Paper 7
`Entered: August 4, 2014
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SCHRADER INTERNATIONAL, INC. and SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WASICA FINANCE GMBH & BLUEARC FINANCE AG,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before RAMA G. ELLURU, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: August 4, 2014
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SCHRADER INTERNATIONAL, INC. and SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WASICA FINANCE GMBH & BLUEARC FINANCE AG,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before RAMA G. ELLURU, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`I.
`
`Oselin
`
`Oselin and Schultz2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Schrader International, Inc. and Schrader-Bridgeport International,
`Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a petition to institute an inter partes
`review of claims 1-6, 9-19, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’524 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owners Wasica Finance GmbH
`and BlueArc Finance AG (collectively, “Patent Owner”) did not file a
`preliminary response.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on the following grounds (Pet. 8, 17-49):
`References
`Basis Claims Challenged
`Oselin1
`§ 102
`1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 17-19, and
`21
`1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 14, 15, 17-19,
`and 21
`4, 12, and 16
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Oselin and Nowicki3
`
`§ 103
`
`3, 10, and 11
`
`
`1 Italian Patent No. 1219753, published May 24, 1990 (Ex. 1004, “Oselin”).
`Citations to this reference refer to its English translation (Ex. 1003).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,083,457, issued Jan. 28, 1992 (Ex. 1005, “Schultz”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,285,189, issued Feb. 8, 1994 (Ex. 1006, “Nowicki”).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`References
`Oselin and Barabino4
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 103
`14
`
`For the reasons given below, we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1-6, 9, 10, 12-19, and 21. We do not institute an inter partes review
`of claim 11.
`B. Real Party-in-Interest
`Petitioner indicates that it is the real party-in-interest in this Petition.
`Pet. 1.
`C. Additional Proceedings
`Petitioner indicates that the ’524 patent is the subject of the following
`co-pending federal district court cases: Wasica Finance GmbH v. Schrader
`International, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-01353 (D. Del.); and Wasica Finance
`GmbH v. Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-01356
`(D. Del.). Pet. 1.
`D. The ’524 Patent
`The ’524 patent is titled “Device for Monitoring the Air-Pressure in
`Pneumatic Tires Fitted on Vehicle Wheels.” Figure 1 of the ’524 patent,
`reproduced below, illustrates a vehicle including an exemplary monitoring
`device.
`
`
`4 U.S. Patent No. 4,067,376, issued Jan. 10, 1978 (Ex. 1007, “Barabino”).
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic illustration of a vehicle including wheels R1-R4;
`transmitting devices S1-S4, fixed to wheels R1-R4, respectively; a receiving
`device, including receivers E1-E4, respectively, fixed on the vehicle body;
`central control device Z; and display device A.
`
`Transmitting devices S1-S4 send signals corresponding to each of
`wheels R1-R4, respectively, to the receiving device. Ex. 1001, 6:63-64,
`8:42-43. Figure 3 illustrates the composition of the signals and is
`reproduced below.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is an example of the signals sent by transmitting devices S1-S4 in
`the form of a table depicting the portions of the signals (preamble,
`identification-signal, data, post-amble). Id. at Fig. 3. In the example
`provided, the preamble has 16 bits that enables receiving parts E1-E4 to
`synchronize with the signals. Id. at 6:65-7:9. Each identification signal is a
`binary number having 32 bits that contains an identification characteristic
`specific to corresponding transmitting device S1-S4. Id. Each data signal
`has 24 bits that contains the measured pressure value in binary form, and
`each post-amble is 4 bits that completes the signal. Id.
`
`As illustrated in Figure 1, the receiving device may include receivers
`E1-E4 near each wheel R1-R4, respectively, for each transmitting device S1-
`S4, respectively. Id. at 7:64-66, Fig. 5. Alternatively, the receiving device
`may be common to all transmitting devices S1-S4 and may be
`accommodated in a transportable housing. Id. at 11:29-35, Fig. 6. In either
`embodiment, the receiving device can be switched between a normal
`operating mode and a pairing mode. Id. at 9:57-60, 12:16-18. During the
`pairing mode, the receiving device stores the identification signal from each
`transmitting device S1-S4. Id. at 10:1-27, 11:7-16, 12:16-27.
