Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`Entered: January 13, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Page 1 of 30
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1007
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`Entered: January 13, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Page 1 of 30
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1007
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On July 8, 2013, Toyota Motor Corporation (“Toyota” or
`
`“Petitioner”) filed a petition (“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,650,210 B2 (Ex.
`
`1001, “the ‟210 patent”). Paper 1. American Vehicular Sciences LLC
`
`(“AVS” or “Patent Owner”), filed a preliminary response (“Prelim. Resp.)
`
`on October 17, 2013. Paper 12. 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 Toyota‟s petition and AVS‟s preliminary
`
`response, we determine that the information presented in the petition
`
`establishes a reasonable likelihood that Toyota would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18 of the ‟210 patent.
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we institute an inter partes review
`
`for claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18 of the ‟210 patent.
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`Toyota indicates that the ‟210 patent has been asserted in the
`
`following co-pending district court litigation: American Vehicular Sciences
`
`LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., No. 6:12-CV-405 (E.D. Tex. filed
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
` June 25, 2012) (hereinafter, “the „405 Litigation”).1 Pet. 1.
`
`B.
`
`The ’210 Patent
`
`The ‟210 patent relates to arrangements and techniques for managing
`
`vehicle diagnostic information. Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 55-57. According to the
`
`‟210 patent, typical vehicle diagnostic systems provide the present condition
`
`of a vehicle. Id. at col. 9, ll. 43-44. However, a vehicle operator wants to
`
`repair the vehicle or replace a component before it fails. Id. at col. 9, ll. 44-
`
`47. Typical prior art vehicle diagnostics systems do not indicate when the
`
`failure will occur. Id. at col. 9, ll. 46-47.
`
`The ‟210 patent discloses that the invention solves the problem of
`
`vehicle diagnostic systems not indicating an expected failure. Ex. 1001, col.
`
`3, ll. 21-33; Abstract.
`
`Figure 20C of the ‟210 patent illustrates an embodiment of a system
`
`for collecting and processing data about a vehicle (Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 4-10)
`
`and is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Sensors 627 shown in Figure 20C are arranged throughout the vehicle
`
`to collect data. Ex. 1001, col. 24, l. 58-col. 25, l. 6. Sensors 627 represent
`
`
`1 Toyota states that the ‟210 patent is the subject of additional litigation
`proceedings pending in the Eastern District of Texas, none of which name
`Toyota as a defendant. Pet. 1.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`surface acoustic wave (SAW) sensors, radio frequency identification code
`
`(RFID) sensors, or other wireless sensors that are arranged throughout the
`
`vehicle. Id. at col. 24, ll. 58-61; col. 25, ll. 7-20; col. 57, ll. 46-55. Antenna
`
`array 622 is mounted on the vehicle to receive wireless signals from sensors
`
`627. Id. at col. 57, ll. 55-59. Antenna array 622 is within housing 630 along
`
`with control system 628, which controls antenna array 622. Id. at col. 57, l.
`
`60 – col. 58, l. 13. Control system 628 also processes sensor return signals
`
`to provide information about the vehicle or component. Id. at col. 58, ll. 7-8.
`
`Control system 628 directs the processed vehicle information to
`
`display/telematics unit 629 via an electrical circuit for display and/or
`
`transmission to a remote location. Id. at col. 58, ll. 14-20.
`
`Figure 3 of the ‟210 patent illustrates an embodiment of the sensors of
`
`the onboard diagnostic system and is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a schematic of a vehicle illustrating about thirty sensors
`
`shown in their approximate locations on the vehicle. Ex. 1001, col. 21, ll.
`
`35-37. Most of the sensors are mounted on components within the engine of
`
`the vehicle, including the following: microphone 2, coolant thermometer 3,
`
`oil pressure sensor 4, oil level sensor 5, air flow meter 6, voltmeter 7,
`
`ammeter 8, engine knock sensor 10, oil turbidity sensor 11, throttle position
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`sensor 12, oxygen sensor 17, transmission fluid level sensor 25, coolant
`
`level sensor 27, transmission fluid turbidity sensor 28, brake pressure sensor
`
`29, and coolant pressure sensor 30. Id. at Figs. 3, 4; col. 21, l. 62 –col. 22, l.
`
`13. The following sensors are mounted within the passenger compartment:
`
`crash sensor 1, humidity sensor 9, steering torque sensor 13, tachometer 15,
`
`speedometer 16, pitch and roll sensor 18, clock 19, odometer 20, power
`
`steering pressure sensor 21, cabin thermometer 24, and yaw sensor 26. Id.
`
`Pollution sensor 22 and fuel gage 23 are mounted near the tailpipe, and
`
`wheel speed sensor 14 is mounted on the wheel. Id.
`
`C. Exemplary Claims
`
`Claims 1 and 15, the two independent claims challenged, are
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. A vehicle, comprising:
`
`a plurality of components;
`
`a diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle to determine
`whether any of said components is operating non-optimally, is
`expected to fail or has failed and generate an output indicative
`or representative of the determination of the non-optimal
`operation, expected failure or actual failure of any of said
`components; and
`
`a communications device coupled to said diagnostic
`system and arranged to direct a transmission of the output of
`said diagnostic system to a remote location such that the output
`indicative or representative of the determination of the non-
`optimal operation, expected failure or actual failure of any of
`said components generated by said diagnostic system is
`transmitted to the remote location.
`
`15. A method for monitoring components of a vehicle,
`comprising:
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`mounting sensors on the vehicle, each sensor providing a
`measurement related to a state of the sensor or a measurement
`related to a state of a mounting location of the sensor;
`
`processing data from the sensors using a processor to
`generate output indicative or representative of failure or
`expected failure of any of the components; and
`
`directing the output indicative or representative of the
`failure or expected failure of any of the components to a remote
`location using a transmission device.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Toyota relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Scholl
`
`Patent 5,400,018
`
`Mar. 21, 1995
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Asano
`
`Patent 5,157,610
`
`Oct. 20, 1992
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ishihara
`
`
`
`Japanese Published Application
`H01-197145
`English Translation of Ishihara
`
`Dec. 17, 1993
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Corwin
`
`Patent 4,675,675
`
`June 23, 1987
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Chatham Patent 5,531,122
`
`July 2, 1996
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Windle
`
`Patent 4,926,331
`
`May 15, 1990
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`E.
`
`The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Toyota alleges the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Claims challenged
`
`Scholl
`
`Asano
`
`Ishihara
`
`Corwin
`
`§§ 102(a) and
`102(e)
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18
`
`1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18
`
`1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18
`
`1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18
`
`Chatham
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 15, and 18
`
`Scholl and Windle
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`7, 9, and 18
`
`
`In support of the grounds above, Toyota also presents a Declaration
`
`by Dr. Ralph Wilhelm, Jr. (Ex. 1011).
`
`Regarding Toyota‟s assertion of Scholl as prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), Toyota
`
`submitted as Exhibit 1002 a copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,400,018 to Scholl
`
`(“Scholl”), which shows on the face of the patent an issue date of March 21,
`
`1995. The face of Scholl also indicates that the patent was granted from an
`
`application that was filed in the United States on December 22, 1992.
`
`Ex. 1002. AVS claims a priority date of June 7, 1995 for the ‟210 patent.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 2. Thus, based on this record, Toyota has established a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Scholl issued in the United States before the
`
`invention by AVS and, therefore, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`Additionally, based on this record, Toyota has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Scholl was granted on an application filed in the United
`
`States before the invention by AVS and, therefore, is prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`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). Also, when an inventor chooses to be his own
`
`lexicographer so as to give a term an uncommon meaning, he must set out
`
`his uncommon definition in a manner within the patent disclosure, sufficient
`
`to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change. In re Paulsen,
`
`30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`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 at 1480; 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.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`“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).
`
`“component”
`
`Independent claims 1 and 15 both recite the term “components.”
`
`According to Toyota, “component” means “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.” Pet. 6. Toyota cites
`
`to the specification, which states:
`
`The term “component” as used herein generally 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, col. 6, ll. 6-9.
`
`
`
`Toyota does not contend that the named inventor of the ‟210 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. Neither does AVS.
`
`Also, the above-quoted language does not appear to be in the form of a
`
`definition. Rather, the text is a portion of the description of preferred
`
`embodiments, and uses the words “refers to” after the term “component.”
