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
`________________
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE OF PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________
`
`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
`________________
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE OF PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 2
`
` A. Overview of the ‘130 Patent .......................................................................... 2
`
` B. Prosecution History of the ‘130 Patent .......................................................... 3
`
` C. Petition Overview .......................................................................................... 4
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................. 10
`
` A. Legal Standards ............................................................................................ 10
`
` B. Petitioner has Failed to Submit Claim Constructions for Key Terms
` Supporting its Invalidity Arguments ........................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` C. “interface device” ......................................................................................... 18
`
` D. “control device” ........................................................................................... 18
`
` 1. Each “control device” is separate and distinct from the claimed vehicle
` systems being controlled .......................................................................... 19
`
`
`
` 2. Each “control device” is separate and distinct from the communication
` system or the communication network, or any component of same, on,
` over, via, or in conjunction with, which they operate ............................. 21
`
`
`
` 3. Each “control device” is separate and distinct from an
`
`
`
`i i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` “interface device” ..................................................................................... 33
`
` E. “remote” ....................................................................................................... 38
`
` F. “located at” ................................................................................................... 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. THE PROPOSED GROUNDS FAIL TO MEET THE BURDEN OF
` SHOWING A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PREVAILING ............... 40
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. Frossard fails to teach the “first control device” of claims 26 and 48,
` and the “third control device” of claim 42 .............................................. 40
`
` A. Ground 1 ...................................................................................................... 40
`
` B. Ground 2 ...................................................................................................... 43
`
` C. Ground 3 ...................................................................................................... 44
`
` D. Ground 4 ...................................................................................................... 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. Pagliaroli fails to teach the “second control device” of claims 26, 42
` and 48 ....................................................................................................... 44
`
`
`
`
`
` E. Ground 5 ....................................................................................................... 46
`
` F. Ground 6 ....................................................................................................... 46
`
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 47
`
`
`
`ii ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`Exhibit
`
`EX2001
`
`EX2002
`
`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
`
`
`
`iii iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC (“JCMS”)
`
`respectfully submits this Preliminary Response of Patent Owner (“Preliminary
`
`Response”) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107. This
`
`Preliminary Response responds to the Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“Petition”) filed by Petitioner regarding claims 26, 29, 30, 33, 42, 43, 48, 60 and
`
`68 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130 (“the ‘130 Patent”).
`
`
`
`This Preliminary Response is timely filed under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.107, as it is filed within three months of the July 10, 2015 date of the
`
`Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper No. 3).
`
`
`
`JCMS requests that the Board not institute an inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`
`with respect to any of the Challenged Claims, thereby failing to meet the
`
`threshold for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`The six proposed grounds of rejection are substantively flawed, in that
`
`none of the cited references teach important properly construed claim limitations.
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. David McNamara, makes statements and opines on
`
`issues related to: (1) the state of the art at the time of the invention; (2) the prior
`
`art used in Petitioner’s grounds of rejection; and (3) how the prior art renders the
`
`claims obvious. However, Petitioner has failed to propose claim constructions
`
`for certain key terms in the claims that support Dr. McNamara’s opinions, and
`
`that support Petitioner’s invalidity arguments. As such, Dr. McNamara’s analysis
`
`and declaration is fundamentally flawed and should be given no weight.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s failure to construe certain key terms renders an evaluation of
`
`the merits of Petitioner’s invalidity arguments impossible. This failure alone is
`
`sufficient reason to deny institution of inter partes review.
`
`
`
`In the end, the Petition is materially deficient and fails to set forth
`
`sufficient evidence that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with
`
`respect to any of the Challenged Claims, as required under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`JCMS respectfully submits that the Board should conserve resources by declining
`
`to institute this meritless proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Overview of the ‘130 Patent
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Petition Overview
`
`Petitioner has proposed six grounds of invalidity and relies on the
`
`following three references:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EP 0505266 to Frossard et al. (“Frossard”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,276,728 to Pagliaroli et al. (“Pagliaroli”); and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,334,974 to Simms et al. (“Simms”).
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The table below summarizes Petitioner’s grounds of invalidity.
`
`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
`
`Claims 26, 42 and 48 are independent claims. 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
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`
`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
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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;
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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:
`
`
`
`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,
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`of
`
`the claims
`
`themselves,
`
`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
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner has Failed to Submit Claim Constructions for Key
`Terms Supporting its Invalidity Arguments
`The Board has previously emphasized that if the Petitioner do not explain
`
`
`
`how the Challenged Claims should be construed and how they read on the prior
`
`art, then a reasonable likelihood of success is not established:
`
`“It is the Petitioner’s burden to explain how the
`
`Challenged Claims are to be construed and how they
`
`read on the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)-(5).
`
`Petitioner has not done so sufficiently on this record
`
`with respect to the limitation of claims 1, 45, 46, and 47
`
`requiring a “color changing cycle.” Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`
`of success in showing the subject matter of claims 1-11,
`
`26-34, and 45-47 would have been obvious in view of
`
`Wu and Chliwnyj.” Jiawei Technology (HK) LTD. et al
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v. Simon Nicholas Richmond, IPR2014-00937, Paper 22
`
`at 8.
`
`
`
`Similarly, Petitioner has failed to propose claim constructions for certain
`
`key terms in the claims, and thus has failed to provide constructions for key terms
`
`that support Dr. Bennett’s opinions, and that support Petitioner’s invalidity
`
`arguments. Petitioner’s failure to construe these key terms renders an evaluation
`
`of the merits of Petitioner’s obviousness arguments impossible, and thus
`
`Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in showing
`
`that any of the claims of the ‘130 Patent are anticipated or obvious in view of the
`
`art cited in Grounds 1-6.
`
`
`
`Below are Patent Owner’s proposed constructions for the following key
`
`terms, which Patent Owner submits are necessary to properly evaluate the merits
`
`of Petitioner’s obviousness arguments: (1) “control device;” (2) “remote”; and (3)
`
`“located at.” As discussed supra, these key terms were defined by the Applicant
`
`in the Preliminary Remarks filed by Applicant on November 26, 2006 during
`
`prosecution of the patent application that issued as the ‘010 Patent (EX2001) and
`
`in the First Remarks filed on November 23, 2007 during prosecution of the patent
`
`application that issued as the ‘363 Patent (EX2002). These definitions provided
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by the Applicant during prosecution of the related ‘010 Patent and ‘363 Patent
`
`constitute intrinsic evidence regarding the construction of these key claim terms.
`
`
`
`Although the submissions were made during prosecution of the ‘363 Patent
`
`and the ‘010 Patent, the ‘130 Patent is in the priority chain of the ‘363 and ‘010
`
`Patents, and thus all these patents share common grandparent applications
`
`(Application Nos. 08/587,628, 08/622,749, 08/489,238 (Patent No. 5,513,244)
`
`and 08/073,755). The Federal Circuit has stated that “[w]hen the application of
`
`prosecution disclaimer involves statements from prosecution of a familial patent
`
`relating to the same subject matter as the claim language at issue in the patent
`
`being construed, those statements in the familial application are relevant in
`
`construing the claims at issue.” Ormco Corporation v. Align Technology, Inc.,
`
`498 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This principle has been used to apply
`
`statements from child applications to ancestor applications:
`
`Any statement of the patentee in the prosecution of a
`
`related application as to the scope of the invention
`
`would be relevant to claim construction, and the
`
`relevance of the statement made in this instance is
`
`enhanced by the fact that it was made in an official
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proceeding in which the patentee had every incentive to
`
`exercise care in characterizing the scope of its invention.
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that Multi-tech’s statements
`
`made during the prosecution of the ‘627 patent with
`
`regard to the scope of it inventions as disclosed in the
`
`common specification are relevant not only to the ‘627
`
`and ‘532 patents, but also to the earlier issued ‘649
`
`patent.
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004); see also Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Vonage Holdings
`
`Corp., 518 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1316 (D. Kan. 2007)(“[T]he court will consider the
`
`possibility that statements made during prosecution of the child ‘928 patent are
`
`relevant to construing the same claim terms in the ancestor ‘429 and ‘064 patent
`
`claims.”). With regards to multiple sibling applications (applications that stem
`
`from a common parent application), if a statement is made during prosecution of
`
`one sibling application, that statement can be applied to a second sibling
`
`application, even though the second sibling application issued before the first
`
`sibling application. Id. at 1350 (“Furthermore, even though the ‘649 patent had
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`already issued, we think that it is not unsound to apply the same interpretation to
`
`that patent. We take the patentee at its word and will not construe the scope of
`
`the ‘649 patent’s claims more broadly than the patentee itself clearly
`
`envisioned.”).
`
`
`
`If no ambiguity is found in the meaning of the terms of a claim after
`
`review of the specification and prosecution history, the inquiry is at an end. If
`
`uncertainty remains, extrinsic evidence (e.g., expert and inventor testimony), may
`
`be considered. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583.
`
`
`
`In his submission to the PTO, the Applicant also provided the column and
`
`line numbers where support for each of the definitions is located in the original
`
`specifications of the ‘363 and ‘010 Patents. By defining each of these terms in
`
`the prosecution history, the ’130, ‘010 and ‘363 Applicant has chosen to be his
`
`own lexicographer. See CCS Fitness Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
`
`1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A] claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if
`
`the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of
`
`the disputed term...”). Moreover, in the Preliminary Remarks and First Remarks,
`
`the Applicant stated “[a]pplicant provides the following definitions for the
`
`following terms or phrases which appear in certain of the pending Claims.”
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, it is clear that the Applicant unequivocally and intentionally defined the
`
`disputed terms in the manner discussed infra.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`“interface device”
`
`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.” Patent Owner agrees
`
`with this proposed construction.
`
`D.
`
`“control device”
`
`The term “control device” appears in independent claims 26, 42 and 48 and
`
`
`
`
`
`its construction is necessary to interpret the meaning of the claims. Petitioner has
`
`offered no construction for this key term.
`
`
`
`As discussed supra, Applicant chose to be his own lexicographer and
`
`provided an explicit definition for the term “control device” in the First Remarks.
`
`EX2002 at 6. Accordingly, the term “control device” should be construed as “a
`
`device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs
`
`an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of
`
`operations, actions, or functions.” This proposed construction is consistent with
`
`Applicant’s definition of the term “control device” in the First Remarks, and is
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`also supported by and is consistent with the Specification of the ‘130 Patent,
`
`including the written description, the drawings and the claims. Further, “control
`
`device” is separate and distinct from (1) the claimed vehicle systems being
`
`controlled; (2) the communication system or the communication network, or any
`
`component of same, on, over, via, or in conjunction with, which they operate; and
`
`(3) an “interface device,” as discussed below.
`
`Each “control device” is separate and distinct from the
`1.
`
`
` claimed vehicle systems being controlled
`
`
`As discussed supra, 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.
`
`With reference to independent claims 26, 42 and 48, throughout the
`
`Specification and the intrinsic evidence, the “second control device” of claims
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26, 42 and 48 can be seen as being served by the “Server Computer 510” in
`
`Figure 5B, by the “Computer 970” in Figure 11A, and by either the “Server
`
`Computer 952” or the “Computer 970” in Figure 11B. EX1001 at 8, 16 and 17.
`
`As and for an example, Figure 11B clearly depicts an illustrative
`
`embodiment of Claim 48 showing the “first control device” as being the “CPU
`
`4”, showing the “second control device” as being either “Server Computer 952”
`
`or the “Computer 970”, and showing the “third control device” as being the
`
`“Home And/Or Personal Computer 150”. Id. at 17. Figure 11B also clearly
`
`depicts the CPU 4 as being a device separate and distinct from each of the
`
`various “Vehicle Equipment System(s) 11”, each of which can be controlled in
`
`one way or another by the separate and distinct CPU 4 (the “first control device”
`
`of Claim 48). Id. It is clear, throughout the Specification and the intrinsic
`
`evidence of the ‘130 Patent, that the CPU 4 (the “first control device” of claims
`
`26 and 48, and the “third control device” of claim 42), which is illustrated
`
`throughout the various embodiment of Figures 1, 5A, 5B, 9, 11A, 11B, 12, 13,
`
`and 14, is a device which is separate and distinct from any of the vehicle
`
`equipment systems 11 identified and described in the Specification and the
`
`intrinsic evidence. Id. at 3, 7, 8, 14 and 16-20.
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The CPU 4 (the “first control device” of claims 26 and 48, and the “third
`
`control device” of claim 42) is specifically described as being a separate and
`
`distinct entity from any of the numerous vehicle systems, vehicle components,
`
`vehicle devices, vehicle equipment, vehicle equipment systems, or vehicle
`
`appliances. See, for example, Col. 4, lines 64-67 of the ‘130 Patent, which
`
`provides:
`
`"Each of the vehicle equipment systems, if utilized in
`
`conjunc
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
