UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and
`MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VELOCITY PATENT LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,954,781
`Patent Issue Date: September 21, 1999
`Patent Title: Method and Apparatus for Optimizing Vehicle Operation
`Case IPR No.: To Be Assigned
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHRIS G. BARTONE, P.E.
`IN SUPPORT OF MERCEDES’ PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,954,781
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Engagement ........................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................. 1
`C.
`Information Considered ......................................................................... 3
`THE ’781 PATENT ....................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Background ........................................................................................... 4
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 6
`C.
`Claim Interpretation .............................................................................. 7
`III. THE ELEMENTS IN CLAIMS 31-32 OF THE ‘781 PATENT ARE
`DISCLOSED IN THE PRIOR ART ............................................................ 8
`C.
`Ground 1: European Patent Application Publication No. 0 392 953
`(Tresse) (Ex. 1005) ................................................................................ 9
`1.
`Tresse Discloses the Elements of Independent Claim 31 .........10
`2.
`Tresse, Alone or in Combination, Discloses the Elements of
`Dependent Claim 32 .................................................................18
`Ground 2: U.S. Patent No. 5,357,438 (Davidian) (Ex. 1006) .............22
`1.
`Davidian Discloses the Elements of Independent Claim 31 .....23
`2.
`Davidian in Combination Discloses the Elements of Dependent
`Claim 32 ....................................................................................31
`Ground 3: PCT Publication No. 91/07672 (Montague) (Ex. 1007) ....36
`1. Montague Discloses the Elements of Independent Claim 31 ...36
`2. Montague in Combination Discloses the Elements of
`Dependent Claim 32 .................................................................44
`IV. CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................49
`
`ATTACHMENT A (MATERIALS CONSIDERED) ...................................... A-1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Dr. Chris G. Bartone, P.E., declare:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Engagement
`
`I have been retained by Hogan Lovells US LLP, counsel for Petitioner
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (together,
`
`“Petitioner” or “Mercedes”), to submit this Declaration in connection with this
`
`proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to analyze the state of the art of the technology
`
`described in U.S. Patent No. 5,954,781 (the “’781 Patent”) as it relates to Claims
`
`31-32 of this patent. This analysis is not intended to be an exhaustive validity
`
`analysis, but rather concentrates on the elements of Claims 31-32 of the ‘781
`
`patent and to what extent these elements are disclosed in select pieces of prior art.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at a rate of $750 per hour, plus
`
`actual expenses. My compensation is not dependent in any way upon the outcome
`
`of this proceeding.
`
`B.
`
`4.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I am a Professor of the School of Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science (“EECS”) at Ohio University. I have over 30 years of
`
`professional experience with communications, navigation, and surveillance
`
`(“CNS”) systems. I currently teach graduate and undergraduate classes in the
`
`1
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`School of EECS. I received an undergraduate Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering from the Pennsylvania State University in 1983. I received
`
`a Master’s of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the Naval
`
`Postgraduate School in 1987. I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Ohio University in 1998.
`
`5.
`
`From 1983 to 1998, prior to my full-time position at Ohio University,
`
`I worked as an electronics engineer at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Patuxent
`
`River, Maryland. My work at the Naval Air Warfare Center included various
`
`projected dealing with CNS systems and, in particular, with radar/secondary-radar
`
`systems. In 1998, after being awarded a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, I joined
`
`the faculty of Ohio University as a Visiting Assistant Professor. I was promoted to
`
`Assistant Professor in 1999 and to Associate Professor in 2004, and became a full
`
`Professor in 2009.
`
`6. My teaching at Ohio University has covered undergraduate and
`
`graduate level courses in electrical engineering. At the graduate level, I teach
`
`courses in the area of radar systems, navigation systems, microwave and antenna
`
`theory, and communication systems. At the undergraduate level I have
`
`concentrated my teachings in the area of electromagnetics courses that deal with
`
`similar topics (but less advanced than the graduate courses I teach). Each of these
`
`2
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`courses has included coverage of vehicular applications, including automotive
`
`applications.
`
`7.
