`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`EMPIRE IP LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent 7,389,198
` ____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF P. STUCKEY MCINTOSH
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 1
`
`
`
`I, P. Stuckey McIntosh, hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND EDUCATION
`1.
`I am currently CEO of Recon Aeronautics, LLC.
`
`2.
`
`I received my bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the
`
`Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia and studied computer
`
`networks at the MIT Professional Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.
`
`3.
`
`I have over thirty years’ experience as a circuit designer, systems
`
`engineer and product architect in the areas of analog and RF design, target
`
`acquisition and fire control radar using monopulse and FM-CW techniques, direct
`
`sequence and frequency hopping spread spectrum radio communications systems
`
`including receivers, transmitters and antennas, digital communications systems
`
`employing time division duplex (TDD) methods and mixed-signal application-
`
`specific integrated circuits (ASICs).
`
`4.
`
`I hold ten US patents in the areas of spread spectrum radio and digital
`
`wireless communications.
`
`5.
`
`In the area of vehicle-safety technologies, I have a pending US patent
`
`application for a passive vehicle location-sensing and collision-prediction system.
`
`6. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 2
`
`
`
`II. ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`7.
`
`I submit this declaration to offer my independent expert opinion in
`
`support of this petition for inter partes review (“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,389,198 (“the ‘198 patent”). My compensation is not based on the substance of
`
`the opinions rendered here. As part of my work in connection with this matter, I
`
`have studied the ‘198 patent [Exhibit 1001], including the respective written
`
`descriptions, figures, claims, and file history [Exhibit 1002]. In addition, I have
`
`reviewed the Petition and have also considered the following prior art references:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,720,920 to Breed et al., which was filed on April 9, 2002
`and issued on April 13, 2004 (“Breed”) [Exhibit 1003]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,959,970 to Tseng et al., which was filed on March 18,
`2004 and issued on November 1, 2005 (“Tseng”) [Exhibit 1004]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,163,277 to Gehlot, which was filed on October 22,
`1998 and issued on December 9, 2000 (“Gehlot”) [Exhibit 1005]
`
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘198 PATENT
`8.
`
`This overview is not meant to describe my full understanding of the
`
`‘198 Patent, but is only used to generally describe the relevant functionalities of
`
`the ‘198 Patent.
`
`9.
`
`I have been informed that the filing date of the ‘198 Patent is February
`
`20, 2007. I have been further informed that the patentee claims priority to earlier
`
`filed provisional applications, dated June 26, 2006 and October 18, 2006. I
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 3
`
`
`
`understand that all three prior art references listed above predate these three filings
`
`and qualify as prior art regardless of priority claim.
`
`10. Generally speaking, the ‘198 Patent describes a vehicle speed
`
`monitoring system that generates alerts and other outputs when a speed limit is
`
`exceeded. See Ex. 1001, ‘198 Patent at Abstract. Fig. 1 of the ‘198 Patent
`
`illustrates the basic architecture disclosed for implementing the described system:
`
`
`
`11. Relevant to my opinions concerning obviousness, the ‘198 Patent
`
`teaches a “transmit and receive apparatus” (labeled 20 in FIG. 1) disposed in a
`
`vehicle and configured to detect the vehicle speed relative to a stationary roadway
`
`marker. Id. at 1:64-2:26 and claim 1. The only disclosed specific embodiment of
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 4
`
`
`
`the “transmit and receive apparatus” is a radar transceiver that emits a radar signal
`
`toward a roadway marker and that processes the returned signal to calculate the
`
`vehicle’s speed relative to the roadway marker. Id. at 1:67-2:4.
`
`IV. STATE OF THE RELEVANT ART IN 2006
`
`12. As of 2006, police speed guns based on continuous-wave (CW)
`
`Doppler radar had been in use for 57 years (since 1949). By 2006, Doppler radar
`
`guns had largely been supplanted by more accurately aimable LIDAR guns using
`
`pulsed IR in the 900 nm range. GPS had been active since 1995, and was
`
`enhanced to approximately 1 meter accuracy within the continental United States
`
`with the activation of the satellite-based Wide Area Augmentation System
`
`(WAAS) in 2003. Active and passive RFID transponders were in widespread use,
`
`the technology dating back to the 1970s with first RFID patents filed in the 1980s.
