UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 5,917,405
`Filing Date: July 18, 1996
`Issue Date: June 29, 1999
`Title: CONTROL APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR VEHICLES
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... .. 1
`
`Formalities ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`Formalities ..................................................................................................... .. 1
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party in Interest ............................................................................. 1
`Real Party in Interest ........................................................................... ..l
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`
`Related Matters .................................................................................... ..1
`
`Fee ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fee ....................................................................................................... ..1
`
`D. Designation of Lead Counsel and Back-up Counsel ............................ 2
`D.
`Designation of Lead Counsel and Back—up Counsel .......................... ..2
`
`E.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`F.
`
`G.
`G.
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 2
`
`Service Information ............................................................................. ..2
`
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................. 2
`Power of Attorney ............................................................................... ..2
`
`Standing ................................................................................................. 2
`Standing ............................................................................................... ..2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`III.
`
`Statement of Relief Requested ........................................................................ 2
`Statement of Relief Requested ...................................................................... ..2
`
`IV. Summary of the Prior Art ................................................................................ 4
`IV.
`Summary of the Prior Art .............................................................................. ..4
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B.
`B.
`
`C.
`C.
`
`D.
`D.
`
`Background of Relevant Technology .................................................... 4
`Background of Relevant Technology .................................................. ..4
`
`Summary of Frossard ............................................................................ 4
`Summary of Frossard .......................................................................... ..4
`
`Summary of Pagliaroli .......................................................................... 5
`Summary of Pagliaroli ........................................................................ ..5
`
`Statement of Non-redundancy ............................................................... 5
`Statement of Non—redundancy ............................................................. ..5
`
`V. Motivations to Combine .................................................................................. 6
`
`V. Motivations to Combine ................................................................................ ..6
`
`VI. Summary of the ’405 Patent ............................................................................ 6
`VI.
`Summary of the ’405 Patent .......................................................................... ..6
`
`VII. Factual Background ......................................................................................... 7
`VII. Factual Background ....................................................................................... ..7
`
`A. Declaration Evidence ............................................................................ 7
`
`Declaration Evidence .......................................................................... ..7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art of the ’405 patent .......................... 7
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art of the ’405 patent ........................ ..7
`
`VIII. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 8
`
`VIII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ ..8
`
`A.
`A.
`
`Claim 2: “monitoring device” ............................................................... 8
`Claim 2: “monitoring device” ............................................................. ..8
`
`i
`
`

`
`Claim 3: “positioning device” ............................................................. 11
`
`Claim 11: “voice synthesizing device” ............................................... 14
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`IX. Full Statement of the Reasons for the Relief Requested ............................... 16
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1 and 16 are anticipated by Frossard ...................................... 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 16
`
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 21
`
`B.
`
`Claims 2 and 17 are rendered obvious by Frossard in
`view of Pagliaroli ................................................................................ 27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 27
`
`Claim 17 .................................................................................... 31
`
`Claim 3 is rendered obvious by Frossard in view of
`Simms .................................................................................................. 32
`
`Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Frossard in view of
`Shimizu ................................................................................................ 35
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 16, and 17 are anticipated by Pagliaroli .......................... 39
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 39
`
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 46
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 52
`
`Claim 17 .................................................................................... 54
`
`X.
`
`Claim 3 is rendered obvious by Pagliaroli in view of Simms ....................... 55
`
`XI. Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Pagliaroli in view of Shimizu ................... 57
`
`XII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00064 (April 30, 2013) ......................................................................................... 8
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................................... 6
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc.,
`324 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................ 8
`
`Philips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................... 8
`
`Regents of Univ. of Minn. V. AGA Medical Corp.,
`717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................ 13
`
`TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.,
`Case IPR 2014-00261 (June 16, 2014) ................................................................................ 3
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`2015 WL 3687459 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 16, 2015) ............................................................ passim
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C § 112(f) .................................................................................................................. 8, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .............................................................................................................. 9, 10, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ............................................................................................................. 11, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1) ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(a) ....................................................................................................................... 3
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP § 2143(C) .............................................................................................................. passim
`
`MPEP § 2181 ............................................................................................................................. 8
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`MPEP § 2258 I.G ...................................................................................................................... 8
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`U.S. 5,917,405 (“the ’405 patent”)
`First Amended Complaint in Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v.
`Nissan North Am., Inc., No. 1:14-cv-523 (D. Del. 2014) (ECF No.
`5), served on Real Parties in Interest on August 21, 2014.
`Declaration of Mr. David McNamara
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`EP 0505266 to Frossard et al. (“Frossard”)
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Certified English translation of Frossard
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`U.S. 5,276,728 to Pagliaroli et al. (“Pagliaroli”)
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`U.S. 5,334,974 to Simms et al. (“Simms”)
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`U.S. 4,373,116 to Shimizu et al. (“Shimizu”)
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`Exhibit 1014
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`Exhibit 1016
`
`May 22, 2015 Final Office Action in Reexamination No.
`90/013,300
`Select Office Action Responses from the 7,397,363 and 7,277,010
`patents
`Trevor O. Jones and Wallace K. Tsuha, “Fully Integrated Truck
`Information and Control Systems (TIACS),” Society of
`Automotive Engineers, 1983.
`Daniel Sellers and Thomas J. Benard, 1992 Proceedings of the
`International Congress on Transportation Electronics, “An
`Update on the OmniTRACS Two-Way Satellite Mobile
`Communications System and its Application to the Schneider
`National Truckload Fleet,” October 1992
`Alan Kay, “Computer Software,” Scientific American, 53-59, vol.
`251, no. 3, Sept. 1984.
`LeRoy G. Hagenbuch, Truck/Mobile Equipment Performance
`Monitoring Management Information Systems (MIS), SAE Technical
`Paper 861249 (1992)
`Dr. W.J. Gillan, PROMETHEUS and DRIVE: Their Implications for
`Traffic Managers, Transportation Road Research Lab UK 1989
`IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, p.
`599 (1988)
`
`v
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1017
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Mr. David McNamara
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`List of Related Matters
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Through counsel, Petitioner petitions for institution of inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,917,405 (“the ’405 patent”) (Ex. 1001). The ’405 patent issued on June
`
`29, 1999, more than nine months before the filing of this petition. This petition is
`
`being filed within one year of the real parties in interest identified below being served
`
`with a complaint for infringement of the ’405 patent, which occurred on August 21,
`
`2014. See Ex. 1002. Thus, the ’405 patent is eligible for inter partes review.
`
`II.
`
`Formalities
`
`A. Real Party in Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), the real parties in interest are Nissan North
`
`America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’405 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 6,549,130 (“the ’130 patent”), 6,542,076
`
`(“the ’076 patent”), and 7,397,363 (“the ’363 patent”) overlap in subject matter and
`
`claim language. These patents have been asserted in 33 litigations, some of which have
`
`been terminated. Additionally, certain claims of these patents have been challenged in
`
`ex parte reexaminations and inter partes reviews, which are pending. Exhibit 1018 lists
`
`the litigation, ex-parte reexamination, and inter partes review matters.
`
`Fee
`
`C.
`This petition is accompanied by a payment of $23,000 and requests review of 6
`
`claims of the ’405 patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.15. Thus, this petition meets the fee
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1). The Board is hereby authorized to charge
`
`any additional fees required by this action to Deposit Account No. 20-1430.
`
`D. Designation of Lead Counsel and Back-up Counsel
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner is David C. Holloway, Registration No. 58,011.
`
`Back-up counsel for Petitioner is Alton Absher III, Registration No. 60,687, both of
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP.
`
`Service Information
`
`E.
`A copy of the petition, in its entirety, is being served to the address of the
`
`attorney of record. Petitioner may be served via email to its lead and backup counsels,
`
`as well as Nissan-Joao-IPRs@kilpatricktownsend.com.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`F.
`A power of attorney is being filed with the designation of counsel in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`G.
`Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’405 patent is available for inter partes review and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review.
`
`III. Statement of Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, this petition requests cancellation of claims 1, 2, 3,
`
`11, 16, and 17 as follows.
`
`(1) Claims 1 and 16 are anticipated by Frossard. (2) Claims 2 and 17 are
`
`rendered obvious by Frossard in view of Pagliaroli. (3) Claim 3 is rendered obvious by
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Frossard in view of Simms. (4) Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Frossard in view of
`
`Shimizu. (5) Claims 1, 2, 16, and 17 are anticipated by Pagliaroli. (6) Claim 3 is
`
`rendered obvious by Pagliaroli in view of Simms. (7) Claim 11 is rendered obvious by
`
`Pagliaroli in view of Shimizu.
`
`The ’405 patent issued from App. No. 08/683,828, filed on Jul. 18, 1996, which
`
`is a continuation-in-part of App. No. 08/622,749, filed on Mar. 27, 1996, and a
`
`continuation-in-part of App. No. 08/587,628, filed on Jan. 17, 1996, which is a
`
`continuation of App. No. 08/489,238, filed on Jun. 12, 1996, which is a continuation
`
`of App. No. 08/973,755, filed on Jun. 8, 1993.
`
`Frossard was published in the French language on Sep. 23, 1992 and is thus
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a).
`
`Pagliaroli was filed on Nov. 6, 1991 and thus is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e). Although Pagliaroli was cited during prosecution of the related 08/587,628
`
`and 08/973,755 applications, Pagliaroli was not relied upon by the Examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ’405 patent. Thus, Pagliaroli was not applied in any manner to any
`
`of the claims. See TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc., Case IPR 2014-
`
`00261, p. 6 (Decision to Initiate Trial for Inter Partes Review, June 16, 2014).
`
`Simms was filed on Feb. 6, 1992 and thus is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Shimizu issued on Feb. 8, 1983 and thus is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. Summary of the Prior Art
`
`Background of Relevant Technology
`
`A.
`The art generally relates to systems capable of performing control operations
`
`on a remote object, such as a vehicle. (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 34-39.) The alleged invention
`
`described in the ’405 patent is a “control apparatus and methods for vehicles.” (’405
`
`patent, title) Representative claim 1 recites a “control apparatus for a vehicle” that
`
`performs well-known actions such as generating and transmitting signals between
`
`three devices, and using one of the signals to perform an action on a vehicle, such as
`
`activating a device on the vehicle. As described below, systems practicing these steps,
`
`alone and in combination, were well-known in the art before the priority date of the
`
`’405 patent.
`
`Summary of Frossard
`
`B.
`Frossard discloses “a system for controlled shutdown and for location of a
`
`movable or mobile equipment” such as a motor vehicle. (Frossard, Abstract.)
`
`Frossard discloses transmitting “an access code” and “corresponding intervention
`
`order” to a “server center… via a telephone connection or a Minitel, for example.”
`
`(Frossard, p. 4 ¶ 3.) The server center receives this signal and then transmits “an order
`
`message M to shut down this equipment,” such as “a motor vehicle.” (Id. p. 4, ¶ 4.)
`
`The vehicle includes “receiver-decoder circuits” that receive and decode this signal
`
`(Id. p. 5, ¶ 2.) One of these circuits then “addresses the corresponding commands to
`
`the equipment 3 itself….” (Id. p. 9, ¶ 3.)
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`Summary of Pagliaroli
`
`C.
`Pagliaroli discloses “a system through which a stolen, or otherwise
`
`misappropriated, vehicle can be remotely disabled….” (Pagliaroli, 2:39-41.) In
`
`particular, a receiver “is activated by theft detection sensors when the automobile is
`
`stolen.” (Id. 2:43-44.) “Once the owner of the automobile discovers that the
`
`automobile has been stolen, the operator dials a predetermined telephone number
`
`corresponding to the receiver. The number is then transmitted from the signal towers
`
`of the mobile telephone network in use. The receiver receives the transmitted
`
`signal….” (Id. 2:47-52.) “If the transmitted signal matches the disabling code, the
`
`automobile is disabled.” (Id. 2:54-55.)
`
`Statement of Non-redundancy
`
`D.
`The grounds using Frossard and Pagliaroli as a primary reference, respectively,
`
`are meaningfully distinct. Although both references disclose the claimed three control
`
`devices and signals, each reference discloses different types of control devices and
`
`different types of signals. Frossard describes a server center that interfaces with a
`
`network to provide an order message. In comparison, Pagliaroli describes that, within
`
`a network, a mobile telephone signal transmitter provides a signal code. Each of the
`
`server center and the mobile telephone signal transmitter discloses the claimed second
`
`control device of claims 1 and 16. However, the Patent Owner may attempt to
`
`distinguish the claimed second control device by limiting it to one of the two network
`
`architectures. Thus, all grounds should be instituted for this reason. Additionally,
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Frossard describes a user utilizing code personalized to the user to provide control
`
`over the vehicle. In comparison, Pagliaroli describes that the user dials a phone
`
`number of the vehicle (e.g., of a receiver installed in the vehicle) to provide the
`
`control over the vehicle. Each of the code and the dialed phone number discloses the
`
`claimed third signal of claim 1 and the claimed first signal of claim 16. However, the
`
`Patent Owner may attempt to distinguish the claimed first/third signal by limiting it
`
`to include a particular signal type (e.g., personalized or non-personalized signal relative
`
`to the user). For this additional reason, all grounds should be instituted.
`
`V. Motivations to Combine
`
`For the reasons further explained in Part VIII, infra, one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have been motivated to combine Frossard and Pagliaroli and Shimizu and
`
`Simms. A combination of familiar elements according to known methods which yields
`
`no more than predictable results is usually obvious to one of skill in the art. KSR Int’l
`
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). One rationale for such an obviousness
`
`finding is where use of a known technique improves similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the intended way. See KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 417-18; see also MPEP §
`
`2143(C).
