DOCKET NO:
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT: 6,542,076
`
`INVENTOR: Raymond Anthony Joao
`
`FILED: April 17, 2000
`
`TITLE: Control, Monitoring and/or Security Apparatus and Method
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUED: April 1, 2003
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MCNAMARA
`
`I, David McNamara, make this declaration in connection with a second petition
`
`
`
`1.
`
`for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076 (“the ‘076 patent”; Exhibit 1001 to
`
`the petition). All statements herein made of my own knowledge are true, and all
`
`statements herein made based on information and belief are believed to be true. I am
`
`over 21 and otherwise competent to make this declaration. Although I am being
`
`compensated for my time in preparing this declaration, the opinions herein are my
`
`own, and I have no stake in the outcome of the inter partes review proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`Attachment A to this declaration is my curriculum vitae (Exhibit 1018). As shown
`
`in my curriculum vitae, I have devoted my career to the field of automotive electronics. I
`
`earned my Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 1
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT: 6,542,076
`
`INVENTOR: Raymond Anthony Joao
`
`FILED: April 17, 2000
`
`TITLE: Control, Monitoring and/or Security Apparatus and Method
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUED: April 1, 2003
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MCNAMARA
`
`I, David McNamara, make this declaration in connection with a second petition
`
`
`
`1.
`
`for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076 (“the ‘076 patent”; Exhibit 1001 to
`
`the petition). All statements herein made of my own knowledge are true, and all
`
`statements herein made based on information and belief are believed to be true. I am
`
`over 21 and otherwise competent to make this declaration. Although I am being
`
`compensated for my time in preparing this declaration, the opinions herein are my
`
`own, and I have no stake in the outcome of the inter partes review proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`Attachment A to this declaration is my curriculum vitae (Exhibit 1018). As shown
`
`in my curriculum vitae, I have devoted my career to the field of automotive electronics. I
`
`earned my Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 1
`
`
`
`of Michigan in 1973 and my Master of Engineering degree in Solid State Physics from
`
`the University of Florida in 1976.
`
`3.
`
`Further, as shown in my curriculum vitae, I have professional and academic
`
`experience in the field of automotive electronics and transportation systems acquired
`
`over a career spanning 38 years. In particular, during this period, I have worked and
`
`otherwise interacted with professionals and students of various experience and
`
`expertise levels in the automotive electronics field. Yet, throughout, my primary focus
`
`has related to identifying, demonstrating, testing, and manufacturing new automotive
`
`and transportation systems embodied in complex hardware and software products.
`
`For example, I have been involved in the development and integration of various
`
`motor vehicle technologies, such as: embedded vehicle controllers; sensors and
`
`actuators as key elements in an engine control system; diagnostic/maintenance
`
`algorithms; multiplexes (or buses) to reduce wiring, provide a test/diagnostic
`
`capability, and to provide control for new convenience features (e.g., power seat
`
`controls), anti-theft systems, Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), such as
`
`Adaptive Cruise Control, and user interface hardware and software to implement
`
`voice-driven features/technology, audio systems, digital media and wireless
`
`communications. I also have conducted extensive research on motor vehicle
`
`interfaces to permit the safe and easy integration of new electronic devices within a
`
`motor vehicle environment. Recently, I have worked on new automotive control and
`
`communication systems, called “connected automation” that use new wireless
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 2
`
`
`
`communications to communicate with road-side and other cars to enhance on-board
`
`sensors, such as radar and cameras. These new systems integrate on-board radar and
`
`camera sensors, in-vehicle control systems with important data about other cars and
`
`road conditions, which in the future will enable full autonomous driving.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a consultant for McNamara Technology Solutions LLC and
`
`work with clients in active safety (e.g., mmWave radar based and camera based
`
`systems), automotive electrical/electronics architecture, and automotive wireless
`
`technology.
`
`5.
