UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VALEO NORTH AMERICA INC., VALEO S.A., VALEO GMBH,
`VALEO SCHALTER UND SENSOREN GMBH,
`AND CONNAUGHT ELECTRONICS LTD.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00250
`Patent 8,543,330
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  Overview of the Claimed Inventions in the ’330 Patent ..................................... 1 
`III.  Claim Construction ............................................................................................. 2 
`Legal Standards for Claim Construction .............................................. 2 
`A. 
`B. 
`Construction of the Terms ..................................................................... 3 
`1. 
`“display intensity” ....................................................................... 3 
`2. 
`“human machine interface” ......................................................... 3 
`3. 
`“electronically generated overlay” .............................................. 3 
`IV.  Valeo fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the
`applied art fails to teach each and every element of the challenged
`claims. .............................................................................................................. 5 
`A. 
`Lemelson, Schofield, and Tokito, alone or in combination, fail
`to teach multiple features of the independent claims 1, 39, 59,
`and 76. ................................................................................................... 7 
`1. 
`Lemelson fails to disclose a visual alert comprising
`electronically generated indicia that overlays the image
`data. ............................................................................................. 7 
`Lemelson fails to disclose that the claimed electronically
`generated indicia that overlays the image data indicates
`distance to a detected object rearward or exterior of the
`equipped vehicle. ...................................................................... 11 
`Lemelson and Schofield fail to teach providing visual
`and audible alerts in response to detection of an object
`rearward of the equipped vehicle and during a reversing
`maneuver of the equipped vehicle. ........................................... 13 
`Lemelson and Schofield fail to teach the image data capture and
`object detection occurring “during a reversing maneuver of the
`equipped vehicle” recited in claims 13, 40-41, 60-61, and 77-
`78. ........................................................................................................ 16 
`Lemelson fails to disclose highlighting of a detected object, as
`recited in claims 5, 10, 49, 69, and 83. ................................................ 18 
`Lemelson fails to teach all features of claims 6 and 7. ....................... 19 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`B. 
`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`Lemelson fails to disclose detection of objects present in a
`rearward field of view of the rearward facing camera
`comprising non-visual object detection, as recited in claims 14,
`52, and 72. ........................................................................................... 22 
`Lemelson fails to disclose a camera encompassing the ground
`immediately in front or immediately rearward of the equipped
`vehicle, as recited in claims 44, 46, 64, 66, and 81. ............................ 24 
`V.  Each of the grounds of invalidity proposed by Valeo fails to satisfy
`criteria set forth in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). ........................................... 29 
`A.  Valeo fails to resolve the level of one of ordinary skill in the
`art. ........................................................................................................ 29 
`Valeo fails to show that the subject matter as a whole would
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. ................. 31 
`Valeo fails to show rationale for why a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have combined the proposed art. .............................. 38 
`D.  Valeo fails to show sufficient rationale for why a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined Lemelson,
`Schofield, Tokito, and Schaefer to render claims 25, 57, 75, and
`89 obvious. .......................................................................................... 41 
`VI.  Dr. Wilhelm’s Declaration should be afforded no weight. ............................... 43 
`A.  Dr. Wilhelm’s Declaration improperly relies on Valeo’s claim
`charts. ................................................................................................... 44 
`Dr. Wilhelm’s Declaration should be afforded no weight
`because he applies an incorrect standard for determining
`obviousness. ........................................................................................ 47 
`VII. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 49 
`
`
`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 47
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................. 30
`
`In re Fine,
`837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 37
`
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 37
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 31
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 38, 40
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 3
`
`In re Oelrich,
`579 F.2d 86 (C.C.P.A. 1978) ................................................................................ 31
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ................................................................................ 5
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 2
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ............................................................................ 14
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................ 5, 30, 38, 40
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 31
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`
`Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc.,
`950 F.2d 714 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 30
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................2, 3
`
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Regulations 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................... 31, 44
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .......................................................................................... 43
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 46
`
`Other Authorities 
`M.P.E.P. § 2143.02 .................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Ex. No.
`2001
`
`Description
`Declaration of Dr. Matthew A. Turk with Curriculum Vitae
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Board instituted trial for challenged claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13-15, 18, 22-27,
`
`29, 30, 39-41, 43-49, 52, 55-61, 63-69, 72, 75-78, 80-83, and 85-89 (“instituted
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330, (“the ’330 patent”). Petitioners, Valeo
`
`North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH, Valeo Schalter und Sensoren
`
`GmbH, and Connaught Electronics Ltd. (collectively “Valeo”) have challenged
`
`these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). All grounds under § 103 have three or four-
`
`reference combinations. But for all instituted claims here, first Valeo fails to show
`
`the purported art teaches all elements of the instituted claims and second, Valeo
`
`fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for making the purported three
`
`and four-reference combinations. Because of these deficiencies, Patent Owner
`
`Magna Electronics Inc. (“Magna”) respectfully requests that the Board finds the
`
`instituted claims not unpatentable.
`
`II. Overview of the Claimed Inventions in the ’330 Patent
`The ’330 patent claims recite a multi-functional driver assist system. The
`
`driver assist system includes a rearward viewing camera located on a vehicle. (’330
`
`patent, Exhibit 1001, 10:8-9.) The rearward viewing camera has a rearward field of
`
`view relative to the vehicle. (Id. at Abstract.) The video display of the vehicle is
`
`operable to display image data captured using the rearward facing camera. (Id.)
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`The driver assist system is also operable to detect objects presented in the
`
`rearward field of view of the rearward facing camera and to display these objects
`
`as image data. (Id.) The display has intensity of at least 200 candelas/sq. meter. (Id.
`
`at 9:66-67.) And, the driver assist system is also operable to provide audible and
`
`visual alerts in response to detecting an object. (Id. at 27:4-10.) These visual alerts
`
`include electronically generated indicia that overlay the image data. (Id. at 26:61-
`
`62.) The electronically generated indicia indicate distance to the detected object
`
`and highlight the detected object. (Id. at 26:59-66.) The driver assist systems
`
`having electronically generated indicia overlaying the video image of the rearward
`
`scene described in the ’330 patent were a significant advance over prior reversing
`
`systems. (Id. at 27:4-10.)
`
`III. Claim Construction
`A.
`Legal Standards for Claim Construction
`During inter partes review, the Office must give claims a construction that
`
`reasonably reflects the claim and disclosure of the patent “as [they] would be
`
`interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
`
`1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The starting point for construing a
`
`claim term is to “look to the words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope
`
`of the patented invention.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
`
`1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The “words in a claim are generally given their ordinary and
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`customary meaning.” Id. The Federal Circuit has also stated that claim construction
`
`requires considering both “intrinsic and extrinsic evidence,” and that a reasonable
`
`“construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence”
`
`including “extrinsic evidence show[ing] [w]hat a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize” regarding the subject matter claimed. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d
`
`1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`B. Construction of the Terms
`1.
`“display intensity”
`In the Institution Decision, the Board construed “display intensity” to mean
`
`“luminance.” (Institution Decision, Paper 7, p. 7.) For the purposes of this
`
`response, Magna utilizes the Board’s construction of “display intensity.”
`
`“human machine interface”
`
`2.
`In the Institution Decision, the Board construed “human machine interface”
`
`to have no express construction. (Id.) For the purposes of this response, Magna
`
`relies on the Board’s determination that no express construction is necessary.
`
`“electronically generated overlay”
`
`3.
`Independent claims 1, 39, 59, and 76 recite a visual alert comprising
`
`“electronically generated indicia that overlay said image data displayed by said
`
`video display.” The ’330 patent describes the electronically generated overlay as:
`
`an image on the screen includes a video view rearward of
`the vehicle, and also preferably includes electronically
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`generated indicia overlaying the video image on the
`video screen and indicating the distance of detected
`objects (such as via a graphic display or via an
`alphanumeric display in feet/inches) and/or highlighting
`of obstacles/objects that a reversing vehicle is in jeopardy
`of colliding with (such as a child or a barrier).
`
`(’330 patent, 26:59-67 (emphasis added).)
`
`The ’330 patent also describes the electronically generated overlay as an
`
`“indicia of forward or backup travel” where “the intended path of travel and/or a
`
`distance grid can be electronically superimposed upon the video image from a
`
`reverse-aid camera as displayed on any screen of the above video mirrors, video
`
`display assemblies and accessory modules.” (Id. at 27:25-26, 27:30-34 (emphasis
`
`added).)
