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.
`
`
`Case IPR No.: To Be Assigned
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHRIS G. BARTONE, P.E.
`IN SUPPORT OF MERCEDES’ PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,954,781
`(AS AMENDED DURING REEXAMINATION NO. 90/013,252)
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Engagement ........................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................. 2
`C.
`Information Considered ......................................................................... 3
`THE ’781 PATENT ....................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Background ........................................................................................... 4
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 8
`C.
`Claim Interpretation .............................................................................. 9
`III. THE ELEMENTS IN CLAIMS 31-32, 61-80, AND 82-84 OF THE ‘781
`PATENT ARE DISCLOSED IN THE PRIOR ART ...............................10
`A. Ground 1: Tresse, in View of Hibino and Rashid as to Claim 31,
`and Further in View of Tonkin as to Claim 32 ...................................11
`1.
`Claim 31 ....................................................................................13
`2.
`Claim 32 ....................................................................................26
`Ground 2: Davidian, in view of Hibino and Rashid as to Claim 31,
`and Further in View of Tonkin and Kajiwata as to Claim 32 .............31
`1.
`Claim 31 ....................................................................................32
`2.
`Claim 32 ....................................................................................45
`Ground 3: Montague, in View of Hibino and Rashid as to Claim 31,
`and Further in View of Tonkin and Kajiwata as to Claim 32 .............50
`1.
`Claim 31 ....................................................................................51
`2.
`Claim 32 ....................................................................................63
`D. Ground 4: Each of Tresse, Davidian, and Montague, in View of
`Rashid and Hibino, Disclose the Elements of the Dependent Claims
`Added During Reexamination .............................................................67
`IV. CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................82
`
`ATTACHMENT A (MATERIALS CONSIDERED) ...................................... A-1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`I, Dr. Chris G. Bartone, P.E., declare:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Engagement
`
`I have been retained by Hogan Lovells US LLP, counsel for Petitioner
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (together,
`
`“Petitioner” or “Mercedes”), to submit this Declaration in connection with this
`
`proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to analyze the state of the art of the technology
`
`described in U.S. Patent No. 5,954,781 (the “’781 Patent”) as it relates to Claims
`
`31-32, 61-80, and 82-84 of the ‘781 Patent, as currently amended or added in
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/013,252. Ex. 1013 is a listing of these claims, as
`
`amended or added during such reexamination as of the date hereof. This analysis
`
`is not intended to be an exhaustive validity analysis, but rather concentrates on the
`
`elements of such claims and to what extent these elements are disclosed in select
`
`pieces of prior art.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at a rate of $750 per hour, plus
`
`actual expenses. My compensation is not dependent in any way upon the outcome
`
`of this proceeding.
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`B.
`
`4.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I am a Professor of the School of Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science (“EECS”) at Ohio University. I have over 30 years of
`
`professional experience with communications, navigation, and surveillance
`
`(“CNS”) systems. I currently teach graduate and undergraduate classes in the
`
`School of EECS. I received an undergraduate Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering from the Pennsylvania State University in 1983. I received
`
`a Master’s of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the Naval
`
`Postgraduate School in 1987. I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Ohio University in 1998.
`
`5.
`
`From 1983 to 1998, prior to my full-time position at Ohio University,
`
`I worked as an electronics engineer at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Patuxent
`
`River, Maryland. My work at the Naval Air Warfare Center included various
`
`projected dealing with CNS systems and, in particular, with radar/secondary-radar
`
`systems. In 1998, after being awarded a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, I joined
`
`the faculty of Ohio University as a Visiting Assistant Professor. I was promoted to
`
`Assistant Professor in 1999 and to Associate Professor in 2004, and became a full
`
`Professor in 2009.
`
`6. My teaching at Ohio University has covered undergraduate and
`
`graduate level courses in electrical engineering. At the graduate level, I teach
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`courses in the area of radar systems, navigation systems, microwave and antenna
`
`theory, and communication systems. At the undergraduate level I have
`
`concentrated my teachings in the area of electromagnetics courses that deal with
`
`similar topics (but less advanced than the graduate courses I teach). Each of these
`
`courses has included coverage of vehicular applications, including automotive
`
`applications.
`
`7.
`
` In addition to my teaching, I have led and performed various research
`
`efforts involving vehicular applications. These have included efforts in the area of
`
`surface/land, including automotive applications. These research efforts have
`
`included studies and experiments with, among other things, automotive radar
`
`systems as used for obstacle detection and avoidance.
`
`8. My curriculum vitae, detailing my background and qualifications, is
`
`submitted herewith as Exhibit 1011. I am familiar with the subject matter of this
`
`case, and consider myself an expert in, among other things, radar systems,
`
`including as applied to vehicular systems, and including as used for obstacle
`
`detection and avoidance.
`
`C.
`
`Information Considered
`
`9. My analyses are based on my years of education, research, and work
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In my
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`analyses, I have considered the materials that I identify in this Declaration and
`
`those listed in Attachment A.
`
`10.
`
`I may rely upon these and additional materials to respond to
`
`arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional documents
`
`and information in further analyses—including documents that may not yet have
`
`been provided to me.
`
`11. My review and assessment of the materials provided in this
`
`proceeding is ongoing, and I will continue to consider any new material as it is
`
`provided. I reserve the right to review, supplement, and amend my analyses based
`
`on new information and on my continuing review of the materials already
`
`provided.
`
`II. THE ’781 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`12.
`
`Independent claim 31, as amended in the reexamination, recites a
`
`simple apparatus directed to the use of a “speed/stopping distance lookup table” to
`
`determine whether to issue a warning to a driver that her vehicle is too close to
`
`another object (e.g., another vehicle) and, in connection therewith, control the
`
`throttle of the vehicle to keep a safe distance.1 Figure 1 of the ’781 Patent, as
`
`1 All other claims challenged herein (namely, claims 32, 61-80, and 82-84)
`
`ultimately depend from claim 31.
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`annotated below, depicts this apparatus. As discussed herein, there is nothing new
`
`about it. Such proximity warning systems, including those using lookup tables,
`
`were well known in the art before the alleged invention. (Exs. 1005-1009).
`
`Further, automatic control of throttle systems based on sensed distances between
`
`vehicles—the primary claim features added during reexamination—were also well
`
`known before the alleged invention as early as the 1970s. (Ex. 1016 (Weidman) at
`
`Abstract, Figs. 2-3, 6:45-62; Ex. 1017 (Nishikawa) at Abstract, Fig. 1; 1:62-2:12,
`
`2:35-46, 3:8-14, 4:48-53; see also Ex. 1014).2
`
`2 I do not discuss Weidman and Nishikawa in my claim-by-claim analysis herein.
`
`However, both disclose vehicle control systems including certain features added to
`
`claim 31 by amendment during the reexamination proceeding – namely, the use of
`
`radar to determine distance to an object preceding the vehicle and implementing
`
`automatic throttle control in response thereto.
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`Figure 1 of the ’781 Patent (Annotated)
`
`
`
`13. The ’781 Patent discloses that the lookup table of claim 31 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). Such tables were not a creation of the inventors.
`
`Rather, the ’781 Patent discloses that the lookup tables are merely “based upon
`
`National Safety Council guidelines.” (Id., 6:60-63). Further, as the ’781 Patent
`
`acknowledges (and commonsense dictates), it 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).
`
`14. The apparatus of claim 31 uses a road speed sensor (18 above) to
`
`determine the speed of the vehicle and a radar detector (28 above) to determine the
`
`distance between the vehicle and an object in front of it (e.g., another vehicle).
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`(Id., 6:7-14, 7:6-8). The ’781 Patent then discloses that a processor determines
`
`whether “the vehicle is being operated unsafely if the speed of the vehicle is such
`
`that the stopping distance for the vehicle d [i.e., determined from the lookup table]
`
`is greater than the distance separating the vehicle from an object, for example, a
`
`second vehicle, in its path.” (Id., 9:4-8). If so, an alarm is issued. (Id., Claim 31).
`
`15.
`
`In addition to providing proximity alarms, the apparatus of claim 31
`
`(as amended in the reexamination) can take automatic corrective actions, such as
`
`automatic reduction of the throttle if the vehicle is being operated unsafely, namely
`
`by being too close to another vehicle. (Id., 7:47-58). A mode select is provided
`
`for “switching the system between an ‘active’ mode where both automatic throttle
`
`reduction and audio/visual alerts are generated and an ‘inactive’ mode where only
`
`audio/visual alerts are generated.” (Id).
`
`16. Claim 32, which depends from claim 31 but otherwise remains
`
`unchanged in the reexamination, adds that different speed/stopping distances can
`
`be used in the event of adverse weather, such as rain. The ’781 Patent discloses
`
`that a windshield wiper sensor can be used to indicate if the vehicle is being
`
`operated in “dry” or “wet” conditions. (Id., 9:29-44). The ’781 Patent states that if
`
`“the processor subsystem 12 concludes that the vehicle is being operated in dry
`
`conditions,” a first speed/stopping distance table may be used, and if “the
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`processor subsystem 12 concludes that the vehicle is being operated in wet
`
`conditions,” a second speed/stopping distance table may be used. (Id., 9:35-44).
`
`17. Dependent claims 61-80 and 82-84, all added during reexamination of
`
`the ’781 Patent, add nothing more than well-known vehicular or computer
`
`components to the existing system. For example, claims 66 and 82 add that the
`
`system includes an upshift notification circuit—a well-known component in the art
`
`(notably, such component is unrelated to the existing vehicle proximity warning
`
`system). (See Ex. 1015). Claims 70 and 71 add that the system includes a
`
`tachometer and a speedometer—well-known features present in almost every
`
`vehicle. Claim 68 recites that a “bus” is used for bidirectional communication
`
`between the processor and memory subsystems (an extremely basic and generic
`
`computer component). Claim 72 recites that the vehicle comprises a truck. These
`
`are merely examples. There is nothing new about any of these dependent claims,
`
`whether alone or when added to the claimed system.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`18.
`
`I am informed that prior art references should be understood from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the patent is related,
`
`based on the understanding of that person at the time of the patent’s priority date. I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to be aware of all
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`pertinent prior art and the conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of
`
`ordinary creativity.
`
`19.
`
`In my opinion, 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 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.
`
`20. My analyses set forth herein are from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above.
`
`C. Claim Interpretation
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review proceeding, claim terms
`
`should be given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
`
`specification. In my analysis below, I apply that standard to the words and phrases
`
`of the challenged claims, unless otherwise stated.
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`22.
`
`I understand that the claim construction standards that apply in court
`
`are different, and therefore that the proper construction of a term or phrase in court
`
`may differ from the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification.
`
`III. THE ELEMENTS IN CLAIMS 31-32, 61-80, AND 82-84 OF THE ‘781
`PATENT ARE DISCLOSED IN THE PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`23.
`
`I have been asked to provide an analysis as to whether the elements of
`
`claims 31-32, 61-80, and 82-84 of the ’781 Patent, as currently amended or added
`
`in the reexamination proceeding (Ex. 1013), are disclosed in the prior art
`
`references identified as European Patent Application Publication No. 0 392 953
`
`(Ex. 1005) (“Tresse”), U.S. Patent No. 5,357,438 (Ex. 1006) (“Davidian”), and
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 91/07672 (Ex. 1007) (“Montague”). I will refer to
`
`Tresse, Davidian, and Montague as the “Base References.” I was also asked to
`
`consider each Base Reference in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,723,215 (Ex. 1015)
`
`(“Hibino”), U.S. Patent No. 5,905,457 (Ex. 1014) (“Rashid”), PCT Publication
`
`No. WO 96/02853 (Ex. 1009) (“Tonkin”), and European Patent Application
`
`Publication No. EP 0 549 909 (Ex. 1008) (“Kajiwata”).
`
`24. My analysis on the disclosure of these prior art references relative to
`
`the elements of claims 31-32, 61-80, and 82-84 (Ex. 1013) is provided below. The
`
`citations I have included are not intended to provide an exhaustive list, but rather to
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`provide examples of how the references disclose or teach the elements of such
`
`claims.
`
`A. Ground 1: Tresse, in View of Hibino and Rashid as to Claim 31,
`and Further in View of Tonkin as to Claim 32
`
`
`I have reviewed European Patent Application Publication No. 0 392
`
`25.
`
`953 (Tresse). I understand Tresse has a filing date of April 11, 1990, and
`
`published on October 17, 1990. I have further reviewed U.S. Patent No. 4,723,215
`
`(Hibino) and U.S. Patent No. 5,905,457 (Rashid). I understand Hibino has a filing
`
`date of September 18, 1985, and issued on February 2, 1988. I understand Rashid
`
`has a filing date of February 25, 1993, and issued on May 18, 1999.
`
`26.
`
`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 (for sensing vehicle speed), a radar (for
`
`determining the distance of the vehicle to an object), 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
`
`3 All citations to Tresse herein are to the certified English translation.
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`to be generated to warn the driver as to the imminent danger of a collision.” (Id.,
`
`4:11-29 (emphasis added)).
`
`27.
`
`Rashid is directed to a vehicle notification system, and, similar to
`
`Tresse, discloses employing a radar system to determine distances to objects in
`
`front of a vehicle and providing a warning to the driver when there is a collision
`
`risk. (Ex. 1014, Abstract; 2:27-58; 5:27-42). Rashid further discloses that the
`
`system includes:
`
`speed control means, responsive to the signal processing means, for
`automatically applying the vehicle brakes and/or moving the vehicle
`accelerator to a position to slow the vehicle upon generation of the
`first output from the signal processing means. The speed control
`means preferably comprises an accelerator control means, mounted in
`the vehicle and coupled to the vehicle accelerator, for moving the
`accelerator in a direction to slow the vehicle in response to the first
`output from the signal processing means. Brake control means,
`coupled to the vehicle brake system, are also mounted in the vehicle
`for applying the vehicle brakes in response to the first output from the
`signal processing means.
`
`(Id.,3:20-34 (emphasis added)). Rashid also discloses that the system includes a
`
`selector switch, allowing the operator to selectively switch between a warning-only
`
`mode (i.e., an inactive mode), and a warning and automatic control of the
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`accelerator and brakes mode (i.e., an active mode). (Id., 3:53-60; 4:21-27; 6:28-
`
`34; 12:31-45).
`
`28. Hibino likewise discloses a vehicle notification system. The Hibino
`
`system includes a plurality of sensors used to provide information to a processing
`
`system, which, among other things, makes determinations as to the vehicle
`
`operating state and alerts the driver when an upshift or downshift is necessary and
`
`when the vehicle is operating within a fuel economy range. (Ex. 1015, Abstract;
`
`2:4-43; 3:4-35). These sensors include a vehicle speed sensor and an engine speed
`
`sensor, among others. (Id., 2:9-13; 2:30-36; 2:55-3:4).
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Tresse in Combination Discloses the Elements of
`Independent Claim 31
`
`29. After reviewing Tresse, Hibino, Rashid, and claim 31 of the ’781
`
`Patent as amended during reexamination, my analysis shows that, as viewed from
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, the elements of claim 31 are disclosed in Tresse in
`
`view of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill and the disclosures in
`
`Hibino and Rashid.
`
`i.
`
`“[p] Apparatus for optimizing operation of a vehicle,
`comprising”
`
`
`30. 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
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`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 audible warning MS in the likelihood of a collision. . .” (Id.,
`
`3:36-4:2).
`
`ii.
`
`“[a] a radar detector, said radar detector determining a
`distance separating a vehicle having an engine and an
`object in front of said vehicle”
`
`
`31. 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 (MT, as can be seen below)
`
`in the anti-collision apparatus “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 measurement device able to
`
`permanently determine in real time the distance between two consecutive vehicles
`
`traveling in a line.” (Id., 4:14-17 (emphasis added)).
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`(Id., Fig. 1).
`
`iii.
`
`
`
`
`
`“[b] a plurality of sensors coupled to said vehicle for
`monitoring operation thereof, said plurality of sensors
`including a road speed sensor and an engine speed
`sensor”
`
`
`32. The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse includes a plurality of sensors.
`
`The Tresse apparatus 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 analyzes “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; see also id., Fig. 1, 6:11-12, 6:35-36).
`
`33. Tresse does not specifically mention an engine speed sensor. Such
`
`sensors, however, were well known in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`and would have been present in most vehicles at such time. For example, Hibino
`
`discloses a vehicle control system that relies on data from a vehicle speed sensor
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`and an engine speed sensor, among others. (Ex. 1015, 2:9-13, 2:30-36, 2:55-3:4;
`
`see also supra ¶ 28). Assuming Tresse (which discloses using a plurality of
`
`sensors in a vehicle) does not inherently teach an engine speed sensor, modifying
`
`Tresse to include an engine speed sensor in addition to the road speed sensor
`
`would have been well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. One of
`
`ordinary skill would have understood that engine speed sensors were typical in
`
`most vehicles, and, to the extent one was not inherently present in the vehicle
`
`described in Tresse, it would have been a trivial modification to one of ordinary
`
`skill to include one (whether based on their general knowledge or in view of
`
`Hibino), and would have provided the vehicle control system and/or the vehicle
`
`operator with important information regarding the operating state of the engine.
`
`iv.
`
`“[c] a processor subsystem, coupled to said radar
`detector and said at least one sensor, to receive data
`therefrom”
`
`
`34. The anti-collision apparatus of Tresse includes a processing module,
`
`coupled to the radar detector and the road speed sensor, to receive data therefrom.
`
`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).
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`35. 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. (Id., Figs. 1-2; see also 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.”), 8:9-10, 8:29-34, 10:30-34).
`
`v.
`
`“[d] a memory subsystem, coupled to said processor
`subsystem, said memory subsystem storing a first
`vehicle speed/stopping distance table”
`
`
`36. Tresse discloses that the processing module includes a memory
`
`subsystem with a first vehicle speed/stopping distance table. As can be seen, the
`
`processing module (MT) of Tresse includes multiple memory subsystems,
`
`including a ROM and a RAM, which are coupled to the microprocessor therein.
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`
`
`(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 a microprocessor, RAM,
`
`ROM, and input/output ports).”)).
`
`37. 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,
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`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).
`
`vi.
`
`“[e] a vehicle proximity alarm circuit coupled to said
`processor subsystem, said vehicle proximity alarm
`circuit issuing an alarm that said vehicle is too close to
`said object”
`
`
`38. 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: “A visual
`
`numerical alarm modulated as a function of the increasing risk of a collision and
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`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
`
`modulated as a function of the increasing risk of a collision and produced on a
`
`sound chip MS. The more the negative numerical difference D-Dr is increasing,
`
`the faster the 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; see also id., Figs. 1-2 (MA, MS, and IA/AL)).
`
`39. Tresse states that these alarms are activated by the processing 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
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`the imminent danger of a collision.”); see also id., 11:12-25 (describing the
`
`“CALCULATION OF D-Dr” and the “ALARM MANAGEMENT”)).
`
`vii.
`
`“[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 speed/stopping
`distance table stored in said memory subsystem”
`
`
`40. 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.
`
`41. Tresse teaches that the processing module receives vehicle speed data
`
`(V), uses a first vehicle speed/stopping distance table to determine a minimum safe
`
`distance (Dr), and receives separation distance data (D), and compares it to the
`
`minimum safe distance in determine whether to issue an alarm. Specifically,
`
`Tresse states as follows:
`
`the present
`The microprogrammable electronic control of
`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. . .
`
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`

`

`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 bec