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., FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VOLVO CARS OF
`NORTH AMERICA, LLC, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., FUJI HEAVY
`INDUSTRIES LTD., and HONDA PATENTS AND TECHNOLOGIES NORTH
`AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`
`CASE IPR: 2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`LAW OF ANTICIPATION ............................................................................. 2
`II.
`III. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES ANTICIPATE THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .................. 3
`A. Mizuno Does Not Anticipate The Challenged Claims .......................... 3
`Ex. 1004, p. 10. ................................................................................................ 5
`1.
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses “An
`Enable Switch Associated With Said Controller For
`Enabling The System” (Claim 1) ................................................ 5
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses “A
`Cruise Control Enable Switch Associated With The
`Controller For Enabling And Disabling The Controller”
`(Claim 2) ..................................................................................... 8
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses
`“Maintaining The Activated Cruise Control Speed
`Symbol Upon Temporary Acceleration Or Deceleration
`Of The Vehicle” (Claim 12) ..................................................... 10
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses
`“Upon Braking The Vehicle, Discontinuing Maintaining
`The Vehicle Speed At Substantially The Preset Speed
`While Keeping Data Corresponding To The Preset Speed
`In A Memory Device” (Claim 18) ............................................ 12
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses
`“After The Cruise Control System Is Deactivated,
`Displaying A Symbol Indicative Of An Unset State Of
`The Preset Speed” (Claim 21) ................................................... 14
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses “A
`First Visual Display Apparatus Operable To Display The
`[Information] Indicative Of The Actual Speed Of The
`Vehicle” (Claim 34) .................................................................. 16
`B. Miura Does Not Anticipate The Challenged Claims .......................... 18
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses “An
`Enable Switch Associated With Said Controller For
`Enabling The System” (Claim 1) .............................................. 19
`The Petition Does Not Show That Miura Discloses “A
`Cruise Control Enable Switch Associated With The
`Controller For Enabling And Disabling The Controller”
`(Claim 2) ................................................................................... 21
`The Petition Does Not Show That Miura Discloses
`“Maintaining The Activated Cruise Control Speed
`Symbol Upon Temporary Acceleration Or Deceleration
`Of The Vehicle” (Claim 12) ..................................................... 23
`The Petition Does Not Show That Miura Discloses
`“Displaying A Visual Symbol To The Operator” (Claim
`16) ............................................................................................. 26
`The Petition Does Not Show That Miura Discloses
`“After The Cruise Control System Is Deactivated,
`Displaying A Symbol Indicative Of An Unset State Of
`The Preset Speed” (Claim 21) ................................................... 27
`The Petition Does Not Show That Miura Discloses
`“Maintaining The Display Of The Symbol Indicative Of
`The Preset Speed While The Vehicle Is At The Speed
`Above The Preset Speed” (Claim 25) ...................................... 28
`The Petition Does Not Show That Miura Discloses “The
`Visual Information Displayed By The Second Visual
`Display Apparatus Includes Information Reflecting
`Whether The Speed Controller Is Operating To Maintain
`The Vehicle At The Cruising Speed At The Time The
`Display Is Made” (Claim 27) .................................................... 28
`The Petition Does Not Show That Miura Discloses “The
`Individual Visual Indicators Are Disposed On The
`Indicator Dial Of The Analog Speedometer” (Claim 31) ......... 29
`IV. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ........................................................................................................ 31
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 31
`
`V.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) .............................................................................................................. 9, 21
`C.R. Bard v. M3 Sys., 157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................. 2
`Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182 (Fed.Cir.1998) .......... 9, 22
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................... 2
`In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................................ 2
`In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................ 2
`In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................ 3
`Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................. 2, 31
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, Patent Owner Cruise Control Technologies
`
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this response to the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“Petition”) of claims 1-5, 12-16, 18-21, 23, 25-31 and 34-36 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,324,463 (the “‘463 Patent”) filed by 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 (collectively “Petitioner”). Paper 1, p. 1.
`
`On July 2, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) instituted
`
`inter partes review based on the following grounds of unpatentability alleged in
`
`the Petition:
`
`Ground A: JP S58-52708 (“Mizuno”) anticipates claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, 18,
`
`21, 25, 26 and 34-36;
`
`Ground B: JP H8-220118 (“Miura”) anticipates claims 1, 2, 12-16, 21, 25-
`
`27 and 29-31; and
`
`Ground C: Mizuno and ordinary skill in the art render obvious claims 4, 19,
`
`20, 23, 27 and 28. Paper 19, p. 34.
`
`All cites to Mizuno and Miura are to the respective English translations (Ex.
`
`1004 for Mizuno and Ex. 1006 for Miura) filed by Petitioner with the Petition.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`II. LAW OF ANTICIPATION
`
`“To anticipate a claim, a single prior art reference must expressly or
`
`inherently disclose each claim limitation.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`
`523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1990). Additionally, “a finding of anticipation requires that the publication
`
`describe all of the elements of the claims, arranged as in the patented device.”
`
`C.R. Bard v. M3 Sys., 157 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis added)
`
`(string citation omitted). Thus, the prior art reference “must not only disclose all
`
`elements within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those
`
`elements arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d
`
`1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]t
`
`is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention,
`
`which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes
`
`multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the
`
`claimed invention.” Id. at 1371.
`
`The fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the
`
`prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic.
`
`In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “To establish inherency, the
`
`extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is
`
`necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be
`
`established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may
`
`result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” In re Robertson, 169
`
`F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`III. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES ANTICIPATE THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`A. Ground A: Mizuno Does Not Anticipate The Challenged Claims
`
`Mizuno discusses two different embodiments of a system for vehicle speed
`
`control. The first embodiment is a digital control device that is shown in Figure 1.
`
`Mizuno at p. 3, ¶5 (“According to the preferred embodiment of the present
`
`invention, the set value indicating the target vehicle speed is processed as a digital
`
`value in the digital control circuit, especially a microcomputer.”); p. 3, ¶7 (“Figure
`
`1 showing the first embodiment of the present invention, (1) is the electric signal
`
`processing circuit (controller)” and this controller is provided with microcomputer
`
`(1A)”); p. 7, ¶13 (“Figure 1 is block line drawing depicting one embodiment of the
`
`device implementing the present invention methodology”). In the “digital”
`
`embodiment, the system consists of elements 1-8 as shown in Figure 1:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1004, p. 8
`
`
`
`The second embodiment is an “analog hard logic circuit” that is shown in
`
`Figure 4. Id. at p. 7, ¶2 (“Figure 4 depicts the device which uses an analog hard
`
`logic circuit of the present invention.); p. 7, ¶13 (“Figure 4 is a block line drawing
`
`depicting another example of the device implementing the present invention
`
`methodology.”). In the “analog” embodiment, the system consists of elements 9
`
`and 28-45 as shown in Figure 4:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, p. 10.
`
`1.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses “An
`Enable Switch Associated With Said Controller For
`Enabling The System” (Claim 1)
`The Board construed “enabling the system” as “a ‘system on’ state for the
`
`cruise control system.” Paper 19, p. 7. Thus, the claimed “enable switch” is a
`
`switch that puts the cruise control system in a ‘system on’ state. Petitioner
`
`incorrectly alleges that either the “key switch” or the “start switch (5)” in Mizuno
`
`is the claimed “enable switch.” Petition (“Pet.”) at 19-20.
`
`The “key switch” in Mizuno is not the claimed “enable switch.” Mizuno
`
`discusses two different key switches – a “key switch” with regard to the digital
`
`embodiment, and a different “key switch (9)” with reference to Figure 4 and the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`analog embodiment. The Petition focuses solely on the “key switch” of the digital
`
`embodiment, not key switch (9) of the analog embodiment. Pet. at 19. However,
`
`the “key switch” of the digital embodiment is not shown in Figure 1, and Mizuno
`
`does not describe it 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. Ex. 1004, p. 5, ¶9 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not take any
`
`position, and 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.
`
`Mizuno discusses only two actions that are attributed to turning on the key
`
`switch of the vehicle: (1) causing display device 6C to show a value (“To sum up
`
`operation of this device, first, the initial value ‘80km/H’ is displayed on the display
`
`device 6C by turning on the key switch,” Ex. 1004, p. 5¶9); and (2) providing for
`
`power to be supplied to the digital system (“if the key switch of the vehicle is
`
`turned on, the power source is supplied to the electric system of Figure 1,” Ex.
