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
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`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
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ....................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ......................................................... 2
`III.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) ........................................................................... 2
`A.
`Background of the ’781 Patent ....................................................................... 2
`1.
`The ’781 Patent ...................................................................................... 2
`2.
`Prosecution History of the ’781 Patent ............................................. 5
`Patents and Printed Publications Relied On ................................................. 7
`B.
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2)) ............... 8
`C.
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ............................................ 8
`D.
`IV. How Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5)) ......... 9
`A.
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 28-30 are Obvious in
`View of the Combination of Jurgen, Smith, and Habu .............................. 9
`Claims 17-27 are Obvious in View of the Combination of Jurgen,
`Smith, Habu, and Davidian ...........................................................................33
`Claim 31 is Anticipated by Davidian ...........................................................52
`Claim 32 is Obvious in View of the Combination of Davidian and
`Tonkin ..............................................................................................................54
`Conclusion ...................................................................................................................60
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`In re Schreiber,
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................. 12, 35
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)........................................................................................................... 7, 8, 54
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................ 8, 9, 33, 51, 54, 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................ 33, 51, 54, 60
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................................ 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ........................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,954,781 to Slepian et al.
`
`Automotive Electronics Handbook, Ronald Jurgen (Ed.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,398,174 to Smith, Jr.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,559,599 to Habu et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,357,438 to Davidian
`
`PCT Application Publication No. WO 96/02853 to Tonkin
`
`Office Action, August 6, 1998, in U.S. Patent Application
`Serial No. 08/813,270
`
`for Ex Parte Reexamination Control No.
`Request
`90/013,252
`
`Decision Granting Ex Parte Reexamination, June 27, 2014,
`in Ex Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/013,252
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2014-01247)
`
`Office Action, October 21, 2014,
`Reexamination Control No. 90/013,252
`
`in Ex Parte
`
`Response, November 3, 2014, in Ex Parte Reexamination
`Control No. 90/013,252
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`
`
`I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`
`Real Party-in-Interest:
`
` Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA”), which is a subsidiary of
`
`Volkswagen AG.
`
`Related Matters:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,954,781 (“the ’781 patent,” Ex. 1001) is the subject of Velocity
`
`Patent LLC v. Audi of America, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-08418-JWD (N.D. Ill.), naming as
`
`defendants Audi of America, Inc., which is a d/b/a of VWGoA, and Audi of
`
`America, LLC, which is a subsidiary of VWGoA. The ’781 patent is also the subject
`
`of: Reexamination Control No. 90/013,252 (requested by VWGoA), IPR Trial No.
`
`2013-01247 (Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.
`
`are identified as real parties in interest), and litigation in the Northern District of
`
`Illinois against Mercedes-Benz (Case No. 1:13-cv-08413-JWD), BMW (Case No. 1:13-
`
`cv-08416), Chrysler (Case No. 1:13-cv-08419-JWD), and Jaguar Land Rover (Case
`
`No. 1:13-cv-08421).
`
`Counsel:
`
` Lead Counsel: Michael J. Lennon (Reg. No. 26,562)
`
` Backup Counsel: Clifford A. Ulrich (Reg. No. 42,194)
`
`Electronic Service: ptab@kenyon.com
`
`Post and Delivery: Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, One Broadway, New York NY 10004.
`
`Telephone: 212-425-7200 Facsimile: 212-425-5288
`1
`
`
`
`II. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
` VWGoA certifies that the ’781 patent is available for inter partes review and that
`
`VWGoA is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging
`
`the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`III. Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
` VWGoA challenges claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17-32 of the ’781
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and cancellation of these claims is requested.
`
`A. Background of the ’781 Patent
`1.
` The ’781 Patent
` The ’781 patent is titled “Method and Apparatus for Optimizing Vehicle
`
`Operation” and was issued on Sept. 21, 1999 from U.S. Appl. Ser. No. 08/873,270
`
`(“the ’270 application”), filed on Mar. 10, 1997. The ’781 patent is allegedly assigned
`
`to Velocity Patent LLC (“Velocity”).
