Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: June 7, 2016
`
`
`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
`_______________
`
`
`
`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 10
`Entered: June 7, 2016
`
`
`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
`_______________
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`SL Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2; “Pet.”) to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 3–39 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 9; “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 partes review with respect to claims 7–10, 12–21, 23, 24, and 28–39 of
`the ’034 Patent, but not with respect to claims 3–6, 11, 22, or 25–27. We
`have not made a final determination under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the
`patentability of any claim.
`
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`The ’034 Patent was previously the subject of an inter partes
`reexamination (see Pet. 7–9) that resulted in the issuance of an inter partes
`reexamination certificate (Ex. 1001). The ’034 Patent is also the subject of
`another pending inter partes review proceeding: Koito Manufacturing Co.,
`Ltd. v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc., IPR2016-00079. Pet. 4. In
`addition, the’034 Patent is asserted by Patent Owner in several pending
`litigations in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Pet. 3–4;
`Paper 5, 2–3. Petitioner is not a party to any of these pending litigations.
`See id.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`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 IPR2016-00193
`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.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`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 IPR2016-00193
`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
`UK Published Patent Application GB 2 309 774 A
`(pub. Aug. 6, 1997) (“Takahashi”)
`Japan Patent Application Publication H10-324191
`(pub. Dec. 8, 1998) (“Kato”)
`Japan Patent Application Publication 2000-185593
`(pub. July 4, 20000) (“Fukuwa”)
`US Patent 6,229,263 B1 (iss. May 8, 2001) (“Izawa”)
`US Patent 6,293,686 B1 (iss. Sept. 25, 2001)
`(“Hayami”)
`Purported admissions by the Patent Owner in the ’034
`Patent Specification (“Patent Owner Admissions”)
`Declaration of Harvey Weinberg (“Weinberg Decl.”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`1019
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`1027
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`E.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Asserted
`Ground1
`1
`
`Challenged
`Claim(s)
`7–9, 13–18, 21–24,
`and 28–33
`
`Statutory Basis References
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 Kato
`
`
`1 We refer to the asserted grounds by these numbers in our analysis.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`Asserted
`Ground1
`2
`
`Challenged
`Claim(s)
`3–6 and 10–12
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`9
`
`19, 20 and 25–27
`
`7–9, 13–17, 21–24,
`and 28–33
`3–6 and 10–12
`
`18–20 and 25–27
`
`36–39
`36–39
`3–39
`
`10
`
`3–39
`
`Pet. 14.
`
`Statutory Basis References
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Kato, Izawa, and/or
`Patent Owner
`Admissions
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Kato and Patent Owner
`Admissions
`35 U.S.C. § 102 Fukuwa
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Fukuwa, Izawa, and/or
`Patent Owner
`Admissions
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Fukuwa and Patent
`Owner Admissions
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Kato and Hayami
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Fukuwa and Hayami
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Kato, Izawa, Takahashi,
`and/or Patent Owner
`Admissions
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Fukuwa, Izawa,
`Takahashi, and/or
`Patent Owner
`Admissions
`
`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). There is a presumption that claim terms are given their
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the 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).
`Although Petitioner proposed specific constructions of several claim
`terms (see Pet. 10–12), the parties’ present disputes do not turn on the
`correctness or incorrectness of Petitioner’s claim construction positions.
`Accordingly, 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 controversy.’” 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 challenged claims 7–9, 13–18, 21–24, and 28–
`33 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated. See Pet. 14. To
`anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
`must “describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
`inherently.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272,
`1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural
`result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`v. Geneva Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Inherency,
`however, “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
`fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
`sufficient.” Mehl/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).
`Petitioner also argues that challenged claims 3–39 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Pet. 14. 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) the level of skill in the art;2 and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.3 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 Co.
`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
`
`2 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).
`3 The parties do not direct us to any evidence of secondary considerations.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
`application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417.
`
`2.
`
`Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 7–9, 13–18, 21–24, and 28–33 by
`Kato
`
`Kato
`a.
`Kato is directed to a front lamp optical axis control device for a
`motorcycle. Ex. 1024, Abstract. Kato’s lamp control 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.
`Figure 1 of Kato is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a functional block diagram illustrating one embodiment of a front
`lamp optical axis control device. Ex. 1024 ¶ 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
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`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.
`Analysis
`Claim 7 requires 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” (hereinafter, the “predetermined
`minimum threshold” limitation). Petitioner admits that Kato does not
`expressly disclose the predetermined minimum threshold limitation of
`claim 7. Pet. 18. Instead, Petitioner alleges that Kato inherently discloses
`this claim limitation. See Pet. 19; Ex. 1002, ¶ 37. In particular, Petitioner
`points out that Kato’s lamp control device uses step motors as actuators. See
`Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1002, ¶ 37. Petitioner argues that step motors operate in
`“specific quantized steps,” and, thus, do not move unless “the amount of
`[headlight] movement required” exceeds a threshold value. Ex. 1002, ¶ 37
`(cited at Pet. 18–19).
`
`Patent Owner argues in response that Petitioner’s inherency argument
`“focuses on the actuators . . . only operating in increments rather than the
`controller being operated to only send a signal to the actuators if the signal
`from one of the sensors has changed by a predetermined threshold amount.”
`Prelim. Resp. 12. We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument for the
`following reasons.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`The predetermined minimum threshold limitation of claim 7 is a
`threshold that is compared to one or more sensor signals generated by the
`recited two or more sensors. The recited controller generates an output
`signal “only when at least one of said two or more sensor signals changes by
`more than a predetermined minimum threshold.” (Emphasis added.)
`
`In contrast, the threshold value identified by Petitioner relates to the
`minimum amount of movement that can be performed by Kato’s step motor
`actuators. The “pulse signal” that controls Kato’s step motor actuators 22x,
`22y, and 22z, is output by controller 24 (see Ex. 1024, ¶ 18), and is separate
`and distinct from the sensor signals received by controller 24. See Ex. 1024,
`¶¶ 16–18, Fig. 1. The cited testimony from the Weinberg Declaration also
`relates to the pulse signals output by controller 24, and not the sensor signals
`received by controller 24. See Ex. 1002, ¶ 37. Neither Petitioner nor Mr.
`Weinberg provides credible explanation of where Kato discloses a
`predetermined minimum threshold value that is compared to the amount by
`which a signal generated by a sensor has changed. Accordingly, we are not
`persuaded that Kato inherently discloses the predetermined minimum
`threshold limitation of claim 7.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its Kato-based anticipation challenge
`to claim 7, or to claims 8, 9, 13–18, 21–24, and 28–33, depending therefrom.
`
`3.
`
`Grounds 2, 3, and 7: Obviousness of Claims 3–6, 10–12, 19, 20, 25–
`27, and 36–39 over Kato, Izawa, Hayami, and/or Patent Owner
`Admissions
`Similar to claim 7, claim 3 also contains the predetermined minimum
`threshold limitation, and Petitioner asserts that this limitation of claim 3 is
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`met “for the reasons already discussed in connection with Ground 1.” Thus,
`in asserted grounds 2, 3, and 7, Petitioner relies on Kato as disclosing the
`predetermined threshold limitation of independent claims 3 and 7. See Pet.
`28–30, 32–33, 52–53.
`For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s
`argument that Kato inherently discloses the predetermined minimum
`threshold limitation of claim 7. For the same reasons, we are also not
`persuaded that Kato inherently discloses the predetermined minimum
`threshold limitation of claim 3.
`Claims 4–6, 10–12, 19, 20, 25–27, and 36–39, each depend from
`claim 3 or claim 7. Petitioner does not assert that any of the other prior art
`references cited in Grounds 2, 3, and 7 cure the deficiency of Kato identified
`above. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable
`likelihood of succeeding on its obviousness challenges to: (a) claims 3–6
`and 10–12 over Kato, Izawa, and/or Patent Owner Admissions; (b) claims
`19, 20, and 25–27 over Kato and Patent Owner Admissions; or (c) claims
`36–39 over Kato and Hayami.
