`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.,
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, AND BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VEHICLE OPERATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00602
`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
`B. LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........... 11
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ‘442 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................... 11
`A. NAITO ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10, 12-15, 21-22, AND 25-28 UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 102(B) ................................................................................................................ 11
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`B. NAITO IN VIEW OF WATSON RENDERS CLAIMS 1-2, 4-9, 11, AND 41-44
`OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A) ................................................................................ 19
`C. NAITO/WATSON IN VIEW OF JEFFERIES OR MILLER OR FIELD RENDER
`CLAIM 3 OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A) ................................................................. 35
`D. NAITO IN VIEW OF HAMADA RENDERS CLAIM 24 OBVIOUS UNDER
`35 U.S.C. 103(A) ................................................................................................................... 38
`E. SKYLINE ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 10-15, 21-22, AND 24-28 UNDER
`35 U.S.C. 102(B) ................................................................................................................... 40
`F. SKYLINE IN VIEW OF WATSON RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 4-9 AND 41-44
`OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102(B) .................................................................................... 47
`VII. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) .................. 54
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST ......................................................................................... 54
`B. RELATED MATTERS ..................................................................................................... 54
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3) ............................ 55
`D. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ....................................................... 56
`VIII. CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 56
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Nissan North America Inc., Ford
`
`Motor Company, and BMW of North America LLC (“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 thhe system
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`
`in the specification. See Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elektra AB, 344 F.3d
`
`1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A means-plus-function claim term is limited to the
`
`structures disclosed from 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, 9:11–28, 12:31–33, 9:29–53,
`
`claims 2-3 (including various sensors), claims 4 and 12 (each including wheel slippage).
`
`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, 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
`other of said pairs being auxiliary drive wheels, a driving
`force control system controlling engagement forces of at
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`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, and 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. 1017, ‘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. 1017, ‘442 File History, at 219, November 9, 2005 Office
`
`Action Response, (“The disclosed ‘freely programmable instrument cluster’ [of the
`
`Hauler reference] is intended to provide the driver with a variety of options for the
`
`review of operational parameters. The [Hauler] patent thus does not disclose or
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`teach the present invention.”), Ex. 1017, ‘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. 1017, ‘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. 1017, ‘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,
`
`‘442 Patent, at 2:21-23, and 7:16-20, 12:64-13:1; see also Ex. 1017, ‘442 File History,
`
`November 9, 2005 Office Action Response, at 219-221.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`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 ¶ 64; 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 Naito.
`Claims 1-2, 4-15, 21-22, 25-28 and 41-44 are obvious under §
`103(a) over Naito in view of Watson.
`Claim 3 is obvious under § 103(a) over Naito in view of Watson
`in further view of Miller, Jefferies or Field.
`
`Claim 24 is obvious under § 103(a) over Naito in view of
`Hamada.
`Claims 10-15, 21-22, and 24-28 are anticipated under §102(b) by
`Skyline
`Claims 1, 4-9, and 41-44 are obvious under § 103(a) over Skyline
`in view of Watson.
`
`Reference
`Exhibit No.
`1004
`
`1004 and 1005
`1004, 1005,
`and 1006, 1007
`or 1008
`1004 and 1010
`1012, 1014,
`and 1016
`1012, 1014,
`1016, and 1005
`
`
`The claim construction, reasons for unpatentability, and specific evidence supporting
`
`this request are detailed below.
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`
`Level Of Skill Of A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`B.
`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 ¶¶ 30-31.
`
`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.
