Comparison of Paragraphs from Ex Parte Reexamination Page 27 and IPR
`
`Petition Pages 11-12
`
`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
`
`Author 2/26/2015 8:55 AM
`Deleted: 7…, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and
`... [1]
`
`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
`
`Author 2/26/2015 8:55 AM
`Formatted: Font:Bold
`
`unsafely.” Ex. 1001, 1:66-2:5 (emphasis added). Thus, like the ’781 patent, Jurgen, Smith,
`
`and Habu are concerned with, for example, improving fuel efficiency.
`
`Author 2/26/2015 8:55 AM
`Deleted: ." Col.…” Ex. 1001, 1, line …66 to
`... [2]
`
`Velocity, Patent Owner - Exhibit 2005
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Velocity Patent, LLC
`Case No. IPR2015-00276
`Page 1 of 14
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In Re Patent of
`
`Patent No.
`
`Issued
`
`Title
`
`Application Serial No.
`
`Filed
`
`Requester
`
`:
`
`1
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`2
`
`:
`
`VIA EFS-WEB
`
`Mail Stop Ex Pa]/‘te Reexarn
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P-O- BOX 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Harvey Slepian, et al.
`
`5,954,781
`
`Sep. 21, 1999
`
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPTIMIZING
`VEHICLE OPERATION
`
`08/813,270
`
`Mar. 10, 1997
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being electronically
`transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office via
`the Office electronic filing system on May 22, 2014.
`Signature: /Helen Taml
`
`Helen Tam
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5 954 781 PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`
`1.510
`
`SIR:
`
`Volkswagen Group of America,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Requester” or “VWGoA”),
`
`through its
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby respectfially requests ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,954,781 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 302 and the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.510.
`
`Page 2 of 14
`
`Page 2 of 14
`
`

`
`Toyota '599 teaches that indicator lamps that tell the driver to shift up or shift down
`
`are lit by the microcomputer in order to tell the driver when to shift to improve fuel economy.
`
`"Namely, in this step, the speed change operation indicating signal is applied to the indicator
`
`or display 10 from the microcomputer 5 through the 1/0 port 6. As a result, a particular lamp
`
`in this case, a shift up indicating lamp in the indicator 10, is illuminated, thus indicating to the
`
`drive that the speed change from current shift position to the one step shifting up position
`
`SP +1 is preferable." Col. 5, line 63 to col. 6, line 2. "However, only when either one of the
`
`assumed fuel consumption rates above is better than the current fuel consumption rate Be, the
`
`corresponding shift-up lamp or shift-down lamp in the indicator 10 is illuminated, thus
`
`indicating the necessity of the speed change operation." E.g. col. 7, lines 29 to 38.
`
`Therefore, Toyota '599 teaches "an upshift[/downshift] notification circuit coupled to said
`
`processor subsystem, said upshift[/downshift] notification circuit issuing a notification that
`
`said engine of said vehicle is being operated at an excessive[/insufficient] speed" and "said
`
`processor subsystem determining, based upon data received from said plurality of sensors, ..
`
`. when to activate said upshift[/downshift] notification circuit."
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the alleged inventions of claims 1, 7,
`
`and 13 ofthe '781 patent were made, would have found it obvious to combine the teachings
`
`of Jurgen and Toyota '599, and, in addition, would have been motivated to do so. Indeed,
`
`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." (Jurgen, Page 12.1). A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time
`
`the alleged inventions of claims 1, 7, and 13 of the '781 patent were made would have been
`
`further motivated to combine the teachings of Jurgen and Toyota '599 to "provide optimal
`
`driveability for all operating conditions" (Jurgen, Page 12.1), to "provide[] the fuel metering
`
`and ignition timing precision to minimize fuel consumption (Jurgen, Page 12.4), and to
`
`"obtain preferable shift positions relating to optimum fuel consumption rate in accordance
`
`with ... data detected" (Toyota '599, 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." Col. 1, line 66 to col. 2, line 5. Thus, like the '781 patent, Jurgen
`
`and Toyota '599 are concerned with, for example, improving fuel efficiency.
`
`27
`
`Page 3 of 14
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`Patent No. 5,954,781
`Issue Date: Sep. 21, 1999
`Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPTIMIZING VEHICLE
`OPERATION
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,954,781
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00276
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 14
`
`

`
`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 5 of 14
`
`

`
`(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 6 of 14
`
`

`
`Comparison of Paragraphs from Ex Parte Reexamination Pages 42-43 and
`
`IPR Petition Pages 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
`
`Author 2/26/2015 9:00 AM
`Deleted: 23 and 26…7 of the '781…781 ... [1]
`
`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 operation thereof with the ability to automatically take
`
`corrective action if the vehicle is being operated unsafely.” Ex. 1001, 1:66-2: 5. Thus,
`
`Author 2/26/2015 9:00 AM
`Formatted: Font:Not Bold
`Author 2/26/2015 9:00 AM
`Deleted: ." Col.…” Ex. 1001, 1, line …66 to
`... [2]
`
`Page 7 of 14
`
`

