UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADAPTIVE HEADLAMP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Listed Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,241,034
`
`“Automatic Directional Control System for Vehicle Headlights”
`
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2016-00501
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED ..................................... 4
`
`III. THE ‘034 PATENT ....................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. CLAIMS OF THE ’034 PATENT ............................................................... 10
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 13
`
`VI. UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................ 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Legal Standards .............................................................................................. 14
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................. 16
`
`The State of the Art ...................................................................................... 17
`
`The Prior Art.................................................................................................. 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Overview of Josic .................................................................... 21
`
`Overview of Bilz ...................................................................... 25
`
`Overview of Mouzas................................................................ 27
`
`Overview of Gotoh .................................................................. 27
`
`Overview of Liao ..................................................................... 28
`
`E. Ground 1: Anticipation by Josic .............................................................. 29
`
`1.
`
`Anticipation of Claims 7, 14-16, and 32 ................................ 29
`
`F. Ground 2: Obviousness over Josic in View of Bilz ........................... 31
`
`1. Motivation to Combine ........................................................... 31
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 7 .......................................................... 34
`
`Obviousness of Claim 31 and 32 ............................................ 35
`
`G. Ground 3: Obviousness over Josic in View of Mouzas ................... 36
`
`1. Motivation to Combine and Obviousness of
`Claim 36 ................................................................................... 36
`
`H. Ground 4: Obviousness over Josic in View of Bilz and in
`Further View of Mouzas .......................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 2 of 59
`
`

`
`1.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 36 ........................................................ 38
`
`I.
`
`Ground 5: Obviousness over Josic in View of Gotoh ...................... 39
`
`1. Motivation to Combine ........................................................... 39
`
`2.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 3 .......................................................... 41
`
`J.
`
`Ground 6: Obviousness over Josic in View of Bilz and in
`Further View of Gotoh ............................................................................. 42
`
`1. Motivation to Combine Josic with Gotoh and
`Bilz ............................................................................................ 42
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 3 .......................................................... 42
`
`Obviousness of Claim 5 .......................................................... 43
`
`K. Ground 7: Obviousness over Liao in View of Bilz ............................ 43
`
`1. Motivation to Combine Liao and Bilz ................................... 43
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 7, 14-16 ............................................. 47
`
`Obviousness of Claim 31 and Claim 32 ................................ 48
`
`L. Ground 8: Obviousness over Liao in View of Bilz and in
`Further View of Mouzas .......................................................................... 48
`
`1. Motivation to Combine ........................................................... 48
`
`2.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 36 ........................................................ 50
`
`M. Ground 9: Obviousness over Liao in View of Bilz and in
`Further View of Gotoh ............................................................................. 50
`
`1. Motivation to Combine ........................................................... 50
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 3 .......................................................... 52
`
`Obviousness of Claim 5 .......................................................... 52
`
`VII. SIGNATURE ................................................................................................ 54
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 59
`
`

`
`EXHIBITS
`
`
`No.
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,241,034 (“the ‘034 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Scott Andrews (“Andrews”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 982,803 (“Dunning”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 1,524,443 (“McVey”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 1,595,879 (“Schjotz”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,316,397 (“Yssel”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,617,731 (“Fleury”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,733,333 (“Shibata”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/285,312 (“’312 application”)
`
`Patent File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,241,034
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination File History for U.S. Patent No.
`7,241,034
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination File History for U.S. Patent No.
`7,241,034
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,798,911 (“Josic”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,580,148 (“Liao”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,480,806 (“Bilz”)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 4 of 59
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,931,572 (“Gotoh”) EX_ 1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,931,572 (“Gotoh”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,428,512 (“Mouzas”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,428,512 (“Mouzas”)
`
`EX_ 1016
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Page 5 of 59
`
`Page 5 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`I, Scott Andrews, do hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`I am currently a consultant for Cogenia Partners, LLC, focusing on systems
`
`engineering, business development and technical strategy supporting automotive
`
`and information technology. I have been in this position since 2001. In one of my
`
`active engagements, I serve as the technical lead on a project funded by the
`
`National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
`
`(NHTSA)
`
`to develop
`
`requirements for connected vehicle safety systems in preparation for NHTSA
`
`regulations governing such systems. I also serve as a technical consultant on
`
`multiple projects sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
`
`related to connected vehicle technology research.
`
`2.
`
`I have over 30 years of professional experience in the field of automotive
`
`technologies and systems, including vehicle information systems and vehicle
`
`safety and control systems. Further, I have authored numerous published technical
`
`papers and am a named inventor on 11 U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from
`
`University of California, Irvine in 1977 and a Master of Science degree in
`
`Electronic Engineering from Stanford University in 1982.
`
`4.
`
`From 1977 to 1979, I worked at Ford Aerospace where I designed, tested
`
`and delivered microwave radar receiver systems.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`Page 6 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`5.
`
`From 1979 to 1983, I worked at Teledyne Microwave, where I developed
`
`high reliability microwave components and developed CAD tools.
`
`6.
`
`From 1983 to 1996, I worked at TRW, Inc., having held various positions.
`
`From 1983 to 1985, I was a Member of the technical staff and a Department
`
`Manager in the Space Electronics sector. Between 1985 and 1990 I was a project
`
`manager working on various communications systems projects including the US
`
`DoD Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA) MIMIC Program.
`
`Between 1990 and 1993 I was the Manager of MMIC (monolithic-microwave-
`
`integrated-circuit) Products Organization. In this role, I developed business
`
`strategy and managed customer and R&D programs. During this time, I also
`
`developed the first single chip 94 GHz Radar, used for automotive cruise control
`
`and anti-collision systems. In 1993 I transferred to the TRW Automotive
`
`Electronics Group, and managed about 30 engineers in the Systems Engineering
`
`and Advanced Product Development organization. In this role, I managed
`
`advanced development programs such as automotive radar, adaptive cruise control,
`
`occupant sensing, automatic crash notification systems, in-vehicle information
`
`systems, and other emerging transportation products. In particular the automotive
`
`radar system I developed included provisions for steering the radar beam as the
`
`vehicle navigated curved sections of roadway, and also provided various
`
`mechanisms for aligning the radar beam with the vehicle axes during production.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Page 7 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`The control systems used to provide these functions are similar to those described
`
`in both the ‘034 patent and the various prior art references cited in this declaration.
`
`7.
`
`I was employed as a Project General Manager in the Electronics Division of
`
`Toyota Motor Corporation. I worked at Toyota headquarters in Toyota City, Japan
`
`from April 1996 to around April 2000. Between July 1999 and April 2000, I
`
`transitioned from working in Japan to working in a Toyota office in San Jose, CA.
`
`In this position, I was responsible for leading the development of vehicle
`
`telematics systems, infotainment systems, including on-board and off-board
`
`navigation systems, traffic information systems, vehicle communications systems,
`
`safety applications, and automated vehicle control systems.
`
`8.
`
`In 1998, I founded the Automotive Multimedia Interface Collaboration, a
`
`consortium of car-makers developing standards for in-vehicle computing and
`
`interfaces between consumer multimedia systems and consumer electronics
`
`devices. This work resulted in a variety of standards for vehicle interfaces, user
`
`interfaces and vehicle software management that were eventually transferred to
`
`other standards organizations such as ISO and the OSGi Alliance.
`
`9.
`
`In the various positions mentioned above, I was responsible for research and
`
`development projects relating to numerous vehicle information systems, user
`
`interface systems, sensory systems, control systems and safety systems, and also
`
`had the opportunity to collaborate with numerous researchers and suppliers to the
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Page 8 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`auto industry. One system I worked on with a supplier was the concept of
`
`supplementing adaptive (steerable) headlights with navigational maps, so that the
`
`vehicle headlights would be controlled, at least in part by the curvature of the
`
`upcoming roadway based on the map data stored in the vehicle.
`
`10.
`
`I therefore believe that I have a detailed understanding of the state of the art
`
`during the relevant period, as well as a sound basis for opining how persons of skill
`
`in the art at that time would understand the technical issues in this case.
`
`11.
`
`In 2000, I founded Cogenia, Inc. to develop enterprise class data
`
`management software systems. I served as the company’s Chief Executive Officer
`
`until 2001, when I created Cogenia Partners, my current consulting firm.
`
`12. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto, and it includes a listing of
`
`my prior experience in litigation matters as an expert.
`
`II. ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`13.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC’s
`
`(“Mercedes”) petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,241,034 (“the
`
`’034 patent”).
`
`14.
`
`I am not an employee of Mercedes-Benz or of any affiliate or subsidiary
`
`thereof.
`
`15. My consulting firm, Cogenia Partners, LLC, is being compensated for my
`
`time at a rate of $500 per hour.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Page 9 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`16. My compensation is in no way dependent upon the substance of the opinions
`
`I offer below, or upon the outcome of Mercedes’ petition for inter partes review
`
`(or the outcome of the inter partes review, if trial is instituted).
`
`17.
`
`I have been asked to provide certain opinions relating to the patentability of
`
`the ’034 patent. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding
`
`(i) the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’034 patent pertains, and (ii)
`
`whether claims 3, 5, 7, 14-16, 31, 32 and 36 of the ‘034 patent are anticipated by or
`
`would have been obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`18. The opinions expressed in this declaration are not exhaustive of my opinions
`
`on the patentability of claims 3, 5, 7, 14-16, 31, 32 and 36 of the ‘034 patent.
`
`Therefore, the fact that I do not address a particular point should not be understood
`
`to indicate any opinion on my part that any claim otherwise complies with the
`
`patentability requirements.
`
`19.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the ’034 patent and its prosecution
`
`history (including reexaminations), and the art cited during its prosecution history,
`
`as well as prior art to the ’034 patent including:
`
`a) U.S. Patent No. 5,798,911 to Josic
`
`b) U.S. Patent No. 6,480,806 to Bilz
`
`c) U.S. Patent No. 5,931,572 to Gotoh
`
`d) U.S. Patent No. 5,428,512 to Mouzas
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Page 10 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`e) U. S. Patent No. 5,580,148 to Liao
`
`III. THE ‘034 PATENT
`
`20. The ’034 patent is generally directed a structure and method for controlling
`
`the direction of vehicle headlamps to account for changes in the operating
`
`conditions of the vehicle. (Abstract.) Vehicle sensors may detect conditions such
`
`as road speed, steering angle, pitch, suspension height, rate of change of road
`
`speed, rate of change of steering angle, rate of change of pitch, and rate of change
`
`of suspension height. (Id.) Sensor readings may be sent to controllers that affect
`
`movement of the headlamps to account for those sensor readings. (Id.)
`
`21. Figure 1 of the patent, below, describes a preferred embodiment of the
`
`invention. In Figure 1, vehicle condition sensors 15 and 16 provide signals to a
`
`vehicle headlight directional controller 14. The controller drives actuators 12 and
`
`13 that move the headlights in the up/down (i.e., vertical) and left/right (i.e.,
`
`horizontal) directions, respectively.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Page 11 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`The “condition sensors 15 and 16 are conventional in the art and are responsive to
`
`respective sensed operating conditions of the vehicle for generating electrical
`
`signals . . .” (‘034 Patent at 3:61-64.) The specification describes that only a
`
`single sensor may be used, or that more than two sensors may be used. In other
`
`words, the specification did not assign a particular importance to using two sensors
`
`as opposed to one, or as opposed to many. “Sensors 15 and 16 may generate
`
`electrical signals to the headlight directional controller 14 that are representative of
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Page 12 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`the road speed, the steering angle, and the pitch of the vehicle (which can, for
`
`example, be determined by sensing the front and rear suspension heights of the
`
`vehicle or by a pitch or level sensor).” (‘034 Patent at 6:66-7:4.) The ‘034 patent
`
`also describes using the time derivative of these signals. (‘034 Patent at 7:4-7.)
`
`22. Figure 7 of the ‘034 patent shows an algorithm for choosing when to activate
`
`the motors that would adjust the angle of the headlamps, specifically showing a
`
`“flow chart of an algorithm, indicated generally at 70, for operating the headlight
`
`directional controller illustrated in Fig. 1, to automatically implement directional
`
`angle adjustments, but only when the rate of change of one or more of the sensed
`
`condition values is less (or greater than) a predetermined value.” (‘034 Patent at
`
`13:7-12.) The system therefore uses a threshold as discussed above, to prevent the
`
`system from responding to small changes from the vehicle sensors. The ‘034
`
`patent describes the motivation as preventing “the headlight directional controller
`
`14 from attempting to correct for every single bump that is encountered.” (‘034
`
`Patent at 13:64-66.)
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Page 13 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`23.
`
`In the embodiment of Figure 5, the threshold is used in a different manner,
`
`which is to compare the sensed signal “with the current position of the headlight
`
`11” and if the difference between the current position and the desired position is
`
`greater than a threshold, to adjust the headlamps. (‘034 Patent at 8:63-65.) If the
`
`difference is less than a threshold, the headlamps are not adjusted, to prevent the
`
`actuators from being operated “unduly frequently.” (‘034 Patent at 9:22-27.) In
`
`both embodiments, the “provision of the predetermined minimum threshold
`
`functions as a filter or dead band that minimizes or eliminates undesirable
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Page 14 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`‘hunting’ of the actuators 12 and 13 for relatively small magnitudes of movement
`
`of the headlight 11.” (‘034 patent at 9:46-9:50.)
