trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2016-00193, Paper No. 25
`March 10, 2017
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`SL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ADAPTIVE HEADLAMP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - - -
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`Technology Center 2800
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, February 23, 2017
`
`Before: MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Vice Chief Administrative
`Patent Judge, RAMA G. ELLURU and SCOTT C. MOORE (via video link),
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`February 23, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2016-00193, Paper No. 25
`March 10, 2017
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`SL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ADAPTIVE HEADLAMP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - - -
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`Technology Center 2800
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, February 23, 2017
`
`Before: MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Vice Chief Administrative
`Patent Judge, RAMA G. ELLURU and SCOTT C. MOORE (via video link),
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`February 23, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETER J. CUOMO, ESQ.
`ADAM P. SAMANSKY, ESQ.
`KONGSIK KIM, ESQ.
`Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC
`One Financial Center
`Boston, Massachusetts 02111
`617-542-6000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRETT PINKUS, ESQ.
`Friedman, Suder & Cooke, P.C.
`No. 1, 604 East Fourth Street
`Suite 200
`Fort Worth, Texas 76102
`817-334-0400
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`(10:00 a.m.)
`JUDGE MOORE: Good morning, everyone. We
`will now hear arguments in Case Number IPR2016- 00193,
`titled SL Corporation, Petitioner, versus Adaptive Headlamp
`Technologies, Incorporated, Patent Owner, regarding U.S.
`Patent 7,241,034 C1.
`Counsel for the parties, would you please step to
`the lectern and introduce yourselves, starting with Petitioner?
`MR. CUOMO: Yes, Your Honor. Peter Cuomo
`representing the Petitioner, SL Corporation.
`And joining me here today are my colleagues,
`Adam Samansky, at counsel table, and also Kongsik Kim
`seated behind me. We are all from the law firm of Mintz
`Levin.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you.
`MR. PINKUS: Your Honor, I am Brett Pinkus
`from Friedman, Suder & Cooke on behalf of the Patent Owner,
`Adaptive Headlamp.
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you. Okay. As you
`know, per our order, each party will have 50 minutes of total
`time to present its arguments. Judge Elluru will be keeping
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`track of your time and will give you a warning when your time
`is about to expire.
`Because Petitioner has the burden to show
`unpatentability of the claims, Petitioner will proceed first and
`Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time, if desired. Next, Patent
`Owner will proceed with its arguments. Finally, Petitioner
`will have the opportunity to present rebuttal arguments if it
`has reserved time to do so.
`And we will also in this case give Patent Owner a
`brief period of time at the end to present a quick summary, if
`it would choose to do so.
`As you can see, I'm attending the hearing today
`remotely from Denver. Thus, it is critical that you remain at
`the lectern in the hearing room while you are speaking. When
`you step away from the lectern, I am not able to hear you.
`I will also be working off paper copies of the
`exhibits today, and will not be able to see any exhibits you
`display using the ELMO. So it is critical that you please
`identify any of your demonstratives that you refer to in the
`hearing by page number so that I can find the correct page
`here.
`
`Does counsel for either party have any questions
`
`
`
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`concerning these instructions?
`MR. CUOMO: No, Your Honor.
`MR. PINKUS: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Thank you. Counsel for
`Petitioner, would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal?
`MR. CUOMO: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to
`reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE MOORE: 15 minutes. Thank you. You
`may proceed whenever you are ready.
`MR. CUOMO: All right. Thank you, Your Honor.
`May it please the Court. With the Patent Owner having
`waived any arguments with respect to the dependent claims for
`which this IPR was instituted, the primary issue before the
`Board today is with respect to independent claim 7 of the '034
`patent.
`
`I'm going on to slide 2. Slide 2 shows the
`instituted grounds. For claim 7 there are two references that
`render the claim obvious under Section 103, Kato and
`Takahashi. Primary reference Kato describes a motorcycle
`headlamp that solves all of the same types of problems as the
`'034 patent.
`I'm going to move on to slide 3. The Patent Owner
`
`
`
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`does not dispute that Kato discloses all of the limitations of
`claim 7 with the exception of the threshold limitation. The
`threshold limitation is disclosed by Takahashi, which is also
`directed to a vehicle headlamp directional control device.
