UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————
`
`
`
`CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WASICA FINANCE GMBH &
`BLUEARC FINANCE AG,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`—————————————
`
`IPR No. IPR2014-00295
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`—————————————
`
`Before the Honorable RAMA G. ELLURU, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF MELVIN RAY MERCER, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Page 000001
`
`

`

`I, Melvin Ray Mercer, Ph.D., hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
`
`I.
`
`Prior Testimony & Engagement
`
`1. My name is Melvin Ray Mercer, Professor Emeritus of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering at Texas A&M University. I am the same Melvin Ray
`
`Mercer who provided a Declaration in this matter executed on December 30, 2013,
`
`as Exhibit 1010.
`
`2.
`
`As part of my work in this action, I have been asked by Continental
`
`Automotive Systems, Inc. (“Continental”) to respond to certain assertions and
`
`opinions offered by Scott Andrews in this proceeding concerning U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,602,524 (“the ’524 patent”).
`
`3.
`
`In particular, I have been asked to respond to certain assertions and
`
`opinions of Scott Andrews expressed in his declaration executed October 16, 2014
`
`as Exhibit 2006 in this proceeding, and of Wasica Finance GmbH & BlueArc
`
`Finance AG (“Wasica”) in its Patent Owner’s Response of October 17, 2014.
`
`4.
`
` My information regarding experience, qualifications, and
`
`compensation are provided along with my prior Declaration, Exhibit 1010, and
`
`CV, Exhibit 1011.
`
`5. My opinions are informed by my review of the materials considered
`
`in connection with preparing this declaration, which are listed below. My opinions
`
`are also informed by the experience in the relevant field, as described in my first
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 000002
`
`

`

`declaration. Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 1-15. As with my first declaration, all opinions and
`
`statements made for purposes of this declaration, unless otherwise noted, reflect
`
`the knowledge of one having ordinary skill in the art as of no later than February
`
`26, 1992. Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 52-54.
`
`II. Materials Considered
`
`6.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I reviewed the following material:
`
`(a)
`
`The ’524 patent (Ex. 1001 or “Mock”);
`
`(b)
`
`The ’524 patent file history (Ex. 1002);
`
`(c)
`
`Italian Patent No. 1,219,753 (Ex. 1003 or “Oselin”);
`
`(d)
`
`The English translation of Oselin and Affidavit (Ex. 1004);
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,109,213 (Ex. 1005 or “Williams”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,083,457 (Ex. 1006 or “Schultz”);
`
`(g)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,912,463 (Ex. 1007 or “Li”);
`
`(h)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,067,376 (Ex. 1008 or “Barabino”);
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,750,118 (Ex. 1009 or “Heitschel”);
`
`Declaration of Melvin Ray Mercer, Ph.D (Ex. 1010);
`
`(k)
`
`Select Pages from IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Terms (4th ed. 1988) (Ex. 1012);
`
`(l)
`
`Select Pages from Webster’s New World Dictionary of
`
`American English (Deluxe 3d ed. 1991) (Ex. 1013);
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 000003
`
`

`

`(m)
`
`Select Pages from George R. Cooper & Clare D. McGillem,
`
`Modern Communications & Spread Spectrum (1986)
`
`(Ex.1014);
`
`(n)
`
`The Board’s Institution Decision (Paper 11; “I.D.”);
`
`(o) Wasica’s Patent Owner Response (Paper 27);
`
`(p)
`
`Select Pages from Concise Oxford Dictionary (8th ed. 1990)
`
`(Ex. 2003);
`
`(q)
`
` Select Pages from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and
`
`Technical Terms (4th ed. 1989) (Ex. 2004);
`
`(r)
`
`Select Pages from Dictionary of Computers, Data Processing
`
`and Telecommunications (1984) (Ex. 2005);
`
`Declaration of Mr. Scott Andrews (Ex. 2006);
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Melvin Mercer (Ex. 2007);
`
`Deposition Transcript of Mr. Scott Andrews (Ex. 1016);
`
`Exhibit 3 to the Deposition of Mr. Scott Andrews (Ex. 1017);
`
`(s)
`
`(t)
`
`(u)
`
`(v)
`
`(w)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,231,872 (“Bowler”) (Ex.1019);
`
`(x)
`
`COP 822 Preliminary Datasheet (December 1988) (Ex. 1020);
`
`(y)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,040,561 (“Achterholt”) (Ex. 1021)
`
`(z)
`
`Knockeart, R.P.; Sulouff, R.E., “Integrated Micromachined
`
`Silicon: Vehicle Sensors of the 1990's?,” International Congress on
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 000004
`
`

