Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: December 18, 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 IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY,
`and JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: December 18, 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 IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY,
`and JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On June 20, 2013, petitioner (“Garmin”) filed a petition requesting an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 (Ex. 1101,
`
`“the ’074 patent”). A corrected petition (“Pet.”) was filed on June 28, 2013.
`
`Paper 4. The patent owner (“Cuozzo”) filed a preliminary response (Paper
`
`11, “Prelim. Resp.”) on September 25, 2013. We have jurisdiction under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) which provides:
`
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the petition and patent owner preliminary
`
`response, we determine that the information presented in the petition
`
`establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Garmin would prevail
`
`with respect to claims 1-6, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 of the ’074 patent.
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we institute an inter partes
`
`review on claims 1-6, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-20, of the ’074 patent.
`
`Because claims 10, 14, and 17 of the ’074 patent have been cancelled
`
`by order of the Board in the Final Written Decision in IPR2012-00001
`
`(Paper 59), we decline to institute a second review on those claims.
`
`Garmin has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail
`
`with respect to claims 7 and 8 of the ’074 patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Garmin indicates that the ’074 patent is involved in co-pending
`
`infringement litigation brought by Cuozzo against Garmin International, Inc.
`
`and Garmin USA, Inc., captioned Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v.
`
`Garmin International Inc. et al., Case No.: 2:12-cv-03623-CCC-JAD (D.
`
`NJ). (Pet. 1.) Garmin also indicates that three other judicial proceedings
`
`may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: (1) Cuozzo
`
`Speed Technologies LLC v. General Motors Company, Case No.: 2:12-cv-
`
`03624-CCC-JAD (D. NJ); (2) Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. JVC
`
`Americas Corporation, Case No.: 2:12-cv-03625-CCC-JAD (D. NJ); and
`
`(3) Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. TomTom, Inc. et al., Case No.: 2:12-
`
`cv-03626-CCC-JAD (D. NJ).
`
`
`
`The ’074 patent is also the subject of an inter partes review before the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2012-00001, the Final Written
`
`Decision of which was rendered on November 13, 2013 (Paper 59).
`
`B. The ’074 Patent
`
`
`
`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 with vehicles. Ex. 1101, 1:9-11. Specifically, the
`
`invention has particular utility in connection with displaying the current
`
`speed of a vehicle, and with how that speed relates to the legal speed limit at
`
`the current location of the vehicle. Ex. 1101, 1:11-16. The invention
`
`provides the benefit of eliminating the need for the driver to take his or her
`
`eyes off the road to look for speed limit signs and to resolve any confusion
`
`that might exist as to what is the current legal speed limit. Ex. 1101, 1:22-
`
`25. The specification states that by allowing the driver to keep his or her
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`eyes on the road more, the speed limit indicator reduces the chance of an
`
`accident. Ex. 1101, 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. 1101, 5:8-9.
`
`It has backplate 14 made of plastic, speed denoting markings 16 painted on
`
`backplate 14, colored display 18 made of a red plastic filter, and plastic
`
`needle 20 rotatably mounted in the center of backplate 14. Ex. 1101, 5:8-11.
`
`Global positioning receiver 22 is positioned adjacent to speedometer 12, and
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`other gauges typically present on vehicle dashboard 26 are also provided.
`
`Ex. 1101, 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. 1101, 5:25-39):
`
`
`
`Uploading unit 38 uploads current data to a regional speed limit
`database 40. The global positioning system receiver 42 tracks
`the vehicle’s location and speed, and identifies the relevant
`speed limit from the database for that location. The global
`positioning system receiver compares the vehicle’s speed and
`the relevant speed limit 44, and uses a tone generator 46 to
`generate a tone in the event that the vehicle’s speed exceeds the
`relevant speed limit. The speed limit information is sent from
`the global positioning system receiver to a filter control unit 48.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`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.
`
`In the step of block 54, a filter control unit rotates a red filter disc,
`
`
`
`which is element 18 in Figure 1, to cover portions of the display on
`
`speedometer 12, such that readings, covered 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 is stated generally (Ex. 1101, 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.
`
`On this record, 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.
