Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 59
`Date: 13 November 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
`GARMIN USA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, and JOSIAH C. COCKS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`A.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Garmin International Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (“Garmin”),
`
`filed a petition on September 16, 2012, for inter partes review of claims 1-20 of
`
`Patent 6,778,074 (“the ’074 Patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq. On
`
`January 9, 2013, the Board denied the petition as to claims 1-9, 11-13, 15, 16, and
`
`18-20, and instituted trial for claims 10, 14, and 17, on two grounds of
`
`unpatentability. Paper 15.
`
`
`
`After institution of trial, Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, (“Cuozzo”) filed
`
`a Patent Owner Response (“PO Resp.”). Paper 31. Cuozzo also filed a Motion to
`
`Amend Claims by substituting proposed new claims 21-23 for claims 10, 14, and
`
`17. Paper 32. Garmin filed a Reply (Paper 40) to the Patent Owner Response, and
`
`also its Opposition (Paper 39) to Cuozzo’s Motion to Amend Claims. Cuozzo then
`
`filed a Reply (Paper 44) to Garmin’s Opposition to Cuozzo’s Motion to Amend
`
`Claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`Oral hearing was held on August 16, 2013.1
`
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`
`decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Garmin has shown that claims 10, 14, and 17 are unpatentable.
`
`Cuozzo’s Motion to Amend Claims is denied.
`
`The Invention of the ’074 Patent2
`
`The disclosed invention of the ’074 Patent relates to a speed limit indicator
`
`and method for displaying speed and the relevant speed limit for use in connection
`
`
`1 A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record as Exhibit 3005.
`
`2 The Board has added a copy of the ’074 patent as Exhibit 3006.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`with vehicles. Ex. 3006, 1:9-11. Specifically, the speed limit indicator and the
`
`
`
`method for displaying speed and the relevant speed limit have particular utility in
`
`connection with displaying the current speed of a vehicle and how it relates to the
`
`legal speed limit at the current location of a vehicle. Ex. 3006, 1:11-16. The
`
`invention eliminates the need for the driver to take his or her eyes off the road to
`
`look for speed limit signs, and resolves any confusion that might exist as to what is
`
`the current legal speed limit. Ex. 3006, 1:22-25. The specification states that by
`
`allowing the driver to keep his or her eyes on the road more, the speed limit
`
`indicator reduces the chance of an accident. Ex. 3006, 1:27-29.
`
`
`
`Only one embodiment is described in the specification of the ’074 Patent
`
`with a meaningful degree of specificity. It is a mechanical embodiment that does
`
`not make use of a liquid crystal display for displaying speed or how the current
`
`speed relates to the speed limit for the current location of the vehicle.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a specifically disclosed embodiment. In that
`
`
`
`embodiment, speedometer 12 is mounted on dashboard 26. Ex. 3006, 5:8-9. It has
`
`a backplate 14 made of plastic, speed denoting markings 16 painted on backplate
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`14, a colored display 18 made of a red plastic filter, and a plastic needle 20
`
`
`
`rotatably mounted in the center of backplate 14. Ex. 3006, 5:8-11. A global
`
`positioning system receiver 22 is positioned adjacent to speedometer 12, and other
`
`gauges typically present on a vehicle dashboard 26 are also provided. Ex. 3006,
`
`5:13-15.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates in block diagram form the steps carried out by a speed
`
`limit indicator shown in Figure 1. Referring to the flowchart of Figure 2, the
`
`specification of the ’074 Patent describes operation of the speed limit indicator as
`
`follows (Ex. 3006, 5:25-39, emphasis added):
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`
`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 colored 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.
`
`Thus, in the step shown in block 54, a filter control unit rotates a red filter
`
`
`
`disc, which is element 18 in Figure 1, to cover portions of the speed display on
`
`speedometer 12, such that readings covered or overlapped by the red filter disc
`
`reflect speeds above the speed limit for the current location of the vehicle.
`
`
`
`In column 6 of the ’074 Patent, lines 31-34, there is brief mention of a
`
`different embodiment. It also is stated generally (Ex. 3006, 6:11-14):
`
`And although a red filter disc has been described, it should be
`appreciated that the colored display herein described could also take
`the form of a liquid crystal display.
