`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`
`BENTLEY MOTORS LIMITED
`and
`BENTLEY MOTORS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`JAGUAR LAND ROVER LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE46,828
`
`IPR2019-01502
`__________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................ iii 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ................... 5 
`
`III.  CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED .................................................................................................. 5 
`
`IV.  SUMMARY OF THE ’828 PATENT AND PROSECUTION
`HISTORY ........................................................................................................ 5 
`
`V. 
`
`STATE OF THE ART ................................................................................... 10 
`
`Porsche Pioneered Driver Selection of On and Off-Road
`Surfaces Years before the ’828 Patent ................................................ 10 
`
`VI.  PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 12 
`
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 12 
`
`VIII.  GROUND 1: CLAIMS 30 AND 32 ARE OBVIOUS OVER THE
`959 ART ........................................................................................................ 16 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The Porsche 959 ATZ Article ............................................................. 17 
`
`The Porsche 959 Driver’s Manual ...................................................... 18 
`
`The 959 Art Discloses the Base Claim Elements ............................... 19 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`[BC.1] The 959 Art Discloses “A vehicle control
`system having a driver input device for selecting a
`driving surface” ......................................................................... 19 
`
`[BC.2] The 959 Art Discloses “the vehicle control
`system arranged to control a plurality of vehicle
`subsystems each of which is operable in a plurality
`of subsystem configuration modes” .......................................... 20 
`
`[BC.3] The 959 Art Discloses “wherein the vehicle
`control system is operable in a plurality of driving
`modes in each of which it is arranged to select the
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`4. 
`
`subsystem configuration modes in a manner
`suitable for a respective driving surface” ................................. 23 
`
`[BC.4] The 959 Art Discloses “and further wherein
`the plurality of driving modes includes at least two
`off-road modes in which the subsystem
`configurations are controlled in a manner suitable
`for driving on respective off-road driving surfaces,
`and an on-road mode in which the subsystem
`configurations are controlled in a manner suitable
`for driving on road”................................................................... 25 
`
`D. 
`
`Claims 30 and 32 Are Obvious– The 959 Art Teaches
`Ordered Driving Mode Selection ........................................................ 26 
`
`E.  Motivation to Combine the 959 Art .................................................... 28 
`
`IX.  GROUND 2: CLAIMS 33, 34, 41 AND 42 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`THE 959 ART IN VIEW OF THE EXPEDITION GUIDE, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY IN VIEW OF GB ’580 ................................................ 29 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The 1997 Ford Expedition Owner’s Guide ......................................... 29 
`
`Porsche 959’s Height Adjusting Suspension ...................................... 31 
`
`C.  Motivation to Combine the 959 Art and the Expedition
`Guide with a Reasonable Expectation of Success .............................. 32 
`
`D. 
`
`The 959 Art and the Expedition Guide Teach a
`Suspension Subsystem with Adjustable Ride Height
`Dependent upon Driver Selection of a Driving Mode ........................ 34 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Claim 33 is Obvious .................................................................. 34 
`
`Claim 34 is Obvious .................................................................. 36 
`
`Claim 41 is Obvious .................................................................. 37 
`
`Claim 42 is Obvious .................................................................. 38 
`
`E. 
`
`Claims 33-34 and 41-42 are Obvious Over the 959 Art in
`View of GB ’580 ................................................................................. 38 
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`X.  GROUND 3: CLAIMS 37 AND 39 ARE OBVIOUS OVER THE 959
`ART IN VIEW OF THE ’318 PATENT ....................................................... 40 
`
`A. 
`
`The ’318 Patent ................................................................................... 40 
`
`B.  Motivation to Combine the ’318 Patent and the 959 Art
`with a Reasonable Expectation of Success ......................................... 44 
`
`C. 
`
`Claims 37 and 39 Are Obvious Over the 959 Art in View
`of the ’318 Patent ................................................................................ 46 
`
`XI.  GROUND 4: CLAIM 45 IS OBVIOUS OVER THE 959 ART IN
`VIEW OF THE 7-SERIES OWNER’S MANUAL OR
`ALTERNATIVELY IN VIEW OF GB ’580 ................................................ 48 
`
`A. 
