UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`Patent No. 5,714,927
`Issue Date: February 3, 1998
`Title: METHOD OF IMPROVING ZONE OF COVERAGE RESPONSE OF
`AUTOMOTIVE RADAR
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,714,927
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00968
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`Patent No. 5,714,927
`Issue Date: February 3, 1998
`Title: METHOD OF IMPROVING ZONE OF COVERAGE RESPONSE OF
`AUTOMOTIVE RADAR
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,714,927
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00968
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ..................................................................... 1
`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.
`The ’927 Patent ............................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’927 Patent ....................................................... 5
`C.
`Patents and Printed Publications Relied On ............................................... 7
`D.
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2)) .............. 7
`E.
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ........................................... 8
`IV. How Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5)) ........ 8
`A.
`Claims 1, 2, and 6 are Obvious in View of the combination of
`Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki .......................................................................... 8
`1.
`Bernhard ............................................................................................. 10
`2.
`Pakett .................................................................................................. 12
`3.
`Fujiki ................................................................................................... 13
`4.
`The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki ....................... 16
`Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 40
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103........................................................................................................................ 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................................. 8, 39
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................................. 39
`
`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) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`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) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8....................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 to Henderson et al.
`
`Declaration of Dr. David M. Bevly
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,521,579 to Bernhard
`
`U.K. Patent Application Publication No. GB 2 277 653 to
`Bernhard
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,325,096 to Pakett
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,053,026 to Fujiki et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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:
`
`The following judicial matters may affect, or may be affected by, a decision in this
`
`inter partes review:
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-03113 (C.D.
`
`Cal.), naming as defendants VWGoA, d/b/a Audi of America, Inc., and Bentley
`
`Motors, Inc., which is a subsidiary of VWGoA;
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al., No. 2:14-cv-03111 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-03108 (C.D.
`
`Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America, Inc. No. 2:14-cv-02457 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00491 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-03109 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc., v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00497 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02962 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-03114 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02963 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-03107 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-03105 (C.D. Cal);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:14-cv-03106 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02459 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Chrysler Group LLC, No. 2:14-cv-13864 (E.D. Mich.); and
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:14-cv-13729 (E.D. Mich.).
`
`Counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
` Michael J. Lennon, Reg. No. 26,562
`
`Backup Counsel: Clifford A. Ulrich, Reg. No. 42,194;
`Michelle Carniaux, Reg. No. 36,098
`
`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
`
`II. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 (“the ’927 patent,” Ex. 1001),
`
`for which review is sought, is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner 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))
` Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’927 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
`
`and cancelation of those claims is requested.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The ’927 Patent
`The ’927 patent issued on February 3, 1998 from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`08/762,090 (“the ’090 application”), filed December 9, 1996. The ’927 patent includes
`
`12 claims, of which only claim 1 is independent. Independent claim 1 is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`1. In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to detect a
`target vehicle in a blind spot of the host vehicle driver, a method of
`improving the perceived zone of coverage response of automotive radar
`comprising the steps of:
`
`determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles;
`selecting a variable sustain time as a function of relative vehicle
`speed;
`detecting target vehicle presence and producing an alert command;
`activating an alert signal in response to the alert command;
`at the end of the alert command, determining whether the alert signal
`was active for a threshold time; and
`if the alert signal was active for the threshold time, sustaining the
`alert signal for the variable sustain time, wherein the zone of coverage
`appears to increase according to the variable sustain time.
`
`The ’927 patent describes detection of objects in a blind spot of a host vehicle
`
`driver, and relates to methods of controlling alarm or alert indicators in automotive
`
`radar systems when such objects are detected. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 7-10. The ’927
`
`patent describes, in its background, problems associated with known radar-based near
`
`object detection systems: false alarms due to erroneous radar reflections, signal
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`dropout due to variable reflectivity of a target, and signal flicker due to reflective field
`
`strength quickly dropping to zero. Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 23-col. 2, l. 6. In purporting to
`
`address these problems, the ’927 patent describes either delaying a signal turn-off or
`
`applying a longer sustain time for keeping a signal on. If an alert activation signal is
`
`active for less than a threshold time, the system delays the signal turn-off for a
`
`minimal hold time; if the alert time is equal to or greater than the threshold, a longer
`
`sustain time is applied to hold the signal on. Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 16-34. The threshold
`
`time may vary inversely with the vehicle speed, the hold time may vary with the
`
`vehicle speed, and the sustain time may vary with the absolute value of the relative
`
`velocity between the host vehicle and a target vehicle. Id.
