throbber
DOCKET NO:
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket