DOCKET NO.: 43930-0004IP1
`Filed on behalf of Unified Patents, Inc.
`By: C. Eric Schulman, Reg. No. 43,350
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`500 Arguello St., Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Tel: (650) 839-5070
`Email: schulman@fr.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
`Ashraf Fawzy, Reg. No. 67,914
`Unified Patents, Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, DC, 20003
`Tel: (202) 805-8931
`Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`VELOCITY PATENTS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2017-01723
`U.S. Patent 5,954,781
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,954,781
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1, 7, 13, 17 and 60
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.  Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................. 1 
`A.  Real Party-in-Interest ..................................................................................... 1 
`B.  Related Matters .............................................................................................. 1 
`C.  Counsel ........................................................................................................... 1 
`D.  Service Information ....................................................................................... 2 
`II.  Certification of Grounds for Standing ............................................................... 2 
`III. 
`Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................... 2 
`A.  Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications .................................................... 3 
`B.  Grounds for Challenge ................................................................................... 4 
`IV. 
`Overview Of the ’781 Patent ......................................................................... 4 
`A.  Summary of the Alleged Invention ................................................................ 4 
`B.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 5 
`C.  Prosecution History ........................................................................................ 6 
`D. 
`Inapplicability of 35 U.S.C. 325(d) ............................................................... 7 
`V.  Claim Construction ............................................................................................ 8 
`VI. 
`Specific Grounds for Petition ........................................................................ 9 
`A.  Ground I: Claim 1, 7, 13, and 17 are Obvious Over Westbrook in view of
`Habu and Ghitea .................................................................................................... 9 
`1.  Overview of Westbrook ............................................................................. 9 
`2.  Overview of Habu .................................................................................... 12 
`3.  Overview of Ghitea .................................................................................. 13 
`4.  The Combination of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea ................................ 13 
`5.  Motivation to Combine Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea ........................... 16 
`6.  Claim 1 is Obvious over Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea .......................... 18 
`7.  Claim 7 is Obvious over Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea .......................... 31 
`8.  Claim 13 is Obvious over Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea ........................ 32 
`9.  Claim 17 is Obvious over Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea ........................ 33 
`B.  Ground II: Claim 60 is Obvious Over Westbrook in view of Habu, Ghitea,
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`and Rashid ............................................................................................................ 40 
`1.  Overview of Rashid .................................................................................. 40 
`2.  Combination of Westbrook, Habu, Ghitea, and Rashid ........................... 41 
`3.  Motivation to Combine Westbrook, Habu, Ghitea, and Rashid .............. 43 
`4.  Claim 60 is Obvious over Westbrook, Habu, Ghitea, and Rashid ........... 44 
`C.  Ground III: Claim 1 is Obvious Over Jurgen in view of Londt ................. 48 
`1.  Overview of Jurgen .................................................................................. 48 
`2.  Overview of Londt ................................................................................... 49 
`3.  The Combination of Jurgen and Londt .................................................... 50 
`4.  Motivation to Combine Jurgen and Londt ............................................... 51 
`5.  Claim 1 is obvious in view of the combination of Jurgen and Londt ...... 53 
`VII.  Conclusion ................................................................................................... 65 
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Unified Patents, Inc. (“Unified Patents” or “Petitioner”) is the real party-in-
`
`interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`U.S. Pat. 5,954,781 (“the ’781 Patent” (Ex. 1001)) is owned by Velocity
`
`Patent LLC (“Velocity” or “Patent Owner”). The ’781 patent is the subject of
`
`Velocity Patent LLC v. Audi of America, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-08418-JWD (N.D.