`
` Fig. 1 (reproduced below) illustrates motor vehicle 10, mirror 12, side detection
`
`system 16, and side detection radar antennae 14.
`
`
`
` Fig. 3b shows a radar return signal strength from a target vehicle 36 shown in Fig.
`
`3a, indicating the radar signal reflected from the front and rear edges of the target
`
`vehicle, and the wheel wells of the target vehicle. Fig. 3c shows the alert commands
`
`that result from the return signal strength, including several gaps in the alert from the
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`weak signal strength due to, e.g., the reduced reflectivity at the wheel wells. Fig. 3d
`
`shows the sustained alert, providing a constant alert signal.
`
`
`
`B. Prosecution History of the ’927 Patent
`The ’090 application was filed with the same 12 claims that issued in the ’927
`
`patent. During prosecution, in the Notice of Allowance issued July 22, 1997, the
`
`Examiner identified several prior art documents as pertinent to the method claimed in
`
`the ’927 patent, indicating that systems for detecting objects around a vehicle and
`
`controlling vehicle warning systems were described in the prior art. U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,521,579 (“Bernhard,” Ex. 1003) was among those prior art documents:
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered
`pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
`Matsumoto discloses a warning system for vehicles.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Gray discloses a blindzone signal indicator.
`Yamamoto discloses a radar apparatus for a vehicle.
`Ben Lulu discloses a vehicle alarm system.
`Bernhard discloses a method for providing guiding assistance for a
`vehicle in changing lane.
`
`In the Notice of Allowance, in the context of this prior art, the Examiner provided
`
`the following statement of reasons for allowance:
`
`The prior art cited herein fails to disclose a method of improving the
`perceived zone of coverage response of automotive radar comprising the
`steps of selecting a variable sustain time as a function of relative vehicle
`speed, and sustaining an alert signal for the variable sustain time if the
`alert signal was active for a threshold time.
`
`Thus, the Examiner considered much of the claimed method of the ’927 patent
`
`(i.e., determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles, detecting target
`
`vehicle presence and producing an alert command, activating an alert signal in
`
`response to the alert command, at the end of the alert command, and determining
`
`whether the alert signal was active for a threshold time) to be disclosed in the prior
`
`art, including Bernhard, and identified the following limitations of claim 1 as the basis
`
`for allowance of the ’927 patent: “selecting a variable sustain time as a function of
`
`relative vehicle speed;” and “if the alert signal was active for the threshold time,
`
`sustaining the alert signal for the variable sustain time.”
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Patents and Printed Publications Relied On
`U.S. Patent No. 5,521,579, assigned on
`its face to Mercedes-Benz AG
`
`(“Bernhard,” Ex. 1003), issued on May 28, 1996, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`08/233,761, filed April 26, 1994, constitutes prior art against the ’927 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e). U.K. Patent Application Publication No. GB 2 277 653
`
`(“Bernhard GB,” Ex. 1004), which is a foreign counterpart to Bernhard, published on
`
`November 2, 1994, constitutes prior art against the ’927 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,325,096, assigned on its face to Vorad Safety Systems, Inc.
`
`(“Pakett,” Ex. 1005), issued on June 28, 1994, constitutes prior art against the ’927
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,053,026, assigned on its face to Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Fujiki,” Ex. 1006), issued on October 11, 1977, constitutes prior art against the ’927
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`D. Statutory Grounds for Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2))
` Cancelation of claims 1, 2, and 6 is requested on the following grounds, each of
`
`which demonstrates that the challenged claims are unpatentable, and that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the challenged claims.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the
`
`combination of Bernhard1, Pakett, and Fujiki
`
`E. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`Generally, the claim terms in an unexpired patent should be given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction in view of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The claim
`
`terms are generally presumed to take on their ordinary and customary meaning. As the
`
`’927 patent is unexpired, its claims should be given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction. The specification of the ’927 patent does not present any special
`
`definition for any claim term, and the prosecution history of the ’927 patent does not
`
`include any claim construction arguments.
