Mercedes’s Hearing Demonstratives
`for Mercedes vs. Spero
`
`IPR2023-01039 (U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551)
`IPR2023-01040 (U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551)
`IPR2023-01034 (U.S. Patent No. 11,208,029)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`1
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`for Mercedes vs. Spero
`
`IPR2023-01039 (U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551)
`IPR2023-01040 (U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551)
`IPR2023-01034 (U.S. Patent No. 11,208,029)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`1
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Overview of the Patents and the Petitions
`
`Overview of Alden
`
`Dispute 1 – Alden Is Enabled and No Modification is Needed
`
`Dispute 2 – Alden Increases Light in the Direction of Road Curves
`
`Other ’551 Patent Disputes
`
`Other ’029 Patent Disputes
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`2
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Overview of the Patents and the Petitions
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`3
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`The Patents at Issue
`
`Parent
`
`Continuation
`
`Continuation
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`4
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Overview of the Claimed Invention in the ’551 Patent
`
`The independent claims of
`the ’551 Patent focus on
`systems that control
`headlights to diminish glare
`to the detected vehicles.
`
`’551 Reexamination Certificate
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`5
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Overview of the Claimed Invention in the ’029 Patent
`
`The independent claims
`of the ’029 Patent focus
`on systems that control
`headlights to increase
`light in the direction of
`road curvature.
`
`’029 Patent at Cl. 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`6
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Overview of the Invalidity Grounds
`
`’551 Patent (IPR2023-01039, IPR2023-01040)
`
`’029 Patent (IPR2023-01034)
`
`Alden anticipates and renders obvious claims 24-27, 29-35, 37-
`43, 45-48, 50-51, 53-59, 61-67, 69-75, 77-83, 85-87
`Alden in view of Kobayashi renders obvious claims 28, 36, 44,
`52, 60, 68, 76, 84
`
`Alden (alone or as modified by Stam) in view of Beam renders
`obvious claim 49
`
`Alden in view of Kondo renders obvious claims 8, 10-14
`
`Alden (as modified by Kondo) in view of Stam renders obvious
`claims 15-18
`
`Alden in view of Kobayashi renders
`obvious claims 1-8, 10-19, 21-30, 32-
`33
`Alden (alone or with Beam) in view
`of Kobayashi renders obvious
`claims 9, 20, 31
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 5
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 5
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`7
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Overview of Alden
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`8
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Overview
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 9-11
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 9-11
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 9-11
`
`Alden at [0025]
`
`Alden at [0027]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`9
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Discloses a Headlight of Individually Controllable LEDs
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 9-11
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 9-11
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 9-11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`10
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Discloses a Headlight of Individually Controllable LEDs
`
`Individually
`controlled light
`sources
`
`Alden at Fig. 5 (annotated)
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 1-2, 10, 14-16, 33-36
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 1-2, 10, 13-15, 31-36
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 1-3. 9, 14-16
`
`Alden at [0029]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`11
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Discloses Circuitry to Control Powering of the LEDs
`
`Controlling circuitry for
`controlling powering of
`the LEDs
`
`Alden at [0027]
`
`Alden at Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 16-19, 23-25
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 16-18, 23-24
`
`Alden at [0027]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`12
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Discloses Sensors for Detecting Information
`
`Coordinate-specific
`information about the
`illuminated area
`
`Camera
`
`Camera
`
`x
`
`Alden at Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 20-23, 27
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 20-22, 26
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 16, 53-55
`
`Alden at [0008]
`
`Alden at [0027]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`13
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Discloses a Controller (Processor) with Logic
`
`Processor
`
`x
`
`Alden at Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 23-32
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 23-31
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 16-20
`
`Alden at [0027]
`
`Alden at [0029]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`14
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden’s Controller Controls the LEDs Based on Sensor Information
`
`• When Alden’s system is on, the CPU checks
`each sector of the left and right light sensor.
`• Using the light sensor data, the CPU
`compiles a left and right sensor map.
`• The left and right sensor maps are used to
`determine which zones need dimmed
`illumination and which zones need high
`beam illumination.