`
`Ill.), as well as litigation in the Northern District of Illinois against Mercedes-Benz
`
`(Case No. 1:13-cv-08413-JWD), BMW (Case No. 1:13-cv-08416), Chrysler (Case
`
`No. 1:13-cv-08419-JWD), and Jaguar Land Rover (Case No. 1:13-cv-08421). The
`
`’781 patent was previously the subject of: Reexamination Control No. 90/013,252,
`
`and IPRs IPR2014-01247, IPR2015-00276 and IPR2015-00290, each of which has
`
`either been completed or terminated.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: C. Eric Schulman (Registration No. 43,350)
`
`Backup Counsel: W. Karl Renner (Registration No. 41,265)
`
`Backup Counsel: David Holt (Registration No. 65,161)
`
`Backup Counsel: Jonathan Stroud (Registration No. 72,518)
`
`Backup Counsel: Ashraf Fawzy (Registration No. 67,914)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`T: 202-783-5070
`
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at IPR43930-
`
`0004IP1@fr.com (referencing No. 43930-0004IP1 and cc’ing
`
`PTABInbound@fr.com, schulman@fr.com, axf-ptab@fr.com, holt2@fr.com,
`
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com, and afawzy@unifiedpatents.com). C. Eric
`
`Schulman can be reached directly at 650-839-5149.
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which review
`
`is sought 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.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1, 7, 13, 17, and 60 of the ’781 Patent (the “Challenged Claims”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below: 1
`
`1. M. H. Westbrook & J. D. Turner, AUTOMOTIVE SENSORS (1994)
`
`(“Westbrook” (EX1002)), which is a book (a written publication) that was
`
`publically available, e.g., in at least one library, no later than November
`
`1994, and it thus is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See Bennett Decl.
`
`(EX1011) at ¶ 52. That Westbrook was publically available no later than the
`
`end of 1994 is shown both by its 1994 copyright date and the declaration of
`
`Scott Bennett stating, among other things, that Westbrook was made publicly
`
`available by at least one library no later than November 1994. See generally
`
`EX1011.
`
`2. U.S. Patent 4,559,599 (filed on Mar. 11, 1983; published on Dec. 17, 1985)
`
`(“Habu” (EX1003)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`3. U.S. Patent 5,693,876 (filed on May 21, 1996) (“Ghitea” (EX1004)), which
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`1 The ’781 Patent issued from a patent application filed on March 10, 1997, prior to
`
`enactment of the America Invents Act (“AIA”). Accordingly, pre-AIA statutory
`
`framework applies.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`4. Automotive Electronics Handbook (Ronald Jurgen (ed.), 1995) (“Jurgen”
`
`(EX1005)), which is a book (a written publication) that was publically
`
`available, e.g., in at least one library, no later than November 1995, and it
`
`thus is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See Bennett Decl. (EX1011) at ¶
`
`37. That Jurgen was publically available no later than the end of 1995 is
`
`shown both by its 1995 copyright date and the declaration of Scott Bennett
`
`stating, among other things, that Jurgen was made publicly available by at
`
`least one library no later than November 1995. See generally EX1011.
`
`5. U.S. Patent 5,017,916 (filed on March 9, 1989; published on May 21, 1991)
`
`(“Londt” (EX1006)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`6. U.S. Patent 5,905,457 (filed on Feb. 25, 1993; issued on May 18, 1999)
`
`(“Rashid” (EX1007)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This Petition, supported by the accompanying declaration
`
`of Mr. Scott Andrews (“Mr. Andrews”) (“Andrews Decl.” (EX1008)), demonstrates
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to
`
`Challenged Claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’781 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the Alleged Invention
`The ’781 patent relates to an “[a]pparatus for optimizing operation of an
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`engine-driven vehicle.” EX1001, Abstract. “It has long been recognized that the
`
`improper operation of a vehicle may have many adverse effects. For example, the
`
`fuel efficiency of a vehicle may vary dramatically based upon how the vehicle is
`
`operated.” EX1001, 1:12-15. The ’781 patent notes that operating a vehicle at
`
`excessive speeds, excessive RPMs, and excessive manifold pressures leads to
`
`reduced fuel economy and increased operating costs. EX1001, 1:15-18. These
`
`increased operating costs can be considerable, particularly for an owner or operator
`
`of a fleet of vehicles. EX1001, 1:17-20. Accordingly, the ’781 patent suggests a
`
`processor subsystem for determining when to issue notifications regarding
`
`recommended changes in vehicle operation that, when executed by the driver,
`
`increase efficient vehicle operation.
`
`But as the prior art demonstrates, the purported invention of using sensors, a
`
`processor subsystem, and a memory in an automobile to determine whether to take
`
`corrective actions and/or issue notifications as described in the ’781 Patent was well-
`
`known prior to the filing date of the ’781 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art related to, and at the time of the invention
`
`of, the ’781 Patent (“POSITA”) would have been someone with a good working
`
`knowledge of electrical engineering, including sensors, processing systems, and
`
`notification circuitry. The person would have a Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`electrical engineering or a comparable field, in combination with training or at least
`
`two years of related work experience with vehicular systems such as automotive
`
`electronics. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1008) at ¶ 34.
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`The ’781 Patent issued from U.S. Pat. Appl. 08/813,270 (’270 Application),
`
`which was filed on March 10, 1997. File History (EX1009) at 1. In the only Office
`
`Action, dated August 6, 1998, claims 1, 2 and 4-6 were rejected as obvious, but the
`
`Examiner stated that claims 8-13, 25, 26, and 29-32 included allowable subject
`
`matter because “the prior art fails to disclose an upshift notification circuit coupled
`
`to the processor subsystem.” EX1009 at 81.
`
`On May 22, 2014, Volkswagen Group of America filed a request for ex parte
`
`reexamination of the ’781 patent (EX1010), granted as Reexamination 90/013,252
`
`(“the ’781 Reexam”). See ’781 Reexam (EX1010). In response, Velocity argued
`
`against the reexamination Examiner’s construction of the term “fuel overinjection
`
`notification circuit,” and asserted that
`
`the Patent describes that all engines in vehicles will inject as much fuel
`as driver [sic] demands by his or her operation of the vehicle. If the
`driver operates the vehicle in a fuel inefficient manner (e.g., excessively
`speeding, abruptly accelerating, etc.), the engine will overinject [sic]
`more fuel than the engine would if the vehicle were being operated
`efficiently.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`Id. at 366. Velocity further argued that “the inventive system of the Patent will
`
`provide the driver with a [sic] ‘overinjection notification’ as an alert that his or her
`
`driving is fuel inefficient.” Id.
`
`Three petitions for inter partes review (IPR) have been filed against the ’781
`
`Patent. Petitions IPR2014-01247 and IPR2015-00290 were each filed by Mercedes
`
`Benz; the former was granted adverse judgment after the patent owner cancelled the
`
`challenged claims of the patent and the second was dismissed procedurally prior to
`
`institution. Volkswagen filed IPR2015-00276 challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,
`
`12, 13, 15, and 17–32. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Velocity Patent LLC,
`
`IPR2015-00276, Paper 8, at 2 (PTAB Jun. 1, 2015) (“276 IPR”). Volkswagen’s
`
`petition was primarily based on a combination of Jurgen, U.S. Patent 4,398,174
`
`(“Smith”), and Habu. Id. at 6. The Board ultimately held “that Petitioner’s rationale
`
`for combining Jurgen, Smith, and Habu is premised on a handful of conclusory
`
`assertions by counsel, unsupported by testimony of an expert witness.” Id. at 13.
`
`The Board declined to institute.
`
`D.
`Inapplicability of 35 U.S.C. 325(d)
`None of the Grounds presented herein are the same or substantially the same
`
`prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office. See 35 U.S.C. 325(d).
