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.
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01247
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,954,781
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.100 et seq.
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioner:
`Celine Jimenez Crowson (Reg. No. 40,357)
`Raymond A. Kurz (pro hac vice motion to be filed)
`Joseph J. Raffetto (Reg. No. 66,218)
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`555 13th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: 202.637.5600
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 3
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 3
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 4
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 4
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID ............................................................................. 5
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ............................. 5
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .............................................................. 5
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’781 PATENT .... 6
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 8
`VIII. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`OF CLAIMS 31 AND 32 .............................................................................10
`A. Ground 1: Claims 31-32 Are Anticipated or Rendered Obvious By
`European Patent Application Publication No. 0 392 953 (Tresse)
`(Ex. 1005) ............................................................................................10
`1.
`Tresse Anticipates Independent Claim 31 ................................11
`2.
`Tresse Anticipates or, in the Alternative, Renders Obvious
`Dependent Claim 32 .................................................................20
`B. Ground 2: Claims 31-32 Are Anticipated or Rendered Obvious By
`U.S. Patent No. 5,357,438 (Davidian) (Ex. 1006) ..............................27
`1.
`Davidian Anticipates Independent Claim 31 ............................28
`2.
`Davidian Renders Obvious Dependent Claim 32 .....................37
`C. Ground 3: Claims 31-32 Are Anticipated or Rendered Obvious By
`PCT Publication No. WO 91/07672 (Montague) (Ex. 1007) .............43
`1. Montague Anticipates Independent Claim 31 ..........................43
`2. Montague Renders Obvious Dependent Claim 32 ...................49
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 55
`APPENDIX A TABLE OF EXHIBITS ............................................................ A-1
`APPENDIX B CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................. B-1
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,954,781 (the “’781 Patent”) challenged
`
`herein—independent claim 31 and dependent claim 32—recite an apparatus that
`
`uses a “speed/stopping distance lookup table” to determine whether to issue a
`
`warning to a driver of a vehicle. The table provides “the relationship between the
`
`speed at which a vehicle is traveling and the distance which the vehicle will require
`
`to come to a complete stop if travelling at that speed.” (Ex. 1001, 6:60-66.) The
`
`apparatus of claim 31 determines the speed of the vehicle and the distance between
`
`the vehicle and an object in front of it (e.g., another vehicle), and then, using the
`
`lookup table, issues a “vehicle proximity alarm” if this object is too close. Claim
`
`32 (which depends from claim 31) adds that different speed/stopping distances can
`
`be used in the event of adverse weather.
`
`There is nothing new about the alleged invention recited in claims 31 and
`
`32. The inventors themselves conceded that a simple “lookup” table correlating
`
`vehicle speed and stopping distance was known. The ’781 Patent states that “[i]t 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.) The ’781 Patent adds that the “lookup” tables are
`
`merely “based upon National Safety Council guidelines.” (Id., 6:60-62.)
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`The prior art confirms this. The art is replete with using vehicle speed to
`
`determine a safe stopping distance, and then issuing a warning to a driver if her
`
`vehicle is closer than that distance. The following references, which are detailed in
`
`this Petition, are examples of such art: (1) European Patent Application Publication
`
`No. 0 392 953 (“Tresse”) (Ex. 1005); (2) U.S. Patent No. 5,357,438 (“Davidian”)
`
`(Ex. 1006); and (3) PCT Publication No. WO 91/07672 (“Montague”) (Ex. 1007).
`
`Davidian granted as a patent in 1994, before the ’781 Patent was even filed, and
`
`Montague and Tresse claim priority to patent applications even before that, in the
`
`1980s.
`
`Tresse, Davidian, and Montague were not considered during the prosecution
`
`of the ’781 Patent. Each reference discloses a vehicle proximity warning system
`
`that uses a “lookup” table in determining whether to issue a warning:
`
`• Tresse: Ex. 1005, 3:30-32 (“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.”);
`
`• Davidian: Ex. 1006, 9:20-27 (“Computer module 90 also includes
`
`information about the vehicle braking distances as a function of speed. This
`
`is preferably in the form of a look-up table…”); and
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`• Montague: Ex. 1007, 17:23-18:4 (“[T]he comparison between the vehicle
`
`speed and the distance from the source transmitter is effected… using look
`
`up tables. The look up table contains a series of associated threshold values.