`
`The evidence falls short of the standard required for recognizing a new
`
`definition, i.e., reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. We do not
`
`regard the above-quoted text as setting forth the inventor‟s special definition
`
`for the term “component.” Instead, the text describes how components
`
`operate and interact with other elements in an operative environment.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`
`The Board construes “component” as “a part or an assembly of parts,
`
`less than the whole.” 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.
`
`“sensor"
`
`Independent claim 15 recites the term “sensor.” According to Toyota,
`
`the term “sensor” means “any measuring, detecting 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.” Pet. 6. Toyota cites to the specification, which states:
`
`The term “sensor” as used herein generally refers to any
`measuring, detecting 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 sensors that are or
`can be mounted on an automobile or truck is . . .
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 20-25.
`
`Neither Toyota nor AVS contends that the named inventor of the ‟210
`
`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 “generally refers to,” and is followed by a
`
`“partial-non-exhaustive list” of more than forty exemplary automobile or
`
`truck sensors.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`Regarding the portion of Toyota‟s proposed construction defining
`
`“sensor” as a “measuring, detecting or sensing device” (Pet. 6), neither
`
`Toyota nor AVS explains how a “sensor” measures without also detecting or
`
`sensing. Additionally, defining “sensor” to mean a “sensing device” is
`
`circular and, thus, not meaningful.
`
`Concerning the portion of Toyota‟s proposed construction defining
`
`“sensor” as “any . . . device mounted on a vehicle or any of its components,”
`
`we note that claim 15 recites “mounting sensors on the vehicle.” If the
`
`inventor redefined the term “sensor” to be limited as Toyota proposes, then
`
`recitation of “mounting sensors on the vehicle” in claim 15 would be
`
`unnecessary. Additionally, we note that the requirement of being mounted
`
`on a vehicle is extraneous as far as the claimed subject matter is concerned.
`
`Toyota has not provided a persuasive reason for reading into the ordinary
`
`meaning of “sensor” the requirement of being mounted on a vehicle.
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, we do not regard the above-quoted text
`
`as setting forth a special definition for the term “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
`
`agree, however, that the term “sensor” includes each of the sensors
`
`particularly identified in the specification of the ‟210 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Alleged Anticipation of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18 by Asano
`
`Toyota contends that claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18 of the ‟210
`
`patent are anticipated, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), by Asano. Pet. 4, 18-28.
`
`In light of the arguments and evidence submitted by both parties, Toyota has
`
`established a reasonable likelihood that each of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, and
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`15 is anticipated by Asano. However, Toyota has not established a
`
`reasonable likelihood that claim 18 is anticipated by Asano.
`
`Independent claim 1 requires a diagnostic system arranged on the
`
`vehicle that determines expected failure or failure and a communication
`
`device to transmit this determination to a remote location. Similarly,
`
`independent claim 15 requires vehicle sensors providing measurement data
`
`that is processed to generate an output indicative or representative of an
`
`expected failure or failure. That output then is transmitted to a remote
`
`location. Each of claims 2, 5, 7, 9, and 13 depends from claim 1. Claim 18
`
`depends from claim 15.
`
`Asano
`
`Asano discloses a vehicle-mounted computer, an embodiment of
`
`which is illustrated in Figure 2, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 2, computer 105 has a central processing unit
`
`(CPU) 7 that receives operating signals from sensors by way of bus line 30,
`
`to which multiplexer 36 and analog to digital conversion circuity 38 and 52
`
`are connected. Ex. 1003, col. 6, ll. 14-28. Sensors, including engine cooling
`
`water temperature sensor (TWS) 32 and air/fuel ratio sensor (O2S) 34, sense
`
`the engine operating conditions. Id. CPU 7 carries out computations based
`
`on the engine operating conditions. Id. at col. 6, ll. 43-47. Additionally,
`
`CPU 7 is connected to display 90 to display instructions to the driver. Id. at
`
`col. 6, ll. 67-68.
