throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: September 29, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-00633
`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
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`Background
`A.
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 13, 15, 16,
`18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,650,210 B2 (Exhibit 1001, the “’210
`patent”). American Vehicular Sciences LLC (“AVS”) timely filed a
`
`Page 1 of 28
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1010
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). 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:
`(a) 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.
`Based on our review of the record, we determine that Honda has
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the
`unpatentability of each of claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 of the
`’210 patent. Accordingly, under the standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314, we
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19.
`
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`Honda identified, as a related proceeding, the co-pending district court
`cases American Vehicular Sciences LLC v. American Honda Motor Co.,
`Inc., No. 6:13-cv-00226 (E.D. Tex.) (hereinafter “the 226 Litigation”) and
`American Vehicular Sciences LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 6:13-cv-
`00405 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1.
`The ’210 patent is also involved in an inter partes review proceeding,
`Case IPR2013-00415.
`
`The ’210 Patent
`C.
`The ’210 patent relates to arrangements and techniques for managing
`vehicle diagnostic information. Ex. 1001, 2:55–57. According to the ’210
`patent, typical vehicle diagnostic systems provide the present condition of a
`vehicle. Id. at 9:43–44. However, a vehicle operator wants to repair the
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`vehicle or replace a component before it fails. Id. at 9:44–47. Typical prior
`art vehicle diagnostics systems do not indicate when the failure will occur.
`Id. at 9:46–47.
`The ’210 patent discloses that the invention solves the problem of
`vehicle diagnostic systems not indicating an expected failure. Ex. 1001,
`3:21–33, Abstract.
`Figure 20C of the ’210 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`Figure 20C of the ’210 patent illustrates an embodiment of a system
`for collecting and processing data about a vehicle. Ex. 1001, 6:4–10.
`Sensors 627 shown in Figure 20C are arranged throughout the vehicle to
`collect data. Ex. 1001, 24:58–25:6. Antenna array 622 is mounted on the
`vehicle to receive wireless signals from sensors 627. Id. at 57:55–59.
`Antenna array 622 is within housing 630 along with control system 628,
`which controls antenna array 622. Id. at 57:60–58:13. Control system 628
`also processes sensor return signals to provide information about the vehicle
`or component. Id. at 58:7–8. 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 58:14–20.
`Figure 3 of the ’210 patent illustrates an embodiment of the sensors of
`the on-board diagnostic system and is reproduced below:
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a schematic of a vehicle illustrating about thirty sensors
`shown in their approximate locations on the vehicle. Ex. 1001, 21:35–37.
`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 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 21:62–22:13, Figs. 3, 4. 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.
`
`D.
`Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims challenged by Honda.
`Each of claims 2, 3, 5, 7–9, and 13 depends directly from claim 1, and each
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`of claims 16, 18, and 19 depends directly from claim 15. Claims 1 and 15
`are illustrative and 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:
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`
`
`E.
`The Asserted Prior Art
`Honda relies upon the prior art references below. Pet. 5–7.
`Ishihara
`Japanese Published
`Dec. 17, 1993
`Application H01-197145
`English Translation of
`Ishihara
`Schricker Patent 5,561,610
`
`
`
`Oct. 1, 1996
`(filed June 30,
`1994)
`
`
`Fry1
`
`Asano
`
`Diesel Locomotive
`Reliability Improvement by
`System Monitoring, 209
`PROC. INST. OF
`MECHANICAL ENGINEERS,
`PART F: J. OF RAIL &
`RAPID TRANSIT 1 (1995).
`Patent 5,157,610
`
`Oct. 20, 1992
`
`Scholl
`
`Patent 5,400,018
`
`Mar. 21, 1995
`
`Corwin
`
`Patent 4,675,675
`
`June 23, 1987
`
`Windle
`
`Patent 4,926,331
`
`May 15, 1990
`
`Exhibit
`1003
`Exhibit
`1004
`Exhibit
`1005
`
`Exhibit
`1006
`
`Exhibit
`1007
`Exhibit
`1008
`Exhibit
`1009
`Exhibit
`1010
`
`
`1 The copy of Fry, as submitted by Honda, includes an added cover sheet
`from the publisher, noting that the version of record is dated January 1,
`1995. Ex. 1006, 1.
