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
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,714,927
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00293
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`

`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ............................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ......................................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .................................................... 1 
`C. 
`Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ............. 2 
`PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ................................................ 3 
`III.  REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104) ....................................................................................................... 3 
`A.  Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ........................................... 3 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) ............................................................ 4 
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ......................................... 5 
`C. 
`IV.  SUMMARY OF THE ’927 PATENT ......................................................... 9 
`A.  Overview of the ’927 Patent ........................................................................... 9 
`B. 
`Prosecution History of the ’927 Patent ...................................................... 12 
`Prior Inter Partes Review Petition .............................................................. 13 
`C. 
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE ’927 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................... 13
`A. Ground 1: Obviousness over Agravante in View of Tsou .................. 13
`1.
`Overview of Agravante ............................................................. 13
`2.
`Overview of Tsou ...................................................................... 14
`3.
`Obviousness of claims 1, 2, and 6 ............................................ 17
`Ground 2: Obviousness over Pakett in View of Kawai ...................... 35
`1.
`Overview of Pakett.................................................................... 36
`2.
`Overview of Kawai ................................................................... 39
`3.
`Obviousness of claims 1, 2, and 6 ............................................ 42
`Purported Secondary Considerations .................................................. 60
`C.
`VI.  CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 60 
`
`
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 to Henderson et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,517,196 to Pakett et al.
`
`Japanese Laid Open Patent App. No. H4-348293 by
`Kawai et al.
`
`English translation of Japanese Laid Open Patent App.
`H4-348293 by Kawai et al. and associated translation
`declaration
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,767,793 to Agravante et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,706 to Tsou et al.
`
`Excerpts from the File History of U.S. Patent No.
`5,732,375 to Cashler
`
`Order RE Claim Construction from Signal IP v.
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02454
`(C.D. Cal.)
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement from
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:14-
`cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Nikos Papanikolopoulos
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. Part 42, Toyota Motor
`
`Corporation (“Toyota” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests Inter Partes Review
`
`of claims 1, 2, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 (“the ’927 patent”), filed
`
`December 9, 1996 and issued Feb. 3, 1998 to Mark Ford HENDERSON et al., and
`
`currently assigned to Signal IP, Inc. (“Signal IP” or “the Patent Owner”) according
`
`to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“the US PTO”) assignment records.
`
`There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the
`
`claim challenged in this Petition.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Petitioner, Toyota, and its corporate subsidiaries Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A.,
`
`Inc. and Toyota Motor North America, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’927 patent is currently the subject of the following on-going litigations:
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-05162
`
`(C.D. Cal.) (“C.D. Cal. Signal IP v. Toyota litigation”); Signal IP, Inc. v.
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-03113 (C.D. Cal.); Signal
`
`IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al., No. 2:14-cv-03111 (C.D.
`
`Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-
`
`03108 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America, Inc. No. 2:14-cv-02457
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`
`
`(C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00491
`
`(C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., NO. 8:14-cv-
`
`00497 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-
`
`02962 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., No. 2:14-
`
`cv-03114 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-
`
`02963 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, No. 2:14-
`
`cv-03107 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-03105
`
`(C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:14-cv-03106 (C.D.
`
`Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02459 (C.D.
`
`Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor America, 8:15-cv-01085 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-13864 (E.D. Mich.); and Signal IP,
`
`Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:14-cv-13729 (E.D. Mich.).
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’927 patent were also previously the subject of
`
`another petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) filed by Volkswagen Group of
`
`America, Inc., Case IPR2015-00968. The Board issued a decision addressing the
`
`petition on August 22, 2015 and declined to institute IPR. (See IPR2015-00968,
`
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper 6.)
`
`C. Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`Lead Counsel: A. Antony Pfeffer (Reg. No. 43,857)
`
`Back-up Counsel: George E. Badenoch (Reg. No. 25,825) and John Flock (Reg.
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`
`No. 39,670). Petitioner also intends to request authorization to file a motion for K.
