`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Privileged & Confidential / Attorney Work Product
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY, AMERICAN
`HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA
`LLC, SUBARU OF AMERICA INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA,
`INC., AND VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR: 2 0 1 4 - 0 0 2 9 1
`
`[AMENDED] PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.
`6,324,463 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)..........................3
`A.
`Real party-in-interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)..............................3
`B.
`Related matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2).......................................3
`C.
`Lead and back-up counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ......................4
`D.
`Service information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................5
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES .....................................................................................6
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW......................................6
`A. Grounds for standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)...............................6
`B.
`Identification of challenge and relief requested ....................................6
`C. How the challenged claims are to be construed under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(3)........................................................................................7
`Supporting evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)...........................7
`D.
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND PURPORTED
`INVENTION OF THE ’463 PATENT............................................................8
`A.
`Background of the technology ..............................................................8
`B.
`Purported invention of the ’463 Patent ...............................................10
`C.
`Summary of the prosecution history of the ’463 Patent......................10
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................12
`A.
`“engaging the system” (claim 1) and “engaging the cruise
`control system” (claim 21) ..................................................................12
`“enabling” (claims 1 and 2) and “enabled” (claims 2 and 4)..............13
`“unset status of the preset speed” (claim 15) and “unset state of
`the preset speed” (claim 21) ................................................................13
`“activating the cruise control” (claims 12 and 15) and
`“deactivated” (claims 12, 13, and 21) .................................................14
`VII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (PHOSITA).........14
`VIII. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ....................................................................................15
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`i
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, 18-19, 25-27, 29-31, and 34-
`36 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Prometheus
`(Ex. 1003) ............................................................................................15
`B. Ground 2: Claims 3-5, 12, 15-16, 21, and 28 are obvious under
`§ 103(a) over Prometheus (Ex. 1003) in view of Narita (Ex.
`1006)....................................................................................................41
`C. Ground 3: Claim 4 is obvious under § 103(a) over Prometheus
`(Ex. 1003) in view of Celsior (Ex. 1009) ............................................53
`IX. CONCLUSION................................................................................................56
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463 (“the ‘463 Patent”)
`
`File History for the ‘463 Patent
`
`Prometheus, Autonomous Intelligent Cruise Control (AICC)
`(“Prometheus”)
`
`Japanese Published Patent JP 60-174329, Narita, et al.
`
`Declaration of David Boldwin certifying Translation of
`Japanese Published Patent JP 60-174329
`
`Certified English Translation of Japanese Published Patent JP
`60-174329
`
`Toyota, Celsior Owner’s Manual
`
`Certificate of Translation of Hiroyuki Sasai, Sunflare Co., Ltd.,
`certifying translation of Celsior Owner’s Manual
`
`Certified English Translation of Toyota, Celsior Owner’s
`Manual
`
`Declaration of David A. McNamara in Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review (“McNamara Declaration”)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc., along with its co-petitioners
`
`identified below, respectfully request inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 of claims 1-5, 12-16, 18-19, 21, 25-31, and 34-36 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,324,463 (“the ’463 Patent”), titled “Cruise Control Indicator” (Ex.
`
`1001).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’463 Patent purports to meet a safety driven need to always inform a
`
`driver about the present operating state of a cruise control system, in particular by
`
`providing a continuous visual indicator of a set vehicle speed. (See id. at 2:38-45.)
`
`This need, however, was recognized and addressed years earlier in numerous prior
`
`art references.
`
`With a traditional needle and dial type of analog speedometer, the prior art
`
`“Prometheus” publication made use of a series of LEDs arranged around the
`
`periphery of the dial, wherein a set speed was indicated by lighting of the LEDs at
`
`the appropriate position on the dial. (See Prometheus (Ex. 1003), at pp. 110-111
`
`(Figs. 3-4).) The Prometheus display is shown below next to the LED embodiment
`
`of the ’463 Patent.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`
`
`’463 Patent
`
`Annotated Prior Art (Prometheus, p. 110 (Fig. 3))
`
`With a conventional digital speedometer, the prior art “Narita” publication made
`
`use of a second numeric display to indicate the cruise control set speed. (See
`
`Narita (Ex. 1006), at Fig. 5.) The Narita display is shown below next to the digital
`
`embodiment of the ’463 Patent.
`
`Actual speed
`
`Preset cruise
`control speed
`’463 Patent
`
`Actual speed
`
`Preset cruise
`control speed
`
`Annotated Prior Art (Narita, Fig. 5)
`
`Although the ’463 Patent contends that its disclosed visual feedback features,
`
`shown above, were novel improvements over conventional cruise control systems,
`
`that was clearly not the case. As detailed below, the challenged claims of the ’463
`
`Patent must be found invalid.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`A. Real party-in-interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`The following is a list of Petitioners (and additional real parties-in-interest
`
`for each party in parentheses): Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota Motor
`
`Corporation); Subaru of America Inc. (Fuji Heavy Industries Inc.); American
`
`Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda Motor Co., Ltd. and Honda Patents and
`
`Technologies N.A., LLC); Nissan North America Inc.; Ford Motor Company;
`
`Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC; and Volvo Cars of North America, LLC.
`
`B. Related matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The following proceedings were brought by the assignee, Cruise Control
`
`Technologies, LLC; relate to the ’463 Patent; and may affect, or be affected, by a
`
`decision in the proceeding:
`
`Filed
`Docket Number
`Defendant
`01/15/2013
`D. Del. 1:13cv82
`American Honda Motor Co. Inc.
`01/15/2013
`D. Del. 1:13cv85
`Nissan North America Inc.
`01/15/2013
`D. Del. 1:13cv86
`Toyota Motor North America Inc.
`01/15/2013
`D. Del. 1:13cv87
`Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
`D. Del. 1:12cv1753 12/21/2012
`Audi of America LLC
`D. Del. 1:12cv1755 12/21/2012
`Chrysler Group LLC
`D. Del. 1:12cv1756 12/21/2012
`Ford Motor Company
`D. Del. 1:12cv1757 12/21/2012
`General Motors LLC
`Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC D. Del. 1:12cv1758 12/21/2012
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`Defendant
`Mercedes-Benz USA LLC
`Porsche Cars North America Inc.
`Subaru of America Inc.
`Volvo Cars of North America LLC
`
`Filed
`Docket Number
`D. Del. 1:12cv1759 12/21/2012
`D. Del. 1:12cv1760 12/21/2012
`D. Del. 1:12cv1761 12/21/2012
`D. Del. 1:12cv1762 12/21/2012
`
`The following actions were also brought by the assignee against the listed
`
`Defendants, related to the ’463 Patent, and have concluded: Audi of America, LLC,
`
`Case No. 1:12-cv-01753 (D. Del.); BMW of North America LLC, Case No.
`
`1:12cv1754 (D. Del.); and Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 1:13cv84 (D. Del.).
`
`An ex parte reexamination of claim 2 of the ’463 Patent was granted on May
`
`31, 2013 (Control No. 90/012,841). Petitioners of that reexamination are not the
`
`real parties-in-interest with respect to this proceeding. A rejection of claim 2 was
`
`made in an Office Action dated August 28, 2013.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and back-up counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Lead Counsel
`Vaibhav P. Kadaba (Reg. No. 45,865)
`(nissan-cct@kilpatricktownsend.com)
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`Telephone: (404) 532-6959
`Fax: (404) 541-3258
`Back-Up Counsel
`Matthew D. Satchwell (Reg. No. 58,870)
`(matthew.satchwell@dlapiper.com)
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Clay D. Holloway (Reg. No. 58,011)
`(nissan-cct@kilpatricktownsend.com)
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`Telephone: (404) 815-6537
`Fax: (404) 541-3484
`Back-Up Counsel
`Steven J. Reynolds (Reg. No. 61,445)
`(Subaru-CCT-IPR@dlapiper.com)
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1900
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`T: 312-368-3467, F: 312-630-6352
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`John M. Caracappa (Reg. No. 43,532)
`(jcaracap@steptoe.com)
`Steptoe & Johnson LLP
`1330 Connecticut Ave. NW,
`Washington, DC 20036
`T: 202-429-6267, F: 202-261-0597
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1900
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`T: 312-368-2111, F: 312-630-6352
`Back-Up Counsel
`William H. Mandir (Reg. No. 32,156)
`(wmandir@sughrue.com)
`Sughrue Mion PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`T: 202-293-7060, F: 202-293-7068
`Back-Up Counsel
`Matthew J. Moore (Reg. No. 42,012)
`(matthew.moore@lw.com)
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh St., N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`T: 202-637-2278, F: 202-637-2201
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Powers of Attorney accompany this
`
`Petition.
`
`D.
`
`Service information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Service of any documents via hand-delivery may be made at the postal
`
`mailing address of the respective lead or back-up counsel designated above.
