Paper No. 42
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: June 29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., FORD MOTOR
`COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH
`AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: June 29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., FORD MOTOR
`COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH
`AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al. (collectively, “Petitioner”)
`filed a corrected Petition (Paper 8, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an inter
`partes review of claims 1–5, 12–15, 18–20, 25–28, and 34–36 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,324,463 B1 (Ex. 1001, the “’463 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a preliminary
`response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Based on these submissions, we
`instituted trial as to claims 1–5, 12–15, 18–20, 25–28, and 34–36 of the ’463
`patent. Paper 13 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s Response
`(Paper 21, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 29, “Reply”). In
`addition, Petitioner proffered the Declaration of David A. McNamara (Ex.
`1012, “McNamara Declaration” or “McNamara Decl.”) with the Petition.
`Patent Owner does not rely on any expert declaration, and no deposition
`transcript was filed for Mr. McNamara.
`An oral hearing in this proceeding was held on March 24, 2015, and a
`transcript of the hearing is included in the record (Paper 41, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5, 12–15, 18–20, 25–28, and
`34–36 of the ’463 patent are unpatentable.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`A. The ’463 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’463 patent discloses cruise control systems for use in a human
`operated vehicle. See 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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`at 4:51–57. The LED of that assembly is then activated and remains lit to
`indicate the speed at which cruise control was engaged. Id. at 4:57–64.
`B. Illustrative Claim
`The ’463 patent has 36 claims, of which claims 1–5, 12–15, 18–20,
`25–28, and 34–36 are being challenged. Of the challenged claims, claims 1,
`2, 12, 13, 18, 25, 26, and 34 are independent. Claims 1, 2, and 26 are system
`claims, and claims 12, 13, 18, 25, and 34 are method claims. Claim 1 is
`reproduced below.
`1. A cruise control system for 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;
`stores
`a memory which
`indicative of said preset speed; and
`a feedback system for communicating said
`information in said memory to the operator of the
`vehicle.
`
`information
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`The Petition relies upon the following prior art references:
`JP H9-50582 (“Yagihashi”)
`Feb. 18, 1997
`Ex. 1004
`(translation, Ex. 1005)1
`
`
`
`
`1 The Petition cites to certified translations of Yoshimitsu (Ex. 1007),
`Nagashima (Ex. 1010), and Yagihashi (Ex. 1005). Pet. 10 n.1. Our decision
`also cites to those translations and exhibit page numbers.
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`JP S60-161226
`(“Yoshimitsu”)
`(translation, Ex. 1007)
`
`1984 Nissan 300zx Owner’s
`Manual (“300zx Manual”)
`
`JP H4-102059
`(“Nagashima”)
`(translation, Ex. 1010)
`
`
`Aug. 22, 1985
`
`1983
`
`Sept. 3, 1992
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted the instant inter partes review on the following grounds
`of unpatentability.
`Reference[s]
`Yoshimitsu
`Yagihashi
`Yoshimitsu and 300zx Manual
`
`Claims challenged
`Basis
`§102(b) 13, 18, and 25–27
`§102(b) 12 and 13
`§103(a) 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 27, and
`34–36
`§103(a) 19 and 20
`§103(a) 1–5, 14, 26–28, and 34–
`36
`
`Yoshimitsu and Nagashima
`Yagihashi and Yoshimitsu
`
`II.
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired 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); In re Cuozzo Speed
`Tech., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1279–83 (Fed. Cir. 2015). There is a “heavy
`presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002);
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`A. Previously Interpreted Terms
`In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted various claim terms of
`the ’463 patent as follows:
`Term
`“engaging the system”
`
`Interpretation
`“operating the cruise control system
`to automatically control the vehicle at
`the preset speed”
`“a ‘system on’ state for the cruise
`control system”
`“a ‘system on’ state for the cruise
`control system”
`“a state or status in which there is no
`preset speed for the cruise control
`system”
`“turning on the cruise control system”
`
`“enabling”
`
`“enabled”
`
`“indicating to the operator the unset
`status of the preset speed”
`
`“activating the cruise control
`system”
`“deactivated”
`
`“the cruise control system is turned
`off”
`
`
`See Dec. on Inst. 5–10.
`The parties do not dispute these interpretations in their papers. We do
`not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from
`these interpretations. Accordingly, we incorporate our previous analysis of
`the terms above. See id.