`
`Notably, for Grounds I and II, Westbrook and Ghitea have never been cited before
`
`the Patent Office as relevant to the “781 Patent. For Ground III, although Londt was
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`listed by Patent Owner in an Information Disclosure Statement filed in the
`
`Reexamination, it was not argued by Petitioner in the Reexamination, substantively
`
`addressed, or cited by the Examiner. Indeed, the Examiner in the ‘781 Reexam noted
`
`that “it should be assumed that only the most cursory review of the cited documents
`
`consistent with [MPEP] guidelines has been performed.” 781 Reexam (EX1010) at
`
`407. Moreover, Londt teaches both a shift prompter and a fuel overinjection
`
`notification circuit in a manner unlike the previously applied prior art. Accordingly,
`
`35 U.S.C. 325(d) is not applicable to this petition because none of the Grounds
`
`presented herein are the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously presented to the Office.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claim terms of an expired patent in IPR are construed in accordance with the
`
`standard set forth in Phillips. See Facebook Inc. v. Pragmatus AV LLC, 582
`
`Fed.Appx 864, 866 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`In the Institution Decision issued by the Board on June 1, 2015 in IPR2015-
`
`00276, the Board concluded that “no explicit construction is necessary for” the terms
`
`of the claims. ‘276 IPR Paper 8 at 6-7. However, Petitioner notes that, in the ‘276
`
`IPR, Velocity proposed to construe the term “fuel overinjection notification circuit”
`
`to mean “a circuit that provides a driver with a notification that his or her driving is
`
`fuel efficient or inefficient.” Id. Although the Board did not preliminarily adopt this
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`construction, Velocity’s proposed construction informs the scope of this term when
`
`assessing patentability for purposes of the present petition. Aylus Networks, Inc. v.
`
`Apple Inc., No. 2016-1599, 7-12 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017).
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the following sections (as confirmed in the
`
`Andrews Decl. ¶¶ 39-93 (Ex. 1008)) demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses, teaches, and/or suggests each and every limitation of the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’781 Patent, and how these claims were obvious in view of the prior
`
`art.
`
`A. Ground I: Claim 1, 7, 13, and 17 are Obvious Over Westbrook in
`view of Habu and Ghitea
`1.
`Overview of Westbrook
`Westbrook describes “the whole range of sensors currently used in automotive
`
`control systems with details of their construction, operation, characteristics and
`
`methods of use.” Westbrook (EX1002) at ix. Westbrook describes that “sensors are
`
`essential in any automatic control system.” Id. at xiii. Indeed, there are “many
`
`systems to which electronics can be applied within the vehicle.” Id. at 7. The
`
`following figure 2.1 from Westbrook illustrates a number of examples of such
`
`systems that can be integrated into a vehicle.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`
`
`Westbrook explains that “[t]he modern car contains on average about 30
`
`sensors,” which “include, for example, the transducers necessary to ensure efficient
`
`and clean operation of the engine.” Id. at 207. “[I]n a conventional data acquisition
`
`system these transducers are connected to the central microprocessor.” Id.
`
`(emphasis added). Id. at 237-38. Figures 12.2(a) and 12.2(b), reproduced below,
`
`each illustrate the coupling of sensors (the black boxes) to a central microprocessor.
`
`Id. at 237-38.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`
`
`Westbrook describes many sensors as being connected to its central processor,
`
`including a road speed sensor, a crankshaft mounted timing/trigger/speed sensor/s
`
`(i.e., an engine speed sensor), an inlet manifold absolute or differential pressure
`
`sensor, a throttle position sensor, and vehicle radar. Id. at 9, 230. Westbrook teaches
`
`that data from these and other sensors are essential to a litany of systems, including
`
`systems that determine “optimum operation [of the transmission] for economy and
`
`performance” (id. at 20), systems that determine fuel flow in order to meet the
`
`steadily increasing “demand for the measurement of ‘instantaneous’ and trip fuel
`
`economy” (id. at 25), and systems for collision avoidance. Collision avoidance
`
`systems “perceiv[e] the environment and traffic situation using multiple sensors
`
`[e.g., radar], predict[] possible collisions with objects and other vehicles and
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`provid[e] appropriate driver
`
`information and possible
`
`intervention where
`
`appropriate” (id. at 214, 230). Westbrook teaches that the goal of all of these systems
`
`is to fulfill “the need to provide the driver and control systems with more information
`
`to make the vehicle operate more efficiently and effectively within its total
`
`environment.” Id. at 29.
