`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`Patent 5,917,405
`________________
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE OF PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 2
`
` A. Overview of the ‘405 Patent .......................................................................... 2
`
` B. Prosecution History of the ‘405 Patent .......................................................... 3
`
` C. Petition Overview .......................................................................................... 4
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 6
`
` A. Legal Standards .............................................................................................. 6
`
` B. Petitioner has Failed to Submit Claim Constructions for Key Terms
` Supporting its Invalidity Arguments ............................................................. 9
`
` C. “control device” ........................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. Each “control device” is separate and distinct from the claimed vehicle
` systems being controlled .......................................................................... 15
`
`
`
` 2. Each “control device” is separate and distinct from the communication
` system or the communication network, or any component of same, on,
` over, via, or in conjunction with, which they operate ............................. 18
`
`
`
` 3. Each “control device” is separate and distinct from an
` “interface device” ..................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`i i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` D. “remote” ....................................................................................................... 35
`
` E. “located at” ................................................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`
`
` F. Petitioner’s proposed constructions for “monitoring device,” “positioning
` device” and “voice synthesizing device” ...................................................... 36
`
`IV. THE PROPOSED GROUNDS FAIL TO MEET THE BURDEN OF
` SHOWING A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PREVAILING ............... 37
`
`
`
`
`
` A. Ground 1 ...................................................................................................... 38
`
` B. Ground 2 ...................................................................................................... 41
`
` C. Ground 3 ...................................................................................................... 41
`
` D. Ground 4 ...................................................................................................... 41
`
` F. Ground 5 ....................................................................................................... 41
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. Pagliaroli fails to teach the “second control device” of claims 1
` and 16 ....................................................................................................... 42
`
`
`
`
`
` G. Ground 6 ...................................................................................................... 44
`
` F. Ground 7 ...................................................................................................... 44
`
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 44
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`ii ii
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. Frossard fails to teach the “first control device” of claim 1, and the “third
` control device” of claim 16 ..................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`Description
`“Preliminary Remarks” filed by Applicant on November 26, 2006
`during prosecution of the patent application that issued as related U.S.
`Patent No. 7,277,010
`“Supplement to the Remarks for the Amendment filed on October 24,
`2007” filed on November 23, 2007 during prosecution of the patent
`application that issued as related U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`EX2003 Excerpt from U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`
`iii iii
`
`EX2001
`
`EX2002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC (“JCMS”)
`
`respectfully submits this Preliminary Response of Patent Owner (“Preliminary
`
`Response”) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107. This
`
`Preliminary Response responds to the Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“Petition”) filed by Petitioner regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 11, 16 and 17
`
`(“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,917,405 (“the ‘405 Patent”).
`
`
`
`This Preliminary Response is timely filed under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.107, as it is filed within three months of the August 5, 2015 date of
`
`the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper No. 3).
`
`
`
`JCMS requests that the Board not institute an inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`
`with respect to any of the Challenged Claims, thereby failing to meet the
`
`threshold for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`The seven proposed grounds of rejection are substantively flawed, in that
`
`none of the cited references teach important properly construed claim limitations.
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Mr. David McNamara, makes statements and opines on
`
`issues related to: (1) the state of the art at the time of the invention; (2) the prior
`
`art used in Petitioner’s grounds of rejection; and (3) how the prior art renders the
`
`claims invalid. However, Petitioner has failed to propose claim constructions for
`
`certain key terms in the claims that support Mr. McNamara’s opinions, and that
`
`support Petitioner’s invalidity arguments. As such, Mr. McNamara’s analysis
`
`and declaration is fundamentally flawed and should be given no weight.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s failure to construe certain key terms renders an evaluation of
`
`the merits of Petitioner’s invalidity arguments impossible. This failure alone is
`
`sufficient reason to deny institution of inter partes review.
