`
`
`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. IPR2014-00601
`Patent No. 7,145,442
` ____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PETITIONERS’ REPLY BRIEF
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`DISTRIBUTED DRIVING FORCE OF SAID PROPER VEHICLE” / “SENSING MEANS PRODUCING AN
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS  .....................................................................................................................................  i  
`UPDATED APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS  .........................................................................................................  ii  
`I.  
`INTRODUCTION  ........................................................................................................................................  1  
`II.   CLAIM CONSTRUCTION  ........................................................................................................................  2  
`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.   WATANABE ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10, 12-15, 21, 22 AND 25-28  ...............................................  8  
`IV.   OKUDA ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10-15, 21, 22 AND 25-28  ..............................................................  8  
`V.   WATANABE OR OKUDA IN VIEW OF TSUZUKI RENDERS CLAIMS 10-15, 21, 22 AND
`24-28 OBVIOUS  ......................................................................................................................................................  9  
`VI.   WATANABE IN VIEW OF GILLIAM RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-9 AND 41-44 OBVIOUS  10  
`VII.   OKUDA IN VIEW OF WATSON RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 4-9 AND 41-44 OBVIOUS  ...........  11  
`VIII.   WATANABE, GILLIAM AND TSUZUKI OR OKUDA, WATSON, AND TSUZUKI
`RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-9 AND 41-44 OBVIOUS  .................................................................................  13  
`IX.   WATANABE AND GILLIAM IN VIEW OF MILLER OR OKUDA AND WATSON IN
`VIEW OF MILLER RENDERS CLAIMS 3 AND 11  ..................................................................................  13  
`X.   CONCLUSION  ..........................................................................................................................................  14  
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1001
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`Exhibit 1004
`Exhibit 1005
`Exhibit 1006
`Exhibit 1007
`Exhibit 1008
`Exhibit 1009
`Exhibit 1010
`Exhibit 1011
`Exhibit 1012
`Exhibit 1013
`Exhibit 1014
`Exhibit 1015
`Exhibit 1016
`Exhibit 1017
`Exhibit 1018
`Exhibit 1019
`Exhibit 1020
`
`Exhibit 1021
`Exhibit 1022
`Exhibit 1023
`Exhibit 1024
`Exhibit 1025
`Exhibit 1026
`Exhibit 1027
`Exhibit 1028
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UPDATED APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,145,442 to Yu Hei Sunny Wai
`Expert Declaration of Ralph Wilhelm, Ph.D. (“Wilhelm
`Decl.”)
`JP 06-41251 to Watanabe
`JP 06-041251 to Watanabe (Certified English Translation)
`JP S63-17121 to Okuda
`JP S63-17121 to Okuda (Certified English Translation)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,937,750 (“Gilliam”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,485,894 (“Watson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,426,416 (“Jefferies”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,989,686 (“Miller”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,081,365 (“Field”)
`JP S63-42435 (“Tsuzuki”)
`JP S63-42435 (“Tsuzuki”) (Certified English Translation)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,442
`1:13-cv-00537 (Honda) Complaint
`1:13-cv-00538 (BMW) Complaint
`1:13-cv-00539 (Ford) Complaint
`1:13-cv-00541 (Nissan) Complaint
`Transcript of August 4, 2014 Teleconference
`Rule 11 Memorandum Opinion (Case 1:13-cv-00539-RGA,
`D. I. No. 61)
`Order (Case 1:13-cv-00539-RGA, D. I. No. 62)
`Transcript of September 29, 2014 Teleconference
`[RESERVED]
`[RESERVED]
`[RESERVED]
`[RESERVED]
`Excerpt of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
`Transcript of Deposition of Michael P. Nranian (April 7,
`2015)
`
`
`
` ii
`
`

`

`
`
`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 claim 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, 21-22, 24-28, and 41-44 should be
`
`canceled.1
`
`
`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-
`
`

`

`
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION2
`
`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
`
`briefing. 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 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
`
`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-
`
`

`

`
`
`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 (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
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`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,
`
`
`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-
`
`

