UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`Patent No. 5,714,927
`Issue Date: March 24, 1998
`Title: METHOD OF IMPROVING ZONE OF COVERAGE RESPONSE OF
`AUTOMOTIVE RADAR
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF NIKOLAOS PAPANIKOLOPOULOS, PH.D.
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00293
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`IPR2016-00293 - Ex. 1010
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`1
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`Patent No. 5,714,927
`Issue Date: March 24, 1998
`Title: METHOD OF IMPROVING ZONE OF COVERAGE RESPONSE OF
`AUTOMOTIVE RADAR
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF NIKOLAOS PAPANIKOLOPOULOS, PH.D.
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00293
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`IPR2016-00293 - Ex. 1010
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`1
`
`
`
`I, Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos, Ph.D., hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`I am currently employed by the University of Minnesota as a
`
`Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Computer Science and
`
`Engineering. I have been a professor at the University of Minnesota (originally as
`
`an assistant professor, and then as an associate professor) since the Fall of 1992.
`
`Between Fall 2001 and Spring 2004, and between Fall 2010 and Spring 2013, I
`
`was the Director of Undergraduate Studies of the College of Science and
`
`Engineering.
`
`2.
`
`In 1992, I received my Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`from Carnegie Mellon University. My thesis was entitled “Controlled Active
`
`Vision” and focused on using computer vision in a controlled fashion to monitor
`
`and manipulate objects in the environment. In 1988, I also received my M.S. in
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University. My B.S.
`
`in Electrical Engineering was received in 1987 from the National Technical
`
`University in Athens, Greece.
`
`3.
`
`Over the last nineteen years, my research and teaching work has
`
`focused on intelligent transportation systems, sensing, and robotics. This research
`
`has included autonomous vehicles and object detection and recognition including
`
`work with artificial intelligence and pattern recognition systems.
`
`2
`
`
`
`4.
`
`My research in the early 1990’s focused on solving sensor deployment
`
`problems including using sensory systems and algorithms to monitor the exterior
`
`and interior spaces of vehicles. Our efforts ranged from monitoring for pedestrians
`
`at crosswalks to performing real-time vehicle following. In particular, we
`
`developed a system (using a CCD camera) that could track humans as articulated
`
`bodies. We also created a system that detected the license plate of a vehicle ahead
`
`and then allowed the vehicle on which the camera was mounted to keep a constant
`
`distance from the leading vehicle.
`
`5.
`
`I currently teach three courses relating to intelligent systems: (i) CSci
`
`5561 Computer Vision, (ii) CSci 5511 Artificial Intelligence, and (iii) CSci 5551
`
`Introduction to Intelligent Robotic Systems.
`
`6.
`
`My research has been funded by many agencies including the NSF
`
`and FHWA, and has produced more than 320 journal and conference publications.
`
`More than 70 publications are in refereed journals. Many of my publications and
`
`grants relate to intelligent vehicles and intelligent transportation systems. Some
`
`examples include:
`
`
`
`“CPS: TTP Option: Synergy: Collaborative Research: Dynamic
`
`Methods of Traffic Control that Impact Quality of Life in Smart
`
`Cities” (with Co-PIs J. Hourdos, M. Jovanovic, and S. Guy), NSF.
`
` Atev, S., Miller, G., and Papanikolopoulos, N.P., “Clustering of
`
`3
`
`
`
`Vehicle Trajectories”, IEEE Trans. on Intelligent Transportation
`
`Systems, Volume 11, No. 3, September 2010, pp. 647-657.
`
` “Deployment of Practical Methods for Counting Bicycling and
`
`Pedestrian Use of a Transportation Facility”, ITS Institute.
`
` Masoud, O., and Papanikolopoulos, N.P., “A Novel Method for
`
`Tracking and Counting Pedestrians in Real-time Using a Single
`
`Camera”, IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Technology, Volume 50, No. 5,
`
`September 2001, pp. 1267-1278.
`
` Du, Y., and Papanikolopoulos, N.P., "Real-time Vehicle Following
`
`Through a Novel Symmetry-Based Approach", Proceedings of the
`
`1997 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3160-3165,
`
`Albuquerque, NM, April 20-25, 1997.
`
`7.
