Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: July 2, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH
`AMERICA, INC., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC., LLC, FORD MOTOR
`COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC, SUBARU OF
`AMERICA, INC., and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`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.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On January 13, 2014, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al. (“Petitioners”)
`
`filed a corrected Petition1 (Paper 8, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-5, 12-15, 18-20, 25-28, and 34-36 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,324,463 B1 (Ex. 1001, the “’463 patent”). Cruise Control
`
`Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”) on April 8, 2014. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`To institute an inter partes review, we must determine the information
`
`presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioners contend the challenged
`
`claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Pet. 1. We determine
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioners would prevail in showing the
`
`unpatentability of claims 1-5, 12-15, 18-20, 25-28, and 34-36. We therefore
`
`institute an inter partes review as to those claims.
`
`A.
`
`The ’463 Patent
`
`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:
`
`
`1 Petitioners first filed a petition (Paper 3) on December 23, 2013.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a digital speed display, while Figure 2 illustrates an analog
`
`speedometer. See id. at 3:8-13. In Figure 1, main speed display 3 shows the
`
`current speed at which the vehicle is operating. See 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. See id. at 3:53-60. Second speed display 16
`
`shows that preset speed. See id.
`
`Figure 2’s analog speedometer 40 incorporates several LED assemblies 45.
`
`See id. at 4:19-26. Each LED assembly 45 has an LED and a detector. See 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. See 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. See id. 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.
`
`See id. at 4:57-64.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Challenged claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 18, 25, 26, and 34 are independent. Claim 1
`
`B.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`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;
`a memory which stores information indicative of said preset
`speed; and
`a feedback system for communicating said information in said
`memory to the operator of the vehicle.
`
`
`C.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The Petition states that the ’463 patent is or has been involved in fifteen
`
`separate civil actions in the District of Delaware. Pet. 1-3. The Petition also
`
`identifies an on-going ex parte reexamination of the ’463 patent that was granted
`
`on May 31, 2013 (Control No. 90/012,841). Id. at 3. The ’463 patent is also the
`
`subject of four other requests for inter partes review (IPR2014-00279, IPR2014-
`
`00280, IPR2014-00281, and IPR2014-00291).
`
`D.
`
`Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`JP H9-50582 (“Yagihashi”)
`(translation, Ex. 1005)2
`
`Feb. 18, 1997
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`
`
`2 Petitioners cite to certified translations of Yoshimitsu (Ex. 1007), Nagashima (Ex.
`1010), and Yagihashi (Ex. 1005). Pet. 10 n.1. Our decision also cites to those
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 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
`
`
`E.
`
`Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioners contend that the challenged claims of the ’463 patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) on the following grounds:
`
` Reference(s)
`
`Yoshimitsu
`
`Yagihashi
`
`Yoshimitsu and
`300zx Manual
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`13, 18, and 25-27
`
`12 and 13
`
`1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 34-36
`
`Yoshimitsu and Nagashima
`
`§ 103
`
`19 and 20
`
`Yagihashi and Admitted Prior
`Art and/or Yoshimitsu
`
`
`§ 103
`
`1-5, 14, 26-28, and 34-36
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`As a step in our analysis, we determine the meaning of the claims for
`
`purposes of this decision. In an inter partes review, a claim in an unexpired patent
`
`
`translations and exhibit page numbers.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2013). Under that
`
`construction, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). We construe the terms below in accordance with that standard.
`
`1.
`
`“engaging the system” (claim 1)
`
`Petitioners contend we should construe “engaging the system” in claim 1 to
`
`mean “operating the cruise control system to automatically control the vehicle at
`
`the preset speed.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 4, 1:46-48, 5:13-15). Patent Owner
`
`contends we should construe “thereby engaging the system” in claim 1 to mean “as
`
`a result, activating the speed controller of the cruise control system to
`
`automatically maintain the vehicle speed at the preset speed.” Prelim. Resp. 4-5
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 3:54-57). Patent Owner describes “operating the cruise control
`
`system” in Petitioners’ proposal as “an overly broad generalization of the claimed
`
`invention,” and contends the construction instead should refer specifically to the
`
`speed controller of the cruise control system, apart from the claimed feedback
`
`system and the claimed set speed input. Id. We conclude Petitioners’ proposal
`
`comports with the broadest reasonable construction of “engaging” in light of the
`
`’463 patent specification. The term “comprising” in claim 1 leaves open the
`
`possibility that other unclaimed components of the cruise control system, in
`
`addition to the speed controller, may play a part in controlling the vehicle’s speed.