`There is motivation to combine Kato with
`Takahashi, Takahashi's disclosed threshold, which is explicitly
`disclosed by Takahashi as the Board noted on page 18 of the
`Institution Decision.
`With regard to the dependent claims there is no
`dispute that other prior art references disclose the additional
`elements. This was not contested in the Patent Owner
`Response and any arguments to the contrary have been waived
`as we stated in our reply.
`I'm going to move on to slide number 5. These are
`the disputed issues. Now, while the Patent Owner disputes
`this, it is our position that the record is clear that the scope of
`the '034 patent includes motorcycles and other two- wheeled
`vehicles, Kato is analogous art to the '034 patent.
`There is a typo here in number 3, but there is
`motivation to combine Kato with Takahashi's threshold
`limitation, and Takahashi describes the threshold limitation of
`claim 7.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`I'm going to move on now to slide 6. This is the
`first issue. The scope of the '034 includes motorcycles and
`other two- wheeled vehicles. This is clear from the claims as
`well as the specification, none of which exclude motorcycles
`from the scope of the term vehicle.
`And under a broadest reasonable interpretation or
`even a District Court Phillips standard, the claims are given
`their ordinary and customary meaning unless the Patentee acts
`as its own lexicographer and sets out a special definition, or
`the Patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term. The
`standard for a disavowal is exacting. It requires expressions
`of manifest exclusion or restriction. Neither exception applies
`here. Nothing in the claims or the specification indicates that
`anything but the plain and ordinary meaning should apply to
`the term vehicle.
`You will not be directed to any special definition,
`any explicit disavowal or, quite frankly, any implicit
`disavowal by counsel for Patent Owner. None of these exists
`in the '034 patent.
`I'm going to move on now to slide 7. This is claim
`7. Claim 7 is broadly directed to a vehicle headlight, but it
`does not exclude a motorcycle or any other type of vehicle.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`The references to vehicle in the claim are not limited in any
`way.
`
`I'm going to move on now to slide 8. This is --
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Counsel, if you could just talk
`about the highlighted part and how it relates?
`MR. CUOMO: Sure. So this is part of the
`specification. This is from column 1, lines 15 to 35. And this
`is where you see vehicle appear in the specification. And what
`it says is that vehicle can mean virtually all land vehicles and
`many other types of vehicles, such as boats and airplanes, for
`example, and it goes on and says are provided with one or
`more headlights.
`There is no mention in the specification of car or
`automobile or motorcycle or the number of wheels. You don't
`see four- wheel vehicle or two- wheel vehicle appear. You
`don't even see components that are specific to a four-wheel
`vehicle or an automobile, such as a steering wheel.
`Now, the Patent Owner has argued in its response
`that claim 7 is directed to four-wheel vehicles, and not ones
`with two wheels. But that is contradicted by the inclusion of
`vehicles such as airplanes and especially boats which have no
`wheels.
`
`
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`So it is our position there is no question the term
`as used in the '034 patent includes boats -- well, includes the
`term -- includes motorcycles, as it includes boats and
`airplanes. It would defy commonsense to include those types
`of vehicles and not motorcycles. That's our position.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: This is confirmed by your
`declarant, Mr. Weinberg?
`MR. CUOMO: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: And how does he opine on the
`
`subject?
`
`MR. CUOMO: Well, he says that the term vehicle
`is not limited in any way, and it is his position that reading
`through the specification he would interpret it to include
`two-wheel vehicles such as motorcycles.
`JUDGE ELLURU: Is there any evidence in the
`record to the contrary that conflicts with that definition?
`MR. CUOMO: With the definition to include
`motorcycles? No, not that we know of. We see no evidence in
`the record whatsoever to conflict with that.
`I'm going to move on now to slide 9. Now, the
`Patent Owner's expert at his deposition agreed that a
`motorcycle is a land vehicle. When asked, the question:
`
`
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`"Question: Based on this portion of the patent that
`we just read, do you agree that the '034 -- that the headlight
`discussed in the '034 patent applies to any type of vehicle?
`"Answer: No, I agree that it applies to virtually all
`land vehicles."
`And then he went on to agree that a motorcycle is a
`land vehicle. So there is no disagreement between the experts
`in this case that a motorcycle is a land vehicle within the
`meaning of the disclosure of the '034 patent.