`
`As a result of my work and research, I am familiar with the design,
`
`control, operation and functionality of exterior monitoring systems for vehicles.
`
`8.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as included herewith.
`
`II.
`
`ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`9.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 (“the ’927 patent”) filed by Toyota Motor
`
`Corporation (“Toyota”).
`
`10.
`
`I am not an employee of Toyota or any affiliate or subsidiary thereof.
`
`4
`
`
`
`11.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at a rate of $400 per hour. My
`
`compensation is in no way dependent upon the substance of the opinions I offer
`
`below, or upon the outcome of Toyota’s Petition for Inter Partes Review (or the
`
`outcome of such an inter partes review, if a review is granted).
`
`12.
`
`I have been asked to provide certain opinions relating to the ’927
`
`patent. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding (i) the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’927 patent pertains, and (ii) the
`
`patentability of claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’927 patent over the prior art.
`
`13.
`
`The opinions expressed in this declaration are not exhaustive of my
`
`opinions on the patentability of any of the claims in the ’927 patent. Therefore, the
`
`fact that I do not address a particular point should not be understood to indicate any
`
`agreement on my part that any claim otherwise complies with the patentability
`
`requirements.
`
`14.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the ’927 patent and its
`
`prosecution history, as well as prior art to the ’927 patent including:
`
`a) U.S. Patent No. 5,517,196 to Pakett et al. (“Pakett”)
`
`b) Japanese Laid Open Patent App. Pub. No. H4-348293 by Kawai et
`
`al (“Kawai”)
`
`c) U.S. Patent No. 5,767,793 to Agravante et al. (“Agravante”)
`
`d) U.S. Patent No. 5,508,706 to Tsou et al. (“Tsou”)
`
`5
`
`
`
`15.
`
`The opinions expressed in this declaration are my personal opinions
`
`and do not reflect the views of the University of Minnesota.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’927 PATENT
`
`16.
`
`The ’927 patent generally describes a vehicular radar system that
`
`detects objects (especially other vehicles) in the blind spot areas. (Ex. 1001, col. 1,
`
`ll. 7-10.) Such systems were known in the prior art, but the ’927 patent describes
`
`problems allegedly suffered by those systems. For example, “false alarms” can
`
`occur because of “clutter or radar reflections from roadside objects such as guard
`
`rails, walls or other stationary objects.” (Id. at col. 1, ll. 39-44.) “Accurate target
`
`discrimination capabilities are required of such systems” to minimize these false
`
`alarms and avoid “annoyance to the driver.” (Id.) Annoyance may also be caused
`
`by “alert dropout … occurring due to variable reflectivity of a target vehicle. (Id.
`
`at col. 1, ll. 45-50.) That is, the system temporarily loses a detection signal from
`
`an object that is still in the blind spot, and the “signal light or audio turns off” as a
`
`result. (See id.)
`
`17.
`
`The general goal of the ’927 patent is to solve these problems. (See
`
`id. at col. 2, ll. 9-14.) In general, the solution involves (i) determining whether the
`
`“alert signal” has been activated for a threshold time, (ii) if not, sustain the “alert
`
`signal” for some minimum hold time, and (iii) if so, sustain the “alert signal” for a
`
`time “generally sufficient to bridge the dropout periods,” which “varies according
`
`6
`
`
`
`to the absolute value of the relative velocity between the target and host vehicles.”
`
`(See id. at col. 2, ll. 15-34.)
`
`18.
`
`The invention uses radar mounted in the side of a vehicle. (See id. at
`
`col. 2, l. 62 – col. 3, l. 8.) This is illustrated in Figure 1, wherein the host vehicle
`
`(i.e., the vehicle in which the radar system is installed) is a truck:
`
`The radar antennae and transceiver “view a region to the side of a vehicle to detect
`
`another vehicle or other object … in the blind spot.” (See id. at col. 3, ll. 5-8.) The
`
`output of the radar detection system is fed to a digital signal processor (DSP),
`
`which in turn is connected to a microprocessor. (See id. at col. 3, ll. 22-25; Fig. 2.)
`
`“The DSP 26 does the radar calculations involving targets within the system zone
`
`of coverage” including measurement of position and relative velocity as well as
`
`target tracking. (See id. at col. 3, ll. 43-47.) The microprocessor uses this
`
`information to “make[] a decision to report ‘valid’ targets to the operator or to not
`
`report targets which are of little interest to the operator.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 47-51.)
