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,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`
`CASE IPR: 2014-00291
`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: Prometheus Does Not Anticipate The Challenged
`Claims .................................................................................................... 3
`1.
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“A Speed Controller That Automatically Maintains The
`Vehicle Speed At A Preset Speed” Or “A Memory
`Which Stores Information Indicative Of Said Preset
`Speed” Or “A Feedback System For Communicating
`Said Information In Said Memory To The Operator Of
`The Vehicle” (Claim 1) ............................................................... 5
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“A Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Cruising Speed
`Selected By The Operator” Or “A Memory That Stores
`Information Representative Of The Selected Cruising
`Speed” Or “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) ....................... 8
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“The Digital Display Displays Information Indicative Of
`The Selected Cruising Speed Of The Vehicle” (Claim 5) .......... 8
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“Displaying A Symbol Indicative Of The Speed At
`Which The Cruise Control System Is Activated” Or
`“Maintaining The Activated Cruise Control Speed
`Symbol Upon Temporary Acceleration Or Deceleration
`Of The Vehicle” (Claim 12) ....................................................... 9
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`

`

`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“Displaying To The Operator A Symbol Indicative Of
`The Preset Speed” (Claim 13) ................................................... 11
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“Displaying A Second Symbol Upon The Selection Of A
`New Preset Speed, Said Second Symbol Indicative Of
`The New Preset Speed” (Claim 14) .......................................... 11
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“Displaying To The Operator a Symbol Indicative Of
`The Preset Speed While Maintaining The Vehicle At
`Substantially The Preset Speed” Or “Upon Braking The
`Vehicle, Discontinuing Maintaining The Vehicle Speed
`At Substantially The Preset Speed While Keeping Data
`Corresponding To The Preset Speed In A Memory
`Device” Or “At A Time After Braking And During When
`Time The Vehicle Is Not Being Maintained At
`Substantially The Preset Speed, Displaying To The
`Operator A Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed”
`(Claim 18) ................................................................................. 12
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“Wherein The Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed
`Displayed At The Time After Braking The Vehicle Is
`Not Being Maintained At Substantially The Preset Speed
`Is Distinguishable By The Operator From The Symbol
`Indicative Of The Preset Speed While The Vehicle Is
`Being Maintained At Substantially The Preset Speed”
`(Claim 19) ................................................................................. 14
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“Displaying To The Operator A Symbol Indicative Of
`The Preset Speed” (Claim 25) ................................................... 14
`10. The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“A Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Preset Speed” Or
`“A Memory Device Operable To Store Information
`Indicative Of The Preset Speed” Or “A Second Visual
`Display Apparatus Operable To Display Visual
`Information Indicative Of An Operation Status Of The
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Speed Controller, Wherein The Visual Information
`Displayable By The Second Visual Display Apparatus
`Includes Visual Information Indicative Of The Preset
`Speed” (Claim 26) ..................................................................... 15
`11. The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus 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” Or “Operating The Second Visual Display
`Apparatus To Indicate The Active Status Of The Cruise
`Control Device” (Claim 34) ...................................................... 17
`IV. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ........................................................................................................ 18
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 20
`
`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) ............................................................ 2
`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
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`
`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, 12-16, 18, 19, 21, 25-31, 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 6, 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 1-3, 5, 12-14, 18, 19, 25-27, 29-31, and 34-36 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Prometheus;
`
`Ground B: Claims 3, 5, 12, 15, 16, 21, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`unpatentable over Prometheus and Narita; and
`
`Ground C: Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Prometheus
`
`and Celsior. Paper 11, p. 20.
`
`All cites to Narita and Celsior are to the respective English translations (Ex.
`
`1006 for Narita and Ex. 1009 for Celsior) filed by Petitioner with the Petition.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`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: Prometheus Does Not Anticipate The Challenged
`Claims
`Petitioner has cited Exhibit 1003, a compilation of documents referred to as
`
`“Prometheus,” as a prior art publication that was allegedly published on April 19,
`
`1991. Pet. at 6. It appears Petitioner is referring solely to pages 104-111 of
`
`Exhibit 1003. However, Exhibit 1003 contains documents with various dates,
`
`including dates that post-date the alleged publication date of April 19, 1991. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1003, p. 43 (April 22, 1991), p. 71 (November 1991), p. 90-91 (November
`
`1991), p. 112 (August 2, 1991), p. 121 (October 1991). Thus, if Exhibit 1003 was
`
`truly published on April 19, 1991, as alleged by Petitioner, how does it contain
`
`documents that were dated after publication?
