IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH,
`Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH,
`and Connaught Electronics Ltd.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Magna Electronics, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`IPR2015-_______
`_________________
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Madison Building (East)
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22313
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. RALPH V. WILHELM REGARDING U.S.
`PATENT NO. 8,643,724
`
`VALEO EXHIBIT 1022
`Valeo v. Magna
`IPR2015-____
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`I, Dr. Ralph V. Wilhelm, do hereby declare and state, that all statements
`
`made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements
`
`were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made
`
`are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of
`
`the United States Code.
`
`Dated: June I2‘, 2015
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:21)
`VALEO EX. 1022_002
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.(cid:1)
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1)
`
`Engagement ...........................................................................................1(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1)
`
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................1(cid:1)
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony ......................................................4(cid:1)
`
`D.(cid:1)
`
`Information Considered ........................................................................5(cid:1)
`
`II.(cid:1)
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY ..........................................5(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1)
`
`The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................7(cid:1)
`
`The State of the Art – Description of Background Technology ...........8(cid:1)
`
`III.(cid:1) THE ’724 PATENT ...................................................................................... 12(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1)
`
`Technical Overview of The ’724 Patent ............................................ 12(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1)
`
`D.(cid:1)
`
`E.(cid:1)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’724 Patent .............................................. 14(cid:1)
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 14(cid:1)
`
`Patentability Analysis of the ’724 Patent ........................................... 17(cid:1)
`
`Discussion of Relevant Patents and Publications .............................. 18(cid:1)
`
`1.(cid:1)
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`4.(cid:1)
`
`5.(cid:1)
`
`6.(cid:1)
`
`7.(cid:1)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,553,130 (“Lemelson,” Ex. 1006) ................ 18(cid:1)
`
`GB 2 233 530 (“Fuji,” Ex. 1010) ............................................. 20(cid:1)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,963,788 (“King,” Ex. 1013) ....................... 21(cid:1)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,966,441 (“Conner,” Ex. 1014) .................... 22(cid:1)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,793,420 (“Schmidt,” Ex. 1015) .................. 24(cid:1)
`
`U.S. Patent 4,833,534 (“Paff,” Ex. 1017) ................................ 25(cid:1)
`
`SAE Paper No. 871288 (“Otsuka,” Ex. 1016) ......................... 26(cid:1)
`
`i
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`8.(cid:1)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,390,895 (“Sato,” Ex. 1018) ........................ 27(cid:1)
`
`9.(cid:1)
`
`SAE Paper No. 890288 (“Goesch,” Ex. 1019) ........................ 27(cid:1)
`
`F.(cid:1) Motivations to Combine..................................................................... 29(cid:1)
`
`1.(cid:1)
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`4.(cid:1)
`
`5.(cid:1)
`
`6.(cid:1)
`
`7.(cid:1)
`
`8.(cid:1)
`
`9.(cid:1)
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 4-6, 10-18, 23, 25, 29-32, 41-43, 46-48are
`obvious over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, and Lemelson .............. 31(cid:1)
`
`Claim 1 is obvious in view of Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, and
`Lemelson .................................................................................. 37(cid:1)
`
`Claims 5 and 6 are obvious in view of Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`and Lemelson ........................................................................... 39(cid:1)
`
`Claim 24 is obvious over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson,
`and Niles .................................................................................. 40(cid:1)
`
`Claim 26 is obvious over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson,
`Aishin, and Schmidt ................................................................. 42(cid:1)
`
`Claims 27 and 28 are obvious in view of Yamamoto,
`Mitsubishi, Lemelson, and Fuji ............................................... 45(cid:1)
`
`Claims 33 and 35-38 are obvious over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and Otsuka .............................................................. 48(cid:1)