`
`C. Exemplary Claims
`
`
`
`Claims 1 and 10 are the only independent claims and are reproduced
`
`below (emphasis added):
`
`1.
`
`A speed limit indicator comprising:
`
`a colored display to delineate which speed readings are in
`
`violation of the speed limit at a vehicle’s current location;
`
`a speedometer integrally attached to said colored
`display; and
`
`a display controller connected to said colored display,
`wherein said display controller adjusts said colored display
`independently of said speedometer to continuously update the
`delineation of which speed readings are in violation of the
`speed limit at a vehicle’s present location.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Claim 1 requires that the speedometer be “integrally attached” to the
`
`
`
`colored display. Claim 10 is the same.
`
`
`
`Claim 20 is reproduced below:
`
`20. A method of determining speed, the relevant speed
`
`limit, and displaying same, which comprises the steps of:
`
`uploading current information to regional speed limit
`
`database;
`
`determining vehicle location and speed;
`
`obtaining speed limit for said vehicle location from said
`database;
`
`comparing vehicle speed to said speed limit;
`
`generating tone if said vehicle speed exceeds said speed
`limit;
`sending speed limit to display control unit; and
`
`modifying the limit indicator as defined in claim 1 to
`
`reflect which speeds are below said speed limit and which
`speeds exceed said speed limit.
`
`In its last clause, claim 20 specifically refers to the structure of the
`
`
`
`speed limit indicator of claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is dependent on claim 1 and
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`also includes the limitation that the speedometer is “integrally attached” to
`
`the colored display.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Garmin relies on the following prior art references:
`
`Nagoshi
`
`
`
`Hauler
`
`Vaughn
`
`Japanese Published
`App. JP H05-067294
`English translation
`
`3/19/1993
`
`Ex. 1102
`
`
`
`Ex. 1103
`
`PCT App. WO 01/28803 A1 4/26/2001
`
`Ex. 1106
`
`US Pat. 5,485,161
`
`01/16/1996 Ex. 1108
`
`Tegethoff
`
`German Pat. 197 55 470 A1
`
`09/24/1998 Ex. 1110
`
`Evans
`
`Wendt
`
`Brandt
`
`US Pat. 3,980,041
`
`09/14/1976 Ex. 1112
`
`US Pat. 2,711,153
`
`06/21/1955 Ex. 1113
`
`US Pat. 6,522,381
`
`02/18/2003 Ex. 1114
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Basis References
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`7
`
`103
`
`8
`
`103
`
`
`
`102(b) Nagoshi
`
`102(e) Hauler
`
`103
`
`Nagoshi and Vaughn
`
`Nagoshi and Evans
`
`Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 19
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9
`
`Claims 2, 8, 11, 12, 13,
`and 20
`Claims 4 and 5
`
`Nagoshi and Tegethoff
`
`Claims 6 and 18
`
`Nagoshi, Evans, Wendt, and
`Brandt
`Nagoshi, Evans, Wendt, and
`Hauler
`Hauler, Evans, and Wendt
`
`Claims 3, 14, 15, 16, and
`17
`Claims 3, 14, 15, 16, and
`17
`Claim 3
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`9
`
`103
`
`Hauler and Vaughn
`
`Claims 8, 11-13, and 18-20
`
`10 103
`
`11 103
`
`Hauler, Vaughn, Evans, and
`Wendt
`Tegethoff, Vaughn, Evans, and
`Wendt
`
`Claims 14-17
`
`Claim 1
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`At the outset, we note that although Cuozzo filed a Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 11), that preliminary response does not discuss the merits
`
`of any alleged ground of unpatentability, but rather, tangential matters which
`
`we address below, after the discussion on the merits of the alleged grounds.
`
`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 Garmin nor Cuozzo contends that the
`
`specification, as filed, coined a new meaning for any term.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`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.
`
`“integrally attached”
`
`
`
`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. It was proposed during examination by
`
`amendment to application claims 1 and 11 to distinguish over Patent
`
`6,515,596 (“Awada”).1 Ex. 1115, 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
`
`which are now column 5, lines 9-12, column 5, lines 45-49, and Figures 1, 3,
`
`and 4 of the ’074 Patent. Ex. 1115, 6: 4-16; 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
`
`
`1 Application claim 11 issued as patent claim 10.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`filter. Ex. 1101, 5:9-12. Thus, Cuozzo relied on separate and discrete
`
`components, joined as one unit, as providing written description support for
`
`“integrally attached.”
`
`
`
`When amending application claims to distinguish the claimed
`
`invention from Awada, the applicant stated, Ex. 1115, 6:20-25:
`
`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:
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates display 110, separate and remote from the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`speedometer, which shows the speed limit. Display 110 shows that 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.
`
`The term “integrally attached” would require the speedometer and the
`
`display 110 to be joined physically as one unit, so that they are viewable at
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`one location, thus providing a distinction from Awada’s disclosed
`
`arrangement.
`
`
`
`Also when distinguishing the claimed invention from another
`
`reference (“Smith, Jr.”), the applicant stated, Ex. 1115, 7:4-6:
`
`In contrast, the colored display of the present invention adjusts
`independently of the speedometer by rotation of a colored filter
`by the display controller (page 8, lines 14-17).
`
`The above-quoted remark indicates that despite the “integrally
`
`
`
`attached” requirement of each independent claim, the colored display and
`
`the speedometer still possess separate identities.
`
`
`
`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.”
`
`
`
`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.” It does not mean that the two units may not share some
`
`components, but one should not be completely subsumed within the other.
`
`
`
`The Board construes “integrally attached” as applied to the colored
`
`display and the speedometer in the context of the ’074 patent as meaning:
`
`discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without
`each part losing its own separate identity.
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`B. Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 19 as anticipated by Nagoshi
`
`
`
`Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that each and every
`
`element, as set forth in the claim, is found either expressly or inherently
`
`described in a single prior art reference. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743,
`
`745 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628,
`
`631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Furthermore, the elements must be arranged as is
`
`recited in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359,
`
`1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d
`
`1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`
`
`Nagoshi discloses a system, for use on a vehicle, for making the driver
`
`aware of the speed limit at the current position of the vehicle. Ex. 1103,
`
`Abstract: 1-12. It is titled “A Vehicle Speed Limit Warning Device.” Speed
`
`limit information for each road section is stored in a memory, and a
`
`microcomputer determines the speed limit at the vehicle’s current location
`
`by using coordinates of the vehicle’s current location, provided by a
`
`navigation system, together with the speed limit information stored in
`
`memory. Ex. 1103, Abstract: 6-11. The determined speed limit at the
`
`vehicle’s current position is displayed. Ex, 1103, Abstract: 11-12. Nagoshi
`
`discloses that vehicle location information may be determined by use of
`
`GPS (Global Positioning System). Ex. 1103 ¶ 0019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`Figure 5 of Nagoshi is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 5 of Nagoshi illustrates the display included in an embodiment
`
`of Nagoshi’s device, which shows both the current speed of the vehicle as
`
`well as the speed limit at the vehicle’s current location. Specifically, the
`
`speed limit is shown in two ways, by numeric display, shown as “40” above,
`
`and by colored illumination of light emitting diodes (LEDs). A band of light
`
`LEDs is arranged on the outer periphery of the speedometer’s speed display,
`
`associated with corresponding portions of the entire speed range, and LEDs
`
`associated with the velocity range at, and below, the current speed limit
`
`would show green, while LEDs associated with the velocity range above the
`
`current speed limit would show red. Ex. 1103 ¶ 0016.
`
`
`
`The above-noted operation of Nagoshi is identified and relied on by
`
`Garmin, for claim 1, in its Petition from page 15, line 25 to page 16, line 22,
`
`and for claim 10, in its petition on page 43, lines 12-20. The band of LEDs
`
`on the outside periphery of the speedometer constitutes a colored display
`
`that delineates which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit at the
`
`vehicle’s current location, a feature required by each of claims 1 and 10.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`Similarly, with respect to all other features of claims 1 and 10,
`
`Garmin’s petition specifically addresses how they are described in Nagoshi.
`
`On this record, in the absence of meaningful rebuttal from Cuozzo, we are
`
`persuaded that Nagoshi describes all elements of claims 1 and 10.
