UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 7,397,363 B2
`Filing Date: September 16, 2002
`Issue Date: July 8, 2008
`Title: CONTROL AND/OR MONITORING APPARATUS AND METHOD
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § § 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... .. 1
`
`FORMALITIES ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`FORMALITIES .......................................................................................................... .. 1
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B.
`
`B
`
`C.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party in Interest ......................................................................................... 1
`Real Party in Interest ....................................................................................... ..1
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................................... 1
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................................. ..1
`
`Fee ........................................................................................................................ 1
`
`Fee ...................................................................................................................... ..1
`
`D. Designation of Lead Counsel and Request for
`D
`Designation of Lead Counsel and Request for
`Authorization ...................................................................................................... 2
`Authorization .................................................................................................... .. 2
`
`E.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`F.
`
`G.
`G.
`
`Service Information ........................................................................................... 2
`
`Service Information ......................................................................................... ..2
`
`Power of Attorney ............................................................................................. 2
`Power of Attorney ........................................................................................... ..2
`
`Standing ............................................................................................................... 2
`Standing ............................................................................................................. ..2
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................................... 3
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ......................................................... .. 3
`
`SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART .......................................................................... 4
`
`SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART ........................................................................ .. 4
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B.
`B.
`
`C.
`C.
`
`D.
`D.
`
`Background of Relevant Technology ............................................................. 4
`Background of Relevant Technology ........................................................... .. 4
`
`Summary of Frossard ........................................................................................ 4
`Summary of Frossard ...................................................................................... ..4
`
`Summary of Johnson ......................................................................................... 5
`Summary ofjohnson ....................................................................................... .. 5
`
`Statement of Non-redundancy ........................................................................ 5
`Statement of Non—redundancy ...................................................................... .. 5
`
`III.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`IV.
`
`V. MOTIVATIONS TO COMBINE ............................................................................. 6
`
`MOTIVATIONS TO COMBINE ........................................................................... .. 6
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’363 PATENT ....................................................................... 7
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’363 PATENT ..................................................................... .. 7
`
`VII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 8
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................. .. 8
`
`VII.
`
`A. Declaration Evidence ........................................................................................ 8
`
`Declaration Evidence ...................................................................................... .. 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art of the ’363 Patent ................................ 8
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art of the ’363 Patent .............................. .. 8
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................... 8
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................... .. 8
`
`i
`
`

`
`A.
`
`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” ......................... 9
`
`IX. FULL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE RELIEF
`REQUESTED ............................................................................................................. 13
`
`A.
`
`Claims 21, 24, 25 and 36 are rendered obvious over
`Frossard in view of Spaur ............................................................................... 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 21 ................................................................................................. 13
`
`Claim 24 ................................................................................................. 24
`
`Claim 25 ................................................................................................. 25
`
`Claim 36 ................................................................................................. 25
`
`Claim 22 is rendered obvious over Frossard in view of
`Spaur in view of Pagliaroli .............................................................................. 26
`
`1.
`
`Claim 22 ................................................................................................. 26
`
`Claim 29 is rendered obvious over Frossard in view of
`Spaur in view of Simms .................................................................................. 30
`
`1.
`
`Claim 29 ................................................................................................. 30
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 29 and 36 are obvious over Johnson
`in view of Rossmann ....................................................................................... 34
`
`1. Motivation to Combine Johnson and Rossmann ........................... 34
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 21 ................................................................................................. 37
`
`Claim 22 ................................................................................................. 54
`
`Claim 24 ................................................................................................. 55
`
`ii
`
`

`
`5.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 25 ................................................................................................. 56
`
`Claim 25 ............................................................................................... ..56
`
`Claim 29 ................................................................................................. 57
`
`Claim 29 ............................................................................................... ..57
`
`Claim 36 ................................................................................................. 59
`
`Claim 36 ............................................................................................... ..59
`
`X.
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 60
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... ..60
`
`
`
`iii
`
`iii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................... 8
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................... 7
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................................... 3
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP § 2143(C) .............................................................................................................. passim
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. 7,397,363 (“the ’363 patent”)
`First Amended Complaint in Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v.
`Exhibit 1002
`Nissan North Am., Inc., No. 1:14-cv-523 (D. Del. 2014) (ECF
`No. 5), served on Real Parties in Interest on August 21, 2014.
`Exhibit 1003 Declaration of Mr. David McNamara
`EP 0505266 to Frossard et al. (“Frossard”)
`Exhibit 1004
`Exhibit 1005
`Certified English translation of Frossard
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. 5,276,728 to Pagliaroli et al. (“Pagliaroli”)
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. 5,334,974 to Simms et al. (“Simms”)
`Exhibit 1008 U.S. 5,557,254 to Johnson et al. (“Johnson”)
`Exhibit 1009 U.S. 5,809,415 to Rossmann (“Rossmann”)
`Exhibit 1010
`Select Office Action Responses from the Ex Parte Reexamination
`No. 90/013,303.
`Trevor O. Jones and Wallace K. Tsuha, “Fully Integrated Truck
`Information and Control Systems (TIACS),” Society of
`Automotive Engineers, 1983.
`Exhibit 1012 Daniel Sellers and Thomas J. Benard, 1992 Proceedings of the
`International Congress on Transportation Electronics, “An
`Update on the OmniTRACS® Two-Way Satellite Mobile
`Communications System and its Application to the Schneider
`National Truckload Fleet,” October 1992
`Exhibit 1013 Dr. W.J. Gillan, PROMETHEUS and DRIVE: Their Implications for
`Traffic Managers, Transportation Road Research Lab UK 1989
`Curriculum Vitae of Mr. David McNamara
`List of Related Matters
`
`Exhibit 1014
`Exhibit 1015
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Through counsel, Petitioner petitions for institution of inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,397,363 B2 (“the ’363 Patent”) (Ex. 1001). The ’363 Patent issued on
`
`July 8, 2008, more than nine months before the filing of this petition. This petition is
`
`being filed within one year of the real parties in interest identified below being served
`
`with a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement of the ’363 Patent, which
`
`occurred on August 21, 2014. See Ex. 1002. Thus, the ’363 Patent is eligible for inter
`
`partes review.
`
`II.
`
`FORMALITIES
`A. Real Party in Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), the real parties in interest are Nissan North
`
`America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’363 Patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 5,917,405 (“the ’405 Patent”), 6,549,130
`
`(“the ’130 Patent”), and 6,542,076 (“the ’076 Patent”) overlap in subject matter and
`
`claim language. These patents have been asserted in 34 litigations, some of which have
`
`been terminated. Additionally, certain claims of these patents have been challenged in
`
`ex-parte reexaminations and inter partes reviews, which are pending. Exhibit 1015 lists
`
`the litigation, ex-parte reexamination, and inter partes review matters.
`
`Fee
`
`C.
`This petition is accompanied by a payment of $23,000 and requests review of 6
`
`
`
`

`
`claims of the ’363 patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.15. Thus, this petition meets the fee
`
`requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1). The Board is hereby authorized to charge
`
`any additional fees required by this action to Deposit Account No. 20-1430.
`
`D. Designation of Lead Counsel and Request for Authorization
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Alton L. Absher III
`Reg. No. 60,687
`aabsher@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem , NC 27101
`Tel: (336) 607-7300
`
`Lead Counsel
`David C. Holloway
`Reg. No. 58,011
`cholloway@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Tel: (404) 815-6500
`
`
`Service Information
`
`E.
`A copy of the present petition, in its entirety, is being served to the address of
`
`the attorney or agent of record for the ’363 Patent. Petitioner may be served via email
`
`to
`
`its
`
`lead
`
`and
`
`backup
`
`counsels,
`
`as
`
`well
`
`as Nissan-Joao-
`
`IPRs@kilpatricktownsend.com.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`F.
`A power of attorney is being filed with the designation of counsel in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`G.
`Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’363 Patent is available for inter partes review and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review.
`
`2
`
`

