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 IPR: 2014-00280
`Patent 6,324,463
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`LAW OF ANTICIPATION ............................................................................. 2
`II.
`III. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES ANTICIPATE THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .................. 3
`A. Ground 1: Diamante Does Not Anticipate The Challenged
`Claims .................................................................................................... 3
`1.
`The Petition Relies On An Improper Combination Of
`Different Embodiments Of Diamante To Allege
`Anticipation ................................................................................. 4
`The Petition Does Not Show That Diamante Discloses
`“A Speed Controller That Maintains The Vehicle At A
`Preset Speed” (Claim 1) .............................................................. 5
`The Petition Does Not Show That Diamante Discloses
`“A Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Cruising Speed
`Selected By The Operator” (Claim 2) ......................................... 6
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses
`“Maintaining The Activated Cruise Control Speed
`Symbol Upon Temporary Acceleration Or Deceleration
`Of The Vehicle” (Claim 12) ....................................................... 6
`The Petition Does Not Show That 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) ................... 8
`The Petition Does Not Show That Diamante Discloses
`“After The Cruise Control System Is Deactivated,
`Displaying A Symbol Indicative Of An Unset State Of
`The Preset Speed” (Claim 21) ..................................................... 9
`The Petition Does Not Show That Diamante Discloses
`“Accelerating The Vehicle To A Speed Above The
`Preset Speed” Or “Maintaining The Display Of The
`Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed While The
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`Vehicle Is At The Speed Above The Preset Speed”
`(Claim 25) ................................................................................. 11
`The Petition Does Not Show That Diamante Discloses
`“A Speed Controller That Automatically Maintains The
`Vehicle At A Preset Speed” (Claim 26) ................................... 12
`B. Ground 4: Watanabe Does Not Anticipate The Challenged
`Claim ................................................................................................... 12
`C. Ground 5: Celsior Does Not Anticipate The Challenged Claim ........ 14
`1.
`The Petition Does Not Show That Celsior Discloses “A
`Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Cruising Speed
`Selected By The Operator” (Claim 2) ....................................... 14
`The Petition Does Not Show That Celsior Discloses “A
`Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Preset Speed”
`(Claim 26) ................................................................................. 16
`The Petition Does Not Show That 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) .................................................... 16
`The Petition Does Not Show That Celsior Discloses “A
`Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Preset Speed”
`(Claim 34) ................................................................................. 17
`IV. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ........................................................................................................ 18
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 20
`
`V.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`C.R. Bard v. M3 Sys., 157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................. 2
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................... 2
`In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................................ 2
`In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................ 3
`In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................ 3
`Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................ 2
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, Patent Owner Cruise Control Technologies
`
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this response to the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“Petition”) of claims 1-5, 12-16, 18, 19, 21, 25-28 and 34-36 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,324,463 (the “‘463 Patent”) filed by Subaru of America, Inc., Toyota
`
`Motor North America, Inc., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Nissan North
`
`America Inc., Ford Motor Company, Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC and
`
`Volvo Cars of North America LLC (collectively “Petitioner”). Paper 1, p. 1.
`
`On July 2, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) instituted
`
`inter partes review based on the following grounds of unpatentability alleged in
`
`the Petition:
`
`Ground A: Diamante Owner’s Manual (“Diamante”) anticipates claims 1-3,
`
`5, 12-16, 21, 25, 26 and 28;
`
`Ground B: Diamante in view of Diamante Preview Distance Control
`
`Manual (“Preview Distance Control Manual”) render obvious claims 15, 16 and
`
`21;
`
`Ground C: Diamante in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication
`
`No. JP8-192663 (“Watanabe”) render obvious claim 12;
`
`Ground D: Watanabe anticipates claims 18 and 19; and
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground E: Celsior Owner’s Manual (“Celsior”) anticipates claims 2-5, 26-
`
`28 and 34-36. Paper 17, p. 38.
`
`All cites to Diamante, Preview Distance Control Manual, Watanabe and
`
`Celsior are to the respective English translations (Ex. 1004 for Diamante, Ex. 1006
`
`for Preview Distance Control Manual, Ex. 1008 for Watanabe, and Ex. 1010 for
`
`Celsior).
