UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`Patent 6,542,076
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`Patent 6,542,076
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 2
`
` A. Overview of the ‘076 Patent .......................................................................... 2
`
` B. Prosecution History of the ‘076 Patent .......................................................... 3
`
` C. Representative Claims .................................................................................... 4
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 8
`
` A. Legal Standards .............................................................................................. 8
`
` B. “control device” ............................................................................................ 10
`
` C. “first signal,” “second signal” and “third signal” ......................................... 11
`
`
`IV. DAVID McNAMARA’S DECLARATION IS FUNDAMENTALLY
` FLAWED ......................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
` A. David McNamara did not Review the Materials Required to Properly Reach
` his Conclusions and Opinions ..................................................................... 12
`
`
`
` B. David McNamara has an Erroneous Understanding of the Standards to Use
` In Construing Patent Claims ........................................................................ 13
`
` C. David McNamara’s Testimony Should Be Given Little or No Weight ....... 15
`
`i i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. RESPONSE TO PROPOSED GROUNDS OF INVALIDITY ........................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
` A. Ground 1 is Deficient ................................................................................... 15
`
` B. Ground 2 is Deficient ................................................................................... 22
`
` C. Ground 3 is Deficient ................................................................................... 22
`
` D. Ground 4 is Deficient ................................................................................... 24
`
` E. Ground 5 is Deficient ................................................................................... 24
`
` F. Ground 6 is Deficient .................................................................................... 27
`
` 1. Frossard fails to disclose the “A to B to C” control system/method of
` claims 3, 73 and 205 ............................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. Pagliaroli fails to disclose the “A to B to C” control system/method of
` claims 3, 73 and 205 ................................................................................ 28
`
`
`
` 2. Pagliaroli fails to disclose a “first control device” that determines an
` “operating status” as required by claim 93 .............................................. 34
`
` G. Ground 7 is Deficient ................................................................................... 35
`
` H. Ground 8 is Deficient ................................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` I. Ground 9 is Deficient ................................................................................... 36
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 40
`
`ii ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`EX2001
`
`Description
`“Preliminary Remarks” filed by Applicant on November 26, 2006
`during prosecution of the patent application that issued as related U.S.
`Patent No. 7,277,010
`“Supplement to the Remarks for the Amendment filed on October 24,
`2007” filed on November 23, 2007 during prosecution of the patent
`application that issued as related U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`EX2003 Declaration of Steven W. Ritcheson
`August 26, 2015 Opinion and Order Construing Disputed Claim Terms
`in the matter of JCMS v. Chrysler Group LLC, Case No. 13-cv-13957
`(E.D. Mich.)
`EX2005 Transcript of March 15, 2016 Deposition of David McNamara
`EX2006 Transcript of March 16, 2016 Deposition of David McNamara
`
`EX2002
`
`EX2004
`
`
`
`iii iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`In response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) filed by
`
`Petitioner, the Board has instituted inter partes review (Paper 10, the “Decision”)
`
`of claims 3, 20, 65, 73, 93, 103, 104, 108 and 205 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,542,076 (“the ‘076 Patent”) based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`
`Claims
`3, 20, 73, 103
`and 205
`65
`93
`104
`108
`3, 20, 65, 73, 93
`and 205
`103
`104
`108
`
`Proposed Rejections
`anticipated by Frossard
`
`obvious in view of Frossard and Pagliaroli
`obvious in view of Frossard and Drori
`obvious in view of Frossard and LeBlanc
`obvious in view of Frossard and Simms
`anticipated by Pagliaroli
`
`obvious in view of Pagliaroli and Frossard
`obvious in view of Pagliaroli and LeBlanc
`obvious in view of Pagliaroli and Simms
`
`The nine proposed grounds of rejection are substantively flawed, in that
`
`
`
`none of the cited references teach important properly construed claim limitations.
`
`For example, none of the cited references teach an “A to B to C” control
`
`system/method, as required by the challenged claims and as will be explained in
`
`more detail below.
