Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 6
`
`
`
` Entered: August 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DONNA M. PRAISS, PETER P. CHEN, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 6
`
`
`
` Entered: August 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DONNA M. PRAISS, PETER P. CHEN, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., filed a Petition
`
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, and 6 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,714,927 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’927 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). In response,
`
`Patent Owner, Signal IP, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which
`
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the
`
`information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we deny institution of inter partes
`
`review of the ’927 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’927 patent also has been asserted in the
`
`following proceedings: Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2-14-
`
`cv-13729 (E.D. Mich.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al.,
`
`No. 2-14-cv-03109 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat USA, Inc. et al., No.
`
`2-14-cv-13864 (E.D. Mich.); 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.
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of America, Inc. et al., No. 2-
`
`14-cv-03113 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Porsche Cars North America,
`
`Inc., No. 2-14-cv-03114 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Volvo Cars of North
`
`America, LLC, No. 2-14-cv-03107 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Subaru of
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`America, Inc., No. 2-14-cv-02963 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan
`
`North America, Inc., No. 2-14-cv-02962 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v.
`
`Mitsubishi Motors of America, Inc., No. 8-14-cv-00497 (C.D. Cal.); Signal
`
`IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 8-14-cv-00491 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America, Inc., No. 2-14-cv-02457 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`and Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., No. 2-14-cv-
`
`02454 (C.D. Cal.). Paper 3.
`
`B. The ’927 Patent
`
`The ’927 patent relates to side detection vehicle radar systems that
`
`control an alarm or alert indicator to increase the perceived coverage of a
`
`vehicle’s blind spot. Ex. 1001, 1:7–10. Figure 4 of the ’927 patent is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 4 of the ’927 patent, the radar system on the
`
`host vehicle 50 extends the perceived coverage of the vehicle’s blind spots
`
`54, 62 by zone extensions 56, 64. Id. at 4:7–21. The system prevents or
`
`minimizes radar signal dropouts due to signal flickers in order to improve
`
`the zone of coverage in a vehicle side radar detection system and minimizes
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`annoying alert activity when passing stationary or slow moving targets. Id.
`
`at 2:10–15. The time of alert signal activation is measured and compared to
`
`a threshold time. Id. at 2:16–17. When the alert time is greater than or
`
`equal to the threshold time, a longer sustain time is applied to hold the alert
`
`signal on, which bridges the dropout periods due to low radar signal
`
`reflectivity. Id. at 2:25–28.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 is the only independent claim challenged. Claims 2 and 6
`
`depend from claim 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
`
`In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to
`1.
`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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:28–6:2.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`Bernhard
`Bernhard GB1
`Pakett
`
`Fujiki
`
`
`US 5,521,579
`GB 2277653 A
`US 5,325,096
`US 4,053,026
`
`
`
`
`
`
`May 28, 1996
`Nov. 2, 1994
`June 28, 1994
`Oct. 11, 1977
`
`(Ex. 1003)
`(Ex. 1004)
`(Ex. 1005)
`(Ex. 1006)
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1, 2, and 6
`
`§ 103(a) Bernhard, Pakett, Fujiki
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL 4097949, at *7, 8 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by
`
`PTO regulation.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`
`1 Petitioner asserts that Bernhard GB “provides substantially the same
`teachings as Bernhard” and that the Petition includes parallel citations to
`Bernhard GB. Pet. 8 n.1. For purposes of this Decision, citations herein are
`to Bernhard only.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007).
`
`Although the parties do not propose constructions for any specific
`
`claim terms, we determine that it is necessary to construe the distinction, if
`
`any, between “alert command” and “alert signal” recited in claim 1.
`
`Although the doctrine of claim differentiation creates a presumption that
`
`“alert command” and “alert signal” are different in scope, this presumption
`
`can be overcome by written description or prosecution history. See
`
`Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-Cor Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`In this case, the Specification of the ’927 patent refers to “alert commands”
`
`as element 42 in Figure 3c and “alert signal” as element 46 in Figure 3d. Ex.
`
`1001, 3:57–4:7. Figures 3c and 3d of the ’927 patent are reproduced below.
`
`Figure 3c of the ’927 patent depicts the alert commands 42 as raw alert data.