`
`In that regard, claim 12, which depends on claim 10, also recites that “said
`
`
`
`colored display is a liquid crystal display.” Ex. 3006, 7:15-16. The above-quoted
`
`text does not describe any specific implementation and indicates only generally
`
`that a liquid crystal display may be used in place of the red filter disc. That does
`
`not describe an embodiment in which the speed readings themselves “and” the
`
`delineation of which speeds are above the speed limit at the current location are
`
`both shown on the same liquid crystal display. As is noted by Garmin (Reply at 3,
`
`n.1), the liquid crystal display simply may provide colored lighting to a
`
`conventional mechanical speedometer needle and backplate.
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`Similarly, claim 18, which depends on claim 10, recites “wherein said
`
`
`
`speedometer comprises a liquid crystal display,” but does not provide any manner
`
`of specific implementation. It only indicates, generally, that the speedometer may
`
`include a liquid crystal display. That does not describe an embodiment in which
`
`the speed readings themselves “and” the delineation of which readings are above
`
`the speed limit are both shown on the same liquid crystal display.
`
`
`
`During oral argument, counsel for Cuozzo acknowledged that even if the
`
`features added by dependent claims 12 and 18 are considered together, the
`
`combination does not require use of one liquid crystal display to show both speed
`
`readings themselves and a delineation of whether the current speed exceeds an
`
`applicable speed limit for the current location of the vehicle. Ex. 3005, 78:6-9.
`
`C.
`
`The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`The prior art references as applied to claims 10, 14, and 17 are:
`
`Aumayer
`
`U.S. 6,633,811
`
`Awada
`
`U.S. 6,515,596
`
`Oct. 14, 2003;
`filed
`Oct. 19, 2000
`
`Feb. 4, 2003;
`filed
`Mar. 8, 2001
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Tegethoff
`
`German DE 19755470 A1
`
`Sept. 24, 1998 Ex. 1002
`
`English Translation
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`U.S. 3,980,041
`
`U.S. 2,711,153
`
`Sept. 14, 1976 Ex. 1009
`
`June 21, 1955
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Evans
`
`Wendt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Citations to Tegethoff refer to its English translation, Ex. 1003.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`The Board instituted trial on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`Aumayer, Evans, and
`Wendt
`Tegethoff, Awada, Evans,
`and Wendt
`
`§ 103
`
`10, 14, 17
`
`§ 103
`
`10, 14, 17
`
`
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`An appropriate construction of the term “integrally attached” in independent
`
`claim 10 is central to the patentability analysis of claims 10, 14, and 17.
`
`
`
`Claim 10 is reproduced below (emphasis added):
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim 10 requires that a speedometer be “integrally attached” to a colored
`
`a speedometer integrally attached to said colored display.
`
`
`
`display, which is adjustable to update continuously the delineation of which speeds
`
`are in violation of the speed limit at the vehicle’s present location. Claim 14
`
`depends on claim 10, and claim 17 depends on claim 14.
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`Principles of Law
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claim terms are also
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set
`
`forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998). Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contends that the specification of the
`
`’074 Patent, as filed, coined a new meaning for any term.
`
`
`
`If a feature is not necessary to give meaning to what the inventor means by a
`
`claim term, it would be “extraneous” and should not be read into the claim.
`
`Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1249; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips
`
`Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The construction that stays
`
`true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the inventor’s description
`
`is likely the correct interpretation. See Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1250.
`
`Board’s Construction of “integrally attached”
`
`
`
`According to plain and common usage, the central characteristic of
`
`“integrally attached” stems from the word “attached.” That is because the term
`
`“integrally” modifies “attached” by specifying a form of attachment. The general
`
`characteristic of two components being “attached” to each other cannot be
`
`eliminated whatever is the effect of adding “integrally” to modify “attached.”
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`For a speedometer to be “integrally attached” to a colored display, there
`
`
`
`must be a speedometer and a colored display that are separately identifiable from
`
`each other, or else “attached” effectively would be read out of the claim. Adding
`
`the modifier “integrally” does not negate or nullify “attached.” That does not
`
`mean the speedometer and the colored display may not share any part. But it does
`
`mean that the sharing may not be so substantial, e.g., the entirety of the colored
`
`display is subsumed within the speedometer, that the speedometer and the colored
`
`display lose their separate identities. It would be illogical to regard one unit as
`
`being “attached” to itself.
`
`
`
`The Board construes “integrally attached” as applied to the colored display
`
`and the speedometer in the context of the disclosure of the ’074 Patent as meaning:
`
`discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part
`losing its own separate identity.