`
`III. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, this petition requests cancellation of claims 21, 22,
`
`24, 25, 29, and 36 as follows: (1) Claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 are rendered obvious by
`
`Frossard in view of Spaur; (2) Claim 29 is rendered obvious by Frossard in view of
`
`Spaur and further in view of Simms; (3) Claim 36 is rendered obvious by Frossard in
`
`view of Spaur and further in view of Pagliaroli; (4) Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, and 36
`
`are rendered obvious by Johnson in view of Rossmann.
`
`The ’363 Patent issued from App. No. 10/244,334, filed on September 16,
`
`2002, which is a Continuation-in-part of App. No. 09/551,365, filed on April 17,
`
`2000, which claims priority from Provisional App. No. 60/190,379, filed on
`
`March 17, 2000 and Provisional App. No. 60/187,735, filed on March 8, 2000, which
`
`is a Continuation-in-part of App. No. 09/277,935, filed on March 29, 1999, which is a
`
`Continuation of App. No. . 08/683,828, filed on July 18, 1996, which is a
`
`Continuation-in-part of App. No. 08/622,749, filed on March 27, 1996.
`
`Frossard was published in the French language on September 23, 1992 and is
`
`thus prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Spaur was filed on January 16, 1996 and is thus prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`Simms was published on August 2, 1994 and is thus prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`Pagliaroli was published on January 4, 1994 and is thus prior art under 35
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Johnson was filed on November 16, 1993 and is thus prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`Rossmann was filed on December 11, 1995 and is thus prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART
`A.
`Background of Relevant Technology
`The art generally relates to systems capable of performing control operations
`
`on a remote object, such as a vehicle. (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 29-34.) The alleged invention
`
`described in the ’363 Patent is a “control and/or monitoring apparatus and method.”
`
`(’363 Patent, title). Representative claim 21 recites an apparatus that performs well-
`
`known actions such as generating and transmitting signals between three devices, and
`
`using one of the signals to perform an action on a vehicle, such as activating a device
`
`on the vehicle. As described below, systems practicing these steps, alone and in
`
`combination, were well-known in the art before the priority date of the ’363 Patent.
`
`Summary of Frossard
`
`B.
`Frossard discloses “a system for controlled shutdown and for location of a
`
`movable or mobile equipment” such as a motor vehicle. (Frossard, Abstract.)
`
`Frossard discloses transmitting “an access code” and “corresponding intervention
`
`order” to a “server center… via a telephone connection or a Minitel, for example.”
`
`(Id. p. 4 ¶ 3.) The server center receives this signal and then transmits “an order
`
`4
`
`

`
`message M to shut down this equipment,” such as “a motor vehicle.” (Id. p. 4, ¶ 4.)
`
`The vehicle includes “receiver-decoder circuits” that receive and decode this signal
`
`(Id. p. 5, ¶ 2.) One of these circuits then “addresses the corresponding commands to
`
`the equipment 3 itself….” (Id. p. 9, ¶ 3.)
`
`Summary of Johnson
`
`C.
`Johnson discloses “a security system installed in a vehicle which is in
`
`telecommunication with a central monitoring station to communicate alarm
`
`conditions to the central monitoring station, and to receive directives from the central
`
`monitoring station.” (Johnson, 2:20-24.) Johnson’s central monitoring station includes
`
`operator consoles and a computer system connected in a client-server architecture,
`
`where an operator console receives selections of an operator to control particular
`
`operational functions of a vehicle, and where the computer system generates and
`
`transmits control signals to the vehicle in response to the selections. (Id. 5:31-43,
`
`11:18-32, and 16:5-9.) The vehicle’s security system receives the control signals and
`
`accordingly controls the vehicle. (Id. 2:20-21 and 5:31-43.)
`
`Statement of Non-redundancy
`
`D.
`The grounds using Frossard and Johnson as a primary reference, respectively,
`
`are meaningfully distinct. Although both references disclose the claimed three control
`
`devices and signals, each reference discloses different types of control devices and
`
`signals. Frossard describes telephone and Minitel of a user that interface with a server
`
`center of a provider to provide an order message onto a network to a vehicle. In
`
`5
`
`