`
`In addition, the term “maintain” in Patent Owner’s proposed construction is unduly
`
`narrow, because it forecloses temporary acceleration of the vehicle while the cruise
`
`control system is engaged. See Ex. 1001, 1:32-36, 4:6-14 (indicating vehicle may
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`be accelerated temporarily while cruise control is engaged). We therefore adopt
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction.
`
`For the foregoing reasons we construe “engaging the system” in claim 1 to
`
`mean “operating the cruise control system to automatically control the vehicle at
`
`the preset speed.”
`
`2.
`
`“enabling” (claims 1 and 2) and “enabled” (claims 2 and 4)
`
`Petitioners contend that we should construe “enabling the system” in claim 1
`
`and “enabling . . . the controller” in claim 2 to mean “a ‘system on’ state for the
`
`cruise control system.” Pet. 9-10 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:39-46). Patent Owner instead
`
`proposes “putting the speed controller of the cruise control system into an
`
`operative condition . . . in that the speed controller will automatically maintain the
`
`vehicle at a preset speed.” Prelim. Resp. 2-3. Patent Owner criticizes Petitioners’
`
`proposal as “too vague to provide any benefit when evaluating the validity of the
`
`claims.” Prelim. Resp. 3.
`
`We conclude Petitioners’ proposal comports with the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “enabling” and “enabled” in light of the ’463 patent specification.
`
`That is, the ’463 patent specification consistently describes “enabling” as turning
`
`on the cruise control system (see Ex. 1001, 1:18-20, 1:64-65, 4:39-44) and
`
`“engaging” as setting the cruise control at a desired speed (see id. at 1:21-25, 1:45-
`
`48, 3:56-57). We therefore adopt Petitioners’ proposed construction that “enabling
`
`the system” in claim 1 and “enabling . . . the controller” in claim 2 mean “a
`
`‘system on’ state for the cruise control system.” This construction also applies to
`
`the descriptor “enabled” in claims 2 and 4. See Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 3.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`3.
`
`“indicating to the operator the unset status of the preset speed” (claim 15)
`
`Petitioners contend that we should construe “unset status” and “unset state”
`
`in these two claim limitations to mean “a state or status in which there is no preset
`
`speed for the cruise control system.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner contends Petitioners’
`
`proposal is improper because “it adds ‘for the cruise control system.’” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 7. We note, however, that claim 15’s parent claim 13 recites “a preset speed
`
`for which the cruise control system is set” (emphasis added). That the claims,
`
`themselves, associate setting of the preset speed with the cruise control system
`
`undermines Patent Owner’s contention that there is impropriety in the Petitioners’
`
`proposed construction. We therefore adopt Petitioners’ proposed construction.
`
`Patent Owner further contends we should construe these two claim
`
`limitations to mean “displaying a visual indication that [the] preset speed has not
`
`been set.” Prelim. Resp. 6-8. We are not persuaded as to claim 15, which broadly
`
`recites “indicating” without requiring the indication to be visual. We therefore
`
`decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction as being either too narrow.
`
`4.
`
`“activating the cruise control system” (claims 12 and 15) and
`“deactivated” (claims 12 and 13)
`
`Petitioners contend we should construe “activating” in these claims to mean
`
`“turning on,” and “deactivated” as “turned off.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner agrees as to
`
`all claims except for claim 12. See Prelim. Resp. 8-10. We agree with the parties
`
`in this regard, and therefore construe “activating the cruise control system” in
`
`claim 15 to mean turning on the cruise system, and “deactivated” in claim 13 to
`
`mean that the cruise control system is turned off.
`
`Patent Owner contends we should construe “activating” in claim 12 to mean
`
`something different, namely, “causing the cruise control system to maintain the
`
`speed at which the vehicle is traveling at the desired cruising speed.” Prelim.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Resp. 8. It is true that claim 12, unlike the other claims, recites “activating the
`
`cruise control system at a desired cruising speed,” “displaying a symbol indicative
`
`of the speed at which the cruise control system is activated,” and “maintaining the
`
`activated cruise control speed symbol” (emphases added). These limitations seem
`
`to equate activation with setting the cruise control system at a desired cruising
`
`speed.
`
`“[C]laim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent.”
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[A] claim term
`
`should be construed consistently with its appearance in other places in the same
`
`claim or in other claims of the same patent.” Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274
`
`F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, construing the same term to have
`
`different meanings in different claims is the exception rather than the rule.
