Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.:
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.:
`Filing Date:
`Reexam. Cert. No.:
`Reexam. Cert. Date:
`
`Title:
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 10973-0232IP1
`
`Smith et al.
`7,241,034 B2
`July 10, 2007
`10/285,312
`October 31, 2002
`7,241,034 C1
`June 14, 2013.
`
`AUTOMATIC DIRECTIONAL CONTROL SYSTEM FOR VEHICLE
`HEADLIGHTS
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RALPH V. WILHELM, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`KOITO 1019
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
` PERSONAL WORK EXPERIENCE AND AWARDS ..................................... 1
` MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................... 5
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”) ...................... 7
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................. 8
` LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................ 9
` PRIOR ART CONSIDERED ......................................................................... 11
`A. Background of the Art ................................................................................. 13
` SUMMARY OF THE ’034 PATENT ............................................................ 18
` CLAIMS 7-9, 13-18, 20-21, 23-24, 28-29, 31-32 AND 35 – OBVIOUS
`FROM KATO IN VIEW OF TAKAHASHI ........................................................... 20
`A. All of the limitations of independent claim 7, except the “threshold”
`limitation, and all limitations of its dependent claims 8, 14-18, 20-21, 23-24, 28
`and 32 are disclosed in Kato ................................................................................. 20
`1. Claim Chart for Kato ................................................................................ 22
`2. Takahashi discloses the “threshold” limitation in claim 7 ....................... 28
`3. Claims 7, 8, 14-18, 20-21, 23-24, 28 and 32 are unpatentable as obvious
`from Kato in view of Takahashi ....................................................................... 30
`4. Takahashi also discloses the additional limitations in dependent claims 9,
`13, 29, 31 and 35 ............................................................................................... 31
`5. Claims 9, 13, 29, 31 and 35 also are unpatentable as obvious from Kato
`in view of Takahashi ......................................................................................... 33
` CLAIM 10 – OBVIOUS FROM KATO IN VIEW OF TAKAHASHI AND
`FURTHER IN VIEW OF MORI ............................................................................. 36
` CLAIMS 11 AND 19 – OBVIOUS FROM KATO IN VIEW OF
`TAKAHASHI AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF UGUCHI ...................................... 38
` CLAIM 12 – OBVIOUS FROM KATO IN VIEW OF TAKAHASHI AND
`FURTHER IN VIEW OF ISHIKAWA ................................................................... 42
` CLAIM 22 – OBVIOUS FROM KATO IN VIEW OF TAKAHASHI AND
`FURTHER IN VIEW OF PANTER ........................................................................ 45
` CLAIMS 25 AND 26 – OBVIOUS FROM KATO IN VIEW OF
`TAKAHASHI AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF SUZUKI ....................................... 47
`
`
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`
`
`
` CLAIMS 30, 33 AND 34 – OBVIOUS FROM KATO IN VIEW OF
`TAKAHASHI AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF OKUCHI ...................................... 49
` CLAIM 3 – OBVIOUS FROM KATO IN VIEW OF UGUCHI .................. 52
`A. All of the limitations of independent claim 3 are disclosed in Kato, except
`the “threshold” limitation and the “rate of change of steering angle” limitation,
`which are disclosed in Uguchi .............................................................................. 52
`B. Uguchi discloses the “threshold” limitation and the “rate of change of
`steering angle” limitation in claim 3 .................................................................... 54
`C.
`Independent claim 3 is unpatentable as obvious from the combination of
`Kato and Uguchi ................................................................................................... 55
` CLAIM 4 – OBVIOUS FROM KATO IN VIEW OF UGUCHI AND
`FURTHER IN VIEW OF ISHIKAWA ................................................................... 57
` CLAIM 5 - OBVIOUS FROM KATO IN VIEW OF UGUCHI AND
`FURTHER IN VIEW OF TAKAHASHI ................................................................ 58
` CLAIM 6 - OBVIOUS FROM KATO IN VIEW OF UGUCHI ................ 59
` ADDITIONAL REMARKS ........................................................................ 60
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`PERSONAL WORK EXPERIENCE AND AWARDS
`1. My name is Ralph V. Wilhelm. I am currently President of Wilhelm
`
`Associates, LLC., an independent consulting firm that I founded in 2001. The firm
`
`specializes in automotive electronics, telematics, systems engineering, data
`
`communications between systems and devices, and product/market and business
`
`strategies. In this role, I provide advice and assistance in the development and use
`
`of market assessment methodologies, product requirement definitions, product
`
`design, product and market strategy, expert witness support and testimony, and
`
`product implementation in my areas of technical expertise.
