`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