UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and
`MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VELOCITY PATENT LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,954,781
`Patent Issue Date: September 21, 1999
`Patent Title: Method and Apparatus for Optimizing Vehicle Operation
`Case IPR No.: To Be Assigned
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,954,781
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.100 et seq.
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioner:
`
`Celine Jimenez Crowson (Reg. No. 40,357)
`Raymond A. Kurz (pro hac vice motion to be filed)
`Joseph J. Raffetto (Reg. No. 66,218)
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`555 13th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: 202.637.5600
`
`VWGoA - Ex. 1010
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Petitioner
`Case No. IPR2015-00276
`1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 3
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 3
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 4
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 4
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID ............................................................................. 5
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ............................. 5
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .............................................................. 5
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’781 PATENT .... 6
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 8
`VIII. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`OF CLAIMS 31 AND 32 .............................................................................10
`A. Ground 1: Claims 31-32 Are Anticipated or Rendered Obvious By
`European Patent Application Publication No. 0 392 953 (Tresse)
`(Ex. 1005) ............................................................................................10
`1.
`Tresse Anticipates Independent Claim 31 ................................11
`2.
`Tresse Anticipates or, in the Alternative, Renders Obvious
`Dependent Claim 32 .................................................................22
`B. Ground 2: Claims 31-32 Are Anticipated or Rendered Obvious By
`U.S. Patent No. 5,357,438 (Davidian) (Ex. 1006) ..............................28
`1.
`Davidian Anticipates Independent Claim 31 ............................29
`2.
`Davidian Renders Obvious Dependent Claim 32 .....................37
`C. Ground 3: Claims 31-32 Are Anticipated or Rendered Obvious By
`PCT Publication No. WO 91/07672 (Montague) (Ex. 1007) .............41
`1. Montague Anticipates Independent Claim 31 ..........................42
`2. Montague Renders Obvious Dependent Claim 32 ...................48
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 53
`APPENDIX A (TABLE OF EXHIBITS) .......................................................... A-1
`APPENDIX B (CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE) .............................................. B-1
`
`2
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,954,781 (the “’781 Patent”) challenged
`
`herein—independent claim 31 and dependent claim 32—recite an apparatus that
`
`uses a “speed/stopping distance lookup table” to determine whether to issue a
`
`warning to a driver of a vehicle. The table provides “the relationship between the
`
`speed at which a vehicle is traveling and the distance which the vehicle will require
`
`to come to a complete stop if travelling at that speed.” (Ex. 1001, 6:60-66.) The
`
`apparatus of claim 31 determines the speed of the vehicle and the distance between
`
`the vehicle and an object in front of it (e.g., another vehicle), and then, using the
`
`lookup table, issues a “vehicle proximity alarm” if this object is too close. Claim
`
`32 (which depends from claim 31) adds that different speed/stopping distances can
`
`be used in the event of adverse weather.
`
`There is nothing new about the alleged invention recited in claims 31 and
`
`32. The inventors themselves conceded that a simple “lookup” table correlating
`
`vehicle speed and stopping distance was known. The ’781 Patent states that “[i]t is
`
`well known that the faster a vehicle travels, the longer it takes to stop,” and that
`
`“[r]oad conditions may also play a role in determining the safe separation
`
`distances.” (Id., 1:53-65.) The ’781 Patent adds that the “lookup” tables are
`
`merely “based upon National Safety Council guidelines.” (Id., 6:60-62.)
`
`3
`
`

`

`The prior art confirms this. The art is replete with using vehicle speed to
`
`determine a safe stopping distance, and then issuing a warning to a driver if her
`
`vehicle is closer than that distance. The following references, which are detailed in
`
`this Petition, are examples of such art: (1) European Patent Application Publication
`
`No. 0 392 953 (“Tresse”) (Ex. 1005); (2) U.S. Patent No. 5,357,438 (“Davidian”)
`
`(Ex. 1006); and (3) PCT Publication No. WO 91/07672 (“Montague”) (Ex. 1007).
`
`Davidian granted as a patent in 1994, before the ’781 Patent was even filed, and
`
`Montague and Tresse claim priority to patent applications even before that, in the
`
`1980s.
`
`Tresse, Davidian, and Montague were not considered during the prosecution
`
`of the ’781 Patent. Each reference discloses a vehicle proximity warning system
`
`that uses a “lookup” table in determining whether to issue a warning:
`
`• Tresse: Ex. 1005, 3:30-32 (“The unit compares, as a priority, for a measured
`
`speed V, the value D of the distance measured with a reference distance Dr
`
`obtained from a reference table and considered to be a minimum safe
`
`distance.”);
`
`• Davidian: Ex. 1006, 9:20-27 (“Computer module 90 also includes
`
`information about the vehicle braking distances as a function of speed. This
`
`is preferably in the form of a look-up table…”); and
`
`4
`
`