`• The LEDs in the headlights are then switched
`to high beam or dimmed to create the
`desired illumination pattern.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`15
`
`Alden at Fig. 4
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 31-36
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 30-36
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 55-63
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden’s Controller Controls the LEDs Based on Sensor Information
`
`• Alden also identifies an upcoming road
`curve, including by detecting light from
`reflectors positioned along the road.
`• Based on the data indicating that the
`road ahead curves, Alden “adapts the
`shape of the light pattern from the
`headlights to shift light … in the
`direction of the curve, so that the curve
`is illuminated with greater intensity and
`distribution of light,” as shown in Fig. 11.
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 27
`
`Alden at Fig. 11
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 54-58
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 62-67
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 25-30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`16
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Dispute 1 – Alden Is Enabled
`and Does Not Require Modification
`
`All claims of the ’551 Patent
`Claims 8/19/30 of the ’029 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`17
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Legal Standard for Enablement
`
`• Disclosures in prior art publications are presumed enabled, and Patent
`Owner bears the burden to show non-enablement. See Amgen Inc. v.
`Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`• Patent Owner must show “undue experimentation would be required [for a
`POSITA] to perform the claimed invention based on the teachings in
`[Alden].” In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`• Factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is
`required include: (1) quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) amount of
`direction or guidance presented, (3) presence or absence of working
`examples, (4) nature of the invention, (5) state of the prior art, (6) relative
`skill of those in the art, (7) predictability or unpredictability of the art, and
`(8) breadth of the claims. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. Reply at 2-3
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. Reply at 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`18
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Fails to Show Alden is not Enabled
`
`• Patent Owner claims that Alden is
`“ambiguous” and does not provide
`“sufficient precision and detail.”
`See, e.g., IPR2023-01039 POR at 33-34.
`
`• However, Patent Owner does not
`discuss undue experimentation or any
`of the Wands factors.
`
`• Additionally, Patent Owner’s expert
`was unfamiliar with the standard for
`enablement and did not offer
`opinions on whether undue
`experimentation would be required.
`
`IPR2023-01039 POR at 30-34, 39-43, 48-51, 55; PO Sur-reply at 6-13; Pet. Reply at 1-4
`IPR2023-01040 POR at 24-29; PO Sur-reply at 1-7; Pet. Reply at 1-4
`IPR2023-01034 POR at 16-17, 57-60; PO Sur-reply at 13-18; Pet. Reply at 17-20
`
`Turk Depo. (EX1013) at 46:8-11
`
`Id. at 33:4-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`19
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s “Single-Row” Argument Fails
`
`Patent Owner argues:
`Alden’s disclosure is not enabled because
`Fig. 5 of Alden is limited to a headlight
`with a single row of LEDs.
`
`IPR2023-01039 POR at 30-33, 39-43; Pet. Reply at 5-9
`IPR2023-01040 POR at 24-29; Pet. Reply at 5-8
`IPR2023-01034 POR at 57-60; PO Sur-reply at 13-18; Pet. Reply at 17-20
`
`Alden at Fig. 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`20
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden’s Fig. 5 is not Limited to a Single Row of LEDs
`
`Fig. 5 is not limited to a
`single row of LEDs, as the
`Board correctly found at
`institution.
`
`Institution Decisions
`
`IPR2023-01039 DI at 15; IPR20023-01040 DI at 17
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 14-19, 26-31, 41-42; Pet. Reply at 5-9
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 13-18, 25-30; Pet. Reply at 4-8
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 14-16, 53-60; Pet. Reply at 17-20
`
`IPR2023-01039 DI at 15-16; IPR20023-01040 DI at 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`21
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Patent Owner is Reading Fig. 5 in Isolation
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`In discussing Fig. 5, Alden explains
`each LED is controlled by a
`corresponding switch in a switch
`array, and “[e]ach switch is
`controlled by the CPU and logic
`previously described.” (Alden at
`[0029].)
`This “CPU and logic previously
`described” refers to Figs. 3-4 and
`their corresponding descriptions.
