DOCKET NO: _________
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 7,397,363 B2
`
`INVENTOR: Raymond Anthony Joao
`
`FILED: September 16, 2002
`
`ISSUED: July 8, 2008
`
`TITLE: Control and/or Monitoring Apparatus and Method
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MCNAMARA
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I, David McNamara, make this declaration in connection with a second
`
`petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363 (“the ’363 patent”; Exhibit
`
`1001 to the petition and this declaration). All statements herein made of my own
`
`knowledge are true, and all statements herein made based on information and belief
`
`are believed to be true. I am over 21 and otherwise competent to make this
`
`declaration. Although I am being compensated for my time in preparing this
`
`declaration, the opinions herein are my own, and I have no stake in the outcome of
`
`the inter partes review proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`Attached to this declaration is my curriculum vitae (Exhibit 1014). As
`
`shown in my curriculum vitae, I have devoted my career to the field of automotive
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 1
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 7,397,363 B2
`
`INVENTOR: Raymond Anthony Joao
`
`FILED: September 16, 2002
`
`ISSUED: July 8, 2008
`
`TITLE: Control and/or Monitoring Apparatus and Method
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MCNAMARA
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I, David McNamara, make this declaration in connection with a second
`
`petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363 (“the ’363 patent”; Exhibit
`
`1001 to the petition and this declaration). All statements herein made of my own
`
`knowledge are true, and all statements herein made based on information and belief
`
`are believed to be true. I am over 21 and otherwise competent to make this
`
`declaration. Although I am being compensated for my time in preparing this
`
`declaration, the opinions herein are my own, and I have no stake in the outcome of
`
`the inter partes review proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`Attached to this declaration is my curriculum vitae (Exhibit 1014). As
`
`shown in my curriculum vitae, I have devoted my career to the field of automotive
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 1
`
`
`
`electronics. I earned my Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Michigan in 1973 and my Master of Engineering degree in Solid State
`
`Physics from the University of Florida in 1976.
`
`3.
`
`Further, as shown in my curriculum vitae, I have professional and academic
`
`experience in the field of automotive electronics and transportation systems acquired
`
`over a career spanning 38 years. In particular, during this period, I have worked and
`
`otherwise interacted with professionals and students of various experience and
`
`expertise levels in the automotive electronics field. Yet, throughout, my primary focus
`
`has related to identifying, demonstrating, testing, and manufacturing new automotive
`
`and transportation systems embodied in complex hardware and software products.
`
`For example, I have been involved in the development and integration of various
`
`motor vehicle technologies, such as: embedded vehicle controllers; sensors and
`
`actuators as key elements in an engine control system; diagnostic/maintenance
`
`algorithms; multiplexes (or buses) to reduce wiring, provide a test/diagnostic
`
`capability, and to provide control for new convenience features (e.g., power seat
`
`controls), anti-theft systems, Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), such as
`
`Adaptive Cruise Control, and user interface hardware and software to implement
`
`voice-driven features/technology, audio systems, digital media and wireless
`
`communications. I am familiar with Ford’s Voice Alert System launched in the early
`
`1980s that used voice synthesis technology, well known at that time, to provide
`
`audible “voice alerts”, such as the “door is ajar” activated by the electrical door
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 2
`
`
`
`switch. I also have conducted extensive research on motor vehicle interfaces to
`
`permit the safe and easy integration of new electronic devices within a motor vehicle
`
`environment. Recently, I have worked on new automotive control and
`
`communication systems, called “connected automation” that use new wireless
`
`communications to communicate with road-side and other cars to enhance on-board
`
`sensors, such as radar and cameras. These new systems integrate on-board radar and
`
`camera sensors, in-vehicle control systems with important data about other cars and
`
`road conditions, which in the future will enable full autonomous driving.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a consultant for McNamara Technology Solutions LLC
`
`and work with clients in active safety (e.g., mmWave radar based and camera based
`
`systems), automotive electrical/electronics architecture, and automotive wireless
`
`technology.
`
`5.
`
`I also am an active member of the Society of Automotive Engineers,
`
`organizing technical sessions on Vehicle-to-Vehicle and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure
`
`Communications, Cybersecurity and Autonomous Driving and the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and I have been an invited speaker to
`
`various
`
`conferences,
`
`including
`
`the
`
`Telematics
`
`Update
`
`Events
`
`(www.telematicsupdate.com), at which I interact with various members of the
`
`technical community. I periodically publish reports on observed trends in automotive
`
`electronics, and also co-authored an invited paper for the Proceedings of the IEEE
`
`along with former Ford Research colleagues. This paper, Control, Computing and
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 3
`
`
`
`Communications Technologies for the Twenty-first Century Model T by Jeff Cook, Fellow,
`
`IEEE, Ilya Kolmanovsky, Senior Member, IEEE, David McNamara, Member, IEEE,
`
`Edward Nelson, Member, IEEE, and Venkatesh Prasad, Member, IEEE describes
`
`the important developments in automotive electronics. I have contributed articles to
`
`the
`
`Intelligent
`
`Transport
`
`System
`
`(ITS)
`
`International Magazine
`
`(www.itsiternational.com), on Diagnostics/Prognostics and on the 2009 Consumer
`
`Electronics Show (CES). I report on consumer trends and sensor technology
`
`impacting the automotive industry as part of my annual CES report, which has been
`
`published since 2007. I am a member of the Association of Unmanned Vehicles
`
`International (www.auvsi.com) and affiliated with the University of Michigan Mobility
`
`Transformation Center, whose charter to test new autonomous driving systems.
`
`6.
`
`I am a named inventor on five U.S. patents (U.S. Patent No. 4,377,851;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,446,447; U.S. Patent No. 5,060,156; U.S. Patent No. 5,003,801; and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,175,803) that resulted from the development of products for high-
`
`volume production. Of these, U.S. Patent No. 4,377,851 and U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,446,447 relate to pressure sensors used in Ford vehicles, and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,060,156 relates to the oil change detection system used by Ford in high-volume
`
`production for several years.
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 4
`
`
`
`Understanding of the Law
`
`7.
`
`For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about certain
`
`aspects of the law that are relevant to my analysis and opinions, as set forth in this
`
`section of my declaration.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that “claim construction” is the process of determining a
`
`patent claim’s meaning. I also have been informed and understand that the proper
`
`construction of a claim term is the meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(i.e., the technical field to which the patent relates) would have given to that term at
`
`the patent’s filing date. My opinion and analysis with respect to claim construction are
`
`provided from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’363
`
`patent pertains at the earliest possible priority date for the ’363 patent, which I am
`
`informed is March 27, 1996.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that in inter partes review proceedings, a claim of an
`
`unexpired patent is to be given the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears, which is what I have done when
`
`performing my analysis in this declaration.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as obvious if the subject
`
`matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that the following
`
`factors must be evaluated to determine whether the claimed subject matter is obvious:
`
`(1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the difference or differences, if any,
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 5
`
`
`
`between the scope of the claim of the patent under consideration and the scope of the
`
`prior art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that prior art references can be combined to reject a claim
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when there was an objective reason for a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the references, which includes,
`
`but is not limited to (A) identifying a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine
`
`prior art references; (B) combining prior art methods according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results; (C) substituting one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; (D) using a known technique to improve a similar device in the
`
`same way; (E) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement
`
`to yield predictable results; (F) trying a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; or (G) identifying that
`
`known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the
`
`same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the
`
`variations are predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`12. Moreover, I have been informed and I understand that so-called
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness, also known as “secondary considerations,” like
`
`the following are also to be considered when assessing obviousness: (1) commercial
`
`success; (2) long-felt but unresolved needs; (3) copying of the invention by others in
`
`the field; (4) initial expressions of disbelief by experts in the field; (5) failure of others
`
`to solve the problem that the inventor solved; and (6) unexpected results. I also
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 6
`
`
`
`understand that evidence of objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness must be
`
`commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. I am not aware of any
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness for the ‘363 patent.
`
`Materials Considered
`
`13.
`
`I have read the ’363 patent and its prosecution history. I have also
`
`reviewed various materials, including the following:
`
`14. Exhibit 1004 EP 0505266 to Frossard et al. (“Frossard”)
`
`15. Exhibit 1005 Certified English translation of Frossard
`
`16. Exhibit 1006 U.S. 5,276,728 to Pagliaroli et al. (“Pagliaroli”)
`
`17. Exhibit 1007 U.S. 5,334,974 to Simms et al. (“Simms”)
`
`18. Exhibit 1008 U.S. 5,557,254 to Johnson et al. (“Johnson”)
`
`19. Exhibit 1009 U.S. 5,809,415 to Rossmann (“Rossmann”)
`
`20. Exhibit 1010 Select Office Action Response from the Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination No. 90/013,303
`
`21. Additionally, I have reviewed Trevor O. Jones & Wallace K. Tsuha, Fully
`
`Integrated Truck Information and control Systems (TIACS), SAE Technical Paper 831775
`
`(1983) (Exhibit 1011);
`
`22.