`
`Further, Petitioner has not provided any declaration testimony to indicate the
`
`source of Exhibit 1003 (or any of the documents therein) or when, if ever, it was
`
`disseminated to the public. For example, Petitioner has not indicated whether
`
`Exhibit 1003 was obtained from an online source or from a library, and Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`declarant has not stated when, if ever, he accessed a copy of Exhibit 1003 or any of
`
`the documents therein. Further, there is no table of contents for the compilation,
`
`and the page numbers restart on several pages (presumably to indicate a new
`
`document, but there is no way to determine where one document starts or ends).
`
`Still further, none of the documents appears to reference any of the other
`
`documents; each appears to be a stand-alone document, which begs the question,
`
`how did these documents get compiled and when?
`
`Given the lack of information surrounding Exhibit 1003, the Board should
`
`deny all grounds at issue in this proceeding. That is, even if some of the pages
`
`and/or documents could have certain dates attributed to them, those dates could
`
`merely be indicative of printing dates and not necessarily of publication dates
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Neither Petitioner nor its declarant provide any
`
`information identifying a date on which Exhibit 1003 (or any documents therein)
`
`were disseminated or otherwise made available to the public. Further, without
`
`knowing the source (e.g., online database, library, journal, etc.) of Exhibit 1003 (or
`
`any documents therein), the publication date for Exhibit 1003 or any of the
`
`documents therein cannot be determined and cannot be the basis for a rejection
`
`under § 102(b).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses “A
`Speed Controller That Automatically Maintains The
`Vehicle Speed At A Preset Speed” Or “A Memory Which
`Stores Information Indicative Of Said Preset Speed” Or “A
`Feedback System For Communicating Said Information In
`Said Memory To The Operator Of The Vehicle” (Claim 1)
`Speed Controller: The Petition alleges that two statements in Prometheus
`
`that generally refer to a system for speed regulation meet this claim limitation. Pet.
`
`at 18-19. However, neither statement expressly refers to the structural requirement
`
`of “a speed controller.” Further, neither Petitioner nor its declarant asserts that “a
`
`speed controller” is inherent in either statement. In fact, neither Petitioner nor its
`
`declarant ever mentions a “speed controller” except to quote the language of the
`
`claims of the ‘463 Patent.
`
`For at least these reasons, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 1.
`
`Memory: The Petition refers to two statements in Prometheus that the
`
`consign speed is “memorized.” Pet. at 19-20. However, neither statement
`
`expressly refers to the structural requirement of “a memory.” Further, neither
`
`Petitioner nor its declarant asserts that “a memory” is inherent in either statement.
`
`A prior art device cannot anticipate the claim even if it performs all the functions
`
`recited in the claim, if there is a structural difference. In re Ruskin, 347 F.2d 843,
`
`(CCPA 1965) (“the functional equivalent is not enough to be a full anticipation of
`
`the specific device claimed by appellant”). A structural difference between the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`claim and Prometheus exists, because the Petition does not show that Prometheus
`
`expressly or inherently includes “a memory.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 1.
`
`A Feedback System For Communicating Said Information In Said Memory
`
`To The Operator Of The Vehicle: The Petition alleges that the LEDs arranged
`
`around the speedometer dial are the claimed “feedback system.” Pet. at 20.
`
`However, claim 1 requires that the feedback system communicates “said
`
`information” which is “information indicative of said preset speed,” and the LEDs,
`
`given their arrangement, do not indicate a “preset speed.”
`
`The “green” LEDs shown in Figure 3, reproduced below, of Prometheus
`
`(Ex. 1003, p. 110) are generally arranged at a speed mark every 10 km/h starting
`
`with 20 km/h until 70 km/h; the next LED is arranged at 85 km/h and then every
`
`10 km/h until 120 km/h; the next LED is arranged at 130 km/h and then every 10
`
`km/h until 140 km/h; and the next LED is arranged at 155 km/h and then ever 10
`
`km/h until 220 km/h.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`When the consign speed is set, “[a]ll LEDs under consign speed
`
`corresponding LED are ON (last one also).” Ex. 1003, p. 111 (state 3). However,
`
`given the arrangement of the LEDs as shown in Figure 3, an operator would have
`
`no way of knowing the actual consign speed. For example, if the consign speed
`
`was 42 km/h, Prometheus does not explain whether the 40 km/h or 50 km/h LED
`
`will be lit, and in any event, neither is indicative of the consign speed, which is
`
`between the two values. Accordingly, the AICC vehicle dashboard of Prometheus
`
`does not disclose “a feedback system for communicating said information in said
`
`memory,” which is indicative of the preset speed.
