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,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`
`CASE IPR: 2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`LAW OF ANTICIPATION ............................................................................. 2
`II.
`III. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES ANTICIPATE THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .................. 3
`A. Ground A: Yoshimitsu Does Not Anticipate The Challenged
`Claims .................................................................................................... 3
`1.
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu Discloses
`“Displaying To The Operator A Symbol Indicative Of
`The Preset Speed” Or “Discontinuing Display Of The
`Symbol Indicative Of The Preset [Speed] When The
`Cruise Control System Is Deactivated Or A New Preset
`Speed Is Selected” (Claim 13) .................................................... 3
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu Discloses
`“Displaying To The Operator A Symbol Indicative Of
`The Preset Speed While Maintaining The Vehicle Speed
`At Substantially The Preset Speed,” “Braking The
`Vehicle” Or “Upon Braking The Vehicle, Discontinuing
`Maintaining The Vehicle At Substantially The Preset
`Speed While Keeping Data Corresponding To The Preset
`Speed In A Memory Device” (Claim 18) ................................... 7
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu Discloses
`“Displaying To The Operator A Symbol Indicative Of
`The Preset Speed” Or “Accelerating The Vehicle To A
`Speed Above The Preset Speed” (Claim 25) .............................. 8
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu Discloses
`“A Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Preset Speed” Or
`“A Memory Device Operable To Store Information
`Representative Of The Preset Speed” Or “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
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`

`

`Includes Visual Information Indicative Of The Preset
`Speed” (Claim 26) ..................................................................... 10
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu Discloses
`“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” (Claim 27) ................................... 13
`B. Ground B: Yagihashi Does Not Anticipate The Challenged
`Claims .................................................................................................. 13
`1.
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yagihashi Discloses
`“Maintaining The Activated Cruise Control Speed
`Symbol Upon Temporary Acceleration Or Deceleration
`Of The Vehicle” (Claim 12) ..................................................... 14
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yagihashi Discloses
`“Maintaining The Symbol Indicative Of The Preset
`Speed” (Claim 13) ..................................................................... 16
`IV. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ........................................................................................................ 17
`A. Ground C: Yoshimitsu and the 300za Manual Do Not Render
`Claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 27 and 34-36 Obvious ................................... 17
`1.
`The Petition Does Not Provide Any Basis For Its
`Combination Of The “Prior Art” And The Missing,
`Deleted Embodiment Of Yoshimitsu And The 300zx
`Manual (Claims 1, 2, 12 and 34) .............................................. 17
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu And 300zx
`Manual Disclose “A Feedback System For
`Communicating Said Information In Said Memory To
`The Operator Of The Vehicle” (Claim 1) ................................. 19
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu And 300zx
`Manual Disclose “A Feedback System That Substantially
`Continuously Communicates The Selected Cruising
`Speed Information To The Operator Of The Vehicle
`Until Either The Operator Selects A Subsequent Cruising
`Speed Or The Controller Is Disabled” (Claim 2) ..................... 20
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`5.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`4.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu And 300zx
`Manual Disclose “Displaying A Symbol Indicative Of
`The Speed At Which The Cruise Control Is Activated”
`Or “Maintaining The Activated Cruise Control Speed
`Symbol Upon Temporary Acceleration Or Deceleration
`Of The Vehicle” Or “Removing Said Symbol When The
`Cruise Control System Is Deactivated Or A New
`Cruising Speed Is Selected” (Claim 12) ................................... 21
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu And 300zx
`Manual Disclose “After Activating The Cruise Control
`System, But Before Setting The Preset Speed, Indicating
`To The Operator The Unset Status Of the Preset Speed”
`(Claim 15) ................................................................................. 24
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu And 300zx
`Manual Disclose “Wherein The Visual Information
`Displayable By The Second Visual Display Apparatus
`Includes Information Indicative Of The Preset Speed”
`(Claim 34) ................................................................................. 25
`B. Ground D: Yoshimitsu and the 300za Manual Do Not Render
`Claims 19 and 20 Obvious .................................................................. 25
`1.
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu And
`Nagashima Disclose “Wherein The Symbol Indicative Of
`The Preset Speed Displayed At The Time After Braking
`And During Which Time The Vehicle Is Not Being
`Maintained At Substantially The Preset Speed, Is
`Distinguishable From The Symbol Indicative Of The
`Preset Speed While The Vehicle Is Being Maintained At
`Substantially The Preset Speed” (Claim 19) ............................. 26
`C. Ground E: Yagihashi and Yoshimitsu Do Not Render Claims
`1-5, 14, 26-28 and 34-36 Obvious ...................................................... 27
`1.
