Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: July 2, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.,
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA
`LLC, and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`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.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On December 20, 2013, Subaru of America, Inc. et al. (“Petitioners”) filed a
`
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-5, 12-16,
`
`18-21, 23, 25-31, and 34-36 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,324,463 B1 (Ex. 1001, the “’463 patent”). Cruise Control Technologies LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 15, “Prelim. Resp.”) on
`
`April 8, 2014. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`To institute an inter partes review, we must determine the information
`
`presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioners contend the challenged
`
`claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Pet. 6. We determine
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioners would prevail in showing the
`
`unpatentability of claims 1-5, 12-16, 18-21, 23, 25-31, and 34-36. We, therefore,
`
`institute an inter partes review as to those claims.
`
`A.
`
`The ’463 Patent
`
`The ’463 patent discloses cruise control systems for use in a human operated
`
`vehicle. See Ex. 1001, Abst. Figures 1 and 2 of the ’463 patent are shown below:
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a digital speed display, while Figure 2 illustrates an analog
`
`speedometer. See id. at 3:8-13. In Figure 1, main speed display 3 shows the
`
`current speed at which the vehicle is operating. See 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. See id. at 3:53-60. Second speed display 16
`
`shows that preset speed. See id.
`
`Figure 2’s analog speedometer 40 incorporates several LED assemblies 45.
`
`See id. at 4:19-26. Each LED assembly 45 has an LED and a detector. See 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. See 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. See id. 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.
`
`See id. at 4:57-64.
`
`B.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21, 25, 26, and 34 are independent. Claim 1 is
`
`illustrative and 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;
`a memory which stores information indicative of said preset
`speed; and
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`a feedback system for communicating said information in said
`memory to the operator of the vehicle.
`
`C.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The Petition states that the ’463 patent is involved currently in thirteen
`
`separate civil actions in the District of Delaware and was involved in three other
`
`civil actions in that District which have concluded. Pet. 2-3. The Petition also
`
`identifies an on-going ex parte reexamination of claim 2 of the ’463 patent that was
`
`granted on May 31, 2013 (Control No. 90/012,841). Id. at 2. The ’463 patent is
`
`also the subject of four other requests for inter partes review (IPR2014-00280,
`
`IPR2014-00281, IPR2014-00289, and IPR2014-00291).
`
`JP S58-52708 (“Mizuno”)
`(translation, Ex. 1004)1
`
`JP H8-220118 (“Miura”)
`(translation, Ex. 1006)
`
`D.
`
`Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`March 29, 1983
`
`August 30, 1996
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`
`E.
`
`Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioners contend that the challenged claims of the ’463 patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) on the following grounds:
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Claims challenged
`
`Mizuno
`
`Miura
`
`Mizuno and Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`§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
`§103(a) 4, 19, 20, 23, 27, and 28
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`1 Our decision cites to the translations of the prior art relied upon and the exhibit
`page numbers.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`As a step in our analysis, we determine the meaning of the claims for
`
`purposes of this decision. 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. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2013). Under that
`
`construction, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). We construe the terms below in accordance with that standard.
`
`1.
`“engaging the system” (claim 1) and
`“engaging the cruise control system” (claim 21)
`
`Petitioners contend we should construe “engaging the system” in claim 1 to
`
`mean “operating the cruise control system to automatically control the vehicle at
`
`the preset speed.” Pet. 11-12 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 4, 1:46-48, 5:13-15). Patent
`
`Owner contends we should construe “thereby engaging the system” in claim 1 to
`
`mean “as a result, activating the speed controller of the cruise control system to
`
`automatically maintain the vehicle speed at the preset speed.” Prelim. Resp. 4-5
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 3:54-57). Patent Owner describes “operating the cruise control
`
`system” in Petitioners’ proposal as “an overly broad generalization of the claimed
`
`invention,” and contends the construction instead should refer specifically to the
`
`speed controller of the cruise control system, apart from the claimed feedback
`
`system and the claimed set speed input. Id. We conclude Petitioners’ proposal
`
`comports with the broadest reasonable construction of “engaging” in light of the
`
`’463 patent specification. The term “comprising” in claim 1 leaves open the
`
`possibility that other unclaimed components of the cruise control system, in
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`addition to the speed controller, may play a part in controlling the vehicle’s speed.
`
`In addition, the term “maintain” in Patent Owner’s proposed construction is unduly
`
`narrow, because it forecloses temporary acceleration of the vehicle while the cruise
`
`control system is engaged. See Ex. 1001, 1:32-36, 4:6-14 (indicating vehicle may
`
`be accelerated temporarily while cruise control is engaged). We therefore adopt
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction.