`
`If the comparison between the instantaneous vehicle speed and the
`
`determined distance between the source transmitter and the vehicle indicates
`
`that the instantaneous distance is less than the threshold required for that
`
`speed a visual and/or audible warning is given...”).
`
`Moreover, as to claim 32, each reference contemplates using a different “safe”
`
`stopping distance in the event of adverse weather, such as rain. (Ex. 1005 (Tresse),
`
`6:2-3, 7:26-30; Ex. 1006 (Davidian), 8:58-9:27; Ex. 1007 (Montague), 14:20-15:4.)
`
`For these reasons, and as detailed below, claims 31 and 32 of the ’781 Patent
`
`should be cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business located at 1 Mercedes Drive, Montvale, New Jersey
`
`07645, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., an Alabama corporation with
`
`its principal place of business located at 1 Mercedes Drive, Vance, Alabama
`
`35490, are real parties-in-interest (together, “Mercedes” or “Petitioner”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’781 Patent has been asserted in the following cases:
`
`Case No.
`
`1:2013-cv-08413
`
`1:2013-cv-08416
`
`1:2013-cv-08418
`
`1:2013-cv-08419
`1:2013-cv-08421
`
`Defendants
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and
`Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.
`BMW of North America, LLC and
`BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC
`Audi of America, Inc. and
`Audi of America, LLC
`Chrysler Group, LLC
`Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
`
`Jurisdiction
`N.D. Ill.
`
`N.D. Ill.
`
`N.D. Ill.
`
`N.D. Ill.
`N.D. Ill.
`
`The ’781 Patent is also the subject of an ex parte reexamination proceeding,
`
`which was ordered on June 27, 2014 and has been assigned reexamination control
`
`no. 90/013, 252.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead counsel is Celine Jimenez Crowson (Reg. No. 40,357). Backup
`
`
`
`
`counsel are Raymond A. Kurz (pro hac vice motion to be filed) and Joseph J.
`
`Raffetto (Reg. No. 66,218).
`
`
`
`Service information for Petitioner in this matter is as follows:
`
`Post and
`Hand Delivery
`
`Email
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`555 13th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`celine.crowson@hoganlovells.com
`raymond.kurz@hoganlovells.com
`joseph.raffetto@hoganlovells.com
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Telephone No.
`Facsimile No.
`
`202.637.5600
`202.637.5910
`
`
`
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID
`
`Fees are submitted herewith. If any additional fees are due at any time
`
`during the inter partes review proceedings, the undersigned authorizes the Office
`
`to charge such fees to Deposit Account No. 50-1349.
`
`
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’781 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`of the claims of the ’781 Patent. This Petition is being filed within one year of
`
`Petitioner being served with a complaint for infringement.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`The relief requested is cancellation of the challenged claims, as follows:
`
`Ground
`No.
`
`Reference
`
`Claims Basis
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. 0 392 953
`(Tresse), alone or in view of the general knowledge of
`one of ordinary skill or PCT Publication No. 96/02853
`(“Tonkin”) (Ex. 1009)
`PCT Publication No. WO 91/07672 (Montague),
`alone or in view of the general knowledge of one of
`ordinary skill, European Patent Application Publication
`No. 0 549 909 (“Kajiwata”) (Ex. 1008), and/or Tonkin
`U.S. Patent No. 5,357,458 (Davidian),
`
`31-32 §§ 102
`and 103
`
`31-32 §§ 102
`and 103
`
`31-32 §§ 102
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`alone or in view of the general knowledge of one of
`ordinary skill, Kajiwata, and/or Tonkin
`
`and 103
`
`
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’781 PATENT
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Background on the ’781 Patent
`
`The ’781 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 08/813,270, filed
`
`on March 10, 1997. The ’781 Patent has little prosecution history. The Examiner
`
`issued a single Office Action, mailed August 6, 1998, rejecting original claims 18
`
`and 19 as being unpatentable over Chasteen (U.S. Patent No. 4,901,701) (Ex.
