throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: July 2, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., SUBARU OF 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
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`_______________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On December 20, 2013, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al.
`
`(“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review
`
`of claims 1–5, 12–16, 18, 19, 21, 25–28, and 34–36 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,324,463 (Ex. 1001, “the ’463 patent”). Cruise Control Technologies LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 13, “Prelim. Resp.”)
`
`on April 7, 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). Petitioner contends
`
`the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See
`
`Pet. 6–7. We determine there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would
`
`prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–5, 12–16, 18, 19, 21, 25–
`
`28, 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
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`B.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 of the ’463 patent is illustrative:
`
`A cruise control system for [a] vehicle having a human
`1.
`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
`a feedback system for communicating said information in
`said memory to the operator of the vehicle.
`
`C.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Petitioner has identified several related district court proceedings
`
`involving the ’463 patent, all of which were filed by Patent Owner in the
`
`United States District Court for the District of Delaware. See Pet. 1–2;
`
`Paper 12, at 2–4. The ’463 patent is also the subject of four other requests
`
`for inter partes review (IPR2014-00279, IPR2014-00281, IPR2014-00289,
`
`and IPR2014-00291).
`
`D.
`
`Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Mitsubishi Diamante Owner’s
`Manual (translation, Ex. 1004)1
`
`May 1995
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`
`1 Our decision cites to the translations of the prior art relied upon, including
`the page numbering of the original documents as reflected in the
`translations.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`Mitsubishi Diamante Preview
`Distance Control Manual
`(translation, Ex. 1006)
`
`May 1995
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`JP 8-192663
`Watanabe
`(translation, Ex. 1008)
`
`July 1996
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`
`Toyota Celsior Owner’s Manual
`(translation, Ex. 1010)
`
`July 1997
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1–5, 12–16, 18, 19, 21, 25–28, and 34–36
`
`of the ’463 patent are unpatentable based on the following grounds. See
`
`Pet. 6–7.
`
`Basis
`
`Reference(s)
`
`§ 102(b) Diamante Owner’s Manual
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Diamante Owner’s Manual and
`Diamante Preview Distance
`Control Manual
`Diamante Owner’s Manual and
`Watanabe
`
`§ 102(b) Watanabe
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`1–5, 12–16, 21, 25–28,
`and 34–36
`
`15, 16, and 21
`
`12
`
`18 and 19
`
`§ 102(a) Celsior Owner’s Manual
`
`2–5, 26–28, and 34–36
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Preliminary Matters
`
`Patent Owner asserts we should deny inter partes review on four of
`
`the five grounds because the Petition provides only partial translations of the
`
`Diamante Owner’s Manual, the Diamante Preview Distance Control
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`Manual, and the Celsior Owner’s Manual. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11. Those
`
`publications are written in the Japanese language. See Exs. 1003, 1005,
`
`1009 (original Japanese-language documents). Patent Owner points out
`
`Petitioner has provided a translation of only about 14 of the 170 pages of the
`
`Diamante Owner’s Manual, only about 15 of the 78 pages of the Diamante
`
`Preview Distance Control Manual, and only about 15 of the 261 pages of the
`
`Celsior Owner’s Manual. See Prelim. Resp. 10.
`
`It is apparent that the English translations (Exs. 1004, 1006, 1010) are
`
`directed to only portions of larger documents. Rule 42.63(b), which applies
`
`in this proceeding,2 states: “When a party relies on a document or is required
`
`to produce a document in a language other than English, a translation of the
`
`document into English and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the
`
`translation must be filed with the document.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) (2013)
`
`(emphasis added). The Certificates of Translation provided with the Petition
`
`attest only that “[t]he translations are accurate and complete translations of
`
`relevant portions of the original document.” Exs. 1004, 1006, 1010
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, the Petition is not in strict compliance with
`
`Rule 42.63(b), because it does not include translations “of the document[s].”
`
`The translations also suffer from a second deficiency, not raised by
`
`Patent Owner. Rule 42.63(b) requires an “affidavit,” defined as an “affidavit
`
`or declaration under § 1.68 of this chapter.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.2 (2013). The
`
`Certificates of Translation are not affidavits because they were not made
`
`under oath. The Certificates can qualify as permitted declarations only if the
`
`
`2 Patent Owner relies on MPEP § 706.02, but that is not binding authority in
`this proceeding. Even if we were to apply the MPEP, we would still
`institute review.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`declarant is warned on the same document that willful false statements and
`
`the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, and they also state
`
`all statements made of the declarant’s own knowledge are true, and all
`
`statements made on information and belief are believed to be true. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.68 (2013). The Certificates do not satisfy those requirements,
`
`and therefore are not declarations under Rule 1.68.