`
`I also am an active member of the Society of Automotive Engineers,
`
`organizing technical sessions on Vehicle-to-Vehicle and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure
`
`Communications, Cybersecurity and Autonomous Driving and the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and I have been an invited speaker to
`
`various conferences, including the Telematics Update Events
`
`(www.telematicsupdate.com), at which I interact with various members of the
`
`technical community. I periodically publish reports on observed trends in automotive
`
`electronics, and also co-authored an invited paper for the Proceedings of the IEEE
`
`along with former Ford Research colleagues. This paper, Control, Computing and
`
`Communications Technologies for the Twenty-first Century Model T by Jeff Cook, Fellow,
`
`IEEE, Ilya Kolmanovsky, Senior Member, IEEE, David McNamara, Member, IEEE,
`
`Edward Nelson, Member, IEEE, and Venkatesh Prasad, Member, IEEE describes
`
`the important developments in automotive electronics. I have contributed articles to
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 3
`
`
`
`the Intelligent Transport System (ITS) International Magazine
`
`(www.itsiternational.com), on Diagnostics/Prognostics and on the 2009 Consumer
`
`Electronics Show (CES). I report on consumer trends and sensor technology
`
`impacting the automotive industry as part of my annual CES report, which has been
`
`published since 2007. I am a member of the Association of Unmanned Vehicles
`
`International (www.auvsi.com) and affiliated with the University of Michigan Mobility
`
`Transformation Center, whose charter to test new autonomous driving systems.
`
`6.
`
`I am a named inventor on five U.S. patents (U.S. Patent No. 4,377,851; U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,446,447; U.S. Patent No. 5,060,156; U.S. Patent No. 5,003,801; and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,175,803) that resulted from the development of products for high-
`
`volume production. Of these, U.S. Patent No. 4,377,851 and U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,446,447 relate to pressure sensors used in Ford vehicles, and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,060,156 relates to the oil change detection system used by Ford in high-volume
`
`production for several years.
`
`Understanding of the Law
`
`7.
`
`For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about certain
`
`aspects of the law that are relevant to my analysis and opinions, as set forth in this
`
`section of my declaration.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that “claim construction” is the process of determining a patent
`
`claim’s meaning. I also have been informed and understand that the proper
`
`construction of a claim term is the meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 4
`
`
`
`(i.e., the technical field to which the patent relates) would have given to that term at
`
`the patent’s filing date. My opinion and analysis with respect to claim construction are
`
`provided from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the ‘076
`
`patent pertains at the earliest possible priority date for the ‘076 patent, which I am
`
`informed is June 8, 1993.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that the ‘076 patent expired on June 8, 2013.
`
`I understand that in inter partes review proceedings, claims of expired patents are
`
`to be given their ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, which is what I have done when performing my analysis in this declaration.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as obvious if the subject matter
`
`of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art as of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that the following factors
`
`must be evaluated to determine whether the claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) the difference or differences, if any, between
`
`the scope of the claim of the patent under consideration and the scope of the prior
`
`art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that prior art references can be combined to reject a claim under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 when there was an objective reason for a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the references, which includes, but is
`
`not limited to (A) identifying a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior
`
`art references; (B) combining prior art methods according to known methods to yield
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 5
`
`
`
`predictable results; (C) substituting one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; (D) using a known technique to improve a similar device in the
`
`same way; (E) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement
`
`to yield predictable results; (F) trying a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; or (G) identifying that
`
`known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the
`
`same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the
`
`variations are predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`13. Moreover, I have been informed and I understand that so-called objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness, also known as “secondary considerations,” like the
`
`following are also to be considered when assessing obviousness: (1) commercial
`
`success; (2) long-felt but unresolved needs; (3) copying of the invention by others in
`
`the field; (4) initial expressions of disbelief by experts in the field; (5) failure of others
`
`to solve the problem that the inventor solved; and (6) unexpected results. I also
`
`understand that evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness must be
`
`commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. I am not aware of any
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness for the ‘917 patent.
