`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 42
`Entered: April 28, 2015
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`- - - - - -
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`- - - - - -
`
` NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`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 IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`Oral Hearing Held on Wednesday, March 25, 2015
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`
`Before: JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R.
`
`HOSKINS (via video link), Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, March
`
`25, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., in Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TOYOTA MOTORS:
`
`JOHN F. RABENA, ESQ.
`
`
`WILLIAM H. MANDIR, ESQ.
`
`
`FADI N. KIBLAWI, ESQ.
`
`
`Sughrue Mion, PLLC
`
`
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`
`
`Washington, D.C. 20037-3213
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHN R. KASHA, ESQ.
`Kasha Law LLC
`14532 Defief Mill Road
`North Potomac, Maryland 20878
`
`TIMOTHY M. SALMON, ESQ.
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC
`14532 Defief Mill Road
`North Potomac, Maryland 20878
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(10:00 a. m. )
`
`JUDGE C OC KS: Please be se ated. Good morning.
`
`This is the or al a r gu ment for I PR2014 -00291. This i s the fifth
`
`of five related pr oceedings all involving U.S. P atent
`
`6,324,463.
`
`Let's begin with i ntroductions of c ounsel, starting
`
`with Petitioner.
`
`MR. RABENA: Good mo rning, Your Honor. I' m
`
`John Rabena fro m Sughrue Mion he re on behalf of Pe titioner,
`
`To yota . I a m h er e at counsel table with Fadi Kiblawi and
`
`Willia m Mandir , also of my fir m.
`
`JUDGE C OC KS: Thank you, Mr . Rabena. For
`
`Patent Owner?
`
`MR. KAS HA: Go od morning, Your Honor. I' m
`
`John Kasha, l ead counsel for Paten t Owner . And wit h me is
`
`Mr. Ti moth y S almon fro m Cruise Control Technologies. And
`
`he will be present ing oral argu ment toda y.
`
`JUDGE C OC KS: All right. Thank you, Mr . Kasha
`
`and Mr. Sal mon .
`
`As we set forth in our trial hear ing order and as is
`
`fairl y well establi shed at this point, each side has 45 minutes.
`
`Petitioner will be gin and ma y r eser ve rebuttal ti me .
`
`Patent Owner will then argue their opposition. And the
`
`Petitioner will conclude with an y t i me rese rved.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`So havin g that be ing said, Mr . Rab ena, the floor is
`
`yours. Wh enever you are read y.
`
`MR. RABENA: Thank you , Your Honors. This
`
`petition was initiall y filed b y the Nissan petitioner, and then
`
`the y settled and we stepped in as t he lead petitioner .
`
`It is based pri ma r ily on - - ther e a re three g rounds,
`
`all based pri maril y on the Pro meth eus refe rence . Th e
`
`argu ments raised b y the Patent Owner ar e such that the y all
`
`stand and fall on Pro metheus.
`
`There are no sepa rate a rgu ments re garding the
`
`Narita or Celsior issues o r whether it is obvious to c o mbine.
`
`It is all based on what is disclosed in Pro metheus.
`
`Before I get to th e substance of Pr o metheus, I
`
`would like to add ress an issue that was raised in the Patent
`
`Owne r r esponse, i n that the y challe nged or the y obje cted to
`
`the authenticity o f the Pro metheus referenc e as being prior art .
`
`And our vie w is t hat objection was unti mel y.
`
`Under 42.64, the y had 10 da ys f ro m institution to file an y
`
`objections to the prior art we were rel ying on. And t he rule
`
`specificall y state s that the r eason t hat the y have to d o that at
`
`that ti me is to allow cor rection in t he for m o f supplemental
`
`evidence; in other words, discover y on whe re it was published,
`
`who had it, who had access to this r eference .
`
`JUDGE C OC KS: What was the rule you jus t cited?
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`MR. RABENA: 42.64. In particul ar I ' m looking at
`
`Subsection (b)(1). And it states th at the objection must be
`
`with sufficient pa rticularit y to allow cor rection in th e for m of
`
`supplemental evi dence. It also sta tes that there is a 10 -da y
`
`fro m in stitution time line.