`
`The Specification of the ’927 patent further describes the relationship
`
`between alert commands and alert signals as follows:
`
`
`
`Generally most or all of the gaps 44 [from the alert commands
`42] are removed and any remaining gaps 44 are minimized by
`this method which is especially successful at higher relative
`speeds where the target discrimination algorithm is most
`effective. At the same time, because of the sustaining effect,
`the sustained alert signal 46 is longer by a period 48 than the
`alert command, thereby extending the zone of coverage as
`perceived by the driver.
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:67–4:7.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`
`Without a sustaining action the visual or audio alert signal will
`mimic the alert commands 42.
`
`Id. at 3:61–62 (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, we construe “alert command” as raw alert data that is
`
`used to generate an “alert signal” and we construe “alert signal” as a signal
`
`that provides a visual or audio alert to a driver.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also
`
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`C. Claims 1, 2, and 6 Challenge Based on Prior Art
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2, and 6 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and
`
`Fujiki. Pet. 8. To support its contentions, Petitioner provides detailed
`
`explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. at 8–39.
`
`Petitioner also relies upon a Declaration of Dr. David M. Bevly, who has
`
`been retained as an expert witness by Petitioner for the instant proceeding.
`
`Ex. 1002.
`
`1. Bernhard (Exs. 1003 and 1004)
`
`Bernhard, titled “Method for Providing Guiding Assistance for
`
`Vehicle Changing Lane,” describes assisting a motor vehicle when changing
`
`from a current lane to an adjacent lane. Ex. 1003, Abstract. Figure 7 of
`
`Bernhard is reproduced below.
`
`As shown in Figure 7 of Bernhard, the radar system VR of the vehicle
`
`detects the current traffic situation and the system determines a simulation in
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`advance to decide if a lane change is possible. Id. at 6:51–55. Detecting the
`
`current traffic situation includes calculating and measuring the distance and
`
`speed of other vehicles. Id. at 6:55–7:42. If all the measured distances are
`
`greater than the calculated safety distances, a possible lane change is
`
`signaled. Id. at Abstract.
`
`2. Pakett (Ex. 1005)
`
`Pakett, titled “Smart Blind Spot Sensor,” describes sensing the
`
`presence of obstacles in a vehicle’s blind spots and generating an indicator
`
`signal notifying the vehicle operator of the presence of the obstacle. Ex.
`
`1005, Abstract. The indicator may be an illuminated indicator or an audible
`
`indicator. Id. A “persistence period” is the amount of time it takes the
`
`vehicle with the mounted radar system to travel 15 feet. Id. at 6:43–46.
`
`When an obstacle is first detected, CPU 31 waits throughout the persistence
`
`period before responding, such that, during the persistence period, no
`
`warnings are sent to the driver indicators. Id. at 6:46–51. After the
`
`persistence period, a warning is sent to the driver indicators. Id. at 6:51–55.
`
`3. Fujiki (Ex. 1006)
`
`Fujiki, titled “Logic Circuit for an Automatic Braking System for a
`
`Vehicle,” describes prolonging vehicle braking for a time or a distance. Ex.
`
`1006, Abstract. The braking is prolonged to overcome multiple reflections
`
`of a radar signal that falsely indicates momentary “safe” signals. Id. Figure
`
`8 of Fujiki is reproduced below.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`
`
`
`As illustrated in the flow chart of Figure 8 above, if the equations in stage 1
`
`are satisfied, then the program goes to stage 2 to activate the braking system
`
`and return to START. Ex. 1006, 5:49–55. When the equations are no
`
`longer satisfied, the program proceeds to stage 3 and a determination is
`
`made whether the brake system has just been activated. Id. at 5:55–57. If
`
`the brake is on, the program proceeds to stage 4 where the braking system is
`
`further activated for an additional time. Id. at 57–67.
`
`4. Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 recites “at the end of the alert command, determining whether
`
`the alert signal was active for a threshold time.” As discussed in Section
`
`II.A., supra, we construe “alert command” as raw alert data that is used to
`
`generate an alert signal and “alert signal” as a visual or audio alert signal.
`
`Petitioner alleges that Pakett and Fujiki teach the limitation “at the end of the
`
`alert command, determining whether the alert signal was active for a
`
`threshold time.” We are not persuaded that either Pakett or Fujiki teach or
`
`suggest this limitation as properly construed.
