`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC., BMW
`OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, AND NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`VEHICLE OPERATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. 2014-00594
`Patent No. 7,145,442
` ____________
`
`
`
`
`
` PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,145,442
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS  ....................................................................................................................................  1  
`I.  
`INTRODUCTION  ........................................................................................................................................  1  
`II.   GROUNDS FOR STANDING  ..................................................................................................................  1  
`III.   SUMMARY  OF  THE  ‘442  PATENT  ..........................................................................................................  1  
`IV.   CLAIM  CONSTRUCTION  UNDER  37  C.F.R.  §  42.104(B)(3)  .............................................................  3  
`A.   CONSTRUCTIONS PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6  ..........................................................................................  3  
`B.   ADDITIONAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS  ...................................................................................................................  5  
`V.  
`REQUESTED  ......................................................................................................................................................  10  
`A.   THE GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE  .........................................................................................................................  10  
`B.   LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART  ...................................................  11  
`VI.   THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF
`THE ‘442 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE  ............................................................................................  11  
`A.   TSUZUKI ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10-15, 21-22 AND 24-28 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(B)  .............................  12  
`B.   TABATA ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10-15, 21 AND 24-28 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(B)  .....................................  18  
`C.   TSUZUKI IN VIEW OF WATSON RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-9, 11, AND 41-44 OBVIOUS UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 103(A)  .......................................................................................................................................................................  27  
`D.   TABATA IN VIEW OF BOWEN RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 4-9, 22 AND 41-44 OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103(A)  .......................................................................................................................................................................................  34  
`E.   TSUZUKI OR TABATA IN VIEW OF TSUKIKI OR KOTERAZAWA RENDERS CLAIM 23 OBVIOUS UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 103(A)  .................................................................................................................................................................  42  
`F.   TSUZUKI/WATSON IN VIEW OF JEFFERIES OR MILLER RENDERS CLAIM 3 OBVIOUS UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 103(A)  .......................................................................................................................................................................  44  
`G.   TABATA AND BOWEN IN VIEW OF BRANDENBURG RENDERS CLAIM 2 OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103(A)  .......................................................................................................................................................................................  47  
`H.   TABATA AND BOWEN IN VIEW OF FIELD RENDERS CLAIM 3 OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A)  49  
`I.   TABATA AND BOWEN IN VIEW OF BRANDENBURG OR FIELD RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 4-9 AND 41-44
`OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A)  ...............................................................................................................................  52  
`J.   TSUZUKI AND WATSON IN VIEW OF JEFFERIES OR MILLER RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 4-9 AND 41-44
`OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A)  ...............................................................................................................................  53  
`K.   TSUZUKI/WATSON OR TABATA/BOWEN IN VIEW OF HOSODA RENDERS CLAIMS 41-44 OBVIOUS
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A)  ..................................................................................................................................................  53  
`VII.   MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)  .........................................................  57  
`A.   REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST AND RELATED MATTERS  .....................................................................................  58  
`B.   LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3)  .....................................................................  58  
`C.   PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103  ..................................................................................................  59  
`VIII.   CONCLUSION  .....................................................................................................................................  60  
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,145,442
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners Ford Motor Company, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., BMW of
`
`North America LLC, and Nissan North America Inc. (“Petitioners”) request an Inter
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-15, 21-28, and 41-44 (collectively, the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,442 (“the ‘442 Patent”) issued on December 5,
`
`2006 to Yu Hei Sunny Wai (“Applicant”). Exhibit 1001, ‘442 Patent.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioners certify that the ‘442 Patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of
`
`the ‘442 Patent. Specifically, Petitioners state: (1) Petitioners are not the owner of the
`
`‘442 Patent; (2) Petitioners have not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any
`
`claim of the ‘442 Patent; and (3) this Petition is filed less than one year after any
`
`Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ‘442 Patent.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE ‘442 PATENT
`
`The ‘442 Patent generally describes apparatuses, methods, and systems for
`
`visually displaying real-time data relating to operating parameters of a vehicle to a
`
`driver of the vehicle. Ex. 1001, ‘442 Patent at Abstract. The operating parameters
`
`depicted by the display can relate to various parameters, including, for example,
`
`torque and/or braking forces delivered to the wheels and power consumed by vehicle
`
`components. Id. at 2:41-46. An exemplary display for torque and/or braking forces is
`
`found in Figure 5A:
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Id. at 8:33-40.
`
`
`
`Additional embodiments of the claimed systems are directed to displaying other
`
`parameters such as power consumption of vehicle components or the approach of a
`
`rollover condition. See e.g., claims 16-20 [rollover condition], 36-40 [power
`
`consumption], Figs. 17A-D. Generally speaking, the described systems utilize a
`
`similar architecture for collecting and displaying the specified information. For
`
`example, sensors collect information from relevant places in the vehicle and transmit
`
`signals to a vehicle CPU or display CPU. See generally id. at 2:47-52, 9:11-10:10. The
`
`vehicle CPU or display CPU then generates a display signal that is transmitted to a
`
`display device to visualize the collected information. Id. In addition to the system
`
`claims, the ‘442 Patent includes one claim set directed to a method for displaying
`
`torque and/or braking force information based on signals collected from a sensor that
`
`are subsequently processed and displayed. See e.g., claims 21-28. Importantly, as noted
`
`by the Applicant, the alleged invention of the ‘442 patent is merely a “new, useful
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`
`
`application[] of existing technologies” and “the required technologies are old.” Id. at
`
`3:16-19, 3:30-32.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`
`A claim subject to IPR receives the “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Unless
`
`otherwise noted below, Petitioners propose, for purposes of IPR only, that the claim
`
`terms of the ‘442 Patent are presumed to take on their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning that the term would have to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim
`
`construction analysis is not, and should not be viewed as, a concession by Petitioners
`
`as to the proper scope of any claim term in any litigation. These assumptions are not a
`
`waiver of any argument in any litigation that claim terms in the ‘442 Patent are
`
`indefinite or otherwise invalid. In addition, several claims include limitations in
`
`means-plus-function form that Petitioners propose are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶
`
`6.
`
`A.
`
`Constructions Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Of note, several claims include limitations in means–plus–function format and
`
`should thus be construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. When
`
`construing a means-plus-function limitation, the claimed function must be identified,
`
`and then the corresponding structure that actually performs the claimed function
`
`must be identified in the specification. See Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v.
`
`Elektra AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A means-plus-function claim term
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`
`
`is limited to the structures disclosed in the specification and equivalents. Id. Here, the
`
`use of “means” and “means for” language creates the rebuttable presumption that the
`
`patent owner intended to invoke § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`(i) “sensing means producing at least one source electric signal
`proportional to the distributed driving force of said proper vehicle”
`(claim 1) / “sensing means producing an electrical input signal
`proportional to said engagement forces” (claims 7, 41)
`
`The stated function is “producing at least one source electronic signal
`
`proportional to the distributed driving force of said proper vehicle” for claim 1 and
`
`“producing an electrical input signal proportional to said engagement forces” for
`
`claims 7 and 41. The corresponding structures that perform these functions in the
`
`specification include a flux sensor, a Hall effect sensor, a clampon/clamping induction
`
`sensor/coil, an in-line induction sensor/toroidal coil, an in-line current sensor and
`
`wheel speed sensors. Ex. 1001, ‘442 Patent, at 3:59-61, 9:11-28, 12:31-33, 9:29-53,
`
`claims 2-3 (including various sensors), claims 4 and 12 (each including wheel slippage).
`
`(ii) “calculating means converting at least one source electric signal
`to at least one electric display signal” (claim 1)
`
`The stated function, as best as can be interpreted, is “converting said at least
`
`one source electric signal to at least one electric display signal.” The only structure
`
`arguably suggested to perform the function includes a vehicle CPU or display CPU.
`
`Id. at 2:47-49, 7:12-16, 12:43-49, 11:62-12:14, 13:30-33.
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`
`
`(iii) “electric signal transmission means” and “electric display signal
`transmission means” (claim 1)
`
`The stated functions for “electric signal transmission means,” as best can be
`
`interpreted, are: “connecting said sensing means to said at least one calculating
`
`means” and “transfer[ring] said at least one source electric signal from said sensing
`
`means to said at least one calculating means.” The stated functions for “electric
`
`display signal transmission means,” as best can be interpreted, are: “connecting said at
`
`least one calculating means to said at least one display means” and “transmit[ting] said
`
`at least one electric display signal to said at least one display means.” The only
`
`structure arguably suggested to perform any of these functions in the specification is a
`
`“conductor” or “connector.” Id. at 9:18-28, 9:54-66, 10:9-11.
`
`B.
`
`Additional Claim Constructions
`
` (i) “proper vehicle” (claims 1, 7, 41)
`
`This term is expressly defined in the specification as
`
`“a four-wheel drive vehicle, including a frame supported by wheels for
`movement over the ground, said wheels comprised of a pair of front
`wheels and a pair of rear wheels, one of said pairs being main drive
`wheels, and the other of said pairs being auxiliary drive wheels, a driving
`force control system controlling engagement forces of at least one
`control clutch to thereby control at least one driving force distributed to
`said auxiliary drive wheels, a power source which is mounted on said
`frame and which drives said main drive wheels, an operators seat
`mounted on said frame, a steering system enabling the operator to steer
`the vehicle, said at
`least one control clutch comprised of an
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`