`
`There is also a r e quire ment in that sa me rule that
`
`the Patent Owner subsequently file a motion to exclu de. None
`
`of that has been d one here. This was raised for the f irst ti me
`
`in the Patent Owner r esponse.
`
`And, as a result, we did n't have an y opportunity to
`
`seek additional discover y into the e xtent of the publication of
`
`the refe rence . An d since the author , R enault, was in France ,
`
`we would have lo ved to do that discover y and we di dn't have
`
`that chance.
`
`In addition, the e xpert in this case , Mr . M cNa mara ,
`
`I think, he designed cruise controls and interfa ces, i n his
`
`declaration he ex plains that, since 1995. And he tal ks about
`
`this referenc e and the P ro metheus project .
`
`And he sa ys in pa ragraphs 43 to 45 that it was a
`
`large scale int er- govern mental r esearch pro ject bet ween eight
`
`or nine differ ent European auto mo tive makers and govern ment
`
`agencies. There were no, you kno w, confidentialit y. This was
`
`al most the entire auto motive industr y involved in this project .
`
`There were se min ars, things like th at, that are even c ited in
`
`the exhibit.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`But even be yond all of that, the Pe titioner relies
`
`only on the R ena ult article which has a cop yright notice and a
`
`copyright date of 1991. And we cit ed in our r epl y br ief cases
`
`that sa y that pres u mpti on is met , t hat it is prior art, unless the
`
`challenging party co mes ba ck with evidence that it, i n fact,
`
`was never published.
`
`So with that said I' m going to mov e on to the
`
`substance. Slide 4 is fro m figure 1 of the Pro metheu s article,
`
`and it shows sort of the la yout of t he inside of the c ar where
`
`the y have enu mer ated. It has the t ypical c ruise cont rol
`
`buttons.
`
`Nu mb er 6 is an on/off button that turns on the
`
`cruise control s ys te m. B y the wa y, AICC stands for
`
`Autono mous Intel ligent Cruise Control. 6 tu rns it on . 7 is the
`
`activate or engage button. 8 is a pause. You might think of it
`
`as a coast button in a lot of the mo dern s yste ms . 9 i s a r esu me
`
`button. So me of these buttons, 11 and 12, deal with the
`
`distance control because it also has that fe atur e.
`
`JUDGE C OC KS: Mr . R abena, ma y I inter rupt?
`
`Did you reserve a n y r ebuttal ti me?
`
`MR. RABENA: I ' m sorr y, Your Honor, I will take
`
`15 minutes like t he other P etitioners.
`
`JUDGE C OC KS: Thank you. I ap ologize.
`
`MR. RABENA: F igure 3 on slide 5 shows the
`
`display of the Pro metheus auto mob ile. On the right side is the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`tacho mete r, whic h we ar e not deali ng with in this ca se. These
`
`LEDs on the right side deal with th e distance f eature of the
`
`adapted cruise co ntrol. We are going to focus on ba sicall y the
`
`left s ide which I have annotated in this slide.
`
`It has status lights on the right. The AI CC is a
`
`cruise control light that co mes on when you turn on the
`
`s yste m. Pause, if you hit the pause button. Over , if you have
`
`accelerat ed to go over the preset speed.
`
`And like figure 2 of the patent and so me of the
`
`other prior art we have, there are LEDs spaced along the
`
`speedo meter that light up to identify the preset speed which
`
`this referenc e c alls the consign speed.
`
`As I mentioned, t his is a side -b y-side co mp aris on.
`
`It is hard to see but a green light pops up when you first turn
`
`on the s yste m to show you what th e me mori zed spee d was .
`
`JUDGE C OC KS: Mr . R abena, for purposes of the
`
`transcript and for Judge Hoskins' b enefit, could you identify
`
`the slide when yo u are speaking?
`
`MR. RABENA: Certainl y, Your Honor. This is
`
`slide 7 wher e I ha ve a side -b y-side, co mparing to the LED
`
`e mbodi ment in figure 2 of the '463 patent.