`
`
`
`In the end, the Petition is materially deficient and fails to set forth
`
`sufficient evidence that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with
`
`respect to any of the Challenged Claims, as required under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`JCMS respectfully submits that the Board should conserve resources by declining
`
`to institute this meritless proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Overview of the ‘405 Patent
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘405 Patent is directed to a novel and unconventional system for, inter
`
`alia, remotely-controlling and/or monitoring systems located at vehicles and
`
`premises. EX1001 at 23. The Challenged Claims are directed to a specially
`
`assembled and programmed distributed control system for vehicles, wherein
`
`control functions for a vehicle or for a vehicle component, vehicle device, vehicle
`
`system, or vehicle subsystem, of a vehicle, can be distributed among three
`
`separate and distinct control devices, each of which can generate or transmit a
`
`separate and distinct signal in order to control a separate fourth device of or at the
`
`vehicle, which is the respective vehicle component, vehicle device, vehicle
`
`system, or vehicle subsystem.
`
`A separate
`
`interface device can be optionally used
`
`to facilitate
`
`communications between one of the control devices and the separate fourth
`
`device of or at the vehicle, which is the respective vehicle component, vehicle
`
`device, vehicle system, or vehicle subsystem.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘405 Patent
`
`The patent application that issued as the ‘405 Patent was filed on July 18,
`
`1996. EX1001. The ‘405 patent issued on June 29, 1999. Id. The ‘405 patent is an
`
`expired patent.
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`During prosecution of related U.S. Patent Application Nos. 7,397,363 and
`
`7,277,010 (hereinafter “the ‘363 Patent” and “the ‘010 Patent,” respectively), the
`
`Applicant chose to be his own lexicographer and provided explicit definitions for,
`
`inter alia, the terms “control device,” “remote,” and “located at” in “Preliminary
`
`Remarks” filed by Applicant on November 26, 2006 during prosecution of the
`
`patent application that issued as the ‘010 patent (see EX2001, hereinafter
`
`“Preliminary Remarks”) and in “Supplement to the Remarks for the Amendment
`
`filed on October 24, 2007” filed on November 23, 2007 during prosecution of the
`
`patent application that issued as the ‘363 Patent (see EX2002, hereinafter “First
`
`Remarks”).
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Petition Overview
`
`Petitioner has proposed seven grounds of invalidity and relies on the
`
`following four references:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`EP 0505266 to Frossard et al. (“Frossard”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,276,728 to Pagliaroli et al. (“Pagliaroli”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,334,974 to Simms et al. (“Simms”); and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,373,116 to Shimizu et al. (“Shimizu”).
`
`The table below summarizes Petitioner’s grounds of invalidity.
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proposed Rejections
`Ground
`Claims
`anticipated by Frossard
`1
`1 and 16
`obvious in view of Frossard and Pagliaroli
`2
`2 and 17
`obvious in view of Frossard and Simms
`3
`3
`obvious in view of Frossard and Shimizu
`4
`11
`5
`1, 2, 16 and 17 anticipated by Pagliaroli
`6
`3
`obvious in view of Pagliaroli and Simms
`7
`11
`obvious in view of Pagliaroli and Shimizu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 1 and 16 are independent claims. They are reproduced below:
`
`1.
`
`
`
`A control apparatus for a vehicle, which comprises:
`
`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;
`
`
`
`wherein said first control device is responsive to a second signal,
`
`wherein the second signal is one of generated by and transmitted from a second
`
`control device, wherein the second control device is located at a location which is
`
`remote from the vehicle, and further wherein the second control device is
`
`responsive to a third signal, wherein the third signal is one of generated by and
`
`transmitted from a third control device, wherein the third control device is
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`located at a location which is remote from the vehicle and remote from the
`
`second control device.
