Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: May 5, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADAPTIVE HEADLAMP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, RAMA G. ELLURU, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: May 5, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADAPTIVE HEADLAMP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, RAMA G. ELLURU, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 3–26 and 28–35 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,241,034 C1 (Ex. 1001; “the ’034 Patent”). Adaptive Headlamp
`Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper
`10; “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is
`a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`On this record and for the reasons discussed below, we institute an
`inter parties review of claims 3–26, 28–32, and 35 of the ’034 Patent. We
`have not made a final determination under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the
`patentability of any claim.
`
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`The ’034 Patent was previously the subject of an inter partes
`reexamination that resulted in the issuance of an inter partes reexamination
`certificate (Ex. 1002). The ’034 Patent also was the subject of prior
`litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Pet. 1–
`2. Neither Petitioner nor its subsidiaries were parties to this prior case,
`which was dismissed without prejudice on May 18, 2010. See id. The ’034
`Patent is asserted by Patent Owner in several pending litigations in the U.S.
`District Court for the District of Delaware. Pet. 2; Paper 6, 2–3. Petitioner
`is not a party to any of the Delaware litigations. See id.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`The ’034 Patent
`B.
`The ’034 Patent discloses a structure and method for operating a
`directional control system for vehicle headlights. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`Figure 1 of the ’034 Patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of automatic directional control system 10 for a
`vehicle headlight. Id. at 2:28–30, 63–65. Headlight 11 is mounted on a
`vehicle in a manner that permits the direction of projected light to be
`adjusted by actuators 12 and 13. Id. at 3:10–13, 26–28. Condition sensors
`15 and 16 sense operating conditions of the vehicle, and generate electrical
`signals that are responsive to the sensed operating conditions. Id. at 3:61–
`64. Headlight directional controller 14 receives the electrical signals
`generated by condition sensors 15 and 16, and responds by selectively
`operating actuators 12 and 13 to adjust the position of headlight 11. Id. at
`3:49–58. The disclosed automatic directional control system also includes
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`feedback sensors 18 and 19, which generate signals representative of the
`actual up/down and left/right position of headlight 11, and supply these
`signals to controller 14. Id. at 4:8–24. These signals can be used to calibrate
`the disclosed system. Id. at 6:10–17.
`
`Challenged Claims
`C.
`Challenged claims 3 and 7 are independent claims, and the remaining
`challenged claims depend from either claim 3 or claim 7. Claim 7 is
`illustrative of the challenged claims, and is reproduced below.
`7. An automatic directional control system for a vehicle
`headlight, comprising:
`two or more sensors that are each adapted to generate a
`signal that is representative of at least one of a plurality
`of sensed conditions of a vehicle such that two or more
`sensor signals are generated, said sensed conditions
`including at least a steering angle and a pitch of the
`vehicle;
`a controller that is responsive to said two or more sensor
`signals for generating at least one output signal only
`when at least one of said two or more sensor signals
`changes by more
`than a predetermined minimum
`threshold amount to prevent at least one of two or more
`actuators from being operated continuously or unduly
`frequently in response to relatively small variations in at
`least one of the sensed conditions; and
`said two or more actuators each being adapted to be
`connected to the vehicle headlight to effect movement
`thereof in accordance with said at least one output signal;
`wherein said two or more sensors include a first sensor and a
`second sensor; and
`wherein said first sensor is adapted to generate a signal that
`is representative of a condition including the steering
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`angle of the vehicle and said second sensor is adapted to
`generate a signal that is representative of a condition
`including the pitch of the vehicle.
`
`References and Materials Relied Upon
`D.