`
`
`In the joined unit, the colored display is still the colored display and the
`
`speedometer is still the speedometer; each retains its own separate identity. That is
`
`consistent with the specification. With reference to Figure 1, the specification of
`
`the ’074 Patent discloses that colored display 18 in the form of a red plastic filter is
`
`a separate item from backplate 14, speed denoting marking 16 on backplate 14, and
`
`needle 20. Ex. 3006, 5:9-12. All of those other components, exclusive of the red
`
`plastic filter, form the speedometer, which is separate from the colored display.
`
`Cuozzo’s Construction of “integrally attached”
`
`
`
`Cuozzo disagrees with the Board’s construction, and argues that “integrally
`
`attached” should be construed to mean: joined or combined to work as a complete
`
`unit. PO Resp. 3. On the surface, it would appear that the difference between the
`
`Board’s construction and Cuozzo’s construction is that Cuozzo’s construction is
`
`broader and encompasses the Board’s construction, because Cuozzo’s construction
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`does not require two separate parts to retain their separate identities. In actuality,
`
`
`
`however, Cuozzo’s construction is not broader.
`
`
`
`If Cuozzo’s construction is broader and encompasses the Board’s
`
`construction, then whatever prior art that applies under the Board’s construction
`
`still applies under Cuozzo’s construction and claims 10, 14, and 17 would be
`
`equally unpatentable. Responding to the Board’s inquiry at oral argument, counsel
`
`for Cuozzo acknowledged that Cuozzo’s construction is “not” just broader than the
`
`Board’s construction. Ex. 3005, 62:6-22.
`
`
`
`Cuozzo’s construction is diametrically different from the Board’s
`
`construction, because Cuozzo reads its construction as requiring an “integral
`
`display” in the sense that there are no longer separate identities between the
`
`speedometer and the colored display. Cuozzo’s arguments are directed to an
`
`“integral display” rather than a speedometer that is “integrally attached” to a
`
`colored display as actually is recited in claim 10.
`
`
`
`Cuozzo’s construction reads out the “attached” portion of the “integrally
`
`attached” recitation in the claim. Cuozzo effectively converts the claim feature
`
`actually claimed to an “integral display” that shows both current speed readings
`
`and the delineation of which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit.
`
`During oral argument, counsel for Cuozzo indicated that under Cuozzo’s
`
`construction, there has to be a display that both functionally and structurally
`
`integrates the speedometer and the colored display, such that there only is a single
`
`display. Ex. 3005, 36:3-37:18.
`
`The Specification and Prosecution History
`
`
`
`The term “integrally attached” does not appear in the specification and
`
`original claims of the application, which was filed on March 18, 2002, and later
`
`issued as the ’074 Patent. The term was proposed during examination by
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`amendment to application claims 1 and 11 to distinguish over Awada.3 Ex. 1013,
`
`
`
`1-3. In the remarks submitted with that amendment, support for the feature that the
`
`speedometer is “integrally attached” to the colored display is said to exist in parts
`
`of the specification that are now column 5, lines 9-12, column 5, lines 45-49, and
`
`Figures 1, 3, and 4 of the ’074 Patent. Ex. 1013, 7:23-25.
`
`
`
`The above-quoted portions of the specification describe speedometer
`
`backplate 14, speed denoting markings 16 painted on backplate 14, and plastic
`
`needle 20, as separate and discrete elements from the colored display 18, which is
`
`a rotatable red plastic filter. The specification of the ’074 Patent discloses that
`
`colored display 18, in the form of a red plastic filter, is a separate item from
`
`backplate 14, speed denoting marking 16 on backplate 14, and needle 20, which
`
`form a speedometer separate from the red plastic filter. Ex. 3006, 5:9-12.
`
`
`
`Thus, Cuozzo relied on separate and discrete components, joined as one unit,
`
`as providing written description support for “integrally attached.”
`
`
`
`We are cognizant that the specification of the ’074 Patent states:
`
`“Speedometer 12 has a backplate 14 made of plastic, speed denoting markings 16
`
`painted on backplate 14, a colored display 18 made of a red plastic filter, and a
`
`plastic needle 20 rotatably mounted in the center of backplate 14.” Ex. 3006,
`
`5:9-12. That is an expression that speedometer 12 includes colored display 18,
`
`which appears to be contrary to the Board’s construction of “integrally attached.”
