Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 15
`Date: January 9, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2012-00001 (JL)
`Patent 6,778,074
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Lead Administrative Patent Judge, JAMESON
`LEE and JOSIAH COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION TO INITIATE
`TRIAL FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner Garmin International Inc. et al. requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-20 of US Patent 6,778,074 (’074 Patent) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et
`
`seq. The Patent Owner, Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC., has waived its right to
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`file a preliminary response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b). (Paper 10). We have
`
`
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`
`
`The standard for instituting inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a) which provides:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be
`instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in
`the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313
`shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1-20 on the basis of the
`
`following items of prior art:
`
`US 6,633,811 (Aumayer)
`
`US 6,515,596 (Awada)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` October 14, 2003
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`February 4, 2003
`
`
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`German DE 19755470 A1 (Tegethoff)
`English Translation of Tegethoff
`
`
`JP H07-182598 (Hamamura)
`English Translation of Hamamura
`
`US 5,375,043 (Tokunaga)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` September 24, 1998
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`
`July 21, 1995
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`
`December 20, 1994
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`US 3,980,041 (Evans)
`
`US 2,711,153 (Wendt)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`September 14, 1976
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`June 21, 1955
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`
`
`In this opinion, citations to Tegethoff and Hamamura are made with respect
`
`to their respective English translations noted above.
`
`
`
`Petitioner expressly asserts these grounds of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 20 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Aumayer.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Tegethoff.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`
`
`
`anticipated by Tokunaga.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Claims 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, and 16 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Aumayer and Evans.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over Aumayer, Evans, and Wendt.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Claims 3, 4, and 5 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 as obvious over Tegethoff and Evans.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 20 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tegethoff and
`
`Awada.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Claims 14, 15, and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 as obvious over Tegethoff, Awada, and Evans.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over Tegethoff, Awada, Evans, and Wendt.
`
`
`
`10. Claims 10 and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`as obvious over Tokunaga and Hamamura.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`Our decision hinges on the meaning of “integrally attached” in independent
`
`claims 1 and 10.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`
`
`Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the AIA, the Board
`
`interprets claim terms by applying the broadest reasonable construction in the
`
`context of the specification in which the claims reside. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`Also, we give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as would
`
`
`
`be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc). That ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`applies unless the inventor as a lexicographer has set forth a special meaning for a
`
`term. Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998); York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568,
`
`1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996). When an inventor acts as a lexicographer, the definition
`
`must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw
`
`PLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`
`
`If we need not rely on a feature to give meaning to what the inventor means
`
`by a claim term, that feature would be “extraneous” and should not be read into the
`
`claim. Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1249. The construction that stays true to the
`
`claim language and most naturally aligns with the inventor’s description is likely
`
`the correct interpretation. See Id., 158 F.3d at 1254.
`
`
`
`In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a
`
`person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim
`
`construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely
`
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d at 1314. In this case, Petitioner sets forth no claim construction that is
`
`purportedly different between that from the perspective of one with ordinary skill
`
`in the art on the one hand and that of lay persons on the other. We have no basis to
`
`think differently and to conclude otherwise. So for purposes of this decision we
`
`proceed on the basis that the plain and ordinary meaning of words in their common
`
`usage applies, albeit taken in the context of the disclosure of the ‘074 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`The Invention of the ‘074 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`The disclosed invention of the ‘074 Patent is directed to a speed limit
`
`indicator and method for displaying speed and the relevant speed limit for use in
`
`connection with vehicles. (Spec. 1:9-11). Specifically, the speed indicator
`
`displays the current speed of a vehicle and how it relates to the legal speed limit for
`
`the current location in which the vehicle is traveling. (Spec. 1:13-16). It provides
`
`the benefit of eliminating the need for the driver to take eyes off the road to look
`
`for speed limit signs and to resolve any confusion that might exist as to what is the
`
`current legal speed limit. (Spec. 1:22-25).
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the specifically disclosed embodiment:
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a specifically disclosed embodiment
`
`Speedometer 12 is mounted on dashboard 26. (Spec. 5:8-9). Speedometer
`
`
`
`12 has a backplate 14 made of plastic, speed denoting markings 16 painted on
`
`
`
`backplate 14, a colored display 18 made of red plastic filter, and a plastic needle 20
`
`rotatably mounted in the center of backplate 14. (Spec. 8-11). A global
`
`positioning receiver 22 is positioned adjacent to speedometer 12 and other gauges
`
`typically present on a vehicle dashboard 26 are included. (Spec. 5:13-15).