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yagihashi and
`Yoshimitsu Disclose “An Enable Switch Associated
`With Said Controller For Enabling The System” (Claim
`1) ............................................................................................... 27
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yagihashi and
`Yoshimitsu Disclose “A Cruise Control Enable Switch
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`3.
`
`4.
`
`Associated With The Controller For Enabling And
`Disabling The Controller” (Claim 2) ........................................ 28
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yagihashi and
`Yoshimitsu Disclose “The Digital Display Displays a
`Predetermined Signal When The Controller Is Initially
`Enabled To Indicate The State Of The Controller” (Claim
`4) ............................................................................................... 28
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yagihashi and
`Yoshimitsu Disclose “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” (Claim 26) ........ 29
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yagihashi and
`Yoshimitsu Disclose “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” (Claim 34) ........ 30
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 30
`
`5.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`C.R. Bard v. M3 Sys., 157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................. 2
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................... 2
`In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................................ 2
`In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................ 3
`In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................ 3
`Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................ 2
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, Patent Owner Cruise Control Technologies
`
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this response to the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“Petition”) of claims 1-5, 12-15, 18-20, 25-28 and 34-36 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,324,463 (the “‘463 Patent”) filed by Subaru of America, Inc., Toyota Motor
`
`North America, Inc., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Nissan North America Inc.,
`
`Ford Motor Company, Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC and Volvo Cars of
`
`North America LLC (collectively “Petitioner”). Paper 1, p. 1.
`
`On July 2, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) instituted
`
`inter partes review based on the following grounds of unpatentability alleged in
`
`the Petition:
`
`Ground A: Claims 13, 18, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated
`
`by Yoshimitsu;
`
`Ground B: Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
`
`Yagihashi;
`
`Ground C: Claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 34-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`unpatentable over Yoshimitsu and the 300zx Manual;
`
`Ground D: Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
`
`Yoshimitsu and Nagashima; and
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground E: Claims 1-5, 14, 26-28, and 34-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`unpatentable over Yagihashi and Yoshimitsu.
`
`Paper 13, pp. 38-39.
`
`All cites to Yagihashi, Yoshimitsu and Nagashima are to the respective English
`
`translations (Ex. 1005 for Yagihashi, Ex. 1007 for Yoshimitsu and Ex. 1010 for
`
`Nagashima) filed by Petitioner with the Petition.
`
`II. LAW OF ANTICIPATION
`
`“To anticipate a claim, a single prior art reference must expressly or
`
`inherently disclose each claim limitation.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`
`523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1990). Additionally, “a finding of anticipation requires that the publication
`
`describe all of the elements of the claims, arranged as in the patented device.”
`
`C.R. Bard v. M3 Sys., 157 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis added)
`
`(string citation omitted). Thus, the prior art reference “must not only disclose all
`
`elements within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those
`
`elements arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d
`
`1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]t
`
`is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention,
`
`which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the
`
`claimed invention.” Id. at 1371.
`
`The fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the
`
`prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic.
`
`In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “To establish inherency, the
`
`extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is
`
`necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so
`
`recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be
`
`established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may
`
`result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” In re Robertson, 169
`
`F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`III. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES ANTICIPATE THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`A. Ground A: Yoshimitsu Does Not Anticipate The Challenged
`Claims
`1.
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu Discloses
`“Displaying To The Operator A Symbol Indicative Of The
`Preset Speed” Or “Discontinuing Display Of The Symbol
`Indicative Of The Preset [Speed] When The Cruise Control
`System Is Deactivated Or A New Preset Speed Is Selected”
`(Claim 13)
`Displaying…A Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed: The Petition cites
`
`to the statement in claim 1 of Yoshimitsu, “displaying constant travel speed set by
`
`the setting manipulation of the occupant,” as allegedly meeting this limitation of
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`claim 13 of the ‘463 Patent. Pet. at 17. The Petition also cites reference numeral
`
`32 of Yoshimitsu. Id. However, none of the cited portions of Yoshimitsu
`
`anticipate the claimed “symbol indicative of the preset speed,” as required by claim
`
`13.
`
`Claim 1 of Yoshimitsu is directed to a “setting vehicle speed display device”
`
`that is provided with a “first display section which displays travel speed” and a
`
`“second display section having a plurality of display elements arranged in an array
`
`in the vicinity of this display section and displaying constant travel speed set by the
`
`setting manipulation of the occupant.” Ex. 1007, AHM00569. The first display
`
`section 31 and the second display section 32 are shown in Figure 3 of Yoshimitsu.
`
`As claim 1 of Yoshimitsu states, the second display section 32 has “a
`
`plurality of display elements (32a) arranged intermittently in an array in the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`underside of the [first] display section 31.” Id. at AHM00575. The display
`
`elements 32a, such as LEDs, are “arranged intermittently horizontally in line and
`
`scale (33)” which shows values related to speed. Id. When setting the set vehicle
`
`speed, “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.”
`
`Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the radiator (32b) only indicates a range of possible
`
`set vehicle speeds, and that the actual set vehicle speed is “in the vicinity of 80
`
`km/h.” In the example shown in Figure 3 of Yoshimitsu, it is possible (though
`
`never explained) that the set vehicle speed could be any value from 80-85 km/h,
`
`but 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).
`
`Because each display element 32a appears to correspond to multiple speed
`
`values, Yoshimitsu does not disclose, “displaying to the operator a symbol
`
`indicative of the preset speed.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Yoshimitsu does not anticipate claim 13.
`
`Discontinuing Display Of The Symbol…When The Cruise Control System
`
`Is Deactivated Or A New Preset Speed Is Selected: The Petition cites a single
`
`statement in Yoshimitsu as allegedly disclosing this claim limitation – “This
`
`sustained state finishes by the reset signal provided to the sustained signal forming
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`circuit (13) by the resetting manipulation of the cruise control display device or
`
`cancel operation of the memory.” However, Yoshimitsu does not provide any
`
`explanation of “the resetting manipulation of the cruise control display device” or a
`
`“cancel operation of the memory.” In particular, Yoshimitsu makes various
`
`references to a “setting manipulation” but only a single unexplained reference (in
`
`the statement cited by Petitioner) to “the resetting manipulation.” Further, there is
`
`no reference in Yoshimitsu (other than the statement cited by Petitioner) to a
`
`“cancel operation,” and the only reference to “memory” is in Yoshimitsu’s
`
`discussion of a “prior art” cruise control unit. Ex. 1007, AHM00571.1
`
`Accordingly, the vague and unexplained statement regarding the “setting
`
`manipulation of the cruise control display” and the “cancel operation of the
`
`memory” in Yoshimitsu cited in the Petition do not disclose, “discontinuing
`
`display of the symbol indicative of the preset speed when the cruise control system
`
`is deactivated or a new preset speed is selected,” as recited in claim 13.
`
`For at least these reasons, Yoshimitsu does not anticipate claim 13.
`
`
`1 Two further references to a memory circuit 60 are discussed with regard to an
`alternative embodiment (AHM00577) that was cancelled by an amendment
`(AHM00585, amendment (27)).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu Discloses
`“Displaying To The Operator A Symbol Indicative Of The
`Preset Speed While Maintaining The Vehicle Speed At
`Substantially The Preset Speed,” “Braking The Vehicle” Or
`“Upon Braking The Vehicle, Discontinuing Maintaining
`The Vehicle At Substantially The Preset Speed While
`Keeping Data Corresponding To The Preset Speed In A
`Memory Device” (Claim 18)
`Displaying…A Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed: The Petition cites
`
`to the same statements in Yoshimitsu as it did for the “displaying” element of
`
`claim 13. Accordingly, at least for the reasons explained above with regard to
`
`claim 13, Yoshimitsu does not anticipate claim 18.
`
`Braking The Vehicle: Yoshimitsu discusses a “brake operation” solely with
`
`regard to a “prior art” cruise control unit. Ex. 1007, AHM00571 (in the “Prior
`
`Art” section). Petitioner cites only this “prior art” discussion by Yoshimitsu as
`
`allegedly meeting the limitation, “braking the vehicle,” but cites Yoshimitsu’s
`
`discussion of its embodiments as meeting other limitations of claim 18.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner improperly relies on a combination of a discussed “prior
`
`art” cruise control unit and other embodiments of Yoshimitsu in its allegation of
`
`anticipation. See Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1369.
`
`For at least these reasons, Yoshimitsu does not anticipate claim 18.
`
`Upon Braking The Vehicle, Discontinuing Maintaining The Vehicle Speed
`
`At Substantially The Preset Speed While Keeping Data Corresponding To The
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`Preset Speed In A Memory Device: Petitioner’s allegations of anticipation with
`
`regard to this claim element of claim 18 fail for at least two reasons.
`
`First, Petitioner cites to Yoshimitsu’s discussion of a “prior art” cruise
`
`control unit as meeting this limitation. Pet. at 20-21 (citing the “prior art” section
`
`of Yoshimitsu). As discussed above, it is improper to rely on a combination of
`
`embodiments when alleging anticipation.
`
`Second, the cited portion of Yoshimitsu’s embodiment generally refers to
`
`“temporary release of cruise control.” Pet. at 21. This statement does not
`
`expressly disclose “braking the vehicle,” and Petitioner does not allege this
`
`limitation is inherent. Id. Further, this statement does not disclose “maintaining
`
`the vehicle speed at substantially the preset speed” or “keeping data corresponding
`
`to the preset speed in a memory device.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Yoshimitsu does not anticipate claim 18.
`
`3.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu Discloses
`“Displaying To The Operator A Symbol Indicative Of The
`Preset Speed” Or “Accelerating The Vehicle To A Speed
`Above The Preset Speed” (Claim 25)
`Displaying…A Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed: The Petition cites
`
`to the same statements in Yoshimitsu as it did for the “displaying” element of
`
`claim 18. Accordingly, at least for the reasons explained above with regard to
`
`claim 18, Yoshimitsu does not anticipate claim 25.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Accelerating The Vehicle To A Speed Above The Preset Speed: The
`
`statement in Yoshimitsu cited in the Petition, “the actual vehicle speed is higher
`
`that the set vehicle speed, the set vehicle speed is displayed blinking,” does not
`
`expressly discuss “accelerating the vehicle.” Pet. at 22. Further, it is unclear from
`
`Yoshimitsu whether the reference to “higher” is intended to mean “greater” (in
`
`terms of value) or “above” (in terms of a spatial relationship). For example, the
`
`language immediately preceding the statement also refers to displaying set vehicle
`
`speed and actual vehicle speed as “overlapped with one light-emitting means.” Ex.
`
`1007, AHM00574. The reference to an “overlapped” display seems to suggest that
`
`“higher” refers to a spatial relationship, not a comparison of values. Such a vague
`
`statement subject to multiple interpretations cannot form the basis for an
`
`anticipation allegation.
`
`In any event, Petitioner’s declarant seems to make the argument that the
`
`cited statement of Yoshimitsu inherently meets the “accelerating” claim limitation,
`
`because “[t]he only way the vehicle speed can be higher than the preset speed is by
`
`accelerating the vehicle.” Ex. 1012, ¶48. However, this ignores the possibility that
`
`a preset speed can be set lower than the actual vehicle speed. Indeed, this is a
`
`likely scenario given that Yoshimitsu uses a timer when setting the set vehicle
`
`speed. Ex. 1007, AHM00575.
`
`For at least these reasons, Yoshimitsu does not anticipate claim 25.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`4.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu Discloses “A
`Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Preset Speed” Or “A
`Memory Device Operable To Store Information
`Representative Of The Preset Speed” Or “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” (Claim 26)
`A Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The Vehicle At A
`
`Substantially Constant Preset Speed: The Petition cites to Yoshimitsu’s discussion
`
`of a “prior art” cruise control unit as allegedly meeting this claim limitation. Pet.
`
`at 23 (citing only to Ex. 1007 “p. 3, ll. 15-18,” which is in the “Prior Art” section
`
`of Yoshimitsu). As explained above, an allegation of anticipation cannot be
`
`grounded on a combination of different embodiments in a reference. See Net
`
`MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1369. Here, Petitioner cites to
`
`Yoshimitsu’s discussion of the “prior art” cruise control unit with regard to the
`
`“speed controller” element of claim 26, and cites to discussion of Yoshimitsu’s
`
`embodiments as allegedly meeting the other claim elements. Pet. at 23-24.
`
`For at least these reasons, Yoshimitsu does not anticipate claim 26.
`
`A Memory Device Operable To Store Information Representative Of The
`
`Preset Speed: The Petition cites two different embodiments of Yoshimitsu and
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Yoshimitsu’s discussion of a “prior art” cruise control unit as allegedly meeting
`
`this claim limitation. Pet. at 23.
`
`The quoted statement in the Petition is Yoshimitsu’s discussion of Figure 6
`
`which “indicates an alternative embodiment of the embodiments of Figures 1 or
`
`Figure 4.” Ex. 1007, AHM00577. Notably, an amendment deleted the quoted
`
`section. Id. at AHM00585 (“27) In page 18, line 10 of SPECIFICATION, ‘Figure
`
`6’ to page 18, line 1 ‘activates…described above’ will be deleted”).
`
`The other citation in the Petition refers to the “Prior Art” and “Purpose of
`
`Invention” sections of Yoshimitsu. Pet. at 23 (citing “p. 3, ll. 23-26). While the
`
`“Prior Art” section refers to “memory stored in the control circuit,” there is no
`
`reference to “memory” in the “Purpose of Invention” section. Ex. 1007,
`
`AHM00571.
`
`Finally, the Petition also refers to the statement in Yoshimitsu, “cancel
`
`operation of the memory.” Pet. at 23 (citing “p. 7, ll. 40-42). While this statement
`
`uses the word, “memory,” there is no discussion of “memory” with regard to the
`
`different embodiments of Yoshimitsu shown in Figures 1 and 4. Further, there is
`
`no reference in Yoshimitsu to a “cancel operation” (other than this statement), and
`
`there is no indication that the referenced “memory” stores “information
`
`representative of the preset speed,” as required by claim 26.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Accordingly, the Petition does not show that Yoshimitsu anticipates this
`
`claim element, because it relies on discussion of a different, deleted embodiment
`
`and prior art, as well as a vague, unexplained referenced to “memory.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Yoshimitsu does not anticipate claim 26.
`
`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: The Petition cites the
`
`second display section 32 as allegedly meeting this claim limitation. As explained
`
`above with respect to claim 13, each display element 32a in the second display
`
`section 32 appears to correspond to multiple speed values. Thus, Yoshimitsu does
`
`not disclose, displaying “visual information indicative of the preset speed,”
`
`because there is no way to determine the actual preset speed by viewing an
`
`illuminated display element 32a that corresponds to a range of possible speeds.
`
`For at least these reasons, Yoshimitsu does not anticipate claim 26.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yoshimitsu Discloses
`“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” (Claim 27)
`The Petition alleges that Yoshimitsu’s statement, “when the actual vehicle
`
`speed is higher that the set vehicle speed, the set vehicle speed is displayed
`
`blinking,” meets this claim limitation. Pet. at 24. However, from this statement,
`
`there is no indication that the “speed controller is operating to maintain the vehicle
`
`at the cruising speed.” In fact, 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.
`
`For at least these reasons, Yoshimitsu does not anticipate claim 27.
`
`B. Ground B: Yagihashi Does Not Anticipate The Challenged
`Claims
`Yagihashi discusses twelve different embodiments of an automotive display
`
`unit. Ex. 1005, AHM00530-31 (Brief Description of Drawings). When discussing
`
`Yagihashi, the Petition refers to a combination of the First Embodiment (Figures 1-
`
`3), the Third Embodiment (Figures 6-7), and the Eleventh Embodiment (Figure
`
`22). Pet. at 44 (citing paragraphs [0041]-[0043] and [0047]-[0054] which discuss
`
`the First Embodiment; citing paragraphs [0060]-[0063] which discuss the Third
`
`Embodiment; and citing paragraph [0108] which discusses the Eleventh
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`Embodiment). Despite statements in Yagihashi that the Third Embodiment’s
`
`control logic “is similar” to the First Embodiment or provides a “function effect”
`
`that is “nearly similar” to the First Embodiment (Ex. 1005, ¶[0064), Petitioner’s
`
`allegations of anticipation are nevertheless improperly based on a combination of
`
`different embodiments of Yagihashi. See Net MoneyIn, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1371.
`
`The suggestion that embodiments are “similar” or “nearly similar” clearly indicates
`
`that there are differences between the embodiments, and thus cannot be relied on,
`
`in combination, as a basis for alleged anticipation. Accordingly, the Board should
`
`deny Ground B as premised upon an improper combination of embodiments of
`
`Yagihashi.