`
`1004, p. 4, ¶4). Clearly, activating the display device 6C is not putting the “cruise
`
`control system” into a “system-on state,” because the display device 6C alone is
`
`not a cruise control system (it only displays a speed value).
`
`Further, providing for power to be supplied to the digital system does not
`
`necessarily mean that the digital system is in a system-on state. For example,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`when a vehicle’s ignition switch is turned on, a digital car radio may be supplied
`
`with power to display a time, but the radio may not be in a system-on state, which
`
`requires pushing the on/off radio button. Thus, the radio requires the ignition
`
`switch to provide power, and a separate on/off button to put the radio into a
`
`system-on state. The invention of claim 1 is similar to the radio on/off button in
`
`that “an enable switch” is required to put the cruise control system into a system-
`
`on state. Accordingly, it is neither express nor inherent in Mizuno that the “key
`
`switch” (vaguely discussed and not depicted any of the figures of the digital
`
`embodiment) puts the cruise control system in a system-on state, when it simply
`
`provides access to a power source and turns on the display device 6C.
`
`The start switch 5 of Mizuno is not the claimed “enable switch,” because
`
`Mizuno clearly states that the start switch 5 is used to activate speed control, not
`
`put the cruise control system into a system-on state. Ex. 1004, p. 5, ¶3-4 (“when it
`
`is detected that start switch 5 is turned on, the value of flag F is 1…Speed control
`
`step 24 is conducted after being determined that the value of flag F is constantly
`
`1.”). Accordingly, the start switch 5 is not the claimed “enable switch.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Mizuno does not anticipate claim 1.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses “A
`Cruise Control Enable Switch Associated With The
`Controller For Enabling And Disabling The Controller”
`(Claim 2)
`The Petition asserts that the “key switch” or the “start switch (5)” is the
`
`claimed “cruise control enable switch.” Pet. at 23. The Petition also asserts that
`
`the “cancel switch (4) could be combined with either the start switch (5) or the set
`
`switch (8) to form a single switch.” Id. However, Petitioner and its declarant
`
`acknowledge that such a combination is neither expressly nor inherently discussed
`
`in Mizuno, but allege that it would be an “option” for one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. Ex. 1007, ¶58. Because the Board instituted only with respect to allegations of
`
`anticipation, and Mizuno never expressly or inherently addresses a combination of
`
`switches, Patent Owner does not address this allegation of obviousness as it is
`
`outside the scope of this proceeding.
`
`As explained above with respect to claim 1, the “key switch” discussed with
`
`regard to the digital embodiment seems to be the vehicle ignition switch which,
`
`according to Mizuno, activates the display device 6C and provides access to power
`
`for the digital system. Even if the “enable switch…for enabling the system” of
`
`claim 1 could be interpreted broadly to encompass Mizuno’s key switch (which
`
`Patent Owner disputes), 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. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“the fact that the two adjacent claims
`
`use different terms in parallel settings supports the district court's conclusion that
`
`the two terms were not meant to have the same meaning”); see generally Comark
`
`Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed.Cir.1998) (when
`
`different words are used in separate claims, they are presumed to have different
`
`meanings). Thus, 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. Ex. 1004, p. 5, ¶9. Neither
`
`Claim 2 further requires that the cruise control enable switch “disabl[e] the
`
`controller.” There is no discussion in Mizuno of how turning the key switch off
`
`could be interpreted as disclosing “disabling the controller.” In fact, Mizuno only
`
`discusses turning the key switch off with respect to the memory storing the set
`
`value VM. Ex. 1004, p. 7, ¶1. While this limited discussion could possibly imply
`
`that turning the key switch off will cut power to the memory, 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), which
`
`Petitioner alleges are combined to be the claimed “controller.” In fact, Mizuno
`
`does not discuss using the key switch to disable any component of the digital
`
`system.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`For at least these reasons, Mizuno does not anticipate claim 2.
`
`3.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses
`“Maintaining The Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol
`Upon Temporary Acceleration Or Deceleration Of The
`Vehicle” (Claim 12)
`Claim 12 requires that the “activated” cruise control speed symbol is
`
`maintained “upon temporary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle.” 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.”