`
` In addition to my teaching, I have led and performed various research
`
`efforts involving vehicular applications. These have included efforts in the area of
`
`surface/land, including automotive applications. These research efforts have
`
`included studies and experiments with, among other things, automotive radar
`
`systems as used for obstacle detection and avoidance.
`
`8. My curriculum vitae, detailing my background and qualifications, is
`
`submitted herewith as Exhibit 1011. I am familiar with the subject matter of this
`
`case, and consider myself an expert in, among other things, radar systems,
`
`including as applied to vehicular systems and including as used for obstacle
`
`detection and avoidance.
`
`C.
`
`Information Considered
`
`9. My analyses are based on my years of education, research, and work
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In my
`
`analyses, I have considered the materials that I identify in this Declaration and
`
`those listed in Attachment A.
`
`10.
`
`I may rely upon these and additional materials to respond to
`
`arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional documents
`
`3
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`and information in further analyses—including documents that may not yet have
`
`been provided to me.
`
`11. My review and assessment of the materials provided in this
`
`proceeding is ongoing, and I will continue to consider any new material as it is
`
`provided. I reserve the right to review, supplement, and amend my analyses based
`
`on new information and on my continuing review of the materials already
`
`provided.
`
`II. THE ’781 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`12. The claims of the ’781 Patent challenged in the Petition—independent
`
`claim 31 and dependent claim 32—recite a simple apparatus that uses a
`
`“speed/stopping distance lookup table” to determine whether to issue a warning to
`
`a driver that her vehicle is too close to another object (e.g., another vehicle).
`
`Figure 1 of the ’781 Patent, as annotated below, depicts this apparatus. As
`
`discussed herein, there is nothing new about it. Such proximity warning systems,
`
`including those using lookup tables, were well known in the art before the alleged
`
`invention. (Exs. 1005-1009.)
`
`4
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’781 Patent (Annotated)
`
`
`
`13. The ’781 Patent discloses that a lookup table provides “the
`
`relationship between the speed at which a vehicle is travelling and the distance
`
`which the vehicle will require to come to a complete stop if travelling at that
`
`speed.” (Ex. 1001, 6:63-67.) Such tables were not a creation of the inventors.
`
`Rather, the ’781 Patent discloses that the lookup tables are merely “based upon
`
`National Safety Council guidelines.” (Id., 6:60-63.) Further, as the ’781 Patent
`
`acknowledges (and commonsense dictates), it is “well known that the faster a
`
`vehicle travels, the longer it takes to stop” and that “[r]oad conditions may also
`
`play a role in determining the safe separation distances.” (Id., 1:53-65.)
`
`14. The apparatus of claim 31 uses a road speed sensor (18 above) to
`
`determine the speed of the vehicle and a radar detector (28 above) to determine the
`
`5
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`distance between the vehicle and an object in front of it (e.g., another vehicle).
`
`(Id., 6:7-14, 7:6-8.) The ’781 Patent then discloses that a processor determines
`
`whether “the vehicle is being operated unsafely if the speed of the vehicle is such
`
`that the stopping distance for the vehicle d [i.e., determined from the lookup table]
`
`is greater than the distance separating the vehicle from an object, for example, a
`
`second vehicle, in its path.” (Id., 9:4-8.) If so, an alarm is issued. (Id., Claim 31.)
`
`15. Claim 32, which depends from claim 31, adds that different
`
`speed/stopping distances can be used in the event of adverse weather, such as rain.
`
`The ’781 Patent discloses that a windshield wiper sensor can be used to indicate if
`
`the vehicle is being operated in “dry” or “wet” conditions. (Id., 9:29-44.) The
`
`’781 Patent states that if “the processor subsystem 12 concludes that the vehicle is
`
`being operated in dry conditions,” a first speed/stopping distance table may be
`
`used, and if “the processor subsystem 12 concludes that the vehicle is being
`
`operated in wet conditions,” a second speed/stopping distance table may be used.
`
`(Id., 9:35-44.)
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`16.
`
`I am informed that prior art references should be understood from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the patent is related,
`
`based on the understanding of that person at the time of the patent’s priority date. I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to be aware of all
`
`6
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`pertinent prior art and the conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of
`
`ordinary creativity.
`
`17.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the
`
`’781 Patent would have been someone with a good working knowledge of
`
`electrical engineering, including sensors, processing systems, and notification
`
`circuitry. The person would have gained this knowledge through an undergraduate
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering or a comparable field (e.g.,
`
`computer engineering), in combination with training or several years of related
`
`work experience with vehicular systems. The more education one has (e.g., post-
`
`graduate degrees), the less experience is needed to attain an ordinary level of skill.
`
`Likewise, more extensive experience in electrical engineering or a comparable
`
`field might substitute for certain educational requirements.
`
`18. My analyses set forth herein are from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above.
`
`C. Claim Interpretation
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review proceeding, claim terms
`
`should be given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
`
`specification. In my analysis below, I apply that standard to the words and phrases
`
`of the challenged claims, unless otherwise stated.
`
`7
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the claim construction standards that apply in court
`
`are different, and therefore that the proper construction of a term or phrase in court
`
`may differ from the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification.
`
`III. THE ELEMENTS IN CLAIMS 31-32 OF THE ‘781 PATENT ARE
`DISCLOSED IN THE PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`21.
`
`I have been asked to provide an analysis as to whether the elements of
`
`claims 31-32 of the ’781 Patent are disclosed in the prior art references identified
`
`as European Patent Application Publication No. 0 392 953 (Ex. 1005) (“Tresse”),
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,357,438 (Ex. 1006) (“Davidian”), PCT Publication No. WO
`
`91/07672 (Ex. 1007) (“Montague”), as well as to consider PCT Publication No.
`
`WO 96/02853 (Ex. 1009) (“Tonkin”) and European Patent Application
`
`Publication No. EP 0 549 909 (Ex. 1008) (“Kajiwata”).
`
`22. My analysis on the disclosure of these prior art references (in
`
`particular Tresse, Davidian, and Tonkin) relative to the elements of claims 31 and
`
`32 are provided below. However, the citations I have included are not intended to
`
`provide an exhaustive list, but rather to provide examples of how the references
`
`disclose or teach the elements of such claims.
`
`8
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Ground 1: European Patent Application Publication
`No. 0 392 953 (Tresse) (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`23.
`
`I have reviewed European Patent Application Publication No. 0 392
`
`953 (Tresse). I understand Tresse has a filing date of April 11, 1990, and
`
`published on October 17, 1990.
`
`24.
`
`Tresse discloses a microprogrammable anti-collision alarm control
`
`and aid for driving motor vehicles. (Ex. 1005, 3:2-3.)1 The anti-collision control
`
`and aid of Tresse includes a speed sensor (for sensing vehicle speed) and a radar
`
`(for determining the distance of the vehicle to an object), a microprocessor, and a
`
`memory, and operates as follows: “The unit compares as a priority, for a measured
`
`speed V, the value D of the distance measured with a reference distance Dr
`
`obtained from a reference table and considered to be a minimum safe distance…
`
`If this distance is positive, the advancement of the vehicle is deemed without
`
`danger and no alarm is generated. On the other hand, when this difference
`
`becomes negative, it is deemed that there is a risk of a collision and an alarm needs
`
`to be generated to warn the driver as to the imminent danger of a collision.” (Id.,
`
`4:11-29 (emphasis added).)
`
`
`1 All citations to Tresse herein are to the certified English translation.
`
`9
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Tresse Discloses the Elements of Independent Claim 31
`
`25. After reviewing Tresse and claim 31 of the ’781 Patent, my analysis
`
`shows that, as viewed from one of ordinary skill in the art, the elements of Claim
`
`31 of the ‘781 Patent are disclosed in Tresse.
`
`i.
`
`“[p] Apparatus for optimizing operation of a vehicle,
`comprising”
`
`
`26. Tresse discloses a “microprogrammable electronic anti-collision alarm
`
`control and aid for driving road motor vehicles.” (Ex. 1005, 3:2-3.) This
`
`apparatus optimizes the operation of a vehicle by providing “the driver when in
`
`traffic with… a visual numerical information provided by a display module MA,
`
`expressing in meters a positive or negative safety margin D-Dr existing between
`
`one’s vehicle and the one in front in regard to a minimum safe distance, combined
`
`with a simultaneous audible warning MS in the likelihood of a collision...” (Id.,
`
`3:36-4:2.)
`
`ii.
`
`“[a] a radar detector, said radar detector determining a
`distance separating a vehicle having an engine and an
`object in front of said vehicle”
`
`
`27. The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse includes a radar detector for
`
`determining the distance separating a vehicle with an engine from an object in
`
`front of it. Tresse discloses that a processing module (MT, as can be seen below)
`
`in the anti-collision apparatus “analyzes two variables in real time from the
`
`moment the vehicle starts, namely, the speed V of the vehicle itself, furnished by
`
`10
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`the onboard tachymeter, and the distance D measured from the vehicle in front…”
`
`(Ex. 1005, 4:7-10.) Tresse further discloses that “D” (or the vehicle separation
`
`distance) can be measured by “radar, or any similar measurement device able to
`
`permanently determine in real time the distance between two consecutive vehicles
`
`traveling in a line.” (Id., 4:14-17 (emphasis added).)
`
`(Id., Fig. 1.)
`
`iii.
`
`
`
`
`
`“[b] at least one sensor coupled to said vehicle for
`monitoring operation thereof, said at least one sensor
`including a road speed sensor”
`
`
`28. The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse includes a road speed sensor
`
`indicating the road or operating speed of the vehicle. Tresse discloses that the
`
`processing module (MT) in the anti-collision apparatus analyses “in real time from
`
`the moment the vehicle starts… the speed V of the vehicle itself, furnished by the
`
`onboard tachymeter…” (Ex. 1005, 4:7-9; see also id., Fig. 1, 6:11-12, 6:35-36.)
`
`11
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`iv.
`
`“[c] a processor subsystem, coupled to said radar
`detector and said at least one sensor, to receive data
`therefrom”
`
`
`29. The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse includes a processing module,
`
`coupled to the radar detector and the road speed sensor, to receive data therefrom.
`
`Tresse states that “[i]n order to allow the invention to retain its property of being
`
`adaptable for compliance with present or future regulations, the processing module
`
`was implemented through the use of a programmed software solution based on a
`
`CI8 microcontroller (consisting of a microprocessor, RAM, ROM, and
`
`input/output ports)…” (Ex. 1005, 8:20-23.)
`
`30. As discussed above, the separation distance (D) and vehicle speed (V)
`
`can be determined by, respectively, a radar and a tachymeter. Tresse discloses that
`
`the processing module (MT) receives this data. (Id., Figs. 1-2; see also id., 4:11-29
`
`(“The unit compares as a priority, for a measured speed V, the value D of the
`
`distance measured with a reference distance Dr obtained from a reference table and
`
`considered to be a minimum safe distance… The unit provides permanently and in
`
`numerical real time the numerical difference known as the D-Dr figure, provided
`
`that the presence of a vehicle is detected in front. If this difference is positive, the
`
`advancement of the vehicle is deemed without danger and no alarm is generated.
`
`On the other hand, when this difference becomes negative, it is deemed that there
`
`12
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`is a risk of a collision and an alarm needs to be generated to warn the driver as to
`
`the imminent danger of a collision.”), 8:9-10, 8:29-34, 10:30-34.)
`
`v.
`
`“[d] a memory subsystem, coupled to said processor
`subsystem, said memory subsystem storing a first
`vehicle speed/stopping distance table”
`
`
`31. Tresse discloses that the processing module includes a memory
`
`subsystem with a first vehicle speed/stopping distance table. As can be seen, the
`
`processing module (MT) of Tresse includes multiple memory subsystems,
`
`including a ROM and a RAM, which are coupled to the microprocessor therein.