`Petitioner relies on the following references and materials in support
`of the asserted grounds of unpatentability:
`
`References and Materials
`Japan Patent Application Publication H10-324191
`(pub. Dec. 8, 1998) (“Kato”)
`UK Published Patent Application GB 2 309 774 A
`(pub. Aug. 6, 1997) (“Takahashi”)
`Japan Patent Application Publication H7-164960
`(pub. June 27, 1995) (“Mori”)
`Japan Patent Application Publication H01-223042
`(pub. Sept. 6, 1989) (“Uguchi”)
`Ishikawa et al, “Auto-Levelling Projector Headlamp
`System with Rotatable Light Shield,” SAE Technical
`Paper Series No. 930726, Mar.1993 (“Ishikawa”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,751,832 (iss. May 12, 1998)
`(“Panter”)
`Japan Patent Application Publication H6-335228
`(pub. Dec. 2, 1994) (“Suzuki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,193,398 B1 (iss. Feb. 27, 2001)
`(“Okuchi”)
`Declaration of Ralph V. Wilhelm, Ph.D. (“Wilhelm
`Decl.”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`1006, 1007
`
`1008
`
`1009, 1010
`
`1011, 1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015, 1016
`
`1017
`
`1019
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Challenged
`Claim(s)
`7–9, 13–18, 20,
`21, 23, 24, 28,
`29, 31, 32, 35
`10
`11, 19
`12
`
`22
`25, 26
`30, 33, 34
`3, 6
`4
`5
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`References
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Kato and Takahashi
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Kato, Takahashi, and Mori
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Kato, Takahashi, and Uguchi
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Kato, Takahashi, and
`Ishikawa
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Kato, Takahashi, and Panter
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Kato, Takahashi, and Suzuki
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Kato, Takahashi, and Okuchi
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Kato and Uguchi
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Kato, Uguchi, and Ishikawa
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Kato, Uguchi, and Takahashi
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`
`A.
`
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.
`Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). There is a presumption that
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`specification. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007). An applicant may rebut that presumption by providing a
`definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read
`from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`The parties agree that we need not construe any claim terms at this
`stage of the proceeding. Pet. 17–18; Prelim. Resp. 13–14. No express
`constructions of claim terms are necessary at this time because “claim terms
`need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controDoeversy.’” Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355,
`1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`B.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`1.
`
`Overview
`Petitioner argues that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Pet. 4. A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art
`are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`which such subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The question of
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3)
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`the level of skill in the art;1 and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations.2 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966). The Supreme Court has held that “[t]he combination of familiar
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`398, 416 (2007). The Supreme Court has also held that “if a technique has
`been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
`her skill.” Id. at 417.
`
`2.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 7–9, 13–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, and
`35 over Kato and Takahashi
`a.
`Kato
`Kato is directed to a headlight optical axis control device for a
`motorcycle. Ex. 1007, Abstract. Kato’s device may incorporate a pitch
`angle sensor, an actuator that pivots an optical axis of the headlight in the
`pitch angle direction, and a control unit that causes the actuator to adjust the
`pitch angle of the headlight based on the pitch angle detected by the pitch
`angle sensor. Id. ¶ 7.
`
`
`1 For purposes of this Decision, we consider the cited references to be
`representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`2 The parties do not direct us to any evidence of secondary considerations.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`Figure 1 of Kato is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a functional block diagram illustrating one embodiment of a
`headlight optical axis control device. Ex. 1007 ¶ 15. The device includes
`potentiometers 121 and 122 to detect pitch angle, angular velocity sensor 14
`to detect bank angle, sensor 16 to detect the steering angle, and speed sensor
`18 to detect the vehicle speed. Id. ¶ 16. The device also includes controller
`24, which determines a pitch angle correction amount, a bank angle direction
`correction amount, and a steering angle direction correction amount based
`on input from potentiometers 121 and 122, and sensors 14, 16, and 18. Id.
`Controller 24 then controls step motors 22x, 22y, and 22z to correct the
`angle of the optical axis of the headlight. Id.
`
`b.
`Takahashi
`Takahashi is directed to a vehicle lamp illumination direction control
`device that detects the posture of a vehicle, and adjusts the illumination of a
`vehicle lamp. Ex. 1008, 1:3–7.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`Figure 1 of Takahashi is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts the basic structure of an embodiment of Takahashi’s
`illumination direction control device. Ex. 1008, 5:24–29. Vehicle posture
`detection device 2 detects, for example, the vertical inclination of the
`vehicle. Id. at 5:30–34. Vehicle running condition detection device 3
`detects, for example, whether the vehicle is moving or stopped. Id. at 6:16–
`25. Control device 4 receives signals from detection devices 2 and 3, and
`transmits a control signal to drive 5 in order to correct the illumination
`direction of lamp 6. Id. at 6:26–32.