`
`Nonetheless, we may waive or suspend the requirements of
`
`Rule 42.63(b) and also place conditions on the waiver or suspension. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.5(b) (2013). Pursuant to that authority, we have decided to grant
`
`inter partes review based on the “relevant portions” of the original
`
`documents that have been translated, and waive the requirement for a
`
`translation of the full document, subject to the following condition.
`
`Petitioner must, within 30 days of the date this decision is entered, file
`
`substitute Certificates of Translation directed to the translations originally
`
`filed with the Petition complying with the requirements of Rule 42.63(b) to
`
`the extent that the substitute Certificates include a proper indication that the
`
`declarant is subject to the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 (2013). For any
`
`content of the noted documents for which English translation has not been
`
`provided, we remind Petitioner of its duty of candor and good faith to the
`
`Office (37 C.F.R. § 42.11 (2013)) as well as its routine discovery obligation
`
`to serve relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by
`
`Petitioner in the Petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii) (2013)).
`
`B.
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`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)
`
`Petitioner contends 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 Petitioner’s
`
`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 Petitioner’s
`
`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 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
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`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 Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`
`Petitioner proposes 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 pressed, 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 Petitioner’s 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.”
`
`2.
`
`“enabling” (claims 1 and 2) and “enabled” (claims 2 and 4)
`
`Petitioner contends that we should construe “enabling the system” in
`
`claim 1 and “enabling . . . the controller” in claim 2 to mean “a ‘system on’
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`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 Petitioner’s proposal as “too vague to provide any
`
`benefit when evaluating the validity of the claims.” Id. at 3.
`
`We conclude Petitioner’s 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
`
`Petitioner’s 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)
`
`Petitioner contends 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 Petitioner’s 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, both recite “a preset speed for which the cruise
`
`control system is set” (emphasis added). That the claims, themselves,
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`associate setting of the preset speed with the cruise control system
`
`undermines Patent Owner’s contention that there is impropriety in the
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction. We therefore adopt Petitioner’s
`
`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)
`
`Petitioner contends 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.” Id. at 8. It is true that claim 12, unlike the other claims, recites
`
`“activating the cruise control system at a desired cruising speed,”
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`“displaying a symbol indicative of the speed at which the cruise control
`
`system is activated,” and “maintaining the 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.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`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.
`
`C.
`
`Proposed Grounds Based on Diamante Owner’s Manual
`
`Petitioner presents three different proposed grounds of unpatentability
`
`principally based on the Diamante Owner’s Manual. Petitioner first
`
`contends claims 1–5, 12–16, 21, 25–28, and 34–36 of the ’463 patent are
`
`anticipated by the Diamante Owner’s Manual. See Pet. 15–37. Petitioner
`
`also contends that claims 15, 16, and 21 of the ’463 patent are obvious over
`
`the Diamante Owner’s Manual and the Diamante Preview Distance Control
`
`Manual. See Pet. 37–38. Petitioner further contends claim 12 of the ’463
`
`patent is obvious over the Diamante Owner’s Manual in view of Watanabe.
`
`See Pet. 39–40. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response does not address
`
`directly these contentions.
`
`1.
`
`Anticipation by Diamante Owner’s Manual
`
`a.
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 recites a cruise control system for a vehicle, including a speed
`
`controller. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that the Diamante
`
`Owner’s Manual discloses a cruise control speed controller. See Pet. 18.
`
`For example, the Manual’s cruise control “allows the vehicle to cruise at a
`
`constant speed (from approximately 40–100 km/h) without depressing the
`
`accelerator pedal.” Ex. 1004, 86.
`
`Claim 1 also recites an enable switch and a set speed input. The
`
`following illustration appears in the Diamante Owner’s Manual:
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`
`
`Id. This illustration shows a main switch and a control lever used to operate
`
`the cruise control system. See id. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`
`contention that the main switch is an enable switch as required by claim 1.
`
`See Pet. 18. In particular, the Diamante Owner’s Manual instructs the
`
`vehicle operator to “[p]ush the main switch to turn cruise control on.”
`
`Ex. 1004, 86. We also are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that the
`
`control lever corresponds to the set speed input required by claim 1. See
`
`Pet. 18–19. In particular, the Diamante Owner’s Manual instructs the
`
`vehicle operator to “push the control lever downward and release it” to “set
`
`[the cruise control system] to automatic fixed-speed cruise mode” at a
`
`desired speed. Ex. 1004, 86.
`
`Claim 1 further recites a memory which stores the cruise control
`
`preset speed. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the Diamante Owner’s Manual, would
`
`understand that the cruise control system described therein necessarily
`
`includes a memory to perform the functions described in the Manual. See
`
`Pet. 16, 19–20; Ex. 1011 (Decl. of Paul Green) ¶ 37.