`
`
`
`For example, each of claims 1 and 10 requires that the colored display
`
`be integrally attached to the speedometer. As shown in Nagoshi’s Figure 5,
`
`a band of LEDs, constituting the colored display, is mounted on the
`
`periphery of a speedometer display. While the entire apparatus, including
`
`the band of LEDs, may be regarded as a speedometer, so can the portion
`
`including all elements, except the band of LEDs. That is, whether the band
`
`of LEDs is present or not, the apparatus displays the vehicle speed, as is
`
`characteristic of a speedometer. Thus, the configuration, as shown, satisfies
`
`the requirement of a colored display that is integrally attached to a
`
`speedometer.
`
`
`
`Each of claims 1 and 10 also requires the colored display to
`
`“continuously update” the delineation of which speed readings are in
`
`violation of the speed limit at a vehicle’s resent location. Nagoshi’s LEDs
`
`meet that requirement, because the disclosed system determines the speed
`
`limit corresponding to the current location coordinates of the vehicle, and
`
`displays the same to the driver. Ex. 1103, ¶ [0007]:6-12. Note also that the
`
`stated objective of Nagoshi is to make the driver aware of the speed limit,
`
`wherever the location of the vehicle. Ex. 1103, Abstract: 1-2; ¶ 0005:2-3.
`
`According to Nagoshi, the speed limit for “each [and] every” road section is
`
`stored in memory, and helps to determine the speed limit at the current
`
`location of a vehicle based on current vehicle location coordinates.
`
`Ex. 1103, Abstract: 7-11.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`With regard to claim 1, which requires that the display controller
`
`adjusts the colored display independently of the speedometer, it is evident
`
`that Nagoshi’s microcomputer 12 controls the band of LEDs in a way that
`
`does not affect, and is not affected by, the detection and display of the
`
`vehicle’s current speed. The operation of the band of LEDs is based on
`
`stored speed limit information, not on the vehicle’s current speed. As is
`
`noted by Garmin, operation of Nagoshi’s speedometer, with regard to speed
`
`detection and display, is uninterrupted by the LEDs. Pet. 18:2:14-16.
`
`
`
`With regard to claim 10, which requires a global positioning system
`
`(GPS) that provides input to a display controller to adjust the colored
`
`display, Nagoshi describes that vehicle location determination can be
`
`performed by a GPS. Ex. 1103 ¶ 0019. Nagoshi’s microcomputer 12 serves
`
`as a display controller, which takes input from navigation system 11,
`
`accesses memory 7 for speed limit information, and performs overall process
`
`control including sending information to the display. Ex. 1103, Fig. 2;
`
`Abstract: 6-12; ¶ 0009:11-13; ¶ 0014.
`
`
`
`Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and recites that the display controller
`
`comprises a tone generator. Claim 19 depends on claim 10 and recites that
`
`the display controller further comprises a tone generator. For claims 9 and
`
`19, Garmin, in its Petition, observes that Nagoshi discloses such a warning
`
`buzzer to inform the driver that the vehicle exceeds the speed limit.
`
`Pet. 42:2:9-11; 56:2:20-23. On this record, Figures 2 and 6 of Nagoshi
`
`(Ex. 1103) support a finding that warning sound generation device 18 and
`
`speaker 19 are a part of a display controller that controls the colored display.
`
`
`
`We are not persuaded, however, that Nagoshi discloses the additional
`
`features recited in claim 7.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and further recites an electrically
`
`conductive wire having opposing ends with one end connected to said
`
`display controller, and a speed limit locating device connected to the
`
`opposing end of the wire. In that regard, Garmin identifies Nagoshi’s
`
`microcomputer 12 in Figure 2 as the display controller, and determining
`
`means 4 in Figure 1 as the speed limit locating device. Pet. 38:2:24-27.
`
`Such identification is misplaced. Figure 1 is a general diagram
`
`corresponding to the scope of claim 1 of Nagoshi (Ex. 1103, ¶ [0006]:1-3).
`
`Nagoshi’s Figure 2 illustrates the configuration of an actual disclosed
`
`embodiment, which evidently is covered by the general diagram of Figure 1.