`

`Transportation Electronics, 1988, Convergence 88 Proceedings --
`
`International Congress on Transportation Electronics, IEEE catalog
`
`number: 88CH2533-8, pp.203-12. (“IEEE article”) (Ex. 1022); and
`
`(aa)
`
`Select Pages from Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom
`
`Dictionary, 3rd Edition (1990) (Ex. 1023).
`
`III. Legal Standards
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Unless otherwise stated, all of my opinions in this declaration apply
`
`the same legal standards as set forth in my first declaration. Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 22-30,
`
`56-62.
`
`IV. Analysis and Opinions
`
`A. Mr. Andrews’s Opinions Regarding The ’524 Patent In General
`
`8.
`
` Mr. Andrews testified that the ’524 patent is “directed to electronic
`
`devices for measuring the quantitative value of air pressure in tires of a vehicle,
`
`and for wirelessly transmitting signals indicative of the quantitative air pressure
`
`values to one or more receivers located on the vehicle.” Ex. 2006, ¶ 29 (citing Ex.
`
`1001, Abstract, 2:33- 43, 7:23-26).
`
`9.
`
`I disagree with Mr. Andrews’s characterization of the primary
`
`technology described by the ’524 patent. As I explained in my first declaration,
`
`the ’524 patent’s prosecution history demonstrates that the reason for allowing the
`
`’524 patent was Applicant’s incorporation into claim 1 of the limitation that the
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 000005
`
`

`

`receiver is connected with a switching device which enables the receiver to s witch
`
`over from normal operating mode, in which the air pressure is monitored, to
`
`pairing mode, in which the receiver collects the identification signal of the
`
`transmitter and stores this as an identification signal. Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 39-49.
`
`10. For ease of reference, I will again refer to the notations introduced in
`
`the following claim chart when referring to particular portions of claim 1:
`
`Claim
`Portion
`[1.1]
`
`[1.2]
`
`[1.3]
`
`[1.4]
`
`[1.5]
`
`[1.6]
`
`[1.7]
`
`[1.8]
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`A device for monitoring the air pressure in the air chamber of
`pneumatic tires fitted on vehicle wheels comprising:
`a pressure measuring device mounted on a vehicle wheel which
`measures the air pressure in the air chamber of the wheel end [sic]
`outputs an electrical pressure signal representative of the air pressure in
`the vehicle wheel;
`a transmitter mounted to the vehicle wheel which receives the electrical
`pressure signal output from the pressure measuring device and sends
`out a pressure transmitting signal corresponding to said air pressure;
`a receiver associated with the transmitter and mounted at a distance to
`the vehicle wheel which receives the pressure transmitting signal
`transmitted from the associated transmitters
`a display device which is connected with the receiver and displays data
`as numbers or symbols which have been taken from the pressure
`transmitting signal received from the receiver;
`
`wherein the transmitter comprises an emitter-control device which
`controls the emittance of the pressure transmitting signal and a signal-
`generating device which generates an identification signal which is
`unique for the transmitter and clearly identifies same;
`the emitter-control device works such that the identification signal is
`transmitted at least once before or after the emittance of the pressure
`transmitting signal;
`the receiver comprises at least a memory in which is stored an
`identification reference signal related to the associated transmitter in
`
`5
`
`Page 000006
`
`

