Spero’s Demonstratives
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan Spero
`IPR2023-01039 & IPR2023-01040 | U.S. 9,955,551 C1
`IPR2023-01034 | U.S. Patent No. 11,208,029 B2
`Consolidated Oral Hearing October 23, 2024
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPERO EX. 2068
`
`1
`
`
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan Spero
`IPR2023-01039 & IPR2023-01040 | U.S. 9,955,551 C1
`IPR2023-01034 | U.S. Patent No. 11,208,029 B2
`Consolidated Oral Hearing October 23, 2024
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SPERO EX. 2068
`
`1
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`1. Overview of Alden
`Boundaries of Anticipation
`2.
`Failure of Proofs
`3.
`A. Impermissible Evolution
`B. Currently Reliant on Ambiguous Teachings
`C. Originally Reliant on Non-Functional Combination
`Alden Does not Identify Vehicles or Classify Objects
`4.
`Alden/Kobayashi Does Not Teach Predictive Curve
`5.
`Alden Does not Teach Active Optics
`6.
`7. Other Disputes
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Grounds – 1039 IPR
`
`Petition:
`
`Institution Decision:
`
`1039 Pet., 4-5
`
`1039 DI, 17
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 1, 26-34; 36-39, 44-49, 51-60; Sur-Reply,
`2-3, 6-13, 16-18, 23-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Grounds – 1040 IPR
`
`Petition:
`
`Institution Decision:
`
`1040 Pet., 4-5
`
`1040 IPR: POR, 1, 19-31, 33-43, 46-65; Sur-Reply, 1-7, 12-
`18, 21-23, 26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1040 DI, 19-20
`
`4
`
`
`
`Grounds – 1034 IPR
`
`Petition:
`
`1034 Pet., 5
`
`1034 IPR: POR, 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`Overview of Alden
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`Alden
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 5
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 6
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 4
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 8-18, 30-34; Sur-Reply, 6-11 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 8-19, 24-29, 33-35, 47-48, 51-53; Sur-Reply, 1-5, 12, 15-17
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`1034 IPR: POR, 7-17, 57-62, 67-71; Sur-Reply, 1-3, 5-8, 13-18
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 10
`
`7
`
`
`
`Alden
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 5
`(Annotated)
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3
`(Annotated)
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶[0047]
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 4 (Annotated)
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 8-10, 17-18, 32-33, 40-41; Sur-Reply, 7-8, 24-25 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 1, 8-10, 15-19, 22-23, 27-29, 33-36; Sur-Reply, 1-5, 12, 15-17 |
`1034 IPR: POR, 8-10, 58-59; Sur-Reply, 13-14, 16, 18
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Boundaries of Anticipation
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Anticipation
`
`Teaching cannot be ambiguous:
`
`Relied-upon embodiment cannot be inoperative
`
`1039 POR, 26; see also 1040 POR, 19-20
`
`Clear and unequivocal disclosure
`
`1039 POR, 29; see also 1040 POR, 22-23
`
`1039 POR, 28; see also 1040 POR, 21-22
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 26-30; Sur-Reply, 24-25 |
`1040 IPR: POR 1, 19-23; Sur-Reply, 4-5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Anticipation – a POSA cannot “fill in” missing
`limitations
`
`The prior art must be viewed as it is written and as it would be
`understood by persons in the field of the invention—not as it might have
`been written to describe a different development. See Nidec Motor Corp.
`v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1270, 1274-75 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) (This court’s precedent “does not permit the Board to fill in missing
`limitations” even if “a skilled artisan would immediately envision them.”)
`(citation omitted).
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 10; see also 1040 Sur-Reply, 5;
`1034 Sur-Reply, 17
`
`1039 IPR: Sur-Reply, 10-11 |
`1040 IPR: Sur-Reply, 5 |
`1034 IPR: Sur-Reply, 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Failure of Proof:
`Impermissible Evolution
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`Overview
`Ambiguity:
`
`Teaching cannot be ambiguous:
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 10; see also 1040 Sur-Reply, 5; 1034 Sur-Reply, 17
`Non-functional Embodiment:
`
`1039 POR, 29; 1040 POR, 22-23
`Relied-upon embodiment cannot be inoperative
`
`1039 POR, 41; see also 1040 POR, 35
`
`1039 POR, 26; see also 1040 POR, 19-20
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 26, 29, 41; Sur-Reply, 8-10 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 19-20, 22-23, 36; Sur-Reply, 2-5 |
`1034 IPR: Sur-Reply, 16-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner Cannot Modify its Theory of Proof
`
`Under such circumstances, the Board does not
`abuse its discretion in declining to consider such
`untimely theories. … see also Wasica
`Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys.,
`Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(“Rather than explaining how its original petition
`was correct, Continental's subsequent
`arguments amount to an entirely new theory of
`prima facie obviousness absent from the petition.
