`
`
`
`
`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
`
`—————————————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 311 & 37 C.F.R. 42.101
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ................................................. 1
`
`A. Real Party-In Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................. 1
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ...................................................... 1
`
`C. Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ..................... 1
`
`II. PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ..................................................... 2
`
`III. STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ................................................................ 2
`
`IV. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) AND
`RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) .................................................... 2
`
`V. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE ’524 PATENT ........................ 4
`
`A. Overview of the ’524 Patent .......................................................................... 4
`
`B. Prosecution History of the ’524 Patent ......................................................... 7
`
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’524 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .......................................... 9
`
`A. Relevant Field of Art and Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................... 9
`
`B. Claim Constructions ....................................................................................11
`
`C. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`§102 as anticipated by Oselin ..............................................................................16
`
`(a) Overview of Oselin ...................................................................................16
`
`(b) Independent Claim 1 .................................................................................17
`
`(c) Dependent Claim 2 ...................................................................................23
`
`(d) Dependent Claim 5 ...................................................................................23
`
`(e) Dependent Claim 6 ...................................................................................24
`
`(f) Dependent Claim 9 ...................................................................................24
`
`(g) Dependent Claim 10 .................................................................................25
`
`(h) Dependent Claim 11 .................................................................................26
`
`(i) Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................................27
`
`(j) Dependent Claim 15 .................................................................................27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`(k) Dependent Claim 18 .................................................................................27
`
`(l) Dependent Claim 19 .................................................................................28
`
`(m) Dependent Claim 21 .................................................................................29
`
`D. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 as obvious over Oselin ................................................................................29
`
`E. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8 and 20 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over
`Oselin in view of Williams ...................................................................................30
`
`(a) Overview of Williams ...............................................................................30
`
`(b) Motivation to Combine Oselin and Williams ...........................................32
`
`(c) Dependent Claim 3 ...................................................................................32
`
`(d) Dependent Claim 4 ...................................................................................33
`
`(e) Dependent Claim 7 ...................................................................................33
`
`(f) Dependent Claim 8 ...................................................................................34
`
`(g) Dependent Claim 20 .................................................................................34
`
`F. Claims 12 and 16 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Oselin
`in view of Schultz .................................................................................................34
`
`(a) Overview of Shultz ...................................................................................34
`
`(b) Motivation to Combine Oselin and Schultz ..............................................35
`
`(c) Dependent Claim 12 .................................................................................36
`
`(d) Dependent Claim 16 .................................................................................37
`
`G. Claim 14 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Oselin in view
`of Barabino ..........................................................................................................37
`
`(a) Overview of Barabino ..............................................................................37
`
`(b) Motivation to Combine Oselin and Barabino ..........................................38
`
`(c) Dependent Claim 14 .................................................................................38
`
`H. Claim 17 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Oselin and
`Schultz in view of Li ............................................................................................39
`
`(a) Overview of Li ..........................................................................................39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`(b) Motivation to Combine Oselin, Schultz, and Li .......................................39
`
`(c) Dependent Claim 17 .................................................................................40
`
`Claims 1-11, 13, 15, 18-21 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious
`I.
