UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`Patent 6,542,076
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`Patent 6,542,076
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 2
`
` A. Overview of the ‘076 Patent .......................................................................... 2
`
` B. Prosecution History of the ‘076 Patent .......................................................... 3
`
` C. Representative Claims .................................................................................... 4
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 8
`
` A. Legal Standards .............................................................................................. 8
`
` B. “control device” ............................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
` C. “first signal,” “second signal” and “third signal” ......................................... 11
`
` A. Ground 1 is Deficient ................................................................................... 12
`
`
`IV. RESPONSE TO PROPOSED GROUNDS OF INVALIDITY ....................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. Kniffin fails to disclose an “A to B to C” system/method for controlling a
` vehicle system/component in response to a signal from a control device
` located remote from the vehicle .............................................................. 13
`
` B. Ground 2 is Deficient ................................................................................... 25
`
` C. Ground 3 is Deficient ................................................................................... 29
`
`i i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. Ryoichi fails disclose the “A to B to C” control system/method of claims
` 3 and 73 and 205 ..................................................................................... 30
`
` D. Ground 4 is Deficient ................................................................................... 29
`
` E. Ground 5 is Deficient ................................................................................... 37
`
`
`
`
`
` F. Ground 6 is Deficient .................................................................................... 38
`
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 38
`
`
`
`ii ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`Exhibit
`
`EX2001
`
`EX2002
`
`EX2004
`
`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 Declaration of Steven W. Ritcheson
`August 26, 2015 Opinion and Order Construing Disputed Claim Terms
`in the matter of JCMS v. Chrysler Group LLC, Case No. 13-cv-13957
`(E.D. Mich.)
`EX2005 Transcript of April 20, 2016 Deposition of Scott Andrews
`EX2006 Transcript of April 21, 2016 Deposition of Scott Andrews
`“The Internet Report,” Morgan Stanley Global Technology Group,
`EX2007
`February 1996.
`
`
`
`iii iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`In response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) filed by
`
`Petitioner, the Board has instituted inter partes review (Paper 7, the “Decision”)
`
`of claims 3, 18, 65, 67, 68, 70, 73, 91, 103, 116, 119, 120 and 205 (“Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076 (“the ‘076 Patent”) based on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Proposed Rejections
`anticipated by Kniffin
`
`Claims
`3, 18, 65, 67,
`68, 70, 73, 91,
`103, 116, 119,
`120 and 205
`94 and 110
`96
`3, 18, 65, 67,
`70, 73, 91, 103,
`116, 119 and
`205
`obvious in view of Ryochi
`94 and 110
`68, 96 and 120 obvious in view of Ryochi and Neely
`
`obvious in view of Kniffin
`obvious in view of Kniffin and Neely
`anticipated by Ryochi
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`
`
`
`The six proposed grounds of rejection are substantively flawed, in that
`
`none of the cited references teach important properly construed claim limitations.
`
`For example, none of the cited references teach an “A to B to C” control
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`system/method, as required by the challenged claims and as will be explained in
`
`more detail below.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC (“JCMS” or
`
`“Patent Owner”) submits this Response to Petitioner’s Petition and the Board’s
`
`Decision.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`A. Overview of the ‘076 Patent
`
`The ‘076 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/method for vehicles,
`
`wherein control functions for a vehicle or for a vehicle system, vehicle equipment
`
`system, vehicle component, vehicle device, vehicle equipment, or vehicle
`
`appliance, 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 system, vehicle equipment system, vehicle component,
`
`vehicle device, vehicle equipment, or vehicle appliance.
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 system, vehicle
`
`equipment system, vehicle component, vehicle device, vehicle equipment, or
`
`vehicle appliance.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘076 Patent
`
`The patent application that issued as the ‘076 patent was filed on April, 17,
`
`2000. EX1001. The ‘076 patent issued on April 1, 2003. Id. The ‘076 patent
`
`expired on June 8, 2013.
`
`
`
`During prosecution of related U.S. Patent Applications that issued as U.S.
`
`Patent 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,
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2007 during prosecution of the patent application that issued as the ‘363 Patent
`
`(see EX2002, hereinafter “First Remarks”).
