UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Petitioner Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (“Toyota” or “Petitioner”) and
`
`co-Petitioners Subaru of America, Inc. (“Subaru”), Ford Motor Company (“Ford”),
`
`Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC (“Jaguar”), Volvo Cars of North America
`
`LLC (“Volvo”), and Nissan North America Inc. timely submit this “Petitioner
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Response” (“Reply”) in response to the “Patent Owner’s
`
`Response” filed by Cruise Control Technologies LLC (“CCT”) on October 9,
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`2014. Petitioner respectfully requests entry and consideration of this Reply, and a
`
`final determination that claims 1-5, 12-16, 18, 19, 21, 25-28, and 34-36 are
`
`unpatentable and canceled.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 12-16, 21, 25, 26, AND 28 ARE ANTICIPATED BY
`THE DIAMANTE OWNER’S MANUAL (“DIAMANTE”) ................................................ 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The Petition Does Not Rely On An Improper Combination
`Of Different Embodiments of Diamante......................................................1
`
`Diamante Discloses the Claimed Speed Controller (Claims
`1, 2, and 26) .................................................................................................2
`
`Diamante Discloses “Maintaining The Activated Cruise
`Control Speed Symbol Upon Temporary Acceleration Or
`Deceleration Of The Vehicle” (Claim 12) ...................................................6
`
`Diamante Discloses “After Activating The Cruise Control
`System, But Before Setting The Preset Speed, Indicating
`To The Operator The Unset Status Of The Preset Speed”
`(Claim 15) ....................................................................................................6
`
`Diamante Discloses “After The Cruise Control System Is
`Deactivated, Displaying A Symbol Indicative Of An Unset
`State Of The Preset Speed" (Claim 21) .......................................................8
`
`Diamante Discloses “Accelerating The Vehicle To A Speed
`Above The Preset Speed" And "Maintaining The Display
`Of The Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed While The
`Vehicle Is At The Speed Above The Preset Speed (Claim
`25) ................................................................................................................9
`
`III.
`
`CLAIMS 18 AND 19 ARE ANTICIPATED BY WATANABE ......................................... 11
`
`IV.
`
`CLAIMS 2-5, 26-28, AND 34-36 ARE ANTICIPATED BY THE
`CELSIOR OWNER’S MANUAL (“CELSIOR”) ................................................................. 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Celsior Discloses a Speed Controller (Claims 2, 26, and 34) ....................12
`
`Celsior Discloses “The Visual Information Displayed By
`The Second Visual Display Apparatus Includes Information
`Reflecting Whether The Speed Controller Is Operating To
`
`iii
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`Maintain The Vehicle At The Cruising Speed At The Time
`The Display Is Made” (Claim 27) ..............................................................13
`
`V.
`
`THE COMBINATION OF DIAMANTE AND THE DIAMANTE
`PREVIEW DISTANCE CONTROL MANUAL/WATANABE RENDER
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS......................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board is correct in its initial finding
`
`that claims 1-5, 12-16, 18, 19, 21, 25-28, and 34-36 are unpatentable, and requests
`
`a final written decision canceling claims 1-5, 12-16, 18, 19, 21, 25-28, and 34-36.
`
`II. CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 12-16, 21, 25, 26, AND 28 ARE ANTICIPATED BY
`THE DIAMANTE OWNER’S MANUAL (“DIAMANTE”)
`
`1. The Petition Does Not Rely On An Improper Combination
`Of Different Embodiments of Diamante
`
`In its Patent Owner's Response (Paper 26), CCT argues that the anticipation
`
`grounds in view of the Diamante Owner's Manual are based on an improper
`
`combination of two allegedly mutually exclusive features of the manual, i.e., (1) a
`
`“cruise control” feature and (2) a “preview distance control” feature. Paper 26, pp.
`
`4-5.
`
`The Patent Owner is incorrect; it is clear from the Diamante Owner's Manual
`
`("Diamante") that the "preview distance control" option and the "cruise control"
`
`feature are not mutually exclusive features. In fact, Diamante expressly describes
`
`that cars equipped with the preview distance control option include the cruise
`
`control feature as well. For example, in the section of Diamante for preview
`
`distance control, the manual explains, "When no vehicle is detected ahead, the
`
`system cruises the vehicle at the preset speed." Ex. 1004, p. 88. Cruising the
`
`
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`vehicle at the preset speed is of course the basic cruise control feature. Further, the
`
`figures showing the control levers and dashboard display in the preview distance
`
`control section of the Diamante manual (pp. 88-93), expressly show that the cruise
`
`control features are included with the preview distance control option. Ex. 1004,
`
`e.g., p. 88 (showing both "vehicle-to-vehicle distance" and "cruise control
`
`indicator" on the same dashboard display for cars equipped with preview distance
`
`control); see also, figures of displays and levers on pp. 89-92 (showing both cruise
`
`control and preview distance control features on the same displays and levers). As
`
`is apparent, the cruise control and preview distance control features of the
`
`Diamante manual are not mutually exclusive.
