`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