UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VOLVO
`CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., and
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014‐00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`___________
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits for Oral Hearing
`
`1
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VOLVO
`CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., and
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014‐00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`___________
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits for Oral Hearing
`
`1
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`Instituted Anticipation Grounds
`• Ground A: Claims 1–3, 5, 12–16, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, and
`28 under 35 U.S.C. §102 as anticipated by Narita;
`• Ground G: Claims 18, 19, 26, and 29–31 under 35
`U.S.C. §102 as anticipated by Nagashima.
`
`2
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`‘463 Patent –Claim 2
`2. A cruise control system for a variable speed vehicle controlled by a human
`operator, comprising:
`(a) a speed controller for automatically maintaining the vehicle at a substantially
`constant cruising speed selected by the operator;
`(c) a set speed input in communication with the controller for selecting the
`cruising speed of the vehicle when the controller is enabled;
`(d) a memory that stores information representative of the selected cruising
`speed; and
`(e) a feedback system that substantially continuously communicates the selected
`cruising speed information to the operator of the vehicle until either the operator
`selects a subsequent cruising speed or the controller is disabled.
`
`(b) a cruise control enable switch associated with the controller for enabling
`and disabling the controller;
`
`3
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`Petition’s allegations regarding the claimed “cruise
`control enable switch”
`• Cites to allegations regarding “enable switch” of claim 1
`(Pet. at 14, 19‐20)
`
`4
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`The “main switch” is not a “cruise control enable
`switch”
`• Only one mention of “main switch” in Narita: “Next, a description
`will be given of the operation of the vehicle speed automatic
`control device having this type of configuration with reference to
`FIG. 3, and first the operation of the vehicle speed automatic
`control device begins with turning on the main switch.” (Ex.
`1004, pp. 2‐3)
`• Figure 1 of Narita is “a system block diagram of a conventional
`vehicle speed automatic control device” whereas “FIG. 4 is a
`system block diagram of the vehicle speed automatic control
`device according to an embodiment of the present invention”
`(Ex. 1004, p. 8)
`• No mention or suggestion of “main switch” with regard to Figure
`4
`• “In FIG. 4, the portions of the configuration that are the same as
`FIG. 1 are given the same reference numerals and descriptions
`thereof are omitted.” (Ex. 1004, p. 5)
`• Figure 1 does not show or discuss a “main switch”
`
`5
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`The “command switch” is not a “cruise control
`enable switch”
`• Petition cites: “FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating display changes in the
`speedometer 35 according to operation of the command to switch after
`turning on power…” (Pet. at 20)
`“FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram of the passage of time illustrating
`changes in vehicle speed according of the operation of the command
`switch.” (Ex. 1004, p. 8)
`• Figure 1 of Narita is “a system block diagram of a conventional vehicle
`speed automatic control device” whereas “FIG. 4 is a system block
`diagram of the vehicle speed automatic control device according to an
`embodiment of the present invention” (Ex. 1004, p. 8)
`• No mention or suggestion of “main switch” with regard to Figure 4
`“In FIG. 4, the portions of the configuration that are the same as FIG. 1
`are given the same reference numerals and descriptions thereof are
`omitted.” (Ex. 1004, p. 5)
`• Figure 1 does not show or discuss a “main switch”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`6
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`An ignition switch is not a “cruise control enable
`switch”
`• Narita does not disclose an ignition switch
`• Inherency allegation is based solely on Crawford, ¶ 28
`• No evidence that “ignition switch” necessarily turns Narita’s
`controller 7 on and off (could require a further switch, like
`a “cruise control enable switch” as admitted by Crawford,
`Suppl. Dec. ¶5)
`
`7
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`‘463 Patent –Claim 19
`19. The method of claim 18, wherein the symbol
`indicative of the preset speed displayed at the time after
`braking and during which time the vehicle is not being
`maintained at substantially the preset speed, is
`distinguishable by the operator from the symbol
`indicative of the preset speed while the vehicle is being
`maintained at substantially the preset speed.
`
`8
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`Petition’s allegations regarding claim 19
`• Petition refers to the display unit 37 and the set indicator in
`meter as “the symbol”
`
`9
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`Petition refers to situations when vehicle speed is
`below, not “above” the preset speed
`• Display unit 37 always shows the value “70” even when
`brake is applied at the “OFF” symbol
`• There is no discussion of the “set indicator in meter” in
`Narita
`• Claim 19 refers to the same symbol –“the” symbol
`• Even if visible, “set indicator in meter” must be different from
`display unit 37
`
`10
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`‘463 Patent –Claim 21
`21. A method for indicating to a human operator of a vehicle having a cruise
`control system a preset speed for which the cruise control system is set, the
`method comprising:
`engaging the cruise control system;
`setting the preset speed;
`displaying to the operator a symbol indicative of the preset speed;
`maintaining the display of the symbol indicative of the preset speed;
`discontinuing display of the symbol indicative of the preset speed after the cruise
`control system is deactivated or a new preset speed is selected; and
`of an unset state of the preset speed.