`
`VI. Summary of the ’405 Patent
`
`The ’405 patent relates to a “[a] control apparatus for a vehicle” that includes
`
`three “control device[s],” each of which generates and/or transmits a signal. (’405
`
`patent, Abstract.) The first control device is “located at the vehicle” and generates
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`and/or transmits a first signal that is for “one of activating, deactivating, enabling, and
`
`disabling one of a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle system, and a vehicle
`
`subsystem.” (Id.) The first signal is generated and/or transmitted “responsive to a
`
`second signal” which is “one of generated by and transmitted from a second control
`
`device.” (Id.) In turn, the “second control device is responsive to a third signal” which
`
`is “one of generated by and transmitted from a third control device” which is
`
`“remote from the vehicle and remote from the second control device.” (Id.)
`
`VII. Factual Background
`
`A. Declaration Evidence
`This petition is supported by the declaration of Mr. David McNamara. Mr.
`
`McNamara earned a B.S. in Engineering from the University of Michigan in 1973, and
`
`a M.S. in Engineering in Solid State Physics from the University of Florida in 1976.
`
`Mr. McNamara has over 30 years of direct technical experience in vehicle security and
`
`control systems like those in the claims at issue.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art of the ’405 patent
`
`B.
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have at least an undergraduate degree in
`
`electrical engineering (or similar field, e.g., physics), and two to three years’ industry
`
`experience in the general field of vehicle security and control systems. (Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`30-33.)
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`VIII. Claim Construction
`
`The ’405 patent is expired. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 9.) The Board’s review of the claims of
`
`an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review. Innolux Corp. v.
`
`Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd., IPR2013-00064 (SCM), 10 (April 30, 2013); see also
`
`MPEP § 2258 I.G (directing Examiners to construe claims pursuant the principles set
`
`forth by the court in Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321,
`
`1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Because the ’405 patent has expired, its claims and claim terms
`
`are properly given their “ordinary and customary meaning.” Philips, 415 F.3d at 1316
`
`(words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention).
`
`Further, means-plus-function claim terms are construed to cover the
`
`corresponding structure that is described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003). Each of dependent claims 2, 3, 11 recites a “device for” followed by functional
`
`language and no structural language. A “device for” is a generic placeholder and
`
`substitute of “means for.” See MPEP § 2181. Thus, dependent claims 2, 3, and 11
`
`should be construed under 35 U.S.C § 112(f).
`
`Claim 2: “monitoring device”
`
`A.
`“Monitoring device,” as used in the ’405 patent, should be defined to mean
`
`“hardware or software that monitors an occurrence and/or a situation associated with
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`a vehicle and which may warrant providing notice, that is located at the vehicle.” (Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 40.)
`
`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.”
`
`Because claim 2 recites a “monitoring device for,” followed 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. Williamson v. Citrix
`
`Online, LLC, 2015 WL 3687459, at *8 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 16, 2015) (“Generic terms such
`
`as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect nothing more
`
`than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using
`
`the word ‘means’ because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’
`
`and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6”) (internal citation omitted)). Claim 2’s
`
`recitation of “monitoring” provides no structure, much less sufficient structure to
`
`afford the use of “device” any breadth beyond what the inventors possessed
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`according to the specification. The specification of the ’405 patent instead 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. FIG. 1) (annotation added.)
`
`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
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`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.)
`
`Thus, based on the intrinsic record, one of skill in the art would understand
`
`that “monitoring device” means “hardware or software that monitors an occurrence
`
`and/or a situation associated with a vehicle and which may warrant providing notice,
`
`that is located at the vehicle.” (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 40-46.)
`
`Claim 3: “positioning device”
`
`B.
`“Positioning device,” as used in the ’405 patent, should be defined to mean
`
`“satellite-based global positioning device.” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 47.)
`
`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.”
`
`Because claim 3 recites a “positioning device for,” followed 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. Williamson v. Citrix
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`Online, LLC, 2015 WL 3687459, at *8. 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.
`
`The specification of the ’405 patent instead describes “[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
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`read by, the positioning system computer 21.” (Id. 25:67-6:9.)
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. FIG. 2) (annotation added.)
`
`Thus, the only embodiments disclosed
`
`in the specification describing
`
`“positioning device” as recited in claim 3 all show a satellite-based global positioning
`
`device. See Regents of Univ. of Minn. V. AGA Medical Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 936 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013) (emphasizing the presence of only one embodiment as supporting construction
`
`of a device with two disks). Accordingly, one of skill in the art would understand that
`
`“positioning device” means “satellite-based global positioning device.” (Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`47-51.)
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim 11: “voice synthesizing device”
`
`C.
`“Voice synthesizing device,” as used in the ’405 patent, should be defined to
`
`mean “hardware or software that electronically synthesizes voice data and that is
`
`located at a vehicle.” (Ex. 1003, ¶ 52.)
`
`Claim 11 of the ’405 patent recites:
`
`“The apparatus of claim 1, which further comprises:
`
`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.”
`
`Because claim 11 recites a “voice synthesizing device for,” followed 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. See
`
`Williamson, 2015 WL 3687459, at *8. 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.
`
`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