`
`13. Additionally, numerous advancements related to the U.S. Department
`
`of Transportation’s Intelligent Vehicles Highway System (IVHS) had been made
`
`by 2006. One particularly relevant advancement is described in U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,506,584 (“the ‘584 Patent”) (attached as Appendix B), which issued on April 9,
`
`1996 to Sol Boles of Northrup Grumman Corp. The ‘584 Patent describes roadside
`
`markers that utilize radar sensors to detect the range and velocity of passing
`
`vehicles. See ‘584 Patent at 2:48-3:9.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 5
`
`
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`14.
`
`I am a technical expert, and do not offer any legal opinions. But from
`
`my discussions with counsel, I have been informed of the framework applied for
`
`determining invalidity and related matters. I applied this framework in developing
`
`my technical opinions expressed in this declaration.
`
`A. Anticipation
`15.
`I have been informed by counsel and understand that a patent claim is
`
`invalid on the basis of anticipation (under 35 U.S.C. § 102) if a single prior art
`
`reference discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of the patent
`
`claim. I have been informed that a limitation is said to be inherently disclosed if
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would read the reference and understand that the
`
`limitation is necessarily present in the reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`16.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is not
`
`patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the patent claim and
`
`the prior art are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the claimed invention was made to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. Obviousness, as I have been
`
`informed, is based on the scope and content of the prior art, the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and, to the
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 6
`
`
`
`extent that they exist and have an appropriate nexus to the claimed invention (as
`
`opposed to prior art features), secondary indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that whether there are any relevant differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention is to be analyzed from the view of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. As such, my
`
`opinions below as to a person of ordinary skill in the art are as of the time of the
`
`invention, even if not expressly stated as such; for example, even if stated in the
`
`present tense.
`
`18.
`
`In analyzing the relevance of the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art, I have been informed that I must consider the impact, if
`
`any, of such differences on the obviousness or non-obviousness of the invention as
`
`a whole, not merely some portion of it. The person of ordinary skill faced with a
`
`problem is able to apply his or her experience and ability to solve the problem and
`
`also look to any available prior art to help solve the problem.
`
`19. An invention is obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art, facing
`
`the wide range of needs created by developments in the field, would have seen an
`
`obvious benefit to the solutions tried by the applicant. When there is a design need
`
`or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to try the
`
`known options. If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 7
`
`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in
`
`the same way, using the technique would have been obvious.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that a precise teaching in the prior art directed to
`
`the subject matter of the claimed invention is not needed. I have been informed that
`
`one may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have employed in reviewing the prior art at the time
`
`of the invention. For example, if the claimed invention combined elements known
`
`in the prior art and the combination yielded results that were predictable to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, then this evidence
`
`would make it more likely that the claim was obvious. On the other hand, if the
`
`combination of known elements yielded unexpected or unpredictable results, or if
`
`the prior art teaches away from combining the known elements, then this evidence
`
`would make it more likely that the claim that successfully combined those
`
`elements was not obvious.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that hindsight must not be used when comparing
`
`the prior art to the invention for obviousness.
`
`22. Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating that it would have
`
`been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to create the
`
`subject matter of the patent claim. Obviousness may be shown by showing that it
`
`would have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of prior
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 8
`
`
`
`art. In determining whether a piece of prior art could have been combined with
`
`other prior art or combined with or modified in view of other information within
`
`the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, the following are examples of
`
`approaches and rationales that may be considered:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`23.
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`Applying a technique or approach that would have been "obvious to
`try" (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`with a reasonable expectation of success);
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`invention.
`I have been informed that the rationale for modifying a reference
`
`and/or combining references may come from sources such as explicit statements in
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 9
`
`
`
`the prior art, or the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, including any
`
`need or problem known in the field at the time, even if different from the specific
`
`need or problem addressed by the inventor of the patent claim.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider "secondary
`
`considerations" if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an
`
`invention would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which
`
`include: (a) commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed
`
`invention; (b) a long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of
`
`others to find the solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the
`
`invention; (f) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of
`
`independent simultaneous invention within a comparatively short space of time;
`
`(h) teaching away from the invention in the prior art.
`
`25.