`
`For at least these reasons, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 1.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses “A
`Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Cruising Speed
`Selected By The Operator” Or “A Memory That Stores
`Information Representative Of The Selected Cruising
`Speed” Or “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)
`Petitioner’s allegation that Prometheus meets these claim limitations refers
`
`to the same portions of Prometheus cited with regard to the “speed controller,
`
`“memory” and “feedback system” elements of claim 1. Pet. at 20-23.
`
`Accordingly, for at least the reasons explained above with regard to claim 1,
`
`Prometheus does not anticipate claim 2.
`
`3.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“The Digital Display Displays Information Indicative Of
`The Selected Cruising Speed Of The Vehicle” (Claim 5)
`Petitioner alleges that the LEDs shown on the speedometer dial in Figure 3
`
`of Prometheus are the claimed “digital display” that “displays information
`
`indicative of the selected cruising speed of the vehicle. Pet. at 23. However, as
`
`explained above with respect to claim 1, the LEDs do not indicate the selected
`
`cruising speed, because they are arranged at varying intervals around the
`
`speedometer dial. Further, the LEDs, by themselves, do not display information
`
`indicative of the selected cruising speed. As Petitioner’s declarant notes, each
`
`LED “has only two states, i.e., an on state or an off state.” Ex. 1010, ¶48.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Accordingly, the only “information” an LED can display is light, and light, by
`
`itself, does not provide “information indicative of the selected cruising speed of the
`
`vehicle.” Accordingly, for at least the reasons explained above with regard to
`
`claim 1, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 5.
`
`4.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“Displaying A Symbol Indicative Of The Speed At Which
`The Cruise Control System Is Activated” Or “Maintaining
`The Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol Upon
`Temporary Acceleration Or Deceleration Of The Vehicle”
`(Claim 12)
`Displaying A Symbol Indicative Of The Speed At Which The Cruise
`
`Control System Is Activated: The Petitioner’s allegation that all of the LEDs under
`
`the consign speed corresponding LED that are ON meet this claim limitation (Pet.
`
`at 24) is incorrect for at least two reasons. First, as explained above, the consign
`
`corresponding speed LED in Prometheus is not “indicative of the speed at which
`
`the cruise control system is activated,” because, given the arrangement of the
`
`LEDs as shown in Figure 3, an operator would have no way of knowing the actual
`
`consign speed.
`
`Second, Petitioner alleges that the limitation “activating the cruise control
`
`system at a desired cruising speed” is met by the “ON/OFF switch” of Prometheus.
`
`Pet. at 24. When the ON/OFF switch is turned on, the “[m]emorized consign
`
`speed corresponding LED is ON.” Ex. 1003 (state 2). However, the memorized
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`consign corresponding LED indicates a previously set consign speed, not “the
`
`speed at which the cruise control system is activated.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 12.
`
`Maintaining The Activated Cruise Control Speed Symbol Upon Temporary
`
`Acceleration Or Deceleration Of The Vehicle: The Petition alleges that the
`
`claimed “symbol” in the “displaying a symbol” limitation is “all LEDs under
`
`consign speed corresponding LED are ON.” Pet. at 24. However, with regard to
`
`the “maintaining the activated cruise control speed symbol upon
`
`temporary…deceleration” limitation, the Petition alleges that the “symbol” is only
`
`the consign speed corresponding LED. Pet. at 25. Prometheus clearly states that
`
`the speed regulation is not “activated” after the brake is applied, because only the
`
`consign speed corresponding LED is ON. Ex. 1003, p. 111 (state 2). All LEDs
`
`under the consign speed corresponding LED are OFF, indicating that speed
`
`regulation is OFF. Id. Accordingly, Prometheus does not disclose “maintaining
`
`the activated cruise control speed symbol upon temporary…deceleration of the
`
`vehicle.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 12.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“Displaying To The Operator A Symbol Indicative Of The
`Preset Speed” (Claim 13)
`The Petition’s allegation that all of the LEDs under the consign speed
`
`corresponding LED that are ON meet this claim limitation (Pet. at 24) is incorrect
`
`for at least the reason explained above – the consign corresponding speed LED in
`
`Prometheus is not “indicative of the speed at which the cruise control system is
`
`activated,” because, given the arrangement of the LEDs as shown in Figure 3, an
`
`operator would have no way of knowing the actual consign speed.