`
`I have reviewed Daniel Sellers & Thomas J. Benard, An Update on the
`
`OmniTRACSr Two-Way Satellite Mobile Communications System and its Application to the
`
`Schneider National Truckload Fleet, Proceedings of the 1992 International Congress on
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 7
`
`
`
`Transportation Electronics, Society of Automotive Engineers, Dearborn, MI, SAE P-
`
`260 (1992) (Exhibit 1012);
`
`23.
`
`I have also reviewed Dr. W.J. Gillan, PROMETHEUS and DRIVE: Their
`
`Implications for Traffic Managers, Transportation Road Research Lab UK 1989 (Exhibit
`
`1013).
`
`24.
`
`I also performed Internet research and document review to confirm my
`
`recollection of technology that was available in the time prior to the date of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`25.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding the “level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art” or a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, which I have been told is 1996.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`considered to have the normal skills and knowledge of a person in a certain technical
`
`field. I understand that factors that may be considered in determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the education level of the inventor; (2) the types of
`
`problems encountered in the art; (3) the prior art solutions to those problems; (4)
`
`rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology;
`
`and (6) the education level of active workers in the field. I also understand that “the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art” is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be
`
`aware of the universe of available prior art.
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 8
`
`
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, in 1996, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had an undergraduate, graduate, or doctoral degree in electrical engineering or similar
`
`field, such as physics, and two or three years of industry experience in the general field
`
`of vehicle security and control systems.
`
`28. By March 1996, I was at least a person of ordinary skill in the art based
`
`on my education and experience. Unless stated otherwise, my opinions herein are
`
`provided from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1996, i.e., at the
`
`time of the earliest priority date for the ‘363 patent.
`
`Background on the State of the Art
`
`29.
`
`It is my experience that since the 1980s as capable and affordable
`
`embedded systems and sensors became available, augmented by wireless
`
`communications, these new capabilities were applied to the transportation industry as
`
`well as other industries to address the issue of asset theft and personal safety. In the
`
`early 1980s the car manufacturers were adding vehicle intrusion detection systems, as
`
`I have direct experience with, as I was responsible for the design and release of Ford’s
`
`anti-theft systems from 1982-1984 and digital access systems. As mechanical lock
`
`systems in the early 1980s were also improved as “access codes” were integrated into
`
`mechanical ignition keys and used to enable (or disable) vehicle electrical equipment,
`
`such as the ignition system controlled by the on-board engine computer.
`
`30. Communication and location technologies, using triangulation with
`
`known radio towers or mobile receivers in the 1980s produced commercially available
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 9
`
`
`
`“vehicle recovery systems” such as Lo-jack. In the late 1980s the Global Positioning
`
`Satellite Systems (GPS) replaced landed based systems such as, Loran-C to provide
`
`“location services” and emerging cellular and satellite systems to add “messaging
`
`services” for two-way communications to the driver and vehicle.
`
`31.
`
`In Europe the industry government cooperation, PROMETHEUS
`
`Project
`
`(PROgraMme for a European Traffic of Highest Efficiency and
`
`Unprecedented Safety, 1987-1995) was comprehensive research and development
`
`program well known to the engineering community that applied communications and
`
`control technology to the problem of transportation safety and mobility. These
`
`developments are reported in the 1989 paper, PROMETHEUS and DRIVE: Their
`
`Implications for Traffic Managers by Dr. W.J. Gillan Transportation Road Research
`
`Lab UK (Ex. 1013).
`
`32. The seminal paper published by the Society of Automotive Engineers
`
`(SAE) in 1983 titled, “Fully Integrated Truck Information and Control Systems
`
`(TIACS)” by Trevor O. Jones and Wallace K. Tsuha of TRW Inc. “identifies the
`
`current, near term, and long range system requirements and suggests ideas for a fully
`
`integrated Truck Information And Control System (TIACS)….” (Ex. 1011, 1). The
`
`industry recognized the benefits of applying embedded systems and sensor technology
`
`to commercial vehicles for “optimizing asset utilization,” “improving productivity”
`
`and “reducing operating cost” including the prevention of theft and unauthorized
`
`usage by requiring the use of “access codes.” (Id.) As shown below, the elements of a
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 10
`
`
`
`modern commercial fleet system are described for communications, monitoring and
`
`security.