`
`IV. CLAIMS OF THE ’034 PATENT
`
`24. The ’034 patent was subject to a re-examination by the USPTO. As a result
`
`of that re-examination several claims were cancelled, and several new claims were
`
`added. The current (re-examined) patent includes 37 claims, of which claims 3 and
`
`7 are independent claims.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that only claims 3, 5, 7, 14-16, 31, 32 and 36 are at issue in
`
`Mercedes’ petition for inter partes review. They are reproduced below for
`
`reference:
`
`26. Claim 3:
`
`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 first 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 headlight to
`effect movement thereof in accordance with said at least one output signal;
`
`wherein at least one of said two or more sensors generates at least one of said two
`or more sensor signals that is representative of a rate of change of the steering
`angle of the vehicle.
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`Page 15 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`27. Claim 5
`
`The automatic directional control system defined in claim 3, wherein at least one
`of said two or more sensors generates a signal that is representative of a suspension
`height of the vehicle.
`
`
`
`28. Claim 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, 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
`
`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 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.
`
`
`
`29. Claim 14
`
`The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7, wherein the automatic
`directional control system is configured such that said two or more actuators
`include a first actuator and a second actuator and wherein the first actuator
`connected to the headlight to effect movement thereof in a first direction and the
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`Page 16 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`second actuator connected to the headlight to effect movement thereof in a second
`direction different from the first direction.
`
`
`
`30. Claim 15
`
`The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7, wherein two or more
`actuators include a first actuator that is adapted to be connected to the headlight to
`effect movement thereof in a vertical direction.
`
`
`
`31. Claim 16
`
`The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7, wherein two or more
`actuators include a second actuator that is adapted to be connected to the headlight
`to effect movement thereof in a horizontal direction.
`
`
`
`32. Claim 31
`
`The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7, wherein the automatic
`directional control system is configured such that the pitch of the vehicle is capable
`of being determined by sensing a front and a rear suspension height of the vehicle.
`
`
`
`33. Claim 32
`
`The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7, wherein the automatic
`directional control system is configured such that the pitch of the vehicle is capable
`of being determined by a pitch sensor.
`
`
`
`34. Claim 36
`
`The automatic directional control system defined in claim 7, wherein said
`controller is further responsive to at least one of said two or more sensor signals to
`automatically activate one or more vehicle lights that are different than the
`headlight.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`Page 17 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`35.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have read the claims
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, and have considered them in the context of this knowledge, the patent
`
`specification, and its prosecution history. I have been informed that in an inter
`
`partes review of a patent, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in view of the specification and prosecution history as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I have
`
`used this understanding in my analysis. In my opinion, for purposes of this inter
`
`partes review, no construction of any claim term is needed. It is my opinion that
`
`the claim terms take on their ordinary and customary meaning that the terms would
`
`have to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is entirely
`
`consistent with the patent specification, which expressly states that many of the
`
`claim terms are “conventional.” (‘034 Patent at 2:66-67; 3:27-30; 3:61-62; 4:11-
`
`12; 4:35-36.) It is my further opinion that the specification provides no express or
`
`implicit definition for any of the claim terms. I reserve the right to respond to,
`
`and/or to offer alternative constructions, to any proposed claim term constructions
`
`offered by Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`Page 18 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`VI. UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, claims 3, 5, 7, 14-16, 31, 32 and 36 of the ‘034 patent are
`
`unpatentable because they are anticipated by the prior art and/or would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`37.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is anticipated when a single piece of prior art
`
`describes every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
`
`arranged in the same way as in the claim. For inherent anticipation to be found, it
`
`is required that the missing descriptive material is necessarily present in the prior
`
`art. I understand that, for the purpose of an inter partes review, prior art that
`
`anticipates a claim can include both patents and printed publications from
`
`anywhere in the world.
`
`38.
`
`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
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`Page 19 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that a claim is supported by the written description of a patent
`
`application only when that application reasonably conveys to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed subject
`
`matter as of the filing date. I have been informed that original claims are part of
`
`the specification. I have further been informed that the application need not
`
`describe the claimed invention using the same language as the claim, but that the
`
`mere obviousness of a claim over the application’s disclosure, on its own, is not
`
`sufficient to establish written description support and that a claim to a combination
`
`of elements must be supported by a description of that combination in the
`
`specification, not merely a description of individual elements. I have further been
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`Page 20 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`informed that a negative limitation may be supported by a description of a reason
`
`to exclude the corresponding positive limitation.