`Moving on now to slide 10. This is another part of
`the specification. This is from column 2, line 63, to column 3,
`line 9. And what it shows is that the specification does not
`propose any limits on the term vehicle. We see here that the
`headlight disclosed is intended to be representative of any
`device that can be supported on any type of vehicle, and that's
`what I have highlighted here, for the purpose of illuminating
`any area.
`
`The language, any device, and especially any type
`of vehicle, not only imposes no restrictions but it shows that
`the Patent Owner contemplated this headlight having a
`universal application.
`I'm going to move on now to slide 11. We're going
`
`
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`back to part of the specification we looked at earlier but this is
`specifically column 1, lines 20 to 34. And what we see here is
`that the '034 patent contemplates vehicles with one headlight.
`This is disclosure and it starts out: "Virtually all land
`vehicles" -- it goes on to say -- "are provided with one or more
`headlights."
`Now, what has one or more headlights? Well, if
`we move on to slide 12, I asked this question of Mr. Katona,
`and he agreed that no four-wheeled cars existed with one
`headlight at or around the time of the invention. So this part
`of the disclosure is clearly not referring to an automobile.
`If we move on now to --
`JUDGE TIERNEY: I'm looking at Mr. Katona's
`declaration. I'm looking at paragraph 41, claim interpretation.
`Does Mr. Katona support his interpretation with
`evidence of record?
`MR. CUOMO: Mr. Katona?
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Exhibit 2002, paragraph 41.
`MR. CUOMO: No, Your Honor, he does not. Not
`that I see. There is no citation here.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: So how should we credit his
`testimony on that statement?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`MR. CUOMO: Well, I think when this portion of
`the specification was pointed out to Mr. Katona, commonsense
`dictated that one headlight had to refer to something other
`than an automobile.
`And as you will see on the next slide, Mr. Katona
`agreed that -- I will move on now to slide 13 -- Mr. Katona
`agreed that it was reasonable to conclude that that reference in
`the specification referred to a motorcycle.
`I asked him specifically:
`"Question: Isn't it reasonable to conclude that this
`line of the patent specification is referring to motorcycles by
`including vehicles with one headlight?
`"Answer: Yes."
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Is it your opinion then that
`Mr. Katona's testimony on the subject, in particular paragraph
`41, is conclusory?
`MR. CUOMO: Is conclusory in the sense that?
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Not supported by the record.
`MR. CUOMO: That is, yes, Your Honor, yes.
`Thank you.
`All right. I'm going to move on now to slide 14.
`This is more intrinsic evidence. And this is an -- this refers to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`an IDS that was submitted during prosecution that is Exhibit
`1036. And in that IDS the Patentee submitted seven references
`that relate to motorcycles, including patents that relate to
`motorcycle headlamp control.
`So this IDS demonstrates that the Patentee
`understood the scope of the term vehicle to include
`motorcycles or two- wheeled vehicles.
`I'm going to move on now to slide 15. This is an
`example of some of the extrinsic evidence. This is the Bosch
`Automotive Handbook. This was cited by our expert,
`Mr. Weinberg, in his declaration, Exhibit 1035 at paragraph
`16. And this is an automotive technology reference. What we
`see here is that this categorizes motorcycles as a subclass of
`power-driven vehicles.
`So both the intrinsic evidence and the extrinsic
`evidence in this case show that the term vehicle as it is used in
`the '034 patent should include motorcycles.
`I'm going to move on now to slide 16. This is
`issue number 2, that Kato is analogous art. We know from
`KSR and its progeny that we are to construe the scope of
`analogous art broadly, and there is two criteria.
`The first is that it be in the same field of endeavor
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`regardless of the problem addressed or that it be reasonably
`pertinent to the particular problem.
`I'm going to start with slide 18. And this shows
`that Kato and the '034 are in the same fields of endeavor.
`Both deal with headlights and both deal with control systems
`or devices for vehicle headlights. We see here in the reference
`from the '034 patent, it says: "This invention relates to an
`automatic directional control system." And that is from
`column 1, lines 15 to 19.
`Similarly, if we look at the Kato field of endeavor
`we see that it says the present invention relates to a front lamp
`optical axis control device. It says that in multiple places,
`multiple paragraphs in Kato.