`

`[1.9]
`
`[1.10]
`
`[1.11]
`
`accordance with a predetermined relationship criteria;
`the receiver comprises a comparison device which checks if an
`identification signal transmitted from a transmitter has the relationship
`criteria to identification reference signal stored in the receiver, and that
`further processing of the pressure transmission signal taken from the
`receiver only takes places if the identification signal received by the
`receiver and the identification reference signal stored in the receiver
`fulfill the relationship criteria;
`the identification reference signal stored in the receiver is changeable in
`order that the identification signal from the associated transmitter
`matches the identification reference signal of the receiver; and
`the receiver is connected with a switching device which enables the
`receiver to switch over from normal operating mode, in which the air
`pressure is monitored, to pairing mode, in which the receiver collects
`the identification signal of the transmitter and stores this as an
`identification signal.
`
`11. During prosecution, the Examiner initially found that Williams taught
`
`all of the elements of original claim 22, including claim portions [1.1] - [1.9]. Ex.
`
`1002, at 185-86; Ex. 1010, ¶ ¶39-49, 152-154. The Examiner also rejected
`
`original, dependent claim 27 over Williams, which corresponds to portion [1.10].
`
`Ex. 1002, at 188. The Examiner indicated that original, dependent claim 22, which
`
`corresponds to portion [1.11], was allowable over the prior art. Id. at 189. The
`
`’524 patent was allowed when the Applicants incorporated limitation [1.11] into
`
`the’524 patent’s sole independent claim. Ex. 1002, at 118-214; Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 39-
`
`49.
`
`12.
`
`In my opinion, Mr. Andrews’s characterization that the ’524 patent is
`
`directed to measuring “quantitative value of air pressure in tires of a vehicle” and
`
`“for wirelessly transmitting signals indicative of the quantitative air pressure
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 000007
`
`

`

`values” is incorrect. See Ex. 2006, ¶ 29. The Examiner initially rejected the ’524
`
`patent over Williams and stated that Williams’s high pressure sensor 30 and low
`
`pressure sensor 40 (which are both switches) taught the pressure measuring device.
`
`Ex. 1002, at 185-186; Ex. 1005, 6:18-27. Applicants never disputed this finding
`
`and instead focused their response on the switching device and pairing mode
`
`functionality described by the ’524 patent. Ex. 1002, at 118-214. Thus, the
`
`prosecution history shows Patent Office also viewed the pressure measuring
`
`elements as taught by the prior art.
`
`B. Mr. Andrews’s Opinions Regarding Claim 1
`
`13. Mr. Andrews opined that Oselin does not disclose: (1) the “pressure
`
`measuring device mounted on a vehicle wheel which measures the air pressure in
`
`the air chamber of the wheel end outputs an electrical pressure signal
`
`representative of the air pressure in the vehicle wheel”; and (2) a “transmitter
`
`mounted to the vehicle wheel which . . . sends out a pressure transmitting signal
`
`corresponding to said air pressure” recited by claim 1. Ex. 2006, ¶ 38.
`
`14.
`
`I understand Mr. Andrews conclusions are based on his opinion that
`
`the “pressure measuring device mounted on a vehicle wheel which . . . outputs an
`
`electrical pressure signal representative of the air pressure in the vehicle wheel”
`
`requires “that the pressure measuring device outputs an electrical pressure signal
`
`that portrays or symbolizes a quantitative value of the measured air pressure (i.e.,
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 000008
`
`