`
`4.
`
`Ground 9: Obviousness of Claims 3–39 over Kato, Izawa, Takahashi,
`and/or Patent Owner Admissions
`Petitioner’s Grounds 1, 2, 3, and 7 “are premised on the assertion that
`Kato . . . inherently disclose[s] the ‘predetermined minimum threshold’
`limitation recited in Claims 3 and 7 and the claims depending therefrom.”
`Pet. 53. In Ground 9, Petitioner argues that if Kato does not inherently
`disclose this limitation, it would have been obvious in view of the teachings
`of Takahashi to modify Kato’s optical axis control device to make use of the
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`claimed “predetermined minimum threshold.” Id. at 54–55. Thus, in
`Ground 9, Petitioner argues that the Ground 1 claims (7–9, 13–18, 21–24,
`and 28–33) would have been obvious over Kato and Takahashi; that the
`Ground 2 claims (3–6 and 10–12) would have been obvious of Kato,
`Takahashi, Izawa, and/or Patent Owner Admissions; that the Ground 3
`claims (19, 20 and 25–27) would have been obvious over Kato, Takahashi,
`and Patent Owner Admissions; and that the Ground 7 claims (36–39) would
`have been obvious over Kato, Takahashi, and Hayami. See id. at 53–59.
`Ground 9 also includes an argument that claims 34 and 35 would have been
`obvious over Kato and Takahashi. See id. at 58–59. In the discussion
`below, we separately discuss each of these groups of claims.
`
`a.
`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. 1019, 1:3–7.
`Figure 1 of Takahashi is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts the basic structure of an embodiment of Takahashi’s
`illumination direction control device. Ex. 1019, 5:24–29. Vehicle posture
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`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.
`
`b.
`Izawa
`Izawa is directed to a lighting-direction control unit for a vehicle lamp
`that is designed to “reduce [the] frequency . . . of dazzling light” by
`“control[ling] the lighting direction of the lamp if the pitch angle . . . is
`changed.” Ex. 1026, Abstract, 1:45–51. Izawa’s lighting-direction control
`unit detects changes in the height of the front and rear axles of a vehicle, and
`includes a “lighting control means for obtaining a change rate of acceleration
`in a direction in which the vehicle runs with respect to time.” Id. at 1:52–61.
`Izawa uses this acceleration change rate data to change the response of the
`vehicle lamp control in order to prevent headlight glare. Id. at 1:64–2:2.
`
`c.
`Hayami
`Hayami is directed to a lighting device for a vehicle that includes an
`illumination control means that “specifies the turn-on and turn-off of a
`plurality of lamps.” Ex. 1027, Abstract. In one disclosed embodiment, the
`plurality of lamps include head lamp 7, rain lamp 8, bending lamp 9, and
`cornering lamp 10.” Id. at 5:15–20.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`d.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 7–9, 13–18, 21–24, and 28–30 over
`Kato and Takahashi
`Independent claim 7:
`Petitioner relies on the combined teachings of Kato and Takashi as
`teaching the limitations of independent claim 7. For the reasons discussed
`above, we find that Kato does not expressly or inherently disclose the
`predetermined minimum threshold limitation (i.e., a controller 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”). Petitioner, however, alternatively asserts that Takahashi teaches
`the predetermined minimum threshold limitation, and that it would have
`been obvious to incorporate such thresholds into Kato’s lamp control device.
`See Pet. 55–56. Patent Owner argues in response that Takahashi does not
`teach or suggest the predetermined minimum threshold limitation. See
`Prelim. Resp. 20–21. Patent Owner does not presently dispute that Kato
`discloses all other elements of claim 7.
`We are persuaded on this record that Takahashi teaches 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” (i.e., the predetermined minimum threshold limitation). Pet. 55–
`58; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 78–80. 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. 1019,
`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.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`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. 20. 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 two
`threshold values: a threshold for sensed variations in gradient, and a
`threshold for time. Id. This argument is not persuasive because claim 7 is
`not limited to a system that employs only one threshold value.
`Furthermore, with respect to the remaining limitations of claim 7, we
`agree with Petitioner’s assertion that Kato’s lamp optical axis control
`device—which corrects the optical axis of a headlight (Ex. 1024, ¶¶ 6–7)—
`is an “automatic directional control system for a vehicle headlight,” as
`recited in the preamble of claim 7. See Pet. 16, 19; Ex. 1002, ¶ 32. We are
`also persuaded on this record that Kato discloses “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 . . . including at least a steering
`angle and a pitch of the vehicle,” as recited in claim 7. See Pet. 16–17, 19;
`Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 33–35. Kato teaches that “the steering angle sensor 16 is a
`rotary potentiometer that detects a steering angle,” and “potentiometers 121
`and 122” are “pitch angle sensor[s] that detect a pitch angle” of the vehicle.
`Ex. 1024, ¶¶ 16–17.
`Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Kato’s controller 24 is
`“a controller that is responsive to said two or more sensor signals for
`generating at least one output signal.” Pet. 17, 19; Ex. 1002, ¶ 36. Kato’s
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`controller 24 “finds a pitch angle direction correction amount . . . and a
`steering angle direction correction amount based on the pitch angle, . . .
`[and] steering angle” detected by the sensors (Ex. 1024 ¶ 13), and then sends
`“pulse signal output” to step motors 22x, 22y, and 22z (id. ¶ 17).
`We also agree on this record 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.” Pet. 17, 19; Ex. 1002, ¶ 38. Kato’s step motors 22x,
`22y, and 22z are “actuator[s] that rotate [the] optical axis of front lamp 20”
`according to “a pulse signal output by the controller 24.” Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 16–
`17.
`
`We further agree that Kato’s steering angle sensor 16 and
`potentiometers 121 and 122 are “two or more sensors [that] include a first
`sensor and a second sensor,” wherein the 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.” See Pet. 16,
`19; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 39, 40. Kato’s “steering angle sensor 16 is a rotary
`potentiometer that detects [the] steering angle,” and Kato’s “potentiometers
`121 and 122” are “pitch angle sensor[s] that detect a pitch angle” of the
`vehicle. Ex. 1024, ¶¶ 16–17.
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have been
`motivated to combine Takahashi’s reference (i.e., threshold) values with
`Kato’s lamp control device because doing so would reduce cost, and
`improve safety and visibility. Pet. 56; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 80, 147. As Petitioner
`points out (Pet. 55), Takahashi’s reference values advantageously “prevent
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`the illumination direction of [the headlamp] from being corrected
`inadvertently when a sudden change in the posture of the vehicle occurs
`temporarily . . . .” Ex. 1019, 9:16–34. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s
`rationale for combining the teachings of Kato and Takahashi is insufficient
`because Petitioner has “not explained . . . how the controller of Takahashi
`would work for the intended purpose of the ’034 Patent.” Prelim. Resp. 22.
`This argument is not persuasive because Petitioner’s obviousness argument
`is not based on incorporating Takahashi’s entire controller into Kato’s lamp
`control device. See, e.g., Pet. 56–57. Petitioner merely argues that it would
`have been obvious to incorporate Takahashi’s reference (i.e., threshold
`values) into Kato’s device. See id. at 56; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 80, 147. Patent
`Owner also asserts that Petitioner’s obviousness argument is based on
`impermissible hindsight. Prelim. Resp. 22–23. This argument is not
`persuasive because Petitioner’s motivation to combine argument is based on
`teachings in the references themselves. See, e.g., Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1019,
`9:16–34).
`On this record, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Kato and
`Takahashi teach or suggest all limitations of claim 7. Petitioner has also
`“articulated reasoning” having a “rational underpinning to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441
`F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`Dependent claims 8, 9, and 13:
`Petitioner relies on the combined teachings of Kato and Takashi with
`respect to the limitations of claims 8, 9, and 13, which depend from claim
`7. Petitioner alleges, and Patent Owner does not presently dispute, that Kato
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`discloses “a first sensor [that] is physically separate from said second
`sensor,” as recited in claim 8. Pet. 17; Ex. 1002, ¶ 41. We agree with
`Petitioner because 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”). 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.
`1024 Fig. 2.
`Kato’s pitch angle sensor is comprised of two “rectilinear
`potentiometers” that “detect stroke length” at the disclosed motorcycle’s
`front and rear suspensions. Ex. 1024, ¶ 17. We agree with Petitioner’s
`assertions, which Patent Owner doses not presently dispute, that Kato’s
`rectilinear potentiometers are “one or more additional sensors for sensing . . .
`a suspension height of the vehicle” that “generate a signal that is
`representative of the suspension height of the vehicle” as recited in claims 9
`and 13. See Pet. 20; Ex. 1002, ¶ 35.
`
`Dependent claims 14–16 and 21:
`Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not presently dispute, that
`Kato’s step motors 22x, 22y, and 22z are actuators that are “connected to the
`headlight to effect movement thereof in a first direction . . . [and] in a second
`direction different from the first direction” as recited in claim 14. Pet. 16,
`21; Ex. 1002, ¶ 44. Patent Owner also does not presently dispute
`Petitioner’s assertion that Kato’s step motors include “a first actuator that is
`adapted to be connected to the headlight to effect movement thereof in a
`vertical direction” and “a second actuator that is adapted to be connected to
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`the headlight to effect movement thereof in a horizontal direction,” as
`recited in claims 15 and 16. Pet. 21; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 44–46. We agree with
`Petitioner’s assertions. Kato discloses that step motors 22x, 22y, and 22z
`“rotate [the] optical axis of [the] front lamp 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 16). Ex. 1024 ¶ 16.
`For the same reasons, we agree with Petitioner’s assertion that Kato’s
`lamp (i.e., headlight) is “adjustably mounted . . . 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,” as recited in claim 21.
`
`Dependent claims 31 and 32:
`Petitioner asserts that Kato’s lamp control device is “configured such
`that the pitch of the vehicle is capable of being determined by sensing a front
`and rear suspension height of the vehicle” as recited in claim 31, and also
`“configured such that the pitch of the vehicle is capable of being determined
`by a pitch sensor” as recited in claim 32. Pet. 21; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 57–58.
`Patent Owner does not presently dispute these assertions. Petitioner’s
`argument is persuasive. In Kato’s lamp control device, potentiometers 121
`and 122, which measure the front and rear suspension heights of a
`motorcycle, “serve as the pitch angle sensor” and “detect a pitch angle” of
`the motorcycle. Ex. 1024, ¶ 16.
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`Dependent claims 17 and 18:
`Claims 17 and 18 depend from claim 7, and further require that the
`two or more actuators of claim 7 include “an electronically controlled
`mechanical actuator,” and “a step motor.” Patent Owner does not presently
`dispute Petitioner’s assertion that Kato’s step motors 22x, 22y, and 22z
`satisfy these limitations. See Pet. 21–22; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 47–48. On this
`record, we agree with Petitioner’s assertion. Kato’s step motors 22x, 22y
`and 22z are controlled via an electronic pulse signal output generated by
`controller 24. Ex. 1024, ¶ 17.
`
`Dependent claim 22:
`Claim 22 requires an automatic directional control system “configured
`such that, while in a calibration mode, a directional orientation at which a
`beam of light projects is capable of being adjusted relative to the vehicle by
`manual operation of the two or more actuators.” Petitioner concedes that
`“Kato does not expressly describe a manual calibration mode,” but asserts
`that “this feature is inherent in all headlight control mechanisms as a result
`of manufacturing tolerances.” Pet. 22; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 51.
`Claim 22, however, requires more than just a “manual calibration
`mode.” Claim 22 requires a calibration mode in which the headlight is
`adjusted “b
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