`
` The ’781 patent is generally related to an “[a]pparatus for optimizing operation of
`
`an engine-driven vehicle.” Abstract. In describing the background and prior art, the
`
`’781 patent states that “[i]t has long been recognized that the improper operation of a
`
`vehicle may have many adverse effects.” Ex. 1001, 1:12-13. For example, according to
`
`the ’781 patent, “the fuel efficiency of a vehicle may vary dramatically based upon
`
`how the vehicle is operated.” Ex. 1001, 1:13-15. The ’781 patent refers specifically to,
`
`for example, operating a vehicle at excessive speeds, excessive RPMs, and excessive
`
`manifold pressures as leading to reduced fuel economy and increased operating costs.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:15-18. The increased operating costs may be considerable, especially for
`
`the owner or operator of a fleet of vehicles. Against this background, the ’781 patent
`
`describes a processor subsystem for determining when to issue notifications as to
`
`recommended changes in vehicle operation that, when executed by the driver, will
`
`optimize vehicle operation.
`
` According to the
`
`’781 patent, the system “both notifies the driver of
`
`recommended corrections in vehicle operation and, under certain conditions,
`
`automatically initiates selected corrective action.” Ex. 1001, 1:7-10. The ’781 patent
`
`states that “it would be desirable 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, 1:66-2:6.
`
` The ’781 patent describes three types of circuits for issuing notifications that
`
`indicate operating inefficiencies: a shift notification circuit; a fuel overinjection
`
`notification circuit; and a vehicle proximity alarm circuit. The shift notification circuit
`
`issues a notification that the engine of the vehicle is being operated at an excessive
`
`speed, i.e., the shift notification circuit operates as an upshift notification circuit,
`
`and/or issues a notification that the engine of the vehicle is being operated at an
`
`insufficient speed, i.e., the shift notification circuit operates as a downshift notification
`
`circuit. The fuel overinjection notification circuit issues a notification that excessive
`3
`
`
`
`fuel is being supplied to the engine of the vehicle, and the vehicle proximity alarm
`
`circuit issues an alarm when the vehicle is too close to an object.
`
` According to the ’781 patent, a series of sensors, including road speed sensor 18,
`
`RPM sensor 20, manifold pressure sensor 22, throttle sensor 24, windshield wiper
`
`sensor 30, and brake sensor 32, are coupled to processor subsystem 12 and are
`
`periodically polled by the processor subsystem to determine their states or levels. Ex.
`
`1001, 5:65-6:4. The system 10 includes a memory subsystem 14, which stores
`
`information used by the processor subsystem 12 to determine whether to take
`
`corrective actions and/or issue notifications. Ex. 1001, 6:43-46.
`
` For example, the processor subsystem 12 determines that the vehicle is being
`
`operated unsafely if the speed of the vehicle is such that the stopping distance for the
`
`vehicle is greater than the distance separating the vehicle from an object, e.g., a second
`
`vehicle, in its path. Ex. 1001, 9:4-8. As another example, the processor subsystem 12
`
`notifies the driver that, to optimize vehicle operation, the amount of fuel being
`
`supplied to the engine should be reduced if it determines that too much fuel is being
`
`provided to the engine, based on the vehicle’s road speed, throttle position, and
`
`manifold pressure. Ex. 1001, 12:5-14. Also, the processor subsystem 12 issues an
`
`audible alert to notify the driver that, to optimize vehicle operation, an upshift should
`
`be performed, based on the vehicle’s engine speed reaching a particular RPM set
`
`point. Ex. 1001, 11:45-12:4.
`
` Thus, according to the ’781 patent, a system is provided for optimizing vehicle
`4
`
`
`
`operation that combines operator notifications of recommended corrections in
`
`vehicle operation with automatic modification of vehicle operation under certain
`
`circumstances. Ex. 1001, 13:36-40. In addition, the driver is advised of certain actions
`
`that will enable the vehicle to be operated with greater fuel efficiency. Ex. 1001, 13:40-
`
`44.
`
`2.
` Prosecution History of the ’781 Patent
` The ’270 application was filed with 32 claims, of which application claims 1, 14,
`
`18, and 27 were the only independent claims. As filed, claim 1 included a fuel
`
`overinjection circuit, claim 14 included a fuel overinjection circuit, an upshift
`
`notification circuit, and a downshift notification circuit, claim 18 included a vehicle
`
`proximity alarm, and claim 27 included a fuel overinjection circuit and a vehicle
`
`proximity alarm.
