`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY, BMW
`OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, AND NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VEHICLE OPERATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00601
`Patent No. 7,145,442
` ____________
`
`
`
`
` PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,145,442
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
`I.
`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
`1. “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) .................................................................................. 4
`2. “calculating means converting at least one source electric signal to at
`least one electric display signal” (claim 1) ...................................................................... 4
`3. “electric signal transmission means” and “electric display signal
` transmission means” (claim 1) ........................................................................................ 5
`B. ADDITIONAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ....................................................................... 5
`1. “proper vehicle” (claims 1, 7, 41) ............................................................................ 5
`2. “display means” (claims 1, 6, 9, 43), and “display device”
`(claims 7, 10, 14, 21, 41) ................................................................................................... 6
`3. “distributed driving force” (claim 1) / “engagement forces” (claims 7, 41) .... 9
`4. “torque amplitude signal sensor” (claims 11, 24) ................................................. 9
`5. “a first CPU” and “a second CPU” (claim 41) ..................................................... 9
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER
`V.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................ 10
`A. SUMMARY OF THE GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE .................................................... 10
`A. 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. WATANABE ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10, 12-15, 21-22, AND 25-28
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(B) .................................................................................................. 12
`B. OKUDA ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10-15, 21-22, AND 25-28 UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 102(B) ................................................................................................................ 19
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`C. WATANABE OR OKUDA IN VIEW OF TSUZUKI RENDERS CLAIMS
`10-15, 21-22, AND 24-28 OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103(A) ....................................... 25
`D. WATANABE IN VIEW OF GILLIAM RENDERS CLAIMS 1-2, 4-9,
`AND 41-44 OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A) ............................................................ 28
`E. OKUDA IN VIEW OF WATSON RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 4-9 AND
`41-44 OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A) ...................................................................... 41
`F. WATANABE/GILLIAM OR OKUDA/WATSON IN VIEW OF TSUZUKI
`RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-9 AND 41-44 OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103(A) ................ 51
`G. WATANABE/GILLIAM OR OKUDA/WATSON IN VIEW OF JEFFERIES OR
`MILLER OR FIELD RENDER CLAIMS 3 AND 11 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 ......................................................................................... 57
`B. RELATED MATTERS ..................................................................................................... 57
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3) ............................ 58
`D. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ....................................................... 59
`VIII. CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 59
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Ford Motor Company, BMW of
`
`North America LLC, and Nissan North America Inc. (“Petitioners”) request an Inter
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-15, 21-22, 24-28, 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”). Ex. 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 an IPR challenging the claims
`
`of the ‘442 Patent on the grounds identified in this petition. 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 conditions
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`found inn Figure 5AA:
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 88:33-40. AAdditional
`
`
`
`
`
`displayinng other pparameters,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systems aare directe
`
`d to
`
`
`embodimeents of thhe claimed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ts or such as power conssumption oof vehicle ccomponent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the apprroach of a
`
`
`
`rollover coondition. SSee, e.g., id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at claims 116-20 [rolloover condittion],
`
`
`
`36-40 [ppower conssumption], and Figs. 117A-D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GGenerally sspeaking, t
`
`
`
`
`
`he describbed systemms utilize aa similar aarchitecturee for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`collectinng and dissplaying the specifiedd informatiion. For
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`example,
`
`
`
`sensors coollect
`
`
`
`informaation from
`
`
`
`relevant pllaces in thee vehicle annd transmitt signals too a vehicle CCPU
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or displlay CPU. SSee, generallyy, id. at 2:47-52, 9:11--10:10. Thee vehicle CCPU or dissplay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CPU then generatees a displayy signal thaat is transmmitted to a ddisplay devvice to visuualize
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the colllected infoormation. IId. In adddition to tthe systemm claims, thhe ‘442 Paatent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`includess one claimm set direccted to a mmethod forr displayinng torque aand/or braaking
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`force innformation
`
`
`
`based onn signals coollected froom a senssor that arre subsequ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ently
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`processeed and dispplayed. See,, e.g., id. at cclaims 21-228.
`
`
`
`
`
`BBy the inveentor’s owwn admissioon, none
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the feaatures of tthe Challennged
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`were neww; rather,
`
`
`
`
`
`“the requuired technnologies aare old.” IId. at 3:300-32.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Recognizing that the recited features were not novel, the inventor argued that the
`
`alleged invention of the ‘442 patent can be found in a “new, useful application[] of
`
`existing technologies.” Id. at 3:16-19. But as demonstrated in Section VI, the
`
`combination and application of these well-known features was also not inventive.
`
`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 the IPR only, that the
`
`claim terms of the ‘442 Patent are presumed to take on the 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/unpatentable. In addition, several claims include
`
`limitations in means-plus-function form that Petitioners propose are governed by 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`Constructions Pursuant To 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`A.
`Of note, several claims include limitations in means–plus–function format and
`
`should thus be construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`from the specification. See Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elektra AB, 344
`
`F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A means-plus-function claim term 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.
`
`1.
`
`“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 sensor. Ex. 1001, ‘442 Patent, at 3:59-61, 9:11-53, 12:31-33, and claims 2-
`
`3 and 12.
`
`2.
`
`“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.” Ex. 1001, ‘442 Patent,
`
`at claim 1. The only structure arguably suggested to perform this function in the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`specification includes a vehicle CPU or display CPU. Id. at 2:47-49, 7:12-16, 12:43-49,
`
`11:62-12:14, and 13:30-33.
`
`3.
`
`“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.” Ex. 1001, ‘442 Patent, at claim 1. 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[ing] said at least one electric display signal to said at
`
`least one display means.” Id. 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, and 10:9-11; Ex. 1002, Declaration of Ralph V. Wilhelm, Jr., Ph.D. (“Wilhelm
`
`Decl.”), at ¶ 34.
`
`B.
`
`Additional Claim Constructions
`1.
`The term “proper vehicle” is expressly defined in the specification as
`
`“proper vehicle” (claims 1, 7, 41)
`
`“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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`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 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, and should be construed accordingly.
`
`2.
`
`“display means” (claims 1, 6, 9, 43), and “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. 1002, Wilhelm
`
`Decl., at ¶ 33; 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” and
`
`“display device” 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
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Ventures Mgmt. LLC, v. Xilinx, Inc., IPR2012–00018 & –19, Paper No. 13 (PTAB 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.”)).
`
`The specification explicitly defines the display system as “dedicated.” See, e.g., id.
`
`at 7:15, 12:21, Figs. 2 and 5A; 2:21-23 (“It [prior art reference] is not a dedicated
`
`system which always presents specific types of information at all times as is done
`
`with the present invention.”). 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 (“the ‘031 application”), from which the ‘442 Patent issued.
`
`During prosecution and in response to a rejection, Applicant amended his
`
`specification to include this description of the prior art. Ex. 1001, ‘442 Patent, at 2:21-
`
`23 (“It [prior art reference] discloses a system based upon a computer program
`
`without the utilization of a dedicated display.”); Ex. 1014, ‘442 File History, 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. 1014, ‘442 File History, at 219, November 9, 2005 Office
`
`Action Response, (“The disclosed ‘freely programmable instrument cluster’ [of the
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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.”), Ex. 1014, ‘442 File History, at 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.”), Ex. 1014, ‘442 File
`
`History, at 221 (“the disclosure in [the Haubner reference] is of a complex display
`
`means having multiple presentations … and are not independent dedicated
`
`displays.”) and Ex. 1014, ‘442 File History, at 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. Ex. 1001,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`‘442 Patent, at 2:21-23, and 7:16-20, 12:64-13:1; see also Ex. 1014, ‘442 File History,
`
`November 9, 2005 Office Action Response, at 219-221.
`
`3.
`
`“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 6:33-47) and the
`
`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, and 12).
`
`“torque amplitude signal sensor” (claims 11, 24)
`
`4.
`This term should be construed as “a sensor that senses a relative or absolute
`
`amount or magnitude of torque.” See Ex. 1002, Wilhelm Decl., at ¶ 53; Ex. 1001, ‘442
`
`Patent, at 3:51-58 and 8:32-49.
`
`“a first CPU” and “a second CPU” (claim 41)
`
`5.
