Nissan North America Inc. (Petitioner)
`v.
`Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC (Patent Owner)
`Case IPR2015-01508 / U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`Case IPR2015-01585 / U.S. Patent No. 5,917,405
`Case IPR2015-01645 / U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`Thursday, October 20, 2016
`
`1:00 PM, Courtroom A
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 1
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 1
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 1
`
`
`v.
`Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC (Patent Owner)
`Case IPR2015-01508 / U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`Case IPR2015-01585 / U.S. Patent No. 5,917,405
`Case IPR2015-01645 / U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`Thursday, October 20, 2016
`
`1:00 PM, Courtroom A
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 1
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 1
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 1
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001.
`* Where a Paper or Exhibit is present in all three IPRs, citation
`will be to IPR2015-01508
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 2
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 2
`
`
`
`1) ’076 and ’405 Patents - Frossard
`Claims – ’076 Patent
`Prior Art
`
`3, 20, 73, 103, and 205
`
`65
`93
`104
`108
`Claims – ’405 Patent
`
`1 and 16
`
`2 and 17
`
`3
`11
`
`Frossard (§ 102)
`
`Frossard + Pagliaroli
`Frossard + Drori
`Frossard + LeBlanc
`Frossard + Simms
`Prior Art
`
`Frossard (§ 102)
`
`Frossard + Pagliaroli
`
`Frossard + Simms
`Frossard + Shimizu
`
`IPR2015-01508, Institution Decision, Paper 10, at 25-26.
`IPR2015-01585, Institution Decision, Paper 11, at 25-26.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 3
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 3
`
`
`
`2) ’076 and ’405 Patents - Pagliaroli
`
`Claims – ’076 Patent
`
`Prior Art
`
`3, 20, 65, 73, 93, and 205
`
`Pagliaroli (§ 102)
`
`103
`
`104
`
`108
`
`Pagliaroli + Frossard
`
`Pagliaroli + LeBlanc
`
`Pagliaroli + Simms
`
`Claims – ’405 Patent
`
`Prior Art
`
`1, 2, 16, and 17
`
`3
`
`11
`
`Pagliaroli (§ 102)
`
`Pagliaroli + Simms
`
`Pagliaroli + Shimizu
`
`IPR2015-01508, Institution Decision, Paper 10, at 25-26.
`IPR2015-01585, Institution Decision, Paper 11, at 25-26.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 4
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 4
`
`
`
`3) ’363 Patent
`
`Claims - ’363 Patent
`
`Prior Art
`
`21, 24, 25, 36
`
`Frossard + Spaur
`
`22
`
`29
`
`Frossard + Spaur + Pagliaroli
`
`Frossard + Spaur + Simms
`
`21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 36
`
`Johnson + Rossmann
`
`IPR2015-01645, Institution Decision, Paper 11, at 20.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 5
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 5
`
`
`
`District Court Found Claims Invalid
`
`District Court Opinion and Order, Ex. 1022, at 15, 35.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 25, at 1-2.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 6
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 6
`
`
`
`Frossard Anticipates Independent
`Claims 3, 73, and 205 of the ’076
`Patent and Claims 1 and 16 of
`the ’405 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 7
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 7
`
`
`
`Frossard Anticipates the Independent Claims
`
`“Third Control Device” (076: claims 3, 73;
`405: claim 1)
`“First Control Device” (076: claim 205;
`405: claim 16)
`
`“Second Control Device”
`
`“First Control Device” (076: claims 3, 73;
`405: claim 1)
`“Third Control Device” (076: claim 205;
`405: claim 16)
`
`Frossard, Ex. 1005, Figure 1.
`IPR2015-01508, Petition, Paper 1, at 10-21.
`IPR2015-01585, Petition, Paper 1, at 16-26.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 8
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 8
`
`
`
`Frossard Anticipates the Independent Claims
`
`“Third Signal” (076: claims 3, 73;
`405: claim 1)
`“First Signal” (076: claim 205;
`405: claim 16)
`
`“Second Signal”
`
`“First Signal” (076: claims 3, 73;
`405: claim 1)
`“Third Signal” (076: claim 205;
`405: claim 16)
`
`Frossard, Ex. 1005, Figure 1.
`IPR2015-01508, Petition, Paper 1, at 10-21.
`IPR2015-01585, Petition, Paper 1, at 16-26.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 9
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 9
`
`
`
`Only Disputed Issue:
`
`Is this a “second control device”?
`
`Frossard, Ex. 1005, Figure 1.