`

`an absolute pressure value or another numeric value in units of force per area) in
`
`the wheel.” Id., ¶ 40. Mr. Andrews conclusions are also based on his opinion that
`
`“transmitter mounted to the vehicle wheel which . . . sends out a pressure
`
`transmitting signal corresponding to said air pressure” requires that the “transmitter
`
`sends out a signal indicating the amount (a quantitative value) of the air pressure
`
`measured by the pressure measuring device.” Id., ¶ 47. According to Mr.
`
`Andrews, these constructions best comport with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of the claim terms. Id., ¶¶ 40, 47. I disagree.
`
`15.
`
`I also understand that Mr. Andrews’s opinions are based on his
`
`understanding that “all of the embodiments disclosed in the ’524 patent
`
`specification involve measuring a numeric magnitude/quantitative value of air
`
`pressure . . . .” Id. (citing Ex. 1001 at 6:10-11, 6:16-26). I understand that Mr.
`
`Andrews’s opinions are also based on dictionary definitions of “air pressure” (Ex.
`
`2004, at 53), “representative” (Ex. 2003, at 1020-21), and “correspond” (Ex. 2003,
`
`at 259). Ex. 2006, ¶¶ 41, 48. I also disagree.
`
`16.
`
`In my opinion, the plain and ordinary meanings of the claim terms do
`
`not require the pressure measuring device to determine a quantitative value for the
`
`tire pressure. In particular, claim 1 recites that the pressure measuring device
`
`“measures air pressure” and outputs an electrical pressure signal “representative of
`
`the air pressure.” In my opinion, the actual claim language of claim 1 would not
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 000009
`
`

`

`indicate to a POSITA that the claims are limited to pressure sensors that measure a
`
`quantitative or numerical value of the air pressure within the tire. Claim 1 broadly
`
`recites a “pressure measuring device,” which a POSITA would have recognized
`
`can include any number of devices including pressure sensors, pressure gauges and
`
`pressure switches. Claim 1 also broadly recites generating signals that are
`
`“representative of” and “corresponding to” the air pressure. The plain language of
`
`claim 1 does not include or require “quantitative values,” and contains no
`
`indication that these terms are limited to measuring quantitative values.
`
`17.
`
`In my opinion, Mr. Andrews’s testimony is also inconsistent with the
`
`intrinsic evidence, and in particular, the claims, specification and prosecution
`
`history of the ’524 patent. I note first that the ’524 patent does not use the word
`
`quantitative once in the claims or specification. See generally Ex. 1001. In fact,
`
`during his deposition, Mr. Andrews confirmed that “quantitative value” does not
`
`appear in the claims, specification, or file history. Ex. 1016, 109:6 – 111:7.
`
`Rather, Mr. Andrews admitted that “quantitative value of the pressure” were his
`
`words, not the patentee’s. Id. at 106:24 - 107:7.
`
`18. Mr. Andrews based his interpretation of claim 1 on his opinion that
`
`“all of the embodiments disclosed in the ’524 patent specification involve
`
`measuring a numeric magnitude/quantitative value of air pressure, such as
`
`measuring ‘absolute pressure,’ a ‘pressure difference with respect to a reference
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 000010
`
`

`

`pressure,’ and a ‘pressure gauge to measure the pressure’ in particular conditions.”
`
`Ex. 2006, ¶ 40 (citing Ex. 1001 at 6:10-11, 6:16-26). While it is possible that the
`
`pressure sensors in these embodiments (i.e., those configured to measure “absolute
`
`pressure,” “pressure differences,” or “pressure gauges”) were capable of measuring
`
`quantitative values, there is no requirement that the data produced by these sensors
`
`be used to generate signals representing quantitative values. Rather, these sensors
`
`are capable of being used in systems that simply display a warning LED as well.
`
`19. Further, the ’524 patent specification does not limit the ’524 patent’s
`
`system to using only pressure measuring devices that generate signals representing
`
`quantitative values. Just the opposite, as in one embodiment of the ‘524 patent
`
`“tire pressure is continually monitored by a mechanical device. This can be carried
`
`out, for example, by a membrane which closes a reference chamber in comparison
`
`with the tire pressure as is described in EP-A-0417712 or in EP-A-0417704.” Ex.
`
`1001, at 5:1-14. I have been informed that EP-A-0417712 or in EP-A-0417704
`
`were both filed on September 10, 1990 and published on March 20, 1991.
`
`According to the ’524 patent, these prior art applications describe a “switching
`
`member is activated by way of the membrane and causes transmission of the
`
`pressure signal and it’s [sic] identification signal.” Id. In my opinion, a POSITA
`
`reading the ’524 patent’s specification would understand that the ‘524 patent
`
`explicitly contemplates using switch-based pressure sensors, similar to those
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 000011
`
`