`
`Petitioners propose the same construction for “engaging the cruise control
`
`system” in claim 21. See Pet. 11-12. Patent Owner instead proposes “putting the
`
`cruise control system into an operative state” for claim 21. Prelim. Resp. 5-6. In
`
`particular, Patent Owner notes claim 21 separately recites “engaging the cruise
`
`control system” and “setting the preset speed,” and contends claim 21 therefore
`
`“requires that the cruise control system is engaged prior to setting the preset speed
`
`(which can only be set, and is only utilized, during use of the cruise control
`
`system).” Id. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. In particular,
`
`under a broadest reasonable construction, the “engaging” and “setting” of claim 21
`
`may occur simultaneously. See Ex. 1001, 3:56-57 (“when the set button is
`
`depressed, that is, when the cruise control is engaged”). Thus, there is no
`
`requirement that the engagement of the cruise control system must occur “prior to”
`
`the act of setting the present speed. We, therefore, adopt Petitioners’ proposed
`
`construction.
`
`For the foregoing reasons we construe “engaging the system” in claim 1 and
`
`“engaging the cruise control system” in claim 21 to mean “operating the cruise
`
`control system to automatically control the vehicle at the preset speed.”
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`2.
`
`“enabling” (claims 1 and 2) and “enabled” (claims 2 and 4)
`
`Petitioners contend that we should construe “enabling the system” in claim 1
`
`and “enabling . . . the controller” in claim 2 to mean “a ‘system on’ state for the
`
`cruise control system.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:39-46). Patent Owner instead
`
`proposes “putting the speed controller of the cruise control system into an
`
`operative condition . . . in that the speed controller will automatically maintain the
`
`vehicle at a preset speed.” Prelim. Resp. 2-3. Patent Owner criticizes Petitioners’
`
`proposal as “too vague to provide any benefit when evaluating the validity of the
`
`claims.” Prelim. Resp. 3.
`
`We conclude Petitioners’ proposal comports with the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “enabling” and “enabled” in light of the ’463 patent specification.
`
`That is, the ’463 patent specification consistently describes “enabling” as turning
`
`on the cruise control system (see Ex. 1001, 1:18-20, 1:64-65, 4:39-44) and
`
`“engaging” as setting the cruise control at a desired speed (see id. at 1:21-25, 1:45-
`
`48, 3:56-57). We therefore adopt Petitioners’ proposed construction that “enabling
`
`the system” in claim 1 and “enabling . . . the controller” in claim 2 mean “a
`
`‘system on’ state for the cruise control system.” This construction also applies to
`
`the descriptor “enabled” in claims 2 and 4. See Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 3.
`
`3.
`
`“indicating to the operator the unset status of the preset speed” (claim 15)
`and “displaying a symbol indicative of an unset state of the preset speed”
`(claim 21)
`
`Petitioners contend that we should construe “unset status” and “unset state”
`
`in these two claim limitations to mean “a state or status in which there is no preset
`
`speed for the cruise control system.” Pet. 12-13. Patent Owner contends
`
`Petitioners’ proposal is improper because “it adds ‘for the cruise control system.’”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 7. We note, however, that claim 15’s parent claim 13, and claim 21,
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`both recite “a preset speed for which the cruise control system is set” (emphasis
`
`added). That the claims, themselves, associate setting of the preset speed with the
`
`cruise control system undermines Patent Owner’s contention that there is
`
`impropriety in the Petitioners’ proposed construction. We therefore adopt
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction.
`
`Patent Owner further contends we should construe these two claim
`
`limitations to mean “displaying a visual indication that [the] preset speed has not
`
`been set.” Prelim. Resp. 6-8. We are not persuaded as to claim 15, which broadly
`
`recites “indicating” without requiring the indication to be visual. As to claim 21,
`
`“displaying . . . a symbol” self-evidently requires a visual indication. We therefore
`
`decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction as being either too narrow
`
`(claim 15) or inconsistent with the plain language of the claim (claim 21).
`
`4.
`
`“activating the cruise control system” (claims 12 and 15) and
`“deactivated” (claims 12, 13, and 21)
`
`Petitioners contend we should construe “activating” in these claims to mean
`
`“turning on,” and “deactivated” as “turned off.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner agrees as
`
`to all claims except for claim 12. See Prelim. Resp. 9-10. We agree with the
`
`parties in this regard, and therefore construe “activating the cruise control system”
`
`in claim 15 to mean turning on the cruise system, and “deactivated” in claims 13
`
`and 21 to mean that the cruise control system is turned off.