`
`like the ’781 patent, Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and Davidian are concerned with, for example,
`
`improving fuel efficiency and safety.
`
`Author 2/26/2015 9:00 AM
`Deleted: '781
`Author 2/26/2015 9:00 AM
`Deleted: Toyota '599
`
`Page 8 of 14
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In Re Patent of
`
`Patent No.
`
`Issued
`
`Title
`
`Application Serial No.
`
`Filed
`
`Requester
`
`:
`
`1
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`2
`
`:
`
`VIA EFS-WEB
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexarn
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P-O- BOX 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Harvey Slepian, et al.
`
`5,954,781
`
`Sep. 21, 1999
`
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPTIMIZING
`VEHICLE OPERATION
`
`08/813,270
`
`Mar. 10, 1997
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being electronically
`transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office via
`the Office electronic filing system on May 22, 2014.
`Signature: /Helen Taml
`
`He'e“ Tam
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5 954 781 PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`
`1.510
`
`SIR:
`
`Volkswagen Group of America,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Requester” or “VWGoA”),
`
`through its
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby respectfially requests ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,954,781 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 302 and the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.510.
`
`Page 9 of 14
`
`Page 9 of 14
`
`

`
`of sensors for controlling the operation of the fuel injection wherein it would have been
`
`obvious to use a windshield wiper sensor in order to provide a complete performance
`
`operation of the vehicle." August 6, 1998 Office Action, at 5. This rejection was not
`
`challenged by the applicant, and the claim was allowed due to the addition of the upshift
`
`notification circuit to claim 17. The Examiner's statement that a windshield wiper sensor
`
`would be an obvious modification to Chasteen carries equal weight in view of the rain sensor
`
`taught in Davidian.
`
`Davidian also teaches that it would be beneficial in certain situations to take
`
`automatic control of the vehicle. Col. 2, lines 67 to col. 3, line 2. While Claim 19 requires a
`
`throttle controller that selectively reduces the throttle based upon inputs from various sensors,
`
`the disclosure in Davidian regarding the automatic application of the brakes achieves the
`same result- slowing the vehicle down.6
`
`Jurgen teaches the use of a brake sensor as claimed in Claim 20. For example, Jurgen
`
`teaches that "[p ]ressure sensors are used to monitor brake fluid pressure" and that "[b ]rake
`
`pedal position and brake fluid pressure information are also required for control." Jurgen,
`
`pages 7.21 to 22. Therefore, the combination of Jurgen, Toyota '599, and Davidian teaches
`
`"at least one sensor further includes a brake sensor for indicating whether a brake system of
`
`said vehicle is activated."
`
`Davidian also teaches the use of a "black box" to record vehicle events. Claim 21
`
`requires a "means for counting a total number of vehicle proximity alarms determined by said
`
`processor subsystem." Davidian teaches the use of four different counters, which are stored
`
`in the black box each time a front or rear proximity alarm is activated. Col. 11, lines 60 to
`
`68; col. 14, lines 8 to 12. Davidian does not teach "means for selectively reducing said
`
`throttle based upon said total number ofvehicle proximity alarms." However, Davidian does
`
`teach that automated activation of a brake system is used to slow the vehicle down. Indeed,
`
`the Examiner stated that "it has been discussed that Doi et al. disclose an alarm therefore it
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`count a total number of alarms associated with the system." August 6, 1998 Office Action, at
`
`6. Davidian teaches counting the number of vehicle proximity alarms, and also teaches the
`
`automatic control of a vehicle. Therefore, Davidian renders obvious claim 21.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the alleged inventions of claims 17-23
`
`and 26 of the '781 patent were made, would have found it obvious to combine the teachings
`
`6
`
`Additionally, Jurgen teaches that an electronic throttle controller was known in the art.
`
`42
`
`Page 10 of 14
`
`

`
`of Jurgen, Toyota '599, and Davidian, and, in addition, would have been motivated to do so.
`
`Indeed, 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." (Jurgen, Page 12.1). A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time
`
`the alleged inventions of claims 17-23 and 26 of the '781 patent were made would have been
`
`further motivated to combine the teachings of Jurgen, Toyota '599, and Davidian, to "provide
`
`optimal driveability for all operating conditions" (Jurgen, Page 12.1 ), to "provide[] the fuel
`
`metering and ignition timing precision to minimize fuel consumption (Jurgen, Page 12.4), to
`
`"obtain preferable shift positions relating to optimum fuel consumption rate in accordance
`
`with ... data detected" (Toyota '599, Abstract), and to provide an "anti-collision system for
`
`vehicles" that "computes[] the danger-of-collision distance to the object" (Davidian, Col. 1,
`
`line 7 and col. 2, lines 3 to 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 ifthe vehicle is being operated unsafely."
`
`Col. 1, line 66 to col. 2, line 5. Thus, like the '781 patent, Jurgen, Toyota '599, and Davidian
`
`are concerned with, for example, improving fuel efficiency and safety.
`
`Furthermore, as additional evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be
`
`motivated to combine the teachings of Jurgen, Toyota '599, and Davidian, Jurgen describes at
`
`page xvu:
`
`today
`it
`as we know
`electronics
`Automotive
`encompasses a wide variety of devices and systems. Key to
`them all, and those yet to come, is the ability to sense and
`measure accurately automotive parameters. Equally important
`at the output is the ability to initiate control actions accurately
`in response to commands.
`In other words, sensors and
`actuators are
`the heart of any automotive electronics
`application ....
`
`The importance of sensors and actuators cannot be
`overemphasized. The future growth of automotive electronics
`is arguably more dependent on sufficiently accurate and low(cid:173)
`cost sensors and actuators than on computers, controls,
`displays, and other technologies.
`
`Moreover, the combination of these teachings is merely (a) the combination of prior
`
`art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) the simple
`
`43
`
`Page 11 of 14
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`Patent No. 5,954,781
`Issue Date: Sep. 21, 1999
`Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPTIMIZING VEHICLE
`OPERATION
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,954,781
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00276
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 14
`
`

`
`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 13 of 14
`
`

`
`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 14 of 14