`
`Claim 34 is obvious over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson,
`Otsuka, and Conner.................................................................. 50(cid:1)
`
`Claim 39 is obvious over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson,
`Otsuka, and Sato ...................................................................... 52(cid:1)
`
`10.(cid:1) Claim 40 is obvious in view of Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Otsuka, and Paff ..................................................... 54(cid:1)
`
`11.(cid:1) Claim 44 is rendered obvious by Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and King ................................................................. 56(cid:1)
`
`12.(cid:1) Claim 45 is obvious over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson,
`and Goesch ............................................................................... 61(cid:1)
`
`ii
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`13.(cid:1) Claims 49-56, 58, 61, 62, 64-71, 73, 75-82, 84, and 86 are
`obvious over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Wang, and
`Aishin ....................................................................................... 63(cid:1)
`
`14.(cid:1) Claims 57, 72, and 83 are obvious over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Wang, Aishin, and Fuji. ......................................... 67(cid:1)
`
`15.(cid:1) Claim 59 is obvious over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson,
`Wang, Aishin, and Otsuka ....................................................... 69(cid:1)
`
`16.(cid:1) Claim 60, 74 and 85 are obvious over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Wang, Aishin, and Paff. ......................................... 70(cid:1)
`
`17.(cid:1) Claim 63 is obvious over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson,
`Wang, Aishin, and King. ......................................................... 72(cid:1)
`
`IV.(cid:1) CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 73(cid:1)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:24)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Engagement
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo
`
`S.A., Valeo GmbH, Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH and Connaught
`
`Electronics Ltd as an expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding. I have
`
`been asked to render an opinion regarding the validity of claims 1-86 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 (“the ’724 patent) (Exhibit
`
`1001). The following is my written report on that topic.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`Currently I am the President of Wilhelm Associates, LLC, a
`
`consulting firm that I founded in 2001. The firm specializes in automotive
`
`electronics, telematics, systems engineering, data communications between
`
`systems and devices, and product/market and business strategies. In this role, I
`
`provide advice and assistance in the development and use of market assessment
`
`methodologies, product requirement definitions, product design, product and
`
`market strategy, and product implementation in my areas of technical expertise.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from Cornell University in 1967, a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Ceramic
`
`Engineering/Material Science from Rutgers University in 1972, an Executive
`
`Management Program certificate from the University of Illinois in 1985, and a
`
`1
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`Master of Business Administration degree in Operations and Strategy from the
`
`University of Michigan in 1987. I was a Senior Research Scientist from 1971 to
`
`1978 at General Motors Research Laboratories. Thereafter, from 1978 to 1984, I
`
`worked in General Motors Corporation’s AC Spark Plug Division as the
`
`Supervisor and Department Head of Materials Development.
`
`4.
`
`From 1984 to 2001, I worked at and held various positions in the AC
`
`Spark Plug Division and Delphi Delco Electronics Corporation. I was the
`
`Department Head of Advanced Instruments & Display from 1984 to 1989. From
`
`1989 to 1994, I was a Director of Advanced Development/Systems Integration.
`
`There, I oversaw the design and development of automotive technology systems,
`
`including, for example, a precursor system to the OnStar telematics system,
`
`navigation systems, advanced engine control systems, night vision systems,
`
`millimeter wave-based radar systems, and digital audio systems. From 1994 to
`
`1997, I was a Vice President of Engineering for Asia/Pacific, and oversaw product
`
`launches for audio, powertrain control, and security systems, as well as the co-
`
`development of advanced systems with Toyota, Honda, Holdens, Daewoo, and
`
`other vehicular OEMs. From 1997 to 2001, I was a Product Line Manager in the
`
`Mobile Multi-Media Systems division. In this role, I managed product lines
`
`covering telematics, navigation, RSAV, and DSRC systems, some of which were
`
`2
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:26)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`later acquired and installed in vehicles by Toyota, General Motors, Honda, and
`
`Ford.
`
`5.
`
`Further, I have authored dozens of published technical papers and
`
`delivered several keynote addresses concerning automotive electronic systems. I
`
`also am a named inventor on three issued U.S. patents directed to methods of
`
`constructing automotive sensors. In the area of automotive display technologies
`
`for use in monitoring real time operating conditions in vehicles, I have been
`
`involved in the development of and/or have experience with providing sensor
`
`alerts from oil pressure sensors, engine temperature sensors, door sensors, fuel
`
`sensors, engagement/disengagement of stability control systems, anti-skid braking
`
`(ABS) systems, traction control (TCS) systems, and others. In the area of
`
`automotive display technologies, I have worked specifically with Vacuum
`
`Fluorescent Displays (VFDs), Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs), flat panel displays of
`
`different construction (e.g., LCDs, etc.), Heads Up Displays (HUDs), and others.
`
`In the area of vehicle Central Processing Units (CPUs) and various control
`
`systems, I have experience with navigation systems, audio systems, telematics
`
`systems, stability control systems, anti-skid braking systems, traction control
`
`systems, collision avoidance and collision warning systems, night vision systems,
`
`among others. In the area of electric vehicle (EV) systems, I have led and
`
`supervised product teams developing and manufacturing a significant number of
`
`3
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`different EV products and systems, including those that focused on vehicle range
`
`and power consumption. I offer my opinions with respect to subject matter of the
`
`’724 patent as it relates to vision systems and reconfigurable display technology at
`
`the time of the filing date of the ’724 patent.
`
`6.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae, which describes in further detail my
`
`qualifications, responsibilities, employment history, honors, awards, professional
`
`associations, invited presentations, and publications can be found in Exhibit 1022.
`
`C.
`
`7.
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $475 per hour for my study and
`
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of
`
`my testimony.
`
`8.
`
`During the previous four years, I have testified as an expert in the
`
`following four cases: American Vehicular Sciences, LLC v Toyota Motor
`
`Corporation (IPR2013-00414, IPR2013-00415 and IPR2013-00417) (deposition);
`
`Vehicle Interface Technologies, LLC v Ford Motor Company (District Court Case,
`
`Case No. 1:12:cv:01284-RGA) (deposition); M/A-COM Technologies Solutions
`
`Holdings, Inc. v Laird Technologies, Inc. (District Court Case, Case No. 14-181-
`
`LPS) (deposition and Markman hearing); and Vehicle Operations Technologies,
`
`4
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`LLC v Ford Motor Company, American Honda Motor Co. Inc., BMW of North
`
`America LLC, and Nissan North America Inc. (Case IPR2014-00594, Case
`
`IPR2014-00600, Case IPR2014-00601, Case IPR2014-00602, Case IPR2014-
`
`00603) (deposition). I have not testified as an expert in a jury trial.
`
`D.
`
`Information Considered
`
`My opinions are based on my years of education, research and experience,
`
`as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming my
`
`opinions, I have considered the materials referred to herein or listed in –
`
`“Appendix A” at the end of this declaration.
`
`9.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to rebut
`
`arguments raised by the patentee. Further, I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions – including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`10. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`presents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`
`5
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`11.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the ’724 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that
`
`counsel has explained to me.
`
`12.
`
`It is my understanding that a patent claim is unpatentable if the
`
`claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) at the time of the invention, in view of the
`
`prior art in the field and analogous fields. This means that even if all of the
`
`elements of the claim are not described or disclosed in a single prior art reference
`
`that would anticipate the claim, the claim can still be unpatentable.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that in order to prove that a claimed invention is
`
`unpatentable for obviousness, it is necessary to (1) identify the differences
`
`between the claim and particular disclosures in the prior art references, singly or in
`
`combination, (2) specifically explain how the prior art references could have been
`
`combined in order to arrive at the subject matter of the claimed invention, and (2)
`
`specifically explain why a PHOSITA would have motivated to so combine the
`
`prior art references.
`
`14.
`
`I also understand that certain objective indicia can be important
`
`evidence of obviousness or nonobviousness of a claimed invention. Such indicia
`
`may include, under appropriate circumstances: commercial success of products
`
`covered by the patent claims, where that success is not attributable to factors or
`
`6
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`features other than those recited in the claim; a long-felt and un-met need for the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the claimed invention as compared to the closest prior art; praise of
`
`the invention by others; expressions of surprise by experts and PHOSITAs at the
`
`making of the invention; a history of licensing the claimed invention, again where
`
`such licensing is not attributable to factors or features other than those recited in
`
`the claim; and the inventor having proceeded against the accepted wisdom in the
`
`art at the time of the invention.
`
`15.
`
`In the present case, I have not been made aware of, and have not
`
`considered the impact of, any objective indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness
`
`of the claims of the ’724 patent.
`
`16.
`
`I have been asked to express my opinions regarding patentability of
`
`the Challenged Claims as whether or not, in my view, a given claim is more likely
`
`obvious than not.
`
`A. The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that “a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art (PHOSITA)” is a hypothetical person considered to have the normal
`
`skills and knowledge in a particular technical field, without being a genius. This
`
`person is one to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign a routine task
`
`with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully carried out. I have
`
`7
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`been informed that the level of skill in the relevant art is evidenced by the prior art
`
`references.
`
`18.
`
`I believe, and the prior art discussed herein demonstrates, that a
`
`PHOSITA of the ’724 patent would have had a bachelor’s or master’s degree in
`
`engineering, computer science, or physics with some experience in the automotive
`
`industry (e.g., two to five years). This person would also have had a working
`
`understanding of combining
`
`image data
`
`from multiple cameras and
`
`microprocessor driven controls for displays, actuators, and elementary decision
`
`making.
`
`19. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have supervised and directed
`
`many such persons over the course of my career. Further, I had those capabilities
`
`myself at the time the ’724 patent was filed.
`
`B.
`
`The State of the Art – Description of Background Technology
`
`20. The ’724 patent is directed to a “multi-camera vision system for a
`
`vehicle,” for capturing image data using at least three image capture devices that
`
`are mounted on the vehicle and have overlapping fields of view. Ex. 1001 at
`
`Abstract. Outputs of the at least three image capture devices are provided to an
`
`image processor that produces a composite image for display to the driver of the
`
`vehicle. Id. A reconfigurable display is configured to show the driver the images
`
`8
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`captured by the three image capture devices as well as auxiliary information that
`
`assists the driver in safely maneuvering the vehicle and avoiding potential hazards.
`
`The reconfigurable display is a user-selectable high information content display
`
`device. Ex. 1001 at 12:51-66.
`
`21. The first technologies used in fixed segment electronic displays
`
`included plasma displays in the form of Nixie Tubes and Light Emitting Diodes
`
`(LEDs), as used in electronic calculators and electronic watches. Fixed segment
`
`displays further evolved in the 1960s and began to be implemented with newer
`
`technologies such as Vacuum Fluorescent Displays (VFD) and Liquid Crystal
`
`Displays (LCD). Ex. 1032 at 936:1-18.
`
`22.
`
`In the late 1970s and 1980s, fixed segment electronic displays began
`
`to be used in simple automotive readouts such as electronic clocks and the digital
`
`set frequencies on automotive audio systems. In such cases, the automotive
`
`interior designer primarily used either LCDs or VFD displays and blended them
`
`with various gauges and indicators in the automotive interior. Typically, vehicle
`
`interior designers would choose LCDs or VFDs depending on the “look” and
`
`aesthetics that the designer wanted to give the vehicle’s interior.
`
`23. The first reconfigurable displays were Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs),
`
`which eventually were replaced with flat panel displays of numerous technologies
`
`and various sizes. The movement from CRTs to flat panel reconfigurable displays
`
`9
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`was driven by the automotive OEM’s need to reduce the weight, depth, and heat
`
`that was prevalent in CRTs. (See Ex. 1016, Abstract and Table 1; Ex. 1033; Ex.
`
`1034, p. 15 and Table 1; Ex. 1035, p. 1, Abstract). As information content
`
`increased and the capability of the reconfigurable displays improved, the use of
`
`human factors and the use of man-machine interfaces began to be widely used in
`
`the automotive field. (Ex. 1034 at pp. 17-18; Ex. 1036, p. 19, Examples #1
`
`through #6). Automotive design engineers focused on developing reconfigurable
`
`displays that used a variety of different methods for the driver or passenger to
`
`interact with the display itself, including various “touch” mechanisms and “hands-
`
`free” or speech mechanisms. See generally Exs. 1033 and 1034; Ex. 1035, p. 2 at
`
`2:55-61; 2:23-40.
`
`24. Automotive suppliers and vehicle OEMs in the mid/late 1980s also
`
`focused on reconfigurable display systems that could handle the various amounts
`
`of information that were available in the vehicle, including (1) conventional
`
`information, like audio and HVAC settings; (2) navigation information and
`
`direction; and, (3) emergency or other urgent types of notifications to the driver
`
`that took precedence over more standard information to get the driver’s attention.
`
`Due to the high amount of data involved as well as the numerous capabilities of
`
`various systems, the range of information in the 1990s available to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art was quite large and the focus quickly became how to perform all
`
`10
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:24)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`these functions safely, reliably, and efficiently, to reinforce the driver’s main task
`
`of driving the vehicle safely. See generally Exs. 1033 and 1034.
`
`25.
`
` While initial systems that incorporated reconfigurable display in
`
`automotive equipment were hard wired between the camera and reconfigurable
`
`display (See generally, Ex. 1034), subsequent versions evolved to camera/display
`
`systems that used a bus structure in vehicles to move the data from the camera(s)
`
`to the reconfigurable display(s). The choice for a suitable bus structure was
`
`limited to two options: serial buses or parallel buses; selecting between the two
`
`was a design choice based on a variety of factors including transmission length,
`
`speed and data amount. Ex. 1033, p.23, Figure 8, describing one particular type of
`
`serial data link.
`
`26.
`
`In the early to mid-1980s, numerous technologies for reconfigurable
`
`flat panel displays were considered as alternatives to the bulky CRT. Some
`
`examples
`
`include
`
`active matrix
`
`liquid
`
`crystal displays,
`
`thin
`
`film
`
`electroluminescent displays, and light emitting diode displays, among others. The
`
`choice often came down to a tradeoff between various considerations, including
`
`operating characteristics, the use of the reconfigurable flat panel, the amount of
`
`data to be shown, and the human factors that guided the driver input devices,
`
`among others. These characteristic factors of the available and emerging
`
`11
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`technologies were well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1016 at
`
`p. 2, 1:21-29.
`
`27. Those of ordinary skill in the art prior to May 22, 1996, would also
`
`have known that the flat panel display issues of brightness, dimmability, and
`
`reflections were all common and obvious factors considered in designing an
`
`automotive vision system. By May 1996, skilled artisans had experimented with a
`
`variety of ways to deal with these issues, including the use of various films on the
`
`front of the flat panel displays and various types of polarizers. (Ex. 1038 at p. 445,
`
`2:24 to p. 446, 1:34). All of these were common and obvious design choices in
`
`the art long before the filing of the ’724 patent.
`
`III. THE ’724 PATENT
`
`A. Technical Overview of The ’724 Patent
`
`28. The ’724 patent generally describes a driver assist vision system for a
`
`motor vehicle. Ex. 1001 at 2:59-3:22 and Fig. 1. More particularly, the ’724
`
`patent describes a multi-camera vision system for a vehicle in which three image
`
`capture devices (e.g., cameras) are mounted on a vehicle. These image capture
`
`devices capture images and an image processor processes the images in such a
`
`way as to display the vehicle’s surroundings in a synthesized single image to the
`
`driver of as the driver operates the vehicle. Ex. 1001 at 2:59-3:22 and Fig. 8.
`
`Each of the three image capture devices captures a scene exterior of the vehicle
`
`12
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`and has zones of overlap with another one of the three image capture devices. Ex.
`
`1001 at Fig. 1; 6:66-7:5. The displayed image viewable by the driver is the result
`
`of image processing performed by an image processor, whereby the images
`
`captured by each of the image capture devices are merged into a single image,
`
`called a synthesized image in the ’724 patent. Ex. 1001 at Fig. 3; 7:44-57. The
`
`synthesized image has little or no duplication of image information that may
`
`otherwise be present as a result of the overlapping portions of the fields of views
`
`of the image capture devices. Ex. 1001 at 7:5-16. Further, the synthesized image
`
`is seen from the perspective of a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the
`
`equipped vehicle. Ex. 1001 at 5:64-6:2. The synthesized image is displayed on a
`
`reconfigurable display having the capability of selectively displaying the camera
`
`image information as well as various auxiliary information of interest to the driver.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 12:49-64.
`
`29. The drafters of the ’724 patent wrote a very lengthy specification with
`
`many different embodiments directed to different aspects of a generally
`
`conventional driver assist vision system, and then filed a series of continuation
`
`applications to cover the various embodiments of this unpatentable automobile
`
`vision system, each with an unusually large number of claims. The ’724 patent
`
`has 86 claims, some of which recite several alternatives, and all of which add
`
`conventional, well-known features to an otherwise unpatentable core invention.
`
`13
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`Due to its length and the number of different embodiments described in the ’724
`
`patent specification, it is necessary to describe the state of the art of various
`
`features that were well-known much before the time of the ’724 patent. It is well
`
`known, however, that claiming a conventional feature from standard product
`
`configurations does not lend to patentability. Indeed, the PHOSITA would expect
`
`such features to be practical to include in a driver assist system, to make the
`
`system useful.
`
`30. As has already been demonstrated in the state of the art above and in
`
`the analysis within the Petition that this Declaration supports, each and every
`
`feature claimed in the ’724 patent was well-known prior to the earliest effective
`
`filing date of the ’724 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’724 Patent
`
`31. The application for the ’724 Patent was filed on March 13, 2013, and
`
`claims priority to a series of parent applications with an earliest effective filing
`
`date of May 22, 1996. A notice of allowance was mailed without any substantive
`
`Office Action being issued in the application on December 11, 2013. After the
`
`mailing of the notice of allowance, the Applicant filed a 37 C.F.R. § 1.312
`
`amendment to correct minor informalities in the claims. No substantive changes
`
`were made. The ’724 Patent issued on February 4, 2014.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`14
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:66)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`32.
`
`I understand that in the context of an inter partes review, claims of an
`
`unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that, where a patent applicant provides an explicit
`
`definition of a claim-term in the specification, that definition controls the
`
`interpretation of that term in the claim.
`
`34.
`
`I also understand that if no explicit definition is provided for a term in
`
`the patent specification, the claim terms must be given their plain meaning unless
`
`that meaning is plainly inconsistent with a meaning given the term by its use in the
`
`specification.
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed that the ’724 patent is not expired. I have been
`
`informed that the ’724 patent is one of a series of continuation applications, all of
`
`which are appear to claim benefit to each other, the earliest of which dates back to
`
`May 22, 1996. I understand that this means that the ’724 patent is considered to
`
`have been filed on May 22, 1996, for purposes of determining whether a reference
`
`constitutes prior art. Thus, a reference qualities as prior art if the reference
`
`disclosed or suggested the claimed invention of the ’724 patent prior to May 22,
`
`1996.
`
`36.
`
`I have been asked to assume the following meanings for certain terms
`
`and phrases appearing in the claims.
`
`15
`
`(cid:57)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:17