`
`But there is no such inconsistency, as is explained below.
`
`
`
`With respect to the mechanical embodiment shown in Figure 1 and
`
`described in column 5, lines 9-12, and column 5, lines 45-49, even though there is
`
`language referring to speedometer 12 as including colored display 18, there is no
`
`language referring to speedometer 12 as being “integrally attached” to the colored
`
`
`3 Application claim 11 issued as patent claim 10.
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`display 18. Had there been such language, coexistent with language noting that the
`
`speedometer includes the colored display, we would accord it appropriate weight.
`
`
`
`Speedometer 12 is a speedometer with or without red plastic filter 18. It is
`
`speedometer 12 without the red plastic filter 18 that is “integrally attached” to the
`
`colored display that is red plastic filter 18. Cuozzo does not contend, and
`
`reasonably cannot contend, that speedometer 12 is not a speedometer unless
`
`colored display 18 is a component of the speedometer. The construction that stays
`
`true to the claim language, e.g., “integrally attached,” and most naturally aligns
`
`with the inventor’s description is likely the correct interpretation. See Renishaw
`
`PLC, 158 F.3d at 1250. It is illogical to regard an apparatus as being attached to a
`
`component completely contained within itself.
`
`
`
`When amending application claims to distinguish the claimed invention
`
`from Awada, the applicant stated, Ex. 1013, 7:25-8:2:
`
`The cited Awada (6,515,596) lacks a speedometer integrally attached
`to the speed limit display (column 2, lines 40-42 and Figs. 1 and 4-6).
`The vehicle’s driver is forced to look in two separate locations and
`then mentally compare the speed limit with his vehicle’s speed to
`determine how close he is to speeding if he is not already doing so
`sufficiently to activate the light and/or tone.
`
`Figure 1 of Awada is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a display 110, separate and remote from the speedometer,
`
`which shows the speed limit. Display 110 showing the speed limit is located at a
`
`substantial distance from the speedometer, which is located at a conventional
`
`location within the dashboard of the vehicle. “Integrally attached” would require
`
`the speedometer and the display 110 to be combined physically as one unit,
`
`without each losing its own separate identity, thus providing a distinction from
`
`Awada’s arrangement. It is not necessary to read into the claims an “integral
`
`display” to provide such a distinction, and converting “integrally attached” to
`
`“integral display” would read out of the claims the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“attached.”
`
`Expert testimony
`
`
`
`We also have considered Cuozzo’s argument that the disclosure in the
`
`’074 Patent as filed would teach one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the
`
`speedometer readout with speed limit information on the colored display, resulting
`
`in an electronic embodiment making use of a common LCD (liquid crystal display)
`
`shared by the speedometer and the colored display. Cuozzo states:
`
`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.
`
`PO Resp. 5:12-17.
`
`
`
`Cuozzo’s argument and the supporting testimony of Prof. Morris are
`
`unpersuasive.
`
`
`
`Prof. Morris states: “It is my opinion that it would be natural for one skilled
`
`in the art at the time of the invention to combine the speedometer readout with the
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`speed limit information on the LCD.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 28. Prof. Morris further states:
`
`
`
`“It is my opinion that the mention of an LCD in confirmed claims 12 and 18 and
`
`col. 3, lines 4-6 and col. 6, lines 10-14 of the ’074 [Patent] implies that there is an
`
`electronic embodiment to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention.”
`
`Ex. 2002 ¶ 29.
`
`
`
`The language of Prof. Morris’s statements is vague. It is uncertain just how
`
`much is deemed to be described by the disclosure itself, and how much is filled-in
`
`or completed by one with ordinary skill in the art, who possesses ordinary
`
`creativity and is not an automaton. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`
`421 (2007). What would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art
`
`does not establish what actually is described in the specification. Lockwood v. Am.
`
`Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In any event, even assuming
`
`that such an embodiment is deemed to have been disclosed, the specification
`
`explains inadequately why such an embodiment would be covered by the claim
`
`language at issue, i.e., “integrally attached” as applied to the speedometer and a
`
`colored display.