`
`During operation, the receiving device evaluates the signals provided
`by transmitting devices S1-S4 and determines whether the identification-
`signal portion matches the identification signal stored in the receiving
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`device. Id. at 8:42-47. The ’524 patent explains that the matching can
`include the identification signal and the stored reference signal being
`identical or having another predetermined mathematical relationship. Id. at
`8:55-62. If the receiving device determines that the signals match, the data
`portion of the signals provided by transmitting devices S1-S4 are evaluated.
`Id. at 8:47-49.
`
`Claim 1 is independent, with claims 2-6, 9-19, and 21 depending from
`claim 1. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter and is reproduced
`below:
`
`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 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;
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`
`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
`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
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`
`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.
`Id. at 13:19-14:3.
`E. Claim Construction
`The ’524 patent is expired. See Pet. 6. “[T]he Board’s review of the
`claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review.”
`In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Specifically, because
`the expired claims of the patent are not subject to amendment, we apply the
`principle set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
`(Fed. Cir. 1996)), that “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary
`and customary meaning,’” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the invention. “In determining the meaning of the disputed
`claim limitation, we 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).
`We address below the claim terms relevant to this decision. We
`determine that no other terms require express construction at this stage of the
`proceeding.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`
`1. “identification signal which is unique for the transmitter
`and clearly identifies same”
`Claim 1 requires a transmitter that generates an “identification signal
`which is unique for the transmitter and clearly identifies same.” Petitioner
`contends that “the term ‘signal’ in ‘identification signal’ . . . should be
`interpreted to include the data or sequence of values/digits stored in the
`transmitter,” but does not advance a particular construction for
`“identification signal.” Pet. 9-11.
`The claim language itself defines an “identification signal” as being
`unique for the transmitter and as identifying the transmitter. Furthermore,
`the specification of the ’524 patent explains that a transmitter sends an
`emitter signal, including a sequence having a preamble, an identification
`signal, data, and a post-amble. Ex. 1001, 6:63-7:9. The specification
`describes the identification signal as “contain[ing] an identification
`characteristic specific to the transmitter,” such as “a binary number having
`32 or more bits, which is stored in the memory (23) of the transmitter
`device.” Id. at 7:1-5. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we
`construe “identification signal which is unique for the transmitter and clearly
`identifies same” as requiring data unique to the transmitter from which it is
`generated that identifies the transmitter.
`2. “predetermined relationship criteria”
`Claim 1 requires a receiver that stores a reference signal related to the
`associated transmitter “in accordance with a predetermined relationship
`criteria.” Petitioner does not advance a construction for the claim term
`“predetermined relationship criteria.” Pet. 14.
`The specification of the ’524 patent does not mention the phrase
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`“predetermined relationship criteria,” but explains that “the comparison
`circuit checks if the identification signal matches the stored [reference]
`identification signal.” Ex. 1001, 8:45-46. The specification further explains
`that a “match” occurs when the identification signal and the identification
`reference signal are identical or related in a mathematically defined way,
`such as the sum of the signals being zero or the difference between the
`signals being a set value. Id. at 8:55-67.
`Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we construe
`“predetermined relationship criteria” as a pre-established condition that,
`when evaluated, determines whether the identification signal and
`identification reference signal are identical or are related in a mathematically
`defined way.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Overview
`Petitioner contends that claims 1-6, 9-19, and 21 are unpatentable over
`the prior art cited in the table above.
`B. Anticipation by Oselin
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21
`are anticipated by Oselin. Pet. 8, 17-38.
