Trials@uspto. gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 18
`Entered: May 26, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC; VALEO S.A;
`VALEO GmbH; VALEO SCHALTER UND SENSOREN GmbH;
`
`and CONNAUGHT ELECTRONICS LTD.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`Before RICHARD E. RICE, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`35 US. C. 55' 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 18
`Entered: May 26, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC; VALEO S.A;
`VALEO GmbH; VALEO SCHALTER UND SENSOREN GmbH;
`
`and CONNAUGHT ELECTRONICS LTD.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`Before RICHARD E. RICE, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`35 US. C. 55' 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH,
`
`Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH, and Connaught Electronics Ltd., filed a
`
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1—89 of US. Patent
`
`No. 8,543,330 B2 (“the ’330 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet”). Patent Owner
`
`Magna Electronics, Inc. filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim
`
`Resp”). We instituted an inter partes review of: (1) claims 1—7, 9, 10,
`
`13-15, 18, 22—24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 39—41, 43—49, 52, 55, 56, 58—61, 63—69,
`
`72, 76—78, 80—83, and 85—88 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Lemelson,1 Schofield,2 and Tokito;3 and (2) claims 25, 57, 75, and 89 as
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lemelson, Schofield, Tokito, and
`
`Schaefer.4 Paper 7.
`
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 9, “PO
`
`Resp”), to which Petitioner replied (Paper 10, “Reply”). Absent a request
`
`from either party, an oral hearing was not held. See Paper 16.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). In this Final Written
`
`Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 CPR. § 42.73, we
`
`determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`1 US. Patent No. 6,553,130 B1 (“Lemelson,” Ex. 1005), issued
`April 22, 2003, from an application filed June 28, 1996.
`7' US. Patent No. 5,670,935 (“Schofield,” EX. 1007), issued
`September 23, 1997, from an application filed May 22, 1995.
`3 US. Patent No. 6,259,423 B1 (“'l'okito,” Ex. 1006), issued July 10, 2001,
`from an application filed August 17, 1998. Petitioner misidentifies Tokito as
`US. Patent No. 6,226,061 in the Petition, which we understand to be an
`inadvertent mistake in light of the content of Exhibit 1006. See Pet. 5.
`4 US. Patent No. 4,731,769 (“Schaefer,” Ex. 1008), issued
`March 15, 1988, from an application filed April 14, 1986.
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`claims 1—7, 9, 10, 13—15, 18, 22—27, 29, 30, 39—41, 43-49, 52, 55—61, 63—
`
`69, 72, '/b—'/8, 80—83, and 85—89 are unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The '330 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’330 patent, titled “Driver Assist System for Vehicle,” issued
`
`September 24, 2013, from US. Application No. 13/621,382, filed September
`
`17, 2012. Ex. 1001. Petitioner contends the earliest effective filing date of
`
`the ’330 patent is January 22, 2002. Pet. 13—16. Patent Owner states that
`
`“the earliest priority date of the ’330 patent” is March 2, 2000. PO Resp. 30.
`
`March 2, 2000, is the date that provisional application No. 60/186,520 (“the
`
`’520 application”) was filed, the earliest of fifteen provisional applications
`
`identified on the face of the ’330 patent. With respect to the claims of the
`
`’330 patent under review, Patent Owner offers no argument or evidence to
`
`demonstrate either that any claim is entitled to priority to the ’520
`
`application or that any asserted reference is not prior art. Accordingly, we
`
`determine based on the evidence and argument presented that each of the
`
`asserted references is prior art to the ’330 patent.
`
`The ’330 patent is directed to a driver assist system for a vehicle,
`
`including a camera with an exterior field of view and a video display
`
`operable to display image data captured by the camera to the driver of the
`
`vehicle. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The system is operable to detect objects in the
`
`exterior field of view and to provide a visual alert and an audible alert
`
`responsive to detection of an object exterior of the vehicle. Id. According to
`
`Patent Owner, “[t]he driver assist systems having electronically generated
`
`indicia overlaying the video image of the rearward scene described in the
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`’330 patent were a significant advance over prior reversing systems.”
`
`PO Resp. 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 27:4—10); see also Ex. 2001 Will 17—19.
`
`B.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 39, 59, and 76 of the ’330 patent are independent. Claims
`
`2—7, 9, 10, 13—15, 18, 22—27, 29, and 30 ultimately depend from claim 1;
`
`claims 40, 41, 43—49, 52, and 55—58 ultimately depend from claim 39;
`
`claims 60, 61, 63—69, 72, and 75 ultimately depend from claim 59, and
`
`claims 77, 78, 80—83, and 85—89 ultimately depend from claim 76. Claim 1
`
`of the ’330 patent is illustrative of the claims at issue:
`
`1. A driver assist system for a vehicle, said driver assist
`system comprising:
`a rearward facing camera disposed at a vehicle equipped with
`said driver assist system and having a rearward field of
`View relative to the equipped vehicle;
`a video display viewable by a driver of the equipped
`vehicle when normally operating the equipped vehicle,
`wherein said Video display is operable to display image
`data captured by said rearward facing camera;
`wherein said driver assist system is operable to detect objects
`present in said rearward field of view of said rearward
`facing camera
`wherein said driver assist system is operable to provide a.
`display intensity of said displayed image data of at least
`about 200 candelas/sq. meter for viewing by the driver of
`thc equipped vehicle;
`wherein said driver assist system is operable to provide a
`visual alert to the driver ofthe equipped vehicle responsive
`to detection of an object rearward of the equipped vehicle
`during a reversing maneuver of the equipped vehicle;
`wherein said driver assist system is operable to provide an
`audible alert
`to the driver of the equipped vehicle
`responsive to detection of an object rearward of the
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 BZ
`
`equipped vehicle during a reversing maneuver of the
`equipped vehicle; and
`wherein said visual alert comprises electronically generated
`indicia that overlay said image data displayed by said
`video display, and wherein said electronically generated
`indicia at least one of (i) indicate distance to a detected
`object rearward of the equipped vehicle and (ii) highlight
`a detected object rearward of the equipped vehicle.
`
`Ex. 1001, 31:47—32:12.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and then
`
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Am. Sci. & Eng ’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`I.
`
`“at least one of”
`
`Petitioner contends that, as used in the ’330 patent, “at least one of” a
`
`series of elements was intended to signify a disjunctive list of alternatives,
`
`not a requirement of one of each element listed. Pet. 17—19. Petitioner
`
`contrasts this interpretation of “at least one of” from that applied in
`
`SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTVEnterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 885—88 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004) (requiring “at least one of” each identified element), and supports
`
`its contention by identifying portions of the specification that make clear the
`
`listed elements are disjunctive altematives. Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not
`
`address the claim term. For the reasons provided by Petitioner, we are
`
`persuaded that “at least one of” is used in the ’330 patent to identify a
`
`disjunctive list of alternatives.
`
`
`
`IPR2015—00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`2.
`
`”display intensity ”
`
`Petitioner contends “display intensity” should be construed to mean
`
`“luminance” because the ’330 patent describes values for “display intensity”
`
`in candelas/sq. meter, the International System of Units (“SI”) units for
`
`luminance. Pet. 20. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention.
`
`PO Resp. 3; Ex. 2001 11 20. We agree with Petitioner that “display
`
`intensity,” as used in the ’330 patent, is synonymous with “luminance.”
`
`3.
`
`“human machine interface ”
`
`Claim 22 requires the driver assist system of claim 1, “comprising a
`
`human machine interface, said human machine interface cOmprising at least
`
`one user input.” Ex. 1001, 33:21—23. Claims 55 and 88 contain similar
`
`limitations. Petitioner contends that “human machine interface” should be
`
`interpreted to mean the part of an electronic machine or device which serves
`
`for the information exchange between the operator/user and the
`
`machine/device. The term “human machine interface” does not appear in
`
`the specification of the ’330 patent outside of the claims. Claim 22 recites
`
`that the “human machine interface” accepts user input. Petitioner, however,
`
`has not explained sufficiently why we should adopt its proposed
`
`construction requiring that the “human machine interface” must “exchange”
`
`information from the device to the user. However, there is no dispute that
`
`Lemelson discloses a human machine interface, and Patent Owner does not
`
`argue that the term requires an express construction. PO Resp. 3; see also
`
`Ex. 2001 11 21. Accordingly, we determine no express construction is
`
`necessary for “human machine interface.”
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`4.
`
`”electronically generated overlay ”
`
`Patent Owner contends that “electronically generated overlay” should
`
`be construed to mean “electronically-generated indicia superimposed upon
`
`and overlaying a displayed video image.” PO Resp. 4._ “Electronically
`
`generated overlay,” however, is not a claim term. As Patent Owner notes,
`
`independent claims 1, 39, 59, and 76 recite “electronically generated indicia
`
`that overlay said image data displayed by said video display.” Thus, Patent
`
`Owner’s contentions with respect to a term, “electronically generated
`
`overlay,” that does not appear in any claim are not persuasive.
`
`Additionally, a comparison of Patent Owner’s proposed definition to
`
`the actual claim language suggests Patent Owner is largely repeating the
`
`claim language, not providing a useful definition. Patent Owner seeks to
`
`insert “superimposed” into the claim language by arguing that there is a
`
`statement in the specification that “a distance grid can be electronically
`
`superimposed upon the video image.” PO Resp. 4 (quoting Ex. 1001,
`
`27:3 0—34). Had Patent Owner shown there is a'difference between
`
`“overlay” and “superimposed,” we would not have been persuaded to adopt
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction because limitations are not imported
`
`into a claim from the written description. SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875
`
`(“[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations
`
`contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim
`
`limitations that are not part of the claim”). In this case, however, there is no
`
`substantive dispute between the parties over the meaning of “overlay.”
`
`Petitioner notes an ordinary and customary definition of “overlay” is “to lay
`
`or spread over or across: superimpose.” Reply 5 (quoting Ex. 1022). Thus
`
`
`
`IPR2015—00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`“overlay” and “superimpose” mean the same thing. For the foregoing
`
`reasons, to the extent Patent Owner implies any difference between
`
`“overlay” and “superimpose” by including both terms in its proposed
`
`construction, we are not persuaded. We determine that “electronically
`
`generated indicia that overlay said image data displayed by said video
`
`display,” does not require an express definition, and we apply its ordinary
`
`and customary meaning.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness Over Lemelson and Other Asserted Prior Art
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1—7, 9, 10, 13—15, 18, 22—27, 29, 30,
`
`39—41, 43—49, 52, 55—61, 63—69, 72, 75—78, 80—83, and 85—89 are
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Lemelson and various additional asserted prior
`
`art. According to Petitioner, Lemelson describes “virtually the entirety of
`
`the claimed inventions,” but for “trivial matters of design choice” and
`
`“features already known as being desirably incorporated into automobiles.”
`
`Pet. 20—21. Petitioner’s contentions are supported by the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Ralph V. Wilhelm (EX. 1014), and a second Declaration from Dr.
`
`Wilhelm filed in reply (EX. 1021).5 In opposition to Petitioner’s contentions,
`
`Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Matthew A. Turk. Ex. 2001.
`
`5 According to Patent Owner, Dr. Wilhelm’s Declaration should be afforded
`no weight because his opinions consider whether a claim “would more likely
`than not have been obvious” to a person of ordinary skill, rather than
`“whether the subject matter ‘would have been obvious.”’ PO Resp. 47—49.
`As an initial matter, Patent Owner misrepresents the Institution Decision by
`stating it “acknowledges that Dr. Wilhelm’s Declaration uses an improper
`obviousness standard,” when that decision does no such thing, and instead
`states “[ejven assuming Patent Owner’s distinction has merit, we are not
`persuaded that it warrants affording no weight to Dr. Wilhelm’s entire
`declaration.” Paper 7, 10 (emphasis added). According to Petitioner
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015—00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`1 .
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`
`(0)
`
`Lemelson (Ex. 1005)
`
`Lemelson, titled “Motor Vehicle Warning and Control System and
`
`Method,” describes a system and method that use a camera mounted on a
`
`vehicle to scan the roadway to assist the driver of a vehicle in preventing or
`
`minimizing accidents. EX. 1005, Abstract. An image-analyzing computer
`
`processes the video picture signals generated by the camera to generate
`
`codes that serve to identify obstacles. Id. A decision computer in the
`
`vehicle receives code signals from the image analyzing computer, as well as
`
`the speedometer or other sensors, to generate control signals. Id. The code
`
`signals may be displayed, and sound generation or warning means used to
`
`warn the driver of approaching and existing hazards. Id. The control signals
`
`may be used to operate the brakes and steering of the vehicle to lessen the
`
`effects of a collision. Id.
`
`“Dr. Wilhelm combined into a single statement the standard for determining
`obviousness (whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have
`been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art]) with the
`preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not) burden of proof
`applicable in this inter partes review.” Reply 2. We find no merit to Patent
`Owner’s contention that an expert’s testimony is entitled to no weight
`merely because his opinions discuss what, more likely than not, would have
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. Similarly, we find no basis for
`Patent Owner’s contention that Dr. Wilhelm’s Declaration should be
`
`afforded no weight because he “relies on information in the claim charts that
`is not actually there.” See PO Resp. 43—47.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`(b)
`
`Schofield (Ex. 1007)
`
`Schofield, titled “Rearview Vision System for Vehicle Including
`
`Panoramic View,” describes an image capture device directed rearward of a
`
`vehicle and a display system to display an image synthesized from output of
`
`the image capture devices to the driver. Ex. 1007, Abstract. Schofield
`
`explains that:
`
`In order to further enhance the driver’s understanding of
`what is occurring in the area surrounding the vehicle, a
`rearview vision system 12’” includes a display 20’” having
`image enhancements (FIG. 6). In the illustrative embodiment,
`such image enhancements include graphic overlays 70a, 70b
`which are hash marks intended to illustrate to the driver the
`
`anticipated path of movement of vehicle 10. In the illustrated
`embodiment, the anticipated vehicle motion is a fiinction of the
`vehicle direction of travel as well as the rate of turn of the
`
`vehicle. The forward or rearward direction of vehicle travel is
`
`determined in response to the operator placing the gear
`selection device (not shown) in the reverse gear position.
`
`Id. at 10:29—41.
`
`(c)
`
`Tokito (Ex. 1006)
`
`Tokito, titled “Display Device Using Organic Electroluminescent
`
`Elements,” describes a luminescent panel that can display an image from
`
`video information. Ex. 1006, Abstract, col. 1:64—67. The measured
`
`luminance in front of the direct-viewing display described by Tokito is 500
`
`candelas/sq. meter. Id. at 10:44-45. Tokito states that such a display
`
`preferably may be used for an onboard display visible to a driver, and that
`
`because a sufficient luminance is obtainable, “a secure display can be
`
`effected even when the sun shines through the window.” Id. at 10:53—67.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`(61')
`
`Schaefer (Ex. 1008)
`
`Schaefer relates to “a central operating input and information system
`
`for the control of a plurality of optional instruments in a vehicle,” and
`
`teaches a “touch-sensitive display screen where a place of touch can be
`
`localized on its surface (“touch screen”) so that the control keys can be
`
`shown individually on the screen as virtual touch keys or touch fields.”
`
`Ex. 1008, 1:8—13, 5:40—44.
`
`2.
`
`Level ofSkill in the Art
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner refers to the Declaration of Dr. Wilhelm as
`
`providing his opinion of the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1014 1111 17—21).
`
`According to Dr. Wilhelm, a person of ordinary skill in 2002 would have
`
`had: (1) “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or physics, and would have had at least 2—5 years of experience with
`
`human factors for automotive design, i.e., for how humans interact with a
`
`display in a vehicle,” and (2) “a working understanding of microprocessor-
`
`driven controls for displays, actuators, and elementary decision making, and
`
`would have been comfortable working in a systems environment relating to
`
`instrumentation displays for new vehicles.” Ex. 1014 1111 20-21.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has failed to set forth how the
`
`claims are unpatentable because “the Petition does not resolve or even
`address the level of ordinary skill in the art,” and does not show “how the
`
`purported art reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 30—3 1.
`
`We disagree.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`Patent Owner fails to identify any substantive deficiency in the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art articulated by Dr. Wilhelm, upon which the
`Petition relies. See Pet. 8. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Turk, states that a
`
`person of ordinary skill “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical, electronic, or mechanical engineering, or equivalent experience,
`
`and at least two years of experience in the relevant field, such as imaging
`
`systems for vehicles.” Ex. 2001 11 12. Contrary to Patent Owner’s
`
`unsupported argument that the level of ordinary skill in the art isunresolved,
`
`Dr. Turk’s testimony is largely consistent with Dr. Wilhelm’s testimony, and
`
`Patent Owner does not argue otherwise. Because we discern no
`
`substantively significant difference between the proposed levels of skill, we
`
`further agree with Petitioner that the patentability of the claims does not turn
`
`on whether Dr. Wilhelm’s or Dr. Turk’s express identification of the level of
`
`ordinary skill is adopted. See Reply 21.
`
`Moreover, it is well-settled that the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`may be reflected by the prior art of record. qufima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
`
`1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPACInc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We find the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references, and discern no
`
`reason why Petitioner in this case must expressly state in the Petition “how”
`
`it is reflected. A person of ordinary skill is presumed to be aware of all
`
`pertinent prior art. Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid C0., 774 F.2d 448,
`
`454 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d
`
`1437, 1449—54 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In this case, the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art is evidenced by the references themselves.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015—00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`3.
`
`Differences Between the Claimed Subject
`Matter and the Prior Art
`,
`
`(a)
`
`Obviousness Over Lemelson, Schofield, and Tokito
`
`(1')
`
`Independent Claims I, 39, 59, and 76
`
`Petitioner contends that Lemelson discloses nearly all of the features
`
`of claims 1, 39, 59, and 76, with the only substantive difference being the
`
`specifically claimed luminance value for the insv’ehicle display, for which
`
`Petitioner relies on Tokito. Pet. 21. Petitioner further relies on the express
`
`teachings of Schofield to confirm what it contends is implicit in Lemelson
`
`with regard to displaying a video image from the rear—facing camera when
`
`the vehicle is in reverse. Id. Many of the limitations of claims 1, 39, 59, and
`
`76 are substantially similar, and Petitioner provides a claim chart identifying
`
`how each feature of each claim is disclosed by the asserted references. Id. at
`
`23—30.
`
`There is no dispute that Lemelson discloses the limitations of claims
`
`1, 39, 59, and 76 corresponding to “a rearward facing camera” or “a
`3, “
`
`camera,
`
`a video display viewable by a driver .
`
`.
`
`. operable to display image
`
`data” captured by the camera, and a driver assist system “operable to detect
`
`objects” in the field of View of the camera. See Pet. 23—25. There also is no
`
`dispute that Tokito discloses a display intensity of “at least about 200
`
`candelas/sq. meter,” as required by claims 1, 39, 59 and 76. See id. at 25—
`
`26.
`
`Claims 39, 59, and 76 further require that the system provide a “visual
`
`alert” and an “audible alert” “to the driver .
`
`.
`
`. responsive to detection of an
`
`object exterior of the equipped vehicle.” Petitioner’s contention that
`
`Lemelson discloses these features is not disputed by Patent Owner.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`Lemelson discloses an image display that “may include highlighting of
`
`hazards,” which we agree with Petitioner corresponds to the claimed “visual
`
`alert.” See Pet. 26 (quoting Ex. 1005, 6:49—55). We also agree with
`
`Petitioner that Lemelson discloses warnings, including “audible alarms”
`
`which “can be combined with actual video displays of vehicle situations
`
`including hazards and nearby objects.” Pet. 27 (quoting Ex. 1005 9:55—65).
`
`Claim 1 likewise requires a “visual alert” and an “audible alert,” but
`
`further requires that they are “responsive to detection of an object rearward
`
`of the equipped vehicle during a reversing maneuver.” Petitioner contends
`
`Lemelson implicitly discloses this feature, and that Schofield further
`
`expressly confirms that such a feature was known in the art. Pet. 21. With
`
`regard to Lemelson, the question of obviousness does not turn on whether
`
`Lemelson recites the exact words of the claim in the order of the claim, but
`
`what a person of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity, would have appreciated from the teachings of Lemelson. See
`
`KSR Int ’1 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. 398, 421 (2007). There is no dispute
`
`that Lemelson discloses the use of cameras for rear viewing “to further
`
`improve hazard detection capabilities.” Ex. 1005, 6:37—42. We agree with
`
`Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from
`
`Lemelson that a visual or audible alert would be provided when an object is
`
`detected rearward of the vehicle, and that if a purpose of Lemelson is to
`
`avoid hazards, common sense dictates that such an alert would be
`
`operational when the vehicle is operated in reverse “during a reversing
`
`maneuver,” as claimed. See Pet. 21, Ex. 1014 1] 38.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 BZ
`
`Patent Owner disputes the sufficiency of Lemelson’s disclosure with
`
`respect to a “reversing maneuver,” but fails to explain what is missing from
`
`Lemelson, or what aspect of any claimed feature would not have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in light of all that Lemelson teaches. See PO
`
`Resp. 13—14.