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`Referring to a flowchart provided in Figure 2 with numerical references to
`
`
`
`individual steps and not individual parts, the specification of the ‘074 Patent
`
`describes operation of the speed limit indicator as follows (Spec. 5:25-39):
`
`Uploading unit 38 uploads current data to a regional speed limit
`database 40. The global positioning system receiver 42 tracks the
`vehicle’s location and speed, and identifies the relevant speed limit
`from the database for that location. The global positioning system
`receiver compares the vehicle’s speed and the relevant speed limit 44,
`and uses a tone generator 46 to generate a tone in the event that the
`vehicle’s speed exceeds the relevant speed limit. The speed limit
`information is sent from the global positioning system receiver to a
`filter control unit 48. The control unit adjusts the color filter so
`that the speeds above the legal speed limit are displayed in red 50
`while the legal speeds are displayed in white 52. This is
`accomplished by the control unit rotating the red filter disc 54 to
`the appropriate degree. (Emphasis added.)
`
`Claims 1 and 10 are the only independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
`
`
`
`below:
`
`1.
`
`A speed limit indicator comprising:
`
`
`
`a colored display to delineate which speed readings are in
`
`violation of the speed limit at a vehicle’s current location;
`
`
`
`a display controller connected to said colored display, wherein
`
`said display controller adjusts said colored display independently of
`said speedometer to continuously update the delineation of which
`speed readings are in violation of the speed limit at a vehicle’s present
`location. (Emphasis added.)
`
`Claim 1 requires that the speedometer be “integrally attached” to the colored
`
`a speedometer integrally attached to said colored display; and
`
`
`
`display. Claim 10 is the same, as it also recites: “a speedometer integrally attached
`
`to said colored display.”
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`Claim 20 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`uploading current information to regional speed limit database;
`
`determining vehicle location and speed;
`
`20. A method of determining speed, the relevant speed
`
`
`limit, and displaying same, which comprises the steps of:
`
`
`
`
`
`obtaining speed limit for said vehicle location from said
`
`database;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`modifying the limit indicator as defined in claim 1 to reflect
`
`which speeds are below said speed limit and which speeds exceed said
`speed limit. (Emphasis added.)
`
`In its last clause, claim 20 specifically refers to the structure of the speed
`
`comparing vehicle speed to said speed limit;
`
`generating tone if said vehicle speed exceeds said speed limit;
`
`sending speed limit to display control unit; and
`
`
`
`limit indicator of claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is dependent on claim 1 and also
`
`includes the limitation that the speedometer is integrally attached to the colored
`
`display. Petitioner has not taken any contrary position in the Petition.
`
`
`
`Petitioner does not make known its construction of “integrally attached.”
`
`Instead, Petitioner states that the term has to mean, in this proceeding, what the
`
`Patent Owner asserts it means in the infringement suits the Patent owner has filed
`
`against various parties including Petitioner. That argument is without merit. The
`
`meaning of claim terms is not governed by what the Patent Owner says they mean
`
`in filing an infringement suit based on the ’074 Patent. There is no reason to
`
`assume that the Patent Owner’s litigation position is correct. Litigation positions
`
`taken subsequent to issuance of the patent are unreliable. See Phillips v. AWH
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d at 1318. In any event, the Petition itself does not disclose or
`
`
`
`discuss the Patent Owner’s position and Petitioner even states that the Patent
`
`Owner’s litigation position in the infringement suits is not necessarily correct.
`
`(Petition 18: n.1).
`
`
`
`On this record, we construe “integrally attached” as applied to the colored
`
`display and the speedometer in the context of the disclosure of the ’074 Patent as
`
`meaning that the two elements are discrete parts physically joined together as a
`
`unit without each part losing its own separate identity. In the combined unit, the
`
`colored display is still the colored display and the speedometer is still the
`
`speedometer; each retains its own separate identity. The specification of the ‘074
`
`Patent discloses that colored display 18 is a separate item from backplate 14 and
`
`from speed denoting marking 16 on backplate 14. (‘074 Patent 5:9-12). Claim 1
`
`even expressly recites that the display controller adjusts the colored display
`
`independently of the speedometer. In that connection, we note further that Patent
`
`Owner’s amendment in the prosecution history of the ‘074 Patent, dated January 9,
`
`2004, states (Ex. 1013 7:23-25):
`
`Support for the amendment to specify that the speedometer is
`integrally attached to the colored display is found in the specification
`at p.7, lines 28-30, p.8, lines 21-23, and in Fig. 1, 3, and 4.