`
`Nissan North America, Inc. consents to electronic service by e-mail at nissan-
`
`cct@kilpatricktownsend.com.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`Petitioners authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to charge the required
`
`fees for this Petition, as well as any additional fees, fee deficiency, to Deposit
`
`Acct. No. 20-1430, Customer ID No. 23370.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A. Grounds for standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioners certify that (1) the ’463 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and (2) Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`of the claims of the ’463 Patent on the grounds identified in this Petition. This
`
`Petition is being filed less than one year from December 21, 2012, the earliest date
`
`a Petitioner was served with a complaint by the Patent Owner.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of challenge and relief requested
`
`Petitioners request cancellation of claims 1-5, 12-16, 18-19, 21, 25-31, and
`
`34-36 of the ’463 Patent in view of the following prior art references:
`
`Patent No. /
`Publication Name
`
`Filing Date
`
`“CED 5: Autonomous
`Intelligent Cruise Control
`(AICC),” Prometheus
`(“Prometheus”)
`JP S60-174329
`(“Narita”)
`Celsior Owner’s Manual
`(“Celsior”)
`
`Date of
`Issuance or
`Publication
`April 19,
`1991
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1003
`
`N/A
`
`February
`16, 1984
`N/A
`
`September
`7, 1985
`1997
`
`1004;
`1006 (translation)
`1007;
`1009 (translation)
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b), Exhibits 1005 and 1008 are certifications
`
`attesting to the fact that Exhibits 1006 and 1009 are accurate and complete
`
`translations of Exhibits 1004 and 1007, respectively.
`
`Petitioners assert the following specific grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102 and 103: Ground 1 – Claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, 18-19, 25-27, 29-31, 34-36 are
`
`anticipated under § 102(b) by Prometheus; Ground 2 – Claims 3-5, 12, 15-16, 21,
`
`28 are obvious under § 103(a) over Prometheus in view of Narita; and Ground 3 –
`
`Claim 4 is obvious under § 103(a) over Prometheus in view of Celsior.
`
`C. How the challenged claims are to be construed under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(3)
`
`The construction of the challenged claims is set forth in Section VI below,
`
`captioned “CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.”
`
`D.
`
`Supporting evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the
`
`challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including
`
`identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, are
`
`provided herein. An Exhibit List identifying the exhibits is also attached. An
`
`Appendix of Exhibits identifying the exhibits is also attached. The technical
`
`information and grounds for rejection explained in detail in the Petition are further
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`supported by the Declaration of David A. McNamara attached as Exhibit 1010,
`
`which is incorporated by reference herein.
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND PURPORTED
`INVENTION OF THE ’463 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Background of the technology
`
`Cruise control technology was not new in 1998, and even the ’463 Patent
`
`discusses the known functionality “found in many automobiles” (Ex. 1001, 1:11-
`
`12.) (“Admitted Prior Art” or “APA”):
`
`In particular, conventional cruise control systems
`require the operator to (1) turn on the cruise control
`system (by depressing or rocking a button on the steering
`wheel or dashboard), (2) achieve the desired cruising
`speed (by controlling the deflection of the accelerator),
`and then (3) engage, or set, the cruise control (by
`pressing another button typically located on the steering
`wheel or cruise control stalk shift).
`Further, the conventional cruise control system is
`provided with a memory function that stores the set
`control speed.
`
`(Id. at 1:17-27 (emphasis added).)
`
`The prior art also addressed the need to ensure a cruise control user is “. . .
`
`always [ ] informed about the [cruise control] system state . . . .” (Prometheus (Ex.
`
`1003), p. 107.) The Prometheus publication diagrammed the “system states” (see,
`
`e.g., id. at Fig. 4, p. 111) of the cruise control system and described the information
`
`to always be shown to the driver via the dashboard (see, e.g., id. at Fig. 3, p. 110
`
`(excerpt included below).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, when cruise control speed regulation occurs (state 3), “[a]ll LEDs
`
`under the consign speed corresponding LED are ON (last one also)” such that the
`
`driver knows speed regulation is occurring and the preset speed (i.e., the “consign
`
`speed”) is identified by the last LED. (See, e.g., id. at Fig. 2, p. 109 & Fig. 4, p.
`
`111.) If the vehicle is braked, the system reverts to “state 2” in which only the
`
`“[m]emorized consign speed LED is ON” such that the driver is always aware of
`
`the preset speed but recognizes that speed regulation is not engaged since all LEDs
`
`under the consign speed are not also on (compare the lit LEDs in state 2 versus state
`
`3). (Id.) If the vehicle is accelerated with the accelerator pedal (state 6), the driver
`
`knows that the speed regulation has been suspended since all of the LEDs under the
`
`consign speed including the last LED are still on (same as for state 3).