`over Williams in view of Heitschel ......................................................................41
`
`(a) Overview of Heitschel ..............................................................................41
`
`(b) Motivation to Combine Williams and Heitschel ......................................42
`
`(c) Independent Claim 1 .................................................................................43
`
`(d) Dependent Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 20 .........................................................51
`
`(e) Dependent Claim 2 ...................................................................................51
`
`(f) Dependent Claim 5 ...................................................................................51
`
`(g) Dependent Claim 6 ...................................................................................52
`
`(h) Dependent Claim 9 ...................................................................................52
`
`(i) Dependent Claim 10 .................................................................................53
`
`(j) Dependent Claim 11 .................................................................................53
`
`(k) Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................................54
`
`(l) Dependent Claim 15 .................................................................................55
`
`(m) Dependent Claim 18 .................................................................................55
`
`(n) Dependent Claim 19 .................................................................................56
`
`(o) Dependent Claim 21 .................................................................................56
`
`J. Claims 12 and 16, are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over
`Williams and Heitschel in view of Schultz...........................................................57
`
`(a) Motivation to Combine Williams, Heitschel, and Schultz ........................57
`
`(b) Dependent Claims 12 and 16 ....................................................................57
`
`K. Claim 14 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Williams and
`Heitschel in view of Barabino .............................................................................58
`
`(a) Motivation to Combine Williams, Heitschel, and Barabino ....................58
`
`(b) Dependent Claim 14 .................................................................................58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`L. Claim 17 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Williams,
`Heitschel, Schultz in view of Li ...........................................................................58
`
`(a) Motivation to Combine Williams, Heitschel, Schultz, and Li ..................58
`
`(b) Dependent Claim 17 .................................................................................59
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00295
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,602,524 (“Mock” or “’524 patent”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,602,524 File History
`Italian Patent No. 1,219,753 (“Oselin”)
`Certified English Translation of Oselin and Affidavit
`U.S. Patent No. 5,109,213 (“Williams”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,083,457 (“Schultz”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,912,463 (“Li”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,067,376 (“Barabino”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,750,118 (“Heitschel”)
`Declaration of Dr. M. Ray Mercer
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. M. Ray Mercer
`Select Pages from IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`Electronics Terms (4th ed. 1988).
`Select Pages from Webster’s New World Dictionary of American
`English (Deluxe 3d ed. 1991).
`Select Pages from George R. Cooper & Clare D. McGillem, Modern
`Communications & Spread Spectrum (1986).
`Declaration of Nicholas A. Restauri
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.101, the undersigned, on
`
`behalf of Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. (“Continental” or “Petitioner”),
`
`respectfully requests inter partes review of claims 1 – 21 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,602,524 (“the ’524 patent”, attached hereto as Exhibit 1001), filed as PCT No.
`
`PCT/EP93/00452 on February 26, 1993 and issued February 11, 1997, to Markus
`
`Mock and Ernst Völlm, and currently assigned to Wasica Finance GmbH &
`
`BlueArc Finance AG (“Wasica” or “Patent Owner”). There is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`
`A. Real Party-In Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner, Continental, is the real-party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’524 patent is currently the subject of the following litigations: Wasica
`
`Fin. GmbH et al v. Continental Auto. Sys. US, Inc. Case No. 1-13-cv-01356 (D.
`
`Del. 2013); Wasica Fin. GmbH et al v. Schrader Int’l, Inc., Case No. 1-13-cv-
`
`01353 (D. Del. 2013).
`
`C. Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Lead Counsel: Gary M. Ropski (Reg. No. 28,257).
`
`Back-up Counsel: James K. Cleland (Reg. No. 44,619); John A. Lingl (Reg. No.
`
`57,414); Nicholas A. Restauri (Reg. No. 71,783).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`Electronic Service Information: Continental-IPR@brinksgilson.com
`
`Post: Brinks, Gilson & Lione, NBC Tower – Suite 3600, 455 N. Cityfront Plaza
`
`Drive , Chicago, IL 60611; Telephone: 312-321-4000; Facsimile: 312-321-4299
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`Petitioner authorizes the US PTO to charge Deposit Account No. 23-1925
`
`for the fees set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition, and further authorizes
`
`payment for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III. STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that the patent for which review is sought, the ’524 patent
`
`(Exhibit 1001), is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims
`
`on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) AND
`RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of and challenges claims 1 – 21 of the
`
`’524 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 on the grounds set forth below, and
`
`requests that all these claims be cancelled. This petition explains in detail the
`
`reasons why claims 1 – 21 are unpatentable under the relevant statutory grounds.
