`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: June 1, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VELOCITY PATENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`____________
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, RAMA G. ELLURU, and PETER P. CHEN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!2
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. %oHWf[f[a‘Wdp& X[^WV S HWf[f[a‘
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and
`17n32 of U.S. Patent No. 5,954,781 (Ex. ,++,’ ofZW r781 bSfW‘fp&) HSbWd -
`%oHWf)p&) MW^aU[fk Patent LLC %oHSfW‘f Gi‘Wdp& X[^WV S HdW^[_[‘Sdk
`Response. Paper 6 %oHdW^[_) IWeb)p&) NW ZShW efSfgfadk SgfZad[fk g‘VWd
`35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`[‘ef[fgfWV og‘^Wee ) ) ) fZWdW [e S dWSea‘ST^W ^[]W^[ZaaV fZSf the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`bWf[f[a‘)p
`Upon consideration of the Petition, we are not persuaded Petitioner
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`the unpatentabi^[fk aX S‘k aX fZW UZS^^W‘YWV U^S[_e aX fZW r781 patent.
`Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of fZW r23, bSfW‘f.
`
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`Patent Owner filed a Complaint against a subsidiary of Petitioner, and
`a company under whose name Petitioner does business, in the U.S. District
`Court for the Northern District of Illinois, S^^WY[‘Y [‘Xd[‘YW_W‘f aX fZW r781
`patent. Velocity Patent LLC v. Audi of America, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-
`08418-JWD (N.D. Ill.). Pet. 1. Patent Owner has filed other lawsuits in the
`
`FadfZWd‘ <[efd[Uf aX A^^[‘a[e S^^WY[‘Y [‘Xd[‘YW_W‘f aX fZW r23, bSfW‘f Tk afZWd
`parties. Pet. 5n6; Paper 5, 1. On May 22, 2014, Petitioner filed a request for
`ex parte reexamination aX fZW r23, bSfW‘f’ iZ[UZ [e bW‘V[‘Y Se Control No.
`90/013,252 (tZW oIWWjS_[‘Sf[a‘p&) Id.
`
`2
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!3
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`EOL b781 Patent
`B.
`The r23, bSfW‘f [e f[f^WV’ oEWfZaV S‘V Apparatus for Optimizing
`MWZ[U^W GbWdSf[a‘)p KZW egT\WUf _SffWd aX fZW UZS^^W‘YWV U^S[_e aX fZW r781
`patent relates generally to a system which notifies the driver of
`recommended corrections in vehicle operation and, under certain conditions,
`automatically initiates corrective action. Ex. 1001, 1:5n10. Figure 1 of the
`r781 patent is reproduced below.
`
`>[YgdW , [e S T^aU] V[SYdS_ aX fZW r23, ekefW_) =j) 1001, 5:42n44. System
`10 includes processor subsystem 12 %ofor example, a microprocessorp&, and
`memory subsystem 14 connected by bus 16 to processor subsystem 12. Id.
`at 5:54n58. State sensors and level sensors, including road speed sensor 18,
`rpm sensor 20, manifold pressure sensor 22, throttle sensor 24, windshield
`wiper sensor 30, and brake sensor 32, collectively monitor the operation of
`
`3
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!4
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`the vehicle and are coupled to processor subsystem 12. Id. at 2:12n16, 5:65n
`6:7. System 10 also includes upshift notification circuit 34, downshift
`notification circuit 36, overinjection notification circuit 38, and vehicle
`proximity alarm circuit 40, coupled to processor subsystem 12, all of which
`may be configured to provide visual or audible notifications to the driver of
`the vehicle. Id. at 7:9n25.
`Processor subsystem 12 periodically polls and receives data from the
`series of sensors to determine when to activate the fuel overinjection
`notification circuit or other notification circuits, and issue notifications. Id.
`at Abstract, 2:17n20, 5:65n6:7, 6:42n46, 12:64n13:20. See Pet. 2n5; Prelim.
`Resp. 4n,+) KZW r23, bSfW‘f S^ea VWeUd[TWe Sgfa_Sf[U [‘[f[Sf[a‘ aX UaddWUf[hW
`action, for example throttle reduction by throttle controller 26, if the vehicle
`is operated unsafely. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 4:3n11, 7:5n6, 7:49n53, 10:15n29.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`C.
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17n32 are the subject of the
`petition. Claims 1, 7, 13, 17, 23, 26, 28, and 31 are independent.
`Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged claims and is
`reproduced as follows.
`1. Apparatus for optimizing operation of a vehicle, comprising:
`
`a plurality of sensors coupled to a vehicle having an engine,
`said plurality of sensors, which collectively monitor operation
`of said vehicle, including a road speed sensor, an engine speed
`sensor, a manifold pressure sensor and a throttle position
`sensor;
`
`a processor subsystem, coupled to each one of said plurality of
`sensors, to receive data therefrom;
`
`4
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!5
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`a memory subsystem, coupled to said processor subsystem, said
`memory subsystem storing therein a manifold pressure set
`point, an RPM set point, and present and prior levels for each
`one of said plurality of sensors;
`
`a fuel overinjection notification circuit coupled to said
`processor subsystem, said fuel overinjection notification circuit
`issuing a notification that excessive fuel is being supplied to
`said engine of said vehicle;
`
`an upshift notification circuit coupled to said processor
`subsystem, said upshift notification circuit issuing a notification
`that said engine of said vehicle is being operated at an excessive
`speed;
`
`said processor subsystem determining, based upon data
`received from said plurality of sensors, when to activate said
`fuel overinjection circuit and when to activate said upshift
`notification circuit.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following five references.
`
`Reference
`
`Title
`
`Date
`
`Automotive Electronics Handbook 1995
`
`Jurgen
`
`Smith
`
`Habu
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,398,174
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,559,599
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Issued Aug. 9,
`1983
`Issued Dec. 17,
`1985
`Issued Oct. 18,
`1994
`Published Feb.
`1, 1996
`
`Davidian
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,357,438
`
`Tonkin
`
`PCT No. WO 96/02853
`
`5
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!6
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`E.
`Petitioner contends the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
`the following four grounds.
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Jurgen, Smith, and Habu
`
`Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and
`Davidian
`Davidian
`Davidian and Tonkin
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 102
`§ 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15,
`and 28n30
`17n27
`
`31
`32
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Claim Construction
`A.
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`2012). See In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., 778 F.3d 1271, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`%Za^V[‘Y fZSf TdaSVWef dWSea‘ST^W [‘fWdbdWfSf[a‘ efS‘VSdV oiSe bdabWd^k
`SVabfWV Tk HKG dWYg^Sf[a‘p Xad AHI bdaUWWV[‘Ye&) Claim terms generally
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In
`re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Petitioner proposes a Ua‘efdgUf[a‘ Xad S e[‘Y^W fWd_’ oXgW^
`
`ahWd[‘\WUf[a‘ ‘af[X[USf[a‘ U[dUg[f’p efSf[‘Y fZSf fZW fWd_ _WS‘e S U[dUg[f fZSf
`
`6
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!7
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`obdah[VWe fZW Vd[hWd i[fZ ) ) ) S‘ S^Wdf fZSf Z[e ad ZWd driving is fuel
`[‘WXX[U[W‘f)p Pet. 8. Patent Owner proposes that this fWd_ _WS‘e oS U[dUg[f
`that provides a driver with a notification that his or her driving is fuel
`efficient or inWXX[U[W‘f)p HdW^[_) IWeb) ,,)
`
`KZW [‘VWbW‘VW‘f U^S[_e aX fZW r23, bSfW‘f dWU[fW fZSf fZW XgW^
`ahWd[‘\WUf[a‘ ‘af[X[USf[a‘ U[dUg[f [e oUagb^WV fo said processor subsystem,
`said fuel overinjection notification circuit issuing a notification that
`WjUWee[hW XgW^ [e TW[‘Y egbb^[WV fa eS[V W‘Y[‘W aX eS[V hWZ[U^W)p See, e.g.,
`Ex. 1001, 14:1n4. This description of the fuel overinjection notification
`circuit also appears in part throughout the specification, see, e.g., id. at
`Abstract, 2:15n19, 3:10n15, 4:15-18, 7:18n19. We cannot discern how the
`constructions proffered by Petitioner or Patent Owner add any clarity to the
`term, the meaning of which is discernible from the context of the claims and
`specification. Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we conclude that no
`explicit construction is necessary for this term. We also determine that no
`explicit construction is necessary for the other terms proposed by Patent
`Owner.
`
`B. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny
`review of the challenged claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Prelim.