`
`III. ASSERTED GROUNDS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102
`To prevail in its challenges to claims 13, 18, and 25–27 as anticipated
`by Yoshimitsu and claims 12 and 13 as anticipated by Yagihashi, Petitioner
`must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35
`U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`In finding a claim anticipated, “[t]he identical invention must be
`shown in as complete detail as is contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v.
`Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Moreover, “[a]
`claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
`found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
`reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
`(Fed. Cir. 1987). A finding of inherency “requires that the missing
`descriptive material is ‘necessarily present,’ not merely probably or possibly
`present” in the anticipating reference. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-USA
`Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Robertson, 169
`F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`A. Anticipation by Yoshimitsu
`1. Yoshimitsu (Ex. 1007)
`
`Yoshimitsu discloses a display device for a cruise control unit
`characterized by having a first display section which displays travel speed
`and a second display section which displays constant travel speed set by a
`setting manipulation. Ex. 1007, 569, 571.2
`Figure 3 of Yoshimitsu is reproduced below:
`
`
`2 Our decision cites the exhibit page numbers provided in the lower, left-
`hand corner of the pages of Exhibit 1007.
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 shows one example of a display surface. Ex. 1007, 575, 577.
`Display surface 30 has first display section 31 that displays travel speed and
`second display section 32 with display elements 32a that display the constant
`travel speed set. Id. at 575. In the figure, radiator 32b corresponds to the set
`vehicle speed. Id. For example, if the driver sets the cruise control to 80
`km/h, radiator 32b corresponding to 80 km/h flashes to indicate the set speed
`to the driver. Id. After a fixed amount of time, radiator 32b stops flashing
`and emits light steadily until reset or canceled. Id. Thus, Yoshimitsu
`provides the set speed near an actual speed display, and the flashing
`heightens driver attention. Id. at 572–573.
`2. Independent Claim 13
`
`Claim 13 recites, with emphases added:
`13. A method for indicating to a human
`operator of a vehicle having a cruise control
`system a preset speed for which the cruise control
`system is set, the method comprising:
`setting the preset speed;
`displaying
`to
`the operator a symbol
`indicative of the preset speed;
`maintaining
`the display of
`indicative of the preset speed; and
`
`the symbol
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`symbol
`the
`discontinuing display of
`indicative of the preset when the cruise control
`system is deactivated or a new preset speed is
`selected.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:39–50. Petitioner argues that Yoshimitsu discloses all the
`limitations of claim 13. Pet. 15–18 (citing Ex. 1007, 571, 573–577, Fig. 3,
`claims 1, 2). In particular, Petitioner cites claim 1 of Yoshimitsu for
`“displaying to the operator a symbol indicative of the preset speed” (“the
`displaying step”). Id. at 17 (quoting Ex. 1007 claim 1, citing id. at 571, 575,
`574, 575, 577, Fig. 3, claim 2). Petitioner also argues that Yoshimitsu
`discloses “discontinuing display of the symbol indicative of the preset
`[speed] when the cruise control system is deactivated or a new preset speed
`is selected” (“the discontinuing display step”), because Yoshimitsu describes
`“by the output signal (e) of circuit (3), radiator (32b) sustains lighting, thus
`sustaining the display of the set vehicle speed” and the “sustained state
`finishes by the reset signal provided to the sustained signal forming circuit
`(13) by the resetting manipulation of the cruise control display device or
`cancel operation of the memory.” Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1007, 575–76)
`(emphasis omitted).
`For the displaying step, Patent Owner responds that “each display
`element 32a appears to correspond to multiple speed values” and “the
`operator of the vehicle is not provided with any information about the actual
`preset speed (this even presumes that each display element 32a represents a
`5 km/h range of values, but this is nowhere discussed or suggested in
`Yoshimitsu).” PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 1007, 569, 575, Fig. 3); Tr. 19:3–20:8,
`21:8–22:4.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Petitioner replies that Patent Owner does not provide “a construction
`requiring any specific type of information or level of precision” and does not
`contest the application of the plain and ordinary meaning. Reply 6.
`Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s interpretation requires “100%
`precision” and “eliminates every embodiment disclosed in the specification.”
`Id. Petitioner notes that “Patent Owner fails to offer any evidence rebutting
`Mr. McNamara’s Declaration, which unequivocally states that ‘32b shows a
`first symbol indicative of the first preset speed.’” Id. at 7 (McNamara Decl.