`
`A. Naito Anticipates Claims 10, 12-15, 21-22, And 25-28 Under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b)
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JP S62-47430 (“Naito”)2,3 (Ex. 1003; Ex. 1004
`
`(Certified English Translation)) discloses each and every element of claims 10, 12-15,
`
`
`2 Citations in the Petition to the Japanese patent documents refer to the corresponding
`
`certified English translations.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`21-22, and 25-28 of the ‘442 Patent, and therefore, anticipates those claims under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). Generally, Naito discloses a driving force distribution display device
`
`for four-wheel drive vehicle. Ex. 1004, Naito, at p. 1, ll. 4-11. In particular, Naito
`
`discloses a four-wheel drive vehicle that includes a clutch along the powertrain
`
`between the front and rear wheels. Id. The clutch controls the clutch actuation force
`
`level in response to an electronic signal from a transfer control unit. Id. at p. 1, ll. 4-
`
`11; p. 5, ll. 3-10. The driving force distribution to the front and rear wheels is altered
`
`by the clutch actuation force. Id. at p. 1, ll. 4-11. Naito also discloses a driving force
`
`distribution display that displays the driving force distribution state either
`
`continuously or in multiple tiers. Id. The driving force distribution state is based on
`
`the clutch actuation force signal received from a clutch actuation force sensor that
`
`detects the clutch actuation force of the clutch. Id at p. 1, ll. 3-4. The display
`
`described in Naito is a “dedicated display,” as the only information Naito describes or
`
`illustrates as being displayed is the claimed information. Ex. 1002, Wilhelm Decl., at
`
`¶¶ 39-40.
`
`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
`
`
`3 Naito was published on March 24, 1987. As a result, Naito is available as prior art against
`
`all claims of the ‘442 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Naito was not cited or considered
`
`during prosecution of the ‘031 application.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Naito. Consequently, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail and
`
`these claims should be canceled under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Naito.
`
`
`
`Claim
`10pre. An apparatus
`comprising:
`
`10a. at least one signal
`source
`producing
`sensory data;
`
`a
`
`10b.
`processing
`operably
`device
`coupled to said signal
`
`Anticipated by Naito
`See, e.g.: “Fig. 1 is a claim concept drawing showing the
`driving force distribution display device for four-wheel
`drive vehicle in this invention, Fig. 2 is a full view of an
`embodiment of the driving force distribution display device
`for four-wheel drive vehicle, Fig. 3 is a diagram showing the
`driving force distribution display device in the embodiment,
`…” Ex. 1004, Naito, at p. 13, ll. 7-10; see also id. at p. 1, l. 1;
`p. 1, l. 4; p. 1, ll. 14-15; p. 3, ll. 14-16; p. 4, ll. 8-10; p. 5, ll.
`11-14; p. 12, ll. 12-14; Figs. 1-3.
`See, e.g.: “The aforesaid transfer control unit 24 is a means
`that processes input signal (i) from input sensor 23 of the
`drive shaft rotary sensor, etc. according to designated
`control conditions and outputs a control signal (c) that
`provides a driving force distribution corresponding to the
`particulars of this control. In the embodiment, this transfer
`control unit 24 serves as the clutch actuation force
`detection means, and control signal (c), which is an indirect
`detection signal from transfer control unit 24, serves as the
`clutch actuation force signal.” Ex. 1004, Naito, at p. 5, l. 11-
`p. 6, l. 2.
`“Additionally, although an example was indicated that uses
`a control signal, which is an indirect detection signal of
`clutch actuation force, as the clutch actuation force signal, it
`is alternately acceptable to use as the clutch actuation force
`detection means a pressure sensor capable of directly
`detecting clutch actuation
`force or
`the
`like, and
`furthermore, a switch position sensor or the like may be
`used in configurations furnished with a manual switch
`means.” Id. at p. 11, l. 15- p. 12, l. 4; see also id. at p. l, ll. 4-
`11; p. 2, ll. 4-12; p. 3, ll. 5-12; p. 3, l. 14-p. 4, l. 3; p. 4, l. 12-
`p. 5, l. 2; p. 12, l. 12-p. 13, l. 5; Fig. 2.