`
`II. LAW OF ANTICIPATION
`
`“To anticipate a claim, a single prior art reference must expressly or
`
`inherently disclose each claim limitation.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`
`523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1990). Additionally, “a finding of anticipation requires that the publication
`
`describe all of the elements of the claims, arranged as in the patented device.”
`
`C.R. Bard v. M3 Sys., 157 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis added)
`
`(string citation omitted). Thus, the prior art reference “must not only disclose all
`
`elements within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those
`
`elements arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d
`
`1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]t
`
`is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention,
`
`which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the
`
`claimed invention.” Id. at 1371.
`
`The fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the
`
`prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic.
`
`In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “To establish inherency, the
`
`extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is
`
`necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so
`
`recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be
`
`established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may
`
`result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” In re Robertson, 169
`
`F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`III. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES ANTICIPATE THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`A. Ground A: Diamante Does Not Anticipate The Challenged
`Claims
`Diamante (Ex. 1003) purports to be an owner’s manual for a 1995
`
`Mitsubishi Diamante. Ex. 1012, ¶5. In relevant part, Diamante discusses two
`
`different systems: (1) “cruise control” (Ex. 1004, pp. 86-87), and (2) “preview
`
`distance control” (Ex. 1004, pp. 88-93). It is clear that the systems are different
`
`and no vehicle included both systems, because Diamante calls out several features
`
`that are only available in vehicles with “preview distance control.” Ex. 1004, p.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`52-53 (noting several graphical indicators that are only displayed in vehicles with
`
`preview distance control). The “preview distance control” system makes use of a
`
`“center message display,” whereas the “cruise control” system does not. Compare
`
`Ex. 1004, pp. 86-87 (discussing the “cruise control” system without mentioning
`
`“center message display”) with Ex. 1004, pp. 88-90 (discussing the “preview
`
`distance control” with reference to the “center message display”). There are
`
`various other differences between the two systems, and it is clear that no vehicle
`
`was equipped with both systems. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, p. 88 (warning not to use
`
`“preview distance control” “in traffic conditions under which acceleration and
`
`deceleration are frequently repeated,” with no such warning for “cruise control”);
`
`Ex. 1004, p. 89 (showing an “approaching” warning light for the “preview distance
`
`control,” with no such warning in the “cruise control” system); Ex. 1004, pp. 87,
`
`91 (pushing control lever in “cruise control” changes speed by 1.5km/h, whereas
`
`pushing control lever in “preview distance control” changes speed by 1km/h).
`
`1.
`
`The Petition Relies On An Improper Combination Of
`Different Embodiments Of Diamante To Allege
`Anticipation
`In all of Petitioner’s allegations of anticipation based on Diamante, the
`
`Petitioner cites to aspects of the “cruise control” system in combination with the
`
`“preview distance control” system. See, e.g., Pet. at 18-20 (for claim 1, citing to
`
`the “cruise control system” as to preamble, “speed controller,” “enable switch,”
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`and “memory,” but citing to the “preview distance control” for the “memory
`
`and “feedback system”). The Federal Circuit has consistently rejected allegations
`
`of anticipation based on a combination of different embodiments. Net MoneyIn,
`
`Inc, 545 F.3d at 1369. Accordingly, all allegations of anticipation as to claims 1, 2,
`
`12, 13, 21, 25, 26 and 34 (and claims depending therefrom) should be rejected.
`
`2.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Diamante Discloses “A
`Speed Controller That Maintains The Vehicle At A Preset
`Speed” (Claim 1)
`Independent claim 1 is directed to “a cruise control system” comprising “a
`
`speed controller that maintains the vehicle at a preset speed.” Petitioner alleges
`
`that the claimed speed controller is disclosed in the following statement in
`
`Diamante: “Cruise control is a system that allows the vehicle to cruise at a
`
`constant speed (from approximately 40-100 km/h) without depressing the
`
`accelerator pedal.” Pet. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1004, p. 86). Notably, Petitioner also
`
`alleges that this same statement anticipates the preamble of claim 1, which requires
`
`“a cruise control system.” While the cited statement refers to “a system” for cruise
`
`control, there is no mention of “a speed controller,” which is a required structural
`
`component of the cruise control system of claim 1. Further, neither Petitioner nor
`
`its declarant asserts that the claimed “speed controller” is inherent in Diamante.