`
`Additional explanation and support for each ground of challenge are set forth in the
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. M. Ray Mercer (Ex. 1010).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`challenges and statutory grounds for each challenge:
`
`1) claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102 as anticipated by Italian Patent No. 1,219,753 (“Oselin,” Exs. 1003
`
`& 1004);
`
`2) claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103 as obvious over Oselin;
`
`3) claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 20 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over
`
`Oselin in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,109,213 (“Williams,” Ex. 1005);
`
`4) claims 12 and 16 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over
`
`Oselin in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,083,457 (“Schultz,” Ex. 1006);
`
`5) claim 14 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Oselin in view
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 4,067,376 (“Barabino,” Ex. 1008);
`
`6) claim 17 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Oselin and
`
`Schultz in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,912,463 (“Li,” Ex. 1007)
`
`7) claims 1-11, 13, 15, 18-21 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
`
`over Williams in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,750,118 (“Heitschel,” Ex.
`
`1009);
`
`8) claims 12 and 16 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`
`Williams and Heitschel, further in view of Schultz;
`
`9) claim 14 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Williams and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`Heitschel in view of Barabino; and
`
`10) claim 17 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Williams and
`
`Heitschel and Schultz in view of Li.
`
`The ’524 patent (Ex. 1001) was filed as a PCT on February 26, 1993 and
`
`claims priority to German Application No. 42 05 911.9 filed on February 26, 1992.
`
`Oselin (Ex. 1003) was filed April 13, 1988 and issued May 24, 1990, and
`
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e). Oselin published in
`
`Italian. Pursuant to 35 C.F.R. § 42.63(b), Petitioner attaches an English translation
`
`and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation to this Petition as
`
`Exhibit 1004. Williams (Ex. 1005) was filed July 05, 1991 and issued April 28,
`
`1992, and qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Schultz (Ex.
`
`1006) was filed December 20, 1989 and issued January 28, 1992, and qualifies as
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e). Li (Ex. 1007) was filed on
`
`August 9, 1988 and issued March 27, 1990, and qualifies as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e). Barabino (Ex. 1008) was filed on January 16, 1976
`
`and issued January 10, 1978, and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a),
`
`(b), and (e). Heitschel (Ex. 1009) was filed on October 29, 1985 and issued June 7,
`
`1998, and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`V. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE ’524 PATENT
`
`A. Overview of the ’524 Patent
`
`The ’524 patent is directed to a device for monitoring the air pressure in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`pneumatic tires. Ex. 1001. The claimed monitoring device includes a transmitter
`
`arranged on a vehicle wheel—such as to the valve stem or to the tire rim, see, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:44-48, Fig. 2—and a receiver that may be formed together with the
`
`vehicle in a stationary manner, or provided in a separate transportable housing. Id.
`
`at 2:50-53, 12:6-15. The transmitter receives an electrical pressure signal from a
`
`pressure measuring device associated with the tire and sends out a pressure
`
`transmitting signal corresponding to the air pressure of the tire. Id. at 2:33-36,
`
`6:31-53. In addition to the pressure transmitting signal, the transmitter also sends
`
`out an identification signal unique to each transmitter before or after the pressure
`
`transmitting signal is sent out. Id. at 2:63-3:3. The receiver receives the pressure
`
`transmitting signal and processes it if the identification signal associated with the
`
`transmitter satisfies predetermined relationship criteria. Id. at 3:4-15, 8:45-49.
`
`The receiver is further connected to a display device that displays data taken from
`
`the pressure transmitting signal as numbers indicating pressure or symbols
`
`indicating abnormal pressure. Id. at 6:3-7, 8:33-35, 9:24-48.
`
`Figure 1 illustrates an example
`
`configuration of the air-pressure monitoring
`
`device used on a vehicle having four wheels.
`
`Each of the four wheels R1 to R4 have a
`
`transmitting device S1 to S4 affixed to and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`rotating with the respective wheel. See also id.at 6:1-2. Four receivers E1 to E4
`
`are affixed near each wheel and connected to central control device Z, which is in
`
`turn connected to display device A. See also id. at 6:3-7.