`
`2. Diamante Discloses the Claimed Speed Controller (Claims 1,
`2, and 26)
`
`CCT additionally argues that the Petition does not establish that Diamante
`
`discloses a “speed controller” as recited in independent claims 1, 2, and 26. Paper
`
`26 at pp. 5-6. In particular, CCT argues that Petitioner improperly relies on the
`
`same quote from Diamante as teaching both the "system" recited in the preamble
`
`of the claims, as well as the speed controller recited in the body of the claims:
`
`"[c]ruise control is a system that allows the vehicle to cruise at a constant speed
`
`2
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`(from approximately 40-100 km/hr) without depressing the accelerator pedal." Ex.
`
`1004 at p. 86.
`
`But the claimed "system" is not a separate physical structure from the
`
`claimed "speed controller." Rather, the claimed "system" is simply a preamble
`
`term for a combination of structural elements recited in the claim body; those
`
`structural elements include a speed controller, a feedback system, and a memory.
`
`Since the speed controller is one of the elements of the system, it is not surprising
`
`that a teaching in the Diamante manual of a "cruise control" is relevant to both the
`
`preamble and an element in the body of the claim.
`
`The teaching in Diamante of a "[c]ruise control is a system that allows the
`
`vehicle to cruise at a constant speed (from approximately 40-100 km/hr) without
`
`depressing the accelerator pedal" (Ex. 1004 at p. 86) certainly teaches the claimed
`
`"speed controller that automatically maintains the vehicle speed at a preset speed,"
`
`as Diamante uses almost identical language as the speed controller language
`
`recited in the claims.
`
`CCT does not offer any construction for "speed controller" and does not
`
`require the claimed speed controller to include any particular structure. Rather,
`
`CCT just argues that it "is a required structural component of the cruise control
`
`3
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`system of claim 1." Paper 26 at p. 5. CCT's position is telling, in that the '463
`
`specification provides no structural details of the speed controller whatsoever.
`
`CCT's argument that since the "cruise control" in Diamante is described
`
`using the word "system," it can only be applied to the preamble, is belied by both
`
`the '463 patent specification, as well as the common usage of the term. For
`
`example, the Abstract of the '463 patent discloses the "cruise control" as a system
`
`within a "system.": "A system for indicating the operational status and parameters
`
`of a cruise control system for use in a human operated vehicle. The system
`
`includes apparatus for storing and recalling a preset speed for the cruise control
`
`system." Ex. 1001 at Abstract.
`
`Moreover, the '463 patent uses the terms "cruise control," "cruise control
`
`system," and "speed controller" interchangeably to refer to what is enabled,
`
`engaged, and/or activated to control the speed of the vehicle. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at
`
`Abstract, 4:4-6, 4:39-46, and 5:3-7. For example, while the claims of the '463
`
`patent recite displaying the operational status and parameters of the "speed
`
`controller," the specification repeatedly refers to displaying the operational status
`
`and parameters of the "cruise control" or "cruise control system." Compare, for
`
`example, claim 4 ("display a predetermined signal when the controller is enabled
`
`4
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`to indicate the state of the controller") with 4:43-44 ("blink once … to inform the
`
`operator that the cruise control is now enabled"), 2:37-39 ("The present invention
`
`addresses this need by providing the operator of a vehicle with information about
`
`the preset speed of an enabled cruise control system."), and 4:4-6 ("When the
`
`cruise control system is first activated … indicating an 'unset' state of the cruise
`
`control.") (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, because the '463 patent conflates the terms "cruise control," "cruise
`
`control system," and "speed controller," and because Diamante discloses the same
`
`structure and function as the "speed controller" described in the '463 patent
`
`specification (i.e., a cruise control or cruise control system), Diamante necessarily
`
`teaches the claimed speed controller element. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at Abstract, 4:4-
`
`6, 4:39-46, and 5:3-7.
`
`CCT does not argue that Diamante fails to teach the other elements of claims
`
`1, 2 and 26, and since Diamante teaches the speed controller as well as the other
`
`elements required by the body of the claims, Diamante necessarily teaches the
`
`"cruise control system" in the preamble. The preambles of the claims also recite an
`
`intended use, that being for use in a vehicle. The cited portion (Ex. 1004 at p. 86)
`
`5
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`indicated above from Diamante, besides teaching a speed controller, also teaches
`
`the intended use for a vehicle.