`
`
`electromagnetic clutch and said at least one distributed driving force
`monitored by a sensing means.”
`
`Ex. 1001,‘442 Patent at 13:7-21. This term requires a four-wheel drive vehicle that
`
`utilizes an electromagnetic clutch and a sensing means for monitoring distributed
`
`driving force to the wheels.
`
`(ii) “display means” (claim 1, 6, 9, 43), “display device” (claims 7,
`10, 14, 21, 41)
`
`Initially, Petitioners submit that the term “display means” does not invoke 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 because this term connotes sufficient structure. Ex. 1003, Wilhelm
`
`Decl., at ¶31; see also TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Business Machine Corp., 731 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013). Accordingly, Petitioners submit that the terms “display means,” “display
`
`device” and “display” are all directed to the same thing and should be construed to
`
`mean: “a dedicated display in which the claimed information is presented at all times.”
`
`If a term is expressly and clearly disclaimed or defined in the specification, it
`
`limits the scope of the broadest reasonable interpretation in IPR. See, e.g., Intellectual
`
`Ventures Mgmt. LLC, v. Xilinx, Inc., IPR2012–00018 & –19, Paper 13 (Feb. 12, 2013)
`
`(requiring “an explicit definition of the claim language or an express and clear
`
`disclaimer of a broader definition”) (citing In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (“The PTO should only limit the claim based on . . . prosecution history when
`
`those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.”)).
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`