`
`Patrick Herman to appear pro hac vice as a further backup counsel. Mr. Herman is
`
`a litigation attorney experienced in patent cases, and is admitted to practice law in
`
`New York, and in several U.S. District Courts and Courts of Appeal. Mr. Herman
`
`has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue and represents
`
`Petitioner in the related C.D. Cal. Signal IP v. Toyota litigation, identified above.
`
`Electronic Service Information: ptab@kenyon.com, apfeffer@kenyon.com,
`
`gbadenoch@kenyon.com, jflock@kenyon.com, pherman@kenyon.com
`
`Post and Delivery: Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, One Broadway, New York, NY 10004
`
`Telephone: 212-425-7200
`
`Facsimile: 212-425-5288
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`Petitioner authorizes the US PTO to charge Deposit Account No. 11-0600
`
`for the fees set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition, and further authorizes
`
`payment for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104)
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the patent for which review is sought, the ’927 patent
`
`(Exhibit 1001), is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims
`
`on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of and challenges claims 1, 2, and 6
`
`of the ’927 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the grounds set forth below, and
`
`requests that the claims be found unpatentable. Cancellation of the claims is
`
`requested. This petition explains in detail the reasons why claims 1, 2, and 6 are
`
`unpatentable under the relevant statutory grounds, and includes an identification of
`
`where each element is found in the prior art, and the relevance of the prior art.
`
`Detailed claim charts are also provided; and additional explanation and support for
`
`the ground of challenge is set forth in the Expert Declaration of Dr. Nikos
`
`Papanikolopoulos. (Exhibit 1010).
`
`Grounds
`
`’927 Claims
`
`Basis for Challenge
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1, 2, 6
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,767,793 to Agravante et al.
`
`(“Agravante”) (Exhibit 1005) in view of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,508,706 to Tsou et al. (“Tsou”) (Exhibit 1006)
`
`1, 2, 6
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,517,196 to Pakett et al. (“Pakett”)
`
`(Exhibit 1002) combined with Japanese Laid Open
`
`Patent App. Pub. No. H4-348293 by Kawai et al
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`
`
`(“Kawai”) (Exhibits 1003 and 1004 (English
`
`translation))
`
`As noted above, the ’927 patent (Ex. 1001) was filed December 9, 1996. It
`
`does not claim priority to any earlier filed applications.
`
`Agravante (Ex. 1005) was filed April 21, 1995 and issued June 16, 1998.
`
`Thus, it is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Tsou (Ex. 1006) was filed December 23, 1993 and issued April 16, 1996.
`
`Thus, it is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e).
`
`Pakett (Ex. 1002) issued June 28, 1994. Thus, it qualifies as prior art under
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Kawai (Ex. 1003) published December 3, 1992, and qualifies as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Kawai was published in Japanese. Pursuant to 35
`
`C.F.R. § 42.63(b), an English translation and associated declaration attesting to the
`
`accuracy of the translation accompanies this Petition (Exhibit 1004).
`
`C. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`A claim subject to inter partes review is given its “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” (37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b).) The words of the claim are to be given their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent with the specification. (In re
`
`Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).)
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`
`Toyota also notes the ’927 patent is set to expire December 2016. “[T]he
`
`Board’s review of the claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district
`
`court’s review.” In re Rambus, Inc., 69 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Petitioner
`
`believes that application of either the broadest reasonable interpretation standard or
`
`the claim construction standard summarized in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) would produce the same result. All of the constructions set
`
`forth below are both consistent with both the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`the claim terms, and are consistent with the claims’ plain and ordinary meaning
`
`when they are read in view of the specification and prosecution history. And, all
`
`the prior art discussed in this petition discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 2,
`
`and 6 of the ’927 patent regardless of which claim construction standard is applied.
`
`On April 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
`
`California issued a claim construction order that addressed, among other things, the
`
`’927 patent. (See Ex. 1008, Order RE Claim Construction from Signal IP v.