`

`described in Oselin, to measure pressure. These switch-based pressure sensors
`
`would not be limited to measuring quantitative pressure values.
`
`20. U.S. Patent No. 5,040,561 issued to Achterholt on August 20, 1991
`
`and is the U.S. counterpart to EP-A-0417712. Ex. 1021. The ’561 Achterholt
`
`patent confirms that the pressure sensing device of the EP-A-0417712 application
`
`functions as stated in the ‘524 patent, with “[t]he continuously biased diaphragm is
`
`arranged to actuate a switching means due to an anomal[ous] tire pressure, and said
`
`switching means will activate the transmitter means.” Id. at 1:40-43.
`
`21. Similarly, the ’524 patent also describes arranging a “pressure gauge”
`
`on the wheel in order “to measure the pressure only when the pressure falls below
`
`a predetermined absolute or relative value.” Ex. 1001, 6:23-26. Thus, the ’524
`
`also teaches the selective determination of tire pressure relative to some threshold
`
`within the tire and prior to a transmission. A POSITA would not have understood
`
`that the ’524 patent’s description of using a pressure gauge required the transmitter
`
`to determine and transmit a numerical value. Rather, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that the determination of the tire pressure based on this threshold could
`
`be used as the basis for triggering an “alarm/no-alarm category indicator,” such as
`
`taught by Oselin. See Ex. 2006, ¶ 47. Thus, based on my review of the ’524 patent
`
`specification, I do not believe that a POSITA would have understood that the plain
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 000012
`
`

`

`and ordinary meaning of claim 1 to encompass only pressure measuring devices
`
`for measuring the quantitative value of air pressure.
`
`22. The prosecution history of the ’524 patent also contradicts Wasica’s
`
`“quantitative value” interpretation of claim 1. Not only is the term “quantitative”
`
`missing from the prosecution history, but during prosecution of the ’524 patent, the
`
`Examiner determined that Williams’s pressure sensors 30, 40 teach the claimed
`
`pressure measuring device. Ex. 1002, at 185-186. Williams’s high pressure sensor
`
`30 and low pressure sensor 40 are both switch-based pressure measuring devices .
`
`Ex. 1005, 6:18-27. Accordingly, I do not agree with Mr. Andrews that the intrinsic
`
`evidence supports a requirement that the pressure measuring device determine a
`
`quantitative value for the tire pressure. See Ex. 2006, ¶ 40.
`
`23.
`
`I have also reviewed the dictionary definitions cited by Mr. Andrews.
`
`Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004. In my opinion, these definitions do not support Mr.
`
`Andrews’s testimony that the customary and ordinary meaning of these terms is
`
`limited to measuring quantitative pressure values. In particular, Exhibit 2003
`
`defines “representative” as, among other definitions, “serving as a portrayal or
`
`symbol of (representative of their attitude to work).” Ex. 2003, at 1020-21 (italics
`
`in original). In my opinion, there are many instances where a “symbol” or
`
`“portrayal” serves as a representation without being a quantitative value. For
`
`example, a warning on a dashboard display often takes the form of a LED symbol,
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 000013
`
`