`
`IV. How Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5))
`A. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are Obvious in View of the combination of Bernhard,
`Pakett, and Fujiki
`Claims 1, 2, and 6 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combination
`
`of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki. As noted above, Bernhard was one of the prior art
`
`documents describing a radar-based object detection system for a vehicle that the
`
`Examiner cited during the original prosecution of the ’927 patent, in which the
`
`
`1 Bernhard GB, which constitutes prior art to the ’927 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b), provides substantially the same teachings as Bernhard discussed in this
`
`Petition. Citations to Bernhard (Ex. 1003) in this Petition are accompanied by the
`
`corresponding citations to Bernhard GB (Ex. 1004).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Examiner considered several of the claim limitations of the ’927 patent to be disclosed
`
`by the prior art (i.e., determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles,
`
`detecting target vehicle presence and producing an alert command, activating an alert
`
`signal in response to the alert command, at the end of the alert command, and
`
`determining whether the alert signal was active for a threshold time). Neither Pakett
`
`nor Fujiki was cited by the Examiner or the Applicants during prosecution of the ’927
`
`patent.
`
`As described below, Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki each relate to radar-based
`
`obstacle detection systems used to determine the presence of a dangerous obstacle in
`
`the travel path of the vehicle, and to provide a safety measure in response. Bernhard
`
`describes a guidance system for a motor vehicle having forward, rear, and blind spot
`
`radar devices used to assist in changing lanes. The radar system detects the presence
`
`of objects traveling throughout the vicinity of the driver’s vehicle, and measures the
`
`relative speed of those objects to determine whether a lane change is possible.
`
`Pakett describes a blind spot detection system using radar to detect an obstacle in
`
`the vehicle’s blind spot, using a low pass filter to screen out high frequency signals
`
`(i.e., signals of short duration), and, if the signal persists for a “persistence period,”
`
`alerting the driver to the presence of the obstacle. Pakett then describes sustaining the
`
`warning for at least one second after the end of the signal.
`
`Fujiki describes a radar system for detecting objects in front of the vehicle and
`
`controlling an automatic braking system. When an obstacle is detected, the system
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`alerts the driver and sets the brake. If no obstacle is detected, the system checks
`
`whether the brake was already set, and if so, sustains the brake for a time period set as
`
`a function of the relative velocity between the vehicle and the obstacle. The sustained
`
`braking time prevents “stop starting braking” caused by brief, and possibly flawed,
`
`breaks in the radar signal.
`
`Accordingly, the prior art considered by the Examiner during prosecution (i.e.,
`
`Bernhard) describes the basic method claimed in the ’927 patent, and the additional
`
`prior art identified in this petition (Pakett and Fujiki) describes the claim limitations
`
`that the Examiner identified as the basis for allowance of the ’927 patent.
`
`1. Bernhard
`Bernhard teaches a radar-based system for detecting objects around the vehicle. In
`
`particular, as illustrated in Fig. 7, Bernhard teaches radar devices for detecting objects
`
`in front of the vehicle (distance radar device AR) and in the blind spot of the vehicle
`
`(blind-spot radar device TWR), used in a computer-assisted guidance system for
`
`assisting a motor vehicle operator in changing lanes. Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll. 34-43 (“In
`
`FIG. 7, it can be seen that the driver’s own vehicle 0 has a rear-mounted device (HR)
`
`for monitoring the space 23 behind in the current lane 8, a distance radar device (AR)
`
`for monitoring the space 24 in front in the current lane 8, a blind-spot radar device
`
`(TWR) for monitoring the space 21 behind in the adjacent target lane 9, and a
`
`forward-directed radar device (VR) for monitoring the space 22 in front in the target
`
`lane 9. These devices detect the presence of objects in the respective area covered by
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`them, and also permit the distance from the object to be determined.”); see also Ex.
`
`1004, p. 7; Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. David M. Bevly, ¶ 9. As described by
`
`Bernhard, the system “largely relieves the driver of the task of observing the
`
`surroundings and estimating distances and speeds.” Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 3-8; see also Ex.
`
`1004, pp. 2-3.
