`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VELOCITY PATENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPOSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,954,781
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner
`Brian Kwok (Reg. No. 58828)
`Mavrakakis Law Group LLP
`735 Emerson Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`(650) 804-7800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1  
`I.  
`II.   OVERVIEW OF THE ’781 PATENT .............................................................. 4  
`A.   Driver Information ..................................................................................... 5  
`B.   Control of Driver Notification ................................................................... 8  
`III.   CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 10  
`A.   “fuel overinjection notification of circuit” .............................................. 11  
`B.   “plurality of sensors” / “at least one sensor” ........................................... 12  
`IV.   INTER PARTES REVIEW SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BECAUSE
`THE PETITION IS PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT. .................................. 13  
`A.   The Petition Duplicates Petitioner’s Prior Reexamination Request. ....... 13  
`1.   Petitioner Presents References Substantially Similar To Those
`Presented During Reexamination. ...................................................... 15  
`2.   Petitioner Presents Substantially Similar Arguments As Presented In
`Reexamination. ................................................................................... 16  
`B.   Petitioner Fails To Properly Analyze Means-Plus-Function Claim
`Elements. ................................................................................................. 18  
`C.   The Petitition Improperly Incorporates By Reference Evidence For
`Facially Different Claims. ....................................................................... 22  
`V.   PETITIONER FAILS TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`UNPATENTABLE. ........................................................................................ 25  
`A.   Petitioner Fails To Establish The Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art. .. 28  
`B.   Petitioner Does Not Address The Scope And Content Of The Prior Art. 29  
`C.   Petitioner Fails To Meet Its Burden To Establish Motivation To Combine
`The Cited References. ............................................................................. 32  
`1.   One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Not Combine Jurgen, Smith,
`And Habu. .......................................................................................... 34  
`2.   One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Not Combine Jurgen, Smith,
`Habu And Davidian. ........................................................................... 41  
`D.   Petitioner Does Not Address Differences Between The Claims And Prior
`Art. ........................................................................................................... 45  
`1.   Jurgen, Smith, And Habu Do Not Disclose Elements Of Claims 1, 2,
`4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15 & 28-30. ...................................................... 46  
`a.   Claims 1, 7, & 13 .......................................................................... 46  
`b.   Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12 & 15 ....................................................... 49  
`c.   Claims 28, 29, & 30 ...................................................................... 53  
`
`THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS IS
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`2.   Jurgen, Smith, Habu, And Davidian Do Not Disclose Elements Of
`Claims 17-27. ..................................................................................... 54  
`a.   Claims 17, 23 & 26 ....................................................................... 54  
`b.   Claim 18 ........................................................................................ 55  
`c.   Claims 19, 20 & 21 ....................................................................... 56  
`d.   Claims 24 & 25 ............................................................................. 59  
`VI.   CHALLENGES TO CLAIMS 31 AND 32 ARE MOOT BECAUSE THEY
`WERE STATUTORILY DISCLAIMED. ...................................................... 60  
`VII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 60  
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases  
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 36, 43
`
`Atoptech, Inc., v. Synopsys, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01160 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21. 2014) ........................................................... 21
`
`Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc.,
`796 F.2d 443 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................. 30
`
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................... 35
`
`Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00581 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014) ........................................................... 17
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Constellation Techs. LLC,
` IPR2014-01179 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2015) .................................................... passim
`
`Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp.,
` 543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Conopco, Inc., v. Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00628 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2014) ..................................................... 14, 16
`
`Customplay, LLC v. Clearplay, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00783 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2014) ............................................................ 18
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2014-01170 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2015) .............................................. 19, 22, 45
`
`Fesenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................... 21
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
` IPR2014-01393 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2015) ........................................................... 28
`
` iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Google Inc. v. EveryMD.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2014) .................................................... 27, 33
`
`Gracenote, Inc. v. Iceberg Indus. LLC,
`IPR2013-00551 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014) ................................................... passim
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 27
`
`In re Davis,
`1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 9186 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .................................................... 29
`
`In re Donaldson Co.,
`16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................. 21
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................. 44
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 33
`
`In re Lee,
` 277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 34
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................. 58
`
`In re Soni,
`54 F.3d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................. 7
`
`In re Translogic Tech, Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................... 10
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 36
`
`Intelligent bio-Systems, Inc., v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00324 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013), ......................................................... 13
`
`Jiawei Tech. Ltd. v. Richmond,
` IPR2014-00937 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2014) ................................................... 22, 45
`
` iv
`
`