`
`19.
`
`The patent observes that the “wheel wells and the front and rear
`
`edges” of a target vehicle (i.e., a vehicle to be detected by the radar system) “afford
`
`7
`
`
`
`weak return signals … which often cross below the [detection] threshold.” (Id. at
`
`col. 3, ll. 52-57. This is illustrated in Figures 3a-3c:
`
`As can be seen by comparing Figures 3a and 3b, the wheel wells of the vehicle
`
`correspond to weak return signals, as do the very front and rear edges of the
`
`vehicle. These signals “cross below the threshold” (which is not illustrated), and
`
`the result shown in Figure 3c is that the “raw alert” (a/k/a “alert commands”)
`
`produced by the “target discrimination algorithms” cuts out momentarily as these
`
`portions of the target vehicle pass the through radar sensor field of view. (See id.
`
`at col. 3, ll. 52-61.)
`
`20. Without further processing, the visual or audio alarms given to a
`
`driver would “mimic the alert commands” by cutting out when the return signal
`
`strength drops below the detection threshold. (See id. at col. 3, ll. 61-62). This is
`
`8
`
`
`
`the “alert dropout” that the ’927 patent describes as an annoyance to the driver.
`
`(See supra ¶ 16.)
`
`21. According to the ’927 patent, a “sustained alert signal” is preferred.
`
`(Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 62-65.) That is, the alert signal (which corresponds to the
`
`visual or audio warning) is sustained for some time beyond the “raw alert” or “alert
`
`command.” (See id. at col. 3, l. 67 – col. 4, l. 7.) This is illustrated in Figure 3d
`
`(reproduced with Figure 3c for comparison):
`
`As can be seen, there are two results from sustaining the alert signal. First, the
`
`gaps in the “raw alert” are filled in, and the driver warning is continuous for the
`
`entire period that the target vehicle is present in the blind spot. Second, the alert
`
`signal persists for some period (labeled 48) after the last “raw alert” from detecting
`
`the vehicle, such that the alert signal continues even after the target vehicle has
`
`exited the radar detection zone. This “extend[s] the zone of coverage as perceived
`
`by the driver.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 4-7.)
`
`22.
`
`The algorithm for sustaining the alert signal in this regard proceeds
`
`along the lines of Figure 5:
`
`9
`
`
`
`The steps of detecting the target vehicle using the radar and determining whether to
`
`issue an alert command are all embodied in boxes 66, 68, 70, and 72. If an alert
`
`command is issued at step 72, the alert signal is activated in step 74 (i.e., the alert
`
`devices are turned on) and loops back to step 70 to determine again, in the next
`
`cycle, whether an alert command should be issued. If an alert command is not
`
`10
`
`
`
`issued at step 72, the system determines whether the alert signal is already on. If
`
`not, the algorithm loops back to step 70. If so, the algorithm continues to step 78
`
`and beyond, where the sustain time is computed and applied. (See id. at col. 4, ll.
`
`22-36.)
`
`23.
`
`In step 78, the system determines a threshold time (“THRESHOLD”),
`
`which is a function of the host vehicle’s ground speed. In step 80, the system
`
`determines a minimum sustain time (“HOLD”), which is also a function of the host
`
`vehicle’s ground speed. In step 82, the system determines a variable sustain time
`
`(“SUSTIME”), which is a function of the relative speed between the host vehicle
`
`and the target vehicle. Then at steps 84, 86, and 90, the system determines which
`
`sustain time—HOLD or SUSTIME—should be applied. If the alert signal has
`
`been active for at least the threshold time (“THRESHOLD”), then SUSTIME is
`
`selected; otherwise, HOLD is selected. The system then deactivates the alert
`
`signal after the selected sustain time has passed. (See id. at col. 4, ll. 36-46.)
`
`24.
`
`The ’927 patent also gives more detailed explanations for the
`
`relationship between these three variables and the other variables on which they
`
`depend. As the host vehicle’s ground speed increases, the THRESHOLD time
`
`decreases and the minimum sustain time (HOLD) increases because “target
`
`discrimination is less robust at low speeds and it is desired to not emphasize the
`
`shorter alerts since they may be false alarms; at higher speeds the discrimination is
`
`11
`
`
`
`more robust and the alerts should be emphasized.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 56-61; Fig. 6.)
`
`In other words, when the host vehicle is traveling at high speeds, targets of interest
`
`are also moving at high speeds, making them easier to discriminate from stationary
`
`objects. The threshold time can be reduced, and the minimum hold time increased,
`
`because of greater confidence that the detection is valid. Furthermore, the
`
`increased minimum hold time “help[s] to mask flickers due to multiple reflections
`
`and/or weak signals from the front or rear of a target vehicle and thus to fill in gaps
`
`in the alert signal.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 61-67.)
`
`25. Meanwhile, SUSTIME decreases as the relative speed between the
`
`host and target vehicles decreases, so that the extended zone of coverage is about
`
`10 feet. The reason for this relationship is that “dropouts are most common during
`
`station-keeping events where the relative speed is small” and that at higher relative
`
`speeds, “there is usually enough Doppler information to exceed system
`
`thresholds.” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 1-16; Fig. 7.)
`
`IV. CLAIMS OF THE ’927 PATENT
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`The ’927 patent includes 12 claims. Only claim 1 is independent.
`
`I understand that only claims 1, 2, and 6 are being challenged by
`
`Toyota in its petition for inter partes review, and I have only been asked to
`
`consider these claims. They are reproduced below:
`
`12
`
`
`
`1. In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to detect a target
`vehicle in a blind spot of the host vehicle driver, a method of
`improving the perceived zone of coverage response of automotive
`radar comprising the steps of:
`determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles;
`selecting a variable sustain time as a function of relative vehicle
`speed;
`detecting target vehicle presence and producing an alert
`command;
`activating an alert signal in response to the alert command;
`at the end of the alert command, determining whether the alert
`signal was active for a threshold time; and
`if the alert signal was active for the threshold time, sustaining
`the alert signal for the variable sustain time, wherein the
`zone of coverage appears to increase according to the
`variable sustain time.
`
`2. The invention as defined in claim 1 wherein the variable sustain
`time is an inverse function of the relative vehicle speed.
`
`6. The invention as defined in claim 1 including:
`determining host vehicle speed; and
`selecting the threshold time as a function of the host vehicle
`speed.
`
`13
`
`
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`28.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have
`
`considered what one of ordinary skill in the art would consider to be the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of the ’927 patent’s claim terms. I have also considered
`
`the potentially narrower meaning of the claim terms governed by the claims,
`
`specification, and prosecution history together with the knowledge of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`29.
`
`I have been asked to apply the following specific constructions:
`
` “In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to detect a target
`
`vehicle in a blind spot of the host vehicle driver, a method of
`
`improving the perceived zone of coverage response automotive radar
`
`comprising the steps of.” This preamble is limiting and requires radar
`
`(see id. at pp. 12-14);
`
` “variable sustain time” means a variable period of time for which the
`
`alert signal persists (see id. at pp. 14-18);
`
` “wherein the zone of coverage appears to increase according to the
`
`variable sustain time” / “improving the perceived zone of coverage”
`
`means wherein the alert signal remains active when a target vehicle is
`
`beyond the range that the object detection system can detect (see id. at
`
`pp. 19-23);
`
`14
`
`
`
` “a threshold time” means length of time that the alert signal must be
`
`active for the alert signal to be sustained for the variable sustain time;
`
` “blind spot” means an area on a side or on a side and to the rear of the
`
`host vehicle not visible to the driver through the mirrors;
`
` “relative vehicle speed” means speed in relation to another vehicle;
`
` “detecting target vehicle presence and producing an alert command”
`
`means detecting that the target vehicle is present at least partially in
`
`the blind spot and producing an alert command;
`
` an “alert command” is “raw data that is used to generate an ‘alert
`
`signal’”; and
`
` an “alert signal” is “a signal that provides a visual or audio alert to a
`
`driver.”
`
`VI. UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`
`30.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1, 2, and 6 are unpatentable because they would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in view of the prior art. As detailed
`
`below, in my opinion these claims are nothing more than the application of simple,
`
`well known, routinely made signal processing design decisions to standard prior art
`
`blind spot monitoring systems.