`
`Based on the plain language of the term “electronically-generated overlay,”
`
`the description in the ’330 patent, and the understanding of this term by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”), “electronically generated overlay” should be
`
`construed to mean “electronically-generated indicia superimposed upon and
`
`overlaying a displayed video image.” (Turk Decl., Ex. 2001 ¶ 24.)
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`IV. Valeo fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the
`applied art fails to teach each and every element of the challenged
`claims.
`
`For the § 103 grounds, Valeo must show that the applied art teaches each
`
`and every element of the claim. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (to
`
`establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim features
`
`must be taught or suggested by the prior art). Valeo fails to meet this burden. The
`
`three and four-reference combinations applied here fail to teach each and every
`
`element of the instituted claims.
`
`Valeo alleges that Lemelson, in view of Schofield and Tokito, renders
`
`claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13-15, 18, 22-24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 39-41, 43-49, 52, 56, 58-61, 63-
`
`69, 72, 76-78, 80-83, and 85-88 obvious. Indeed, Valeo alleges that Lemelson
`
`“clearly discloses each and every important feature of nearly all of the claims.”
`
`(Petition, Paper 1, p. 21.) However, § 103 does not turn on whether the art
`
`discloses only the “important features” in the claims, but whether “all the claimed
`
`elements were known in the prior art.” M.P.E.P. § 2143.02 (emphasis added)
`
`(citing to KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)).
`
`Here, Valeo fails to show that the applied art teaches many features of the
`
`independent and dependent claims. With respect to the independent claims 1, 39,
`
`59, and 76, Valeo fails to show 1) how Lemelson discloses a visual alert
`
`comprising electronically generated indicia that overlays the image data, and 2)
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`how Lemelson discloses that the electronically generated indicia that overlays the
`
`image indicates the distance to a detected object rearward or exterior to the
`
`equipped vehicle.
`
`With respect to the independent claim 1 and dependent claims 43, 63, and
`
`80, Valeo fails to show how Schofield teaches visual and audible alerts provided in
`
`response to object detection during a reversing maneuver of the equipped vehicle.
`
`With respect to the dependent claims 13, 40, 60, and 77, Valeo fails to show
`
`how Lemelson and Schofield teach image data capture by a rearward facing
`
`camera and image displayed during a reversing maneuver to assist the driver in
`
`reversing the equipped vehicle. With respect to the dependent claims 41, 61, and
`
`78, Valeo fails to show how Lemelson and Schofield teach detection of objects
`
`present in the rearward field of view during a reversing maneuver of the equipped
`
`vehicle.
`
`With respect to the dependent claims 5-7, 10, 49, 69, and 83, Valeo fails to
`
`show how Lemelson discloses highlighting of a detected object.
`
`With respect to the dependent claims 14, 52, and 72, Valeo fails to show
`
`how Lemelson discloses detection of objects present in the rearward field of view
`
`using non-visual object detection.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`With respect to the dependent claims 44, 46, 64, 66, and 81, Valeo fails to
`
`show how Lemelson discloses a camera encompassing the ground immediately in
`
`front of or rearward of the equipped vehicle.
`
`A. Lemelson, Schofield, and Tokito, alone or in combination, fail to
`teach multiple features of the independent claims 1, 39, 59, and
`76.
`1.
`
`to disclose a visual alert comprising
`fails
`Lemelson
`electronically generated indicia that overlays the image data.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “wherein said visual alert comprises
`
`electronically generated indicia that overlay said image data displayed by said
`
`video display.” Claims 39, 59, and 76 recite similar features. As discussed above,
`
`an “electronically generated overlay” should be construed to mean “electronically-
`
`generated indicia superimposed upon and overlaying a displayed video image .”
`
`(Turk Decl. ¶ 24.) Lemelson fails to teach visual alerts comprising electronically
`
`generated indicia that are superimposed upon and overlay displayed image data.
`
`In the context of the ’330 patent and the claims at issue, a POSA would have
`
`understood the recitation “wherein said visual alert comprises electronically
`
`generated indicia that overlay said image data displayed by said video display” to
`
`require the likes of guidelines or other markings that are electronically generated to
`
`be superimposed upon and overlaying displayed image. Thus, a driver of a vehicle
`
`equipped with a system in accordance with the claimed inventions of these claims,
`
`would see, displayed on the video display, video images captured by the camera(s)
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`with the likes of guidelines or markings or similar overlays superimposed upon and
`
`overlaying the actual video images being displayed in real-time. (Id. at 27.) Valeo
`
`alleges that Lemelson at 6:49-55 purportedly discloses this feature. (Petition, pp.
`
`27-28.) Specifically, Valeo alleges that Lemelson discloses:
`
`The image display may include highlighting of hazards,
`special warning images such as flashing lights, alpha-
`numeric messages, distance values, speed indicators and
`other hazard and safety related messages. Simulated
`displays of symbols representing the hazard objects as
`well as actual video displays may also be used to enhance
`driver recognition of dangerous situations.
`
`(Lemelson, Ex. 1005, 6:49-55.)
`
`This passage from Lemelson discloses that the image display (i.e., the video
`
`display screen itself) may include such highlighting or warning. But this does not
`
`mean that the highlighting or warnings are the electronically generated indicia that
`
`overlays displayed video images as recited in the subject claims. (Turk Decl. ¶ 29.)
`
`Indeed, the warnings and simulated displays of symbols as recited in Lemelson
`
`could be displayed by the video screen entirely separate from (i.e., above or below
`
`or to the left or right) the video images also being displayed by the video screen.
`
`(Id.) This is at least because display of such symbolic or numeric messages, if
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`overlaying or superimposed as claimed in the ’330 patent, could mask or confuse
`
`or obscure image data in the video images being displayed. (Id.)
`
`Also, Lemelson’s discussion of an “image display” which “include[s]
`
`highlighting of hazards” does not teach that the hazards are part of image data
`
`captured by the rearward facing camera or that the highlighting overlays the image
`
`data as recited in the claims. (Lemelson, 6:49-50; Turk Decl. ¶ 30.) Indeed, the
`
`hazards in Lemelson, such as special warning images may be included above,
`
`below, to the left, or to the right of the image data. (Turk Decl. ¶ 30.) Thus,
`
`Lemelson’s special warning images may be highlighted without overlaying the
`
`image data. (Id.)
`
`Lemelson also discusses a warning system which includes warning levels.
`
`For example, “[t]he warning level is indicated as being green, yellow, or red,
`
`depending on the danger level presented by the detected hazard.” (Lemelson, 9:53-
`
`55.) These “[c]ontinuous or discrete warnings can be generated on the output.” (Id.
`
`at 9:55-56.) This output includes “light indicators of different intensity,
`
`continuously variable audible alarms, continuously variable color indicators, or
`
`others arrangements with possible combinations of visible and audible alarms.”
`
`(Id. at 9:57-60.) Also, these visible and audible warning may be “combined with
`
`actual video displays of vehicle situations including hazards and nearby objects.”
`
`(Id. at 9:61-62.) However, Lemelson does not teach that any of these warnings are
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`electronic indicia that overlay the displayed image data. Lemelson only describes a
`
`warning system where warning colors may be shown together with image data
`
`captured by a camera, but not overlay the image data displayed on a video display.
`
`(Turk Decl. ¶ 31.)
`
`And, Lemelson discusses a presentation of “symbols representing the hazard
`
`objects as well as actual video displays.” (Lemelson, 6:53-54.) However, here as
`
`well, Lemelson fails to teach the symbols representing the hazard objects overlay
`
`displayed image data. (Turk Decl. ¶ 32.) Indeed, these symbols can be in a section
`
`of the video display, but without overlaying the displayed image data. And Valeo
`
`presents no further analysis as to how the cited portion of Lemelson allegedly
`
`discloses “an electronically-generated overlay.” Thus, Valeo has not shown that
`
`Lemelson discloses this recited feature. (Id.)
`
`Lemelson does not disclose an ability to graphically overlay information
`
`onto the video image displayed to the driver. (Id. at 33.) All Lemelson does is list
`
`certain things that can be included on the image display. (Id.) Lemelson does not
`
`disclose that those things constitute electronically generated indicia that overlay
`
`the displayed image data, as recited in the claims. (Id.) Indeed, as discussed above,
`
`Lemelson could have a “split screen” that shows video on one portion of the screen
`
`and other information on another portion of the screen, or shows the information
`
`above, below, to the right, or to the left of the image data. (Id.) As stated in the
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`’330 patent specification, the driver assist systems having electronically generated
`
`indicia overlaying the video image of the rearward scene were a significant
`
`advance over the prior reversing systems. (’330 patent, 27:4-10.) Accordingly, a
`
`POSA reading Lemelson would not have understood Lemelson to implicitly
`
`disclose “electronically generated indicia,” as recited in claims 1, 39, 59, and 76.
`
`(Turk Decl. ¶ 33.)
`
`For at least these reasons Lemelson fails to teach “visual alert[s]
`
`compris[ing] electronically generated indicia that overlay said image data
`
`displayed by said video display,” as recited in claims 1, 39, 59, and 76.
`
`2.
`
`Lemelson fails to disclose that the claimed electronically
`generated indicia that overlays the image data indicates
`distance to a detected object rearward or exterior of the
`equipped vehicle.
`Claims 1, 2, 39, 42, 59, 62, 76, and 79 also recite the electronically
`
`generated indicia that overlays the image data and indicates distance to a detected
`
`object rearward or exterior of the equipped vehicle. Lemelson fails to teach or
`
`suggest this feature.
`
`Valeo relies on two different sections of Lemelson, 6:5-8 and 6:49-51, and
`
`alleges that these two sections disclose this feature. In particular, Valeo alleges that
`
`“video scanning . . . may be . . . employed to identify and indicate distances
`
`between the controlled vehicle and objects ahead of, to the side(s) of, and to the
`
`rear of the controlled vehicle.” (Petition, p. 28.) Valeo then points to a different
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`section in Lemelson to show that “[t]he image display may include . . . distance
`
`values.” (Id.)
`
`This selective paraphrasing of Lemelson still fails to disclose the claimed
`
`feature. In particular, Lemelson only states that the image display “may include . . .
`
`distance values.” (Id.) However, just because the image display may include
`
`distance values, these distance values do not have to overlay the displayed image
`
`data, nor does Lemelson disclose that the distance values overlay the displayed
`
`image data as recited in the claims. In fact, the distance values can be shown by the
`
`image display without overlaying the image data, such as using an image display
`
`having a split screen. (Turk Decl. ¶ 36.) For example, the distance values in
`
`Lemelson may be shown by the image display but without overlaying the image
`
`data, such as above, below, to the right or to the left of the image data. (Id.)
`
`Alternatively, the distance values in Lemelson may be shown on another image
`
`display, such as a dashboard display, that does not show image data taken by a
`
`camera. (Id.) In fact, Lemelson’s description of the image display in its entirety
`
`includes multiple features, such as, “highlighting of hazards, special warning
`
`images such as flashing lights, alpha-numeric messages, distance values, speed
`
`indicators, and other hazard and safety related messages,” which suggests to a
`
`POSA a display that includes the above information separately from the image data
`
`taken by a camera. (Lemelson, 6:49-52; Turk Decl. ¶ 36.)
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`The Institution Decision also appears to allege that Lemelson can teach
`
`distance values because “[a]ctual image data can be displayed in real time using
`
`video display 55 via analog-to-digital converter 54.” (Institution Decision, p. 11.)
`
`But an analog to digital conversion of an image only generates a digital image.
`
`(Turk Decl. ¶ 37.) The analog-to-digital conversion does not imply the
`
`electronically generated indicia which overlays the image data indicating distance
`
`to a detected object, as recited in the claims. (Id.)
`
`As such, Lemelson fails to teach visual alerts comprising electronically
`
`generated indicia that overlay said image data displayed by the video display
`
`indicating distance to a detected object rearward of the equipped vehicle as recited
`
`in claims 1, 39, 59, and 76.
`
`Because neither Schofield nor Tokito teaches or suggests the above features
`
`that are missing from Lemelson, Valeo fails to make the prima facie case of
`
`obviousness with respect to claims 1, 39, 59, and 76, and these claims should be
`
`confirmed.
`
`3.
`
`Lemelson and Schofield fail to teach providing visual and
`audible alerts in response to detection of an object rearward of
`the equipped vehicle and during a reversing maneuver of the
`equipped vehicle.
`
`Claim 1 recites a driver assist system that provides a “visual alert to the
`
`driver of the equipped vehicle responsive to detection of an object rearward of the
`
`equipped vehicle during a reversing maneuver of the equipped vehicle” and an
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`“audible alert to the driver of the equipped vehicle responsive to detection of an
`
`object rearward of the equipped vehicle during a reversing maneuver of the
`
`equipped vehicle.”
`
`Valeo relies on Schofield to teach the claimed “during a reversing maneuver
`
`of the equipped vehicle” feature. (Petition, pp. 26-27.) However, Valeo merely
`
`cites to Schofield’s disclosure that “the configuration of graphic overlays 70a, 70b
`
`indicates that the vehicle is in reverse gear and that the wheels are turned in a
`
`manner that will cause the vehicle to travel toward the driver’s side of the vehicle,”
`
`and provides no discussion as to how this disclosure discloses a visual alert or
`
`audible alert that is responsive to detection of an object rearward of the equipped
`
`vehicle during a reversing maneuver of the equipped vehicle, as claimed.
`
`(Schofield, Exhibit 1007, 10:46-49.)
`
`“All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that
`
`claim against the prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1970).
`
`Here, however, Valeo characterizes the claimed “during a reversing maneuver”
`
`element as “when the vehicle is in ‘reverse’.” (Petition, p. 31.) Valeo, however,
`
`does not offer any claim construction that the term “when the vehicle is in
`
`‘reverse’” is the same as the claimed “during a reversing maneuver.” Because
`
`Valeo fails to consider all elements of the claim, Valeo fails to show that claim 1 is
`
`invalid.
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`Moreover, Valeo never shows how Lemelson and Schofield can be
`
`combined to teach a visual or audio alert responsive to an object detection during
`
`the reversing maneuver of the equipped vehicle. In the Petition, Valeo relies on
`
`Schofield to “only eliminate any need to explicitly rely on any principles of
`
`inherency for the disclosure in Lemelson that the in-vehicle display switches to the
`
`rear-facing camera when the vehicle is in ‘reverse’,” and cites to Dr. Wilhelm’s
`
`Declaration. (Petition, p. 22.) Dr. Wilhelm, however, does not offer any technical
`
`analysis and simply states “references [Tokito and Schofield] themselves state the
`
`desirability of their use in such driver assist systems” and that “very little – in fact,
`
`virtually nothing – in the nature of any technical analysis or interpretation or
`
`‘opinion’” is required. (Wilhelm Decl., Exhibit 1014 ¶ 41.) However, neither
`
`Valeo nor Dr. Wilhelm point to any sections of Schofield that allegedly state the
`
`desirability to be combined with Lemelson to display a visual alert responsive to an
`
`object detection during a reversing maneuver. In fact, neither Schofield nor Tokito
`
`express desirability for the combination. (Turk Decl. ¶ 41.) And, more importantly,
`
`the broad characterizations of the purported art still fail to show how Lemelson and
`
`Schofield teach: 1) object detection “during a reversing maneuver of the equipped
`
`vehicle” or 2) visual and audible alerts “responsive to detection of an object
`
`rearward of the equipped vehicle during a reversing maneuver of the equipped
`
`vehicle,” as recited in the claims. (Id. at 42.)
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00250 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330
`Therefore, Valeo fails to establish that Schofield, alone or in combination
`
`with Lemelson, teaches the above features of claim 1 (and similar features of
`
`claims 43, 63, and 80.)
`
`Because Tokito neither teaches nor suggests the features that are missing
`
`from Schofield and Lemelson, Valeo fails to make the prima facie case of
`
`obviousness with respect to claims 1, 43, 63, and 80, and these claims should be
`
`confirmed.
`
`B.
`
`Lemelson and Schofield fail to teach the image data capture and
`object detection occurring “during a reversing maneuver of the
`equipped vehicle” recited in claims 13, 40-41, 60-61, and 77-78.
`
`Claims 13, 40, 60, and 77 recite image data capture by a rearward facing
`
`camera and image display “during a reversing maneuver” to assist the driver in
`
`reversing the equipped vehicle.
`
`Claims 41, 61, and 78 depend from the respective claims 40, 60, and 77 and
`
`recite detection of objects present in the rearward field of view “during a reversing
`
`maneuver” of the equipped vehicle.
`
`Valeo alleges that these elements occur when the vehicle is in “reverse” and
`
`reli