`
`Accordingly, the disclosure of Diamante is structurally indistinct from the
`
`recitations of claims 1, 2, and 26.
`
`3. Diamante Discloses “Maintaining The Activated Cruise
`Control Speed Symbol Upon Temporary Acceleration Or
`Deceleration Of The Vehicle” (Claim 12)
`
`CCT also argues that Diamante does not disclose “maintaining the activated
`
`cruise control speed symbol upon temporary… deceleration.” Paper 26 at pp. 6-8.
`
`However, Diamante discloses a temporary deceleration by pressing the
`
`brakes or decelerating via the vehicle-to-vehicle distance control. Paper 1 at pp.
`
`17-18 and 26-27. Here, Diamante states, upon temporary deceleration (e.g., via the
`
`vehicle-to-vehicle distance control), “the speed of your vehicle (displayed on the
`
`speedometer) differs from the preset speed (displayed on the center message
`
`display).” Ex. 1004 at pp. 87 and 91. As such, Diamante discloses the claimed
`
`"maintaining the activated cruise control speed symbol upon temporary…
`
`deceleration."
`
`4. Diamante Discloses “After Activating The Cruise Control
`System, But Before Setting The Preset Speed, Indicating To
`
`6
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`The Operator The Unset Status Of The Preset Speed”
`(Claim 15)
`
`Despite the clear illustration of a center message display displaying the
`
`contour of a vehicle without a speed therein (Ex. 1004 at p. 52), CCT argues that
`
`Diamante does not suggest “that the empty vehicle outline is ever shown to the
`
`operator.” Paper 26 at p. 8. However, Diamante explicitly states that the center
`
`message display with the empty vehicle outline is displayed, e.g., by a manual
`
`operation of “the MODE switch” to toggle through the various information
`
`screens. Ex. 1004 at p. 52.
`
`Furthermore, CCT does not challenge the invalidity of claim 15 over
`
`Diamante in view of the Diamante Preview Distance Control Manual (Ex. 1005)
`
`other than arguing that the combination does not cure the deficiencies of Diamante
`
`on its own. Thus, while Diamante anticipates claim 15 as discussed above, it is
`
`without question that Diamante in view of the Preview Distance Control Manual
`
`discloses the features of this claim. See Ex. 1006 at p. 0-11. In particular, the
`
`Preview Distance Control Manual explicitly discloses, "When the speed is not set,
`
`the speed (three digits) and 'km/hr' are not displayed; only the symbol is displayed."
`
`Id. (emphasis added). Thus, claim 15 is anticipated by Diamante, and is also
`
`obvious from Diamante in view of the Preview Distance Control Manual.
`
`7
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`5. Diamante Discloses “After The Cruise Control System Is
`Deactivated, Displaying A Symbol Indicative Of An Unset
`State Of The Preset Speed" (Claim 21)
`
`The Petition requesting IPR (Paper 1) cites to Diamante’s explicit disclosure
`
`that “the vehicle speed displayed on the center message display disappears” when
`
`the cruise control main switch is turned off (id. at p. 92), for a teaching of claim
`
`21’s recitation of, “[a]fter the cruise control system is deactivated, displaying a
`
`symbol indicative of an unset state of the preset speed.” Paper 1 at p. 32. Despite
`
`this disclosure, CCT argues that the disclosure does not meet the claim requirement
`
`since “the lack of a display of any information on the center message display after
`
`turning off the main switch cannot simultaneously anticipate the affirmative claim
`
`requirements of ‘discontinuing display…’ and ‘displaying’ as alleged by
`
`Petitioner.” Paper 26 at pp. 9-10. Additionally, CCT argues that nothing in
`
`Diamante suggests that any information related to cruise control is displayed on the
`
`center message display after the system is turned off. Id.
`
`However, the cited portion of Diamante does not indicate that the display as
`
`a whole is turned off when cruise control is deactivated (as CCT argues), but rather
`
`states that “the vehicle speed… disappears.” Ex. 1004 at p. 92. In other words, the
`
`empty vehicle outline remains while the vehicle speed therein disappears.
`
`8
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`Furthermore, Diamante explicitly states that the center message display with the
`
`empty vehicle outline is displayed, e.g., by a manual operation of “the MODE
`
`switch” to toggle through the various information screens. Ex. 1004 at p. 52.
`
`Thus, contrary to CCT’s allegation that no information is displayed on the center
`
`message display after turning off cruise control, the Diamante center message
`
`display does display the preview distance control screen including an empty
`
`vehicle outline (which is indicative of an unset state of the preset speed) while
`
`cruise control is off. Accordingly, Diamante anticipates claim 21.