`

`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 26, 27, 32, 33
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 31
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ............................................ 24, 26, 32
`
`Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp.,
`755 F.2d 158, 167 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ..................................................................... 28
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Secure Web Conference Corp.,
`IPR2014-00745 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014) .......................................................... 36
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 28
`
`NCR Corp. v. Palm, Inc.,
`120 Fed. Appx. 328 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 12
`
`New Hampshire v. Maine,
`532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) ...................................................................................... 3
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................... 20, 29
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 43
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................. 19
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 13
`
`Pride Solutions, LLC, v. Not Dead Yet Mfg., Inc.,
` IPR2013-00627 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17 2014) .................................................... 21, 22
`
`Prism Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Choongwae Pharma Corp.,
`IPR2014-00315 (P.T.A.B. July 8, 2014) ............................................................. 13
`
` v
`
`

`

`
`
`Rackspace US, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
` IPR2014-00057 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2014) ......................................................... 16
`
`Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc.,
`126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 19
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., v. Rembrant Wireless Techs., LLP,
`IPR2015-00118 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2015) ........................................................... 14
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
` IPR2013-00226 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2013) ................................................... 20, 22
`
`Tempur Sealy Int’l, Inc. v. Select Comfort Corp.,
`IPR2014-01419 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2015) .......................................................... 45
`
`TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
` 514 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 20
`
`TRW Auto. U.S. LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-01346 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2015) .......................................................... 45
`
`Uniliver, Inc. v. The Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00506 (P.T.A.B. July 7, 2014) ............................................................. 13
`
`W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................................................................... 34
`
`Zetec, Inc., v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., LLC,
`IPR2014-00384 (P.T.A.B. July 23, 2014) .................................................... passim
`
`Zimmer Holdings, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC,
`IPR2014-01080 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2014) ........................................................... 14
`
`Statutes  
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................................. 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................... 3, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 253(a) .................................................................................................. 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) .................................................................................................. 25
`
` vi
`
`

`

`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ...................................................................................... 13, 14, 17
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1042 (daily ed. Mar. 1, 2011) ..................................................... 14
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1 (2011) ........................................................................ 14
`
`Other Authorities  
`Rules  
`Regulations  
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 106 CAN ........................................................................................... 41
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................ 20, 21, 45
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ...................................................................... 20, 26, 27, 45
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .................................................................................. 26, 45
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(c) ............................................................................................. 29
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) ............................................................................................. 60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ......................................................................................... 24, 32
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ..................................................................................... 26, 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` vii
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`
`2001 Waiver of Patent Owner Statement in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`Audi’s Motion to Stay District Court Litigation
`
`Blackline Comparison of Paragraphs in Volkswagen’s IPR2015-00276
`Petition
`
`USPTO Patent Database Search Results
`
`Two Blackline Comparisons of Paragraphs in Volkswagen’s Request
`for Ex Parte Reexamination and Volkswagen’s IPR2015-00276
`Petition
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0124550 A1
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0240114 A1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,842,677
`
`Article: Eco-Driving Uncovered
`
` viii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Velocity Patent LLC (“Patent Owner”) hereby preliminarily
`
`responds to IPR2015-00276 (the “Petition”) challenging U.S. Patent No. 5,954,781
`
`(the “’781 Patent”) filed by Petitioner Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”).1 Petitioner’s request for inter partes review must be denied for
`
`multiple reasons, any one of which is independently sufficient for denial.
`
`Preliminarily, the Petition should be rejected because it raises the same
`
`issues and substantially the same prior art considered and rejected by the Office
`
`during a recent ex parte reexamination. Petitioner attempts to re-litigate invalidity
`
`theories that it unsuccessfully presented to the USPTO’s Reexamination Unit in
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/013,252 (the “Reexamination”). (See Pet. at 1
`
`(referring to the litigation’s defendants as “d/b/a” and “subsidiary” of Petitioner).)
`
`By Patent Owner’s election,
`
`the Reexamination proceeded under
`
`the
`
`Reexamination Pilot Program such that the Examiner considered Petitioner’s
`
`arguments without the benefit of a response from the Patent Owner. (Ex. 2001 at
`
`1 Patent Owner believes the Petition may fail to identify as real parties in
`
`interest at least Volkswagen AG and Audi AG, two German companies. Patent
`
`Owner suspects these German companies may be paying for and/or controlling
`
`these proceedings. Should the Board institute review, Patent Owner reserves the
`
`right to seek discovery and move to terminate as appropriate.
`
` 1
`
`

