throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 55
`Entered: June 29, 2015
`
`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
`_______________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Ford Motor Company et al. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 12–31, and 34–36 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’463 patent”). Petitioner
`submitted the Declaration of Daniel A. Crawford (Ex. 1011) in support of
`the Petition. Cruise Control Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 13, “Prelim. Resp.”). On July 2, 2014, we
`instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 12–19, 21–26, and 28–31
`based on seven of the eight unpatentability grounds alleged in the Petition.
`Paper 17 (“Inst. Dec.”).
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 26, “PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 38, “Pet. Reply”).
`An oral hearing was held March 24, 2015. Paper 54 (“Tr.”). The Board has
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
`For the reasons provided below, Petitioner has shown, by a
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–3, 5, 12–19, 21–26, and 28–31
`of the ’463 patent are unpatentable.
`
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner have identified several district court
`proceedings that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
`proceeding. Pet. 4; Paper 12, 2–4. The ’463 patent is also the subject of
`four other inter partes review proceedings (IPR2014-00279, IPR2014-
`00280, IPR2014-00289, and IPR2014-00291). Final decisions in those
`proceedings are being entered concurrently with this final decision.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`The ’463 Patent
`B.
`The ’463 patent discloses cruise control systems for use in a human
`operated vehicle. Ex. 1001, Abst. Figures 1 and 2 of the ’463 patent are
`shown below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a digital speed display, while Figure 2 illustrates an
`analog speedometer. Id. at 3:8–13. In Figure 1, main speed display 3 shows
`the current speed at which the vehicle is operating. 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. Id. at 3:53–60.
`Second speed display 16 shows that preset speed. Id.
`Figure 2’s analog speedometer 40 incorporates several LED
`assemblies 45. Id. at 4:19–26. Each LED assembly 45 has an LED and a
`detector. 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. 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. Id.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`at 4:51–57. The LED of that assembly is then activated to indicate the speed
`at which cruise control was engaged. Id. at 4:57–64.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`C.
`Claim 1 of the ’463 patent is illustrative:
`1.
`A cruise control system for [a] vehicle having a human
`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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:7–20.
`
`D.
`
`Prior Art Supporting Instituted Unpatentability Grounds
`
`Narita
`(translation, Ex. 1004)1
`
`Nagashima
`(translation, Ex. 1009)
`
`JP S60-174329
`
`Sept. 1985
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`JP H4-102059
`
`Sept. 1992
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Beiswenger
`
`US 5,381,388
`
`Jan. 1995
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`
`1 Our opinion cites to the translations of the prior art, including the page
`numbers of the Narita translation, and the paragraph numbers of the
`Nagashima translation.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`John Pollard & E. Donald Sussman,
`Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin.,
`An Examination of Sudden Acceleration
`(“the NHTSA Report”)
`
`Admitted Prior Art in the ’463 Patent
`
`Knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill
`
`Jan. 1989
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001,
`1:10–2:12
`
`Exs. 1011
`& 1012
`
`Instituted Unpatentability Grounds
`E.
`We instituted an inter partes review of the ’463 patent based on the
`following seven unpatentability grounds alleged in the Petition. Inst. Dec. 5,
`39–40.
`
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`§ 102(b) Narita
`§ 103(a) Narita and Knowledge of Person
`of Ordinary Skill
`§ 103(a) Narita and Beiswenger
`
`§ 103(a) Narita and Nagashima
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1–3, 5, 12–16, 18, 19,
`21, 25, 26, and 28
`17 and 22–24
`
`17 and 22–24
`
`17, 23, and 24
`
`§ 103(a) Narita and Admitted Prior Art
`
`1–3, 5, 12, and 15
`
`§ 103(a) Narita and the NHTSA Report
`
`1–3, 5, 12, and 15
`
`§ 102(b) Nagashima
`
`18, 19, 26, and 29–31
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Claim Construction
`A.
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(2014); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1279–83 (Fed. Cir.
`2015). Under that construction, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning, as would be understood by a person 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.
`
`“engaging the system” (claim 1) and
`1.
`“engaging the cruise control system” (claim 21)
`In the Institution Decision, we construed “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.” Inst. Dec. 8–9. Neither party has disputed these
`constructions during trial, and we do not find any reason to deviate from
`them.
`
`“enabling” (claims 1 and 2) and “enabled” (claims 2 and 4)
`2.
