`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`FORD MOTOR CO., AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC., BMW OF
`NORTH AMERICA LLC, AND NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VEHICLE OPERATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00594
`Patent No. 7,145,442
` ____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PETITIONERS’ REPLY BRIEF
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS  .....................................................................................................................................  i  
`
`UPDATED APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS  .........................................................................................................  ii  
`I.  
`INTRODUCTION  ........................................................................................................................................  1  
`II.   CLAIM CONSTRUCTION  .......................................................................................................................  1  
`A.   “SAID AT LEAST ONE PARAMETER COMPRISED OF TORQUE AND/OR BRAKING FORCES” (CLAIMS 10,
`21)  2  
`B.   “INFORMATION REGARDING . . . TORQUE AND/OR BRAKING FORCES DELIVERED AT THE WHEELS”
`(CLAIMS 10, 21)  .........................................................................................................................................................................  3  
`C.   “SAID IMAGE PROPORTIONALLY DEPICTING SAID DRIVING FORCE”/ “DISPLAYING AN IMAGE
`PROPORTIONAL TO SAID ENGAGEMENT FORCES” (CLAIMS 1, 7, AND 41)  .............................................................  5  
`D.   “SENSING MEANS PRODUCING AT LEAST ONE SOURCE ELECTRIC SIGNAL PROPORTIONAL TO THE
`ELECTRICAL INPUT SIGNAL PROPORTIONAL TO SAID ENGAGEMENT FORCES” (CLAIMS 1, 7 AND 41).  .......  6  
`III.   TSUZUKI ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10-15, 21, 22 AND 24-28  ..........................................................  7  
`IV.   TABATA ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10-15, 21 AND 24-28  ...................................................................  8  
`V.   TSUZUKI IN VIEW OF WATSON RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-9, 11 AND 41-44 OBVIOUS  ....  9  
`VI.   TABATA IN VIEW OF BOWEN RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 4-9, 22, AND 41-44 OBVIOUS  .....  10  
`VII.   TSUZUKI OR TABATA IN VIEW OF TSUKIKI RENDERS CLAIM 23 OBVIOUS  ...........  12  
`VIII.   TSUZUKI AND WATSON IN VIEW OF MILLER RENDERS CLAIMS 3 AND 1, 4-9
`AND 41-44 OBVIOUS  ........................................................................................................................................  13  
`IX.   TABATA AND BOWEN IN VIEW OF BRANDENBURG RENDERS CLAIMS 2 AND 1, 4-9
`AND 41-44 OBVIOUS  ........................................................................................................................................  14  
`X.   TABATA AND BOWEN IN VIEW OF FIELD RENDERS CLAIM 3 OBVIOUS  ....................  15  
`XI.   CONCLUSION  .........................................................................................................................................  15  
`
`DISTRIBUTED DRIVING FORCE OF SAID PROPER VEHICLE” / “SENSING MEANS PRODUCING AN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`UPDATED APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,145,442 to Yu Hei Sunny Wai
`Exhibit 1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,442
`Exhibit 1003 Expert Declaration of Ralph Wilhelm, Ph.D.