`
`2.
`
`In addition to the below summary, a copy of my current curriculum
`
`vitae more fully setting forth my experiences and qualifications is submitted
`
`herewith as Koito Exhibit 1020 (“KOITO 1020”).
`
`3.
`
`I have more than 44 years of industrial experience in Engineering. I
`
`received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Cornell
`
`University in 1967, a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Ceramic
`
`Engineering/Material Science from Rutgers University in 1972, an Executive
`
`Management Program certificate from the University of Illinois in 1985, and a
`
`Master of Business Administration degree in Operations and Strategy from the
`
`University of Michigan in 1987.
`
`4.
`
`I have authored dozens of published technical papers and delivered
`
`
`
`1
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`many lectures addressing various aspects of automotive electronic systems. I am a
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`named inventor on three issued U.S. patents directed to methods of constructing
`
`automotive sensors.
`
`5.
`
`I have been involved in the development of and/or have experience in
`
`working with closed loop control systems that had a variety of sensor input that
`
`was fed into a microprocessor that then made decisions based on that input versus
`
`trigger information or thresholds or max/min values and fed instructions to on-
`
`board actuators or communication links on-board and/or off-board the vehicle.
`
`Typical closed loop control systems where I have had this experience include
`
`automotive systems such as stability control systems, anti-skid braking systems,
`
`traction control systems, engine control systems, and others.
`
`6.
`
`I was a Senior Research Scientist from 1971 to 1978 at General
`
`Motors Research Laboratories. Thereafter, from 1978 to 1984, I worked in General
`
`Motors Corporation’s AC Spark Plug Division as the Supervisor and Department
`
`Head of Materials Development.
`
`7.
`
`From 1984 to 2001, I worked at and held various positions in the AC
`
`Spark Plug Division and Delphi Delco Electronics Corporation. I was the
`
`Department Head of Advanced Instruments & Display from 1984 to 1989.
`
`8.
`
`From 1989 to 1994, I was a Director of Advanced
`
`Development/Systems Integration. There, I oversaw the design and development of
`
`
`
`2
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`automotive electronic systems, including, for example, a precursor system to the
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`OnStar telematics system, navigation systems, advanced engine control systems,
`
`night vision systems, millimeter wave-based radar systems, and digital audio
`
`systems.
`
`9.
`
`From 1994 to 1997, I was a Vice President of Engineering for
`
`Asia/Pacific, and oversaw product launches for audio, powertrain control, and
`
`security systems, as well as the co-development of advanced systems with Toyota,
`
`Honda, Holdens, Daewoo, and other vehicular OEMs.
`
`10. From 1997 to 2001, I was a Product Line Manager in the Mobile
`
`Multi-Media Systems division. In this role, I managed product lines covering
`
`telematics, navigation, Rear Seat Audio Video (RSAV), and Dedicated Short
`
`Range Communications (DSRC) systems, some of which were later acquired and
`
`installed in vehicles by Toyota, General Motors, Honda, and Ford.
`
`11.
`
`I first served as an expert witness in 2005. Since that time, I have been
`
`hired by numerous law firms to provide them and their clients with expert
`
`consultation and expert testimony, often in the areas of patent infringement
`
`litigation related to various automotive electronic systems in the general areas of
`
`infotainment (navigation, telematics, audio, communication, user interfaces),
`
`engine control, safety (object detection and warning, multi-camera vision for
`
`object detection), reconfigurable displays and interfaces, and on-board and off-
`
`
`
`3
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`board diagnostics and prognostics for driver information and warnings.
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`12. Throughout my career, I have been actively involved in numerous
`
`professional organizations including the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),
`
`The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), Sigma Xi,
`
`Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), and the Society for
`
`Information Display.
`
`13. As indicated in my CV (KOITO 1020), I have received various
`
`professional awards, including the Vincent Bendix Automotive Electronics
`
`Engineering Award for Outstanding Society of Automotive Engineers Paper
`
`(1978), the Arch T. Colwell Merit Award for Outstanding Society of Automotive
`
`Engineers Technical Presentation (1978), the “Boss” Kettering Technical Award
`
`(internal General Motors, 1979), and election to the Delphi Automotive Innovation
`
`Hall of Fame (1997).
`
`14. Based on my above-described 44 years of dual industrial and
`
`consulting experience in Automotive Electronics Research, Development and
`
`Engineering, and the acceptance of my publications and professional recognition
`
`by societies in my field, I believe that I am considered to be an expert in the fields
`
`of automotive electronic systems, including vehicle control systems, sensors, and
`
`actuators as more clearly delineated in the paragraphs above and my attached CV.
`
`(KOITO 1020).
`
`
`
`4
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
` MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`15.
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered the following: my own
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience in the fields of
`
`automotive electronic systems, the research and development of automotive
`
`sensors and actuators, my industry experience with those subjects; and my
`
`experience in working with others involved in those fields. I have also analyzed the
`
`publications and materials referenced in the below chart, in addition to other
`
`materials I cite in this declaration.
`
`KOITO 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,241,034
`
`KOITO 1002 Reexamination Certificate, U.S. Patent No. 7,241,034 C1
`
`KOITO 1003
`
`File History for U.S. Serial No. 10/285,312
`
`KOITO 1005
`
`KOITO 1004
`
`File History for Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings
`90/011,011
`File History for Merged Reexamination Proceedings
`90/011,011 & 95/001,621
`KOITO 1006 Kato Japan Patent Application Publication H10-324191
`(“Kato”)
`KOITO 1007 Certified Translation of Kato
`
`KOITO 1008 Takahashi, UK Published Patent Application GB 2 309 774 A
`(“Takahashi”)
`KOITO 1009 Mori, Japan Patent Application Publication H7-164960
`(“Mori”)
`KOITO 1010 Certified Translation of Mori
`
`KOITO 1011 Uguchi et al, Japan Patent Application Publication H01-
`223042 (“Uguchi”)
`
`
`
`5
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`KOITO 1012 Certified Translation of Uguchi
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`KOITO 1013
`
`KOITO 1014
`
`Ishikawa et al, “Auto-Levelling Projector Headlamp System
`with Rotatable Light Shield,” SAE Technical Paper Series No.
`930726, March 1993 (“Ishikawa”)
`Panter, U.S. Patent No. 5,751,832 (“Panter”)
`
`KOITO 1015
`
`Suzuki, Japan Patent Application Publication H6-335228
`(“Suzuki”)
`KOITO 1016 Certified Translation of Suzuki
`
`KOITO 1017 Okuchi, U.S. Patent No. 6,193,398 (“Okuchi”)
`
`KOITO 1018 Okuchi, U.S. Patent Application No. 09/333,686 “Okuchi
`Application”)
`KOITO 1021 Dunning, U.S. Patent No. 982,803 (“Dunning”)
`
`KOITO 1022 McVey, U.S. Patent No. 1,524,443 (“McVey”)
`
`KOITO 1023
`
`Schjotz, U.S. Patent No. 1,595,879 (“Schjotz”)
`
`KOITO 1024 Yssel, U.S. Patent No. 3,316,397 (“Yssel”)
`
`KOITO 1025
`
`Fleury, U.S. Patent No. 3,617,731 (“Fleury”)
`
`KOITO 1026 USPTO Assignment Records for U.S. Patent No. 7,241,034
`
`KOITO 1027
`
`Ishikawa STN Abstract
`
`KOITO 1028 Hogrefe, U.S. Patent No. 6,227,691 (“Hogrefe”)
`
`
`16. Although for the sake of brevity this Declaration refers to selected
`
`portions of the cited references, it should be understood that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) would view the references cited herein in their entirety
`
`and in combination with other references cited herein or cited within the references
`
`
`
`6
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`themselves. The references used in this Declaration, therefore, should be viewed as
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`being incorporated herein in their entirety.
`
`17.