`¶ 84).
`
`Claim 13 only requires “displaying . . . a symbol indicative of the
`preset speed.” Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuade us that a display
`element representing a 5 km/h range would fail to disclose “a symbol
`indicative of the preset speed.” Moreover, the ’463 patent states that
`“analog dial 40 . . . is provided with a bank 44 of individual light emitting
`diode (LED) assemblies . . . at every 1 mile per hour (mph) interval” but
`“[i]t is understood that other intervals may be used if desired.” Ex. 1001,
`4:21–26. Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments for the displaying step to require
`a particular precision are not persuasive.
`For the discontinuing display step, Patent Owner responds that the
`Petition cites a single statement in Yoshimitsu regarding a resetting
`manipulation or cancel operation but Yoshimitsu does not provide an
`explanation of such resetting manipulation or cancel operation. PO Resp. 5–
`6 (citing Ex. 1007 at 571). Patent Owner, thus, argues that the “vague and
`unexplained” cited portion of Yoshimitsu does not disclose the discontinuing
`display step. Id. at 6.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`As for the resetting manipulation, Petitioner replies that Yoshimitsu
`explains that a driver performs the setting manipulation and the McNamara
`Declaration testifies that “when a driver re-sets the cruise control at a
`different preset speed, the previous symbol is discontinued.” Reply 7–8
`(citing Ex. 1007, 575; McNamara Decl. ¶ 51). For the cancel operation,
`Petitioner argues Figures 2 and 3 show set vehicle speed is displayed until a
`cancel operation. Id. at 8 (citing Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1007, 575)).
`Petitioner cites a portion of Yoshimitsu that discloses “at the time of
`setting the cruise control unit, the display of the set speed flashes . . . and
`afterwards, the set speed lights constantly.” See Pet 18; Ex. 1007, 576.
`Petitioner also cites Yoshimitsu for disclosing that “sustaining the display of
`the set vehicle speed . . . finishes . . . by the resetting manipulation of the
`cruise control display device or cancel operation,” which Petitioner’s expert
`also cites to aver that a “first symbol is removed when the speed is reset.”
`See Pet. 18; Ex. 1007, 575; McNamara Decl. ¶ 51. Considering the cited
`portions of Yoshimitsu together with the McNamara Declaration, Patent
`Owner’s arguments do not persuade us that Yoshimitsu fails to explain the
`resetting manipulation or cancel operation such that Yoshimitsu fails to
`disclose the discontinuing step.
`Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we determine
`that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that, under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b), claim 13 is anticipated by Yoshimitsu.
`
`3. Independent Claim 18
`Claim 18 recites, with emphases added:
`18. A method for indicating to a human
`operator of a vehicle having a cruise control
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`system a preset speed for which the cruise control
`system is set, the method comprising:
`setting the preset speed;
`displaying
`to
`the operator a symbol
`indicative of the preset speed while maintaining
`the vehicle speed at substantially the preset speed;
`maintaining
`the display of
`the symbol
`indicative of the preset speed;
`braking the vehicle;
`upon braking the vehicle, discontinuing
`maintaining the vehicle speed at substantially the
`preset speed while keeping data corresponding to
`the preset speed in a memory device; and
`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.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:1–19. Petitioner argues that Yoshimitsu discloses all the
`limitations of claim 18. Pet. 18–21 (citing Ex. 1007, 571, 573–576, Fig. 3,
`claims 1, 2; McNamara Decl. ¶ 49). For “displaying to the operator a
`symbol indicative of the preset speed while maintaining the vehicle speed at
`substantially the preset speed” (“the displaying step”), Petitioner contends
`that Yoshimitsu discloses a “[s]etting vehicle speed display device for a
`cruise control unit characterized by being provided with a display surface
`having . . . [a] second display section . . . displaying constant travel speed set
`by the setting manipulation of the occupant.” Pet. 19–20 (quoting Ex. 1007
`claim 1, citing id. at 571, 574, 575, Fig. 3 claim 2; McNamara Decl. ¶ 49)
`(emphasis omitted). Petitioner also contends that Yoshimitsu discloses
`“braking the vehicle” because Yoshimitsu describes “the cruise control state
`is temporarily released in the case of speed reduction by brake operation
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`while in cruise control.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1007, 571) (emphasis omitted).
`As for “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” (“the discontinuing step”), Petitioner
`cites the same portion of Yoshimitsu and further argues that the limitation is
`disclosed by the description of a conventional cruise control system in which
`“when this set status was temporarily released after setting . . . though the
`memory was stored in the control circuit, no display was made at all on the
`driver seat side,” which was improved upon by Yoshimitsu to “provide the
`set vehicle speed display device for a cruise control unit which can display a
`set vehicle speed even after temporary release of cruise control and resolve a
`sense of insecurity felt by the driver.” Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1007, 571)
`(emphasis omitted).
`For the displaying step, Patent Owner states that “at least for the
`reasons explained . . . with regard to claim 13, Yoshimitsu does not
`anticipate claim 18.” PO Resp. 7. Compared to the displaying step of claim
`13, the displaying step of claim 18 further requires that the displaying occur
`“while maintaining the vehicle speed at substantially the preset speed.” The
`additional recitation in the displaying step of claim 18 does not persuade us
`to modify our determination that the displaying step of claim 13 does not
`require a particular precision for indicating the preset speed. Thus, we are
`not persuaded by the same argument for the displaying step of claim 18.
`For the braking step, Patent Owner responds that “Petitioner
`improperly relies on a combination of a discussed ‘prior art’ cruise control
`unit and other embodiments of Yoshimitsu in its allegations of anticipation.”
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`PO Resp. 7; Tr. 22:5–23:15. Petitioner replies that the Petition cited
`Yoshimitsu’s disclosure that “the cruise control state is temporarily released
`in the case of speed reduction by brake operation while in cruise control.”
`Reply 4 (citing Pet 20 (citing Ex. 1007, 571)). Petitioner also argues that
`Yoshimitsu explicitly pertains to the improvement of the display device of a
`cruise control unit. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 571).
`The portion of Yoshimitsu cited by the Petition describes the known
`cruise control unit. See Ex. 1007, 571. However, as Petitioner argues
`(Reply 4), Yoshimitsu “pertains to a cruise control unit, especially relating to
`the improvement of display device of the cruise control unit.” Id. Thus,
`Yoshimitsu expressly indicates that it improves the cruise control unit, and
`we cannot find any indication that the disclosed embodiments of Yoshimitsu
`do not include the known feature of a cruise control state being released
`temporarily by brake operation while in cruise control. Therefore, we are
`not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner improperly relies
`on a combination of prior art and described embodiments of Yoshimitsu.
`For the discontinuing step, Patent Owner similarly argues that
`Petitioner improperly relies on a combination of prior art and disclosed
`embodiments and that the cited portion of Yoshimitsu refers to “temporary
`release of cruise control,” not “braking the vehicle.” We are not persuaded
`that Petitioner relies on a combination for the reasons discussed above, and
`we are not persuaded that Yoshimitsu’s disclosure of a temporary release of
`cruise control by brake operation fails to disclose “braking the vehicle.” See
`Ex. 1007, 571.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner also argues that cited portion of Yoshimitsu refers to
`“temporary release of cruise control” and does not disclose the further
`recitation “maintaining the vehicle speed at substantially the preset speed”
`and “keeping data corresponding to the preset speed in a memory device.”
`PO Resp. 8. However, Petitioner cites portions of Yoshimitsu that disclose
`“when this set status was temporarily released after setting . . . though the
`memory was stored in the control circuit, no display was made at all on the
`driver seat side” and Yoshimitsu’s improvement “provide[s] the set vehicle
`speed display device for a cruise control unit which can display a set vehicle
`speed even after temporary release of cruise control and resolve a sense of
`insecurity felt by the driver.” See Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1007, 571). Patent
`Owner’s argument is not persuasive because it does not address all the
`portions of Yoshimitsu relied upon by Petitioner for the discontinuing step.
`Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we determine
`that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that, under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b), claim 18 is anticipated by Yoshimitsu.
`
`4. Independent Claim 25
`Claim 25 recites, with emphases added:
`25. A method for indicating to a human
`operator of a vehicle having a cruise control
`system a preset speed for which the cruise control
`system is set, the method comprising:
`setting the preset speed;
`displaying
`to
`the operator a symbol
`indicative of the preset speed;
`accelerating the vehicle to a speed above the
`preset speed; and
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`the symbol
`the display of
`maintaining
`indicative of the preset speed while the vehicle is
`at the speed above the preset speed.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:56–67. Petitioner argues that Yoshimitsu discloses all the
`limitations of claim 25. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1007 at 574; McNamara Decl.
`¶ 48). Petitioner relies on disclosures cited for “displaying to the operator a
`symbol indicative of the preset speed while maintaining the vehicle speed at
`substantially the preset speed” of claim 18 for “displaying to the operator a
`symbol indicative of the preset speed” (“the displaying step”), as recited by
`claim 25. Pet. 22. For “accelerating the vehicle to a speed above the preset
`speed” (“the accelerating step”), Petitioner contends that Yoshimitsu
`describes that “when the actual vehicle speed is higher tha[n] the set vehicle
`speed, the set vehicle speed is displayed blinking.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007,
`574; McNamara Decl. ¶ 48) (emphasis omitted).
`For the displaying step, Patent Owner states that “at least for the
`reasons explained . . . with regard to claim 18, Yoshimitsu does not
`anticipate claim 25.” PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner’s arguments for claim 18
`rely on its arguments for a similar limitation in claim 13. For the reasons
`discussed above for claims 13 and 18, we are not persuaded that the
`displaying step of claim 25 is absent from Yoshimitsu.
`For the accelerating step, Patent Owner responds that the cited portion
`of Yoshimitsu “does not expressly discuss ‘accelerating the vehicle’” and
`does not clarify “whether the reference to ‘higher’ is intended to mean
`‘greater’ (in terms of value) or ‘above’ (in terms of a spatial relationship)”
`because, in the immediately preceding portion, Yoshimitsu describes
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`displays. PO Resp. 9. Petitioner replies that Yoshimitsu “expressly states
`that ‘the actual vehicle speed is higher tha[n] the set vehicle speed’” and
`contrasts that with the use of “display” or “displayed” when Yoshimitsu
`describes displays. Reply 5 (citing Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1007, 574)).
`Yoshimitsu states that “in the second display section, . . . when the
`actual vehicle speed is higher tha[n] the set vehicle speed, the set vehicle
`speed is displayed blinking.” Ex. 1007, 574. Yoshimitsu describes that “the
`second display section (32) ha[s] a plurality of display elements (32a)” and
`“displays the set vehicle speed.” Id. at 575. Figure 3 shows that second
`display section 32 includes several illuminated display elements 32a from 30
`km/h to 50 km/h to indicate “50 km/h” and a single illuminated display
`element 32b to indicate “80 km/h.” Yoshimitsu states that “[i]n the Figure,
`radiator (32b) corresponding to the set vehicle speed of display element
`(32a) flashes, indicating that in the vicinity of 80 km/h is the set vehicle
`speed and the actual vehicle speed is in the vicinity of 50 km/h.” Id. Thus,
`when considering Yoshimitsu in its entirety instead of select quotes, we
`determine that Yoshimitsu, discloses that display elements 32a are
`illuminated sequentially past the set speed radiator 32b when actual vehicle
`speed is greater than set speed, and to distinguish set speed, set speed
`radiator 32b flashes. Therefore, we are not persuaded that Yoshimitsu fails
`to disclose “accelerating the vehicle to a speed above the preset speed.”
`Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we determine
`that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that, under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b), claim 25 is anticipated by Yoshimitsu.
`
`5. Claim 26
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Claim 26 recites, with emphases added:
`26. A cruise control system for a variable
`speed vehicle controlled by a human operator,
`comprising:
`for automatically
`controller
`a
`speed
`maintaining the vehicle at a substantially constant
`preset speed;
`a set speed input in communication with the
`controller for selecting the preset speed;
`store
`to
`a memory device operable
`information representative of the preset speed;
`first visual display apparatus operable to
`display the indicative of the actual speed of the
`vehicle; and
`second visual display apparatus operable to
`display the visual information indicative of an
`operation status of the speed controller, wherein
`the visual information displayable by the second
`visual
`display
`apparatus
`includes
`visual
`information indicative of the preset speed.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:1–17. Petitioner argues that Yoshimitsu discloses all the
`limitations of claim 26. Pet. 22–24 (citing Ex. 1007, 572–575, 577, Fig. 3,
`claims 1, 2; McNamara Decl. ¶ 47). Specifically, for the recited “speed
`controller,” Petitioner argues that Yoshimitsu describes
`[a] cruise control unit . . . which combines an
`electronic control circuit . . . , stores a desired set
`vehicle speed signal (speed signal which is set) in
`this control circuit, inputs the actual vehicle speed
`signal during driving obtained by the speed sensor,
`and controls a constant travel speed by comparing
`both signals.