`
`See Pet. at 18; Ex. 1011, ¶¶35-41 (citing the same quote as in the Petition and
`
`failing to address inherency). A prior art device cannot anticipate the claim even if
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`it performs all the functions recited in the claim, if there is a structural difference.
`
`In re Ruskin, 347 F.2d 843, (CCPA 1965) (“the functional equivalent is not enough
`
`to be a full anticipation of the specific device claimed by appellant”). A structural
`
`difference between the claim and Diamante exists, because the Petition does not
`
`show that Diamante expressly or inherently includes “a speed controller.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Diamante does not anticipate claim 1.
`
`3.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Diamante Discloses “A
`Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Cruising Speed
`Selected By The Operator” (Claim 2)
`Petitioner’s allegation that Diamante meets this claim limitation simply
`
`refers to the “speed controller” element of claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the
`
`reasons explained above with regard to claim 1, Diamante does not anticipate
`
`claim 2.
`
`4.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Mizuno Discloses
`“Maintaining The Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol
`Upon Temporary Acceleration Or Deceleration Of The
`Vehicle” (Claim 12)
`Claim 12 requires that the “activated” cruise control speed symbol is
`
`maintained “upon temporary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle.” The
`
`“activated” cruise control speed symbol refers to the previous step of “displaying a
`
`symbol indicative of the speed at which the cruise control system is activated.”
`
`According to the Board’s claim construction of “activated” as “turned on,” (Paper
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`19, pp. 11-12), the “maintain” limitation requires that the “activated” cruise control
`
`symbol that displays the speed at which the cruise control system was turned on is
`
`maintained “upon” (immediately following) temporary acceleration or
`
`deceleration. Notably, claim 12 further requires that the symbol is removed when
`
`the system is deactivated (turned off) or a new cruising speed is set.
`
`As to the “temporary deceleration” aspect of this claim limitation, Petitioner
`
`cites to Diamante’s control lever to select a reduced cruising speed - “[g]ently push
`
`the control lever upward or downward and then release it to finely adjust the preset
`
`speed by approximately 1.0 km/h.” Pet. at 26-27 (quoting Ex. 1004, p. 91).
`
`However, the control lever can only be used to reduce the preset speed “during
`
`fixed-speed cruising,” i.e., after an original preset speed has been set and is being
`
`displayed in the center message display. When the control lever is pushed
`
`downward, the preset speed shown in the center message display is first
`
`decremented by 1km/h (“push the control lever…and then release it”). Thus, when
`
`the original preset speed is decremented, the center message display no longer
`
`displays “a symbol indicative of the speed at which the cruise control system is
`
`activated” (wherein activated was construed by the Board as, “turned on.”). In
`
`fact, the center message display replaces the display of the original set speed with
`
`the reduced set speed. Accordingly, Diamante does not discuss, “maintaining the
`
`activated cruise control speed symbol upon temporary…deceleration,” because the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`preset speed shown in the center message display is changed from the original
`
`preset speed and decremented prior to any deceleration.
`
`For at least these reasons, Diamante does not anticipate claim 12.
`
`5.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That 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)
`Petitioner cites to the empty vehicle outline in Diamante’s discussion of the
`
`“mode switch.” Pet. at 30. However, there is no indication on page 52 or
`
`anywhere else in Diamante that the empty vehicle outline is ever shown to the
`
`operator. In fact, the item highlighted on page 52 is marked as “[o]nly vehicles
`
`with preview distance control display this item. See page 88.” Ex. 1004, p. 52.
`
`On page 88 of Diamante, the center message display is shown with a numerical
`
`value within the vehicle outline. Similarly, in Diamante’s discussion of “Setting
`
`preview distance control,” simultaneous with the “cruise control indicator light on
`
`the meter turns on,” “[t]he center message display switches to preview distance
`
`control mode,” and shows a numerical value within the vehicle outline. Ex. 1004,
`
`p. 89.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s allegation is merely an unsupported guess as to the functioning
`
`of the preview distance control system.
`
`For at least these reasons, Diamante does not anticipate claim 15.