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 21-24.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 10
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 10
`
`
`
`Frossard Anticipates Under Patent
`Owner’s Claim Construction
`Construction of
`Response
`“control device”
`“a device or a computer or
`that part of a device or a
`computer, which performs
`an operation, or a function,
`or which performs a
`number of operations,
`actions, or functions”
`
`If a “control device” can
`include “part of a device,”
`then a “control device”
`can include multiple
`parts—such as
`Frossard’s server 1 and
`resource 2.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 11.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 25, at 8.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 11
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 11
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 9, at 19.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 12
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 12
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Contradicts
`the Specification
`
`’076 Patent, Ex. 1001, at Fig. 11B; col. 58:45-60.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 25, at 8-12.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 13
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 13
`
`
`
`Frossard Discloses the “Second Control
`“Device” and “Second Signal”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 25, at 10-12.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 14
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 14
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rebuttal:
`
`IPR2015-01508, Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 20.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 15
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 15
`
`
`
`Why Patent Owner is Incorrect:
`
`Pagliaroli, Ex. 1006, at 4:54-5:13.
`McNamara Decl., Ex. 1003, at ¶ 107.
`IPR2015-01508, Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 25, at 13-14.
`IPR2015-01508, Petition, Paper 1, at 39-41.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 16
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 16
`
`
`
`Even under Patent Owner’s improper narrow interpretation, Frossard
`Discloses the “Second Control “Device” and “Second Signal”
`
`IPR2015-01585, Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 26, at 13-14.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 17
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 17
`
`
`
`Frossard Anticipates Claims
`20 and 103 of the ’076 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 18
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 18
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 20
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute that
`Frossard Discloses This Limitation
`Claim 20
`Frossard
`
`The apparatus of claim 3,
`wherein the apparatus
`provides at least one of an
`immediate control of and a
`deferred control of the at
`least one of a vehicle system,
`a vehicle component, a
`vehicle device, a vehicle
`equipment, a vehicle
`equipment system, and a
`vehicle appliance.
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 22.
`Petition, Paper 1, at 16.
`
`Frossard’s receiver-decoder
`“addresses the
`corresponding commands to
`equipment 3 itself, causing
`immediate or deferred
`shutdown depending on
`the application under
`consideration.” (Frossard, p.
`9, ¶ 3) (emphasis added.)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 19
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 19
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 103
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute that
`Frossard Discloses This Limitation
`Claim 103
`Frossard
`
`The apparatus of claim 73,
`wherein the apparatus is
`programmed for at least one
`of automatic activation, self-
`activation, automatic
`operation, and self-
`operation.
`
`“The introduction of the
`access code in the server
`center and the noting of the
`corresponding intervention
`order may be effected either
`by an operator or in totally
`automatic manner . . . .”
`(Frossard, p. 4, ¶ 3)
`(emphasis added.)
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 22.
`Petition, Paper 1, at 16-17.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 20
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 20
`
`
`
`Frossard + Pagliaroli Render Obvious
`claim 65 of the ’076 Patent and claims
`2 and 17 of the ’405 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 21
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 21
`
`
`
`’076 Patent: Dependent Claim 65
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute that Frossard
`+ Pagliaroli Discloses This Limitation
`Claim 65
`Pagliaroli
`
`The method of claim 205, further
`comprising:
`providing information regarding at least
`one of apparatus status, vehicle
`operation status, and status of the at
`least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle
`component, a vehicle device, a vehicle
`equipment, a vehicle equipment system,
`and a vehicle appliance.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 4:22-24.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 4:46-52.
`
`IPR2015-01508, Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 22.
`IPR2015-01508, Petition, Paper 1, at 22-25.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 22
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 22
`
`
`
`’405 Patent: Dependent Claim 2
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute that Frossard
`+ Pagliaroli Discloses This Limitation
`Claim 2
`Pagliaroli
`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.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 4:22-24.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 4:46-52.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 3:27-32.
`IPR2015-01585, Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 22, at 22-23.
`IPR2015-01585, Petition, Paper 6, at 27-31.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 23
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 23
`
`
`
`’405 Patent: Dependent Claim 17
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute that Frossard
`+ Pagliaroli Discloses This Limitation
`Claim 17
`Pagliaroli
`The method of claim 16, further
`comprising the step of:
`determining an operational status of at
`least one of the vehicle component,
`vehicle device, vehicle system, and
`vehicle subsystem.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 4:22-24.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 3:27-32.
`IPR2015-01585, Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 22, at 22-23.
`IPR2015-01585, Petition, Paper 6, at 31-32.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 24
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 24
`
`
`
`Frossard + LeBlanc Render Obvious
`Claim 104 of the ’076 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 25
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 25
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 104
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute that Frossard
`+ LeBlanc Discloses This Limitation
`Claim 104
`LeBlanc
`
`The apparatus of claim 103,
`wherein the apparatus utilizes at
`least one of an intelligent agent, a
`software agent, and a mobile
`agent.
`
`LeBlanc, col. 8:21-24
`
`LeBlanc, col. 10:19-24
`
`IPR2015-01508, Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 24.
`IPR2015-01508, Petition, Paper 1, at 28-31.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 26
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 26
`
`
`
`Frossard + Drori Render Obvious
`Claim 93 of the ’076 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 27
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 27
`
`
`
`Frossard + Drori
`
`Claim 93
`The apparatus of claim 73, wherein the first
`control device determines an operating
`status of the at least one of a vehicle
`system, a vehicle equipment system, a
`vehicle component, a vehicle device, a
`vehicle equipment, and a vehicle appliance.
`
`Drori
`
`Drori, col. 2:25-28.
`
`Drori, col. 16:57-65.
`
`IPR2015-1508, Petition, Paper 1, at 25-27.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 28
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 28
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Fail
`
`Patent Owner’s Rebuttal:
`
`IPR2015-1508, Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 23.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 29
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 29
`
`
`
`Frossard’s Receiver Includes a Transmitter
`
`Why Patent Owner is Incorrect:
`
`IPR2015-1508, Frossard, Ex. 1005, at 11.
`IPR2015-1508, Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 25, at 24-25.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 30
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 30
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Unrebutted Expert Testimony
`
`Why Patent Owner is Incorrect:
`
`IPR2015-1508, McNamara Decl., Ex. 1003, at 32-33, ¶ 82.
`IPR2015-1508, Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 25, at 24-25.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 31
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 31
`
`
`
`Frossard + Simms Render Obvious
`Claim 108 of the ’076 Patent and
`Claim 3 of the ’405 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 32
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 32
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`Prior Art
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that
`Frossard + Simms discloses each of
`these elements.
`
`108. The apparatus of claim 73, further comprising:
`
`a positioning device, wherein the positioning device
`determines a position or location of the vehicle, and
`further wherein the positioning device further
`comprises:
`
`a global positioning device; and
`
`a database containing at least one of digital map
`data and digitized map data,
`wherein the positioning device is activated by the
`first control device,
`
`and further wherein the positioning device
`determines the position or location of the vehicle in
`conjunction with the at least one of digital map data
`and digitized map data.
`
`3. 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.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 25-27.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 33
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 33
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s “Integration” Argument Fails
`
`Frossard, Ex. 1005, Figure 2.
`IPR2015-01585, Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 26, at 23-24.
`IPR2015-01585, Ex. 2006, 324:7-12
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 34
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 34
`
`
`
`Frossard’s Server Supports Manned Operation
`
`Why Patent Owner is Incorrect:
`
`Frossard, Ex. 1005, at 5.
`IPR2015-01508, Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 25, at 26-27.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 35
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 35
`
`
`
`Expert Testimony Confirms No Substantial Redesign:
`
`Deposition of David McNamara, Ex. 2004, at 324:5-25.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 36
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 36
`
`
`
`Frossard + Shimizu Render Obvious
`Claim 11 of the ’405 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 37
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 37
`
`
`
`Claim 11
`
`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, status of the apparatus,
`operation of said first control device, and
`operation of the vehicle.
`
`Prior Art
`Patent Owner does not dispute that
`Frossard + Shimizu discloses each
`of these elements.
`
`IPR2015-01585, Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 22, at 25-27.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 38
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 38
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments About Motivation Fail
`
`Patent Owner’s Rebuttal:
`
`IPR2015-01585, Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 22,
`at 25.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 39
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 39
`
`
`
`Petition and Declaration Provide Ample Support for a
`Motivation to Combine
`
`McNamara Decl., Ex. 1003, at 42-43
`Petition, Paper 6, at 35-38.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 26, at 26.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 40
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 40
`
`
`
`Expert Testimony Confirms Motivation:
`
`Deposition of David McNamara, Ex. 2006, at 342:9-14; 345:8-14.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 26, at 26.
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 41
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 41
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments About Redesign Fail
`
`Patent Owner’s Rebuttal:
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 22, at 27.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 42
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 42
`
`
`
`Expert Testimony Confirms How the Combination is
`Implemented:
`
`Deposition of David McNamara, Ex. 2006, at 339:18-24.
`Frossard, Ex. 1005, Figure 2.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 26, at 26.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 43
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 43
`
`
`
`Pagliaroli Anticipates
`Independent Claims 3, 73, and
`205 of the ’076 Patent, and
`claims 1 and 16 of the ’405
`Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 44
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 44
`
`
`
`Only Disputed Issue:
`
`Is this a “first [third] control device”?
`
`Pagliaroli, Ex. 1006, Figure 1.
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 27-34.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 45
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 45
`
`
`
`Pagliaroli Anticipates the Independent Claims
`
`“Third Control Device” (076: claims 3, 73;
`405: claim 1)
`“First Control Device” (076: claim 205;
`405: claim 16)
`
`“Second Control Device”
`
`“First Control Device” (076: claims 3, 73;
`405: claim 1)
`“Third Control Device” (076: claim 205;
`405: claim 16)
`
`Petition, Paper 1, at 36-52.
`Pagliaroli, Ex. 1006, at Fig. 1.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 46
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 46
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 9, at 19.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 47
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 47
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Contradicts
`the Specification
`
`Ex. 1001, 076 Patent, at Fig. 11B; col. 20:60-67; 32:17-22; 34:25-28.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 21, at 17-19, 23-24.
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 48
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 48
`
`
`
`Pagliaroli Discloses the “First/Third
`Control Device” and “Signal”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 25, at 22.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 49
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 49
`
`
`
`Pagliaroli Anticipates Under Patent
`Owner’s Claim Construction
`Construction of
`Response
`“control device”
`“a device or a computer or
`that part of a device or a
`computer, which performs
`an operation, or a function,
`or which performs a
`number of operations,
`actions, or functions”
`
`If a “control device” can
`include “part of a device,”
`then a “control device”
`can include multiple
`parts—such as
`Pagliaroli’s receiver 14
`and control unit 16.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 14-15.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 25, at 17.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 50
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 50
`
`
`
`Expert Confirms Receiver and Control Unit Work Together:
`
`Deposition of David McNamara, Ex. 2004, at 255:4-19.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 25, at 19-20.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 51
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 51
`
`
`
`Pagliaroli Anticipates Claims
`20 and 65 of the ’076 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 52
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 52
`
`
`
`’076 Patent: Dependent Claim 20
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute that
`Pagliaroli Discloses This Limitation
`Claim 20
`Pagliaroli
`
`The apparatus of claim 3,
`wherein the apparatus
`provides at least one of an
`immediate control of and a
`deferred control of the at
`least one of a vehicle system,
`a vehicle component, a
`vehicle device, a vehicle
`equipment, a vehicle
`equipment system, and a
`vehicle appliance.
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 33-34.
`Petition, Paper 1, at 44-45.
`
`“If the input code matches
`the disabling code, disabling
`signals 60, 62 are sent to
`the starter 20 and ignition
`system 22, respectively,
`stopping the operation of
`the automobile and
`preventing the automobile
`from being restarted.”
`(Pagliaroli, col. 5:44-58)
`(emphasis added.)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 53
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 53
`
`
`
`’076 Patent: Dependent Claim 65
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute that Frossard
`+ Pagliaroli Discloses This Limitation
`Claim 65
`Pagliaroli
`
`The method of claim 205, further
`comprising:
`providing information regarding at least
`one of apparatus status, vehicle
`operation status, and status of the at
`least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle
`component, a vehicle device, a vehicle
`equipment, a vehicle equipment system,
`and a vehicle appliance.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 4:22-24.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 4:46-52.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 33-34.
`Petition, Paper 1, at 22-25, 52.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 54
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 54
`
`
`
`Pagliaroli Anticipates Claims
`2 and 17 of the ’405 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 55
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 55
`
`
`
`’405 Patent: Dependent Claim 2
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute that Pagliaroli
`Discloses This Limitation
`Claim 2
`Pagliaroli
`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.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 4:22-24.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 4:46-52.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 3:27-32.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 22, at 32.
`Petition, Paper 6, at 52-54.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 56
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 56
`
`
`
`’405 Patent: Dependent Claim 17
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute that Pagliaroli
`Discloses This Limitation
`Claim 17
`Pagliaroli
`The method of claim 16, further
`comprising the step of:
`determining an operational status of at
`least one of the vehicle component,
`vehicle device, vehicle system, and
`vehicle subsystem.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 4:22-24.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 22, at 32.
`Petition, Paper 6, at 54-55.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 57
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 3:27-32.
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 57
`
`
`
`Pagliaroli Anticipates
`Claim 93 of the ’076 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 58
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 58
`
`
`
`’076 Patent: Pagliaroli Anticipates Claim 93
`
`Claim 93
`The apparatus of claim 73, wherein the
`first control device determines an
`operating status of the at least one of a
`vehicle system, a vehicle equipment
`system, a vehicle component, a vehicle
`device, a vehicle equipment, and a vehicle
`appliance.
`
`Pagliaroli
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 4:22-24.
`
`Pagliaroli, col. 3:40-49.
`
`Petition, Paper 1, at 52-53.
`Pagliaroli, Ex. 1006, at 5-6.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 59
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 59
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Fail
`
`Patent Owner’s Rebuttal:
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 34-35.
`Petition, Paper 1, at 52-53.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 60
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 60
`
`
`
`The Theft Sensor is Part of the Control Device
`
`Pagliaroli, Ex. 1006, at Fig. 1.
`Petition, Paper 1, at 52-53.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 61
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 61
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Unrebutted Expert Testimony
`
`McNamara Decl., Ex. 1003, at 60-61, ¶¶ 139-40.
`Petition, Paper 1, at 52-53.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 62
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 62
`
`
`
`Pagliaroli+ Frossard Render
`Obvious Claim 103 of the ’076
`Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 63
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 63
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 103
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute that
`Frossard Discloses This Limitation
`Claim 103
`Frossard
`
`The apparatus of claim 73,
`wherein the apparatus is
`programmed for at least one
`of automatic activation, self-
`activation, automatic
`operation, and self-
`operation.
`
`“The introduction of the
`access code in the server
`center and the noting of the
`corresponding intervention
`order may be effected either
`by an operator or in totally
`automatic manner . . . .”
`(Frossard, p. 4, ¶ 3)
`(emphasis added.)
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 35-36.
`Petition, Paper 1, at 53-56.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 64
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 64
`
`
`
`Pagliaroli + Frossard + LeBlanc
`Render Obvious Claim 104 of the
`’076 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 65
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 65
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 104
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute that Pagliaroli +
`Frossard + LeBlanc Discloses This Limitation
`Claim 104
`LeBlanc
`
`The apparatus of claim 103,
`wherein the apparatus utilizes at
`least one of an intelligent agent, a
`software agent, and a mobile
`agent.
`
`LeBlanc, col. 8:21-24
`
`LeBlanc, col. 10:19-24
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 36.
`Petition, Paper 1, at 56-58.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 66
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 66
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Fail
`
`Patent Owner’s Rebuttal:
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 36.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 67
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 67
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Fail
`
`Petition, Paper 1, at 53-57.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 25, at 27.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 68
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 68
`
`
`
`Pagliaroli + Simms Render Obvious
`Claim 108 of the ’076 Patent and
`claim 3 of the ’405 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 69
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 69
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`Prior Art
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that
`Pagliaroli + Simms discloses each
`of these elements.
`
`108. The apparatus of claim 73, further comprising:
`
`a positioning device, wherein the positioning device
`determines a position or location of the vehicle, and
`further wherein the positioning device further
`comprises:
`
`a global positioning device; and
`
`a database containing at least one of digital map
`data and digitized map data,
`wherein the positioning device is activated by the
`first control device,
`
`and further wherein the positioning device
`determines the position or location of the vehicle in
`conjunction with the at least one of digital map data
`and digitized map data.
`
`3. 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.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 36-40.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 70
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 70
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Fail
`
`Patent Owner’s Rebuttal:
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 21, at 39.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 71
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 71
`
`
`
`Why Patent Owner is Incorrect:
`
`McNamara Decl., Ex. 1003, at 69-70.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 25, at 25-27.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 72
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 72
`
`
`
`Expert Testimony Confirms No Substantial Redesign:
`
`Deposition of David McNamara, Ex. 2004, at 324:5-25.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 73
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 73
`
`
`
`Pagliaroli + Shimizu Render
`Obvious Claim 11 of the ’405
`Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 74
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 74
`
`
`
`Claim 11
`
`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, status of the apparatus,
`operation of said first control device, and
`operation of the vehicle.
`
`Prior Art
`Patent Owner does not dispute that
`Frossard + Simms discloses each of
`these elements.