`
`The above-quoted portions of the specification describe speedometer
`
`
`
`backplate 14 and speed denoting markings 16 painted on backplate 14 as separate
`
`and discrete elements from the colored display 18. Petitioner has not presented a
`
`reasonable basis to broaden out the interpretation of “integrally attached” to cover
`
`the case of a single electronic display that itself operates both as a speedometer and
`
`a colored display. The Patent Owner relied on separate components as providing
`
`written description support for the term.
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Aumayer discloses a method for displaying vehicle speed. (Abstract:1-2).
`
`Aumayer
`
`Also, the speed limit at the current location may be displayed on a speed scale by
`
`highlighting a scale mark or producing a scale mark of a different length or color.
`
`(Abstract:9-12). The current location of the vehicle is determined by use of a GPS
`
`locating device. (Aumayer 4:41-45). The speed limit at the current location of the
`
`vehicle is retrieved from a data storage media according to the determined current
`
`location. (Abstract:13-15; Aumayer 4:45-53). Aumayer also describes (Aumayer
`
`7:34-37):
`
`The display device 211 comprises a display controller and a display
`medium, for example a display screen provided by a liquid crystal
`display device, a plasma screen or a cathode ray tube. (Emphasis
`added.)
`
`Figure 2d of Aumayer is reproduced below, which illustrates an electronic
`
`
`
`display according to practicing Aumayer’s disclosed method:
`
`
`Figure 2d shows a display according to Aumayer’s method
`
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`With respect to Figure 2d, Aumayer describes that the determined speed
`
`
`
`limit of 80 km/hr for the vehicle’s current location is shown by the speed scale
`
`value 124 and speed scale mark 127 at the speed limit, both of which are
`
`highlighted or emphasized such as by use of color different from that used for the
`
`remainder of the display device, by enlargement, and/or by widening, on the
`
`electronic display. (Aumayer 6:21-27). Aumayer expressly states that the speed
`
`limit is highlighted or emphasized by the scale mark 127. (Aumayer 6:33-35).
`
`
`
`Aumayer further states that “it is also possible to use a commercial
`
`combined apparatus with mechanical display elements for the display device 211.”
`
`(Aumayer 7:42-44). Specific details of that mechanical embodiment are not
`
`described. However, Aumayer states that for example, “a speed limit can be made
`
`visible by background lighting in a different color at the scale mark associated with
`
`the corresponding speed limit.” (Aumayer 7:48-51).
`
`Tegethoff
`
`
`
`Tegethoff discloses an image display system for use on a vehicle, which
`
`includes an image screen and an image generating computer. (Tegethoff 4:2:16-
`
`18). The image displayed on the screen mimics that of analog mechanical pointer
`
`instruments, and in their outer image form cannot be distinguished from purely
`
`mechanical devices. (Tegethoff 4:2:34-40). Figure 2 of Tegethoff is reproduced
`
`below, which illustrates an image of a speedometer and other useful information
`
`(Tegethoff 5:2:30-32):
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows an embodiment of Tegethoff’s image display
`
`
`
`
`
`On the image shown above is displayed a mark 5 for indicating a currently
`
`permissible maximum speed for the road section where the vehicle is currently
`
`located. (Tegethoff 6:1:9-12). According to Tegethoff, that speed limit can be set
`
`according to an element for navigation and a database. (Tegethoff 6:1:13-15).
`
`Tegethoff describes that the critical markings such as that showing the speed limit
`
`can be colored red. (Tegethoff 7:1:38-45).
`
`Tokunaga
`
`
`
`Tokunaga discloses a lighting unit capable of varying the luminescence and
`
`color of illumination with respect to a target to be lit thereby to provide an
`
`effective display of the target, and capable of itself serving as a display unit.
`
`(Abstract 1-5). Tokunaga discloses two embodiments of the lighting unit, one
`
`shown in Figure 1and one shown in Figure 3:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures 1 and 3 illustrate separate embodiments of a lighting unit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In both embodiments, there is a light guide plate 1. In the Figure 1
`
`embodiment, LEDs 2a-2d are directly fitted to the side edges of the light guide
`
`plate, and in the Figure 3 embodiment, LEDs 2a-2d are indirectly provided to the
`
`side edges of the light guide plate 1 through optical transmission media such as
`
`optical fibers 5a-5d. (Tokunaga 2:12-22). The light guide plate 1 is suitable for
`
`use as a backlight for a liquid crystal display panel on a portable electronic device.