`

`• Montague: Ex. 1007, 17:23-18:4 (“[T]he comparison between the vehicle
`
`speed and the distance from the source transmitter is effected… using look
`
`up tables. The look up table contains a series of associated threshold values.
`
`If the comparison between the instantaneous vehicle speed and the
`
`determined distance between the source transmitter and the vehicle indicates
`
`that the instantaneous distance is less than the threshold required for that
`
`speed a visual and/or audible warning is given...”).
`
`Moreover, as to claim 32, each reference contemplates using a different “safe”
`
`stopping distance in the event of adverse weather, such as rain. (Ex. 1005 (Tresse),
`
`6:2-3, 7:26-30; Ex. 1006 (Davidian), 8:58-9:27; Ex. 1007 (Montague), 14:20-15:4.)
`
`For these reasons, and as detailed below, claims 31 and 32 of the ’781 Patent
`
`should be cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business located at 1 Mercedes Drive, Montvale, New Jersey
`
`07645, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., an Alabama corporation with
`
`its principal place of business located at 1 Mercedes Drive, Vance, Alabama
`
`35490, are real parties-in-interest (together, “Mercedes” or “Petitioner”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’781 Patent has been asserted in the following cases:
`
`Case No.
`
`1:2013-cv-08413
`
`1:2013-cv-08416
`
`1:2013-cv-08418
`
`Defendants
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and
`Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.
`BMW of North America, LLC and
`BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC
`Audi of America, Inc. and
`Audi of America, LLC
`Chrysler Group, LLC
`Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
`
`Jurisdiction
`N.D. Ill.
`
`N.D. Ill.
`
`N.D. Ill.
`
`1:2013-cv-08419
`1:2013-cv-08421
`
`The ’781 Patent is also the subject of an ex parte reexamination proceeding,
`
`N.D. Ill.
`N.D. Ill.
`
`which was ordered on June 27, 2014 and has been assigned reexamination control
`
`no. 90/013, 252.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead counsel is Celine Jimenez Crowson (Reg. No. 40,357). Backup
`
`
`
`
`counsel are Raymond A. Kurz (pro hac vice motion to be filed) and Joseph J.
`
`Raffetto (Reg. No. 66,218).
`
`
`
`Service information for Petitioner in this matter is as follows:
`
`Post and
`Hand Delivery
`
`Email
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`555 13th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`celine.crowson@hoganlovells.com
`raymond.kurz@hoganlovells.com
`joseph.raffetto@hoganlovells.com
`
`6
`
`

`

`Telephone No.
`Facsimile No.
`
`202.637.5600
`202.637.5910
`
`
`
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID
`
`Fees are submitted herewith. If any additional fees are due at any time
`
`during the inter partes review proceedings, the undersigned authorizes the Office
`
`to charge such fees to Deposit Account No. 50-1349.
`
`
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’781 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`of the claims of the ’781 Patent. This Petition is being filed within one year of
`
`Petitioner being served with a complaint for infringement.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`The relief requested is cancellation of the challenged claims, as follows:
`
`Ground
`No.
`
`Reference
`
`Claims Basis
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. 0 392 953
`(Tresse), alone or in view of the general knowledge of
`one of ordinary skill or PCT Publication No. 96/02853
`(“Tonkin”) (Ex. 1009)
`PCT Publication No. WO 91/07672 (Montague),
`alone or in view of the general knowledge of one of
`ordinary skill, European Patent Application Publication
`No. 0 549 909 (“Kajiwata”) (Ex. 1008), and/or Tonkin
`U.S. Patent No. 5,357,458 (Davidian),
`
`31-32 §§ 102
`and 103
`
`31-32 §§ 102
`and 103
`
`31-32 §§ 102
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`7
`
`

