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 IPR2015-01509
`Patent 6,549,130
`________________
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01509
`Patent 6,549,130
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 3
`
` A. Overview of the ‘130 Patent .......................................................................... 3
`
` B. Prosecution History of the ‘130 Patent .......................................................... 4
`
` C. Representative Claims .................................................................................... 4
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................. 10
`
` A. Legal Standards ............................................................................................ 10
`
` B. “interface device” ......................................................................................... 12
`
`
`IV. DR. DAVID McNAMARA’S DECLARATION IS FUDAMENTALLY
` FLAWED ......................................................................................................... 16
`
`
`
` A. Dr. McNamara did not Review the Materials Required to Properly Reach
` his Conclusions and Opinions ..................................................................... 16
`
`
`
` B. Dr. McNamara has an Erroneous Understanding of the Standards to Use in
` Construing Patent Claims ........................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`i i
`
` C. “control device” ............................................................................................ 14
`
` D. “first signal,” “second signal” and “third signal” ........................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` C. Dr. McNamara’s Testimony Should be Given Little or No Weight .......... 19
`
`V. RESPONSE TO PROPOSED GROUNDS OF INVALIDITY ........................ 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` A. Nomenclature Used ...................................................................................... 19
`
` B. Ground 1 is Deficient ................................................................................... 20
`
` 2. Claims 29, 33, and 68 are likewise not anticipated by Frossard ............. 24
`
` C. Ground 2 is Deficient ................................................................................... 24
`
` D. Ground 3 is Deficient ................................................................................... 25
`
` E. Ground 4 is Deficient ................................................................................... 26
`
` 1. Frossard fails to disclose the “A to B to C” system/method of claims 26,
` 42 and 48 ................................................................................................. 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. Pagliaroli fails to teach the “A to B to C” system/method of claims 26, 42
` and 48 ....................................................................................................... 26
`
` 2. Claims 29, 30, and 48 are likewise not anticipated by Pagliaroli ............ 30
`
` F. Ground 5 is Deficient .................................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` F. Ground 6 is Deficient .................................................................................... 31
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 31
`
`ii ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`Exhibit
`
`EX2001
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`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 Transcript of March 15, 2006 Deposition of Dr. David McNamara
`EX2004 Transcript of March 16, 2006 Deposition of Dr. David McNamara
`
`
`
`EX2002
`
`
`
`
`
`iii iii
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`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 26, 29, 30, 33, 42, 43, 48, 60 and 68 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,549,130 (“the ‘130 Patent”) based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`Claims
`26, 29, 33, 42,
`48 and 68
`30 and 43
`60
`26, 29, 30, 42,
`43 and 48
`33 and 68
`60
`
`Proposed Rejections
`anticipated by Frossard
`
`obvious in view of Frossard and Pagliaroli
`obvious in view of Frossard and Simms
`anticipated by Pagliaroli
`
`obvious in view of Pagliaroli and Frossard
`obvious in view of Pagliaroli and Simms
`
`Petitioner’s assertion in Ground 1 that claims 26, 29, 33, 42, 48 and 68 are
`
`
`
`anticipated by Frossard is deficient. Frossard fails to disclose an “A to B to C”
`
`system as required by claims 26, 29, 33, 42, 48 and 68.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s assertion in Ground 2 that claims 30 and 43 are obvious over
`
`Frossard in view of Pagliaroli is likewise deficient. Pagliaroli fails to remedy the
`
`fact that Frossard fails to disclose, teach or suggest an “A to B to C” system.
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s assertion in Ground 3 that claim 60 is obvious over Frossard in
`
`view of Simms is also deficient. Simms fails to remedy the fact that Frossard fails
`
`to disclose, teach or suggest an “A to B to C” system.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s assertion in Ground 4 that claims 26, 29, 30, 42, 43 and 48 are
`
`anticipated by Pagliaroli is also deficient. Pagliarli fails to disclose, teach or
`
`suggest an “A to B to C” system as required by claims 26, 29, 30, 42, 43 and 48.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s assertion in Ground 5 that claims 33 and 68 are obvious over
`
`Pagliaroli in view of Frossard is likewise deficient. Frossard fails to remedy the
`
`fact that Pagliaroli fails to disclose, teach or suggest an “A to B to C” system.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s assertion in Ground 6 that claim 60 is obvious over Paglaroli
`
`in view of Simms is also deficient. Simms fails to remedy the fact that Paglaroli
`
`fails to disclose, teach or suggest an “A to B to C” system.