`See, e.g.: “The aforesaid transfer control unit 24 is a means
`that processes input signal (i) from input sensor 23 of the
`drive shaft rotary sensor, etc. according to designated
`
`13
`
`

`

`transform
`to
`source
`said sensory data into a
`display signal; and
`
`10c. a display device to
`receive and display said
`display
`signal
`as
`a
`viewable
`image, said
`image comprised of
`information
`regarding
`at least one operating
`parameter, said at least
`one
`operating
`parameter
`comprised
`of
`torque
`and/or
`braking
`forces
`delivered at the wheels
`of a motor vehicle;
`
`
`
`control conditions and outputs a control signal (c) that
`provides a driving force distribution corresponding to the
`particulars of this control. In the embodiment, this transfer
`control unit 24 serves as the clutch actuation force
`detection means, and control signal (c), which is an indirect
`detection signal from transfer control unit 24, serves as the
`clutch actuation force signal.” Ex. 1004, Naito, at p. 5, l. 11-
`p. 6, l. 2; see also id. at p. 4, l. 12-p.5, l. 2; Fig. 2.
`Ex. 1002, Wilhelm Decl., at ¶ 41.
`See, e.g.: “Driving force distribution level judgment means
`25 is a means that uses control signal (c) from the aforesaid
`transfer control unit 24 as its input signal to judge whether
`the clutch actuation force Tc indicated by control signal (c)
`is larger or smaller than actuation force setting T1, T2, T3
`(T1<T2<T3) stored in advance, and then assigns one of
`four driving force levels and outputs display command
`signal (d) to LED drive circuit 26, using an onboard
`microcomputer (or alternately an electrical circuit utilizing a
`comparator, etc.) furnished with, as shown in Fig. 3, input
`circuit 251, RAM (random access memory) 252, ROM (read
`only memory) 25, CPU (central processing unit) 254 and
`clock circuit 255.
`Note that input circuit 251 is a circuit that converts control
`signal (c) to a signal capable of being processed by CPU
`254, RAM 252 is a memory circuit to which input signals,
`information required for processing and the like are
`temporarily written, ROM 253 is a memory circuit in which
`the aforesaid actuation force settings T1, T2, T3, etc. are
`stored in advance, CPU 254 is a circuit that performs
`information processing in accordance with a designated
`processing procedure while reading information from RAM
`252 and ROM 253, and clock circuit 255 is a circuit that sets
`a single process time. LED drive circuit 26 is a circuit
`comprised of an LSI (large-scale integrated circuit), etc. that
`drives the LEDs (light-emitting diodes) used in display
`device 27 according to the driving force distribution level,
`having as its input signal the aforesaid display command
`signal (d), and either outputting LED drive signal (e) from
`one of output terminals 261, 262, 263 or not outputting
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`262,
`
`
`
`
`
`LEED drive siggnal (e) froom any of ooutput termminals 261,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and.” 2633, dependinng on the pparticulars oof the displlay comma
`
`
`
`
`
`Exx. 1004, Naaito, at p. 6,, l. 11-p. 7,, l. 11; see aalso id. at p.
` l, ll.
`
`4-11; p. 2, ll.
`4-12; p. 3,
`ll. 5-12; p
`. 3, l. 14-p
`. 4, l. 3; p.
` 5, l.
`
`
`p. 6, ll. 8-1011--p. 6, l. 2; p
`; p. 7, l. 12
`- p. 9, 3; p.
` 11, ll. 4-6.
`
`
`10d.
`said
`whereby
`ble by image iss observab
`
`
`
`the operator of
`said
`vehicle.
`motor v
`
`12. An
`as in
`apparatus
`n said claim 10 wherein
`
`
`
`
`ne bar image iss at least on
`
`chart, scalar bar
`chart,
`inn pie
`
`or bar
`chart
`
`
`or, is segmentt format o
`
`
`an imagge displayinng the
`
`torque oor braking
`force
`
`
`wheels delivered to the w
`iss
`
`an
`
`iimage
`or,
`
`
`displayinng the torqque or
`braking
`
`force delivvered
`front pa
`to the
`ir of
`
`
`
`
`
`Exx. 1002, Willhelm Decl., a
`at ¶ 39.