`
`
`
`In the only Office Action, dated Aug. 6, 1998, claims 1, 2 and 4-6 were rejected as
`
`obvious, but the Examiner stated that claims 8-13, 25, 26, and 29-32 included
`
`allowable subject matter on the basis that “the prior art fails to disclose an upshift
`
`notification circuit coupled to the processor subsystem, the upshift notification circuit
`
`issuing a notification that the engine of the vehicle is being operated at an excessive
`
`engine speed and the processor determines when to activate the upshift notification
`
`circuit.” Ex. 1007, at 6.
`
` On May 22, 2014, VWGoA filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the ’781
`
`patent (Ex. 1008), assigned Reexamination Control No. 90/013,252 (“the ’252
`
`5
`
`
`
`reexamination”), which was ordered on Jun. 27, 2014.1 Ex. 1009. The Examiner
`
`issued an Office Action on Oct. 21, 2014, rejecting claims 31 and 32 and confirming
`
`patentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17-30. According to the
`
`Examiner, “[t]he prior art of Jurgen, Saturn ’452, Toyota ’599, Volkswagen ’070,
`
`Davidian, and Tonkin do not disclose, alone or in combination, the limitation of ‘a
`
`fuel overinjection notification circuit coupled to said processor subsystem, said fuel
`
`overinjection notification circuit issuing a notification that excessive fuel is being
`
`supplied to said engine of said vehicle,’ as stated in claims 1, 7, 13, 17, 23, 26, and 28
`
`of the ’781 patent.” Ex. 1011, at 18. And, according to the Examiner, “[t]he ’781
`
`Patent teaches the overinjection notification circuit as being activated when there is
`
`excessive fuel being supplied to the vehicle’s engine.” Id. According to the Examiner,
`
`the prior art “does not disclose the fuel ever being overinjected.” Id. (emphasis in
`
`original). Thus, according to the Examiner, the fuel overinjection notification circuit
`
`“aler[s] a driver that too much fuel is being supplied to the engine.” Ex. 1011, at 21.
`
`
`
`In Velocity’s response, filed on Nov. 3, 2014, Velocity argued against the
`
`Examiner’s construction of the term “fuel overinjection notification circuit,” and
`
`1 On Aug. 4, 2014, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S.
`
`International, Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review (Ex. 1010), Trial No. IPR2014-
`
`01247 (“the ’247 IPR”) of claims 31 and 32 of the ’781 patent. As of the filing date of
`
`this Petition, the Board has not decided whether to institute a trial in the ’247 IPR.
`
`6
`
`
`
`asserted that “the Patent describes that all engines in vehicles will inject as much fuel
`
`as driver [sic] demands by his or her operation of the vehicle. If the driver operates
`
`the vehicle in a fuel inefficient manner (e.g., excessively speeding, abruptly accelerating,
`
`etc.), the engine will overinject more fuel than the engine would if the vehicle were
`
`being operated efficiently.” Ex. 1012, at 31. Velocity further argued that “the
`
`inventive system of the Patent will provide the driver with a [sic] ‘overinjection
`
`notification’ as an alert that his or her driving is fuel inefficient.” Id.
`
`B. Patents and Printed Publications Relied On
`1. AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRONICS HANDBOOK, by Ronald Jurgen (“Jurgen,” Ex. 1002),
`
`published in 1995 by McGraw-Hill, Inc. and therefore constitutes prior art against
`
`the ’781 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 4,398,174 (“Smith,” Ex. 1003), issued on Aug. 9, 1983 and
`
`therefore constitutes prior art against the ’781 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 4,559,599 (“Habu,” Ex. 1004), issued on Dec. 17, 1985 and
`
`therefore constitutes prior art against the ’781 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`4. U.S. Patent No. 5,357,438 (“Davidian,” Ex. 1005), issued on Oct. 18, 1994 and
`
`therefore constitutes prior art against the ’781 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`5. PCT Publication No. WO 96/02853 (“Tonkin,” Ex. 1006), published on Feb. 1,
`
`1996 and therefore constitutes prior art against the ’781 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b).