`
`It is further noted that CCT does not challenge the invalidity of claim 21
`
`over Diamante in view of the Diamante Preview Distance Control Manual other
`
`than to conclusorily argue that the combination does not cure the deficiencies of
`
`Diamante on its own. While Diamante anticipates claim 21 as discussed above,
`
`claim 21 is also obvious from Diamante in view of the Diamante Preview Distance
`
`Control Manual. See Ex. 1006 at p. 0-11.
`
`6. Diamante Discloses “Accelerating The Vehicle To A Speed
`Above The Preset Speed" And "Maintaining The Display Of
`The Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed While The
`Vehicle Is At The Speed Above The Preset Speed (Claim 25)
`
`CCT alleges that, where Diamante discloses that the accelerator pedal can be
`
`depressed to accelerate the vehicle and then released to resume the preset speed
`
`9
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`prior to the acceleration (Ex. 1004 at p. 91), Diamante does not provide that the
`
`vehicle is accelerated to above the preset speed. Paper 26 at pp. 11-12.
`
`Furthermore, CCT asserts that Diamante does not disclose displaying any symbols
`
`indicating the preset speed when accelerating above the preset speed. Id.
`
`CCT’s representations of Diamante are incorrect and inconsistent with the
`
`plain language of the manual. For example, Diamante’s statement that, “[w]hen
`
`you depress the accelerator pedal to accelerate and then release it, the system will
`
`resume the preset speed prior to the acceleration” (Ex. 1004 at p. 91) clearly means
`
`that the vehicle is accelerated to above the preset speed and then will return (i.e.,
`
`“resume”) back down to the preset speed upon releasing the accelerator pedal.
`
`Moreover, Diamante’s disclosure that the speed of the vehicle may differ from the
`
`preset speed (Ex. 1004 at p. 91) clearly indicates, let alone to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, that the preset speed is still displayed even when the actual vehicle speed
`
`differs therefrom (e.g., while temporarily accelerating using the accelerator pedal).
`
`See Ex. 1011 at pp. 40 and 41.
`
`In fact, in its Patent Owner's Response, CCT effectively admits that
`
`Diamante discloses that the preset speed is displayed even when the actual speed
`
`differs therefrom. Specifically, CCT describes Diamante as disclosing the
`
`10
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`displayed preset speed being changed prior to the change in the actual speed.
`
`Paper 26 at p. 8 (“… the preset speed shown in the center message display is
`
`changed from the original speed and decremented prior to any deceleration.”
`
`emphasis added). Thus, CCT admits that the preset speed for cruise control is
`
`displayed even when different from the actual vehicle speed.
`
`III. CLAIMS 18 AND 19 ARE ANTICIPATED BY WATANABE
`
`CCT argues generally that the Petition does not meet the requirements of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23 because it is not specific as to how Watanabe (Ex. 1007) meets
`
`each individual claim element of claims 18 and 19, and is vague with respect to
`
`some claim elements. Paper 26 at p. 13. Additionally, CCT argues that the
`
`Petition does not address the “memory device” limitation of claim 18. Id.
`
`Petitioner respectfully disagrees with CCT and submits that the Petition “has
`
`shown a reasonable likelihood it can establish claims 18 and 19 are anticipated by
`
`Watanabe.” Paper 17 at p. 30.
`
`First, it must be noted that CCT does not argue that Watanabe fails to
`
`disclose any particular feature of claims 18 and 19. Rather, CCT simply alleges
`
`that it cannot determine which features of Watanabe correspond to features of
`
`claims 18 and 19 from the Petition. However, the Petition sufficiently addresses
`
`11
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`all of the elements of claims 18 and 19 in view of Watanabe. Paper 1 at pp. 41 and
`
`42. For example, in response to CCT’s argument that it is unclear which limitation
`
`of claims 18 and/or 19 is shown by the statement that “[t]he cruise control device
`
`of Watanabe includes an operation switch 18 to set the preset speed,” such a
`
`statement clearly corresponds to “setting the preset speed” as required by both
`
`claims 18 and 19. See Ex. 1011 at paras 47-51.
`
`Furthermore, Watanabe at FIG. 5 illustrates that the preset speed remains
`
`displayed after cruise control is disengaged by pressing the brakes, as noted in the
`
`Petition (Paper 1 at p. 42). Accordingly, Watanabe discloses the claimed method
`
`step since the preset speed is stored in a memory device in order for it to be
`
`continuously displayed and used for cruise control operation in the reference. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1008 at FIG. 5 and para. 25; see also, Ex. 1011 at para. 37.