`In the Institution Decision, we construed “enabling the system” in
`claim 1, and “enabling . . . the controller” in claim 2, to mean a “system on”
`state for the cruise control system, which we also applied to the descriptor
`“enabled” in claims 2 and 4. Inst. Dec. 9–10. Neither party has disputed
`these constructions during trial, and we do not find any reason to deviate
`from them.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`“indicating to the operator the unset status of the preset speed”
`3.
`(claim 15) and “displaying a symbol indicative of an unset state of the preset
`speed” (claim 21)
`In the Institution Decision, we construed “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.” Inst. Dec. 10–11. Neither
`party has disputed these constructions during trial, and we do not find any
`reason to deviate from them.
`
`4.
`
`“activating the cruise control system” (claims 12 and 15) and
`“deactivated” (claims 12, 13, and 21)
`In the Institution Decision, we construed “activating” in these claims
`to mean “turning on,” and “deactivated” as “turned off.” Inst. Dec. 11–12.
`Neither party has disputed these constructions during trial, and we do not
`find any reason to deviate from them.
`
`Remaining Claim Terms
`5.
`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 those terms expressly.
`
`Anticipation by Narita
`B.
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 5, 12–16, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, and 28 of
`the ’463 patent are unpatentable as anticipated by Narita. Pet. 13–31.
`
`Claim 1
`1.
`Claim 1 recites a cruise control system for a vehicle, including a speed
`controller. We are persuaded Narita discloses a cruise control speed
`controller. Pet. 19; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 25–26. For example, Narita describes a
`“vehicle speed automatic control device that is used to automatically control
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`travel speed of a vehicle to a certain set value,” including controller 7.
`Ex. 1004, 2, Figs. 1 & 4.
`Claim 1 also recites an enable switch and a set speed input. We are
`persuaded the “main switch” of Narita is an enable switch as claimed.
`Pet. 13–14, 19; Ex. 1011 ¶ 27. In particular, Narita states: “[T]he operation
`of the vehicle speed automatic control device begins with turning on the
`main switch.” Ex. 1004, 3, Fig. 3. We also are persuaded set switch 2 of
`Narita corresponds to the claimed set speed input. Pet. 15, 19; Ex. 1011
`¶ 29. In particular, Narita provides “when turning on the set switch 2 . . .
`when reaching a speed of 70 km/hr, a constant speed travel is initiated at a
`speed of 70 km/hr . . . .” Ex. 1004, 5, Fig. 5; see also id. at 3 (describing
`operation of set switch 2).
`Patent Owner contends Narita’s main switch cannot be the enable
`switch of claim 1. PO Resp. 4, 6. Patent Owner alleges Narita discusses the
`main switch only with regard to the “conventional” speed control device
`depicted in Figures 1–3, and Narita’s inventive speed control device
`depicted in Figures 4–7 does not include expressly that main switch or any
`other enable switch. Id. at 4. Thus, according to Patent Owner, Petitioner
`improperly alleges anticipation based on a combination of two different
`embodiments in Narita. Id. (citing Net MoneyIN, Inc., v. VeriSign, Inc., 545
`F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Narita
`discloses the main switch only in connection with the conventional speed
`control device, and not in connection with the inventive speed control
`device. Narita states: “In FIG. 4, the portions of the configuration that are
`the same as FIG. 1 are given the same reference numerals and descriptions
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`thereof are omitted.” Ex. 1004, 5. We agree with Petitioner that Narita
`thereby expressly discloses that the main switch of the conventional speed
`control device is part of the inventive speed control device shown in
`Figure 4, even though it is otherwise not discussed expressly in connection
`with Figure 4. Pet. 19; Pet. Reply 1–3. This is consistent with Narita’s
`description of the inventive speed control device as an improvement of the
`conventional device, wherein the display of stored vehicle display unit 37 is
`canceled upon operation of failsafe 10. Ex. 1004, 4, 7–8.
`Petitioner’s reading of Narita is bolstered further by Narita’s
`description of Figure 5 as “illustrating display changes in the
`speedometer 35 according to operation of the command to switch after
`turning on power.” Ex. 1004, 5 (emphasis added). The reference therein to
`“turning on power” refers to beginning operation of the conventional speed
`control device (or the inventive speed control device) “with turning on the
`main switch.” Ex. 1004, 3; Ex. 1011 ¶ 27; Pet. Reply 3–4; Ex. 1012 ¶ 4.