`

`
`
`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.”4
`
`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
`
`
`4 Indeed, even Patent Owner concedes that if only torque were required, the claims
`
`would not be limited to “at each wheel.” Paper 39 at 16.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`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. 1023 at 993 (2001 Merriam–Webster
`
`Dictionary) (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
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`“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
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`
`
`wheel speed sensor 45”); 9:42 (“affixed speed sensor 45”); claims 4, 12, 27.
`
`III. WATANABE ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10, 12-15, 21, 22 AND 25-28
`
`PO’s only contentions with respect to Watanabe 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. [Paper 39] at
`
`36. 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, Watanabe clearly describes the
`
`display of torque to the front wheels and rear wheels. Sec. Corr. Pet. [Paper 11] at 11-
`
`19. Indeed, PO admits the same. PO Resp. [Paper 39] at 33. Therefore, claims 10, 12-
`
`15, 21, 22 and 25-28 are anticipated by Watanabe.
`
`IV. OKUDA ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10-15, 21, 22 AND 25-28
`
`Similar to Watanabe, PO recognizes that Okuda teaches “displaying torque [] at
`
`the front and rear of the vehicle” (PO Resp. at 40), but again contends that this does not
`
`meet the limitation of displaying at least one operating parameter delivered “at each
`
`wheel” and that the display must be capable of displaying both braking forces and torque.
`
`PO Resp. at 36. As described above, this position is fundamentally flawed.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`
`
`PO additionally argues that Okuda does not teach “any ability to transform
`
`sensory data into a display signal, wherein the sensory data is received from a signal
`
`source.” PO Resp. at 42. While PO acknowledges that engine torque is calculated
`
`based on, at least, two received signals, it ignores that this value is also calculated from
`
`the inputs provided by the front and rear wheel rotation detectors. Id.; see also Ex.
`
`1006, Okuda at p. 1, c. 1, ll. 8-17, Figs. 1, 2. More specifically, and as set forth in the
`
`Petition, Okuda has a “computation means for computing the driving force of the
`
`front wheels and rear wheels based on the detection values of each of the detectors
`
`[engine torque detector, front and rear wheel rotation detectors].” Ex. 1006, Okuda at
`
`p. 1, c. 1, ll. 8-17, Fig. 1; see also Sec. Corr. Pet. at 19-21. The computation means is a
`
`“processing device” that produces a display signal based on the inputs received from
`
`each of the identified detectors. Thus, PO’s argument that Okuda does not transform
`
`any sensory data signals into display signals is incorrect. Therefore, claims 10-15, 21,
`
`22 and 25-28 should be canceled.
`
`V. WATANABE OR OKUDA IN VIEW OF TSUZUKI RENDERS CLAIMS
`10-15, 21, 22 AND 24-28 OBVIOUS
`
`The combinations of Watanabe or Okuda in view of Tsuzuki were both
`
`presented in the event that either Watanabe or Tsuzuki were found not to include a
`
`dedicated display. Sec. Corr. Pet. at 26-29. PO does not present any rationale to
`
`contradict that these combinations render claims 10-15, 21, 22 and 24-28 obvious
`
`other than the arguments presented with respect to Watanabe and Okuda individually.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`
`For the reasons stated above with respect to Watanabe and Okuda individually, claims
`
`10-15, 21, 22 and 24-28 should be canceled over Watanabe in view of Tsuzuki and
`
`Okuda in view of Tsuzuki.
`
`VI. WATANABE IN VIEW OF GILLIAM RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-9 AND
`41-44 OBVIOUS
`
`PO’s initial arguments with respect to the combination of Watanabe and
`
`Gilliam relies on the faulty premise that the combination was proposed primarily to
`
`use the “sensing means” of Gilliam with the display of Watanabe. PO Resp. at 48.
`
`However, as set forth in the petition, Petitioners rely on Gilliam primarily for its
`
`teaching of a “proper vehicle,” which requires an electromagnetic clutch, because
`
`Watanabe does not specify the type of clutch used in its four-wheel drive vehicle. Sec.