`Shifting arguments in this fashion is foreclosed
`by statute, our precedent, and Board
`guidelines.”).
`
`Colas Sols., Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc.,
`759 F. App’x 986, 991-92 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`1039 POR, 34; see also 1040 POR, 36-37
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 34, 39, 48, 50, 54, 56, 59-60 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 31, 36-37, 41, 53, 57-58, 62, 65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`Failure of Proof:
`Ambiguous Teachings
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s current position relies on an ambiguous teaching
`
`Teaching cannot be ambiguous:
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 29-30 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 22-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`1039 POR, 29; see also 1040 POR, 22-23
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert agrees
`Alden is not clear
`
`Petitioner’s expert indicated that it is “not clear” and could not explain how the switch
`
`array shown in Figure 3 controls the LED array shown in Figure 5 to create the beam spread
`
`illustrated therein:
`Q. Okay. So[,] does the figure 3 description affect the total beam spread of the
`figure 5 embodiment?
`
`A. The figure 3 can inform. But, again, this is a concept. So[,] if you look at the
`number of rows on 77 and 79, it’s not clear how many. Assuming that each
`element controls one LED, it’s not clear and I cannot count here.
`
`* * *
`
`A. In figure 3. It’s a reference as an array matrix. In other words, there are rows
`and columns. So here basically the disclosure is that each one of these controls
`one LED. And this is what the POSITA would understand at that time. So[,] it
`doesn’t give me any information how many rows, how many columns we
`have. It's a concept diagram. There are no dimensions, no scale.
`(Ex.2041, 108:11-18; 108:23-109:1-5, emphasis added.)
`
`1039 POR, 32-33, 41; see also 1040 POR, 35; 1034 POR, 58-59
`
`1039 POR, 30-34, 41; Sur-Reply, 6-13 |
`1040 POR, 24-29; Sur-Reply, 1-7 |
`1034 POR, 56-60; Sur-Reply, 1-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`1D LED Array In the Petition
`Petitioner:
`
`1040 Reply, 13
`
`1040 Pet., 38-39
`
`1040 IPR: POR, 37-39; Sur-Reply, 15-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioner NOW argues that Alden “is not limited to” a 1D LED Array
`
`Petitioner’s Reply:
`
`1040 Reply, 5; see also 1039 Reply, 5
`
`1039 IPR: Sur-Reply, 6-13 | 1040 IPR: Sur-Reply, 1-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`¶[0029]/Fig. 5 of Alden – Shows/Discusses a 1D array
`
`Ex. 1005,
`¶[0029], Fig. 5
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 40 | 1040 IPR: POR, 34 |
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`New evidence is evidence of ambiguity
`
`Petitioner’s New Evidence
`
`Problematic because
`
`1039 Reply, 5; see also 1040 Reply, 6
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 9; see also 1040 Sur-Reply, 4
`
`1039 Reply, 5; see also 1040 Reply, 5
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 5; see also 1040 Sur-Reply, 11
`
`1039 Reply, 6; see also 1040 Reply, 6
`
`1039 IPR: Sur-Reply, 1-12 | 1040 IPR: Sur-Reply, 1-13
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 8; see also 1040 Sur-Reply, 3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Evidence of ambiguity continued
`
`Petitioner’s New Evidence
`
`Problematic because
`
`1039 Reply, 7-8; see also 1040 Reply, 6-7
`
`1039 IPR: Sur-Reply, 1-12 | 1040 IPR: Sur-Reply, 1-13
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 6; see also 1040 Sur-Reply, 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Claims 32 / 48 and Figure 2 – Ambiguous Usage
`
`1039 Petition:
`
`1040 Petition:
`
`1040 Pet., 36
`1040 Reply:
`
`1040 Reply, 13
`
`1039 Pet., 41-42
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 39-42; Sur-Reply, 13 | 1040 IPR: POR, 33-41; Sur-Reply 15, 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is ambiguous
`
`Ex. 2041, 51:15-19
`
`1039 POR, 42
`
`1039 Pet., 41-42
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 39-42; Sur-Reply, 13 | 1040 IPR: POR, 33-41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`
`
`Ultimately…
`
`1039 POR, 34; see also 1040 POR, 36-37
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 30-34; Sur-Reply, 6-13 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 33-41; Sur-Reply, 1-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 10; see also 1040 Sur-Reply, 5
`
`
`
`The 1034 Petition has similar defects
`
`1034 Sur-Reply, 13
`
`1034 IPR: POR, 58; Sur-Reply, 13-14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`One Dimensional Usage in ‘029 (1034)
`
`1034 IPR: Sur-Reply, 14
`