`
`6.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Diamante Discloses
`“After The Cruise Control System Is Deactivated,
`Displaying A Symbol Indicative Of An Unset State Of The
`Preset Speed” (Claim 21)
`The Board has interpreted “unset state” to require “a state in which there is
`
`no preset speed for the cruise control system.” Paper 17, p. 7. Accordingly, claim
`
`21 requires the display of a symbol indicating that there is no preset speed for the
`
`cruise control system after the cruise control system is turned off. Petitioner
`
`alleges that turning off the display on the center message display meets the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`limitation of “displaying a symbol….” Pet. at 32. First, 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. Pet. at 31-32.
`
`Second, there is no indication in Diamante that any information related to the
`
`preview distance control system will be displayed on the center message display
`
`when the main switch is turned off. For example, Diamante clearly states, “[w]hen
`
`the ignition switch is turned on, the display automatically shows cruising distance,
`
`instantaneous fuel economy, directions, traveling time, and average speed in turn,”
`
`and does not mention the preview distance control. Ex. 1004, p. 52. Thus, the
`
`center message display does not display any information related to the preview
`
`distance control system simply by turning on the ignition. Further, the only
`
`reference in Diamante to the display on the center message display for the preview
`
`distance control system is that the center message display is activated after the
`
`main switch is pushed to “on.” Ex. 1004, p. 89 (see steps 1-4).
`
`For at least these reasons, Diamante does not anticipate claim 21.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`7.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Diamante Discloses
`“Accelerating The Vehicle To A Speed Above The Preset
`Speed” Or “Maintaining The Display Of The Symbol
`Indicative Of The Preset Speed While The Vehicle Is At The
`Speed Above The Preset Speed” (Claim 25)
`Accelerating The Vehicle To A Speed Above The Preset Speed: The
`
`Petition alleges that two statements in Diamante anticipate the claim limitation,
`
`“accelerating the vehicle to a speed above the preset speed.” First, Diamante
`
`states, “[w]hen you depress the accelerator pedal to accelerate and then release it,
`
`the system will resume the preset speed prior to the acceleration.” Pet. at 33.
`
`However, Diamante does not provide any indication of vehicle speed when the
`
`accelerator pedal is depressed or released. For example, the vehicle may have been
`
`accelerating from a speed below the preset speed, and the driver releases the
`
`accelerator, causing the system to accelerate the vehicle up to the preset speed.
`
`Accordingly, this statement does not show that the vehicle is “accelerating…to a
`
`speed above the preset speed.” Second, Diamante states, “while accelerating to the
`
`preset speed, the speed of your vehicle…differs from the preset speed.” Pet. at 33
`
`(emphasis added). Clearly, this statement cannot meet the “accelerating…to a
`
`speed above the preset speed” limitation, because Diamante expressly states that
`
`the vehicle is accelerating “to” the preset speed (and thus, the vehicle speed must
`
`have been less than the preset speed).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Maintaining The Display Of The Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed
`
`While The Vehicle Is At The Speed Above The Preset Speed: The Petition cites to
`
`the same two statements in Diamante as allegedly anticipating the claim limitation,
`
`“maintaining the display of the symbol indicative of the preset speed while the
`
`vehicle is at the speed above the preset speed.” The first statement does not
`
`discuss any “displaying” or any “symbols.” As explained above, the second
`
`statement is expressly directed to times when the vehicle speed is below the preset
`
`speed and accelerating to the preset speed. Accordingly, these statements in
`
`Diamante do not discuss, “maintaining the display of the symbol indicative of the
`
`preset speed while the vehicle is at the speed above the preset speed
`
`For at least these reasons, Diamante does not anticipate claim 25.
`
`8.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Diamante Discloses “A
`Speed Controller That Automatically Maintains The
`Vehicle At A Preset Speed” (Claim 26)
`The Petition only cites back to its assertion with regard to claim 1. Thus, for
`
`at least the reasons explained above with regard to claim 1, Diamante does not
`
`anticipate claim 26.
`
`B. Ground D: Watanabe Does Not Anticipate The Challenged Claim
`
`Petitioner’s allegation that Watanabe anticipates claim 12 should be rejected
`
`for at least three reasons. Pet. at 39.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`First, the Petition clearly does not meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104 that the “petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in
`
`the prior art patent or printed publications relied upon.” The Petition merely
`
`discusses how the system in Watanabe purportedly works with vague references to
`
`the entire claim(s). See, e.g., Pet. at 42 (“The cruise control device of Watanabe
`
`includes an operation switch 18 to set the preset speed (claims 18 and 19).”