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Representative Claims
`
`Claims 3, 73 and 205 are the only independent claims being challenged.
`
`They are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`A control apparatus, comprising:
`
`a first control device, wherein the first control device at least one of
`
`generates a first signal and transmits a first signal for at least one of activating,
`
`de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling, at least one of a vehicle system, a
`
`vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle
`
`equipment, and a vehicle appliance, of a vehicle, wherein the first control device
`
`is located at the vehicle,
`
`
`
`wherein the first control device at least one of generates the first
`
`signal and transmits the first signal in response to a second signal, wherein the
`
`second signal is at least one of generated by a second control device and
`
`transmitted from a second control device, wherein the second control device is
`
`located at a location which is remote from the vehicle, wherein the second signal
`
`is transmitted from the second control device to the first control device, wherein
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the second signal is automatically received by the first control device, and further
`
`wherein the second control device at least one of generates the second signal and
`
`transmits the second signal in response to a third signal,
`
`
`
`wherein the third signal is at least one of generated by a third control
`
`device and transmitted from a third control device, wherein the third control
`
`device is located at a location which is remote from the vehicle and remote from
`
`the second control device, wherein the third signal is transmitted from the third
`
`control device to the second control device, and further wherein the third signal is
`
`automatically received by the second control device.
`
`
`
`73. A control apparatus, comprising:
`
`
`
`a first control device, wherein the first control device is capable of at
`
`least one of activating, de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling, one or more of a
`
`plurality of at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle equipment system, a
`
`vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, and a vehicle
`
`appliance, of a vehicle, wherein the first control device at least one of generates a
`
`first signal and transmits a first signal for at least one of activating, de-activating,
`
`disabling, and re-enabling, the at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`equipment system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment,
`
`and a vehicle appliance, wherein the first control device is located at the vehicle,
`
`
`
`wherein the first control device at least one of generates the first
`
`signal and transmits the first signal in response to a second signal, wherein the
`
`second signal is at least one of generated by a second control device and
`
`transmitted from a second control device, wherein the second control device is
`
`located at a location which is remote from the vehicle, wherein the second signal
`
`is transmitted from the second control device to the first control device, and
`
`further wherein the second signal is automatically received by the first control
`
`device,
`
`
`
`wherein the second control device at least one of generates the
`
`second signal and transmits the second signal in response to a third signal,
`
`wherein the third signal is at least one of generated by a third control device and
`
`transmitted from a third control device, wherein the third control device is
`
`located at a location which is remote from the vehicle and remote from the
`
`second control device, wherein the third signal is transmitted from the third
`
`control device to the second control device, and further wherein the third signal is
`
`automatically received by the second control device.
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`205. A control method, comprising:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`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 second control device and remote from a vehicle, and further wherein
`
`the first signal is automatically received by the second control device;
`
`
`
`transmitting a second signal from the second control device to a
`
`third control device, wherein the third control device is capable of at least one of
`
`activating, de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling, one or more of a plurality of
`
`at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle equipment system, a vehicle
`
`component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, and a vehicle appliance, of the
`
`vehicle, 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, and further wherein the second signal is automatically received by the
`
`third control device;
`
`
`
`at least one of generating a third signal with the third control device
`
`and transmitting a third signal from the third control device, wherein the third
`
`control device is located at the vehicle, and further wherein the third signal is at
`
`least one of generated and transmitted in response to the second signal; and
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at least one of activating, de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling,
`
`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.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Legal Standards
`A.
`The ‘076 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
`
`make 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
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`
`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.
`
`“control device”
`
`For purposes of its Decision, the Board adopted the express definition of
`
`
`
`
`
`“control device” provided during prosecution of the patent application that issued
`
`as related U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363, which is “a device or a computer, or that
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.”
`
`Decision at 9.
`
`
`
`JCMS respectfully submits that this construction should be adopted for the
`
`remainder of this IPR.
`
`C.
`
`“first signal,” “second signal” and “third signal”
`
`JCMS respectfully submits that construction of these terms is necessary at
`
`
`
`
`
`this time, as will become apparent below.