`Patent Owner’s rebuttal—that the “command to” or set switch 2 mentioned
`in the same sentence as “turning on power” at Narita page 5 is not the
`claimed enable switch—is not persuasive because it is not responsive to
`Petitioner’s argument. PO Resp. 4–5. Petitioner’s reading of the disclosure
`on page 5, which we find to be persuasive, is that the main switch is used to
`turn on the power, and then set switch 2 is used to perform the operations
`illustrated in Figure 5. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 27, 29; Pet. Reply 3–4; Ex. 1012 ¶ 4.
`Claim 1 further recites a memory which stores the cruise control’s
`preset speed. We are persuaded Narita has such a memory. Pet. 19;
`Ex. 1011 ¶ 30. In particular, Narita indicates microcomputer 9 of
`controller 7 includes “[a] vehicle speed storage part that stores the vehicle
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`speed when the set switch 2 is operated.” Ex. 1004, 2; see also id. at 3
`(when set switch 2 sends a set signal, “microcomputer 9 stores the pulse
`count according to the vehicle speed at that time into the vehicle speed
`storage part”).
`Patent Owner contends the memory of microcomputer 9 cannot be the
`memory of claim 1, because it is discussed with respect to Narita’s
`conventional speed control device, and not Narita’s inventive speed control
`device. PO Resp. 6–7. We are not persuaded. Narita indicates the
`components of the inventive speed control device having the same reference
`numerals as the conventional speed control device are the same in both
`devices. Ex. 1004, 5. Those common components include
`microcomputer 9, and its memory. Id. at Figs. 1 & 4; Pet. Reply 4–5.
`Claim 1 finally recites a “feedback system” for communicating the
`cruise control’s preset speed to the vehicle operator. Narita’s disclosure in
`this regard is exemplified by its Figure 4, reproduced below:
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, 12. Figure 4 is a system block diagram of Narita’s inventive
`speed control device, including “driver seat side speedometer 35.” Id. at 5.
`Speedometer 35 includes actual vehicle speed display unit 36 and stored
`vehicle speed display unit 37. Id. The following excerpt from Narita’s
`Figure 5 illustrates the respective displays of units 36 and 37:
`
`
`Id. at 5, 13. This excerpt illustrates display changes in units 36, 37 when the
`cruise control is set. Id. at 5–6. In particular, unit 36 shows the actual
`vehicle speed increasing from 68 km/hr to 70 km/hr. Id. at 5, Fig. 5. Cruise
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`control is then set, and “the stored vehicle speed 70 km/hr is displayed on
`the stored vehicle speed display unit 37.” Id. at 5. We are persuaded unit 37
`corresponds to the feedback system recited in claim 1. Pet. 15–16, 20;
`Ex. 1011 ¶ 31.
`For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
`claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Narita.
`
`Claims 2, 3, and 5
`2.
`Claim 2, similarly to claim 1, 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 these
`claim limitations are disclosed in Narita, for the reasons provided above.
`See supra Part II.B.1; Pet. 19–21. For those same reasons, Patent Owner’s
`assertions that Narita has not been shown to disclose an enable switch or a
`memory in connection with its inventive speed control device are not
`persuasive. PO Resp. 7–8.
`Claim 2 further specifies the feedback system “substantially
`continuously communicates the selected cruising speed . . . until either the
`operator selects a subsequent cruising speed or the controller is disabled.”
`We are persuaded Narita discloses this claim requirement. Pet. 17, 21.
`Figure 5 of Narita, reproduced below, is representative:
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, 13. Concerning a subsequent cruising speed, Narita describes
`Figure 5 as illustrating:
`[A]fter a temporary acceleration [between time t2 and time t3],
`when turning the set switch 2 on and off again . . . upon
`reaching 80 km/hr at time t3, constant speed travel begins at
`80 km/hr while at the same time the stored vehicle speed at this
`time
`is displayed on
`the stored vehicle speed display
`unit 37 . . . .
