RECORD OF ORAL INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`U.S. 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
`Patent 6,778,074
`__________
`
`Final Hearing Held: August 16, 2013
`__________
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
` 24
`25
`Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, and JOSIAH C.
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`26
` 27
`28
`APPEARANCES:
` 29
`30
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
` 31
`32
`
`
`33
`
`34
`
`35
`
`36
`
`37
`
`38
`39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JENNIFER C. BAILEY, ESQ.
`of: Hovey Williams, LLP
`10801 Mastin Boulevard
`Suite 1000
`84 Corporate Woods
`Overland Park, Kansas 66210
`(913) 647-9050
`
`
`
`U.S. 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
`Patent 6,778,074
`__________
`
`Final Hearing Held: August 16, 2013
`__________
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
` 24
`25
`Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, and JOSIAH C.
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`26
` 27
`28
`APPEARANCES:
` 29
`30
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
` 31
`32
`
`
`33
`
`34
`
`35
`
`36
`
`37
`
`38
`39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JENNIFER C. BAILEY, ESQ.
`of: Hovey Williams, LLP
`10801 Mastin Boulevard
`Suite 1000
`84 Corporate Woods
`Overland Park, Kansas 66210
`(913) 647-9050
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`JASON R. MUDD, ESQ.
`of: Erise IP, P.A.
`6201 College Boulevard
`Suite 300
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`(913) 777-5614
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
` 7
`8
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`9
`
`
`10
`
`
`11
`
`
`12
`
`
`13
`
`
`14
` 15
`16
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
` 22
` 23
`The above-titled matter came for final hearing on Friday, August
`24
`
`16, 2013, commencing at 1:00 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`25
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`26
`27
`
`JOHN R. KASHA, ESQ.
`of: Kasha Law, LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Road
`North Potomac, Maryland 20878
`(703) 867-1886
`
`CABRACH CONNOR, ESQ.
`of: Taylor Dunham, LLP
`301 Congress Avenue
`Suite 1050
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512) 473-2257
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
` 1
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`(1:00 p.m.)
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Good afternoon. This is the final hearing
`
`5
`
`for the first-filed inter partes review Garmin International versus Cuozzo
`
`6
`
`Speed Technologies. It is Case Number IPR2012-00001.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Representing Garmin International is lead attorney Jennifer
`
`8
`
`Bailey. Would you like to introduce your colleague?
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: Your Honor, my name is Jennifer Bailey.
`
`10
`
`My co-counsel is Jason Mudd.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. And representing Cuozzo
`
`12
`
`Technologies should be either Mr. Kasha or Mr. Connor.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. KASHA: My name is John Kasha and my
`
`14
`
`co-counsel is Mr. Cabrach Connor.
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. Welcome to the Board.
`
`I believe
`
`the parties understand
`
`the sequence of
`
`17
`
`presentation. It would be the petitioner coming up first and then patent
`
`18
`
`owner, back to the petitioner, and ending again with the patent owner.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`If you have any preliminary questions you would like to
`
`20
`
`ask, now is the time.
`
`21
`
`
`
` 22
`
`23
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. KASHA: No, Your Honor.
`
`MS. BAILEY: No, Your Honor.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`Any time you are ready. Mr. Kasha, are you presenting?
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: The petitioner will speaking first, Your
`
`2
`
`Honor. I will be speaking first on that.
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`MR. MUDD: The petitioner would like to reserve 30
`
`5
`
`minutes for rebuttal, may it please the board.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Good afternoon, Your Honors. I am Jason Mudd on
`
`7
`
`behalf of petitioner, Garmin International. I will be speaking first for
`
`8
`
`Garmin on the issue of claim construction. My co-counsel, Ms. Bailey,
`
`9
`
`will be speaking second as to unpatentability.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Garmin requested institution of this inter partes review of
`
`11
`
`the 074 patent, based on the overly broad manner in which Cuozzo has
`
`12
`
`asserted its patent against Garmin and others in District Court.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`As Garmin's petition demonstrated, the prior art was replete
`
`14
`
`with speed limit displays that used a single electronic display that served
`
`15
`
`as both a speedometer and a colored speed indicator. But as the Board
`
`16
`
`noted, in its decision instituting this review, the invention actually
`
`17
`
`described and claimed in the patent used a separate colored display that
`
`18
`
`is integrally attached to a separate speedometer.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Excuse me, counsel. I just want to
`
`20
`
`interrupt for a second. We do have people listening in on an audio line.
`
`21
`
` So if you are referring to a demonstrative exhibit, we would like you to
`
`22
`
`identify the page number. And we would like the people listening in to
`
`23
`
`know that a copy of the demonstratives is located and accessible on the
`
`24
`
`Board's website right below the dial-in number information, so they
`
`25
`
`could follow along.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I'm sorry for the interruption.
`
`MR. MUDD: That's fine, Your Honor. Yes, thank you.
`
`3
`
`And I will do my best to state the slide numbers. I may need reminders
`
`4
`
`throughout but I will try very hard to do that.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`As the Board noted in its decision instituting this IPR, and
`
`6
`
`we are looking currently at slide DX3, the invention actually described
`
`7
`
`and claimed in the patent uses as a separate colored display that is
`
`8
`
`integrally attached to a separate speedometer. As such, the Board
`
`9
`
`construed the term integrally attached as requiring that the speedometer
`
`10
`
`and colored display be separate components that retain their separate
`
`11
`
`identities, when attached to each other.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`As a result, the Board focused the scope of this review.
`
`13
`
`Garmin agrees with the Board's construction and asks that it be affirmed
`
`14
`
`over Cuozzo's request that it be broadened to encompass a single display
`
`15
`
`that is, itself, both the speedometer and the colored display.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown on slide DX4, the Board construed the term
`
`17
`
`integrally attached specifically as requiring that the speedometer and
`
`18
`
`colored display be discrete parts physically joined together as a unit
`
`19
`
`without each part using its own separate identity. That is, in the
`
`20
`
`combined unit, the colored display is still the colored display and the
`
`21
`
`speedometer is still the speedometer. And specifically when applying
`
`22
`
`this construction, the Board found that this construction did not cover
`
`23
`
`the case of a single electronic display that was itself both the
`
`24
`
`speedometer and the colored display.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board's construction is correct for three simple
`
`2
`
`reasons. First, the claim language itself; second, the specification; and
`
`3
`
`third, the file history.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Turning first on DX5 to the claim language itself and
`
`5
`
`looking specifically at independent claim 10, the claim plainly recites
`
`6
`
`here, speedometer
`
`integrally attached
`
`to said colored display.
`
`7
`
`Obviously, for two things to be integrally attached to each other, they
`
`8
`
`must still somehow be separate things, even though they are joined.
`
`9
`
`Otherwise, the word attached would have no meaning and would be let
`
`10
`
`out of the claim entirely, which is precisely what Cuozzo asks this Board
`
`11
`
`to do.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`The plain claim
`
`language does not recite
`
`that a
`
`13
`
`speedometer is displayed graphically on colored display, nor does it
`
`14
`
`recite merely an integrated speedometer and colored display. Instead, it
`
`15
`
`recites a separate speedometer and colored display that are attached to
`
`16
`
`each other.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`The specification is consistent with the plain claim
`
`18
`
`language. Really, the specification only discloses a stable core
`
`19
`
`embodiment and discloses a couple variations on that embodiment.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1, as shown on slide DX6, illustrates this
`
`21
`
`embodiment. We have a speedometer and a separate colored display.
`
`22
`
`The colored display 18 is disclosed as a red plastic filter that is a
`
`23
`
`separate component than the rest of the speedometers, including the
`
`24
`
`plastic backplate 14 and the speed denoting marking 16 painted on the
`
`25
`
`backplate.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`The specification in the figures exclusively depict separate
`
`2
`
`components that are attached to each other. The specification never
`
`3
`
`describes an embodiment in which a speedometer and colored display
`
`4
`
`are merged into a single electronic display.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Indeed, for the invention to operate as described in the
`
`6
`
`patent, they must be separate components that retain their own identities
`
`7
`
`because the colored display rotates independently of the speedometer. I
`
`8
`
`highlight the different regions of the speedometer to show which speed
`
`9
`
`readings on the speedometer are above the speed limit, those highlighted
`
`10
`
`in red here in Figure 1, and those below, which the patent says are
`
`11
`
`highlighted in white. Thus, as the vehicle travels and goes to new
`
`12
`
`locations and the speed limit for that location changes, the colored
`
`13
`
`display is adjusted to continuously update the delineation of which speed
`
`14
`
`readings are in excess of the speed limit.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Counsel, does the specification disclose
`
`16
`
`any other embodiment besides this one?