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 14).
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 18).
`
`33.
`
`Persons of ordinary skill in the art were aware of the need to combine
`
`existing anti-theft, digital access codes, communications and location technologies
`
`and, therefore, would have been motivated to do so. An example is the Qualcomm
`
`OmniTRACS product first launched in 1988. It is my experience that from 1988 -
`
`1992 companies, such as Qualcomm, first developed and expanded the capability of
`
`on-board embedded systems to include two-way communications. The Qualcomm
`
`OmniTRACS product for heavy trucks is an example and is described in the 1992
`
`Proceedings of the International Congress on Transportation Electronics, “An
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 12
`
`
`
`Update on the OmniTRACS® Two-Way Satellite Mobile Communications System
`
`and its Application to the Schneider National Truckload Fleet,” Daniel Sellers of
`
`Schneider National and Thomas J. Benard Qualcomm, October 1992. (Ex. 1012).
`
`34. The enhancement of fleet tracking systems, such as OmniTRACS,
`
`included higher bandwidth and ubiquitous cellular communications, and new Internet
`
`of web-based location services using digital maps and software agents to act on the
`
`behalf of the user. Web-based services (e.g. location-based services) became prevalent
`
`as the Internet became widely used.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Claim 21: “the first processing device determines whether an action or an
`
`operation associated with information contained in the second signal, to at
`
`least one of activate, de-activate, disable re-enable, and control an operation 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, is
`
`an authorized or an allowed action or an authorized or an allowed operation”
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, “the first processing device determines whether an action
`
`or an operation associated with information contained in the second signal, to at least
`
`one of activate, de-activate, disable re-enable, and control an operation 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, is an authorized or an allowed
`
`action or an authorized or an allowed operation,” as used in the ’363 patent, should be
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 13
`
`
`
`defined to mean “the first processing device determines whether an action or an
`
`operation associated with information contained in the second signal is allowed or
`
`authorized, wherein the action or operation is to at least one of activate, de-activate,
`
`disable, re-enable, and control an operation 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.” This construction emphasizes that the action or operation is
`
`what activates, deactivates, disables, re-enables, or controls. In in my opinion, the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 21 requires that the first processing device
`
`determines whether an action or operation is authorized or allowed.
`
`36. The specification of the ’363 patent explains that the “first device
`
`determines whether an action or an operation associated with the second signal is
`
`authorized or allowed…” (’363 patent, Abstract.) Beyond this brief description, the
`
`specification does not explicitly use the terms “allowed” and “authorized” to explain
`
`how the first device performs the determination and what type of determination is
`
`performed. While FIGS. 5B, 11A and 11B illustrate three devices to effect control
`
`over a vehicle, the supporting description does not explain how the determination is
`
`made. FIGS. 6A and 6B are more instructive, illustrating “operational steps and/or
`
`sequences of operation of the apparatus and the method of the present invention.”
`
`(’363 patent, 38:38-40.) In particular, the flow includes receiving an access code and a
`
`command code from a transmitter (e.g., the second processing device.) (Id. 38:40-45.)
`
`The flow of FIG. 6A further describes that an “incomplete code, an invalid code, or
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 14
`
`
`
`the absence of a command code after the apparatus 1 has been accessed, may be
`
`deemed to be a false alarm.” (Id. 38:62-65.) “The cancel and false alarm categories are
`
`utilized in order to enable an authorized user or operator to cancel access to and/or
`
`activation of the apparatus 1, or to prevent an unauthorized access or unauthorized
`
`attempt to enter a command code into the apparatus 1. Such an identification
`
`processing routine may be performed in a very simple manner, such as by testing the
`
`command code or code data against pre-determined or pre-defined codes and/or
`
`against any other code data which may be stored in apparatus program memory. Such
`
`testing may be performed by any one of the widely known software testing and
`
`identification routines and/or techniques.” (Id. 38-66-39:10.)
`
`37. Accordingly and in my opinion, the specification of the ’363 patent
`
`describes using “widely known” software testing and identification routines and/or
`
`techniques to prevent an unauthorized access or unauthorized attempt to enter a
`
`command code into the apparatus. Thus, codes received from the transmitter (e.g.,
`
`the second processing device) are processed to determine if an access code is
`
`unauthorized or if a command code is unauthorized. The access code is “a code
`
`which would comprise a given telephone area code and a telephone number assigned
`
`to, or programmed for, the beeper or pager (receiver 3).” (Id. 36:23-26.) The
`
`“command code may be a valid disable code, a valid re-enable or reset code, a cancel
`
`code, a vehicle status code, a vehicle position and locating code, or any other suitable
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 15
`
`
`
`code which may be recognized by the CPU 4 so as to provide control over and/or
`
`monitoring of the apparatus 1.” (Id. 38:56-60.)