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`“wherein said first CPU and said second CPU are the same CPU.” Ex. 1001, ‘442
`
`Patent, at claim 44.1
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Summary Of 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, 12-15, 21-22, and 25-28 are anticipated under §102(b)
`by Watanabe.
`Claims 10, 12-15, 21-22, and 25-28 are anticipated under §102(b)
`by Okuda.
`Claims 10-15, 21-22, and 24-28 are obvious under § 103(a) over
`Watanabe or Okuda in view of Tsuzuki.
`Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 41-44 are obvious under § 103(a) over
`Watanabe in view of Gilliam.
`Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 41-44 are obvious under § 103(a) over Okuda
`in view of Watson.
`Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 41-44 are obvious under § 103(a) over
`Watanabe in view of Gilliam or Okuda in view of Watson in
`further view of Tsuzuki.
`Claim 3 is obvious under § 103(a) over Watanabe in view of
`Gilliam or Okuda in view of Watson in further view of Jefferies,
`Miller or Field.
`
`Reference
`Exhibit No.
`1004
`
`1006
`1004, 1006 and
`1013
`1004 and 1007
`
`1006 and 1008
`1004, 1007, or
`1006, 1008,
`and 1013
`1004, 1007, or
`1006, 1008, or
`1009, 1010 or
`1011
`
`
`1 If claim 41 is construed as requiring two separate CPUs, then claim 44 would be an
`
`unpatentable 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 Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284,
`
`1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006); 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`The claim construction, reasons for unpatentability, and specific evidence supporting
`
`this request are detailed below.
`
`Level Of Skill Of A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`A.
`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. 1002, Wilhelm Decl., at ¶ 30.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`A. Watanabe2 Anticipates Claims 10, 12-15, 21-22, And 25-28 Under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b)
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 06-41251 (“Watanabe”)3, (Ex. 1003; Ex.
`
`1004 (Certified English Translation)) discloses each and every element of claims 10, 12-
`
`15, 21-22, and 25-28 of the ‘442 Patent, and therefore, anticipates those claims under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). Generally, Watanabe discloses a torque distribution display device for a
`
`four-wheel drive vehicle. Ex. 1004, Watanabe, at p. 1, ll. 12-14. In particular, Watanabe
`
`describes a torque distribution display device of a four-wheel drive vehicle including a
`
`detection means (i.e., sensor or signal source) that detects the driving condition of a
`
`vehicle. Id. at p. 1, ll. 3-4; Ex. 1002, Wilhelm Decl., at ¶ 40. A control unit, a type of a
`
`central processing unit, is coupled to and receives information from the detection means.
`
`Ex. 1004, Watanabe, at p. 1, ll. 3-4; Ex. 1002, Wilhelm Decl., at ¶ 40. The control unit then
`
`computes torque distribution to the wheels, and outputs a torque distribution signal. Ex.
`
`1004, Watanabe, at p. 1, ll. 5-6; Ex. 1002, Wilhelm Decl., at ¶ 40. The torque distribution
`
`signal is utilized by two components: (1) distribution conversion actuator, which controls
`
`torque distribution to the wheels according to the signal, and (2) a torque distribution
`
`2 Citations in the Petition to the Japanese patent documents refer to the corresponding
`
`certified English translations.
`
`3 Watanabe was published on October 30, 1986. As a result, Watanabe is available as
`
`prior art against all claims of the ‘442 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Watanabe was not
`
`cited or considered during prosecution of the ‘031 application.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`display section, which visually displays torque distribution to the wheels. Ex. 1004,
`
`Watanabe, at p. 1, ll. 6-9; Ex. 1002, Wilhelm Decl., at ¶ 40. The display described in
`
`Watanabe is a “dedicated display,” as the only information Watanabe describes or
`
`illustrates as being displayed is the claimed information. Ex. 1002, Wilhelm Decl., at ¶ 41.
`
`In light of the above, the table below demonstrates how each and every
`
`limitation of claims 10, 12-15, 21-22, and 25-28 of the ‘442 Patent is disclosed by
`
`Watanabe. Consequently, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail
`
`and these claims should be canceled under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Watanabe.