`
`
`The specification requires the display system to be “dedicated.” See, e.g., id. at
`
`2:21-23, 7:15, 12:21, and Figs. 2 and 5A. More importantly, the proposed construction
`
`is required by the Applicant’s own repeated clear and unequivocal statements
`
`describing his “present invention” during the prosecution of U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 10/684,031, from which the ‘442 patent issued.
`
`During prosecution and in response to a rejection, Applicant amended his
`
`specification to include a description of the prior art and its lack of a dedicated
`
`display. Ex. 1001, ‘442 Patent, at 2:21-33 (“[Prior art reference] discloses a system
`
`based upon a computer program without the utilization of a dedicated display.”); Ex.
`
`1002, ‘442 File History (March 6, 2006 Amendment to Specification), at 299.
`
`In an earlier filing, Applicant presented the PTO with a discussion of the prior
`
`art and repeatedly characterized his invention as a “dedicated display,” as opposed to
`
`a multi-functional display in which various screens could be selected by a driver from
`
`among various options. Ex. 1002, ‘442 File History (Nov. 14, 2005 Office Action
`
`Response), at 219 (“The disclosed ‘freely programmable instrument cluster’ [of the
`
`Hauler reference] is intended to provide the driver with a variety of options for the
`
`review of operational parameters. The [Hauler] patent thus does not disclose or teach
`
`the present invention.”), 220 (“the device and method disclosed [in the Jaberi
`
`reference] are not dedicated display means and utilize a filtering process whose logic
`
`determines what is to be presented. This is remote from and does not teach the
`
`present invention.”), 221 (“the disclosure in [the Haubner reference] is of a complex
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`
`
`display means having multiple presentations … and are not independent dedicated
`
`displays.”) and 221 (“[t]he system disclosed [in the Berkert reference] utilizes a
`
`standard computer oriented selection method for access to display information. It is
`
`not a dedicated system which always presents specific types of information at
`
`all times as is done with the present invention.”).
`
`To the extent the Board believes “display means” should be construed under §
`
`112, ¶6, the stated function is “creating an image visible to the operator of said proper
`
`vehicle, said image proportionally depicting said driving force” and the structures that
`
`arguably perform this function in the specification include an LED, LCD, vacuum
`
`fluorescent means, numerical display, GPS display and/or trip computer, gauge or
`
`meter, hand held computer, or PDA, wherein any of those displays is configured as a
`
`dedicated display that always presents the claimed information/parameters. Id. at
`
`7:16-20, 12:64-13:1, and 2:21-23; see also Ex. 1002, ‘442 File History (Nov. 14, 2005 Office
`
`Action Response, at 12-14), at 219-221.
`
` (iii) “distributed driving force” (claim 1) / “engagement forces”
`(claims 7, 41)
`
`
`
`To the extent that construction of these terms is deemed necessary, these terms
`
`should both be construed to encompass the “forces delivered to one or more wheels
`
`that affect the movement of the vehicle, including torque and/or braking forces.”
`
`The specification describes various ways for providing “torque-related and/or braking
`
`related display information” (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, ‘442 Patent at 6:34-46) and the
`
`
`
` 8
`
`

`

`
`
`dependent claims, by way of claim differentiation, indicate that these terms
`
`encompass both torque and/or braking force, as well as wheel slippage (see, e.g., id. at
`
`claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 12).
`
`(iv) “torque amplitude signal sensor” (claims 11, 24)
`
`
`
`This term would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention after reviewing the ‘442 Patent and its file history as “a sensor
`
`that senses a relative or absolute amount or magnitude of torque.” See Ex. 1003,
`
`Wilhelm Declaration, at ¶ 39; Ex. 1001, ‘442 Patent at 3:51-58, 8:32-49.
`
` (v) “a first CPU” and “a second CPU” (claim 41)
`
`
`
`To the extent that construction of these terms is deemed necessary, these terms
`
`should be construed as not requiring two separate CPUs. Instead, based on the claims of the
`
`‘442 patent, the “first CPU” and the “second CPU” can either be (1) two separate CPUs or
`
`(2) a single CPU. For example, dependent claim 44 recites “wherein said first CPU and said
`
`second CPU are the same CPU.” Ex. 1001, ‘442 Patent at claim 44.1
`
`
`1 If claim 41 is construed as requiring two separate CPUs, then claim 44 would be an invalid
`
`broadening dependent claim that does not include all limitations of its parent claim and
`
`specify a further limitation. See, e.g., Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284,
`
`1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006); 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶4.
`
`
`
` 9
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`
`The Grounds For Challenge
`
`Based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged
`
`Claims should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ‘442 Patent
`
`Claims 10-15, 21, 22 and 24-28 are anticipated under §102(b) by the
`Certified Translation of Japanese Application No. JP S63-42435
`(“Tsuzuki”).
`Claims 10-15, 21 and 24-28 are anticipated under §102(b) by the
`Certified Translation of Japanese Application No. JP10-129298
`(“Tabata”).
`Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 41-44 are obvious under § 103(a) over Tsuzuki
`in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,485,894 (“Watson”).
`Claims 1, 4-9, 22 and 41-44 are obvious under §103(a) over Tabata
`in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,464,608 (“Bowen”).
`Claim 23 is obvious under §103(a) over Tsuzuki in view of the
`Certified Translation of Japanese Application No. JPH-05270432
`(“Tsukiki”)
`or
`Japanese Application No.
`JPH-01122780
`(“Koterazawa”)
`Claim 23 is obvious under §103(a) over Tabata in view of the
`Certified Translation of Japanese Application No. JPH-05270432
`(“Tsukiki”)
`or
`Japanese Application No.
`JPH-01122780
`(“Koterazawa”)
`Claim 3 is obvious under §103(a) over Tsuzuki/Watson in view of
`U.S. Patent No. 5,426,416 (“Jefferies”) or U.S. Patent No. 4,989,686
`(“Miller”)
`Claim 2 is obvious under §103(a) over Tabata/Bowen in view of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,073,713 (“Brandenburg”)
`Claim 3 is obvious under §103(a) over Tabata/Bowen in view of
`U.S. Patent No. 5,081,365 (“Field”)
`Claim 1, 4-9 and 41-44 are obvious under §103(a) over
`Tsuzuki/Watson in view of Jefferies or Miller
`
`Reference
`Exhibit No.
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1004 and
`1006
`1005 and
`1007
`
`1004, 1008
`and 1009
`
`1005, 1008,
`1009
`
`1004, 1006,
`1010, 1011
`
`1004, 1006
`and 1012
`1005, 1007,
`1013
`1004, 1006,
`1010, 1011
`
`
`
` 10
`
`

`

`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ‘442 Patent
`
`Claims 1, 4-9 and 41-44 are obvious under §103(a) over
`Tabata/Bowen in view of Brandenburg or Field
`Claims 41-44 are obvious under §103(a) over Tsuzuki/Watson or
`Tabata/Bowen in view of the Certified Translation of JP1998-19938
`(“Hosoda”)
`
`
`
`Reference
`Exhibit No.
`1005, 1007,
`1012, 1013
`
`1004-1007
`and 1014
`
`
`Section VI identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is found in the
`
`prior art patents. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the supporting
`
`evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and the relevance
`
`of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Section VI. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(5). Exhibits 1001 – 1018 are also attached.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ‘442 Patent would
`
`have a B.S. in electrical engineering or related engineering discipline and at least two
`
`years industry experience in the field of automotive electronics, or equivalent
`
`experience and/or education. The person would also have some knowledge or
`
`familiarity with in-vehicle displays. See Ex. 1003, Wilhelm Declaration, at ¶¶28-29.
`
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ‘442 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`Systems and methods for displaying operating conditions of a vehicle, including
`
`torque, distributed driving force, braking force, and power consumption of vehicle
`
`components—including such systems that utilized dedicated displays—were prevalent
`
`
`
` 11
`
`

`

`
`
`well before October 14, 2003. The following prior art references disclose each
`
`limitation of the Challenged Claims either alone or in combination with another
`
`reference. As such, the Challenged Claims are unpatentable. Included in the claim
`
`charts below are exemplary citations to the prior art references.
`
`A.
`
`Tsuzuki Anticipates Claims 10-15, 21-22 and 24-28 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b)
`
`Tsuzuki was not cited or considered during prosecution and generally discloses a
`
`torque display device for a 4-wheel drive vehicle. Ex. 1004, Tsuzuki at 2.2 In particular,
`
`Tsuzuki describes an apparatus and method that uses sensors to collect and transmit data
`
`to a microcomputer. Id. at 4. Based on these signals, the microcomputer computes torque
`
`distribution and transmits signals to a display. Id. As shown below, Tsuzuki discloses every
`
`limitation of claims 10-15, 21-22 and 24-28. Thus, there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioners will prevail and these claims should be canceled as anticipated under § 102(b) as
`
`being anticipated by Tsuzuki.
`
`Claim
`10pre. An apparatus
`comprising:
`
`Anticipated by Tsuzuki (Ex. 1004)
`Tsuzuki discloses a data collection and display system for a
`vehicle.
`
`“This device is related to a torque display device for a 4-
`wheel drive type vehicle that displays the torque ratio
`between the front wheels and the rear wheels of the vehicle.”
`Ex. 1004, Tsuzuki at 2.
`least one Tsuzuki discloses multiple sensors that produce data related
`10a. at
`
`2 Citations in the Petition to the Japanese patent documents refer to the corresponding pages
`
`in the certified English translations.
`
`
`
` 12
`
`

`

`Claim
`
`signal
`producing
`data;
`
`source
`sensory
`
`a processing
`10b.
`operably
`device
`to
`said
`coupled
`source
`to
`signal
`transform
`said
`sensory data into a
`display signal; and
`
`10c. a display device
`to
`receive
`and
`display said display
`signal as a viewable
`image,
`said
`image
`comprised
`of
`information
`regarding at least one
`operating parameter,
`said at
`least one
`operating parameter
`comprised of torque
`and/or
`braking
`
`
`
`Anticipated by Tsuzuki (Ex. 1004)
`to torque.
`
`“In the figure, 81 is a microcomputer that computes the front
`wheel torque distribution rate based on signals from a
`torque sensor (not shown)[.]” Id. at 2 (emphasis added).
`
`“[T]his torque display device for a 4-wheel drive type vehicle
`is characterized by having computation circuit 41 which
`computes the drive torque generated in said four driving
`wheels based on sensor signals S1 ~ S4 that accord with the
`drive torque generated in the four driving wheels of a 4-wheel
`drive type vehicle[.]” Id. at 5; see also id. at 2, Fig. 2.
`Tsuzuki discloses the use of a microcomputer, i.e., processing
`device, that computes a torque distribution rate based on
`signals from the sensor and outputs signals to a display
`device.
`
`“In the figure, 81 is a microcomputer that computes the front
`wheel torque distribution rate based on signals from a
`torque sensor (not shown), and outputs
`illumination
`signals from the output terminals, Q1 ~ Q10, according to
`the computed distribution rate. 82 is a driver that, based on
`said illumination signals, illuminates illumination diodes D61
`~ D80 which comprise display segments 61 ~ 80, and 83 is
`an inverter.” Id. at 2-3 (emphasis added); see also id. at. at 4-5,
`Figs. 2, 7.
`Tsuzuki discloses a display device that receives signals from
`the microcomputer, i.e., processing device, and displays an
`image relating to the torque ratio between the front and rear
`wheels of a vehicle. Tsuzuki also discloses a dedicated display
`in that “light emitting diodes” are used to illuminate
`individual display segments to present the torque information
`in wheel-shaped bar graphs. See Ex. 1004, Tsuzuki at 3-4, Fig.
`1; Ex. 1003, Wilhelm Decl. ¶38.
`
`“This device is related to a torque display device for a 4-
`wheel drive type vehicle that displays the torque ratio
`between the front wheels and the rear wheels of the vehicle.”
`Id. at 2.
`
`
`
` 13
`
`

`

`Claim
`forces delivered at
`the wheels of
`a
`motor vehicle;
`
`
`
`Anticipated by Tsuzuki (Ex. 1004)
`
`
`“Microcomputer 41 computes front wheel torque distribution
`rate based on sensor signals S1 ~ S4, and if the computed
`distribution rate is 10%, for example, microcomputer 41
`outputs an illumination signal from output terminal Q1.
`Having received this illumination signal via the driver,
`illumination diodes D1, D11, which comprise display
`segment 1, 11 of front wheels FL, FR, illuminate. Meanwhile,
`signals output from output terminals Q2 ~ Q10 of
`microcomputer 41 are inverted by inverter 42b of driver 42.
`And, therefore, illumination diodes D21 ~ 29, D31 ~ 39 that
`comprise display segments 21 ~ 29, 31 ~ 39 of rear wheels
`RL, RR, are illuminated (see the list, a, in Fig. 3). In the same
`way, illumination signals are output from output terminals Q1
`~ Q10 of microcomputer 41 according to the front wheel
`torque distribution rate. As shown in lists a ~ j in Fig. 3,
`display segments 1, 11, 21, 31 that show the center area of the
`front wheels and rear wheels become illuminated and other
`display segments 2 ~ 40 gradually illuminate in the
`larger wheel diameter direction according to the torque
`distribution rate.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added); see also id. at 5.
`
`
`10d. whereby said
`image is observable
`by the operator of
`said motor vehicle.
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1; see also id. at Figs. 3, 5, 6, 8.
`Tsuzuki discloses that the image is observable to the driver.
`Id. at 5 (“since the size of the vehicle wheel changes
`depending on the magnitude of driving wheel generated
`torque, changes can be perceived by the sense of sight.”); see
`also id. at 3.
`
`
`
` 14
`
`