`
`2.
`Overview of Habu
`Habu describes a shift indication apparatus for indicating shift position in
`
`vehicles equipped with manual transmission, in order to maintain optimum fuel
`
`consumption. Habu (EX1003), Abstract, 1:33–39. 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, “so as to enable the economical running of the car to be
`
`realized.” Id. at Abstract, FIG. 1, 2:23–36. In particular, a microcomputer 5 uses
`
`data obtained from the various sensors to determine the fuel consumption rate in the
`
`current shift position and assumed fuel consumption rate(s) for the adjacent shift
`
`position(s). See id. at 3:21-37. “[W]hen either one of the assumed fuel consumption
`
`rates . . . is better than the current fuel consumption rate be, the corresponding shift-
`
`up lamp or shift-down lamp in the indicator 10 is illuminated, thus indicating the
`
`necessity of the speed change operation.” Id. at 7:29-34.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`3.
`Overview of Ghitea
`Ghitea describes a fuel economy device that “computes a filtered rate of
`
`change of instantaneous fuel economy or a filtered instantaneous fuel economy and
`
`repetitively updates a graphical display depicting the current fuel economy.” Ghitea
`
`(EX1004), Abstract. The fuel economy device disclosed by Ghitea includes a
`
`control unit in communication with a fuel sensor for measuring the fuel rate and a
`
`speed sensor for measuring road speed. Id. at 1:66-2:1. “The control unit computes
`
`a weighted instantaneous fuel economy representation by combining current and
`
`selected previous instantaneous fuel economy values on a weighted basis.” Id. at
`
`2:1-4.
`
`The fuel economy calculated by Ghitea’s device “can be displayed as a
`
`percentage of a target fuel economy, programmed by the driver or other operator of
`
`the vehicle.” Id. at Abstract. This display allows the driver to “see how his or her
`
`actions affect fuel economy.” Id. at 2:48-50. Using this display, the driver can
`
`realize “significant cost savings” by enabling the driver to operate the vehicle in a
`
`manner that increases fuel economy. See id. at 1:4-6.
`
`4.
`The Combination of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea
`A POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate the shift and fuel
`
`overinjection notification circuits of Habu and Ghitea, respectively,
`
`into
`
`Westbrook’s exemplary vehicle. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) ¶¶ 58-67. As noted
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`above, Westbrook teaches an example of a vehicle in which a number of electronic
`
`sensors are integrated into “real-time control systems” that are useful “to optimize
`
`economy, emissions and performance” of the vehicle. See Westbrook (EX1002) at
`
`7. Westbrook discloses that “sensors are used to acquire information about the
`
`process to be controlled, [and] a microprocessor is used to decide what action should
`
`be taken.” Id. at xiii. Westbrook provides a list of possible sensors that can be
`
`integrated into a vehicle and coupled to a microprocessor-based control system. Id.
`
`at 9-10. This list of sensors includes the sensors used by the shift indication
`
`apparatus described by Habu (i.e., sensors for engine rotation, throttle valve, and
`
`shift position) and the fuel economy device described by Ghitea (i.e., a fuel sensor
`
`for measuring the fuel rate and a speed sensor for measuring road speed). See id.;
`
`see Habu (EX1003) at 2:23–36; see Ghitea (EX1004) at 1:66-2:1.