`
`Claim 1 finally recites a “feedback system” for communicating the
`
`cruise control’s preset speed to the vehicle operator. The Diamante Owner’s
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`Manual disclosure in this regard is exemplified by the following excerpted
`
`illustration:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, 88. This illustration reflects a “center message display” shown
`
`when the cruise control and distance control systems are enabled. See id. at
`
`52, 88. The display includes an outline of a vehicle, representing the vehicle
`
`being driven by the operator, surrounding a digital display of the cruise
`
`control’s “preset speed” (e.g. 80 km/h). Id. at 90. We are persuaded by
`
`Petitioner’s contention that this display corresponds to the feedback system
`
`recited in claim 1. See Pet. 20.
`
`We therefore determine Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood
`
`it can establish that claim 1 is anticipated by the Diamante Owner’s Manual.
`
`b.
`
`Claims 2–5
`
`Claim 2, similarly to claim 1 discussed above, recites a cruise control
`
`system for a vehicle including a speed controller, a cruise control enable
`
`switch, a set speed input, a memory, and a feedback system. We are
`
`persuaded that the Diamante Owner’s Manual discloses these claim
`
`limitations for the reasons provided above in relation to corresponding
`
`limitations in claim 1. See supra Part II.C.1.a.
`
`Claim 2 further specifies the feedback system “substantially
`
`continuously communicates the selected cruising speed” to the vehicle
`
`operator “until either the operator selects a subsequent cruising speed or the
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`controller is disabled.” We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that the
`
`Diamante Owner’s Manual discloses this claim requirement. See Pet. 21–
`
`23. In particular, as to a subsequent cruising speed, the Manual indicates the
`
`vehicle operator may change the preset speed by “operat[ing] the control
`
`lever until the preset speed displayed on the center message display reaches
`
`the desired speed and then releas[ing] it.” Ex. 1004, 91. As to disabling the
`
`controller, the Manual indicates “the [preset] vehicle speed displayed on the
`
`center message display disappears” if the driver turns off the cruise control
`
`main switch. Id. at 92.
`
`Claims 3 and 5 further specify “the feedback system includes a digital
`
`display” which “displays information indicative of the selected cruising
`
`speed of the vehicle.” We are persuaded by Petitioner that these
`
`requirements are met by the Diamante Owner’s Manual’s display of the
`
`preset cruising speed as a digital readout. See Pet. 23–24, 25; Ex. 1004, 88.
`
`Claim 4 specifies “the digital display displays a predetermined signal
`
`when the controller is initially enabled to indicate the state of the controller.”
`
`In this regard, Petitioner relies on an “indicator light” on the main switch
`
`that turns on when the main switch is pushed. See Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1004,
`
`89). We are not persuaded that the noted indicator light accounts for the
`
`requirements of claim 4, because that indicator light signal is not displayed
`
`by the digital display. Petitioner additionally relies on the empty vehicle
`
`outline in the center message display before the cruise control preset speed is
`
`established. See id. (citing Ex. 1004, 52 and Ex. 1011 (Green Decl.) ¶¶ 38–
`
`39). We are not persuaded that the empty vehicle outline indicates the
`
`enabled state of the controller, because the Manual does not suggest that
`
`portion of the digital display changes when the controller is enabled. That
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`is, it very well may be that an empty vehicle outline also is displayed before
`
`the controller is enabled. In that circumstance, the empty vehicle outline
`
`does not indicate if the controller is in an enabled state.
`
`We therefore determine Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood
`
`it can establish claims 2, 3, and 5 are anticipated by the Diamante Owner’s
`
`Manual, but not claim 4.
`
`c.
`
`Claim 12
`
`Claim 12 recites a method for visually communicating, to a vehicle
`
`operator, a cruising speed at which a cruise control system is set. The first
`
`two steps of the method are “determining the speed at which the vehicle is
`
`traveling” and “activating the cruise control system at a desired cruising
`
`speed.” We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that the Diamante
`
`Owner’s Manual discloses these two steps. See Pet. 25–26. For example,
`
`the Manual’s cruise control “allows the vehicle to cruise at a constant speed
`
`(from approximately 40–100 km/h) without depressing the accelerator
`
`pedal.” Ex. 1004, 86. The Manual further instructs the operator to depress
`
`the accelerator pedal until a desired speed is reached, and then set the system
`
`to automatic fixed-speed cruise mode. See id.
`
`Claim 12 additionally recites “displaying a symbol indicative of the
`
`speed at which the cruise control system is activated.” The Diamante
`
`Owner’s Manual disclosure in this regard is exemplified by the following
`
`excerpted illustration:
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, 88. This illustration reflects a “center message display” shown
`
`when the cruise control and distance control systems are enabled. See id. at
`
`52, 88. The display includes an outline of a vehicle, representing the vehicle
`
`being driven by the operator, surrounding a digital display of the cruise
`
`control’s “preset speed” (e.g. 80 km/h). Id. at 90. We are persuaded by
`
`Petitioner’s contention that this display corresponds to displaying a speed-
`
`indicative symbol as recited in claim 12. See Pet. 26.