`
`after the cruise control system is deactivated, displaying a symbol indicative
`
`11
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`Petition’s allegations regarding claim 21
`• Petition alleges that “no display” on the stored vehicle speed
`display unit “display[s] a symbol indicative of an unset state of
`the preset speed” (Pet. at 28)
`• No indication that “cancelled” means “in a system‐off state”
`“even if the system is canceled, the stored vehicle speed display remains
`as is displayed on the stored vehicle display unit in the meter. Moreover,
`operating the resume switch 3 at the time t6…resumes constant speed
`travel at the speed prior to the braking operation” (Narita, p. 4)
`“At this time [when the shift lever is into the N or P position], the stored
`vehicle speed prior to the system being canceled is still displayed on the
`stored vehicle speed display unit in the meter.” (Narita, p. 4)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`12
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`‘463 Patent –Claims 18 and 19
`
`18. A method for indicating to a human operator of a vehicle having a cruise control system a preset speed
`for which the cruise control system is set, the method comprising:
`setting the preset speed;
`displaying to the operator a symbol indicative of the preset speed while maintaining the vehicle speed at
`substantially the preset speed;
`maintaining the display of the symbol indicative of the preset speed;
`braking the vehicle;
`speed while keeping data corresponding to the preset speed in a memory device; and
`at a time after braking and during which time the vehicle is not being maintained at substantially the
`preset speed, displaying to the operator a symbol indicative of the preset speed.
`19. The method of claim 18, wherein the symbol indicative of the preset speed displayed at the time after
`braking and during which time the vehicle is not being maintained at substantially the preset speed, is
`distinguishable by the operator from the symbol indicative of the preset speed while the vehicle is being
`maintained at substantially the preset speed.
`
`upon braking the vehicle, discontinuing maintaining the vehicle speed at substantially the preset
`
`13
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`Petition does not address the “memory device”
`limitation of claim 18
`• Petition references indicators 31, speed display readout 3 and resume
`switch 30 (Pet. at 43)–none of which are a memory device
`
`14
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`Petition does not address the “memory device”
`limitation of claim 18
`In Reply (not in the Petition), Petitioner references ¶ 20 and Figure 3
`(S2) of Nagashima
`• ¶20 and Figure 3 (S2): “In step Sl, in the case the cruise control setting
`SW 7 is in the ON mode, more specifically, when there is a command to
`perform cruise control, the speed is calculated based on the pulse signal
`from speed sensor (6) and is stored in the speed memory (RAM) (step
`S2).”
`• Expressly directed to setting cruise control, not “braking”
`
`•
`
`15
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`‘463 Patent –Claims 18 and 19
`
`18. A method for indicating to a human operator of a vehicle having a cruise control system a preset speed
`for which the cruise control system is set, the method comprising:
`setting the preset speed;
`displaying to the operator a symbol indicative of the preset speed while maintaining the vehicle speed at
`substantially the preset speed;
`maintaining the display of the symbol indicative of the preset speed;
`braking the vehicle;
`upon braking the vehicle, discontinuing maintaining the vehicle speed at substantially the preset speed
`while keeping data corresponding to the preset speed in a memory device; and
`the preset speed, displaying to the operator a symbol indicative of the preset speed.
`19. The method of claim 18, wherein the symbol indicative of the preset speed displayed at the time after
`braking and during which time the vehicle is not being maintained at substantially the preset speed, is
`distinguishable by the operator from the symbol indicative of the preset speed while the vehicle is being
`maintained at substantially the preset speed.
`
`at a time after braking and during which time the vehicle is not being maintained at substantially
`
`16
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`“Blinking of indicators (31)” is not a “symbol
`indicative of the preset speed”
`
`17
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`“Blinking of indicators (31)” is not a “symbol
`indicative of the preset speed”
`In Reply (not in the Petition), Petitioner alleges “only those indicators
`previously lit to indicate the setting speed will blink upon braking.” (Rep. at 14)
`• Nagashimaexpressly states, “in the case brake SW 9 is in ON mode, more
`specifically brake operation is performed…the cruise control is temporally
`released, and indicators (31) blink….” Ex. 1009, ¶0024.
`• Nagashima“a plurality of indicators (31) is arranged in dots along a scale
`(111a) of speedometer (11) and thatwhich corresponds to the setting speed
`mentioned above in a said plurality of indicators (31) islit to display the setting
`speed” (Ex. 100, Summary)
`
`•
`
`18
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`Instituted Obviousness Grounds
`• Ground E: Claims 1–3, 5, 12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 as unpatentableover Narita in view of Admitted
`Prior Art
`
`19
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`The Background of the Invention is Not Admitted
`Prior Art
`• No legal basis to hold that statements which are not labeled as “prior
`art” are admitted prior art
`• Riverwood Int'l Corp. v. R. A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
`2003) (holding “a statement by an applicant during prosecution
`identifying certain matter not the work of the inventor as ‘prior art’ is
`an admission that the matter is prior art.”)
`In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571 n.5, 184 USPQ 607, 611 n.5 (CCPA
`1975), in which an application contained “figures labeled as ‘prior art’”
`and the predecessor court held, “[b]y filing an application containing
`Figs. 1 and 2, labeled prior art, ipsissimis verbis, and statements
`explanatory thereof appellants have conceded what is to be considered
`as prior art in determining obviousness of their improvement.”
`Riverwood, 324 F.3d at 1354 (quoting In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d at 571)
`• Reply cites In re Constant, 31 F. App’x715, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2002), a non‐
`precedential opinion which does not appear to address the issue of
`admitted prior art (“All of the claims…stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) as being unpatentableover Rittenbachin view of Kobayashi and
`Spring.”)
`
`•
`
`20
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit
`2004 - Ford v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`John Kasha, Kasha Law
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC - Exhibit 2004 - Ford
`v. CCT - IPR2014-00281
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