`
`
`
`13
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex. 1005, Fig. 2; see also id., 8:20-23 (“In order to allow the invention to retain its
`
`property of being adaptable for compliance with present or future regulations, the
`
`processing module was implemented through the use of a programmed software
`
`solution based on a CI8 microcontroller (consisting of a microprocessor, RAM,
`
`ROM, and input/output ports).”).)
`
`32. Tresse also discloses that such memory subsystem stores a vehicle
`
`speed/stopping distance table. Tresse states that the processing module uses a
`
`reference table to determine, based on a vehicle’s speed, a safe stopping distance,
`
`and adds that this table can be stored in the ROM of the processing module, to
`
`adapt the system for different traffic rules and regulations. (Id., 4:11-13 (stating
`
`that the processing module compares “for a measured speed V, the value D of the
`
`distance measured with a reference distance Dr obtained from a reference table and
`
`considered to be a minimum safe distance…”), 4:18-19 (describing Dr as “a
`
`reference distance or minimum safe distance established according to the traffic
`
`rules or regulations as a function of the speed V…”), 8:23-27 (stating that “[a]ll of
`
`the above-mentioned coefficients and values can easily be modified during
`
`manufacture, through a simple modification of the table of constants in read-only
`
`memory (ROM), which in turn makes it possible to adapt the control unit and
`
`render compatible with the regulations and with the applicable standards, both
`
`present and future, in different countries”), 11:8-9 (“PRODUCTION OF Dr: …
`
`14
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`For this purpose, the table of reference distances is scanned, bearing in mind the
`
`speed information …”), Claim 1.)
`
`vi.
`
`“[e] a vehicle proximity alarm circuit coupled to said
`processor subsystem, said vehicle proximity alarm
`circuit issuing an alarm that said vehicle is too close to
`said object”
`
`
`33. The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse can issue one or more alarms
`
`when a vehicle is too close to an object, such as another vehicle. Tresse discloses
`
`that these alarms include both a visual alarm and an audible alarm: “A visual
`
`numerical alarm modulated as a function of the increasing risk of a collision and
`
`produced on the display module MA, by the progressive blinking of the numerical
`
`difference D-Dr indicator. The more the negative numerical difference D-Dr is
`
`increasing, the faster the rhythm of the blinking light will go… An audible alarm
`
`modulated as a function of the increasing risk of a collision and produced on a
`
`sound chip MS. The more the negative numerical difference D-Dr is increasing,
`
`the faster the generated audible signal will go...” (Ex. 1005, 4: 35-5:3.) Tresse
`
`also provides an external alarm interface AL that enables “the activation of alarms
`
`outside the control unit, such as light indicators, buzzers, voice messages, etc. may
`
`possibly control in case of an alarm, a system of display on the outside part of the
`
`vehicle.” (Id., 5:4-6; see also id., Figs. 1-2 (MA, MS, and IA/AL).)
`
`34. Tresse states that these alarms are activated by the processing module
`
`when it is determined that there is a risk of a collision. (Id., 4:11-29 (“The unit
`
`15
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`compares as a priority, for a measured speed V, the value D of the distance
`
`measured with a reference distance Dr obtained from a reference table and
`
`considered to be a minimum safe distance… The unit provides permanently and in
`
`numerical real time the numerical difference known as the D-Dr figure, provided
`
`that the presence of a vehicle is detected in front. If this difference is positive, the
`
`advancement of the vehicle is deemed without danger and no alarm is generated.
`
`On the other hand, when this difference becomes negative, it is deemed that there
`
`is a risk of a collision and an alarm needs to be generated to warn the driver as to
`
`the imminent danger of a collision.”); see also id., 11:12-25 (describing the
`
`“CALCULATION OF D-Dr” and the “ALARM MANAGEMENT.”).)
`
`vii.
`
`“[f] said processor subsystem determining whether to
`activate said vehicle proximity alarm circuit based upon
`separation distance data received from said radar
`detector, vehicle speed data received from said road
`speed sensor and said first vehicle speed/stopping
`distance table stored in said memory subsystem”
`
`
`35. Tresse discloses that the processing module in the anti-collision alarm
`
`apparatus determines when to activate the vehicle proximity alarm circuit based
`
`upon (1) separation distance data received from said radar detector, (2) vehicle
`
`speed data received from said road speed sensor, and (3) said first vehicle
`
`speed/stopping distance table stored in said memory subsystem.