`
`For at least these reasons, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 13.
`
`6.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“Displaying A Second Symbol Upon The Selection Of A
`New Preset Speed, Said Second Symbol Indicative Of The
`New Preset Speed” (Claim 14)
`The Petition alleges that a new consign speed corresponding LED is turned
`
`ON when a new consign speed is selected. Pet. at 29. Even if true, the new
`
`consign corresponding speed LED in Prometheus is not “indicative of the new
`
`preset speed,” because, given the arrangement of the LEDs as shown in Figure 3,
`
`an operator would have no way of knowing the actual consign speed.
`
`For at least these reasons, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 14.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`7.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“Displaying To The Operator a Symbol Indicative Of The
`Preset Speed While Maintaining The Vehicle At
`Substantially The Preset Speed” Or “Upon Braking The
`Vehicle, Discontinuing Maintaining The Vehicle Speed At
`Substantially The Preset Speed While Keeping Data
`Corresponding To The Preset Speed In A Memory Device”
`Or “At A Time After Braking And During When Time The
`Vehicle Is Not Being Maintained At Substantially The
`Preset Speed, Displaying To The Operator A Symbol
`Indicative Of The Preset Speed” (Claim 18)
`Displaying To The Operator A Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed
`
`While Maintaining The Vehicle At Substantially The Preset Speed: The Petition’s
`
`allegation that all of the LEDs under the consign speed corresponding LED that are
`
`ON meet this claim limitation (Pet. at 30-31) is incorrect for at least the reason
`
`explained above – the consign corresponding speed LED in Prometheus is not
`
`“indicative of the speed at which the cruise control system is activated,” because,
`
`given the arrangement of the LEDs as shown in Figure 3, an operator would have
`
`no way of knowing the actual consign speed.
`
`For at least these reasons, Prometheus 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
`
`Preset Speed In A Memory Device: The Petition alleges that Prometheus meets
`
`this limitation with the statement, “[i]n both cases [the DEACTIVATE button or
`
`the BRAKE PEDAL] the driver stops the regulation and the consign speed is
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`memorized by the system.” Pet. at 31. However, this statement does not expressly
`
`refer to the structural requirement of “a memory device.” Further, neither
`
`Petitioner nor its declarant asserts that “a memory device” is inherent in either
`
`statement. A prior art device cannot anticipate the claim even if it performs all the
`
`functions recited in the claim, if there is a structural difference. In re Ruskin, 347
`
`F.2d 843, (CCPA 1965) (“the functional equivalent is not enough to be a full
`
`anticipation of the specific device claimed by appellant”). A structural difference
`
`between the claim and Prometheus exists, because the Petition does not show that
`
`Prometheus expressly or inherently includes “a memory device.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 18.
`
`At A Time After Braking And During When Time The Vehicle Is Not Being
`
`Maintained At Substantially The Preset Speed, Displaying To The Operator A
`
`Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed: The Petition’s allegation that the consign
`
`speed corresponding LED meets this claim limitation (Pet. at 32) is incorrect for at
`
`least the reason explained above – the consign corresponding speed LED in
`
`Prometheus is not “indicative of the speed at which the cruise control system is
`
`activated,” because, given the arrangement of the LEDs as shown in Figure 3, an
`
`operator would have no way of knowing the actual consign speed.
`
`For at least these reasons, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 18.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“Wherein The Symbol Indicative Of The Preset Speed
`Displayed At The Time After Braking The Vehicle Is Not
`Being Maintained At Substantially The Preset Speed Is
`Distinguishable By The Operator From The Symbol
`Indicative Of The Preset Speed While The Vehicle Is Being
`Maintained At Substantially The Preset Speed” (Claim 19)
`The Petition alleges that Prometheus meets this claim limitation by showing
`
`only the consign speed corresponding LED ON after braking and showing the
`
`consign speed corresponding LED and all LEDs under it ON while the system is in
`
`speed regulation. Pet. at 33. However, the consign speed corresponding LED is
`
`ON in both situations. Thus, the consign speed corresponding LED is not a
`
`“symbol indicative of the preset speed” that can used by the operator to distinguish
`
`between a time after braking and while maintaining the vehicle at the preset speed.
`
`For at least these reasons, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 19.
`
`9.
`
`The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses
`“Displaying To The Operator A Symbol Indicative Of The
`Preset Speed” (Claim 25)
`The Petition’s allegation that all of the LEDs under the consign speed
`
`corresponding LED that are ON meet this claim limitation (Pet. at 34) is incorrect
`
`for at least the reason explained above – the consign corresponding speed LED in
`
`Prometheus is not “indicative of the preset speed,” because, given the arrangement
`
`of the LEDs as shown in Figure 3, an operator would have no way of knowing the
`
`actual consign speed.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`For at least these reasons, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 25.