`1034 Pet., 29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`Same Petition Issue
`
`1034 IPR: Sur-Reply, 15-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`1034 Sur-Reply, 17
`
`
`
`Same Problem
`
`1034 Sur-Reply, 14
`
`1034 IPR: Sur-Reply, 15-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`Alden’s Figure 5 Disclosure is Not Clear and Requires Speculation
`
`Dr. Papanikolopoulos (re Structure):
`
`Dr. Papanikolopoulos (re Function):
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 2041, 108:11-109:5
`
`Ex. 2041, 110:24-111:8
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 32-33, 37-39, 41; Sur-Reply, 10, 13 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 27-28, 39-40; Sur Reply, 4 |
`1034 IPR: POR, 58-59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`
`
`Failure of Proof:
`Non-Functional Combination
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Combination Not Presumed Enabled
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 8; see also 1040 Sur-Reply, 3
`
`1039 IPR: Sur-Reply, 7-8 | 1040 IPR: Sur-Reply, 1-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`2D Switch Array + 1D LED Array
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 7; see also 1040 Sur-Reply, 2
`
`Petitioner:
`
`1039 Pet., 25
`1040 Pet., 38
`
`1039 IPR: Sur-Reply, 6-13 | 1040 IPR: Sur Reply, 1-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1039 Pet., 34-35
`1040 Pet., 32-33
`
`33
`
`
`
`2D Switch Array – Vertical and Horizontal
`
`Petitioner:
`
`1039 Pet., 33; see also 1040 Pet., 38
`
`1039 IPR: Sur-Reply, 6-13 | 1040 IPR: Sur Reply, 1-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`Petitioner Never Refutes Non-functionality
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`Petitioner:
`
`1039 Reply, 5
`
`1039 IPR: POR 31-34; Sur-Reply, 6-13 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 24-28, 33-37; Sur Reply, 1-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`1039 POR, 31-32; see also 1040 POR, 34-35
`
`
`
`Claim 40: Alden does not deal
`with multiple vehicles
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Claim 40 requires
`
`determine a first cluster of the LEDs illuminating
`at least a first portion of a first other vehicle …
`
`determine a second different cluster of the LEDs
`illuminating at least a second portion of a second
`other vehicle …
`Claim 40[i] and 40[k] from 1039 Pet., 46, 47-49
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 43-48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`
`
`Argument never explains how
`
`Claim 40[i] from 1039 Pet., 46
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 43-48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Claim 40[k] from 1039 Pet., 48
`
`
`
`No evidence of HOW multiple vehicles are handled
`
`1039 POR, 44
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 43-45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`1039 POR, 45
`
`
`
`Reason to modify is not a proof of a teaching
`
`1039 IPR: Sur-Reply, 17-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`1039 Reply, 17
`
`
`
`Alden lacks requisite teachings for anticipation
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 17
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 18
`
`1039 IPR: Sur-Reply, 17-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`Alden - Linear LED Array
`
`1040 POR, 25; see also 1039 POR, 31
`
`1040 POR, 26; see also 1039 POR, 32
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 30-34 | 1040 IPR: POR, 24-29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`
`
`Reply – Misstatement of Argument
`
`1039 POR, 31; see also 1040 POR, 34; 1034 POR, 57
`
`1039 Reply, 1 see also
`1040 Reply, 1
`
`1039 Reply, 2; see also
`1040 Reply, 2;
`1034 Reply, 2
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 30-34; Sur-Reply, 7-8 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 33-41; Sur-Reply, 2-3 |
`1034 IPR: POR, 56-60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`1039 POR, 32; see also 1040 POR, 35
`
`
`
`Actual argument
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 6 citing POR 15-18;
`see also 1040 Sur-Reply, 1
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 7; see also 1040 Sur-Reply, 1
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 7-8; see also 1040 Sur-Reply, 2
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 15-18; Sur-Reply, 6-13 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 9-11; Sur-Reply, 1-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`Actual teachings
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 8 see also
`1040 Sur-Reply, 2-3
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 8 see also
`1040 Sur-Reply, 3
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 32-33; Sur-Reply, 6-13 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 27-28; Sur-Reply, 1-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`