`
`A schematic block diagram of an exemplary transmitter is shown in greater
`
`detail in Figure 2. Pressure sensor 18 monitors the pressure in the respective tire,
`
`such as by piezoelectricity,
`
`and outputs a signal
`
`representing the air pressure to
`
`signal converting circuit 20 of
`
`the transmitter. See id. at
`
`6:16-31. A microprocessor
`
`controls the transmission of signals and the generation of an identification signal
`
`identifying the transmitter. Id. at 2:63-3:3. During transmission, the identification
`
`signal may be transmitted before or after the pressure transmitting signal. Id.
`
`A schematic block diagram of an exemplary receiver is shown in Figure 6.
`
`Antenna 80 receives the
`
`identification signal and pressure
`
`transmitting signal from the
`
`respective transmitter. Id. at
`
`11:31-40. Microprocessor 85
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`processes the signal and communicates it to display 87. Id.
`
`The air pressure monitoring device can operate in both a normal mode and a
`
`pairing mode. In normal mode, sometime referred to as “stand-by” or “stationary”
`
`mode, a pressure measurement may be made at preset time intervals or triggered
`
`by a receiver, at which point the pressure transmitting signal is transmitted to the
`
`receiver. Id. at 6:55-64, 10:57-67. To facilitate the triggering of a pressure
`
`measurement, the receiver is connected to a switching device that enables the
`
`receiver to switch from the normal mode to the pairing mode. Id. at 9:57-60.
`
`During pairing mode, the receiver collects the identification signal from the
`
`transmitter and stores the identification signal in its memory as a reference
`
`identification signal along with relationship criteria. Id. at 3:4-16, 11:4-16. A
`
`comparison device checks if identification signals received from transmitters
`
`satisfy the relationship criteria with the stored reference identification signal in
`
`order to determine whether the signal is from a transmitter associated with one of
`
`the vehicle’s wheels. Id. at 3:9-16. If the relationship criteria are satisfied, the
`
`receiver continues processing the received signal transmitting signal and the results
`
`are sent to be displayed on the display device. Id. at 3:9-16, 11:60-65.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’524 Patent
`
`The PCT application for the ’524 patent (Ser. No. 08/137,155) was filed on
`
`February 26, 1993 and claims priority to a German application No. 42 05 911.9,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`filed February 26, 1992. Original claim 22, the sole independent claim, contained,
`
`inter alia, the following components: 1) a pressure measuring device, 2) a
`
`transmitter mounted on the vehicle wheel having a signal generating device and an
`
`emitter-control device, 3) a receiver mounted at a distance to the vehicle wheel, 4)
`
`a display device connected to the receiver, and 5) a comparison device to compare
`
`received identification signals to stored reference signals. Ex. 1002, 56-57.
`
`The Examiner found original claim 22 to be obvious over Williams, U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 5,109,213 (Ex. 1004). Id. at 185. Specifically, Examiner found that
`
`Williams teaches all of the claimed components of original claim 22. Id. at 185-86.
`
`The Examiner further found that the claim language requiring source identification
`
`signals to be transmitted before or after the transmitting signal was an “obvious
`
`design choice” and that “One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize
`
`that the specific signal arrangement does not constitute an inventive step.” Id. at
`
`186. The Examiner also noted that original claims 33 – 34 and 38 – 40, including,
`
`inter alia, the limitation that the receiver includes a switching device to switch the
`
`receiver from normal operating mode to a pairing mode, would be allowable over
`
`the prior art of record. See id. at 189. Applicants submitted new claims 43 – 63,
`
`including sole independent claim 43 having the similar limitations as original claim
`
`22, but incorporating two additional limitations. In particular, Applicants
`
`incorporated the limitation of original, dependent claim 27 reciting that the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`identification reference signal was changeable—which the Examiner also found
`
`disclosed by Williams (see id. at 188)—and the limitation reciting a switching
`
`device that places the system into pairing mode. See id. at 202-09. The Examiner
`
`allowed the newly submitted claims. Id. at 214-20.
`
`Thus, based upon the Examiner’s prior rejections, the purported novelty of
`
`the sole independent claim of the ’524 patent rests upon the so-called “switching
`
`device” configured to enable a receiver to switch from normal operating mode to a
`
`pairing mode, during which identification signals are collected and stored in the
`
`receiver. See Ex. 1010, at ¶¶ 39-49, 151-154. This feature, however, was well-
`
`known and disclosed by the prior art before the priority date of the ’524 patent.
`
`See Ex. 1010, at ¶¶ 83-85, 102-103, 157-158.
`
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’524 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Relevant Field of Art and Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`The ’524 patent is directed a tire pressure monitoring system for monitoring
`
`air pressure inside of pneumatic tires and transmitting signals representative of air
`
`pressure to a central receiver . The relevant field of art therefore relates to wireless
`
`signal transmission systems, including technologies for transmitting tire pressure
`
`measurement signals to a central receiving unit for processing, as well as the
`
`similar technology used in garage door openers, wireless security monitoring
`
`systems, fire extinguisher pressure monitors, underwater diving pressure tanks, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`other wireless transmission systems. See Ex. 1010, at ¶¶ 50-51, 83-85.
`
`The system components recited in the claims of the ’524 patent include
`
`already developed and well-known technologies, such as wireless signal
`
`transmission, antennas, microprocessors, integrated circuitry, and comparators.
`
`See Ex. 1010, at ¶ 85. Thus, the ’524 patent’s sole independent claim recites
`
`known technologies and includes only hardware that was in existence prior to its
`
`filing date. The ’524 patent was first filed in 1992, many years after tire-pressure
`
`monitor systems were introduced. See, e g., Ex. 1008 (filed 1976). The’524
`
`patent’s specification itself concedes that, at the time of filing, the prior art already
`
`contained suggestions to measure tire pressure by way of sensors arranged on the
`
`vehicle wheels, and for displaying the measurements in a suitable way to the
`
`driver. Ex. 1001, 1:43-48.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art for the ‘524 patent would have had: (1) at
`
`least four years of educational training in fields of engineering or computer science
`
`plus at least two years of experience in the fields of design, development,
`
`engineering or teaching of wireless signal transmission systems; or (2) at least two
`
`years of educational training in fields of engineering or computer science plus at
`
`least four years of experience in the fields of design, development, engineering or
`
`teaching of wireless signal transmission systems. Ex. 1010, at ¶¶ 52-53.
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`B. Claim Constructions
`
`A claim of an unexpired patent subject to inter partes review is given its
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). However, the USPTO applies a
`
`different standard to claims which cannot be amended, such as those of an expired
`
`patent. See In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he Board’s
`
`review of the claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s
`
`review.”). In cases such as this where the claims cannot be amended, the words of
`
`a claim are given their “ordinary and customary meaning . . . that the term would
`
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,
`
`i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`“In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, [courts] look
`
`principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself,
`
`the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine,
`
`Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-17). If necessary, extrinsic evidence such as
`
`expert testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises may also be considered, so
`
`long as they do not “contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading
`
`of the patent documents.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1584,
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
` The ’524 patent was first filed as PCT/EP93/00452 on February 26, 1993
`
`and issued February 11, 1997. Thus, the ’524 patent will expire on February 11,
`
`2014. See 35 U.S.C. § 154(c). Given the patent expiration date and representative
`
`trial timeline provided in the PTAB’s trial practice guide, it will not be possible for
`
`the Patent Owner to amend the ’524 patent under the trial schedule. See generally
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48757. Consequently, and solely for purposes of this review,
`
`Petitioner construes the claim language such that claim terms are given their plain
`
`and ordinary meaning. Petitioner expressly reserves the right to argue in litigation
`
`a different construction for any term, including all arguments arising under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, as may be appropriate.
`
`Claim Term
`“identification
`
`Construction & Support
`Data capable of identifying a transmitter.
`
`reference signal”
`
`(claims 1, 4, 5,
`
`19, and 21)
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:4-15 (describing an identification
`
`reference signal as capable of being stored to memory and
`
`having a predetermined relationship to a transmitter
`
`identification signal); see also 8:10-23; IEEE Dictionary, Ex.