`
`38.
`
`In comparison, claim 21 recites “the first processing device determines
`
`whether an action or an operation associated with information contained in the
`
`second signal… is an authorized or an allowed action or an authorized or an allowed
`
`operation.” Thus and in my opinion, claim 21 only requires determining whether an
`
`action or operation is allowed or authorized, rather than whether a signal or
`
`information contained in a signal (e.g., a command code or an access code) is
`
`authorized or allowed. In addition, claim 21 further recites “an action or an operation
`
`associated with information contained in the second signal, to at least one of activate,
`
`de-activate, disable re-enable, and control an operation 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.” Here, and in my opinion, claim 21 limits the
`
`action or operation to activating, de-activating, disabling, re-enabling, or controlling
`
`rather than to accessing. Accordingly, the action or operation is associated with a
`
`command code rather than an access code. Thus, claim 21 does not require making
`
`the determination in association with both the command code and the access code. In
`
`other words, claim 21 limits the claimed action or operation to activating, activating,
`
`de-activating, disabling, re-enabling, or controlling and does not require the claimed
`
`action or operation to be for accessing.
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 16
`
`
`
`39.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the above features of claim 21 should be
`
`defined to mean “the first processing device determines whether an action or an
`
`operation associated with information contained in the second signal is allowed or
`
`authorized, wherein the action or operation is to at least one of activate, de-activate,
`
`disable, re-enable, and control an operation 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.”
`
`The Frossard Primary Reference in Combination with the Spaur Secondary
`
`Reference
`
`40. As discussed further below, in my opinion, Frossard in view of Spaur
`
`renders obvious claims 21, 24, 25, and 36.
`
`Claim 21
`
`41.
`
`First, in my opinion, Frossard discloses an apparatus. For example,
`
`Frossard describes a “system for controlled shutdown and for location of a movable
`
`or mobile equipment.” (Frossard, p. 2 ¶ 1.) A system for controlled shutdown and
`
`location of movable or mobile equipment is a type of “apparatus.”
`
`42.
`
`Second, in my opinion, Frossard discloses a first processing device,
`
`wherein the first processing device at least one of generates a first signal and transmits
`
`a first signal for at least one of activating, de-activating, disabling, re-enabling, and
`
`controlling an operation of, at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle equipment
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 17
`
`
`
`system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, and a vehicle
`
`appliance, of or located at a vehicle as recited in claim 21.
`
`43.
`
`In particular, Frossard discloses a first processing device: a server center
`
`and its network. For example, Frossard describes transmitting “an access code” and
`
`“corresponding intervention order” to a “server center… via a telephone connection
`
`or a Minitel, for example.” (Frossard, p. 4 ¶ 3.) The server center transmits “an order
`
`message M to shut down this equipment,” such as “a motor vehicle.” (Id. p. 4, ¶ 4.)
`
`44.
`
`Frossard’s server center generates and transmits a first signal to control
`
`operations of a vehicle. In particular Frossard, Frossard discloses that “[t]he
`
`introduction of the access code in the server center and the noting of the
`
`corresponding intervention order may be effected by either an operator or in totally
`
`automatic manner without going beyond the scope of the present invention.”
`
`(Frossard, p. 4, ¶ 3.) Frossard further discloses that “the system contains a resource 2
`
`for selective transmission to the aforesaid equipment of an order message M to shut
`
`down this equipment 3.” (Id. p. 4, ¶ 4.) Thus, the “server center” is an example of a
`
`first processing device, and the “order message M” is an example of the first signal.
`
`The “resource 2” is the network that the server center uses to transmit the first signal
`
`to the vehicle.
`
`45. Third, in my opinion Spaur discloses a first processing device that is
`
`associated with a web site. Thus, the combination of Frossard and Spaur discloses that
`
`the first processing device is associated with a web site as recited in claim 21.
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 18
`
`
`
`46.
`
`For example, Spaur discloses an apparatus for communication of
`
`information “between a vehicle and one or more remote stations using an established
`
`network, such as the Internet.” (Spaur, 1:7-8; 5:40-6:22; Fig. 1.) In particular, Spaur
`
`explains that “at the remote site,” there is “[a]n internet or world wide web browser...