`
`Inherency
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 9; see also 1040
`Sur-Reply, 4
`
`1039 Reply, 5, 8; see also 1040
`Reply, 5, 8
`
`1039 IPR: Sur-Reply, 6-9 |
`1040 IPR: Sur-Reply, 1-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`
`
`Alden does not "Identify Vehicles"
`or "Classify Objects"
`
`IPR 1039- Claim 8
`IPR 1040- Claim 48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`
`
`Claim 8
`
`• 8: An illuminating device … comprising:
`a light fixture including a multiplicity of directional light
`sources…
`a camera for obtaining images of the illuminated area
`functioning as a detector for at least one of (i) light
`detector..(v) a detector for sensing at least one of work
`surfaces and road objects and at least one of vehicles and
`people;
`a controller for adjusting a light intensity and a direction of
`each of the directional light sources;
`a processor with stored algorithms and data for
`identifying at least one of …(v) road objects, people
`and/or vehicles…which is used by said processor for
`determining illumination within the illuminated area using at
`least one of artificial intelligence, pattern recognition…
`
`1039 Ex. 1001, Claim 8
`
`Unrefuted construction of “Identify”:
`
`Identify: “to show to be a certain person or thing; to fix the
`identity of; to show to be the same as something or someone
`assumed, described, or claimed.” (Ex.2065, 902.)
`
`1039 POR, 21
`
`‘551 Patent- Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Ex. 1001, 63:9-12;
`1040 Sur-Reply, 10
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 21-25; Sur-Reply, 1-6 |
`1040 IPR: Sur-Reply, 7-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Proofs
`
`Petitioner:
`
`Unrefuted construction:
`Identify: “to show to be a certain person
`or thing; to fix the identity of; to show to
`be the same as something or someone
`assumed, described, or claimed.”
`(Ex.2065, 902.)
`1039 POR, 21
`
`* * *
`
`1039 Pet., 77
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 21; Sur-Reply, 1-6 |
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1039 Pet., 78
`
`1039 Sur-Reply, 12
`
`49
`
`
`
`Alden’s Actual Teachings
`
`Unrefuted Construction:
`
`Identify: “to show to be a certain person
`or thing; to fix the identity of; to show to
`be the same as something or someone
`assumed, described, or claimed.”
`(Ex.2065, 902.)
`
`1039 POR, 21
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 8-13, 21-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.
`1005,
`¶[0027]
`
`50
`
`
`
`Alden/Kondo does not teach “identifying. . . vehicles.”
`
`Claim 8: a processor with stored algorithms and data for identifying vehicles . . . which is used by
`said processor for determining illumination . . . using pattern recognition.
`
`Petitioner:
`
`Dr. Papanikolopoulos:
`
`1039 Pet., 76-77
`
`1039 Pet., 78
`
`Ex. 2041, 79:25-80:8
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 8-13, 21-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`
`
`Claim 48 - “classify an object” is distinct from “identify a
`vehicle” in claim 8; Alden teaches neither
`
`
`1040 Sur-Reply, 7
`
`48[i]: [1] illuminate a portion of
`at least one object, indicated by
`data from at least one of the one
`or more sensors, [2] by selecting
`a first cluster of the LEDs to emit
`first light directed towards a first
`area including the at least the
`portion of at least one object, [3]
`the first area determined based at
`least in part on the data, [4] the
`first cluster selected based at least
`in part on known aimings of light
`associated with the first cluster
`determined to correspond to the
`first area, and [5] the first light
`determined based at least in part
`on classifying the object based at
`least in part on the data; and
`
`Claim 48[i] from 1040 Pet., 31-33
`
`Petitioner:
`
`1040 Sur-Reply, 7
`
`1040 IPR: POR, 30-33; Sur-Reply, 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1040 Pet., 33-34
`
`52
`
`
`
`Detect vs. Identify vs. Classify
`
`1040 IPR: POR, 30-33; Sur-Reply, 7-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`1040 POR, 32
`
`
`
`‘551 Patent – Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Ex. 1001, 44:63; see also 1040 POR, 9-10
`
`1040 Sur-Reply, 10
`
`1040 IPR: POR, 9-10; Sur-Reply, 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`
`
`Claim 48 - “classify an object” is distinct from “identify a vehicle” in claim 8; Alden teaches
`neither - IPR2023-01040
`
`“The ’551 Patent’s
`specification explicitly refers
`to ‘classify’ as distinct from
`‘identify’ when it states:
`‘Outputs from the CCD arrays
`are analyzed by appropriate
`computational means
`employing trained pattern
`recognition technologies, to
`classify, identify or locate
`the contents.’” (Ex.1001,
`44:63-45:3.)