`
`10. The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus Discloses “A
`Speed Controller For Automatically Maintaining The
`Vehicle At A Substantially Constant Preset Speed” Or “A
`Memory Device Operable To Store Information Indicative
`Of The Preset Speed” Or “A Second Visual Display
`Apparatus Operable To Display 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)
`Speed Controller: The Petition refers to its allegations with regard to the
`
`“speed controller” element of claim 1. For at least the reasons explained above
`
`with regard to claim 1, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 26.
`
`Memory Device: The Petition refers to its allegations with regard to the
`
`“memory” element of claim 1. For at least the reasons explained above with
`
`regard to claim 1, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 26.
`
`A Second Visual Display Apparatus Operable To Display 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 alleges
`
`that the “consign speed LEDs and warning lights…indicate the operation status of
`
`the speed controller and the consign speed.” Pet. at 36. While unclear, if the
`
`Petitioner is alleging that the consign speed LEDs and the warning lights, together,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`anticipate the “second visual display apparatus” element of claim 26, such an
`
`allegation is incorrect for at least two reasons.
`
`First, neither the consign speed LEDs nor the warning lights display “visual
`
`information indicative of the preset speed.” Given the arrangement of the consign
`
`speed LEDs as shown in Figure 3, an operator would have no way of knowing the
`
`actual consign speed based on illumination of a single consign speed
`
`corresponding LED, as explained above. And, the warning lights do not convey
`
`any information indicative of speed or preset speed.
`
`Second, claim 26 requires that the “second visual display apparatus” display
`
`information indicative of an operation status of the speed controller and
`
`information indicative of the preset speed. Petitioner alleges that the consign speed
`
`LEDs indicate consign speed and the warning lights indicate operation status of the
`
`speed controller. Pet. at 36. Even if true (which Patent Owner disputes), the
`
`consign speed LEDs and the warning lights and two distinct sets of structures, not
`
`a “visual display apparatus.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 26.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`11. The Petition Does Not Show That Prometheus 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” Or “Operating The Second Visual Display
`Apparatus To Indicate The Active Status Of The Cruise
`Control Device” (Claim 34)
`Speed Controller: The Petition refers to its allegations with regard to the
`
`“speed controller” element of claim 1. For at least the reasons explained above
`
`with regard to claim 1, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 34.
`
`Memory Device: The Petition refers to its allegations with regard to the
`
`“memory” element of claim 1. For at least the reasons explained above with
`
`regard to claim 1, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 34.
`
`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 refers to
`
`its allegations with regard to the “second visual display apparatus” element of
`
`claim 26. For at least the reasons explained above with regard to claim 26,
`
`Prometheus does not anticipate claim 34.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Operating The Second Visual Display Apparatus To Indicate The Active
`
`Status Of The Cruise Control Device: The Petition alleges that the statement,
`
`“[t]he first action of the driver is to switch on the ON/OFF switch,” in Prometheus
`
`meets this claim limitation. Pet. at 40. However, this statement does not refer to
`
`any display apparatus. For at least the reasons explained above with regard to
`
`claim 26, Prometheus does not anticipate claim 34.
`
`IV. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Ground B: Petitioner alleges that claims 3, 5, 12, 15, 16, 21 and 28 are
`
`unpatentable over Prometheus in view of Narita. Pet. at 43-44.
`
`With regard to claims 3 and 5, which depend from claim 2, Petitioner alleges
`
`that Narita’s stored vehicle speed display unit 37 meets the “digital display”
`
`limitation. Pet. at 44-45. However, the Petition does not address any of the above-
`
`explained deficiencies of Prometheus with respect to claim 2. Accordingly, for at
`
`least the reasons explained above with regard to claim 2, Prometheus and Narita do
`
`not render claims 3 or 5 unpatentable.
`
`With regard to claim 12, Petitioner alleges that Prometheus discloses all of
`
`the elements of the claim except the “removing” step, but that Narita discloses this
`
`limitation. Pet. at 47-48. However, the Petition does not address any of the above-
`
`explained deficiencies of Prometheus with respect to claim 12. Accordingly, for at
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`least the reasons explained above with regard to claim 12, Prometheus and Narita
`
`do not render claim 12 unpatentable.
`
`With regard to claims 15