`

`alone or in view of the general knowledge of one of
`ordinary skill, Kajiwata, and/or Tonkin
`
`and 103
`
`
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’781 PATENT
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Background on the ’781 Patent
`
`The ’781 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 08/813,270, filed
`
`on March 10, 1997. The ’781 Patent has little prosecution history. The Examiner
`
`issued a single Office Action, mailed August 6, 1998, rejecting original claims 18
`
`and 19 as being unpatentable over Chasteen (U.S. Patent No. 4,901,701) (Ex.
`
`1003) in view of Doi (U.S. Patent No. 5,708,584) (Ex. 1004). (Ex. 1002, 70-71.)
`
`The applicant, in response, added new claims 37 and 38—which,
`
`respectively, issued as claims 31 and 32—and stated that these claims were
`
`“closely related” to original claims 18 and 19. (Id., 89.) The applicant urged that
`
`claim 37 was distinguishable from the prior art because Doi used “changes in the
`
`distance separating the vehicle and forward object” in determining when to activate
`
`an alarm, whereas the applicant’s alleged invention used, among other things, a
`
`“vehicle speed/stopping distance table.” 1 (Id., 89-90.) As to claim 38, the
`
`applicant further urged that the prior art did not disclose using a sensor to “classify
`
`1 Although claim 18 and claim 37 (i.e., issued claim 31) were largely identical, the
`applicant did revise claim 37 to expressly recite that the vehicle speed/stopping
`distance table was used in determining when to issue the alarm. (Ex. 1002,
`compare 40 (claim 18) with 86 (claim 37).)
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`road conditions as either ‘dry’ or ‘wet’,” and then, based on this data, using a first
`
`speed/stopping distance table if “the road is dry” and a second speed/stopping
`
`distance table if “the road is wet.” 2 (Id., 90.)
`
`The Examiner then issued a Notice of Allowability, allowing claims 37 and
`
`38. (Id., 93-96.) The Examiner stated in his “Reasons for Allowance” (in relevant
`
`part) that the prior art did not disclose that “the processor subsystem determines
`
`whether to activate the vehicle proximity alarm circuit based upon separation
`
`distance data received from the radar detector, vehicle speed/stopping distance
`
`table stored in the memory subsystem [sic].” (Id., 95.) As discussed herein,
`
`however, Tresse, Davidian, and Montague—references not considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution—each disclose these features. And, as the inventors
`
`themselves admitted, determining a safe stopping distance based on vehicle speed
`
`was already “well known.” (Ex. 1001, 1:52-65.)
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’781 Patent would
`
`have been someone with a good working knowledge of electrical engineering,
`
`including sensors, processing systems, and notification circuitry. The person
`
`would have gained this knowledge through an undergraduate Bachelor of Science
`
`2 Claim 19 and Claim 38 (i.e., issued claim 32) were also substantially similar.
`The only revisions to claim 38 were to confirm that the “first” table was used if the
`sensor was deactivated and the “second” table used if the sensor was activated.
`(Ex. 1002, compare 40 (claim 19) with 86-87 (claim 38).)
`
`9
`
`