`Exhibit 1004 Certified Translation of Japanese Application No. JP S63-42435
`entitled “A Torque Display Device for a 4-Wheel Drive Type
`Vehicle,” filed by Kyuji Tsuzuki on September 5, 1986 and published
`on March 19, 1988 (“Tsuzuki”), which is available as prior art under
`35 U.S.C. §102(b)
`Exhibit 1005 Certified Translation of Japanese Application No. JP10-129298,
`entitled “Hybrid Vehicle,” filed by Atsushi Tabata, et al. on October
`25, 1996 and published on May 19, 1998 (“Tabata”), which is
`available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,485,894 to Watson, et al., entitled, “On Demand
`Vehicle Drive System,” filed on February 10, 1995 and issued on
`January 23, 1996 (“Watson”), which is available as prior art under 35
`U.S.C. §102(b)
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,464,608 to Bowen, et al., entitled, “Transfer Case
`for Hybrid Vehicle,” filed on February 8, 2001 and issued on
`October 15, 2002 (“Bowen”), which is available as prior art under 35
`U.S.C. §102(b)
`Exhibit 1008 Certified Translation of Japanese Appln. No. JPH05-270432, entitled
`“Vehicle Displaying Direction of Tires,” filed by Toshinori Tsukiki
`on March 23, 1992 and published on October 19, 1993 (“Tsukiki”),
`which is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
`Exhibit 1009 Certified Translation of Japanese Application No. JPH01-122780,
`entitled “Steering Wheel Angle Detection Display Device for
`Vehicle,” filed by Toshiyuki Koterazawa, et al. on November 6, 1987
`and published on May 16, 1989 (“Koterazawa”), which is available as
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
`Exhibit 1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,426,416 to Jefferies, et al., entitled, “Automotive
`Current Sensor,” filed on October 19, 1992 and issued on June 20,
`1995 (“Jefferies”), which is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§102(b)
`Exhibit 1011 U.S. Patent No. 4,989,686 to Miller, et al., entitled, “System for
`Controlling Torque Transmission in a Four Wheel Drive Vehicle,”
`filed on June 13, 1989 and issued on February 5, 1991 (“Miller”),
`which is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
`Exhibit 1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,073,713
`to Brandenburg, et al., entitled,
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`“Crankshaft Position Sensing with Combined Starter Alternator,”
`filed on March 25, 1998 and
`issued on June 13, 2000
`(“Brandenburg”), which is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§102(b)
`Exhibit 1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,081,365 to Field, et al., entitled, “Electric Hybrid
`Vehicle and Method of Controlling It,” filed on June 6, 1990 and
`issued on January 14, 1992 (“Field”), which is available as prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
`Exhibit 1014 Certified Translation of JP1998-19938, entitled “Travel Display
`Device in a Hybrid Electric Vehicle,” filed by Koji Hosoda on
`January 30, 1998 and published on August 3, 1999 (“Hosoda”),
`which is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
`Exhibit 1015 Complaint in Vehicle Operation Technologies, LLC v. American Honda
`Motor Co. Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-00537 (D. Del.)
`Exhibit 1016 Complaint in Vehicle Operation Technologies, LLC v. BMW of North
`America, LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-00538 (D. Del.)
`Exhibit 1017 Complaint in Vehicle Operation Technologies, LLC v. Ford Motor Company,
`Case No. 1:13-cv-00539 (D. Del.)
`Exhibit 1018 Complaint in Vehicle Operation Technologies, LLC v. Nissan North
`America Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-00541 (D. Del.)
`Exhibit 1019 Transcript of August 4, 2014 Teleconference
`Exhibit 1020 Rule 11 Memorandum Opinion (Case 1:13-cv-00539-RGA, D. I. No.
`61)
`Exhibit 1021 Order (Case 1:13-cv-00539-RGA, D. I. No. 62)
`Exhibit 1022 Transcript of September 29, 2014 Teleconference
`[RESERVED]
`Exhibit 1023
`[RESERVED]
`Exhibit 1024
`[RESERVED]
`Exhibit 1025
`[RESERVED]
`Exhibit 1026
`Exhibit 1027 Excerpt of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
`Exhibit 1028 Transcript of Deposition of Michael P. Nranian (April 7, 2015)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`In an attempt to avoid the express teachings of the prior art, Patent Owner
`
`(“PO”) engages in a convoluted attempt to rewrite the Board’s construction of certain
`
`terms that were already subject to additional briefing by the parties and to
`
`unnecessarily read requirements into otherwise simple terms. PO additionally
`
`misreads many of the obviousness combinations proposed by Petitioner, which
`
`renders PO’s further attempts to distinguish the art from the claims irrelevant. Based
`
`on the Board’s proper construction of the disputed limitations and the proper
`
`application of those constructions to the grounds identified by Petitioners, the prior
`
`art references render the challenged claims unpatentable. For at least these reasons,
`
`and as further described below, claims 1-15, 21-28 and 41-44 should be canceled. 1
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Patent Owner argues three terms require narrowing constructions—two for the
`
`first time, and one that the Board has already addressed in additional pre-institution
`
`
`1 Patent Owner relies on its expert for many of its positions despite the fact that its
`
`expert’s analysis was fundamentally flawed—Mr. Nranian performed his entire
`
`analysis assuming an incorrect invention date of August 16, 2000, when the patent
`
`was filed more than three years later, on October 14, 2003. Ex. 2017, Nranian Decl. at
`
`¶23. He confirmed this during his deposition. Ex. 1028, Nranian Tr. at 40:15-44:9. As
`
`such, Mr. Nranian’s entire analysis should be given little to no weight.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`
`
`briefing.2 Petitioner requests that the Board also construe “and/or” in claims 10 and
`
`21 to clarify that the claimed “image” need only include torque “or” braking force.
