`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Legal Standards .............................................................................................. 1
`II.
`III. Overview of Patent ......................................................................................... 3
`IV. Anticipation of Claims 13, 18, 25, 26, and 27 by Yoshimitsu ....................... 3
`A.
`Common Cruise Control Limitations ................................................... 3
`1.
`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 (Claim 18) And Automatically
`Maintaining Vehicle At Preset Speed And Memory
`(Claim 26) .................................................................................. 3
`Accelerating The Vehicle To A Speed Above The Preset
`Speed (Claim 25) ....................................................................... 5
`B. Display Limitations .............................................................................. 6
`1.
`Displaying To The Operator A Symbol Indicative Of The
`Preset Speed (Claims 13 And 25) And Displaying To The
`Operator A Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed
`(Claim 18) And Second Display (Claim 26) ............................. 6
`Discontinuing Display Of The Symbol Indicative Of The
`Preset Speed When The Cruise Control System Is
`Deactivated Or A New Preset Speed Is Selected (Claim
`13) .............................................................................................. 7
`Display Apparatus Includes Information Reflecting
`Whether The Speed Controller Is Operating To Maintain
`The Vehicle Speed At The Cruising Speed . . . (Claim
`27) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`V. Anticipation of Claims 12 and 13 by Yagihashi ............................................ 8
`A. Multiple Embodiments Anticipate ....................................................... 8
`B. Maintaining The Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol Upon
`Temporary Acceleration Or Deceleration Of The Vehicle
`(Claim 12) ............................................................................................. 9
`C. Maintaining The Display Of The Symbol Indicative Of The
`Preset Speed (Claim 13) ..................................................................... 10
`VI. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 34-36 By Yoshimitsu
`in View of the 300zx Manual ....................................................................... 11
`A. Motivation To Combine ..................................................................... 11
`B. A Feedback System For Communicating Said Information In
`Said Memory To The Operator Of The Vehicle (Claim 1) And
`Displaying A Symbol Indicative . . . (Claim 12) ............................... 12
`C. 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
`(Claim 2) And Maintaining The Activated Cruise Control
`Speed Symbol Upon Temporary Acceleration Or Deceleration
`Of The Vehicle (Claim 12) And Wherein . . . (Claim 34) ................. 12
`D. Maintaining The Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol Upon
`Temporary Acceleration Or Deceleration Of The Vehicle
`(Claim 12) ........................................................................................... 12
`Removing Said Symbol When The Cruise Control System Is
`Deactivated Or A New Cruising Speed Is Selected (Claim 12) ........ 12
`After Activating The Cruise Control System, But Before
`Setting The Preset Speed, Indicating To The Operator The
`Unset Status Of The Preset Speed (Claim 15) ................................... 13
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`VII. Obviousness of Claims 19 and 20 by Yoshimitsu in View of
`Nagashima .................................................................................................... 13
`VIII. Obviousness of Claims 1-5, 14, 26-28, and 34-36 by Yagihashi In
`View of the APA and/or Yoshimitsu ............................................................ 14
`A.
`Common Cruise Control And Speedometer Limitations ................... 14
`1.
`An Enable Switch (Claims 1 And 2) ....................................... 14
`B. Display Limitations ............................................................................ 15
`1.
`The Digital Display Displays A Predetermined Signal
`When The Controller Is Initially Enabled To Indicate The
`State Of The Controller (Claim 4) And Second Visual
`Display . . . (Claims 26 And 34) .............................................. 15
`IX. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 15
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The claims challenged in this inter partes review (1-5, 12-15, 18-20, 25-28,
`
`and 34-36 of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463 (the “’463 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)) are invalid
`
`as anticipated or rendered obvious over Yagihashi (Ex. 1005), Yoshimitsu (Ex.
`
`1007), 300zx Manual (Ex. 1008), Nagashima (Ex. 1010), and/or the admitted prior
`
`art (“APA”). A number of Patent Owner’s arguments focus on common cruise
`
`control and speedometer limitations (e.g., switches to power the system on;
`
`deviations from set speed during cruise; and canceling speed control when the
`
`brake is depressed). Those arguments can be quickly dispensed with because the
`
`’431 patent and cited references describe them as well-known, assumed
`
`background prior art. Patent Owner’s arguments as to the display limitations are
`
`tortured readings of phrases taken out of context from the references that likewise
`
`fail in the face of disclosures cited in the Petition and the lack of evidence rebutting
`
`Mr. McNamara’s Declaration (Ex. 2012).
`
`II. Legal Standards
`The Federal Circuit has “stated numerous times” that “to demonstrate
`
`anticipation, the proponent must show that ‘the four corners of a single, prior art
`
`document describe every element of the claimed invention.’” Net MoneyIN v.
`
`VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). In Net
`
`MoneyIN, the court clarified that the prior art must include “the presence in a
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the
`
`claim.” 545 F.3d at 1371. But Net MoneyIN does not mandate that a court—or the
`
`Board—put on blinders, ignore the context of the prior art disclosure, and be
`
`“constrained to proceed example-by-example when reviewing an allegedly
`
`anticipating reference. Rather, the court must, while looking at the reference as a
`
`whole, conclude whether or not that reference discloses all elements of the claimed
`
`invention arranged as in the claim.” Id. at 1369 n.5. Net MoneyIN’s holding that
`
`the claimed arrangement can be disclosed in the reference as a whole, singularly
`
`defeats Patent Owner’s assertion that disclosures not contained within a single
`
`embodiment can never anticipate. Instead, it is settled law that a reference as a
`
`whole can disclose the elements arranged as in the claim, and “it is proper to take
`
`into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
`
`which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom”
`
`when analyzing the prior art. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
`
`Net MoneyIN instead merely prohibits combinations that require post-hoc
`
`determinations; i.e., “picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not
`
`directly related to each other . . . .” Id. at 1371 (citing In re Arkley,455 F.2d 586,
`
`587 (1972)). This occurs, for example, when two embodiments are mutually
`
`exclusive, EMC Corp. & VMware, Inc., IPR2013-00082, Paper 83 (May 15, 2014),
`
`which is not the case here.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`III. Overview of Patent
`The ’463 patent is drawn to a cruise control display, not a “conventional
`
`cruise control system” containing at least twelve elements the ’463 patent expressly
`
`admits are background prior art. (Pet. 11–12.) The inventor makes this clear:
`
`Applicant’s inventive system and every system and method claim in
`
`the pending application, on the contrary, are directed only to the
`
`specific problem of providing preset cruise control speed
`
`information to the driver of a vehicle. . . . . The pending claims only
`
`address the display of the speed of the vehicle as it was when the
`
`cruise control was set as a constant indicator/reminder to the driver of
`
`the speed to which the vehicle will resume after the cruise control
`
`speed is temporarily overridden . . . .
`
`(Ex. 1003, AMH00374 (emphasis added).)
`
`IV. Anticipation of Claims 13, 18, 25, 26, and 27 by Yoshimitsu
`A. Common Cruise Control Limitations
`1.
`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 (Claim 18) and Automatically Maintaining
`Vehicle at Preset Speed and Memory (Claim 26)
`
`Patent Owner does not contest that “Braking The Vehicle,” “Preset Speed in
`
`a Memory,” or automatically maintaining the vehicle at a preset speed existed in
`
`the prior art. (Resp. 7-8.) He cites Net MoneyIN to argue that the Petition
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`improperly combines the “prior art” with “other embodiments.” (Id. 7-10.) Those
`
`arguments fail because the prior art cruise control systems are the embodiments
`
`disclosed. Yoshimitsu acknowledges explicitly that “[t]his invention pertains to a
`
`cruise control unit, especially relating to the improvement of display device of the
`
`cruise control unit of a vehicle.” (Ex. 1007, AMH00571; Ex. 1012, ¶ 45.) The
`
`inventor of the ’463 patent agreed, explaining in detail known cruise control
`
`systems and simply adding a display. See section III. Not only are the displays
`
`disclosed in Yoshimitsu and the ’463 patent not mutually exclusive of the prior art
`
`cruise control systems, but absent the displays themselves, the systems are
`
`mutually inclusive; e.g., the control systems were the same. Patent Owner has not
`
`identified any disclosure indicating to the contrary.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Yoshimitsu does not “expressly disclose”
`
`braking (Resp. 8 (citing Pet. 21)), which is completely false (Pet. 21 (“temporarily
`
`released in the case of speed reduction by brake operation)). Further, Patent Owner
`
`does not contest that Yoshimitsu discloses a memory on page AMH00577 (as well
`
`as AMH00571 and 575) but asserts that “an amendment deleted the quoted
`
`section” addressing memory. (Resp. 11-12.) The effect of the instruction to delete
`
`the quoted portion is irrelevant; it does not change that the disclosure exists,
`
`publicly, and is part of the prior art. (Pet. 11, APA (5); see section IV.B.2 (cancel
`
`operation of the memory relating to Figs 1-3).)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`Accelerating the Vehicle to a Speed Above the Preset Speed
`(Claim 25)
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s entire argument relating to this limitation relies on the word
`
`“higher” in Yoshimitsu and whether it refers to speed relative to preset speed, or to
`
`the spatial relationship of the two displays. (Resp. 9.) Yoshimitsu however,
`
`expressly states that “the actual vehicle speed is higher tha[n] the set vehicle
`
`speed.” (Pet. 22, citing Ex. 1007, AMH00574 (emphasis added).) By contrast,
`
`where Yoshimitsu discusses a display, it uses the term “display” or “displayed.”