`
`Id. at 6 (emphasis added). As to disabling the controller, Narita indicates:
`“[W]hen the system is canceled due to movement by the failsafe 10 for some
`reason during constant speed travel . . . display on the stored vehicle speed
`display unit 37 is canceled . . . .” Id. at 7, Fig. 7.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Claims 3 and 5 depend from claim 2, and specify respectively “the
`feedback system includes a digital display,” which “displays information
`indicative of the selected cruising speed of the vehicle.” We are persuaded
`these requirements are met by Narita’s display of the preset cruising speed
`as a digital readout in unit 37. Pet. 21, 22; Ex. 1004, 7, Figs. 5–7.
`For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
`claims 2, 3, and 5 are unpatentable as anticipated by Narita.
`
`Claim 12
`3.
`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 Narita discloses these two steps. Pet. 22;
`Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 25–27, 29–31. For example, Narita describes turning on cruise
`control via a main switch, and then operating set switch 2 when reaching a
`speed of 70 km/hr to initiate constant speed travel at a speed of 70 km/hr.
`Ex. 1004, 3, 5–6, Fig. 5.
`Claim 12 additionally recites “displaying a symbol indicative of the
`speed at which the cruise control system is activated.” Narita indicates “the
`stored vehicle speed 70 km/hr is displayed on the stored vehicle speed
`display unit 37.” Id. at 5. This is illustrated by the following excerpt from
`Narita’s Figure 5, to which we have added numerals “1” through “4,”
`identifying four states of the system, for specific reference below:
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`
`4
`3
`2
`1
`
`Id. at 13. This excerpt illustrates display changes in stored vehicle speed
`display unit 37 in response to various cruise control and vehicle operation
`states. Id. at 5–6. We are persuaded operation of Narita’s display 37 in
`state 2, wherein display 37 indicates constant speed travel at a speed of
`70 km/hr, corresponds to displaying a speed-indicative symbol as claimed.
`Pet. 15–16, 22; Ex. 1004, 5–6, Fig. 5.
`Claim 12 further recites “maintaining the activated cruise control
`speed symbol upon temporary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle.”
`We are persuaded Narita discloses the “acceleration” portion of this
`limitation in state 3 above. Pet. 16, 23. In particular, state 3 illustrates
`stored vehicle speed display unit 37 continuing to show 70 km/hr when the
`vehicle is temporarily accelerated to a speed of 75 km/hr. Ex. 1004, 6,
`Fig. 5. We are further persuaded the “deceleration” claim requirement is
`met by Narita’s disclosure that “the change in the actual vehicle speed due to
`the deceleration is displayed on the actual vehicle speed display unit 36
`while the stored vehicle speed continues to be displayed as is on the stored
`vehicle speed display unit 37.” Id. at 6, Fig. 6; Pet. 16–17, 23.
`Claim 12 finally recites “removing said symbol when the cruise
`control system is deactivated or a new cruising speed is selected.” We are
`persuaded Narita discloses this claim requirement. Pet. 16–17, 24. As to the
`deactivating component, Narita indicates: “When the system is canceled due
`to movement by the failsafe 10 for some reason during constant speed
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`travel . . . display on the stored vehicle speed display unit 37 is
`canceled . . . .” Ex. 1004, 7, Fig. 7. As to selecting a new cruising speed,
`Narita indicates unit 37 changes from “70” to “80” in state 4 above, to
`reflect changing the cruising speed from 70 km/hr to 80 km/hr. Id. at 6,
`Fig. 5.
`Patent Owner contends operation of failsafe 10 does not “deactivate”
`the cruise control system as recited in claim 12, which we have construed to
`mean turning the system off. PO Resp. 8. Rather, according to Patent
`Owner, operation of failsafe 10 cancels constant speed travel, but the cruise
`control system remains on, as evidenced by Narita’s disclosure that a new
`constant speed can be set by operating set switch 2.2 Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 7).
`Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. Mr. Crawford has
`testified, on behalf of Petitioner, that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand that a cruise control system being “canceled” by a
`“failsafe” due to an abnormality, as those terms are used in Narita, means
`that the system is turned off. Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 10–11 (citing Ex. 1004, 2, 4); Pet.
`Reply 6, 8–9. Mr. Crawford particularly cites Narita’s disclosure that one
`such abnormality is “putting the shift lever of an automatic vehicle into the
`N or P position,” because turning the system off when the vehicle is placed
`in park makes sense from a safety perspective. Ex. 1012 ¶ 11; Ex. 1004, 4.
`
`
`2 During the oral hearing, Patent Owner’s representative additionally relied
`on Narita’s disclosure that its conventional speed control device maintains
`display of the preset speed upon system cancellation by the failsafe.