`
`A.
`
`“said at least one parameter comprised of torque and/or braking
`forces” (Claims 10, 21)
`
`Many of Patent Owner’s arguments regarding claim construction and
`
`
`
`anticipation are based on the same flawed premise: that claims 10 and 21’s usage of
`
`“torque and/or braking forces” requires that the display be capable of displaying all
`
`three “options” or “choices”: 1) torque, 2) braking forces, and 3) torque and braking
`
`forces. Paper 39 (“PO Resp.”) at 9–10 (“options”), 13–15, 33 (“choices”); Ex. 1028
`
`(Nranian Tr.) at 74:14–18; 76:8–14 (confirming belief that capability of three options
`
`is required); see also IPR2014-00601, Paper 39 at 36, 40 (“choices”). Patent Owner
`
`then assumes that an apparatus or method within claim 10 and 21 must be capable of
`
`displaying braking forces. This is contrary to the plain claim language, which only
`
`requires that the image be “comprised of information regarding at least one operating
`
`parameter, said at least one operating parameter comprised of torque and/or braking forces.”
`
`Claims 10, 21. The Board has noted previously that the term “‘and/or’ covers
`
`embodiments having element A alone, element B alone, or elements A and B taken
`
`together.” Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811, 2013 WL 6907805, at *2
`
`2 For ease of reference, all citations in this section are to the papers filed in IPR2014-
`
`00594 but all citations also apply to the corresponding papers in IPR2014-00601, 602,
`
`and 603.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013).
`
`
`
`The image need only include either torque, braking force, or torque and
`
`braking force. An apparatus or method that only presents an image of torque is within
`
`claims 10 and 21, which impose no requirement of a “capability” to also display all
`
`three “options.” Claim 12 specifies that “said image” can be “an image displaying the
`
`torque or braking force.” Further, while some figures of the ’442 patent depict images
`
`showing both torque and braking (e.g., Figs. 3–4), others depict images showing only
`
`one or the other (e.g., Figs. 1–2, 5A, 5B, 5C). The Board, therefore, should construe
`
`“torque and/or braking forces” to be satisfied by any of i) only torque, ii) only braking
`
`forces, or iii) torque and braking forces.
`
`B.
`
`“information regarding . . . torque and/or braking forces delivered at
`the wheels” (Claims 10, 21)
`
`Patent Owner argued in its Preliminary Response this term should be limited to
`
`“torque and/or braking forces delivered at the individual wheels of a motor vehicle.”
`
`Paper 9 at 11. After requesting and considering additional pre-institution briefing
`
`(Papers 12, 16, 18), the Board rejected Patent Owner’s attempt to “import[] the word
`
`‘individual’ into the claim” because, among other reasons, it “would unduly narrow
`
`the recited image of claim 10 such that it would not include the images of claim 12,”
`
`which can be “an image displaying torque or braking force to the front pair of wheels
`
`and to the rear pair of wheels.” Paper 26 at 22, claim 12. Patent Owner “requests
`
`reconsideration” and re-packages its same construction as “torque and/or braking
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`forces delivered at each wheel.” Paper 39 at 7.