`
`I am not currently and have not at any time in the past been an
`
`employee of Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. or any of its subsidiaries. I have been
`
`engaged in the present matter to provide my independent analysis of the issues
`
`raised in the petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,241,034 (“the
`
`’034 patent”). I received no compensation for this declaration beyond my normal
`
`hourly compensation ($500 per hour) based on my time actually spent studying the
`
`matter and preparing this declaration, and my compensation does not depend on
`
`the outcome of this inter partes review of the ’034 patent.
`
`
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”)
`18.
`I am familiar with the content of the ’034 patent, which, I have been
`
`informed by counsel, has an earliest priority date of October 31, 2001.
`
`Additionally, I have reviewed the other references cited above in this declaration.
`
`Counsel has informed me that I should consider these materials through the lens of
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) related to the ’034 patent at the time of
`
`the invention. I have supervised and directed many such persons over the course
`
`of my career. Further, I had at least those capabilities myself in October 2001.
`
`19.
`
`I believe that a POSITA at the filing date of the ’034 Patent
`
`
`
`7
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`(“POSITA”) would have been a person with at least a bachelor’s degree in
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, or physics with at least two years of
`
`related post-graduate or industry work experience. I base my evaluation of the
`
`level of skill of a POSITA on my own personal experience, including my
`
`knowledge of colleagues, and related professionals at the time of interest.
`
`20. A POSITA in October 2001 would also have had a working
`
`understanding of microprocessor-driven controls for automotive systems including
`
`knowledge of automotive closed loop computer control, sensors and actuators.
`
`This POSITA would have been comfortable with elementary decision-making in
`
`the area of automotive systems development and design for new vehicles.
`
`
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`21.
`I understand that, for the purposes of my analysis in this matter, the
`
`claims of the ’034 Patent must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification. Stated another way, it is contemplated that the
`
`claims are understood by their broadest reasonable interpretation except where
`
`construed in the specification. I also understand that this “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation” is with respect to how one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`interpret the claim language. I have followed these principles in my analysis. In a
`
`few instances, I have discussed my understanding of the claims in the relevant
`
`
`
`8
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`paragraphs below.
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
` LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`22. Counsel has informed me that prior art to the ’034 Patent includes
`
`patents and printed publications in the relevant art that were published prior to
`
`October 31, 2001.
`
`23. Counsel has informed me that a claim may be invalid based on either
`
`anticipation or obviousness.
`
`24. Counsel has informed me that for a claim to be invalid as anticipated,
`
`every element of a claim is expressly disclosed or inherently contained in one
`
`reference, in combination, as claimed.
`
`25. Counsel has informed me that that for a claim to be invalid as
`
`obvious, the claim should be obvious from the perspective of a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the alleged invention was made in view
`
`of the prior art. Counsel has informed me that a combination of two or more prior
`
`art references may invalidate a claim under obviousness.
`
`26. Counsel has informed me that an obviousness analysis requires
`
`analyzing the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior
`
`art and the alleged invention, and the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`
`
`9
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`
`27. Counsel has informed me that other factors, called “secondary
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`considerations,” may support or rebut the obviousness of a claim. Counsel has
`
`informed me that these can include: commercial success of the patented invention,
`
`skepticism of those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention,
`
`unexpected results of the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that
`
`was satisfied by the alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged
`
`invention, praise of the alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art,
`
`and copying of the alleged invention by others in the field.
`
`28. Counsel has informed me that a connection between any secondary
`
`considerations and the alleged invention should exist. Counsel has informed me
`
`that independent invention by others at the same time of the alleged invention is a
`
`secondary consideration that supports a conclusion of obviousness. Counsel has
`
`informed me that a claim is also obvious if it unites old elements with no change to
`
`the respective functions of those elements, or alters prior art by substituting one
`
`element for another known element, yielding predictable results. Counsel has
`
`informed me that while it may be helpful to identify a reason for this combination,
`
`the common sense of one having ordinary skill can be sufficient, and no rigid
`
`requirement of finding a teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine is required.
`
`Counsel has informed me that when a product is available, design incentives and
`
`other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
`
`
`
`10
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`different one. Counsel has informed me that if a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`relevant art can implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its
`
`patentability. Counsel has informed me that for the same reason, if a technique has
`
`been used to improve one device and a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
`
`technique may be obvious. Counsel has informed me that a claim may be obvious
`
`if common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art references or add
`
`missing features to reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims.
`
`29. Counsel has informed me that in an IPR, claim terms are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the patent specification and the
`
`understanding of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`
`
` PRIOR ART CONSIDERED
`30.
`I have been asked to consider the prior art references identified in the
`
`table below, along with their pertinent date of patenting, publication or filing.
`
`
`
`Prior Art Reference
`
`1. Kato Japan Unexamined Published
`Patent Application H10-324191,
`“Headlight Optical Axis Control Device
`for Motorcycle” (“Kato”)
`2. Takahashi, UK Published Patent
`Application GB 2 309 774 A,
`“Controlling direction of vehicle
`headlights” (“Takahashi”)
`
`Prior Art Date &
`Exhibit Number
`Publ. Dec. 8, 1998
`(KOITO 1006;
`1007)
`
`Publ. Aug. 6, 1997
`(KOITO 1008)
`
`
`
`11
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`
`
`Prior Art Reference
`
`3. Mori, Japan Unexamined Published
`Patent Application 7-164960(“Mori”)
`
`5.
`
`4. Uguchi et al, Japan Unexamined
`Published Patent Application 01-223042
`“Vehicle Headlight Control Device”
`(“Uguchi”)
`Ishikawa et al, “Auto-Levelling Projector
`Headlamp System with Rotatable Light
`Shield,” SAE Technical Paper Series No.
`930726 (“Ishikawa”)
`6. Panter, U.S. Patent No. 5,751,832
`(“Panter”)
`7. Suzuki, Japan Unexamined Published
`Patent Application 6-335228 (“Suzuki”)
`
`8. Okuchi, U.S. Patent No. 6,193,398 & its
`Application Serial No. 09/333,686,
`(“Okuchi”)
`
`Prior Art Date &
`Exhibit Number
`Publ. June 27, 1995
`(KOITO 1009;
`1010)
`Publ. Sept. 6, 1989
`(KOITO 1011;
`1012)
`
`Publ. 1993
`(KOITO 1013)
`
`Pat. May 12, 1998
`(KOITO 1014)
`Publ. December 2,
`1994
`(KOITO 1015;
`1016)
`Filed Jun 16, 1999
`Pat. Feb 27, 2001
`(KOITO 1017 &
`1018)
`
`
`31.
`
`I have also considered a copy of the Okuchi application, as filed, is
`
`submitted as KOITO 1018. Citations in this declaration are to the Okuchi patent. I
`
`have compared the Okuchi patent to the Okuchi application, as filed, and I have
`
`found the application includes substantially the same disclosure as the patent in all
`
`cited parts.
`
`32. With respect to the foreign language references in the list above, I
`
`have considered the certified English translations that are KOITO Exhibits. Cites
`
`and quotes from these references in my declaration are with respect to the certified
`
`
`
`12
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`English translations.
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`33.
`
`Ishikawa, Ex.1013, was published by the SAE Technical Paper Series
`
`in 1993 to accompany the SAE International Congress and Exhibition held in
`
`Detroit, Michigan, from March 1-5, 1993. Ishikawa, on its face, states that it,
`
`along with all “SAE papers, standards, and selected books,” was “abstracted and
`
`indexed in the Global Mobility Database,” a sub-database within STN. Ishikawa,
`
`Ex. 1013, page 1. An abstract of Ishikawa was entered into STN on April 8,
`
`1993. See Ex. 1027 (Ishikawa STN abstract, stating “Entered STN: 8 Mar
`
`1993”). Furthermore, Ishikawa itself, on the Title page, states that the article was
`
`released for the SAE International Congress and Exhibition held in Detroit,
`
`Michigan, from March 1-5, 1993.
`
`34. Each of these prior art references is from the same field, namely,
`
`electronic systems for controlling the direction of a vehicle headlight. Therefore, it
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine features of any of them in the
`
`ways claimed in the claims of the ’034 patent.
`
`A. Background of the Art
`35. The idea of moving a motor vehicle headlight assembly or part thereof
`
`so to direct the headlight beam in an optimal direction to enable safer vehicle
`
`operation is very old.