`Resp. 13n18. Section 325(d) bdah[VWe fZSf [‘ odetermining whether to
`institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31,
`the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request
`because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously
`were presented to thW GXX[UW)p Patent Owner argues that the Petition should
`be denied under m .-0%V& TWUSgeW oHWf[f[a‘Wd V[eU^aeWe egTefS‘f[S^^k fZW
`
`7
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!8
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`eS_W dWXWdW‘UWe bdWeW‘fWV [‘ IWWjS_[‘Sf[a‘’p S‘V oHWf[f[a‘Wd bdWeW‘fe
`substantially similar arguments as it did in Reexaminatia‘)p HdW^[_) IWeb)
`15n16. We decline to exercise our discretion to reject the Petition under
`§ 325(d) because the prior art and arguments presented by Petitioner are not
`substantially similar to those presented in the pending Reexamination.
`In particular, Petitioner argues that the Smith reference, asserted here
`but not in the Reexamination, teaches one or more limitations of twenty-four
`of the twenty-six challenged claims. Pet. 9n54. Smith discloses a fuel
`consumption signaling system including oS‘ alarm circuit connected in
`series with an indicator circuit including an indicator light connected in
`parallel with a vacuum operated switch pneumatically connected to the
`W‘Y[‘W _S‘[Xa^V)p =j) ,++.’ 8TefdSUf) Although Smith was listed by Patent
`Owner in an Information Disclosure Statement filed in the Reexamination, it
`was not argued by Petitioner in the Reexamination, or substantively
`addressed or even cited by the Examiner. Indeed, Patent Owner concedes
`ofZW =jS_[‘Wd ‘afWV fZSf q[f eZag^V TW Seeg_WV that only the most cursory
`review of the cited documents consistent with [MPEP] guidelines has been
`performed.r %=j) ,+,, Sf -0)&p Prelim. Resp. 15n16 and n. 8. Because
`Smith was not meaningfully considered in the Reexamination, we do not
`exercise our discretion to deny review under § 325(d).
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 28a30: Asserted
`Obviousness over Jurgen, Smith, and Habu
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 28n30
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jurgen, Smith,
`and Habu. Pet. 9n33. Claims 1, 7, 13, and 28 are independent. Claims 2, 4,
`
`8
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!9
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`and 5 depend from claim 1, claims 8, 10, and 12 depend from claim 7, claim
`15 depends from claim 13, and claims 29 and 30 depend from claim 28.
`Jurgen (Exhibit 1002)
`Jurgen, f[f^WV o8gfa_af[hW =^WUfda‘[Ue @S‘VTaa]’p [e a compilation of
`chapters by various authors describing implementations of electronic
`components in vehicles. Prelim. Resp. 30; Ex. 1002, viinxvi. Petitioner
`cites to chapters of Jurgen describing sensors, automotive microcontrollers,
`engine control, transmission control, cruise control, and on-board and off-
`board diagnostics. Pet. 12n51; Ex. 1002, viinxvi.
`Habu (Ex. 1004)
`Habu, f[f^WV oGbf[_g_ JZ[Xf Hae[f[a‘ A‘V[USf[a‘ Le[‘Y JgUUWee[hW
`Two-<[_W‘e[a‘S^ <SfS ESbe’p VWeUd[TWe S shift indication apparatus for
`indicating shift position in vehicles equipped with manual transmission, in
`order to maintain optimum fuel consumption. Ex. 1004, Abstract, 1:33n39.
`Habu discloses an apparatus with sensors for engine rotation, throttle valve,
`and shift position, a microcomputer with memory for storing engine speed
`data, and an indicator for indicating preferable shift positions for a driver,
`oea Se fa W‘ST^W fZW WUa‘a_[US^ dg‘‘[‘Y aX fZW USd fa TW realized.p Id.,
`Abstract, Fig. 1, 2:23n36.
`Smith (Ex. 1003)
`Smith, f[f^WV o>gW^ ;a‘eg_bf[a‘ J[Y‘S^^[‘Y JkefW_’p VWeUd[TWe S
`system for signaling both efficient and inefficient fuel consumption
`conditions, using an alarm circuit connected in series with an indicator
`circuit. Ex. 1003, Abstract, Fig. 1, 2:32n36, 3:58n60. If the engine of a
`vehicle operates inefficiently %oS XgW^ iSefWXg^ XSeZ[a‘p&, the alarm circuit
`illuminates an alarm light and also activates an audio alarm if the inefficient
`
`9
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!;
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`fuel consumption condition lasts beyond a preset amount of time. Id. at
`2:49n58, 5:23n27.