`
`Patent Owner contends we should construe “activating” in claim 12 to mean
`
`something different, namely, “causing the cruise control system to maintain the
`
`speed at which the vehicle is traveling at the desired cruising speed.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 8. It is true that claim 12, unlike the other claims, recites “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,” and “maintaining the
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`activated cruise control speed symbol” (emphases added). These limitations seem
`
`to equate activation with setting the cruise control system at a desired cruising
`
`speed.
`
`“[C]laim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent.”
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[A] claim term
`
`should be construed consistently with its appearance in other places in the same
`
`claim or in other claims of the same patent.” Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274
`
`F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, construing the same term to have
`
`different meanings in different claims is the exception rather than the rule.
`
`Moreover, claim 12 recites “removing said symbol when the cruise control system
`
`is deactivated” (emphasis added). If we were to adopt Patent Owner’s construction
`
`of claim 12, that limitation would require the symbol indicative of the cruising
`
`speed to be removed when the cruise control system stops maintaining the cruising
`
`speed — for example, upon temporary acceleration of the vehicle, or temporary
`
`deceleration of the vehicle when the brakes are applied. We conclude one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the ’463 patent specification, would not
`
`construe claim 12 in such a manner. See Ex. 1001, 2:5-35 (discussing “potential
`
`safety hazards” of prior cruise control systems which did not display preset cruise
`
`control speed upon temporary acceleration or deceleration), 2:37-45 (discussing
`
`solution). We, therefore, construe activating / activated in claim 12 the same as in
`
`the other claims of the ’463 patent.
`
`5.
`
`Remaining claim terms
`
`All other terms of the claims are given their plain and ordinary meaning that
`
`is consistent with the specification. For purposes of this decision, we need not
`
`construe expressly those terms.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation by Mizuno
`
`Petitioners argue that Mizuno anticipates claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, 18, 21, 25,
`
`26, and 34-36. In light of the arguments and supporting evidence submitted,
`
`Petitioners have established a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, 18,
`
`21, 25, 26, and 34-36 are unpatentable for the reasons explained below.
`
`1. Mizuno
`
`Mizuno relates to a speed controlling method for automatically controlling a
`
`vehicle so that vehicle speed follows a target speed. Ex. 1004, 12. Figure 1 of
`
`Mizuno is reproduced below:
`
`
`2 Our decision cites the exhibit page numbers in the lower right-hand corners of
`Exhibit 1004.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`control panel 6. Id.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis
`
`Petitioners contend that Mizuno discloses each and every element of claims
`
`1-3, 5, 12-14, 18, 21, 25, 26, and 34-36, referring to the figures of Mizuno,
`
`disclosures in the reference, as well as a claim chart and a Declaration by David A.
`
`McNamara (Ex. 1007). Pet. 17-38; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 43-64.
`
`Petitioners point to disclosures in Mizuno as corresponding to certain
`
`elements in independent claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 18, 21, 25, 26, and 34. Pet. 18-22. In
`
`particular, independent claim 1 recites “[a] cruise control system for vehicle having
`
`a human operator,” and Petitioners contend that Mizuno “relates to a speed
`
`controlling method for vehicle controlling . . . so that the vehicle speed . . . follows
`
`the target speed, and especially applies to the cruise control system which
`
`maintains the vehicle speed at set constant speed.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004 at 1,
`
`3, 5, Fig. 1).
`
`For the limitation of “a speed controller that automatically maintains the
`
`vehicle speed at a preset speed,” Petitioners contend that Mizuno discloses that
`
`“(1) is the electrical signal processing circuit (controller)” and “(2) is an actuator
`
`which displaces the position of the throttle valve 7, which is a speed control
`
`element of a vehicle, by the signal of controller (1).” Id. at 18-19 (citing Ex. 1004
`
`at 1, 3, 5, 7, Figs. 1, 4)). Petitioners also contend that Mizuno discloses “an enable
`
`switch associated with said controller for enabling the system” 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 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). Petitioners further contend that Mizuno discloses “a set
`
`speed input in communication with said controller for manually setting the speed
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`of the vehicle at said preset speed, thereby engaging the system” because Figure 1
`
`of Mizuno shows a set switch 8 and Mizuno states “the set switch can be added as
`
`the input elements of controller (1), and the program . . . respond[s] to this switch
`
`operation.” Id. at 20-22 (citing Ex. 1004 at 3, 4, 5, 7, Figs. 1-4). As for “a
`
`memory which stores information indicative of said preset speed,” Petitioners
`
`argue that Mizuno discloses “[t]he microcomputer . . . is provided with a
`
`temporary memory . . . and part of this temporary memory is used to store the
`
`digital set value indicating the target speed.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1004 at 3, 4, 7,
`
`Figs. 2, 3). As for “a feedback system for communicating said information in said
`
`memory to the operator of the vehicle,” Petitioners argue that Mizuno discloses
`
`“(6) is a control panel” and “comprises . . . display device (6C) to display the set
`
`value as numbers indicating the target speed.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 at 3, 4, Figs. 1,
`
`2).