`

`such as an air pressure warning light, and this symbol would still be
`
`“representative” of the message the system intended to convey to the driver, and in
`
`particular, would be “representative” of the air pressure in the tire. A POSITA
`
`would understand that a symbol need not be quantitative in order for it to represent
`
`the level of the air pressure in the tire. Indeed, the dictionary definition relied on
`
`by Mr. Andrews supports this interpretation of “representative” by including the
`
`exemplary use of “representative of their attitude to work.” Ex. 2003, at 1020-21.
`
`This example does not state or show that the definition is limited to providing a
`
`“numerical” representation of a worker’s attitude to work.
`
`24. Similarly, nothing in the definition of “correspond” requires
`
`determining a quantitative value. Exhibit 2003 defines “correspond” as “be
`
`analogous or similar,” “agree in amount, position, etc.,” and “be in harmony
`
`agreement.” Ex. 2003, at 259. Mr. Andrews appears to rely only on the words
`
`“agree in amount,” but I note that he has not explained why any of the other
`
`definitions are not appropriate. In my opinion, a POSITA would understand that
`
`the customary and ordinary meaning of “correspond to” to encompass all of these
`
`definitions. Further, nothing in these definitions limit the claim language to a
`
`generating a pressure transmitting signal that contains a quantitative or numerical
`
`value for the tire pressure. Rather, a POSTIA would understand that pressure
`
`transmitting signals that convey that the tire pressure is an acceptable or
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 000014
`
`

`

`unacceptable range “corresponds” to the air pressure because the signal agrees in
`
`both amount and position with the tire pressure in the tire (i.e., both the signal and
`
`actual pressure are in an anomalous interval or an acceptable interval).
`
`25.
`
`I also note that Mr. Andrews’s deposition testimony conflicts with any
`
`suggestion that the ’524 patent must measure a precise, quantitative value for the
`
`tire pressure (such as a precise, numerical integer). During deposition, Mr.
`
`Andrews testified that “anytime you have a binary representation, you are going to
`
`have what we call quantization . . . you will break up the continuous analog signal
`
`into a number of discrete steps. How many steps is governed by how many bits of
`
`data you want to represent the data.” Ex. 1016, 134:19-135:3. Mr. Andrews thus
`
`recognized that any quantitative measurement simply associates a data point (or bit
`
`representation) with a particular increment or interval of values. The size of the
`
`interval that is associated with each bit representation depends on the number of
`
`intervals available to for the system to use for quantization. Specifically, a system
`
`can have at most 2n discrete intervals or increments, where n is the number of bits
`
`used for quantization. Thus, in a 2-bit system may recognize and distinguish
`
`between at most four (22) intervals or increments and a 5-bit system may
`
`distinguish between thirty-two (25) intervals or increments.
`
`26. Mr. Andrews provided an example in which tire pressure is divided
`
`into five increments or intervals: (1) dangerously flat, (2) slightly underinflated,
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 000015
`
`

`

`(3) acceptable range, (4) slightly overinflated and (5) dangerously overinflated.
`
`(cite to Andrews declaration.) This example would require a signal having 3 bits
`
`representing or corresponding to the air pressure in the tire.
`
`27. During deposition, Mr. Andrews recognized that regardless of the
`
`number of bits you “are breaking up the range of the measured signal into a set of
`
`increments.” Ex. 1016, 135:6-12. According to Mr. Andrews, a “pressure
`
`measurement,” as described by the ’524 patent, could be conducted as long as you
`
`have a pressure signal that contains two bits:
`
`1016, 167:22 – 171:16. Mr. Andrews admits that two bits of representation only
`
`allows the pressure measuring device to report four intervals of pressure values.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page 000016
`
`

`

`Id. at 133:14-17. However, with only four intervals, it is not possible to have
`
`interval increments that correspond to each individual numerical or quantitative
`
`PSI value. Rather, the measured pressure value would have to correspond to a
`
`range of PSI values falling within one of four increments or intervals. For
`
`example, if a system contained 2 bits, then one possible arrangement for the four
`
`intervals could be 0-15 PSI, 16-30 PSI, 31-40 PSI, and 40 and above PSI. Each of
`
`these intervals would be represented by a particular arrangement of the two bits
`
`(i.e., 00, 01, 10, or 11). In this scenario, all of the PSI values falling within one of
`
`the intervals (e.g., 16-30 PSI) would be represented using the same bit
`
`arrangement. For instance, the system would not distinguish between a measured
`
`value of 18 or 24 in the second interval, or between 32 and 39 in the third interval,
`
`because they fall within the same increment.
`
`28. Similarly, if a pressure sensor is used to convey only one bit of data,
`
`then its output data can be used to distinguish between two intervals, acceptable
`
`PSI or unacceptable PSI. The range of values for acceptable PSI would be a
`
`simple design choice – whether limited to a narrow range such as 32-36 PSI, or
`
`expanded to a broader range such as 30-40 PSI. A system with two intervals
`
`would convey similar information as that which could be conveyed by a system
`
`using four or five intervals (i.e., whether the pressure is acceptable or
`
`unacceptable). Any system would be unable to differentiate between the range of
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 000017
`
`