`
`On slide 8 I have put three figures, figures 2, 3 and
`
`4 of the Pro methe us article to show -- and I a m going to go
`
`through the various modes -- figure 3 is fro m the speedo mete r
`
`or the displa y that I just mentioned. That 's at the to p. And
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`figure 2 on the le ft shows the state diagra m of the v arious
`
`states, and the y h ave nu mbe rs next to each state, 1, 2 or 3,
`
`down to 6. And t hen figure 4 is an explanation of what the
`
`states are .
`
`So in state 1 the s yste m is off . Not hing is lit up on
`
`the display. I f yo u press that button 6 that I mentioned
`
`earlier, the cruise control light goes on and you are now -- you
`
`now have turned i t on and you are i n state 2. And th e
`
`referenc e tells us that in state 2 the cruise control light is on.
`
`The me morized c onsign speed corresponding LED is on.
`
`This is shown on slide 9. You can see one gre en
`
`dot popped up. These an notations are mine , the y are not in the
`
`referenc e, but the y are based on what is taught in the se
`
`figures.
`
`On slide 10, the o perator has either pressed the
`
`resu me or activat e button to go into mode state 3 , which is
`
`engaging the cruise control. Regul atio n mode is on. And the
`
`difference there in the displa y is that all LEDs under the
`
`consign speed come on, so he kno ws that ther e is a difference ,
`
`that he or she is i n active c ruise co ntrol mode .
`
`Slide DX-11 sho ws that we have t ransitioned into
`
`either mode 4 or 5 b y pr essing the pause button or the
`
`accelerat e button. And the diff eren ce in the displa y t here is
`
`that the pause button shows up. Ev er ything else sta yed the
`
`sa me .
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`And then slide 12 shows that if you press the
`
`accelerator pedal, the "over" light goes on, but the c onsign
`
`speed is still indicated so you know what your set c onsign
`
`speed was .
`
`I will now move on to address the Patent Owner
`
`argu ments. The f irst argu ment is s i milar to one that we 've
`
`heard in the 280 c ase. The Patent Owne r f ro m their -- I ' m on
`
`slide 14 -- the Pat ent Owner in their response said th at the
`
`petition does not refer to the struct ural require ment of a speed
`
`controller.
`
`Howeve r, nowher e in an y Patent Owner pape r or
`
`slides or an ything have the y said what that structure
`
`requi re ment is, a nd the patent doesn't tell us what t he
`
`structural require ment is.
`
`Here is what, on slide 15, this is what the petition
`
`said. And the language that we qu oted, the P etitioner has
`
`quoted fro m the p etition, mi mi cs th e language fro m t he clai m.
`
`The cl ai m is " a s peed controller th at auto maticall y maintains
`
`the vehicle speed at a pr eset speed . " And we quoted that when
`
`you "press on the activate button so the s yste m start s again the
`
`regulation with the vehicle speed a s the consign speed." It is
`
`at the sa me level of discussion.
`
`Now, I mentioned that the patent doesn't have an y
`
`specific structura l disclosure of what the speed controller is
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`supposed to be. So I would like t o look at what the patent
`
`does tell us.
`
`There is no diagr a m of the controll er, no
`
`discussion of it h as to be a c ertain structure, but it d oes give
`
`us figure 4, whic h is a state diagra m or a flo w chart of how the
`
`cruise control wo rks. In one condition it does so met hing,
`
`blinks a certain li ght and what hav e you . It is a flow cha r t or
`
`a state diagra m.
`
`Now, if we go back to Pro metheus and see what
`
`Pro metheus shows us, on slide DX -16, we can see fi gure 2
`
`fro m P ro metheus. It has the sa me l evel of detail , a f low chart ,
`
`a state diagra m of the states, the algorithm of the co ntrol. So
`
`the patent and the Pro metheus are on the sa me level of the
`
`disclosure in that regard .
`
`Now, if you look further at the spe cification you
`
`can see that the '463 patent uses the ter ms cruise cont rol,
`
`speed controller a nd cruise control s yste m interchang eabl y.
`
`The y equate the m all as the sa me .
`
`For exa mple , in c lai m 2, ele ment B sa ys a cruise
`
`control enable switch associated wi th the controller f or
`
`enabling and disabling the controller. And that cont roller is
`
`refer ring back to earlier in the clai m whe re th e y reci te a speed
`
`controller. All ri ght.