`So where a prior art reference discloses essentially
`the same structure and function as the invention, which is the
`case here between Kato and the '034, that is strong evidence
`that it is in the same field of endeavor. And a POSA
`considering an adjustable headlight for vehicles would
`naturally look to references employing lighting adjustment in
`any sort of vehicle, and that is supported by Mr. Weinberg's
`reply declaration, paragraph 33, Exhibit 1035.
`I'm going to take a step back and go to slide 17. If
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`somehow Kato is determined to not be in the same field of
`endeavor, it is reasonably pertinent to the '034 patent. The
`'034 patent presents a problem. The purported inability of
`prior art headlights to alter the directional aiming angles of
`the headlights to account for changes in the operating
`conditions of the vehicle. Kato solves this very problem.
`Kato ensures a stable range of illumination even if
`a pitch angle, a bank angle, a steering angle and so on, vary.
`I'm going to move ahead now to slide 19.
`JUDGE MOORE: Counsel, one second. But
`doesn't Kato also say that automatic headlight controllers of
`the type that is described are prior art? Kato didn't disclose
`the very first automatic headlight controller.
`MR. CUOMO: That's true. That's true, yes. We
`mentioned as much in our petition, that automatic headlight
`control systems were known in the art. But what Kato does is
`it specifically discloses the two actuators that can sense a
`pitch angle, or a pitch position as well as a steering angle of
`the vehicle. And those are the points of purported novelty of
`the '034 patent.
`So Kato specifically addresses the elements that
`purportedly lend novelty to the '034 patent. But it is true that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`headlight systems and headlight control systems were well
`known in the art at the time of the '034.
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you.
`MR. CUOMO: So moving on. This is slide 19.
`This deals with headlight mounting. In the Patent Owner's
`Response, it was stressed that there was a distinction between
`Kato and four-wheeled vehicles based on the mounting
`position of the headlight.
`Specifically on page 21 of the Patent Owner
`Response it was said that the problem presented by the '034
`patent is inapplicable to vehicles in which the headlight
`assemblies are mounted to movable steering components, such
`as the handlebar assembly of a motorcycle, since the beams
`projecting from the headlight of a motorcycle is not fixed
`relative to the body of the vehicle.
`This argument was stressed throughout the Patent
`Owner Response as well as the supporting declaration of
`Mr. Katona, and it is simply not true. Kato discloses both
`handlebar and body-mounted headlights.
`And we see that here in paragraph 12 where it says
`the front lamp is affixed to the vehicle body, also in
`paragraphs 31 to 33 where we have formulas for calculating
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`the angle direction correction amount. Paragraph 31, it says,
`again, the front lamp 20 is affixed to the handlebar and it
`gives a formula.
`If you look down then at paragraph 33, if the front
`lamp 20 is not affixed to the handlebar, if it's affixed to the
`vehicle body, you have a different formula. So clearly Kato
`disclosed both handlebar and body-mounted headlights.
`JUDGE MOORE: Counsel, doesn't a motorcycle,
`though, also bank in a different way than a four-wheel
`vehicle? So isn't that a separate distinction between how a
`headlight controller would operate on a two- wheel vehicle
`versus a four-wheel vehicle?
`MR. CUOMO: No, Your Honor, it is not. As you
`just noted, cars bank as well. Now, the fact that a banking in
`a motorcycle might have a different effect on the headlamp
`position, ultimately both Kato and the '034 patent are
`adjusting the headlamp in both the up and down and left and
`right position, and they are meant to reposition the headlight
`in response to road conditions.
`So the fact that you might have a different effect in
`a motorcycle is really just a matter of degree. At their core
`they are both doing the same thing. They are both readjusting
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`the headlamp.
`JUDGE MOORE: Right, but aren't they adjusting
`in different ways? Let me be a little more specific.
`A motorcycle, you turn left, it banks into the turn.
`A vehicle, you turn left, it will tend to roll to the right. So it
`is not really the same thing.
`I mean, they are both accounting for bank angles
`but it is a different type of correction that is being performed,
`isn't it?
`
`MR. CUOMO: Well, I think the way that the light
`might be adjusted in terms of, you know, positioning may be
`different. But at the core they are doing the same thing. They
`are both readjusting the headlamp. And if you look at claim 7
`there is no directional component. I'm going to go back to
`slide 7.
`
`And what we see here if we look down at the
`third- to- the-last paragraph, it says: Two or more actuators
`being adapted to be connected to the vehicle headlight to
`effect movement thereof.
