throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 10
`
` Entered: October 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On April 15, 2014, Hyundai Motor Company (“Hyundai”) filed a
`
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5,
`
`6, 10, 17–22, 26, 27, 32, 40, and 61 of U.S. Patent No. 6,738,697 B2 (Ex.
`
`1001, “the ’697 patent”). American Vehicular Sciences LLC (“AVS”)
`
`waived the filing of a Preliminary Response on October 17, 2014. Paper 8.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of Hyundai’s Petition, we determine that Hyundai
`
`has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the
`
`unpatentability of each of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 17–22, 26, 27, 32, 40, and 61
`
`of the ’697 patent. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we institute an
`
`inter partes review as to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 17–22, 26, 27, 32, 40, and 61
`
`of the ’697 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`
`
`Hyundai indicates that the ’697 patent has been asserted by AVS in
`
`district court cases including: (1) American Vehicular Sciences LLC v.
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. et al., No. 6:13-cv-00405 (E.D. Tex.); (2) American
`
`Vehicular Sciences LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et. al., No.
`
`6:13-cv-13251 (E.D. Tex.); (3) American Vehicular Sciences LLC v.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`Hyundai Motor Company et al., No. 2:14-cv-13247 (E.D. Tex.); and (4)
`
`American Vehicular Sciences LLC v. Kia Motors Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-
`
`13249 (E.D. Tex.). The ’697 patent also is the involved patent in these inter
`
`partes review proceedings before the Board: IPR2013-00412; IPR2013-
`
`00413; IPR2014-00634; and IPR2014-00645.
`
`B. The ’697 Patent Disclosure
`
`
`
`The disclosed invention of the ’697 patent is directed to a vehicle
`
`diagnostic system that diagnoses the state of a vehicle or the state of a
`
`component of the vehicle, and generates an output indicative or
`
`representative of that diagnosed state. Ex. 1001, Abstract. A
`
`communications device transmits that output to a remote location, possibly
`
`via a satellite or the Internet. Ex. 1001, Abstract. In that regard, the
`
`Specification further states:
`
`Transmission of the output to a remote location may entail
`arranging a communications device comprising a cellular
`telephone system including an antenna on the vehicle. The
`output may be to a satellite for transmission from the satellite to
`the remote location. The output could also be transmitted via
`the Internet to a web site or host computer associated with the
`remote location.
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:20–26.
`
`
`
`The Field of the Invention portion of the disclosure states that the
`
`invention relates to methods and apparatus for diagnosing components in a
`
`vehicle and transmitting data relating to the diagnosis, and other information
`
`relating to the operating conditions of the vehicle, to one or more remote
`
`locations via a telematics link. Ex. 1001, 1:37–42. The Objects of the
`
`Invention portion of the disclosure states that it is an object of the invention
`
`to provide a new and improved method and system for diagnosing
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`components in a vehicle and the operating status of the vehicle, and for
`
`alerting the vehicle’s dealer, or another repair facility, via a telematics link,
`
`that a component of the vehicle is functioning abnormally and may be in
`
`danger of failing. Ex. 1001, 11:26–31.
`
`C. Exemplary Claims
`
`
`
`Of the challenged claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 17–22, 26, 27, 32, 40, and 61,
`
`only claims 1 and 21 are independent claims. Claims 2, 5, 6, 10, and 17–20
`
`each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1, and claims 26, 27, 32, 40,
`
`and 61 each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 21. Claims 1 and 21
`
`are reproduced below:
`
`1.
`
`A vehicle, comprising:
`
`
`
`a diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle to diagnose
`the state of the vehicle or the state of a component of the
`vehicle and generate an output indicative or representative
`thereof; and
`
`
`
`a communication device coupled to said diagnostic
`system
`and
`arranged
`to
`automatically
`establish
`a
`communications channel between the vehicle and a remote
`facility without manual intervention and wirelessly transmit the
`output of said diagnostic system to the remote facility.
`
`
`21. A method for monitoring a vehicle, comprising the steps
`of:
`
`
`diagnosing the state of the vehicle or the state of a
`
`component of the vehicle by means of a diagnostic system
`arranged on the vehicle;
`
`
`
`generating an output indicative or representative of the
`diagnosed state of the vehicle or the diagnosed state of the
`component of the vehicle; and
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`
`
`transmitting the output indicative or representative of the
`diagnosed state of the vehicle or the diagnosed state of the
`component of the vehicle from the vehicle to a remote location.
`
`Ex. 1001, 85:16–26, 86:52–63.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`Name
`
`Reference
`
`Ishihara
`
`Japanese Published Application
`H01-197145
`
`
`
`English Translation of Ishihara
`
`Schricker U.S. Patent No. 5,561,610
`
`Mansell U.S. Patent No. 5,223,844
`
`DiLullo U.S. Patent No. 4,897,642
`
`
`
`
`
`E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`
`Oct. 1, 1996
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Date
`
`Dec. 17, 1993 Exhibit
`1003
`Exhibit
`1004
`Exhibit
`1005
`June 29, 1993 Exhibit
`1006
`Jan. 30, 1990 Exhibit
`1007
`
`Claims
`
`Claims 1, 2, 10, 17, 18, 21,
`26, 27, 32, and 61
`Claims 5, 6, 18, 22, 26, and
`27
`Claims 6, 19, 20, 22, and 40
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 17, 18, 19,
`21, 26, 27, 32, 40, and 61
`
`
`Ground
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Ishihara
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Ishihara and Schricker
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Ishihara and Mansell
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`DiLullo
`
`
`
`In support of the grounds above, Hyundai also presents a declaration
`
`by Christopher Wilson (Ex. 1008).
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Principles of Law
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). The terms also are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition
`
`must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`
`and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d
`
`1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`
`
`An extraneous limitation should not be read into the claims from the
`
`specification. E.g., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum
`
`Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). An extraneous limitation is one
`
`the presence of which in a claim is unnecessary for the purpose of making
`
`sense of the claim. See, e.g., In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994); Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1249. The construction that stays true to
`
`the claim language and most naturally aligns with the inventor’s description
`
`is likely the correct interpretation. See Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1250.
`
`
`
` “Comprising” is a term of art used in claim language, which means
`
`that the named elements are essential, but other elements also may be
`
`included to constitute additional components within the scope of the claim.
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`“component”
`
`
`
`Independent claims 1 and 21 both recite the term “component.” The
`
`specification states:
`
`The term “component” refers to any part or assembly of
`
`parts which is mounted to or a part of a motor vehicle and
`which is capable of emitting a signal representative of its
`operating state.
`
`Ex. 1001, 30:58–61.
`
`
`
`Hyundai does not contend that the named inventor of the ’697 patent
`
`acted as his own lexicographer and coined a new meaning for the term
`
`“component” different from the ordinary and customary meaning, as would
`
`be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. Also, the above-quoted
`
`language is not in the form of a definition, but is a portion of the description
`
`of preferred embodiments. Based on the term itself, “component” does not
`
`have to relate to a motor vehicle; nor does it have to be capable of emitting a
`
`signal representative of its operating state. We do not regard the above-
`
`quoted text as setting forth the inventor’s special definition for the term
`
`“component.”
`
`
`
`In addition to describing a component as a part or assembly of parts
`
`(Ex. 1001, 30:58–59), the ’697 patent specification provides exemplary
`
`components that are less than the whole vehicle. Id. at 30:61–31:22. The
`
`Board construes “component” as “a part or an assembly of parts, less than
`
`the whole.”
`
`“part”
`
`
`
`Claim 17 recites the term “part.” The specification states:
`
`As used herein, a “part” of the vehicle includes any
`
`component, sensor, system or subsystem of the vehicle such as
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`the steering system, braking system, throttle system, navigation
`system, airbag system, seatbelt retractor, air bag inflation valve,
`air bag inflation controller and airbag vent valve, as well as
`those listed below in the definitions of “component” and
`“sensor”.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:51–57.