`
`So what does the patent tell us about when the
`
`switch, the switc h that enables or disabling the controller, on
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`colu mn - - I' m on slide 17, Judge Hoskins -- colu mn 4, line 39
`
`to 46, sa ys that when you - - we wa nt to i nfor m the o perator
`
`that the cruise control is enabled, not the speed controller. It
`
`is conflating the two ter ms .
`
`And then another exa mple -- well, t here is mo re to
`
`this, actuall y. It sa ys that, further , LED 50 corresponding to
`
`the zero mile an hour mar k re mains lit to indicate th e cruise
`
`control status, i.e ., s yste m on. So now it's talking a bout the
`
`s yste m, when you have enabled the cruise controller -- the
`
`controller.
`
`Clai m 26 does the sa me thing. It sa ys that you
`
`want to give visu al infor mation in dicative of an ope ration
`
`status of the spee d controller. So you look at the spec to get
`
`so me enlighten me nt on what the speed controller is. It talks
`
`about a digital display configured to show the prese t speed and
`
`the operational status of the c ruise cont rol s yste m.
`
`So there is nothing in the patent th at clearl y t ells
`
`you that the spee d controller has a specific structur e, and is
`
`quite the contrar y. The patent repe atedl y tells you t hat the
`
`cruise control s ys te m and the speed controller and a cruise
`
`cont rol, that's all their sa me thinking.
`
`The next ele ment that the Patent Owner challenges
`
`is the me mor y. And Patent Owner sa ys in their resp onse
`
`that -- the sa me k ind of thing -- tha t the petition doesn't refe r
`
`to the structural r equire ment of a me mo r y.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`Again, in the spe cification the wor d me mor y is
`
`used but it doesn't sa y an ything sp ecific about the structure.
`
`And as we heard yesterda y fro m, I think it was in th e 289 case ,
`
`Mr. Stead man pointed out a nu mb er of c ases that de a lt with
`
`the fact that we a re all owed to - - you look at the re f erence, the
`
`prior art refe renc e, fro m the e yes o f one of ordinar y skill in
`
`the art, and he or she is allowed to make infer ences based on
`
`his skill.
`
`So if you look at what the petition sets forth, it is
`
`clear that one of ordi nar y skill re a ding this sentence at l east,
`
`if not the whole r eference , that the consign speed is
`
`me mo rized b y the s yste m. That's a disclosure that t he s yste m
`
`has a me mor y. There is no other wa y to read that.
`
`The next ele ment that the Patent Owner challe nges
`
`in clai m 1 is the f eedback s yste m. And the clai m r ec ites "a
`
`feedback s yste m f or co mmunicating said infor mation in said
`
`me mo r y to the operator of the vehi cle."
`
`Well, Pro metheus has virtuall y the sa me language.
`
`"The user has alwa ys to be infor me d ab out the s yste m state,
`
`consign speed .. . All this infor mati on will be showe d at the
`
`dashboard." This is on DX -20. We have mo re discl osure in
`
`our clai m charts but that sa ys it b y itself.
`
`Now, the Patent Owne r, their chal lenge is this
`
`precision argu me nt t hat we heard yesterda y in so me of the
`
`other IPRs , that i f you were in bet ween 40 and 50 a nd the light
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`was at 40 or 50, you wouldn't know. Well, as we he a rd
`
`yesterda y, there i s no such precision required in this patent,
`
`and, in f act, the p atent tells us ot herwise.
`
`On slide 22 you c an see a quote f rom colu mn 4,
`
`line 21 through 26 of the patent . I t sa ys that, in its LED
`
`e mbodi ment, it p uts LEDs at eve r y one mile per hou r interval,
`
`but it is understood that other intervals ma y be used if desired .
`
`So 10 kil o mete rs per hour ce rtainl y fits within what t he patent
`
`is telling us for i ndications.
`
`That's it for clai m 1. Clai m 5 wa s the next clai m
`
`that was challenged, and this was a si mila r a rgu ment. Clai m 5
`
`sa ys the digital display that displa ys infor mation ind icative of
`
`the selected c ruising speed, and th e Patent Owner sa ys that the
`
`green dots don't i ndicate the cruisi ng speed.