`
`Asano provides further disclosure of failure diagnosis on a vehicle. In
`
`that connection, Figure 6 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`Figure 6 illustrates a functional block diagram of failure diagnosis
`
`processing. Ex. 1003, col. 5, l. 23. Computations for failure diagnosis are
`
`carried out at predetermined intervals. Id. at col. 9, ll. 1-3. The period of
`
`each interval can be about 60 milliseconds. Id. at col. 9, ll. 10-13. At step
`
`6a shown in Figure 6, a diagnostic mode starts onboard the vehicle.
`
`Ex. 1003, col. 9, l. 10. Next, in step 6b, a decision is made on the vehicle of
`
`whether an abnormality exists based on the results of the diagnosis. Id. at
`
`col. 9, ll. 13-14. If no abnormality exists, the process ends. Id. at col. 9, ll.
`
`14-15. When a decision is made at step 6b, on the vehicle side, that an
`
`abnormality exists, then an abnormality code is transmitted, in step 6n, to the
`
`host computer at a dealer, through transmitter-receivers side. Id. at col. 9, ll.
`
`15-18; Fig. 6.
`
`Whether Asano meets the limitations of claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, and 15
`
`In light of the information and analysis presented by Toyota‟s petition
`
`(Pet. 4, 18-28), together with the preliminary response of AVS, we are
`
`persuaded that Toyota has established a reasonable likelihood that it would
`
`prevail in showing that claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, and 15 are anticipated by
`
`Asano.
`
`As noted by Toyota, Asano describes a diagnostic system on the
`
`vehicle. Pet. 21-22 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll.12-15, 25-30; col. 3, ll. 10-11;
`
`col. 5, ll. 41-46; col. 6, ll.14-47; col. 8, l. 65 – col. 9, l. 14; Figs. 1, 6).
`
`Toyota notes that Asano‟s onboard vehicle diagnostic system performs
`
`computations for a basic diagnosis, and a decision is made based on the
`
`diagnosis results. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 8, l.65-col. 9, l. 14; Fig. 6).
`
`Additionally, Toyota notes that Asano describes transmitter-receiver 5 for
`
`transmitting information to host computer 18 on the dealer side. Pet. 23
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`(citing Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll.10-13; col. 5, ll.46-54; col. 9, ll.15-18; Fig. 1; Fig.
`
`6). Toyota provides a detailed claim chart mapping each element of the
`
`claims to the disclosure of Asano. Pet. 21-28. In response, AVS contends
`
`that the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the claims over
`
`Asano because Asano relates to vehicle monitoring at an off-site location.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 9, ll. 27-30). In deciding whether to
`
`institute inter partes review, the Director is not required to defer to a prior
`
`determination by the Office issuing the same claim or claims over the same
`
`prior art reference or references.2 For the reasons discussed below, we are
`
`not persuaded that Asano relates to vehicle monitoring at only an off-site
`
`location.
`
`AVS contends that Asano does not disclose “a diagnostic system
`
`arranged on the vehicle,” as recited by independent claim 1. Prelim. Resp.
`
`15. AVS describes the claimed vehicle diagnostic system as “a significant
`
`advancement over the prior art.” Prelim. Resp. 3. AVS argues that prior art
`
`systems “sent raw data from the vehicle to a remote location for processing,”
`
`whereas the claimed invention of the ‟210 patent “require[s] that raw data be
`
`processed by a diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle.” Prelim. Resp. 3
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, col. 12, l. 66 - col. 13, l. 2; claim 1). AVS argues that, like
`
`other prior art systems, Asano discloses a vehicle-mounted station that
`
`detects only operating conditions. Prelim. Resp. 15-16. According to AVS,
`
`
`2 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (“In determining whether to institute or order a
`proceeding under . . . chapter 31, the Director may take into account
`whether, and reject the petition because, the same or substantially the same
`prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”) (emphasis
`added).
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`the vehicle-mounted station of Asano transmits data to a base station for
`
`processing and diagnosis. Id.
`
`We are persuaded that Asano‟s disclosure is not limited to detecting
`
`operating conditions. As we have described above with regard to the
`
`disclosure of Asano, Figure 2 of Asano shows that onboard computer 105
`
`receives sensor signals by way of bus line 30, multiplexer 36, and analog to
`
`digital conversion circuits 38 and 52. Ex. 1003, col. 6, ll. 4-30. CPU 7
`
`performs computations on detected sensor signals. Ex. 1003, col. 6, ll. 14-
`
`46. CPU 7 then outputs its computation results, which are described in
`
`Asano as follows:
`
`The CPU 7 carries out computations based on the above
`mentioned operating condition signals . . . and outputs its
`computation results . . . .”