`
`Materials Considered
`
`14.
`
`I have read the ‘076 patent and its prosecution history. I have also reviewed
`
`various materials, including the following:
`
`15. Exhibit 1004 EP 0505266 to Frossard et al. (“Frossard”)
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 6
`
`
`
`16. Exhibit 1005 Certified English translation of Frossard
`
`17. Exhibit 1006 U.S. 5,276,728 to Pagliaroli et al. (“Pagliaroli”)
`
`18. Exhibit 1007 U.S. 5,334,974 to Simms et al. (“Simms”)
`
`19. Exhibit 1008 U.S. 5,081,667 to Drori et al. (“Drori”)
`
`20. Exhibit 1009 U.S. 6,236,365 to LeBlanc et al. (“LeBlanc”)
`
`21. Exhibit 1010 Caglayan & Harrison, “The Agent Sourcebook, A Complete
`
`Guide to Desktop, Internet, and Intranet Agents,” Wiley Computer Publishing, 1997
`
`22. Exhibit 1011 May 22, 2015 Final Office Action in Reexamination No.
`
`90/013,302
`
`23. Exhibit 1012 Select Office Action Responses from the 7,397,363 and
`
`7,277,010 patents.
`
`24. Additionally, I have reviewed Trevor O. Jones & Wallace K. Tsuha, Fully
`
`Integrated Truck Information and control Systems (TIACS), SAE Technical Paper 831775
`
`(1983) (Exhibit 1013); Daniel Sellers & Thomas J. Benard, An Update on the
`
`OmniTRACSr Two-Way Satellite Mobile Communications System and its Application to the
`
`Schneider National Truckload Fleet, Proceedings of the 1992 International Congress on
`
`Transportation Electronics, Society of Automotive Engineers, Dearborn, MI, SAE P-
`
`260 (1992); (Exhibit 1014); Alan Kay, “Computer Software,” Scientific American, 53-
`
`59, vol. 251, no. 3, Sept. 1984 (Exhibit 1015); LeRoy G. Hagenbuch, Truck/Mobile
`
`Equipment Performance Monitoring Management Information Systems (MIS), SAE Technical
`
`Paper 861249 (1992) (Exhibit 1016); and Dr. W.J. Gillan, PROMETHEUS and
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 7
`
`
`
`DRIVE: Their Implications for Traffic Managers, Transportation Road Research Lab UK
`
`1989 (Exhibit 1017).
`
`25.
`
`I also performed Internet research and document review to confirm my
`
`recollection of technology that was available in the time prior to the date of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`26.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding the “level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art” or a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention,
`
`which I have been told is 1993.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`considered to have the normal skills and knowledge of a person in a certain technical
`
`field. I understand that factors that may be considered in determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the education level of the inventor; (2) the types of
`
`problems encountered in the art; (3) the prior art solutions to those problems; (4)
`
`rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology;
`
`and (6) the education level of active workers in the field. I also understand that “the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art” is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be
`
`aware of the universe of available prior art.
`
`28.
`
`In my opinion, in 1993, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an
`
`undergraduate, graduate, or doctoral degree in electrical engineering or similar field,
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 8
`
`
`
`such as physics, and two or three years of industry experience in the general field of
`
`vehicle security and control systems.
`
`29. By June 1993, I was at least a person of ordinary skill in the art based on my
`
`education and experience. Unless stated otherwise, my opinions herein are provided
`
`from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1993, i.e., at the time of
`
`the earliest priority date for the ‘076 patent.
`
`Background on the State of the Art
`
`30.
`
`It is my experience that since the 1980s as capable and affordable embedded
`
`systems and sensors became available, augmented by wireless communications; these
`
`new capabilities were applied to the transportation industry as well as other industries
`
`to address the issue of asset theft and personal safety. In the early 1980s the car
`
`manufacturers were adding vehicle intrusion detection systems, as I have direct
`
`experience with, as I was responsible for the design and release of Ford’s anti-theft
`
`systems from 1982-1984 and digital access systems. As mechanical lock systems in the
`
`early 1980s were also improved as “access codes” were integrated into mechanical
`
`ignition keys and used to enable (or disable) vehicle electrical equipment, such as the
`
`ignition system controlled by the on-board engine computer.
`
`31. Communication and location technologies, using triangulation with know radio
`
`towers or mobile receivers in the 1980s produced commercially available “vehicle
`
`recovery systems” such as Lo-jack. In the late 1980s the Global Positioning Satellite
`
`Systems (GPS) replaced landed based systems such as, Loran-C to provide “location
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 9
`
`
`
`services” and emerging cellular and satellite systems to add “messaging services” for
`
`two-way communications to the driver and vehicle.
`
`32.
`
`In Europe the industry government cooperation, PROMETHEUS Project
`
`(PROgraMme for a European Traffic of Highest Efficiency and Unprecedented
`
`Safety, 1987-1995) was comprehensive research and development program well
`
`known to the engineering community that applied communications and control
`
`technology to the problem of transportation safety and mobility. These developments
`
`are reported in the 1989 paper, PROMETHEUS and DRIVE: Their Implications for
`
`Traffic Managers by Dr. W.J. Gillan Transportation Road Research Lab UK (Ex.
`
`1017).
`
`33. The seminal paper published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in
`
`1983 titled, “Fully Integrated Truck Information and Control Systems (TIACS)” by
`
`Trevor O. Jones and Wallace K. Tsuha of TRW Inc. “identifies the current, near term,
`
`and long range system requirements and suggests ideas for a fully integrated Truck
`
`Information And Control System (TIACS)….” (Ex. 1013, 1). The industry recognized
`
`the benefits of applying embedded systems and sensor technology to commercial
`
`vehicles for “optimizing asset utilization,” “improving productivity” and “reducing
`
`operating cost” including the prevention of theft and unauthorized usage by requiring
`
`the use of “access codes.” (Id.) As shown below, the elements of a modern
`
`commercial fleet system are described for communications, monitoring and security.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 14).
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 18).
`
`34. Persons of ordinary skill in the art were aware of the need to combine existing
`
`anti-theft, digital access codes, communications and location technologies and,
`
`therefore, would have been motivated to do so. An example is the Qualcomm
`
`OmniTRACSr product first launched in 1988. It is my experience that from 1988 -
`
`1992 companies, such as Qualcomm, first developed and expanded the capability of
`
`on-board embedded systems to include two-way communications. The Qualcomm
`
`OmniTRACSr product for heavy trucks is an example and is described in the 1992
`
`Proceedings of the International Congress on Transportation Electronics, “An
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 12
`
`
`
`Update on the OmniTRACSr Two-Way Satellite Mobile Communications System and
`
`its Application to the Schneider National Truckload Fleet”, Daniel Sellers of
`
`Schneider National and Thomas J. Benard Qualcomm, October 1992. (Ex. 1014).
`
`35. The enhancement of fleet tracking systems, such as OmniTRACS, included
`
`higher bandwidth and ubiquitous cellular communications, and new Internet of web-
`
`based location services using digital maps and software agents to act on the behalf of
`
`the user. Web-based services (e.g. location-based services) became prevalent as the
`
`Internet became widely used. Transportation users created intelligent software agents
`
`to perform tasks on their behalf for web/data base searching, vehicle asset
`
`monitoring/notification and other tasks using location-based services. In the 1980s,
`
`the design of intelligent agents was only limited by the ability of engineers to
`
`understand the computing environment, define the task and parameters for the
`
`software. As applied to transportation (e.g. asset/fleet tracking) software agents were
`
`used on the behalf of the user, for example a fleet dispatcher, to execute location-
`
`based services such as geo-fencing. In the example of a geo-fence agent, software
`
`notifies the dispatcher that a vehicle of interest (e.g. parameterized) has left a region of
`
`interest (e.g. route or geographical region) as defined by the user/agent.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, “intelligent agent” and “software agent” should be defined to
`
`mean as “a computing entity that performs user delegated tasks autonomously.”
`
`37. The specification of the ’076 patent includes only one paragraph that mentions
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 13
`
`
`
`intelligent agents and software agents. (’076 patent, 102:45-60.) There, the ’076 patent
`
`states that “the agent can be programmed to perform any and all of the control,
`
`monitoring, and/or security functions described herein . . . .” (Id. at 102:47-53.) The
`
`’076 patent also attempts to incorporate by reference two books, including “The
`
`Agent Sourcebook, A Complete Guide to Desktop, Internet, and Intranet Agents.”
`
`(Id. at 102:53-60.) The Agent Sourcebook defines a software agent as “[a] computing
`
`entity that performs user delegated tasks autonomously.” (Ex. 1010, p. 4.) The Agent
`
`Sourcebook equates intelligent agents with software agents. The above referenced
`
`Agent Source book definition of agent is in agreement with the software agent
`
`concept expressed in the article on Computer Software in the 1984 September Issue of
`
`Scientific American. (Alan Kay, “Computer Software,” Scientific American, 53-59, vol.
`
`251, no. 3, Sept. 1984, Ex. 1015.) This seminal article introduced a definition of agent
`
`commonly accepted in the 1980s and 1990s, that it is an “agent” could perform many
`
`tasks for the user acting in the computing environment as a “soft robot”, that is
`
`autonomously, to accomplish the “goals and purposes of the user”. (Ex. 1015, p. 58.)
`
`For example, under the heading “Attributes of Intelligent Agents,” the first sentence
`
`reads “[o]ur definition of software agent implies that the agent possesses the following
`
`minimal characteristics…” (Id.) Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that “intelligent agent” and “software agent” should be defined to mean as
`
`“a computing entity that performs user delegated tasks autonomously.”
`
`
`
`The Frossard Reference
`14
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 14
`
`
`
`38. As discussed further below, in my opinion, Frossard anticipates claims 3, 20,
`
`73, 103, and 205 of the ’076 patent.
`
`Claims 3 and 73
`
`39.
`
`In my opinion, Frossard anticipates claims 3 and 73.
`
`40. First, in my opinion, Frossard discloses a control apparatus. For example,
`
`Frossard discloses a “system for controlled shutdown and for location of a movable
`
`or mobile equipment.” (Frossard, p. 2, ¶ 1.) A system for controlled shutdown and
`
`location of movable or mobile equipment is a type of “control apparatus.” For
`
`example, by causing the controlled shutdown, the system is controlling the movable
`
`or mobile equipment. Thus, the system is an apparatus that exerts control, which is a
`
`control apparatus.
`
`41.
`
`Second, in my opinion, Frossard discloses a first control device that 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, and that the first control device is located at the vehicle
`
`as recited in claim 3. It is also my opinion that Frossard discloses a first control device
`
`that 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
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 15
`
`
`
`appliance, of a vehicle, that 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, and that
`
`the first control device is located at the vehicle as recited in claim 73.
`
`42. For example, Frossard’s “receiver-decoder circuits 4 for the order message to
`
`shut down this equipment” are a first control device. (Frossard, p. 5, ¶ 2.) The
`
`receiver-decoder circuits are depicted as element 4 in Figs. 1 and 4, and a detailed
`
`drawing of the receiver-decoder circuits is found in Fig. 2. Frossard also discloses that
`
`the receiver-decoder circuits receive a second signal—an “order message to shut
`
`down the equipment . . . .” (Id. p. 3, ¶ 3.) The receiver-decoder circuits send a first
`
`signal—as Frossard explains that a “controlled inhibition means” is “commanded by
`
`the receiver-decoder means” in order “to ensure that the equipment is switched to
`
`shutdown, startup, or standby status.” (Id. p. 3, ¶ 3.) Frossard further states that the
`
`receiver-decoder means “decodes this message” that it received “and addresses the
`
`corresponding commands to equipment 3 itself, causing immediate or deferred
`
`shutdown depending on the application under consideration.” (Id. p. 9, ¶ 3.) The
`
`command from the receiver-decoder means is a signal for activating and deactivating
`
`a vehicle system, a vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device,
`
`and vehicle equipment.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 16
`
`
`
`43.