`
`Corr. Pet. at 29-32. PO does not dispute that the electromagnetic clutch of Gilliam
`
`could be combined with Watanabe. PO Resp. at 48-52.
`
`As to the “sensing means,” PO argues that the Hall effect sensors described in
`
`Gilliam are used as speed sensors, not as flux sensors as in the ‘442 patent. There are
`
`multiple problems with this argument. First, the claims do not require that the
`
`“sensing means” are required to be used in any manner other than to “produce[e] at
`
`least one source signal proportional to the distributed driving force” (claim 1) or
`
`“produce[e] an electrical input signal proportional to said engagement forces” (claims
`
`7 and 41). Thus, PO’s argument that the Hall effect sensor must be used as a “flux
`
`sensor” carries no weight. Second, Petitioners rely on Watanabe for its teaching of a
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`
`
`“sensing means,” which includes a slip ratio sensor as described above. Sec. Corr. Pet.
`
`at 32-33. And PO does not dispute that Watanabe discloses that torque is calculated
`
`and displayed in response to the receipt of the signals from this sensor, among others,
`
`and, therefore, the signal corresponds to the torque. See Ex. 1002, Wilhelm Decl. at
`
`¶61. There is no requirement in the ‘442 patent that the signal correspond to the
`
`driving force in a 1:1 ratio nor do the claims exclude the use of more than one signal
`
`to determine the displayed driving force. Third, in the event that Watanabe is found
`
`not to disclose a “sensing means” or its equivalent, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`reading Gilliam would have appreciated that the Hall effect sensors of Gilliam could
`
`have been used in the in place of the speed sensor of Watanabe. Id. at ¶¶62, 66.
`
`Finally, PO maintains that a slip ratio sensor is not a wheel speed sensor nor is it
`
`indicative of a driving force. PO Resp. at 50. However, as described above, slippage is
`
`a driving force within the scope of claim 4 and, therefore, claim 1. Thus, PO’s
`
`arguments in this respect should be disregarded. Based on the foregoing, claims 1, 2,
`
`4-9 and 41-44 should be canceled.
`
`VII. OKUDA IN VIEW OF WATSON RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 4-9 AND 41-44
`OBVIOUS
`
`As with the combination of Watanabe and Gilliam above, PO fails to recognize
`
`that the primary purpose of this combination is to combine the four-wheel drive
`
`vehicle of Watson having an electromagnetic clutch in order to meet the “proper
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`
`
`vehicle” limitation of claims 1, 7 and 41. Sec. Corr. Pet. at 42-45. PO does not dispute
`
`the combination for this purpose. PO Resp. at 54-55.
`
`Instead, PO argues that the only structures in Okuda that calculate “engine
`
`torque” are the engine speed and accelerator opening and that the wheel rotation
`
`detectors are not involved in the computation of engine torque. PO Resp. at 54. This
`
`argument is misplaced and PO is confusing the language of these claims with that of
`
`claims 10 and 21. First, Petitioners do not rely upon the calculation and display of
`
`“engine torque.” Rather, as set out in the petition, Petitioners point to Okuda’s
`
`display of driving force distribution, which is calculated based on the engine torque
`
`and signal received from front and rear wheel rotation detectors. Sec. Corr. Pet. at 42-
`
`48. Second, claims 1, 7 and 41 require sensing and displaying a “driving force” or
`
`“engagement force,” which includes, but is not limited to, torque. As expressly
`
`depicted in Fig. 1 of Okuda and relied upon in the petition, the front and rear wheel
`
`detectors provide inputs to the “front [and rear] wheel driving force computation
`
`part” that are then provided to the “driving force distribution computation part.” Ex.
`
`1006, Okuda at Fig. 1; see also Sec. Corr. Pet. at 45. Therefore, the wheel rotation
`
`detectors are clearly providing signals that correspond to “driving force distribution”
`
`whether directly or indirectly. The “wheel rotation detectors” of Okuda would be
`
`understood by one of skill in the art to be “wheel speed sensors” that perform the
`
`same functions as the “sensing means.” Ex. 1002, Wilhelm Decl. at ¶73.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`
`