`
`Additionally, we further agree with Petitioner that Schofield also
`
`expressly discloses operation during a reversing maneuver, as claimed. See
`
`Pet 26 (citing Ex. 1007 10:29—55 (describing a “rearview vision system” in
`
`which hash marks illustrate the “the anticipated path of movement” of the
`
`vehicle and the direction of travel “is determined in response to the operator
`
`placing the gear selection device .
`
`.
`
`. in the reverse gear position”).
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute the substance of Schofield’s disclosure,
`
`but instead argues that Petitioner did not sufficiently discuss how
`
`Schofield’s disclosure corresponds to the claimed alerts. PO Resp. 14.
`
`Similarly, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner did not consider all elements
`
`of the claim because Petitioner did not expressly construe “during a
`
`reversing maneuver” to mean “when the vehicle is in ‘reverse.’” Id. Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments are not persuasive because Patent Owner does not
`
`explain what “during a reversing maneuver” requires that is not disclosed by
`
`Schofield (or Lemelson), and offers no explanation of what is incorrect with
`
`Petitioner equating the term to operating a vehicle in reverse. We see no
`
`need for further explanation to establish that “during a reversing maneuver”
`
`encompasses an operation that occurs “when the vehicle is in reverse.”
`
`Indeed, Patent Owner does not explain what else it could possibly mean. To
`
`be clear, the burden is on Petitioner to show unpatentability, and, here,
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`Petitioner has made an adequate showing that the claimed features were
`
`disclosed and would have been obvious. See Pet. 26—27. Patent Owner’s
`
`conclusory and unsupported asscrtion that Petitioner’s “broad
`
`characterizations” are insufficient does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s
`
`evidence of obviousness and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. See PO Resp. 14—15 (arguing, for example, that Petitioner “provides no
`
`discussion as to how this disclosure discloses a visual alert or audible alert
`
`that is responsive to detection ofan object rearward 0fthe equipped vehicle
`
`during a reversing maneuver of the equipped vehicle,” but failing to address
`
`what Lemelson and Schofield actually disclose, or fail to disclose).
`
`Finally, claims 1, 39, 59, and 76 require that the visual alert include
`
`“electronically generated indicia that overlay” the image data displayed on
`
`the video display, and either “indicate distance to a detected object rearward
`
`of the equipped vehicle,” or “highlight a detected object rearward of the
`
`equipped vehicle.” Petitioner has shown that Lemelson discloses an image
`
`display that may include “highlighting of hazards” and “distance values.”
`
`More specifically, Lemelson states that “video scanning .
`
`.
`
`. may be .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`employed to identify and indicate distances between the controlled vehicle
`
`and objects ahead of, to the side(s) of, and to the rear of the controlled
`
`vehicle,” and that “[t]he image display may include .
`
`.
`
`. distance values.”
`
`Pet. 28 (quoting Ex. 1005, 6:5—8, 49—51). We find unpersuasive Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments that the disclosure of Lemelson is insufficient. PO
`
`Resp. 7—13. First, Patent Owner identifies no support from the ’330 patent
`
`for its proposition that “visual alert” should be read “to require the likes of
`
`guidelines or other markings,” other than Dr. Turk’s testimony, which is
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`speculative, conclusory, and based on no identified information or evidence.
`
`See Ex. 2001 11 29. To the contrary, the claim language only requires that
`
`the Visual alert be “electronically generated,” “overlay” the image data, and
`
`“indicate distance to a detected object.” None of these features requires
`
`“guidelines or other markings,” which is beyond the scope of the claims.
`
`See Reply 7—8.
`
`Next Patent Owner argues that Lemelson’s disclosure of visual alerts,
`
`including distance values, could be displayed separate from the video
`
`images, for example, “above, below, to the right or to the left.” PO Resp.
`
`12. Again, Patent Owner’s argument is supported by nothing more than the
`
`speculation of Dr. Turk. See Ex. 2001 1] 29. Patent Owner’s argument is not
`
`supported by the disclosure of Lemelson, which states that the image display
`
`may include distance values, and further fails to address what would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill, arguing instead that any number of
`
`undisclosed configurations was possible. Lemelson states that the “image
`
`display may include the highlighting of hazards,” and “simulated displays of
`symbols representing the hazard objects as well as actual video displays.”
