`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`In re application of
`
`Docket No: PR00010
`
`C. Kumar N. Patel
`
`Issued: November 27, 2001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`Application No. 09/310,527
`
`Filing Date: May 12, 1999
`
`
`
`For: CRUISE CONTROL INDICATOR
`
` DECLARATION OF PAUL GREEN, PHD. IN SUPPORT OF
`TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.'S
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,324,463 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`Mail Patent Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Paul Green, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ......................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Instructions .............................................................................................................3
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ........................................................8
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE '463 PATENT ................................................................................. 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Brief Description ..................................................................................................11
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the '463 patent ..................................12
`
`IV.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................ 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“engaging the system” (claim 1) and “engaging the cruise
`control system” (claim 21) ...................................................................................13
`
`“enabling” (claims 1 and 2) and “enabled” (claims 2 and 4) ...........................14
`
`“unset status of the preset speed” (claim 15) and "unset state of
`the preset speed" (claim 21) ................................................................................15
`
`“activating the cruise control” (claims 12 and 15) and
`"deactivated" (claims 12, 13, and 21).................................................................15
`
`V.
`
`THE CLAIMS OF THE '463 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ................................ 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`State of the Prior Art ...........................................................................................16
`
`Grounds 1-4 in view of Mitsubishi References ..................................................17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 12-16, 21, 25-28, and 34-36 of the
`‘463 patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by
`Diamante Owner's Manual .....................................................................19
`
`Ground 2: Claims 15, 16 and 21 of the ‘463 patent are
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) by Diamante Owner's
`Manual in view of Preview Distance Control Manual ..........................46
`
`Ground 3: Claim 12 of the ‘463 patent is obvious under
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) by Diamante Owner's Manual in view
`of Watanabe ..............................................................................................48
`
`Ground 4: Claims 18 and 19 of the ‘463 patent are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by Watanabe ..............................50
`
`C.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 2-5, 26-28, and 34-36 of the ‘463 patent are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) by Celsior (Ex. 1009) ..............................52
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 71
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Declaration of Paul Green, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`Diamante Owner's Manual
`Certified English Translation of Diamante Owner’s Manual (Cited
`Portions)
`Preview Distance Control Manual
`Certified English Translation of Preview Distance Control Manual
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 8-192663
`(“Watanabe”)
`Certified English Translation of Watanabe
`Celsior Owner's Manual
`Certified English Translation of Celsior Owner’s Manual (Cited
`Portions)
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTACHMENT A: CV of Paul A. Green, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`1. I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner Toyota Motor North America,
`
`Inc. ("Toyota" or "Petitioner"), and asked to review and opine on the
`
`validity/patentability of claims 1-5, 12-16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25-28, and 34-36 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,324,463 (Ex. 1001, “the ‘463 Patent”). I am being reimbursed for my
`
`time at my normal consulting rate of $250 per hour. My pay is in no way
`
`contingent on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`2. My work concerns human factors engineering, which has to do with the
`
`design of equipment, facilities, products, systems, and tasks to make them safe and
`
`easy to do for a wide range of people, from experts to the “common man.” Most of
`
`my research concerns motor vehicles, but I have worked on other applications.
`
`3. Specifically, I have been conducting research and evaluations concerning
`
`driver interfaces, driver workload, driver distraction, and topics related to the use
`
`of motor vehicle controls and displays since the 1970s. I received my PhD in
`
`Industrial and Operations Engineering and Psychology, a joint PhD degree that
`
`allowed me to focus on human factors engineering. Since then I have been a
`
`researcher at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`conducting human factors/driver interface research. I have been promoted over
`
`
`
`
`
`time and now hold the position of research professor and head of the Driver
`
`Interface Group. I am the author or co-author of more than 250 journal articles,
`
`book chapters, proceedings papers and technical reports on those topics.
`
`4. In addition, I hold a position in the Department of Industrial and Operations
`
`Engineering at the University of Michigan as an Adjunct Professor, currently
`
`teaching the Automotive Human Factors and Human-Computer Interaction
`
`courses. I have been teaching in the Department since about 1980. In addition, I
`
`am the leader and lead instructor in the University of Michigan Human Factors
`
`Engineering Short Course, the flagship continuing education course in the
`
`profession, now in its 55th year.
`
`5. I have been very active professionally, having served as President of the
`
`Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, and currently a member of its Executive
`
`Council. I am also a member of the Board of Directors of the Board of
`
`Certification in Professional Ergonomics and I am a board certified by them. I am
`
`a fellow in the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, a fellow in the Institute of
`
`Ergonomics and Human Factors, and a member of the Society of Automotive
`
`Engineers and the User Experience Professionals Association. I have been the lead
`
`2
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`author of 4 Society of Automotive Engineers standards and recommended
`
`
`
`
`
`practices.
`
`6. A more complete summary of my experience and expertise is set forth in my
`
`CV, which is attached as Attachment A to this Declaration.
`
`II. Summary of my opinions
`
`7. It is my opinion that claims 1-5, 12-16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25-28, and 34-36 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463 (Ex. 1001, “the ‘463 Patent”) are unpatentable. My
`
`opinions are based on my expertise in the technology of the '463 patent, as well as
`
`my review of the '463 patent, its file history, and the prior art asserted by the
`
`Petitioner. If the patent owner is allowed to submit additional evidence pertaining
`
`to the validity of the '463 patent, I intend to review that as well and update my
`
`analysis and conclusions as appropriate, and allowed under the rules of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`A. Instructions
`
`8.
`
`I am not an attorney. My analysis and opinions are based on my expertise
`
`in this technical field, as well as the instructions I have been given by counsel for
`
`the legal standards relating to patent validity.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9. The materials I have reviewed in connection with my analysis include the
`
`‘463 patent, its file history, and the cited references and exhibits.
`
`
`
`10. I understand that patents are presumed to be valid. I understand that
`
`invalidity in this proceeding must be proven by a preponderance of evidence, and
`
`that is the standard I have used throughout my report. Further, I understand that
`
`each patent claim is considered separately for purposes of invalidity.
`
`11.
`
`I am informed that a patent claim is invalid as “anticipated” if each and
`
`every feature of the claim is found, expressly or inherently, in a single prior art
`
`reference or product. Claim limitations that are not expressly found in a prior art
`
`reference are inherent if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or
`
`includes, the claim limitations. It is acceptable to examine evidence outside the
`
`prior art reference (extrinsic evidence) in determining whether a feature, while not
`
`expressly discussed in the reference, is necessarily present in it.
`
`12. I understand that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” if, in view of a
`
`prior art reference or a combination of prior art references, it would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, taking
`
`into account:
`
`• the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`4
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• the differences between the prior art and the claim under consideration
`
`• the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`13.
`
` A person of ordinary skill in the art of control systems and their display
`
`capabilities at the time of the alleged invention would have had a Bachelor’s
`
`degree in engineering or equivalent coursework and at least two years of
`
`experience in the area of automotive control systems and user
`
`interfaces for vehicles.
`
`14. I am informed that legal principles regarding invalidity of a claim due to
`
`obviousness were addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. I am informed that the
`
`principles relating to a “motivation,” “suggestion,” or “teaching” in the prior art to
`
`combine references to produce the claimed alleged invention remain an appropriate
`
`approach in a validity analysis. I am informed that the suggestion or motivation
`
`may be either explicit or implicit, may come from knowledge generally available to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, and may come from the nature of the problem to be
`
`solved. The test for an implicit motivation, suggestion, or teaching is what the
`
`combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of
`
`the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. The problem examined is not the specific problem solved by the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`invention, but the general problem that confronted the inventor before the
`
`
`
`
`
`invention was made.
`
`15. I am informed, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that
`
`additional principles may also be applied in such an analysis. I set forth some such
`
`additional principles below.
`
`16. As I understand it, it is no longer always required to present evidence of a
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art references for purposes of
`
`determining whether an invention is obvious. Prior art can be combined based on
`
`either a teaching, suggestion, or motivation from the prior art itself, or from a
`
`reasoned explanation of an expert or other witness.
`
`17. A patent claim composed of several elements, however, is not proved
`
`obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
`
`known in the prior art. In order to prove obviousness, it must be shown that the
`
`improvement is not more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according
`
`to their established functions. To determine whether there was an apparent reason
`
`to combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be
`
`necessary to look to interrelated teachings of multiple pieces of prior art, to the
`
`effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`and to the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
`
`
`
`
`
`the art. Also, in determining obviousness, one must be aware of the distortion
`
`caused by hindsight bias and be cautious of arguments reliant upon hindsight
`
`reasoning. An obviousness argument cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
`
`statements. Instead, it must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`18. In an obviousness analysis, it is my understanding that there are
`
`“secondary considerations” that should be analyzed if they apply. I am told that
`
`these considerations include (1) whether the prior art teaches away from the
`
`claimed invention, (2) whether there was a long felt but unresolved need for the
`
`claimed invention, (3) whether others tried but failed to make the claimed
`
`invention, skepticism of experts, (4) whether the claimed invention was
`
`commercially successful, (5) whether the claimed invention was praised by others,
`
`and (6) whether the claimed invention was copied by others.
`
`19. I have also been instructed that ultimately claims are construed in light of
`
`how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claims. It is my
`
`understanding that what is to be considered includes the claims, the patent
`
`specification and drawings, and the prosecution history, including any art listed by
`
`7
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`the Examiner or the applicant. It is my understanding that information external to
`
`
`
`
`
`the patent, including expert and inventor testimony and unlisted prior art, are to be
`
`considered in construing the claims only if ambiguities remain. However, expert
`
`testimony may be useful in helping to explain the technology. I further understand
`
`technical dictionaries, encyclopedias, and treatises may also be used in claim
`
`construction, as long as these definitions do not contradict any definition found in
`
`or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. In my analysis, I have
`
`considered and applied the proposed claim constructions of the Petitioners, unless
`
`otherwise indicated.
`
`20. I understand that an issued U.S. patent is presumed to be valid, and can be
`
`challenged in this proceeding on invalidity grounds only upon proof by a
`
`preponderance of evidence.
`
`B. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`21. I am instructed to assume for the purpose of my analysis, that Claims 1-36
`
`of the '463 patent have an earliest effective filing date of May 12, 1998, the filing
`
`date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/085,183. I am informed that the
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following patents and printed publications, none of which
`
`were considered during the original prosecution of the ‘463 patent:
`
`8
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 1003 - Diamante Owner's Manual, published in 1995 and therefore
`
`available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (Ex. 1004 - certified
`
`translation of cited portions of Diamante Owner's Manual);
`
` Ex. 1005 - Preview Distance Control Manual, published in 1995 and
`
`therefore available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (Ex. 1006 - certified
`
`translation of cited portions of Preview Distance Control Manual);
`
` Ex. 1007 - Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 8-192663
`
`(“Watanabe”), published on July 30, 1996 and therefore available as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (Ex. 1008 - certified translation of Watanabe); and
`
` Ex. 1009 - Celsior Owner's Manual, published in 1997 and therefore
`
`available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (Ex. 1010 - certified
`
`translation of cited portions of Celsior Owner's Manual).
`
`22. An explanation of how claims 1-5, 12-16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25-28, and 34-
`
`36 are unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified below, including the
`
`identification of where each element is found in the prior art references and the
`
`relevance of each of the prior art references, is provided in the form of detailed
`
`claim charts.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`Ground
`
`'463 Patent
`Claims
`Ground 1 Claims 1-5, 12-
`
`
`
`
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by
`
`16, 21, 25-28,
`
`Diamante Owner's Manual (Ex. 1003)
`
`and 34-36
`
`Ground 2 Claims 15, 16,
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) by Diamante
`
`and 21
`
`Owner's Manual (Ex. 1003) in view of Preview
`
`Distance Control Manual (Ex. 1005)
`
`Ground 3 Claim 12
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) by Diamante
`
`Owner's Manual (Ex. 1003) in view of Watanabe
`
`(Ex. 1007)
`
`Ground 4 Claims 18 and 19 Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by
`
`Watanabe (Ex. 1007)
`
`Ground 5 Claims 2-5, 26-
`
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) by Toyota
`
`28, and 34-36
`
`Celsior Owner’s Manual, hereinafter “Celsior”
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1009)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE '463 PATENT
`
`
`
`A. Brief Description
`
`
`
`23. The ‘463 patent is directed to a method and apparatus for indicating the
`
`operational status and parameters of a vehicle cruise control system. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`Abstract). As shown in FIG. 1 (reproduced below), a preset cruise control speed is
`
`displayed in display 16. Other embodiments include an analog display of the
`
`preset cruise control speed. (See id. at FIG. 2).
`
`
`
`
`
`24. In the cruise control system of the ‘463 patent, the preset speed is
`
`continuously displayed after the system is disengaged, even when temporarily
`
`disengaged, e.g., by pressing on the brakes or accelerating. (See id. at 3:60-4:14).
`
`As a result, the system provides the operator a clear indication of the preset speed
`
`11
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`to which the vehicle will return when the command to resume speed is given or
`
`
`
`
`
`when the vehicle is no longer accelerating. (See id.).
`
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the '463 patent
`
`25. In the only Office Action of September 7, 2000, various claims were
`
`objected to for informalities, and rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph
`
`as being indefinite. (Office Action of September 7, 2000 (Ex. 1002) at 2-3).
`
`Additionally, claims 1-11 and 25-35 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as
`
`being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 5,949,346), while claims 12-24 and 36 were
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of
`
`Tomecek (US 4,132,284). (Id. at 3 and 7). Suzuki was not directed to a cruise
`
`control system and the Applicant relied on that fact in distinguishing the claims
`
`from Suzuki.
`
`26. In response to the Office Action, the applicant amended claims 2, 6, 7, 12,
`
`22, 24, 26, and 34 to address the claim objections and the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§112, second paragraph, e.g., to replace “capable of” with “for,” and to provide
`
`proper antecedent support. (See Amendment filed March 12, 2001 (Ex. 1002) at 1-
`
`4). Furthermore, the applicant traversed the prior art rejections arguing that Suzuki
`
`displays actual speed information and speed limit information, but not a cruise
`
`12
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`control system or a display of cruise control speed indicator. (See id. at 6-8).
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, the file history is clear in distinguishing a display of a cruise control speed
`
`from an actual speed display. (See id). Thereafter, the '463 patent claims were
`
`allowed in the Notice of Allowance issued on June 11, 2011 (Ex. 1002).
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`27. I am informed that a claim subject to Inter Partes Review is given its
`
`"broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears." 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This means that the words of the claim
`
`are given their plain meaning from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art unless that meaning is inconsistent with the specification. I set forth below my
`
`construction of certain terms in the claims of the '463 patent, based on the above
`
`instructions.
`
`A. “engaging the system” (claim 1) and “engaging the cruise control
`system” (claim 21)
`
`28. The ‘463 patent uses numerous terms to describe various states of the
`
`cruise control system. Among them, the term “engaged” is used throughout the
`
`specification to specifically describe an operating state of the cruise control system
`
`to control the speed of vehicle to the preset speed. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at FIG. 4).
`
`13
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`For example, at column 5, lines 13-15, the ‘463 patent discloses that when the
`
`
`
`
`
`cruise control “is engaged,… the automobile accelerates to the preset speed.”
`
`Furthermore, at column 1, lines 46-48, the '463 patent describes a system "engaged
`
`at a set speed" to mean "the car's speed is automatically controlled to maintain the
`
`memorized speed." Thus, based on its plain meaning in light of the specification,
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would consider “engaging the system” (claim 1) and
`
`“engaging the cruise control system” (claim 21) to mean “operating the cruise
`
`control system to automatically maintain the vehicle at the preset speed.”
`
`B. “enabling” (claims 1 and 2) and “enabled” (claims 2 and 4)
`
`29. The claims distinguish an “enabling” of the cruise control system from an
`
`“engaging,” which is construed above. (See, e.g., id. at claim 1). For example,
`
`according to claim 1, the cruise control system is "enabl[ed]" by an enable switch
`
`and "engag[ed]" by a set speed input. Furthermore, in claim 4, the controller is
`
`“initially enabled” and, in claim 2, the cruising speed is selected “when the
`
`controller is enabled.” The specification clearly uses the term “enabled” to mean a
`
`“system on” state for the cruise control system. (See id. at column 4, lines 39-46).
`
`Thus, “enabling” means “turning on” and “enabled” means “turned on.”
`
`14
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. “unset status of the preset speed” (claim 15) and "unset state of
`the preset speed" (claim 21)
`
`30. The terms "status" and "state" are used interchangeably in the claims and
`
`are therefore synonymous in the '463 patent. (See, e.g., id. at claims 15 and 22).
`
`As such, "unset state" and "unset status" of the preset speed have the same
`
`meaning for purposes of this proceeding, i.e., a state or status in which there is no
`
`preset speed for the cruise control system.
`
`D. “activating the cruise control” (claims 12 and 15) and
`"deactivated" (claims 12, 13, and 21)
`
`31. Both claims 12 and 15 recite an "activating" of the cruise control system,
`
`with claim 15 clearly using this term to mean a turning on of the cruise control
`
`system ("before setting the preset speed, activating the cruise control system").
`
`(Id. at claim 15). Furthermore, the specification utilizes the term "activated" to
`
`also refer to a turning on of the system ("When the cruise control system is first
`
`activated, the preset display 16 will blink the number zero indicating an 'unset'
`
`state of the cruise control"). (Id. at column 4, lines 4-6). Accordingly, in light of
`
`the specification and the plain meaning of this term, "activating the cruise control"
`
`means "turning on the cruise control." For similar reasons, "deactivated" as recited
`
`in claims 12, 13, and 21 means "turned off."
`
`15
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`V. THE CLAIMS OF THE '463 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`
`
`
`
`A. State of the Prior Art
`
`32. The ’463 Patent discusses the following functionality of prior art cruise
`
`control systems, which were “found in many automobiles” (Ex. 1001 at 1:11-12.)
`
`(“Admitted Prior Art” or “APA”):
`
`(1) a cruise control system that can be turned “on” or “off” (id. at
`
`1:43-45);
`
`(2) a button that “turn[s] on the cruise control system” (id. at 1:18-
`
`20);
`
`(3) a cruise control system that is either engaged or not engaged (id.
`
`at 1:45-47);
`
`(4) a button that “engage[s], or set[s], the cruise control” (id. at 1:23-
`
`25);
`
`(5) a “memory function that stores the set control speed” (id. at 1:26-
`
`27);
`
`(6) “applying the brakes to temporarily slow down temporarily
`
`disengages the cruise control function” (id. at 1:28-29);
`
`16
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(7) a “‘resume’” button to resume cruise control after disengaging it
`
`(id. at 1:30-32);
`
`(8) a system that allows the vehicle to be accelerated without
`
`disengaging the cruise control (id. at 1:32-37);
`
`(9) a system that switches modes (e.g., on/off or engaged/not-
`
`engaged) “based on human or machine intervention” (id. at 1:42-
`
`60); and
`
`(10) “visual feedback indicating whether the cruise control system is
`
`enabled” (id. at 1:63-64).
`
`B. Grounds 1-4 in view of Mitsubishi References
`
`33. The disclosures of the Diamante Owner's Manual (Ex. 1003 and Ex.
`
`1004 (certified translation)), the Diamante Preview Distance Control Manual (Ex.
`
`1005 and Ex. 1006 (certified translation)), and Watanabe (Ex. 1007 and Ex. 1008
`
`(certified translation)) (hereinafter "Mitsubishi References") are closely related,
`
`and therefore discussed together herein. In particular, Watanabe is a publication of
`
`a Japanese patent application assigned to Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, and the
`
`two manuals are for the same vehicle manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors
`
`Corporation. The Owner's Manual is a general manual for the 1995 Mitsubishi
`
`17
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`Diamante, and the Preview Distance Control Manual is specific to the adaptive
`
`
`
`
`
`cruise control system included in the 1995 Mitsubishi Diamante.
`
`
`
`(L-R: Watanabe (Ex. 1008 at FIG. 2), Diamante Owner's Manual (Ex. 1004 at
`
`p. 88), Preview Distance Control Manual (Ex. 1006 at p. 0-2)).
`
`34.
`
` The cruise control systems commonly described in the Mitsubishi
`
`References include a displayed cruise control screen that is displayable at all times
`
`by use of a mode switch (Ex. 1004 at p. 52) and displays a pre-set cruise control
`
`speed. (Id. at pp. 52 and 88; See also Ex. 1006 at p. 0-11 and Ex. 1008 at FIG. 5).
`
`Moreover, "[w]hen the speed is not set" (e.g., "after activating the cruise control
`
`system, but before setting the preset speed," claims 15 and 16), the Mitsubishi
`
`References provide that "the speed (three digits) and 'km/hr' are not displayed;
`
`only the symbol is displayed." (Ex. 1006 at p. 0-11). Thus, the Mitsubishi
`
`References disclose the subject matter in claims 4, 15 and 16 by displaying, at any
`
`18
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`time, a contour of a vehicle with no speed included therein to indicate an unset
`
`
`
`
`
`state when the controller is initially enabled (claim 4) and to "indicat[e] to the
`
`operator the unset status of the preset speed" (claim 15) as a "visual symbol"
`
`(claim 16).
`
`1. Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 12-16, 21, 25-28, and 34-36 of the ‘463
`patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by Diamante Owner's
`Manual
`
`35. As detailed in the discussion and claim charts below, the disclosure in
`
`the Diamante Owner's Manual (Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004 (certified translation)),
`
`which was not before the Examiner during the original prosecution of the '463
`
`patent, meets all of the limitations of claims 1-5, 12-16, 21, 25-28, and 34-36.
`
`36. Specifically, the Diamante Owner's Manual discloses a cruise control
`
`system for vehicles that automatically maintains the vehicle speed at a set cruise
`
`control speed (claims 1-5, 12-16, 21, 25-28, and 34-36), a center message display
`
`for displaying a cruise control screen (i.e., preview distance control display)
`
`including the set cruise control speed (claims 1-5, 12-16, 21, 25-28, and 34-36), a
`
`cruise control indicator light for indicating whether the cruise control system is
`
`operating to maintain the vehicle at the set cruise control speed (claims 26 and 27)
`
`and therefore activated (claim 34(g)), and a main switch to turn the system on and
`
`19
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`to indicate an on/off status of the system (claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 21, and 34). (See Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`1004 at pp. 86, 88, and 89).
`
`
`
`37. One skilled in the art would understand that the Diamante Owner's
`
`Manual inherently includes a memory to store the pre-set speed (claims 1, 2, 26,
`
`and 34) by virtue of controlling the vehicle according to a pre-set speed and
`
`continuously displaying the pre-set speed. (See id). The fact that the Diamante
`
`Owner's manual discloses a pre-set speed value that is displayed and used by the
`
`control system to keep the vehicle at that preset speed when the cruise control
`
`system is engaged, indicates that the disclosed system must have a memory to store
`
`that pre-set speed value. Furthermore, the Diamante Owner’s Manual states that
`
`cruise control can be canceled and then re-engaged to “return[] to the preset speed
`
`prior to the cancellation.” (Id. at p. 87). For the preset speed to be returned to at a
`
`later time after cancelation, the preset speed would have to be stored in a memory.
`
`Anyway, the ‘463 patent itself admits that “the conventional cruise control system
`
`20
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`is provided with a memory function that stores the set control speed.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`
`
`
`
`1:26-27).
`
`38. Additionally, the Diamante Owner's Manual discloses a combination of
`
`different indicators and visual symbols that can alert the operator of the vehicle to
`
`different statuses of the cruise control system. For example, as described and
`
`shown on page 52 of the Diamante Owner's Manual, a mode switch is provided so
`
`that an operator can display the cruise control screen on the center message display
`
`at any time, including after the cruise control system is initially turned on (claims 4
`
`and 15). The screen includes a contour of a vehicle with no speed therein if there
`
`is no set cruise control speed, e.g., when the cruise control system is initially
`
`turned on by operation of the main switch (claims 4 and 15):
`
`(Id. at p. 52)
`
`39. Accordingly, if the cruise control system is turned on by operation of the
`
`main switch, the main switch is illuminated and the cruise control screen is
`
`displayed with no speed included in the contour of the vehicle, thereby indicating
`
`21
`
`

`

`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`that the cruise control system is on and no cruise control speed has been set (claims
`
`
`
`
`
`4, 12, 15, 16, and 21). (See id. at pp. 52, 86, and 89).
`
`40. Furthermore, according to the Diamante Owner's Manual, the set cruise
`
`control speed is saved/stored after cruise control is temporarily disengaged by
`
`pressing the brakes (claim 12). (See id. at p. 87). As such, the cruise control
`
`screen would display the saved cruise control speed at the “Preset speed” portion
`
`of the interface (i.e., within the contour of the vehicle) even if the system is
`
`temporarily disengaged. (See id. at p. 88). Thus, the set cruise control speed is
`
`displayed at a time after braking during which the vehicle is not being maintained
`
`at substantially the set speed (claim 12).
`
`41. The tables below show how each limitation of claims 1-5, 12-16, 21, 25-
`
`28, and 34-36 is met by the Diamante Owner's Manual.
`
`Anticipated by Diamante Owner's Manual
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘463
`patent
`1. A cruise control
`system for vehicle
`having a human operator,
`comprising:
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at p. 86.
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463