`

`PSI values in the same interval or increment, no matter how small or large the
`
`interval or increment. Thus, in either the 1-bit or 2-bit scenarios, the measurement
`
`is reported as the value of the range, and is “representative” of the pressure
`
`measurement.
`
`29.
`
`In my opinion, Oselin anticipates claim 1 under any claim
`
`construction presently before the Board. As demonstrated in my first declaration,
`
`under the plain and ordinary meaning of claim 1, Oselin’s pressure sensor (P)
`
`discloses the “pressure measuring device” as recited by claim 1. Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 86-
`
`90, 92-103. Additionally, even applying Wasica and Andrews’s interpretation of
`
`claim 1, Oselin still discloses all the “pressure measuring device” limitations of
`
`claim 1. Oselin discloses that pressure sensors P are configured to detect
`
`anomalies in tire pressure by keeping a switch I suspended in “floating” position
`
`while air pressure within a tire remains in acceptable range. Ex. 1004, at 5. While
`
`switch I remains in floating position, bit S 18 will take the logical level of 0. See id.
`
`at 27-28. When tire pressure reaches “a lower threshold (insufficient pressure) or
`
`an upper threshold (excessive pressure)” (i.e., an anomalous level), the switch I
`
`comes into contact with ground M of the transmitter 10 and bit S18 will take the
`
`logical level of 1. Id. at 5, 27-28. Accordingly, Oselin describes three intervals
`
`that are defined by a lower threshold, a floating position, and an upper threshold.
`
`The interval below the lower and above the upper thresholds are associated with
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 000018
`
`

`

`logical bit value 1, and the interval when the switch is in floating position is
`
`associated with the logical bit value 0.
`
`30. Oselin further describes that “Activation of the LEDs 107 and 108
`
`may be subject to the logic level of symbols S 18 and (issuing an alarm signal after
`
`the tire pressure reaches an anomalous level) . . . [and] the lighting of the LEDs
`
`makes it possible to be aware of certain conditions in one or more tires even
`
`outside the vehicle.” Id. at 15. Thus, Oselin describes that the lighting of the LEDs
`
`represents the pressure condition of the tires and corresponds to one of Oselin’s
`
`two intervals (i.e., acceptable or unacceptable as either high or low).
`
`31. Further, Oselin’s teachings are not limited to a single sensor
`
`(corresponding to a single set of intervals). Oselin teaches: “On this subject, it
`
`should be remembered that in general, even if in the present description reference
`
`is made to using a single sensor P connected to each transmitter 10, it is possible to
`
`connect several sensors P to each transmitter 10, for example sensors calibrated
`
`differently for different operational situations (running on asphalt versus running
`
`on the desert, loaded vehicle versus unloaded vehicle).” Ex. 1004, at 7. Oselin’s
`
`teachings are also not limited to the transmission of a fixed number of bits. Rather,
`
`Oselin teaches: “Naturally, neither the number of symbols included in each of the
`
`groups A, B, and C, nor the order in which the symbols appear in the signal
`
`sequence should be considered binding for the purposes of implementing the
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 000019
`
`