`
`c.
`Analysis
`Petitioner alleges that Kato discloses all the limitations of claim 7,
`except for a controller
`generating at least one output signal only when at least one of
`said two or more sensor signals changes by more than a
`predetermined minimum threshold amount to prevent at least
`one of two or more actuators from being operated continuously
`or unduly frequently in response to relatively small variations in
`at least one of the sensed conditions
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`(hereinafter, the “predetermined minimum threshold” limitation). Pet. 25.
`Petitioner alleges that Takahashi discloses the predetermined minimum
`threshold limitation of claim 7. Id.
`Petitioner also alleges that Kato discloses each additional limitation
`recited in dependent claims 8, 14–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, and 32, all of which
`depend from claim 7. Id. Petitioner alleges that Takahashi discloses each
`additional limitation of claims 9, 13, 29, 31, and 35, all of which depend
`from claim 7. Id. at 35. Petitioner also alleges that each of claims 7–9, 13–
`18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, and 35 would have been obvious to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Kato
`and Takahashi. See id. at 34–35, 37–40.
`Patent Owner argues in response that the cited references do not
`disclose the predetermined minimum threshold limitation of claim 17.
`Prelim. Resp. 18. Patent Owner does not at this time dispute Petitioner’s
`assertions as to the other limitations of these claims. See id. at 17–20.
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner has not set forth a sufficient
`rationale for combining the teachings of Kato and Takahashi. Id. at 20.
`For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenge to claims 7–
`9, 13–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, and 35.
`
`Independent Claim 7:
`Claim 7 Preamble: “An automatic directional control system for a
`vehicle headlight, comprising:”
`
`Petitioner has made a sufficiently persuasive showing that Kato’s
`“headlight optical axis control device” (see Ex. 1007 ¶ 1) is an “automatic
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`directional control system for a vehicle headlight,” as recited in the
`preamble. See Pet. 26; Ex. 1019, 20–22.
`
`Claim 7, Sub-paragraphs 1, 4, and 5:
`
`“two or more sensors that are each adapted to generate a
`signal that is representative of at least one of a plurality of
`sensed conditions of a vehicle such that two or more sensor
`signals are generated, said sensed conditions including at
`least a steering angle and a pitch of the vehicle;”
`“wherein said two or more sensors include a first sensor and a
`second sensor; and”
`“wherein said first sensor is adapted to generate a signal that
`is representative of a condition including the steering angle
`of the vehicle and said second sensor is adapted to generate
`a signal that is representative of a condition including the
`pitch of the vehicle.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that Kato discloses all limitations in sub-paragraphs
`1, 4, and 5 of claim 7 (see Pet. 25), and Patent Owner does not presently
`dispute this assertion. We agree on this record that Kato’s “steering angle
`sensor” and “pitch angle sensor” are “two or more sensors that are adapted
`to generate a signal that is representative of at least one of a plurality of
`sensed conditions of a vehicle . . . including at least a steering angle and a
`pitch of the vehicle,” as recited in the first sub-paragraph of claim 7. See
`Pet. 26; Ex. 1019, 22–23; Ex. 1007 ¶ 17 (“the steering angle sensor 16 is a
`rotary potentiometer to detect the steering angle”); ¶16 (“potentiometers 121
`and 122” are “pitch angle sensors that detect a pitch angle” of the vehicle).
`Petitioner also has made a sufficient showing that Kato’s steering angle
`sensor and pitch angle sensor are “two or more sensors” that “include a first
`sensor and a second sensor,” wherein the “first sensor is adapted to generate
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`a signal that is representative of a condition including the steering angle of
`the vehicle and said second sensor is adapted to generate a signal that is
`representative of a condition including the pitch of the vehicle,” as recited in
`sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of claim 7. See Pet. 26–28; Ex. 1019, 22–23; Ex.
`1007 ¶ 16 (explaining that control unit 24 receives information detected by
`the pitch angle sensors and steering angle sensor).