`
`Without any specificity as to how Watanabe meets each individual claim element
`
`of independent claim 18 and dependent claim 19, Ground D should be denied.
`
`Second, vague references to the entire claim do not disclose the claim
`
`elements “[as] arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIn, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1369. For
`
`example, in the statement, “[t]he cruise control device of Watanabe includes an
`
`operation switch 18 to set the preset speed (claims 18 and 19),” it is unclear which
`
`of the limitations of claim 18 and/or 19 Petitioner alleges is anticipated by the
`
`operation switch 18. Accordingly, Ground D should be denied for failure to meet
`
`the requirements for showing anticipation.
`
`Finally, neither the Petition nor Petitioner’s declarant ever addresses the
`
`“memory device” limitation of claim 18 (and claim 19 which depends therefrom).
`
`Pet. 41-43; Ex. 1011, ¶¶47-51. Accordingly, Ground D should be denied for at
`
`least this reason.
`
`For at least these reasons, Watanabe does not anticipate claims 18 and 19.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Ground E: Celsior Does Not Anticipate The Challenged Claim
`
`Celsior (Ex. 1009) purports to be an owner’s manual for a 1997 Toyota
`
`Celsior. Ex. 1014, ¶5. In relevant part, Celsior discusses a radar cruise control
`
`with vehicle-to-vehicle distance control. Ex. 1010, p. 130. A laser radar sensor
`
`“detects the reflectors of the vehicle ahead of you to determine the presence of any
`
`vehicle ahead as well as to measure the vehicle-to-vehicle distance.” Id.
`
`1.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Celsior Discloses “A
`Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Cruising Speed
`Selected By The Operator” (Claim 2)
`Independent claim 2 is directed to “a cruise control system” comprising “a
`
`speed controller for automatically maintaining the vehicle at a substantially
`
`constant cruising speed selected by the operator.” Petitioner alleges that the
`
`claimed speed controller is disclosed somewhere in the following portion of
`
`Celsior:
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
` First, Petitioner does not identify which element in the cited portion is the
`
`claimed “speed controller.” The only structural components mentioned in the cited
`
`portion are a “shift lever,” a “radar control system,” and a “laser radar sensor,”
`
`none of which expressly meet the “speed controller” limitation of claim 2. Second,
`
`Petitioner also alleges that this same statement anticipates the preamble of claim 2,
`
`which requires “a cruise control system.” Finally, neither Petitioner nor its
`
`declarant asserts that the claimed “speed controller” is inherent in Celsior. Pet. at
`
`47; Ex. 1011, ¶¶52-57 (citing the same portion of Celsior as in the Petition and
`
`failing to address inherency). A prior art device cannot anticipate the claim even if
`
`it performs all the functions recited in the claim, if there is a structural difference.
`
`In re Ruskin, 347 F.2d 843, (CCPA 1965) (“the functional equivalent is not enough
`
`to be a full anticipation of the specific device claimed by appellant”). A structural
`
`difference between the claimed invention and Celsior exists, because the Petition
`
`does not show that Celsior expressly or inherently includes “a speed controller.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Celsior does not anticipate claim 2.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Celsior Discloses “A
`Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Preset Speed” (Claim
`26)
`The Petition only cites back to its assertion with regard to claim 2. Pet. at
`
`53. Thus, for at least the reasons explained above with regard to claim 2, Celsior
`
`does not anticipate claim 26.
`
`3.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That 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)
`Claim 26 requires a “second visual display operable to display the visual
`
`information indication of an operation status of the speed controller, wherein the
`
`visual information displayable by the second visual display apparatus includes
`
`visual information indicative of the preset speed.” Petitioner alleges that the preset
`
`speed shown on the multi-information display meets this claim limitation. Pet. at
`
`52-53. Claim 27, which depends directly from claim 26 requires that the second
`
`visual display displays “information reflecting whether the speed controller is
`
`operating to maintain the vehicle at the cruise speed at the time the display is
`
`made” in addition to the “visual information indicative of the preset speed.”