`
`
`
`Hyundai does not contend that the named inventor of the ’697 patent
`
`acted as his own lexicographer and coined a new meaning for the term
`
`“part” different from the ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. Also, the above-quoted
`
`language does not appear to be in the form of a definition for the word
`
`“part.” Rather, the text is about what would be regarded as a part of the
`
`vehicle that is described in the specification.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, we do not regard the above-quoted text as setting forth
`
`the inventor’s special definition for the term “part.” On this record, the term
`
`“part” does not require express construction. The record does not indicate
`
`that the ordinary and customary meaning of the word, from the perspective
`
`of one with ordinary skill in the art, is different from the word’s plain and
`
`ordinary usage in the English language.
`
`“sensor system”
`
`
`
`Claim 10 recites the term “sensor system.” In that regard, the
`
`specification states:
`
`As used herein, a “sensor system” includes any of the
`
`sensors listed below in the definition of “sensor” as well as any
`type of component or assembly of components which detect,
`sense, or measure something.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:58–61.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`Hyundai does not contend that the inventor acted as his own
`
`lexicographer in coining a special meaning for a common term “sensor
`
`system.” Also, the above-reproduced text refers to what a sensor system
`
`includes, not what it is.
`
`Moreover, with regard to the phrase “as well as any type of
`
`component or assembly of components which detect, sense, or measure
`
`something,” we note that it would amount to impermissible functional
`
`claiming if that is the meaning of a claim term. The language does not
`
`invoke expressly means-plus-function treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.1
`
`Furthermore, the above-quoted text is circular, in that it uses the term sense
`
`to describe a sensor system. It also is unclear how “measure” and “detect”
`
`differ from “sense.”
`
`
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, we do not regard the above-quoted
`
`text as setting forth the inventor’s special definition for the term “sensor
`
`system.” On this record, the term “sensor system” does not require an
`
`express construction. We determine, however, that under the rule of
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “sensor system” includes each of
`
`the sensors particularly identified in the specification of the ’697 patent.
`
`Dependent claims 2, 10, and 32 each recite the term “sensor.” The
`
`“sensor”
`
`specification states:
`
`
`1 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-
`29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) (“AIA”), re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6,
`as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’697 patent has a filing date before
`September 16, 2012 (effective date of AIA), we use the citation “§ 112, ¶ 6.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`The term “sensor” refers to any measuring or sensing device
`mounted on a vehicle or any of its components including new
`sensors mounted in conjunction with the diagnostic module in
`accordance with the invention. A partial, non-exhaustive list of
`common sensors mounted on an automobile or truck is as
`follows: . . . .
`
`Ex. 1001, 31:23–29.
`
`Hyundai does not contend that the named inventor of the ’697 patent
`
`acted as his own lexicographer and coined a new meaning for the term
`
`“sensor” different from the ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. The above-referenced
`
`excerpt does not give one of ordinary skill adequate notice of a change in the
`
`meaning of a common term or intent to redefine the term. See In re Paulsen,
`
`30 F.3d at 1480. Also, the text is in a portion of the description of preferred
`
`embodiments, uses the words “refers to,” and is followed by “a non-
`
`exhaustive list” of more than forty exemplary automobile or truck sensors.
`
`It is unclear how a “sensor” measures without sensing. Also, defining
`
`“sensor” to mean a “sensing device” is circular and, thus, not meaningful.
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, we do not regard the above-quoted text as
`
`setting forth an inventor’s special definition for “sensor.” The term
`
`possesses its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`
`one with ordinary skill, and does not require an express construction. We
`
`determine, however, that the term “sensor” includes each of the sensors
`
`particularly identified in the specification of the ’697 patent.
`
`
`
`Independent claims 1 and 21 both recite the term “state of the
`
`“state of the vehicle”
`
`vehicle.” The specification states:
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`As used herein, a diagnosis of the “state of the vehicle”
`
`means a diagnosis of the condition of the vehicle with respect to
`its stability and proper running and operating condition.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:29–32.