`
`(Id.) Further, the context of the cited disclosure is inescapable. The quoted
`
`paragraph explains how the driver can distinguish the preset speed indicators (e.g.,
`
`32b in Fig. 3) from the actual speed indicators (e.g., 32a in Fig. 3) when actual
`
`vehicle speed is higher than the set speed, such that the elements 32a will be lit,
`
`from left to right, up to and past element 32b (i.e. “overlapped with one light
`
`emitting means”). (Ex. 1007, AMH00574) In such an instance, when the actual
`
`speed is higher than preset speed, 32b will blink so as to differentiate it from the
`
`other lit 32a elements. On the other hand, when the actual speed is lower than
`
`preset speed, blinking is not necessary, because there are unlit elements in between
`
`the actual speed and preset speed elements that distinguish the two. See empty
`
`boxes in between in Figure 3. Moreover, Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation is
`
`nonsensical. If “higher” meant a spatial relationship, then the arrangement of
`
`displays—set prior to production by designers of the car—would control whether
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`or not the “set vehicle speed is displayed blinking.” (Id.) He also cites no evidence
`
`contradicting Mr. McNamara’s Declaration regarding acceleration. (Pet. 22 (citing
`
`Ex. 1012, ¶ 48).)
`
`B. Display Limitations
`1.
`Displaying to the Operator a Symbol Indicative of the
`Preset Speed (Claims 13 and 25) and Displaying to the
`Operator a Symbol Indicative of the Preset Speed (Claim
`18) and Second Display (Claim 26)
`Patent Owner admits that Yoshimitsu “indicat[es] that in the vicinity of 80
`
`
`
`km/h is the set vehicle speed.” (Resp. 5 (emphasis altered).) Patent Owner argues,
`
`however, that because Yoshimitsu discloses an indicator that corresponds “to
`
`multiple speed values,” “the operator of the vehicle is not provided with any
`
`information about the actual preset speed” (Resp. 5 (emphasis altered), 7-8, 12.)
`
`But Yoshimitsu actually uses the word “indicating,” and Patent Owner’s assertion
`
`is unsupported attorney argument based upon limitations (e.g., “information” and
`
`“actual”) not recited in the claims.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s argument also fails because he has not provided a
`
`construction requiring any specific type of information or level of precision, nor
`
`has he contested the Board’s application of plain and ordinary meaning to this
`
`limitation. (Paper 13, p. 10.) Nor could he. Patent Owner’s interpretation, which
`
`requires a display of the “actual speed” to 100% precision, eliminates every
`
`embodiment disclosed in the specification. For instance, Figure 1 of the patent
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`shows aa round nuumber of
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPPR 2014-000289
`
`UU.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,3244,463
`e.g.,
`
`
`ed values; ltiple speecorresponnds to mul
`
`
`
`65, which
`
`
`
`anywheere betweenn 64.51 to 65.49. (Exx. 1001, Figg. 1.) Figuure 2 is alsoo imprecisee:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. Fig. 2 (excerppted).) Fuurther, Pattent Ownner fails
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to offer
`
`
`
`any eviddence
`
`
`
`rebuttinng Mr. MccNamara’ss Declaratiion, whichh unequivoocally stattes that ““32b
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shows aa first symbbol indicattive of the ffirst presett speed.” (EEx. 1012, ¶¶ 84).
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Discontinuing Display of th
`e Symbol
`
`
`Indicativee of the Prreset
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Speed WWhen the CCruise Conntrol Systeem Is Deaactivated oor a
`
`
`
`New Preeset Speed Is Selecteed (Claim
`13)
`
`
`
`
`
`PPatent Ownner does noot specifically contesst that the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`symbol inndicative o
`
`f the
`
`
`
`preset sspeed is chhanged wheen a new ppreset speeed is selectted—in adddition to wwhen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`50-51.)