`
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.).) As part of this
`
`order, the court construed certain terms that appear in claims 1, 2, and 6. The
`
`Court’s constructions of these terms are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`“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
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`
`
`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).
`
`Additionally, in cases not involving Petitioner, Patent Owner Signal IP
`
`apparently reached agreement with the defendants in those cases regarding the
`
`meaning of certain ’927 patent claim terms (see id. at pp. 23-24; see also Ex. 1009,
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement from Signal IP v. American
`
`Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.)):
`
`
`
`“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;
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`“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
`
`Both the district court’s and the agreed-to constructions are at least
`
`consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations of claims 1,
`
`2, and 6. The constructions are also at least consistent with the ’927 patent’s
`
`claims, specification, and prosecution history and have thus been utilized when
`
`comparing the prior art to the claims in this Petition.
`
`The Board has also previously construed two additional terms. In particular,
`
`the Board determined that an “alert command” is “raw data that is used to generate
`
`an ‘alert signal,’” and that an “alert signal” is “a signal that provides a visual or
`
`audio alert to a driver.” (See Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Signal IP, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00968, Paper 6, at 6-7 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2015).) For the purposes of this
`
`proceeding, Toyota has applied these constructions.
`
` Beyond these terms, there is no indication in the ’927 patent that any other
`
`terms in claims 1, 2, and 6 should be afforded something other than their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’927 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’927 Patent
`The ’927 patent generally relates to a system for the detection of objects in a
`
`vehicle’s blind spot using radar, and the display of an alert to the driver if such an
`
`object is detected. (Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 7-10.) The ’927 patent describes several
`
`problems that allegedly existed with radar-based object detection systems: false
`
`alarms, signal dropout, and signal flicker. (Id. at col. 1, l. 23 – col. 2, l. 6.) The
`
`’927 patent purports to address these problems, either by delaying turning off an
`
`alert, or sustaining an alert on for a longer time. (Id. at col. 2, ll. 9-34.)
`
`The ’927 patent describes use of radar antennae as part of a side-detection
`
`system on a vehicle. (Id. at Fig. 1; see also col. 2, l. 65 – col. 3, l. 2.) The patent’s
`
`side-detection system includes a signal processor, which is coupled to a transceiver
`
`to both control radar transmission and receive the transceiver’s data. (Id. at col. 3,
`
`ll. 14-17.) The signal processor estimates range in “X” and “Y” directions and
`
`supplies target track information. (Id. at col. 3, ll. 43-45.) The relative speed of
`
`the host vehicle and the target is also calculated. (Id. at col. 3, ll. 46-47.) This
`
`information is fed to a microprocessor. (Id. at Fig. 2.) The microprocessor uses
`
`target discrimination algorithms to determine whether a detected object is a hazard
`
`and should be reported to the driver. (Id. at col. 3, ll. 28-51.)
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`
`
`The ’927 patent explains that the strength of a radar signal reflected from a
`
`target object can vary according to, for example, which portion of the object is
`
`reflecting the signal. (See id. col. 3, ll. 52-57.) Figures 3a-3c, reproduced below,
`
`illustrate this:
`
`
`
`(Id. at Figs. 3a, 3b, 3c.) As shown in Figures 3a and 3b, the wheel wells and the
`
`front and rear edges of a target vehicle result in weak radar return signals 38, while
`
`the remainder of the target vehicle 36 returns strong radar signals 40. (See id. at
`
`Figs. 3a, 3b.) Target discrimination algorithms process these radar signals to issue
`
`alert commands 42 as shown in Figure 3c. (See id. at Fig. 3c.)
`
`According to the ’927 patent, “[w]ithout a sustaining action the visual or
`
`audio alert signal will mimic the alert commands 42.” (See id. at col. 3, ll. 61-62.)
`
`The patent goes on to note that “[i]t is preferred that there be no dropout events in
`
`the alert signal corresponding to the target vehicle to achieve an uninterrupted or
`
`sustained alert signal 46 as shown in FIG. 3d.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 62-65.)