`
`
`
`The above-quoted text refers to and explains “a diagnosis” of the state
`
`of a vehicle, not what constitutes “state of the vehicle.” On this record, the
`
`term “state of the vehicle” does not require an express construction. We
`
`determine, however, that it encompasses any operating as well as structural
`
`condition of the vehicle.
`
` “control at least one part of the vehicle”
`
`
`
`Claim 17 recites the phrase “control at least one part of the vehicle.”
`
`On this record, an express construction of this term is not necessary. It
`
`suffices to say that the term is not limited to controlling any particular type
`
`or kind of “part” of the vehicle.
`
`“display”
`
`
`
`Claim 5 recites the term “display.” The specification states, in part:
`
`“The [output system] may be a display as mentioned above or a warning
`
`device.” Ex. 1001, 81:34–36. The specification also refers to a display
`
`separately from a warning device. Ex. 1001, 13:24–33. We determine that,
`
`in the context of the ’697 patent, a warning lamp or light does not constitute
`
`a “display,” and that a “display” covers a screen for showing information.
`
`“display . . . arranged to display the diagnosis”
`
`
`
`Claim 5 recites the phrase “display . . . arranged to display the
`
`diagnosis.” The specification states:
`
`A display may be arranged in the vehicle in a position to
`
`be visible from the passenger compartment. Such [a] display is
`coupled to the diagnostic system and arranged to display the
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`diagnosis of the state of the vehicle or the state of a component
`of the vehicle.
`
`Ex. 1001, 13:24–28.
`
`
`
`Claim 5 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a diagnostic system
`
`arranged on the vehicle” that generates an output. Thus, the reference in
`
`claim 5 to “the diagnosis” refers back to a diagnosis from the diagnostic
`
`system arranged on the vehicle. On this record, a further construction of
`
`“display . . . arranged to display the diagnosis” is not necessary.
`
`B. Alleged Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 10, 17, 18, 21, 26,
`27, 32, and 61, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), by Ishihara
`
`Hyundai contends that claims 1, 2, 10, 17, 18, 21, 26, 27, 32, and 61
`
`are anticipated, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), by Ishihara. In light of the
`
`arguments and evidence submitted by Hyundai, we determine that it has
`
`established a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 10, 17, 18, 21, 26, 27,
`
`32, and 61 are anticipated by Ishihara.
`
`Ishihara discloses an on-board failure detection unit that detects a
`
`failure of a device of a vehicle and an on-board transmitting unit that
`
`transmits an output signal from the failure detection unit to a remote failure
`
`diagnosis station. Ex. 1004, 2:1:26–30. A significance determination unit
`
`resides in the remote diagnosis station, and it categorizes the failure detected
`
`by the on-board failure detection unit as either high or low significance. Ex.
`
`1004, 2:1:30–35. A display control unit causes a display device in the
`
`vehicle to show only failures having high significance. Ex. 1004, 2:1:35–39.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`Figure 2 of Ishihara is reproduced partially below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates on-board control unit 4 and communication unit 6.
`
`Control unit 4 is connected to vehicle speed sensor 11, throttle sensor 12,
`
`turbine sensor 13, and an idle switch 14. Ex. 1004, 2:2:38–44. Output
`
`signals 11a, 12a, 13a, and 14a from these sensors are inputted to computer
`
`16 in control unit 4. Ex. 1004, 2:2:45–47. Computer 16 includes failure
`
`detection unit 16b, which determines whether or not abnormality exists in
`
`the signals received from the sensors, to detect the occurrence of a failure in
`
`the automatic transmission or its control system. Ex, 1004, 3:1:1–16. For a
`
`predetermined abnormality, warning lamp 22 is turned on at the time of
`
`occurrence of its detection. Ex, 1004, 3:16–19.