`
`Claim 7, Sub-paragraph 3: “said two or more actuators each being
`adapted to be connected to the vehicle headlight to effect movement
`thereof in accordance with said at least one output signal;”
`
`Patent Owner does not presently dispute Petitioner’s assertion that
`Kato’s “step motors 22x, 22y, and 22z” are “two or more actuators each
`being adapted to be connected to the vehicle headlight to effect movement
`thereof in accordance with said at least one output signal,” as recited in the
`third sub-paragraph of claim 7. See Pet. 27. We agree with Petitioner. Kato
`teaches that step motors 22x, 22y, and 22z are “actuators that pivot the
`optical axis of the headlight 20” according to “a pulse signal output from the
`control unit 24.” Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 16–17.
`
`Claim 7, Sub-paragraph 2: “a controller that is responsive to said
`two or more sensor signals for generating at least one output signal
`only when at least one of said two or more sensor signals changes by
`more than a predetermined minimum threshold amount to prevent at
`least one of two or more actuators from being operated continuously
`or unduly frequently in response to relatively small variations in at
`least one of the sensed conditions;
`
`Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not presently dispute, that
`Kato’s control unit 24 is “a controller that is responsive to said two or more
`sensor signals for generating at least one output signal” to step motors 22x,
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`22y, and 22z (i.e., the two or more actuators). See Pet. 26–27. We are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s assertion because Kato’s controller 24 “finds a
`pitch angle direction correction amount . . . and steering angle direction
`correction amount based on the pitch angle, . . . [and] steering angle”
`detected by the sensors (Ex. 1007 ¶ 13), and then sends “pulse signal output”
`to step motors 22x, 22y, and 22z (id. ¶ 17).
`We also are persuaded on this record that Takahashi discloses a
`controller that generates an output signal “‘only when at least one of said
`two or more sensor signals changes by more than a predetermined minimum
`threshold amount to prevent at least one of two or more actuators from being
`operated continuously or unduly frequently in response to relatively small
`variations in at least one of the sensed conditions’” (i.e., the predetermined
`minimum threshold limitation.) See Pet. 32–34. In particular, Takahashi
`discloses the use of reference values to prevent the system from changing
`the illumination direction of lap 6 in situations when this would be
`undesirable. Ex. 1008, 9:16–34. For example, the system may be designed
`so that a correction does not occur unless “the amount of variations in the
`detect signal of the vehicle posture detection device 2 exceeds a given
`reference value.” Id. at 9:16–25.
`Patent Owner argues that Takahashi does not disclose the
`predetermined minimum threshold limitation because: “Takahashi does not
`address adjusting the headlights in the horizontal direction as a result of
`changes in the steering angle.” Prelim. Resp. 19. This argument is not
`persuasive because claim 7 does not require that the recited predetermined
`minimum threshold be used to limit movement of a headlight in a horizontal
`direction. Patent Owner also points to the fact that Takahashi’s system uses
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`two threshold values: a threshold for sensed variations in gradient, and a
`threshold for time. Id. This argument is not persuasive because Petitioner
`does not persuasively demonstrate that claim 7 is limited to a system that
`employs only one threshold value. Patent Owner additionally argues that
`Takahashi does not disclose a vibration-accommodating design that operates
`in the manner described in the ’034 Patent. Id. This argument is not
`persuasive because claim 7 does not require a vibration-accommodating
`design.
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have found it
`obvious to combine Takahashi’s reference (i.e., threshold) values with
`Kato’s headlight optical axis control device. See Pet. 34–35. As Petitioner
`points out (id. at 34), Takahashi teaches that the use of such reference values
`is desirable because it “prevent[s] the illumination direction of [the
`headlamp] from being corrected inadvertently when a sudden change of the
`posture of the vehicle occurs temporarily . . . .” Ex. 1008, 9:16–34.
`Patent Owner argues in response that Petitioner has failed to set forth
`a sufficient rationale for why it would have been obvious to combine
`Takahashi’s reference (i.e., threshold) values with Kato’s optical axis control
`device. See Prelim. Resp. 20–22. Patent Owner concedes that Takahashi
`teaches that the use of reference values would “preven[t] the illumination
`direction of the lamp from being inadvertently corrected when a sudden
`change in the posture of the vehicle occurs.” Id. at 20–21. Patent Owner,
`however, argues that Dr. Wilhelm’s did not provide any “further
`explanation” that demonstrates “a sufficient motivation to combine” the
`teachings of Kato and Takahashi. Id. Patent Owner also argues that Dr.