`
`
`
`Further, as will be discussed infra, it became apparent during cross-
`
`examination that Petitioner’s expert, Dr. 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 Dr. McNamara’s
`
`testimony little or no weight.
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC (“JCMS” or
`
`“Patent Owner”) submits this Response to Petitioners’ Petition and the Board’s
`
`Decision.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`A. Overview of the ‘130 Patent
`
`The ‘130 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 for vehicles, wherein
`
`control functions for a vehicle or for a vehicle system, vehicle component,
`
`vehicle device, vehicle equipment, vehicle equipment system, or vehicle
`
`appliance, of a vehicle, can be distributed among three separate and distinct
`
`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 component, vehicle device, vehicle equipment,
`
`vehicle equipment system, or vehicle appliance.
`
`A separate
`
`interface device can be optionally used
`
`to facilitate
`
`communications between one of the control devices and the separate fourth
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device of or at the vehicle, which is the respective vehicle system, vehicle
`
`component, vehicle device, vehicle equipment, vehicle equipment system, or
`
`vehicle appliance.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘130 Patent
`
`The patent application that issued as the ‘130 Patent was filed on March
`
`29, 1999. EX1001. The ‘130 Patent issued on April 15, 2003. Id.
`
`
`
`During prosecution of related U.S. Patent Application 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, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 26, 42 and 48 are the only independent claims challenged. They are
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`26. A control apparatus, comprising:
`
`
`
`a first control device, wherein the first control device at least one of
`
`generates 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 component,
`
`a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle
`
`appliance, of a vehicle, wherein the first control device is located at the vehicle,
`
`wherein the first control device is responsive to a second signal, wherein the
`
`second signal is at least one of generated by 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 is responsive to a third signal,
`
`wherein the third signal is at least one of generated by 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,
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`
`
`
`wherein 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, is at least one of a vehicle ignition system, a vehicle fuel pump system,
`
`a vehicle alarm system, a vehicle door locking device, a vehicle hood locking
`
`device, a vehicle trunk locking device, a wheel locking device, a brake locking
`
`device, a horn, a vehicle light, a vehicle lighting system, a refrigerator, an air
`
`conditioner, an oven, a vehicle window locking device, a video recording device,
`
`an audio recording device, a camera, an intercom device, a microphone, a locking
`
`device, a monitoring device for monitoring at least one of fuel supply, water or
`
`coolant supply, generator operation, alternator operation, battery charge level,
`
`and engine temperature, fire extinguishing equipment, radar equipment, hydraulic
`
`equipment, pneumatic equipment, a winch, a self-defense system, a weapon
`
`system, a gun, an electronic warfare system, a pumping device, sonar equipment,
`
`a locking device for preventing unauthorized access to a vehicle compartment,
`
`and landing gear.
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`42. A method for providing control, 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 a vehicle and remote from the second control device, 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 located at the vehicle, and
`
`further wherein the second control device is located at a location remote from the
`
`vehicle, wherein the second signal is automatically received by the third control
`
`devices;
`
`
`
`generating a third signal with the third control device in response to
`
`the second signal; and
`
`
`
`at least one of activating, de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling, at
`
`least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle
`
`equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle appliance, in response to
`
`the third signal,
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`wherein 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, is at least one of a vehicle ignition system, a vehicle fuel pump system,
`
`a vehicle alarm system, a vehicle door locking device, a vehicle hood locking
`
`device, a vehicle trunk locking device, a wheel locking device, a brake locking
`
`device, a horn, a vehicle light, a vehicle lighting system, a refrigerator, an air
`
`conditioner, an oven, a vehicle window locking device, a video recording device,
`
`an audio recording device, a camera, an intercom device, a microphone, a locking
`
`device, a monitoring device for monitoring at least one of fuel supply, water or
`
`coolant supply, generator operation, alternator operation, battery charge level,
`
`and engine temperature, fire extinguishing equipment, radar equipment, hydraulic
`
`equipment, pneumatic equipment, a winch, a self-defense system, a weapon
`
`system, a gun, an electronic warfare system, a pumping device, sonar equipment,
`
`a locking device for preventing unauthorized access to a vehicle compartment,
`
`and landing gear.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`48. A control apparatus, comprising:
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 component, a vehicle
`
`device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle
`
`appliance, of a vehicle, wherein the first control device at least one of generates
`
`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 component, a
`
`vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle
`
`appliance, wherein the first control device is located at the vehicle, and further
`
`wherein the first control device is responsive to a second signal, wherein the
`
`second signal is at least one of generated by and transmitted from a second
`
`control device,
`
`
`
`wherein the second control device is located at a location which is
`
`remote from the vehicle, and 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 is responsive to a third signal,
`
`wherein the third signal is at least one of generated by and transmitted from a
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Legal Standards
`A.
`The ‘130 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
`
`makes 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
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of
`the claims
`themselves,
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`“interface device”
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The term “interface device” appears in dependent claim 68, and
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is “a device that allows components
`
`connected via the interface device to work together.”
`
`
`
`In JCMS’ Preliminary Response, JCMS initially agreed with this proposed
`
`construction. However, upon further review of the intrinsic evidence, namely the
`
`specification of the 130 Patent, JCMS hereby proposes the following construction
`
`for the term “interface device:”
`
`“a device that can allow one device to control another
`
`device, or a device that can be used by a person to
`
`interact with another device, and which is either: 1) a
`
`device which may contain circuitry to facilitate a
`
`control of one device by another device; or 2) a device
`
`which may be programmable; or 3) a device which is
`
`connected to another device by a wired connection; or
`
`4) a wireless device which utilizes wireless technology;
`
`or 5) a device for allowing a user to enter information
`
`into another device.
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Support for the above construction for the term "interface device" can, for
`
`example, be found in the ‘130 Patent (EX1001) at Col. 24, line 65 to Col 25, line
`
`11; Col 18, lines 44-60; Col. 19, line 67 to Col. 20, line 11; Col. 24, line 65 to
`
`Col. 25, line 11; Col. 27, line 65 to Col. 28, line 15; and Col. 29, lines 46-60; and
`
`in the Drawings in Figure 1 (Interface device 2A, Ignition System I/F 8, Fuel
`
`Pump System I/F 10, and Vehicle Equipment System(s) I/F 12) and Figure 4
`
`(interface device 152); at Col. 24, line 65 to Col. 25, line 11; Col. 41, line 67 to
`
`Col. 42, line 16; and Col. 21, lines 46-67; and in the Drawings in Figure 1
`
`(Ignition System I/F 8, Fuel Pump System I/F 10, and Vehicle Equipment
`
`System(s) I/F 12); at Col. 15, lines 36-45; and Col. 65, lines 25-35; and at Col.
`
`18, lines 44-60; Col. 19, line 67 to Col. 20, line 11; and Col. 27, line 65 to Col.
`
`28, line 15.
`
`C.
`
`“control device”
`
`For purposes of its Decision, the Board adopted the express definition of
`
`
`
`
`
`“control device provided during prosecution of two patent applications related to
`
`the application that issued as the ‘077 Patent, which is “a device or a computer,
`
`or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or
`
`functions.” Decision at 9-10.
`
`
`
`JCMS respectfully submits that this construction should be adopted for the
`
`remainder of this IPR.
`
`D.
`
`“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 ‘130 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,
`
`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.” EX2015 at 23. (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, for purposes of
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`this proceeding, JCMS agrees with
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction of these terms, 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 generated by a third
` device”
`
`JCMS respectfully submits that these constructions should be adopted for
`
`
`
`the remainder of this IPR, as they are required to evaluate the merits of
`
`Petitioners’ arguments.
`
`IV. DR. DAVID McNAMARA’S DECLARATION IS
` FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED
`
`A. Dr. McNamara did not Review the Materials Required to
`
` Properly Reach his Conclusions and Opinions
`
`
`
`During Dr. McNamara’s cross-examination, it became apparent that Dr.
`
`McNamara had not reviewed the materials required for him to properly reach his
`
`conclusions and opinions. In his Declaration, Dr. McNamara indicated that he
`
`reviewed the prosecution history of the ‘130 Patent, as is required in order to
`
`properly construe the claims. EX1003 at ¶ 14. Yet, during cross-examination, Dr.
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`McNamara testified that he had, in fact, not reviewed the prosecution history of
`
`the ‘130 Patent, as evidenced by the following exchange:
`
`EX2003 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. Dr. McNamara has an Erroneous Understanding of the
`
` Standards to Use in Construing Patent Claims
`
`
`
`Dr. McNamara is not at all versed in the proper standards to use when
`
`construing patent claims. For example, Dr. 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:
`
`EX2003 at 151-152
`
`Q: . . . With respect to the '363 patent, if you turn
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
` incorrect?
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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, Dr. McNamara testified that he uses the “plain and
`
`ordinary meaning” standard for all patents, although it is not clear that he even
`
`knows what this standard is given his testimony.
`
`C. Dr. McNamara’s Testimony Should Be Given Little or No
`
` Weight
`
`
`
`The Board should give Dr. McNamara’s testimony little or no weight
`
`because, as discussed in detail above: (1) he did not 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. Nomenclature Used
`
`As the Board will note, each of the three challenged independent claims
`
`
`
`
`
`recite three control devices, with one control device located at the vehicle, and
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the other two control devices located remote from the vehicle. In claims 26 and
`
`48, the “first control device” is located at the vehicle, and the “second control
`
`device” and “third control device” are located remote from the vehicle. In claim
`
`42, the “third control device” is located at the vehicle, and “first control device”
`
`and “second control device” are located remote from the vehicle. In all three
`
`challenged independent claims, the “second control device” is the intermediate
`
`control device between the “first control device” and the “third control device.”
`
`
`
`For ease of explanation in the analysis below, the term “third control
`
`device” will be used to refer to the control device in the vehicle that receives a
`
`signal from the intermediate “second control device,” and the term “first control
`
`device” will refer to the control device remote from the vehicle that sends a
`
`signal to the intermediate “second control device,” with the understanding that
`
`claims 26 and 48 use the language “first control device” to refer to the control
`
`device at the vehicle, and claim 42 uses the language “third control device” to
`
`refer to the control device at the vehicle.
`
`B. Ground 1 is Deficient
`
`Ground 1 alleges that claims 26, 29, 33, 42, 48 and 68 are anticipated by
`
`
`
`
`
`Frossard. However, Patent Owner respectfully submits that Frossard fails to
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disclose every claimed element, as required under § 102, when the claim
`
`elements are properly construed.
`
`Frossard fails to disclose the “A to B to C” system/method of
`1.
`
`
` claims 26, 42 and 48
`
`
`
`As discussed supra in Section III.D, the “first signal,” “second signal” and
`
`“third signal” recited in claims 26, 42 and 48, are properly construed as:
`
`• “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 generated by a third device”
`
`Petitioner alleges that the claimed third control device at the vehicle is
`
`
`
`satisfied by Frossard’s “receiver-decoder circuits 4.” See Paper 1 at 10-11, 19-20.
`
`Petitioner further alleges that the claimed intermediate second control device is
`
`satisfied by the “resource 2” and “server 1” of Frossard. Id. at 14. Finally,
`
`Petitioner asserts that the claimed first control device is satisfied by the
`
`“telephone” or “minitel” shown in Fig. 1 of Frossard. Id. at 14 and 18. See also
`
`EX1005 at Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`Even though Petitioner asserts that the claimed second control device is
`
`satisfied by the “resource 2” and “server 1” of Frossard, the “resource
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