`
`7
`
`
`
`C. Statutory Grounds for Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2))
`1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 28-30 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) in view of the combination of Jurgen, Smith, and Habu.
`
`2. Claims 17-27 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the
`
`combination of Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and Davidian.
`
`3. Claim 31 is anticipated by Davidian under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`4. Claim 32 is obvious in view of the Combination of Davidian and Tonkin
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`D. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
` The claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable construction in view of
`
`the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are generally presumed to take
`
`on their ordinary and customary meaning.
`
` As stated above, the Examiner in the ’252 reexamination has interpreted the “fuel
`
`overinjection notification circuit” to require “alerting a driver that too much fuel is
`
`being supplied to the engine.” Ex. 1011, at 21. However, in the ’252 reexamination,
`
`Velocity argued a different interpretation, i.e., that “fuel overinjection notification
`
`circuit” is a circuit that “provide[s] the driver with . . . an alert that his or her driving is
`
`fuel inefficient.” Ex. 1012, at 31. Therefore, it is assumed for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding that a circuit that “provide[s] the driver with . . . an alert that his or her
`
`driving is fuel inefficient” falls within the scope of the claimed “fuel overinjection
`
`notification circuit.”
`
`8
`
`
`
`IV. How Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5))
`A. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 28-30 are Obvious in View of the
`Combination of Jurgen, Smith, and Habu
` Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17-30 are obvious in view of the
`
`combination of Jurgen, Smith, and Habu under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As noted above,
`
`the Examiner in the ’252 reexamination proceeding concluded that the present claims
`
`are patentable over the prior art cited in that proceeding on the basis that the prior art
`
`does not disclose a “fuel overinjection notification circuit.” As discussed below, the
`
`prior art cited herein teaches a fuel overinjection notification circuit in the form of a
`
`circuit that “provide[s] the driver with . . . an alert that his or her driving is fuel
`
`inefficient.”
`
`
`
`Smith was not considered during the original prosecution of the ’781 patent or the
`
`’252 reexamination, and teaches that notifications can be delivered to the driver to
`
`signal “both efficient and inefficient fuel consumption conditions in the engine.”
`
`Abstract. The system includes a “vacuum operated switch” (Ex. 1003, 2:42) that
`
`closes when the manifold pressure “attains a value indicative of inefficient fuel
`
`consumption,” (Ex. 1003, 2:49-53). In response to the switch closing, an alarm circuit
`
`triggers an alarm light and, if the condition persists, an audio alarm indicator. Ex.
`
`1003, 2:53-58. Smith teaches that the vacuum pressure of the engine, as measured by a
`
`sensor, is used to activate the “alarm circuit 3,” Ex. 1003, 5:22-23, that issues an
`
`indicator light alerting the driver that the engine is being operated in a “fuel wasteful
`
`fashion.” Ex. 1003, 5:27. Therefore, Smith teaches the claimed fuel overinjection
`9
`
`
`
`notification circuit, in the form of a circuit that provides the driver with an alert that
`
`his or her driving is fuel inefficient.
`
` The claims of the ’781 patent include a number of sensors, including a road speed
`
`sensor, an engine speed sensor, a manifold pressure sensor, and a throttle position
`
`sensor. Each of these sensors and their use in automotive applications is taught, e.g.,
`
`by Jurgen. Jurgen (Ex. 1002) teaches at p. 2.7 the use of manifold pressure sensors,
`
`which are used as an input to “fuel and ignition control.” Jurgen also teaches at p. 7.6
`
`speed sensors, including rotational speed sensors, for example, “to monitor engine
`
`speed.” Id. Additionally, Jurgen teaches wheel speed sensors that are used for a
`
`variety of features including transmissions, cruise control, speedometers, anti-lock
`
`brake systems, etc. Id. Jurgen further teaches that throttle position sensors were used
`
`by fuel delivery and idle speed control systems. Ex. 1002, pp. 12.18, 12.21.
`
` Regarding processors and memory devices, Jurgen teaches that sensors input
`
`signals to the Engine Control Unit (“ECU”) for processing. For example, Jurgen
`
`teaches at p. 14.3 that the ECU can be a microcontroller, and that it can be used to
`
`calculate the vehicle’s speed. Additionally, Jurgen teaches at p. 13.5 memory devices
`
`used in automobiles.
`
` Habu teaches a shift indication apparatus, including many of the same sensors
`
`taught in Jurgen, which indicates to the driver whether an upshift or downshift is
`
`required based upon inputs to the sensors. In order to “enable the economical
`
`running of the car” (Ex. 1004, Abstract), Habu teaches that the driver can be
`10
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`(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
`
`
`
`’781 Patent
`
`[1b] a processor subsystem, coupled to
`each one of said plurality of sensors, to
`receive data therefrom;
`
`Jurgen, Smith, and Habu
`E.g., p. 2.7, “Manifold absolute pressure
`(MAP) is used as an input to fuel and
`ignition control in internal combustion
`engine control systems. The speed-density
`system that uses the MAP sensor has been
`preferred over mass air flow (MAF)
`control.”
`
`E.g., p. 12.18, “To control the idle speed,
`the ECU uses inputs from the throttle
`position sensor, . . . , engine RPM, and
`vehicle speed.”
`
`E.g., p. 12.21, “The electronic injection
`unit also houses the throttle position
`sensor”
`Jurgen, Ex. 1002
`E.g., p. 12.1, “The electronic engine
`control system consists of sensing devices
`which continuously measure the operating
`conditions of the engine, an electronic
`control unit (ECU) which evaluates the
`sensor inputs.”
`
`E.g., p. 22.6, “During the entire operating
`time of the vehicle, the ECUs are
`constantly supervising the sensors they are
`connected to.”
`
`E.g., Fig. 13.1.
`
`E.g., p. 14.3, “The speed sensor is one of
`the most critical parts in the system,
`because the microcontroller calculates the
`vehicle speed from the speed sensor’s
`signal to within 1/32 m/h.”
`
`Habu, Ex. 1004
`E.g., 2:23-36, “Referring to FIG. 1, the
`13
`
`
`
`’781 Patent
`
`[1c] a memory subsystem, coupled to said
`processor subsystem, said memory
`subsystem storing therein a manifold
`pressure set point, an RPM set point, and
`present and prior levels for each one of
`said plurality of sensors;
`
`Jurgen, Smith, and Habu
`shift indication apparatus with a manual
`transmission according to the present
`invention comprises . . . a microcomputer
`5 for performing various calculations in
`accordance with the different signals from
`the sensors.”
`
`E.g., 2:37-42, “The microcomputer 5
`further comprises an input/output port
`(I/O port) 6, a central processing unit
`(CPU) 7.”
`
`E.g., 2:43-48, “The engine speed sensor 1
`is mounted in a distributor (not shown)
`and the output of the sensor is connected
`to the input of the I/O port 6 so as to
`transmit the output pulses to the
`microcomputer 5.”
`
`E.g., 2:52-59, “Similarly, the output of the
`throttle sensor 3 is connected through the
`A/D converter 4 to the input of the I/O
`port 6 so as to transmit the output signals
`thereof to the microcomputer 5.”
`Jurgen, Ex. 1002
`E.g., p. 13.5, “The calculators inside the
`control units are usually
`microcontrollers. . . . The memory devices
`for program and data are usually
`EPROMS.”
`
`E.g., p. 12.9, “A subsystem of the fuel
`control system is lambda closed-loop
`control. . . . .
`
`“The engine load information is provided
`by the manifold pressure sensor for speed
`density systems and by the air meter for
`air flow and air mass measurement
`14
`
`
`
`’781 Patent
`
`Jurgen, Smith, and Habu
`systems and by the throttle valve position
`sensor. The engine control unit contains
`data tables for combinations of load and
`RPM. . . .
`
`“[T]he electronic control unit has a feature
`for adapting changes in the fuel required
`for the load/RPM points. At each
`load/RPM point, the lambda sensor
`continuously provides information that
`allows the system to adjust the fuel to the
`commanded A/F ratio. The corrected
`information is stored in RAM (random
`access memory) so that the next time the
`engine reaches that operating point
`(load/RPM), the anticipatory value will
`require less correction. These values
`remain stored in the electronic control
`unit even after the engine is shut off.”
`
`E.g., p. 14.2, “Other safety-related items
`include program code to detect abnormal
`operating conditions and preserving into
`memory the data points associated with
`the abnormal condition for later
`diagnostics.”
`
`E.g., pp. 22.2-22.3, “Modern electronics in
`vehicles support diagnosis by comparing
`the registered actual value with the
`internally stored nominal values.”
`
`Smith, Ex. 1003
`E.g., 2:49-58, “In operation, the vacuum
`operated switch closes when the manifold
`pressure attains a value indicative of
`inefficient fuel consumption.”
`
`E.g., 5:18-29, “However, if the manifold
`
`15
`
`
`
`’781 Patent
`
`Jurgen, Smith, and Habu
`pressure falls below an appropriate preset
`value.”
`
`Habu, Ex. 1004
`E.g., 2:37-40, “The microcomputer 5
`further comprises an input/output port
`(I/O port) 6, a central processing unit
`(CPU) 7, a read only memory (ROM) 8,
`and a random access memory (RAM) 9.”
`
`E.g., 3:7-15, “The torque data map
`indicative of torque curves T as shown in
`FIG. 2 has been stored in the ROM 8 in
`advance. The fuel consumption rate data
`map indicative of equal fuel consumption
`rate curves B as shown in FIG. 3 has been
`also stored in the ROM 8 in advance. In
`FIG. 2, each equal torque curve T was
`prepared by plotting and connecting equal
`torque points on the graph with respect to
`the engine speed vs. throttle valve
`opening. ”
`
`E.g., 3:44-52, “In this case, as shown in
`FIG. 4, the operation of a main routine is
`started at a predetermined timing, e.g.
`periodical timing pulses from a timer (not
`shown) and the detection of the engine
`speed Ne from the sensor 1 is carried out
`and it is stored into the RAM 9 at the step
`20. Then, the engine speed Ne is read
`from the RAM 9 and it is compared with a
`predetermined number N (=1000 rpm) to
`determine whether or not the Ne exceeds
`the value 1000 at the step 21.”
`
`E.g., Fig. 4.
`[1d] a fuel overinjection notification circuit Smith, Ex. 1003
`
`E.g., Abstract, “A fuel consumption
`coupled to said processor subsystem, said
`16
`
`
`
`’781 Patent
`fuel overinjection notification circuit
`issuing a notification that excessive fuel is
`being supplied to said engine of said
`vehicle;
`
`[1e] an upshift notification circuit coupled
`to said processor subsystem, said upshift
`notification circuit issuing a notification
`that said engine of said vehicle is being
`operated at an excessive speed;
`
`Jurgen, Smith, and Habu
`signalling system for signalling both
`efficient and inefficient fuel consumption
`conditions in the engine of a motor
`vehicle is herein disclosed. The system
`comprises an alarm circuit connected in
`series with an indicator circuit including an
`indicator light connected in parallel with a
`vacuum operated switch pneumatically
`connected to the engine manifold.”
`
`E.g., 2:49-57, “In operation, the vacuum
`operated switch closes when the manifold
`pressure attains a value indicative of
`inefficient fuel consumption, thereby
`shunting the entire electrical potential
`around the indicator light and across the
`alarm circuit. Thus, the indicator light is
`extinguished and the alarm circuit is
`actuated, perceptibly illuminating the
`alarm light and triggering the time delay
`circuit.”
`
`E.g., 5:23-27, “It should be noted in
`closing that indicator light 15 serves to
`provide a voltage divider between the
`source of electric potential and the alarm
`circuit 15 so that the latter is not actuated
`until the engine is operated in a fuel
`wasteful fashion.”
`Habu, Ex. 1004
`E.g., 2:64-68, “The indicator 10 includes a
`shift-up indicating lamp 10a and a shift-
`down indicating lamp 10b.
`
`“The indicator 10 may be assembled by
`light emiting [sic] diodes (LED) so as to
`perform shift-up and shift-down
`indications by up and down directed
`arrow marks.”
`17
`
`
`
`’781 Patent
`
`Jurgen, Smith, and Habu
`
`[1f] said processor subsystem determining,
`based upon data received from said
`plurality of sensors, when to activate said
`fuel overinjection circuit and when to
`activate said upshift notification circuit.
`
`
`E.g., 5:65-6:2, “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 po
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