`
`Claim 12 further recites “maintaining the activated cruise control
`
`speed symbol upon temporary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle.”
`
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that the Diamante Owner’s
`
`Manual discloses the “acceleration” portion of this limitation in the
`
`following passage:
`
`While vehicle-to-vehicle distance control is on or while
`accelerating to the preset speed, the speed of your vehicle
`(displayed on the speedometer) differs from the preset speed
`(displayed on the center message display). When changing the
`preset speed, check the preset speed setting displayed on the
`center message display.
`
`Ex. 1004, 91 (emphases added); see Pet. 26–27. We are further persuaded
`
`the “deceleration” claim requirement is met by the Diamante Owner’s
`
`Manual disclosure that “[d]uring fixed speed cruising” the vehicle operator
`
`may operate the control lever to “reduce the preset speed,” in which case the
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`vehicle slows down and the displayed preset speed is updated to match the
`
`operator’s selection. See Pet. 21, 26; Ex. 1004, 91.
`
`Claim 12 finally recites “removing said symbol when the cruise
`
`control system is deactivated or a new cruising speed is selected.” We are
`
`persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that the Diamante Owner’s Manual
`
`discloses this claim requirement. See Pet. 27–28. As to the deactivating
`
`component, the Manual indicates “the [preset] vehicle speed displayed on
`
`the center message display disappears” if the driver turns off the cruise
`
`control main switch. Ex. 1004, 92. As to selecting a new cruising speed, the
`
`Manual indicates that the vehicle operator may change the preset speed by
`
`“operat[ing] the control lever until the preset speed displayed on the center
`
`message display reaches the desired speed and then releas[ing] it.” Id. at 91.
`
`We therefore determine Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood
`
`it can establish claim 12 is anticipated by the Diamante Owner’s Manual.
`
`d.
`
`Claims 13–16
`
`Claim 13, similarly to claim 12 discussed above, recites a method for
`
`indicating, to a vehicle operator, a preset speed for which a cruise control
`
`system is set, including setting the preset speed, displaying a symbol
`
`indicative of the preset speed, maintaining the display, and discontinuing the
`
`display when the cruise control system is deactivated or a new preset speed
`
`is selected. We are persuaded the Diamante Owner’s Manual discloses these
`
`claim limitations for the reasons provided above in relation to corresponding
`
`limitations in claim 12. See supra Part II.C.1.c.
`
`Claim 14 further specifies “displaying a second symbol upon the
`
`selection of a new preset speed, said second symbol indicative of the new
`
`preset speed.” We are persuaded by Petitioner that the Diamante Owner’s
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`Manual discloses this claim limitation when instructing the vehicle operator
`
`to “operate the control lever until the preset speed displayed on the center
`
`message display reaches the desired speed and then release it.” Ex. 1004,
`
`91; see Pet. 29.
`
`Claim 15 further specifies “before setting the preset speed, activating
`
`the cruise control system.” We are persuaded by Petitioner that the
`
`Diamante Owner’s Manual correspondingly discloses activating the cruise
`
`control system by pressing the main switch, before setting the preset speed
`
`with the control lever. See Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1004, 86–87). Claim 15 also
`
`specifies “after activating the cruise control system, but before setting the
`
`preset speed, indicating to the operator the unset status of the preset speed.”
`
`We are persuaded by Petitioner that the Diamante Owner’s Manual
`
`correspondingly shows an empty vehicle outline in the center message
`
`display to indicate the unset status of the preset speed. See id. at 17, 29–30.3
`
`Claim 16 depends from claim 15, and further specifies “wherein
`
`indicating the unset status of the preset speed includes displaying a visual
`
`symbol to the operator.” We are persuaded by Petitioner that the empty
`
`vehicle outline in the center message display is a visual symbol as claimed
`
`here. See id. at 30.
`
`
`3 In this regard we note a critical distinction between claim 4 (for which we
`do not institute review as anticipated by the Diamante Owner’s Manual) and
`claim 15 (for which we do institute such review). Claim 4 requires the
`digital display to indicate the enabled state of the controller, whereas claim
`15 requires indicating the unset status of the preset speed. Claim 15 does not
`require indicating the activated status of the cruise control system.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`We therefore determine Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood
`
`it can establish claims 13–16 are anticipated by the Diamante Owner’s
`
`Manual.
`
`e.
`
`Claim 21
`
`Claim 21, similarly to claim 12 discussed above, recites a method for
`
`ind

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket