`__________________
`
`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
`
`