`There is no directional component. So the fact that
`it might adjust the headlamp differently in a banking
`motorcycle versus a banking car is really of no moment. They
`
`
`
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`are both being adjusted in the same sort of way.
`Additionally, if you look at the specification of the
`'034, it doesn't exclude banking angles. It gives some
`examples of conditions in the road that can affect the
`headlamp or the car, but it is open-ended.
`And one part of the specification that I can direct
`you to, so in column 2, lines 8 to 10, it says: One or more
`operating condition sensors may be provided that generate
`signals that are representative of an operating condition of the
`vehicle, such as, and then it gives a number of different
`conditions.
`But "such as" indicates that these are examples.
`And similarly, in column 6 it is talking about the adjustment
`algorithm, and I'm looking at lines 46 to 53, and I'm just going
`to jump into the middle here: The adjustment algorithm can
`be, generally speaking, any desired relationship that relates
`one or more operating conditions of the vehicle to one or more
`angular orientations of the vehicle -- I'm sorry, of the
`headlight 11. A variety of such relationships are known in the
`art and this invention is not intended to be limited in any
`particular -- to any particular relationship.
`So to say that bank angle is somehow a distinction
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`between motorcycles and automobiles is really a red- herring.
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you, counselor.
`MR. CUOMO: I'm going to move back to -- I'm
`moving on now to slide 21. And what this shows was that --
`and this goes back again to the purported mounting distinction
`of motorcycle headlamps versus cars. There were numerous
`examples of motorcycles with headlamps fixed relative to the
`body.
`
`In fact, fairing-mounted headlights were quite
`common. You can see here we have an example of the red
`motorcycle. Its headlamp is mounted to the fairing. You can
`see the front wheel is turning but obviously the fixed headlight
`is not.
`
`What is also notable is that Suzuki, the assignee of
`the Kato patent, made several motorcycles with body
`fairing-mounted immovable headlights, and we've provided a
`number of examples in the exhibits, including 1029, 1031 and
`1033. So the distinction between body-mounted headlights
`and headlights mounted to the steering components that were
`discussed in the Patent Owner Response are really just not
`true.
`
`Moving on now to slide 22. And this is addressing
`
`
`
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`part of the Patent Owner Response at page 10, where he said --
`and I think this goes a little bit to Judge Moore's question --
`the aim of Kato was quite the opposite of that of the '034
`patent which seeks to cause the headlight to swivel in the
`direction of the turn. And as I discussed earlier, there is no
`limitations on claim 7 in terms of directional movement.
`So, in sum, the evidence unquestionably
`establishes that Kato is analogous art.
`I'm going to move on now to slide 23. This is the
`motivation to combine Kato with Takahashi.
`Now jumping ahead to slide 24, what we see here
`is that Kato and Takahashi each have similar control systems.
`They are both control systems to adjust headlights in response
`to road conditions. You can see on the left -hand side both of
`them have sensors that is marked in green.
`In the middle we've got controllers that is marked
`in blue that receive the signals from the sensors. Those then
`send signals to motors or a drive mechanism. And then finally
`that adjusts the headlamp which is shown in orange.
`If we move on to slide 25, what we see is that both
`Kato and Takahashi address a common problem, headlight aim
`when road or vehicle conditions change. Takahashi discloses
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`a headlamp directional control system where reference values
`related to time may be used to prevent unwanted light
`movements due to rough road surfaces and sudden stops.
`Takahashi also has the threshold limitation. And
`that threshold limitation complements Kato's goal of ensuring
`a stable range of illumination. And this is particularly
`applicable given Kato's teaching that a pitch angle of a
`motorcycle changes more readily than a car.
`If you have a motorcycle headlamp that is more
`sensitive to changing road conditions and that's fluttering, you
`know, up and down and moving around more so than a car, the
`predetermined threshold would help to stably correct that in a
`way where you don't have constant adjustments and then
`readjustments going on in response to all of those minor
`variations that the motorcycle would encounter.
`And I will just note again as noted in the
`Institution Decision, the motivation here for implementing the
`predetermined threshold of Takahashi is based on the
`teachings in Takahashi itself, specifically Takahashi page 9,
`lines 15 to 34, although there are other parts of Takahashi that
`also talk about the benefits of the predetermined threshold.