`
`
`
`the cruise control system is ddeactivatedd. (See Ex.. 1012, ¶¶
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Innstead, Pattent Ownerr flatly conntends thatt “Yoshimiitsu does nnot providee any
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`explanaation of ‘thhe resettingg manipulaation of thee cruise conntrol displaay device’
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` or a
`
`‘cancel
`
`operation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the memmory.’” (RResp. 6.) Buut Yoshimmitsu clearlly explainss that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“the driver performms setting g manipulaation” at thhe desired
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`McNammara testifiied, and logic confiirms, that
`
`
`
`
`
`speed. (AMMH00575)) Mr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`when a ddriver re-ssets the crruise
`
`control
`
`
`
`at a diffeerent preseet speed, tthe previoous symbool is discoontinued annd a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`symbol indicative of the new preset speed begins. (Ex. 1012, ¶ 51.) As to the
`
`cancel operation, Patent Owner notably fails to explain what the term “cancel”
`
`refers to if not the display of the preset speed. Patent Owner also completely
`
`ignores that Yoshimitsu, by reference to Figures 2 and 3, discloses that a “forming
`
`circuit (13)” uses “waveform (f)” (shown in Figure 2 to be a steady lit state) to
`
`“sustain[] the display of the set vehicle speed” and that “[t]his sustained state
`
`finishes by the reset signal provided to the signal forming circuity by the resetting
`
`manipulation of the cruise control display device or cancel operation of the
`
`memory.” (Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1007, p. 7, l. 36 - p. 8, 1. 3) (emphasis altered).)
`
`3.
`
`Display Apparatus Includes Information Reflecting
`Whether the Speed Controller is Operating to Maintain the
`Vehicle Speed at the Cruising Speed . . . (Claim 27)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner is both wrong and offers no evidence supporting his assertion
`
`that a vehicle will never deviate at all from the preset speed while under cruise
`
`control. (Resp. 13.) But, even assuming he is right, he admits the blinking display
`
`indicates whether the speed controller is maintaining speed, because, in his
`
`hypothetical, the blinking indicates the cruise controller is not maintaining speed.
`
`V. Anticipation of Claims 12 and 13 by Yagihashi
`A. Multiple Embodiments Anticipate
`Patent Owner again argues that the Petition improperly combines disclosure
`
`
`
`from different embodiments in Yagihashi. (Resp. 13-14.) Patent Owner admits that
`
`the separate embodiments in Yagihashi are “‘similar’ or ‘nearly similar’” but
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`argues that this “clearly indicates there are differences.” (Resp. 14.) That argument
`
`is generalized and undeveloped, and Patent Owner points to no specific differences
`
`and fails to explain how or why the embodiments are exclusive of one another in
`
`any particular respect.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument also fails substantively. He points to disclosures
`
`citing to the “First Embodiment (Figures 1-3),” the “Third Embodiment (Figures 6-
`
`7)”, and the “Eleventh Embodiment (Figure 22)” (Resp. 13.) But the Petition cites
`
`to paragraphs [0060]-[0063] in support of every limitation of claim 12, and does
`
`not need to rely on any such combination of embodiments to invalidate the claim.
`
`(Pet. 45-48.) Moreover, Yagihashi states that the first and third embodiments can
`
`be combined; that combination is the eleventh embodiment: “Then, this Fig. 22 is
`
`to combine and block the First Embodiment, the Third Embodiment to the Seventh
`
`Embodiment, The Ninth Embodiment, and the Tenth Embodiment.” (Ex. 1005,
`
`AMH00526, ¶ 107.)
`
`B. Maintaining the Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol Upon
`Temporary Acceleration or Deceleration of the Vehicle (Claim 12)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that “the Petition does not reference the second digital
`
`display part 57” in discussing the symbol that is maintained. That is wrong. The
`
`Petition cites to paragraphs 73-75 (Pet. 47) of Mr. McNamara’s Declaration:
`
`Yagihashi teaches that the “visual recognition information,” such as
`the first light-emitting indicator D1, the second light-emitting
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`indicator D2, and the preset speed in digital display part 57, is
`“always required” since “it is necessary for a driver to accurately
`recognize what kind of situation [the vehicle] is in.” Id. at ¶ 0045.
