`
`Case:
`
`PATENT
`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
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`
`Patent No.:
`
`6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed:
`
`Issued:
`
`Inventors:
`
`Title:
`
`March 18, 2002
`
`August 17, 2004
`
`Giuseppe A. Cuozzo
`
`Speed Limit Indicator and Method for Displaying Speed and
`the Relevant Speed Limit
`
`Docket No.:
`
`CUO0001-RE
`
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO DECISION TO INITIATE TRIAL
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 2
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC (the “Patent Owner”) hereby responds to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Decision to Initiate Trial for Inter Partes Review of claims 10, 14, and 17 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 (the “’074 Patent”).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On September 16, 2012, Garmin International, Inc., et al. (“Petitioner”) filed
`
`a Petition for Inter Partes Review under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 (“Petition”),
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1-20 of the ‘074 Patent. On January 9,
`
`2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a Decision to Initiate
`
`Trial for Inter Partes Review (“Order”) solely as to claims 10, 14 and 17 of the
`
`‘074 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of:
`
`(1) the combination of U.S. Patent No. 6,633,811 (“Aumayer”), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 3,980,041 (“Evans”), and U.S. Patent No. 2,711,153 (“Wendt”); and
`
`(2) the combination of DE 19755470 A1 (“Tegethoff”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,515,596 (“Awada “), Evans and Wendt.
`
`Paper 15 at 26. The Board denied the Petition as to every other allegation of
`
`unpatentability asserted by Petitioner as to claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-20.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 3
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
`
`By this response, Patent Owner respectfully submits the following
`
`arguments and supporting evidence:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The proper construction of “integrally attached” is “Joined or
`
`Combined to Work as a Complete Unit.”
`
`The ’074 patent antedates the Aumayer and Awada references
`
`because Inventor Giuseppe Cuozzo conceived the subject matter of
`
`claim 10 and diligently reduced his invention to practice from before
`
`October 19, 2000, as detailed in his declaration under 37 CFR 1.131
`
`(attached hereto as Exhibit 3001).
`
`C. Claim 10 is patentable over the combinations of alleged prior art
`
`references to Aumayer, Evans, Wendt, Tegethoff, and Awada.
`
`ARGUMENTS
`
`A. The Proper Construction of “Integrally Attached” is “Joined or
`Combined to Work as a Complete Unit.”
`
`In the Order initiating trial, the Board construed the term “integrally
`
`attached” in claim 10 to mean “discrete parts physically joined together as a unit
`
`without each part losing its own separate identity.” Paper 15 at 8. Though the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 4
`Board has not modified its construction, the Board noted in a subsequent order that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this construction is a “non-final interpretation.” Paper 26 at 2.1
`
`For the reasons set forth below, the Board should modify its construction of
`
`“integrally attached” to mean “joined or combined to work as a complete unit,”
`
`which is consistent the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, the intrinsic
`
`evidence and the understanding of one of skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction Reflects the Ordinary Meaning of
`“Integrally Attached.”
`
`The exemplary embodiments described in the specification support Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed construction of “integrally attached.” In describing an
`
`embodiment of the invention, the specification states, “Speedometer 12 has…a
`
`colored display 18….” ’074 Patent, col. 5, lines 8-10 (emphasis added). The
`
`colored display 18 is, like the speed denoting markings 16 and the needle 20, a
`
`component of the speedometer 12. Thus, the colored display 18 is joined or
`
`combined with the speedometer 12 to work as a unit, i.e., a speed limit indicator
`
`that provides an integrated display for the driver. Professor Morris opined that the
`
`“integrated display” describes the resultant combination of the speedometer and
`
`
`1 To the extent the Board’s decision on the patentability of claim 10 is not based upon the
`meaning of “integrally attached,” Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board either (1)
`find Patent Owner’s proposed construction is correct and enter its finding in its Order, or (2)
`withdraw its preliminary construction provided in the Order.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 5
`colored display that displays the speed and speed limit in the same location.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Morris Decl., (Exhibit 2002 to Paper 21), at ¶¶ 30-31.