`
`(Tokunaga 2:37-41). Figure 2 shows the light guide plate 1 disposed next to a
`
`liquid crystal display panel:
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates a partial sectional view of light guide plate 1
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`
`Tokunaga describes that a liquid crystal display panel 3 is disposed on top of
`
`the light guide plate 1 so as to permit the content of the liquid crystal display to be
`
`irradiated with light sent from the light guide plate 1, and that under the light guide
`
`plate 1 there is an electronic circuit board 4 for operating the liquid crystal display
`
`panel. (Tokunaga 2:66 to 3:5). Tokunaga describes that the lighting unit can be
`
`used to illuminate the liquid crystal display panel of a portable electronic game
`
`machine such as GAME BOY®. (Tokunaga 3:54-59). Tokunaga also describes
`
`that the liquid crystal display panel of the game machine is operated according to
`
`image signals from an operation circuit and the light guide plate 1 is incorporated
`
`into the game machine to illuminate the liquid crystal display. (Tokunaga 3:63-
`
`68).
`
`
`
`Tokunaga does not, however, describe specifically how the light guide
`
`plate 1 is put in position relative to liquid crystal display panel 3 or electronic
`
`circuit board 4. It is known only that the light guide plate 1 is incorporated into the
`
`overall game machine, that the liquid crystal display is disposed on one side, and
`
`that the electronic circuit board is disposed on the opposing side as shown in
`
`Figure 2.
`
`
`
`Tokunaga further states that although the description of the lighting unit
`
`provided in the disclosure is made by way of example in the context of a game
`
`machine, it would be obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art that the lighting
`
`unit has other applications such as illuminating the display surfaces of a vehicle
`
`speedometer. (Tokunaga 4:62-67). However, the statement of potential
`
`application elsewhere is only general and Tokunaga does not describe any specific
`
`structural implementation of the application of the lighting unit to a vehicle
`
`speedometer. Tokunaga does state that in the case of application to a vehicle
`
`speedometer, the color of the display light for the speedometer can be changed
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`from blue to red if the vehicle speed exceeds a legal speed limit. (Tokunaga 5:1-
`
`
`
`5). But it does not describe that the “legal speed limit” it refers to is one associated
`
`specifically to the current location of the vehicle.
`
`A.
`
`The alleged grounds based in whole or in part on Aumayer
`
`
`
`
`
`Each of independent claims 1 and 10 requires that the speedometer be
`
`“integrally attached” to the colored display. According to the petitioner, a single
`
`liquid crystal display screen such as that of Aumayer’s display device 211, which
`
`displays the image of both the speedometer and the colored scale mark 107
`
`showing the speed limit, satisfies the claim requirement of an integral attachment
`
`between a speedometer and a colored display. (Petition 18:1-4).
`
`
`
`
`
`For reasons already discussed above, on this record we construe “integrally
`
`attached” differently from the Petitioner. The single electronic display screen of
`
`Aumayer showing both the image of a speedometer and a colored scale mark
`
`indicating the current speed limit does not meet the claim recitation “integrally
`
`attached” as applied to a speedometer and a colored display. There, the
`
`speedometer and the colored display are not discrete and separately recognizable
`
`parts that are “integrally attached” to each other. Rather, the liquid crystal display
`
`screen is itself a single component which performs the function of both the
`
`speedometer and colored display.
`
`
`
`
`
`We recognized already that Aumayer states that “it is also possible to use a
`
`commercial combined apparatus with mechanical display elements for the display
`
`device 211.” (Aumayer 7:42-44). We also already recognized that Aumayer states
`
`that “a speed limit can be made visible by background lighting in a different color
`
`at the scale mark associated with the corresponding speed limit.” (Aumayer 7:48-
`
`51). None of that disclosure indicates that a colored display is necessarily
`
`integrally attached to the speedometer. No specific embodiment of a combined
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`apparatus with mechanical display elements is described in sufficient detail. Even
`
`Petitioner has not explained how such general disclosure meets the requirement of
`
`“integrally attached” between the speedometer and the colored display.
