`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