`
`16. A method for control for a vehicle, which comprises:
`
`
`
`
`
`transmitting a first signal from a first control device to a second
`
`control device, wherein the first control device is located at a location remote
`
`from the vehicle and remote from the second control device;
`
`
`
`transmitting a second signal from the second control device to a
`
`third control device, wherein the third control device is located at the vehicle, and
`
`further wherein the second control device is located at a location remote from the
`
`vehicle;
`
`
`
`generating a third signal at the third control device in response to
`
`said second signal,
`
`
`
`one of activating, deactivating, enabling, and disabling, one of a
`
`vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle system, and a vehicle subsystem,
`
`in response to said third signal.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘405 Patent is expired. Claim terms in an expired patent are generally
`
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, it is important to note that
`
`the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) and controlling case law
`
`makes it clear that the determination of the ordinary and customary meaning of a
`
`term or phrase does not occur in a vacuum, but instead it must be made in light of
`
`the patent’s specification and the intrinsic evidence. MPEP §2111.01 is clear and
`
`unequivocal on this point. The pertinent portion of the MPEP §2111.01 recites:
`
`The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be
`
`evidenced by a variety of sources, including “the words
`
`of
`
`the claims
`
`themselves,
`
`the remainder of
`
`the
`
`specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic
`
`evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the
`
`meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.”
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1314, 75 USPQ2d
`
`at 1327. If extrinsic reference sources, such as
`
`dictionaries, evidence more than one definition for the
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`term, the intrinsic record must be consulted to identify
`
`which of the different possible definitions is most
`
`consistent with Applicant’s use of the terms. Brookhill-
`
`Wilk 1, 334 F.3d at 1300, 67 USPQ2d at 1137; see also
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158
`
`F.3d 1243, 1250, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1122 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998) (“Where there are several common meanings for
`
`a claim term, the patent disclosure serves to point away
`
`from the improper meanings and toward the proper
`
`meanings.”) and Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc.,
`
`90 F.3d 1576, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1996) (construing the term “solder reflow temperature”
`
`to mean “peak reflow temperature” of solder rather than
`
`the “liquidus temperature” of solder in order to remain
`
`consistent with the specification.). (Emphasis added).
`
`
`
`“[A] patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer” and assign special
`
`definitions to the words in the claim, as long as those definitions are clearly
`
`stated in the patent specification or file history. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP
`
`Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Therefore, “it is always
`
`necessary to review the specification to determine whether the inventor has used
`
`any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning. The
`
`specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the
`
`claims or when it defines terms by implication.” Id. Because the specification
`
`must contain a description sufficient to those of ordinary skill in the art to make
`
`and use the invention, the specification “is the single best guide to the meaning of
`
`a disputed claim term.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner has Failed to Submit Claim Constructions for Key
`Terms Supporting its Invalidity Arguments
`The Board has previously emphasized that if the Petitioner does not
`
`
`
`explain how the Challenged Claims should be construed and how they read on
`
`the prior art, then a reasonable likelihood of success is not established:
`
`“It is the Petitioner’s burden to explain how the
`
`Challenged Claims are to be construed and how they
`
`read on the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)-(5).
`
`Petitioner has not done so sufficiently on this record
`
`with respect to the limitation of claims 1, 45, 46, and 47
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requiring a “color changing cycle.” Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`
`of success in showing the subject matter of claims 1-11,
`
`26-34, and 45-47 would have been obvious in view of
`
`Wu and Chliwnyj.” Jiawei Technology (HK) LTD. et al
`
`v. Simon Nicholas Richmond, IPR2014-00937, Paper 22
`
`at 8.
`
`
`
`Similarly, Petitioner has failed to propose claim constructions for certain
`
`key terms in the claims, and thus has failed to provide constructions for key terms
`
`that support Mr. McNamara’s opinions, and that support Petitioner’s invalidity
`
`arguments. Petitioner’s failure to construe these key terms renders an evaluation
`
`of the merits of Petitioner’s invalidity arguments impossible, and thus Petitioner
`
`has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that any
`
`of the claims of the ‘405 Patent are anticipated or obvious in view of the art cited
`
`in Grounds 1-7.