`
`(Ex. 1012, ¶ 75.) Patent Owner offers no evidence to rebut that both the D1-D2
`
`indicators and the display part 57 are maintained. Patent owner concludes by
`
`asserting that ¶ 0045 shows the cruise control system “reduces the set speed while
`
`the vehicle is decelerating.” (Resp. 15.) But ¶ 0045 does not describe the set speed
`
`(or to the display part 57); it describes the manner in which parts P1 and P2 cause
`
`indicator 3 to be lit. (Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 0041, 0042, 0045.)
`
`
`
`C. Maintaining the Display of the Symbol Indicative of the Preset
`Speed (Claim 13)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that this Ground fails because the word “preamble”
`
`appears in the citations to claim 12b, c, d, and e. (Resp. 16.) Even if there were
`
`ambiguity regarding the word “preamble,” the limitation-by-limitation citations are
`
`unequivocal (Pet. 48), and each line up with similar claim language in claim 12
`
`(Pet. 45-47). In any event, Patent Owner’s only substantive argument addresses D1
`
`and D2, essentially admitting that the display 57 satisfies the claim limitation.
`
`Patent Owner also refers back to arguments made “with regard to claim 12” (Resp.
`
`16), which fail for the same reasons discussed in sections V.A and V.B.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`VI. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 34-36 by Yoshimitsu in
`View of the 300zx Manual
`A. Motivation to Combine
`The Petition clearly states that the primary purpose of combining the 300zx
`
`
`
`Manual with Yoshimitsu is that the manual expressly discloses turning on the
`
`cruise control system. (Pet. 25.) Very little, if any, motivation to combine is needed
`
`because an enable switch was a part of every cruise control system, which the ’463
`
`patent admits. (Pet. 11 (citing APA (1)-(2)).) Patent Owner’s first argument, that
`
`the Petition cites to “prior art” in Yoshimitsu (Resp. 17), fails because he does not
`
`explain any way that the “conventional” system described by Yoshimitsu (Ex.
`
`1007, AMH00571) is mutually exclusive of an embodiment with a set speed
`
`display. To the contrary, Yoshimitsu describes adding a set speed display to the
`
`conventional cruise control system. (Id. AMH00572.) Petitioner’s second argument
`
`relies upon the same faulty premise (Resp. 18) and thus fails to contest that both
`
`references describe the same or very similar systems, which is clear from even a
`
`cursory review of the disclosed preset speed displays:
`
`Yoshimitsu
`(Ex. 1007, AMH00579)
`
`300zx Manual
`(Ex. 1008, AMH00645)
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`(Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1012, ¶ 53); See also discussion in section V.A.)
`
`
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner’s citation to the Figure 6 embodiment fails for the
`
`same reasons discussed in section IV.A.1 (final paragraph).
`
`B. A Feedback System for Communicating Said Information in Said
`Memory to the Operator of the Vehicle (Claim 1) and Displaying
`a Symbol Indicative . . . (Claim 12)
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments (Resp. 19, 21) repeat those addressed, and fail for
`
`the same reasons discussed, in section IV.B.1, which apply equally to the
`
`disclosure in the 300zx Manual.
`
`C. 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 (Claim
`2) and Maintaining the Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol
`Upon Temporary Acceleration or Deceleration of the Vehicle
`(Claim 12) and Wherein . . . (Claim 34)
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments (Resp. 20, 22, 25) repeat those addressed, and fail
`
`for the same reasons discussed, in sections IV.B.1 and IV.B.2.
`
`D. Maintaining the Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol Upon
`Temporary Acceleration or Deceleration of the Vehicle (Claim 12)
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments (Resp. 22-23) repeats those addressed, and fail
`
`for the same reasons discussed, in sections IV.A.1 and IV.A.2.
`
`E. Removing Said Symbol When the Cruise Control System Is
`Deactivated or a New Cruising Speed Is Selected (Claim 12)
`
`Patent Owner’s argument (Resp. 23) repeats the argument addressed, and
`
`fails for the same reasons discussed, in section IV.B.2.
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`F. After Activating the Cruise Control System, but Before Setting
`the Preset Speed, Indicating to the Operator the Unset Status of
`the Preset Speed (Claim 15)
`
`Patent Owner argues that an unlit blue light cannot indicate the unset status
`
`of the preset speed. (Resp. 24.) He offers no evidence supporting this attorney
`
`argument; nor does he offer a construction of these limitations or challenge any of
`
`the Board’s constructions. Patent Owner instead likens an unlit blue light to the
`
`“the climate control system or the vehicle radio or the windshield . . . .” (Id.) These
`
`examples fail because, as Patent Owner admits, “they have nothing to do with the
`
`cruise control system.” (Id.) As Mr. McNamara confirms, the exact opposite is true
`
`of the blue light; which is not only directly related to the cruise control system, but
`
`to providing an indication of whether the preset speed is set (Pet. 35 (citing Ex.