`See,
`
`
`
`
`
`, e.g.: “Dispsplay deviice 27 is pprovided oon the inteerior
`
`
`
`
`n in Fig. 3d as shownhe like, andinsstrument ppanel or th
`, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rearr wheel poortion of ddisplay pannel 271, whhich repressents
`
`
`
`
`thee drivetrainn of a fouur-wheel drrive vehicl
`e, is furni
`shed
`
`
`witth a rear--wheel dis
`
`
`
`play portiion 272 tthat is alwways
`
`
`
`illuminated, wwhile the frront wheel
`portion is
`furnished
`with
`
`
`y portion 2a fiirst display
`
`
`
`4 and 73, secondd display poortion 274
`
`
`
`
`thirrd display pportion 2775, each coomprised o
`
`f light-emiitting
`
`dioodes.” Ex.
`
`
`1004, Naitto, at p. 8, lll. 6-10; see
`
`also id. at pp. 11,
`
`ll. 44-6.
`See,
`
`, e.g.: “As
`shown in n Fig. 2, a
`
`
`four-wheeel drive vehhicle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`utillizing the ddevice in thhe embodimment is furrnished witth an
`
`
`
`enggine 10, traansmissionn 11, trans
`
`
`mission ouutput shaftt 12,
`
`
`
`trannsfer clutchh (clutch mmeans) 13,
`
`
`rear wheell-side proppeller
`
`
`
`
`
`shaaft 14, rearr differentiial 15, rearr drive shaaft 16, 16’,
`rear
`
`
`
`
`
`
`wheels 17, 177, front wwheel-side ppropeller sshaft 18, ffront
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1, 21, t wheels 210, 20’, frontve shaft 209, front drivdiffferential 19
`
`
`
`
`
`cluttch actuatoor 22, inputt sensor 233 and transffer control
`unit
`
`
`
`
`24.” Ex. 10044, Naito, at pp. 4, l. 12-pp.5, l. 2.
`“N
`
`ext, as inddicated in
`
`
`
`Fig. 2 annd Fig. 3,, driving fforce
`
`disttribution
`
`display mmeans A
`
`
`in the emmbodimennt
`is
`
`
`furnnished witth driving
`
`
`tribution llevel judgmment
`force dis
`” Id.
`
`
`
`
`means 25, LEED drive ciircuit 26 annd display
`device 27.
`
`15
`
`

`

`wheels
`
`and to thee rear
`
`
`or an pair of f wheels o
`displaying
`image
`the
`
`
`e or slippagee of one
`more
`wheels
`with
`regard
`to
`the
`other
`wheels.
`
`13. An
`as in
`apparatus
`n said claim 10 wherein
`
`
`
`
`ce processiing devic
`is
`
`
`comprissed of a veehicle
`
`CPU or a display CCPU.
`
`
`
`
`0. at pp. 6, ll. 8-10
`
`
`See
`
`
`
`also id. at pp. l, ll. 4-111; p. 2, ll. 44-12; p. 3,
`ll. 5-12; p.
`
`
`
`
`
`13, l. 5. 12, l. 12-p.1. 6, l. 2; p. 1p. 5, l. 11-p.14--p. 4, l. 3; p
`
` 3, l.
`
`
`See,
`
`
`, e.g.: “Thee aforesaid
`
`
`transfer coontrol unitt 24 is a mmeans
`
`
`
`
`
`
`thaat processess input siggnal (i) fromm input seensor 23 off the
`
`
`
`drivve shaft rrotary sennsor, etc.
`according
`
`to designnated
`
`
`
`
`conntrol conditions and d outputs aa control
`signal (c)
`that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proovides a drriving forcee distributiion correspponding too the
`
`parrticulars of
`
`
`
`
`this controol. In the eembodimennt, this trann