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: Well, that is an interesting question, Your
`
`18
`
`Honor, because the only variations on this embodiment that the
`
`19
`
`specification even hints at are a circumstance in which the colored
`
`20
`
`display 18, instead of being a red plastic filter, might instead be an LCD.
`
`21
`
` And there are actually only two places in the entire specification that
`
`22
`
`relate to that variation. And I can turn to those briefly.
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`In these two places of the specification, it says although a
`
`24
`
`red filter disc -- and I am looking at slide DX8. Although a red filter
`
`25
`
`disc has been described, it should be appreciated that the colored display
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`could also take the form of an LCD. And again, it says below that you
`
`2
`
`could use a colored filter or a liquid crystal display.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`So in those two places, which are the only two places in the
`
`4
`
`specification that describe an LCD, they are talking about subbing in an
`
`5
`
`LCD for the colored display. It never describes subbing in an LCD for
`
`6
`
`the speedometer and it certainly never describes, instead of having two
`
`7
`
`separate components, having a single display that serves the purposes of
`
`8
`
`both.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: I see. What does that mean, though? What
`
`10
`
`does it mean when you substitute a liquid crystal display for a piece of
`
`11
`
`plastic?
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: And you are asking what would that
`
`13
`
`embodiment look like in the real world?
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: I'm just reading the text you produced. I
`
`15
`
`am wondering what that would mean.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: In Garmin's viewpoint, what it means is that
`
`17
`
`if you took, for example, Figure 1 and replaced the red plastic filter with
`
`18
`
`an LCD, you would have a conventional speedometer with an LCD
`
`19
`
`screen attached behind it, in order to highlight different portions of the
`
`20
`
`speedometer.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Well, before you get into what the other
`
`22
`
`side wants it to mean, what do you think it means?
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: Garmin believes that the LCD disclosures
`
`24
`
`are referring to the situation where you replace the red plastic filter that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`is colored display 18, with an LCD, and the rest of the speedometer stays
`
`2
`
`the same.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Yes, but you wouldn't be rotating the LCD
`
`4
`
`as you would a sheet of plastic.
`
`5
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: Yes.
`
`JUDGE LEE: So I am just wondering what do those few
`
`7
`
`lines mean when they say you can substitute an LCD for the colored
`
`8
`
`display plate?
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: Yes, that is correct. And that is an
`
`10
`
`argument that Cuozzo has raised and they suggest it would be
`
`11
`
`meaningless to rotate the entire display itself but of course you can
`
`12
`
`easily simply, instead of physically rotating something, you simply draw
`
`13
`
`different parts of the display red.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`So in other words, rather than having a red plastic disc, you
`
`15
`
`have a red graphical display and you simply change the appearance of
`
`16
`
`that red graphical display to highlight different parts of the speedometer.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: I see. This is just -- you are conjuring
`
`18
`
`what it might be but it is never disclosed in the specifications.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: Yes, that is correct, Your Honor. And in
`
`20
`
`addition to the specification, the file history as well confirms the Board's
`
`21
`
`construction. Because as the Board correctly noted in its order, paper
`
`22
`
`15 on page eight, when the patent owner added the integrally attached
`
`23
`
`term via amendment, the patent owner relied on separate components as
`
`24
`
`providing written description support for the term. That is, when the
`
`25
`
`patent owner made this amendment, the patent owner referred to Figure
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`1 and referred to the description in the specification which describes the
`
`2
`
`speedometer and colored display as being physically separate
`
`3
`
`components that are attached to each other.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Despite
`
`the clear
`
`intrinsic support for
`
`the Board's
`
`5
`
`construction, Cuozzo asked that the Board's construction be broadened
`
`6
`
`to be, instead, joined or combined to work as a complete unit. And
`
`7
`
`Cuozzo says that this construction would encompass a single electronic
`
`8
`
`display that operates as both the speedometer and the colored display.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Counsel, could you stop there? You
`
`10
`
`are on slide DX7. You are saying that they are having a different
`
`11
`
`construction but please explain how that construction up there joined or
`
`12
`
`combined to work as a complete unit is distinguishable from the Board's
`
`13
`
`construction.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: Sure, and that is a very good question
`
`15
`
`because Cuozzo purports to say that this would encompass their single
`
`16
`
`electronic display and by that, what they want the patent to cover. But
`
`17
`
`honestly, when I read that joined or combined work as a complete unit is
`
`18
`
`still implicit in even Cuozzo's construction is that you have discrete parts
`
`19
`
`that are brought together.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`So Cuozzo, I think, is intending to read out the requirement
`
`21
`
`of separate parts that are brought together that pertain to identity. But I
`
`22
`
`think even inherent in their own construction is a tacit admission that
`
`23
`
`you are bringing together two separate parts that have different
`
`24
`
`identities.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: When they are putting on a response
`
`2
`
`on page six, they also defined the word integrally as meaning essential to
`
`3
`
`completeness constituent formed as a unit with another part. Under
`
`4
`
`their definition of integrally and under the definition of attached, how is
`
`5
`
`that distinct from our definition that we proposed and the decision has
`
`6
`
`instituted?
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: Well I think how it is distinct is in what
`
`8
`
`effect they say their construction has.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: I understand that they may have a
`
`10
`
`different effect but is their definition distinct from that which we have
`
`11
`
`already proposed?
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: I believe it is because they say it is, Your
`
`13
`
`Honor. And I think if the Board were to adopt Cuozzo's construction,
`
`14
`
`Cuozzo would then say aha, the Board agrees with us that the patent
`
`15
`
`does cover a single electronic display that serves the purpose of both.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`So you are exactly right. And Cuozzo has actually raised
`
`17
`
`that definition of the term integrally and suggested the Board's
`
`18
`
`construction ignores that definition and somehow reads out the integral
`
`19
`
`requirement.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`But if you look at the Board's construction, it talks about
`
`21
`
`bringing them together as a unit. That is, the integral aspect of
`
`22
`
`integrally attached is that they are brought together as a unit, but they,
`
`23
`
`nonetheless, retain their own identity because they are attached to each
`
`24
`
`other.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`And as we will see, even as their own expert admits, it
`
`2
`
`makes no sense to talk about two things displayed on a common screen
`
`3
`
`as being attached to each other.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`There are three primary points that Cuozzo alleges that the
`
`5
`
`Board had not expressly addressed in its order for which Cuozzo says
`
`6
`
`the construction should be revised.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`First, as we discussed just a moment ago, they point to the
`
`8
`
`specification and allege that the specification discloses this LCD
`
`9
`
`embodiment. But as we already discussed previously, nowhere in the
`
`10
`
`spec, including in these two portions, does it describe a single LCD
`
`11
`
`embodiment where you have the colored display and speedometer being
`
`12
`
`merged into one.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Second, the argument they make is a claim differentiation
`
`14
`
`argument and they point to dependent claims 12 and 18. Dependent
`
`15
`
`claim 12 depends on claim 10 and it recites, where inset colored display
`
`16
`
`is a liquid crystal display. Claim 18 separately, entirely apart from
`
`17
`
`claim 12 with an independent dependency from claim 10, 18 does not
`
`18
`
`depend from 12. It depends from 10. And it says, wherein said
`
`19
`
`speedometer comprises a liquid crystal display. Cuozzo suggests that
`
`20
`
`when you look at these two dependent claims together, that under the
`
`21
`
`doctrine of claim differentiation, claim 10 must necessarily be broad
`
`22
`
`enough to encompass a single electronic display in which the colored
`
`23
`
`display and speedometer are both on that display. But these two
`
`24
`
`dependent claims do not dictate that result because they are entirely
`
`25
`
`separate from each other. Nothing about these claims says that the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`speedometer and colored display are somehow merged and no longer
`
`2
`
`separate and attached to each other.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Let's stop there. I have a question.
`
`4
`
`Did they ever have an embodiment where the colored display is a liquid
`
`5
`
`crystal display and the speedometer is also a liquid crystal display?
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: That is also a very good question, Your
`
`7
`
`Honor. Unfortunately, the patent applicant didn't do us any favors in
`
`8
`
`that regard. The only thing approaching the fleeting reference that the
`
`9
`
`speedometer somehow could potentially be liquid crystal displays and
`
`10
`
`claim 18 they are not.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`In the written description, there is no support, no disclosure
`
`12
`
`where you have a graphical speedometer that is purely an LCD. There
`
`13
`
`is no disclosure in that regard.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`The only thing approaching a disclosure like that is claim
`
`15
`
`18. And as you stated in the briefing, we think that you have to rewrite
`
`16
`
`this claim language to be the speedometer is an LCD, rather than a
`
`17
`
`speedometer comprises an LCD. If you compare those two claims, you
`
`18
`
`can see it says colored display is an LCD in claim 12; 18 it says
`
`19
`
`speedometer comprises.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`But regardless, even if the Board were to say well, claim 18
`
`21
`
`is an original claim. Perhaps that is a disclosure of an LCD
`
`22
`
`speedometer. It doesn't change the fact that the claim language requires
`
`23
`
`that the two components be integrally attached to each other. So even
`
`24
`
`in that situation, even if you assume that they've disclosed through claim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`18 an LCD speedometer, the claim still required that the two
`
`2
`
`components be attached to each other.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`And again, using my imagination, going beyond what the
`
`4
`
`patent teaches, you could imagine having two separate displays, two
`
`5
`
`separate display elements of where you would have the colored display
`
`6
`
`and speedometer being attached to each other.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Now we have some art that is somewhat similar in the
`
`8
`
`Nagoshi reference. So even in that situation, even if you had an LCD
`
`9
`
`speedometer as Your Honor suggested, it doesn't change the fact they
`
`10
`
`must be separate components attached to each other.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Counsel, if I hear you correctly, what you
`
`12
`
`are saying is even according to 18, the speedometer has to comprise an
`
`13
`
`LCD. That is not necessarily the one that is in claim 12, which is the
`
`14
`
`colored display.
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: Yes, that is correct, Your Honor, yes.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`MR. MUDD: Then moving to the third primary point that
`
`18
`
`Cuozzo suggests that the Board's construction had not considered. And
`
`19
`
`that is, they have introduced into the record expert testimony. They
`
`20
`
`submitted an expert declaration from Dr. Morris. But actually if you
`
`21
`
`look at Dr. Morris' declaration, it only serves to further confirm the
`
`22
`
`Board's construction because Dr. Morris' opinions are that he believes an
`
`23
`
`embodiment where you have a single LCD speedometer and colored
`
`24
`
`display merged together is implied by the patent and that it would be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`natural for a person of ordinary skill in the art to create such an
`
`2
`
`embodiment upon reading the rest of the disclosure.
`
`3
`
`
`
` Well, those statements are tacit admissions that there is no
`
`4
`
`express support or disclosure for such an embodiment in the patent and
`
`5
`
`that he is imagining things and adding things to the patent to try to
`
`6
`
`support this argument.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`And when pressed on cross-examination, he made some
`
`8
`
`telling admissions. When asked whether the term integrally attached
`
`9
`
`had an accepted meaning in the art, Dr. Morris had to admit that it is not
`
`10
`
`a common term of art in software and that, in fact, a hardware person
`
`11
`
`would use the term attached to refer to physically attaching things and a
`
`12
`
`software person wouldn't intend to use this word.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`And when asked, so it is somewhat unnatural to refer to
`
`14
`
`two things displayed on a common display as attached, he would say
`
`15
`
`yes, in the art I would say it is uncommon. And this is on DX10.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`But then when I posed the question to him, you yourself,
`
`17
`
`sir, as a person of ordinary skill in the art, would you, on DX11, would
`
`18
`
`you ever use the term attached to refer to the relationship between two
`
`19
`
`items that are graphically displayed on the same display? He said I
`
`20
`
`don't think I would. I would much prefer one of the other terms that I
`
`21
`
`had mentioned, overlay, combined, juxtaposed.
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`So even their own expert's testimony serves to further
`
`23
`
`confirm the Board's construction.
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: So why is it that you don't have any
`
`25
`
`rebuttal expert testimony?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: Your Honor, we didn't need any rebuttal
`
`2
`
`expert testimony because we had their expert who said exactly what I
`
`3
`
`would imagine any expert would when interpreting the term integrally
`
`4
`
`attached.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`And Garmin, therefore, requests that the Board affirm its
`
`6
`
`construction. And if there are no further questions, I will turn it over to
`
`7
`
`Ms. Bailey.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Perhaps just one more. So you agree with
`
`9
`
`the Board's construction of the term but why is it that your petition didn't
`
`10
`
`offer a construction and, in particular, didn't offer the Board's
`
`11
`
`construction?
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: Your Honor, we filed the petition relying
`
`13
`
`on the apparent construction that Cuozzo was relying on to assert
`
`14
`
`infringement in District Court. As the Board noted in its order, Garmin
`
`15
`
`didn't take a position on that construction being correct. Garmin just
`
`16
`
`said here is the construction they are using. We are going to use that
`
`17
`
`construction. And we did not advocate for that construction. We
`
`18
`
`agreed with the construction that the Board arrived at.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Does it really matter? If you say that the
`
`20
`
`patent owner's construction is simply broader, that is not going to allow
`
`21
`
`them to escape the art. Right? If it is simply broader, it would just
`
`22
`
`cover more.
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: That is correct but Garmin's interest is in
`
`24
`
`the Board arriving at the correct broadest reasonable construction. We
`
`25
`
`believe the Board has done that.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`And you are correct that Cuozzo is advocating for a
`
`2
`
`construction that would encompass more art and is contrary to its
`
`3
`
`interest in this proceeding.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: So do we even need to do claim
`
`5
`
`construction in the final decision?
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: Yes.
`
`JUDGE LEE: You know the other party is arguing a
`
`8
`
`broader interpretation than the Board's, which in no instance would kick
`
`9
`
`out any item of prior art.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: Yes, we believe it is important because in
`
`11
`
`the order initiating this proceeding, the Board used that construction to
`
`12
`
`narrow the scope of this proceeding and exclude, in many grounds of
`
`13
`
`rejection, that Garmin had advanced and excluded some of the prior art
`
`14
`
`references that utilize a single electronic display for both elements. So
`
`15
`
`Garmin believes that it is important for the Board to affirm its
`
`16
`
`construction.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: What would happen if we were to change
`
`18
`
`our construction in the final determination? What, in your view, should
`
`19
`
`happen with the grounds that we did not initiate?
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: Yes, Your Honor. Well, Garmin believes
`
`21
`
`that the additional grounds, all the grounds advanced originally, should
`
`22
`
`be brought into the proceeding, as Ms. Bailey will be addressing during
`
`23
`
`her portion, under Cuozzo's proposed broader construction. In fact, the
`
`24
`
`prior art analysis becomes almost trivial. The Aumayer reference
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`becomes a clear, anticipatory reference and the obvious analysis also
`
`2
`
`becomes trivial.
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`MR. MUDD: Thank you, Your Honors.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, I actually have one question.
`
`6
`
`Do I understand correctly that if we adopt Cuozzo's interpretation, that is
`
`7
`
`damaging to their case? Is that a fair characterization?
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MUDD: In terms of the -- so, I think Cuozzo
`
`9
`
`believes that it would aid its infringement case in District Court.
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE COCKS: But from your standpoint.
`
`MR. MUDD: In the proceeding, yes, it would be
`
`12
`
`damaging to the prior art case.
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Okay, thank you.
`
`MR. MUDD: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`MS. BAILEY: May it please the Board? Thank you,
`
`16
`
`Your Honors.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`My co-counsel has explained why this Board's non-final
`
`18
`
`construction is the correct construction. I want to discuss why, under
`
`19
`
`either construction, the present claims under review are unpatentable.
`
`20
`
`
`
`And before we jump into an unpatentability analysis limitation
`
`21
`
`by limitation, let's quickly go over the two constructions and what they
`
`22
`
`would cover.