`Wilhelm is impermissibly using hindsight. Id. at 22.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that combining Takahashi’s
`reference values with the Kato’s headlight optical axis control system would
`result in an obvious “combination of familiar elements according to known
`methods . . . [that] does no more than yield predictable results.” See KSR,
`550 U.S. at 416. On this record, Patent Owner has not made a persuasive
`showing that Dr. Wilhelm’s opinions are unsupported or based on improper
`hindsight.
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenge to claim 7.
`
`Dependent Claims 8, 14–16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, and 32:
`
` “8. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7,
`wherein said first sensor is physically separate from said second
`sensor.”
`
`Petitioner alleges, and Patent Owner does not presently dispute, that
`Kato discloses a first sensor that is physically separate from a second sensor.
`Pet. 28. We agree that Kato discloses linear potentiometers 121 and 122
`(i.e., the “first sensor”) that are physically separate from rotary
`potentiometer 16 (i.e., the “second sensor”). For example, Figure 2 depicts
`linear potentiometers 121 and 122 as being located at the front and rear
`wheels of the motorcycle, and rotary potentiometer 16 as being located near
`the motorcycle’s handlebars. See Ex. 1007 Fig. 2.
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
` “14. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7,
`wherein the automatic directional control system is configured such
`that said two or more actuators include a first actuator and a second
`actuator and wherein the first actuator connected to the headlight to
`effect movement thereof in a first direction and the second actuator
`connected to the headlight to effect movement thereof in a second
`direction different from the first direction.”
`
` “15. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7,
`wherein the two or more actuators include a first actuator that is
`adapted to be connected to the headlight to effect movement thereof in
`a vertical direction.”
`
` “16. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 15,
`wherein the two or more actuators include a second actuator that is
`adapted to be connected to the headlight to effect movement thereof in
`a horizontal direction.”
`
`We agree with Petitioner’s assertion that that Kato’s step motors 22x,
`22y, and 22z (i.e., the first and second actuators) effect movement of
`headlight 20 in a first direction and a second direction (as recited in claim
`14), a vertical direction (as recited in claim 15), and a horizontal direction
`(as recited in claim 16). See Pet. 28; Ex. 1019, 24–26. Kato discloses that
`these actuators “pivot the optical axis of the headlight 20 in a pitch angle
`direction” (i.e., the recited “first direction” of claim 14 and “vertical
`direction” of claim 15) and “a steering angle direction” (i.e., the recited
`“second direction” of claim 14 and “horizontal direction” of claim 15). Ex.
`1007 ¶ 16. Patent Owner also does not presently dispute that Kato discloses
`these claim elements.
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
` “17. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7,
`wherein the two or more actuators include an electronically
`controlled mechanical actuator.”
`
` “18. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7,
`wherein the two or more actuators include a step motor.”
`
` “20. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7,
`wherein the two or more actuators include a microstepping motor
`capable of being operated in fractional step increments.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that Kato’s step motors 22x, 22y, and 22z (the
`actuators) are electronically controlled mechanical actuators as recited in
`claim 17, and step motors as recited in claim 18. See Pet. 29–30. Petitioner
`has cited testimony from Dr. Wilhelm that step motors 22x, 22y, and 22z,
`together with the “built-in program for . . . optical axis control” of control
`unit 14 (see Ex. 1007 ¶ 17), also constitute “microstepping motors” capable
`of being operated in fractional step increments, as recited in claim 20. See
`Ex. 1019, 26, 30; see also Ex. 1001 3:33–37 (“microstepping motors . . .
`consist of conventional step motors . . . and software that allow the step
`motors to be operated in fractional step increments”). Patent Owner does
`not presently dispute these assertions. On the current record, we credit Dr.
`Wilhelm’s testimony and find that Petitioner has made a sufficiently
`persuasive showing with respect to the limitations recited in claims 17, 18,
`and 20.