`

`Claim
`11. An apparatus as
`in claim 10 wherein
`said at
`least one
`signal source
`is a
`sensor comprised of
`a
`brake
`signal
`amplitude sensor, a
`torque
`amplitude
`signal sensor, an in-
`line
`induction
`sensor, an
`inserted
`serial current sensor,
`a clampon induction
`sensor and/or a flux
`sensor.
`12. An apparatus as
`in claim 10 wherein
`said image is at least
`one bar chart, scalar
`bar chart, or bar
`chart in pie segment
`format or,
`is an
`image displaying the
`torque or braking
`force delivered to the
`wheels or,
`is an
`image displaying the
`torque or braking
`force delivered to the
`front pair of wheels
`and to the rear pair
`of wheels or an
`image displaying the
`slippage of one or
`more wheels with
`regard to the other
`wheels.
`
`
`
`Anticipated by Tsuzuki (Ex. 1004)
`Tsuzuki discloses that a torque sensor, i.e., a torque amplitude
`signal sensor or sensor that senses a relative or absolute
`amount or magnitude of torque, is used for detecting torque.
`See Ex. 1003, Wilhelm Decl. ¶39.
`
`“In the figure, 81 is a microcomputer that computes the front
`wheel torque distribution rate based on signals from a torque
`sensor (not shown).” Id. at 2.
`
`“[T]his torque display device for a 4-wheel drive type vehicle
`is characterized by having computation circuit 41 which
`computes the drive torque generated in said four driving
`wheels based on sensor signals S1 ~ S4 that accord with the
`drive torque generated in the four driving wheels of a 4-wheel
`drive type vehicle[.]” Id. at 5.
`Tsuzuki discloses a display device that produces an image
`displaying the torque delivered to the wheels of a vehicle as a
`bar graph. In addition, the displayed image is also an image
`displaying the torque or braking force delivered to the front
`pair of wheels and to the rear pair of wheels.
`
`“[T]he front wheels , FL, FR and the rear wheels, RL, RR
`(vehicle display area) are formed with the display segments, 1-
`20, 21-40, respectively, which … are arranged as bar
`graphs[.]” Id. at 3-4.
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1; see also id. at 4-5, Figs. 3, 5, 6, 8.
`
`“[D]isplay device D1~D40 provided with a rectangular
`display area that represents a plan view of said four driving
`
`
`
` 15
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim
`
`13. An apparatus as
`in claim 10 wherein
`said
`processing
`device is comprised
`of a vehicle CPU or
`a display CPU.
`
`Anticipated by Tsuzuki (Ex. 1004)
`wheels, and four vehicle display areas, FL, FR, RL, RR which
`are composed of multiple display segments 1 ~ 40 arranged
`in bar graph shapes aligned in the vehicle’s longitudinal
`direction, and drive circuit 42 which (first) illuminates center
`area segments 1, 11, 21, 31 of said four vehicle wheel display
`areas FL, FR, RL, RR and (then) illuminates more segments
`in both directions until the position that accords with the
`four drive wheel (is
`generated drive
`torque
`is
`said
`reached).” Id. at 5 (emphasis added); see also id. at 2.
`Tsuzuki discloses the use of one or more microcomputers,
`i.e., processing devices. Further, Tsuzuki discloses at least a
`display CPU. See Ex. 1003, Wilhelm Decl. ¶40.
`
`“In the figure, 41 is a microcomputer (computation circuit),
`which computes torque distribution rates of the front and
`rear wheels based on the sensor signals, S1 ~ S4, in
`accordance with driving
`torque, and which outputs
`illumination signals from output terminals Q1 ~ Q10
`according to their distribution rates.” Id. at 4 (emphasis
`added); see also id. at 4 (“Microcomputer 41 computes front
`wheel torque distribution rate based on senso