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Figs. 3c, 3d.) “This,” according to the ’927 patent, “is accomplished … by
`
`judiciously sustaining each individual alert signal 42….” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 65-67.)
`
`The ’927 patent explains that because of the sustaining effect, the sustained alert
`
`signal 46 is longer by a period 48 than the alert command (i.e., the alert to the
`
`driver extends beyond the time of the last alert command, as calculated by the
`
`target discrimination algorithm). (See id. at col. 3, l. 67 – col. 4, l. 7.) This extends
`
`the zone of coverage as perceived by the driver.
`
`Figure 5 of the ’927 patent provides an example algorithm for sustaining the
`
`alert signal that causes an alert to be presented to the driver. As shown in this
`
`figure, the radar transceiver outputs and the host vehicle speed signal are input to
`
`the signal processor where a target discrimination program is used to determine
`
`whether to issue an alert command. (See id. at Fig.. 5, steps 66, 68, 70.) If an alert
`
`command is present, an alert signal issues and the alert devices are turned on. (See
`
`id. at Fig. 5, steps 72, 74.) If the alert command ceases when the alert device is
`
`active, then three variables are determined: 1) a minimum alert time THRESHOLD
`
`is selected as a function of vehicle speed; 2) a minimum sustain time delay HOLD
`
`is selected as a function of speed; and 3) variable sustain time “SUSTIME” is
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`
`selected as a function of relative vehicle speeds. (See id. at Fig. 5, steps 78, 80,
`
`82.) If the alert devices were active for at least the THRESHOLD time, the
`
`SUSTIME value is used to delay alert turn-off. If the alert devices were active for
`
`less than the THRESHOLD time, alert turn-off is delayed only for the HOLD time.
`
`(See id. at Fig. 5, steps 84, 86, 90, 88.)
`
`As shown in Figure 6, the THRESHOLD value can decrease as vehicle
`
`speed increases. (See id. at Fig. 6.) This is because, according to the ’927 patent,
`
`at low speeds, target discrimination is less robust, and shorter alerts should not be
`
`emphasized as they might be false alarms. (See id. at col. 4, ll. 56-61.) At higher
`
`speeds, the discrimination is more robust and alerts should be emphasized. (Id.)
`
`Further, as shown in Figure 7, the SUSTIME may decrease with increasing relative
`
`vehicle speed. (Id. at Fig. 7.) “Since dropouts are most common during station-
`
`keeping events where the relative speed is small, the large SUSTIME values help
`
`to overcome the tendency to dropout. The lower SUSTIME values at higher
`
`relative velocities are appropriate since at such relative speeds there is usually
`
`enough Doppler information to exceed system thresholds.” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 10-16.)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’927 Patent
`
`B.
`The claims of the ’927 patent were never subject to any substantive rejection
`
`in view of any prior art reference or combination of prior art references during
`
`prosecution. (See generally Ex. 1007.)
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`
`C.
`Prior Inter Partes Review Petition
`As noted above, the Board declined to institute inter partes review of claims
`
`1, 2, and 6 of the ’927 patent in Case IPR2015-00968. (See IPR2015-00968,
`
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper 6.) While there is
`
`some overlap in prior art (including, for instance, the Pakett reference), the grounds
`
`at issue in this petition are different from those in IPR2015-00968.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’927 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Obviousness over Agravante in View of Tsou
`Claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’927 patent are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`view of Agravante (Exhibit 1005) combined with Tsou (Exhibit 1006). Neither
`
`reference is identified on the face of the ’927 patent.
`
`1. Overview of Agravante
`Agravante discloses a radar-based rear and side obstacle detection system
`
`for an automobile that utilizes a series of sensors. (Ex. 1005, Agravante at col. 2,
`
`ll. 26–30; col. 7, ll. 33–42.) “The sensors . . . provide object detection and
`
`range/velocity measurement functions of detected objects,” and a controller
`
`provides audible or visual warning signals when, for example, an object “is in a
`
`zone that is critical for a particular left, right or back-up maneuver.” (Id. at col. 5,
`
`ll. 5–37.) Agravante further discloses calculating relative vehicle speed to
`
`determine whether a warning should be issued. (Id. at col. 7, ll. 33-42; col. 9, ll. 8-
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`
`
`24.) When determining whether an obstacle exists in the vehicle’s side blind spot,
`
`Agravante considers whether an “object … persists over enough thresholding
`
`intervals,” and whether “its path is correlated to a relatively non-accelerating path.”
`
`(Id. at col. 7, ll. 15-26.)
`
`Agravante also describes use of an “adaptive threshold” to determine if an
`
`exterior obstacle is present, and notes that “[v]arious types of adaptive threshold
`
`techniques are discussed” in Tsou. (Id. at col. 6, l. 64 – col. 7, l. 14.) This allows
`
`the system to be “reliable 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
`Tsou describes a radar signal processor that employs both an “adaptive
`
`threshold” and hysteresis to account for temporary dropped radar signals.
`
`According to Tsou, “[t]here is a need for 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.) “Such applications 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.)
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`
`
`Tsou explains that its “radar sensors … generate a significant amount of data
`
`which must be analyzed by signal processors to provide target data signals.” (Id. at
`
`col. 12, ll. 38-40.) These “target data signals” are then used to “generate control
`
`signals, for example, to trigger a buzzer and/or an indication light, to actuate a
`
`brake, etc.” (Id. at col. 12, ll. 40-45.)
`
`According to Tsou, the target data signals are generated by a “target decision
`
`device 500” that determines, for instance, if an object is present in a vehicle’s blind
`
`spot. (See id. at col. 15, ll. 13-20.) A target will be determined present 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. 28-32.)
`
`Once the “target decision device 500 determines that a valid target exists,”
`
`Tsou explains that “the target decision device 500 ends the acquisition mode and
`
`initiates the tracking mode.” (See id. at col. 15, ll. 30-32.) Tsou goes on to explain
`
`that this “tracking mode” includes a “tracking counter” that functions to extend a
`
`target data signal that is temporarily lost so that the system continues to track the
`
`target (e.g., a vehicle in a blind spot).:
`
`[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
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`
`(Id. at col. 17, l. 54 – col. 18, l. 22 (emphasis added).)
`
`In sum, Tsou discloses a blind-spot monitoring system that generates “target
`
`data signals” that are indicative of an obstacle in a vehicle’s blind spot. (See Ex.
`
`1010, Nikos Dec. at ¶¶ 39-41.) These “target data signals” can then be used to
`
`control a warning indicator. (See id.) Then, once an obstacle has been detected,
`
`Tsou employs a “tracking counter” to sustain target detection (and thus a
`
`controlled warning indicator) and account for momentary signal loses. (See id. at
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`
`
`¶¶ 42-44.) Tsou’s “tracking counter” is not incremented until at least one
`
`“tracking time interval” has passed. (See id. at ¶ 44.) Then, repeated detections of
`
`the same object will increment a tracking counter by an amount that reflects the
`
`degree of certainty that the object has, in fact, been detected. (See id. at ¶ 43.) If
`
`the object is not detected at a later time, the counter will be decremented. (See id.
`
`at ¶¶ 43-44.) Target detection (and the associated warning indicator) will be
`
`sustained until the tracking counter reaches zero. (See id.) Thus, target detection
`
`(and a controlled warning indicator) will be sustained for a variable period of time
`
`that depends on the value of the tracking counter. (See id.) The target will
`
`continue to be tracked for a variable sustain time both if the radar system
`
`temporarily fails to detect it, and after the target it is lost permanently. (See id.)
`
`Another result is that a target (e.g., a passing vehicle) which has been tracked for a
`
`long time (e.g., because it is passing slowly) will persist in the tracking system
`
`longer and produce a longer sustain time than an object that has been tracked for
`
`less time (e.g., a faster-passing vehicle). (See id. at ¶ 43.)
`
`3. Obviousness of claims 1, 2, and 6
`The combination of Agravante and Tsou, along with the knowledge, skill,
`
`and creativity of a person of ordinary skill in the art, teaches and renders obvious
`
`all the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’927 patent. Agravante discloses a
`
`radar-based system that detects obstacles in a vehicle’s blind spot, and then alerts a
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`
`
`driver to the presence of obstacles using a warning device, if appropriate. While
`
`Agravante does not expressly discuss the application of a “variable sustain time” as
`
`required by claims 1, 2, and 6, this is disclosed by Tsou.
`
`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.” Agravante
`
`is directed to such a system. Agravante discloses “a rear and side obstacle
`
`detection system” for a vehicle which “uses millimeter wave radar signals” and
`
`which can issue a warning “when an object is in a zone that is critical for a
`
`particular left, right, or back-up maneuver.” (Ex. 1005, Agravante at col. 2, ll. 26-
`
`30; col. 5, ll. 31-39.)
`
`The preamble further specifies that claims 1, 2, and 6 are directed to “a
`
`method of improving the perceived zone of coverage response of automotive
`
`radar.” While Agravante does not expressly discuss “improving” the “perceived
`
`zone of coverage” of its blind spot monitoring system, this is disclosed by Tsou. In
`
`particular, Tsou employs a “target counter” that has the effect of extending its
`
`system’s detection coverage. (Ex. 1006, Tsou, col. 17, l. 54 – col. 18, l. 22.) When
`
`a target is no longer being detected, this counter will decrement extending the
`
`amount of time the target is reported to the driver as detected. (See id.; see also
`
`Ex. 1010, Nikos Dec. at ¶¶ 42-44, 48.) Via its use of the “target counter,” Tsou’s
`
`-18-
`
`

`
`
`
`system will continue tracking an issuing target detection signals for a period of
`
`time after a target has been lost. (See Ex. 1006, Tsou at col. 18, ll. 1-8.)
`
`Claim 1 further recites “determining the relative speed of the host and target
`
`vehicles.” This is disclosed by Agravante. In particular, Agravante explains “[f]or
`
`the lane change target prediction mode of operation, a 2D parameter estimation
`
`device 122 determines target distance and velocity.” (Ex. 1005, Agravante at col.
`
`7, ll. 15-17.) Further, Agravante explains that a side obstacle is determined to be
`
`present only if the obstacle’s “path is correlated to a relatively non-accelerating
`
`path.” (see id. at col. 7, ll. 20-25.) Thus, Agravante considers the relative speed of
`
`the host and target vehicles when determining whether the target vehicle
`
`constitutes an obstacle that should be reported to the driver. (See Ex. 1010, Nikos
`
`Dec. at ¶ 49; see also Ex. 1006, Tsou at col. 12, ll. 29-45 (noting that “relative
`
`speed” is determined and used to “generate control signals” to “trigger … an
`
`indicating light”).)
`
`Claim 1 further recites “selecting a variable sustain time as a function of
`
`relative speed.” Tsou discloses this limitation. Again, Tsou employs a “tracking
`
`counter” to provide “adaptive” “[h]ysteresis” that “is a function of the length of
`
`time a target has been tracked…” (Id. at col. 17, l. 54 – col. 18, l. 22.) In other
`
`words, when an already-detected object is detected again, Tsou’s system increases
`
`the tracking counter (or, put differently, selects a higher tracking counter). (See
`
`-19-
`
`

`
`
`
`id.) When a tracked target is not detected, the counter is repeatedly decremented
`
`until it reaches zero, at which time the object is “presumed to be lost.” (See id.)
`
`This tracking counter acts as a variable length timer which serves to sustain a
`
`target detection and warning indicator provided to the driver. (See Ex. 1010, Nikos
`
`Dec. at ¶¶ 42-44, 51.) The tracking counter / timer is “variable” as required by
`
`claim 1 of the ’927 patent in that it can have a different length depending on how
`
`long a target was previously det