`Tr. 28:7–14; Ex. 2004, 12; Ex. 1004, 4. However, Narita’s inventive device
`specifically improves upon the conventional device, by canceling the preset
`speed display upon system cancellation by the failsafe. Ex. 1004, 4.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`We find Mr. Crawford’s testimony to be more persuasive of the meaning of
`Narita’s disclosure than the interpretation set forth in the Patent Owner
`Response. Moreover, as Petitioner argues, the broadest reasonable
`construction of claim 12 is that the symbol is removed upon the occurrence
`of either of two options—system deactivation “or” a new cruising speed
`selection—and Patent Owner does not dispute the symbol is removed in the
`latter circumstance. Pet. Reply 5–6; PO Resp. 8; Tr. 9:8–24, 27:24–28:24.
`For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
`claim 12 is unpatentable as anticipated by Narita.
`
`Claims 13–16
`4.
`Claim 13, similarly to claim 12, 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 these claim limitations are disclosed in Narita, for the
`reasons provided above. See supra Part II.B.3; Pet. 24–25. For those same
`reasons, Patent Owner’s argument that Narita fails to disclose the
`“discontinuing display” step of claim 13 is not persuasive. PO Resp. 8–9.
`Claim 14 depends from claim 13, and 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 Narita discloses this
`claim limitation when stored vehicle speed display unit 37 changes from
`“70” to “80” to reflect changing the cruising speed from 70 km/hr to
`80 km/hr. Pet. 16, 25; Ex. 1004, 6, Fig. 5.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Claim 15 depends from claim 13, and specifies “before setting the
`preset speed, activating the cruise control system.” We are persuaded Narita
`correspondingly discloses “turning on the main switch” in order to activate
`the cruise control system, before using set switch 2 to set the preset speed.
`Ex. 1004, 3; Pet. 25; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 27, 29. For the reasons discussed above in
`connection with claim 1, Patent Owner’s assertion that Narita has not been
`shown to disclose use of its main switch in connection with its inventive
`speed control device is not persuasive. PO Resp. 9.
`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.” In this regard, Petitioner cites the following excerpt from
`Narita’s Figure 5:
`
`
`Pet. 14–15, 26; Ex. 1011 ¶ 33. Narita describes that excerpt as illustrating
`speedometer 35 “after turning on power, and when the memory cancel
`signal S . . . is in a Hi state.” Ex. 1004, 5. We are persuaded the dashed line
`in the excerpt indicates the unset status of the preset speed. Pet. 15;
`Ex. 1011 ¶ 33.
`Claim 16 depends from claim 15, and specifies “wherein indicating
`the unset status of the preset speed includes displaying a visual symbol to the
`operator.” We are persuaded the dashed line of Figure 5 is a visual symbol
`as claimed. Pet. 15, 26; Ex. 1011 ¶ 33.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
`claims 13–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Narita.
`
`Claims 18 and 19
`5.
`Claim 18, similarly to claim 12, 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, and maintaining the display. We are persuaded Narita
`discloses these claim limitations for the reasons provided above. See supra
`Part II.B.3; Pet. 22, 26.
`Claim 18 also recites “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,” as well as “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.” We are persuaded Narita discloses these
`limitations. Pet. 16–17, 27. In particular, Narita’s disclosure in this regard
`is exemplified by its Figure 6, reproduced below:
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, 14. Figure 6 illustrates changes in stored vehicle speed display
`unit 37 when decelerating by a braking operation after constant speed travel.
`Id. at 6. Immediately prior to time t12, cruise control is engaged at a speed of
`70 km/hr. Id. The brakes are operated temporarily at time t12, and thereafter
`“the change in the actual vehicle speed due to the deceleration is displayed
`on the actual vehicle speed display unit 36 while the stored vehicle speed
`continues to be displayed as is on the stored vehicle speed display unit 37.”
`Id. (emphasis added). Thus, between time t12 and time t13, stored vehicle
`speed display unit 37 continues to display the preset speed of 70 km/hr as
`stored in the vehicle speed storage part. Id. at 6–7.