`
`I have been
`
`informed and further understand
`
`that secondary
`
`considerations evidence is only relevant if the offering party establishes a
`
`connection, or nexus, between the evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus
`
`cannot be to prior art features. The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that the first step in an invalidity analysis
`
`involves construing the claims, as necessary, to determine their scope. And,
`
`second, the construed claim language is then compared to the disclosure of the
`
`prior art. In proceedings before the USPTO, I have been informed that the claims
`
`of an unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`view of the specification from the perspective of one skilled in the art. I have been
`
`informed that the ‘198 Patent has not expired. In comparing the claims of the ‘198
`
`Patent to the known prior art, I have carefully considered the ‘198 Patent and the
`
`‘198 Patent prosecution history based upon my experience and knowledge in the
`
`relevant field. For purposes of this proceeding, I have applied the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claim terms of the ‘198 Patent that is generally
`
`consistent with the terms’ ordinary and customary meaning, as one skilled in the
`
`relevant field would have understood them. Because I have been informed that the
`
`claim construction standard in this proceeding differs from that used in U.S.
`
`district court litigation, nothing herein should be taken as an indication that I
`
`consider these constructions to control in a district court setting.
`
`VI. OPINIONS
`A. Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`27.
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art of the ‘198 Patent at the time of the claimed invention, I considered
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 11
`
`
`
`several factors, including the type of problems encountered in the art, the solutions
`
`to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made in the field, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the education level of active workers in the
`
`field. I also placed myself back in the timeframe of the claimed invention, and
`
`considered the persons with whom I had worked at that time. In my view, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in 2006 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 electromagnetic transceivers.
`
`28. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the
`
`field of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. I have technically
`
`supervised or worked with such individuals in the relevant timeframe and I,
`
`myself, also met at least these minimum qualifications in this relevant timeframe.
`
`B. Opinions Concerning “Date And Time Apparatus”
`29.
`I have been asked to consider whether the “date and time apparatus”
`
`required by all challenged claims of the ‘198 Patent is disclosed, whether expressly
`
`or inherently, by the references discussed below (Breed and Gehlot). Independent
`
`claim 1 of the ‘198 Patent recites a “date and time apparatus” that is “in
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 12
`
`
`
`communication” with various other components of the claimed speed monitoring
`
`system. See generally Ex. 1001, ‘198 Patent at claim 1. Because the ‘198 Patent
`
`claims do not require any particular structure or any particular use of the “date and
`
`time apparatus,” I reviewed the specification to attempt to ascertain what the
`
`patentee might have intended by this claim language. The ‘198 Patent describes a
`
`“date and time apparatus” used to monitor the duration over which a vehicle
`
`exceeds the legal speed limit. Id. at 2:39-42 (“An alert may be signaled to the
`
`vehicle 16 driver and the amount of time the vehicle 16 is in the over speed
`
`condition may be monitored by the date and time apparatus 32.”) (emphasis
`
`added). No other uses of the “date and time apparatus” are described by the ‘198
`
`Patent. With regard to the specific structure of the “date and time apparatus,” the
`
`‘198 Patent notes that a GPS receiver may itself be used or a separate apparatus
`
`may be employed. Id. at 2:29-30 (“There may also be a date and time apparatus 32
`
`that may be independent or may use the GPS.”). The ‘198 Patent does not provide
`
`a description of any embodiment of the “date and time apparatus” other than
`
`merely using the GPS receiver itself. Although the ‘198 Patent does not elaborate
`
`on this point, one of skill in the art would understand that a GPS receiver could
`
`provide date and time information because the signals transmitted by GPS satellites
`
`include accurate date and time information. Thus, any GPS-equipped system
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 13
`
`
`
`necessarily includes an apparatus equipped to provide accurate date and time
`
`information.
`
`30.