`
`15
`
`
`
`A.
`
`31.
`
`Legal Standard for Obviousness
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable and invalid if the
`
`subject matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the claimed subject matter as of the time of the invention
`
`at issue. I understand that the following factors must be evaluated to determine
`
`whether the claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (2) the difference or differences, if any, between each claim of the patent
`
`and the prior art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent
`
`was filed. Unlike anticipation, which allows consideration of only one item of
`
`prior art, I understand that obviousness may be shown by considering more than
`
`one item of prior art. Moreover, I have been informed and I understand that so-
`
`called objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness, also known as “secondary
`
`considerations,” like the following are also to be considered when assessing
`
`obviousness: (1) commercial success; (2) long-felt but unresolved needs; (3)
`
`copying of the invention by others in the field; (4) initial expressions of disbelief
`
`by experts in the field; (5) failure of others to solve the problem that the inventor
`
`solved; and (6) unexpected results. I also understand that evidence of objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claimed
`
`subject matter.
`
`16
`
`
`
`B.
`
`32.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`considered to have the normal skills and knowledge of a person in a certain
`
`technical field, as of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that factors
`
`that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include:
`
`(1) the education level of the inventor; (2) the types of problems encountered in the
`
`art; (3) the prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the
`
`education level of active workers in the field. I also understand that “the person of
`
`ordinary skill” is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of the
`
`universe of available prior art.
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, in December of 1996, a person with ordinary skill in
`
`the art with respect to the technology disclosed by the ’927 patent would have at
`
`least a Bachelor of Science/Engineering in mechanical engineering, electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, or a related field; and several years of
`
`experience in vehicle exterior object detection systems or the like.
`
`34. Based on my experience and education, I consider myself (both now
`
`and as of December 1996) to be a person of at least ordinary skill in the art with
`
`respect to the field of technology implicated by the ’927 patent.
`
`17
`
`
`
`C.
`
`35.
`
`Ground 1: Obviousness over Agravante in View of Tsou
`
`I understand that Agravante and Tsou are both prior art to the ’927
`
`patent. In my opinion, claims 1, 2, and 6 would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in view of Agravante and Tsou.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Agravante
`
`36. Agravante is titled “Compact Vehicle Based Rear and Side Obstacle
`
`Detection System Including Multiple Antennae.” It discloses a radar system for
`
`detecting obstacles at the sides and to the rear of a vehicle. (Ex. 1005, Agravante
`
`at col. 2, ll. 26-30.) This includes the blind spot, as can be seen in Figure 7, which
`
`shows the areas of coverage:
`
`(See also Fig. 6 (top view of the same coverage areas).) Radar sensors are located
`
`at each side of the rear bumper and “provide object detection and range/velocity
`
`18
`
`
`
`measurement functions of detected objects.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 35-44; col. 5, ll. 6-7.)
`
`“Indications of whether obstacles are present … are activated [and] applied
`
`through the controller 34 to various types of warning devices … such as audible
`
`alarms and visual signals.” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 26-29.) A visual warning can be given
`
`whenever an obstacle is present, and an audible warning can be added “when an
`
`obstacle is in a zone that is critical for a particular left, right or back-up maneuver
`
`in response to activation of the left and right turn signals and the reverse gear.”
`
`(Id. at col. 5, ll. 31-37.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
`
`the blind spots are among the most “critical” zones in this respect.
`
`37. Regarding the detection and warning algorithms, Agravante provides
`
`some details. For example, it does disclose that a relative speed may be calculated
`
`as part of the determination of whether to issue a warning. A “target detection
`
`algorithm determines whether the [detected] object is valid and if it should be sent
`
`on to the controller,” which also receives “range and speed data.” (Id. at col. 7, ll.
`
`33-42; see also col. 9, ll. 8-24 (discussing calculation of “predicted time for [an]
`
`object [in a sensing region] to enter the left or right side detection zones,” which
`
`would be based on relative speed.)
`
`38. However, Agravante also makes reference to, and incorporates by
`
`reference, the Tsou reference discussed below for details regarding the operation of
`
`the digital signal processor and “[v]arious types of adaptive threshold techniques.”