`
`(Id.) Additionally, an “OVER” light is lit in the dashboard. (See, e.g., id. at Fig. 3,
`
`p. 110 & Fig. 4, p. 111.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`B.
`
`Purported invention of the ’463 Patent
`
`The ’463 Patent specification states that it solved a need for providing
`
`“useful, visual feedback to operators of automobiles with cruise control of the
`
`preset speeds at which they are set.” (2:33-35). And, that it did so by “equipping
`
`the vehicle with a visual feedback system that continuously provides the preset
`
`speed memorized by the cruise control system.” (2:40-43). The ’463 Patent
`
`specification describes both digital and analog feedback system embodiments. (Id.
`
`at col. 3-5; Figs. 1 (excerpt) and 2, provided below, respectively.)
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the prosecution history of the ’463 Patent
`
`In the prior art rejections made in the one and only Office Action, the
`
`Examiner cited as his primary reference, Suzuki (U.S. 5,949,346)—which did not
`
`disclose a cruise control system. On September 7, 2000, the Examiner rejected the
`
`claims as follows: claims 1-11 and 25-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
`
`by Suzuki (U.S. Patent No. 5,949,346); claims 12-24 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) as unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Tomececk (U.S. Patent No.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`4,132,284); and claims 2-12 and 26-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite. (File
`
`History of ’463 Patent (Ex. 1002), Office Action, Sept. 7, 2000, at 1-3, 7.)
`
`In response, the applicant amended claims 2, 6, 7, 12, 22, 24, 26, and 34 to
`
`address claim objections and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
`
`paragraph. (File History of ’463 Patent (Ex. 1002), Response to Office Action,
`
`Apr. 6, 2001, at 1-5.) The applicant argued that Suzuki discloses a display of
`
`actual speed and speed limit information, but “does not even discuss cruise control
`
`functionality, let alone teach or suggest the application of a feedback system to
`
`provide preset cruise control speed information.” (Id. at 6-8) (emphasis added).
`
`The applicant then spelled out what the claims are directed to:
`
`Applicant’s inventive system and every system and
`method claim in the pending application, on the contrary,
`are directed only to the specific problem of providing
`preset cruise control speed information to the driver of a
`vehicle. . . . . The pending claims only address the
`display of the speed of the vehicle as it was when the
`cruise control was set as a constant indicator/reminder to
`the driver of the speed to which the vehicle will resume
`after the cruise control speed is temporarily overridden
`(i.e. due to acceleration or deceleration).
`
`(Id. p. 105 (emphasis added)).
`
`The Examiner allowed all claims in view of the applicant’s amendments and
`
`arguments; however, the statement of reasons for allowance provided by the
`
`Examiner included a recitation of various limitations, drawn from various
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`independent claims rather than from any single independent claim. (See File
`
`History of ’463 Patent (Ex. 1002), Notice of Allowability, June 4, 2001, at 2.) The
`
`’463 Patent issued on November 27, 2001.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim subject to inter partes review is given its “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This means that the words of the claim are given their plain
`
`meaning from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art unless that meaning
`
`is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1989). Petitioners further submit, for the purposes of inter partes review only, that
`
`the claim terms are presumed to take on their broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`light of the specification of the ’463 Patent. Petitioners submit that the following
`
`terms may need to be construed in connection with this Petition.
`
`A.
`
`“engaging the system” (claim 1) and “engaging the cruise control
`system” (claim 21)
`The ’463 Patent uses numerous terms to describe various states of the cruise
`
`control system. Among them, the term “engaged” is used throughout the
`
`specification to specifically describe an operating state of the cruise control system
`
`to control the speed of vehicle to the preset speed. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at Fig. 4.)
`
`For example, at column 5, lines 13–15, the ’463 Patent discloses that when the
`
`cruise control “is engaged, . . . the automobile accelerates to the preset speed.”
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`Furthermore, at column 1, lines 46–48, the ’463 Patent describes a system
`
`“engaged at a set speed” to mean “the car’s speed is automatically controlled at the
`
`memorized speed.” Thus, based on its plain meaning in light of the specification,
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would consider “engaging the system” (claim 1) and
`
`“engaging the cruise control system” (claim 21) to mean “operating the cruise
`
`control system to automatically control the vehicle at the preset speed.”