`
`Two of the types of real-time control systems disclosed by Westbrook for use
`
`in its exemplary vehicle are systems that determine “optimum operation [of the
`
`transmission] for economy and performance” (Westbrook (EX1002) at 20) and
`
`systems that determine fuel flow in order to meet the steadily increasing “demand
`
`for the measurement of ‘instantaneous’ and trip fuel economy” (id. at 25). Thus,
`
`Habu and Ghitea simply teach specific implementations of each of these types of
`
`systems. Indeed, each of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea share a common system
`
`architecture (i.e., sensors providing data to one or more microprocessors
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`programmed to take specific action within a vehicle), which would ensure a POSITA
`
`a reasonable expectation of success in integrating their teachings. Andrews Decl
`
`(EX1008), ¶ 62.
`
`Based on the collective teachings of Westbrook and Habu, a POSITA would
`
`have found it obvious to integrate the processes of Habu’s microcomputer into the
`
`central processor of Westbrook’s exemplary vehicle to implement the shift indication
`
`functionality described by Habu using the sensors disclosed by Habu—sensors also
`
`present in Westbrook. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) ¶¶ 64-65. And a POSITA would
`
`have found it obvious to use the electronic display instrument cluster of Westbrook
`
`to display the upshift and downshift notifications described by Habu as output by
`
`indicator 10. Id.
`
`Similarly, based on the collective teachings of Westbrook and Ghitea, a
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate the processes of Ghitea’s ECU
`
`into the central processor of Westbrook’s exemplary vehicle and the processes of
`
`Ghitea’s ICU into the electronic display instrument cluster of Westbrook. Andrews
`
`Decl. (EX1008) ¶¶ 66-67. As a result, Westbrook’s central processor would gather
`
`data from the same sensors disclosed by Ghitea and also present in Westbrook, and
`
`Westbrook’s electronic display instrument cluster would have computed the
`
`quantities for the numerical and graphical representation of fuel economy, as
`
`described by Ghitea. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) ¶ 67. A POSITA would have had a
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`reasonable expectation of success due to the largely similar architectures of
`
`Westbrook and Ghitea. Id. at ¶¶ 62-63.
`
`5. Motivation to Combine Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea
`A POSITA would be motivated to combine the references at least because the
`
`references disclose the same purpose (i.e.., providing the driver with more
`
`information to make the vehicle more fuel efficient). Andrews Decl. (EX1008), ¶
`
`58. The shift and fuel overinjection notification circuits of Habu and Ghitea,
`
`respectively, help Westbrook’s exemplary vehicle achieve that purpose. Id.
`
`As noted above, Westbrook describes the use of one or more “real-time control
`
`systems” in a vehicle “to optimize economy, emissions and performance” of the
`
`vehicle. See Westbrook (EX1002) at 7. Furthermore, Westbrook teaches that the
`
`goal of systems utilizing the sensors it describes is to fulfill “the need to provide the
`
`driver and control systems with more information to make the vehicle operate more
`
`efficiently and effectively.” Id. at 29. Responding to the need for such systems
`
`identified in Westbrook, the shift and fuel overinjction notification circuits taught
`
`by Habu and Ghitea, respectively, provide the driver with more information to make
`
`a vehicle operate more efficiently and effectively. Indeed, Habu and Ghitea teach
`
`specific economy-improving implementations of systems already generally
`
`described by Westbrook as being desirable within its exemplary vehicle. Andrews
`
`Decl. (EX1008) ¶¶ 59-60. Throughout its teachings, Westbrook identifies optimized
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`“economy” as a motivating factor in implementing improved sensors and control
`
`systems in a vehicle, which is exactly what Habu and Ghitea seek to provide.2 See
`
`Westbrook (EX1002) at 7 (“the interactive control of engine and transmission to
`
`optimise economy, emissions and performance”), 10 (“significant improvements in
`
`operation and economy can be obtained”), 20 (“[b]y this means the best possible
`
`economy is obtained”), 108 (evaluating the costs of a “sophisticated” system based
`
`on “the improvements in economy and emissions that can be obtained”), 187
`
`(“driveability can be obtained at much better economy than is obtainable today”);
`
`Andrews Decl. (EX1008) ¶ 60.