`
`The 2001 BMW 7-Series Manual ....................................................... 48 
`
`B.  Motivation to Combine the 7-Series Manual and the 959
`Art with a Reasonable Expectation of Success ................................... 51 
`
`C. 
`
`GB ’580 ............................................................................................... 54 
`
`D.  Motivation to Combine GB ’580 and the 959 Art with a
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 55 
`
`XII.  GROUND 5: CLAIM 46 IS OBVIOUS OVER THE 959 ART IN
`VIEW OF ROVER’S ’614 PATENT ............................................................ 56 
`
`A. 
`
`The ’614 Patent ................................................................................... 56 
`
`B.  Motivation to Combine the ’614 Patent and the 959 Art
`with a Reasonable Expectation of Success ......................................... 57 
`
`XIII.  GROUND 6: CLAIMS 21, 24 AND 43 ARE OBVIOUS OVER THE
`959 ART IN VIEW OF THE HUMMER ARTICLE .................................... 59 
`
`A. 
`
`The Hummer Article ........................................................................... 59 
`
`B.  Motivation to Combine the 959 Art and the Hummer
`Article with a Reasonable Expectation of Success ............................. 62 
`
`C. 
`
`Claim 21 is Obvious Because the Prior Art Discloses an
`Off-Road Driving Mode Suitable for Driving on Sand ...................... 64 
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`D. 
`
`Claims 24 and 43 are Obvious Because the Prior Art
`Discloses a Brake System Set to Allow Relatively High
`Wheel Slip Under Braking .................................................................. 65 
`
`XIV.  MANDATORY NOTICES AND PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37
`C.F.R. §§ 42.8 AND 42.103 .......................................................................... 67 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................ 67 
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 68 
`
`Notice of Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(3)) ........................................................................................... 68 
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 69 
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ................................................ 69 
`
`XV.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 69 
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 71 
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1001
`
`1002A
`
`1002B
`
`1002C
`
`1002D
`1002E
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008A
`1008B
`1009
`1010
`1010A
`1010B
`1010C
`1011
`1011A
`1012
`1013
`1014A
`1014B
`1014C
`1014D
`1014E
`1014F
`1014G
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Name
`U.S. Patent No. RE 46,828 (“the ’828 patent”)
`Bantle/Bott, The Porsche 959-Group B – a Very Special Automobile – Part
`1, Automobiltechnische Zeitschrift 88 (May, 1986) No. 5, pp. 265-270
`(“ATZ”)
`Bantle/Bott, The Porsche 959-Group B – a Very Special Automobile – Part
`2, ATZ 88 (June, 1986) No. 6, pp. 353-356
`Bantle/Bott, The Porsche 959-Group B – a Very Special Automobile – Part
`3, ATZ 88 (July/August 1986) No. 7/8, pp. 407-413
`Bantle/Bott, The Porsche 959-Group B – a Very Special Automobile – Part
`4, ATZ 88 (September 1986) No. 9, pp. 509-513
`Public Availability Statement from the British Library
`Porsche 959 Driver’s Manual
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Glenn R. Bower
`GB 2,273,580
`U.S. Patent No. 6,044,318
`1997 Ford Expedition Owner’s Guide
`2001 BMW 7-Series Owner’s Manual
`2001 BMW 7-Series Owner’s Manual, Service and Warranty Information
`2002 Montero Sport Owner’s Manual
`Declaration of Bruce Canepa
`Exhibit A to the Declaration of Bruce Canepa
`Exhibit B to the Declaration of Bruce Canepa
`Exhibit C to the Declaration of Bruce Canepa
`Declaration of Karl-Hubert Schlichtenmayer
`Exhibit A to the Declaration of Karl-Hubert Schlichtenmayer
`Hummer H2 Media Page, Internet Archive, December 21, 2011
`2003 Hummer H2 Owner’s Manual
`H2 Chassis Article from Hummer H2 Press Kit
`H2 Exterior Article from Hummer H2 Press Kit
`H2 Interior Article from Hummer H2 Press Kit
`H2 Overview Article from Hummer H2 Press Kit
`H2 Powertrain Article from Hummer H2 Press Kit
`H2 Safety Article from Hummer H2 Press Kit
`H2 Specs Article from Hummer H2 Press Kit
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler from the Internet Archives regarding the H2
`Powertrain Article (the Hummer Article )
`Mitsubishi Motors Press Release – MMC launches Lancer Evolution VII
`(January 26, 2001)
`2001 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VII Press Information
`2000 Range Rover Owner’s Handbook
`2001 Chevy Tahoe Owner’s Manual
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`Number
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`1042
`
`1043
`1044
`1045
`
`1046
`1047
`1048
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit Name
`2001 Mercedes C-Class Operator’s Manual
`Prosecution File History for the ’828 patent
`Prosecution File History for the ’776 patent
`U.S. Patent No. 7,349,776
`EPO File History for 3,252,006
`GB 2,154,763
`U.S. Patent No. 5,941,614
`U.S. Patent No. 6,280,859
`U.S. Patent No. 5,997,108
`Phillips, David, Hummer H2 SUT concept storms N.Y., Automotive News
`(April 10, 2018)
`Hans-Martin Streib and Hubert Bischof, Electronic Throttle Control (ETC):
`A Cost Effective System for Improved Emissions, Fuel Economy, and
`Driveability, SAE International 960338 (1996).
`Constantine, Chris, This Paris-Dakar Porsche 959 Rally Car May Bring in
`$3.4 Million at Auction, The Drive (June 30, 2018)
`Garrick Forkenbrock et al., A Comprehensive Light Vehicle Antilock Brake
`System Test Track Performance Evaluation, SAE INTERNATIONAL 1999-01-
`1287 (1999).
`2003 Lexus GX 470 Owner’s Manual
`2002 Nissan Pathfinder Owner’s Manual
`2002 Infinity QX4 Owner’s Manual
`Ford Press Release (Feb. 8, 1999)
`Frank, Michael, The Best of the New York Auto Show, Forbes (April 16,
`2001)
`Samilton, Tracy, Car Guru: Stop Downshift in Manual Transmissions, NPR
`(March 26, 2012).
`Stoklosa, Alexander, Shift This: A History of Porsche’s Sportomatic,
`Tiptronic, and PDK Transmissions,
`https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15366473/shift-this-a-
`history-of-porsches-sportomatic, Dec. 10, 2013
`Passell, Peter, Behind the Wheel, New York Times (January 10, 1999)
`Honda News, 1990 Honda Accord – Drivetrain (April 1, 1989)
`
`Mitsubishi-Motors Pajero, https://www.mitsubishi‐
`
`motors.com/en/innovation/history/detail/ (1991)
`Mitsubishi Pajero Showroom Catalog
`Mitsubishi Facts and Figures (2005)
`Autocar Magazine, Twin Test Mitsubishi EVO VII vs. Subaru Impreza STi,
`(June 13, 2001)
`Autocar Magazine, Seventh heaven is a new Evo (Feb.14, 2001)
`BestCar Special Edition, Lancer Evolution VII Close-Up
`Car Magazine, Seven samurai Number VII is the most grown-up complete
`Evo ever. But don’t write off for a pipe and slippers yet… (Apr. 2001)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1049
`1050
`1051
`1052
`1053
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`1057
`1058
`
`Exhibit Name
`Car Magazine, BMW v. EVO VII (June 2001)
`Autocar Magazine, Mitsubishi EVO Extreme (Aug. 15, 2001)
`Porsche 911 Engine Management, Internet Archive (Aug. 28, 2001)
`Porsche Boxster Engine Management, Internet Archive (Nov. 2, 2001)
`Porsche Boxster Tiptronic S, Internet Archive (Jan. 3, 2002)
`Bingham, Phillip, 2001 Porsche 911 – First Drive, MotorTrend (May 2,
`2000)
`2002 Detroit Auto Show, Part 1, 2002 North American International Auto
`Show (Jan.14, 2002)
`Autocar Magazine, Survival of the fastest (Mar. 7, 2001)
`Motor Trend, BMW 740i Sport (June, 1999)
`Automobile Magazine, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VII (May 2001)
`
`“ATZ”
`“959 Art”
`“7-Series Manual”
`
`Legend of Abbreviations
`The ATZ Article (Ex. 1002A-D)
`The Porsche 959 Art (Exs. 1002A-D and 1003)
`The 2001 BMW 7-Series Owner’s Manual (Ex.
`1008A)
`“Expedition Guide” The 1997 Ford Expedition Owner’s Guide (Ex.
`1007)
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Bentley Motors Limited and Bentley Motors, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests
`
`inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 21, 24, 30, 32-34, 37, 39, 41-43, 45 and 46 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE 46,828 (“the ’828 patent”). Ex. 1001.
`
`The ’828 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,349,776 (“the ’776 patent”),
`
`filed on April 17, 2003. Ex. 1023. The ’828 patent claims a control system for a
`
`conventional motor vehicle with multiple driving modes. The driver selects a
`
`driving mode based on the driving surface, and, in response, the vehicle configures
`
`various subsystems within the vehicle (e.g. suspension and transmission).
`
`The ’828 patent does not claim anything novel or nonobvious. Instead, the
`
`claims cover a wide variety of well-known subsystem features in the automotive
`
`industry at the time—features such as traction control, anti-lock braking, and
`
`progressive throttle control. Within each driving mode the controller configures
`
`integrated subsystems to be suitable for different types of terrain. For example, in
`
`the rock-crawl mode the suspension adopts a higher ride height. Skilled-artisans
`
`already understood how to configure these subsystems for peak-performance on
`
`the driving surfaces contemplated by the ’828 patent, and the ’828 patent concedes
`
`that fact.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicants’ own prior art patent application,1 GB 2,273,580 (“GB ’580”),
`
`which was disclosed in the ’828 patent specification and used to reject its
`
`corresponding European application, teaches configuration and control of a
`
`plurality of vehicle subsystems in response to the driver’s selection of on-road and
`
`off-road driving modes. GB ’580 (Fig. 2, below-left) depicts essentially the same
`
`vehicle control system as the ’828 patent (Fig. 4, below-right).
`
`(Ex. 1005 (color added))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001(color added))
`
`Patent Owner never argued that its claims were novel because the driver
`
`could select a driving mode. Instead, the prosecution history is filled with
`
`statements distinguishing the claims based on driver selection of a “road surface”
`
`or “driving surface.” During more than three years of active prosecution, this idea
`
`
`1 The original assignee of the ’776 patent was Ford Motor Company, the same
`applicant listed on the face of GB ’580.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`– a driver input device for selecting a road surface—was the only point of novelty
`
`argued in the application.
`
`Patent Owner filed for reissue on September 30, 2016 and changed its story.
`
`Patent Owner stated the “error to be corrected is the omission of a claim directed to
`
`a vehicle control system having driving modes that include at least two off-road
`
`modes and an on-road mode.” Ex. 1021, Page 425. During preliminary
`
`discussions, Petitioner provided Patent Owner with a copy of a primary
`
`invalidating reference in this Petition—the Porsche 959 Driver’s Manual (Ex.
`
`1003)—yet Patent Owner did not disclose it to the Examiner. That reference
`
`discloses driver selection of a road surface and a vehicle control system with on-
`
`road driving modes and two off-road modes:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1002B, 356.2 The reissued claims would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”), because the prior art discloses not only driver
`
`selection of a road surface, but a control system having the newly recited “at least
`
`two off-road modes . . . and an on-road mode.” It is worth noting that neither the
`
`UK nor European Patent Offices allowed the claims to issue.
`
`Petitioner submits two printed publications describing the operation of the
`
`Porsche 959, consisting of: i) Exhibits 1002A-D, a four-part technical article
`
`describing the vehicle control system of the Porsche 959 published in a German
`
`automotive magazine, ATZ; and ii) Exhibit 1003, a copy of the Porsche 959
`
`Driver’s Manual (together the “959 Art”). These documents describe the same
`
`vehicle, were authored by the same source (Porsche), and published in the same
`
`time period between 1986/87. Consequently, a POSA would have considered the
`
`959 Art to be an integrated description of the structure and function of the Porsche
`
`959 on-road and off-road rally car.
`
`All challenged claims begin with the same four claim elements, referred to
`
`in this Petition as the “Base Claim” (abbreviated B.C. 1-4). The 959 Art discloses
`
`all four Base Claim elements. The remaining elements recite automotive features
`
`
`2 Except as otherwise noted by page numbers designated “Page ##,” all citations
`reference the internal page numbers of the document.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`well known to a POSA before the ’828 patent priority application was filed on
`
`April 18, 2002.3 The challenged claims would have been obvious to a POSA.
`
`II.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’828 patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`and its real parties-in-interest are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`III.
`
`CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner requests review of claims 21, 24, 30, 32-34, 37, 39, 41-43, 45 and
`
`46 of the ’828 patent on the grounds set forth in the table below and requests
`
`cancellation of the claims as unpatentable.
`
`Grounds
`Ground 1
`Ground 2
`
`Ground 3
`
`Ground 4
`
`Ground 5
`
`Ground 6
`
`
`37, 39
`
`45
`
`46
`
`Prior Art
`Claims
`Obvious over the 959 Art (Exs. 1002A-D, 1003)
`30, 32
`33, 34, 41, 42 Obvious over the 959 Art in view of Expedition
`Guide (Ex. 1007) or alternatively GB ’580 (Ex. 1005)
`Obvious over the 959 Art in view of U.S. Pat. No.
`6,044,318 (Ex. 1006)
`Obvious over the 959 Art in view of the 7-Series
`Manual (Ex. 1008A) or alternatively GB ’580
`Obvious over the 959 Art in view of U.S. Pat. No.
`5,941,614 (Ex. 1026)
`Obvious over the 959 Art in view of the Hummer
`Article (Ex. 1015)
`
`21, 24, 43
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’828 PATENT AND PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`The ’828 patent “relates to the control of vehicles, in particular to the
`
`coordinated control of a number of subsystems of a vehicle” (Ex. 1001, 1:14-16),
`
`3 Petitioner does not concede entitlement to a priority date of April 18, 2002.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`wherein various vehicle subsystems are configured in a manner suitable for a
`
`respective driving surface based on the selected driving mode. Id., 2:3-14. The
`
`driver uses an input device (for example, a rotary knob or push buttons) to select a
`
`driving mode. Id., 9:59-64. “Each of the driving modes corresponds to a
`
`particular driving condition or set of driving conditions, and in each driving mode
`
`each of the functions is set to the function mode most appropriate to those
`
`conditions.” Id., 9:55-58. These driving conditions, called “driving surfaces” in
`
`the claims, include motorways, snow/ice, sand, and mud. Id., Figs. 5 and 6.
`
`In the “Background of the Invention,” Applicants admit that the majority of
`
`the claimed features were already disclosed in their own GB ’580 application. Id.,
`
`1:41-46. GB ’580 discloses the coordinated control of an open-ended number of
`
`subsystems adapted for a variety of driving modes:
`
`Operating characteristic parameters are stored in an integrated
`control system controller from which they are retrieved to
`control and configure operating subsystems of the motor
`vehicle and thereby the motor vehicle itself. Control and
`configuration can be based on . . . an operating mode [that]
`can be selected for the vehicle. For example, the vehicle can be
`selected to provide sport performance, cruise performance,
`luxury performance, off-road performance or a like mode of
`performance.
`
`Ex. 1005, 2-3 (emphasis added). GB ’580 (figure 2, below left) discloses a vehicle
`
`interface (108, highlighted in blue below) “for the user to communicate with the
`
`integrated control system.” Id., 6. “The integrated control system comprises a
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`processor based vehicle controller 102 [highlighted green] for controlling and
`
`configuring operating characteristics of the motor vehicle 100.” Id. “The vehicle
`
`controller 102 is connected to a number of processor controlled operating
`
`subsystems [highlighted yellow] of the vehicle” (Id., 7):
`
`Id., Fig. 2 (color added).
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:50-53 (color added).
`
`The control system depicted in Figure 4 (above, right) of Applicants’ ’828
`
`patent shows the same elements. A driver input device (99), a processor based
`
`vehicle mode controller for providing the appropriate control commands to each
`
`subsystem controller (98), and a number of subsystem controllers, including
`
`subsystems for suspension, steering, brakes, and transmission.
`
`GB ’580 was the primary reference the European Patent Office relied on in
`
`rejecting Applicant’s corresponding EPO application. Ex. 1024, Pages 3-6. The
`
`claims in that EPO application were substantially the same as those in the original
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`’776 patent application. Ex. 1022 and 1024. Applicants withdrew their EPO
`
`application, and similarly abandoned the British priority applications filed in 2002.
`
`Id., 2. The EPO application claims never issued.
`
`As originally filed, the U.S. claims did not require the driver to select a
`
`driving surface. Instead, the claims recited a control system that could
`
`automatically configure one or more vehicle subsystems according to a driving
`
`mode automatically selected by the vehicle based on the current driving surface.
`
`The Examiner, among other rejections, rejected the originally filed claims as
`
`anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 5,487,002 to Diller, describing an energy management
`
`control system capable of operating several vehicle subsystems in different driving
`
`modes, both with and without driver input. Ex. 1022, Page 308.
`
`Applicants canceled all of the original claims in favor of new claims that
`
`ultimately issued in the ’776 patent. The new claims abandoned automatic driving
`
`mode selection and instead recited a “driver input device for selecting a road
`
`surface.” Id. Applicants repeatedly emphasized driver selection of a road surface
`
`or driving surface as the alleged point of novelty:
`
`There is no evidence in this reference that the driver
`interface provides for input of the road surface by the
`driver. Further Diller fails to provide any teaching of
`controlling the vehicle performance as a function of the
`driver input of a road surface.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Id., Pages 308-309 (emphasis added), 461, 572. The Examiner then allowed the
`
`application and the ’776 patent issued.
`
`Patent Owner filed for reissue on September 30, 2016 in the face of
`
`invalidating prior art provided by Petitioner. Patent Owner used the reissue
`
`proceeding to add 41 new claims, highlighted in the declaration of error as
`
`requiring “at least two off-road modes . . . and an on-road mode” in their
`
`declaration of error. However, the new claim language does not save the validity
`
`of the challenged claims. As explained below, numerous prior art vehicles
`
`disclosed at least one on-road mode, and at least one off-road mode.4
`
`Adding a second configurable off-road mode to a vehicle control system
`
`already capable of configuring multiple driving modes is an obvious step that
`
`cannot confer patentability. See Duplication of Parts, MPEP 144.04(VI)(B)(citing
`
`In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) (holding that mere duplication of parts
`
`has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced));
`
`Supercell Oy v. Gree, Inc., No. PGR2018-8, 2019 WL 80477, *21 (PTAB Jan. 2,
`
`2019)(“it is axiomatic that duplication has no patentable significance”).
`
`
`4 For an overview of other relevant vehicles on the road as of April 2002, see the
`accompanying Declaration of Dr. Glenn R. Bower. Ex. 1004, ¶¶30-129.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`V. STATE OF THE ART
`Porsche Pioneered Driver Selection of On and Off-Road Surfaces Years
`before the ’828 Patent
`Porsche originally created the 959 as an off-road rally race car. See Ex.
`
`1031.
`
`The production version of the Porsche 959 pictured below was developed in
`
`the mid-1980’s and included many advanced features in multiple areas of
`
`automotive engineering. Ex. 1002A, 265, col. 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`The Porsche 959 was a limited vehicle-series “intended to prove how
`
`futuristic high tech can be made practical in a sophisticated touring car.” Ex.
`
`1002A, 265, col. 1. Porsche’s design motivations included the “highest active
`
`driving safety possible” and performance “under difficult conditions, such as
`
`winter weather or driving on rough roads.” Id., 266, col. 3.
`
`The 959 Art solved the same problem posed in the ’828 patent—over-
`
`complication due to many configuration options for the driver. Porsche’s
`
`engineers explained that operation of the 959 remained simple, “despite the
`
`numerous expansions of conventional vehicle technology.” Ex. 1002D, 512, col.
`
`2.
`
`The Porsche 959 “has four programs [“Traction,” “Ice, snow,” “Wet,” and
`
`“Dry”] which can be selected to suit road conditions or task in hand by moving a
`
`stalk on the steering column.” Ex. 1003, 52, col. 1. The selected program is
`
`displayed in the instrument panel by illumination of one of the four lights arranged
`
`vertically down the center of the instrument display:
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Id., 54; Ex. 1002B, 356. Porsche’s engineers described this control system as
`
`“open[ing] a wide area of promising development options for the future.” Ex.