`
`1040 Sur-Reply, 9-10
`
`1040 POR, 30; see also Sur-Reply, 10
`
`“In a preferred embodiment, using pattern recognition techniques the ALDF 190 is
`semi or fully automatic . . . The detector pixels 197 can then be used to obtain
`images of the room which the controller 195 can assess as furniture,
`equipment or occupants.” (Id., 44:33-63.)
`
`1040 Sur-Reply, 10
`
`1040 IPR: POR, 7-8, 30; Sur-Reply, 9-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`
`
`Claim 48: ordinary meaning of “classify an object”: “arranging or grouping an object into one of multiple object classes according
`to some system or principle.” (1040 POR, 30.)
`
`Petitioner’s proofs for “classify an object”:
`Fifth, the “first light” (e.g., low beam) is determined based
`on “classifying the object.” As discussed, Alden determines
`whether the object is an oncoming vehicle, based on
`sensed light above a threshold, and if it is determined to
`be an oncoming vehicle (such as based on light emitted
`from its headlights), Alden project a dim, low beam light in
`the area of the oncoming vehicle. See supra Claim 48[g].
`(1040 Pet., 33-34.)
`
`Patent Owner argues Alden does not disclose “classifying”
`objects because, according to Patent Owner, Alden merely
`detects incoming light and then “assumes” of the existing
`of an oncoming vehicle. (POR, 29-31.) . . . Alden
`unequivocally discloses “classifying” objects, including
`oncoming vehicles. A key purpose of Alden is to “sense the
`locations of other vehicles” and control the headlights in
`response to the “sensed vehicle[s].” (Alden, [0006]; see
`also [0008], [0003]-[0005], [0025]-[0029];
`Papanikolopoulos Decl., ¶51.) (1040 Reply, 9.)
`
`
`New Reply arguments:
`
`Patent Owner proposes construing “classify” based
`on a portion of a dictionary definition. (POR, 28.)
`There is no basis to limit the claims in this way, but
`even under this definition, Alden still discloses
`“classifying” objects, as it arranges or groups
`something (e.g., light source(s)) in classes (e.g.,
`vehicles and non-vehicles) based on a system or
`principle (e.g., whether the intensity of detected
`light is above a threshold or distance). (Reply, 10-
`11, FN 6.)
`Claim 48 does not require a particular method to
`classify objects or level of accuracy. Regardless of
`whether Alden could at times, theoretically, classify
`a non-vehicle as vehicle does not mean Alden does
`not “classify” objects. (1040 Reply, 10)
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 30-33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`
`
`Predictive Curve: Identify Road Curvature
`‘551 Patent Claims 26,34,42,50,58,66,74,82
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`
`
`Claims 26, 34, 42, 50, 58, 66, 74, 82 (‘551 Patent) require
`“identify[ing] an upcoming road curvature”
`
`‘551 Patent:
`26. The illuminating device of claim 24, wherein the memory
`further stores instructions that, when executed by one or more
`processors of the controller, enable the controller to:
`
`identify an upcoming road curvature along a road on which the
`motor vehicle is traveling; and
`
`accommodate the upcoming road curvature by adaptation of a
`light pattern of at least one of the at least one headlamps.
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 23, 48-50; Sur-Reply, 19-23 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 50-53; Sur-Reply, 20-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`
`
`Alden does not disclose “identify[ing] an upcoming road curvature”
`
`‘551 Patent claims 26,34,42,50,58,66,74,82
`
`Alden:
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶[0036]
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 11
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 23, 48-50; Sur-Reply, 19-23 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 50-53; Sur-Reply, 20-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s New Adjustable Threshold Argument
`
`Petitioner Argues:
`“[T]o distinguish between
`different objects, . . . the
`threshold intensity or
`distance would simply be
`adjusted based on the
`object type.”