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
` “21. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7,
`wherein the automatic directional control system is configured such
`that the headlight is adjustably mounted on the vehicle such that a
`directional orientation at which a beam of light projects therefrom is
`capable of being adjusted both up and down relative to a horizontal
`reference position and left and right relative to a vertical reference
`position.”
`
`Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not presently dispute, that
`Kato discloses a headlight that is adjustably mounted to a vehicle in the
`manner recited in claim 21. See Pet. 30. Kato’s headlight 20 is adjustably
`mounted such that its optical axis (i.e., the “beam of light [that] projects
`therefrom”) is capable of being adjusted “in the pitch angle Db direction
`around the y axis” (i.e., both up and down relative to a horizontal reference
`position), and “in the steering angle direction Ds around the z axis (i.e., “left
`and right relative to a vertical reference position”). Ex. 1007 ¶ 19; see also
`id. Fig. 4 (illustrating the x, y and z axes of rotation). Accordingly, we are
`persuaded on this record that Kato discloses the limitations of claim 21.
`
` “23. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7,
`wherein the automatic directional control system is configured such
`that the controller includes a microprocessor.”
`
` “24. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7,
`wherein the automatic directional control system is configured such
`that the controller includes a programmable electronic controller.”
`
` “28. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7,
`wherein the automatic directional control system further includes
`memory.”
`
`Patent Owner also does not presently dispute Petitioner’s assertion
`that Kato’s controller 24 includes a microprocessor as recited in claim 23, a
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`programmable electronic controller as recited in claim 24, and memory as
`recited in claim 28. See Pet. 31. We agree on this record that Kato teaches
`or suggests these claim limitations. Kato discloses that “control unit 24 is a
`microcomputer having a built-in program for the optical axis control.”
`Ex. 1007 ¶ 17. Although Kato does not explicitly state that this
`microcomputer would include a microprocessor and memory, we are
`persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Kato’s
`microcomputer would require memory to store the built-in program and a
`microprocessor to execute the built-in program.
`
` “32. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7,
`wherein the automatic directional control system is configured such
`that the pitch of the vehicle is capable of being determined by a pitch
`sensor.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that Kato discloses a system in which a pitch sensor
`is capable of determining the pitch of the vehicle. Pet. 31. We are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s assertion, which Patent Owner does not presently
`dispute, because Kato’s “pitch angle sensor detects the change of the pitch
`angle due to an inclination of the vehicle body.” See Ex. 1007 ¶ 8.
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenge to claims 8, 14–18, 20,
`21, 23, 24, 28, and 32.
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`Dependent Claims 9, 13, 29, 31, and 35:
` “35. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7,
`wherein the automatic directional control system is configured such
`that the predetermined minimum threshold amount functions as a
`filter to minimize undesirable operation of at least one of the two or
`more actuators.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that the reference (i.e., threshold) values of
`Takahashi function “as a filter to minimize undesirable operation of at least
`one of the two or more actuators.” Pet. 35. Patent Owner does present any
`separate arguments with respect to this limitation. On this record, we agree
`with Petitioner. Takahashi discloses that reference values are used “in order
`to prevent the illumination direction of the lamp 6 from being corrected
`inadvertently when a sudden change in the posture of the vehicle occurs
`temporarily.” See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 9:16–19.
`
` “29. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 28,
`wherein the memory includes non-volatile memory.”
`
`Takahashi discloses that the control program of a headlight controller
`may be stored in “a non-volatile memory 15 (such as an electrically erasable
`EEPROM, or the like).” Ex. 1008, 16:5–9. Dr. Wilhelm testifies that “[t]he
`use of non-volatile memory with such control units was well known” in the
`art. Ex. 1019 ¶ 66. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion that
`Takahashi discloses the additional limitation recited in claim 29. See Pet.
`36. We are persuaded on this record that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have had reason to use non-volatile memory of the type disclosed in
`Takahashi to store the built-in program of Kato’s controller 24.
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
` “9. The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7,
`further comprising one or more additional sensors for sensing one or
`more of a rate of change of road speed of the vehicle, a rate of change
`of the steering angle of the vehicle, a rate of change of th
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