`
`The Board’s construction would seemingly exclude the embodiment in
`
`which the colored display 18 is a component of the speedometer 12. The Board
`
`states that the “colored display 18 is a separate item from the backplate 14 and
`
`from speed denoting marking 16 on backplate 14,” and the specification describes
`
`“speedometer backplate 14 and speed denoting marking 16 painted on backplate 14
`
`as separate and discrete elements from the colored display 18.” Paper 15 at 8.
`
`First, the portion of the specification cited by the Board is a description of
`
`one exemplary embodiment of the invention, and the Board does not address the
`
`other exemplary embodiments in which the speedometer comprises a liquid crystal
`
`display and the colored display is a liquid crystal display. Prof. Morris explained
`
`how these disclosures, in his opinion, would teach one of skill in the art “to
`
`combine the speedometer readout with the speed limit information on the LCD.”
`
`Morris Decl., Exhibit 2002 to Paper 21, at ¶¶ 27-29. The resulting electronic
`
`embodiment would have a common LCD component shared by the speedometer
`
`and colored display. Id at 32.
`
`Second, the items cited by the Board – the backplate 14, the speed denoting
`
`markings 16, and the colored display 18 – are all components of the speedometer
`
`12. Claim 10 requires that the “speedometer” (not the “backplate” or “speed
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 6
`denoting markings”) is integrally attached to the colored display. Thus, while an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`exemplary embodiment of the invention describes the components of the
`
`speedometer 12 as separate and discrete elements, all of those components are
`
`joined or combined to the speedometer 12 to work as the inventive speed limit
`
`indicator.
`
`Therefore, for at least the above reasons, Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction, “joined or combined to work as a complete unit” properly includes
`
`the exemplary embodiments of the invention described in the ’074 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`The Specification’s Disclosure is Consistent With the Ordinary
`Meaning of “Integrally Attached.”
`
`There is no dispute that the ’074 Patent uses the term “integrally attached”
`
`according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Neither Petitioner nor the Board
`
`suggests the inventor acted as his own lexicographer and gave a special definition
`
`to the term. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term should
`
`govern.
`
`The word “attached” is generally defined to mean “connect[ed] or join[ed];
`
`to connect as an adjunct or associated part.” Webster’s II New College Dictionary
`
`72 (1999) (attached hereto as Exhibit 3002). The word “integrally” is generally
`
`defined to mean “essential to completeness; constituent; formed as a unit with
`
`another part.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 606 (10th ed. 2002)
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 7
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`(Exhibit 2001 to Paper 21).2 Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent
`
`
`
`with the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms, because the proposed
`
`construction includes the definitions of “attached” (“joined or combined”) and
`
`“integrally” (“joined to work as a complete unit”).
`
`The Board’s construction conflicts with the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`the term for at least two reasons. First, the Board’s construction adds several
`
`extraneous, and thus potentially narrowing, limitations to the term. For example,
`
`the Board’s construction requires “discrete parts” that are “physically” joined.
`
`There is no support for these limitations based on the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of the term “integrally attached,” as neither concept is found in any of the
`
`definitions.
`
`The Board also adds the limitation that the parts are joined “without each
`
`part losing its own separate identity.” In every mechanical and electrical situation
`
`in which two parts are attached, the parts always keep their respective identities.
`
`The only time “parts” might lose their separate identities is perhaps a chemical
`
`context in which a reaction takes place, and the resulting product cannot be
`
`separated into the original “parts.” However, that is certainly not the case here,
`
`and there is no support in the plain and ordinary meaning of “integrally attached”
`
`which supports the Board’s limitation.