`
`Claim
`10pre. An apparatus
`comprising:
`
`10a. at least one signal
`source producing sensory
`data;
`
`
`
`Anticipated by Watanabe
`See, e.g.: “A torque distribution display device of a 4-
`wheel drive vehicle characterized by possessing a
`detection means which detects the driving condition of a
`vehicle, the control unit which receives information
`from said detection means, computes torque distribution
`to the wheels, and outputs a torque distribution signal
`from the computation result, a distribution conversion
`actuator which controls torque distribution to the wheels
`according to a signal from said control unit, and a torque
`distribution display section which visually displays
`torque distribution to the wheels controlled by said
`actuator after receiving the computation result of said
`control unit.” Ex. 1004, Watanabe, at p.1, ll. 3-9; see also
`id. at p. 1, ll. 12-14; p. 2, ll. 14-22; p. 4, ll. 27-29.
`See, e.g.: “The signals from the slip ratio sensor (13)
`installed in each of the wheels (1, 4) in order to detect
`the slip ratio of the tires of the front and rear wheels, a
`G sensor (14) to detect longitudinal force and lateral
`force, etc. acting on the vehicle, and the speed sensor
`(15) to detect the speed are input to the controller (12).”
`Ex. 1004, Watanabe, at p. 3, ll. 6-8.
`“Controller (12), by the signal from the change-over
`switch 16, in the case of the automatic control, outputs
`13
`
`

`

`10b. a processing device
`operably coupled to said
`signal source to
`transform said sensory
`data into a display signal;
`and
`
`
`
`the distribution ratio control signals to the center
`differential (9) so that the torque distribution ratio will
`be in accordance with the content of the automatic
`control, and in the case of the automatic control,
`computes the input signal from the sensor and outputs
`a predetermined torque distribution ratio to the center
`differential (9).” Id. at p. 3, ll. 15-18.
`“Signals from each sensor of the speed sensor (15),
`slip ratio sensor (13), and G sensor (14) and from the
`change-over switch (16), which switches to manual or
`automatic, are respectively input into the controller
`(12).” Id. at p. 4, ll. 3-5.
`See also id. at p.1, ll. 3-4; p. 2, ll. 17-18; p. 3, ll. 6-8; p. 5, l.
`4; Figs. 1 and 3.
`Ex. 1002, Wilhelm Decl., at ¶ 42.
`See, e.g.: “This present invention is characterized by
`possessing a detection means which detects the driving
`condition of the vehicle, a control unit which receives
`information from said detection means, computes
`torque distribution to the wheels, and outputs a
`torque distribution signal from said computation
`result, the distribution conversion actuator which
`controls torque distribution to the wheels according to a
`signal from the control unit, and a torque distribution
`display section which visually displays torque
`distribution to the wheels controlled by the an
`actuator after receiving the computation result of the
`control unit.” Ex. 1004, Watanabe, at p. 2, ll. 17-22.
`“In order to control the center the differential (9) in this
`embodiment,
`a
`controller
`(12)
`comprising
`a
`microcomputer is preferably provided.” Id. at p. 3, ll. 4-
`5.
` “Controller (12), by the signal from the change-over
`switch 16, in the case of the automatic control, outputs
`the distribution ratio control signals to the center
`differential (9) so that the torque distribution ratio will
`be in accordance with the content of the automatic
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`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 forces
`delivered at the wheels of
`a motor vehicle;
`
`control, and in the case of the automatic control,
`computes the input signal from the sensor and
`outputs a predetermined torque distribution ratio to
`the center differential (9).” Id. at p. 3, ll. 15-18.
`See also id. at p.1, ll. 3-9; p. 4, ll. 5-8; p. 4, ll. 14-16; p. 5, l.
`4; Figs. 1 and 3.
`Ex. 1002, Wilhelm Decl., at ¶¶ 34-35.