`
`The cited portions of Pakett relied upon by Petitioner teach that a
`
`sample and hold circuit 23 outputs a signal to a low pass filter 27 that
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`removes high-frequency components. Pet. 20–21, 32; Ex. 1002 ¶ 14; Ex.
`
`1005, 5:14–31. Further, the cited portions of Pakett relied upon by
`
`Petitioner teach that the low pass filter 27 then outputs a signal to a square
`
`wave generator 29 that generates a square wave transition when an obstacle
`
`has been detected, which Petitioner maps to the limitation “at the end of the
`
`alert command, determining whether the alert signal was active for a
`
`threshold time” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 20–21, 32; Ex. 1002 ¶ 14; Ex.
`
`1005, 5:14–31; 5:37–39. We are not persuaded that Pakett’s sample and
`
`hold circuit 23, low pass filter 27, and square wave generator 29 teach or
`
`suggest “at the end of the alert command, determining whether the alert
`
`signal was active for a threshold time” (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner additionally relies on another section of Pakett to map to the
`
`aforementioned limitation. Pet. 32–33. Specifically, the cited portions of
`
`Pakett relied upon by Petitioner teach when an obstacle is detected, a CPU
`
`34 waits a persistence period before responding to additional transitions,
`
`which Petitioner maps to the limitation “at the end of the alert command,
`
`determining whether the alert signal was active for a threshold time” as
`
`recited in claim 1. Pet. 32–33; Ex. 1002, ¶ 13; Ex. 1005, 6:43–56. We are
`
`not persuaded the cited portion of Pakett teaches or suggests “at the end of
`
`the alert command, determining whether the alert signal was active for a
`
`threshold time” (emphasis added) because Pakett states “[d]uring the
`
`persistence period, no warnings are sent to the driver indicators” (emphasis
`
`added). Ex. 1005, 6:43–56. Pakett merely teaches alert commands (e.g.,
`
`raw alert data that is used to generate an alert signal as construed in Section
`
`II.A., supra) being active during the persistence period because Pakett
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`teaches an alert signal (e.g., a visual or audio alert signal as construed in
`
`Section II.A., supra) cannot be active during the persistence period. Id.
`
`Petitioner also relies on Fujiki for teaching the limitation “at the end
`
`of the alert command, determining whether the alert signal was active for a
`
`threshold time” as recited in claim 1. The cited portions of Fujiki relied
`
`upon by Petitioner teach if the equations in stage 1 are satisfied, then the
`
`program goes to stage 2 and the braking system is activated and returns to
`
`START until the equations at stage 2 are no longer satisfied. Pet. 33; Ex.
`
`1006, 5:49–55. When the equations at stage 2 are no longer satisfied, the
`
`program proceeds to stage 3, and a determination is made whether the brake
`
`system has just been activated. Petitioner maps this teaching to the
`
`limitation “at the end of the alert command, determining whether the alert
`
`signal was active for a threshold time” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 33; Ex.
`
`1006, 5:55–57. We are not persuaded that determining whether a brake
`
`system has been activated, as disclosed in Fujiki, teaches or suggests “at the
`
`end of the alert command, determining whether the alert signal was active
`
`for a threshold time” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).
`
`5. The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
`
`Petitioner contends that the combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and
`
`Fujiki teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 6 rendering the claims
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 16–37. Petitioner argues “it
`
`was well known at the time the ’927 patent was filed to combine the features
`
`of the object detection systems of Pakett and Fujiki with the object detection
`
`systems used in Bernhard” for the following reasons:
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`
`[E]ach of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki describe radar systems
`for detecting obstacles in the vicinity of a vehicle, and
`controlling warning systems to alert the driver to the presence
`of the detected obstacles.
`
`Id. at 37.
`
`Fujiki applies the same principles [as the ’927 patent] in
`sustaining the alert condition, i.e., sustaining the brakes, for a
`sustain time that varies as a function of relative vehicle speed.
`
`Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 16–18).
`
`It would have been obvious to modify radar-based object
`detection systems . . . such as described by Bernhard, with the
`sustained alerts of Pakett and Fujiki, and more particularly, the
`alert sustained as a function of relative vehicle speed of Fujiki,
`to ensure that the alert condition is only released under safe
`conditions.
`
`Id. at 39.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s assertion it would have been
`
`obvious to combine the references does not attempt to “explain why this is
`
`so and does not even articulate what the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand from the combination of references being proposed.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 22. The Petition is said to “merely catalog[] the parts of the
`
`claims and attempt[s] to provide an index as to where those disparate parts
`
`may be found in the cited references.” Id. at 23. Patent Owner further
`
`argues that the combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki would lead to a
`
`different result than the ’927 patent claims and, specifically
`
`result in a system in which a radar system (perhaps, for sake of
`argument, used to detect objects in a vehicle’s blind-spot) uses
`one or more techniques (e.g., measurements of Doppler shift as
`taught by Pakett) to detect objects in adjacent lanes and the like,
`and which employs a “persistence period” (as taught by Pakett)
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`
`during which no warnings are provided to a driver so as to filter
`out stationary objects or other objects deemed to be of no
`interest. After the expiration of a persistence period, the system
`would, if an alert indication has been activated, check to see
`whether or not the “warning has been on display for more than
`one second without being reactivated.” If so the system would
`cease displaying the warning. However, in all instances when
`an alert was displayed, regardless of how long it was displayed,
`the system would maintain the alert indication, as taught by
`Fujiki. Such a system is manifestly different from that recited
`in claim 1 of the ’927 Patent.
`
`Id. at 14–18 (footnotes and citations omitted).
`
`We agree with Patent Owner. An invention “composed of several
`
`elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its
`
`elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
`
`A determination of unpatentability on a ground of obviousness, must also
`
`include “‘articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
`
`the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
`
`977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The obviousness evaluation “should be made
`
`explicit,” and it “can be important to identify a reason that would have
`
`prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
`
`elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id.
`
`Rather than articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings as to
`
`why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Bernhard and
`
`Pakett’s alerting system when an obstacle is detected in a blind spot with
`
`Fujiki’s braking system, Petitioner has provided only conclusory motivation
`
`contentions. Petitioner’s argument lacks any reason, absent impermissible
`
`hindsight, why one of ordinary skill in the art would have equated Fujiki’s
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`sustaining the brakes with Bernhard and Pakett’s sustaining an alert to arrive
`
`at the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pet. 38 (“Like the ’927 patent addresses
`
`this problem by sustaining the alert as a function of relative vehicle speed,
`
`Fujiki applies the same principles in sustaining the alert condition, i.e.,
`
`sustaining the brakes, for a sustain time that varies as a function of relative
`
`vehicle speed.”). As discussed in Sections II.C.1 and II.C.2., supra,
`
`Bernhard and Pakett each pertain to an alert system when obstacles are
`
`detected in blind spots. Fujiki, on the other hand, pertains to a braking
`
`system and does not mention or otherwise relate to blind spots.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s rationale is premised on a “bare recitation of
`
`disparate claim elements scattered throughout multiple prior art references
`
`stitched together with flawed logic and unsound conclusions.” Prelim. Resp.
`
`23.
`
`Moreover, Pakett teaches if a displayed warning has been displayed
`
`for more than one second without reactivation, CPU 31 causes the warning
`
`to cease being displayed. Ex. 1005, 7:64–8:10. In contrast, Fujiki teaches a
`
`braking system that extends the braking time of a brake regardless of
`
`whether a threshold time has been reached. Ex. 1006, 5:52–67; Fig. 8.
`
`Pakett’s alert signal displaying for an additional one second is thus
`
`conditioned on receiving an activation signal one second earlier, whereas
`
`Fujiki extends the braking time of a brake regardless of any condition (e.g.,
`
`threshold time) being reached. Ex. 1005, 7:64–8:10; Ex. 1006, 5:52–67; Fig.
`
`8.
`
`Petitioner’s excerpts from Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki about radar-
`
`systems are generic and bear no relation to any specific combination of prior
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`art elements. Specifically, Petitioner “fails to explain why a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific
`
`references in the way the claimed invention does.” ActiveVideo Networks,
`
`Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Thus, we are not persuaded that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of
`
`claims 1, 2, and 6.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the information
`
`presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1, 2, and 6 as obvious
`
`over Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims and
`
`no trial is instituted.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00968
`Patent 5,714,927 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael Lennon
`Clifford Ulrich
`Michelle Carniaux
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`ptab@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Tarek Fahmi
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`17
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