`
`Ex. 1003, col. 6, ll. 43-46.
`
`Additionally, Asano describes that the onboard computer “makes a
`
`basic abnormal diagnosis.” Ex. 1003, col. 9, ll. 4-6. Asano also states,
`
`referring to above-reproduced Figure 6:
`
`In step 6b, a decision on whether any abnormality exists is
`made based on the diagnosis results. When no abnormality
`exists, the process ends. When an abnormality exists, the
`abnormal code is transmitted to the host computer on the dealer
`side through the transmitter-receivers 5 and 11.
`
`Ex. 1005, col. 9, ll. 13-18 (emphasis added).
`
`The contentions of AVS are unpersuasive. AVS does not focus on
`
`that part of Asano‟s disclosure, identified and explained in the Petition,
`
`which describes a basic diagnosis performed onboard a vehicle to generate
`
`an output indicative of the determination of the non-optimal operation,
`
`expected failure, or actual failure of any of the components. Rather, AVS
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`discusses the more thorough diagnosis that is performed at a facility remote
`
`from the vehicle.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Toyota has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1 and 15 are
`
`anticipated by Asano. Similarly, we are persuaded by Toyota‟s evidence
`
`and presentation that Toyota has established a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail in showing that dependent claims 2, 5, 9, and 13 are
`
`anticipated by Asano (Pet. 23-26). AVS has not argued that limitations of
`
`those dependent claims further distinguish over Asano (Prelim. Resp. 17).
`
`Whether Asano meets the limitations of claims 7 and 18
`
`Claim 7 recites “said display being coupled to said diagnostic system
`
`and arranged to display an indication of the determination of the non-
`
`optimal operation, failure, or expected failure of any of said components”
`
`(emphasis added). The recitation of “the determination” refers to the
`
`determination recited in claim 1, which is made by a diagnostic system
`
`arranged on the vehicle.
`
`As Toyota points out, Asano describes “display 90” that “is used to
`
`display instructions to the driver.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 6, ll. 67-68);
`
`see also Ex. 1003, Fig. 2. Toyota also argues that “the vehicle is able to
`
`„display . . . operating conditions.‟” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 12-
`
`13).
`
`AVS notes that an off-site location is the source of the displayed
`
`instructions in Asano. Prelim. Resp. 18. That assertion is supported by the
`
`record. Additionally, the display of operating conditions referred to by
`
`Toyota is “in dependence upon said received evaluated signals.” Ex. 1003,
`
`col. 4, ll. 12-13.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`However, claim 7 recites: “said display . . . arranged to display an
`
`indication of the determination” (emphasis added). The “indication” is
`
`separate from the onboard determination and need not be produced onboard.
`
`Therefore, display of either the instructions or operating conditions in
`
`dependence upon received signals is sufficient to satisfy the recited
`
`limitation.
`
`Claim 18 depends from claim 15. Claim 18 recites “displaying the
`
`output indicative or representative of the failure or expected failure of any of
`
`the components on the display” (emphasis added). Asano describes that an
`
`off-site location is the source of the displayed instructions and display of the
`
`operating conditions is in dependence upon signals evaluated by the off-site
`
`location. Therefore, neither of these features is sufficient to satisfy the
`
`limitation of displaying the processed output that is directed to a remote
`
`location. As a result, we are not persuaded that Toyota has established a
`
`reasonable likelihood of showing that Asano anticipates claim 18.
`
`Accordingly, Toyota has established a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail in showing that Asano anticipates claim 7, but not claim 18.
`
`C.
`
`Alleged Anticipation of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18 by Scholl
`
`Toyota contends that claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18 of the ‟210
`
`patent are anticipated, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e), by Scholl. Pet. 4,
`
`8-18. In light of the arguments and evidence submitted by both parties,
`
`Toyota has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`
`showing that claims 1, 2, 5, 13, and 15 are anticipated by Scholl. However,
`
`Toyota has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`
`showing that claim 9 is anticipated by Scholl.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`Scholl
`
`Scholl describes generating, by a vehicle, a set of data relating to the
`
`vehicle‟s operation (Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 58-59), an embodiment of which is
`
`illustrated in Figure 3, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3, monitor 210 on the vehicle generates a set of
`
`data relating to the vehicle‟s operation. Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 58-59; col. 3, ll.