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`So the Board's construction requires two separate elements:
`
`24
`
`a colored display and a speedometer. And those elements must be
`
`25
`
`joined together but retain their separate identity.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`So what is an example of that? An example of that is a
`
`2
`
`colored display that is physically secured to the glass cover of a
`
`3
`
`speedometer.
`
` And
`
`that speedometer could be a conventional
`
`4
`
`speedometer or that speedometer could be the glass cover of an LCD
`
`5
`
`that is graphically representing a speedometer.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`In contrast, Cuozzo's construction purports to cover the
`
`7
`
`single electronic display, such as an LCD, where that single electronic
`
`8
`
`display itself, both graphically displays the speedometer and the colored
`
`9
`
`display.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Referring to DX14 now, we have taken figures from each
`
`11
`
`of the prior art references that are under review. And as you can see,
`
`12
`
`the idea of putting a speed limit indicator on the glass cover of a
`
`13
`
`speedometer is well-known in the art. Wendt teaches that with its
`
`14
`
`rotatable pointer. Evans has a red-colored plate. Nagoshi has its
`
`15
`
`concentric band of green, red, and LCDs. And then Aumayer and
`
`16
`
`Tegethoff have the LCD that graphically represents the red tick mark.
`
`17
`
`And each of these establish that the problem of indicating a speed limit
`
`18
`
`was well-recognized in the art and that the various solutions were also
`
`19
`
`known.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`All right, so let's go through our unpatentability analysis.
`
`21
`
`And what I am going to do is break it down into under the Board's
`
`22
`
`construction and under Cuozzo's construction. Now I am going to leave
`
`23
`
`Cuozzo's construction to later because it is very short and it is very
`
`24
`
`straightforward.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Under the Board's construction -- and actually let me back
`
`2
`
`up. Under either construction, the claims have four general limitations.
`
`3
`
`We have the GPS that determines the speed limit of the vehicle -- or the
`
`4
`
`speed limit at the vehicle's current location. We have the display
`
`5
`
`controller that controls the colored display. We have continuously
`
`6
`
`updating of the colored display to indicate the speed limit at the current
`
`7
`
`location of the vehicle. And fourth, we have the rotatable colored
`
`8
`
`display itself.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`And so I am going to take those four general limitations, go
`
`10
`
`through where they are in the art and I am going to start from the bottom
`
`11
`
`up with the claim. And I am going to start with the rotatable colored
`
`12
`
`display.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`So looking at DX15, Wendt is from the 1950s and it
`
`14
`
`discloses a conventional speedometer having a rotatable pointer
`
`15
`
`mounted on the glass cover of the speedometer. And Wendt says, as
`
`16
`
`one of its objectives, that it is a speed limit indicator, which is quickly
`
`17
`
`attachable to the glass cover of a speedometer. And as you can see, it is
`
`18
`
`attached to the glass cover of the speedometer, via a suction cup
`
`19
`
`mounting unit.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`So Wendt, when we are talking about our fourth limitation
`
`21
`
`of rotatable colored display, teaches two of those features. It is
`
`22
`
`rotatable and it is a display but it is not colored.
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`Referring to DX16, Evans' disc. Evans discloses a
`
`24
`
`red-colored plate that is secured to the front cover of a conventional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`1
`
`speedometer. And you can see, the plate is red. It has some width
`
`2
`
`about it. It covers an entire region of speed readings in that red.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Now Wendt does note, as this Board decided, that Evans is
`
`4
`
`affixed to the glass cover. However, Evans recognizes that speed limits
`
`5
`
`change and that those speed limits -- and that the plate can be adjustable
`
`6
`
`for changes in the speed limits.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`So we are trying to get our rotatable colored display in the
`
`8
`
`art. And so we have Wendt with its rotatable pointer and we have
`
`9
`
`Evans with its colored plate. And it would be obvious to one of
`
`10
`
`ordinary skill in the art to sub in the pointer for Wendt with the plate of
`
`11
`
`Evans. That is a simple substitution that yields the predictable result.
`
`12
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel?
`
`MS. BAILEY: Yes.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Did the claims require that the colored
`
`15
`
`display be rotatable?
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: That is an interesting question.
`
`So claim 17 requires that the rotatable display be -- or that
`
`18
`
`the colored display be rotatable. Claim 10 states that the colored
`
`19
`
`display is
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