`See, e.g.: “In the vehicle of this embodiment, the same
`signal with the torque distribution signal, which is output
`from the controller (12) to center differential (9), inputs
`into display section (17) which displays the distribution
`ratio, and the display will display the amount of torque
`distribution to the front and rear wheels according to
`this signal. In display section (17) in this embodiment, as
`depicted in Figure 2, the wheels and the drive system are
`schematically displayed, and alongside this diagram
`(17a), a scale indicator section (17d) extending from
`front wheels (17b) to rear wheels (17c) is provided in the
`diagram. And the indicator (17e) which shows the
`amount of torque distribution is combined with this
`scale indicator section 17d. An indicator 17e moves
`inside the scale section (17d) according to the torque
`distribution signal from controller (12), and the driver
`can be informed visually of the amount of torque
`distribution by the position of indicator (17e). In other
`words, when the indicator (17e) is on the front wheel
`(17b) side of the diagram (17a), the amount of
`distribution to the front differential (2) is increasing, and
`when closer to the rear wheel (17c) side, the amount of
`torque distribution to rear differential (5) is increasing.
`The details of the torque distribution control and the
`display control of the present embodiment will be
`explained by referring to Figure 3.” Ex. 1004, Watanabe,
`at p. 3, l. 23-p. 4, l. 3; see also id. at p.1, ll. 3-9; p. 1, ll. 12-
`14; p. 2, ll. 8-12; p. 2, ll. 14-16; p. 4, ll. 14-16; p. 4, ll. 17-
`25; p. 4, ll. 27-29; p. 5, ll. 3-6; Figs. 2-5.
`Ex. 1002, Wilhelm Decl., at ¶¶ 40, 41.
`10d. whereby said image See, e.g.: “Moreover, in Figure 4, another type of display
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`ws
`
`Ss
`
`ews
`
`1di
`
`
`
`
`
`
`seection (17′)) is shownn, and fronnt wheels (117a) and r
`ear
`
`
`
`
`
`wheels (17bb′) are scheematically ddisplayed inn this dispplay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`eection (17′) and the coolors of thhe wheels (117a′ and 177b′)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`chhange parttially accorrding to tthe torquee distributiion
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ammount. Therefore, thhe driver ccan be infoformed of tthe
`
`toorque distrribution aamount at
`
`a glance bby the size
`of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`thhe transitioon region oof the coloors of whe
`
`els (17a′) aand
`
`
`
`n (17′).” EEx. 1004, WWatanabe, att p.
`
`
`(117b′) of display sectio
`
`
`
`see also id. aat p. 2, ll. 88-12; p. 2, lll. 14-16; p
`
`4,, ll. 17-21;
`. 3,
`
`
`
`ll.. 28-31; p. 44, ll. 27-29..
`
`
`
`
`
`ee, e.g.: “MMoreover, inn Figure 4,, another tyype of dispplay
`
`ection (17′) is shown,
`and front
`
`
`wheels (177a′) and reear
`
`
`
`displayed iematically dwheels (17bb′) are sche
`
`n this dispplay
`
`
`eection (17′)) and the
`
`
`the wheeels (17a′ aand
`colors of
`
`
`7b′) channge partiaally acco
`rding to
`
`the torqque
`be
`
`
`
`river can ore, the drdistributionn amountt. Therefo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`nformed off the torquue distributtion amounnt at a glannce
`
`yy the size
`
`
`
`of the trransition reegion of tthe colors
`of
`
`
`wheels (17aa′) and (17bb′) of dispplay sectionn (17′).” EEx.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0004, Watannabe, at p. 44, ll. 17-21; see also id.
`
`at p.1, ll. 33-9;
`
`
`
`
`
`. 2, ll. 14-16; p. 2, ll. 220-22; p. 3,, l. 23-p.4, ll. 3; p. 5, ll.. 3-
`
`
`;; Figs. 2 annd 5.
`
`nb
`
`w1
`
`p6
`
`
`
`is observvable by thhe
`
`
`operatorr of said mmotor
`vehicle.
`
`
`
`12. An aapparatus aas in
`
`
`claim 100 wherein ssaid
`
`
`image iss at least onne bar
`
`
`chart, sccalar bar chhart, or
`
`
`bar charrt in pie seggment
`
`
`format oor, is an immage
`
`
`displayinng the torqque or
`
`
`braking force delivvered
`
`
`to the wwheels or, iss an
`
`
`image diisplaying thhe
`
`
`torque oor braking fforce
`
`
`delivered to the froont
`
`
`pair of wwheels and to the
`
`
`rear pairr of wheels or an
`
`
`image diisplaying thhe
`
`
`slippagee of one or