`
`
`
`Furthermore, it is undisputed that an electronic embodiment is disclosed in
`
`the specification, just not an electronic embodiment that makes use of the same
`
`liquid crystal display to show current speed readings of the speedometer and
`
`delineations of which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit at the
`
`present location of the vehicle. Prof. Morris’s testimony refers broadly to an
`
`electronic embodiment, not specifically to an electronic embodiment that makes
`
`use of a common liquid crystal display for showing speed readings and
`
`delineations of which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit.
`
`
`
`Even assuming that an electronic embodiment of the right type is deemed to
`
`have been disclosed, it is explained inadequately why such an embodiment would
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`be covered by the claim language at issue, i.e., “integrally attached” as applied to
`
`
`
`the speedometer and a colored display.
`
`
`
`We find the following testimony of Prof. Morris, on cross-examination,
`
`meaningful and instructive (emphasis in original):
`
`Q But the claims never specifically recite that the speedometer
`and the colored display are implemented on the same LCD; right?
`
`
`
`MR. CONNOR: Objection to form.
`
` A
`
` I never saw that specific thing said, that they should be, said they
`should be integrated. The amendment said that they were integrally
`attached or the important feature was that they were integrated in the
`same place, but I never saw the specific words put all these on the
`same LCD display.
`
`Ex. 1021, 11:41:2-12. Thus, even Cuozzo’s own expert, Prof. Morris, recognizes a
`
`distinction between (1) a speedometer that is “integrally attached” to a colored
`
`display, and (2) an integrated or integral electronic display using a single liquid
`
`crystal display. The former is what is claimed, not the latter.
`
`
`
`Consistent with the Board’s claim construction, Prof. Morris states that it
`
`would be “uncommon” to refer to two things displayed on a common display as
`
`attached. Ex. 1021, 18:69:2-6. Prof. Morris additionally states that he would not
`
`use the term “attached” to refer to the relationship between two items that are
`
`graphically displayed on the same display. Ex. 1021, 18:70:23-18:71:2.
`
`
`
`Prof. Morris further states: “It is further my opinion that the Amendment
`
`[Ex. 1013 discussed previously] provides a reasonable basis for finding that the
`
`inventor added the term ‘integrally’ to claim 10 to limit the attachment to an
`
`integrated display that displays the speed and speed limit in the same location.”
`
`Ex. 2002 ¶ 32. The language used by Prof. Morris actually comports more with
`
`the Board’s construction of “integrally attached,” not Cuozzo’s construction.
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`Prof. Morris refers to displaying speed and speed limit “in the same location,”
`
`
`
`which is not the same as using the same liquid crystal display to show speed and
`
`speed limit. We decline to equate one to the other.
`
`District Court Interpretations
`
`
`
`Cuozzo argues that its construction of “integrally attached” is supported by a
`
`U.S. District Court’s construction of “integrally connecting” in Safety Rail Source,
`
`LLC v. Bilco Co., 656 F.Supp.2d 468 (D.N.J. 2009). PO Resp. 8:16-18.
`
`According to Cuozzo, the District Court concluded that “integrally connecting”
`
`requires the connected pieces be joined to make up a single complete piece or unit,
`
`such that the connection becomes part of the single complete unit. PO Resp. 9:5-8.
`
`
`
`Cuozzo also cites to Sci. Specialties Inc. v. Thermo Fisher Sci. Inc.,
`
`684 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1191-1193 (N.D. Cal. 2010), for its determination that
`
`“integral and integrally must mean something more than contiguous.” PO Resp. 9,
`
`n.3.
`
`
`
`The Board’s construction of “integrally attached” in this case is not at odds
`
`with the District Court’s construction of “integrally connecting” in Safety Rail
`
`Source, LLC. According to Cuozzo, the District Court stated that weight must be
`
`given to “integrally.” PO Resp. 8:18-20. The Board has given due weight to
`
`“integrally” as a modifier to “attached.” The two parts must be physically joined
`
`together as one unit.
`
`
`
`Cuozzo’s arguments are unpersuasive. The terms at issue are different.
`
`“Attached” is not the same as “connecting.” “Integrally attached” is not the same
`
`as “integrally connecting.” The involved patents all have different disclosures.
`
`The field of invention and the level of ordinary skill in the art have not been shown
`
`to be the same for all cases. The arguments presented by the parties and the expert
`
`testimony on the issue have not been shown to be the same for all cases. Each case
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`must be decided on its own facts. Also, Cuozzo presents the terms at issue out of
`
`
`
`context, without the preceding and succeeding text in the involved claim or claims.