`
`IV. CLAIMS 2-5, 26-28, AND 34-36 ARE ANTICIPATED BY THE
`CELSIOR OWNER’S MANUAL (“CELSIOR”)
`
`1. Celsior Discloses a Speed Controller (Claims 2, 26, and 34)
`
`As with the Diamante reference described above, CCT argues that the
`
`Petition does not establish that Celsior discloses a "speed controller" as recited in
`
`independent claims 2, 26, and 34. Paper 26 at pp. 14-17.
`
`12
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`However, as set forth in the Petition, Celsior discloses a "cruise control" that
`
`allows you “to drive your vehicle without depressing the accelerator pedal.” Paper
`
`1 at pp. 47, 53, and 56 (quoting Ex. 1010 at p. 130). As such, Celsior
`
`unquestionably discloses a speed controller as claimed and disclosed in the ‘463
`
`patent.
`
`Despite this, CCT's allegation that the claimed speed controller is a
`
`structural component distinct from the cited system for cruise control (See Paper
`
`26 at pp. 5 and 15) is belied by the ‘463 patent specification itself, which treats the
`
`claimed “speed controller” as synonymous with a cruise control system. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001 at Abstract, 4:4-6, 4:39-46, and 5:3-7 (describing claimed functions of
`
`the "speed controller" with reference to the system for cruise control).
`
`Thus, Celsior discloses the claimed speed controller in the same manner that
`
`the specification of the ‘463 patent discloses the speed controller, i.e., as a cruise
`
`control system.
`
`2. Celsior 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)
`
`13
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`CCT argues that Celsior does not disclose visual information indicating
`
`whether the speed controller is operating to maintain the vehicle at the preset
`
`speed. Paper 26 at p. 16. Here, CCT states that displaying the preset speed cannot
`
`correspond to an indication that the speed controller is operating to maintain the
`
`vehicle at the cruising speed, since it is possible for the vehicle to be operating at a
`
`speed that is less than the preset speed while the system is engaged in case there is
`
`another vehicle ahead (i.e., vehicle-to-vehicle distance control). Id. at pp. 16-17.
`
`CCT is incorrect. The multi-information display of Celsior as a whole
`
`includes visual information reflecting whether cruise control is operating to
`
`maintain the vehicle at the preset speed. Namely, the multi-information display
`
`includes, in addition to the preset speed, an indication as to whether there is any
`
`vehicle detected ahead. Id. at p. 133. Accordingly, if there is no vehicle ahead
`
`(i.e., vehicle-to-vehicle distance control does not operate) and cruise control is
`
`engaged, the multi-information display indicates this status. Id. at p. 134. Such an
`
`indication thereby teaches the claimed information indicating whether the speed
`
`controller is operating to maintain the vehicle at the preset speed.
`
`V. THE COMBINATION OF DIAMANTE AND THE DIAMANTE
`PREVIEW DISTANCE CONTROL MANUAL/WATANABE RENDER
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS
`
`14
`
`

`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`CCT contends that the Petition offers a conclusory statement as to why the
`
`combination of Diamante (Ex. 1003) and the Diamante Preview Distance Control
`
`Manual (Ex. 1005) would have been obvious. Petitioner respectfully disagrees and
`
`again submits that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art combine the
`
`manuals at least because “the two manuals are for the same vehicle, and relate to
`
`the same cruise control and display system.” Paper 1 at p. 38.
`
`Additionally, CCT alleges that the combined references do not cure the
`
`alleged deficiencies of Diamante on its own (namely, that the Petition’s references
`
`to Diamante improperly combine different features). Paper 26 at pp. 18-19.
`
`However, as set forth above, the cruise control features is included in the preview
`
`distance control option, as Diamante clearly establishes. Ex. 1004 at pp. 86-87 and
`
`89-92. That is, the two featuers are not mutually exclusive options, and therefore
`
`none of the grounds based on Diamante relies on an improper combination.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/William H. Mandir/
`
`William H. Mandir
`Registration No. 32,156
`
`Sughrue Mion, PLLC
`CUSTOMER NUMBER: 23373
`Date: January 9, 2015
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the attached Petitioner’s Reply was
`
`sent via e-mail on January 9, 2015, to the following:
`
`John R. Kasha, Reg. No. 53,100
`Kasha Law LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Rd.
`North Potomac, MD 20878
`(703) 867-1886
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`Counsel of Record for U.S. Patent No.
`6,324,463
`
`
`Date: January 9, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /William H. Mandir/
`William H. Mandir
`Registration No. 32,156