`
`1039 Reply, 10 FN4 (emphasis
`added); see also 1040 Reply, 21
`FN7; 1034 Reply, 3
`
`Dr. Papanikolopoulos:
`
`551 Patent claims 26,34,42,50,58,66,74,82
`
`Ex. 2041, 80:3-8
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 23, 48-50; Sur-Reply, 19-23 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 50-53; Sur-Reply, 20-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`
`
`Predictive Curve: Increase Illumination
`‘551 Patent Claims: 27,35,43,51,59,67,75,83
`‘029 Patent Claims: 1, 12, 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`
`
`Claims 27,35,43,51,59,67,75,83 (‘551 Patent) require “changing illumination”
`and Claims 1,12,23 (‘029 Patent) require “increas[ing] light in a direction of the
`road curvature”
`
`‘551 Patent:
`
`27. The illuminating device of claim
`26, wherein:
`. . .
`the memory further stores
`instructions that, when executed by
`one or more processors of the
`controller, enable the controller to
`accommodate the road curvature by
`changing illumination in at least a
`direction of the road curvature by
`adaptation of the light pattern in at
`least one of color, intensity or
`spatial distribution by modification
`of light associated with one or more
`of the LEDs.
`
`‘029 Patent:
`1. A system, for a motor vehicle,
`comprising:
`. . .
`a memory storing instructions that,
`when executed by one or more of the
`one or more processors, enable the one
`or more processors to:
`. . .
`determine a light change, the change
`adapting a light pattern of the
`headlamps in at least one of color,
`intensity or spatial distribution to
`increase light in a direction of the road
`curvature ahead of the motor vehicle
`and shaping light based at least in part
`on the road curvature . . . .
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 50-51; Sur-Reply, 21-22 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 53-54; Sur-Reply, 23-24 |
`1034 IPR: POR, 22, 43, 45; Sur-Reply, 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`
`
`Alden does not disclose “changing illumination” or “increas[ing] light in a direction
`of the road curvature” because all beam segments remain at high intensity
`
`‘551 Patent claims 27,35,43,51,59,67,75,83
`‘029 Patent claims 1, 12, 23
`
`Alden:
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶[0028]
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶[0035]
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶[0030]
`
`Ex. 1005, Abstract
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 14-15, 50-55; Sur-Reply, 21-23 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 14-15, 53-54; Sur-Reply, 23-25 |
`1034 IPR: POR, 14-15, 27-29, 43-46; Sur-Reply 1-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`
`
`Alden does not disclose “changing illumination” or “increas[ing] light in a direction of
`the road curvature” because all beam segments remain at high intensity
`‘551 Patent claims 27,35,43,51,59,67,75,83
`‘029 Patent claims 1, 12, 23
`
`Petitioner Argues:
`“Alden’s system
`does not default all
`LEDs to the high
`beam state unless
`otherwise dimmed
`‘in all embodiments’
`as Patent Owner
`argues. Rather,
`Alden explains that
`its system can be
`used for ‘many
`applications[.]’”
`1039 Reply, 18; see also 1040 Reply, 23 |
`1034 Reply, 4
`
`Petition:
`
`1039 Pet., 66; see also 1040 Pet., 73 | 1034 Pet., 13
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 14-15, 50-55; Sur-Reply, 21-23 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 14-15, 53-54; Sur-Reply, 23-25 |
`1034 IPR: POR, 14-15, 26-29, 43-46; Sur-Reply 3, 6, 13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`
`
`Alden’s Figure 5 Embodiment illuminates the full light pattern therefore it does
`not teach “changing” or “increas[ing] light in a direction of the road curvature”
`‘551 Patent claims 27,35,43,51,59,67,75,83
`‘029 Patent claims 1, 12, 23
`
`Alden:
`
`Dr. Papanikolopoulos:
`
`1034 Ex. 2067, 17:21-25
`
`1034 Ex. 2066, 112:2-5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`65
`
`Ex. 1005 Fig. 5
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 50-55 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 53-58 |
`1034 IPR: POR, 26-29, 43-45; Sur-Reply, 2-3
`
`
`
`Alden does not disclose “changing” or “increas[ing] light in a direction of the road
`curvature” because the Fig. 5 embodiment lacks optical steering capability
`‘551 Patent claims 27,35,43,51,59,67,75,83
`‘029 Patent claims 1, 12, 23
`
`Alden:
`
`Petitioner Argues:
`“As the steering wheel
`‘rotates ‘x’ degrees,’ the
`system calculates the new
`planned direction of the
`vehicle and ‘changes the
`direction of the headlight
`output 197 a corresponding
`‘f(x)’ degrees.’”