`
`In light of the claim language and supporting intrinsic record, it is my
`
`opinion that the claimed “date and time apparatus” is taught by both Breed and
`
`Gehlot, either expressly or inherently. First, both Breed and Gehlot disclose GPS
`
`receivers, which necessarily obtain date and time information from GPS satellites,
`
`as is discussed by the ‘198 Patent. See Ex. 1003, Breed at 33:40-43. (“Other
`
`objects and advantages of disclosed inventions include: 1. To provide a system
`
`based partially on the global positioning system (GPS) or equivalent that permits
`
`an onboard electronic system to determine the position of a vehicle with an
`
`accuracy of 1 meter or less.”); Ex. 1005, Gehlot at 5:66-6:1 (“the same type of data
`
`may be derived by processing unit 60 based on data supplied via a global
`
`positioning system”). Second, both Breed and Gehlot expressly describe
`
`monitoring the duration over which the vehicle exceeds a legal speed limit—the
`
`only described use of the claimed “date and time apparatus.” See Ex. 1003, Breed
`
`at 30:37-38. (“The Phase Zero recorder in the 1000 vehicles will record the
`
`following; (1) Time, place and velocity when infractions are sensed.”); Ex. 1005,
`
`Gehlot at 6:6-20 (“Processing unit 60 is also receiving driving pattern data from
`
`sensors 48. The driving pattern data preferably comprises at a minimum the speed
`
`the vehicle is traveling at, but may also comprise data indicative of how long that
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 14
`
`
`
`speed has been maintained as well as past speeds and the elapsed time associated
`
`with those speeds. That is, sensors 48 sense and/or gather data indicative of a
`
`driving pattern for a period of time. Sensors 48 may gather data regarding how
`
`long driver 30 has been driving at a certain speed, and what the corresponding
`
`speed limit was, or is, for that particular stretch of roadway. For example, over the
`
`past 11 minutes and 30 seconds, driver 30 may have driven 5 miles per hour over
`
`the speed limit for a period of 15 seconds, 15 miles per hour over the speed limit
`
`for 8 minutes, and 10 miles per hour under the speed limit for 3 minutes.”).
`
`31. To the extent that Patent Owner attempts to distinguish either Breed or
`
`Gehlot on the basis that neither expressly describes using the “date” information,
`
`such a distinction fails for a number of reasons. First, the claim language does not
`
`require any particular use of the “date and time apparatus.” And, as discussed
`
`above, every GPS receiver necessarily receives date information from GPS
`
`satellites, and both Breed and Gehlot utilize GPS receivers. Second, although
`
`referred to as a “date and time apparatus,” the only described use of this
`
`component is to monitor “the amount of time the vehicle 16 is in the over speed
`
`condition.” Ex. 1001, ‘198 Patent at 2:39-42 (emphasis added). As described, both
`
`Breed and Gehlot expressly describe monitoring the amount of time a vehicle
`
`exceeds the speed limit. Third, to the extent the challenged claims require some use
`
`of date information, it is my opinion that the systems described in Breed and
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 15
`
`
`
`Gehlot inherently use date information to record excessive speed infractions. Both
`
`references describe recording the time and place where speeding infractions occur.
`
`See Ex. 1003, Breed at 30:37-38; Ex. 1005, Gehlot at 6:6-20. Because recording
`
`such information provides little value without also recording the date on which the
`
`infractions occur, both references inherently teach utilizing date information along
`
`with time information when monitoring excessive speed conditions. As described
`
`in Breed, infractions are recorded to enable, for example, “the reconstruction of an
`
`accident.” Ex. 1003, Breed at 30:28-39. Because data unrelated to the accident will
`
`also be stored by the system, date information is necessary to identify relevant data
`
`in order to reconstruct an accident. Similarly, Gehlot describes its system
`
`interfacing with law enforcement who can access stored speeding data and take
`
`appropriate action. Ex. 1005, Gehlot at 6:49-59 (“If vehicle 12 speeds beyond
`
`another preset limit, for example, 20 miles per hour over the limit for a certain
`
`time, i.e., 10 minutes, vehicle 12 may automatically notify the police. That is,
`
`processing unit 60 on vehicle 12 may communicate with processing unit 60 or
`
`antenna 32 on police vehicle 10. Once the communication is established,
`
`policeman 28 can access the processing unit 60 on vehicle 12 and obtain the
`
`previously stored and updated information about driver 30, the driving pattern data,
`
`and any other information stored on or otherwise accessible from processing unit
`
`60.”) (emphasis added). Date information must necessarily accompany the
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 16
`
`
`
`recorded driving pattern data in order for law enforcement to identify infractions
`
`and take appropriate and enforceable action.
`
`32.