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, as will be discussed below, it became apparent during cross-
`
`examination that Petitioner’s expert, David McNamara: (1) did not review the
`
`materials required to properly reach his conclusions and opinions; and (2) has an
`
`erroneous understanding of the proper standards to use in construing patent
`
`claims. For at least these reasons, the Board should give Mr. McNamara’s
`
`testimony little or no weight.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC (“JCMS” or
`
`“Patent Owner”) submits this Response to Petitioner’s Petition and the Board’s
`
`Decision.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`A. Overview of the ‘076 Patent
`
`The ‘076 Patent is directed to a novel and unconventional system for, inter
`
`alia, remotely-controlling and/or monitoring systems located at vehicles and
`
`premises. EX1001 at 23. The Challenged Claims are directed to a specially
`
`assembled and programmed distributed control system/method for vehicles,
`
`wherein control functions for a vehicle or for a vehicle system, vehicle equipment
`
`system, vehicle component, vehicle device, vehicle equipment, or vehicle
`
`appliance, of a vehicle, can be distributed among three separate and distinct
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`control devices, each of which can generate or transmit a separate and distinct
`
`signal in order to control a separate fourth device of or at the vehicle, which is
`
`the respective vehicle system, vehicle equipment system, vehicle component,
`
`vehicle device, vehicle equipment, or vehicle appliance.
`
`A separate
`
`interface device can be optionally used
`
`to facilitate
`
`communications between one of the control devices and the separate fourth
`
`device of or at the vehicle, which is the respective vehicle system, vehicle
`
`equipment system, vehicle component, vehicle device, vehicle equipment, or
`
`vehicle appliance.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘076 Patent
`
`The patent application that issued as the ‘076 patent was filed on April, 17,
`
`2000. EX1001. The ‘076 patent issued on April 1, 2003. Id. The ‘076 patent
`
`expired on June 8, 2013.
`
`
`
`During prosecution of related U.S. Patent Applications that issued as U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,397,363 and 7,277,010 (hereinafter “the ‘363 Patent” and “the ‘010
`
`Patent,” respectively), the Applicant chose to be his own lexicographer and
`
`provided explicit definitions for, inter alia, the terms “control device,” “remote,”
`
`and “located at” in “Preliminary Remarks” filed by Applicant on November 26,
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2006 during prosecution of the patent application that issued as the ‘010 patent
`
`(see EX2001, hereinafter “Preliminary Remarks”) and in “Supplement to the
`
`Remarks for the Amendment filed on October 24, 2007” filed on November 23,
`
`2007 during prosecution of the patent application that issued as the ‘363 Patent
`
`(see EX2002, hereinafter “First Remarks”).
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Representative Claims
`
`Claims 3, 73 and 205 are the only independent claims being challenged.
`
`They are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`A control apparatus, comprising:
`
`a first control device, wherein the first control device at least one of
`
`generates a first signal and transmits a first signal for at least one of activating,
`
`de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling, at least one of a vehicle system, a
`
`vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle
`
`equipment, and a vehicle appliance, of a vehicle, wherein the first control device
`
`is located at the vehicle,
`
`
`
`wherein the first control device at least one of generates the first
`
`signal and transmits the first signal in response to a second signal, wherein the
`
`second signal is at least one of generated by a second control device and
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transmitted from a second control device, wherein the second control device is
`
`located at a location which is remote from the vehicle, wherein the second signal
`
`is transmitted from the second control device to the first control device, wherein
`
`the second signal is automatically received by the first control device, and further
`
`wherein the second control device at least one of generates the second signal and
`
`transmits the second signal in response to a third signal,
`
`
`
`wherein the third signal is at least one of generated by a third control
`
`device and transmitted from a third control device, wherein the third control
`
`device is located at a location which is remote from the vehicle and remote from
`
`the second control device, wherein the third signal is transmitted from the third
`
`control device to the second control device, and further wherein the third signal is
`
`automatically received by the second control device.
`
`
`
`73. A control apparatus, comprising:
`
`
`
`a first control device, wherein the first control device is capable of at
`
`least one of activating, de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling, one or more of a
`
`plurality of at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle equipment system, a
`
`vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, and a vehicle
`
`appliance, of a vehicle, wherein the first control device at least one of generates a
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`first signal and transmits a first signal for at least one of activating, de-activating,
`
`disabling, and re-enabling, the at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle
`
`equipment system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment,
`
`and a vehicle appliance, wherein the first control device is located at the vehicle,
`
`
`
`wherein the first control device at least one of generates the first
`
`signal and transmits the first signal in response to a second signal, wherein the
`
`second signal is at least one of generated by a second control device and
`
`transmitted from a second control device, wherein the second control device is
`
`located at a location which is remote from the vehicle, wherein the second signal
`
`is transmitted from the second control device to the first control device, and
`
`further wherein the second signal is automatically received by the first control
`
`device,
`
`
`
`wherein the second control device at least one of generates the
`
`second signal and transmits the second signal in response to a third signal,
`
`wherein the third signal is at least one of generated by a third control device and
`
`transmitted from a third control device, wherein the third control device is
`
`located at a location which is remote from the vehicle and remote from the
`
`second control device, wherein the third signal is transmitted from the third
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`control device to the second control device, and further wherein the third signal is
`
`automatically received by the second control device.
`
`
`
`205. A control method, comprising:
`
`
`
`transmitting a first signal from a first control device to a second
`
`control device, wherein the first control device is located at a location remote
`
`from the second control device and remote from a vehicle, and further wherein
`
`the first signal is automatically received by the second control device;
`
`
`
`transmitting a second signal from the second control device to a
`
`third control device, wherein the third control device is capable of at least one of
`
`activating, de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling, one or more of a plurality of
`
`at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle equipment system, a vehicle
`
`component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, and a vehicle appliance, of the
`
`vehicle, wherein the third control device is located at the vehicle, and further
`
`wherein the second control device is located at a location remote from the
`
`vehicle, and further wherein the second signal is automatically received by the
`
`third control device;
`
`
`
`at least one of generating a third signal with the third control device
`
`and transmitting a third signal from the third control device, wherein the third
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`control device is located at the vehicle, and further wherein the third signal is at
`
`least one of generated and transmitted in response to the second signal; and
`
`
`
`at least one of activating, de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling, the at
`
`least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component, a
`
`vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, and a vehicle appliance.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Legal Standards
`A.
`The ‘076 Patent is expired. Claim terms in an expired patent are generally
`
`
`
`given their “ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, it is important to note that
`
`the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) and controlling case law
`
`make it clear that the determination of the ordinary and customary meaning of a
`
`term or phrase does not occur in a vacuum, but instead it must be made in light of
`
`the patent’s specification and the intrinsic evidence. MPEP §2111.01 is clear and
`
`unequivocal on this point. The pertinent portion of the MPEP §2111.01 recites:
`
`The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be
`
`evidenced by a variety of sources, including “the words
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of
`the claims
`themselves,
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`the remainder of
`the
`
`specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic
`
`evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the
`
`meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.”
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1314, 75 USPQ2d
`
`at 1327. If extrinsic reference sources, such as
`
`dictionaries, evidence more than one definition for the
`
`term, the intrinsic record must be consulted to identify
`
`which of the different possible definitions is most
`
`consistent with Applicant’s use of the terms. Brookhill-
`
`Wilk 1, 334 F.3d at 1300, 67 USPQ2d at 1137; see also
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158
`
`F.3d 1243, 1250, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1122 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998) (“Where there are several common meanings for
`
`a claim term, the patent disclosure serves to point away
`
`from the improper meanings and toward the proper
`
`meanings.”) and Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc.,
`
`90 F.3d 1576, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1996) (construing the term “solder reflow temperature”
`
`to mean “peak reflow temperature” of solder rather than
`
`the “liquidus temperature” of solder in order to remain
`
`consistent with the specification.). (Emphasis added).
`
`
`
`“[A] patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer” and assign special
`
`definitions to the words in the claim, as long as those definitions are clearly
`
`stated in the patent specification or file history. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`
`Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP
`
`Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Therefore, “it is always
`
`necessary to review the specification to determine whether the inventor has used
`
`any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning. The
`
`specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the
`
`claims or when it defines terms by implication.” Id. Because the specification
`
`must contain a description sufficient to those of ordinary skill in the art to make
`
`and use the invention, the specification “is the single best guide to the meaning of
`
`a disputed claim term.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`“control device”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For purposes of its Decision, the Board adopted the express definition of
`
`“control device” provided during prosecution of the patent application that issued
`
`as related U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363, which is “a device or a computer, or that
`
`part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a
`
`function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.”
`
`Decision at 14.
`
`
`
`JCMS respectfully submits that this construction should be adopted for the
`
`remainder of this IPR.
`
`C.
`
`“first signal,” “second signal” and “third signal”
`
`JCMS respectfully submits that construction of these terms is necessary at
`
`
`
`
`
`this time, as will become apparent below.
`
`
`
`In litigation involving the ‘076 Patent, the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of Michigan issued an Opinion and Order Construing Disputed
`
`Claim Terms in which they construed the terms “first signal,” “second signal”
`
`and “third signal” as follows:
`
`“The Court does, however, find that Defendant’s
`
`proposed alternative constructions are consistent with
`
`the normal understanding of the claim terms. In fact,
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the parties agree that the “first signal” is a signal sent
`
`by the first device, the “second signal” is sent by the
`
`second device, and the “third signal” is sent by the
`
`third device.” EX2004 at 23. (emphasis added).
`
`JCMS respectfully submits that, for purposes of this proceeding, these
`
`constructions should be adopted, as they are required to evaluate the merits of
`
`Petitioner’s arguments, namely:
`
`• “first signal” is “a signal sent by a first device”
`
` •
`
` “second signal” is “a signal sent by a second
` device”
`
` •
`
` “third signal” is “a signal sent by a third
` device”
`
`IV. DAVID McNAMARA’S DECLARATION IS FUNDAMENTALLY
` FLAWED
`
`A. Mr. McNamara did not Review the Materials Required to
`
` Properly Reach his Conclusions and Opinions
`
`
`
`During David McNamara’s cross-examination, it became apparent that Mr.
`
`McNamara had not reviewed the materials required for him to properly reach his
`
`conclusions and opinions. In his Declaration, Mr. McNamara indicated that he
`
`“read” the prosecution history of the ‘076 Patent, as is required in order to
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`properly construe the claims. EX1003 at ¶ 16. Yet, during cross-examination, Mr.
`
`McNamara testified that, in fact, he did not review the prosecution history of the
`
`‘076 Patent, as evidenced by the following exchange:
`
`EX2005 at 153
`
`Q: You have testified previously, I think, that you did
` not review the prosecution histories for the four
` JCMS patents at issue correct?
`
`A: That’s correct.
`
`Q: Is it necessarily true, then, that you, in reaching the
` conclusions or opinions expressed in Exhibits 1
` through 4, you did not apply the, any definitions that
` may have been provided by Mr. Joao during
` prosecution of those patents, correct?
`
`A: That’s correct.
`
` B. David McNamara has an Erroneous Understanding of the
`
` Standards to Use in Construing Patent Claims
`
`
`
`Mr. McNamara is not at all versed in the proper standards to use when
`
`construing patent claims. For example, Mr. McNamara admitted during cross-
`
`examination that he used the wrong standard when construing the challenged
`
`claims in a related inter partes review brought by the same Petitioner (IPR2015-
`
`01645), as evidenced by the following exchange:
`
`
`
`EX2005 at 151-152
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q: . . . With respect to the '363 patent, if you turn
` to that declaration which should be Exhibit 4,
` you have Paragraph 9 that the, you identify
` the claim construction, or the, it states the
` following, "The claim of an unexpired patent
` is to be given the broadest reasonable
` construction in light of the specification of the
` patent in which it appears, which is what I
` have done when performing my analysis in
` this declaration." Do you see that?
`
`A: Which paragraph are we reading?
`
`Q: I am at paragraph 9 of Exhibit 4?
`
` . .
`
` .
`
`
`Q: Okay. Are you aware that the PTAB has indicated or
` stated that that is, in fact, the wrong standard for the
` ‘363 patent and that, in fact, the standard is the
` standard that you articulated in the, for example, in
` Exhibit 1?
`
`
`
`
`A: I’m recently aware of that, yes.
`
`Q: Okay. How does the use of the wrong claim
` construction standard affect your opinions in this
` case?
`
`A: I don't think I used the wrong standard because I used
` the same standard through all of the four patents. I
` used the one of ordinary and customary
` understanding. (emphasis added)
`
`Q: Is that notwithstanding the fact that you say in
` Paragraph 9 that you used a different standard? Is that
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` incorrect?
`
`A: Well, I think that the, put it this way, I can’t
` personally differentiate between broadest and
` ordinary and customary. I guess that is the simple
` answer. (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, by Mr. McNamara’s own testimony, he admitted that he cannot tell
`
`
`
`the difference between the standards used to construe claims in expired and
`
`unexpired patents, and so he simply uses the same standard regardless of whether
`
`the patent is expired or not. Specifically, Mr. McNamara testified that he uses the
`
`“plain and ordinary meaning” standard for all patents, although, given his
`
`testimony, it is not clear that he even knows what this standard is or should be.
`
`C. David McNamara’s Testimony Should Be Given Little or No
`
` Weight
`
`The Board should give Mr. McNamara’s testimony little or no weight
`
`because, as discussed in detail above: (1) despite his statements in his sworn
`
`Declaration to the contrary, he did not even review the materials required to
`
`properly reach his conclusions and opinions; and (2) he has an erroneous
`
`understanding of the proper standards to use in construing patent claims.
`
`V. RESPONSE TO PROPOSED GROUNDS OF INVALIDITY
`
`A. Ground 1 is Deficient
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground 1 alleges that claims 3, 20, 73, 103 and 205 are anticipated by
`
`Frossard. However, Patent Owner respectfully submits that Frossard fails to
`
`disclose, teach or suggest every claimed element of claims 3, 20, 73, 103 and
`
`205, as required under § 102, when the claim elements are properly construed.
`
`
`
`At the outset, Patent Owner disagrees with the Petitioner’s interpretation of
`
`“control device” that would allow the receiver/decoder circuits 4 of Frossard to
`
`serve as the “first control device” of claims 3 and 73 and the “third control
`
`device” of claim 205. Patent Owner maintains that the receiver/decoder circuits
`
`4 of Frossard is merely an interface as taught by the specification of the ‘076
`
`Patent, and not a “control device.” Petitioner’s arguments and the constructions
`
`and interpretations that have been adopted by the Board, notwithstanding,
`
`Petitioner’s arguments with respect to Frossard still fail with regards to each of
`
`independent claims 3, 73 and 205.
`
`Frossard fails to disclose the “A to B to C” control
`1.
`
`
` system/method of claims 3, 73 and 205
`
`
`
`As discussed supra in Section III.C, the “first signal,” “second signal” and
`
`“third signal” recited in claims 3, 73 and 205, are properly construed as:
`
`• “first signal” is “a signal sent by a first device”
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• “second signal” is “a signal sent by a second device”
`
`• “third signal” is “a signal sent by a third device”
`
`Petitioner alleges that the claimed first control device (claims 3 and 73)
`
`
`
`and the claimed third control device (claim 205) at the vehicle is satisfied by
`
`Frossard’s “receiver-decoder circuits 4.” See Paper 1 at 10 and 18-19. Petitioner
`
`further alleges that the claimed intermediate second control device of each of
`
`claims 3, 73 and 205 is satisfied by the “resource 2” and “server 1” of Frossard.
`
`Id. at 14 and 17. Finally, Petitioner asserts that the claimed remote third control
`
`device (claims 3 and 73) or first control device (claim 205) is satisfied by the
`
`“telephone” or “minitel” shown in Fig. 1 of Frossard. Id. at 14-15 and 17-18. See
`
`also EX1004 at Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`Even though Petitioner asserts that the claimed second control device of
`
`each of claims 3, 73 and 205 is satisfied by the “resource 2” and “server 1” of
`
`Frossard, the “resource 2” and “server 1” are actually at least two separate and
`
`distinct devices. Claims 3 and 73 require that the second control device receives a
`
`third signal from the claimed third control device. Claim 205 requires that the
`
`second control device receives a first signal from the claimed first control device.
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The device in Frossard that receives a signal from the “telephone” or
`
`“minitel,” which Petitioner asserts is the claimed first control device of claims 3
`
`and 73 and the claimed third control device of claim 205, is actually the server 1
`
`of Frossard. Thus, based on Petitioner’s anticipation arguments, the server 1 of
`
`Frossard must be the component that corresponds to the claimed second control
`
`device of claims 3, 73 and 205 because it receives a third signal from the claimed
`
`third control device (in the case of claims 3 and 73) and a first signal from the
`
`claimed first control device (in the case of claim 205).
`
`
`
`As noted above, claims 3 and 73 require that the second control device
`
`receives a third signal from the claimed third control device and claim 205
`
`requires that the second control device receives a first signal from a first control
`
`device.
`
`In Frossard, the telephone/minitel transmits a signal (a first generated
`
`signal) to the server 1 which, in turn, transmits a new signal (a second generated
`
`signal) to the resource 2 which, in turn, transmits yet another new signal (a third
`
`generated signal) to the receiver/decoder circuits 4. The receiver/decoder circuits
`
`4 of Frossard, which is located at the vehicle, receives that third sent signal.
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`With regards to claims 3 and 73, and using the proper construction of “first
`
`signal,” “second signal” and “third signal,” the telephone/minitel (a third control
`
`device) transmits a third signal to the server 1 (a second control device) which, in
`
`turn, transmits a second signal to the resource 2 (a first control device).
`
`However, the resource 2 is not located at the vehicle and, therefore, the resource
`
`2 cannot be the “first control device” of claims 3 and 73. Thus, by virtue of the
`
`definition of “first signal”, “second signal” and “third signal”, Frossard fails to
`
`disclose the “first control device” of claims 3 and 73, which must be located at
`
`the vehicle and which must also generate or transmit yet another signal at the
`
`vehicle.
`
`
`
`To be sure, with regards to each of claims 3 and 73, the “first control
`
`device,” which is located at the vehicle (and which Petitioner asserts is the
`
`receiver-decoder circuits 4 of Frossard), must receive and be responsive to the
`
`second signal sent from the “second control device” which, as discussed above,
`
`must necessarily be a signal sent from server 1. However, based on the proper
`
`construction of “first signal,” “second signal” and “third signal,” there is an
`
`intermediate device, which is the resource 2 of Frossard, located between the
`
`server 1 of Frossard and the receiver-decoder circuits 4 of Frossard that receives
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the “second signal” from the server 1 of Frossard and that generates a separate
`
`third signal.
`
`
`
`After receiving the “second signal” from the server 1, the resource 2 of
`
`Frossard, in turn, generates a “third signal.” Thus, the receiver-decoder circuits 4
`
`is not receiving a “second signal” from the intermediate second control device
`
`(server 1), but rather, the receiver/decoder circuits 4 of Frossard is receiving a
`
`“third signal” from a device positioned between the server 1 and the receiver-
`
`decoder circuits 4.
`
`
`
`Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s arguments, and the
`
`construction and interpretation for “control device” adopted by the Board, which
`
`would allow the receiver/decoder circuits 4 of Frossard to serve as the “first
`
`control device” of claims 3 and 73 and the “third control device” of claim 205,
`
`Petitioner’s arguments still fail. Since Petitioner maintains that the mobile
`
`telephone signal transmitter 46 of Pagliaroli is a “control device” in and of itself
`
`which transmits its own signal (see discussion infra at Section V.F.), then, under
`
`Petitioner’s own arguments, Petitioner cannot here deny that the resource 2 of
`
`Frossard would also serve as a “control device” in and of itself which also
`
`transmits its own signal.
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01508
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, Frossard teaches a first control device remote from the ve
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