`
`
`
`Below are Patent Owner’s proposed constructions for the following key
`
`terms, which Patent Owner submits are necessary to properly evaluate the merits
`
`of Petitioner’s obviousness arguments: (1) “control device;” (2) “remote”; and (3)
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“located at.” As discussed supra, these key terms were defined by the Applicant
`
`in the Preliminary Remarks filed by Applicant on November 26, 2006 during
`
`prosecution of the patent application that issued as the ‘010 Patent (EX2001) and
`
`in the First Remarks filed on November 23, 2007 during prosecution of the patent
`
`application that issued as the ‘363 Patent (EX2002). These definitions provided
`
`by the Applicant during prosecution of the related ‘010 Patent and ‘363 Patent
`
`constitute intrinsic evidence regarding the construction of these key claim terms.
`
`
`
`Although the submissions were made during prosecution of the ‘363 Patent
`
`and the ‘010 Patent, the ‘405 Patent is in the priority chain of the ‘363 and ‘010
`
`Patents, and thus all these patents share common grandparent applications
`
`(Application Nos. 08/587,628, 08/622,749, 08/489,238 (Patent No. 5,513,244)
`
`and 08/073,755). The Federal Circuit has stated that “[w]hen the application of
`
`prosecution disclaimer involves statements from prosecution of a familial patent
`
`relating to the same subject matter as the claim language at issue in the patent
`
`being construed, those statements in the familial application are relevant in
`
`construing the claims at issue.” Ormco Corporation v. Align Technology, Inc.,
`
`498 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This principle has been used to apply
`
`statements from child applications to ancestor applications:
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Any statement of the patentee in the prosecution of a
`
`related application as to the scope of the invention
`
`would be relevant to claim construction, and the
`
`relevance of the statement made in this instance is
`
`enhanced by the fact that it was made in an official
`
`proceeding in which the patentee had every incentive to
`
`exercise care in characterizing the scope of its invention.
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that Multi-tech’s statements
`
`made during the prosecution of the ‘627 patent with
`
`regard to the scope of it inventions as disclosed in the
`
`common specification are relevant not only to the ‘627
`
`and ‘532 patents, but also to the earlier issued ‘649
`
`patent.
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004); see also Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Vonage Holdings
`
`Corp., 518 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1316 (D. Kan. 2007)(“[T]he court will consider the
`
`possibility that statements made during prosecution of the child ‘928 patent are
`
`relevant to construing the same claim terms in the ancestor ‘429 and ‘064 patent
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claims.”). With regards to multiple sibling applications (applications that stem
`
`from a common parent application), if a statement is made during prosecution of
`
`one sibling application, that statement can be applied to a second sibling
`
`application, even though the second sibling application issued before the first
`
`sibling application. Id. at 1350 (“Furthermore, even though the ‘649 patent had
`
`already issued, we think that it is not unsound to apply the same interpretation to
`
`that patent. We take the patentee at its word and will not construe the scope of
`
`the ‘649 patent’s claims more broadly than the patentee itself clearly
`
`envisioned.”).
`
`
`
`If no ambiguity is found in the meaning of the terms of a claim after
`
`review of the specification and prosecution history, the inquiry is at an end. If
`
`uncertainty remains, extrinsic evidence (e.g., expert and inventor testimony), may
`
`be considered. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583.
`
`
`
`In his submission to the PTO, the Applicant also provided the page and
`
`line numbers where support for each of the definitions is located in the original
`
`specifications of the ‘363 and ‘010 Patents. By defining each of these terms in
`
`the prosecution history, the Applicant for the ‘405, ‘010 and ‘363 Patents has
`
`chosen to be his own lexicographer. See CCS Fitness Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A] claim term will not receive its
`
`ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set
`
`forth a definition of the disputed term...”). Moreover, in the Preliminary
`
`Remarks and First Remarks, the Applicant stated “[a]pplicant provides the
`
`following definitions for the following terms or phrases which appear in certain
`
`of the pending Claims.” Thus, it is clear that the Applicant unequivocally and
`
`intentionally defined the disputed terms in the manner discussed infra.
`
`C.
`
`“control device”
`
`The term “control device” appears in independent claims 1 and 16 and its
`
`
`
`
`
`construction is necessary to interpret the meaning of the claims. Petitioner has
`
`offered no construction for this key term.