`
`36. The most basic form of an “automatically” steered vehicle headlight
`
`
`
`13
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`beam is produced by a light source assembly attached to bicycle or motorcycle
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`handlebars. In 1911, Dunning (US 982,803, KOITO 1021) disclosed headlights for
`
`automobiles in which the direction of headlights was controlled by mechanical
`
`links to the steering system. It was known at least as early as 1925 that the
`
`headlight beam could be directed by moving the entire headlight assembly or only
`
`some components. See Fig 3 of McVey (US 1,524,443, KOITO 1022) in which the
`
`reflector 12 and “lamp” (light source) 13 are moved by a mechanical connection to
`
`the steering system, but the casing 5 and front lens 14 are fixed to standards 3 and
`
`held in a “rigid position.” (1/66-73; 1/85–2/20). The result of this design is for the
`
`“…lamp casing [to be] rigidly supported on the front of the vehicle, and the
`
`reflector and lamp mounted therein [to be] adapted to rotate therein when the front
`
`wheels of the vehicle are turned.” (1/29-34)
`
`37.
`
`In 1926, Schjotz (US 1,595,879, KOITO 1023) disclosed an
`
`automobile headlight assembly combining automatic direction of the headlights
`
`from side to side, with means for directing a reflector 32’ and lamp 34’ up and
`
`down. As stated by Schjotz, “it is through the medium of the parts above described
`
`that lateral or horizontal pivotal movement is imparted to the headlights to cause
`
`them to turn with the front wheels.” (2/14-18) Schjotz’s example also provides for
`
`manual adjustment of the up-down angle, by the knob 47 and linkage components
`
`identified by 39, 42, 43, 45 and 54. (see, e.g., Fig. 3). Schjotz generally disclosed
`
`
`
`14
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`that the headlight control “may be entirely automatic.” (1/22-25).
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`38.
`
`In 1941, the United States adopted regulations requiring sealed beam
`
`headlights in a fixed position on the vehicle body. That regulation and World War
`
`II deterred further development of headlights that were moveable or had moveable
`
`components to direct the light beams.
`
`39. The 1967 patent of Yssel (US 3,316,397, KOITO 1024) contains an
`
`extensive discussion of automatically moving the angle of vehicle headlights up
`
`and down in response to the “…uneven displacement of the body of the vehicle
`
`relative to the said plane” (1/34-35). Yssel disclosed that the “…actuating means
`
`for tilting the headlamps may incorporate mechanical, electrical, hydraulic and/or
`
`pneumatic devices or systems or a combination of any one or more of such devices
`
`and/or systems. (1/36-39). Yssel specifically disclosed use of rheostats at the front
`
`and rear regions of the vehicle, which produce the electric current controlling the
`
`headlight tilting. (2/45-52). Yssel also disclosed that either the entire headlight
`
`assembly, or a part such as the reflector, may be pivotally mounted (see, e.g., 2/61-
`
`65; 6/38-47); and that in the preferred form shown in Fig. 12, means may be
`
`provided for “preventing unintentional relative movement due to road surface
`
`irregularities.” (6/30-32. See Fig. 12). See also 2/53-60; 5/52-56).
`
`40. US 3,617,731 of Fleury, initially assigned to Citroen, is a 1971
`
`disclosure of an adjustable headlamp assembly for a road vehicle, implemented by
`
`
`
`15
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`a hydraulic system. (KOITO 1025). The Fleury ’731 turning headlamp design was
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`found in the Citroen models (e.g., Citroen DS Model) designed for the 1968 model
`
`year offering four headlamps, the inner set of headlamps swiveling with the
`
`steering wheel. The outer set of headlamps (low beam) was designed to be self-
`
`leveling in response to pitching of the vehicle caused by acceleration and braking.
`
`However, this hydraulically-driven adjustable headlamp system reportedly had to
`
`be deactivated in vehicles sold in the United States, due to the regulations
`
`prohibiting moveable headlights.
