Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 46
`571-272-7822 Entered: June 29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA,
`INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH
`AMERICA LLC, and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822 Entered: June 29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA,
`INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH
`AMERICA LLC, and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Subaru of America, Inc., et al. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an inter partes review of
`claims 1–5, 12–16, 18–21, 23, 25–31, and 34–36 of U.S. Patent No.
`6,324,463 B1 (Ex. 1001, the “’463 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–
`19. Cruise Control Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a preliminary
`response. Paper 15 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Based on these submissions, we
`instituted trial as to claims 1–5, 12–16, 18–21, 23, 25–31, and 34–36 of the
`’463 patent. Paper 19 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s Response
`(Paper 27, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 34, “Reply”). In
`addition, Petitioner proffered the Declaration of David A. McNamara (Ex.
`1007, “McNamara Declaration” or “McNamara Decl.”) with the Petition.
`Patent Owner does not rely on any expert declaration, and no deposition
`transcript was filed for Mr. McNamara.
`An oral hearing in this proceeding was held on March 24, 2015, and a
`transcript of the hearing is included in the record (Paper 45, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5, 12–15, 18–20, 23, 25–31,
`and 34–36 of the ’463 patent are unpatentable.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`A. The ’463 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’463 patent discloses cruise control systems for use in a human
`operated vehicle. Ex. 1001, Abst. Figures 1 and 2 of the ’463 patent are
`shown below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a digital speed display, while Figure 2 illustrates an
`analog speedometer. Id. at 3:8–13. In Figure 1, main speed display 3 shows
`the current speed at which the vehicle is operating. Id. at 3:49–53. When a
`cruise control set button (not shown in Figure 1) is pressed, the vehicle
`speed is stored in digital memory 12 as a preset speed. Id. at 3:53–60.
`Second speed display 16 shows that preset speed. Id.
`Figure 2’s analog speedometer 40 incorporates several LED
`assemblies 45. Id. at 4:19–26. Each LED assembly 45 has an LED and a
`detector. Id. at 4:29–30. When a cruise control set button (not shown in
`Figure 2) is pressed, all of the detectors are activated, and all of the LEDs
`momentarily light up. Id. at 4:48–51. The back of needle 42 reflects the
`light of the lit LEDs behind the needle, and that reflected light is detected by
`the detector of the LED assembly disposed at the location of needle 42. Id.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`at 4:51–57. The LED of that assembly is then activated and remains lit to
`indicate the speed at which cruise control was engaged. Id. at 4:57–64.
`B. Illustrative Claim
`The ’463 patent has 36 claims, of which claims 1–5, 12–16, 18–21,
`23, 25–31, and 34–36 are being challenged. Of the challenged claims,
`claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 18, 21, 25, 26, and 34 are independent. Claims 1, 2, and
`26 are system claims, and claims 12, 13, 18, 21, 25, and 34 are method
`claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`1. A cruise control system for vehicle
`having a human operator, comprising:
`a
`speed controller
`that automatically
`maintains the vehicle speed at a preset speed;
`an enable switch associated with said
`controller for enabling the system;
`a set speed input in communication with
`said controller for manually setting the speed of
`the vehicle at said preset speed, thereby engaging
`the system;
`stores
`a memory which
`indicative of said preset speed; and
`a feedback system for communicating said
`information in said memory to the operator of the
`vehicle.
`
`information
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:7–20.
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`JP S58-52708 (“Mizuno”)
`March 29, 1983
`Ex. 1003
`(translation, Ex. 1004)1
`
`
`
`1 Our decision cites to the translations of the prior art relied upon and the
`exhibit page numbers.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`Miura
`
`II.
`
`
`JP H8-220118 (“Miura”)
`(translation, Ex. 1006)
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted the instant inter partes review on the following grounds
`of unpatentability.
`Reference[s]
`Mizuno
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§102(b) 1–3, 5, 12–14, 18, 21, 25,
`26, and 34–36
`§102(b) 1, 2, 12–16, 21, 25–27,
`and 29–31
`Mizuno and Ordinary Skill in the Art §103(a) 4, 19, 20, 23, 27, and 28
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1279–83 (Fed. Cir. 2015). There is a “heavy
`presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002);
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`A. Previously Interpreted Terms
`In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted various claim terms of
`the ’463 patent as follows:
`
`
`
`August 30, 1996
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Term
`“engaging the system”
`
`“engaging the cruise control
`system”
`
`“enabling”
`
`“enabled”
`
`“indicating to the operator the unset
`status of the preset speed”
`
`“displaying a symbol indicative of
`an unset state of the preset speed”
`
`“activating the cruise control
`system”
`“deactivated”
`
`Interpretation
`“operating the cruise control system
`to automatically control the vehicle at
`the preset speed”
`“operating the cruise control system
`to automatically control the vehicle at
`the preset speed”
`“a ‘system on’ state for the cruise
`control system”
`“a ‘system on’ state for the cruise
`control system”
`“a state or status in which there is no
`preset speed for the cruise control
`system”
`“a state or status in which there is no
`preset speed for the cruise control
`system”
`“turning on the cruise control system”
`
`“the cruise control system is turned
`off”
`
`
`See Dec. on Inst. 5–9.
`The parties do not dispute these interpretations in their papers. See
`also Tr. 7:15–20, 36:16–37:10 (parties acknowledging alternative
`constructions have not been proposed since institution). We do not perceive
`any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from these
`interpretations. Accordingly, we incorporate our previous analysis of the
`terms above. See Dec. on Inst. 5–9.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`III. ASSERTED GROUNDS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102
`To prevail in its challenges to claims 1–3, 5, 12–14, 18, 21, 25, 26,
`and 34–36 as anticipated by Mizuno and claims 1, 2, 12–16, 21, 25–27, and
`29–31 as anticipated by Miura, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a
`preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`In finding a claim anticipated, “[t]he identical invention must be
`shown in as complete detail as is contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v.
`Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Moreover, “[a]
`claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
`found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
`reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
`(Fed. Cir. 1987). A finding of inherency “requires that the missing
`descriptive material is ‘necessarily present,’ not merely probably or possibly
`present” in the anticipating reference. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-USA
`Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Robertson, 169
`F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`A. Anticipation by Mizuno
`1. Mizuno (Ex. 1004)
`
`Mizuno relates to a speed controlling method for automatically
`controlling a vehicle so that vehicle speed follows a target speed. Ex. 1004,
`1.2 Figure 1 of Mizuno is reproduced below:
`
`
`2 Our decision cites the exhibit page numbers in the lower right-hand corners
`of Exhibit 1004.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram showing one embodiment of Mizuno’s
`device. Id. at 7. The embodiment includes electrical signal processing
`circuit or controller 1 that is provided with microcomputer 1A. Id. at 3.
`Microcomputer 1A is provided with a memory, a part of which is used to
`store temporarily a digital set value indicating a target speed. Id.
`Controller 1 sends a signal to actuator 2 that displaces position of throttle
`valve 7. Id. at 3, 5. Controller 1 also communicates with control panel 6
`that comprises display device 6C, which displays the set value. Id. at 3.
`Speed sensor 3 generates pulse signals that indicate the speed of the
`vehicle. Id. Cancel switch 4 is linked to a clutch pedal and a brake pedal
`and can be installed in control panel 6. Id. Self-reset start switch 5 is
`provided to conduct a set operation to start speed control and can be installed
`in control panel 6. Id.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`When a key switch of the vehicle is turned on, power is supplied to
`the electrical system of Figure 1, and microcomputer 1A is reset. Id. at 4, 5.
`Set value VM is preset to a value corresponding to 80 km/H and transferred
`to control panel 6 to be displayed in the seven-segment light-emitting
`display of display device 6C. Id. Actual vehicle speed Vs is calculated from
`the pulse signal sent by speed sensor 3. Id. at 4. Set value VM can be
`changed by operating up and down switches 6A and 6B, and the new set
`value is stored in memory and displayed at display device 6C. Id. at 4, 5.
`The embodiment shown also can be used with a one-touch stored set
`operation. Id. at 5. For example, as shown in Figure 1, set switch 8 can be
`added as an input for controller 1. Id. The display continues whether under
`speed control or not. Id. If start switch 5 is in an “on” status, flag F value
`becomes 1, and speed control is conducted. Id. If cancel switch 4 is in an
`“on” status, flag F becomes 0, and speed control is stopped. Id. The value
`of flag F can be used to indicate speed control and can be used to change the
`flashing of control panel 6. Id.
`2. Independent Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 recites a cruise control system comprising, inter alia, “an
`enable switch associated with said controller for enabling the system.”