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`F.
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Honda challenges claims of the ’210 patent on the following grounds.
`Pet. 5–7.
`Reference[s]
`Ishihara
`
`Claims challenged
`1–3, 5, 7–9, 13, 15, 16, and 19
`
`Basis
`§ 102(b)
`
`1, 2, 5, 7–9, 15, 16, and 18
`
`8, 16, and 18
`
`1, 2, 5, 8, 15, and 16
`
`1–3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 19
`
`1–3, 5, 13, 15, and 19
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 102(a)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§§ 102(a) and
`102(e)
`§ 102(b)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Schricker
`
`Ishihara and
`Schricker
`Fry
`
`Asano
`
`Scholl
`
`Corwin
`Scholl and Windle
`
`1–3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, and 19
`7, 9, and 18
`
`In support of the grounds above, Honda also presents a Declaration by
`Mr. Christopher Wilson (Ex. 1011).
`
` ANALYSIS
`
`II.
`Claim Construction
`A.
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), 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
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). For an inventor to act 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 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).
`Honda provides a construction for two terms. Pet. 7–8. AVS did not
`provide a construction for any term. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`“component”
`1.
`Independent claims 1 and 15 both recite the term “components.”
`According to Honda, “component” means “a part or an assembly of parts,
`less than the whole.” Pet. 7. The specification of the ’210 patent states:
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`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, 10:6–9.
`Honda 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. Pet. 7. Also, the above-
`quoted text is not in the form of a definition, but rather is in 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 or parts
`(Ex. 1001, 10:6–7), the ’210 patent specification provides exemplary
`components that are less than the whole vehicle (id. at 10:9–19). We,
`therefore, construe “component” as “a part or an assembly of parts, less than
`the whole.”
`
`“display”
`2.
`Each of claims 7 and 18 recites the term “display.” According to
`Honda, “display” means “a screen for showing information.” Pet. 8. The
`’210 patent specification distinguishes a display from a warning lamp, by
`stating, for example, “it can activate or direct the activation of a responsive
`system to alert the driver by displaying a warning light, sound an audible
`alarm, or activate another type of alarm . . . [a] display can also be provided
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`to display . . . an indication or representation of the determination by the
`processor.” Ex. 1001, 87:46–51. In the context of the ’210 patent, a
`warning lamp or light does not constitute a “display,” and a “display” covers
`a screen for showing information.
`
`“diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle”
`3.
`Claim 1 recites “diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle.”
`According to Honda, the phrase should be construed in accordance with its
`plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 8. Based on the recitation of “diagnostic
`system arranged on the vehicle,” components of the diagnostic system are
`located physically on the vehicle. We, however, do not exclude the
`possibility that the diagnostic system may acquire instructions, data, or
`commands from a remote source. The components that actually perform the
`substantive diagnostic processing must be located physically on the vehicle.
`Also, requiring a diagnostic system to be arranged on the vehicle does
`not exclude an additional diagnostic system that is located remotely from the
`vehicle. We note that independent claim 1 uses the term “comprising,”
`which is a term of art meaning that the named elements are essential, but
`other elements also may be included to constitute additional components
`within the scope of the claim. See Genentech, Inc., 112 F.3d at 501.
`
`“cellular telephone system”
`4.
`Claims 8 and 16 recite “cellular telephone system.” Neither party
`provides a construction for “cellular telephone system,” but Honda asserts
`that Ishihara and Schricker disclose or teach a “cellular telephone system”
`(Pet. 18–19, 30, 36–37).
`The ’210 patent specification provides exemplary communication
`devices including cellular phone, dedicated short range communication
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`(DSRC) devices, OnStar®, and devices that communicate with low earth
`orbit (LEO) satellite or geostationary satellites. Ex. 1001, 114:29–48.
`Furthermore, according to the ’210 patent specification, a wireless download
`may be via “a cellular network or by satellite.” Id. at 24:17. Cell towers are
`distinct from satellites.
`We construe “cellular telephone system,” in light of the ’210 patent
`specification, as a system that communicates by use of a terrestrial network
`of radio cell towers.
`
`Asserted Anticipation by Ishihara
`B.
`Honda contends that claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 13, 15, 16, and 19 of the ’210
`patent are unpatentable as anticipated by Ishihara. Pet. 9–24. AVS contends
`that this ground is identical to a ground raised by Toyota in the IPR2013-
`00415 proceeding and denied as redundant. Prelim. Resp. 1. Beyond this
`request, AVS waives its right to present a substantive preliminary response
`with respect to Ishihara. Id. at 2.
`Honda’s challenge based on anticipation by Ishihara includes four
`claims, claims 3, 8, 16, and 19 (Pet. 9–14), which were not challenged by
`Toyota. See IPR2013-00415. Additionally, Honda is a different party. We,
`therefore, consider Honda’s assertions of unpatentability of each of the
`challenged claims.
`In light of the arguments and evidence submitted by both parties,
`Honda has established a reasonable likelihood that each of claims 1–3, 5, 7,
`9, 13, 15, and 19 is unpatentable as anticipated by Ishihara. Honda,
`however, has not established a reasonable likelihood that claims 8 and 16 are
`unpatentable as anticipated by Ishihara.
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`Ishihara
`1.
`Ishihara discloses a failure diagnosis apparatus for a vehicle. Ex.
`1004, 1:1. The diagnosis apparatus receives instructions from a failure
`diagnosis station outside of the vehicle and includes a display that shows
`only those with failures having a high significance. Id.
`Figure 1 of Ishihara is shown below:
`
`
`Figure 1 shows on-board failure diagnosis apparatus 2 and failure
`diagnosis station 3 that is outside of vehicle. On-board apparatus 2 includes
`control unit 4 that controls various devices or systems on-board and detects
`failures of those systems. Ex. 1004, 2:2. Display apparatus 5 is connected
`to control unit 4. Id. Communication control unit 6 controls communication
`between control unit 4 and failure diagnosis station 3. Id.
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`Figure 2 of Ishihara is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram showing, among other things, sensors 11,
`12, 13, and 14. The sensors detect vehicle speed and other engine
`conditions. Ex. 1004, 2:2. The output of sensors 11, 12, 13, and 14 is input
`to computer 16 in control unit 4 via input processing circuit 15. Id.
`Computer 16 includes control section 16a and failure detection section 16b.
`Ex. 1004, 3:1. Control section 16a outputs control signals controlling
`operation of the automatic transmission. Id. The failure detection section
`16b determines whether or not an abnormality exists, in light of data or a
`program saved in memory 17 of computer 16. Id.
`
`Claims 1 and 15
`2.
`Honda notes that Ishihara relates to providing a failure diagnosis
`apparatus for a vehicle. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:1). Honda points
`Ishihara’s description of detecting failures by failure detection section 16b,
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`as meeting claim 1’s recitation of “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,” as well as claim 15’s recitation
`of “processing data from the sensors using a processor.” Pet. 11–12, 17
`(citing Ex. 2:1–2, 3:1, 4:1). As noted by Honda (id.), Ishihara describes
`failure detection section 16b, which determines whether an abnormality
`exists in input signals 11a to 14 a received from sensors 11 to 14 (Ex. 1004,
`3:1). Failure detection 16b makes its determination in light of data or a
`program saved in memory 17 of computer 16. Ex. 1004, 3:1. Additionally,
`Ishihara explains that computer 16, having failure detection section 16b (Ex.
`1004, 3:1), is in control unit 4, which is included in on-board apparatus 2
`(Ex. 1004, 2:2).
`Regarding claim 1’s and claim 15’s recitation of generating an output
`indicative or representative of expected failure or failure of any of the
`components, Honda points to outputs resulting from failures detected by
`failure detection system 16. Pet. 12, 17 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:1, 4:1). As noted
`by Honda (id.), Ishihara describes turning on a warning lamp (Ex. 1004, 3:1)
`and appending an identification code for failure content in front of the
`failure data, which are then transmitted to failure diagnosis station 3 (Ex.
`1004, 4:1).
`Claims 1 and 15 also recite directing the output indicative or
`representative of the failure or expected failure to a remote location. Honda
`cites to Ishihara’s description of communicating data, upon detection of a
`failure of an on-board component, to a failure diagnosis station, outside of
`the vehicle. Pet. 13–14, 17–18 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:1–2, 3:1–2, 4:1, Fig. 1).
`As noted by Honda (id.), Ishihara describes that an objective of the system is
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`“at an occurrence” of failure by the failure detection unit on-board the
`vehicle, the system transmits “all data related to a failure” to the failure
`diagnosis station outside of the vehicle. Ex. 1004, 2:1.
`Claim 15 further recites mounting sensors on the vehicle. As noted by
`Honda, Ishihara describes sensors on the vehicle. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex.
`1004, 2:2, 3:1).
`For the foregoing reasons, in light of the arguments and evidence
`submitted by both parties, Honda has established a reasonable likelihood that
`each of claims 1 and 15 is anticipated by Ishihara.
`
`Claims 2, 5, and 13
`3.
`Claim 2 further recites that the communications device is arranged to
`direct automatically the transmission of the output to the remote station
`without manual intervention. As noted by Honda, Ishihara describes
`“automatically” transmitting all data to the failure diagnosis station outside
`of the vehicle. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:1).
`Claim 5 further recites a plurality of vehicle sensors mounted on the
`vehicle. Honda points to the same disclosure identified for claim 15.
`Claim 13 further recites generating a fault code relating to the non-
`optimal operation of any component and transmitting that fault code to the
`remote location. As noted by Honda (Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:2, 3:1,
`4:1)), Ishihara describes appending an identification code for failure content
`in front of failure data and, in the next step, the above failure data are
`transmitted to failure diagnosis station 3 (Ex. 1004, 4:1).
`For the foregoing reasons, in light of the arguments and evidence
`submitted by both parties, Honda has established a reasonable likelihood that
`each of claims 2, 5, and 13 is anticipated by Ishihara.
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`Claims 3 and 19
`4.
`Each of claims 3 and 19 further recites transmitting to a dealer or a
`repair facility, which is situated at the remote location. As noted by Honda,
`Ishihara describes transmitting to a failure diagnosis station 3, “such as a
`service shop.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:1).
`For the foregoing reasons, in light of the arguments and evidence
`submitted by both parties, Honda has established a reasonable likelihood that
`each of claims 3 and 19 is anticipated by Ishihara.
`
`Claims 7 and 9
`5.
`Claim 7 further recites “a display arranged in the vehicle in a position
`to be visible from the passenger compartment, said display being couple 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” (emphases added). The “indication” is separate
`from the on-board determination and need not be produced on-board.
`For claim 7, Honda points to displaying selectively diagnosis data
`from failure diagnosis station 3. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:2, 3:1–2,
`4:1–5:1)). Ishihara describes that display selection circuit 24 controls
`display apparatus 5 to display selectively diagnosis data from failure
`diagnosis station 3. Ex. 1004, 3:1. Display apparatus includes display
`device 33, comprising a CRT. Id. at 3:2. Upon receipt of failure data in
`failure diagnosis station 3, failure inference circuit 41 performs failure
`diagnosis using as input failure data received from the vehicle. Id. at 4:1.
`Whether a failure is displayed on display apparatus 5 of on-board apparatus
`2 is based on the significance of the failure. Id. Only failures with high
`significance will be displayed on-board the vehicle. Id. at 4:2.
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`Claim 9 further recites, “a warning device couple to said diagnostic
`system for relaying a warning to an occupant of the vehicle relating to the
`non-optimal operation, failure, or expected failure of any of said
`components.” Honda points to the same disclosure discussed with respect to
`claim 7. Ishihara describes that warning lamp 22 is turned on at the time of
`the occurrence of a failure, as detected by failure detection section 16b. Ex.
`1004, 3:1.
`For the foregoing reasons, in light of the arguments and evidence
`submitted by both parties, Honda has established a reasonable likelihood that
`each of claims 7 and 9 is anticipated by Ishihara.
`
`Claims 8 and 16
`6.
`Each of claims 8 and 16 further recites that the communications
`device is a cellular telephone system. As noted by Honda, Ishihara describes
`a transmitting unit that communicates failure information using “a telephone
`line of an automobile provided in the automobile.” Pet.18 (citing Ex. 1004,
`1:2). Honda has not shown sufficiently that the telephone line is a system
`that communicates by use of a terrestrial network of radio cell towers. The
`declaration of Mr. Wilson (Ex. 1011, 19, 24) does not provide further
`disclosure that addresses this deficiency.
`For the foregoing reasons, Honda has not established a reasonable
`likelihood that each of claims 8 and 16 is anticipated by Ishihara.
`
`Asserted Anticipation by Schricker
`C.
`Honda contends that claims 1, 2, 5, 7–9, 15, 16, and 18 of the ’210
`patent are unpatentable as anticipated by Schricker. Pet. 24–36. AVS
`waives its right to present a substantive preliminary response with respect to
`Schricker. Prelim. Resp. 2. In light of the arguments and evidence
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`submitted by both parties, Honda has not established a reasonable likelihood
`that any of claims 1, 2, 5, 7–9, 15, 16, and 18 is unpatentable as anticipated
`by Schricker.
`
`Schricker
`1.
`Schricker describes diagnosing and indicating fault conditions. Ex.
`1005, 1:6–10. Figure 1 of Schricker is shown below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates machine prognostic system 10, which monitors
`and derives machine component information and analyzes the resulting data
`to indicate impending component or system failures. Ex. 1005, 2:40–47. In
`accordance with one embodiment, communication system 14 may transfer
`data from work machine 12 to central computer system 16 for analysis. Id.
`at 2:49–56. Data may be transferred by a Qualcomm satellite system or a
`cellular telephone system. Id. at 2:52–54. Alternatively, according to
`Schricker, all aspects of the system could be located on-board work machine
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`12 thereby eliminating the need for communication system 14. Id. at 2:58–
`62.
`
`Subsets of data are transmitted to a display module in an operator
`compartment of work machine 12 for presentation to the operator in the
`form of gauges and warning messages. Ex. 1005, 2:63–66. During out-of-
`specification conditions, alarms, warning messages, and instructional
`messages are also displayed. Id. at 3:1–2.
`
`Claims 1 and 15
`2.
`Honda points to Schricker’s description of machine prognostic system
`10 as meeting claim 1’s recitation of a diagnostic system arranged on the
`vehicle, as well as claim 15’s recitation of processing data from sensors on
`the vehicle. Pet. 26–27, 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:6–10, 1:54–2:4, 2:40–62,
`3:9–26, 7:38–44, 8:29–32, Fig. 1). As noted by Honda (id.), Schricker
`describes machine prognostic system 10 acquiring and analyzing data for
`work machine 12 (Ex. 1005, 2:40–42) and determining whether a fault
`condition is present (id. at 7:38–43).
`Claims 1 and 15, however, also recite directing the output indicative
`or representative of the failure or expected failure to a remote location. On
`pages 25–26 of the Petition, Honda states the following: “Even in
`embodiments where ‘all aspects of the present invention could be located
`on-board the work machine 12,’ (id. 2:57-58), data may be transmitted to a
`remote location for purposes such as monitoring a fleet of vehicles. (Id.
`2:61-62.).” Honda, however, does not explain sufficiently how the cited
`portion of Schricker discloses directing the output indicative or
`representative of the failure or expected failure to a remote location.
`Specifically, Schricker states:
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`It should be understood that all aspects of the present
`
`invention could be located on-board the work machine 12
`thereby eliminating the need for a communication system 14;
`however, the central computer system 16 allows an entire fleet
`to be monitored at a central station.
`Ex. 1005, 2:58–62. The above-quoted text indicates that communication
`system 14 is eliminated in an embodiment in which all aspects of the
`invention are located on-board work machine 12.
`In a claim chart, Honda further cites to the following:
`
`FIG. 1 illustrates a variety of potential communication systems
`14 that may be used to transfer data from the work machine 12
`to a central computer system 16 for analysis. In the preferred
`embodiment, the data is transferred by the Qualcomm satellite
`system back to the central computer system 16. Alternatively,
`the data is transferred by a cellular telephone system.
`Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:48–57). Schricker, however, states “the data is
`transferred” without specifying that the transfer encompasses more than data
`acquired from the sensors. Ex. 1005, 2:54. Honda cites to additional
`discussion in Schricker regarding communication systems without
`explaining sufficiently how these statements describe directing the output
`indicative or representative of the failure or expected failure to a remote
`location, as recited in claims 1 and 15. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 9:22–24,
`Figs. 1, 2).
`Honda additionally cites to the sentence below:
`
`The existence of fault conditions are indicated by any of a
`plurality of available warning means, such as lights or horns, at
`either or both of the work machine 12 and central computer
`system 16.
`Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:29–32).
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`Honda has not shown sufficiently that the display at central computer
`
`system 16 necessarily results from work machine 12 communicating a
`determination of a fault condition to central computer system 16. Work
`machine 12 may transfer merely acquired sensor data and central computer
`system 16 performs the analysis.
`The declaration of Mr. Wilson (Ex. 1011 ¶ 39) does not provide
`further disclosure that shows sufficiently that Schricker discloses directing
`the output indicative or representative of the failure or expected failure to a
`remote location. Honda, therefore, has not established a reasonable
`likelihood that independent claims 1 and 15 are anticipated by Schricker.
`Because each of claims 2, 5, and 7–9 depends directly from claim 1, and
`each of claims 16 and 18 depends directly from claim 15, Honda has not
`established a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 2, 5, 7–9, 16, and 18 is
`anticipated by Schricker.
`
`Asserted Obviousness over Ishihara and Schricker
`D.
`Honda contends that claims 8, 16, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious
`over Ishihara and Schricker, taken together. Pet. 36–40. AVS waives its
`right to present a substantive preliminary response with respect to Ishihara.
`Prelim. Resp. 2.
`As discussed above, Honda has established a reasonable likelihood
`that each of independent claims 1 and 15 is anticipated by Ishihara. Claim 8
`depends directly from claim 1, and each of claims 16 and 18 depends
`directly from claim 15. The deficiency of Schricker discussed above, in the
`context of asserted anticipation of independent claims 1 and 15 by Schricker,
`has no application in the context of the features added by claims 8, 16, and
`18. On the present record, Honda has articulated cogent reasoning with
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 28
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00633
`Patent 7,650,210 B2
`
`rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Ishihara and Schricker to
`arrive at the subject matter of these claims. Pet. 36–39 (citing Ex. 1004,
`1:1–2:1, 3:1, 4:1; Ex. 1005, 1:5–10, 1:34–38, 2:51–55, 8:29–32; Ex. 1011
`¶¶ 43–44, 48).
`For the foregoing reasons, in light of the arguments and evidence
`submitted by both parties, Honda has established a reasonable likelihood that
`each of claims 8, 16, and 18 is unpatentable as obvious over Ishihara and
`Schricker, taken together.
`
`Claims 8 and 16
`1.
`Claim 8 further recites, “wherein said communications device
`comprises a cellular telephone system.” As noted by Honda (Pet. 30 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 2:54–55)), Schricker teaches transferring data by a cellular
`telephone system. We have considered paragraphs 43 and 44 of the
`declaration of Mr. Wilson (Ex. 1011), and find persuasive, on this record,
`that one with ordinary skill in the art

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