`

`invention. In particular, groups A and B may include any number of symbols . . .
`
`.” Ex. 1004, at 9-10. Thus, Oselin itself contemplates that it could transmit
`
`different number of symbols where a multiplicity of those symbols could each
`
`describe different aspects of the measured tire pressure. Therefore, Oselin
`
`anticipates claim 1 under even Wasica and Andrews’s interpretation of the claim
`
`terms.
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, claim 1 is also obvious over Oselin. As I explained in
`
`my first declaration, Oselin discloses portions [1.1] – [1.11] of claim 1. Ex. 1010,
`
`¶¶ 91-103. In my opinion, claim 1 would be obvious to a POSITA at the time of
`
`the ’524 patent even when applying Mr. Andrews’s interpretation that the
`
`“pressure measuring device” of portion [1.2] measures a quantitative or numerical
`
`value of air pressure in the tire. In particular, pressure measuring devices that
`
`measure quantitative values and display the quantitative value to the driver of the
`
`vehicle were well-known in the TPMS field at the time of the ’524 patent’s filing.
`
`For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,231,872 (“Bowler”) was filed in 1991 and is directed
`
`to a tire monitoring apparatus for “measuring a physical quantity, property or
`
`condition and for transmitting a code representing the measured physical quantity,
`
`property or condition.” Ex. 1019, Abstract. Bowler described that:
`
`The air pressure and air temperature of air within each tire on a
`vehicle such as a mining truck or semi-trailer unit can be monitored
`inside a cab portion of the vehicle to alert an operator to any
`potential problems with
`the
`tires. Furthermore, as
`the code
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 000020
`
`

`

`representing the actual measured value is sent to the receiver, the
`receiver can display, in real time, a numerical indication of the air
`pressure or air temperature of a particular tire in units of pressure or
`temperature accordingly. Furthermore such indication can be provided
`while the operator is driving the vehicle, which eliminates the need to
`take the vehicle out of productive use to measure air pressures or air
`temperatures.
`
` Id. at 4:19-40 (emphasis added).
`
`33. Similarly, Schultz, which I described in my first declaration Ex. 1010,
`
`¶¶ 130-136, describes a display unit 12 which receives a modulated response signal
`
`from the transmitter “indicative of tire pressure.” Ex. 1006, 4:46-55. Display unit
`
`12 contains display 46 suitably comprising three 7-segment display, DS1, DS2,
`
`and DS3. Id. at 5:23-37. Each 7-segment display is capable of displaying a
`
`numeric digit 0 through 9. Schultz describes that “Displays DS1, DS2, and DS3
`
`cooperate to produce a 1, 2, or 3 digit numeric display indicative of the tire
`
`pressure sensed by transducer unit 14.” Id.
`
`34.
`
`I further note that, the ’524 patent itself admits these features to be
`
`known in the prior art. As one embodiment, the ’524 patent describes that:
`
`“instead of measuring the absolute pressure, a pressure difference with respect to a
`
`reference pressure can also be measured and processed, which arrangement is
`
`known in the art.” Ex. 1002, at 6:20-26 (emphasis added). Thus, Bowler,
`
`Schultz, and the ’524 patent all provide evidence demonstrating that these features
`
`were well-known in the art at the time of the ’524 patent. In my opinion, a
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 000021
`
`

`

`POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Oselin’s system to include a
`
`pressure measuring device that measured numerical pressure values, as well as to
`
`modify Oselin’s transmitter to generate a transmitting signal that transmits the
`
`numerical value of the tire pressure. It would be an obvious design choice to
`
`include the number of bits necessary to represent tire pressure to the desired degree
`
`of accuracy. Mr. Andrews recognized as much when he stated the number of bits
`
`used to transmit pressure “depends on resolution to which you want to measure the
`
`pressure,” Ex. 1016, at 130:1 – 131:19, and “someone would choose the number of
`
`bits to use to quantize the signal,” id. at 135:13 – 136:7. I disagree with Mr.
`
`Andrews to the extent he suggests that the number of bits used and the degree of
`
`accuracy in the measured pressure interval would not be obvious to a POSITA at
`
`the time of the ’524 patent.
`
`35. Additionally, Oselin describes pressure sensor P conveys a 0 for S