`
`18-22, ll. 48-53. Data is generated by a plurality of sources on the vehicle,
`
`including sensors and electronic control modules (ECM). Id. at col. 3, ll. 20-
`
`22. That data is received via data link by models 302, prognostics 304, and
`
`diagnostics 308 on vehicle monitor 210. Id. at col. 3, ll. 48-53; Fig. 3.
`
`Management Information Manager 306 is connected to the data sources, as
`
`well as prognostics 304 and diagnostics 308, to receive the prognostics code
`
`data, diagnostics codes data, and model data and prepare it for transmission
`
`via satellite communication network 212 for expert interpretation 310. Id. at
`
`col. 3, ll. 58-60; Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`Whether Scholl meets the limitations of claims 1, 2, 5, 13, and 15
`
`In light of the information and analysis presented by Toyota‟s petition
`
`(Pet. 4, 8-18), together with the preliminary response of AVS, we are
`
`persuaded that Toyota has established a reasonable likelihood that it would
`
`prevail in showing that claims 1, 2, 5, 13, and 15 are anticipated by Scholl.
`
`As asserted by Toyota, Scholl describes micro-processor-based
`
`monitor 210, which produces a fault code in response to predetermined
`
`conditions in diagnostics 308 and prognostics 304. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002,
`
`col. 3, ll. 18-22, ll.52-53; col. 4, ll. 5-25; Figs. 2, 3). Toyota also notes that
`
`diagnostics 308 produces a fault code in response to a parameter value
`
`operating outside of its present range. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002, col 4, ll.5-
`
`25; Figs. 2, 3). Additionally, Toyota notes that prognostics 304 analyze data
`
`in order to detect conditions that may lead to future problems. Id. Toyota
`
`further notes that Management Information Manager 306 transmits the fault
`
`code to a remote location. Pet. 13, 14 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll.40-42; col.
`
`3, ll. 39-41; col. 6, ll.15-22; Figs. 2, 8). Toyota provides a detailed claim
`
`chart mapping each element of the claims to the disclosure of Scholl. Pet.
`
`12-18.
`
`In response, AVS argues that the Patent Office issued the claims over
`
`Scholl because Scholl relates to vehicle monitoring in which humans
`
`analyze vehicle data. Prelim. Resp. 7-8. In particular, AVS argues that
`
`Scholl describes an off-site human analyzing data and making a diagnosis,
`
`whereas the claims recite a diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 8-9. We are not persuaded by AVS‟s characterization of
`
`Scholl.
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 30
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00415
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`Although Scholl describes transmitting data off of the vehicle for
`
`interpretation, we are persuaded that Toyota has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Scholl discloses the claimed diagnostic system on the vehicle.
`
`Scholl also describes an embodiment of a vehicle diagnosis system in which
`
`data is analyzed and a diagnosis is made on the vehicle: “[i]n one
`
`embodiment the diagnostics, prognostics, and/or models are implemented on
`
`the monitor 210.” Ex. 1002, col. 3, ll. 52-53. In accordance with that
`
`embodiment, diagnostics 308 on the vehicle of Scholl compare measured or
`
`actual values of parameters to preset operating ranges and produce a fault
`
`code in response to a parameter value operating outside of its preset range.
`
`Ex. 1002, col. 4, ll. 8-13. Additionally, prognostics 304 on the vehicle of
`
`Scholl analyze data to detect conditions that may lead to future problems.
`
`Id. at col. 4, ll. 18-20.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Toyota has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing that independent claims 1 and 15
`
`are anticipated by Scholl. Similarly, we are persuaded by Toyota‟s evidence
`
`and presentation that Toyota has established a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail in showing that dependent claims 2, 5, and 13 are anticipated
`
`by Scholl (Pet. 14-16). AVS has not argued that limitations of those
`
`dependent claims further distinguish over Scholl (P
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