`
`Thus, the express 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. See also ‘463
`
`Patent 3:63-4:4 (describing embodiment in which displayed preset speed is blinked
`
`after braking to “give[] the operator a clear indication of the speed to which the
`
`vehicle will return when the command to resume speed is applied” because the
`
`cruise control system is still turned on).
`
`First, as discussed above, Mizuno states that “the initial value ‘80km/H’ is
`
`displayed on the display device 6C by turning on the key switch” (Ex. 1004, p.
`
`5¶9). The Petition does not cite to any separate indicia in Mizuno indicating the
`
`cruise control system is activated. Accordingly, Mizuno does not disclose this
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`claim element, because the initial value on the display device 6C is not an
`
`“activated cruise control speed symbol.”
`
`Second, Mizuno never discusses, expressly or inherently, the impact of
`
`temporary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle on the display device 6C.
`
`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.” Pet. at 26. This statement does not expressly or inherently discuss
`
`temporary acceleration or deceleration.
`
`Petitioner’s declarant contends that “the display is maintained constantly,
`
`including after the brake pedal has been depressed and the vehicle is not under
`
`speed control.” Ex. 1007, ¶ 59. But, Petitioner’s declarant fails to state whether
`
`this assertion (1) applies to both of Mizuno’s embodiments, (2) is express in
`
`Mizuno or inherent, or (3) is allegedly obvious based on Mizuno’s discussion.
`
`Further, Petitioner’s declarant states that Mizuno inherently discloses that “a
`
`vehicle under speed control can be accelerated above the preset speed or
`
`decelerated below the preset speed, because that functionality was completely
`
`standard in every cruise control system that existed during the Period.” Id. at ¶62.
`
`Again, Petitioner’s declarant fails to cite to any statement in Mizuno or knowledge
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art as support for this assertion, or indicate whether
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`either embodiment of Mizuno is a “completely standard…cruise control system,”
`
`such that this assertion would be applicable.
`
` For at least these reasons, Mizuno does not anticipate claim 12.
`
`4.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses
`“Discontinuing Display Of The Symbol Indicative Of The
`Preset Speed When The Cruise Control System Is
`Deactivated Or A New Preset Speed Is Selected” (Claim 13)
`
`As to “discontinuing display of the symbol indicative of the preset speed
`
`when…a new preset speed is selected,” the Petition cites only to its declarant’s
`
`assertion that “Mizuno displays a given preset speed substantially continuously
`
`until…a new preset speed is set and the numbers/digits display change.” Pet. at
`
`27-28 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶¶56-57). Petitioner’s declarant does not provide any
`
`explanation of his basis for this assertion, but merely cites to several portions of
`
`Mizuno. An anticipation challenge cannot be based on unexplained citations.
`
` For at least these reasons, Mizuno does not anticipate claim 13.
`
`5.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses “Upon
`Braking The Vehicle, Discontinuing Maintaining The
`Vehicle Speed At Substantially The Preset Speed While
`Keeping Data Corresponding To The Preset Speed In A
`Memory Device” (Claim 18)
`Mizuno never discusses what happens “upon braking the vehicle.”
`
`Petitioner cites a statement in Mizuno that “the cancel switch which is linked to the
`
`clutch pedal and the brake pedal; here, at least the time of operation of one of each
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`pedal is ‘on’ and the time of non-operation of both is referred to as ‘off’”. Pet. at
`
`29. First, this statement only indicates that the cancel switch and the brake pedal
`
`are somehow “linked,” but does not provide any further discussion of how such
`
`link is accomplished (structurally vs. functionally) or what the effect of such “link”
`
`is. Figure 1 of Mizuno does not aid in this analysis, since the brake pedal is shown
`
`only as connected to a line between actuator 2 and the throttle valve 7. Ex. 1004,
`
`p. 8, Figure 1. Second, Mizuno does not make clear whether the “on” and “off’
`
`generated by operation of the brake and clutch pedals are somehow related to the
`
`cancel switch. Mizuno simply states that when one pedal is operated, there is an
`
`“on” indication, and when both pedals are not operated, there is an “off”
`
`indication. However, Mizuno does not explain how the “on” and “off” indications
`
`are tied, if at all, to operation of the cancel switch.
`
`Petitioner further cites to Mizuno’s reference to “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.” Pet. at 29. First, it is
`
`clear that this statement is referring to the impact of turning off the key switch on
`
`the stored set value VM, and does not expressly or inherently mention braking.