`
`2 See also, The American Heritage Dictionary 667 (2d. College ed. 1991) (“essential or
`necessary for completeness; constituent . . . a complete unit”) (Exhibit 2001 to Paper 21).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 8
`Second, the Board’s construction does not give any substantive meaning to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the term “integrally.” The word “attached” without the “integrally” modifier is
`
`used in other claims of the ’074 Patent, and it appears that the Board’s construction
`
`would similarly apply to the meaning of “attached” alone. For example, claim 15
`
`recites, inter alia, “a needle” and “an axle having opposing ends with one end
`
`attached to said needle.” In this claim, the Board’s construction of “integrally
`
`attached” would apply to the use of “attached” – i.e., there are “discrete parts” (the
`
`axle and the needle) that are “physically joined together as a unit” (one end of the
`
`axle is physically joined with the needle) and “without each part losing its own
`
`separate identity” (the needle is still the needle and the axle is still the axle). Under
`
`claim construction law, each term in a claim must be given meaning. Innova/Pure
`
`Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction gives meaning to “integrally” in that the
`
`parts “work as a complete unit” such that one part is a component of the other part
`
`or a component is shared by the parts.
`
`The District Court of New Jersey reached a similar conclusion in Safety Rail
`
`Source, LLC v. Bilco Co., 656 F.Supp.2d 468 (D.N.J. 2009) in construing the term
`
`“integrally connecting.” In rejecting a proposed construction that merely required
`
`“that parts be joined to form a whole,” the Court reasoned that weight must be
`
`given to “integrally.” Id. at 483 (quoting Burns, Morris & Stewart Ltd. P’ship v.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 9
`Masonite Int’l Corp., 401 F.Supp.2d 692, 699-700 (E.D.Tex. 2005) (“If attached or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`connected is all that is meant, then what purpose is served by integrally? Integrally
`
`implies something that is part of the whole or is needed for completeness”)
`
`(internal quotations omitted) (citing Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary 606
`
`(10th ed. 2002))).3 Ultimately, the Safety Rail Source Court construed “integrally
`
`connecting” as: “integrally connecting requires that the connected pieces be joined
`
`so as to make up a single complete piece or unit, in such a way that the connection
`
`becomes part of [the single complete unit].” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner’s proposed construction, “joined or combined to
`
`work as a complete unit” comports with the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“integrally attached” and principles of claim construction.
`
`3.
`
`Doctrine of Claim Differentiation Supports Cuozzo Speed’s Proposed
`Construction.
`
`Fundamentally, an independent claim must have a broader scope than the
`
`claims which depend from it, and different terms in different claims are presumed
`
`to give each claim a different scope. Independent claim 10 recites that the
`
`“speedometer is integrally attached to the colored display.” Several claims which
`
`
`3
`In Sci. Specialties Inc. v. Thermo Fisher Sci. Inc., 684 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1191-1193 (N.D. Cal.
`2010), the district court considered the meaning of the modifier “integrally” added to claim
`terms implying that two pieces were contiguous: “integrally connected,” “integrally tethered,”
`“integral connection,” and “merges integrally.” Reasoning that “integral and integrally must
`mean something more than contiguous,” the court surveyed other decisions finding “integral to
`broadly mean forming a unit or to narrowly refer to being formed in one piece.” Id. at
`1191(citing decisions) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 10
`depend directly or indirectly from claim 10 are presumed to have a narrower scope
`
`
`
`
`
`
`than claim 10, and thus support Patent Owner’s proposed construction of
`
`“integrally attached.” Similarly, the limitations recited in the dependent claims of
`
`claim 10 illustrate why the Board’s construction is overly narrow and that claims
`
`10 does, in fact, encompass the case of a single electronic display that itself
`
`operates as a speedometer (or at least display portion of a speedometer) and a
`
`colored display.
`
`Claim 10 and the dependent structure of certain of its dependent claims are
`
`shown schematically below to illustrate that the term “integrally attached” should
`
`be given a construction which encompasses a single electronic display that
`
`operates as a speedometer (or at least the display portion of a speedometer) and a
`
`colored display.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 11
`
`Claim 10 – “speedometer integrally attached to said colored display”
`
`Claim 12 – “colored
`display is a liquid crystal
`display”
`
`Claim 14 – “colored
`display is a colored filter”
`
`Claim 18 – “speedometer
`comprises a liquid crystal
`display”
`
`Claim 15 – “speedometer
`comprises:” needle, axle,
`and speedometer cable
`
`Claim 16 – “speedometer
`further comprises:”
`backplate, speed denoting
`markings, and housing
`
`
`
`Based upon the limitations recited in the dependent claims, “integrally
`
`attached” in claim 10 should be construed to encompass both mechanical and
`
`electronic embodiments of the invention. Dependent claim 14 is directed to a
`
`mechanical embodiment of the colored display of the present invention, and
`
`dependent claims 15 and 16 recite limitations which are directed to a mechanical
`
`embodiment of the speedometer (claim 15 – “said speedometer comprises”; claim
`
`16 – “said speedometer further comprises”) of the present invention. For example,
`
`the axle, the speedometer cable, the backplate, the plurality of speed denoting
`
`markings affixed to the backplate, and the housing enclosing the backplate are
`
`mechanical elements of an embodiment of the speedometer. In contrast, claims 12
`
`and 18 are directed to electronic embodiments of the invention. Professor Morris
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 12
`explained that one skilled in the art would understand these distinct mechanical
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and electronic embodiments from the disclosure, because modifying a mechanical
`
`embodiment with a rotating LCD colored display, for example, would not make
`
`sense. See Exhibit 2002 to Paper 21 at ¶¶ 24-28.
`
`Dependent claim 12 requires the colored display to be a liquid crystal
`
`display, and dependent claim 18 requires that the speedometer comprises a liquid
`
`crystal display. Neither claim 12 nor claim 18 require the speedometer’s liquid
`
`crystal display to be separate from the colored display’s liquid crystal display. In
`
`fact, the use of the open-ended term “comprising” and the antecedent “a” in claim
`
`18 indicates that the speedometer includes, but is not limited to, “one or more”
`
`liquid crystal displays. It is commonly understood that the “indefinite article[s] ‘a’
`
`or ‘an’ in patent parlance carr[y] the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended
`
`claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic
`
`Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See also Robert C. Faber,
`
`Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting 531 (3d ed. 1990). Thus, claim 18
`
`would certainly encompass a single electronic display that itself operates as a
`
`speedometer (or at least display portion of a speedometer) and a colored display.
`
`Because claim 18 depends from claim 10, claim 10 has a broader scope than claim
`
`18, and “integrally attached” should not exclude a single electronic display that
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 13
`itself operates as a speedometer (or at least display portion of a speedometer) and a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`colored display.
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “integrally attached,” “joined or
`
`combined to work as a unit,” encompasses both the mechanical and electronic
`
`embodiments of the invention, and given the recitation of dependent claims 12 and
`
`18, must encompass a single electronic display that itself operates as a speedometer
`
`(or at least display portion of a speedometer) and a colored display.
`
`B. Cuozzo Antedates Aumayer and Awada.
`Each of the Board’s grounds for unpatentability of claim 10 rely upon
`
`Aumayer (effective date: October 19, 2000) or Awada (effective date: March 8,
`
`2001), which Petitioner asserted as prior art under § 102(e). Inventor Giuseppe
`
`Cuozzo’s Rule 131 declaration (the “Cuozzo Declaration”) establishes that he
`
`conceived the invention of claim 10 from a point in time prior to the effective dates
`
`of Aumayer and Awada, and diligently reduced his invention to practice.
`
`1.
`
`Cuozzo’s Declaration Establishes Conception of the Invention of
`Claim 10 Prior to October 19, 2000.
`
`Cuozzo conceived the invention of claim 10 in November 1999 when he was
`
`cited for speeding. Exhibit 3001 at ¶¶ 8-9. Cuozzo corroborates his conception
`
`date with evidence of the date of his citation from an abstract of his driving record
`
`(Id. at ¶ 8 and exhibits) and nearly identical statement to Invention Submission
`
`Corporation (“ISC”) that he developed his idea “driving one day.” Id. at ¶ 12. He
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 14
`further corroborates his conception date by showing evidence that the car in which
`
`
`
`
`
`
`he conceived of the invention was destroyed in an accident in May 2000. Id. at ¶
`
`10 and exhibits.