`
`1.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yagihashi Discloses
`“Maintaining The Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol
`Upon Temporary Acceleration Or Deceleration Of The
`Vehicle” (Claim 12)
`Claim 12 requires that the “activated cruise control speed symbol”
`
`“indicative of the speed at which the cruise control system is activated” be
`
`maintained upon temporary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle. The
`
`Petition alleges that the “symbol indicative of the speed at which the cruise control
`
`system is activated” is the set vehicle speed displayed on the second digital display
`
`part 57 on meter M. Pet. at 45; Ex. 1012, ¶74 (Petitioner’s declarant: “the digital
`
`display part 57 provides a symbol (number display) indicative of the preset
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`speed”). However, with respect to “maintaining the activated cruise control speed
`
`symbol,” the Petition does not reference the second digital display part 57, but cites
`
`to the light-emitting parts D1 and D2 of the Third Embodiment. Pet. at 46. The
`
`light-emitting parts D1 and D2 are merely lights which can only change brightness,
`
`color or blinking. Ex. 1005, ¶[0061]. The light-emitting parts D1 and D2 do not
`
`display any symbol indicative of the speed at which the cruise control system is
`
`activated. Accordingly, the Petition fails to show that the “activated cruise control
`
`symbol” is “maintain[ed]…upon temporary acceleration or deceleration of the
`
`vehicle.”
`
`The Petition further refers to Yagihashi’s description of Figure 2 and the
`
`statement, “as visual recognition information, an ON-OFF status of the cruise
`
`control setting and a set speed are always required.” Pet. at 46. However, this
`
`statement does not disclose that the “activated cruise control speed symbol”
`
`(indicative of the speed at which the cruise control system is activated) is
`
`maintained upon temporary acceleration or deceleration. In fact, Yagihashi
`
`expressly states, “it is necessary for the set speed to display cruising (state 2),
`
`decelerating (state 3) and following a leading vehicle (state 4).” Ex. 1005,
`
`¶[0045]. Thus, Yagihashi does not “maintain[] the activated cruise control speed
`
`upon temporary…deceleration of the vehicle.” Rather, Yagihashi reduces the set
`
`speed while the vehicle is decelerating.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`For at least these reasons, Yagihashi does not anticipate claim 12.
`
`2.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Yagihashi Discloses
`“Maintaining The Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed”
`(Claim 13)
`With regard to each element in the body of claim 13, the Petition refers to,
`
`for example, “the preamble of claim 12[b, c, d, and e].” Pet. at 47. It is unclear
`
`whether the Petitioner is relying on the portions of Yagihashi cited as to the
`
`preamble of claim 12, the portions of Yagihashi cited as to the elements of claim
`
`12 or some combination thereof. Accordingly, given the confusing nature of
`
`Petitioner’s challenged to claim 13, the Board should deny Ground B as to claim
`
`13.
`
`Petitioner’s challenged to claim 13 also fails for at least the reasons stated
`
`above with regard to claim 12. To the extent the Petition is referring to the
`
`“maintaining” limitation of claim 12 as meeting the “maintaining” limitation of
`
`claim 13, neither the light emitting parts D1 and D2 nor Yagihashi’s discussion of
`
`Figure 2 meet this limitation.
`
`For at least these reasons, Yagihashi does not anticipate claim 13.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`IV. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`A. Ground C: Yoshimitsu And The 300zx Manual Do Not Render
`Claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 27 and 34-36 Obvious
`Petitioner alleges that claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 27 and 34-36 are obvious
`
`based on Yoshimitsu and the 300zx Manual. Pet. at 25.
`
`1.
`
`The Petition Does Not Provide Any Basis For Its
`Combination Of The “Prior Art” And The Missing, Deleted
`Embodiment Of Yoshimitsu And The 300zx Manual
`(Claims 1, 2, 12 and 34)
`In alleging that claims 1, 2, 12 and 34 are obvious over Yoshimitsu in view
`
`of the 300zx Manual, the Petitioner relies upon a combination of Yoshimitsu’s
`
`discussion of a “prior art” cruise control unit; an embodiment shown in Figure 3; a
`
`different embodiment discussed with respect to missing Figure 6; and the 300zx
`
`Manual. See, e.g., Pet. at 27-29 (as to claim 1). However, the sole basis alleged to