Patent Owner also relies on extrinsic evidence in the form of expert testimony and various federal and state regulations to contrast the industry’s definition of the terms “golf car” and “golf cart” as vehicles that “convey a person or persons ...
For example, dependent claim 2 recites “an override of a driver input to the motor.” That the “driver input” needs to be overridden or otherwise restricted presumes that the golf cart is being driven by a person who has independent control ...
Both parties’ experts confirm that each of the above-described golf carts is a “ridable cart” that “conveys a person or persons.” See Ex. 2016, 62:4–65:22, 67:21–25 (Petitioner’s expert confirming as much); Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 34–42, Ex. 2015 ¶¶ ...
Nonetheless, Petitioner argues at length that the term “golf cart” is a genus for two species of carts, namely, a “golf car” that carries a person and a “riderless cart,” such as a “caddie cart,” that carries only a golf bag.
... use the term “golf cart” (id. at 1) and gives an 17 IPR2017-02143 Patent 7,480,569 B2 example of a regulation from California that defines “golf cart” as “a motor vehicle . . . designed to carry golf equipment and not more than two persons, ...
... (“inputs by the golf cart’s driver to the golf cart’s motor’), 1:47–48 (“malicious golf cart drivers”), 1:59–60 (“inform a golf cart driver”), 2:33 (“overriding driver accelerator commands”), 2:68 (“driver duties”), 3:63–64 (“help to prevent injury ...
... person who merely inputs commands to the cart. Rather, reading the ’569 patent as a whole, we see the driver as a person who controls the functions of steering, acceleration, and braking while onboard the cart. Thus, consistent with the ...
... the person in the seat.” Ex. 2016, 92:18–93:1; 88:11–15. And to the extent Petitioner’s expert qualifies that testimony by saying that the ’053 Application doesn’t exclude the possibility of a riding cart and doesn’t preclude putting a person ...