`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,