`
`Second, it is unclear whether the “temporary stop” refers to stopping the vehicle or
`
`stopping the speed control. Because it is unclear whether the key switch is the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`vehicle ignition switch or some other switch, it cannot be ascertained whether the
`
`“temporary stop” refers to stopping the vehicle by braking, coming to a complete
`
`stop with the ignition (key switch) off, or cancelling the speed control (which
`
`could be done by the cancel switch 4 and does not necessitate braking).
`
`For at least these reasons, Mizuno does not anticipate claim 18.
`
`6.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses “After
`The Cruise Control System Is Deactivated, Displaying A
`Symbol Indicative Of An Unset State Of The Preset Speed”
`(Claim 21)
`The Board has interpreted “unset state” to require “a state in which there is
`
`no preset speed for the cruise control system.” Paper 19, p. 7. Accordingly, claim
`
`21 requires the display of a symbol indicating that there is no preset speed for the
`
`cruise control system after the cruise control system is turned off. With regard to
`
`Mizuno, the Petition cites to the key switch as allegedly disclosing the claimed
`
`“symbol.” Pet. at 31-32. Clearly, the key switch is not a symbol that is displayed.
`
`The Petitioner further alleges that “display lamp” of Mizuno is the claimed
`
`“symbol.” The “display lamp” is not shown in any of the figures of Mizuno and is
`
`only mentioned in a single sentence – “The 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 upon the control
`
`panel (6) can be changed.” Ex. 1004, p. 5, ¶12 (emphasis added). First, if the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`cruise control system is deactivated (turned off), Mizuno does not provide any
`
`indication of whether the display lamp would still be on or capable of flashing.
`
`Second, the flashing of the display lamp is related to whether or not the vehicle is
`
`under speed control but has nothing to do with the state of the preset speed as
`
`Petitioner vaguely alleges. Mizuno expressly states that the display device 6C
`
`displays the set value VM for the entire time the key switch is on, indicating that
`
`there is always a displayed preset speed. Ex. 1004, p. 5, ¶¶1, 9; Figure 2 (display
`
`device shows VM in step 12 and method never deactivates display, even after
`
`cancel switch 4 is pressed in step 19).
`
`For at least these reasons, Mizuno does not anticipate claim 21.
`
`7.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses
`“Accelerating The Vehicle To A Speed Above The Preset
`Speed” (Claim 25)
`
`The Petition alleges that this claim limitation is inherently disclosed in
`
`Mizuno, because “that functionality was completely standard in every cruise
`
`control system that existed during the Period.” Pet. at 33 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶62).
`
`As explained above with regard to claim 12, Petitioner’s declarant fails to cite to
`
`any statement in Mizuno or knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as support
`
`for this assertion or indicate whether either embodiment of Mizuno is a
`
`“completely standard…cruise control system,” such that this assertion would be
`
`applicable.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`For at least these reasons, Mizuno does not anticipate claim 25.
`
`8.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses “First
`Visual Display Apparatus Operable To Display The
`[Information] Indicative Of The Actual Vehicle Speed”
`(Claim 26)
`
`The Petition alleges that this claim limitation is inherently disclosed in
`
`Mizuno. Pet. at 34-35. For the reasons explained below with regard to claim 34,
`
`Mizuno does not anticipate claim 26.
`
`9.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses “A First
`Visual Display Apparatus Operable To Display The
`[Information] Indicative Of The Actual Speed Of The
`Vehicle” (Claim 34)
`Mizuno does not discuss a speedometer or any other device that displays
`
`actual speed of the vehicle. However, the Petition alleges that Mizuno meets this
`
`limitation (1) in its discussion of a prior patent publication that refers to a “stored”
`
`actual vehicle speed “signal” and (2) it is inherent that “[a]ll vehicles included
`
`speedometers that displayed actual speed.” Pet. at 33-36.
`
`First, the Petition refers to Mizuno’s discussion of a prior patent publication
`
`(“Kokoku”) regarding storing actual vehicle speed “signals” in a memory circuit --
`
`“the actual vehicle speed signal after accelerating or decelerating is stored newly
`
`as the control reference value with the action on the memory circuit with the
`
`timing of resuming the accelerating switch or the decelerating switch.” Pet at. 34
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`(emphasis added). Neither this statement nor any other discussion of Kokoku
`
`refers to a “visual display” of actual speed of the vehicle.
