UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`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
`
`
`
`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)
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