`
`B.
`
`“enabling” (claims 1 and 2) and “enabled” (claims 2 and 4)
`
`The claims distinguish an “enabling” of the cruise control system from an
`
`“engaging,” which is construed above. (See, e.g., id. at claim 1.) For
`
`example, according to claim 1, the cruise control system is “enabl[ed]” by an
`
`enable switch and “engag[ed]” by a set speed input. Furthermore, in claim 4,
`
`the controller is “initially enabled” and, in claim 2, the cruising speed is selected
`
`“when the controller is enabled.” The specification clearly uses the term
`
`“enabled” to mean a “system on” state for the cruise control system. (See id. at
`
`4:39–46.) Thus, “enabling” means “turning on” and “enabled” means “turned
`
`on.”
`
`C.
`
`“unset status of the preset speed” (claim 15) and “unset state of
`the preset speed” (claim 21)
`
`The terms “status” and “state” are used interchangeably in the claims and are
`
`therefore synonymous in the ’463 Patent. (See, e.g., id. at claims 15 and 22.) As
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`such, “unset state” and “unset status” of the preset speed have the same meaning
`
`for purposes of this proceeding; i.e., a state or status in which there is no preset
`
`speed for the cruise control system.
`
`D.
`
`“activating the cruise control” (claims 12 and 15) and
`“deactivated” (claims 12, 13, and 21)
`
`Both claims 12 and 15 recite an “activating” of the cruise control system,
`
`with claim 15 clearly using this term to mean a turning on of the cruise control
`
`system (“before setting the preset speed, activating the cruise control system”).
`
`(Id. at claim 15.) Furthermore, the specification utilizes the term “activated” to
`
`also refer to a turning on of the system (“When the cruise control system is first
`
`activated, the preset display 16 will blink the number zero indicating an ‘unset’
`
`state of the cruise control”). (Id. at 4:4–6). Accordingly, in light of the
`
`specification and the plain meaning of this term, “activating the cruise control”
`
`means “turning on the cruise control.” For similar reasons, “deactivated” as
`
`recited in claims 12, 13, and 21 means “turned off.”
`
`VII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (PHOSITA)
`
`For purposes of this reexamination, Petitioners assert that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of control systems and their display capabilities at the time
`
`of the alleged invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in engineering or
`
`14
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`equivalent coursework and at least two years of experience in automotive control
`
`systems and user interfaces for vehicles.
`
`VIII. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, 18-19, 25-27, 29-31, and 34-36 are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Prometheus (Ex. 1003)
`
`Prometheus was published in 1991, which is roughly seven years before the
`
`priority date of the ’463 Patent. Prometheus, therefore, is prior art to claims 1-3, 5,
`
`12-14, 18-19, 25-27, 29-31, and 34-36 of the ’463 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Prometheus was not disclosed or considered during the prosecution of the ’463
`
`Patent.
`
`Prometheus discloses a system for indicating the operational status and a
`
`preset speed of a cruise control system. Specifically, Prometheus discloses an
`
`autonomous intelligent cruise control (“AICC”) system that regulates the speed of
`
`a motor vehicle at a speed selected by the driver (“consign speed”) and
`
`continuously displays to the driver the state of the system and the consign speed.
`
`(Prometheus (Ex. 1003) at 105-07.) Prometheus teaches numerous controls of the
`
`AICC system: an ON/OFF switch to turn the system on and off; an ACTIVATE
`
`button, an ACCEL button, and a PAUSE button to select a speed at which to
`
`maintain the vehicle; a DEACTIVATE button and a BRAKE PEDAL to brake the
`
`vehicle; and an ACCELERATOR PEDAL to accelerate. (Id. at 105-06.)
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`Prometheus also teaches a dashboard display to continuously inform the driver
`
`about the system state and the consign speed. (Id. at 107; 110, Fig. 3.)
`
`Figure 3 discloses a dashboard containing an analog speedometer with
`
`individual LEDs arranged around the periphery of the speedometer dial and
`
`corresponding to speed markers on the dial. Particular LEDs are lit green when the
`
`AICC system is turned on and a consign speed is selected to begin speed
`
`regulation. The dashboard also has cruise control warning lights that are lit
`
`depending on the operating state of the cruise control system.