`
`40. As discussed above, I understand that so-called “secondary considerations”
`
`are legally relevant to an obviousness analysis. But I am unaware of any evidence
`
`of such considerations that would suggest the non-obviousness of any of the claims
`
`of the ’034 patent addressed in the accompanying pending inter partes review
`
`petition. If such evidence is presented to me, I will consider it; however, I doubt
`
`that any commercial success of the claimed invention or other objective evidence
`
`would be attributable to the merits of the claimed invention given my analysis of
`
`the novelty of the ‘034 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`41.
`
`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
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`Page 21 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`ordinary skill” is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of the
`
`universe of available prior art.
`
`42.
`
`In my opinion, in October 31, 2001, a person with ordinary skill in the art
`
`with respect to the technology disclosed by the ’034 patent would have at least a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, or a related field; experience in computer programming; and
`
`several years of experience in vehicle safety systems or the like.
`
`43. Based on my experience and education, I consider myself (both now and as
`
`of October 2001) to be a person of at least ordinary skill in the art with respect to
`
`the field of technology implicated by the ’034 patent.
`
`C. The State of the Art
`
`44. The ‘034 patent generally relates to headlamps mounted on vehicles where
`
`the direction of the headlamp beam may be adjusted. The idea driving this
`
`technology is simple – “if the vehicle turns a corner, it would be desirable to adjust
`
`the aiming angle of the headlights either toward the left or toward the right
`
`(depending on the direction of the turn) such that an area that is somewhat lateral
`
`to the front of the vehicle is more brightly illuminated.” (‘034 Patent at 1:51-1:56.)
`
`The ‘034 patent admits that there were known methods to accomplish this goal.
`
`For example, the ‘034 patent states that “to accomplish this, it is known to provide
`
`a directional control system for vehicle headlights that is capable of automatically
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`Page 22 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`altering the directional aiming angles of the headlights to account for changes in
`
`the operating conditions of the vehicle.” (‘034 Patent at 1:57-1:61.)
`
`45.
`
`I agree with this portion of the specification of the ‘034 patent – this
`
`technology was not new at the time of the ‘034 patent. Headlamps have been
`
`adjusted in vehicles since the early 1900s. In some of those vehicles headlamp
`
`direction was controlled automatically, as it was linked to the steering system or
`
`other vehicle input. It is my opinion that movable headlight technology is nearly
`
`as old as the invention of the automobile itself. I have reviewed the Dunning (Ex.
`
`1003) publication as well as the McVey patent (Ex. 1004) and understand that
`
`those early 1900s documents disclosed controlling headlamps via the steering
`
`system and or other mechanical connection, and that Schjotz (Ex. 1005), from the
`
`mid 1920s, disclosed moving the headlamps side-to-side as well as up-and-down.
`
`I also reviewed the Yssel publication (Ex. 1006) that disclosed automatically
`
`adjusting the headlamp up or down to adjust to the road surface. I am further
`
`knowledgeable about the Citroen DS vehicle that used self-leveling headlamps,
`
`that were also swiveled with the steering. My personal knowledge parallels the
`
`disclosure of these papers, which is that the concepts in the ‘034 patent – adjusting
`
`headlamp direction based on input from sensors – are extremely old.
`
`46.
`
`In addition to the general ideas of headlamp adjustment that I addressed
`
`above, the patent also draws on feedback and control systems that were well
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`Page 23 of 59
`
`

`
`
`
`known, both generally and in the automotive art at the time. As an example, the
`
`‘034 patent admits that actuators were known in the art, including stepper and
`
`servo actuators (3:28-31), that “any sort of control system such as a microprocessor
`
`or programmable electronic controller” can be used to control headlamps (3:53-
`
`57), that “condition sensors” are well known in the art (3:61-65), and that “position
`
`feedback sensors” are well known in the art (4:11-14). It appears that the ‘034
`
`patent only describes the use of a table and interpolation as novel; however, I
`
`disagree with that assessment. Using a table and interpolation was well-known at
`
`the time of the ‘034 patent, but this fact is not relevant here as none of the claims at
`
`issue in the inter partes review require such a system, and therefore I do not
`
`discuss it further.
`
`47. The ‘034 patent describes servo-based and “open loop” systems, which were
`
`both well-known in the art at the time of the ‘034 patent. The servo systems
`
`require feedback, and ar