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
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,549,130
`Filing Date: March 29, 1999
`Issue Date: April 15, 2003
`Title: CONTROL APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR VEHICLES AND/OR
`FOR PREMISES
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... .. l
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Formalities ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`Formalities ...................................................................................................... .. l
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party in Interest .............................................................................. 1
`Real Party in Interest ............................................................................ ..l
`
`Related Matters ....................................................................................... 1
`
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... ..l
`
`Fee.......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fee ........................................................................................................ ..l
`
`D. Designation of Lead Counsel and Back-up Counsel ............................... 2
`D.
`Designation of Lead Counsel and Back—up Counsel ............................. ..2
`
`E.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`F.
`
`G.
`G.
`
`Service Information ................................................................................ 2
`
`Service Information .............................................................................. ..2
`
`Power of Attorney .................................................................................. 2
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................ ..2
`
`Standing .................................................................................................. 2
`Standing................................................................................................ ..2
`
`Statement of Relief Requested .......................................................................... 2
`Statement of Relief Requested ........................................................................ ..2
`
`Summary of the Prior Art ................................................................................. 4
`Summary of the Prior Art ............................................................................... ..4
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B.
`B.
`
`C.
`C.
`
`D.
`D.
`
`Background of Relevant Technology ...................................................... 4
`Background of Relevant Technology .................................................... ..4
`
`Summary of Frossard ............................................................................. 4
`Summary of Frossard ........................................................................... ..4
`
`Summary of Pagliaroli ............................................................................. 5
`Summary of Pagliaroli ........................................................................... ..5
`
`Statement of Non-redundancy ................................................................ 5
`Statement of Non—redundancy .............................................................. ..5
`
`IV. Motivations to Combine ................................................................................... 6
`
`Motivations to Combine ................................................................................. ..6
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Summary of the ’130 Patent .............................................................................. 6
`Summary of the ’130 Patent ............................................................................ ..6
`
`VI. Factual Background .......................................................................................... 7
`Factual Background ........................................................................................ ..7
`
`VI.
`
`A. Declaration Evidence ............................................................................. 7
`
`Declaration Evidence ........................................................................... ..7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art of the ’130 patent ............................ 7
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art of the ’130 patent .......................... ..7
`
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 8
`
`Claim Construction ......................................................................................... ..8
`
`VII.
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The term “interface device” means “a device that allows
`components connected via the interface device to work
`together.”................................................................................................ 8
`
`VIII. Full Statement of the Reasons for the Relief Requested .................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`Claims 26, 29, 33, 42, 48, and 68 are anticipated by
`Frossard .................................................................................................. 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 26 and 48 .......................................................................... 9
`
`Claim 29 ..................................................................................... 16
`
`Claim 33 ..................................................................................... 16
`
`Claim 42 ..................................................................................... 17
`
`Claim 68 ..................................................................................... 23
`
`Claims 30 and 43 are rendered obvious by Frossard in view
`of Pagliaroli .......................................................................................... 24
`
`Claim 60 is rendered obvious by Frossard in view of Simms ................ 27
`
`Claims 26, 29, 30, 42, 43, and 48 are anticipated by
`Pagliaroli ............................................................................................... 32
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 26 and 48 ........................................................................ 32
`
`Claim 29 ..................................................................................... 41
`
`Claim 42 ..................................................................................... 42
`
`Claims 30 and 43 ........................................................................ 49
`
`Claim 33 is rendered obvious by Pagliaroli in view of
`Frossard ................................................................................................ 51
`
`Claim 60 is rendered obvious by Pagliaroli in view of
`Simms ................................................................................................... 53
`
`Claim 68 is rendered obvious by Pagliaroli in view of
`Frossard ................................................................................................ 56
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`IX. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 58
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................... ..5 8
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd., IPR2013-00064 (April 30, 2013) ..... 8
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................. 6
`
`Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................... 8
`
`TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc., Case IPR 2014-00261 (June 16,
`2014) ..................................................................................................................................... 3
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................................. 3, 32
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311........................................................................................................................ 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1) .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(a) .................................................................................................................... 3
`Other Authorities
`MPEP § 2143(C) ............................................................................................................ passim
`
`MPEP § 2258 I.G ................................................................................................................... 8
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)................................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`U.S. 6,549,130 (“the ’130 patent”)
`First Amended Complaint in Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v.
`Nissan North Am., Inc., No. 1:14-cv-523 (D. Del. 2014) (ECF No.
`5), served on Real Parties in Interest on August 21, 2014.
`Declaration of Mr. David McNamara
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`EP 0505266 to Frossard et al. (“Frossard”)
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Certified English translation of Frossard
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`U.S. 5,276,728 to Pagliaroli et al. (“Pagliaroli”)
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`U.S. 5,334,974 to Simms et al. (“Simms”)
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`Exhibit 1014
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`May 22, 2015 Final Office Action in Reexamination No.
`90/013,301.
`Select Office Action Responses from the 7,397,363 and 7,277,010
`patents
`Trevor O. Jones and Wallace K. Tsuha, “Fully Integrated Truck
`Information and Control Systems (TIACS),” Society of
`Automotive Engineers, 1983.
`Daniel Sellers and Thomas J. Benard, 1992 Proceedings of the
`International Congress on Transportation Electronics, “An
`Update on the OmniTRACS Two-Way Satellite Mobile
`Communications System and its Application to the Schneider
`National Truckload Fleet,” October 1992
`Alan Kay, “Computer Software,” Scientific American, 53-59, vol.
`251, no. 3, Sept. 1984.
`LeRoy G. Hagenbuch, Truck/Mobile Equipment Performance
`Monitoring Management Information Systems (MIS), SAE Technical
`Paper 861249 (1992)
`Dr. W.J. Gillan, PROMETHEUS and DRIVE: Their Implications for
`Traffic Managers, Transportation Road Research Lab UK 1989
`Curriculum Vitae of Mr. David McNamara
`
`Exhibit 1016
`
`List of Related Matters
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Through counsel, Petitioner petitions for institution of inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,549,130 (“the ’130 patent”) (Ex. 1001). The ’130 patent issued on April
`
`15, 2003, more than nine months before the filing of this petition. This petition is
`
`being filed within one year of the real parties in interest identified below being served
`
`with a complaint for infringement of the ’130 patent, which occurred on August 21,
`
`2014. See Ex. 1002. Thus, the ’130 patent is eligible for inter partes review.
`
`II.
`
`Formalities
`
`A. Real Party in Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), the real parties in interest are Nissan North
`
`America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’130 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 5,917,405 (“the ’405 patent”), 6,542,076
`
`(“the ’076 patent”), and 7,397,363 (“the ’363 patent”) overlap in subject matter and
`
`claim language. These patents have been asserted in 32 litigations, some of which have
`
`been terminated. Additionally, certain claims of these patents have been challenged in
`
`ex parte reexaminations, which are pending. Exhibit 1016 lists the litigation and ex-
`
`parte reexamination matters.
`
`C.
`Fee
`This petition is accompanied by a payment of $23,000 and requests review of 9
`
`claims of the ’130 patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.15. Thus, this petition meets the fee
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1). The Board is hereby authorized to charge
`
`
`
`any additional fees required by this action to Deposit Account No. 20-1430.
`
`D. Designation of Lead Counsel and Back-up Counsel
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner is David C. Holloway, Registration No. 58,011.
`
`Back-up counsel for Petitioner is Alton Absher III, Registration No. 60,687, both of
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP.
`
`E.
`Service Information
`A copy of the petition, in its entirety, is being served to the address of the
`
`attorney of record. Petitioner may be served via email to its lead and backup counsels,
`
`as well as Nissan-Joao-IPRs@kilpatricktownsend.com.
`
`F.
`Power of Attorney
`A power of attorney is being filed with the designation of counsel in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`G.
`Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’130 patent is available for inter partes review and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Relief Requested
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, this petition requests cancellation of claims 26, 29,
`
`30, 33, 42, 43, 48, 60, and 68 as follows.
`
`(1) Claims 26, 29, 33, 42, 48, and 68 are anticipated by Frossard. (2) Claims 30
`
`and 43 are rendered obvious by Frossard in view of Pagliaroli. (3) Claim 60 is
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`rendered obvious by Frossard in view of Simms. (4) Claims 26, 29, 30, 42, 43, and 48
`
`
`
`are anticipated by Pagliaroli. (4) Claims 33 and 68 are rendered obvious by Pagliaroli
`
`in view of Frossard. (6) Claim 60 is rendered obvious by Pagliaroli in view of Simms.
`
`The ’130 patent issued from App. No. 09/277,935, filed on Mar. 29, 1999,
`
`which is a continuation of App. No. 08/683,828, filed on Jul. 18, 1996, which is a
`
`continuation-in-part of App. No. 08/622,749, filed on Mar. 27, 1996, and a
`
`continuation-in-part of App. No. 08/587,628, filed on Jan. 17, 1996, which is a
`
`continuation of App. No. 08/489,238, filed on Jun. 12, 1996, which is a continuation
`
`of App. No. 08/973,755, filed on Jun. 8, 1993. The ’076 patent also claims the benefit
`
`of the priority of U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/187,735, filed Mar. 8, 2000 and U.S.
`
`Provisional App. No. 60/190,379, filed Mar. 17, 2000.
`
`Frossard was published in the French language on Sep. 23, 1992 and is thus
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a).
`
`Pagliaroli was filed on Nov. 6, 1991 and thus is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e). Although Pagliaroli was cited during prosecution of the related 08/587,628
`
`and 08/973,755 applications, Pagliaroli was not relied upon by the Examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ’076 patent. Thus, Pagliaroli was not applied in any manner to any
`
`of the claims. See TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc., Case IPR 2014-
`
`00261, p. 6 (Decision to Initiate Trial for Inter Partes Review, June 16, 2014).
`
`Simms was filed on Feb. 6, 1992 and thus is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Summary of the Prior Art
`A. Background of Relevant Technology
`The art generally relates to systems capable of performing control operations
`
`on a remote object, such as a vehicle. (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 30-35.) The alleged invention
`
`described in the ’130 patent is a “control apparatus and method for vehicles and/or
`
`for premises.” (’130 patent, title) Representative claim 26 recites a “control apparatus”
`
`that performs well-known actions such as generating and transmitting signals between
`
`three devices, and using one of the signals to perform an action on a vehicle, such as
`
`activating a device on the vehicle. As described below, systems practicing these steps,
`
`alone and in combination, were well-known in the art before the priority date of the
`
`’130 patent.
`
`B.
`Summary of Frossard
`Frossard discloses “a system for controlled shutdown and for location of a
`
`movable or mobile equipment” such as a motor vehicle. (Frossard, Abstract.)
`
`Frossard discloses transmitting “an access code” and “corresponding intervention
`
`order” to a “server center… via a telephone connection or a Minitel, for example.”
`
`(Frossard, p. 4 ¶ 3.) The server center receives this signal and then transmits “an order
`
`message M to shut down this equipment,” such as “a motor vehicle.” (Id. p. 4, ¶ 4.)
`
`The vehicle includes “receiver-decoder circuits” that receive and decode this signal
`
`(Id. p. 5, ¶ 2.) One of these circuits then “addresses the corresponding commands to
`
`the equipment 3 itself….” (Id. p. 9, ¶ 3.)
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`Summary of Pagliaroli
`Pagliaroli discloses “a system through which a stolen, or otherwise
`
`misappropriated, vehicle can be remotely disabled….” (Pagliaroli, 2:39-41.) In
`
`particular, a receiver “is activated by theft detection sensors when the automobile is
`
`stolen.” (Id. 2:43-44.) “Once the owner of the automobile discovers that the
`
`automobile has been stolen, the operator dials a predetermined telephone number
`
`corresponding to the receiver. The number is then transmitted from the signal towers
`
`of the mobile telephone network in use. The receiver receives the transmitted
`
`signal….” (Id. 2:47-52.) “If the transmitted signal matches the disabling code, the
`
`automobile is disabled.” (Id. 2:54-55.)
`
`D.
`Statement of Non-redundancy
`The grounds using Frossard and Pagliaroli as a primary reference, respectively,
`
`are meaningfully distinct. Although both references disclose the claimed three control
`
`devices and signals, each reference discloses different types of control devices and
`
`different types of signals. Frossard describes a server center that interfaces with a
`
`network to provide an order message. In comparison, Pagliaroli describes that, within
`
`a network, a mobile telephone signal transmitter provides a signal code. Each of the
`
`server center and the mobile telephone signal transmitter discloses the claimed second
`
`control device of claims 26, 42, and 48. However, the Patent Owner may attempt to
`
`distinguish the claimed second control device by limiting it to one of the two network
`
`architectures. Thus, all grounds should be instituted for this reason. Additionally,
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Frossard describes a user utilizing code personalized to the user to provide control
`
`
`
`over the vehicle. In comparison, Pagliaroli describes that the user dials a phone
`
`number of the vehicle (e.g., of a receiver installed in the vehicle) to provide the
`
`control over the vehicle. Each of the code and the dialed phone number discloses the
`
`claimed third signal of claim 26 and 48 and the claimed first signal of claim 42.
`
`However, the Patent Owner may attempt to distinguish the claimed first/third signal
`
`by limiting it to include a particular signal type (e.g., personalized or non-personalized
`
`signal relative to the user). For this additional reason, all grounds should be instituted.
`
`IV. Motivations to Combine
`For the reasons further explained in Part VIII, infra, one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have been motivated to combine Frossard and Pagliaroli and Simms. A
`
`combination of familiar elements according to known methods which yields no more
`
`than predictable results is usually obvious to one of skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). One rationale for such an obviousness finding is
`
`where use of a known technique improves similar devices (methods, or products) in
`
`the intended way. See KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 417-18; see also MPEP § 2143(C).
`
`V.
`
`Summary of the ’130 Patent
`The ’130 patent relates to a “[c]ontrol apparatus and method” that includes
`
`three “control device[s],” each of which generates and/or transmits a signal. (’130
`
`patent, Abstract.) The first control device is “located at a vehicle or premises” and
`
`generates and/or transmits a first signal that is for “at least one of activating,
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`deactivating, disabling, and re-enabling, one or more of a plurality of at least one of a
`
`
`
`respective system, component, device, equipment, equipment system, and/or
`
`appliance, of a respective vehicle or premises.” (Id.) The first signal is generated
`
`and/or transmitted “in response to a second signal, generated and/or transmitted
`
`from a second control device.” (Id.) In turn, the “second control device is responsive
`
`to a third signal generated and/or transmitted by a third control device located remote
`
`from the vehicle or premises and remote from the second control device.” (Id.)
`
`VI. Factual Background
`A. Declaration Evidence
`This petition is supported by the declaration of Mr. David McNamara. Mr.
`
`McNamara earned a B.S. in Engineering from the University of Michigan in 1973, and
`
`a M.S. in Engineering in Solid State Physics from the University of Florida in 1976.
`
`Mr. McNamara has over 30 years of direct technical experience in vehicle security and
`
`control systems like those in the claims at issue.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art of the ’130 patent
`B.
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have at least an undergraduate degree in
`
`electrical engineering (or similar field, e.g., physics), and two to three years’ industry
`
`experience in the general field of vehicle security and control systems. (Ex. 1003, ¶
`
`28.)
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. Claim Construction
`The ’130 patent is expired. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 9.) The Board’s review of the claims of
`
`an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review. Innolux Corp. v.
`
`Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd., IPR2013-00064 (SCM), 10 (April 30, 2013); see also
`
`MPEP § 2258 I.G (directing Examiners to construe claims pursuant the principles set
`
`forth by the court in Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321,
`
`1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Because the ’130 patent has expired, its claims and claim terms
`
`are properly given their “ordinary and customary meaning.” Philips, 415 F.3d at 1316
`
`(words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention).
`
`A. The term “interface device” means “a device that allows
`components connected via the interface device to work together.”
`“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 (emphasis
`
`added).) Various additional embodiments also include similar interfaces between
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`system components—see, e.g., Figs. 5A, 5B, 9 (depicting interfaces between vehicle
`
`
`
`components); Fig. 12 (interfaces 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). 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.”
`
`(Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 36-37.)
`
`VIII. Full Statement of the Reasons for the Relief Requested
`A. Claims 26, 29, 33, 42, 48, and 68 are anticipated by Frossard
`1. Claims 26 and 48
`Claim 26/ Claim 48
`[preamble] A control apparatus, comprising: See Frossard, p. 2, ¶ 1, p. 4, ¶¶ 1-4,
`Fig. 1, Fig. 4; Ex. 1003, ¶ 39.
`
`Frossard discloses a “control apparatus” in the form of 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.” (Ex. 1003, ¶ 39.)
`
`Claim 26 [A]/ Claim 48 [A]:
`[a] 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
`
`See Frossard, Figs.
`1, 2, 4, p. 3, ¶ 3, p.
`4, ¶¶ 2-4, p. 5, ¶ 2,
`p. 7 ¶ 3 – p. 8, ¶ 3,
`p. 9, ¶¶ 1-4, p. 10,
`¶¶ 2-4, p. 11, ¶ 3,
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`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, [of a vehicle,] 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,
`
`
`
`p. 14, ¶3; Ex. 1003,
`¶¶ 40-46.
`
`Frossard discloses a first control device, the “receiver-decoder circuits 4 for the
`
`order message to shut down this equipment.” (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.) 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. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 41.)
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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….” (Frossard, 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. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 42.)
`
`Frossard explains that “the movable or mobile equipment 3 is shown non-
`
`limitatively and solely by way of example by a motor vehicle.” (Frossard, 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. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 43.) And when the entire
`
`motor vehicle is shut down, that vehicle’s systems, equipment systems, components,
`
`devices, and equipment are shut down. (Id.)
`
`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.” (Frossard, p. 4, ¶ 4.)
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`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. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 45.)
`
`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.” (Frossard, p. 4, ¶ 4.) The “resource 2” is depicted in Fig. 1 as a network
`
`in communication with server (element 1). (Id. Fig. 1; Ex. 1003, ¶ 46.) Thus, Frossard
`
`discloses that the second control device (the server and network) generate and
`
`transmit the second signal. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 46.)
`
`Claim 26 [B] / Claim 48 [B]
`[b] 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,
`
`See Frossard Figs. 1, 2, 4;
`p. 3, ¶ 3, p. 4, ¶¶ 2-4, p.
`5, ¶ 2, p. 6, ¶ 1, p. 7 ¶ 1
`– p. 8, ¶ 3, p. 9, ¶¶ 1-4, p.
`10, ¶¶ 2-4, p. 11, ¶ 3, p.
`14, ¶3; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 47-
`49.
`
`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
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`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. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 48.)
`
`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.” (Frossard, 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; Ex. 1003, ¶ 49.)
`
`Claim 26 [C] / Claim 48 [C]:
`[c] 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, 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[.]
`
`See Frossard, Figs.
`1, 2, 4, p. 3, ¶ 3, p.
`4, ¶¶ 2-4, p. 5, ¶ 2,
`p. 7, ¶ 1-3, p. 9, ¶¶
`1-3; Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`50-53.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`by an operator or in t