`
`1002B, 356, col. 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`For this proceeding, a POSA would be someone with a bachelors degree (or
`
`higher) in a suitable engineering discipline (for example electrical or mechanical
`
`engineering) and at least three years of additional automotive design experience,
`
`for example experience calibrating and designing powertrain, braking, and
`
`suspension subsystems (or a person of commensurate experience). Ex. 1004,
`
`Declaration of Glenn Bower, ¶17.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Patent Owner appears to dispute that snow, grass, and gravel are “off-road
`
`modes.” The intrinsic evidence shows that they are.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` “In claim construction, this court gives primacy to the language of the
`
`claims, followed by the specification. Additionally, the prosecution history . . .
`
`serves as intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction.” Tempo Lighting,
`
`Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “[T]he specification ‘is
`
`always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive;
`
`it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citation omitted).
`
` Independent claim 30 recites “at least two off-road modes” and “an on-road
`
`mode.” Ex. 1001, 21:40-44. Claim 31 depends from claim 30 and defines “the
`
`first off road mode” as one “suitable for driving on grass and/or gravel and/or
`
`snow.” Id., 21:50-54. The claim structure expressly includes driving on grass,
`
`gravel, or snow as an “off-road mode.” See Wright Medical Tech., Inc. v.
`
`Osteonics Corp., 122 F.3d 1440, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[W]e must not interpret
`
`an independent claim in a way that is inconsistent with a claim which depends
`
`from it.”).
`
`Other claims in the ’828 patent define driving on snow, grass, or gravel as
`
`examples of an “off-road mode”:
`
` the “first off-road mode is a low friction mode . . . arranged to be
`
`suitable for driving on snow and grass.” (Id., claim 26);
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` “a first off-road mode is a low friction mode in which the subsystem
`
`configurations are . . . arranged to be suitable for driving on grass,
`
`gravel, and/or snow.” (Id., claim 52).
`
` “the first off-road mode is arranged to be suitable for driving on
`
`gravel.” (Id., claim 25).
`
`The ’828 patent specification, Figures 5 and 6, lists several exemplary off-
`
`road modes consisting of “a grass mode, a sand mode, a boulder or rock crawl
`
`mode and a mud mode, and also a rough road mode.” Ex. 1001, 9:67-10:2. The
`
`’828 patent specification repeatedly characterizes driving on snow, grass, or gravel
`
`as examples of an off-road, low-friction driving mode:
`
` “For example the two low friction modes may comprise a mud mode
`
`suitable for traveling through deep mud, and another low friction
`
`mode suitable for driving in snow, on grass, or on gravel.” Id., 4:18-
`
`21; see also id., 13:55-58, 16:57-59.
`
`Patent Owner directly linked an “off-road mode” to driving on snow or grass
`
`during reissue prosecution. With regard to application claim 34 (issued claim 26),
`
`Patent Owner stated:
`
`Claim 34 also includes the limitations that a first-off road mode
`is a low friction mode that is arranged to be suitable for driving
`on snow and grass. Col. 3, Lines 40-42 states that the driving
`modes may include at least one low friction mode, and Col. 4,
`Lines 11-14 states that a low friction mode may be a snow or
`grass mode.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1021, Page 522. And with regard to application claim 38, (issued claim
`
`30), Patent Owner stated:
`
`
`
`Referring to FIG. 13, there is shown a rotary selector
`configured such that the off-road modes are selectable in the
`order of the on-road mode (i.e., the “standard mode”), a first
`off-road mode (i.e., grass/gravel/snow), and a second off-road
`mode (i.e., mud/ruts).
`
`Id., Page 523. Figure 13 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 13.
`
`A POSA reading the ’828 patent would understand driving on snow or ice is
`
`an “off-road mode,” regardless of whether the snow or ice covers a paved roadway
`
`or some other subsurface, because snow and ice are innately slippery “off-road”
`
`conditions. Ex. 1004, ¶170. The ’828 patent does not distinguish the subsurface—
`
`paved or unpaved—that lies beneath the snow or ice. Id., ¶¶170-171.
`
`As a matter of claim construction, snow, grass, and gravel are “off-road
`
`modes.”
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`VIII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 30 AND 32 ARE OBVIOUS OVER THE 959
`ART
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between
`
`the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which that subject matter pertains. KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). “The combination of familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`than yield predictable results.” Id., 416. “If a person of ordinary skill can
`
`implement a predictable variation, § 103