`
`1012, (defining “Signal (circuits and systems)” as “A
`
`phenomenon (visual, audible, or otherwise) used to convey
`
`information. The signal is often coded, such as a modulated
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`waveform, so that it requires decoding to be intelligible.”).
`
`Additionally, a POSITA would understand that a signal
`
`capable of being stored to memory would consist of data and
`
`not a signal per se. See Ex. 1010, at ¶¶ 63-65.
`
`“pairing
`
`A mode of operation that allows an identification signal
`
`mode”(claims 1
`
`received directly from an associated transmitter to be
`
`and 17)
`
`processed and stored as an identification reference signal
`
`in the receiver.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001,11:7-16 (“[T] he receiving device, as soon
`
`as it is switched to the pairing mode, will probe one after the
`
`other the transmitting devices . . . and will take-up and store
`
`the corresponding identification signal.”); 12:39-45 (“After
`
`switching over to the pairing mode, then the transmitting
`
`device does not send any pressure values, but rather, sends out
`
`over a predetermined time interval the identification signal
`
`having an additional signal which indicates the pairing mode.
`
`The receiver, which is switched as well in the pairing mode,
`
`recognises the identification signal and accordingly stores it.”);
`
`see also Ex. 1010, at ¶¶ 66-68.
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`“normal
`
`A mode of operation when the device is not in pairing
`
`operating mode”
`
`mode.
`
`(claim 1)
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:57-60 (describing a switching device as
`
`switching between two modes of operation, normal and
`
`pairing); cf. id. at 6:55-57 (“The transmitting device is
`
`normally to be found in the stand-by mode, in which mode
`
`only the interval-timer (21) is working in order to save on the
`
`capacity of the battery.”); see also Webster’s New World
`
`Dictionary, Ex. 1013, at 5 (defining “normal” as “the usual
`
`state, amount, degree, etc.; esp., the median or average”); Ex.
`
`1010, at ¶¶ 69-72;
`
`“predetermined
`
`A pre-established condition capable of being evaluated to
`
`relationship
`
`determine whether two signals are identical or have a
`
`criteria” (claim
`
`definite, mathematical relationship to each other.
`
`1)
`
`
`
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:7-9 (“That is, the identification signal
`
`and the identification-reference signal are either identical or
`
`have a definite (mathematical) relationship to each other.”);
`
`8:55-67 (“[T]he identification signal and the identification-
`
`reference signal are identical. . . . But also other mathematical
`
` 14
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`arrangements are possible, for example, a set difference
`
`between the two numbers.”); see also Webster’s New World
`
`Dictionary, Ex. 1013, at 6 (defining “predetermine” as “to
`
`determine, decide, or decree beforehand; foreordain”); id. at 4
`
`(defining “criterion” as “a standard, rule, or test by which
`
`something can be judged; measure of value.”); Ex. 1010, at ¶¶
`
`73-76.
`
`“predetermined,
`
`A pre-established period of time between two
`
`significantly
`
`measurements having little to no variation in time.
`
`constant time
`
`intervals” (claim
`
`10)
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:55-63 (describing a timer that activates
`
`pressure measurements at “preset time intervals”); see also
`
`10:57-64.; see also Webster’s New World Dictionary, Ex.
`
`1013, at 3 (defining “constant” as “not changing; remaining
`
`the same; specif., . . . c) remaining free from variation or
`
`change; regular; stable, 2 going on all the time; continual
`
`persistent.”). Additionally, a POSITA would understand
`
`predetermined, significantly constant time intervals to be pre-
`
`established periods of time that include little to no variations in
`
`the interval. Ex. 1010, at ¶¶ 77-80.
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00295 – U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524
`
`
`For terms not specifically listed and construed above, those terms should be
`
`construed in accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning for purposes of this
`
`review. In the event that the Board or Wasica deems additional terms to require
`
`construction, Pe