`
`It is common among persons of ordinary skill in the art to refer to
`
`“time” or “time-stamped” and mean one unambiguous point in time, which
`
`necessarily includes the time, the day, the month and the year. The time signal
`
`transmitted by GPS satellites, for example, expresses time as a count of weeks
`
`since an official “GPS Week Zero,” which began on January 6, 1980, plus a count
`
`of the number of seconds into the current week, from zero to 604,800 at which
`
`point the seconds count goes to zero once again and the week count ticks up by
`
`one. Though the format is unusual, the meaning is precise and unambiguous.
`
`Time as received is expressed as UTC, Coordinated Universal Time, which is time
`
`at the Prime Meridian in Greenwich, England. Because a GPS receiver knows
`
`where it is, the correct local time is readily computed and displayed. It is
`
`noteworthy that in deriving the correct GPS time, the date is necessarily extracted
`
`also.
`
`33. NMEA 0183 is a standard promulgated by the National Marine
`
`Electronics Association for intercommunication between boats and marine
`
`electronics. Most all GPS receivers with external data-communications capability,
`
`whether for cars, boats, airplanes or recreation, are compliant with NMEA 0183
`
`application-layer protocol. NMEA 0183 specifies data “sentences” prefaced by
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 17
`
`
`
`three-letter codes. The NMEA 0183 sentence code for date and time is ZDA, and
`
`the format is human-readable: hhmmss.ss,dd,mm,yyyy, xx.yy*cc, where hh is
`
`hours, mm is minutes, ss.ss is seconds, tenths and hundredths of seconds, dd is the
`
`day of the month, mm is the month, yyyy is the year, xx is the local time zone
`
`hours, yy is the local time zone minutes and *cc is a data checksum for the
`
`detection of errored data bits.
`
`34. The Physical Measurements Laboratory of NIST,
`
`the federal
`
`government’s National Institute of Standards and Time, operates Internet time
`
`servers in the US that transmit time signals for use by Internet-attached computers,
`
`routers and other equipment according to Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
`
`standard RFC-1305, which expresses time in an unusual seconds-only format,
`
`counting the number of elapsed UTC seconds since January 1, 1900. This Network
`
`Time Protocol (NTP) format necessarily includes day, month and year, which are
`
`inferred by and computed from the accumulating elapsed-seconds count, which
`
`increases by 86,400 (60x60x24) seconds per day. Again, date extraction is
`
`inherent in time computation. NIST also broadcasts digitally coded time signals on
`
`multiple frequencies from Fort Collins, Colorado. All of NIST’s radio broadcasts
`
`include year, day of the year, hour, minute and a minute marker at the top of each
`
`minute.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 18
`
`
`
`35. All of these systems and standards have in common that “time” is
`
`expressed unambiguously as an exact point in the progression of time, including
`
`hours, minutes and seconds along with the day of the month, the month and the
`
`year. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the use of time in Breed and Gehlot
`
`inherently includes information representing both time and date and that both
`
`references teach the claimed “date and time apparatus.”
`
`36. Further, the use of date information along with time information was
`
`well within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time and would
`
`have, at a minimum, been obvious to such a person attempting to monitor
`
`excessive speed conditions. This is evident by the prevalence of date information
`
`embedded with time information in the standards I have described above in ¶¶ 32-
`
`34. Thus, to the extent the ‘198 Patent claims require some use of date information
`
`and to the extent that either Breed or Gehlot does not expressly or inherently
`
`disclose this concept, it would be, at a minimum, obvious (and a product of
`
`common sense) in order to carry out the purpose of the references—i.e., to monitor
`
`and record excessive speeding conditions in a way that allows those conditions to
`
`be later identified and acted upon. Thus, it is also my opinion that the claimed
`
`“date and time apparatus” would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art based on either Breed or Gehlot.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Opinions Concerning Breed and Tseng
`37.
`I have been asked to consider whether claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-13 are
`
`obvious over Breed in view of Tseng. It is my opinion that they are indeed
`
`obvious.
`
`38.
`
`It is my opinion that the combination of Breed and Tseng teaches all
`
`elements of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-13 as set forth in the claim chart for the
`
`combination of Breed and Tseng in the Petition.
`
`39. For example, Breed and Tseng both teach calculating vehicle speed
`
`using radar transceivers. Ex. 100 3, Breed at 76:22-26 (“A noise radar velocity
`
`meter is a device which transmits a noise modulated radar pulse toward the ground
`
`at an angle to the vertical and measures the Doppler velocity of the returned signal
`
`to provide an accurate measure of the vehicle velocity relative to the ground.”)