`
`As we heard yest erda y, and as I sa id, the clai m
`
`doesn't have that resolution requirement and ce rtainly that
`
`green dot is indicative o f the prese t speed.
`
`On slide 24 is another argu ment th at the P atent
`
`Owne r r aised for clai m 5 where the y said that an LED, this
`
`green dot, the only thing that displa ys is light and that doesn't
`
`convey infor mati on indicative of the selected cruising speed of
`
`the vehicle.
`
`Well, oka y, it is t he light and its place ment, the y
`
`do indicate the pr eset speed. The p lace ment of the li ght is
`
`tacitl y considered as well.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`Mr. Mc Na mar a sa id in his declarati on that that
`
`light, b y being a binar y situation light, is a d igital indication.
`
`That aspect has n ot been challenge d or raised in the IPR. So
`
`that's it for clai m 5.
`
`On slide 26, I mo ve on to the a rguments that were
`
`raised with respe ct to clai m 12. The first a rgu ment is the
`
`resolution argu me nt again. I won't bel abor that point. But
`
`this clai m also sa ys a s ymbol indicative of. So that dot is
`
`indicative of.
`
`The next argu men t raised on slide 2 7 is the clai m
`
`requires that - - th is is the activating ele ment -- and t he clai m
`
`sa ys a ctivating the cruise control syste m at a desire d cruising
`
`speed. And the P atent Owner sa ys that the LED sho ws the
`
`previously-set consign speed when you first turn on the
`
`s yste m, not the s peed at which it i s activated.
`
`That's right. Ho wever , you have t o look at the
`
`clai m. And you have t o look at wh at Mr . M cNa mara said.
`
`This clai m is a method clai m and i t's directed to a s pecific
`
`scenario that requ ires hu man decisi ons. I f you look at ele ment
`
`B, it sa ys -- it is a method, re me mber -- activating t he cruise
`
`control s yste m at a desired c rui sing speed. The onl y person
`
`that can do that is a hu man because the desired speed is chosen
`
`b y the hu man . Oka y.
`
`Mr. Mc Na mar a -- well , so in the P r o metheus
`
`s yste m you turn o n the s yste m and then you have to hit another
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`button to set the cruise control s pe ed to the sa me sp eed. Mr .
`
`McNa ma ra 's decl aration sa ys that one of ordinar y s kill would
`
`understand that Pro metheus inhere ntly discloses that the driver
`
`can switch on the on/off switch wh ile the vehicle wa s traveling
`
`and at a speed tha t can be set as a c o nsign speed.
`
`So what he is sa ying is that, in pro bably one of the
`
`more co mmon sc e narios, a driver tu rns the on button and hits
`
`the resu me button at the sa me spee d, and M cNa mara sa ys of
`
`course that can be done with this syste m, and one of skill
`
`would know that reading this paper.
`
`JUDGE C OC KS: So the activating step is met in
`
`Pro metheus, your assertion, b y t wo acts?
`
`MR. RABENA: That's right.
`
`JUDGE C OC KS: Hitting the on/of f switch and
`
`then the resu me button?
`
`MR. RABENA: That's right, that' s right, bu t
`
`McNa ma ra sa ys s o meone would know to do that rea ding,
`
`because that's on e of the most co mmon sc enarios in driving
`
`with the c ruise co ntrol s yste m. It o nly has to happen once.
`
`There ma y be ti mes when so mebody oper ates it diff e rentl y, but
`
`this clai m allows for hu man decisio n making.
`
`The last ele ment for clai m 12 is th is maintaining
`
`the activated crui se control speed s ymbol upon te mp orar y
`
`acceleration or de celeration of the vehicle. And curiously the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`Patent Owner only challenged the deceleration aspe ct of t he
`
`clai m and ellipse s out the acc elera tion prong.
`
`So their challeng e to this ele ment should fail just
`
`because of that . The y did not chal lenge that we hav e shown
`
`the accele ration a spect is met , and it is an "or ," it is one or the
`
`other. Ho wever , the y a r e wrong ev en on the decel er ation part.
`
`The y sa y after the brake is applied, the y sa y
`
`Pro metheus clearl y states that the s peed regulation is not
`
`activated after th e brake is applied because onl y the consign
`
`speed LED is on. The y are wrong i n that regard , and let me
`
`show you wh y.