`
`Second, Petitioner’s declarant relies on a blatant mischaracterization of
`
`Mizuno, alleging “Mizuno discloses the drawbacks of a driver having to increase
`
`or decrease the preset cruise speed by pressing an acceleration or deceleration
`
`switch and waiting for the actual display to change to the driver’s targeted value.”
`
`Ex. 1007, ¶60 (citing Mizuno, p. 2, ¶2). The cited portion of Mizuno never
`
`mentions any display, much less a speedometer or any display of actual vehicle
`
`speed. To the contrary, Mizuno discusses the drawbacks of having to press
`
`acceleration and deceleration switches with one hand to accelerate/decelerate the
`
`cruise speed while driving with the other hand, which is problematic when
`
`changing lanes or passing another vehicle. Ex. 1004, p.2, ¶2 (“Because of this
`
`[pressing switches until the speed changes], the driver’s one arm is being
`
`constrained during the vehicle speed change, and this is inconvenient when it is
`
`necessary to conduct vehicle speed change and other operation at the same time,
`
`for example, changing lanes or in the case of passing, for example.”).
`
`Finally, Petitioner contends that “a speedometer is inherent in cruise control
`
`systems,” because “[a]ll vehicles included speedometers that displayed actual
`
`speed.” Pet. at 33. However, the only support for this allegation is the identical,
`
`unsupported statement by Petitioner’s declarant – “During the Period, all vehicles
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`included speedometers that displayed actual speed.” Ex. 1007, ¶61; see also id. at
`
`¶25 (defining the “Period” as from the beginning of time to May 12, 1998 – “on or
`
`before May 12, 1998”). However, Petitioner’s declarant does not provide any
`
`support or explanation for his contention that every vehicle that ever existed from
`
`the beginning of time to May 12, 1998 included a speedometer to display actual
`
`speed.
`
`For at least these reasons, Mizuno does not anticipate claim 34.
`
`B. Ground B: Miura Does Not Anticipate The Challenged Claims
`
`Miura discusses multiple embodiments of a vehicle display readout that
`
`allegedly overcomes difficulties with providing LED indicators at 1 Km
`
`increments to show a cruise speed. Ex. 1006, ¶0005. Figures 1a and 2b show
`
`components of one embodiment of the vehicle display readout. Case 10 includes a
`
`speedometer 11 with a needle 12 and dial face (14) disposed behind a half mirror
`
`17. Id. at ¶0014. Perpendicularly disposed on the case 10 is display panel 15
`
`which consists of a light-emitting scale 15a composed of LEDs. Id. at ¶0015-16.
`
`In use, when cruise speed is set, an LED on the scale 15a is illuminated and that
`
`light shines off the half-mirror 17 to appear to the driver to be superimposed over
`
`the same value on the dial face 14.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses “An
`Enable Switch Associated With Said Controller For
`Enabling The System” (Claim 1)
`The Board construed “enabling the system” as “a ‘system on’ state for the
`
`cruise control system.” Paper 19, p. 7. Thus, the claimed “enable switch” is a
`
`switch that puts the cruise control system in a ‘system on’ state. Petitioner
`
`incorrectly alleges that either the “ignition switch” or the “cruise travel set SW
`
`(23)” in Miura is the claimed “enable switch.” Pet. at 45.
`
`The “ignition switch” of Miura is not the claimed “enable switch,” because
`
`Miura expressly states, “ignition switch (21)…is the switch for controlling engine
`
`start and stop.” Ex. 1006, ¶0019; ¶0021 (“The engine starts when ignition SW (21)
`
`is on”). Thus, the ignition switch is solely dedicated to turning the engine on and
`
`off.
`
`Miura mentions that power is applied to CPU 20 when the engine starts. Id.
`
`at ¶0021. However, Miura expressly states that the cruise speed travel unit is not
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`in a system-on state until it is determined that the vehicle speed is within a
`
`threshold range – “The travel speed of the vehicle present between the low speed
`
`limit and the high speed limit determines whether cruise speed travel flag in step
`
`S1 is in the ON mode.” Id.; see also ¶0002 (discussing the “Prior Art” – “[s]etting
`
`the cruise contr