`
`Ex. 1005, 6:49—55. Patent Owner offers no plausible reason why the
`
`highlighting, symbols, and distance information Lemelson describes as
`
`being displayed on the video display would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill to mean anything but that it overlays the image data. See Ex.
`
`2001 1111 26—37. There is nothing in Lemelson Patent Owner has identified to
`
`suggest that the Visual alerts appear on a split screen or above, below, to the
`
`left, or to the right of the image data. See id. Nor has Patent Owner shown
`
`anything in Lemelson to support Patent Owner’s argument that the visual
`
`l7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`cues disclosed by Lemelson might not overlay image data because it “could
`
`mask, confuse, or obscure image data in the video images.” See PO Resp.
`
`8—9. For example, Patent Owner offers no plausible explanation of how an
`
`object could be highlighted in a video image, as disclosed by Lemelson,
`
`without using an overlay. We also find more persuasive Dr. Wilhelm’s
`
`testimony that Lemelson discloses to one of ordinary skill the claimed
`
`“electronically generated indicia that overlay.” See Ex. 1021 W 17-18, 20—
`
`24, 26—34.
`
`Claim 59 further requires at least one user input, which, among
`
`several alternatives, may comprise an input for a navigational system of the
`
`equipped vehicle. Corresponding to this limitation, we agree that Lemelson
`
`discloses a keyboard or microphone with a speech recognition computer
`
`employed by the driver to generate command control signals for controlling
`
`the navigational computer. See Pet. 29—30 (citing Ex. 1005, 16:11—19,
`
`15:45—16:38).
`
`Claim 76 further requires that “responsive to detection of an object,
`
`the driver’s attention is drawn to an object displayed on said video display.”
`
`We agree with Petitioner that Lemelson discloses this limitation. See Pet. 30
`
`(quoting Ex. 1005, 6:47—55 (describing images, including highlighting of
`
`hazards, which may be displayed “to enhance driver recognition of
`
`dangerous situations”)).
`
`In consideration of the evidence and arguments presented in the
`
`Petition, Patent Owner’s Response, and Petitioner’s Reply regarding claims
`
`1, 39, 59, and 76, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00250
`
`Patent 8,543,330 B2
`
`Lemelson, Schofleld, and Tokito discloses every limitation of each of those
`
`claims as shown in Claim Chart 1 of the Petition. See Pet. 23—30.
`
`(ii)
`
`Claims 2—4, 9, 18, 22—24, 26, 27, 48, 55, 56, 58,
`68, 87 and 88
`
`Petitioner asserts that each of claims 2—4, 9, 18, 22—24, 26, 27, 48, 55,
`
`56, 58, 68, 87, and 88 is unpatentable as obvious over Lemelson, Schofield,
`
`and Tokito. Pet. 21—30, 34, 41—43, 45-46, 53.
`
`We agree with Petitioner that dependent claims 2, 9, 22, 26, 48, 68,
`
`and 87 recite the same or similar elements as one or more of the four
`
`independent claims 1, 39, 59, and-76. See Pet. 21—30. Claim 2 limits the
`
`electronically generated indicia recited in claim 1 to one of the two
`
`alternatives recited in claim 1 (i.e., to “indicate distance to a detected object
`
`rearward of the equipped vehicle”), a limitation shown above to be disclosed
`
`by Lemelson with respect to claim 1. Claim 9 (dependent on claim 1), claim
`
`48 (dependent on claim 39), and claim 68 (dependent on claim 59) each
`
`recite the same limitation independent claim 76 recites as “wherein,
`
`responsive to detection of an object, the driver’s attention is drawn to an
`
`object displayed on said video display.” As discussed above with respect to
`
`claim 76, this limitation is disclosed by Lemelson. See Ex. 1005, 6:47—55.
`
`We also agree with Petitioner that Lemelson and Schofield disclose
`
`the features further recited in claims 3 and 4. See Pet. 34. Claim 3 recites
`
`the electronically generated indicia comprise, as one alternative, “a graphic
`
`display.” Ex. 1001, 32:16—19. Lemelson discloses a graphic display as
`
`claimed. See Pet. 34 (quoting Ex. 1005, 6:49—55). With respect to claim 4,
`
`Schofield discloses the features of electronically generated indicia
`
`“indicative of an intended path of rearward travel,” as claimed. See id.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR201
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