`Petitioner argues that Mizuno discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
`Pet. 18–22 (citing Ex. 1004 at 1, 3–5, 7, Figs. 1–4). In particular, Petitioner
`argues that Mizuno discloses the recited “enable switch” because Mizuno
`states “if the key switch of the vehicle is turned on, . . . the microcomputer
`(1A) is power-on reset in controller (1)” and “the initial value ‘80km/H’ is
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`displayed on the display device 6C by turning on the key switch.” Id. at 19–
`20 (citing Ex. 1004 at 3, 4, 5, 7, Figs. 1–3).
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner “incorrectly alleges that either
`‘key switch’ or the ‘start switch (5)’ in Mizuno is the claimed ‘enable
`switch.’” PO Resp. 5 (citing Pet. 19–20). Specifically, for the key switch,
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner relies on the key switch of a digital
`embodiment, but not key switch 9 of an analog embodiment. Id. at 5–6
`(citing Pet. 19). Patent Owner asserts that the key switch of the digital
`embodiment is not shown in Figure 1 and Mizuno does not describe a key
`switch as a component of the digital embodiment, “except to say that it is
`‘the key switch of the vehicle,’ implying that the key switch is the vehicle
`ignition switch.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1004 at 5 ¶ 9); Tr. 31:21–25. Patent
`Owner thus argues that “it is unclear from Mizuno, whether the key switch is
`the ignition switch or a switch that is part of the digital embodiment of the
`speed control system shown in Figure 1.” PO Resp. 6.
`Also, Patent Owner argues that Mizuno discusses only two actions
`attributed to turning on the key switch: causing display device 6C to show a
`value and providing power to supply the digital system. PO Resp. 6;
`Tr. 32:1–14. Patent Owner asserts that activating display device 6C is not
`putting a cruise control system into a “system-on state” because display
`device 6C is not a cruise control system. PO Resp. 6. Patent Owner further
`argues that powering the digital system does not mean necessarily that the
`digital system is in a system-on state. Patent Owner, thus, argues that
`Mizuno does not describe expressly or inherently that the key switch puts
`the cruise control system in a system-on state. Id. at 6–7; Tr. 32:15–33:8.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Petitioner replies that the “system must be on if the system is drawing
`power and a display device is operating.” Reply 2. Petitioner also states
`that its expert “confirmed the same” and that Patent Owner offers no
`evidence to rebut Petitioner’s expert testimony. Id. (citing Pet. 17–20;
`McNamara Decl. ¶¶ 44, 55). Petitioner further argues that “Mizuno
`discloses that when the key switch is turned on ‘power source is supplied to
`the electric system of Figure 1’” and “Figure 1 includes the ‘1 Controller’
`and ‘2 Actuator.’” Id. at 2–3 (citing Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1004 at 4, Figs. 1,
`2)). Petitioner, thus, argues that the “key switch . . . 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’).” Id. at 3; see Tr.
`12:18–13:10. Petitioner further argues that Petitioner cites key switch 9 of
`the analog embodiment. Reply 3 (citing Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1004 at 7, ¶ 9)).
`Mizuno explicitly discloses that “if the key switch of the vehicle is
`turned on, the power source is supplied to the electric system of Figure 1.”
`Ex. 1004 at 7. Figure 1 is a “block line drawing depicting one embodiment
`of the device implementing the present invention methodology” (id.) and
`Mizuno’s “invention relates to a speed controlling method for vehicle
`controlling automatically so that the vehicle speed . . . follows the target
`speed, and especially applies to the cruise control system” (id. at 1). Figure
`1 of Mizuno shows a controller 1, actuator 2, display device 6C, and other
`components. Thus, Figure 1 shows Mizuno’s device that especially applies
`to a cruise control system and that includes at least display device 6C. As
`Patent Owner acknowledges, turning on the key switch turns on display
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`device 6C. See PO Resp. 6; Ex. 1004 at 5. Therefore, in view of the cited
`disclosures, we determine that, as argued by Petitioner, Mizuno discloses
`that its key switch supplies power to, at least, display device 6C and
`controller 1 of Figure 1 that are part of Mizuno’s device for cruise control
`systems, or “an enable switch associated with said controller for enabling the
`system.” See Pet. 19–20.
`Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we determine
`that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that, under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b), claim 1 is anticipated by Mizuno.