`
`Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1007, 571) (emphasis omitted). For the recited
`“memory device,” Petitioner contends that Yoshimitsu describes “previous
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`set vehicle speed signal (m) . . . was stored in set vehicle speed memory
`circuit (60).” Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 571, 575, 577) (emphasis omitted). For
`the recited “second visual display apparatus,” Petitioner argues that
`Yoshimitsu describes a “[s]etting vehicle speed display device for a cruise
`control unit . . . having . . . the second display section . . . displaying constant
`travel speed set by the setting manipulation of the occupant.” Id. at 23–24
`(citing Ex. 1007, 571, 575, claims 1 and 2, Fig. 3; McNamara Decl. ¶ 47)
`(emphasis omitted).
`For the “speed controller,” Patent Owner responds that the Petition
`cites a description of a prior art cruise control unit and alleges anticipation
`based on a combination of prior art and Yoshimitsu’s disclosed
`embodiments. PO Resp. 10 (citing Pet. 23). For the “memory device,”
`Patent Owner responds that the Petition cites two different embodiments of
`Yoshimitsu and prior art discussion. PO Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 23).
`Patent Owner also argues that the Petition cites: (1) a discussion of Figure 6,
`which is an alternative embodiment of Figures 1 and 4, (2) a discussion of a
`memory in the prior art, and (3) the statement “cancel operation of the
`memory” that is not referenced in Yoshimitsu’s embodiments. PO Resp. 11
`(citing Ex. 1007, 571, 577; Pet. 23).
`Petitioner replies that Patent Owner’s arguments fail because “the
`prior art cruise control systems are the embodiments disclosed” and
`Yoshimitsu explicitly pertains to the improvement of the display device of a
`cruise control unit. Reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1007, 571).
`We agree with Petitioner that Yoshimitsu expressly indicates that it
`improves a cruise control system with a display, and we cannot find any
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`indication that the disclosed embodiments of Yoshimitsu do not include the
`known features of a speed controller and memory. See Ex. 1007, 571. The
`Petition does not cite Figure 6 for the “speed controller.” Pet. 23.
`Therefore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner
`relies on a combination of prior art and embodiments of Yoshimitsu for the
`“speed controller” of claim 26.
`For the “second visual display apparatus,” Patent Owner responds that
`“each display unit 32a in the second display section 32 appears to
`correspond to multiple speed values” and “there is no way to determine the
`actual preset speed.” PO Resp. 12. Petitioner replies that Patent Owner
`does not provide “a construction requiring any specific type of information
`or level of precision” and does not contest the application of the plain and
`ordinary meaning. Reply 6. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s
`interpretation requires “100% precision.” Id.
`Claim 26 requires “second visual display apparatus operable to
`display the visual information . . . wherein the visual information . . .
`includes visual information indicative of the preset speed.” It does not
`require a particular precision for the visual information to be “indicative of
`the preset speed.” Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments requiring a particular
`precision for indicating the preset speed are unpersuasive.
`Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we determine
`that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that, under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b), claim 26 is anticipated by Yoshimitsu.
`6. Claim 27
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Claim 27 depends from claim 26 and recites “wherein the visual
`information displayed by the second visual display apparatus includes
`information reflecting whether the speed controller is operating to maintain
`the vehicle at the cruising speed at the time the display is made.” Ex. 1001,
`9:18–22.
`Petitioner argues that Yoshimitsu discloses “when the actual vehicle
`speed is higher tha[n] the set vehicle speed, the set vehicle speed is
`displayed blinking.” Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1007, 571, 574, 575, Fig. 3,
`claims 1 and 2; McNamara Decl. ¶ 47) (emphasis omitted).
`Patent Owner responds that the cited portion of Yoshimitsu provides
`“no indication that the ‘speed controller is operating to maintain the vehicle
`at the cruising speed.’” PO Resp. 13; Tr. 23:20–25:15. Patent Owner also
`argues that “if the actual vehicle speed is higher (greater, in value) than the
`set vehicle speed, then the vehicle is not being maintained at the set vehicle
`speed.” PO Resp. 13.
`Petitioner cites Figure 3, which Yoshimitsu describes as including
`“second display section (32) having a plurality of display elements (32a) . . .
`displaying the constant travel speed set by t
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