`
`19
`
`
`
`(See id. at col. 6, ll. 10-14; col. 6, l. 64 – col. 7, l. 14.)1 The use of an adaptive
`
`threshold, according to Agravante, permits “reliab[ility] in that the system must
`
`give a warning indication of an obstacle of the type that may cause a collision for a
`
`high percentage of the times,” and does “not provide a warning or nuisance signal
`
`for those objects that do not provide a chance of collision.” (Id. at col. 1, ll. 55-
`
`59.)
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Tsou
`
`39.
`
`Tsou is titled “Radar Signal Processor” and discloses a system for
`
`processing radar signals in “an effective compact, flexible and integrated radar
`
`sensor that can be easily integrated into many systems for various applications.”
`
`(Ex. 1006, Tsou at col. 1, ll. 38-40.) Tsou also discloses that its teachings may be
`
`applied to applications which “may include integrating a radar sensor onto an
`
`automotive vehicle to provide a blind spot detector for crash avoidance purposes.”
`
`(Id. at col. 1, ll. 43-45.) As promised by Agravante, it discloses numerous aspects
`
`of radar signal processing including adaptive thresholding, target detection, and
`
`target tracking. It also discloses hysteresis which helps account for temporarily
`
`dropped detection signals.
`
`For clarity, Agravante also refers to U.S. Patent No. 5,315,303 to Tsou et al.,
`1
`
`(id. at col. 4, l. 32), but this is a different Tsou reference. The Tsou reference
`
`discussed herein is referred to by its application number (08/173,540).
`
`20
`
`
`
`40.
`
`Tsou’s system includes “radar sensors” which “generate a significant
`
`amount of data which must be analyzed by signal processors to provide target data
`
`signals, for example estimated range and range rate (relative speed or velocity)
`
`signals of a target, which, in turn, are used to generate control signals, for example,
`
`to trigger a buzzer and/or an indicating light, to actuate a brake, etc.” (Id. at col.
`
`12, ll. 38-45.) In the case of a blind spot monitor, these “target data signals”
`
`indicate objects detected in the blind spot and are used to control a warning
`
`indicator.
`
`41.
`
`These functions are performed by a “radar signal processor.” (Id. at
`
`col. 12, ll. 49-51.) Within this signal processor, a fast Fourier transform (FFT) is
`
`used to estimate the radar signal spectrum, and an adaptive threshold is applied to
`
`the signal. (See id. at col. 13, l. 19 – col. 15, l. 10.) Then, a “target decision
`
`device” operating in “acquisition mode” determines that a potential target “is valid
`
`if it persists over enough thresholding intervals, and if its path is correlated to a
`
`relatively non-accelerating path.” (See id. at col. 15, ll. 13-32.) “If the target
`
`decision device 500 determines that a valid target exists, [it] ends the acquisition
`
`mode and initiates the tracking mode.” (Id.)
`
`42. Consistent with Agravante’s instruction to look to Tsou for details
`
`regarding target tracking, Tsou’s tracking system includes a tracking counter that
`
`allows the system to increase its confidence that a target is present as the target is
`
`21
`
`
`
`repeatedly detected, and based on that counter, continue to track the target (i.e.,
`
`assume that it is still there) even after the detection signal is lost. Tsou describes
`
`this counter as follows:
`
`[T]arget decision device . . . or controller . . . includes the tracking
`counter which is initialized when the tracking mode is initiated. The
`tracking counter monitors the current status of the target being
`tracked. The 3-D parameter estimation device . . . generates and
`outputs the tracking signal representing probability density of a
`current target in the 3-D tracking cube to the target decision device . .
`. or controller . . . which compares the tracking signal to the tracking
`threshold signal at each tracking time interval . . . . [T]he tracking
`counter is incremented at each tracking time interval if the tracking
`signal exceeds the tracking threshold signal. The tracking counter is
`decremented at each tracking time interval if the tracking signal is
`below the tracking threshold. As long as the tracking counter is above
`zero, the target decision device . . . or controller . . . continues the
`tracking mode. If the tracking counter falls to zero, then the target is
`presumed to be lost and the target decision device . . . or controller . . .
`returns to the acquisition mode. The target counter provides
`hysteresis to prevent the target decision device . . . from switching to
`the acquisition mode when the target is momentarily lost. . .
`Hysteresis in the tracking mode is adaptive since it is a function of the
`length of time a target has been tracked and a function of the tracking
`signal which is related to the confidence that an actual target is being
`tracked. The tracking counter is not used in the acquisition mode so
`that targets may be initially identified.
`
`22
`
`
`
`(Id. at col. 17, l. 54 – col. 18, l. 22 (emphasis added).)
`
`43.
`
`That is, each time an obstacle is detected in the blind spot, the system
`
`will increment the tracking counter by an amount that reflects the degree of
`
`certainty that the object has, in fact, been detected. This does not happen until the
`
`system detects the object in “acquisition mode,” enters “tracking mode,” and again
`
`detects the object after a “tracking interval” has passed.
`
`If the object is not
`
`detected during a tracking interval, the counter is decremented. The result of this
`
`is that, when an object is lost by the radar, it will continue to be tracked for a time
`
`that depends on the amount of time that a target has been detected. Like the
`
`system described in the ’927 patent, this has two effects: First, a target which is
`
`temporarily lost will be tracked continuously, (see id. at col. 17, ll. 22-30), and
`
`second, the tracking signal will persist for some time after the target is lost
`
`permanently (until the counter “falls to zero”). The length of this persistence (in
`
`both cases) increases as the target spends time in the field of view of the sensor,
`
`being detected during each interval (or most intervals). Furthermore, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in the case of a blind spot monitor,
`
`the activation of a warning indicator would correspond to the tracking of an object,
`
`such that the warning would be sustained as long as the tracking counter remained
`
`above zero. Thus, a slowly passing vehicle will result in a higher tracking counter
`
`(and therefore a higher sustain time) than a quickly passing vehicle. Techniques
`
`23
`
`
`
`like this are commonly used to deal with misdetection, signal noise, dropped
`
`signals and other problems with radar detection systems.
`
`44.
`
`The following figure provides a high level visualization of the
`
`operation of Tsou’s tracking counter.
`
`At time (1), Tsou’s system has determined that a valid target exists and has entered
`
`tracking mode. A control signal to turn on an indicating light issues, and the
`
`tracking counter is initialized. Since the tracking counter has not yet been
`
`incremented, however, the system will exit tracking mode and reenter acquisition
`
`mode if the target is lost. At time (2), one tracking time interval has passed and the
`
`tracking counter is incremented. Thus, starting at time (2), a variable sustain time
`
`will be applied to continue issuing the control signal to turn on the indicating light
`
`24
`
`
`
`even if the target it lost. The sustain time will increase the longer the target is
`
`detected. At time (3), Tsou’s system continues to detect a valid target and
`
`increments the tracking counter as a result. Starting at approximately time (4), the
`
`target is momentarily lost and the counter starts to decrement. As a result, at time
`
`(5), Tsou’s system continues to decrement the tracking counter. But, since the
`
`tracking counter exceeds 0, the control signal will continue to issue and indicating
`
`light will be sustained during this time period. At approximately time (6), Tsou’s
`
`system reacquires the target and begins to increment the tracking counter. The
`
`tracking counter continues to increment at time (7). Then, at approximately time
`
`(8), the target is permanently lost and the counter begins to decrement. The
`
`tracking counter continues to decrement at time (9) until it reaches zero at
`
`approximately time (10). The control signal will continue to be issued to keep the
`
`indicating light from time approximately (8) until approximately time (10). This
`
`serves to extend the perceived zone of coverage of Tsou’s system.
`
`3.
`
`Obviousness of claims 1, 2, and 6
`
`45.
`
`In my opinion, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to combine the teachings of Agravante and Tsou and arrive at the
`
`invention of claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’927 patent. In particular, it would have been
`
`obvious to implement Tsou’s tracking counter (and associated variable sustain
`
`time) within Agravante’s blind spot monitoring radar system.
`
`25
`
`
`
`46.
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “a radar system wherein a host
`
`vehicle uses radar to detect a target vehicle in a blind spot of the host vehicle
`
`driver.” In my opinion, Agravante discloses this kind of system. Agravante
`
`discloses “a rear and side obstacle detection system that provides a warning of an
`
`obstacle that is within specified sensing regions around a vehicle.” (Ex
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