`Thus, Alden’s Fig. 5 cannot be
`viewed in isolation; it must be read
`in connection with the descriptions
`of Figs. 3-4.
`
`Patent Owner’s expert agrees:
`
`Turk Depo. at 122:12-22
`(EX1013 in IPR2023-01039, -01040, EX1011 in IPR2023-01034)
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 14-19, 26-31, 41-42; Pet. Reply at 5-9
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 13-18, 25-30; Pet. Reply at 4-8
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 14-16; Pet. Reply at 17-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`22
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Fig. 3 Shows Differing Illumination Across a 2D Plane
`
`• As shown in Fig. 3, the “shaded
`circuit area … indicates …
`portions of the … headlight to
`be dim while a non-shaded …
`circuit area … represents the
`portions ... which will be on high
`beam.” Alden at [0027].
`Thus, Alden “distributes high
`beams throughout its distribution
`areas except in a box in the
`direction” of the detected
`vehicle. Id.
`
`•
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 39-43; Pet. Reply at 6-8; IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 25-29; Pet. Reply at 6-8
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 55-63; Pet. Reply at 17-20; Second Papanikolopoulos Decl. (EX1010) at ¶¶25-26
`Papanikolopoulos Depo. (EX2041) at 57:12-58:4, 60:1-10, 106:22-107:10, 110:7-19
`
`Alden at Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`23
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Fig. 4 Discloses CPU Logic Compiling 2D Sensor Maps
`
`Alden at Fig. 4 (annotated)
`
`Second Papanikolopoulos Decl. at ¶26
`EX1010 in IPR2023-01034
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 26-31; Pet. Reply at 6-8; IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 25-30; Pet. Reply at 6-8
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 55-63; Pet. Reply at 17-20; Second Papanikolopoulos Decl. (EX1010) at ¶26
`Papanikolopoulos Depo. (EX2041) at 57:12-58:4, 60:1-10, 106:22-107:10, 110:7-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`24
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Additional Evidence That Fig. 5 is not Limited to Single Row
`• Figure 5 shows a sectional view of a row of LEDs to illustrate the segmented
`lighting, with it being understood that the full array in the front-on view would be
`two-dimensional, as similarly shown in Figures 6-7.
`Alden at Figs. 5-7, [0029]-[0031]; Papanikolopoulos Depo. (EX2041) at 57:12-58:4, 106:22-107:10, 110:7-19
`Second Papanikolopoulos Decl. (EX1010 in IPR2023-01034) at ¶24
`
`• Alden discloses that Figure 5 illustrates “the segmented headlight” comprised of
`an “array” of lighting elements, not a “row” of lighting elements.
`Alden at [0029], Fig. 5; IPR2023-01039 EX1003 at ¶¶56-59; IPR2023-01040 EX1003 at ¶¶65-70; IPR2023-01034 EX1003 at ¶¶117-120
`
`• For Alden’s Figure 5 LEDs to direct light uphill and downhill, for example, there
`must be multiple rows of LEDs with some angled and positioned on the curved
`surface to direct light upwards and others angled and positioned to direct light
`downwards.
`
`Alden at Figs. 11-13, [0037]-[0038]; IPR2023-01039 EX1003 at ¶¶49, 137; IPR2023-01040 EX1003 at ¶49
`Second Papanikolopoulos Decl. (EX1010 in IPR2023-01034) at ¶27
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 15-16, 34-35; Pet. Reply at 5-9
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 15-16, 34-35; Pet. Reply at 5-8
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 14-16; Pet. Reply at 17-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`25
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Does not Need to be Modified
`
`Patent Owner argues:
`No presumption of
`enablement attaches
`because “Petitioner
`does not rely on express
`disclosure, but rather
`modifies Figure 5 using
`Figure 3 and piecemeal
`descriptors.”
`
`But a POSITA would know:
`• Alden discloses “[e]ach lighting element being
`independently controlled by a corresponding switch.”
`Alden at [0029].