`
`1003) in view of Doi (U.S. Patent No. 5,708,584) (Ex. 1004). (Ex. 1002, 70-71.)
`
`The applicant, in response, added new claims 37 and 38—which,
`
`respectively, issued as claims 31 and 32—and stated that these claims were
`
`“closely related” to original claims 18 and 19. (Id., 89.) The applicant urged that
`
`claim 37 was distinguishable from the prior art because Doi used “changes in the
`
`distance separating the vehicle and forward object” in determining when to activate
`
`an alarm, whereas the applicant’s alleged invention used, among other things, a
`
`“vehicle speed/stopping distance table.” 1 (Id., 89-90.) As to claim 38, the
`
`
`1 Although claim 18 and claim 37 (i.e., issued claim 31) were largely identical, the
`
`applicant did revise claim 37 to expressly recite that the vehicle speed/stopping
`
`distance table was used in determining when to issue the alarm. (Ex. 1002,
`
`compare 40 (claim 18) with 86 (claim 37).)
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`applicant further urged that the prior art did not disclose using a sensor to “classify
`
`road conditions as either ‘dry’ or ‘wet’,” and then, based on this data, using a first
`
`speed/stopping distance table if “the road is dry” and a second speed/stopping
`
`distance table if “the road is wet.” 2 (Id., 90.)
`
`The Examiner then issued a Notice of Allowability, allowing claims 37 and
`
`38. (Id., 93-96.) The Examiner stated in his “Reasons for Allowance” (in relevant
`
`part) that the prior art did not disclose that “the processor subsystem determines
`
`whether to activate the vehicle proximity alarm circuit based upon separation
`
`distance data received from the radar detector, vehicle speed/stopping distance
`
`table stored in the memory subsystem [sic].” (Id., 95.) As discussed herein,
`
`however, Tresse, Davidian, and Montague—references not considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution—each disclose these features. And, as the inventors
`
`themselves admitted, determining a safe stopping distance based on vehicle speed
`
`was already “well known.” (Ex. 1001, 1:52-65.)
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Claim 19 and Claim 38 (i.e., issued claim 32) were also substantially similar.
`
`The only revisions to claim 38 were to confirm that the “first” table was used if the
`
`sensor was deactivated and the “second” table used if the sensor was activated.
`
`(Ex. 1002, compare 40 (claim 19) with 86-87 (claim 38).)
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`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. (See Ex. 1010 at ¶ 17.)
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In this proceeding, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner’s
`
`position regarding claim scope is not to be taken as a concession regarding the
`
`appropriate scope to be given to the below or any other claim terms in a court or
`
`other adjudicative body having different claim interpretation standards.
`
`A.
`
`“road speed sensor” (Claim 31)
`
`The ’781 Patent discloses that sensors can be either state sensors (i.e., on or
`
`off) or level sensors (e.g., 35 mph, 36 mph, 37 mph, etc.) and, in particular, states
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`that the “road speed sensor” is a level sensor that provides a signal “which
`
`indicate[s] the operating speed… for the vehicle.” (Ex. 1001, 6:4-10.) The ’781
`
`Patent discloses that the “road speed sensor” can obtain information indicating
`
`vehicle speed from any number of sources, including, for example, the vehicle’s
`
`speedometer. (Id., 6:10-14.)
`
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, “road speed sensor”
`
`should therefore be construed to mean “a sensor that provides a signal that
`
`indicates the operating speed of the vehicle.”
`
`B.
`
`“vehicle speed/stopping distance table” (Claims 31 and 32)
`
`The ’781 Patent states that the “vehicle speed/stopping distance table” is a
`
`table that 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.) The ’781 Patent discloses
`
`that this table is “based upon National Safety Council guidelines,” and can “vary
`
`according to the class of the vehicle.” (Id., 6:60-63.) The ’781 Patent adds that
`
`this table is stored in memory, and that the processor subsystem uses this
`
`information to determine if “the stopping distance for the vehicle d is greater than
`
`the distance separating the vehicle from an object” (and therefore the vehicle is
`
`being operated unsafely). (Id., 6:43-53, 9:4-13.)
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, “vehicle
`
`speed/stopping distance table” should therefore be construed to mean “one or more
`
`lookup values stored in memory relating the distance required to stop a vehicle to
`
`at least the speed that the vehicle is traveling.”
`
`VIII. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`OF CLAIMS 31 AND 32
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 31-32 Are Anticipated or Rendered Obvious By
`European Patent Application Publication
`No. 0 392 953 (Tresse) (Ex. 1005)
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. 0 392 953 (Tresse) has a filing
`
`date of April 11, 1990, and published on October 17, 1990. Tresse is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Tresse discloses a microprogrammable anti-collision
`
`alarm control and aid for driving motor vehicles. (Ex. 1005, 3:2-3.)3 The anti-
`
`collision control and aid of Tresse includes a speed sensor, a radar detector, 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
`
`
`3 All citations to Tresse herein are to the certified English translation.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`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).)
`
`Tresse Anticipates Independent Claim 31
`
`1.
`
`Claim 31[p]: “Apparatus for optimizing operation of a vehicle, comprising:”
`
`
`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 the 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 MS audible warning in the likelihood of a collision...” (Id.,
`
`3:36-4:2; see also Ex. 1010 at ¶ 26.)
`
`Claim 31[a]: “a radar detector, said radar detector determining a distance
`separating a vehicle having an engine and an object in front of said vehicle”
`
`
`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. (See, e.g., Ex. 1010 ¶ 27.) Tresse discloses that a processing module in
`
`the anti-collision apparatus (MT) “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…”
`
`(Ex. 1005, 4:7-10.)
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 1.) Tresse further discloses that “D” (or the vehicle separation distance)
`
`can be measured by “radar, or any similar device able to permanently determine in
`
`real time the distance between two consecutive vehicles traveling in a line.” (Id.,
`
`4:14-17 (emphasis added).)
`
`Claim 31[b]: “at least one sensor coupled to said vehicle for monitoring
`operation thereof, said at least one sensor including a road speed sensor”
`
`The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse further includes a road speed sensor
`
`indicating the road or operating speed of the vehicle. (See, e.g., Ex. 1010 at ¶ 28.)
`
`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.)
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 31[c]: “a processor subsystem, coupled to said radar detector and said at
`least one sensor, to receive data therefrom”
`
`Tresse discloses a processing module, coupled to the radar detector and the
`
`road speed sensor, to receive data therefrom. (See, e.g., Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 29-30.)
`
`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.)
`
`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 separation distance (D) and vehicle speed (V), as
`
`can be seen in Figure 1 above and as also shown in Figure 2:
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 2.)
`
`Tresse then discloses that 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
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`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; see also id., 8:9-10, 8:29-34, 10:30-34.)
`
`Claim 31[d]: “a memory subsystem, coupled to said processor subsystem, said
`memory subsystem storing a first vehicle speed/stopping distance table”
`
`Tresse discloses that the processing module includes a memory subsystem
`
`with a first vehicle speed/stopping distance table. (See, e.g., Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 31-32.)
`
`As can be seen in Figure 2 of Tresse, the processing module (MT) of Tresse
`
`includes multiple memory subsystems, including a ROM and a RAM, which are
`
`coupled to the microprocessor therein. (Ex. 1005, Fig. 2; see also id., 8:20-23
`
`(“[T]he 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).”).)
`
`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 a safe stopping distance based on a vehicle’s speed,
`
`allowing the system to adapt for different traffic rules and regulations, and adds
`
`that this table can be stored in the ROM of the processing module. (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
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`“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: …
`
`For this purpose, the table of reference distances is scanned, bearing in mind the
`
`speed information…”), Claim 1.)
`
`Claim 31[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”
`
`The apparatus of Tresse can issue one or more alarms when a vehicle is too
`
`close to an object, such as another vehicle. (See, e.g., Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 33-34.)
`
`Tresse discloses that these alarms include both a visual and an audible alarm:
`
`“The alarm is presented in different forms and one distinguishes: 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
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`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.) Such alarms (MA, MS, and IA/AL) can
`
`be seen in Figure 2 of Tresse.
`
`Tresse states that these alarms are activated by the processing module when
`
`it is determined that there is a risk of a collision. For example, Tresse discloses
`
`that:
`
`“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 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; see also id., 11:12-25 (describing the “CALCULATION OF D-Dr”
`
`and the “ALARM MANAGEMENT”).)
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 31[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.”
`
`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. (See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1010 at ¶¶ 35-36.)
`
`Tresse discloses 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.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`- Dr designating a reference distance or minimum safe distance
`established according to the traffic rules or regulations as a
`function of the speed V and with the various parameter
`coefficient, which are activated depending on the circumstances.
`- 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.”
`
`(Id., 4:7-29; see also id., Figs. 1-2.)
`
`Tresse also contains descriptions of the control unit (or processing module)
`
`software. In connection therewith, the specification of Tresse describes how D and
`
`V are measured, how Dr is produced, how D-Dr is calculated, and how the alarms
`
`are managed, with Figure 3 of Tresse providing a flowchart illustrating such
`
`processing. (Id., 10:12-11:25, Fig. 3; see also id., Claim 1.)
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 3.)
`
`2.
`
`Tresse Anticipates or, in the Alternative, Renders Obvious
`Dependent Claim 32
`
`Claim 32[p]: “Apparatus for optimizing operation of a vehicle according to
`claim 31 wherein”
`
`Tresse discloses an apparatus for optimizing operation of a vehicle
`
`according to claim 31. See, e.g., Section VIII(A) at Claim 31[p] above.
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 32[a]: “said at least one sensor further includes a windshield wiper sensor
`for indicating whether a windshield wiper of said vehicle is activated”
`
`Tresse includes a sensor for indicating whether a windshield wiper of the
`
`vehicle is activated. (See, e.g., Ex. 1010 at ¶ 39.) The processing module in Tresse
`
`receives a parameter (P) confirming the use of windshield wipers. This parameter
`
`(P), indicating that the windshield wipers are activated, is used by the processing
`
`module to make corrections to the safe stopping distance. (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 (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.)
`
`Claim 32[b]: “said memory subsystem further storing a second vehicle
`speed/stopping distance table”
`
`Tresse discloses storing a second vehicle speed/stopping distance table. (Ex.
`
`1010, at ¶ 40.) Tresse states that the processing module, when determining Dr (the
`
`minimum safety distance), can take into account, “besides the primary parameters
`
`of V and D, also auxiliary calibration parameters, which can be internal or
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`external.” (Ex. 1005, 5:8-10.) Tresse also states that these parameters “make it
`
`possible to adapt the reference table of safe distances,” and adds that the “External
`
`Parameters” can include “the weather conditions in which the vehicle finds itself.”
`
`(Id., 5:32-33; see also id., 4:18-20, 11:6-10.)
`
`Tresse discloses 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
`
`(“P: Which lets one increase, from time to time, the minimum safe distance by a
`
`coefficient Cp greater than 1, once the windshield wipers are placed in
`
`operation.”); see also id., 7:26-30, Claim 4.)
`
`Tresse discloses that this coefficient Cp would be stored in the ROM (or
`
`memory subsystem) of the processing module. (Id., 8:23-27 (“[A]ll of the above-
`
`mentioned coefficients and values can easily be modified during manufacture,
`
`through a simple modification of the table of constants stored 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.”); see also id., 12:29-31.) Further, the safe stopping
`
`distance, as modified by such value, would also necessarily be stored in memory,
`
`such that it can be used for comparative purposes. (Ex. 1010, at ¶ 40.)
`
`Patent Owner may contend that Tresse does not disclose a “second”
`
`speed/stopping distance table. Such a contention is contradicted by the broadest
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`reasonable interpretation of this element, in view of the intrinsic r