`
`3. Independent Claim 2
`Claim 2 recites, with emphasis added:
`2. A cruise control system for a variable
`speed vehicle controlled by a human operator,
`comprising:
`(a) a speed controller for automatically
`maintaining the vehicle at a substantially constant
`cruising speed selected by the operator;
`(b) a cruise control enable switch associated
`with the controller for enabling and disabling the
`controller;
`(c) a set speed input in communication with
`the controller for selecting the cruising speed of
`the vehicle when the controller is enabled;
`(d) a memory
`that stores
`information
`representative of the selected cruising speed; and
`(e) a feedback system that substantially
`continuously communicates the selected cruising
`speed information to the operator of the vehicle
`until either the operator selects a subsequent
`cruising speed or the controller is disabled.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:21–38. Petitioner contends that Mizuno discloses all the
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`limitations of claim 2. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1004 at 4, 5, 7, Figs. 1, 2, 4).
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that the same portions of Mizuno identified
`for the enable switch of claim 1 correspond to the recited cruise control
`enable switch of claim 2. Pet. 23. Petitioner additionally argues that
`Mizuno discloses “a cruise control enable switch associated with the
`controller for enabling and disabling the controller” because Mizuno
`describes that “controller (1) checks the status of cancel switch (4) and start
`switch (5)” and “a self-reset cancel switch can be provided in the vicinity of
`the start switch.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1004 at 4, 5, Fig. 1; McNamara Decl.
`¶ 58).
`Patent Owner counters that “claim 2 requires a ‘cruise control enable
`switch . . . for enabling and disabling the controller,’ which must be
`interpreted more narrowly than the ‘enable switch’ of claim 1.” PO Resp. 8–
`9. Patent Owner argues that the “‘cruise control enable switch’ requires a
`switch dedicated to the cruise control system and for enabling (putting in a
`system-on state) and disabling (putting in a system-off state) the controller,
`as opposed to the ‘key switch of the vehicle’ in Mizuno.” Id. at 9 (citing
`Ex. 1004 at 5 ¶ 9); Tr. 30:8–13.
`Patent Owner also argues that “[t]here is no discussion in Mizuno of
`how turning the key switch off could be interpreted as disclosing ‘disabling
`the controller’” and “Mizuno only discusses turning the key switch off with
`respect to the memory storing the set value VM.” PO Resp. 9 (citing
`Ex. 1004 at 7, ¶ 1). Patent Owner further argues that “there is no discussion,
`express or inherent, of how turning the key switch off impacts operation of
`the electrical signal processing circuit (1) and the actuator (2)” and “Mizuno
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`does not discuss using the key switch to disable any component of the digital
`system.” Id.
`Petitioner replies that Patent Owner does not explain the patentable
`distinction between the switches of claims 1 and 2 and, if there is a
`patentable distinction, the distinctions are what is enabled and that claim 2
`adds a disabling function. Reply 3–4. Petitioner also argues that “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.” Id. at 4; Tr. 14:11–
`24.
`
`Mizuno explicitly discloses that “if the key switch of the vehicle is
`turned on, the power source is supplied to the electric system of Figure 1.”
`Ex. 1004 at 7. Figure 1 is a “block line drawing depicting one embodiment
`of the device implementing the present invention methodology” (id. at 7)
`and Mizuno “especially applies to the cruise control system” (id. at 1).
`Figure 1 of Mizuno shows a controller 1 and other components. Also,
`Mizuno discloses that “in order to continue to store the memory of the set
`value VM, during the off time of the key switch, a backup power supply can
`be provided only to RAM,” not the controller. Ex. 1004 at 7. Thus, as
`argued by Petitioner, we determine that Mizuno discloses a key switch that
`enables and disables at least controller 1 of Figure 1, or “a cruise control
`enable switch associated with the controller for enabling and disabling the
`controller.” See Pet. 23.
`Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we determine
`that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that, under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b), claim 2 is anticipated by Mizuno.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`4. Independent Claim 12
`Claim 12 recites, with emphasis added:
`12. A method for visually communicating
`to the human operator of a vehicle having a cruise
`control system a cruising speed at which the
`vehicle is set, comprising:
`determining the speed at which the vehicle
`is traveling;
`activating the cruise control system at a
`desired cruising speed;
`displaying a symbol indicative of the speed
`at which the cruise control system is activated;
`maintaining the activated cruise control
`speed symbol upon temporary acceleration or
`deceleration of the vehicle;
`removing said symbol when the cruise
`control system is deactivated or a new cruising
`speed is selected.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:25–38. Petitioner argues that Mizuno discloses all the
`limitations of claim 12. Pet. 25–28 (citing Ex. 1004 at 3–5, 7, Figs. 1–3;
`McNamara Decl. ¶¶ 56, 57, 59, 62). Specifically, for “maintaining the
`activated cruise control speed symbol upon temporary acceleration or
`deceleration of the vehicle,” Petitioner argues that Mizuno discloses “display
`[(6C)] continues while the key switch is turned on regardless of whether
`under speed control or not” and “the latest value is constantly maintained as
`the speed request by the driver.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1004 at 5, Fig. 2;
`McNamara Decl. ¶¶ 59, 62).