`Analysis
`Petitioner contends that the combination of Jurgen, Smith, and Habu
`teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15,
`and 28n30. Pet. 9n33.
`
`HSfW‘f Gi‘Wd SdYgWe fZSf HWf[f[a‘Wd VaWe ‘af SffW_bf fa oWjb^S[‘ iZk
`an ordinary artisan would modify Smith to incorporate processor control into
`J_[fZre ekefW_’p HdW^[_) Resp. 48, and argues further that one of ordinary
`skill in the art would not combine Jurgen, Smith, and Habu, id. at 32n41.
`
`8‘ [‘hW‘f[a‘ oUa_baeWV aX eWhWdS^ W^W_W‘fe [e ‘af bdahWV aTh[age _WdW^k
`by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
`bd[ad Sdf)p KSR ;TYbR 4U( [( ELRLMRL]& ;TJ(, 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). For
`example, for the limitation of independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 28, reciting
`oS XgW^ ahWd[‘\WUf[a‘ ‘af[X[USf[a‘ U[dUg[f Uagb^WV fa eS[V processor
`subsystem’p HWtitioner cites Smithre disclosure of oS‘ S^Sd_ U[dUg[f
`connected in series with an indicator circuit including an indicator light
`connected in parallel with a vacuum operated switch pneumatically
`Ua‘‘WUfWV fa fZW W‘Y[‘W _S‘[Xa^V’p iZWdW fZW S^Sd_ U[dUg[f ois not actuated
`until the engine is operateV [‘ S XgW^ iSefWXg^ XSeZ[a‘)p HWf) 4n10, 16n17;
`Ex. 1003, Abstract, 5:23n27. J_[fZ VaWe ‘af fWSUZ ad egYYWef S obrocessor
`subsystemp (iZ[UZ fZW r23, bSfW‘f VWeUd[TWe Se ofor example, a
`_[UdabdaUWeead’p Ex. 1001, 5:54n55), or any digital components, but
`Petitioner contends that Jurgen discloses a microcontroller, and Habu
`discloses a microcomputer. Pet. 10, 13n14; Ex. 1002, 12.1, 22.6, 14.3; Ex.
`1004, Fig. 1, 2:33n42.
`
`10
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!21
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`A determination of unpatentability on a ground of obviousness,
`however, must also [‘U^gVW oqSdf[Ug^SfWV dWSea‘[‘Y i[fZ ea_W dSf[a‘S^
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of oTh[age‘Wee)rp KSR, 550
`U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The
`obviousness WhS^gSf[a‘ oeZag^V TW _SVW Wjb^[U[f,p S‘V [f oUS‘ TW [_badfS‘f
`to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in
`the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new
`[‘hW‘f[a‘ VaWe)p Id. Petitioner, which did not supply expert testimony to
`support its assertions, attempts through argument of counsel to provide a
`rationale for combining Jurgen, Smith, and Habu, citing to some excerpts
`from Jurgen, Smith, and Habu. Pet. 11n12. Petitioner argues these excerpts
`state motivations to combine, as follows:
`[T]o provide the needed accuracy and adaptability in order to
`minimize exhaust emissions and fuel consumption, provide
`optimal driveability for all operating conditions, minimize
`evaporative emissions, and provide system diagnosis when
`malfunctions occur.
`
`Pet. 11 (quoting Ex. 1002, 12.1).
`
`[T]o oprovide optimal driveability for all operating conditions.p
`
`Pet. 11 (quoting Ex. 1002, 12.1).
`
`[T]o oprovide[] the fuel metering and ignition timing precision
`to minimize fuel consumption.PpQ
`
`Pet. 11 (quoting Ex. 1002, 12.4).
`
`[T]o encourage ofuel efficient driving techniques.p
`
`Pet. 11 (quoting Ex. 1003, 1:22n24).
`
`11
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!22
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`[T]o oobtain preferable shift positions relating to optimum fuel
`consumption rate in accordance with . . . data detected.p
`
`Pet. 11 (quoting Ex. 1004, Abstract). ;[f[‘Y fa fZW 9aSdVre VWU[e[a‘ [‘ Cisco
`Systems, Inc. v. Constellation Techs. LLC, Case IPR2014-01179 (PTAB
`
`>WT) /’ -+,0& %HSbWd 2& %o;[eUap&’ HSfW‘f Gi‘Wd Ua‘fW‘Ve fZSf oPdQafW
`recitation of some of the respective goals of Jurgen, Smith and Habu does
`not explain a motivation to combine them to create the inventions of the
`r23, HSfW‘f.p Prelim. Resp. 35. Patent Owner further contends:
`Petitioner does not explain how any of
`the listed
`motivation(s) would individually or collectively lead to a
`Ua_T[‘Sf[a‘ fWSUZ[‘Y fZW UZS^^W‘YWV r23, HSfW‘fre [‘hW‘f[a‘e)
`A‘efWSV’ HWf[f[a‘Wd eg__Sd[^k efSfWe5 o^[]W fZW r23, PHQSfW‘f’
`Jurgen, Smith, and Habu are concerned with, for example,
`[_bdah[‘Y XgW^ WXX[U[W‘Uk)p (Pet. at 12.) KZ[e oXS[^e fa Wjb^S[‘
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`elements from specific references in the way the claimed
`invention does)p Cisco, IPR2014-01179, Paper 7 at 16 (quoting
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. VerizUT 4USSJbTX& ;TJ., 694
`F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis in original)).
`
`Prelim. Resp. 36 (footnote omitted). Patent Owner adds:
`
`It is the norm for a patent or other literature to note that it
`is directed to improving some issue in an art. Typically, there
`are many patents directed at improving on that same issue.
`It
`does not necessarily follow, as Petitioner suggests, that one of
`skill
`in the art would combine each prior art
`reference
`containing boilerplate statements concerning a desire to
`improve on a particular technical issue. See Innogenetics, N.V.
`v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`%oPCQ‘ai^WVYW aX S bdaT^W_ S‘V _af[hSf[a‘ fa ea^hW [f SdW
`entirely different
`from motivation to combine particular
`references to reach fZW bSdf[Ug^Sd U^S[_WV _WfZaV)p&)
`
`Prelim. Resp. 36n37.
`
`12
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!23
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`We agree with Patent Owner fZSf HWf[f[a‘Wdre dSf[a‘S^W Xad Ua_T[‘[‘Y
`Jurgen, Smith, and Habu is premised on a handful of conclusory assertions
`by counsel, unsupported by testimony of an expert witness. Rather than
`articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings as to why one of ordinary
`skill in the art would have looked to J_[fZre [‘V[USfad ^[YZf Ua‘‘WUfWV [‘
`parallel with a vacuum operated switch pneumatically connected to the
`engine manifold, in considering how to implement a fuel overinjection
`notification circuit coupled to a processor subsystem, Petitioner has provided
`only a few sentences of conclusory contentions. Absent from PetitionWdre
`argument is any explanation of how the teachings of Jurgen, Smith, and
`Habu might be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, e.g., by
`combining and applying specific teachings of Smith with Jurgen and Habu
`to account for all the features of the challenged claims. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
`418.
`
`HWf[f[a‘Wdre quoted snippets from Jurgen, Smith, and Habu about
`improving fuel efficiency are generic and bear no relation to any specific
`combination of prior art elements. Specifically, Petitioner ofails to explain
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements
`from specific references in the way the claimed invention does)p
`2JYP[LGPKLU @LY\UWQX& ;TJ( [( GLWP_UT 4USSJbTX& ;TJ., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, we are not persuaded that the Petition demonstrates
`a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing
`unpatentability of independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 28, and of dependent
`claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 29, and 30.
`
`13
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!24
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`D. Claims 17a27: Asserted Obviousness over Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and
`Davidian
`
`Claims 17n27 oSdW e[_[^Sd fa fZW STahW U^S[_e’p HWf) ..’ Tgf dWU[fW
`additional limitations of a radar sensor and vehicle proximity alarm, which
`Petitioner asserts are taught by Davidian. Pet. 33; Ex. 1001, 17:34n20:37.
`Claims 17, 23, and 26 are independent, and claims 18n22 depend from claim
`17, claims 24 and 25 depend from claim 23, and claim 27 depends from
`claim 26. For a rationale to combine Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and Davidian,
`Petitioner reiterates the same excerpts cited for claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12,
`13, 15, and 28n30, and cites an excerpt from Davidian for adding an anti-
`collision system for vehicles. Pet. 34. We determine that, as explained
`above, Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning with rational
`underpinning for combining Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and Davidian. See KSR,
`550 U.S. at 418. We, therefore, are not persuaded that the Petition
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`establishing unpatentability of independent claims 17, 23, and 26, and of
`dependent claims 18n22, 24, 25, and 27.