`
`So here is the cla i m: Maintaining the activated
`
`cruise control spe ed s ymbol upon t e mpora r y ac celer ation or
`
`deceleration of th e vehicle.
`
`So, fi rst of all, the re ference sa ys t hat the user has
`
`alwa ys to be infor med about the s y ste m state consign speed,
`
`and all this infor mation is displa yed at the dashboard. But we
`
`went through the two modes in our petition, where ei ther you
`
`are br aking, you are accele rating or decele rating, an d it shows
`
`that that consign speed sta ys on.
`
`If yo u go - - I me a n, I will walk you through the
`
`state diagra m. If you go, if you a re in speed r egulation -- I ' m
`
`on slide 30, b y th e wa y - - if you ar e in speed regulation and
`
`you ac celerate , you will go into -- you hit the accele rator
`
`pedal, you go into mode 6 , which is override, and th at is
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`shown here on sli de 31, if you go i nto mode 6 . The "over"
`
`light co mes on but all of the LEDs under the consign speed
`
`and the last one, t he y sta y on .
`
`So the set speed s ta ys on in an a cce leration mode ,
`
`and, if you go ba ck to a deceler ation mode , if you a re in speed
`
`regulation state 3, and you hit the brake, for exa mpl e, you
`
`have a mode 2. And in mode 2 it sa ys the me moriz ed consign
`
`speed corresponding LED is on. So so me indication of the
`
`me mo rized consi gn speed sta ys on w hether you brak e or
`
`decelerate .
`
`I think wher e the Patent Owner got tripped up is
`
`this referenc e use s "activate" diff er ently than the '46 3. In the
`
`'463 and as this B oard has interpret ed, a ctivate me ans turn on
`
`the s yste m. So I think they saw th e word ac tivate a nd the y got
`
`confused. Activa te in this ref erenc e is r eall y engaging,
`
`according to our clai ms .
`
`Moving on to slide 32, is I think the last
`
`substantive argument that I ' m goi ng to address, tha t's with
`
`respect to clai m 2 6. Clai m 26 requ ires a second visual displa y
`
`apparatus. And it requires that the second visual displa y
`
`shows both the operation status of t he speed controller as well
`
`as infor mation indicative of the pr eset speed.
`
`The Patent Owne r sa ys: " The consign speed LEDs
`
`and the warning light s" -- I think that should be "ar e" -- the
`
`"LEDs and the wa rning lights are t wo distinct sets o f
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`structures, not a visual display apparatus. This is f ro m the
`
`Patent Owner res ponse at 16.
`
`While we are on t he subject of t ypos, there is a
`
`t ypo in the Petit ioner's repl y brie f that is kind of i mportant.
`
`On page 12, the last sentence of the first full paragr aph, there
`
`is a "not" that dro pped out. That se ntence should rea d:
`
`Howeve r, as note d in the petition, figure 3 illustrate s the
`
`consign speed LEDs and wa rning lights are "not" t wo separate
`
`displays that mee t this clai m ele me nt; as such Pro me theus
`
`anticipates clai m 26.
`
`I apologize for the er ror, Your Hon or. Our
`
`position was cl ea r fro m the petition and I will show you what
`
`that position was.
`
`The issue r elates to ele ment E, "se cond visual
`
`display apparatus operable" -- I' m on slide 33 -- "op erable to
`
`display the visual infor mation indicative of an opera tion status
`
`of the speed controller, wherein the visual infor mation
`
`displayable b y the second visual dis play apparatus i ncludes
`
`visual infor matio n indicative of the preset speed."
`
`So in our petition, this is fro m our petition, we
`
`said figure 3 disc loses that the LEDs and the warni ng lights
`
`are shown . And we dr ew boxes, a gain, these boxes are our
`
`addition, but you can see this is one displa y.
`
`It has both featur es. It has the LEDs, which are
`
`indicative of the preset speed, and the status lights, which
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`show the status o f the speed controller. So that's cle ar and it
`
`is, as you can see , it is one co mple te d ispla y.