`
`1012, ¶ 57)), and Patent Owner provides no evidence in rebuttal.
`
`VII. Obviousness of Claims 19 and 20 by Yoshimitsu in View of Nagashima
`Patent Owner addresses the “Yoshimitsu and the 300zx Manual” (Resp. 25-
`
`26 (citing Pet. 38)), but appears actually to be challenging Yoshimitsu in View of
`
`Nagashima (beginning on Pet. 39). Patent Owner’s arguments (Resp. 26) regarding
`
`Yoshimitsu’s and Nagashima’s disclosures of a “symbol indicative of the preset
`
`speed” repeat the same rationale, and fail for the same reasons discussed, in section
`
`IV.B.1. Patent Owner further asserts that there is no symbol indicative of the preset
`
`speed because, according to him, “all of the indicators 31 (plural) blink . . . .”
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`(Resp. 26.) Patent Owner addresses only the disclosure in Ex. 1010, ¶ 0024 but
`
`ignores the disclosures in, for example, Figs. 3 and 4 (Pet. 43.) He is also wrong
`
`insofar as ¶ 0024 is concerned. In discussing the process flow directly leading up to
`
`the “indicators (31) blink[ing],” Nagashima explains that, based upon preset speed
`
`stored in RAM, the number of “indicators (31) . . . corresponding to the speed
`
`data are lit (Step S4).” (Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 0020 (emphasis added), 0024.) Nagashima’s
`
`system does not consult the RAM again at any time between the steps in ¶ 0020
`
`and the steps in ¶ 0024. Further, if there were any doubt, Nagashima expressly
`
`states that a user can compare the difference between preset speed with the actual
`
`speed by comparing the actual speed to “the display of the setting speed by the
`
`blinking indicators (31) of the setting speed display readout.” (Id. ¶ 0029.) Thus,
`
`not all indicators (31) blink, but only those corresponding to the preset speed.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner does not challenge the claim 20 ground, which thereby rises
`
`and falls with claim 19.
`
`VIII. Obviousness of Claims 1-5, 14, 26-28, and 34-36 by Yagihashi in View of
`the APA and/or Yoshimitsu
`A. Common Cruise Control and Speedometer Limitations
`1.
`An Enable Switch (Claims 1 and 2)
`Patent Owner challenges “Yagihashi and Yoshimitsu” (Resp. 27-30 (citing
`
`Pet. 48)), but does not challenge any of the APA disclosures (Pet. 48-60.) The
`
`enable switch is indeed disclosed in APA (1)-(2). (Pet. 11)
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPPR 2014-000289
`
`UU.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,3244,463
`
`
`
`BB. Displlay Limitaations
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`The Digiital Displaay Displayys a Predettermined
`
`Signal Whhen
`
`
`Indicate tthe State oof
`
`
`the Conttroller Is IInitially E
`nabled to
`d Second
`
`
`the Conttroller (Cllaim 4) an
`Visual Di
`splay . . .
`
`
`(Claims 26 and 344)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PPatent Ownner admitss that emittting partss D1 and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`predeterrmined siggnal by bliinking, butt confuseddly argues
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`display
`
`part 57’
`
`does not
`
`
`
`display aa predetermmined signnal.” (Ressp. 28.) Paatent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Owner
`
`fails to ex
`plain how
`
`
`
`D1 and DD2 are not
`
`
`
`part of thee digital diisplay; norr has
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D2 displaay the claiimed
`
`
`
`
`
`that the “‘‘second diigital
`
`
`
`
`
`he offerred—let allone suppoorted—a coonstructionn that exclludes D1 aand D2, wwhich
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`are, insttead, unqueestionably part of thee display:
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 10005, Fig. 6 ((excerptedd).)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX. CConclusionn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Itt is requestted that thhe Board fiind the chaallenged cllaims invaalid as set fforth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`above aand in the PPetition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certify that a copy of the attached PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE in connection with the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463 and supporting materials were sent via
`
`e-mail on January 9, 2015, to the following:
`
`John R. Kasha (Reg. No. 53,100)
`KASHA LAW LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Rd.
`North Potomac MD 20878
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Paul R. Steadman
`Reg. No. 43,932
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 9, 2015
`/s/ Matthew D. Satchwell
`Reg. No. 58,870
`DLA Piper LLP (US)