`

`degree in electrical engineering or a comparable field (e.g., computer engineering),
`
`in combination with training or several years of related work experience with
`
`vehicular systems. The more education one has (e.g., post-graduate degrees), the
`
`less experience is needed to attain an ordinary level of skill. Likewise, more
`
`extensive experience in electrical engineering or a comparable field might
`
`substitute for certain educational requirements. (See Ex. 1010 at ¶ 17.)
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In this proceeding, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner’s
`
`position regarding claim scope is not to be taken as a concession regarding the
`
`appropriate scope to be given to the below or any other claim terms in a court or
`
`other adjudicative body having different claim interpretation standards.
`
`A.
`
`“road speed sensor” (Claim 31)
`
`The ’781 Patent discloses that sensors can be either state sensors (i.e., on or
`
`off) or level sensors (e.g., 35 mph, 36 mph, 37 mph, etc.). (Ex. 1001, 6:4-7.) The
`
`’781 Patent states that the “road speed sensor” is a level sensor that provides a
`
`signal “which indicate[s] the operating speed… for the vehicle.” (Id., 6:7-10.) The
`
`’781 Patent discloses that the “road speed sensor” can obtain information
`
`indicating vehicle speed from any number of sources, including, for example, the
`
`vehicle’s speedometer. (Id., 6:10-14.)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, “road speed sensor”
`
`should therefore be construed to mean “a sensor that provides a signal that
`
`indicates the operating speed of the vehicle.”
`
`B.
`
`“vehicle speed/stopping distance table” (Claims 31 and 32)
`
`The ’781 Patent states that the “vehicle speed/stopping distance table” is a
`
`table that provides “the relationship between the speed at which a vehicle is
`
`travelling and the distance which the vehicle will require to come to a complete
`
`stop if travelling at that speed.” (Ex. 1001, 6:63-67.) The ’781 Patent discloses
`
`that this table is “based upon National Safety Council guidelines,” and can “vary
`
`according to the class of the vehicle.” (Id., 6:60-63.) The ’781 Patent adds that
`
`this table is stored in memory, and that the processor subsystem uses this
`
`information to determine if “the stopping distance for the vehicle d is greater than
`
`the distance separating the vehicle from an object” (and therefore the vehicle is
`
`being operated unsafely). (Id., 6:43-53, 9:4-13.)
`
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, “vehicle
`
`speed/stopping distance table” should therefore be construed to mean “one or more
`
`lookup values stored in memory relating the distance required to stop a vehicle to
`
`at least the speed that the vehicle is traveling.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`VIII. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`OF CLAIMS 31 AND 32
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 31-32 Are Anticipated or Rendered Obvious By
`European Patent Application Publication
`No. 0 392 953 (Tresse) (Ex. 1005)
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. 0 392 953 (Tresse) has a filing
`
`
`
`
`
`date of April 11, 1990, and published on October 17, 1990. Tresse is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Tresse discloses a microprogrammable anti-collision
`
`alarm control and aid for driving motor vehicles. (Ex. 1005, 3:2-3.)3 The anti-
`
`collision control and aid of Tresse includes a speed sensor, a radar detector, a
`
`microprocessor, and a memory, and operates as follows: “The unit compares as a
`
`priority, for a measured speed V, the value D of the distance measured with a
`
`reference distance Dr obtained from a reference table and considered to be a
`
`minimum safe distance… If this distance is positive, the advancement of the
`
`vehicle is deemed without danger and no alarm is generated. On the other hand,
`
`when this difference becomes negative, it is deemed that there is a risk of a
`
`collision and an alarm needs to be generated to warn the driver as to the imminent
`
`danger of a collision.” (Id., 4:11-29 (emphasis added).)
`
`
`
`
`
`3 All citations to Tresse herein are to the certified English translation.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Tresse Anticipates Independent Claim 31
`
`Claim 31
`[p] Apparatus
`for optimizing
`operation of a
`vehicle,
`comprising:
`
`[a] a radar
`detector, said
`radar detector
`determining a
`distance
`separating a
`vehicle having
`an engine and
`an object in
`front of said
`vehicle;
`
`Anticipated by Ex. 1005 (Tresse)
`
`Tresse discloses a “microprogrammable electronic anti-
`collision alarm control and aid for driving road motor
`vehicles.” (Ex. 1005, 3:2-3.) This apparatus optimizes the
`operation of a vehicle by providing “the driver when in traffic
`with… a visual numerical information provided by a display
`module MA, expressing in meters a positive or negative safety
`margin D-Dr existing between one’s vehicle and the one in
`front in regard to a minimum safe distance, combined with a
`simultaneous MS audible warning in the likelihood of a
`collision...” (Id., 3:36-4:2; see also Ex. 1010 at ¶ 26.)
`
`The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse includes a radar detector
`for determining the distance separating a vehicle with an
`engine from an object in front of it.
`
`Tresse discloses that a processing module in the anti-collision
`apparatus (MT, as can be seen below) “analyzes two variables
`in real time from the moment the vehicle starts, namely, the
`speed V of the vehicle itself, furnished by the onboard
`tachymeter, and the distance D measured from the vehicle in
`front…” (Ex. 1005, 4:7-10.) Tresse further discloses that “D”
`(or the vehicle separation distance) can be measured by “radar,
`or any similar device able to permanently determine in real
`time the distance between two consecutive vehicles traveling in
`a line.” (Id., 4:14-17 (emphasis added).)
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Claim 31
`
`Anticipated by Ex. 1005 (Tresse)
`
`(Id., Fig. 1; see also Ex. 1010 at ¶ 27.)
`
`
`
`The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse includes a road speed
`sensor indicating the road or operating speed of the vehicle.
`
`Tresse discloses that the processing module (MT) in the anti-
`collision apparatus analyses “in real time from the moment the
`vehicle starts… the speed V of the vehicle itself, furnished by
`the onboard tachymeter…” (Ex. 1005, 4:7-9.)
`
`
`[b] at least one
`sensor coupled
`to said vehicle
`for monitoring
`operation
`thereof, said at
`least one
`sensor
`including a
`road speed
`sensor;
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 1; see also id., 6:11-12, 6:35-36; Ex. 1010 at ¶ 28.)
`
`[c] a processor
`subsystem,
`coupled to said
`
`The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse includes a processing
`module, coupled to the radar detector and the road speed
`sensor, to receive data therefrom.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Claim 31
`
`radar detector
`and said at
`least one
`sensor, to
`receive data
`therefrom;
`
`Anticipated by Ex. 1005 (Tresse)
`
`
`Tresse states that “[i]n order to allow the invention to retain its
`property of being adaptable for compliance with present or
`future regulations, the processing module was implemented
`through the use of a programmed software solution based on a
`CI8 microcontroller (consisting of a microprocessor, RAM,
`ROM, and input/output ports)…” (Ex. 1005, 8:20-23.)
`
`
`As discussed above, the separation distance (D) and vehicle
`speed (V) can be determined by, respectively, a radar and a
`tachymeter. Tresse discloses that the processing module (MT)
`receives this data, as can be seen in Figures 1 and 2 below.
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 1.)
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Claim 31
`
`Anticipated by Ex. 1005 (Tresse)
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 2.)
`
`Tresse then discloses that the unit “compares as a priority, for a
`measured speed V, the value D of the distance measured with a
`reference distance Dr obtained from a reference table and
`considered to be a minimum safe distance… The unit provides
`permanently and
`in numerical real
`time
`the numerical
`difference known as the D-Dr figure, provided that the
`presence of a vehicle is detected in front. If this difference is
`positive, the advancement of the vehicle is deemed without
`danger and no alarm is generated. On the other hand, when this
`difference becomes negative, it is deemed that there is a risk of
`a collision and an alarm needs to be generated to warn the
`driver as to the imminent danger of a collision..” (Id., 4:11-29;
`
`16
`
`

`

`Claim 31
`
`Anticipated by Ex. 1005 (Tresse)
`see also id., 8:9-10, 8:29-34, 10:30-34; Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 29-30.)
`
`Tresse discloses that the processing module includes a memory
`subsystem with a first vehicle speed/stopping distance table.
`As can be seen in Figure 2 below, the processing module (MT)
`of Tresse includes multiple memory subsystems, including a
`ROM and a RAM, which are coupled to the microprocessor
`therein.
`
`
`[d] a memory
`subsystem,
`coupled to said
`processor
`subsystem,
`said memory
`subsystem
`storing a first
`vehicle
`speed/stopping
`distance table;
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, Fig. 2; see also id., 8:20-23 (“In order to allow the
`invention to retain its property of being adaptable for
`compliance with present or future regulations, the processing
`module was implemented through the use of a programmed
`software solution based on a CI8 microcontroller (consisting of
`
`17
`
`

`

`Claim 31
`
`Anticipated by Ex. 1005 (Tresse)
`
`a microprocessor, RAM, ROM, and input/output ports).”).)
`
`Tresse also discloses that such memory subsystem stores a
`vehicle speed/stopping distance table. Tresse states that the
`processing module uses a reference table to determine, based
`on a vehicle’s speed, a safe stopping distance, and adds that
`this table can be stored in the ROM of the processing module,
`to adapt the system for different traffic rules and regulations.
`(Id., 4:11-13 (stating that the processing module compares “for
`a measured speed V, the value D of the distance measured with
`a reference distance Dr obtained from a reference table and
`considered to be a minimum safe distance…”), 4:18-19
`(describing Dr as “a reference distance or minimum safe
`distance established according to the traffic rules or regulations
`as a function of the speed V…”), 8:23-27 (stating that “[a]ll of
`the above-mentioned coefficients and values can easily be
`modified during manufacture, through a simple modification of
`the table of constants in read-only memory (ROM), which in
`turn makes it possible to adapt the control unit and render
`compatible with the regulations and with the applicable
`standards, both present and future, in different countries”),
`11:8-9 (“PRODUCTION OF Dr: … For this purpose, the table
`of reference distances is scanned, bearing in mind the speed
`information…”), Claim 1; see also Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 31-32.)
`
`[e] a vehicle
`proximity
`alarm circuit
`coupled to said
`processor
`subsystem,
`said vehicle
`proximity
`alarm circuit
`issuing an
`alarm that said
`vehicle is too
`
`The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse can issue one or more
`alarms when a vehicle is too close to an object, such as another
`vehicle.
`
`Tresse discloses that these alarms include both a visual alarm
`and an audible alarm: “The alarm is presented in different
`forms and one distinguishes: A visual numerical alarm
`modulated as a function of the increasing risk of a collision and
`produced on the display module MA, by the progressive
`blinking of the numerical difference D-Dr indicator. The more
`the negative numerical difference D-Dr is increasing, the faster
`the rhythm of the blinking light will go… An audible alarm
`
`18
`
`

`

`Claim 31
`
`close to said
`object;
`
`Anticipated by Ex. 1005 (Tresse)
`
`modulated as a function of the increasing risk of a collision and
`produced on a sound chip MS. The more the negative
`is
`increasing, the faster the
`numerical difference D-Dr
`generated audible signal will go...” (Ex. 1005, 4:35-5:3.)
`Tresse also provides an external alarm interface AL that
`enables “the activation of alarms outside the control unit, such
`as light indicators, buzzers, voice messages, etc. may possibly
`control in case of an alarm, a system of display on the outside
`part of the vehicle.” (Id., 5:4-6.) Such alarms (MA, MS, and
`IA/AL) can be seen in Figure 2 below.
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 2.)
`
`Tresse states that these alarms are activated by the processing
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Claim 31
`
`Anticipated by Ex. 1005 (Tresse)
`
`module when it is determined that there is a risk of a collision.
`(Id., 4:11-29 (“The unit compares as a priority, for a measured
`speed V, the value D of the distance measured with a reference
`distance Dr obtained from a reference table and considered to
`be a minimum safe distance… The unit provides permanently
`and in numerical real time the numerical difference known as
`the D-Dr figure, provided that the presence of a vehicle is
`detected in front. If this difference is positive, the advancement
`of the vehicle is deemed without danger and no alarm is
`generated. On the other hand, when this difference becomes
`negative, it is deemed that there is a risk of a collision and an
`alarm needs to be generated to warn the driver as to the
`imminent danger of a collision.”); see also id., 11:12-25
`(describing
`the “CALCULATION OF D-Dr” and
`the
`“ALARM MANAGEMENT”); Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 33-34.)
`
`Tresse discloses that the processing module in the anti-collision
`alarm apparatus determines when to activate the vehicle
`proximity alarm circuit based upon (1) separation distance data
`received from said radar detector, (2) vehicle speed data
`received from said road speed sensor, and (3) said first vehicle
`speed/stopping distance
`table stored
`in said memory
`subsystem.
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, Fig. 1; see also id., Fig. 2.)
`
`
`
`
`[f] said
`processor
`subsystem
`determining
`whether to
`activate said
`vehicle
`proximity
`alarm circuit
`based upon
`separation
`distance data
`received from
`said radar
`detector,
`vehicle speed
`data received
`from said road
`speed sensor
`and said first
`vehicle
`
`20
`
`

`

`Claim 31
`
`speed/stopping
`distance table
`stored in said
`memory
`subsystem.
`
`Anticipated by Ex. 1005 (Tresse)
`
`“The microprogrammable electronic control of the present
`specification permanently analyzes two variables in real time
`from the moment the vehicle starts, namely, the speed V of the
`vehicle itself, furnished by the onboard tachymeter, and the
`distance D measured from the vehicle in front...
`
`The unit compares as a priority, for a measured speed V, the
`value D of the distance measured with a reference distance Dr
`obtained from a reference table and considered to be a
`minimum safe distance.
`- D designating the distance from the vehicle in front…
`as measured by an accessory onboard device, such as a
`telemetry unit, radar, or any other similar device able to
`permanently determine in real time the distance between
`two consecutive vehicles driving in a line.
`- Dr designating a reference distance or minimum safe
`distance established according to the traffic rules or
`regulations as a function of the speed V...
`- D-Dr resulting from the positive or negative difference
`of these two distances D and Dr.
`
`
`The unit provides permanently and in numerical real time the
`numerical difference known as the D-Dr figure, provided that
`the presence of a vehicle is detected in front. If this difference
`is positive, the advancement of the vehicle is deemed without
`danger and no alarm is generated. On the other hand, when this
`difference becomes negative, it is deemed that there is a risk of
`a collision and an alarm needs to be generated to warn the
`driver as to the imminent danger of a collision.” (Id., 4:7-29.)
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Claim 31
`
`Anticipated by Ex. 1005 (Tresse)
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 3.)
`
`“DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTROL-UNIT
`MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE (LGC) …
`
`Figure 3 shows the top-level flowchart for the processing to be
`performed…
`
`MEASUREMENT OF D: With the aid of the CI8 data-
`acquisition module, this module makes it possible to acquire
`the 8-bit encoded binary value…
`
`MEASUREMENT OF V: With the aid of the CI8 analog-data
`
`22
`
`

`

`Claim 31
`
`Anticipated by Ex. 1005 (Tresse)
`
`acquisition module, this module makes it possible to acquire
`the 8-bit encoded binary value…
`
`the external calibration
`PRODUCTION OF Dr: After
`parameters (VS, P, G, and B) for the sensitivity S and the value
`sent from the digital input EN has been scanned, this module
`makes it possible to produce the magnitude Dr. For this
`purpose, the table of reference distances is scanned, bearing in
`mind the speed information. Then a calculation makes it
`possible to establish the value of Dr, by integrating the various
`calibration coefficients.
`
`the
`CALCULATION OF D-Dr: This module produces
`information D-Dr, which will be 8-bit binary encoded. If the
`value is negative, an alarm indicator IA is set to “1”, and the
`sign of the value is changed so that the value can be displayed.
`If the value is positive, the alarm indicator is set to “0” and the
`output of the speaker control is blocked.
`
`the
`ALARM MANAGEMENT: This module establishes
`blinking parameter PC of the display, the modulation parameter
`PM of the audible alarm, and the activation of the alarm output
`AL outside the control unit, if the alarm indicator IA was set to
`“1”. The blinking frequency of the display, as set by PC, is
`obtained by calculation, based on the absolute value of the
`negative difference D-Dr. The frequency increases in direct
`proportion to this difference. The audible alarm consists of a
`signal with constant amplitude and a fixed frequency. The
`modulation of this signal results from its activation during a
`period, set by PM that is proportional to the absolute value of
`the negative difference D-Dr. The external alarm is set
`throughout the entire period during which the value D-Dr
`remains negative.” (Id., 10:12-11:25.)
`
`(See also id., Claim 1; Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 35-36.)
`
`23
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Tresse Anticipates or, in the Alternative, Renders Obvious
`Dependent Claim 32
`
`
`
`Claim 32
`
`[p] Apparatus for
`optimizing operation
`of a vehicle
`according to claim
`31 wherein:
`
`[a] said at least one
`sensor further
`includes a
`windshield wiper
`sensor for indicating
`whether a
`windshield wiper of
`said vehicle is
`activated; and
`
`Anticipated or, in the Alternative,
`Rendered Obvious by Ex. 1005 (Tresse)
`See, e.g., Claim No. 31[p] above.
`
`The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse includes a sensor
`for indicating whether a windshield wiper of the vehicle
`is activated. The processing module in Tresse receives a
`parameter (P) confirming the use of windshield wipers.
`
`(Ex. 1005, 6:2-3 (“P: Which lets one automatically
`increase, from time to time, the minimum safe distance
`by a coefficient Cp greater than 1, once the windshield
`wipers are placed in operation.”), 7:26-30 (“P, G and B:
`Binary signals that allow the processing module to make
`corrections in the safety distance. These signals, which
`are not limited to the examples mentioned, are set
`through the MIF module, either manually by the driver or
`automatically when one of the vehicle accessories (such
`as the windshield wipers, the snow or black-ice detection
`switch, or the rear fog light) is actuated.”).)
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`Claim 32
`
`Anticipated or, in the Alternative,
`Rendered Obvious by Ex. 1005 (Tresse)
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 1; see also id., Fig. 2.)
`
`(Id., Claim 4