Comparison of Paragraphs from Volkswagen’s Petition Pages 11-
`
`12 and 34-35
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the alleged inventions
`
`of claims 17-27 of the ’781 patent were made, would have found it obvious
`
`to combine the teachings of Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and Davidian, and, in
`
`addition, would have been motivated to do so. Jurgen, for example,
`
`expressly describes one such motivation: “The motive for using an
`
`electronic engine control system is to provide the needed accuracy and
`
`adaptability in order to minimize exhaust emissions and fuel consumption,
`
`provide optimal driveability for all operating conditions, minimize
`
`evaporative emissions, and provide system diagnosis when malfunctions
`
`occur.” Ex. 1002, p. 12.1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been further motivated to combine the teachings of Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and
`
`Davidian to “provide optimal driveability for all operating conditions” (Ex.
`
`1002, p. 12.1), to “provide[] the fuel metering and ignition timing precision
`
`to minimize fuel consumption (Ex. 1002, p. 12.4), to encourage “fuel
`
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and
`28-30
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: Habu
`
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: (
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: ).
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: Habu
`
`efficient driving techniques” (Ex. 1003, 1:22-24), to “obtain preferable shift
`
`positions relating to optimum fuel consumption rate in accordance with . . .
`
`data detected” (Ex. 1004, Abstract), and to provide an “anti-collision system
`
`for vehicles” that “compute[s] the danger-of-collision distance to the object”
`
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: and
`
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: ).
`
`Velocity, Patent Owner - Exhibit 2003
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Velocity Patent, LLC
`Case No. IPR2015-00276
`Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`12 and 34-35
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the alleged inventions
`
`of claims 17-27 of the ’781 patent were made, would have found it obvious
`
`to combine the teachings of Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and Davidian, and, in
`
`addition, would have been motivated to do so. Jurgen, for example,
`
`expressly describes one such motivation: “The motive for using an
`
`electronic engine control system is to provide the needed accuracy and
`
`adaptability in order to minimize exhaust emissions and fuel consumption,
`
`provide optimal driveability for all operating conditions, minimize
`
`evaporative emissions, and provide system diagnosis when malfunctions
`
`occur.” Ex. 1002, p. 12.1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been further motivated to combine the teachings of Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and
`
`Davidian to “provide optimal driveability for all operating conditions” (Ex.
`
`1002, p. 12.1), to “provide[] the fuel metering and ignition timing precision
`
`to minimize fuel consumption (Ex. 1002, p. 12.4), to encourage “fuel
`
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and
`28-30
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: Habu
`
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: (
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: ).
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: Habu
`
`efficient driving techniques” (Ex. 1003, 1:22-24), to “obtain preferable shift
`
`positions relating to optimum fuel consumption rate in accordance with . . .
`
`data detected” (Ex. 1004, Abstract), and to provide an “anti-collision system
`
`for vehicles” that “compute[s] the danger-of-collision distance to the object”
`
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: and
`
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: ).
`
`Velocity, Patent Owner - Exhibit 2003
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Velocity Patent, LLC
`Case No. IPR2015-00276
`Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, 1:7 and 2:3-4). The ’781 patent states that its object is to “provide
`
`a system which integrates the ability to issue audible warnings which advise
`
`the driver to correct operation of the vehicle in a manner which will enhance
`
`the efficient operation thereof with the ability to automatically take
`
`corrective action if the vehicle is being operated unsafely.” Ex. 1001, 1:66-2:
`
`5. Thus, like the ’781 patent, Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and Davidian are
`
`concerned with, for example, improving fuel efficiency and safety.
`
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: (emphasis added).
`Author 2/25/2015 11:45 AM
`Deleted: Habu
`
`Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`informed when to shift up or shift down using an indicator containing two lights 10a
`
`and 10b as shown in Fig. 1.
`
` A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the alleged inventions of claims 1,
`
`2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 28-30 of the ’781 patent were made, would have found
`
`it obvious to combine the teachings of Jurgen, Smith, and Habu, and, in addition,
`
`would have been motivated to do so. Jurgen, for example, expressly describes one
`
`such motivation: “The motive for using an electronic engine control system is to
`
`provide the needed accuracy and adaptability in order to minimize exhaust emissions
`
`and fuel consumption, provide optimal driveability for all operating conditions,
`
`minimize evaporative emissions, and provide system diagnosis when malfunctions
`
`occur.” (Ex. 1002, p. 12.1). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`further motivated to combine the teachings of Jurgen, Smith, and Habu to “provide
`
`optimal driveability for all operating conditions” (Ex. 1002, p. 12.1), to “provide[] the
`
`fuel metering and ignition timing precision to minimize fuel consumption (Ex. 1002,
`
`p. 12.4), to encourage “fuel efficient driving techniques” (Ex. 1003, 1:22-24), and to
`
`“obtain preferable shift positions relating to optimum fuel consumption rate in
`
`accordance with . . . data detected” (Ex. 1004, Abstract). The ’781 patent states that its
`
`object is to “provide a system which integrates the ability to issue audible warnings
`
`which advise the driver to correct operation of the vehicle in a manner which will
`
`enhance the efficient operation thereof with the ability to automatically take
`
`corrective action if the vehicle is being operated unsafely.” Ex. 1001, 1:66-2:5
`11
`
`Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, like the ’781 patent, Jurgen, Smith, and Habu are concerned
`
`with, for example, improving fuel efficiency.
`
` Additionally, regarding dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 29, and 30, these
`
`apparatus claims merely add functional limitations. The ’781 patent does not ascribe
`
`any criticality to these functional limitations. Therefore, since the combination of
`
`Jurgen, Smith, and Habu teach all of the structural limitations, these dependent claims
`
`are obvious in view of the combination of Jurgen, Smtih, and Habu. See, e.g., In re
`
`Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
` A table comparing exemplary portions of Jurgen, Smith, and Habu to claims 1, 2,
`
`4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 28-30 is set forth below:
`
`’781 Patent
`1. Apparatus for optimizing operation of a
`vehicle, comprising:
`
`[1a] a plurality of sensors coupled to a
`vehicle having an engine, said plurality of
`sensors, which collectively monitor
`operation of said vehicle, including a road
`speed sensor, an engine speed sensor, a
`manifold pressure sensor and a throttle
`position sensor;
`
`Jurgen, Smith, and Habu
`Jurgen, Ex. 1002
`E.g., p. 7.6, “There are several applications
`for rotational speed sensing. First it is
`necessary to monitor engine speed. . . .
`Second, wheel speed sensing is required”
`
`E.g., p. 7.8, “In electronic transmission
`applications, information from the road
`and engine speed sensors, . . . are required
`for the MCU to select the optimum gear
`ratio.”
`
`E.g., p. 2.5, “Automotive specification and
`testing guidelines have been developed
`and published by the Society of
`Automotive Engineers (SAE) specifically
`for manifold absolute pressure (MAP)
`sensors.”
`
`
`12
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`navigation. Similar types of sensors can be used in crash avoidance,
`proximity, and obstacle detection applications. (emphasis added).
` A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the alleged inventions of claims
`
`17-27 of the ’781 patent were made, would have found it obvious to combine the
`
`teachings of Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and Davidian, and, in addition, would have been
`
`motivated to do so. Jurgen, for example, expressly describes one such motivation:
`
`“The motive for using an electronic engine control system is to provide the needed
`
`accuracy and adaptability
`
`in order to minimize exhaust emissions and fuel
`
`consumption, provide optimal driveability for all operating conditions, minimize
`
`evaporative emissions, and provide system diagnosis when malfunctions occur.” Ex.
`
`1002, p. 12.1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated
`
`to combine the teachings of Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and Davidian to “provide optimal
`
`driveability for all operating conditions” (Ex. 1002, p. 12.1), to “provide[] the fuel
`
`metering and ignition timing precision to minimize fuel consumption (Ex. 1002, p.
`
`12.4), to encourage “fuel efficient driving techniques” (Ex. 1003, 1:22-24), to “obtain
`
`preferable shift positions relating to optimum fuel consumption rate in accordance
`
`with . . . data detected” (Ex. 1004, Abstract), and to provide an “anti-collision system
`
`for vehicles” that “compute[s] the danger-of-collision distance to the object” (Ex.
`
`1005, 1:7 and 2:3-4). The ’781 patent states that its object is to “provide a system
`
`which integrates the ability to issue audible warnings which advise the driver to
`
`correct operation of the vehicle in a manner which will enhance the efficient
`
`34
`
`Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`operation thereof with the ability to automatically take corrective action if the vehicle
`
`is being operated unsafely.” Ex. 1001, 1:66-2: 5. Thus, like the ’781 patent, Jurgen,
`
`Smith, Habu, and Davidian are concerned with, for example, improving fuel
`
`efficiency and safety.
`
` Additionally, regarding dependent claims 24, 25, and 27, these apparatus claims
`
`merely add functional limitations. The ’781 patent does not ascribe any criticality to
`
`these functional limitations. Therefore, since the combination of Jurgen, Smith, Habu,
`
`and Davidian teach all of the structural limitations, these dependent claims are
`
`obvious in view of the combination of Jurgen, Smtih, and Habu. See, e.g., In re Schreiber,
`
`128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
` A table comparing exemplary portions of Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and Davidian to
`
`claims 17-27 is set forth below:
`
`’781 Patent Claim
`17. Apparatus for optimizing operation of
`a vehicle, comprising:
`
`[17a] a radar detector, said radar detector
`determining a distance separating a vehicle
`having an engine and an object in front of
`said vehicle;
`
`Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and Davidian
`Davidian, Ex. 1005
`E.g., 4:52-55, “Vehicle 2 further includes a
`front space sensor 8 for sensing the space
`in front of the vehicle, such as the
`presence of another vehicle, a
`corresponding rear space sensor 10, and a
`pair of side sensors 11.”
`
`E.g., 10:17-26, “FIG. 7 is a circuit diagram
`of the microcomputer 4. . . . It includes a
`transmitter 106 and a receiver 108 for
`transmitting and receiving the pulses (e.g.,
`RF, ultrasound, laser, IR, etc.) in the front
`space sensor 8 and the rear space sensor
`10 for measuring the distance of the
`
`35
`
`Page 6 of 6
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