`Patent Owner responds that the “‘activated’ cruise control speed
`symbol refers to the previous step of ‘displaying a symbol indicative of the
`speed at which the cruise control system is activated’” and “the express
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`claim language requires that the ‘activated cruise control speed symbol’
`include a symbol indicative of the selected cruising speed and some separate
`indicia indicating that the cruise control system is activated.” PO Resp. 10
`(citing Ex. 1001, 3:63–4:4). Patent Owner argues that the “Petition does not
`cite to any separate indicia in Mizuno indicating the cruise control system is
`activated” and “Mizuno does not disclose this claim element, because the
`initial value on the display device 6C is not an ‘activated cruise control
`speed symbol.’” Id. at 10–11.
`Claim 12 only requires “displaying a symbol indicative of the speed at
`which the cruise control system is activated.” We are not persuaded that this
`particular recitation of claim 12 further requires separate indicia that the
`cruise control system is activated, as argued by Patent Owner. Also, we are
`not persuaded that the subsequently recited “activated cruise control speed
`symbol” requires a symbol and separate indicia, as asserted by Patent
`Owner. Patent Owner’s argument cites column 3, line 63 to column 4, line 4
`of the ’463 patent. The cited portion does not support Patent Owner’s
`argument because it discusses disengaging cruise control, not activating the
`cruise control system. Ex. 1001 3:63 (stating “When the cruise control is
`disengaged . . . ”). Moreover, the cited portion describes a preferred
`embodiment, and Patent Owner presents no arguments that claim 12 is
`limited to the preferred embodiment. Thus, we are not persuaded that
`Mizuno must disclose separate indicia indicating that the cruise control
`system is activated.
`Patent Owner also responds that “Mizuno never discusses, expressly
`or inherently, the impact of temporary acceleration or deceleration of the
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`vehicle on the display device 6C.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner argues that
`Petitioner “alleges that Mizuno meets this claim element, because the
`display device 6C ‘continues while the key switch is turned on regardless of
`whether under speed control or not” but Mizuno “does not expressly or
`inherently discuss temporary acceleration or deceleration.” Id.
`Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive because Petitioner also
`cites Mizuno for disclosing that “the latest value is constantly maintained as
`the speed request by the driver.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1004 at 5). Mizuno also
`discloses that “[e]very time the set value changes, the display of the display
`device (6C) is changed and the latest target speed is displayed.” Ex. 1004 at
`5. The cited portion of Petitioner’s expert declaration also states that the
`“preset speed display continues regardless of whether speed control is
`engaged or not” and cites Mizuno’s disclosure that “[t]his display continues
`while the key switch is turned on regardless of whether under speed control
`or not.” McNamara Decl. ¶ 59 (citing Ex. 1004 at 5); Pet. 26 (citing
`McNamara Decl. ¶ 59). Petitioner, thus, presents evidence that a person of
`ordinary skill in the relevant field would view no difference between claim
`12 and Mizuno. See Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc.,
`927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (anticipation requires “no difference
`between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a
`person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention”) (emphasis added).
`Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuade us that Mizuno fails to
`disclose expressly the impact of temporary acceleration or deceleration of
`the vehicle on the display device 6C.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Regarding the citations to the expert testimony in the Petition (Pet. 26
`(citing McNamara Decl. ¶¶ 59, 62)), Patent Owner argues that paragraphs 59
`and 62 of the McNamara Declaration: (1) fail to state whether its assertion
`“applies to both of Mizuno’s embodiments;” (2) fail to state whether the
`assertion “is express in Mizuno or inherent;” (3) fail to state whether the
`assertion “is allegedly obvious based on Mizuno’s discussion;” (4) “fail[] to
`cite to any statement in Mizuno or knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`art as support;” and (5) fail to “indicate whether either embodiment of
`Mizuno is a ‘completely standard . . . cruise control system.” PO Resp. 11–
`12.
`
`We are not persuaded by these arguments that we should conclude the
`McNamara Declaration to be materially deficient. Paragraph 59 of the
`McNamara Declaration cites page 5, first paragraph of Mizuno, and
`paragraph 62 cites page 3, seventh through ninth paragraphs of Mizuno.
`Paragraphs 59 and 62 of the McNamara Declaration also declare that
`Mizuno discloses or inherently discloses certain features.
`In view of the foregoing and based on the complete record before us,
`we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
`that, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), claim 12 is anticipated by Mizuno.
`
`5. Independent Claim 13
`Claim 13 recites, with emphasis added:
`13. A method for indicating to a human
`operator of a vehicle having a cruise control
`system a preset speed for which the cruise control
`system is set, the method comprising:
`setting the preset speed;
`displaying
`to
`the operator a symbol
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`indicative of the preset speed;
`maintaining
`the display of
`indicative of the preset speed; and
`symbol
`the
`discontinuing display of
`indicative of the preset when the cruise control
`system is deactivated or a new preset speed is
`selected.
`
`the symbol
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:39–50. Petitioner argues that Mizuno discloses all the
`limitations of claim 13. Pet. 26–28 (citing Ex. 1004 at 4, 5, 7, Figs. 1, 3;
`McNamara Decl. ¶¶ 56–57). Specifically, for “discontinuing display of the
`symbol indicative of the preset speed when the cruise control system is
`deactivated or a new preset speed is selected,” Petitioner asserts that Mizuno
`states “if the key switch . . . is turned on, the power source is supplied to the
`electric system” and thus, “[w]hen the key switch is off, power is no longer
`provided to the display device, and it will turn off.” Id. at 27–28 (citing
`Ex. 1004 at 4, 5, 7, Figs. 1, 3; McNamara Decl. ¶¶ 56–57).
`Patent Owner argues that “the Petition cites only to its declarant’s
`assertion” for the discontinuing step and “Petitioner’s declarant does not
`provide any explanation of his basis for this assertion, but merely cites to
`several portions of Mizuno.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Pet. 27–28).
`Petitioner cites Mizuno’s disclosures that “if the key switch of the
`vehicle is turned on, the power source is supplied to the electric system of
`Figure 1” (Ex. 1004 at 4), that an “initial value . . . is displayed on the
`display device 6C by turning on the key switch” (id. at 5), and that “during
`the off time of the key switch, a backup power supply can be provided only
`to RAM.” (id. at 7). Pet. 27–28. The portions of the McNamara Declaration
`cited by Petitioner also cite these disclosure and state that “[w]hen the key
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`switch is turned off, the display will likewise turn off as a natural and
`inherent effect of having no power to light the display” and “Mizuno
`displays a given preset speed substantially continuously until . . . the system
`is powered off, in which case the display turns off.” McNamara Decl.
`¶¶ 55–56 (citing Ex. 1004 at 4, 5, Figs. 6A, 6B); see also Tr. 16:7–13
`(Petitioner arguing support for McNamara Declaration).
`Considering together the cited portions of Mizuno and the McNamara
`Declaration, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that
`Petitioner’s declarant fails to provide “any explanation.” Specifically,
`Mizuno discloses that turning on its key switch causes display device 6C to
`show a value, and during an off time of the key switch, power is supplied
`only to RAM and thus, not display device 6C, as averred in the McNamara
`Declaration. Patent Owner does not provide any arguments or evidence
`addressing why these disclosures of Mizuno fail to anticipate “discontinuing
`display of the symbol indicative of the preset speed when the cruise control
`system is deactivated or a new preset speed is selected.”
`Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we determine
`that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that, under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b), claim 13 is anticipated by Mizuno.
`6. Independent Claim 18
`
`Claim 18 recites, with emphasis added:
`18. A method for indicating to a human
`operator of a vehicle having a cruise control
`system a preset speed for which the cruise control
`system is set, the method comprising:
`setting the preset speed;
`displaying
`to
`the operator a symbol
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`indicative of the preset speed while maintaining
`the vehicle speed at substantially the preset speed;
`maintaining
`the display of
`the symbol
`indicative of the preset speed;
`braking the vehicle;
`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; and
`at a time after braking and during which
`time the vehicle is not being maintained at
`substantially the preset speed, displaying to the
`operator a symbol indicative of the preset speed.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:1–19. Petitioner contends Mizuno discloses all the limitations
`of claim 18. Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1004 at 3, 5, 7, Figs. 1, 2). In particular,
`for “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,” Petitioner contends that Mizuno discloses “(4) is
`the cancel switch which is linked to . . . the brake pedal” and “by having the
`set value VM non-volatile to the off operation of the key switch, a temporary
`stop when the speed is under control occurs, which is advantageous in the
`case of resuming the speed control at the same target speed again
`afterwards.” Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1004 at 3,
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