`
`36. Tresse teaches that the processing module receives vehicle speed data
`
`(V), uses a first vehicle speed/stopping distance table to determine a minimum safe
`
`16
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`distance (Dr), and receives separation distance data (D) and compares it to the
`
`minimum safe distance in determine whether to issue an alarm. Specifically,
`
`Tresse states as follows:
`
`the present
`The microprogrammable electronic control of
`specification permanently analyzes two variables in real time from the
`moment the vehicle starts, namely, the speed V of the vehicle itself,
`furnished by the onboard tachymeter, and the distance D measured
`from the vehicle in front…
`
`The unit compares as a priority, for a measured speed V, the value D
`of the distance measured with a reference distance Dr obtained from a
`reference table and considered to be a minimum safe distance.
`
`
`- D designating the distance from the vehicle in front… as
`measured by an accessory onboard device, such as a telemetry
`unit, radar, or any other similar device able to permanently
`determine in real time the distance between two consecutive
`vehicles driving in a line.
`- Dr designating a reference distance or minimum safe distance
`established according to the traffic rules or regulations as a
`function of the speed V...
`- D-Dr resulting from the positive or negative difference of
`these two distances D and Dr.
`
`
`The unit provides permanently and in numerical real time the
`numerical difference known as the D-Dr figure, provided that the
`presence of a vehicle is detected in front. If this difference is positive,
`the advancement of the vehicle is deemed without danger and no
`alarm is generated. On the other hand, when this difference becomes
`negative, it is deemed that there is a risk of a collision and an alarm
`needs to be generated to warn the driver as to the imminent danger of
`a collision.
`
`(Ex 1005, 4:7-29, Figs. 1-2; see also id., 10:12-11:25, Fig. 3, Claim 1.)
`
`17
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Tresse, Alone or in Combination, Discloses the Elements of
`Dependent Claim 32
`
`37. After reviewing Tresse and claim 32 of the ’781 Patent, my analysis
`
`shows that, as viewed from one of ordinary skill in the art, the elements of claim
`
`32 of the ‘781 Patent are disclosed in Tresse alone, or as modified with the general
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill and/or the disclosures in Tonkin.
`
`i.
`
`“[p] Apparatus for optimizing operation of a vehicle
`according to claim 31 wherein”
`
`
`38. Tresse discloses an apparatus for optimizing the operation of a
`
`vehicle. See Paragraph 26 above.
`
`ii.
`
`“[a] said at least one sensor further includes a
`windshield wiper sensor for indicating whether a
`windshield wiper of said vehicle is activated”
`
`
`39. The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse includes a sensor for indicating
`
`whether a windshield wiper of the vehicle is activated. The processing module in
`
`Tresse receives a parameter (P) confirming the use of windshield wipers. (Ex.
`
`1005, 6:2-3 (“P: Which lets one automatically increase, from time to time, the
`
`minimum safe distance by a coefficient Cp greater than 1, once the windshield
`
`wipers are placed in operation.”), 7:26-30 (“P, G and B: Binary signals that allow
`
`the processing module to make corrections in the safety distance. These signals,
`
`which are not limited to the examples mentioned, are set through the MIF module,
`
`either manually by the driver or automatically when one of the vehicle accessories
`
`18
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`(such as the windshield wipers, the snow or black-ice detection switch, or the rear
`
`fog light) is actuated.”); see also id., Figs. 1-2, Claim 4.)
`
`iii.
`
`“[b] said memory subsystem further storing a second
`vehicle speed/stopping distance table”
`
`
`40. The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse uses additional vehicle
`
`speed/stopping distance data under certain conditions. For example, in the event of
`
`rain or wet weather, the threshold safe stopping distance is increased by a
`
`predetermined value. (Ex. 1005, 5:8-10, 5:32-33, 4:18-20, 11:6-10.) Tresse
`
`discloses, in particular, that a coefficient, Cp, can be stored in memory and used to
`
`adapt the reference table when the windshield wipers are in operation. (Id., 6:2-3,
`
`7:26-30, Claim 4, 8:23-27, 12:29-31.) Further, the safe stopping distance, as
`
`modified by such coefficient, would also necessarily be stored in memory, so that
`
`it can be used for comparative purposes.