`
`
`
`As discussed supra, Applicant chose to be his own lexicographer and
`
`provided an explicit definition for the term “control device” in the First Remarks.
`
`EX2002 at 6. Accordingly, the term “control device” should be construed as “a
`
`device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs
`
`an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of
`
`operations, actions, or functions.” This proposed construction is consistent with
`
`Applicant’s definition of the term “control device” in the First Remarks, and is
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`also supported by and is consistent with the Specification of the ‘405 Patent,
`
`including the written description, the drawings and the claims. Further, “control
`
`device” is separate and distinct from (1) the claimed vehicle systems being
`
`controlled; (2) the communication system or the communication network, or any
`
`component of same, on, over, via, or in conjunction with, which they operate; and
`
`(3) an “interface device,” as discussed below.
`
`Each “control device” is separate and distinct from the
`1.
`
`
` claimed vehicle systems being controlled
`
`
`As discussed supra, the Challenged Claims are directed to a specially
`
`assembled and programmed distributed control system for vehicles, wherein
`
`control functions for a vehicle or for a vehicle component, vehicle device, vehicle
`
`system, or vehicle subsystem, can be distributed among three separate and
`
`distinct “control devices,” each of which can generate or transmit a separate and
`
`distinct signal in order to control a separate fourth device of or at the vehicle,
`
`which is the respective vehicle component, vehicle device, vehicle system, or
`
`vehicle subsystem.
`
`With reference
`
`to
`
`independent claims 1 and 16,
`
`throughout
`
`the
`
`Specification and the intrinsic evidence, the “second control device” of claims 1
`
`and 16 can be seen as being served by the “Server Computer 510” in Figure 5B,
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by the “Computer 970” in Figure 11A, and by either the “Server Computer 952”
`
`or the “Computer 970” in Figure 11B. EX1001 at 9, 15 and 16.
`
`As and for an example, Figure 11B clearly depicts an illustrative
`
`embodiment of Claim 1 showing the “first control device” as being the “CPU 4”,
`
`showing the “second control device” as being either “Server Computer 952” or
`
`the “Computer 970”, and showing the “third control device” as being the “Home
`
`And/Or Personal Computer 150”. Id. at 16. Figure 11B also clearly depicts the
`
`CPU 4 as being a device separate and distinct from each of the various “Vehicle
`
`Equipment System(s) 11”, each of which can be controlled in one way or another
`
`by the separate and distinct CPU 4 (the “first control device” of Claim 1). It is
`
`clear, throughout the Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the ‘405 Patent,
`
`that the CPU 4 (the “first control device” of Claim 1), which is illustrated
`
`throughout the various embodiment of Figures 1, 5A, 5B, 9, 11A, 11B, 12, 13,
`
`and 14, is a device which is separate and distinct from any of the vehicle
`
`equipment systems 11 identified and described in the Specification and the
`
`intrinsic evidence. Id. at 2, 6, 7, 13 and 15-19.
`
`
`
`The CPU 4 (the “first control device” of Claim 1) is specifically described
`
`as being a separate and distinct entity from any of the numerous one of
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`activating, deactivating, enabling, and disabling, one of a vehicle component, a
`
`vehicle device, a vehicle system, and a vehicle subsystem. See, for example, Col.
`
`4, lines 62-65 of the ‘405 Patent, which provides:
`
`"Each of the vehicle equipment systems, if utilized in
`
`conjunction with the apparatus, may be activated, de-
`
`activated, reset or in some other way controlled and/or
`
`monitored by the apparatus of the present invention."
`
`EX1001 at 23. (emphasis added).