`
`For independent claim 2, Petitioners contend that the same portions of
`
`Mizuno identified for the speed controller, cruise control enable switch, set speed
`
`input, and memory of claim 1 correspond to the recited speed controller, cruise
`
`control enable switch, set speed input, and memory of claim 2. Pet. 23. Petitioners
`
`additionally contend 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; Ex. 1007 ¶ 58).
`
`Petitioners further contend that Mizuno discloses “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” because Mizuno describes that “[w]hen the set
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`value VM is changed . . . , the display of display device (6C) is renewed.” Id. at 24
`
`(citing Ex. 1004 at 4, 5, 7, and Figs. 1, 2, 4).
`
`For independent claim 12, Petitioners argue that Mizuno discloses “[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” because Mizuno
`
`states that a “second purpose of [Mizuno] is to make it possible to easily conduct
`
`the increase and decrease operation by displaying the value of the target speed.”
`
`Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1004 at 3). Petitioners also argue that Mizuno states a “speed
`
`vehicle speed sensor . . . generates the pulse signals synchronizing with the rotation
`
`angle of axle of the vehicle” and thus discloses the recited “determining the speed
`
`at which the vehicle is traveling.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 at 3, 4, Figs. 2, 3). For the
`
`recited “activating the cruise control system at a desired cruising speed,”
`
`Petitioners refer to disclosures cited for the enable switch and set speed input of
`
`claim 1. Id. at 25-26. Petitioners further argue that Mizuno discloses “detect[ing]
`
`the closing of set switch 8, and if there is a closing operation, stor[ing] the actual
`
`speed value Vs at this time as a set value VM” and “transfer[ing] the set value VM
`
`to display device (6C)” and thus discloses the recited “displaying a symbol
`
`indicative of the speed at which the cruise control system is activated.” Id. at 26
`
`(citing Ex. 1004 at 5). As for “maintaining the activated cruise control speed
`
`symbol upon temporary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle,” Petitioners
`
`argue that Mizuno discloses that “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. (citing Ex. 1004 at 5,
`
`Fig. 2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 59, 62). Petitioners also argue that Mizuno discloses
`
`“removing said symbol when the cruise control system is deactivated or a new
`
`cruising speed is selected” because Mizuno states “if the key switch . . . is turned
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`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 26, 27-28 (citing Ex. 1004 at 4, 5, 7, Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56-57).
`
`For independent claim 13, Petitioners contend that the same portions of
`
`Mizuno identified for the preamble and “maintaining the activated cruise control
`
`speed symbol upon temporary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle” of claim
`
`12 disclose the preamble and recited “maintaining the display of the symbol
`
`indicative of the preset speed” of claim 13. Pet. 27. Petitioners also contend that
`
`the portions of Mizuno identified for the “set speed input . . . ” and “feedback
`
`system . . . ” of claim 1 disclose “setting the preset speed” and “displaying to the
`
`operator a symbol indicative of the preset speed” of claim 13. Id. For the recited
`
`“discontinuing display of the symbol indicative of the preset speed when the cruise
`
`control system is deactivated or a new preset speed is selected,” Petitioners assert
`
`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; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56-57).
`
`For independent claim 18, Petitioners contend that the same portions of
`
`Mizuno identified for the preamble and “maintaining the activated cruise control
`
`speed symbol upon temporary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle” of claim
`
`12 disclose the preamble and recited “maintaining the display of the symbol
`
`indicative of the preset speed” of claim 18. Pet. 29. Petitioners also contend that
`
`the portions of Mizuno identified for the “set speed input,” “speed controller,” and
`
`“feedback system” of claim 1 disclose “setting the preset speed” and “displaying to
`
`the operator a symbol indicative of the preset speed while maintaining the vehicle
`
`speed at substantially the preset speed” of claim 18. Id. For “braking the vehicle”
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`and “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,” Petitioners contend 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, 7, Figs. 1, 2). For “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,” Petitioners argue that Mizuno
`
`discloses “display [(6C)] continues while the key switch is turned on regardless of
`
`whether under speed control or not.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1004 at 3, 5, 7, Figs. 1,
`
`2).