`
`Further corroborating Cuozzo’s conception is the Disclosure he prepared for
`
`ISC. Id. at ¶¶ 11-12 and exhibits. Cuozzo states he delivered and signed the
`
`finalized “Disclosure to ISC and Record of Invention” (Exhibit E to Exhibit 3000)
`
`on October 30, 2000, showing that he possessed the complete invention before
`
`then. In fact, Cuozzo states he had first visited ISC’s offices at least several weeks
`
`before October 30 for the purpose of obtaining a patent on his invention. Id. at ¶
`
`11. Cuozzo is certain he did this before the October 19, 2000, effective date of
`
`Aumayer. Id.
`
`2.
`
`Cuozzo’s Declaration and Corroborating Evidence Demonstrates He
`Possessed the Complete Invention of Claim 10 Before October 19,
`2000.
`
`Claim 10 generally recites a speed limit indicator comprising (i) a global
`
`positioning system receiver; (ii) a display controller connected to the GPS receiver
`
`that adjusts a colored display in response to signals from the GPS receiver to
`
`continuously update the delineation of which speed readings are in violation of the
`
`speed limit at the vehicle’s present location; and (iii) a speedometer integrally
`
`attached to said colored display. An excerpt from Cuozzo’s Disclosure (Exhibit E
`
`to Exhibit 3000 at page 3) is reproduced here:
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 15
`
`
`
`(i)
`
`Cuozzo’s Disclosure describes a GPS receiver:
`
`The on-board navigation system uses GPS (Global Positioning System)
`satellites and BMW technology . . . This GPS navigation system runs on
`a CD ROM that has all the information and street names . . . the speed
`limit with the street . . ..
`
`(ii) Cuozzo’s Disclosure also describes connecting the GPS receiver to a
`
`display controller (“all you have to do is wire the speedometer to the GPS”) that
`
`adjusts a colored display in response to signals from the GPS receiver (“the
`
`speedometer will show 0-25 blue or white and 25-on red . . . or if the[] street speed
`
`limit changes on that street you will see it change on the speedometer”). Cuozzo’s
`
`disclosure provides that the speed limit information used to adjust the colored
`
`display comes from the GPS receiver (“CD-Rom with the information of both
`
`street name and speed limits . . . will also have school zone and any other speed
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 16
`limits”). Cuozzo’s Disclosure describing the color of the vehicle’s speedometer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`output (from blue or white to red) changing as the speed limit for the street the
`
`vehicle is traveling supports the claim’s functional recitation of continuously
`
`updating the delineation of which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit
`
`at the vehicle’s present location.
`
`Although Cuozzo’s Disclosure does not use the term “display controller,” it
`
`refers to the GPS being wired to the speedometer and performing the function of
`
`adjusting the display to show speed readings under the limit in blue or white and
`
`speed readings over the limit in red. This disclosure is commensurate with the
`
`disclosure in the references cited by Petitioner. MPEP § 715.02.
`
`For the Awada reference, Petitioner impliedly asserts the display controller
`
`is present because “the processor receives the speed limit information and instructs
`
`a display within the interior of the vehicle to display the speed limit . . ..” Paper 1
`
`at 37. For the Aumayer reference, Petitioner cites a passage describing “the
`
`display device 211 comprises a display controller and a display medium” as well as
`
`a processor that “determines the data, which are relevant for the speed display
`
`device.” Paper 1 at 34-5. Thus, in both Awada and Aumayer, Petitioner relies on
`
`inference that a processor connected to the display device performs the function of
`
`delineating which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit at the vehicle’s
`
`present location. The Cuozzo Disclosure provides at least that level of detail and
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 17
`support. Indeed, the Cuozzo Disclosure even specifies how the display device
`
`
`
`
`
`
`delineates the speed readings by showing them in different colors and explains
`
`how the information used to perform this function is provided by the GPS wired to
`
`the speedometer.
`
`In addition to the October 30 Disclosure, on March 2, 2001 (prior to
`
`Awada), Cuozzo described his invention as having a colored display (“My idea is
`
`not the same, because my speedometer has a colored display of the speed limit on
`
`the roadway.”). Exhibit I to Exhibit 3000 at page 2 (Cuozzo’s analysis of search
`
`report results). In addition to this disclosure, Cuozzo’s analysis of the search
`
`results provided even more detail confirming his October 30 disclosure. Regarding
`
`the colored, integrated display, Cuozzo stated:
`
`For example, one of the colors can be blue. Now if you stay in this blue
`zone or blue area then you are traveling safely, yet if you past this blue
`zone and start to get in the red zone on this kind of speedometer, then
`you know your speeding and that you are not travel safely.
`
`Thus, Cuozzo’s analysis confirms and corroborates his earlier disclosure
`
`describing the colored display component of the speedometer and how it delineates
`
`the speed readings.
`
`Cuozzo’s Disclosure describes a speedometer integrally attached to the
`
`colored display.
`
` In addition to the foregoing description and Cuozzo’s
`
`identification of “wiring, lighting, and programming” materials to be used in
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 18
`practicing the invention, he also described the claimed speedometer and colored
`
`
`
`
`
`
`display in drawings (Exhibit E to Exhibit 3000 at page 2). In his drawings, Cuozzo
`
`shows an analog speedometer output with a colored display showing, for example,
`
`the speed readings above 55 m.p.h. (in the embodiment at top, shown in excerpt
`
`reproduced below) in red while the speed readings on the scale below 55 are in
`
`blue or white. The three different examples demonstrate the delineation changing
`
`as the speed limit information from the GPS receiver changes from 55 to 25 to 35
`
`or some variation thereof.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 19
`The integrated display shown in Cuozzo’s Disclosure supports the integrally
`
`
`
`
`
`
`attached relationship between the colored display and the speedometer as claim 10
`
`recites.
`
`Cuozzo’s October 30, 2000 Disclosure and Record of Invention (Exhibit E
`
`to Exhibit 3000) demonstrates that Cuozzo possessed the inventive concepts of
`
`claim 10. Coleman v. Dimes, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`3.
`
`Cuozzo’s Declaration and Corroborating Evidence Demonstrates
`Diligence from a Point in Time before October 19, 2000, Until
`Construction Reduction to Practice by Filing His Application in
`March 2002.
`
`Cuozzo diligently worked to constructively reduce his invention to practice
`
`during the critical period from just before October 19, 2000, until Cuozzo filed his
`
`patent application on March 18, 2002.
`
`Starting from before his October 30, 2000 Disclosure and Record of
`
`Invention (Exhibit E to Exhibit 3000), Cuozzo states that he visited the ISC offices
`
`seeking assistance in patenting his invention before the October 19, 2000 effective
`
`date of the Aumayer reference. Exhibit 3001 at ¶ 11. Cuozzo gathered
`
`information
`
`from
`
`ISC,
`
`filled out paperwork
`
`including a Statement of
`
`Confidentiality and Non-Use, and reviewed the information ISC provided about
`
`their services and the costs of them. Id. He returned and signed these documents
`
`October 25, 2000, and on October 30, 2000, he executed his invention disclosure.
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 20
`Also on October 30, 2000, Cuozzo entered into an agreement with ISC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`whereby Cuozzo financed the $875 cost, and ISC would engage patent counsel to
`
`conduct a preliminary patentability search. Id. at ¶ 14 and Exhibits F and G. ISC
`
`engaged Kaardal & Associates, P.C. (“Kaardal”) to perform the search, and
`
`Kaardal confirmed his engagement to Cuozzo by letter dated December 8, 2000.4
`
`In response to the preliminary search report from Kaardal, Cuozzo responded with
`
`his analysis distinguishing his invention from the references identified in the
`
`report. Id. at ¶ 16. On March 10, 2001, Cuozzo received Kaardal’s opinion that
`
`“patent protection could potentially be obtainable for your invention” and relying
`
`upon the attorney’s professional opinion to, he proceeded toward the patent
`
`application process. Id. at ¶¶ 17-18.