`
`
`
`In litigation involving the ‘076 Patent, the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of Michigan issued an Opinion and Order Construing Disputed
`
`Claim Terms in which they construed the terms “first signal,” “second signal”
`
`and “third signal” as follows:
`
`“The Court does, however, find that Defendant’s
`
`proposed alternative constructions are consistent with
`
`the normal understanding of the claim terms. In fact,
`
`the parties agree that the “first signal” is a signal sent
`
`by the first device, the “second signal” is sent by the
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`second device, and the “third signal” is sent by the
`
`third device.” EX2004 at 23. (emphasis added).
`
`JCMS respectfully submits that, for purposes of this proceeding, these
`
`constructions should be adopted, as they are required to evaluate the merits of
`
`Petitioner’s arguments, namely:
`
`• “first signal” is “a signal sent by a first device”
`
` •
`
` “second signal” is “a signal sent by a second
` device”
`
` •
`
` “third signal” is “a signal sent by a third
` device”
`
`IV. RESPONSE TO PROPOSED GROUNDS OF INVALIDITY
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Ground 1 is Deficient
`
`Ground 1 alleges that claims 3, 18, 65, 67, 68, 70, 73, 91, 103, 116, 119,
`
`120 and 205 are anticipated by Kniffin. However, Patent Owner respectfully
`
`submits that Kniffin fails to disclose every claimed element and feature of claims
`
`3, 18, 65, 67, 68, 70, 73, 91, 103, 116, 119, 120 and 205, as required under § 102,
`
`when the claim elements are properly construed.
`
`
`
`At the outset, Patent Owner disagrees with the Petitioner’s interpretation of
`
`“control device” that would allow the “access control device 64” of Kniffin to
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`serve as the “first control device” of claims 3 and 73 and the “third control
`
`device” of claim 205. Patent Owner also maintains that the “access control device
`
`64” is the vehicle system being controlled and is not, and does not contain the
`
`“first control device” of claims 3 and 73, and the “third control device” of claim
`
`205.
`
`Kniffin fails to disclose an “A to B to C” system for
`1.
`
`
` controlling a vehicle system/component in response to a
` signal from a control device located remote from the vehicle
`
`Independent claim 3 recites, inter alia, “a first control device . . . [that] at
`
`least one of generates a first signal and transmits a first signal for at least one of
`
`activating, de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling, at least one of a vehicle
`
`system, a vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a
`
`vehicle equipment, and a vehicle appliance, of a vehicle, wherein the first control
`
`device is located at the vehicle . . . in response to a second signal [that] . . . is at
`
`least one of generated . . . and transmitted from a second control device [that] is
`
`located at a location which is remote from the vehicle . . .” (emphasis added).
`
`Claim 73 similarly recites, inter alia, “a first control device . . . [that] at
`
`least one of generates a first signal and transmits a first signal for at least one of
`
`activating, de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling, at least one of a vehicle
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`system, a vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a
`
`vehicle equipment, and a vehicle appliance, wherein the first control device is
`
`located at the vehicle . . . in response to a second signal [that] . . . is at least one
`
`of generated . . . and transmitted from a second control device [that] is located at
`
`a location which is remote from the vehicle . . .” (emphasis added).
`
`Claim 205 recites, inter alia, “transmitting a second signal from [a] . . .
`
`second control device to a third control device . . . [that] is capable of at least one
`
`of activating, de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling, . . . at least one one of
`
`vehicle system, a vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component, a vehicle
`
`device, a vehicle equipment, and a vehicle appliance, of the vehicle . . . in
`
`response to the second signal . . .” (emphasis added). Claim 205 also recites,
`
`inter alia, that “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 . . .” (emphasis added).
`
`Kniffin fails to disclose at least the above elements and features of each of
`
`claims 3, 73 and 205, as required under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that the “first control device” of claims 3 and 73, and the
`
`“third control device” of claim 205, are satisfied by Kniffin’s “access control
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device 64.” See Paper 1 at 13-22. Petitioner further asserts
`that
`
`the
`
`“clearinghouse” of Kniffin (element 18 in Fig. 1 of Kniffin and element 66 in
`
`Fig. 4 of Kniffin) corresponds to the claimed “second control device” of each of
`
`claims 3, 73, and 205 and that the combination of the telephone 22 and
`
`communications link 16 of Kniffin (shown in Fig. 1 of Kniffin) corresponds to
`
`the claimed “third control device” of claims 3 and 73, and the claimed “first
`
`control device” of claim 205. Figs. 1 and 4 of Kniffin are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Kniffin states that the access control device 64 in Fig. 4 can take the form
`
`as the lock 12 in Fig. 1. EX1010 at 8:45-48 (“[a]lthough the access control device
`
`64 is not particularly detailed in FIG. 4, it can take the same form as lock 12 of
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 1 (but with a lock mechanism adapted to secure the doors of a delivery
`
`truck)”).
`
`
`
`In their analysis of claim 3, Petitioner asserts that:
`
`“Kniffin states that the access control device 64 is
`
`adapted to secure the doors of the truck and guard against
`
`unauthorized opening. 8:11-14 and 46-48. Kniffin states
`
`that the access control device 64 includes a lock
`
`mechanism adapted to secure the doors of the truck and
`
`that the lock 12 includes a lock microprocessor CPU 30
`
`that instructs (the first signal) a lock mechanism 32 to
`
`unlock (again activating a vehicle component). 8:46-48;
`
`3:64-4:3; EX.1002,¶¶ 11-13.” Petition at 14. (citations in
`
`original).
`
`In their analysis of claim 73, Petitioner similarly asserts that:
`
`“Kniffin states the access control device 64 includes a
`
`lock mechanism adapted to secure the doors of the truck
`
`and that the lock 12 includes a lock microprocessor CPU
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30 that instructs a lock mechanism 32 to unlock (again
`
`activating a vehicle component). 8:46-48; 3:64-4:3;
`
`EX.1002,¶¶ 11-13.” Id. at 17. (citations in original).
`
`
`
`In their analysis of claim 205, Petitioner similarly asserts that:
`
`“the access control device 64 includes a lock mechanism
`
`adapted to secure the doors of the truck and that the lock
`
`12 includes a lock microprocessor CPU 30 that instructs
`
`a lock mechanism 32 to unlock (again activating a
`
`vehicle component). 8:46-48; 3:64-4:3; see also 8:21-33;
`
`EX.1002,¶¶ 11-13.” Id. at 22. (citations in original).
`
`However, what Petitioner fails to mention is that the access control device
`
`64 of Kniffin does not generate a signal (the claimed “first signal” in claims 3
`
`and 73 and the claimed “third signal” in claim 205) for instructing the lock
`
`mechanism 32 to unlock the doors in response to a signal from the clearinghouse
`
`66 (which Petitioner asserts corresponds to the claimed “second control device”
`
`of each of claims 3, 73 and 205). The signal from the clearinghouse 66 is a signal
`
`that contains an authorized schedule of stops for the truck. EX1010 at 8:15-24.
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This authorized schedule of stops does not trigger the transmission of a signal
`
`from the access control device 64 for unlocking the lock mechanism 12, but
`
`rather this schedule of stops is transmitted from the clearinghouse 66 to the
`
`access control device 64 and stored in memory 68. Id. at 8:21-24 (“[a]fter
`
`suitable verification checks, the clearinghouse transmits to the targeted truck
`
`access control device 64 the authorized schedule of stops, which data is received
`
`and stored in memory 68). It is important to note that Mr. Andrews confirmed
`
`that embodiment #4 of Kniffin is the only embodiment which pertains to
`
`vehicles. See EX2005 at p. 54, line 23 to p. 55, line 2.
`
`In fact, the signal that triggers the access control device 64 of Kniffin to
`
`generate a signal for instructing the lock mechanism 32 to unlock the doors is a
`
`signal from an “identification device 70” that is present at one of the authorized
`
`locations stored in memory 68. EX1010 at 8:25-33. The signal from the
`
`“identification device 70” is received by the sensor 36 of Kniffin. If the truck
`
`stops at an authorized destination (as determined by the authorized schedule of
`
`stops stored in memory 68), then the signal from the identification device 70,
`
`which is received by sensor 36, will trigger the access control device 64 to
`
`generate a signal for unlocking the lock mechanism 12. Id.