`
`In my opinion, Frossard discloses that the first signal is used for activating and
`
`deactivating a vehicle system, a vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component, a
`
`vehicle device, and vehicle equipment. Frossard states that “[a] controlled inhibition
`
`circuit 5 placed in the movable or mobile equipment and responding to receiver-
`
`decoder circuits 4 makes it possible to ensure that this equipment 3 is switched to
`
`either shutdown or startup or standby status . . . .” (Frossard, p. 5, ¶ 2.) Thus, the first
`
`control device (the receiver-decoder circuits) is capable of activating and de-activating
`
`a vehicle system, a vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device,
`
`and vehicle equipment.
`
`44. Frossard explains that “the movable or mobile equipment 3 is shown non-
`
`limitatively and solely by way of example by a motor vehicle.” (Id. p. 4, ¶ 4.) Thus,
`
`when the “equipment” described in Frossard is shutdown or started up, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that the entire motor vehicle is shut down
`
`or started up. And when the entire motor vehicle is shut down, that vehicle’s systems,
`
`equipment systems, components, devices, and equipment are also shut down.
`
`45. Frossard also discloses that the “the movable or mobile equipment 3 is shown
`
`non-limitatively and solely by way of example by a motor vehicle.” (Id. p. 4, ¶ 4.)
`
`Accordingly, person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the first
`
`control device is located at the vehicle.
`
`46.
`
`In my opinion, Frossard discloses that the first control device at least one of
`
`generates the first signal and transmits the first signal in response to a second signal,
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 17
`
`
`
`that 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, that the second signal is
`
`transmitted from the second control device to the first control device, and that the
`
`second signal is automatically received by the first control device as recited in claims 3
`
`and 73.
`
`47. Frossard discloses that the receiver-decoder circuits generate and transmit a
`
`command (the first signal) in response to a second signal, which is “an order message
`
`M to shut down this equipment 3.” (Frossard, p. 4, ¶ 4.) Frossard explains that “the
`
`RDS receiver described in Fig. 2 decodes this message and addresses the
`
`corresponding commands to equipment 3 itself, causing immediate or deferred
`
`shutdown depending on the application under consideration.” (Id. p. 9, ¶ 3.) Thus, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Frossard discloses the first
`
`control device generating the first signal in response to the second signal and that the
`
`second signal is automatically received by the first control device.
`
`48. Frossard explains that “message M to shut down equipment 3 may
`
`advantageously contain an identification flag, denoted by D in Fig. 1, this
`
`identification flag containing the personalized code assigned to equipment 3 followed
`
`by a command message MC for controlled shutdown of the equipment.” (Id. p. 6, ¶
`
`1.) Thus, Frossard discloses that the second signal (message M) can contain two
`
`components: an identification flag and a command message, also referred to as an
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 18
`
`
`
`“intervention order.” (Id. p. 7, ¶ 1.) But the first signal disclosed by Frossard does not
`
`include an “identification flag”; rather Frossard describes the first signal as
`
`“corresponding commands” that are sent to the equipment itself to shut it down. (Id.
`
`p. 9, ¶ 3.)
`
`49. Frossard discloses that “the system contains a resource 2 for selective
`
`transmission to the aforesaid equipment of an order message M to shut down this
`
`equipment 3.” (Id. p. 4, ¶ 4.) The “resource 2” is depicted in Fig. 1 as a network that is
`
`located remote from the vehicle which is depicted as element 3 in Fig. 1. (Id. Fig. 1.)
`
`50.
`
`In my opinion, Frossard discloses that the second control device at least one of
`
`generates the second signal and transmits the second signal in response to a third
`
`signal, that the third signal is at least one of generated by a third control device and
`
`transmitted from a third control device, that the third control device is located at a
`
`location which is remote from the vehicle and remote from the second control device,
`
`that the third signal is transmitted from the third control device to the second control
`
`device, and that the third signal is automatically received by the second control device
`
`as recited in claims 3 and 73.
`
`51. Frossard discloses that a user can “communicate the aforesaid access code and
`
`the corresponding intervention order to the server center 1, as shown I Fig. 1, via a
`
`telephone connection or a Minitel for example.” (Frossard, p. 4, ¶ 3.) The “telephone
`
`connection” and “Minitel” are two examples of a third control device, and the “access
`
`code and the corresponding intervention order” is an example of the third signal
`19
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 19
`
`
`
`which is transmitted from the third control device to the second control device (the
`
`server center and its network). Frossard discloses that “[t]he introduction of the
`
`access code in the server center and the noting of the corresponding intervention
`
`order may be effected either by an operator or in totally automatic manner without
`
`going beyond the scope of the present invention.” (Id. p. 4, ¶ 4) Thus, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that Frossard discloses that the third signal
`
`is automatically received by the second control device.
`
`52. Frossard discloses that “[t]he introduction of the access code in the server
`
`center and the noting of the corresponding intervention order may be effected by
`
`either an operator or in totally automatic manner without going beyond the scope of
`
`the present invention.” (Id. p. 4, ¶ 3.) Frossard further discloses that “the system
`
`contains a resource 2 for selective transmission to the aforesaid equipment of an order
`
`message M to shut down this equipment 3.” (Id. p. 4, ¶ 4.) As explained above, the
`
`“order message M” is an example of the second signal. The “resource 2” is the
`
`network that the server center uses to transmit the second signal to the first control
`
`device. Frossard also explains that “[t]he shutdown order is then validated by the
`
`server center 1 and next transmitted to the box of equipment 3 via message M
`
`described above.” (Id. p. 9, ¶ 3.) Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that Frossard discloses that the server center and its network (second
`
`control device) generates and transmits the second signal (message M) in response to
`
`the third signal (i.e. access code and corresponding intervention order).
`20
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 20
`
`
`
`53.
`
`In my opinion, Frossard discloses that the third control device (telephone or
`
`Minitel) is at a location remote from the vehicle and remote from the second control
`
`device (server center and network). Frossard explains that “a subscribing owner or
`
`authorized agent” can effect “controlled shutdown” of the equipment “from a central
`
`surveillance or remote intervention point.” (Frossard, p. 4, ¶ 2.) This is consistent with
`
`Figs. 1 and 4 which depict the telephone and Minitel being remote from the server
`
`(element 1) as well as the vehicle (element 3).
`
`Claim 20
`
`54.
`
`In my opinion, Frossard discloses that the apparatus provides at least one of an
`
`immediate control of and a deferred control of the at least one of a vehicle system, a
`
`vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment system,
`
`and a vehicle appliance. Thus, Frossard anticipates claim 20.
`
`55. Frossard discloses that the receiver-decoder “addresses the corresponding
`
`commands to equipment 3 itself, causing immediate or deferred shutdown depending
`
`on the application under consideration.” (Frossard, p. 9, ¶ 3) Frossard further
`
`discloses that “equipment 3 is shown non-limitatively and solely by way of example by
`
`a motor vehicle.” (Id. p. 4, ¶ 4.) Thus, Frossard discloses that the apparatus provides
`
`immediate and deferred control (by way of executing a shutdown). When the motor
`
`vehicle is shut down, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
`
`vehicle’s systems, equipment systems, components, devices, and equipment a
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