`
`See also, for example, the ‘405 Patent, at Col 22, lines 24-32, which
`
`provides:
`
`The CPU 4, in the preferred embodiment, is also
`
`electrically connected and/or linked to at least one or
`
`more of a vehicle equipment system or systems 11. The
`
`vehicle equipment system or systems 11 are located
`
`externally from the apparatus 1 and may or may not be
`
`connected and/or linked to the CPU 4, via a vehicle
`
`equipment system or systems interface 12 which may or
`
`may not be required for each one of the variety or
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`multitude of the vehicle equipment systems which may
`
`be utilized in conjunction with the apparatus. EX1001
`
`at 32. (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, it is clear that each “control device” is separate and distinct from the
`
`claimed vehicle systems being controlled.
`
`Each “control device” is separate and distinct from the
`2.
`
`
` communication system or the communication network, or any
` component of same, on, over, via, or in conjunction with,
` which they operate
`
`
`
`The Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the ‘405 Patent also make it
`
`clear and unequivocal that a component of a communication system or
`
`communication network, such as the mobile telephone signal transmitter 46 of
`
`Pagliaroli cannot serve as and cannot function as a “control device.” Specifically,
`
`it is abundantly clear that each “control device” can generate or transmit a
`
`separate and distinct signal, and that each “control device” is: (1) not merely a
`
`relay device; (2) not a device which simply retransmits a signal that it receives;
`
`and (3) is separate and distinct from the communication system or the
`
`communication network, or any component of same, on, over, via, or in
`
`conjunction with, which they operate. Put simply, the Specification and the
`
`intrinsic evidence of the ‘405 Patent is clear and unequivocal that a component of
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a communication system or communication network, such as, for example, the
`
`mobile telephone signal transmitter 46 of Pagliaroli, cannot serve as and cannot
`
`function as the "second control device" of claims 1 and 16.
`
`
`
`The ‘405 Patent at, Col. 48, lines 15-28, Figure 11A, Col. 33, line 46 to
`
`Col. 37, line 56, and Figures 6A and 6B, steps 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, or 75, of the
`
`‘405 Patent, describes and illustrates an embodiment wherein an access code (the
`
`“third signal” of claim 1, and the “first signal” of claim 16) can be transmitted
`
`from a transmitter 2 (the “third control device” of claim 1, and the “first control
`
`device” of claim 16) to the apparatus 950 containing computer 970 (the “second
`
`control device” of claims 1 and 16), which is located remote from the vehicle,
`
`and wherein access and command codes (the “second signal” of claims 1 and 16)
`
`are transmitted from the apparatus 950 to the receiver 3 of apparatus 1 and with
`
`the CPU 4 (the “first control device” of claim 1, and the “third control device” of
`
`claim 16), which is located at the vehicle, generating or transmitting a respective
`
`control signal (the “first signal” of claim 1, and the “third signal” of claim 16) for
`
`respectively activating, deactivating, enabling, and disabling, a respective vehicle
`
`component, vehicle device, vehicle system, or vehicle subsystem (a fourth
`
`device).
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the ‘405 Patent are replete
`
`with examples which disclose that the apparatus and method of the present
`
`invention, of which the apparatus and method of claims 1 and 16 are
`
`embodiments, operates on, over, via, or in conjunction with, a communication
`
`system or a communication network, and
`
`that no component of
`
`the
`
`communication system or the communication network, is relied upon as, or can
`
`serve as or can function as, any “control device” of claims 1 and 16.
`
`Specifically, the Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the ‘405 Patent
`
`include numerous examples which disclose that the apparatus of the present
`
`invention, of which the apparatus and method of claims 1 and 16 are
`
`embodiments, operates on, over, via, or in conjunction with, a communication
`
`system or a communication network. In this regard, by the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the words “on,” “over,” “via,” and “in conjunction with,”
`
`the apparatus and method of claims 1 and 16, and each of the “first control
`
`device”, the “second control device”, and the “third control device”, are separate
`
`and distinct entities from any communication system or any communication
`
`network, or any component of same, on, over, via, or in conjunction with, which
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01585
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 5,917,405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the apparatus and any of the “first control device”, the “second control device”,
`
`and the “third control device” operate.
`
`See, for example, the ‘405 Patent, at Col. 3, lines 12-20, which provides:
`
`“The apparatus of the