`Patent Owner contends neither Petitioner nor Mr. Crawford addresses
`the limitation of, upon braking the vehicle, “keeping data corresponding to
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`the preset speed in a memory device.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Pet. 27). We are
`not persuaded. The Petition cites Narita’s page 6 for this limitation. Pet. 27;
`Pet. Reply 6–7. As just discussed, Narita therein discloses that when the
`brakes are operated, unit 37 continues to display the stored vehicle speed.
`Ex. 1004, 6, Fig. 6. As explained by Mr. Crawford, that display corresponds
`to the speed stored in the vehicle speed storage part, that is, Narita’s
`memory. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 25, 30.
`Claim 19 depends from claim 18, and specifies “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.” We are persuaded Narita discloses that limitation. Pet. 18, 27. In
`particular, as shown in Figure 6 of Narita, the “set indicator in meter” is
`“on” while cruise control is working to maintain the preset speed (before
`time t12 and after time t13), but is turned “off” when the brakes are applied to
`suspend cruise control (between times t12 and time t13). Ex. 1004, 6–7,
`Fig. 6.
`Patent Owner objects that Narita does not discuss what the “set
`indicator in meter” of Figure 6 is, or how it functions. PO Resp. 10–11.
`This contention is not persuasive. As set forth by Petitioner and
`Mr. Crawford, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the set
`indicator of Figure 6 to be the cruise lamp described elsewhere in Narita.
`Pet. 18, 27; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 31–32; Pet. Reply 8; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 7–9. And,
`Figure 6 provides an exemplary illustration of how the set indicator cruise
`lamp functions.
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`We are persuaded, further, as an alternative to the set indicator, that
`the preset speed symbol is “distinguishable,” as recited in claim 19, based on
`the operation of actual speed display unit 36 and stored speed display
`unit 37. Pet. 27; Pet. Reply 7–8. In particular, before braking, the readouts
`of both display units 36 and 37 will be substantially the same; and after
`braking, the readout of display unit 36 will decrease with the vehicle speed,
`while the readout of display unit 37 will remain the same. Pet. Reply 7–8.
`Patent Owner contends stored speed display unit 37—the “symbol
`indicative of the preset speed” in claim 19—does not change upon braking,
`so it is not “distinguishable” as claimed. PO Resp. 10–11. This contention
`is not persuasive, because it misconstrues the scope of claim 19. All that
`claim 19 requires in this regard is that the symbol indicative of the preset
`speed is distinguishable; the claim does not specify that the symbol itself
`changes in order to be distinguishable.
`For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
`claims 18 and 19 are unpatentable as anticipated by Narita.
`
`Claim 21
`6.
`Claim 21, similarly to claim 12, recites a method for indicating, to a
`vehicle operator, a preset speed for which a cruise control system is set,
`including engaging the system and setting the preset speed, displaying a
`symbol indicative of the preset speed, maintaining the display, and
`discontinuing the display after the system is deactivated or a new preset
`speed is selected. We are persuaded Narita discloses these claim limitations
`for the reasons provided above. See supra Part II.B.3; Pet. 28. For those
`same reasons, Patent Owner’s argument that Narita fails to disclose the
`“discontinuing display” step of claim 21 is not persuasive. PO Resp. 11.
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00281
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Claim 21 additionally recites “after the cruise control system is
`deactivated, displaying a symbol indicative of an unset state of the preset
`speed.” We are persuaded Narita discloses this limitation. Pet. 17, 28;
`Ex. 1011 ¶ 33. In particular, Narita states: “When the system is canceled
`due to movement by the failsafe 10 for some reason during constant speed
`travel . . . display on the stored vehicle speed display unit 37 is
`canceled . . . .” Ex. 1004, 7, Fig. 7. As shown in Figure 7, upon the
`cancellation, unit 37 displays a dashed line rather than a stored preset speed,
`to indicate an unset state of the preset speed. Id. at Fig. 7.
`For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
`claim 21 is unpatentable as anticipated by Narita.
`
`Claim 25
`7.
`Claim 25, similarly to claim 12, 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, and displaying a symbol indicative of the
`preset speed. We are persuaded Narita discloses these claim limitations for
`the reasons provided above. See supra Part II.B.3; Pet. 29.
`Claim 25 additionally recites “accelerating the vehicle to a speed
`above the preset speed” and “maintaining the display of the symbol
`indicative of the preset speed while the vehicle is at the speed above the
`preset speed.” We are persuaded Narita discloses these requirements,
`between times t2 and t3 in Figure 5, when stored vehicle

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket