UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`2.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`3.
`
`Page
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Overview of Patent ......................................................................................... 1
`III. Anticipation of Claims 1–3, 5, 12–14, 18, 21, 25–26, 34–36 by
`Mizuno ............................................................................................................ 2
`A.
`Common Cruise Control and Speedometer Limitations ...................... 2
`1.
`An Enable Switch Associated with Said Controller for
`Enabling the System (Claim 1) .................................................. 2
`A Cruise Control Enable Switch Associated with the
`Controller for Enabling and Disabling the Controller
`(Claim 2) .................................................................................... 3
`Upon Braking the Vehicle, Discontinuing Maintaining
`the Vehicle Speed at Substantially the Preset Speed
`While Keeping Data Corresponding to the Preset Speed
`in a Memory Device (Claim 18) ................................................ 5
`Accelerating the Vehicle to a Speed Above the Preset
`Speed (Claim 25) ....................................................................... 6
`First Visual Display Apparatus Operable to Display the
`[Information] Indicative of the Actual Speed of the
`Vehicle (Claim 26), and a First Visual Display
`Apparatus Operable to Display the [Information]
`Indicative of the Actual Speed of the Vehicle (Claim 34)......... 6
`B. Display Limitations .............................................................................. 7
`1. Maintaining the Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol
`Upon Temporary Acceleration or Deceleration of the
`Vehicle (Claim 12) ..................................................................... 7
`Discontinuing Display of the Symbol Indicative of the
`Preset Speed When the Cruise Control System Is
`Deactivated or a New Preset Speed Is Selected (Claim
`13) .............................................................................................. 8
`After the Cruise Control System Is Deactivated,
`Displaying a Symbol Indicative of an Unset State of the
`Preset Speed (Claim 21) ............................................................. 9
`-i-
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`IV. Anticipation of Claims 1–2, 12–16, 21, 25–27, and 29–31 by Miura .......... 10
`A.
`Common Cruise Control and Speedometer Limitations .................... 10
`1.
`An Enable Switch Associated With Said Controller for
`Enabling the System (Claim 1) ................................................ 10
`A Cruise Control Enable Switch Associated With the
`Controller for Enabling and Disabling the Controller
`(Claim 2) .................................................................................. 11
`B. Display Limitations ............................................................................ 11
`1. Maintaining the Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol
`Upon Temporary Acceleration or Deceleration of the
`Vehicle (Claim 12) and Maintaining the Display of the
`Symbol Indicative of The Preset Speed While the
`Vehicle Is at the Speed Above the Preset Speed (Claim
`25) ............................................................................................ 11
`Discontinuing Display of the Symbol Indicative of the
`Preset Speed When the Cruise Control System Is
`Deactivated or a New Preset Speed Is Selected (Claim
`13) ............................................................................................ 12
`After Activating the Cruise Control System, but Before
`Setting the Preset Speed, Indicating to the Operator the
`Unset Status of the Preset Speed (Claim 15) and
`Displaying a Visual Symbol to the Operator (Claim 16)
`and After the Cruise Control System Is Deactivated,
`Displaying a Symbol Indicative of an Unset State of the
`Preset Speed (Claim 21) ........................................................... 13
`The Visual Information Displayed by the Second Visual
`Display Apparatus Includes Information Reflecting
`Whether the Speed Controller Is Operating to Maintain
`the Vehicle at the Cruising Speed at the Time the
`Display Is Made (Claim 27) ..................................................... 14
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`5.
`
`The Individual Visual Indicators Are Disposed On the
`Indicator Dial of the Analog Speedometer (Claim 31) ............ 14
`V. Obviousness of Claims 4, 19–20, 23, and 27–28. ........................................ 15
`VI. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The claims challenged in this inter partes review (1–5, 12–16, 18–21, 23,
`
`25–31, and 34–36 of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463 (the “’463 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)) are
`
`invalid as anticipated or rendered obvious over Mizuno (Ex. 1004) and Miura (Ex.