`
`JUDGE C OC KS: Well , M r. Raben a, let me ask
`
`you, l et's sa y we were to r egard th ose, just h ypothet icall y,
`
`those two displa ys as t wo separate visual displays.
`
`Would that be be yond the scope of the clai m, the
`
`particular clai m 2 6 of the '463 pate nt?
`
`MR. RABENA: No, I don't think so because the
`
`clai m language sa ys second visual display apparatus. You
`
`could have two in dividual displays within an apparat us.
`
`JUDGE C OC KS: All right. Thank you.
`
`MR. RABENA: There are slides i n here that just
`
`show, that de al with the obviousness issues, but I won't go
`
`through the m bec ause the y deal wi th -- basicall y the Patent
`
`Owne r just said we stand and f all o n the argu ments o f the
`
`Pro metheus issue.
`
`Thank you , Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE C OC KS: All right. You have 20 mi nutes
`
`re maining.
`
`(Pause)
`
`MR. SALM ON: Good mo rning, Your Honors. M y
`
`na me is Ti m Sal mon. I will be p res enting on behalf of Patent
`
`Owne r, Cruise Control Technologies.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`This is, as Judge Cocks mentioned, the last of the
`
`five IPRs . So just before I get s tar ted, I want to tha nk the
`
`Board for its atte ntion in these consecutive proceedings.
`
`The first thing I would like to add ress is the
`
`Pro metheus grounds. It is the onl y ground of anticipation at
`
`issue in this proceeding. Petitioner's counsel - - I would like to
`
`step back and look at what the Pro metheus docu men t actuall y
`
`is.
`
`It is generall y ref erred to as P ro me theus but, as
`
`Petitioner's counsel said, the y' re onl y looking at one set of
`
`pages within this docu ment. I' m on slide 3 of Patent Owne r's
`
`presenta tion, whi ch goes through the Pro metheus do cu ment
`
`and tries to figur e out what this thing actuall y is .
`
`So the y ar e looking at, you know, pages 104 to
`
`111, but Pro meth eus, fro m as far a s we can tell, is a
`
`co mpilation of a co mpilation of do cu ments. It look s like it
`
`probably ca me f r o m a conference or so mething like that. So I
`
`just want to put s o me things on the ELM O he re.
`
`So on the ELMO right now is the c over page of the
`
`Pro metheus -- this docu ment. The r e is no date on this, and
`
`this is the cover p age of the entire 100 and so me odd pages of
`
`this docu ment. There is no date an ywhe re he re .
`
`On page 2 is a , what is ref erred to as a " faxlist,"
`
`and there a re several indications of handwriting her e next to
`
`these individuals. There is no idea wher e this docu me nt ca me
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`U.S. Patent 6,324,463
`
`fro m. There is ha ndwriting. So it could have co me fro m
`
`so mebod y's desk or so mething.
`
`So going back to slide 3, these are the segregations
`
`of docu ments listed in the bullet p oints, the sub -bullets, as to
`
`the different co mpilations within this do cu ment. And the last
`
`bullet point is the C ED 5, Autono mous Intelligent Cruise
`
`Control surve y of MMI activities, S yste m Functions Group.
`
`And this co mpilation has a date of Nove mb er 1991
`
`but it is not a cop yright date, and t hat enco mp asses pages 90
`
`to 122 , which enc o mpass this document or this part of the
`
`docu ment that Pet itioner is rel ying on which was alle gedly
`
`published in April of 1991. So I ju st would like to s how that
`
`on the ELM O.
`
`JUDGE C OC KS: Counsel, befor e you go too much
`
`further, I just wo uld like to get yo ur response. Opposing
`
`counsel has suggested that this sort of challenge , I th ink that
`
`this is not a prior art docu ment , I b elieve is the challenge, that
`
`this is untimel y a t this point and should have been r aised as an
`
`objection and pro vided the m the 10 -da y opportunity to address
`
`or cure whateve r deficienc y ma y b e there .
`
`Wh at ar e your tho ughts on that?
`
`MR. SALM ON: That's the first ti me we have heard
`
`that. So I would sa y the first thing is it is the Petiti oner's
`
`burden to prove publicatio n. So th e fa ct that the y ar e rel ying
`
`on a cop yright date but no evidence of the source of wher e this
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`