`
`There is not an adequate basis to make a proper comparison. Furthermore, district
`
`courts do not apply the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation for construing
`
`claim terms. Additionally, in the Board’s construction, “integrally” has a
`
`significance that is more than just “contiguous.”
`
`Doctrine of Claim Differentiation
`
`
`
`Cuozzo argues that the doctrine of claim differentiation supports its claim
`
`construction. PO Resp. 9-13. The argument is without merit.
`
`
`
`An independent claim is presumed to be broader than a claim dependent
`
`thereon. Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, when a dependent claim adds
`
`a limitation relative to the independent claim on which it depends, there is a
`
`rebuttable presumption that the independent claim does not require that limitation.
`
`Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1275 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Cuozzo
`
`provides a diagram, reproduced below (PO Resp. 11):
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`The diagram illustrates the relationship between certain claims. We agree
`
`
`
`with Cuozzo’s assertion that because each of dependent claims 12 and 18
`
`additionally recites a liquid crystal display relative to independent claim 10,
`
`independent claim 10 is presumed not to require that liquid crystal display and,
`
`thus, may read on a mechanical embodiment. We also agree with Cuozzo’s
`
`assertion that because each of dependent claims 14-16 additionally recites
`
`mechanical components for the colored display or the speedometer, independent
`
`claim 10 is presumed not to require those mechanical components and, thus, also
`
`may read on an electronic embodiment employing a liquid crystal display.
`
`It reasonably is not disputable, and has not been disputed by Garmin, that
`
`independent claim 10 reads on a mechanical embodiment as well as an electronic
`
`embodiment having at least one liquid crystal display, which either is the colored
`
`display (claim 12) or is comprised within the speedometer (claim 18).
`
`
`
`The rest of Cuozzo’s application of the doctrine of claim differentiation,
`
`however, is misplaced, as explained below, even though Cuozzo correctly notes
`
`that dependent claim 12 adds the feature that said colored display of claim 10 is
`
`a liquid crystal display, and that dependent claim 18 adds the feature that the
`
`speedometer of claim 10 comprises a liquid crystal display. PO Resp. 12:5-7.
`
`
`
`Cuozzo contends that neither claim 12 nor claim 18, presumably via the
`
`respective feature added thereby, requires the speedometer’s liquid crystal display
`
`to be separate from the colored display’s liquid crystal display. PO Resp. 12:7-8.
`
`On that basis, Cuozzo asserts that claim 18 encompasses a single electronic display
`
`that itself operates as a speedometer, or at least the display portion of a
`
`speedometer, and a colored display. PO Resp. 12:15-17. Therefore, Cuozzo
`
`argues that because independent claim 10 is presumed to be broader than
`
`dependent claim 18, claim 10 also must not require the liquid crystal display of the
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`speedometer and the liquid crystal display of the colored display to be separate.
`
`
`
`PO Resp. 12:18 to 13:2. Cuozzo thus reasons that the “integrally attached” feature
`
`of independent claim 10 “must encompass a single electronic display that itself
`
`operates as a speedometer (or at least display portion of a speedometer) and
`
`a colored display.” PO Resp. 13:3-7.
`
`
`
`To the extent that it can be understood, we rephrase, more clearly, the
`
`reasoning of Cuozzo as follows:
`
`Because a feature added by dependent claim 12 or by dependent claim
`18 does not include a requirement that the liquid crystal display of the
`speedometer (claim 18) and the liquid crystal display that is the
`colored display (claim 12) are separate liquid crystal displays,
`independent claim 10 also must not have that requirement. Thus,
`claim 10 must read on a single electronic display that operates as the
`speedometer display and as the colored display.
`
`The doctrine of claim differentiation does not stand for the proposition that
`
`
`
`if a dependent claim does not add a certain limitation by further recitation, then the
`
`independent claim on which it depends is presumed to be without that limitation.
`
`The failure of a dependent claim to add a requirement in its recitations relative to
`
`an independent claim on which it depends cannot negate or nullify a limitation that
`
`is already in the independent claim. The doctrine of claim differentiation cannot
`
`broaden claims beyond their correct scope, determined in light of the specification
`
`and the prosecution history and any relevant extrinsic evidence. Multiform
`
`Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`
`
`A correct application of the doctrine of claim differentiation supports the
`
`Board’s claim construction. Claim 13 indirectly depends on claim 10 through