`

`
`
`3.) Nonetheless, the Examiner rejected Petitioner’s arguments, allowing claims 1,
`
`2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17-30 in the first Office Action.2 (Ex. 1011 at 3.)
`
`Petitioner now presents virtually identical arguments, based on substantially
`
`similar references, for inter partes review of each challenged claim. Of the
`
`references cited by the instant Petition, only one was purportedly “not considered
`
`during the original prosecution of [the ’781 Patent] or [the Reexamination]”: U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,398,174 (“Smith”). (Pet. at 9.) Smith, however, was disclosed on
`
`August 22, 2014, in the Information Disclosure Statement filed by Patent Owner in
`
`Reexamination. (Ex. 1011 at 30.) Petitioner now relies on Smith, apparently in an
`
`attempt to make its already-presented invalidity arguments seem like new grounds.
`
`However, Smith does not cure what ailed Petitioner’s reexamination request.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner contradicts representations made in related pending
`
`district court litigation about the efficiency of parallel proceedings before the
`
`USPTO. When requesting a stay, pending the Reexamination, of Velocity Patent
`
`LLC v. Audi of America, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-08418-JWD (N.D. Ill.), Petitioner
`
`2 The Examiner rejected claims 31 and 32 of the ’781 Patent as anticipated
`
`and obvious, respectively. At the Patent Owner’s request, the Board cancelled
`
`claims 31 and 32 in a separate proceeding. See Section VI, infra. The
`
`patentability of claims 31 and 32 is thus moot. See id. Patent Owner expects a
`
`Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate will issue shortly.
`
` 2
`
`

`

`
`
`emphasized the “benefit…[of] avoiding duplicative proceedings[.]” (Ex. 2002 at
`
`13.) Without a stay, Petitioner warned: “[t]he parties will litigate the same or
`
`similar issues in two different forums, including claim construction, validity, and
`
`(indirectly) infringement, and those issues are very likely to change or cease to
`
`exist as a result of the decisions reached during the [R]eexamination.” (Id.) Now,
`
`Petitioner seeks to prolong the “temporary delay” with just such a “duplicative
`
`proceeding.” (Id. at 10, 13); see New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749
`
`(U.S. 2001) (“Where a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and
`
`succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his
`
`interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the
`
`prejudice of the party who has acquiesced[.]”).
`
`Even so, the Petition suffers from the same deficiencies as Petitioner’s
`
`request for reexamination, and has numerous additional fatal flaws, each
`
`independently sufficient for denial:
`
`• failure to identify a level of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`• failure to heed Board requirements that petitions concerning claim
`
`elements written in means-plus-function format must be supported by (i)
`
`a claim construction and (ii) a proper analysis pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112;
`
` 3
`
`

`

`
`
`• failure to properly recognize and analyze as multiple prior art references
`
`a book compiling independent contributions from different authors;
`
`• failure to provide a rationale to combine references cited in obviousness
`
`challenges, or evidence or expert testimony in support thereof;
`
`• failure to explain the purported disclosure of claim limitations in the cited
`
`references, or the differences there between; and
`
`• failure to explain the bases for obviousness challenges given tacit
`
`concessions that claim elements are not disclosed in the cited reference
`
`excerpts.
`
`In short, the cited references do not establish a reasonable likelihood that any
`
`of the challenged claims is unpatentable and the Board should deny all grounds for
`
`instituting the Petition, much like the Examiner’s rejection of similar arguments in
`
`the Reexamination.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’781 PATENT
`
`The ’781 Patent is an invention in the field of motor vehicles. It describes
`
`an inventive system that “notifies the driver of recommended corrections in vehicle
`
`operation and, under certain conditions, automatically initiates selected corrective
`
`action.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:7-10.) In the preferred embodiment, the ’781 Patent
`
`describes: a driver information system (e.g., lights and/or horns conveying
`
`information) conveying fuel (in)efficiency and/or safety information; a radar
`
` 4
`
`

`

`
`
`detector; various sensors for vehicle operating conditions; and one or more
`
`processors, coupled to a memory subsystem, controlling the presentation of driver
`
`information and/or automatically adjusting vehicle operation in the event of, for
`
`example, an unsafe condition.
`
`A. Driver Information
`
`Turning first to driver information, the inventive system communicates to
`
`the driver whether he or she is operating the vehicle in a fuel (in)efficient or unsafe
`
`manner. As explained in the Background of the Invention, “fuel efficiency of a
`
`vehicle may vary dramatically based upon how the vehicle is operated. More
`
`specifically, operating a vehicle at excessive speed, excessive RPM and/or
`
`excessive manifold pressure will result in both reduced fuel economy and
`
`increased operating costs.” (Id. at 1:13-18.) Likewise, “based on the combination
`
`of a vehicle’s speed, the distance separating the vehicle from a second vehicle in
`
`front of it and road conditions, many vehicles are operated unsafely.” (Id. at 1:60-
`
`63.)
`
` Though “correct[ing]
`
`these
`
`types of
`
`improper vehicle operations
`
`[is]…surprisingly simple[,]…oftentimes, the driver will be unaware of the need to
`
`take corrective action.” (Id. at 1:19-26.) Against that background, the inventive
`
`system provides notifications to a driver when he or she should take corrective
`
`action(s) to improve fuel efficiency and/or eliminate an unsafe condition.
`
` 5
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’781 Patent acknowledges that prior art “shift prompters” existed, which
`
`“advise[] the operator of the vehicle when to take certain actions” for the purpose
`
`of fuel economy. (Id. at 1:26-29, 45-48.) The inventive system of the ’781 Patent
`
`includes both upshift and downshift notifications, providing comparable
`
`information from the standpoint of the driver’s perspective.3 (E.g., id. at 14:9-12,
`
`15:23-26.)
`
`Distinct from the prior art, however, the ’781 Patent identifies a fuel
`
`efficiency notification supplemental
`
`to
`
`the shift notification(s):
`
`the “fuel
`
`overinjection notification.” (E.g., id. at 14:1.) In the preferred embodiment, the
`
`system, as appropriate, provides notifications when the driver should shift and
`
`additionally when “the amount of fuel being supplied to the engine should be
`
`reduced.” (See, e.g., id. at 13:8-28.) The ’781 Patent teaches that this combination
`
`– the reinforced driver feedback concerning fuel efficiency – results in “greater
`
`fuel efficiency” than had been realized in prior art systems. (Id. at 13:43-45
`
`(“[T]he driver will be advised of certain actions which will enable the vehicle to be
`
`operated with greater fuel efficiency.”); see also Ex. 2009 at 26-27 (identifying
`
`
`3 As discussed below, the control schemes for shift notifications can vary,
`
`and, in fact, are described in detail for the preferred embodiment of the ’781
`
`Patent.
`
` 6
`
`

`

`
`
`smooth acceleration, smooth deceleration, early gear changes, and steady average
`
`speed as separate factors in fuel efficient driving).)
`
`The ’781 Patent further describes a vehicle proximity notification that
`
`notifies a driver when he or she is at an unsafe distance from another object (e.g., a
`
`vehicle). (E.g., Ex. 1001 at 17:52-55.) The notification enables the driver to
`
`release the gas and/or brake to avoid the unsafe situation. (See, e.g., id. at 10:46-
`
`55.) The ’781 Patent identifies the safety benefits of the vehicle proximity
`
`notification. (See, e.g., id. at 1:52-2:5, 10:53-55.) Beyond safety, the vehicle
`
`proximity notification also has fuel efficiency benefits because it can help
`
`minimize fuel inefficient behaviors such as abrupt braking. (See Ex. 2009 at 26
`
`(“Anticipating reductions in speed, and reducing speed earlier and more gradually,
`
`burns less fuel.”).) Importantly, after the ’781 Patent, workers in the field
`
`recognized that, when the vehicle proximity notification is combined with the shift
`
`notifications and/or fuel overinjection notifications in the ’781 Patent, there is an
`
`unexpected fuel-efficient synergy between the types of feedback. In re Soni, 54
`
`F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[T]hat which would have been surprising to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in a particular art would not have been obvious.”); (see Ex.
`
`2009 at 17 (“The principles behind eco‐driving…are all measures that make people
`
`safer drivers.”)).
`
` 7
`
`

`

`
`
`As a complement to the vehicle proximity notification, the ’781 Patent also
`
`provides for automatic throttle reduction when dictated by safety circumstances.
`
`(E.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:5-11, 7:47-58.) For example, if a driver missed a vehicle
`
`proximity notification or notifications (e.g., due to drowsiness), the system’s
`
`processor(s) could command a throttle controller to automatically intervene to
`
`avoid an unsafe situation. (See, e.g., id.)
`
`B. Control of Driver Notification
`
`The ’781 Patent further describes how the processor subsystem controls the
`
`notifications provided to a driver. The processor subsystem of the preferred
`
`embodiment receives data from up to six sensors: a manifold pressure sensor, an
`
`RPM sensor, a road speed sensor, a throttle sensor, a windshield wiper sensor, and
`
`a brake sensor.4 (E.g., id. at 5:65-6:4.) In conjunction with a memory subsystem,
`
`the processor subsystem uses data provided by the manifold pressure, RPM, road
`
`4 Distinct from the preferred embodiment, the ’781 Patent claims
`
`apparatuses with varying numbers of sensor inputs to the processor: claim 17
`
`describes at least one sensor input; claims 1, 7, 13, 23, 26, and 28 describe two or
`
`more. The dependent claims further narrow the control scheme to approach the
`
`preferred embodiment.
`
` (E.g., compare Ex. 1001 at 12:5-14 (describing
`
`circumstances in which processor activates fuel overinjection notification), with
`
`Ex. 1001 at 14:13-26 (describing same circumstances).)
`
` 8
`
`

`

`
`
`speed, and throttle sensors to determine when to issue upshift notifications,
`
`downshift notifications, and/or fuel overinjection notifications.5 (See, e.g., id. at
`
`6:32-46.) Similarly, the processor subsystem controls issuance of the vehicle
`
`proximity notification based on data provided by at least the road speed sensor and
`
`the radar detector, and information stored in the memory subsystem. (See id. at
`
`8:46-58, 9:4-10, 9:48-60, 10:46-50.) Because a safe vehicle distance may depend
`
`on road conditions, the ’781 Patent teaches that the processor subsystem can use
`
`the wiper sensor to differentiate between weather conditions and the memory
`
`subsystem may store different information for use depending on weather
`
`conditions. (Id. at 9:15-47.) The preferred embodiment also teaches processor
`
`subsystem control of automatic throttle reduction based upon data received from
`
`the radar detector, road speed sensor, brake sensor(s), and information in the
`
`memory subsystem. (Id. at 10:59-11:13.)
`
`5 In the preferred embodiment, and as set forth in dependent claims, the
`
`memory subsystem stores sensor states/levels, predetermined threshold values for
`
`manifold pressure and engine RPM, and speed/distance tables. (E.g., Ex. 1001 at
`
`6:32-56.) The processor subsystem uses this stored information to determine
`
`whether certain parameters are increasing, decreasing, and/or are at, above, or
`
`below certain set points, and, in turn, activates notification circuits as appropriate.
`
`(E.g., id. at 11:27-12:31.)
`
` 9
`
`

`

`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’781 Patent, an illustration of the inventive system, is
`
`reproduced immediately below.
`
`
`
`
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`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). Such a construction gives
`
`claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic
`
`Tech, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Patent Owner offers construction for two terms in the ’781 Patent: (1) “fuel
`
`overinjection notification circuit” and (2) “plurality of sensors” / “at least one
`
` 10
`
`

`

`
`
`sensor.” (E.g., claims 1 and 17.) Though the phrases involve very common patent
`
`terminology, Patent Owner construes them in the interest of clarity when
`
`discussing references below.
`
`A.
`
`“fuel overinjection notification of circuit”
`
`Patent Owner submits that “fuel overinjection notification circuit” is a
`
`circuit that provides a driver with a notification that his or her driving is fuel
`
`efficient or inefficient. As discussed above, a purpose of this circuit is to provide
`
`feedback when corrective action should be taken to improve fuel efficiency. An
`
`ordinary artisan would understand that affirmative or negative (e.g., the absence of
`
`a fuel efficiency light) feedback regarding fuel inefficiency both provide the
`
`notification described and claimed in the ’781 Patent. The Board should therefore
`
`construe the element consistent with the purpose of the limitation. Cohesive
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he purpose
`
`of the limitation in the claimed invention…is relevant [to claim construction.]”).
`
`Patent Owner believes its proposed construction is consistent with
`
`Petitioner’s proposal. Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of a “fuel overinjection circuit” is a circuit that “provide[s] the driver with … an
`
`alert that his or her driving is fuel inefficient.” (Pet. at 8.) The only arguable
`
`difference between
`
`the
`
`two
`
`interpretations
`
`is
`
`that Petitioner’s proposed
`
`interpretation might be read to exclude affirmative notifications of fuel efficiency
`
` 11
`
`

`

`
`
`(which convey fuel inefficiency information when absent). That difference is
`
`likely not Petitioner’s intention. Consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, Petitioner appears to rely in its claim charts upon the “indicator light
`
`15,” which is a notification of fuel efficient driving. (See Pet. at 18.)
`
`“plurality of sensors” / “at least one sensor”
`
`B.
`A “plurality of sensors” means two or more sensors. See, e.g., NCR Corp. v.
`
`Palm, Inc., 120 Fed. Appx. 328, 332 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “At least one sensor” means
`
`one or more sensors.
`
`As discussed above, the ’781 Patent’s claims are structured such that the
`
`independent claims more broadly claim the processor subsystem control scheme
`
`based on two (or more) sensor inputs to the processor in the case of, for example,
`
`independent claim 1. Likewise, claim 17 describes “at least one sensor,” which
`
`means that there is/are one (or more) sensor inputs to the processor. Then, the
`
`dependent claims narrow the control scheme by reciting limitations requiring, for
`
`example, that the processor subsystem take into account four sensor inputs from
`
`the manifold pressure sensor, throttle position sensor, road speed sensor and engine
`
`speed sensor when determining whether to activate the up/downshift notification
`
`and/or the fuel overinjection notification. (E.g., Ex. 1001 at 14:43-47, 14:58-63,
`
`15:57-60.)
`
` 12
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation is consistent with legal usage of very
`
`common patent terms. Moreover, it fits the ’781 Patent’s organization, tailoring
`
`broad independent claims to narrow dependent claims. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Differences among claims can also be a useful
`
`guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.”). Nothing in the
`
`Petit