`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