`
`1006). Patent Owner’s arguments focus almost exclusively on common cruise
`
`control and speedometer limitations (e.g., switches to power the system on;
`
`deviations from set speed during cruise; canceling speed control when the brake is
`
`depressed; and a speedometer). Those arguments can be quickly dispensed with
`
`because the ’431 patent, Mizuno, and Miura all describe those features as well-
`
`known, assumed background prior art. Patent Owner’s arguments as to the display
`
`limitations are tortured readings of phrases taken out of context from the references
`
`that likewise fail in the face of disclosures cited in the Petition and the lack of
`
`evidence rebutting Mr. McNamara’s Declaration.
`
`II. Overview of Patent
`The ’463 patent is drawn to a cruise control display, not a “conventional
`
`cruise control system” containing at least twelve elements the ’463 patent expressly
`
`admits are background prior art. (Pet. 12–13.) It is also clear from the inventor’s
`
`statements to the USPTO that:
`
`Applicant’s inventive system and every system and method claim in
`
`the pending application, on the contrary, are directed only to the
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`specific problem of providing preset cruise control speed
`
`information to the driver of a vehicle. . . . . The pending claims only
`
`address the display of the speed of the vehicle as it was when the
`
`cruise control was set as a constant indicator/reminder to the driver of
`
`the speed to which the vehicle will resume after the cruise control
`
`speed is temporarily overridden . . . .
`
`(Ex. 1002, p. 105 (emphasis added).)
`
`III. Anticipation of Claims 1–3, 5, 12–14, 18, 21, 25–26, 34–36 by Mizuno
`A. Common Cruise Control and Speedometer Limitations
`1.
`An Enable Switch Associated with Said Controller for
`Enabling the System (Claim 1)
`
`
`
`Patent owner acknowledges that the disclosed key switch (when turned on)
`
`“provid[es] power to be supplied to the digital system . . . .” and “caus[es] display
`
`device 6C to show a value” but argues that this “does not necessarily mean that the
`
`digital system is in a system-on state.” (Resp. 6.) That is nonsense. The system
`
`must be on if the system is drawing power and a display device is operating. Mr.
`
`McNamara confirmed the same (Pet. 17–20, Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 44, 55), and Patent
`
`Owner offers no evidence to rebut his conclusion.
`
`
`
`More specifically, Mizuno discloses that when the key switch is turned on
`
`“power source is supplied to the electric system of Figure 1.” (Pet. 19 (citing Ex.
`
`1004, p. 4 3d para. and Figs. 1–2).) Figure 1 includes the “1 Controller” and “2
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`Actuator.” The key switch thus powers on not just the display device 6C, as Patent
`
`Owner claims, but the entire system. And Figure 2 confirms that the “key switch”
`
`causes the entire cruise control process to start at “step 11” (labeled “power ON
`
`switch”).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s radio/clock example is inapposite because those are two
`
`discrete systems: the tuner and the clock. Moreover, Patent Owner does not contest
`
`that what he calls the “key switch (9) of the analog embodiment” is disclosed; he
`
`argues only that the Petition does not “focus” on it. (Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 1004, p. 7,
`
`¶¶ 7, 13), 6 (citing Pet. 19).) Patent owner is wrong—the Petition cites the relevant
`
`disclosure, which is all that is required. (Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1004 p. 7, 9th para.).)
`
`2.
`
`A Cruise Control Enable Switch Associated with the
`Controller for Enabling and Disabling the Controller
`(Claim 2)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments fail for the same reasons discussed regarding
`
`section III.A.1. Moreover, Patent Owner also proffers a generalized and
`
`undeveloped claim construction argument. (Resp. 8–9 (citing Aspex Eyewear, Inc.
`
`v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Comak
`
`Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). He does
`
`not explain how or why the terms in these claims are patentably distinct from those
`
`in claim 1, nor does he propose a construction for this term. Also, Patent Owner’s
`
`application of the case law above is overstated. Patentees can and often do “use
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`slightly different language to describe substantially the same invention.” See, e.g.,
`
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC., 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(citing Aspex, 672 F.3d at 1341 n.1). In any event, if there is a patentable
`
`difference between claim 1 and claim 2, it is at most (1) that the claim 1 switch
`
`enables the controller while the claim 2 switch enables the whole system and/or (2)
`
`that claim 2 adds the disabling function. Because the key switch in Mizuno
`
`controls whether or not any power is provided to the controller as well as to the
`
`whole cruise control system, the same disclosure anticipates both claims.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that turning off the ignition switch in Mizuno does
`
`not turn off the system (Resp. 9) also fails. The disclosures cited in connection
`
`with claim 1(b) and referenced in connection with claim 2 (Pet. 19–20, 23) state
`
`that “if the key switch of the vehicle is turned on, the power source is supplied to
`
`the electric system of Figure 1 . . . .” (Pet. 19 (emphasis altered).) This is a
`
`conditional statement that power is provided only if the key switch is turned on. If
`
`confirmation were necessary, Mizuno further discloses that non-volatile memory is
`
`necessary because the cruise control system has no power when the switch is off.
`
`(Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1004, p. 7, 1st para).)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s argument about the lack of an inherent disclosure of a single,
`
`combined start switch (Resp. 8) offers no evidence countering Mr. McNamara’s
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`Declaration and, in any event, addresses an alternative position obviated by the
`
`Board’s claim construction, which Patent Owner does not challenge.
`
`3.
`
`Upon Braking the Vehicle, Discontinuing Maintaining the
`Vehicle Speed at Substantially the Preset Speed While
`Keeping Data Corresponding to the Preset Speed in a
`Memory Device (Claim 18)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner admits that Mizuno discloses a cancel switch “linked to . . .
`
`the brake pedal” but argues Mizuno does not disclose how the link operates. (Resp.
`
`12–13.) But the “how” is irrelevant because Patent Owner does not even attempt to
`
`challenge whether Mizuno is enabled. Mizuno nevertheless discloses that the
`
`cancel function uses a discrete on/off indication (including OR logic) to cancel
`
`cruise control if either the brake or the clutch is pushed. (Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1004,
`
`p. 3, 2nd to last para.).) This is an inference a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would unquestionably draw, In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968), given
`
`that the ’463 patent admits it is prior art (Pet. 30 (citing APA Nos. (5)–(7))) and
`
`given that a cruise control system that never canceled speed control upon
`
`depression of the brake would have been uselessly dangerous. To Patent Owner’s
`
`“second” point, the “on” and “off” operations are discussed in the same sentence
`
`describing the linking of the break to the cancel switch, explaining how it operates.
`
`
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner argues that the cited portion does not mention
`
`braking and that “it is unclear whether the ‘temporary stop’ refers to stopping the
`
`vehicle or stopping the speed control” (Resp. 13–14 (citing Pet. 29)), but does not
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`explain why either matters. In fact, Mizuno discloses that the non-volatile memory
`
`stores the preset speed at all times, even when the car is turned off; for example,
`
`after braking to a stop (“off operation of the key switch”). (Pet. 29–30.)
`
`4.
`
`Accelerating the Vehicle to a Speed Above the Preset
`Speed (Claim 25)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s argument here fails for the reasons discussed in connection
`
`with the acceleration and deceleration of cruise control systems discussed in
`
`section III.B.1. Further, Patent Owner challenges the basis for Mr. McNamara’s
`
`statement that all vehicles under speed control deviate at least a little from the set
`
`speed, but does not even attempt to challenge Mr. McNamara’s identification of
`
`Mizuno’s disclosure of an actuator controlling speed by controlling the fuel valve
`
`(Pet., 33 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶ 62).) Nor does Patent Owner provide any evidence to
`
`rebut the straightforward assertion by Mr. McNamara that all cruise control
`
`systems deviate somewhat from the set speed—especially given that the patent
`
`admits they do. (Pet., 33 (citing APA no. (8) (“true of all systems today”)).
`
`5.
`
`First Visual Display Apparatus Operable to Display the
`[Information] Indicative of the Actual Speed of the Vehicle
`(Claim 26), and a First Visual Display Apparatus Operable
`to Display the [Information] Indicative of the Actual Speed
`of the Vehicle (Claim 34)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner contests that Mizuno’s reference to the Kokoku publication
`
`discloses a speedometer. (Resp. 16–17.) Mizuno’s discussion of Kokoku describes
`
`the downside of a user having to depress the acceleration or deceleration switches
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`associated with the cruise control and hold them until the vehicle changes speeds
`
`and arrives at the desired speed (“target value”). (Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1004, p. 1).)
`
`Patent Owner points only to the statement of driver’s arm being constrained and
`
`ignores Mizuno’s explanation for the constraint: the driver must wait, with his/her
`
`hand on the switch, until “the vehicle speed changes to the target value.” (Id.
`
`(emphasis added).) Patent Owner thus fails to dispute that Mizuno discloses that
`
`such systems include a visual apparatus so that the user knows what the actual
`
`speed is while waiting for it to approach the user’s target speed. Again, the ’463
`
`Patent admits that is prior art, and Patent Owner provides no evidence contesting
`
`Mr. McNamara’s declaration that all cars had speedometers. (Pet. 13, 34–35.)
`
`B. Display Limitations
`1. Maintaining the Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol
`Upon Temporary Acceleration or Deceleration of the
`Vehicle (Claim 12)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that this term “requires . . . some separate indicia
`
`indicating that the cruise control system is active.” (Resp. 10.) That claim
`
`construction argument fails because he did not proposed a construction or
`
`challenge the Board’s. Activated means “turning on.” (Paper 19, p. 8–9.) When the
`
`system is turned on, the display turns on and shows that it is activated. (Pet. 26
`
`(citing Ex. 1004, p. 5 1st para.).) Further, even if the Board were to accept the new
`
`construction that includes “separate indicia,” the combined display of the preset
`
`speed with the flashing display lamp meets it. (Ex. 1007, ¶ 44.)
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`Patent Owner also argues that the initial value of display 6C is not an
`
`
`
`“‘activated’ cruise control speed symbol” (Resp. 10–11), but Mizuno makes clear
`
`that once the start switch 5 is turned on, the displayed value is the activated value:
`
`“[e]very time the set value changes, the display of the display device (6C) is
`
`changed . . . . If start switch 5 is turned on, actuator (2) is displaced by using the
`
`set value . . . .” (Pet. 26; Ex. 1004, p. 5, 8th para.)
`
`
`
`Further, Patent Owner’s argument that temporary acceleration is not
`
`inherently disclosed is also wrong. The whole point of a cruise control system is to
`
`adjust to variations in speed due to temporary acceleration/deceleration; else it
`
`would have no function. The ’463 Patent admits as much in APA No. (8). (Pet., 26
`
`(citing APA no. (8) (“true of all systems today”)).) Mr. McNamara points out the
`
`disclosure in Mizuno and provides a basis for this inherency, which Patent Owner
`
`provides no evidence to rebut. (Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 59, 62).) Further,
`
`Mizuno expressly discloses that the display is maintained “regardless of whether
`
`under speed control or not” and when the actual vehicle speed changes with respect
`
`to the preset value (id. (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 2, step 13 and p. 4, 1st para.))
`
`2.
`
`Discontinuing Display of the Symbol Indicative of the
`Preset Speed When the Cruise Control System Is
`Deactivated or a New Preset Speed Is Selected (Claim 13)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner does not contest that the symbol indicative of the preset speed
`
`is discontinued when power to the system is turned off, and thereby admits Mizuno
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`discloses that limitation. (See Pet., 27–29; see also Paper 19, Decision, at 8–9
`
`(construing “deactivated” to mean “the cruise control system is turned off”).)
`
`
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner’s argument that “Petitioner’s declarant does not
`
`provide any explanation of his basis for [the] assertion” that preset speed is
`
`displayed substantially continuously (Rep. 12) is generalized, undeveloped, and
`
`wrong. Patent Owner addresses only paragraphs 56–57 of Mr. McNamara’s
`
`Declaration, ignoring cited paragraphs 44 and 55–58. (Pet. 27–28 (including cited
`
`claim 14 disclosures)) In any event, the Petition cites Mr. McNamara’s detailed
`
`discussion of how the preset speed indication is changed when the cruise control
`
`system is turned off, as well as when a new preset speed has been set either with up
`
`and down switches (Fig. 1) or with a one-touch stored set operation (Fig. 3). (Pet.
`
`26–28 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 44, 55–57).)
`
`3.
`
`After the Cruise Control System Is Deactivated,
`Displaying a Symbol Indicative of an Unset State of the
`Preset Speed (Claim 21)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that “Mizuno does not provide any indication of
`
`whether the display lamp would be capable of flashing when the cruise control
`
`system is deactivated (turned off).” (Resp. 14–15.) It is clear from the conditional
`
`statement (“if the key switch is turned on”) and other disclosures discussed in
`
`section III.A.2, that the display lamp—indeed the entire system—is turned off
`
`when the key switch is off; i.e., deactivated (Paper 19, p. 8.) Patent owner provides
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`no evidence to contest Mr. McNamara’s confirmatory statements that such
`
`functionality is inherent in all automobiles (Pet. 31 citing Ex. 1007, ¶ 67) and that
`
`“when the key switch is off, power is no longer provided to the display device, and
`
`it turns off” (id.; see also Ex. 1007, ¶ 55).
`
`IV. Anticipation of Claims 1–2, 12–16, 21, 25–27, and 29–31 by Miura
`A. Common Cruise Control and Speedometer Limitations
`1.
`An Enable Switch Associated With Said Controller
`for Enabling the System (Claim 1)
`Patent Owner’s arguments fail for the same logical reasons discussed in
`
`
`
`section III.A.1. For instance, Patent Owner admits that Miura discloses that power
`
`is not supplied to the CPU unless and until (“when”) the ignition is on and the
`
`engine starts. (Resp., 19–20; see also Pet., 45 (“The engine starts when ignition
`
`SW (21) is on and power is applied to the CPU (20)”).) Patent Owner points to a
`
`flag indicating that the cruise control system will not control speed unless the
`
`vehicle speed is within a certain range. (Resp. 19–20.) This argument assumes
`
`“enable” means “engage,” which is a construction the Board rejected and a
`
`decision Patent Owner does not contest. (Compare Paper 19, at 6 with id. 7.) If
`
`there were any doubt, Figure 3 of Miura shows that the CPU is located in between,
`
`and therefore controls communication between, all necessary parts of the system,
`
`such that power to it controls whether the whole system is enabled or not. (Pet. 45.)
`
`10
`
`

`
`2.
`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`A Cruise Control Enable Switch Associated With the
`Controller for Enabling and Disabling the Controller
`(Claim 2)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner makes the same claim construction and combined-set-switch
`
`arguments discussed in section III.A.2, which fail for the same reasons discussed in
`
`that section as well as those discussed in section IV.A.1. Further, Patent Owner
`
`offers no evidence to rebut Mr. McNamara that the cruise control system in every
`
`vehicle is off when the ignition switch is off. (Resp., 22 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 67).)
`
`B. Display Limitations
`1. Maintaining the Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol
`Upon Temporary Acceleration or Deceleration of the
`Vehicle (Claim 12) and Maintaining the Display of the
`Symbol Indicative of The Preset Speed While the Vehicle Is
`at the Speed Above the Preset Speed (Claim 25)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that display of “separate indicia” is required
`
`(Resp. 23) fails for the same reasons discussed in section III.B.1. Patent Owner
`
`also argues that Miura’s set speed readout is not an “activated cruise control speed
`
`symbol.” (Resp. 23.) But Miura clearly discloses that the diodes of the set speed
`
`readout will only be lit when the cruise control system is both activated and
`
`engaged. (Pet. 50.) Thus, one or more lit diodes indicates that the cruise control
`
`system is both activated and also engaged. Additionally, the specific arrangement
`
`of LEDs that are lit provides the preset speed as “separate indicia.”
`
`
`
`Patent Owner also argues that “[t]aken literally” the phrase “only during the
`
`cruise travel speed” means the set speed display will be discontinued if there is any
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`deviation from the set speed (Resp. 24) (i.e., that the LEDs are only lit when the
`
`target speed exactly equals the actual speed). Figures 4–5, if not logic alone, defeat
`
`that argument. Once the set SW is hit at S2, the display persists (steps S5 and S11)
`
`until cruise control is canceled or turned off. (Pet. 50.) Patent Owner does not, and
`
`cannot, contest that Miura’s disclosure of controlling the throttle during speed
`
`control confirms that the vehicle will deviate from the set speed during cruise
`
`control. (id; Ex. 1007, ¶ 78.) Further, Patent Owner’s statement equating slowing
`
`down with braking (Resp. 24) is incorrect, as vehicles can slow down without
`
`braking; e.g., when driving uphill (Ex. 1007, ¶ 78) or when the brake is not
`
`depressed “more than a predetermined deceleration value” (Pet. 50). Patent Owner
`
`offers no evidence to contradict Mr. McNamara’s testimony on any of these issues.
`
`2.
`
`Discontinuing Display of the Symbol Indicative of the Preset
`Speed When the Cruise Control System Is Deactivated or a
`New Preset Speed Is Selected (Claim 13)
`
`
`
`Importantly, Patent Owner does not contest that Miura discloses the claimed
`
`discontinuation when the system is deactivated (Resp. 25). For selecting a new
`
`preset speed, Patent Owner claims Mr. McNamara provides no “explanation,”
`
`asserting that he only cites to one paragraph of Miura. (Id.) That is wrong. Patent
`
`Owner addresses only paragraph 75 of Mr. McNamara’s Declaration, and ignores
`
`cited paragraphs 66–67, 70–71, and 76 (Pet. 51–52 (including disclosures cited in
`
`claim 14, which in turn cite to multiple disclosures in Miura).) In any event, the
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`one paragraph Patent Owner addresses (Ex. 1007, ¶ 75 (citing Ex. 1006, ¶ 0023))
`
`describes multiple steps in Figures 4–5 by which the set speed display is changed.
`
`3.
`
`After Activating the Cruise Control System, but Before
`Setting the Preset Speed, Indicating to the Operator the
`Unset Status of the Preset Speed (Claim 15) and Displaying
`a Visual Symbol to the Operator (Claim 16) and After the
`Cruise Control System Is Deactivated, Displaying a Symbol
`Indicative of an Unset State of the Preset Speed (Claim 21)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that an unlit LED cannot indicate the unset status of the
`
`preset speed. (Resp. 25–27.) He offers no evidence in support of this attorney
`
`argument; nor does he offer a construction of these terms or challenge any of the
`
`Board’s constructions. Instead Patent Owner likens an unlit LED to “the climate
`
`control system or the vehicle radio or the windshield.” (Rep. 26.) These examples
`
`fail because, unlike the LEDs, they have absolutely nothing to do with cruise
`
`control. Additionally, Miura discloses unlit LEDs as negative indications, as
`
`Miura’s set speed display is based upon the ability of users to distinguish between
`
`the placement of the lit LEDs vis-à-vis the unlit ones. Steps S5 and S11 of Figures
`
`4 and 5 demonstrate that unlit LEDs are displayed. (Pet. 53–56.) S11 in Figure 4
`
`displays LEDs “corresponding to set speed”, and S11 of Figure 5 displays LEDs
`
`“up to set speed.” In Figure 4, there are LEDs corresponding to other speeds that
`
`are not lit and, in Figure 5, there are a bank of LEDs lit next to a bank of others
`
`that are unlit. In either case, Miura discloses that the user can distinguish the
`
`placement of lit LEDs from unlit ones. In this way, contrary to Patent Owner’s
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`assertion (Rep. 27), when the vehicle and cruise control system are powered off,
`
`the display of the set speed (lit LEDs) is discontinued while a new display (the
`
`unlit LEDs) of the unset state is displayed; e.g., to the operator sitting in the car.