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 1004, Tseng, at 5:49-53 (“[T]he velocity of the vehicle in
`
`various directions may be obtained relative to a stationary object. A lidar, radar, or
`
`sonar sensor 42 may be mounted in various positions around the vehicle including
`
`the front”.) (emphasis added). Additionally, both Breed and Tseng teach using
`
`vehicle-mounted radar transceivers to calculate relative velocity of objects in the
`
`vicinity of the vehicle. Ex. 1003, Breed at 75:38-47 (“Radar 62 is primarily used to
`
`scan an environment close to and further from the vehicle than the range of the
`
`
`
`20
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 20
`
`
`
`cameras and to provide an initial warning of potential obstacles in the path of the
`
`vehicle. . . Also Doppler radar principles can be used to determine the object to
`
`host vehicle relative velocity.”) (emphasis added); Ex. 1004, Tseng at 5:46-48
`
`(“The lidar, radar, or sonar 42 may be used to generate a velocity signal or relative
`
`velocity signal of an object.”) (emphasis added).
`
`40. Although Breed does not expressly disclose determining a vehicle
`
`speed relative to a roadside marker via a transceiver, Breed does describe taking
`
`multiple vehicle position readings relative to a roadside marker via a transceiver.
`
`Ex. 1003, Breed at 44:26-31. Calculation of vehicle speed given at least two
`
`position measurements is a relatively simple time/distance calculation, and Breed
`
`does disclose an accurate clock as an element of his invention. Id. at 44:3-4. Breed
`
`also discloses two-way communications between vehicles and roadside markers.
`
`Id. at 44:15-23. To the extent Breed’s disclosures do not specifically teach “an
`
`electronic transmit and receive apparatus disposed in a land vehicle to detect speed
`
`relative to a roadway marker,” as required by claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-13, it would have
`
`been obvious to modify Breed with the teachings of Tseng, which expressly describes a
`
`radar velocity sensor that measures the speed of a vehicle relative to a stationary object.
`
`41. By the time of the purported invention of the ‘198 Patent, it was well
`
`known to those of ordinary skill in the art that relative vehicle speed could be
`
`calculated using radar transceivers. Both Breed and Tseng disclose as much.
`
`
`
`21
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 21
`
`
`
`Upon reading the disclosure of Breed, a skilled artisan would have recognized the
`
`value in modifying Breed, which already discloses transmitting and receiving
`
`information between the vehicle and roadside beacons, to direct its radar
`
`transceiver toward these roadside beacons rather than the ground in order to
`
`calculate a relative vehicle speed. For example, Breed already describes (1) two-way
`
`communications between vehicles and roadside beacons and (2) using radar to determine
`
`the velocity of the vehicle relative to the road. See, e.g., id. at 76:20-26 and 44:15-23.
`
`Rather than direct its radar signals toward the road, Breed could be easily modified to
`
`direct its radar signals toward the roadside beacons in order to calculate the vehicle’s
`
`velocity relative to stationary objects as taught by Tseng.
`
`42. The combination of Breed and Tseng is nothing more than a simple
`
`modification of Breed’s teaching that radar is used to calculate vehicle speed
`
`relative to the road with Tseng’s teaching the same calculation can be relative to a
`
`roadside beacon. This modification would have yielded predictable results without
`
`undue experimentation and would have required nothing more than ordinary skill
`
`and common sense. In fact, because both references utilize radar to measure relative
`
`vehicle velocity, no technological change is required beyond changing the radar target
`
`from the road to a roadside beacon. Further, Breed itself provides motivation to make this
`
`change—it already transmits and receives electromagnetic signals with roadside beacons
`
`for other functions. Developments in the relevant field also provide motivation to modify
`
`
`
`22
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 22
`
`
`
`Breed in this way. As discussed in ¶ 13, it was known in the art to use radar between
`
`vehicles and roadside beacons in order to detect the vehicle’s velocity. See ‘584 Patent
`
`at 2:48-3:9 (describing radar sensors mounted in roadside markers that detect the
`
`range and velocity of passing vehicles).
`
`43. Accordingly, it is my opinion that it would have been obvi
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
