Petitioner explains whyit believes reversing the direction of Vellacott’s image sensor to face forward, as taught by Kenue, would have been an obvious modification to a person of ordinary skill in the art, with supporting testimony from Dr. Miller.
Third, Patent Owner argues that changing Vellacott’s orientation would renderit unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because Vellacott detects headlights in the rearward direction to “‘dim[] the rear-view and wing mirrors automatically to reduce glare to the driver.’” Prelim. Resp. 23-24 (citing Ex. 1004, 4).
We give that aspect of Dr. Miller’s testimony no weight, but conclude that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted groundregardless.” Eighth, Patent Ownerargues that Vellacott and Kenue do not teach a “module attached at the windshield,” as recited in claim 1.
Further, as Patent Ownercorrectly points out, Petitioner does not explain in the Petition why it would have been obvious based on Vellacott, which faces rearwardofthe vehicle, to locate the imputer at an area swept by a windshield wiper, and merely cites Dr. Miller’s declaration.
Patent Owner doesnot explain sufficiently, however, why including Venturello’s shutter and image intensifier components are so substantial that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered incorporating Venturello’s fog detection, for example, into the combined device taught by the other references.