`1. Overview of Oselin
`Oselin describes a system for transmitting tire pressure signals from
`transmitters on a vehicle’s wheels to a receiver. Ex. 1003, 2.5 Oselin
`
`5 The page numbers of Exhibit 1003 referenced in this decision are the
`original page numbers of Exhibit 1003 found at the bottom center of the
`page.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`explains that “[e]ach of the tires of the motor vehicle is associated with a
`pressure sensor P (figure 2), and a related transmitter 10” that sends a signal
`to “the radiofrequency stage of a receiver 20.” Id. at 5-6. Oselin discusses
`“a signaling group 300, the function of which is to notify the driver of the
`motor vehicle that certain operating conditions have arisen,” and explains
`that the notifications “can include both visual units and acoustic units
`(buzzers).” Id. at 18-19.
`Oselin describes the transmitted signals from the transmitters to the
`receiver as coded signals. Id. at 6. In the example provided in Oselin, the
`coded signal is a binary code including twenty symbols S1-S20. Id. The
`symbols allow the receiver to distinguish between transmissions from the
`receiver’s vehicle and transmissions from other vehicles. Id. at 8.
`Symbols S1-S4 include data associated with the transmitter issuing the
`coded signal to identify the sensor and associated tire from which the
`message is generated. Id. Symbols S5-S16 include data associated with the
`receiver to identify the receiver and the central unit to which the message is
`sent. Id. Symbols S17-S20 include data specifying the nature of the message.
`Id. at 9. In the example provided in Oselin, symbol S17 identifies a test
`procedure, such as a learning phase; symbol S18 identifies an anomalous tire
`pressure level; symbol S19 identifies a low battery charge; and, symbol S20
`indicates that the transmitter is functioning normally. Id. at 9, 17, 18.
`Symbols S1-S20 may be preceded by an initial symbol, S0, which is used as a
`synchronization signal between the transmitters and the receiver. Id. at 7.
`Oselin explains that symbols S1-S4 can be coded manually in each
`transmitter using a dip switch. Id. at 10, 22. Symbols S5-S16, however, are
`generated as a pseudorandom string of values by each transmitter during the
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`learning phase. Id. at 21-22. The learning phase is an initial phase during
`which the receiver stores identifying characteristics of the transmitters,
`including symbols S5-S16. Id. Oselin explains that due to the pseudorandom
`nature of symbols S5-S16, it is extremely unlikely that two transmitters have
`the same string of values associated with symbols S5-S16. Id. at 22, 24.
`During the learning phase, the transmitters send the string of symbols S1-S20
`to the receiver, with symbol S17 indicating the learning phase, and symbols
`S1-S16 being stored in the receiver’s memory. Id. at 23. After the learning
`phase is complete, the receiver only recognizes messages from transmitters
`when the string of symbols S5-S16 matches the corresponding string stored in
`the receiver’s memory.
`2. Claim 1
`Turning to claim 1, Petitioner contends that Oselin’s pressure sensor
`(P), transmitter 10, receiver 20, and signaling group 300 disclose the claimed
`air pressure monitoring device, transmitter, receiver, and display,
`respectively. See Pet. 18-19 (citing Ex. 1003, 5-6, 9, 17-18). Based on the
`record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that
`Oselin discloses those limitations.
`Claim 1 further requires that the transmitter “generates an
`identification signal” and that “the identification signal is transmitted at least
`once before or after the emittance of the pressure transmitting signal” (i.e.,
`signal transmission order). For those limitations, Petitioner refers to
`symbols S1- S20 in Oselin. Id. at 19-20, 24. Petitioner contends that Groups
`A and B (symbols S1-S16), or alternatively that just Group B (symbols S5-
`S16), in Oselin disclose the claimed “identification signal.” Petitioner
`contends further that Oselin discloses the transmission order limitation
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`because Group C (including symbol S18), which occurs after Groups A and
`B, carries the pressure-related data. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 8-10, 15-22).
`As explained above, the “identification signal which is unique for the
`transmitter and clearly identifies same” is data unique to the transmitter from
`which it is generated that identifies the transmitter. Oselin explains that
`symbols S1-S4 include data associated with the transmitter issuing the coded
`signal to identify the sensor and associated tire, and symbols S5-S16 include
`data associated with the receiver to identify the receiver and the central unit
`to which the signal is sent. Ex. 1003, 8. Oselin further explains that the data
`from the transmitter corresponding to symbols S5-S16 are pseudorandom,
`making it extremely unlikely that two transmitters have the same string of
`values associated with symbols S5-S16. Ex. 1003, 22. With respect to the
`signal transmission order, Oselin explains that symbol S18, associated with
`the pressure alarm message, may be transmitted at the end of the sequence
`(i.e., the identification signal (S1-S16) is transmitted before the pressure
`transmitting signal (S18)). Ex. 1003, 10. Based on the record before us,
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Oselin discloses the claimed
`“identification signal which is unique for the transmitter and clearly
`identifies same” and signal transmitting order limitations.
`Claim 1 additionally recites that the receiver includes a “stored . . .
`identification reference signal related to the associated transmitter in
`accordance with a predetermined relationship criteria” and “checks if an
`identification signal transmitted from a transmitter has the relationship
`criteria to [the] identification reference signal stored in the receiver.”
`Petitioner contends that Oselin meets these limitations because “the Group A
`symbols S1-S4 and the Group B symbols S5-S16 are stored in the receiver
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`memory 200 in an array of rows for each transmitter, and used by the
`‘arithmetic-logic unit 201’” and evaluated relative to the corresponding
`symbols from the transmitter to determine if there is a match. Pet. 20-21, 25
`(citing Ex. 1003, 17-18, 24). Petitioner contends that the “match” in Oselin
`is the predetermined relationship criteria, and that further processing of the
`signal from the transmitter only occurs if there is a match. Id. at 21, 25-26
`(citing Ex. 1003, 24, 27). As for the limitation involving the stored
`identification reference signal, Oselin explains that “[t]he character strings
`S5 . . . S16 are intended to be used as keys for receiving messages issued by
`the transmitters 10, to avoid that the messages issued by transmitters from
`other systems be erroneously received by the receiver 20.” Ex. 1003, 21.
`With respect to the predetermined relationship criteria, Oselin explains that
`“in the normal functioning of the system, the receiver 20 recognizes as valid
`messages coming from a given transmitter 10 only when they contain the
`string of symbols (S5...S16) stored in the corresponding location of the
`memory 200” of the receiver (i.e., when the string of symbols S5-S16
`associated with transmitter 10 and receiver 20 are identical). Id. at 24.
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Oselin
`discloses those limitations.
`As for the limitations in claim 1 involving the identification reference
`signal being changeable and the “pairing mode,” Petitioner cites the
`discussion of the learning phase in Oselin. Pet. 22, 27-29 (citing Ex. 1003,
`1, 20-25). Oselin explains that during the learning phase, “strings of
`characters from the columns S5…S16 [are] loaded into the memory of the
`receiver 20[].” Ex. 1003, 21. These strings of characters are generated by
`associated transmitters 10 and are pseudorandom. Id. at 23. A new string of
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`characters can be generated for each transmitter 10 if desired and stored in
`receiver 20 in place of a previous string of characters. Id. at 24. Thus, we
`are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Oselin’s learning
`phase includes a changeable identification reference signal and a pairing
`mode.
` For these reasons, we determine that, on the present record, Petitioner
`has made a sufficient showing that Oselin discloses each limitation of
`claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that the information presented shows a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that
`claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Oselin.
`3. Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21
`Petitioner also contends that claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17-19, and
`21 are anticipated by Oselin. We have reviewed Petitioner’s challenges to
`claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21 and the supporting evidence, and are
`persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Oselin discloses the
`limitations of these claims. We discuss claim 10 as an example of the
`dependent claims pursuant to this ground.
`Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the transmitter
`comprises a timer device and is controlled in such a way that the pressure
`measuring device measures pressure in predetermined, significantly constant
`time intervals.” Petitioner contends that Oselin’s disclosure of “a frequency
`divider 104 that activates the circuit periodically in order to ‘check the
`functionality of the entire system periodically and automatically’”
`corresponds to the claimed pressure measurements at “significantly constant
`time intervals.” Id. at 35 (quoting Ex. 1003, 13). Petitioner contends that
`during the system functionality check, the signal that is sent includes each of
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`symbols S1-S20 and, therefore, the pressure measurement is also sent as part
`of the functionality check. Id. at 35-36 (citing Ex. 1003, 27). Oselin
`explains that “the symbol S20 at level logic level ‘1’ may identify the
`message sent periodically by each transmitter to report its functionality,” and
`further explains that “[w]ith regard to the periodic operations check, each
`transmitter 10 sends a respective message with the symbol S20 at logic level
`‘1’ at intervals established by the division factor of the circuit 104, which
`functions as a long-term clock.” Ex. 1003, 27. As discussed above, the
`coded message in Oselin includes symbols S1-S20, with symbol S18
`identifying an anomalous tire pressure level. Id. at 17, 27. Based on the
`record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that
`Oselin discloses the limitations recited in claim 10.
`For these reasons, we conclude that the information presented shows a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that
`claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21 are unpatentable as anticipated by
`Oselin.
`
`4. Claim 11
`Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and recites that
`the electrical pressure signal representative of the pressure
`measurement is converted to a transmitting signal and is sent
`before a next pressure measurement is carried out, and a
`random circuit is provided which allows the time interval
`between the pressure measurement and emittance of the
`measured pressure signal to be randomly independent.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and claim chart for claim 11.
`Petitioner’s citations to Oselin in the claim chart appear to be directed
`to only the second half of claim 11, which recites “a random circuit is
`provided which allows the time interval between the pressure measurement
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`and emittance of the measured pressure signal to be randomly independent.”
`See Pet. 31-32 (citing Ex. 1003, 12, 31). Petitioner contends that because
`the “transmissions of messages occur between periodic checks activated by
`the frequency divider . . . , pressure signals representative of pressure
`measurements are sent after the periodic check but ‘before a next pressure
`measurement is carried out’ as claimed.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1003, 31).
`After reviewing the cited portions of Oselin, we are not persuaded that
`Oselin discloses a pressure measurement that is converted to a transmitting
`signal and is sent before a next pressure measurement is carried out. For
`example, Petitioner cites page 31 of Oselin as disclosing that “transmissions
`of messages occur between periodic checks activated by the frequency
`divider” (id.), but the cited portion of Oselin only discusses transmissions of
`messages and does not discuss timing for periodic checks (see Ex. 1003, 31).
`For these reasons, Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that
`Oselin discloses each of the limitations in claim 11. Accordingly, we
`determine that the information presented does not establish a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claim 11 is
`anticipated by Oselin.
`C. Obviousness over Oselin
`Petitioner also contends that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 14, 15, 17-19,
`and 21 would have been obvious over Oselin, in addition to separately
`challenging claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21 as being anticipated
`by Oselin, discussed above. Pet. 8, 38.
`1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21
`As noted above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10,
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`13, 15, 17-19, and 21 are anticipated by Oselin. Because anticipation is the
`epitome of obviousness, a disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`also renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re
`Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982); In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026,
`1031 (CCPA 1979); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402 (CCPA 1974).
`Accordingly, we conclude that the information presented shows a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claims 1, 2, 5,
`6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over Oselin.
`2. Claim 11
`As explained above, Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that
`Oselin discloses each of the limitations in claim 11. Petitioner additionally
`contends that claim 11 would have been obvious over Oselin, but only
`references claim 11 in a footnote in the obviousness challenge. See Pet. 39.
`The footnote is directed to Petitioner’s rationale that “[i]t therefore would
`have been obvious to modify Oselin using these features that the ‘524 Patent
`admits were already known in the art for the same purpose” and states “[t]his
`likewise applies to claim 11, which depends from claim 10, as at least the
`subsequent repeated transmission will be at a random time interval from the
`admitted prior art pressure measurement recited in claim 10.” Id. The
`Petition, however, never alleges, and provides no supporting evidence, that
`the ’524 patent admits that “the electrical pressure signal representative of
`the pressure measurement is converted to a transmitting signal and is sent
`before a next pressure measurement is carried out,” recited in claim 11, was
`“already known in the art for the same purpose.” Id.
`For these reasons, Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that
`the limitations in claim 11 would have been obvious over Oselin.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`Accordingly, we determine that the information presented does not establish
`a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that
`claim 11 is obvious over Oselin.
`3. Claim 14
`Claim 14 recites that “a receiver is associated with every pressure
`measurement device and transmitter fixed to a wheel of the vehicle whereby
`the signals received by each receiver are conveyed to the display device
`which is a central display device for all receivers.” Petitioner contends that
`“[i]mplementing a separate receiver for each pressure measurement device
`and transmitter is nothing more than an obvious design choice” because the
`result of using multiple receivers, and the matching process used, would be
`the same as using one receiver Id. at 40. Petitioner reasons that “[t]o
`implement such a design choice would simply be the mere duplication of
`parts that would yield predictable results.” Id. We do not see anything in
`the ’524 patent that contradicts this allegation.
`Based on the record before us, we find Petitioner’s contentions
`persuasive for purposes of this decision. For these reasons, we conclude that
`the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in demonstrating that claim 14 is unpatentable as obvious over
`Oselin.
`D. Obviousness over Oselin and Schultz
`Petitioner contends that claims 4, 12, and 16 would have been obvious
`over Oselin and Schultz. Pet. 8, 40-45.
`1. Overview of Schultz
`Schultz describes a remotely actuated transducer and a display unit.
`Ex. 1005, 1:6-12. Schultz explains that the transducer includes a tire
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`pressure sensor, which provides a signal indicative of tire pressure, and that
`the signal is received by the display unit. Id. at 3:7-14. The display unit
`includes a processor which extracts information from the signal and
`manipulates the information into a form suitable for generating indicia on a
`display of the display unit. Id. at 3:45-50. Schultz explains that the display
`unit remains in a “dormant” state until powered up by the user in order to
`conserve energy. Id. at 4:5-7. Schultz explains that the transducer also
`operates in “active” and “dormant” states. Id. at 5:50-52. When the display
`unit is powered up, the processor of the display unit issues a “wake-up”
`command to activate the transducer, which subsequently sends a signal
`indicative of tire pressure back to the display unit. Id. at 4:31-55.
`2. Claim 4
`Claim 4 recites “wherein a signal amplifier and filter device, the
`comparison device and the memory for storing the identification reference
`signal of the receiver are contained in an integrated chip.” Petitioner
`contends that Schultz teaches the “signal amplifier and filter device”
`limitation because “its display unit 12 included the ‘signal amplifier’ 58 and
`the ‘filter device’ made up by capacitor C1 and resistor R2.” Pet. 43 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 4:56-67). Petitioner contends that Schultz discloses that the signal
`amplifier and filtering device in Schultz would be integrated in a microchip
`or microprocessor because these elements are part of the display unit and
`“Schultz discloses that ‘[t]he functional elements comprising the display unit
`may similarly be implemented in a microchip or microprocessor.’” Id.
`(quoting Ex. 1005, 3:60-63). With respect to “the comparison device and
`the memory . . . contained in an integrated chip,” Petitioner reasons that
`“when creating that integrated chip, it would be similarly logical and
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00476
`Patent 5,602,524
`
`obvious to include the ‘memory for storing the identification reference
`signal’ in that chip as well.” Id. at 43-44. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`contentions for purposes of this decision based on Schultz’s disclosure that
`the d
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