`E. Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 21, 24, 25, and 27
`Petitioner has not proposed constructions for any of the means-plus-
`function limitations recited in dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 21, 24,
`25, and 27. We determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the challenged dependent claims
`are unpatentable because it has not provided constructions for the means-
`plus-function limitations. See .2 ;)>)I) m /-),+/%T&%.& %oPiQZWdW fZW U^S[_
`to be construed contains a means-plus-function or step-plus-function
`
`14
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!25
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the construction of the
`claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the
`structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed functionp&)
`Without a proper claim construction of the means-plus-function limitations,
`we cannot discern the scope of these dependent claims in order to determine
`whether they are unpatentable over the asserted references. We decline to
`construe the means-plus-function limitations ab initio where Petitioner has
`not provided argument as to the scope of these claims.
`
`>ad WjS_b^W’ VWbW‘VW‘f U^S[_ - dWU[fWe o_WS‘e Xad VWfWd_[‘[‘Y iZW‘
`
`daSV ebWWV Xad eS[V hWZ[U^W [e [‘UdWSe[‘Y’p o_WS‘e Xad VWfWd_[‘[‘Y iZW‘
`throttle position for said vehicle is increas[‘Y’p S‘V o_WS‘e Xad Ua_bSd[‘Y
`_S‘[Xa^V bdWeegdW fa eS[V _S‘[Xa^V bdWeegdW eWf ba[‘f)p =j) ,++,’ ,/5,1n21.
`We decline to speculate on the specific V[eU^aegdW [‘ fZW r23, patent
`describing structure corresponding to the means-plus-function limitations
`recited in claim 2 and in the other dependent claims with means-plus-
`function limitations.
`Moreover, because Petitioner has failed to identify sufficient structure
`for a claim construction of the means-plus-function limitations, Petitioner
`necessarily also has failed to specify where such structure is found in Jurgen,
`Smith, Habu, and Davidian, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`Accordingly, for these reasons we decline to institute trial on dependent
`claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 21, 24, 25, and 27, in addition to the bases
`described above in II.C. and II.D.
`
`15
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!26
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`F.
`
`Claims 31 and 32: Asserted Anticipation by Davidian (claim 31) and
`Obviousness over Davidian and Tonkin (claim 32)
`
`We also decline to institute a trial on independent claim 31 and
`dependent claim 32, which were disclaimed by Patent Owner in the
`Reexamination and cancelled by the Board in another inter partes review
`bdaUWWV[‘Y [‘ha^h[‘Y fZW r23, HSfW‘f, Mercedes-Benz USA LLC and
`Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. v. Velocity Patent LLC, Case
`IPR2014-01247 (PTAB). In particular, in the Reexamination, Patent Owner
`recorded a statutory disclaimer of claims 31 and 32. See Mercedes-Benz
`USA LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. v. Velocity Patent
`LLC, Ex. 2001. Pursuant to Patent Ownerre dWcgWef Xad SVhWdeW \gVY_W‘f’
`id. Paper 19, the Board YdS‘fWV HSfW‘f Gi‘Wdre dWcgWef fa US‘UW^ claims 31
`and 32. Id., Paper 20. 8e S dWeg^f’ HWf[f[a‘Wdre UZS^^W‘YWe fa fZWeW two
`cancelled claims are moot. See Prelim. Resp. 60.
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the information
`presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12,
`13, 15, and 28n30 as obvious over Jurgen, Smith, and Habu, of claims 17n27
`as obvious over Jurgen, Smith, Habu, and Davidian, of claim 31 as
`anticipated by Davidian, and of claim 32 as obvious over Davidian and
`Tonkin.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.
`
`16
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!27
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00276
`Patent 5,954,781
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael J. Lennon
`Clifford A. Ulrich
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`mlennon@kenyon.com
`culrich@kenyon.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brian C. Kwok
`Mavrakakis Law Group LLP
`bkwok@mavllp.com
`
`Patrick Richards
`Richards Patent Law P.C.
`patrick@richardspatentlaw.com
`
`17
`
`Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE!Gzjkdkv!3117-!Rcig!28
`Vjg!Enqtqz!Eqorcp{!x/!Cwvq.Mcru-!NNE-!Ecug!Pq/!KRT3127.11932