`
`For independent claim 21, Petitioners contend that the same portions of
`
`Mizuno identified for the preamble and “maintaining the activated cruise control
`
`speed symbol upon temporary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle” of claim
`
`12 disclose the preamble and “maintaining the display of the symbol indicative of
`
`the preset speed” of claim 21. Pet. 30, 31. Petitioners also contend that the
`
`portions of Mizuno identified for the “set speed input,” “speed controller,” and
`
`“feedback system” of claim 1 disclose “setting the preset speed” and “displaying to
`
`the operator a symbol indicative of the preset speed” of claim 21. Id. at 31.
`
`Petitioners further contend that the portions of Mizuno identified 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” of claim 13
`
`disclose “discontinuing display of the symbol indicative of the preset speed after
`
`the cruise control system is deactivated or a new preset speed is selected.” Id. For
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`“engaging the cruise control system,” Petitioners argue that Mizuno discloses “(5)
`
`is a self-reset start switch provided to conduct set operation in terms of starting the
`
`speed control.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1004 at 3, 5, Fig. 1). For “after the cruise
`
`control is deactivated, displaying a symbol indicative of an unset state of the preset
`
`speed,” Petitioners argue that Mizuno discloses a key switch to supply power to the
`
`electric system, “when the key switch is off, power is no longer provided to the
`
`display device, and it turns off,” and “flashing of the display lamp (for example, set
`
`up on the control panel (6) can be changed.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1004 at 4, 5, 7,
`
`Fig. 1; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 49, 66-67, 70-71).
`
`For independent claim 25, Petitioners contend that the same portions of
`
`Mizuno identified for the preamble and “maintaining the activated cruise control
`
`speed symbol upon temporary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle” of claim
`
`12 disclose the preamble and “maintaining the display of the symbol indicative of
`
`the preset speed while the vehicle is at the speed above the preset speed” of claim
`
`25. Pet. 32, 33. Petitioners also contend that the portions of Mizuno identified for
`
`the “set speed input” and “feedback system” of claim 1 disclose “setting the preset
`
`speed” and “displaying to the operator a symbol indicative of the preset speed” of
`
`claim 25. Id. at 33. Petitioners argue Mizuno inherently discloses “accelerating
`
`the vehicle to a speed above the preset speed” because Mizuno discloses “an
`
`actuator which displaces the position of the throttle valve, which is a speed control
`
`element of a vehicle, by the signal of the controller (1),” and “vehicles will
`
`naturally deviate above the preset speed . . . such that the actual speed must be
`
`controlled by changing throttle position.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1004 at 3; Ex. 1007
`
`¶ 62).
`
`For independent claim 26, Petitioners contend that the same portions of
`
`Mizuno identified for the preamble, “speed controller,” “set speed input,” and
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`“memory” of claim 1 disclose the preamble, “a speed controller for automatically
`
`maintaining the vehicle at a substantially constant preset speed,” “a set speed input
`
`in communication with the controller for selecting the preset speed,” and “a
`
`memory device operable to store information representative of the preset speed”
`
`recited in claim 26. Pet. 34. Petitioners also contend that Mizuno inherently
`
`discloses a “first visual display apparatus operable to display the [information]
`
`indicative of the actual speed of the vehicle” because “Mizuno discloses the
`
`drawbacks of a driver having to increase or decrease the preset cruise speed” and
`
`thus, “inherent in [Mizuno] is a display of the actual speed for the driver to read so
`
`that the driver can determine when his/her desired speed has been reached.” Id. at
`
`33-34 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 60-61); see also id. at 34-35 (citing Ex. 1004 at 1-2, 3).
`
`Petitioners further contend that Mizuno discloses a “second visual display
`
`apparatus operable to display the visual information indicative of an operation
`
`status of the speed controller, wherein the visual information displayable by the
`
`second visual display apparatus includes visual information indicative of the preset
`
`speed” because Mizuno describes that “[t]he value of said flag F can be used to
`
`indicate whether it is during the influence of speed control or not, and depending
`
`on the value, the flashing of the display lamp[,] for example, set up on the control
`
`panel (6) can be changed.” Id.