`
`
`
`The Board considered and rejected this argument in the Institution Decision;
`
`Patent Owner presents no compelling reason for the Board to change its decision.
`
`Paper 26 at 20–26. The claim’s language, dependent claim 12, and Figure 1 all
`
`establish the claims are not limited to displaying information regarding forces
`
`delivered at each wheel, but instead can display it for the wheels collectively, such as
`
`for the front and rear pairs.
`
`Patent Owner and its declarant argue at length that: i) multiple sensors would
`
`be required to display braking force for multiple wheels, Paper 39 at 10–11, ii) braking
`
`force should be displayed for individual wheels, id. at 13–14, and iii) that the
`
`embodiment in Figure 1 should be excluded from claims 10 and 21 because Figure 1
`
`would not be used to show braking force, id. at 14–16.3 Each of these arguments
`
`assumes, however, that a capability to display braking force as an option is required.
`
`Because it is not required, as set forth by Petitioner’s construction of “and/or” above,
`
`none of these arguments demonstrate that the Board’s construction of “at the wheels”
`
`is incorrect, and, therefore, the information need not be “at each wheel.” (Indeed,
`
`even Patent Owner concedes that if only torque were required, the claims would not
`
`
`3 The Federal Circuit has consistently held, “a claim interpretation that excludes a
`
`preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct.” Accent
`
`Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 707 F. 3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`be limited to “at each wheel.” Paper 39 at 16.).
`
`
`
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that its construction is somehow consistent with
`
`claim 12. Id. at 16–20. Patent Owner’s solution is to rewrite the “third option” of
`
`claim 12 to display torque or braking forces “at each of the four wheels” even though
`
`the plain claim language itself says it is displayed for “the front pair of wheels” and
`
`“the rear pair of wheels.” But rewriting the claim language is not an option.
`
`The Board’s construction properly encompasses displays of forces at “all” of
`
`the wheels, whether collectively, at pairs of wheels, or at each of the individual wheels,
`
`Paper 26 at 20–26, and Patent Owner’s request for reconsideration should be rejected.
`
`C.
`
`force”/
`image proportionally depicting said driving
`“said
`“displaying an image proportional to said engagement forces”
`(Claims 1, 7, and 41)
`
`Patent Owner now proposes to construe these terms to require the claimed
`
`
`
`images show “the relative amount” of the “distributed driving force” (claim 1) or the
`
`“engagement forces” (claims 7, 41). Confusingly, Patent Owner uses the definite
`
`article, “the,” which begs the question of: which “relative amount,” i.e., relative to
`
`what? In applying its construction, however, Patent Owner argues that the depicted
`
`torque must be “relative to a second amount,” such as “maximum torque” or “total
`
`torque.” Paper 39 at 43. There is no requirement in the claims or any description in
`
`the specification that the image must depict an amount of torque relative to another
`
`amount, such as maximum torque. But the specification and figures clarify that the
`
`image corresponds in size, magnitude, or intensity to the force/forces. See, e.g., id. at
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`11:25–28 (“wheels 1, 2, 3, 4 are highlighted 16 with shading proportional to the
`
`weight borne by each wheel.”). Patent Owner relies on a dictionary’s third definition
`
`of “proportion,” which does not fit this usage. The first definition, which is consistent
`
`with the specification, is “comparative relation between things or magnitudes as to
`
`size, quantity, number, etc.” Ex. 2018; see also Ex. 1027 at 993 (Proportional: “1a.
`
`Corresponding
`
`in size, degree, or
`
`intensity.”). Petitioner does not believe
`
`“proportional” requires construction. If the Board disagrees, a more appropriate
`
`construction of these limitations would be “said/an image corresponding in size,
`
`degree, or intensity to said driving force/engagement forces.”
`
`D.
`
`“sensing means producing at least one source electric signal
`proportional to the distributed driving force of said proper vehicle” /
`“sensing means producing an electrical input signal proportional to
`said engagement forces” (Claims 1, 7 and 41).
`
`Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s construction of “sensing means” in
`
`
`
`the Petition, and the Board did not expressly construe this term. Patent Owner now
`
`disputes two aspects of the proper corresponding structure. First, Patent Owner
`
`contends that a “brake signal amplitude sensor” and a “torque amplitude signal
`
`sensor” should be added to Petitioner’s construction for the corresponding structure
`
`for this term. Paper 39 at 29. Petitioner agrees that their inclusion is correct and does
`
`not oppose it. Second, Patent Owner contends that a “wheel speed sensor” should
`
`not be included because Patent Owner contends such a sensor cannot perform the
`
`function of producing a signal proportional to “the distributed driving force” or
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`
`
`“engagement forces.” Id. at 27–28. Patent Owner and its declarant, however, equate
`
`the terms “distributed driving force” and “engagement forces” with the narrower
`
`term “torque,” when the specification and claims clarify that these terms are broader
`
`than “torque.” Id. at 27 (“a wheel speed sensor cannot directly measure torque, a
`
`driving force”). As the Petition explained, these terms encompass both torque and/or
`
`braking force and wheel slippage. Paper 11 at 8, 4. Claim 4 recites the “said image
`
`proportionally depicting said driving force” is “an image displaying the slippage of one
`
`or more wheels with regard to the other wheels.” Claims 12 and 27 demonstrate that
`
`an image displaying wheel slippage is encompassed by “said image comprised of
`
`information regarding . . . torque and/or braking forces.” Patent Owner does not
`
`respond to the need to encompass wheel slippage, as set forth in the Petition. Paper
`
`11 at 4, 8. It would be improper to construe the structure for “sensing means” to
`
`exclude sensors disclosed in the patent to detect wheel slippage. ’442 Patent at 5:64–
`
`66 (“Variations in a wheel's traction due to a slippery surface result in the delivery of
`
`less power to the wheel to avoid slippage.”); 8:66–67 (“indicating a faster rotating
`
`wheel or slippage relative to the other wheels”); 9:11 (“a wheel speed sensor 45”); 9:42
`
`(“affixed speed sensor 45”); claims 4, 12, 27.
`
`III. TSUZUKI ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10-15, 21, 22 AND 24-28
`
`The only arguments PO sets forth with respect to Tsuzuki is premised on the
`
`erroneous claim construction positions that the display must show information
`
`regarding at least one operating parameter delivered “at each wheel” of a vehicle and
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`
`
`that the display must be capable of displaying both braking forces and torque. PO
`
`Resp. at 32-33. As discussed above, PO’s interpretation of “and/or” is fundamentally
`
`and legally flawed because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is one
`
`that does not exclude express embodiments from the specification or embodiments
`
`covered by dependent claims. PO does not present any argument that if its
`
`construction is rejected, that the claims should be upheld. As set forth in detail in the
`
`Petition, Tsuzuki clearly describes the display of torque to the front wheels and rear
`
`wheels. Sec. Corr. Pet. [Paper 11] at 12-18. Indeed, PO admits the same. PO Resp. at
`
`32-33. Therefore, claims 10-15, 21, 22 and 24-28 are anticipated by Tsuzuki.
`
`IV. TABATA ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10-15, 21 AND 24-28
`
`Similar to Tsuzuki, the main arguments PO sets forth with respect to Tabata
`
`are based on the erroneous claim construction positions that the display must show
`
`information regarding at least one operating parameter delivered “at each wheel” of a
`
`vehicle and that the display must be capable of displaying both braking forces and
`
`torque. PO Resp. at 36-37. As described above, PO’s “at each wheel” claim
`
`construction and its argument with respect to the display requiring the capability of
`
`displaying both torque and braking force are misguided at best.
`
`PO also appears to argue that the display must show a “distribution” of forces
`
`that cannot encompass a “single value.” Id. at 37. However, the claim does not recite,
`
`nor does the specification require, such a display. In fact, as described by dependent
`
`claim 12, the display image can be a single bar chart and need only display one
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`
`
`operating parameter, such as torque. Ex. 1001, ‘442 patent at claim 12. Tabata
`
`describes a display that depicts the amount of torque as a value Nm. Ex. 1005, Tabata
`
`at Figs. 10 and 12. This image is proportional to the total amount of torque being
`
`used to drive the vehicle, which PO acknowledges. See PO Resp. at 35 (“This is the
`
`actual torque being used for vehicle travel (delivered to a rear drive shaft).”), 36 (“The
`
`width of the display is magnitude and the color is the sign.”). In other words, if the
`
`torque increases, the image proportionally gets larger or the needle moves to a higher
`
`value. As set forth in detail in the Petition, Tabata clearly describes the display of
`
`torque to the driver. Sec. Corr. Pet. at 18-28. Therefore, claims 10-15, 21, 22 and 24-
`
`28 are anticipated by Tabata.
`
`V.
`
`TSUZUKI IN VIEW OF WATSON RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-9, 11 AND
`41-44 OBVIOUS
`
`PO’s arguments with respect to this combination are based on the faulty
`
`premise that Petitioners are only relying on Watson to teach a “sensing means.” PO
`
`Resp. at 39. However, as set forth in the petition, Petitioners rely on Tsuzuki’s express
`
`teaching of a “torque sensor” as the sensing means. Sec. Corr. Pet. at 30. Petitioners
`
`primarily rely on Watson for the teaching of a “proper vehicle,” which requires an
`
`electromagnetic clutch, because Tsuzuki does not specify the type of clutch used in its
`
`four-wheel drive vehicle. Id. And PO does not dispute that Watson’s teaching of an
`
`electromagnetic clutch could be combined with Tsuzuki. PO Resp. at 39-41. As to
`
`the “sensing means”, PO intimates that Tsuzuki does not disclose the structure of a
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`
`torque sensor substantially similar to the structures disclosed in the ‘442 patent. PO
`
`Resp. at 39. However, PO agrees that a “torque amplitude signal sensor” should be
`
`expressly included within the various corresponding structures disclosed in the
`
`construction of “sensing means.” PO Resp. at 29. As stated by Dr. Wilhelm, a
`
`“torque amplitude signal sensor” is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as “a
`
`sensor that senses a relative or absolute amount or magnitude of torque.” Ex. 1003,
`
`Wilhelm Decl. at ¶39. And the “torque sensor” of Tsuzuki would be understood by
`
`one of skill in the art to be a torque amplitude signal sensor. Id. Dr. Wilhelm’s
`
`opinions in this respect stand unrebutted. Moreover, there is no dispute that Tsuzuki
`
`expressly discloses the use of a “torque sensor” to sense torque and provide a signal
`
`to a microcomputer that computes the torque distribution rate and outputs signals to
`
`a display relating to the same. Ex. 1004 at 2-3, Figs. 2, 7. Based on this, claims 1, 2, 4-
`
`9, 11 and 41-44 should be canceled.4
`
`VI. TABATA IN VIEW OF BOWEN RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 4-9, 22, AND 41-
`44 OBVIOUS
`
`PO first argues that Bowen does not disclose the claimed “sensing means.”
`
`4 In addition, while not necessary for this ground given that Tsuzuki teaches the
`
`“sensing means,” PO does not dispute that Watson, at a minimum, teaches Hall effect
`
`sensors for wheel speed, and such sensors are properly included within the
`
`corresponding structures for “sensing means,” as set forth above. See, e.g., Ex. 2017 at
`
`¶ 136 (“wheel speed”).
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`
`
`PO Resp. at 42. Similar to the combination of Tsuzuki and Watson above, PO fails to
`
`recognize that Petitioners relied on Bowen primarily to teach a “proper vehicle” with
`
`an electromagnetic clutch and that Petitioners relied on Tabata’s teaching of a “torque
`
`detection means such as a torque sensor” for the claimed “sensing means.” Sec. Corr.