`
`41. Moreover, using a “second” speed/stopping distance table, in addition
`
`to a “first” speed/stopping distance table, would have been within the general
`
`knowledge of ordinary skill and is also disclosed by Tonkin.
`
`42. The ’781 Patent admits that it was “well known that the faster a
`
`vehicle travels, the longer it takes to stop,” that “greater separation distances are
`
`generally recommended when roads are wet,” and that “the speed/stopping
`
`distance table(s) are based on National Safety Council guidelines.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:52-65, 6:60-63.) Similarly, Tresse teaches one to “increase, from time to time,
`
`19
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`the minimum safe distance by a coefficient Cp greater than 1, once the windshield
`
`wipers are placed in operation.” (Ex. 1005, 6:2-3.)
`
`43. Modifying Tresse to use a “second” table (rather than a coefficient)
`
`would have been well within the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. It would have been a trivial modification for one of ordinary skill to duplicate
`
`the “first” lookup table and modify each value therein by the coefficient (or
`
`predetermined value) disclosed in Tresse, which Tresse used to take into account
`
`wet conditions. This would have been a known alternative and simple variation to
`
`using such coefficient to modify the stopping distance from the “first” lookup table
`
`each time “wet” conditions are detected.
`
`44. Further, Tonkin discloses a vehicle safety (or anti-collision) system
`
`that can use multiple lookup tables. (Ex. 1009, 16:2-21 (disclosing a lookup table
`
`based on vehicle velocity), 17:6-25 (disclosing a lookup table based on relative
`
`velocity), 19:25-27 (disclosing using a “database of look-up tables”).) Tonkin also
`
`teaches that “safe stopping distances can be adjusted for prevailing weather
`
`conditions, again by providing stored values according to weather and possibly for
`
`different severities of poor weather.” (Id., 18:16-19.) As both Tresse and Tonkin
`
`relate to vehicle proximity warning systems that take into account road conditions,
`
`one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Tonkin
`
`20
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`to the anti-collision apparatus of Tresse and use a “second” table rather than a
`
`coefficient.
`
`iv.
`
`“[c] if said windshield wiper sensor indicates that said
`windshield wiper is deactivated, said processor
`subsystem determining whether to activate said vehicle
`proximity alarm circuit based upon data received from
`said radar detector, said road speed sensor and said first
`vehicle speed/stopping distance table stored in said
`memory subsystem”
`
`
`45. Tresse discloses that if the windshield wiper is not in operation, the
`
`processing module will determine whether to activate the vehicle proximity alarm
`
`circuit based upon (1) separation distance data received from said radar detector,
`
`(2) vehicle speed data received from said road speed sensor, and (3) said first
`
`vehicle speed/stopping distance table stored in said memory subsystem. See
`
`Paragraphs 35-36, 39-44 above. (See also Ex. 1005, 4:18-20, 6:2-3.)
`
`v.
`
`“[d] if said windshield wiper sensor indicates that said
`windshield wiper is activated, said processor subsystem
`determining whether to activate said vehicle proximity
`alarm circuit based upon data received from said radar
`detector, said road speed sensor and said second vehicle
`speed/stopping distance table stored in said memory
`subsystem”
`
`
`46. Tresse discloses that if the windshield wiper sensor is activated, the
`
`processing module will determine whether to activate the proximity alarm circuit
`
`based upon (1) separation distance data received from said radar detector, (2)
`
`21
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`vehicle speed data received from said road speed sensor, and (3) said second
`
`vehicle speed/stopping distance table stored in said memory subsystem.
`
`Tresse provides that in the event of rain or wet weather, the minimum safe
`
`stopping distance may be increased by a predetermined value to account for the
`
`rain or wet weather, and that suc