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
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,954,781
`(AS AMENDED DURING REEXAMINATION NO. 90/013,252)
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 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 .......................................................................... 7
`VIII. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`OF CLAIMS 31-32, 61-80, AND 82-84 AND UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 .... 9
`A. Ground 1: Tresse in View of Rashid and Hibino as to Claim 31, and
`Further in View of Tonkin as to Claim 32 ............................................ 9
`1.
`Claim 31 ....................................................................................11
`2.
`Claim 32 ....................................................................................21
`B. Ground 2: Davidian in View of Rashid and Hibino as to Claim 31, and
`Further in View of Tonkin and Kajiwata as to Claim 32 ....................26
`1.
`Claim 31 ....................................................................................27
`2.
`Claim 32 ....................................................................................35
`C. Ground 3: Montague in View of Rashid and Hibino as to Claim 31,
`and Further in View of Tonkin and Kajiwata as to Claim 32 .............40
`1.
`Claim 31 ....................................................................................40
`2.
`Claim 32 ....................................................................................47
`D. Ground 4: Each Base Reference in View of Rashid and Hibino
`Renders Dependent Claims 61-80 and 82-84 Obvious .......................51
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 60
`
`APPENDIX A (TABLE OF EXHIBITS) .......................................................... A-1
`APPENDIX B (CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE) .............................................. B-1
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.
`
`(together, “Petitioner” or “Mercedes”) filed a petition for inter partes review on
`
`August 4, 2014, challenging independent claim 31 and dependent claim 32 in
`
`IPR2014-01247. IPR2014-01247 remains pending pre-institution. Since then,
`
`Patent Owner amended claim 31 and added claims 61-80 and 82-84 on November
`
`10, 2014 in a co-pending reexamination (Control No. 90/013,252). Petitioner files
`
`the present Petition challenging claims 31-32, 61-80, and 82-84 of the ’781 Patent,
`
`as currently amended or added in the reexamination (Ex. 1013).
`
`Claim 31 recites a simple apparatus directed to the use of a “speed/stopping
`
`distance lookup table” to determine whether to issue a warning to a vehicle driver.
`
`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 determines the
`
`vehicle speed and the distance between the vehicle and another object, and then,
`
`using the lookup table, issues a “vehicle proximity alarm” if the object is too close.
`
`During reexamination, claim 31 was amended to add that the claimed system
`
`can take automatic corrective actions, such as reduction of the throttle, if the
`
`vehicle is too close to another object. (Id., 7:47-58). In addition, the claimed
`
`system can switch between “an ‘active’ mode where both automatic throttle
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`reduction and audio/visual alerts are generated and an ‘inactive’ mode where only
`
`audio/visual alerts are generated.” (Id.).
`
`There is nothing new about the alleged invention recited in amended claim
`
`31. (Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 12-15). Proximity warning systems, including those using lookup
`
`tables, were well known in the art before the alleged invention. (Exs. 1005-1009;
`
`Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 12-13). The inventors themselves conceded that a simple “lookup”
`
`table correlating vehicle speed and stopping distance was known. (Ex. 1010, ¶ 13).
`
`Further, automatic control of throttle systems based on sensed distances between
`
`vehicles—the primary elements added during reexamination—were well known
`
`before the alleged invention, as early as the 1970s. (Ex. 1010, ¶ 12).
`
`This Petition uses three base references: (1) EP Publication No. 0 392 953
`
`(“Tresse”) (Ex. 1005); (2) U.S. Patent No. 5,357,438 (“Davidian”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`and (3) PCT No. WO 91/07672 (“Montague”) (Ex. 1007). Tresse, Davidian, and
`
`Montague (the “Base References”) each disclose a vehicle proximity warning
`
`system that uses a “lookup” table in determining whether to issue a warning. (Ex.
`
`1005, 3:30-32; Ex. 1006, 9:20-27; Ex. 1007, 17:23-18:4). U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,905,457 (“Rashid”) (Ex. 1014) likewise discloses a vehicle proximity warning
`
`system. Rashid also discloses the primary elements added to claim 31 in the co-
`
`pending reexamination: (a) a throttle controller to slow the vehicle in the event of a
`
`warning and (b) an “active” mode (warning and automatic throttle control) and
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`“inactive” mode (warning-only). (Ex. 1010, ¶ 27). Each Base Reference, when
`
`viewed in light of Rashid and U.S. Patent No. 4,723,215 (Ex. 1015) (“Hibino”),
`
`renders claim 31 obvious.1
`
`Claim 32 depends from claim 31, but otherwise remains unchanged in the
`
`reexamination. Claim 32 adds that different speed/stopping distances can be used
`
`in the event of adverse weather. (Ex. 1010, ¶ 16). Each Base Reference uses
`
`different “safe” stopping distances in the event of adverse weather, such as rain.
`
`(Ex. 1005, 6:2-3, 7:26-30; Ex. 1006, 8:58-9:27; Ex. 1007, 14:20-15:4).
`
`Dependent claims 61-80 and 82-84, all added during the reexamination, add
`
`nothing more than well-known vehicular or computer components to the system of
`
`claim 31. Examples of these components include a computer bus (claim 68), a
`
`register in a memory (claim 69), a tachometer (claim 70), a speedometer (claim
`
`71), a truck (claim 72), and a power source (claim 73) . There is nothing new about
`
`these claims, alone or when added to the system of claim 31. (Ex. 1010, ¶ 17).
`
`
`1 Hibino is relied upon for its express disclosure of “an engine speed sensor.” This
`
`element was added to claim 31 during the reexamination. Every vehicle senses
`
`engine speed (e.g., has a tachometer). (See, e.g., Ex. 1010, ¶ 33, 135). As such, this
`
`rudimentary element is inherent in or rendered obvious by each Base Reference or,
`
`at the very least, would have been obvious in view of Hibino.
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`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”).
`
`
`
`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
`1:2013-cv-08419
`1:2013-cv-08421
`
`Defendants
`Mercedes
`BMW
`Audi
`Chrysler
`Jaguar Land Rover
`
`Jurisdiction
`N.D. Ill.
`N.D. Ill.
`N.D. Ill.
`N.D. Ill.
`N.D. Ill.
`
`The ’781 Patent is also the subject of (a) an ex parte reexamination
`
`proceeding (Control No. 90/013, 252), ordered on June 27, 2014, and (b) a petition
`
`for inter partes review filed by Petitioner (IPR2014-01247).
`
`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:
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`Post and
`Hand Delivery
`
`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
`Telephone / Facsimile 202.637.5600 / 202.637.5910
`
`Email
`
`
`
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID
`
`Fees are paid herewith. If any additional fees are due during the proceedings,
`
`the Office is authorized 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.
`
`References
`
`1
`
`(a) Tresse, in View of Hibino and Rashid
`(b) Tresse, Further in View of Tonkin2
`
`Claims Basis
`
`31
`32
`
`§ 103
`
`
`2 “Tonkin” is PCT Publication No. WO 96/02853 (Ex. 1009) and “Kajiwata” is
`
`EP Publication No. EP 0 549 909 (Ex. 1008).
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`(a) Davidian, in View of Hibino and Rashid
`(b) Davidian, Further in View of Tonkin and Kajiwata
`(a) Montague, in View of Hibino and Rashid
`(b) Montague, Further in View of Tonkin and Kajiwata
`
`Each Base Reference, in View of Hibino and Rashid
`
`§ 103
`
`32
`32
`31
`32
`61-80,
`82-84 § 103
`
`§ 103
`
`
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’781 PATENT
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Background on the ’781 Patent
`
`The ’781 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 08/813,270, filed March
`
`10, 1997. The patent has little prosecution history. The Examiner issued a single
`
`Office Action, on August 6, 1998, rejecting original claims 18 and 19 as
`
`unpatentable over Chasteen (Ex. 1003) in view of Doi (Ex. 1004). (Ex. 1002, 70-
`
`71). The applicant, in response, added new claims 37 and 38—which issued as
`
`claims 31 and 32. (Id., 89). The applicant urged that claim 37 was distinguishable
`
`because Doi used “changes in the distance separating the vehicle and forward
`
`object” in determining when to activate an alarm, whereas the applicant’s
`
`invention used a “vehicle speed/stopping distance table.” (Id., 89-90). The
`
`Examiner then issued a Notice of Allowability, allowing claims 37-38. (Id., 93-96).
`
`On June 27, 2014, an ex parte reexamination of the ’781 Patent was ordered
`
`on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17-32. (Ex. 1012, 259). Following a
`
`non-final Office Action on October 21, 2014, in which claims 31-32 were rejected
`
`over Davidian and Tonkin, the Patent Owner amended claim 31, primarily to recite
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`features of a throttle control system, as well as added new dependent claims 33-84.
`
`(Ex. 1012, 1-29). The examiner has not yet taken action in response to this.
`
`
`
`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 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, 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. (Ex. 1010, ¶ 19).
`
`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)
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`The ’781 Patent discloses that sensors can be either state (i.e., on or off) or
`
`level (e.g., 35 mph) sensors, and states that the “road speed sensor” is a level
`
`sensor that provides a signal “which indicate[s] the operating speed… for the
`
`vehicle.” (Ex. 1001, 6:4-10). The ’781 Patent discloses that the “road speed
`
`sensor” can obtain information indicating vehicle speed from a number of sources,
`
`including the vehicle’s speedometer. (Id., 6:10-14). Under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, “road speed sensor” should 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 interpretation,
`
`“vehicle speed/stopping distance table” should therefore be construed to mean
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`“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.”
`
`C.
`
`“means for mode selection between said active mode and said
`inactive mode” (Claims 62 and 84)
`
`
`Claims 62 and 84, as added during the reexamination, recite a “means for
`
`mode selection between said active mode and said inactive mode,” which invokes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a means-plus-
`
`function limitation is the corresponding structure described in the specification
`
`(and equivalents) necessary to perform the claimed function. The’781 patent
`
`discloses “a mode select line for switching the system 10 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., 7:47-58).
`
`Thus, the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function is “a circuit
`
`allowing the system to switch between active and inactive states.”
`
`VIII. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`OF CLAIMS 31-32, 61-80, AND 82-84 AND UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Ground 1: Tresse in View of Rashid and Hibino as to Claim 31,
`and Further in View of Tonkin as to Claim 32
`
`EP Publication No. 0 392 953 (Tresse) published on October 17, 1990, and
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Tresse discloses a microprogrammable anti-
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`collision alarm control and aid for driving motor vehicles. (Ex. 1005, 3:2-3).3 The
`
`anti-collision control and aid includes a speed sensor, a radar detector, a
`
`microprocessor, and a memory. A comparison between a measured distance and a
`
`reference distance from a “reference table” (considered to be a minimum safe
`
`distance for a given vehicle speed) is performed, and an alarm is generated when it
`
`is determined there is a risk of collision. (Id., 4:11-29).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,905,457 (Rashid) has a filing date of February 25, 1993,
`
`and issued on May 18, 1999. Rashid is prior art under § 102(e). Rashid is directed
`
`to a vehicle notification system, and, similar to Tresse, discloses employing a radar
`
`system to determine the distance to an object in front of the vehicle and providing a
`
`warning to the driver if there is a collision risk. (Ex. 1014, Abstract; 2:27-58, 5:27-
`
`42). Rashid 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
`
`
`3 All citations to Tresse herein are to the certified English translation.
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`circuit (a selector switch) allowing the operator to toggle between a warning-only
`
`mode (i.e., an inactive mode) and a warning and automatic control of the
`
`accelerator and brakes mode (i.e., an active mode). (Id., 3:53-60, 4:21-27, 6:28-34,
`
`12:31-45; see also Ex. 1010, ¶ 27).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,723,215 (Hibino) issued on February 2, 1988. Hibino is
`
`prior art under § 102(b). Hibino likewise discloses a vehicle notification system.
`
`The Hibino system includes a plurality of sensors used to provide information to a
`
`processing system. These sensors include a vehicle speed sensor and an engine
`
`speed sensor. (Id., 2:9-13, 2:30-36, 2:55-3:4). The processing system makes
`
`determinations as to the vehicle operating state and alerts the driver when an
`
`upshift or downshift is necessary, among other things. (Ex. 1015, Abstract, 2:4-43,
`
`3:4-35; see also Ex. 1010, ¶ 28).
`
`1.
`
`Tresse in View of Rashid and Hibino Renders Independent
`Claim 31 Obvious
`
`
`Claim 31[p]: “Apparatus for optimizing operation of a vehicle, comprising:”
`
`
`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 the vehicle by providing “the driver when in traffic
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`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, ¶ 30).
`
`Claim 31[a]: “a radar detector, said radar detector determining a distance
`separating a vehicle having an engine and an object in front of said vehicle”
`
`
`Tresse includes a radar detector for determining the distance separating a
`
`vehicle with an engine from an object in front of it. (Ex. 1010, ¶ 31). Tresse
`
`discloses that a processing module (MT) “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, Fig. 1). 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)).
`
`Claim 31[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”
`
`The Tresse apparatus includes a plurality of sensors. (Ex. 1010, ¶ 32). Tresse
`
`discloses a road speed sensor indicating the road or operating speed of the vehicle:
`
`the processing module (MT) analyses “in real time from the moment the vehicle
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`starts… the speed V of the vehicle itself, furnished by the onboard tachymeter…”
`
`(Ex. 1005, 4:7-9 (emphasis added); see also id., Fig. 1, 6:11-12, 6:35-36).
`
`Although Tresse does not specifically mention an engine speed sensor, such
`
`sensors were well known and would have been typical in vehicles at the time of the
`
`invention. (Ex. 1010, ¶ 33). Further, Hibino discloses a vehicle control system that
`
`relies on data from an engine speed sensor, among others. (Ex. 1015, 2:9-13, 2:30-
`
`36, 2:55-3:4). To the extent Tresse does not inherently disclose an engine speed
`
`sensor, such would have been obvious in view of the general knowledge of one of
`
`ordinary skill or Hibino. (Ex. 1010, ¶ 33). Adding an engine speed sensor would
`
`have been a trivial modification well within the skill of one of ordinary skill, and
`
`would have provided the vehicle control system and/or vehicle operator with
`
`important information regarding the operating state of the engine. (Id.).
`
`Claim 31[c]: “a processor subsystem, coupled to said radar detector and said at
`least one sensor, to receive data therefrom”
`
`Tresse discloses a processing module, coupled to the radar detector and the
`
`road speed sensor, to receive data. (Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 34-35). Tresse teaches that the
`
`processing module is “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). 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 the
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`separation distance (D) and vehicle speed (V). (Id., Figs. 1-2, 4:8-29; see also id.,
`
`8:9-10, 8:29-34, 10:30-34).
`
`Claim 31[d]: “a memory subsystem, coupled to said processor subsystem, said
`memory subsystem storing a first vehicle speed/stopping distance table”
`
`Tresse discloses that the processing module (MT) includes a memory
`
`subsystem with a first vehicle speed/stopping distance table. (Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 36-37).
`
`The processing module (MT) includes multiple memory subsystems, including
`
`ROM and RAM, coupled to the microprocessor. (Ex. 1005, Fig. 2; see also id.,
`
`8:20-23 (“…microcontroller (consisting of a microprocessor, RAM, ROM…).”)).
`
`Tresse discloses that such memory subsystem stores a vehicle
`
`speed/stopping distance table. The processing module uses a reference table to
`
`determine a safe stopping distance based on vehicle speed, and adds that this table
`
`can be stored in the ROM of the processing module (which allows the system to
`
`adapt for different traffic rules and regulations). (Id., 4:11-13 (stating that the
`
`processing module determines Dr from a “reference table”), 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
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`render compatible with the regulations and with the applicable standards, both
`
`present and future, in different countries”), 11:8-9, Claim 1).
`
`Claim 31[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”
`
`The Tresse apparatus can issue one or more alarms if a vehicle is too close to
`
`another object, including both a visual and an audible alarm:
`
`The alarm is presented in different forms… 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 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; see also Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 38-39). Tresse also discloses an external
`
`alarm interface, enabling “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.” (Ex. 1005, 5:4-6).
`
`Tresse teaches that these alarms (MA, MS, and IA/AL, as shown in Figure
`
`2) are activated by the processing module when there is a risk of a collision:
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`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; see also id., 11:12-25).
`
`Claim 31[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.”
`
`
`Tresse teaches that the processing module determines when to activate the
`
`alarm circuit based upon (1) separation distance data from the radar, (2) vehicle
`
`speed data received from the road speed sensor, and (3) the vehicle speed/stopping
`
`distance table stored in memory. (Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 40-41). Tresse discloses that:
`
`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...
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
` 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…
`- Dr designating a reference distance or minimum safe distance
`established according to the traffic rules or regulations as a
`function of the speed V and with the various parameter
`coefficient, which are activated depending on the circumstances.
`- 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.”
`
`(Ex. 1005, 4:7-29; see also id., Figs. 1-2). Tresse also describes the processing
`
`module software, including how D and V are measured, Dr is produced, D-Dr is
`
`calculated, and the alarms are managed, with Figure 3 of Tresse providing a
`
`flowchart illustrating such processing. (Id., 10:12-11:25, Fig. 3, Claim 1).
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim 31[g]: “a throttle controller for controlling a throttle of said engine of
`said vehicle”
`
`
`Tresse does not expressly disclose a throttle controller. However, Rashid
`
`discloses a vehicle control system that includes a throttle controller (30, 34, 36) for
`
`controlling the throttle of the engine in the vehicle. (Ex. 1014, Abstract, Fig. 2,
`
`3:20-34, 5:27-49, 10:64-11:35). Rashid discloses automatically controlling the
`
`accelerator of the vehicle based on the distance to another object, by moving it into
`
`a position that slows down the vehicle. (Id., 5:43-49 (“One output 32 of the control
`
`system computer 30 is optionally applied to an accelerator and brake control means
`
`34 which generates a signal to suitable accelerator and brake control actuators…
`
`36 and 37… to automatically move the vehicle accelerator to a position to slow
`
`down the vehicle...”)). Controlling the accelerator as discussed in Rashid
`
`necessarily controls the throttle to cause the engine to accelerate or decelerate
`
`accordingly. (Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 42-43).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Tresse to
`
`include a throttle control system as taught by Rashid. Tresse discloses a radar
`
`system to determine the distance to another object, and actuates an alarm when
`
`there is collision danger. (See supra VIII.A.1 (Claims 31[a], [e]). Rashid discloses
`
`a similar radar warning system, and discloses that the system can include automatic
`
`control of the vehicle throttle to ensure a safe separation distance. (Ex. 1014, 2:27-
`
`58, 3:20-34, 4:21-27, 5:27-49, 10:64-11:35). As such, modifying Tresse to use the
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`speed sensor and radar sensor data to provide automatic throttle control features, in
`
`addition to proximity warnings, would have been an addition of a well-known
`
`feature and well within the skill of one of ordinary skill. (Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 42-43).
`
`One would have been motivated to modify Tresse (a vehicle safety system) with
`
`the teachings of Rashid to increase overall safety, as this would have enabled the
`
`Tresse system to avoid collisions without relying on driver actions. (Id.).
`
`Claim 31[h]: “wherein said processor subsystem selectively reduces said throttle
`based upon the data received from said radar detector”
`
`Rashid discloses that the processor subsystem selectively moves the
`
`accelerator to slow the vehicle based upon data from a radar detector. (Ex. 1014,
`
`2:44-3:30). Moving the accelerator into a position to slow the vehicle would
`
`necessarily cause a reduction of the throttle. (Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 42, 44). The system
`
`computes the distance required for the vehicle to stop based on vehicle speed and
`
`road conditions, and compares this to a distance “computed by the Doppler radar
`
`means 22.” (Ex. 1014, 5:27-33). Based on this comparison, the “control system
`
`computer 30 generates a first output which is indicative of the vehicle’s ability to
`
`stop prior to colliding with the detected object.” (Id., 5:34-42). An output of the
`
`control system computer is then “applied to an accelerator… which generates a
`
`signal to suitable accelerator… to automatically move the vehicle accelerator to a
`
`position to slow down the vehicle…” (Id., 5:43-49; see also id., 10:60-11:35).
`
`Modifying Tresse to include such features from Rashid would have been obvious,
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`as both references disclose similar proximity warning systems and such would
`
`have increased the overall safety of the Tresse system. (Ex. 1010, ¶ 44; see also
`
`supra VIII.A.1. (Claim 31[g])).
`
`Claim