`Even Patent Owner’s expert admits this is how Alden
`would work:
`
`•
`
`IPR2023-01039 POR at 32-34; PO Sur-Reply at 6-13; Pet. Reply at 5-8
`IPR2023-01040 POR at 26-29; PO Sur-Reply at 1-7; Pet. Reply at 5-8
`IPR2023-01034 PO Sur-reply at 16-17; Pet. Reply at 17-20; Second Papanikolopoulos Decl. (EX1010) at ¶¶28-29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`26
`
`IPR2023-01039 Turk Depo.
`(EX1013) at 121:8-18
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Annotations Accurately Depict Alden
`
`Patent owner argues:
`The Petition mischaracterizes
`Alden’s disclosure by relying on
`annotated figures with an
`inaccurate scale.
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 30
`
`IPR2023-01039 POR at 34-39, 44-48; PO Sur-reply at 13-16
`IPR2023-01040 POR at 37; PO Sur-reply at 14-18
`IPR2023-01034 POR at 60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`27
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 49
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Annotations Accurately Depict Alden
`
`• Petitioner and Dr.
`Papanikolopoulos made
`clear the annotated figures
`demonstrate the concepts
`disclosed in Alden and are
`not intended to be to-scale
`technical drawings.
`This is consistent with case
`law, as it is well established
`patent drawings are not to
`scale.
`
`•
`
`IPR2023-01040 Papanikolopoulos Decl. (EX1003) at ¶75
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int'l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`
`IPR2023-01039 DI at 13; Pet. Reply at 13-17
`IPR2023-01040 DI at 13; Pet. Reply at 11-17
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. Reply at 20-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`28
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Dispute 2 – Alden Increases Light in the
`Direction of Road Curves
`
`Claims 1/12/23 of the ’029 Patent
`Claims 26/34/42/50/58/66/74/82 of the ’551 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`29
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Increases Light in the Direction of Road Curves
`
`Claims 1/12 of the ’029
`Patent
`
`Claim 23 of the ’029
`Patent
`
`Claim 26 of the
`’551 Patent
`
`accommodate the
`upcoming road
`curvature by adaptation
`of a light pattern of at
`least one of the at least
`one headlamps
`
`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
`
`determining a light
`output, the output
`adapting a light
`pattern of the
`headlamps in at least
`one of color, intensity or
`spatial distribution to
`increase light in a
`direction associated
`with the shape change
`[of a road] ahead of
`the motor vehicle and
`shaping light based on
`the shape change
`
`Claims
`34/42/50/58/66/74/82
`of the ’551 Patent
`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
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`30
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Increases Light in the Direction of Road Curves
`
`• Alden accommodates road curvature
`by adapting the light pattern to
`“concentrate light to look around
`corners in response to road conditions,”
`thereby increasing the amount of light in
`the area of the curve, as shown in Fig. 11.
`• As can be seen in Fig. 11, “Alden’s
`systems adapts the shape of the light
`pattern from the headlights to shift light
`to the left, in the direction of the curve,
`so that the curve is illuminated with
`greater intensity and distribution of light.”
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 27
`
`Alden at [0036]
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 57-58; Pet. Reply at 17-19; EX1003 at ¶111
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 62-64; Pet. Reply at 22-24; EX1003 at ¶134
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 25-27; Pet. Reply at 1-8; EX1003 at ¶¶71-72; EX1010 at ¶¶5-13
`
`Alden at Fig. 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`31
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Increases Light in the Direction of Road Curves
`
`As Dr. Papanikolopoulos explained
`(EX2041 at 78:16-80:8), the road curve
`accommodation functionality is
`achieved using “the same logic”
`described in Fig. 4, with the system now
`configured to detect light from
`roadside reflectors and switch LEDs
`aimed at segments including the
`reflectors to high beam.
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 57-58; Pet. Reply at 17-19; EX1003 at ¶111
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 62-64; Pet. Reply at 22-24; EX1003 at ¶134
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 25-27; Pet. Reply at 1-8; EX1003 at ¶¶71-72; EX1010 at ¶¶5-13
`
`Alden at Fig. 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`32
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Can Distinguish Roadside Reflectors from Headlights
`
`Patent Owner argues:
`
`But a POSITA would understand:
`
`“Alden lacks any ability to
`determine whether detected
`light is a reflector indicative of
`a curve, which warrants curve-
`emission, or detected light
`indicative of a vehicle, which
`warrants glare reduction.”