`
`IPR2015-01585, Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 22, at 35-37.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 75
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 75
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments About Motivation Fail
`
`Patent Owner’s Rebuttal:
`
`IPR2015-01585, Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 22,
`at 35.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 76
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 76
`
`
`
`Petition and Declaration Provide Ample Support for a
`Motivation to Combine
`
`McNamara Decl., Ex. 1003, at 67-68
`Petition, Paper 6, at 57-60.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 26, at 26.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 77
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 77
`
`
`
`Expert Testimony Confirms Motivation:
`
`Deposition of David McNamara, Ex. 2006, at 342:9-14; 345:8-14.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 26, at 26.
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 78
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 78
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments About Redesign Fail
`
`Patent Owner’s Rebuttal:
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 22, at 37.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 79
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 79
`
`
`
`Expert Testimony Confirms How the Combination is
`Implemented:
`
`Deposition of David McNamara, Ex. 2006, at 339:18-24.
`Frossard, Ex. 1005, Figure 2.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 26, at 26-27.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 80
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 80
`
`
`
`Frossard + Spaur Render
`Obvious Independent Claim 21
`of the ’363 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 81
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 81
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`Ex. 1001.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 82
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 82
`
`
`
`’363 Patent - Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Claims - ’363 Patent
`
`Prior Art
`
`21, 24, 25, 36
`
`Frossard + Spaur
`
`22
`
`29
`
`Frossard + Spaur + Pagliaroli
`
`Frossard + Spaur + Simms
`
`21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 36
`
`Johnson + Rossmann
`
`IPR2015-01645, Institution Decision, Paper 11, at 20.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 83
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 83
`
`
`
`Frossard + Spaur Render Obvious the Independent Claim
`
`Second Processing
`Device
`
`First Processing
`Device
`
`Third Processing
`Device
`
`Frossard, Ex. 1005, at Figure 1.
`Petition, Paper 3, at 13-24.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 84
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 84
`
`
`
`Frossard + Spaur Render Obvious the Independent Claim
`
`Second Signal
`
`First Signal
`
`Third Signal
`
`Frossard, Ex. 1005, at Figure 1.
`Petition, Paper 3, at 13-24.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 85
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 85
`
`
`
`Frossard + Spaur Render Obvious the Independent Claim
`
`Internet
`
`Web Site
`
`Spaur, Ex. 1016, at Figure 2.
`Petition, Paper 3, at 14-17 and 20-21.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 86
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 86
`
`
`
`Four Disputed Issues
`
`(1) Frossard’s server + resource a “first
`processing device?”
`(2) Does the combination disclose a “first
`processing device associated with a web
`site?”
`(3) Is the combination proper?
`(4) Frossard’s receiver/decoder circuits 4 an
`interface device?
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 20, at 17-27.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 23, at 5-19.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 87
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 87
`
`
`
`Issue (1)- First Processing Device
`
`Is this a “first processing
`device?”
`
`Frossard, Ex. 1005, at Figure 1.
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 20, at 22-25.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 88
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 88
`
`
`
`Issue (1)- First Processing Device
`Frossard Discloses the First Processing Device
`Under Patent Owner’s Claim Construction
`
`Construction of
`“processing
`device”
`“a device or a computer or
`that part of a device or a
`computer, which performs
`an operation, or a function,
`or which performs a
`number of operations,
`actions, or functions”
`
`Response
`
`If a “processing device”
`can include “part of a
`device,” then a
`“processing device” can
`include multiple parts—
`such as Frossard’s
`server 1 and resource 2.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 20, at 10-11.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 23, at 6-7
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 89
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 89
`
`
`
`Issue (1)- First Processing Device
`
`Ex. 1010, at 6.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 90
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 90
`
`
`
`Issue (1)- First Processing Device
`Patent Owner’s Argument Contradicts
`the Specification
`
`’363 Patent, Ex. 1001, at Fig. 11A; 54:39-45 and 55:44-46.
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 23, at 7-9, 11.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 91
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 91
`
`
`
`Issue (1)- First Processing Device
`Frossard Discloses the “First Processing
`Device” and “First Signal”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 23, at 9-11.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 92
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 92
`
`
`
`Issue (2) – Association with a Web Site
`
`Is “first processing device”
`associated with web site?
`
`Frossard, Ex. 1005, at Figure 1.
`Spaur, Ex. 1016, at Figure 2.
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 20, at 18-22.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives - 93
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 93
`
`
`
`Issue (2) – Association with a Web Site
`P
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