`
`
`
`Control unit 4 further includes transmitted-received data processing
`
`circuit 23 and display selection circuit 24. The former exchanges data
`
`between control unit 4 and communication control unit 6; and the latter
`
`controls display apparatus 5. Ex. 1004, 3:1:20–27. Communication control
`
`unit 6 receives signals from remote station 3 and transmits failure data to
`
`remote station 3. Ex. 1004, 3:1:29–41.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`
`We have reviewed the evidence and arguments submitted by Hyundai
`
`in its Petition. The evidence includes the claim chart on pages 12–23 of the
`
`Petition and the declaration of Mr. Wilson. We are persuaded that the
`
`submission established a reasonable likelihood that Hyundai will
`
`demonstrate unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 10, 17, 18, 21, 26, 27, 32, and 61
`
`as anticipated by Ishihara. For instance, computer 16 on a vehicle diagnoses
`
`the state of a vehicle component and generates a corresponding output
`
`indicating whether an abnormality exists. Ex. 1004, 3:1:1–19. Data
`
`including detected failures are transmitted automatically and wirelessly to a
`
`remote station. Ex. 1004, 2:1:41–46.
`
`C. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 6, 19,
`20, 22, and 40 over Ishihara and Mansell
`
`
`
`Mansell describes a vehicle tracking and security system which allows
`
`immediate response in case of vehicle theft, an accident, vehicle breakdown,
`
`or other emergency. Ex. 1006, Abstract. “Mobile Units” are installed in
`
`vehicles to be monitored, to communicate with a “Control Center.” Id.
`
`Mansell describes that the mobile unit has a mobile unit controller which
`
`includes a cellular telephone transmitter for transmitting information onto a
`
`cellular telephone communications link. Ex. 1006, 2:64–68.
`
`
`
`Hyundai’s expert witness, Mr. Wilson, testifies that it was well known
`
`in the art that various communications technologies could be employed to
`
`provide communication between a vehicle and a remote location. Ex. 1008
`
`¶ 47. He further testifies that it would have been obvious to one with
`
`ordinary skill in the art, as of June 1995, to use a cellular telephone system,
`
`as disclosed in Mansell, as the communication system in Ishihara. Id. On
`
`the basis of the present record, we conclude that it would have been obvious
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`to one with ordinary skill in the art, in light of Mansell, to use a cellular
`
`telephone as the automobile phone of Ishihara.
`
`
`
`Claim 6 recites a cellular telephone system including an antenna.
`
`Mansell’s Figure 3 shows such an antenna 316a. Claim 22 recites a cellular
`
`telephone system including an antenna “on the vehicle.” In its Figure 1,
`
`Ishihara illustrates that its antenna 7 is attached to the vehicle.
`
`
`
`Claim 19 depends from claim 1, and further recites a location
`
`determining system for determining the location of the vehicle. Claim 19
`
`also requires the communications device to be coupled to the location
`
`determining system and to transmit the determined location of the vehicle to
`
`the remote facility. Claim 20 depends on claim 19, and specifies that the
`
`location determining system uses GPS technology. Claim 40 depends from
`
`claim 21 and further recites the steps of (1) determining the location of the
`
`vehicle; and (2) transmitting the determined location to the remote location
`
`together with output representative of the diagnosed state of the vehicle or a
`
`component of the vehicle.
`
`
`
`We have considered the arguments and evidence Hyundai submitted
`
`with respect to claims 19, 20, and 40, in the context of the combined
`
`disclosures of Ishihara and Mansell. That includes paragraphs 66–67 of the
`
`declaration of Mr. Wilson. Ex. 1008. Mansell discloses detecting certain
`
`status and alarm conditions on a vehicle and transmitting it along with
`
`automatically generated GPS-derived position data to a remote control
`
`center. Ex. 1006, 6:59–66. Based on that location information, the remote
`
`control center may dispatch emergency vehicles, if necessary. Id. 6:66–7:3.
`
`Mr. Wilson testifies that “[i]t was known in the art that knowing a vehicle’s
`
`location where significant failure occurred would have been useful to service
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`shops and other facilities to effectively render services,” and that “[i]t would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the
`
`location determination feature of Mansell in the failure diagnosis system
`
`described in Ishihara to more effectively provide assistance in the event of a
`
`significant failure.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 67.
`
`
`
`On the present record, Hyundai has shown a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it would prevail in demonstrating unpatentability of claims 6, 19, 20, 22,
`
`and 40 as obvious over Ishihara and Mansell.
`
`D. Alleged Unpatentability of Claims 5, 6, 18, 22,
`26, and 27 as Obvious over Ishihara and Schricker
`
`
`
`We have reviewed the arguments and evidence submitted by Hyundai
`
`with respect to claims 5, 6, 18, 22, 26, and 27 and based on the disclosures
`
`of Ishihara and Schricker. On the present record, Hyundai has articulated
`
`cogent reasoning with rational underpinnings to combine the teachings of
`
`Ishihara and Schricker to arrive at the subject matter of these claims.
`
`
`
`Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and requires a display arranged on the
`
`vehicle in a position visible from the passenger compartment. Claim 5 also
`
`recites that the display is arranged to display the diagnosis of the state of the
`
`vehicle or the state of a component of the vehicle. In Figure 1 of Ishihara
`
`(Ex. 1004), display apparatus is shown, evidently in a position visible from
`
`the vehicle’s passenger compartment. Ishihara, however, does not state
`
`expressly that the display is visible from the passenger compartment.
`
`Hyundai’s Petition, on pages 27, cites to Schricker’s disclosure (Ex. 1005,
`
`2:63–66) of a display module in the operator compartment of work machine
`
`12 for presentation to the operator of warning messages based on analyzed
`
`data. We have considered paragraphs 56–57 of the declaration of
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`Mr. Wilson (Ex. 1008). We find persuasive, on this record, that one with
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have known to position the display of Ishihara
`
`like that described in Schricker for Schricker’s display, and to use the
`
`display of Ishihara to shown the output of on-board diagnosis of the state of
`
`the vehicle or a component of the vehicle.
`
`
`
`Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites that the communications
`
`device comprises a cellular telephone system including an antenna. Claim
`
`22 depends from claim 21 and recites the step of arranging a
`
`communications device comprising a cellular telephone system including an
`
`antenna on the vehicle. Schricker discloses an embodiment in which a
`
`cellular telephone system is used to transfer data from work machine 12 to
`
`central computer system 16 for analysis. Ex. 1005, 2:48–62. We have
`
`considered paragraphs 43–47 of the declaration of Mr. Wilson (Ex. 1008),
`
`and find persuasive, on this record, that one with ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known to use a cellular telephone to implement the “automobile
`
`phone” of Ishihara. Ishihara already discloses an antenna attached to the
`
`vehicle. Ex. 1004, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`Claim 18 depends from claim 1, and requires a warning device for
`
`relaying a warning to an occupant of the vehicle relating to the state of the
`
`vehicle or of a component of the vehicle. Claim 26 depends on claim 21,
`
`and requires arranging a display in the vehicle in a position to be visible
`
`from the passenger compartment and displaying the state of the vehicle or a
`
`component of the vehicle. Claim 27 depends from claim 21, and requires
`
`the step of relaying a warning to an occupant of the vehicle relating to the
`
`state of the vehicle. As has been discussed above in the context of claim 5,
`
`Ishihara does not state expressly that its display apparatus 5 is visible in the
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`passenger compartment. Schricker, however, describes a display placed in
`
`the operator compartment of work machine 12 for presentation to the
`
`operator of warning messages based on analyzed data. Ex. 1005, 2:63–66.
`
`Schricker expressly states that during out-of-spec conditions, alarms and
`
`warning/instructional messages are displayed. Ex. 1005, 3:1–2.
`
`
`
`We have considered paragraphs 50–52 and 57 of the declaration of
`
`Mr. Wilson (Ex. 1008). We find persuasive, on this record, that one with
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have known to position the display of Ishihara
`
`like that described in Schricker for Schricker’s display, and to use the
`
`display of Ishihara to shown the output of on-board diagnosis of the state of
`
`the vehicle or a component of the vehicle.
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Hyundai has shown a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it would prevail in demonstrating unpatentability of claims 5, 6, 18, 22,
`
`26, and 27 as obvious over Ishihara and Schricker.
`
`E. Alleged Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26,
`27, 32, 40 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), by DiLullo
`
`Hyundai asserts that claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, 32, 40,
`
`and 61 are anticipated, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), by DiLullo. In light of the
`
`arguments and evidence submitted Hyundai, we determine that Hyundai has
`
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that each
`
`of claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, 32, 40, and 61 is anticipated by
`
`DiLullo.
`
`DiLullo’s disclosure relates to managing and monitoring the status of
`
`multiple-part vehicles. Ex. 1007, Abstract. An application of the invention
`
`described in DiLullo is to assist fleet managers in the trucking industry in
`
`managing a fleet of tractor-trailers. Id. at 1:7–9, 14–17, 22–23. Fleet
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`management involves tracking, for each tractor and trailer, the following:
`
`(1) the location, (2) availability for service, (3) unauthorized use, if any, and
`
`(4) mechanical condition. Id. at 1:22–44.
`
`DiLullo describes a status monitoring system for tractor-trailer
`
`vehicles. Ex. 1007, 2:3–5. Figure 1 of DiLullo is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows tractor-trailer vehicle 10 comprising tractor 12 and
`
`detachable trailer 14. Ex. 1007, 4:40–42. Tractor 12 includes cab 13. Id. at
`
`4:42. Tractor 12 also includes tractor power bus 18, which runs throughout
`
`tractor 12 and is energized by 12-volt battery 16. Id. at 4:43–47. Trailer 14
`
`comprises normally de-engergized trailer power bus 20, which runs
`
`throughout trailer 14. Id. at 4:48–50. Trailer power bus 20 is energized
`
`when electrically coupled via power cable 22 to tractor power bus 18. Id. at
`
`4:51–58.
`
`Each tractor 12 in the fleet is provided with interface unit (IFU) 26
`
`that communicates with onboard mobile satellite transmitter (MST) 28.
`
`Ex. 1007, 4:61–63. IFU 26 communicates with MST 28 via connection 36.
`
`Id. at 5:41–43. IFU 26 is coupled to tractor power bus 18 by means of
`
`connection 30. Id. at 5:33–35.
`
`Each trailer 14 in the fleet is provided with electronic tag 24 that
`
`identifies trailer 14. Ex. 1007, 4:59–61. Tag 24 is mounted in or on trailer
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01543
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`14. Id. at 2:13–14. Tag 24 impresses an identification (ID) code unique to
`
`trailer 14 on trailer power bus 20 when energized. Id. at 2:13–15. When
`
`trailer 14 is connected to tractor 12, tag 24 communicates with IFU 26 via
`
`connection 34 and trailer power bus 20. Id. at 5:25–32.
`
`MST 28 is coupled to microwave antenna 32 for transmitting
`
`messages to an earth station via a space-based satellite, such as one of the
`
`GEOSTAR satellites. Ex. 1007, 4:63–67. MST 28 is capable of sending
`
`three types of transmission messages that are recognized by the GEOSTAR
`
`satellite: NORMAL, IMMEDIATE, and EMERGENCY. Id. at 6:4–7. In
`
`the absence of a comand to the contrary, MST 28 transmits NORMAL
`
`messages at regular preselected intervals. Id. at 6:7–10.
`
`Fleet managers desire regular access to operating parameters of
`
`vehicle 10. Ex. 1007, 1:42–46. Tractor sensors provide IFU 26 information
`
`regarding tractor operating parameters such as speed, engine temperature, oil
`
`pressure and the like. Id. at 6:44–48. Tag 24 may receive signals from
`
`trailer sensors regarding interior temperature and humidity of trailer 14. Id.
`
`at 6:35–39. Tag 24 may impress sensor data on power buses 18, 20 for
`
`reading and processing by IFU 26. Id. at 6:40–42. IFU 26 may, if desired,
`
`provide such information to MST 28 for inclusion with each transmission.
`
`Id. at 6:50–52.
`
`We have reviewed the arguments and evid

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket