`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`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. 5,917,405 (“the ‘405 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 1017). As shown
`
`in my curriculum vitae, I have devoted my career to the field of automotive electronics. I
`
`earned my Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT 5,917,405
`
`INVENTOR: Raymond Anthony Joao
`
`FILED: July 18, 1996
`
`TITLE: Control Apparatus and Methods for Vehicles
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUED: June 29, 1999
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 am familiar with Ford’s Voice Alert System launched in the early
`
`1980s that used voice synthesis technology, well known at that time, to provide
`
`audible “voice alerts”, such as the “door is ajar” activated by the electrical door
`
`switch. I also have conducted extensive research on motor vehicle interfaces to
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 2
`
`
`
`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
`
`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,
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 3
`
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`(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 ‘405
`
`patent pertains at the earliest possible priority date for the ‘405 patent, which I am
`
`informed is June 8, 1993.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that the ‘405 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 claims can be written in means-plus-function format and that
`
`claim terms written in this format are interpreted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). I
`
`further understand that means-plus-function claim terms are construed to cover the
`
`corresponding structure that is described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that if a claim limitation uses the word “means,” “step,” or
`
`another word that is a generic placeholder that is followed by functional language and
`
`not structural language, then that limitation should be treated as a means-plus-
`
`function limitation and construed under 35 U.S.C. §112(f),
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 5
`
`
`
`13.
`
`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.
`
`14.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 6
`
`
`
`15. 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 ‘405 patent.
`
`Materials Considered
`
`16.
`
`I have read the ’405 patent and its prosecution history. I have also reviewed
`
`various materials, including the following:
`
`17. Exhibit 1004 EP 0505266 to Frossard et al. (“Frossard”)
`
`18. Exhibit 1005 Certified English translation of Frossard
`
`19. Exhibit 1006 U.S. 5,276,728 to Pagliaroli et al. (“Pagliaroli”)
`
`20. Exhibit 1007 U.S. 5,334,974 to Simms et al. (“Simms”)
`
`21. Exhibit 1008 U.S. 4,373,116 to Shimizu et al. (“Shimizu”)
`
`22. Exhibit 1009 May 22, 2015 Final Office Action in Reexamination No.
`
`90/013,301
`
`23. Exhibit 1010 Select Office Action Responses from the 7,397,363 and
`
`7,277,010 patents.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 7
`
`
`
`24. Additionally, I have reviewed Trevor O. Jones & Wallace K. Tsuha, Fully
`
`Integrated Truck Information and control Systems (TIACS), SAE Technical Paper 831775
`
`(1983) (Exhibit 1011);
`
`25.
`
`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 1012);
`
`26.
`
`I have also reviewed Alan Kay, “Computer Software,” Scientific American, 53-
`
`59, vol. 251, no. 3, Sept. 1984 (Exhibit 1013); LeRoy G. Hagenbuch, Truck/Mobile
`
`Equipment Performance Monitoring Management Information Systems (MIS), SAE Technical
`
`Paper 861249 (1992) (Exhibit 1014);
`
`27.
`
`I have also reviewed Dr. W.J. Gillan, PROMETHEUS and DRIVE: Their
`
`Implications for Traffic Managers, Transportation Road Research Lab UK 1989 (Exhibit
`
`1015).
`
`28.
`
`I have also reviewed the IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Terms (4th ed., 1988) (Exhibit 1016.)
`
`29.
`
`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
`8
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 8
`
`
`
`30.
`
`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.
`
`31.
`
`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.
`
`32.
`
`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,
`
`such as physics, and two or three years of industry experience in the general field of
`
`vehicle security and control systems.
`
`33. 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 ‘405 patent.
`
`Background on the State of the Art
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 9
`
`
`
`34.
`
`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.
`
`35. 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
`
`“location services” and emerging cellular and satellite systems to add “messaging
`
`services” for two-way communications to the driver and vehicle.
`
`36.
`
`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
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 10
`
`
`
`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).
`
`37. 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.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 14).
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 18).
`
`38.
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 13
`
`
`
`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. 1012).
`
`39. 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.
`
`“Monitoring Device”
`
`Claim Construction
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, term “monitoring device,” as used in the ’405 patent, should be
`
`defined to mean “hardware or software that checks for or observes an occurrence
`
`and/or a situation associated with a vehicle and which may warrant providing notice,
`
`that is located at the vehicle.”
`
`41. Claim 2 of the ’405 patent recites:
`
`“The apparatus of claim 1, which further comprises:
`a monitoring device for monitoring at least one of the vehicle, vehicle
`operational status, vehicle operation, said one of a vehicle component, a
`vehicle device, a vehicle system, and a vehicle subsystem, a vehicle one
`of fuel supply, water supply, and coolant supply, one of electrical
`generator and alternator operation, battery charge level, engine
`temperature level, one of an electrical circuit and an electrical device,
`activity inside the vehicle, and activity outside the vehicle.”
`I understand that because claim 2 recites a “monitoring device for,” followed
`
`14
`
`42.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 14
`
`
`
`by functional and not structural language, this term should be construed pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) to cover the disclosed embodiments and equivalents thereof. Claim
`
`2’s recitation of “monitoring” provides no structure, much less sufficient structure to
`
`broaden the meaning of “device” beyond what the inventors possessed according to
`
`the specification.
`
`43.
`
`Instead, the specification of the ‘405 patent describes that “[t]he vehicle
`
`equipment system(s) 11 may also include monitoring device(s) for reading and/or
`
`monitoring the vehicle fuel supply, water and/or coolant supply, electrical generator
`
`and/or alternator operation, battery charge level, and/or engine temperature level
`
`and/or any other vehicle operation and/or system function. The monitoring
`
`device(s), in a preferred embodiment, has associated therewith a transceiver or
`
`transmitter/receiver system for transmitting data and/or information recorded and/or
`
`read by the monitoring device(s) to the user or operator and for receiving signals such
`
`as, for example, control signals, by which the user or operator may exercise control
`
`over the monitoring device(s).” (The ’405 patent, 24:4-15.) The equipment system(s) is
`
`illustrated in FIG. 1, copied herein below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. FIG. 1) (annotation added.)
`
`44. The specification of the ’405 patent goes on to state that “[t]he present
`
`invention may also be equipped with, and be utilized with, hardware and software
`
`necessary for providing self-monitoring functions, automatic control and/or
`
`responses to occurrences, providing automatic notice of an occurrence and/or a
`
`situation to an owner, user and/or authorized individual. In this regard, any and all of
`
`the embodiments described above may comprise a monitoring device, a triggering
`
`device and/or any other suitable device for detecting an occurrence and/or a situation
`
`which may warrant providing notice to an owner, user and/or authorized operator.”
`
`(Id. 73:66-74:8.)
`
`45.
`
`Further, the IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms
`
`defines “monitoring” to mean “[i]n communication, an observation of the
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 16
`
`
`
`characteristics of transmitted signals.” (Ex. 1016 at 599.) This dictionary was
`
`considered reliable by those of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention and
`
`this definition is consistent with the use of the term “monitoring” in the ‘405 patent
`
`and thus it is consistent with my understanding of the meaning of this claim term.
`
`46. Thus, based on the intrinsic record, in my opinion, one of skill in the art would
`
`understand that “monitoring device” means “hardware or software that checks for or
`
`observes an occurrence and/or a situation associated with a vehicle and which may
`
`warrant providing notice, that is located at the vehicle.”
`
`“Positioning Device”
`
`47.
`
`In my opinion, “positioning device,” as used in the ’405 patent, means
`
`“satellite-based global positioning device.”
`
`48. Claim 3 of the ’405 patent recites:
`
`“The apparatus of claim 1, which further comprises:
`a positioning device for determining location of the vehicle, wherein
`said positioning device is located at the vehicle.”
`49. Because claim 3 recites a “positioning device for,” followed by functional and
`
`not structural language, I understand that this term should be construed pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) to cover the disclosed embodiments and equivalents thereof. Claim
`
`3’s recitation of “determining location of the vehicle” provides no structure, much
`
`less sufficient structure to afford the use of “device” any breadth beyond what the
`
`inventors possessed according to the specification.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 17
`
`
`
`50.
`
`Instead, the specification of the ‘405 patent describes that “[t] he apparatus may
`
`also comprise a vehicle position and locating system receiver, which is employed for
`
`receiving and/or processing the data which is transmitted from the vehicle position
`
`and locating device.” (The ’405 patent, 5:15-18.) “The vehicle position and locating
`
`device may comprise a positioning system computer and a global positioning device
`
`with associated global positioning system receiver.” (Id. 5:19-21.) “The global
`
`positioning device may be utilized to locate and/or to track vehicle movement
`
`anywhere in the world.” (Id. 7:48-49.) FIG. 1 of the ’405 patent, copied herein above,
`
`illustrate the vehicle position and locating system receiver and the vehicle position and
`
`locating device (see elements 14 and 13, respectively). (Id. 25:9-32.). In comparison,
`
`FIG. 2 of the ’405 patent, copied herein below, illustrates the different components of
`
`the vehicle position and locating device including the global positing device (see
`
`element 22): “[t]he vehicle position and locating device 13, in the preferred
`
`embodiment, comprises a positioning system computer 21 and a global positioning
`
`device 22 with associated global positioning system receiver 23.” (Id. 25:46-49.) The
`
`specification of the ’405 patent goes on to state that “[t]he global positioning system
`
`receiver 23 receives the necessary signals from the global positioning satellites and/or
`
`satellite system(s) which are located in orbit above and around the earth. The signals
`
`which are received by the receiver 23 are processed by the global positioning device
`
`22, in a manner which is well-known to those skilled in the global positioning art.
`
`Once the vehicle position data or ‘raw’ data is calculated, the data is transmitted to, or
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 18
`
`
`
`read by, the positioning system computer 21.” (Id. 25:67-6:9.)
`
`
`
`(Id. FIG. 2) (annotation added.)
`51. Thus, the only embodiments disclosed in the specification describing
`
`
`
`“positioning device” as recited in claim 3 all show a satellite-based global positioning
`
`device. Accordingly, in my opinion, one of skill in the art would understand that
`
`“positioning device” means “satellite-based global positioning device.”
`
`“Voice Synthesizing Device”
`
`52.
`
`In my opinion, “voice synthesizing device,” as used in the ’405 patent, means
`
`“hardware or software that produces the sound of a voice and that is located at a
`
`vehicle.”
`
`53. Claim 11 of the ’405 patent recites:
`The apparatus of claim 1, which further comprises:
`
`
`
`19
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 19
`
`
`
`a voice synthesizing device for generating a voice message indicative of
`one of operation of the apparatus, statue of the apparatus, operation of
`said first control device, and operation of the vehicle.
`54. Because claim 11 recites a “voice synthesizing device for,” followed by
`
`functional and not structural language, I understand that this term should be
`
`construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) to cover the disclosed embodiments and
`
`equivalents thereof. Here again, the claim connotes no structure other than the
`
`presence of a generic device requiring the skilled artisan to turn to the specification
`
`for guidance.
`
`55. The specification of the ’405 patent describes that “the CPU 4 of the apparatus
`
`1 may respond to a user data transmission, command, or inquiry with a transmitted
`
`signal which may include digital as well as other data and may also include
`
`electronically synthesized voice data which is generated by a voice synthesizer 4B
`
`which is connected to the CPU 4 and the transmitter 4A as shown in FIG. 1. The
`
`transmitter 4A and optional voice synthesizer 4B may be utilized so as to provide
`
`information to an authorized user or operator which may include, but not be limited
`
`to, apparatus status, vehicle operation status, and the status of each vehicle system,
`
`equipment and/or device which is utilized in conjunction with the apparatus as well as
`
`vehicle position data.” (The ’405 patent, 21:28-51.) FIG. 1 of the ’405 patent, copied
`
`above, shows the voice synthesizer as element 4B. The specification of the ’405 patent
`
`goes on to state that “[i]t is also important to note that vehicle position data, which is
`
`received at the vehicle position system receiver 14, may be output via a printer, via the
`
`
`
`20
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 20
`
`
`
`computer display monitor and/or via a voice synthesized audio output via a speaker
`
`(not shown) which is connected to the vehicle position receiver system 14.” (Id.
`
`40:50-55.) The specification of the ’405 patent also explains that “[t]he present
`
`invention may also be equipped with, and be utilized with, hardware and software
`
`necessary for providing self-monitoring functions, automatic control and/or
`
`responses to occurrences, providing automatic notice of an occurrence and/or a
`
`situation to an owner, user and/or authorized individual. In this regard, any and all of
`
`the embodiments described above may comprise a monitoring device, a triggering
`
`device and/or any other suitable device for detecting an occurrence and/or a situation
`
`which may warrant providing notice to an owner, user and/or authorized operator. In
`
`this regard, the apparatus may provide a transmission of any appropriate signal from a
`
`transmitter and, if desired, from a voice synthesizer to the owner, user and/or
`
`authorized individual, or to the location of the individual. The signal utilized could be
`
`in the form of a communication transmission, depending upon the communication
`
`medium utilized, a telephone call, a voice message, a beeper and/or pager message, an
`
`Electronic mail message, a fax transmission, and/or any other mode of
`
`communication which may be utilized with any of the apparatuses, devices and/or
`
`components described herein.” (Id. 73:66-74:18.)
`
`56. Thus, the specification describes the voice synthesizing device being located at
`
`the vehicle. Accordingly, it is my opinion that one of skill in the art would understand
`
`that “voice synthesizing device” means “hardware or software that produces the
`21
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 21
`
`
`
`sound of a voice and that is located at a vehicle.”
`
`The Frossard Reference
`
`57. As discussed further below, in my opinion, Frossard anticipates claims 1 and 16
`
`of the ‘405 patent.
`
`Claim 1
`
`58.
`
`First, in my opinion, Frossard discloses a control apparatus for a vehicle as
`
`recited in claim 1. For example, Frossard discloses a “control apparatus for a vehicle”
`
`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.” 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.
`
`59.
`
`Second, in my opinion, Frossard discloses a first control device, wherein said
`
`first control device one of generates and transmits a first signal for one of activating,
`
`deactivating, enabling, and disabling, one of a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a
`
`vehicle system, and a vehicle subsystem, wherein said first control device is located at
`
`the vehicle, as recited in claim 1.
`
`60.
`
`For example, 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
`22
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 22
`
`
`
`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 component, a vehicle device, a vehicle system, and a vehicle subsystem.
`
`61.
`
`Frossard discloses that the first signal is used for activating and deactivating a a
`
`vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle system, and a vehicle subsystem,
`
`explaining that “[a] controlled inhibition circuit 5 placed in the m