`
`See IPR2023-01034 POR at 25
`
`Alden teaches
`checking for light
`above a certain
`“threshold” at each
`location of the
`sensor array.
`
`IPR2023-01039 POR at 48-49, PO Sur-reply at 19-21; Pet. at 54-57; Pet. Reply at 9-11; EX1003 at ¶111
`IPR2023-01040 POR at 51-52, PO Sur-reply at 21-23; Pet. at 62-64; Pet. Reply at 20-22; EX1003 at ¶134
`IPR2023-01034 POR at 22-25; Pet. at 25-27; Pet. Reply at 1-8; EX1003 at ¶¶71-72; EX1010 at ¶¶5-13
`
`Alden at Fig. 4 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`33
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Can Distinguish Reflectors from Headlights
`
`•
`
`•
`
`The logic of Figure 4 would apply to
`detecting roadside reflectors.
`
`To distinguish between different
`objects, such as roadside reflectors
`and oncoming vehicles, the threshold
`would simply be adjusted based on
`the type of object.
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 57-58; Pet. Reply at 17-19; EX1003 at ¶111
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 62-64; Pet. Reply at 22-24; EX1003 at ¶134
`IPR2023-01034 Pet. at 25-27; Pet. Reply at 1-8; EX1003 at ¶¶71-72; EX1010 at ¶¶5-13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`34
`
`IPR2023-01034 Second Papanikolopoulos Decl. (EX1010) at ¶6
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Does Not Default All LEDs to Maximum High Beam
`
`But a POSITA would understand:
`Alden can be used for different applications including
`dimming where other vehicles are sensed and
`directing light into the area of road curves.
`
`Patent Owner argues:
`Alden cannot adapt the
`intensity or spatial distribution of
`the light pattern and cannot
`increase in the direction of the
`road curve because Alden’s
`primary objective is to maximize
`light, and therefore, all LEDs
`must be on high beam unless
`specifically dimmed.
`
`IPR2023-01034 Second Papanikolopoulos Decl. (EX1010) at ¶10
`
`IPR2023-01039 POR at 50-54; PO Sur-reply at 21-23; Pet. at 57-58; Pet. Reply at 17-19; EX1003 at ¶¶111-13
`IPR2023-01040 POR at 53-57; PO Sur-reply at 23-25; Pet. at 62-64; Pet. Reply at 23-24; EX1003 at ¶¶132-36
`IPR2023-01034 POR at 22-36; PO Sur-reply at 1-8; Pet. at 25-27; Pet. Reply at 1-8; EX1003 at ¶¶71-72; EX1010 at ¶¶5-13
`Papanikolopoulos Depo. (EX2041) at 50:9-51:3, 73:25-74:24, 78:22-80:24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`35
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Does Not Default All LEDs to Maximum High Beam
`
`IPR2023-01034 Second Papanikolopoulos Decl. (EX1010) at ¶11
`
`IPR2023-01039 Papanikolopoulos Decl. (EX1003) at ¶111
`IPR2023-01039 POR at 50-54; PO Sur-reply at 21-23; Pet. at 57-58; Pet. Reply at 17-19; EX1003 at ¶¶111-13
`IPR2023-01040 POR at 53-57; PO Sur-reply at 23-25; Pet. at 62-64; Pet. Reply at 23-24; EX1003 at ¶¶132-36
`IPR2023-01034 POR at 22-36; PO Sur-reply at 1-8; Pet. at 25-27; Pet. Reply at 1-8; EX1003 at ¶¶71-72; EX1010 at ¶¶5-13
`Papanikolopoulos Depo. (EX2041) at 50:9-51:3, 73:25-74:24, 78:22-80:24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`36
`
`Alden at Fig. 5 (annotated)
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Does Not Default All LEDs to Maximum High Beam
`
`Fig. 4 shows the LEDs are not high
`beam by default, but rather
`Alden must “switch other
`segments to high beam.”
