added).)
`
`
`
`
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 15
`
`
`
`EDR Design Considerations
`
`
`• NHTSA (Aug. 2006): “We emphasize this final rule standardizes and requires
`(Table I) the most important data elements that are essential to crash
`reconstruction . . . . We have decided not to require the recording of …
`additional data elements. [R]ecording these additional data elements, which
`are currently of lesser value for our stated purposes, would … risk
`overburdening the microprocessing and memory capabilities of EDRs and
`increase potential record times. This increases the risk of system failure. We
`may revisit the distribution of data elements between Table I and Table II as …
`the ability to record these data elements become less risky.” (Source: Ex.
`2002 at 51014 (emphasis added).)
`
`• NHTSA (Aug. 2006): “Severe crashes often interrupt (or destroy) the normal
`operation of the vehicle’s electrical system. Interruption of the vehicle’s
`electrical system may compromise the ability of the EDR to complete
`capturing and then record data. . . . [T]here is a much better chance of
`capturing and recording a complete file that is smaller rather than larger.
`Accordingly, we believe it is desirable to keep the file size (i.e., data elements/
`volume of data) to a minimum. “ (Source Ex. 2002 at 51017 (emphasis
`added).)
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`Original NHTSA Proposal
`
`Source: Ex. 2003 at 11.
`
`
`Required Data Element
`
`Longitudinal
`acceleration
`Speed, vehicle indicated
`
`Engine RPM
`Engine throttle, % full
`
`Service brake, on/off
`
`Recording
`Interval
`
`-0.1 to 0.5 s
`
`-8.0 to 0 s
`
`-8.0 to 0 s
`-8.0 to 0 s
`
`-8.0 to 0 s
`
`Sampling Rate Data Points per
`Event
`
`Data Points per
`Three Events
`
`500/s
`
`2/s
`
`2/s
`2/s
`
`2/s
`
`301
`
`17
`
`17
`17
`
`17
`
`903
`
`51
`
`51
`51
`
`51
`
`Source: Ex. 2003 at 58 (selected elements from Table B-2).
`
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 17
`
`
`
`Reaction to NHTSA’s Proposal
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 18
`
`
`
`Revision of Data Requirements by NHTSA
`
`Source: Ex. 2003 at 35
`
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 19
`
`
`
`Aoyanagi’s Teachings
`• Aoyanagi teaches that use of 16 data elements are “not always necessary
`but just illustrative,” including:
`
`(Source: Ex. 1003 & 1103 at 71.)
`
`• Aoyanagi teaches “utilizing a 64-kilobyte C-MOS SRAM as a memory
`and recording the abovementioned items at an interval of 0.1 seconds, a
`recording time of a little over 3 minutes becomes possible.”
`(Source: Ex. 1003 & 1103 at 72:1.)
`
`•
`“[P]ortions of Aoyanagi teach a POSITA that all parameters may be
`recorded.”
`(Source: Reply at 12 (emphasis added).)
`
`
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 20
`
`
`
`Aoyanagi’s Teachings
`From the deposition of Petitioner’s expert:
`Q:
`Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the data described in
`
`Aoyanagi is the right data … ?
`A:
`I don’t know, I’m not – I’m more the sensor electronics guy trying
`
`to have the fastest possible system. I’m not a collision expert so I
`
`don’t know…. (Source: Ex. 2054 at 131:3-132:16 (emphasis added).)
`
`Q:
`
`
`
`A:
`
`
`
`Q:
`
`
`A:
`
`Even without regard to the Federal regulations, do you think a person
`skilled in the art would look at Oishi and recognize it to be an event
`data recorded as that term may have been used?
`
`*
`*
`*
`Putting it simple, I know that’s kind of – but EDR’s are not, I would
`say not my specialty area, but it’s a form of diagnostic module.
`(Source: Ex. 2054 at 185:8-23 (emphasis added).)
`
`So you started with the patent claim elements; you went to Aoyanagi
`and you looked to see if the elements were disclosed by Aoyanagi,
`correct?
`That’s correct. (Source: Ex. 2054 at 120:23-121:19 (emphasis added).)
`Owner’s Demonstrative Ex. 21
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