`
`Specifically, Habu teaches that integration of its shift indication apparatus in
`
`a vehicle results in the driver being able to “perform the speed change operations in
`
`accordance with the indications so that the optimum speed running of the car can
`
`be carried out with a preferable shift position in the optimum fuel consumption
`
`rate.” Habu (EX1003) at 7:34-38 (emphasis added). Similarly, Ghitea teaches that
`
`integration of its fuel economy device into a vehicle results in the driver being able
`
`
`2 A POSITA would have understood that Westbrook’s references to “economy” are
`
`synonymous with “fuel economy,” as fuel is the resource a vehicle expends and is
`
`thus the primary criteria by which it can be made economic. Andrews Decl.
`
`(EX1008) ¶ 60.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`to “see how his or her actions affect fuel economy” Ghitea (EX1004) at 2:46-60.
`
`Ultimately, the goal of Ghitea’s system is to allow driver’s to recognize “significant
`
`cost savings . . . by enabling drivers . . . to increase fuel economy.” Id. at 1:4-6.
`
`Because all three references provide explicit motivations to use automotive
`
`electronics to improve fuel economy and because Westbrook suggests combining
`
`multiple automotive electronics systems to achieve fuel economy, a POSITA would
`
`have been motivated to integrate the shift and fuel overinjection notification circuits
`
`of Habu and Ghitea, respectively, into Westbrook’s exemplary vehicle. Andrews
`
`Decl. (EX1008) ¶¶ 58-62. In addition, the proposed combination of Westbrook,
`
`Habu and Ghitea 1) combines prior art elements (the shift and fuel overinjection
`
`notification circuits of Habu and Ghitea, respectively, in Westbrook’s exemplary
`
`vehicle) 2) according to known methods (e.g., by programming Westbrook’s
`
`processor subsystem, such as the central processor, and programming Westbrook’s
`
`electronic instrument display cluster according to the teachings of Habu and Ghitea)
`
`and 3) would have yielded a predictable result (an improvement in fuel economy).
`
`Id. at ¶ 62. See also KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398,
`
`415-16 (2007).
`
`6.
`
`Claim 1 is Obvious over Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea
`
`a)
`“Apparatus for optimizing operation of a vehicle, comprising:”
`The combination of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea renders obvious the
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
`Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
`
`“apparatus for optimizing operation of a vehicle,” recited in claim 1. In particular,
`
`Westbrook teaches an example of a vehicle in which a number of electronic sensors
`
`are integrated into “real-time control systems” that are useful “to optimize economy,
`
`emissions and performance” of the vehicle. See Westbrook (EX1002) at 7. “The
`
`modern car contains on average about 30 sensors,” which “include, for example, the
`
`transducers necessary to ensure efficient and clean operation of the engine.” Id. at
`
`207.
`
`b)
`
`“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;”
`Westbrook describes that “sensors are essential in any automatic control
`
`system.” Westbrook (EX1002) at xiii. Westbrook provides table 2.1 that lists
`
`“typical required specifications for sensors for engine and
`
`transmission
`
`(“powertrain”) control.” Id. at 8. Westbrook describes that “[a] fully comprehensive
`
`powertrain control system would have many of the devices listed in table 2.1.” Id.
`
`at 8; see also 207. Thus, Westbrook describes many sensors as being connected to
`
`its central processor including: (1) a road speed sensor; (2) a crankshaft mounted
`
`timing/trigger/speed sensor/s (i.e., an engine speed sensor); (3) an inlet manifold
`
`absolute or differential pressure sensor; and (4) a throttle position sensor. Id. at 9
`
`(Table 2.1). By their very nature, these sensors “collectively monitor operation of
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`Proceeding No. IPR201