`
`IPR2023-01039 POR at 50-54; PO Sur-reply at 21-23; Pet. at 57-58; Pet. Reply at 17-19; EX1003 at ¶¶111-13
`IPR2023-01040 POR at 53-57; PO Sur-reply at 23-25; Pet. at 62-64; Pet. Reply at 23-24; EX1003 at ¶¶132-36
`IPR2023-01034 POR at 22-36; PO Sur-reply at 1-8; Pet. at 25-27; Pet. Reply at 1-8; EX1003 at ¶¶71-72; EX1010 at ¶¶5-13
`Papanikolopoulos Depo. (EX2041) at 50:9-51:3, 73:25-74:24, 78:22-80:24
`
`Alden at Fig. 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`37
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Other ’551 Patent Disputes
`
`IPR2023-01039
`IPR2023-01040
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`38
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Claim 8 – Alden Discloses Identifying Vehicles
`
`Alden discloses:
`
`Claim 8 recites:
`“identifying at least one of .
`. . (vi) road objects, people
`and/or vehicles . . .”
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 26-31, 76-78; Pet. Reply at 11-12
`
`Alden at [0006]
`
`Alden at [0025]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`39
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Claim 8 - Particular Steps for Identification are not Required
`
`But a POSITA would understand:
`• The claims merely require identifying an
`oncoming vehicle without specifying
`particular steps for the identification.
`• They do not require the system to operate
`with a specific level of accuracy.
`
`Patent Owner argues:
`• Alden never “recognizes
`anything as a vehicle”; it
`assumes “light above a
`threshold” indicates an
`oncoming vehicle.
`• Alden’s system would
`“respond in the same
`fashion regardless of the
`actual source of such
`light.”
`
`IPR2023-01039 POR at 21-26, PO Sur-reply at 1-6
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 76-78; Pet. Reply at 11-12; Papanikolopoulos Decl. (EX1003) at ¶51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`40
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Claim 8 - Perfect Accuracy is not Legally Required
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Aliphcom, Inc., IPR2016-00714, Paper No. 27 at 22-3 (PTAB Sept. 13, 2017)
`
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. Reply at 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`41
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Claim 48 - Alden Discloses Classifying Objects
`
`Patent Owner argues:
`Alden does not disclose the
`“classifying” element in claim 48
`because it never “assign[s] an
`object a classification from
`among multiple classes or types
`of objects.”
`
`IPR2023-01040 POR at 29-33; PO Sur-reply at 7-12
`
`‘551 Reexamination Certificate
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`42
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Claim 48 - Alden Discloses Classifying Objects
`
`•
`
`• Alden senses light from objects, including other
`vehicles.
`• After it senses light, Alden uses a “threshold” to
`classify the object.
`If Alden classifies an object as a vehicle, it provides
`dimmed illumination where that vehicle is present.
`• High beam illumination is provided in sectors where
`no vehicles are detected.
`• Accordingly, detected objects will be classified as
`a “vehicle” (if above threshold) or “not a vehicle”
`(if below threshold).
`
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 25-34; Pet. Reply at 8-10; Papanikolopoulos Decl. (EX1003) at ¶¶ 72-76
`
`Alden at Fig. 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`43
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Claim 48 - Alden Discloses Classifying Objects
`
`Patent Owner argues:
`Alden’s system
`“responds in the same
`fashion regardless of
`the actual source of
`such light.”
`
`But, again, the law is clear:
`“Prior art that sometimes explicitly meets the
`claim elements is sufficient to show
`unpatentability.”
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Aliphcom, Inc., IPR2016-00714, Paper No. 27 at 22-3 (PTAB Sept. 13, 2017)
`
`IPR2023-01040 POR at 29-33; PO Sur-reply at 7-12
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 31-34; Pet. Reply at 8-10; Papanikolopoulos Decl. (EX1003) at ¶51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`44
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Claim 32 - Alden Disclose Illumination “Above” the Dimmed Beam
`
`A POSITA would understand:
`• Alden is not limited to a single row of LEDs.
`• Additionally, as the Board found at institution (IPR2023-
`01039 DI at 16), Alden expressly discloses that it provides
`non-dimmed illumination above an oncoming vehicle, as
`can be seen in Fig. 3:
`
`Patent Owner argues:
`The headlight “in Figure 5 of
`Alden illustrates a single-row
`of LED elements,” and
`therefore is “incapable of
`satisfying” the claim
`limitations of “creat[ing] a
`beam . . . diminished in
`intensity relative to the
`broader field of illumination
`illuminating at least above
`… the beam.”
`
`IPR2023-01039 POR at 39-41; PO Sur-Reply at 13
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 39-43; Pet. Reply at 8-9; EX1003 at ¶¶82-86
`
`Alden at Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`45
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Claim 40 - Alden Discloses Concurrently Detecting Multiple Vehicles
`
`Patent Owner argues:
`Alden “fails to enable …
`control over light directed to
`multiple vehicles,” because it
`does not describe
`“concurrent detection of
`multiple vehicles” and
`instead simply references
`“vehicles encountered in the
`distribution area serially over
`time.”
`
`IPR2023-01039 POR at 43-48; PO Sur-reply at 16-18
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 47-51; Pet. Reply at 16-17
`
`Alden clearly discloses:
`Its system can detect the location of multiple vehicles and
`dim the light to all detected vehicles at the same time.
`
`Alden at Abstract
`
`Alden at Claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`46
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Claims 72 and 80 - Alden Discloses the “Laterally Adjacent” Limitation
`
`Patent Owner argues:
`
`Alden does not disclose the
`“laterally adjacent” limitation in
`claims 72 and 80 because
`annotated Figure 5 illustrates areas
`immediately adjacent to the sensed
`vehicle, or target, illuminated with
`the same low beam light as the
`sensed vehicle.
`
`’551 Reexamination Certificate at 11:63-12:12
`
`IPR2023-01040 POR at 46-48; PO Sur-reply at 18-20
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 10-12, 35-36, 54-56, 58-59; Pet. Reply at 17-20
`
`Alden at Fig. 5 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`47
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Claims 72 and 80 - Alden Discloses the “Laterally Adjacent” Limitation
`
`But a POSITA would understand:
`• All the claims require is that illumination
`towards the target is varied relative to
`areas laterally adjacent to the target.
`
`• Alden clearly discloses its high beams
`illuminate sectors laterally adjacent to the
`sectors in which low beam is emitted.
`
`•
`
`“[V]ariance of illumination between the
`target vehicle and laterally adjacent areas
`is maintained, as the target vehicle sectors
`are dimmed and laterally adjacent areas
`with no other vehicle are switched to high
`beam in real time.”
`
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. Reply at 20
`
`IPR2023-01040 POR at 46-48; PO Sur-reply at 18-20
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 10-12, 35-36, 54-56, 58-59; Pet. Reply at 17-20
`
`’551 Reexamination Certificate at 11:63-12:12
`
`Alden at Fig. 1; see also Fig. 2, [0025]-[0029]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`48
`
` Mercedes EX1014
` Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Spero
` IPR2023-1039
`
`
`
`Alden Can Both Diminish Glare and Accommodate a Curve
`(Claims 26-27, 34-35, 42-43, 50, 53, 58, 61, 66, 69, 74, 77, 82, 85)
`
`But as discussed in “Dispute 2”:
`Alden’s system can detect both reflectors and
`oncoming vehicles with the light sensors.
`
`Patent Owner argues:
`
`Because Alden cannot tell
`the difference between
`headlights and reflective
`signs, its system cannot both
`diminish glare and
`accommodate a curve.
`
`IPR2023-01039 POR at 48-49, PO Sur-reply at 19-21; IPR2023-01040 POR at 51-52, PO Sur-reply at 21-23
`IPR2023-01039 Pet. at 54-57; Pet. Reply at 9-11
`IPR2023-01040 Pet. at 62-64; Pet. Reply at 20-22
`
`
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