`
`
`
`
`
`A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
`
`claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference
`
`Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`
`
`Claims 2, 6-13, and 18-20 each depend directly or indirectly from either
`
`claim 1 or claim 10. Because Aumayer fails to disclose the “integrally attached”
`
`element of claims 1 and 10 as applied to the speedometer and the colored display,
`
`there is not a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail on its assertion
`
`that claims 1, 2, 6-13, and 18-20 are anticipated by Aumayer under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`
`
`The above-noted deficiency of Aumayer with respect to independent claim 1
`
`undermines Petitioner’s assertion of obviousness of claims 4 and 5 over Aumayer
`
`and Evans under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and claim 5
`
`depends on claim 4. Claims 4 and 5 recite the specific mechanical structure of a
`
`speedometer, such as a needle, an axle, and a cable (claim 4), and a backplate and a
`
`housing (claim 5). As applied by Petitioner to claims 4 and 5, Evans discloses all
`
`of those elements but does not cure the above-noted deficiency of Aumayer
`
`discussed in the context of independent claim 1 with regard to a colored display
`
`being “integrally attached” to the speedometer. There is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on its assertion that claims 4 and 5
`
`would have been obvious over Aumayer and Evans under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also asserts that claims 3 and 14-16 would have been obvious over
`
`Aumayer and Evans, and that claim 17 would have been obvious over Aumayer,
`
`Evans, and Wendt, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As applied by Petitioner to claims 3
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`and 14-16, Evans does seemingly disclose what Aumayer does not disclose, i.e., a
`
`
`
`colored display which is “integrally attached” to the speedometer. However, the
`
`above-noted deficiency of Aumayer is not cured by Petitioner’s reliance on Evans
`
`because Petitioner has not articulated a credible rationale for combining the
`
`teachings of Aumayer and Evans to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`Aumayer discloses an embodiment including each of the recited elements of
`
`independent claims 1 and 10 of the ’074 Patent, except for the requirement that the
`
`speedometer and the colored display are “integrally attached.” Claim 3 depends on
`
`claim 1 and recites that the colored display is a colored filter. Claim 14 depends on
`
`claim 10 and also recites that the colored display is a colored filter. Claim 15
`
`depends on claim 14 and claim 16 depends on claim 15.
`
`
`
`Evans discloses a combined vehicle speedometer and speed warning
`
`indicator. (Evans 1:68 to 2:23). The speed warning indicator is installed on the
`
`speedometer cover. (Evans 2:16-17). It comprises a transparent plate attached to
`
`the transparent front cover of the speedometer. (Evans 2:1-3). Evans describes the
`
`speed warning indicator as follows (Evans 2:3-8):
`
`The plate bears warning indicia, for example, a special color and/or a
`plurality of marks, spaces, ridges, etc. so that when the speedometer
`dial is viewed through it, a portion of the dial representing speeds in
`excess of a predetermined limit are demarked by the warning indicia.
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`Evans describes that a driver can tell what speeds are under or in excess of
`
`
`
`the speed limit by making a swift reference to the speedometer through the
`
`indicator and see whether the speedometer needle is in or out of the warning area
`
`on the indicator plate. (Evans 2:9-13). Evans further describes that the indicator
`
`plate can be made adjustable for changes in the speed limit. (Evans 2:18-19). As
`
`shown in Figure 3, the red colored plate 12 is positioned on speed dial 30 so that
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`only the portion of the dial which contains numbers representing speeds in excess
`
`
`
`of the speed limit is overlaid by the plate:
`
`Figure 3 illustrates a front elevation view of the
`combined speedometer and speed warning indicator
`
`
`
`The colored filter plate 12 of Evans is a fixed structure integrally attached to
`
`
`
`
`
`the speedometer. However, although the plate may be removed and replaced, in its
`
`operational state it is a fixed, non-moveable, and non-adjustable structure. In that
`
`
`
`connection, Evans states (Evans 3:37-44):
`
`It will be understood that plate 12 can, if desired, be removed from
`cover 24 and either another similar plate of different configuration can
`be substituted or plate 12 can be recut and repositioned or merely
`repositioned on cover 24 so as to extend over another range of speed
`numbers on dial 30. For example this would be desirable in the event
`that the 55 mph current speed limit were abolished.
`
`With regard to claims 3 and 14-16, Petitioner has not explained why one
`
`
`
`with ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to use the fixed and immovable
`
`colored plate 12 of Evans in combination with the dynamic display system of
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`Aumayer which provides the benefits of a continuously controlled and updated
`
`
`
`colored display to indicate the applicable speed limit for the vehicle at its current
`
`location.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, there is not a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
`
`prevail on its assertion that claims 3 and 14-16 would have been obvious over
`
`Aumayer and Evans under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`Claim 17 depends on claim 14, and states that the display controller rotates
`
`the colored filter independently of the speedometer to continuously update the
`
`delineation of which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit at a
`
`vehicle’s present location. For claim 17, Petitioner relies on Wendt in combination
`
`with Aumayer and Evans. Wendt and Evans in combination seemingly cures the
`
`above-noted deficiency of Aumayer with regard to independent claim 10 and of
`
`Aumayer and Evans with regard to claim 14. That is because Wendt teaches the
`
`desirability of a rotatably moveable structure to indicate the speed limit.
`
`
`
`The combined teachings of Aumayer, Evans, and Wendt appears to account
`
`for all the features of claim 17. Accordingly, there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`the petitioner would prevail on its assertion that 17 would have been obvious over
`
`Aumayer, Evans, and Wendt under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`Because claim 17 depends on claim 14 which depends on claim 10, and
`
`because dependent claims include all of the features of the claims on which they
`
`depend, Petitioner also has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on
`
`demonstrating that claims 10 and 14 would have been obvious over the combined
`
`teachings of Aumayer, Evans, and Wendt. We recognize that Petitioner did not
`
`specifically articulate a ground of unpatentability against claims 10 and 14 based
`
`on Aumayer, Evans, and Wendt. However, we exercise discretion to recognize
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`that the assertion was implicitly made by Petitioner’s alleging that claim 17 would
`
`
`
`have been obvious over Aumayer, Evans, and Wendt.
`
`
`
`For claims 1-9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-20, we have not considered the ground
`
`of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on the combined teachings of
`
`Aumayer, Evans, and Wendt, and take no position in that regard. In this petition,
`
`that ground of obviousness has not been asserted by Petitioner against those
`
`claims, either expressly or by implication.
`
`B.
`
`The alleged grounds based in whole or in part on Tegethoff
`
`
`
`Each of independent claims 1 and 10 requires that the speedometer be
`
`“integrally attached” to the colored display. Tegethoff shares the same deficiency
`
`in that regard with Aumayer as discussed above. According to the Petitioner, a
`
`single digital electronic display screen 37 that displays the image of both the
`
`speedometer and the colored tick mark 5 showing the speed limit satisfies the
`
`claim requirement of an integral attachment between a speedometer and a colored
`
`display. (Petition 22:1-4).
`
`
`
`For reasons already discussed above, on this record we construe “integrally
`
`attached” differently from the Petitioner. The single digital electronic display
`
`screen 37 of Tegethoff displaying both the image of a speedometer and a colored
`
`tick mark 5 indicating the current speed limit does not meet the claim recitation
`
`“integrally attached” as applied to a speedometer and a colored display. There, the
`
`speedometer and the colored display are not discrete and separately recognizable
`
`parts that are “integrally attached” to each other. Rather, the screen performs the
`
`function of both the speedometer and colored display.
`
`
`
`Claims 2, 6,and 7 each depend directly from claim 1. Because Tegethoff
`
`fails to disclose the “integrally attached” element of claim 1 as applied to the
`
`speedometer and the colored display, there is not a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`Petitioner would prevail on its assertion that claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are anticipated by
`
`Tegethoff under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`The above-noted deficiency of Tegethoff with respect to independent
`
`claim 1 undermines Petitioner’s assertion of obviousness of claims 4 and 5 over
`
`Tegethoff and Evans under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and
`
`claim 5 depends on claim 4. Claims 4 and 5 recite the specific mechanical
`
`structure of a speedometer, such as a needle, an axle, and a cable (claim 4), and a
`
`backplate and a housing (claim 5). As applied by Petitioner to claims 4 and 5,
`
`Evans discloses all of those elements but does not cure the above-noted deficiency
`
`of Tegethoff discussed in the context of independent claim 1 with regard to a
`
`colored display being “integrally attached” to the speedometer. There is not a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its assertion that claims 4
`
`and 5 would have been obvious over Tegethoff and Evans under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner also asserts that claim 3 would have been obvious over Tegethoff
`
`and Evans under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As applied by Petitioner to claim 3, Evans does
`
`disclose what Aumay