`
`Pet. at 35-36, 38; Ex. 1005 at ¶0018 (“The actual torque can be detected using a
`
`torque detection means such as a torque sensor.”). Again, a “torque sensor,” including
`
`the torque sensor of Tabata, would be understood by one of skill in the art to be a
`
`“torque amplitude signal sensor” (Ex. 1003, Wilhelm Decl. at ¶39), which PO
`
`concedes is within the construction of the “sensing means”. PO Resp. at 39. Thus, it
`
`is undisputed that the combination of Tabata and Bowen teaches a “sensing means.”
`
`Next, PO argues that Tabata does not teach “proportionally depicting” the
`
`driving force or engagement forces and that Bowen does not cure this alleged
`
`deficiency. PO Resp. at 43-45. PO relies on its ill-conceived construction of
`
`“proportional,” which ambiguously requires “the relative amount” of driving
`
`force/engagement force, and argues that Tabata’s “single value” of torque is not
`
`“relative to a second amount,” such as “maximum torque.” Id. PO’s construction
`
`should be rejected, as set forth above, and not even PO’s own construction expressly
`
`requires that these forces be shown “relative to a second amount.” Instead, the claims
`
`merely require that the image be proportional to the forces, which simply means that it
`
`should correspond to the amount of the forces. This requirement is readily met by
`
`Tabata’s Fig. 10 torque display, which has a needle that moves to indicate changes in
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`
`
`torque on a scale, and Fig. 12’s image whose width changes as torque increases or
`
`decreases, as PO admits. Ex. 1005, Tabata at Figs. 10 and 12; see PO Resp. at 35
`
`(“This is the actual torque being used for vehicle travel (delivered to a rear drive
`
`shaft).”), 36 (“The width of the display is magnitude and the color is the sign.”).
`
`Finally, PO makes a conclusory argument that it would not have been obvious
`
`to combine Tabata and Bowen and relies on two highly conclusory sentences from its
`
`expert. PO Resp. at 44; Ex. 2017 at ¶140 (last two sentences). PO does not respond to
`
`the detailed analysis of Dr. Wilhelm, who explains that the references would be
`
`combinable based, in part, on the similarities between the electromagnetic valve
`
`actuation of Tabata’s hydraulic clutch and Bowen’s expressly disclosed
`
`electromagnetic clutch. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶58-65.5 Based on the foregoing, claims 1, 4-9,
`
`22, and 41-44 should be canceled.
`
`VII. TSUZUKI OR TABATA IN VIEW OF TSUKIKI RENDERS CLAIM 23
`OBVIOUS
`
`Claim 23 does nothing more than claim the already well known concept of
`
`additionally displaying steering angle of the front wheels. PO admits that Tsukiki
`
`displays the steering angle of the front wheels of a vehicle, but claims that there is no
`
`motivation to combine Tsuzuki with Tsukiki. PO Resp. at 45. However, PO’s
`
`contention was not supported by its expert. See Ex. 2017, Nranian Decl. at ¶¶141, 142.
`
`5 As noted above, Mr. Nranian performed his analysis using a date of invention that
`
`was more than three years earlier than the October 2003 filing date of the ‘442 patent.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`
`
`As such, the only evidence of record as to this combination from Dr. Wilhelm, who
`
`stated that one of skill in the art would have recognized and appreciated that
`
`Tsuzuki’s wheel-shaped bar graphs could have been trivially modified to include the
`
`display of steering angle, as described in Tsukiki, and that such a modification would
`
`have yielded predictable results at the time. Ex. 1003, Wilhelm Decl. at ¶70.
`
`PO similarly contends that there is no motivation to combine Tabata with
`
`Tsukiki, relying on its expert for support. PO Resp. at 48; Ex. 2017, Nranian Decl. at
`
`¶143. However, PO’s expert’s assertion that the display of steering angle “has no
`
`relationship to handling” is belied by the fact that steering is the epitome of vehicle
`
`“handling.” PO’s argument, therefore, should be given little to no weight. Based on
`
`the foregoing, claim 23 should be canceled over the combination of Tsuzuki in view
`
`of Tsukiki, as well as the combination of Tabata in view of Tsukiki.