`
`
`
`(See also, id. at 109 (Fig. 2) (illustrating the different states of the AICC system);
`
`id. at 111 (Fig. 4) (detailing the information that the driver receives from the
`
`dashboard display at the different states of the AICC system).) At state 1, before
`
`the system is turned on, nothing relating to the AICC system is shown on the
`
`dashboard display. (Id. at Figs. 2, 4.) After the driver switches on the ON/OFF
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`switch (state 2), the AICC system is turned on. (Id. at 2 & Figs. 2, 4.) After the
`
`driver presses the ACTIVATE button (state 3), the AICC system is on, speed
`
`regulation is started, and the vehicle speed is memorized as the consign speed.
`
`(Id.) The driver is also informed about the operation state of the AICC system (on
`
`and in speed regulation) because the AICC warning light is lit, and the consign
`
`speed because all LEDs under and including the LED corresponding to the consign
`
`speed are on. (Id.)
`
`The driver may select a new consign speed by pressing the PAUSE button to
`
`decrease the consign speed or the ACCEL button to increase the consign speed, as
`
`well as by operating the accelerator pedal and then pressing the ACTIVATE
`
`button. While the driver presses the PAUSE button (state 4) or the ACCEL button
`
`(state 5), the driver is informed about the operation state of the AICC system by
`
`seeing the vehicle speed needle of the speedometer differ from the LED indicating
`
`the previously set consign speed and by the lit PAUSE button. (Id. at 107; Figs. 2,
`
`4.)
`
`If, while the AICC system is on and in speed regulation, the driver
`
`temporarily overrides the AICC system by stepping on the ACCELERATOR
`
`PEDAL (state 6); the driver is continuously informed about the operation state of
`
`the AICC system (override) and the consign speed because the OVER warning
`
`light is lit and all LEDs under and including the LED corresponding to the
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`previously set consign speed are on. (Id.) If, while the AICC system is on and in
`
`speed regulation, the driver steps on the BRAKE PEDAL, the speed regulation is
`
`stopped (system reverts to state 2); the driver is continuously informed about the
`
`operation state of the AICC system (stopped) and the consign speed because only
`
`the LED corresponding to the previously set consign speed is on. (Id. at Figs. 2,
`
`4.) Finally, when the driver switches off the ON/OFF switch (state 1), the AICC
`
`system is turned off, and nothing relating to the AICC system is shown on the
`
`dashboard. (Id.)
`
`As demonstrated by the claim chart below, Prometheus discloses each and
`
`every element of claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, 18-19, 25-27, 29-31, and 34-36.
`
`Claims of the ’463 Patent
`1. A cruise control system for
`vehicle having a human
`operator, comprising:
`
`(a) a speed controller that
`automatically maintains the
`vehicle speed at a preset
`speed;
`
`Disclosure in Prometheus (Ex. 1003)
`“If the driver wants to take up the regulation, he
`can act in two ways: press on the ACTIVATE
`button so the system starts again the regulation
`with the vehicle speed as the consign speed, or
`press on the RESUME button and the system
`starts again the regulation with the memorized
`speed as the consign speed.” (Prometheus (Ex.
`1003), at 106.)
`“If the driver wants to take up the regulation, he
`can act in two ways: press on the ACTIVATE
`button so the system starts again the regulation
`with the vehicle speed as the consign speed, or
`press on the RESUME button and the system
`starts again the regulation with the memorized
`speed as the consign speed.” (Id. at 2.)
`“The consign speed is the speed selected by the
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) an enable switch
`associated with said controller
`for enabling the system;
`(c) 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;
`
`(d) a memory which stores
`information indicative of said
`preset speed; and
`
`[Amended] Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
`
`driver to maintain the vehicle. - If the system is
`in speed regulation, the vehicle speed is the
`consign speed.” (Id.)
`“The first action of the driver is to switch on the
`ON/OFF switch.” (Id. at 2.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“If the driver wants to take up the regulation, he
`can act in two ways: press on the ACTIVATE
`button so the system starts again the regulation
`with the vehicle speed as the consign speed, or
`press on the RESUME button and the system
`starts again the regulation with the memorized
`speed as the consign speed.” (Id. at 2.)
`“If the system is in speed regulation:
`*To increase the consign speed, the driver
`uses the ACCEL button; when it’s pressed on,
`the regulation continues and the vehicle speed
`rises up until the driver releases the ACCEL
`button; at that moment the consign speed takes
`the vehicle’s speed value, and the system
`continues with the speed regulation.
`*To decrease the consigne [sic] speed, the
`driver uses the PAUSE button; when it is
`pressed, the regulation stops and the vehicle’s
`speed falls down until the driver releases the
`PAUSE button; at that moment the system