`And with that I will move to slide 26.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`And a POSITA would have, or a person of ordinary
`skill in the art, would have recognized the benefits of the
`selective response taught by Takahashi. As I said before, it
`complements Kato's goal of stable correction.
`As we see here from another part of Takahashi --
`this is Takahashi at page 2, lines 14 to 19 -- this would also
`eliminate the need for more durable materials, prevent a high
`response frequency and eliminate high power consumption.
`So the motivation to combine Kato and Takahashi
`is explicitly disclosed and would have been readily apparent to
`a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`I'm going to move on now to slide 27, and this
`addresses the fact that Takahashi discloses the threshold
`limitation of claim 7.
`Moving to slide 28, so this is claim 7's threshold.
`Here we see claim 7 requires a predetermined 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.
`If we move to slide 29, we see that Takahashi
`discloses this very limitation. Up top we have claim 7 again.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`Right below it we have Takahashi's threshold teaching which
`says "only when the amount of variations in the detect signal
`of the vehicle posture detection device 2 exceeds a given
`reference value." Only when you have that will you have an
`adjustment of the headlight. So it discloses the very same
`threshold as claimed in claim 7 of the '034.
`If we move now to slide 30, in this case the Patent
`Owner has made much of the fact that Takahashi discloses
`both, one, a sensor threshold and, two, a time -based threshold.
`There is no dispute between the parties that the sensor
`threshold is there, but claim 7 only requires that sensor
`threshold.
`The time threshold is irrelevant because claim 7 is
`open- ended. And we see that here with the language of claim
`7 which says "only when at least one of said two or more
`sensor signals changes by more than a predetermined threshold
`amount." There is nothing in claim 7 that precludes additional
`thresholds and this open- ended language indicates that
`additional thresholds can be added and you can still meet the
`predetermined threshold of claim 7.
`And then if we move on to slide 31, what this is
`showing is that both experts agree that the time threshold can
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`be minimized. You can set it to a negligible amount of time,
`virtually zero. And this further diminishes -- we see this here
`on the top box, paragraph 55, this is from Mr. Katona's
`declaration, he says the time delay could be set for a minimum
`amount of time. Our expert, Mr. Weinberg, agreed with that
`assessment.
`And what this does is diminishes the Patent
`Owner's argument that Kato, particularly where he says that
`Kato requires an immediate correction to any changes to the
`optical axis of the headlight.
`First of all, Kato has no such requirement for an
`immediate correction but, even if it did, that would be negated
`by minimizing the time-based threshold of Takahashi. You
`could basically reduce the time-based threshold to a de
`minimis amount. And when you think about the response time
`for mechanical parts, it would basically, in practical effect,
`eliminate that time-based threshold.
`So in sum, the disclosure of a predetermined
`minimum threshold in Takahashi is clear and it is not negated
`by the disclosure of the time-based threshold.
`And, Your Honors, if there are no further
`questions, I'm going to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Counselor, is there a difference
`between Petitioner's formulation and Patent Owner's
`formulations concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art to
`which the '034 patent pertains?
`MR. CUOMO: Yes, there is, Your Honor. We
`discussed this in our reply. And I believe Mr. Katona had a,
`let me just find it here, he had a standard where -- well, I will
`say the Patent Owner's expert, his person of ordinary skill in
`the art had more experience with lighting control devices than
`the standard that was provided by Mr. Weinberg. He would
`actually be a person of heightened skill in the art, if you
`follow Mr. Katona's definition.
`JUDGE MOORE: Does Petitioner contend that any
`of the issues we have to decide in this case turn on which
`party's formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the
`art we adopt?
`MR. CUOMO: No, Your Honor. I think that under
`either definition claim 7 is obvious under Kato and Takahashi.
`I think that is clear.
`JUDGE MOORE: And does Petitioner dispute that
`Mr. Katona is qualified to offer expert testimony in this
`proceeding?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`MR. CUOMO: No, Your Honor, we do not dispute
`his qualifications.
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you, counsel.
`MR. CUOMO: Thank you.
`(Pause)
`MR. PINKUS: May it please the court.
`Brett Pinkus --
`JUDGE MOORE: Counsel, before you get going, I
`just briefly would like to ask you the same two questions I just
`asked Petitioner's counsel wh
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