`
`Petitioner alleges that the preset speed shown on the multi-information display also
`
`meets this claim limitation. Pet. at 55; Ex. 1011, ¶54 (“since the preset speed is
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`only displayed when the system is engaged, the display of the preset speed
`
`indicates that ‘the speed controller is operating to maintain the vehicle at the cruise
`
`speed’ (claim 27).”). However, Celsior makes clear that the preset speed is
`
`displayed on the multi-information display even when the vehicle is not being
`
`maintained at the displayed preset speed. For example, if the displayed preset
`
`speed is 100km/h, and the radar system detects a vehicle ahead moving at 80km/h,
`
`the vehicle will slow to 80km/h, but the multi-information display will still show
`
`the preset speed of 100km/h. Ex. 1010, p. 130 (in each graphical example, “the
`
`preset speed is 100 km/h” but the vehicle speed is reduced to 80km/h in the
`
`deceleration, follow-up, and acceleration cruising examples). Thus, simply seeing
`
`the 100 km/h displayed on the multi-information display does not provide any
`
`“information reflecting whether the speed controller is operating to maintain the
`
`vehicle at the cruising speed at the time the display is made.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Celsior does not anticipate claim 27.
`
`4.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Celsior Discloses “A
`Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Preset Speed” (Claim
`34)
`The Petition only cites back to its assertion with regard to claim 26, which
`
`cites back to the assertion with regard to claim 2. Pet. at 56. Thus, for at least the
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`reasons explained above with regard to claim 2, Celsior does not anticipate claim
`
`34.
`
`IV. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Ground B: Petitioner alleges that it would have been obvious to combine
`
`the Preview Distance Control Manual (Exs. 1005, 1006 (translation)) with
`
`Diamante to show “a visual symbol indicative of an unset state of the preset speed
`
`(claims 15, 16, and 21(f)).” Pet. at 37. Even if such a combination were made, this
`
`combination is premised on Petitioner’s improper and unexplained combination of
`
`the cruise control system and the preview distance control system embodiments in
`
`Diamante. That is, claim 16 depends from claim 15, which Petitioner has asserted
`
`in anticipated by a combination of elements from Diamante’s cruise control system
`
`(as to element 15(a), Pet. at 29) and preview distance control system (as to
`
`elements 15(b) and claim 16, Pet. at 29-30). Petitioner’s assertions of anticipation
`
`of claim 21 are similarly premised solely on an improper and unexplained
`
`combination of elements from Diamante’s cruise control system (as to element
`
`21(a) and 21(b), Pet. at 30-31) and preview distance control system (as to elements
`
`21(c)-(f), Pet. at 31-32). Although Petitioner proffers a conclusory assertion that a
`
`combination of the Preview Distance Control Manual and Diamante would have
`
`been obvious to show “a visual symbol indicative of an unset state of the preset
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`speed (claims 15, 16, and 21(f)),” Petitioner does not provide any basis for the
`
`combination of Diamante’s two different embodiments – the cruise control system
`
`and the preview distance control system, which Diamante makes clear were not
`
`available on the same vehicle, as explained above. Accordingly, Ground B should
`
`be denied.
`
`Ground C: Petitioner alleges it would have been obvious to combine
`
`Diamante and Watanabe (Ex. 1007, 1008 (translation)) to show “maintaining the
`
`display of the preset speed during temporary deceleration of the vehicle,” as recited
`
`in claim 12. Pet. at 39. Even if such a combination were made, this combination is
`
`premised on Petitioner’s improper and unexplained combination of the cruise
`
`control system and the preview distance control system embodiments in Diamante.
`
`With regard to claim 12, Petitioner has asserted anticipation by a combination of
`
`elements from Diamante’s cruise control system (as to element 12(b), Pet. at 25)
`
`and preview distance control system (as to elements 12(a),(c)-(e), Pet. at 25-28).
`
`Although Petitioner proffers a conclusory assertion that a combination of Diamante
`
`and Watanabe would have been obvious, it is only “with respect to claim 12(d)….”
`
`Pet. at 39. Petitioner never provides any basis for the combination of Diamante’s
`
`two different embodiments – the cruise control system and the preview distance
`
`control system, which Diamante makes clear were not available on the same
`
`vehicle, as explained above. Accordingly, Ground C should be denied.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`In light of the remarks herein, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board deny all alleged grounds of unpatentability at issue in this proceeding. To
`
`the extent not specifically addressed, all dependent claims are patentable at least in
`
`view of the reasons explained above regarding claims from which they depend. If
`
`the Board has any questions, comments