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kniffin explains this functionality unequivocally:
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`“when the truck arrives at its first delivery stop, the truck
`
`access control device 64 senses this fact by detecting an
`
`identification device 70 maintained at that location. The
`
`identification device may be a proximity card mounted at
`
`the loading dock, or may be an electronic key carried by
`
`a manager employed at the first delivery stop. If the
`
`detected identification device corresponds to the first
`
`expected stop that had been earlier programmed, the
`
`truck access control device unlocks, permitting access to
`
`the truck’s contents.” Id. At 8:25-33. (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Indeed, Petitioner’s expert, Scott Andrews, confirmed this functionality
`
`during his cross-examination testimony:
`
`EX2006 at p. 143, lines 6-12
`
`Q: Okay. So the information that we’ve described, then,
`
`going back to Figure 1, that’s being transmitted from the
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`clearinghouse to the lock 12, is the schedule information
`
`that may include time and place?
`
`A: That’s right. I think that’s a fair characterization.
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2006 at p. 145, line 5 to p. 146, line 3
`
`Q: Okay. Let’s assume for the sake of this next round of
`
`questions that the schedule information that is sent from
`
`the clearinghouse to the locked – or the element 12, the
`
`lock, through receiver 14 is – that information is stored in
`
`memory. Okay?
`
`A: Okay.
`
`Q: And let’s assume also that that is for a plurality of
`
`stops, that is, for some stops exceeding one.
`
`A: Fine.
`
`Q: Okay. We’re at the second stop. What happens?
`
`A: Okay. So we arrive at the second stop. The sensor 36
`
`detects that we are at the second stop, it tells the CPU.
`
`The CPU has a conditional statement in its code that
`
`says, if you are at this stop or, you know, you’re allowed
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to open at these particular stops, and it’s going to
`
`compare the stop you’re at to the second that you are
`
`allowed to open at, and if they match, if one of them
`
`matches, you will open the lock. And I think Kniffin also
`
`describes that you can specify the particular order of
`
`stops so that you have to unlock – you have to go to the
`
`stops in the order that that was specified. (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`EX2006 at p. 149, line 17 to p. 151, line 24
`
`Q: How does the sensor communicate with a CPU? And
`
`is that – is it fair to call that communication a signal?
`
`A: I would think that the sensor – if I were building this,
`
`you know, the sensor – today the sensor would probably
`
`be a, you know, some RFID tag reader with a USB
`
`connection or something like that.
`
`Q: Again, the communication between element 36 and
`
`element 30 that is between the sensor and the CPU, is
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that communication described as a signal properly in
`
`your business?
`
`A: Yeah. It would probably be a signal. It would be a
`
`signal on some kind of serial I/O port or something.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`. . .
`
`Q: Okay. Let’s move forward. Then that the sensor is
`
`triggered, the CPU has become instantaneously aware of
`
`whether it’s at the right place. What happens then,
`
`assuming that it’s at the right place? What happens?
`
`A: Assuming that it is at the right place so that the
`
`information that has been provided by the sensor matches
`
`a location that has been provided from the clearinghouse,
`
`the CPU then activates the lock mechanism and opens the
`
`lock or locks.
`
`Q: Okay. So the CPU sends another signal at that point
`
`to the lock mechanism 32; correct? (emphasis added).
`
`A: That’s correct.
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01610
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`Patent 6,542,076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q: And the door – assuming all the conditions are met,
`
`the door unlocks?
`
`A: Unlocks.
`
`Thus, it is unequivocally clear, even by Mr. Andrews’ own testimony, that
`
`the signal that triggers the transmission of a signal from the access control device
`
`64 for unlocking the lock mechanism 12 originates from and is transmitted from
`
`the sensor 36 of Kniffin in response to a signal received from the “identification
`
`device 70” and is not triggered by the signal from clearinghouse 66, which
`
`Petitioner asserts corresponds to the claimed “second control device” of each of
`
`claims 3, 73 and 205.
`
`Put simply, in Kniffin, the schedule information which is sent from the
`
`telephone to the clearinghouse 66, and the resulting schedule information which
`
`is transmitted from the clearinghouse 66 to the access control device 64, merely
`
`programs or provides the access control device 64 with schedule information,
`
`which the access control device 64 can thereafter utilize only after its operation is
`
`activated (con
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