`Further, the combination with Watson was further provided in the event that
`
`the wheel rotation detectors of Okuda were not found to meet the “sensing means”
`
`limitation. Id. at ¶74. Specifically, Watson specifically describes the use of “Hall effect
`
`sensor” as a structure that senses the rotational speed of a front and rear shaft. Ex.
`
`1008, Watson at 9:26-60, 10:6-34. Thus, it would have been obvious to use the Hall
`
`effect sensors of Watson as the “wheel rotation detectors” in Okuda. Ex. 1002,
`
`Wilhelm Decl. at ¶77. Based on the foregoing, claims 1, 4-9 and 41-44 should be
`
`canceled.
`
`VIII. WATANABE, GILLIAM AND TSUZUKI OR OKUDA, WATSON, AND
`TSUZUKI RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-9 AND 41-44 OBVIOUS
`
`Tsuzuki is combined with Watanabe and Gilliam or Okuda and Watson in the
`
`event that it is found that none of the references individually describe a “dedicated
`
`display.” PO does not present any argument aside from those previously presented
`
`with respect to the purported deficiencies of the combinations of Watanabe and
`
`Gilliam or Okuda and Watson. PO Resp. at 56-68. As such, PO admits that Tsuzuki
`
`discloses a dedicated display and the references are properly combined. Therefore,
`
`Watanabe, Gilliam and Tsuzuki render claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 41-44 obvious while
`
`Okuda, Watson and Tsuzuki render claims 1, 4-9 and 41-44 obvious for the reasons
`
`set forth in the Petition. Sec. Corr. Pet. at 52-53.
`
`IX. WATANABE AND GILLIAM IN VIEW OF MILLER OR OKUDA AND
`WATSON IN VIEW OF MILLER RENDERS CLAIMS 3 AND 11
`
`PO does not dispute that Miller teaches an in-line current sensor as the
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`
`
`“sensing means.” Instead, PO relies on
`
`its arguments with respect to the
`
`combinations of Watanabe and Gilliam or Okuda and Watson. PO Resp. at 58-59.
`
`Because the PO has not presented any reasoning to contradict Petitioners’ detailed
`
`analysis of claims 3 and 11 in the Petition (Sec. Corr. Pet. at 53-57), claims 3 and 11
`
`should be canceled.
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the forgoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board cancel
`
`claims 1-15, 21, 22, 24-28 and 41-44.
`
`
`
`April 23, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Eric A. Buresh /
`Eric Buresh (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 50,394
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`P: 913-777-5600 / F: 913-777-5601
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`
`Attorney for Petitioner, Ford Motor Company
`
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue (Backup Counsel)
`Reg. No. Reg. No. 46,859
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
` FARABOW, GARRETT &
` DUNNER, LLP
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`P: 571-203-2750 / F: 202-408-4400
`BMW-VOT-IPR@finnegan.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner, BMW of North America,
`LLC
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Jason R. Mudd (Backup Counsel)
`Reg. No. 57,700
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`P: 913-777-5600 / F: 913-777-5601
`jason.mudd@eriseip.com
`
`
`
`
`Jonathan Stroud (Backup Counsel)
`Reg. No. 72,518
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
` FARABOW, GARRETT &
` DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`P: 202-408-4469 / F: 202-408-4400
`Jonathan.stroud@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the attached PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`was sent via electronic mail on April 23, 2015, to the following:
`
`Greg Howison
`Registration No. 30,646
`HOWISON & ARNOTT
`5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 660
`Dallas, Texas 75240
`GHowison@dalpat.com
`
`James Arnott
`Reg. No. 70,458
`BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC
`1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4750
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`BJC-VOT@BJCIPLaw.com
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 23, 2015
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Eric A. Buresh
`Eric A. Buresh
`Reg. No. 50,394
`Jason R. Mudd
`Reg. No. 57,700
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Facsimile: (913) 777-5601
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Ford Motor Company
`
`
`
`
`
`