`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT 6,549,130
`
`INVENTOR: Raymond Anthony Joao
`
`FILED: March 29, 1999
`
`TITLE: Control Apparatus and Method for Vehicles and/or for Premises
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUED: April 15, 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. 6,549,130 (“the ‘130 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 1015). 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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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 ‘130
`
`patent pertains at the earliest possible priority date for the ‘130 patent, which I am
`
`informed is June 8, 1993.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that the ‘130 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
`
`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 ’130 patent and its prosecution history. I have also reviewed
`
`various materials, including the following:
`
`15. Exhibit 1004 EP 0505266 to Frossard et al. (“Frossard”)
`
`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 May 22, 2015 Final Office Action in Reexamination No.
`
`90/013,301
`
`20. Exhibit 1009 Select Office Action Responses from the 7,397,363 and
`
`7,277,010 patents.
`
`21. Additionally, I have reviewed Trevor O. Jones & Wallace K. Tsuha, Fully
`
`Integrated Truck Information and control Systems (TIACS), SAE Technical Paper 831775
`
`(1983) (Exhibit 1010);
`
`22.
`
`I have reviewed 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 1011);
`
`23.
`
`I have also reviewed Alan Kay, “Computer Software,” Scientific American, 53-
`
`59, vol. 251, no. 3, Sept. 1984 (Exhibit 1012); LeRoy G. Hagenbuch, Truck/Mobile
`
`Equipment Performance Monitoring Management Information Systems (MIS), SAE Technical
`
`Paper 861249 (1992) (Exhibit 1013);
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 7
`
`
`
`24.
`
`I have also reviewed Dr. W.J. Gillan, PROMETHEUS and DRIVE: Their
`
`Implications for Traffic Managers, Transportation Road Research Lab UK 1989 (Exhibit
`
`1014).
`
`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,
`
`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 ‘130 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 known
`
`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
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 9
`
`
`
`“location 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.
`
`1014).
`
`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. 1010, 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.
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 14).
`
`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
`
`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. 1011).
`
`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.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, term “interface device” means “a device that allows
`
`components connected via the interface device to work together.”
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, “interface device,” as used in the 130 patent, should be defined
`
`to mean “a device that allows components connected via the interface device to work
`
`together.” The ’130 patent includes several examples of interface devices, such as the
`
`ignition system interface, fuel pump system interface, and vehicle equipment system(s)
`
`interface—depicted as elements 8, 10, and 12 in Fig. 1. The patent goes on to state
`
`that “any of the interface devices 8, 10, and 12 may include any of the requisite
`
`interfacing circuitry which may be necessary to facilitate CPU 4 control over the
`
`respective systems which may be utilized.” (’130 patent, 25:6-10.) Various additional
`
`embodiments also include similar interfaces between system components—see, e.g.,
`
`Figs. 5A, 5B, 9 (depicting interfaces between vehicle components); Fig. 12 (interfaces
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 13
`
`
`
`between boat components); Fig. 13 (interfaces between airplane components); Fig. 14
`
`(interfaces between snowmobile components); Fig. 15 (interfaces between home or
`
`premises control components); Fig. 16 (interfaces between office or commercial
`
`premises control components). Thus, based on the intrinsic record, one of skill in the
`
`art would understand that “interface device” means “a device that allows components
`
`connected via the interface device to work together.”
`
`The Frossard Reference
`
`38. As discussed further below, in my opinion, Frossard anticipates claims 26, 29,
`
`33, 42, 48, and 68 of the ’130 patent.
`
`Claims 26 and 48
`
`39. First, in my opinion, Frossard discloses a control apparatus as recited in claims
`
`26 and 48. 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.
`
`40.
`
`Second, in my opinion, Frossard discloses a first control device, that 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,
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 14
`
`
`
`and a vehicle appliance, of a vehicle, that the first control device is located at the
`
`vehicle, that the first control device is responsive to a second signal, that the second
`
`signal is at least one of generated by and transmitted from a second control device,
`
`that 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 that the second signal is automatically received by the first
`
`control device as recited in claim 26. It is also my opinion that Frossard discloses a
`
`first control device, that 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, that 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, that the first control device is located at the vehicle, that the first
`
`control device is responsive to a second signal, and that the second signal is at least
`
`one of generated by and transmitted from a second control device as recited in claim
`
`48.
`
`41. 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
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 15
`
`
`
`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.) 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.
`
`42. 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, explaining 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….” (Id. p. 5, ¶ 2.) Thus, the first control device (Frossard’s receiver-
`
`decoder circuits) device is capable of activating and de-activating a vehicle system, a
`
`vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, and vehicle
`
`equipment.
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 16
`
`
`
`43. 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, 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 shut down.
`
`44. Frossard also discloses that the first control device is located at the vehicle,
`
`explaining 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.)
`
`45. 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.” (Id. 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, Frossard discloses the
`
`first control device generating the first signal in response to the second signal.
`
`46. Frossard also 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 in
`
`communication with server (element 1). (Id. Fig. 1.) Thus, Frossard discloses that the
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 17
`
`
`
`second control device (the server and network) generate and transmit the second
`
`signal.
`
`47.
`
`In my opinion, Frossard discloses that the second control device is responsive
`
`to a third signal, that the third signal is at least one of generated by 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
`
`claim 26. In my opinion, Frossard also discloses that 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 that the
`
`second signal is automatically received by the first control device as recited in claim
`
`48.
`
`48.
`
`In my opinion, 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, Frossard discloses the second control device transmits the second signal to the
`
`first control device, which automatically receives the second signal.
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 18
`
`
`
`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 is responsive
`
`to a third signal, that the third signal is at least one of generated by 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 26 and 48.
`
`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.” (Id. p. 4, ¶ 3.) The telephone 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 which is
`
`transmitted from the third control device to the second control device (the server
`
`center). 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) (emphasis added.) Thus, Frossard discloses that
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 19
`
`
`
`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, Frossard discloses that the server center and
`
`network (second control device) generate and transmit the second signal (message M)
`
`in response to the third signal (access code and corresponding intervention order).
`
`53. 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). (Frossard, Fig. 1.) Frossard explains that “a subscribing owner or authorized
`
`agent” can effect “controlled shutdown” of the equipment “from a central
`
`surveillance or remote intervention point.” (Id. 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).
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 20
`
`
`
`54.
`
`In my opinion, Frossard discloses 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 as recited
`
`in claim 26.
`
`55. For example, Frossard discloses that the receiver-decoder means (first control
`
`device) “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.” (Frossard, p. 9, ¶ 3.) One of skill in the art
`
`would understand that the command from the receiver-decoder means is a signal for
`
`activating and deactivating a vehicle system, a vehicle equipment system, a vehicle
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 21
`
`
`
`component, a vehicle device, and vehicle equipment. One of skill in the art would
`
`understand that the vehicle system, a vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component,