`
`1039 Pet., 55; see also 1040 Pet., 63;
`1034 Pet., 21
`
`Dr. Turk:
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 10
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 5
`
`1039 Ex. 2040, ¶71; see also 1040 Ex. 2040, ¶71
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 12, 50-55 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 12, 53-58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`
`
`Alden does not disclose “changing” or “increas[ing] light in a direction of the road
`curvature” because the Fig. 5 embodiment does not redirect light
`‘551 Patent claims 27,35,43,51,59,67,75,83
`‘029 Patent claims 1, 12, 23
`
`Alden Embodiment 1, Fig. 5:
`In a first embodiment [Fig. 5], individual
`light elements in array are individually
`controlled with regard to intensity to
`provide dim beam areas and high beam
`areas concurrently.
`
`Ex. 1005, Abstract
`
`3. The headlight system of claim 1 [Fig.
`5] wherein said vehicular headlight
`system comprises at least one head
`light which contains at least two lighting
`elements each of said elements being
`individually controllable with regard to
`light intensity emitted there from.
`
`Ex. 1005, Claim 3
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 5
`
`1034 IPR: Sur-Reply, 6-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`67
`
`
`
`Alden does not disclose “changing” or “increas[ing] light in a direction of the road
`curvature” because the Fig. 5 embodiment does not redirect light
`‘551 Patent claims 27,35,43,51,59,67,75,83
`‘029 Patent claims 1, 12, 23
`
`Alden Embodiment 2, Fig. 6:
`
`In a second embodiment [Fig. 6],
`individual electro-chromatic elements in
`array are individually controlled so as to
`provide a means to create dim beam
`areas and high beam areas concurrently.
`Ex. 1005, Abstract
`4. The headlight system of claim 1 [Fig.
`6] wherein said vehicular headlight
`system comprises at least one head light
`which contains at least two light filter
`elements, each of said elements being
`individually controllable with regard to
`controlling the intensity of light
`permitted to pass there through.
`Ex. 1005, Claim 4
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 6
`
`1034 IPR: Sur-Reply, 6-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`
`
`Alden does not disclose “changing” or “increas[ing] light in a direction of the road
`curvature” because the Fig. 5 embodiment does not redirect light
`‘551 Patent claims 27,35,43,51,59,67,75,83
`‘029 Patent claims 1, 12, 23
`
`Alden Embodiment 3, Fig. 10:
`In a third embodiment [Fig. 10], variable
`refractive segments in array are
`individually controlled to redirect beam
`portions such that high beam and dim
`beam areas are created concurrently.
`
`Ex. 1005, Abstract
`
`5. The headlight system of claim 1 [Fig.
`10] wherein said vehicular headlight
`system comprises at least one head light
`which contains at least two light directing
`elements, each of said elements being
`individually controllable with regard to the
`output direction of light permitted to pass
`there through.
`
`Ex. 1005, Claim 5
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 10
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶[0036]
`
`1034 IPR: Sur-Reply, 6-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`
`
`Predictive Curve: Upcoming Curves
`‘551 Patent Claims 26,34,42,50,58,66,74,82
`‘029 Patent Claims: 1, 12, 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`
`
`Claims 26, 34, 42, 50, 58, 66, 74, 82 (‘551 Patent) require “identify[ing] an upcoming
`road curvature” and Claims 1,12,23 (‘029 Patent) further require “provid[ing] light . .
`. prior to the . . . road curvature”
`‘551 Patent:
`26. The illuminating device of claim
`24, wherein the memory further
`stores instructions that, when
`executed by one or more processors
`of the controller, enable the controller
`to:
`
`‘029 Patent:
`1. A system, for a motor vehicle,
`comprising:
`. . .
`a memory storing instructions that,
`when executed by one or more of the
`one or more processors, enable the one
`or more processors to:
`. . .
`control at least a first plurality of the
`LED light sources to provide light based
`at least in part on the determined light
`change and prior to the motor vehicle
`reaching the road curvature.
`
`identify an upcoming road curvature
`along a road on which the motor
`vehicle is traveling; and
`
`accommodate the upcoming road
`curvature by adaptation of a light
`pattern of at least one of the at least
`one headlamps.