`
`
`
`In further reference to Fig 7, Bernhard describes these radar devices detecting the
`
`presence of objects 1 to 4, determining the distance to those objects, and measuring
`
`the relative speed of those objects in comparison with the driver’s vehicle 0. Ex. 1003,
`
`col. 3, ll. 40-43, col. 4, ll. 35-40; see also Ex. 1004, pp. 7, 9; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 10-11. The
`
`driver’s vehicle speed v0 is measured using a speedometer. Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 35-40;
`
`see also Ex. 1004, p. 9; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 10-11.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Using this data from the radar devices, the system described by Bernhard
`
`determines whether a lane change is possible. If the system determines that the
`
`distance and relative speeds of the object prevent the possibility of a lane change, an
`
`“instruction to stay in lane is issued to the driver.” Ex. 1003, col. 5, l. 44-col. 6, l. 22;
`
`see also Ex. 1004, pp. 11-12; Ex. 1002, ¶ 12.
`
`2. Pakett
`Pakett teaches a blind spot detection system for alerting the vehicle operator of the
`
`presence of an obstacle in the vehicle’s blind spot. Ex. 1005, Abstract (“A radar
`
`system for sensing the presence of obstacles in a vehicle’s ‘blind spots’ and generating
`
`a signal to the vehicle operator indicative of the presence of such an obstacle.”).
`
`Pakett describes a radar system for detecting obstacles in the vehicle’s blind spot, and
`
`measuring relative speed between the two vehicles by sensing Doppler shift. If the
`
`measured obstacle is traveling at about the same speed and in about the same
`
`direction as the vehicle, an alarm is generated. Ex. 1005, col. 2, ll. 8-13 (“Only
`
`obstacles that are traveling at approximately the same speed and direction as the
`
`vehicle are considered to be of interest. Therefore, it is only these obstacles that will
`
`cause the blind spot sensor to generate an indication that an obstacle is present in the
`
`blind spot.”). A CPU controls an indicator circuit for alerting the driver. Ex. 1005, col.
`
`3, ll. 58-63 (“The signal processing section 11 is coupled to a central processing unit
`
`(CPU) 31 that determines whether the output of the signal processing section 11
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`represents an obstacle of interest in the blind spot. The CPU 31 is coupled to an
`
`indicator circuit 41 which presents warnings to the vehicle operator.”). Ex. 1002, ¶ 13.
`
`Pakett also describes low pass filter 27, which filters out signals of high frequency,
`
`i.e., signals of short duration, and allows signals of lower frequency, i.e., signals having
`
`a longer duration, to pass through the filter. Ex. 1005, col. 5, ll. 11-31; Ex. 1002, ¶ 14.
`
`The low pass filter 27 therefore eliminates signals that appear for only a short time,
`
`and allows signals that appear for a minimum amount of time, or threshold time. Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 14. These signals of longer duration are checked to see whether they persist
`
`for a “persistence period,” described as “the amount of time that it takes the vehicle
`
`upon which the radar system in [sic] mounted to travel 15 feet.” Ex. 1005, col. 6, ll.
`
`43-56. Upon detecting an obstacle in the blind spot, the system taught by Pakett waits
`
`the persistence period before sending any warnings to the driver. Warnings are sent to
`
`the driver only if the detection of the object persists, i.e., the object is still detected
`
`within one second after the end of the persistence period, or within two seconds after
`
`a prior warning. Ex. 1005, col. 6, ll. 43-56. Further, in the system described in Pakett,
`
`if a warning is presently being displayed, the system sustains the warning unless it has
`
`been displayed for more than one second without being reactivated. Ex. 1005, col. 7,
`
`l. 64-col. 8, l. 5; Fig. 3A; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 13-15.
`
`3. Fujiki
`Fujiki describes a radar system for detecting obstacles in the vicinity of a vehicle,
`
`and using the information from the radar system to control automatic braking. Ex.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`1006, col. 1, ll. 13-16 (“As is well known a vehicle equipped with a radar type
`
`automatic braking system traversing a road emits a radar signal in order to detect
`
`obstacles (moving or otherwise) ahead of the vehicle.”). In the automatic braking
`
`system, the braking of a vehicle is maintained even if the radar signal momentarily
`
`indicates that braking is not required. Ex. 1006, Abstract (“Braking of a vehicle is
`
`prolonged by an improved logic circuit for a time or a distance to overcome stop
`
`starting braking due to momentary ‘safe’ signals caused by multiple reflection of a
`
`radar signal.”).
`
`According to Fujiki, the described system determines the relative speed of the host
`
`and target vehicles, and compares the relative speed and distance between the vehicles
`
`with a curve illustrated in Fig. 3B (reproduced below). The curve indicates when
`
`braking must be initiated to maintain a safe distance between the vehicles. Ex. 1006,
`
`col. 2, ll. 7-13 (“FIG. 3B is a graph showing a curve wherein the relative velocity of
`
`the vehicle with respect to the object is plotted against the distance between the
`
`vehicle and the object, which denotes the distance from the object for a given velocity
`
`at which braking must be initiated in order to reduce the relative velocity
`
`therebetween to zero.”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 16.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 8 (reproduced below) shows the decision logic for maintaining the automatic
`
`brake. If the system determines that the relative speed and distance between the
`
`vehicles does not necessitate a braking action, at Stage 3, the system determines
`
`whether the brake was just previously on. Ex. 1006, col. 5, ll. 46-57. If so, the brake is
`
`sustained for “a period of time.” Ex. 1006, col. 5, ll. 59-61. As described by Fujiki, the
`
`period of time may be a function of the relative velocity of the vehicles. Ex. 1006, col.
`
`5, ll. 59-67.
`
`If YES the program proceeds to stage 4 where at the braking system is
`further activated for a period of time. There are preferably at least three
`possible periods, i.e., t1, t2, or t3, where t1 is a preselected time (only), t2 is
`a function of a predetermined distance D and the actual velocity of the
`vehicle Va and t3 is a function of the pre-selected distance D and the
`relative velocity dR/dt just prior [sic] the danger signal disappearing, for
`which the additional braking will take place.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, if the system determines that brakes are required and sets the brakes, and
`
`then determines that brakes are no longer required, the system sustains the brakes for
`
`a variable period of time based on the relative vehicle speed, as a safety measure. Ex.
`
`
`
`1002, ¶¶ 16-18.
`
`4. The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
`The combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki renders obvious claims 1, 2, and
`
`6. The combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki teaches all of the limitations of
`
`claims 1, 2, and 6, including the limitations that were the basis for the Examiner’s
`
`allowance of the ’927 patent, i.e., “selecting a variable sustain time as a function of
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`relative vehicle speed” and “if the alert signal was active for the threshold time,
`
`sustaining the alert signal for the variable sustain time.” Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 7-8.
`
`In its preamble, claim 1 recites “[i]n a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses
`
`radar to detect a target vehicle in blind spot of the host vehicle driver, a method of
`
`improving the perceived zone of coverage response of automotive radar.” Bernhard
`
`describes a radar-based object detection system for a motor vehicle having forward,
`
`rearward, and side radar devices to detect target vehicles in the vicinity of the driver’s
`
`vehicle and assist in guiding the vehicle in changing lanes. Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll. 33-43;
`
`see also Ex. 1004, p. 7; Ex. 1002, ¶ 9. Pakett describes a smart blind spot sensor, using
`
`radar to sense the presence of obstacles in a vehicle’s blind spot. Ex. 1005, Abstract;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 13. Fujiki also describes a radar-based obstacle detection system, for
`
`detecting obstacles ahead of the vehicle. Ex. 1006, col. 1, ll. 13-16; Ex. 1002, ¶ 16.
`
`According to the ’927 patent, sustaining an alert signal for a sustain time
`
`“improves the zone of coverage as perceived by the vehicle driver.” See Ex. 1001, col.
`
`2, ll. 15-34; see also Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 8-21. Because Pakett and Fujiki each describe a
`
`sustained alert signal, as described below, they provide for “improving the perceived
`
`zone of coverage response of automotive radar,” as recited in of claim 1. Ex. 1002, ¶¶
`
`13-18.
`
`Claim 1 recites “determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles.”
`
`Bernhard describes using the various radar devices about the driver’s vehicle to
`
`determine the relative speed of objects 1 to 4, compared to the driver’s vehicle 0, and
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`to determine the speed of the driver’s vehicle v0 using a speedometer. Ex. 1003, col.
`
`4, ll. 35-40; see also Ex. 1004, p. 9; Ex. 1002, ¶ 10. Pakett describes a radar system
`
`measuring the relative speed between the vehicle and an obstacle by sensing Doppler
`
`shift, and determining whether an alarm condition exists based on the measured
`
`relative speed. Ex. 1005, col. 2, ll. 8-13; col. 5, ll. 11-31 (“Since the purpose of the
`
`present invention is to determine whether an obstacle which would otherwise go
`
`undetected by the operator is present in a blind spot of the vehicle, those obstacles
`
`which move rapidly through the blind spot are not of interest.”); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 13-14.
`
`Fujiki discloses determining distance and relative velocity (i.e., speed and direction)
`
`between the vehicle and an obstacle, as reflected in Figs. 3A and 3B, to determine
`
`whether braking action is required. Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 35-68 (“The relative velocity
`
`between the vehicle and the object is denoted by (dR/dt)1.”), col. 5, ll. 46-57; see also,
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 16.
`
`Claim 1 further recites “selecting a variable sustain time as a function of relative
`
`vehicle speed.” Pakett describes sustaining the warning indicator for at least one
`
`second after its activation. Ex. 1005, col 7, l. 64-col. 8, l. 5 (“If the warning has been
`
`on display for more than one second without being reactivated (STEP 318), the CPU
`
`31 causes the warning to cease being displayed (STEP 319).”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 13. Fujiki
`
`describes sustaining a braking action for a variable period of time, and determining
`
`the time for sustaining the braking action as a function of the relative velocity
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`(“dR/dt”) between the vehicles, so that the sustain time varies as a function of relative
`
`velocity.
`
`At stage 3 it is determined if the brake system had just been activated or
`not. If NO (i.e., the braking system had not just been activated) the
`program returns to START. If YES the program proceeds to stage 4
`where at the braking system is further activated for a period of time.
`There are preferably at least three possible periods, i.e., t1, t2, or t3, where
`t1 is a preselected time (only), t2 is a function of a predetermined distance
`D and the actual velocity of the vehicle Va and t3 is a function of the
`pre-selected distance D and the relative velocity dR/dt just prior
`[sic] the danger signal disappearing, for which the additional
`braking will take place.
`Ex. 1006, col. 5, ll. 56-67 (emphasis added), Fig. 8; see also, Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 16-18.
`
`Claim 1 also recites “detecting target vehicle presence and producing an alert
`
`command,” and “activating an alert signal in response to the alert command.”
`
`Bernhard describes radar devices detecting the presence of objects around the driver’s
`
`vehicle, processing the raw data from the radar, and instructing the driver whether a
`
`lane change is possible. Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll. 40-43, col. 4, ll. 40-44, col. 5, l. 44-col. 6, l.
`
`22; see also Ex. 1004, pp. 7, 9, 11-12; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 11-12. Pakett describes a square
`
`wave generator which generates a square wave signal that alternates between 0 and 5
`
`volts whenever an obstacle has been detected, and a CPU controlling an indicator
`
`circuit to alert the driver to the obstacle via a red indicator or an audible sound. Ex.
`
`1005, col. 5, ll. 32-39, col. 3, ll. 58-63, col. 6, ll. 50-55; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 13-15. Similarly,
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Fujiki describes determining whether a collision is sensed to be imminent, and if so,
`
`feeding a signal to the brake actuator 5 to apply the brakes 6. Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 25-34
`
`(“If a collision is sensed to be imminent a signal is generated and fed to the brake
`
`actuator 5 which in turn applies the brakes 6 to decelerate the vehicle.”), col. 5, ll. 46-
`
`52; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 16-18.2
`
`Finally, claim 1 recites “at the end of the alert command, determining whether the
`
`alert signal was active for a threshold time,” and “if the alert signal was active for the
`
`threshold time, sustaining the alert signal for the variable sustain time, wherein the
`
`zone of coverage appears to increase according to the variable sustain time.” In
`
`Pakett, after an obstacle is first detected, a low pass filter 27 removes high-frequency
`
`signals (i.e., those signals having only a short duration). Ex. 1005, col. 5, ll. 11-31. To
`
`pass through the low pass filter 27, the signals must be of low frequency (i.e., the
`
`signals must be maintained for a threshold time). These signals of longer duration,
`
`which appear for at least the threshold time to pass through the low pass filter 27, are
`
`
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