`
`41. Later, when electronic controllers, such as microprocessors had
`
`become available, patents and publications appeared in which an electronic
`
`controller, such as a microprocessor, is used to control the direction of a headlight
`
`beam based on sensed conditions. By the time of the alleged inventions of the ’034
`
`patent, a POSITA would have understood that any physical conditions which can
`
`have an influence on the vehicle condition can be determined by one or more
`
`sensor(s) and supplied to the control unit in order to control the direction of a
`
`headlight beam. (See Hogrefe (KOITO 1028), US 6,227,691, 2/34-38)
`
`42. At the time of the alleged ’034 patent invention, a POSITA would
`
`have been very familiar with the dozens of already-existing stand-alone closed
`
`loop control systems in the vehicular automotive electronics field. Such systems
`
`used a combination of sensor inputs, algorithms, complex software, significant
`
`
`
`16
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`computing power and linkages (physical and electronic) to a variety of actuators to
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`supply sophisticated control to commercially available vehicles. Some examples of
`
`these complex control systems are anti-skid brakes (beginning in increasing
`
`volumes in the 1970s and 1980s), air bag systems (mid-1970s), closed loop engine
`
`control systems (early 1980s), stability control systems (early 1990s), etc.
`
`43. As described above, not only was a great deal known to a POSITA in
`
`2001 about complex control systems, the use of such systems to control difficult
`
`safety and emission control systems well before that time made the claims of the
`
`‘034 patent generally and specifically well known to one skilled in the art of
`
`automotive electronic control systems.
`
`44. At the time of the alleged ’034 invention, a POSITA would
`
`understand that headlamps could be moved vertically or horizontally, and further
`
`would be very familiar with control mechanisms for implementing such movement
`
`in either direction. A POSITA would have seen no differences conceptually in
`
`designing a control system that would have moved the headlamps vertically, up
`
`and down, versus horizontally, side to side.
`
`45. While there may be some minor differences, such as between up-
`
`down and left-right algorithms, the locations of the sensors and actuators (all to
`
`accommodate the vehicle design or the effects of gravity and other forces),
`
`implementing those differences, and the overall concepts of moving the headlamps
`
`
`
`17
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`in one direction versus an orthogonal direction to accommodate vehicle design
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`needs would be well within the skill of a POSITA at the time of the alleged ’034
`
`invention.
`
`
`
` SUMMARY OF THE ’034 PATENT
`46. The ’034 patent disclosed directional control systems aiming angle of
`
`vehicle headlights to account for vehicle operating conditions such as, steering
`
`angle, pitch and rate of change of steering angle, etc.
`
`47. The principal components of the claimed systems are sensors, a
`
`controller, headlights and actuators to aim the headlights. The controller is
`
`responsive to one or more sensor signals for generating an output signal. An
`
`actuator is connected to the headlight to aim it in accordance with the output
`
`signal. (KOITO 1001 2/3-17). As illustrated in FIG. 1, such systems include a
`
`headlight 11, one or more actuators 12 (and 13, not shown) for moving the
`
`headlight, condition sensors 15 & 16, and a directional controller 14 responsive to
`
`sensors for producing one or more outputs to the actuators. (See (KOITO 1001
`
`2/63 – 4/6). Most or all of the system components are described as “conventional.”
`
`(Id.3/28-29; 3/33-35; 3/61-62; 4/11-12; 4/34-36; 14/14-16).
`
`
`
`18
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`
`
`
`
`48. The ‘034 patent describes “headlight 11” (2/66 - 3/6), “actuators 12
`
`and 13” (3/28-37), “condition sensors 15 and 16” (3/61-65), “position feedback
`
`sensors 18 and 19” (4/11-14 & 34-36) as “conventional.” I do not find any
`
`disclosure in the ’034 patent specification requiring that these terms be limited to
`
`any specific structures.
`
`
`
`19
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`
`
`49. The disclosure also says, “The headlight directional controller 14 can
`
`Attorney Docket: 10973-0232IP1
`
`be embodied as any control system, such as a microprocessor or programmable
`
`electronic controller, ….” (3/53-55) I do not find any disclosure in the specification
`
`of any specific algorithm that the controller performs to accomplish the claimed
`
`function.
`
`50.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would have understood the plain or
`
`conventional meaning of each of the ’034 patent terms "headlight,” "actuator,”
`
`"condition sensor,” "position feedback sensor” and “controller,” and would have
`
`construed them in the ’034 patent claims as any device of the type performing the
`
`claimed function.
`
`
`
` CLAIMS 7-9, 13-18, 20-21, 23-24, 28-29, 31-32 AND 35 – OBVIOUS
`FROM KATO IN VIEW OF TAKAHASHI
`A. All