`
`Moreover, claim 12 recites “removing said symbol when the cruise control system
`
`is deactivated” (emphasis added). If we were to adopt Patent Owner’s construction
`
`of claim 12, that limitation would require the symbol indicative of the cruising
`
`speed to be removed when the cruise control system stops maintaining the cruising
`
`speed — for example, upon temporary acceleration of the vehicle, or temporary
`
`deceleration of the vehicle when the brakes are applied. We conclude one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the ’463 patent specification, would not
`
`construe claim 12 in such a manner. See Ex. 1001, 2:5-35 (discussing “potential
`
`safety hazards” of prior cruise control systems which did not display preset cruise
`
`control speed upon temporary acceleration or deceleration), 2:37-45 (discussing
`
`solution). We, therefore, construe activating / activated in claim 12 the same as in
`
`the other claims of the ’463 patent.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`5.
`
`Remaining claim terms
`
`All other terms of the claims are given their plain and ordinary meaning that
`
`is consistent with the specification. For purposes of this decision, we need not
`
`construe expressly those terms.
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation by Yoshimitsu
`
`Petitioners argue that Yoshimitsu anticipates claims 13, 18, and 25-27. Pet.
`
`15-25. In light of the arguments and supporting evidence submitted, Petitioners
`
`have established a reasonable likelihood that claims 13, 18, and 25-27 are
`
`unpatentable for the reasons explained below.
`
`1.
`
`Yoshimitsu
`
`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, 571.3
`
`Figure 3 of Yoshimitsu is reproduced below:
`
`
`3 Our decision cites the exhibit page numbers provided in the lower, left-hand
`corner of the pages of Exhibit 1007.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 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.
`
`Analysis
`
`Petitioners contend that Yoshimitsu discloses each and every element of
`
`claims 13, 18, and 25-27, referring to Figure 3 of Yoshimitsu, disclosures in the
`
`reference, as well as a claim chart and a Declaration of David A. McNamara
`
`(Ex. 1012). Pet. 15-25.
`
`For independent claim 13, Petitioners argue that Yoshimitsu discloses “[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” because claim 1 of
`
`Yoshimitsu recites “displaying constant travel speed set by the setting
`
`manipulation of the occupant.” Id. at 16-17 (quoting Ex. 1007 claim 1, citing id. at
`
`571, 574, 575, claim 2) (emphasis omitted). Petitioners also cite claim 1 of
`
`Yoshimitsu for disclosing “setting the preset speed” and “displaying to the operator
`
`a symbol indicative of the preset speed.” Id. at 17 (quoting Ex. 1007 claim 1,
`
`citing id. at 571, 575, 574, 575, 577, Fig. 3, claim 2). Petitioners also argue that
`
`Yoshimitsu discloses “maintaining the display of the symbol indicative of the
`
`preset speed” and “discontinuing display of the symbol indicative of the preset
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`[speed] when the cruise control system is deactivated or a new preset speed is
`
`selected” 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).
`
`Petitioners cite the same portions of Yoshimitsu and make similar arguments
`
`for “[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,” “setting
`
`the preset speed,” and “maintaining the display of the symbol indicative of the
`
`preset speed,” as recited by independent claim 18. Pet. 18-20 (citing Ex. 1007,
`
`571, 574, 575-76, Fig. 3, claims 1 and 2). For “displaying to the operator a symbol
`
`indicative of the preset speed while maintaining the vehicle speed at substantially
`
`the preset speed,” Petitioners contend 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.” Id. at 19-20 (quoting
`
`Ex. 1007 claim 1, citing id. at 571, 574, 575, Fig. 3 claim 2; Ex. 1012 ¶ 49)
`
`(emphasis omitted). Petitioners also contend 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 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,”
`
`Petitioners cite the same portion of Yoshimitsu and further argue that the limitation
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`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). Petitioners
`
`also argue Yoshimitsu discloses “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” because Yoshimitsu describes
`
`“when the actual vehicle speed is higher tha[n] the set vehicle speed, the set
`
`vehicle speed is displayed blinking.” Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1007, 571, 573, 574)
`
`(emphasis omitted).
`
`For independent claim 25, Petitioners rely on disclosures cited for the
`
`preamble, “setting the preset speed,” and “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 “[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,” “setting the preset speed,” and “displaying to the operator a symbol
`
`indicative of the preset speed,” as recited by claim 25. Id. at 22. For “accelerating
`
`the vehicle to a speed above the preset speed” and “maintaining the display of the
`
`symbol indicative of the preset speed while the vehicle is at the speed above the
`
`preset speed,” Petitioners contend 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; Ex. 1012 ¶ 48) (emphasis omitted).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`Independent claim 26 recites “[a] cruise control system for a variable speed
`
`vehicle controlled by a human operator,” and Petitioners argue that Yoshimitsu
`
`discloses a cruise control unit manipulated by an occupant. Id. at 22-23 (citing
`
`Ex. 1007, 571, 572, claims 1 and 2, title). Petitioners also argue 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” and
`
`discloses the recited “speed controller for automatically maintaining the vehicle at
`
`a substantially constant preset speed.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1007, 571) (emphasis
`
`omitted). For “a set speed input in communication with the controller for selecting
`
`the preset speed,” Petitioners contend that Yoshimitsu describes “suppose the
`
`driver performs setting manipulation of the cruise control” and “[b]y this
`
`operation, set signal (a) is provided.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 571, 573, 575, 577,
`
`claims 1 and 2) (emphasis omitted). For “a memory device operable to store
`
`information representative of the preset speed,” Petitioners contend that
`
`Yoshimitsu describes “previous set vehicle speed signal (m) . . . was stored in set
`
`vehicle speed memory circuit (60).” Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 571, 575, 577) (emphasis
`
`omitted). For a “first visual display apparatus operable to display the indicative of
`
`the actual speed of the vehicle,” Petitioners contend that Yoshimitsu describes a
`
`“[s]etting vehicle speed display device for a cruise control unit . . . having the first
`
`display section which displays travel speed,” and for a “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,” Petitioners contend that Yoshimitsu describes a “[s]etting vehicle speed
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`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; Ex. 1012 ¶ 47)
`
`(emphasis omitted).
`
`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.” Petitioners argue that Yoshimitsu discloses
`
`“when the actual vehicle speed is higher tha[n] the set vehicle speed, the set
`
`vehicle speed is displayed blinking.” Id. at 24-25 (citing Ex. 1007, 571, 574, 575,
`
`Fig. 3, claims 1 and 2; Ex. 1012 ¶ 47) (emphasis omitted).
`
`Patent Owner does not address directly Petitioners’ contentions that
`
`Yoshimitsu anticipates claims 13, 18, and 25-27. Instead, Patent Owner presents
`
`arguments regarding the alleged admitted prior art, the 300zx Manual, and
`
`unexplained redundancy. Prelim. Resp. 10-12.
`
`Based on the record before us, Petitioners reasonably identify where
`
`Yoshimitsu describes every element of claims 13, 18, and 25-27. Pet. 15-25. We
`
`are persuaded that Petitioners have demonstrated that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that they would prevail on the ground that Yoshimitsu anticipates claims
`
`13, 18, and 25-27.
`
`C.
`
`Anticipation by Yagihashi
`
`Petitioners argue that Yagihashi anticipates claims 12 and 13. Pet. 43-47. In
`
`light of the arguments and supporting evidence submitted, Petitioners have
`
`established a reasonable likelihood that claims 12 and 13 are unpatentable for the
`
`reasons explained below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`1.
`
`Yagihashi
`
`Yagihashi suffers from a deficiency, not raised by Patent Owner. Rule
`
`42.63(b) requires an “affidavit,” defined as an “affidavit or declaration under
`
`§ 1.68 of this chapter.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.2 (2013). The “Translator Certification” is
`
`not an affidavit because we cannot find a statement under oath. The “Translator
`
`Certification” can qualify as a permitted declaration only if the declarant is warned
`
`on the same document that willful false statements and the like are punishable by
`
`fine or imprisonment, or both, and the document also states all statements made of
`
`the declarant’s own knowledge are true, and all statements made on information
`
`and belief are believed to be true. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 (2013). The “Translator
`
`Certification” does not satisfy those requirements, and therefore is not a
`
`declaration under Rule 1.68.
`
`Nonetheless, we may waive or suspend the requirements of Rule 42.63(b)
`
`and place conditions on the waiver or suspension. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) (2013).
`
`Pursuant to that authority, and as discussed below, we have decided to grant inter
`
`partes review based on the representation in the “Translator Certification” subject
`
`to the following condition. Petitioners must, within 30 days of the date this
`
`decision is entered, file a substitute “Translator Certification” directed to the
`
`translation originally filed with the Petition complying with the requirements of
`
`Rule 42.63(b) to the extent that the substitute “Translator Certification” includes a
`
`proper indication that the declarant is subject to the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`(2013).
`
`Yagihashi discloses an automotive display unit. Figure 6 of Yagihashi is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 is a block diagram including a digital type display used as a meter
`
`device. Ex. 1005, 514, 530.4 Speed meter M has first digital display part 55 that
`
`displays vehicle speed and second digital display part 57 that shows the set vehicle
`
`speed of auto-speed control device (“ASCD”) 37. Ex. 1005 ¶ 60. A signal from
`
`vehicle speed setting switch 39 is used for second digital display part 57. Id.
`
`Speed meter M also includes a variable display part where display information is
`
`modifiable. Id. ¶ 61. In Figure 6 above, the variable display part is composed of
`
`first and second light-emitting parts D1 and D2 that are adjacent display parts 55
`
`and 57. Id. First and second light-emitting parts D1 and D2 can provide
`
`information through brightness, color, or blinking. Id. When ASCD 37 is not
`
`activated, second digital display part 57 does not provide a display. Id. ¶ 62.
`
`
`4 Our decision cites either the exhibit page numbers provided in the lower, left-
`hand corner of the pages of Exhibit 1005 or the paragraph numbers.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`When ASCD 37 is activated, first and second light-emitting parts D1 and D2 are
`
`illuminated or blink. Id. ¶ 63. In one example, first light-emitting part D1 has a red
`
`illumination, and second light-emitting part D2 has a green illumination. Id. First
`
`light-emitting part D1 can blink during a control mode with faster blinking during
`
`acceleration and slower blinking during deceleration. Id. Second light-emitting
`
`part D2 illuminates according to cruising mode at a set speed. Id.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis
`
`Petitioners contend that Yagihashi discloses each and every element of
`
`claims 12 and 13, referring to Figures 2, 6, and 7 of Yagihashi, disclosures in the
`
`reference, as well as a claim chart and a Declaration by David A. McNamara. Pet.
`
`43-47.
`
`Independent claim 12 recites “[a] method for visually communicating to the
`
`human operator of a vehicle having a cruise control system a cruising speed at
`
`which the vehicle is set,” and Petitioners argue that Yagihashi describes an
`
`“automatic vehicle following type cruise control” that “controls a speed of its own
`
`vehicle” and a “second digital display part 57 is configured to display a set vehicle
`
`speed according to a signal from a set vehicle speed display circuit 59.” Id. at 44
`
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 41, 60) (emphasis omitted). For “determining the speed at
`
`which the vehicle is traveling,” Petitioners argue that Yagihashi describes “whether
`
`a vehicle speed is at a constant vehicle speed or is accelerating according to a
`
`vehicle speed detection signal is determined.” Id. at 44-45 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 48,
`
`60) (emphasis omitted). For “activating the cruise control system at a desired
`
`cruising speed,” Petitioners contend that Yagihashi describes “an auto cruise
`
`system setting switch 39 is operated” and “signals from the vehicle speed setting
`
`switch 39 and the throttle/brake control signal output part 47 are entered into the
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`control circuit 17.” Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 41, 46-47, 60) (emphasis omitted).
`
`For “displaying a symbol indicative of the speed at which the cruise control system
`
`is activated,” Petitioners assert that Yagihashi indicates a “second digital display
`
`part 57 displays a set vehicle speed of the automatic vehicle following type ASCD
`
`37.” Id. at 45-46 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 62, 63, Fig. 6; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 66-72) (emphasis
`
`omitted). For “maintaining the activated cruise control speed symbol upon
`
`temporary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle,” Petitioners argue that
`
`Yagihashi describes that “as visual recognition information, . . . a set speed [is]
`
`always required” and that “it is necessary for the set speed to display . . .
`
`decelerating (state 3).” Id. at 46 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 64, Fig. 2; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 73-
`
`75) (emphasis omitted). For “removing said symbol when the cruise control
`
`system is deactivated or a new cruising speed is selected,” Petitioners assert that
`
`Yagihashi describes “[w]hen the automatic vehicle following type ASCD 37 is not
`
`activated and there is no signal from the set vehicle speed display circuit 59, no
`
`display by the second digital display part 57 is performed.” Id. at 46-47 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 47, 62, Fig. 7) (emphasis omitted). Petitioners rely on the portions of
`
`Yagihashi cited for claim 12 to argue that Yagihashi discloses corresponding
`
`limitations of independent claim 13. Id. at 47.
`
`Patent Owner does not directly address Petitioners’ contentions that
`
`Yagihashi anticipates claims 12 and 13. See Prelim. Resp. 10-12. Based on the
`
`record before us, Petitioners reasonably identify where Yagihashi describes every
`
`element of claims 12 and 13. Pet. 43-47. We are persuaded that Petitioners have
`
`demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that they would prevail on the
`
`ground that Yagihashi anticipates claims 12 and 13.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463 B1
`
`
`D. Obviousness over Yoshimitsu and 300zx Manual
`
`Pet