`
`comparison, Johnson describes a client-server architecture of a provider to provide
`
`control signals onto a network to a vehicle. Each of these architectures discloses,
`
`among other things, the first and second processing devices and the first and second
`
`signals recited in claim 21. However, the Patent Owner may attempt to distinguish
`
`these claimed features by limiting them to being associated with different entities (e.g.,
`
`a user and a provider) or with a same entity (e.g., a provider). Thus, all grounds should
`
`be instituted for this reason. Additionally, Frossard describes a user utilizing code
`
`personalized to the user to provide control over the vehicle. In comparison, Johnson
`
`describes the client receiving an operator selection of an operational function and the
`
`server accepting the selection. Each of these architectures discloses the first
`
`processing device determining whether an action or operation is allowed or
`
`authorized as recited in claim 21. However, the Patent Owner may attempt to
`
`distinguish this claimed feature by limiting it to a particular process for determining
`
`whether an action or operation is allowed or authorized. For this additional reason, all
`
`grounds should be instituted. Furthermore, while Frossard is a 102(b) reference,
`
`Johnson is a 102(e) reference. It is unknown whether the Patent Owner may attempt
`
`to swear behind the Johnson reference. For this additional priority date reason, all
`
`grounds should be instituted.
`
`V. MOTIVATIONS TO COMBINE
`For the reasons further explained in Part IX, infra, one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have been motivated to combine Frossard, Spaur and Simms and to
`
`6
`
`

`
`combine Johnson and Rossmann. A combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods which yields no more than predictable results is usually obvious to
`
`one of skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). One
`
`rationale for such an obviousness finding is where use of a known technique improves
`
`similar devices (methods, or products) in the intended way. See KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at
`
`417-18; see also MPEP § 2143(C).
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’363 PATENT
`The ’363 patent relates to an apparatus that includes three devices, each of
`
`which generates and/or transmits a signal. (’363 patent, Abstract.) The first device
`
`“generates and/or transmits a first signal,” is “associated with a website,” and “located
`
`remote from… a vehicle” (Id.) “The first signal is transmitted in response to a second
`
`signal transmitted from a second device located remote from the first device and
`
`remote from the… vehicle.” (Id.) “The second signal is transmitted via the Internet
`
`and/or the World Wide Web.” (Id.) “The first device determines whether an action or
`
`an operation associated with the second signal is authorized or allowed and, if so,
`
`transmits the first signal to a third device located at the [vehicle].” (Id.) “The third
`
`device generates and/or transmits a third signal for activating, de-activating, disabling,
`
`re-enabling, and/or controlling an operation of, a system, device, equipment,
`
`equipment system, component, and appliance, of the… vehicle.” (Id.)
`
`7
`
`

`
`VII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A. Declaration Evidence
`This petition is supported by the declaration of Mr. David McNamara.
`
`Mr. McNamara earned a B.S. in Engineering from the University of Michigan in 1973,
`
`and a M.S. in Engineering in Solid State Physics from the University of Florida in
`
`1976. Mr. McNamara has over 30 years of direct technical experience in vehicle
`
`security and control systems like those in the claims at issue.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art of the ’363 Patent
`
`B.
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have at least an undergraduate degree in
`
`electrical engineering (or similar field, e.g., physics), and two to three years’ industry
`
`experience in the general field of vehicle security and control systems. (Ex. 1003,
`
`¶¶ 25-28.)
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claim terms of an unexpired patent subject to inter partes review (“IPR”) is
`
`given its “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent
`
`in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This means that the claim terms are given
`
`their plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re
`
`Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The ’363 patent is unexpired. Accordingly, in
`
`this proceeding, claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification. Specific terms are discussed below.
`
`8
`
`

`
`A.
`
`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”
`
`This claim term 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.” (Ex. 1003, ¶ 35.) This
`
`construction emphasizes that the action or operation is what activates, deactivates,
`
`disables, re-enables, or controls. (Id.) Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`claim 21 requires that the first processing device determines whether an action or
`
`operation is authorized or allowed. (Id.)
`
`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; Ex. 1003, ¶ 36.) 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
`
`9
`
`

`
`over a vehicle, the supporting description does not explain how the determination is
`
`made. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 36.) 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.) (Ex. 1003, ¶ 36; ’363 patent, 38:40-45.) The flow of FIG. 6A
`
`further describes that an “incomplete code, an invalid code, or the absence of a
`
`command code after the apparatus 1 has been accessed, may be deemed to be a false
`
`alarm.” (’363 patent, 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.)
`
`Accordingly, 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. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 37.) Thus, codes received from the transmitter (e.g., the
`
`10
`
`

`
`second processing device) are processed to determine if an access code is
`
`unauthorized or if a command code is unauthorized. (Id.) 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).” (’363 patent, 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
`
`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.)
`
`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, 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, 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.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Thus, claim 21 does not require making the determination in association with both
`
`the command code and the access code. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 38.) 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.1 (Id.)
`
`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
`
`1 In the pending ex parte reexamination of the ’363 patent, the Patent Owner itself
`
`made similar arguments. For example, in an attempt to overcome prior art, the Patent
`
`Owner argued that “[t]he above-described claimed functionality performs a beneficial
`
`security purpose, especially when utilized in connection with an Internet-based system
`
`or a World Wide Web based-system, and it is not merely analogous to a validation
`
`operation. For example, an unauthorized individual may use a valid code to gain
`
`unauthorized access to a secured location. The fact that the code may be valid does
`
`not mean that the access is allowed or authorized.” (Ex. 1010, p. 10.) “As and for an
`
`example, an unauthorized person, or a hacker, can gain access to a system or device
`
`using a valid code or password. That does not mean, however, that any action or
`
`operation performed by the unauthorized user, or the hacker, is authorized or
`
`allowed.” (Id. p. 18.) Accordingly, there should be no dispute regarding this
`
`construction.
`
`12
`
`

`
`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.” (Ex. 1003, ¶ 39.)
`
`IX. FULL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE RELIEF
`REQUESTED
`A.
`Claims 21, 24, 25 and 36 are rendered obvious over Frossard in
`view of Spaur
`1.
`Claim 21
`
`Claim 21:
`[preamble] An apparatus, comprising:
`
`See Frossard, p.2, ¶ 1, p. 4, ¶¶ 1-4, Fig.
`1, Fig. 4; Ex. 1003, ¶ 41.
`
`Frossard discloses an “apparatus” in the form of 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.” (Ex. 1003, ¶ 41.)
`
`Claim 21 [A][1]:
`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 system, a vehicle
`component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, and a
`vehicle appliance, of or located at a vehicle,
`
`See Frossard, FIGS.
`1, 2, 4, p. 3, ¶ 3, p.
`4, ¶¶ 2-4, p. 5, ¶ 2,
`p. 7, ¶ 1-3, p. 9, ¶¶
`1-3; Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`42-44.
`
`Frossard discloses a first processing device, a server center and its network.
`
`Frossard discloses transmitting “an access code” and “corresponding intervention
`
`13
`
`

`
`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; Ex. 1003, ¶ 43.)
`
`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.) The “server
`
`center” is an example of a first processing devi