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 23, 48-50; Sur-Reply, 19-23 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 50-53; Sur-Reply, 20-23 |
`1034 IPR: POR, 22-31, 43-46; Sur-Reply, 1-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`71
`
`
`
`Alden does not disclose “identify[ing] an upcoming road curvature”
`or “provid[ing] light . . . prior to the . . . road curvature”
`
`Petitioner Argues:
`
`Alden:
`
`“Additionally, Alden
`discloses that its system
`can include a steering
`wheel ‘rotation sensor’ that
`detects when the vehicle is
`planning to turn.”
`1039 Pet., 55; see also 1040 Pet., 63
`
`‘551 Patent claims 26,34,42,50,58,66,74,82
`‘029 Patent Claims 1,12,23
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶[0040]
`
`1040 IPR: POR, 52, 60-62; Sur-Reply, 25 |
`1034 IPR: Sur-Reply, 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`72
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 15
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 11
`
`
`
`Alden does not disclose “identify[ing] an upcoming road curvature”
`or “provid[ing] light . . . prior to the . . . road curvature”
`
`Petitioner Argues:
`
`Dr. Papanikolopoulos:
`
`“As a driver approaches a
`road curve, or is going to
`turn or enter a curve from
`a stopped position, the
`driver begins to turn the
`steering wheel before the
`vehicle enters the curve.”
`
`1034 Reply, 10-11
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 55-57; Sur-Reply, 23 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 50-53, 60-62; Sur-Reply, 25
`1034 IPR: POR, 38-42; Sur-Reply, 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`73
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶67
`
`
`
`Alden/Kobayashi does not teach “provid[ing] light . . . prior to the . . .
`road curvature”
`
`Kobayashi:
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 10
`
`Ex. 1006, 15:21-24
`
`1039 IPR: POR, 22, 48-50; Sur-Reply, 19-21 |
`1040 IPR: POR, 52, 60-62; Sur-Reply, 24-25
`1034 IPR: POR, 22-25, 39-42, 44-45; Sur-Reply 9-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`74
`
`
`
`Active Optics
`‘029 Patent Claims 21 and 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`75
`
`
`
`‘029 Patent Claims 21 and 32 require active optics
`
`12. A non-transitory computer-readable storage
`medium, storing instructions . . . .
`
`19. The storage medium of claim 12, wherein the
`instructions include . . . .
`
`21. The storage medium of claim 19, wherein the
`instructions include instructions that, when
`executed by the one or more processors, enable
`the one or more processors to utilize one or
`more optical control elements included in the
`motor vehicle to control light from at least the
`first plurality or second plurality of the LED light
`sources.
`
`23. A computer-implemented method for
`adapting light from headlamps of a motor
`vehicle to accommodate road shape changes,
`the headlamps including a plurality of LED light
`sources, comprising . . . .
`
`30. The method of claim 23, further comprising
`. . . .
`
`32. The method of claim 30, further comprising
`utilizing one or more optical control
`elements included in the motor vehicle to
`control light from at least the first plurality or
`second plurality of the LED light sources.
`
`1034 Ex. 1001, Claims 12, 19, 21, 23, 30, 32
`
`1034 IPR: POR, 67-71; Sur-Reply, 18-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`76
`
`
`
`The ‘029 Patent discloses passive and active optics
`
`‘029 Patent:
`
`1034 IPR: POR, 2-3, Ex. 2040, ¶52; Sur-Reply, 19
`
`1034 Ex. 1001, 25:5-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`77
`
`1034 IPR Ex. 1001, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`Alden’s passive lens 121 does not satisfy the active optics limitations
`
`Petitioner argues:
`“When the processor
`controls the LEDs to
`emit light, it utilizes
`the lens element
`121 to direct the light
`. . . .
`1034 Pet., 64-65 (emphasis added)
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 5
`(annotated in 1034 Pet., 65
`
`1034 IPR: 67-71; Sur-Reply, 19
`
`21. The storage medium of claim 19, wherein the
`instructions include instructions that, when executed by
`the one or more processors, enable the one or more
`processors to utilize one or more optical control
`elements included in the motor vehicle to control light
`from at least the first plurality or second plurality of the
`LED light sources.
`
`23. A computer-implemented method for adapting light
`. . . .
`32. The method of claim 30, further comprising utilizing
`one or more optical control elements included in the
`motor vehicle to control light from at least the first
`plurality or second plurality of the LED light sources.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`78
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s proposed Alden combination is Inoperable
`
`Dr. Turk:
`
`Petitioner argues:
`“Alden discloses that
`its use of refractive
`elements to ‘bend’
`light can be included in
`its headlight system,
`such as that of Figure
`5, and a POSITA woul
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