`
`The cost of filing a patent application was a substantial hurdle for Cuozzo,
`
`an automotive technician. ISC’s Submission Agreement (Exhibit K to Exhibit
`
`3000) that provided for a referral to patent counsel (under the optional “Patent
`
`Services Addendum”) required a total payment of $9,945. Id. at ¶ 18. Cuozzo did
`
`4 Mr. Kaardal is no longer permitted to practice before the USPTO based upon
`circumstances relating to his relationship with ISC. See Final Order, In the
`Matter of Ivar M. Kaardal, Proceeding No. D03-08, available at http://e-
`foia.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=OED&flNm=0057_DIS_2004-02-04.
`Notably, Mr. Kaardal’s conduct in the Cuozzo case was different than described
`in the Final Order in that Cuozzo requested reconsideration of the initial
`patentability study and provided information and analysis distinguishing his
`invention from the prior art Kaardal cited. This analysis is presented in
`substance in the background of the invention section of the ’074 patent and is
`attached as Exhibit I to Exhibit 3000.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 21
`not have that much money easily accessible, so he had to work with his parents to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`obtain it from a trust account in his name, but not accessible to him. Id. at ¶ 19.
`
`Cuozzo finally obtained the funds and, on August 8, 2001, he signed the ISC
`
`Submission Agreement with the Patent Services Addendum. Id. at ¶ 19 and
`
`Exhibit L to Exhibit 3000. From August 8, 2001, until his application was filed on
`
`March 18, 2002, Cuozzo pressed the patent attorneys for details on the status of his
`
`application. Id. at ¶ 20. The precise order of events is unclear, but it appears ISC
`
`may have made more than one referral on Cuozzo’s behalf due to problems with
`
`the lawyers to which they referred Cuozzo’s case. Id. Anthony Campbell, who
`
`ultimately filed Cuozzo’s application on March 18, 2002, after receiving it January
`
`29, 2002, acted diligently (he explained that he finished the application and
`
`requested formal drawings February 11, 2002, and mailed the completed
`
`application to Cuozzo immediately thereafter, which is corroborated by Cuozzo’s
`
`letter dated March 3, 2002 (Exhibit O to Exhibit 3000), despite ISC’s initial
`
`referral to another attorney, Doug Lingbeck. See Email from Anthony Campbell to
`
`Cabrach Connor dated Friday, March 8, 2013, attached hereto as Exhibit 3003.
`
`Accordingly, Cuozzo’s patent attorneys acted with reasonable diligence.
`
`Cuozzo’s application was filed March 18, 2002, only two weeks after
`
`Cuozzo received the draft for review. Cuozzo’s mother wrote the check for the
`
`$370 filing fee. Exhibit 3001 at ¶ 23.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2012-00001
`
`Attorney’s Docket No.: CUO0001-RE
`Page 22
`Patent No: 6,778,074
`
`C. Alleged Combinations Do Not Disclose All Elements of Claim 10
`and There Is No Motivation to Combine the Cited References
`
`Claim 10 recites:
`
`10. A speed limit indicator comprising:
`
`a global positioning system receiver;
`
`a display controller connected to said global positioning system receiver,
`
`wherein said display controller adjusts a colored display in response to signals
`
`from said global positioning system receiver to continuously update the delineation
`
`of which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit at a vehicle's present
`
`location; and
`
`a speedometer integrally attached to said colored display.
`
`1.
`
`Neither Aumayer nor Evans nor Wendt disclose or suggest “said
`display controller adjusts a colored display in response to signals from
`said global positioning system receiver to continuously update the
`delineation of which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit
`at a vehicle's present location”
`
`Aumayer discusses “a method of automatically adjusting vehicle speed
`
`values displayed in a vehicle according to vehicle location, i.e., according to
`
`particular governmental region or country through which the vehicle is currently
`
`traveling.” Aumayer, col. 1, ll. 55-59. Aumayer’s method is intended to solve the
`
`problem of driving between different regions or countries with different speed
`
`limits and different speed measurement units:
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