`
`available to the computer terminal” and that “[t]he computer terminal supplies the
`
`browser with an IP (Internet protocol) address” which is “associated with a particular
`
`vehicle.” (Spaur, 2:25-34.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`a browser using an IP address of a web server is a browser that accesses a web site
`
`hosted on the web server at that IP address. Thus, Spaur discloses using a web site at
`
`the remote site in connection with the vehicle. Spaur further discloses a controller that
`
`includes a “TCP/IP (transmission control prototol/internet protocol) stack [] for
`
`providing necessary communication protocols in association with the Internet.” (Id.
`
`8:24-27; see also Fig. 2.) In conjunction with the TCP/IP stack, the controller contains
`
`a web server that “services information related requests in http (hyper text
`
`transmission protocol) format.” (Id. 8:40-41; see also Fig. 2.) The web server is able to
`
`access []data memory [] and obtain such configured data for encapsulation or
`
`incorporation in the http format for communication over the Internet.” (Id. 8:55-58;
`
`see also Fig. 2.) Thus, Spaur discloses using the web site and TCP/IP at the remote site
`
`to transmit to the vehicle.
`
`47.
`
`In my opinion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to combine the teachings of Frossard with those of Spaur. Such a combination is
`
`19
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 19
`
`
`
`nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices and
`
`methods in the same way. The combination provides a processing device that is
`
`associated with a web site because it would have been nothing more than the use of a
`
`known technique to improve similar devices and methods in the same way.
`
`48.
`
`In my opinion, Frossard discloses the “base” system. Spaur is the
`
`“comparable” system because Spaur discloses a system that utilizes a web server and
`
`the Internet to communicate with a vehicle that could be used with the system for
`
`remote controlled vehicle shutdown described in Frossard. For example, Frossard
`
`discusses “systems for protecting movable or mobile equipments, such as motor
`
`vehicles” and explains that “the reliability or inviolability of these systems is
`
`insufficient.” (Frossard, p. 2 ¶ 2.) Frossard explains that “[t]he object of the invention
`
`is to remedy the aforesaid disadvantages by the use of a system for controlled
`
`shutdown of movable or mobile equipment allowing coverage on the national scale,
`
`for example.” (Id. p. 2, ¶ 8.) Frossard also describes a vehicle that “contains receiver-
`
`decoder circuits 4 for the order message to shut down this equipment.” (Id. p. 5, ¶ 2.)
`
`49. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the
`
`improvement of Spaur to the system for controlled vehicle shutdown in Frossard and
`
`achieved the predictable result of using a processing device associated with a web site
`
`for the controlled shutdown of a vehicle. Both references describe systems for
`
`remotely communicating information to a vehicle. (Frossard p. 9, ¶¶ 1-3; Spaur 2:11-
`
`24.) Both references describe receivers located on the vehicle that receive a signal
`
`20
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 20
`
`
`
`from a remote device. (Frossard,p. 5, ¶ 2; Spaur, 2:53-3:29, Fig. 2.) A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be advantageous to use a device
`
`associated with a web site to send a shutdown signal to the vehicle. For example, one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to simplify
`
`and streamline the process of sending signals to the remote devices, and to the vehicle
`
`by allowing access via the Internet. This would allow any Internet user to become a
`
`customer and would also
`
`take advantage of
`
`the existing Internet/WWW
`
`infrastructure, which would be simpler and cheaper than investing in a separate
`
`network. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to
`
`make this modification because by using a web site on the Internet, the user could get
`
`visual information on the web site—e.g., the location of the vehicle on a map. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to combine the web site and
`
`technology at Spaur’s remote site with the teachings of Frossard in order to provide
`
`an apparatus in which the first processing device is associated with a web site. Thus, it
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
`
`teachings of Frossard with those of Spaur to modify Frossard according to the
`
`teachings of Spaur to use a web server and the Internet for the controlled shutdown
`
`of a vehicle.
`
`50.
`
`Fourth, in my opinion Frossard discloses that the first processing device
`
`is located at a location remote from the vehicle as recited in claim 21.
`
`21
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. - Exhibit 1003 - Page 21
`
`
`
`51.
`
`For example, Frossard describes that the server center (first processing
`
`device) is at a location remote from the vehicle and remote from the Minitel or
`
`telephone (second processing device). (Frossard, FIG. 1.) Frossard explains that “a
`
`subscribing owner or authorized
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