`
`4.
`
`The Visual Information Displayed by the Second Visual
`Display Apparatus Includes Information Reflecting
`Whether the Speed Controller Is Operating to Maintain the
`Vehicle at the Cruising Speed at the Time the Display Is
`Made (Claim 27)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that “[e]ven if the illuminated LED is visual
`
`information identifying the set speed, neither the same illuminated LED nor the set
`
`speed display displays any other information.” (Resp. 29.) He ignores that Miura
`
`discloses lighting of multiple LEDs (Ex. 1006, Fig. 5, S11) and, in any event, does
`
`not contest that the LED(s) is only lit when the controller is operating. (Pet. 58
`
`(citing 12(d)).) Patent Owner therefore does not contest that one or more LEDs
`
`being lit constitutes information reflecting that the speed controller is operating and
`
`that all LED(s) being unlit constitutes information that the speed controller is not
`
`operating. (Id.; sections III.B.1 and IV.B.1 (failed “indicia” claim construction).)
`
`5.
`
`The Individual Visual Indicators Are Disposed On the
`Indicator Dial of the Analog Speedometer (Claim 31)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner disputes that Miura’s indicator LEDs are “disposed on” the
`
`dial face of the speedometer, but then admits that the light from the LEDs would
`
`“appear superimposed over the dial face 14.” (Resp. 30.) Indeed, the purpose of the
`
`half-mirror 17 disclosed in Miura is to superimpose the visual indicators (light
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`from the LEDs) onto the indicator dial. (Pet. 60 (citing claim 29(b) discussion
`
`(citing Ex. 1006, ¶ 0017)).) It is also the overall purpose of Miura to have the set
`
`speed “displayed on the scale position of dial face of the speedometer.” (Pet. 60
`
`(citing Ex. 1006, ¶ 0007).) Miura goes on to explain that functionality:
`
`When setting the established speed with the cruise control travel speed
`device, the display design of the established speed display panel (15)
`turns on illumination or emits light, and the established travel speed
`display light reflected with the half-mirror (17) is superimposed on
`the display of the speedometer.
`(Ex. 1006, ¶ 0017 (emphasis added).) Patent Owner also argues that “only a single
`
`LED is reflected . . .” (Resp. 30.) But ¶ 0017 discloses a “display panel (15),”
`
`which includes more than one LED. This is also confirmed by Figures 2(b) and (c)
`
`of Miura, which clearly show multiple visual indicators (e.g., “15a” on the figures
`
`has multiple leading lines) and by the fact that Miura discusses that the indicators
`
`15a are arrayed in increments between 1km and 5km. (Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 0016–0017.)
`
`V. Obviousness of Claims 4, 19–20, 23, and 27–28.
`
`Because Patent Owner does not separately contest these grounds (Resp. 31),
`
`his challenges to them fail for the reasons addressed in section III.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`It is requested that the Board find the challenged claims invalid as set forth
`
`above and in the Petition.
`
`EAST\89475420
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00279
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certify that a copy of the attached PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE in connection with the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463 and supporting materials were sent via
`
`e-mail on January 9, 2015, to the following:
`
`John R. Kasha (Reg. No. 53,100)
`KASHA LAW LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Rd.
`North Potomac MD 20878
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Steven J. Reynolds
`Reg. No. 61,445
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 9, 2015
`/s/ Matthew D. Satchwell
`Reg. No. 58,870
`DLA Piper LLP (US)