`
`VIII. TSUZUKI AND WATSON IN VIEW OF MILLER RENDERS CLAIMS
`3 AND 1, 4-9 AND 41-44 OBVIOUS
`
`PO admits that Miller “describes an in-line current sensor” but argues that
`
`“Miller describes nothing more than the generation of a clutch command signal that
`
`controls an electromagnetically operated clutch device.” PO Resp. at 55. However,
`
`this is the exact description found in the ‘442 patent, which describes an in-line
`
`current sensor between a microcomputer and an electromagnetic clutch. See Ex.
`
`1001, ‘442 patent at 9:38-39, Figs. 10E (showing in-line sensor 83 on conductor 50),
`
`8A (showing conductor 50 connecting CPU 32 and electromagnetic clutch 24 or
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`
`
`controller 34). PO further contends that Miller does not disclose sensing of any
`
`current or parameter that could be translated into a torque value. PO Resp. at 56.
`
`However, as PO recognizes, the in-line sensor of Miller is placed between a
`
`microcomputer and electromagnetic clutch, where the amount of energy to be applied
`
`to the clutch is determined by the difference between a command current signal and
`
`the actual current detected by Miller’s in-line sensor. Ex. 1011, Miller at 13:34-43.
`
`There is little doubt that this value of current could be used to determine torque,
`
`similar to that described by the ‘442 patent, and therefore a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would appreciate that Miller’s in-line current sensor could be used to monitor
`
`the line between the microcomputer and electromagnetic clutch in Watson to
`
`determine the magnitude of electromagnetic clutch engagement between the primary
`
`and auxillary drive shafts (and thus the torque distribution) in Watson. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶¶72-77. Therefore, claims 3 and 1, 4-9 and 41-44 are rendered obvious by Tsuzuki in
`
`view of Watson and Miller. Sec. Corr. Pet. at 45-48, 54.
`
`IX. TABATA AND BOWEN IN VIEW OF BRANDENBURG RENDERS
`CLAIMS 2 AND 1, 4-9 AND 41-44 OBVIOUS
`
`PO contends that Brandenburg’s Hall effect sensor is used only to sense the
`
`rotational speed of a crankshaft and that the Hall effect sensor of Brandenburg
`
`cannot be used to replace the speed sensor of Bowen. PO Resp. at 51-52. Once again,
`
`PO fundamentally misunderstands that Petitioners proposed combination includes
`
`replacing the “torque sensor” of Tabata with the Hall effect sensor of Brandenburg,
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`
`
`thus PO’s argument relating to a speed sensor is misplaced. See Sec. Corr. Pet. at 49-
`
`50. There is no doubt that the rotational speed of, for example, a front or rear shaft,
`
`can be used to determine the distributed driving force. See, e.g., Nranian Decl. at ¶73.
`
`Thus, claims 2 and 1, 4-9 and 41-44 should be canceled. Sec. Corr. Pet. at 49-50,53-54.
`
`X.
`
`TABATA AND BOWEN IN VIEW OF FIELD RENDERS CLAIM 3
`OBVIOUS
`
`While PO recognizes that the inductively coupled toroidal coil current sensor,
`
`i.e., in-line induction sensor, “is used to display current flow to the battery” in Field,
`
`PO ignores that the sensor is also used to monitor and display current flow from the
`
`battery to the electric motor. Ex. 1013, Field at 4:50-54. Had PO recognized this, it
`
`would have realized that this sensor is related to driving force as, obviously, the
`
`electric motor in the hybrid vehicle of Field is one mechanism of providing the
`
`driving force of the vehicle. One of skill in the art, therefore, would have recognized
`
`and appreciated that modifying the combination of Tabata and Bowen by placing an
`
`in-line induction sensor, such as that taught by Field, to monitor the line between the
`
`microcomputer and electromagnetic clutch in Bowen would have been beneficial for
`
`monitoring the distributed driving force of the vehicle. Sec. Corr. Pet. at 50-53. As a
`
`result, claim 3 sho