`
`The two figures may not be mixed together as one circuit diagram. At most,
`
`they are separate embodiments. Garmin has failed to explain how the
`
`additional feature required by claim 7 is met by the component parts shown
`
`either in Figure 1 or in Figure 2.
`
`C. Claims 2, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 20 as obvious over Nagoshi and Vaughn
`
`
`
`Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and further recites that the colored
`
`display is a liquid crystal display. Similarly, claim 12 depends on claim 10
`
`and recites that the colored display is a liquid crystal display. As discussed
`
`above, the colored display on the device of Nagoshi is a band of LEDs.
`
`
`
`Also as discussed above, Nagoshi discloses every element of claims 1
`
`and 10, and the claimed colored display reads on Nagoshi’s band of LEDs,
`
`which is not a liquid crystal display. Garmin cites to Vaughn as evidence
`
`that one with ordinary skill in the art would have known that a liquid crystal
`
`display is an alternative to a collection of LEDs for purposes of making a
`
`visual display. Vaughn describes the use of an electronic display for
`
`showing the current location and speed of a vehicle, as well as the speed
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`limit at that location. Ex. 1108, 9:20-23. Furthermore, Vaughn describes
`
`that its display screens can be implemented by light-emitting diodes (LEDs),
`
`liquid crystal display (LCD), or cathode ray tube. Ex. 1108, 9:14-17. On
`
`this record, we are persuaded by Garmin that one with ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known that a suitable liquid crystal display can be an
`
`alternative to the band of LEDs employed by Nagoshi.
`
`
`
`Claim 8 depends on claim 7. Garmin relies on Vaughn to account for
`
`features additionally recited in claim 8. The deficiencies of Nagoshi with
`
`regard to claim 7, as discussed above, are not cured by Garmin’s reliance on
`
`Vaughn. Garmin does not explain how the components illustrated in
`
`Nagoshi’s Figures 1 and 2 properly may be regarded, by one with ordinary
`
`skill in the art, as constituting one circuit diagram, such that a wire connects
`
`microcomputer 12 of Figure 2 to the determining means 4 of Figure 1.
`
`
`
`Claim 11 depends on claim 10, and further recites that the global
`
`positioning system receiver further comprises a database of locations and
`
`their corresponding speed limits. Garmin acknowledges that the memory
`
`described in Nagoshi for storing speed limit information is not expressly
`
`described as a database. Pet. 49:2:11-13. Garmin cites to Vaughn as
`
`evidence that one with ordinary skill in the art would have known to use a
`
`GPS computer and an associated local database that stores speed limit
`
`information. Pet. 40:2:16-18; 40:2:34-35. We are persuaded. Vaughn does
`
`disclose a GPS based navigation system which includes a GPS computer and
`
`an associated local database. Ex. 1108, 2:58-60; 8:52-55.
`
`
`
`Garmin contends that in light of Vaughn’s disclosure, it would have
`
`been well within the knowledge of one with ordinary skill in the art to
`
`modify the GPS navigation system of Nagoshi so that it includes a local
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`database which stores locations and their corresponding speed limits.
`
`Without meaningful rebuttal from Cuozzo, we are persuaded.
`
`
`
`Claim 13 depends on claim 12, and further recites that the display
`
`controller adjusts the liquid crystal display, which is the colored display,
`
`independently of the speedometer. As discussed above, Garmin has
`
`addressed adequately a similar feature in the context of claim 1, directed
`
`generally to a colored display rather than to a liquid crystal display. The
`
`reasoning is no less persuasive in the context of a liquid crystal display. In
`
`essence, operation of Nagoshi’s speedometer, with regard to speed detection
`
`and display, is unaffected by, and does not affect operation of, a liquid
`
`crystal display which substitutes for Nagoshi’s band of LEDs.
`
`
`
`Claim 20 depends on claim 1. With respect to claim 20, we have
`
`reviewed Garmin’s argument on pages 56-58 of the Petition, as well as
`
`Section V(H) as referenced on page 57 of the Petition, and Section V(A) as
`
`referenced on page 58 of the petition. The analysis is persuasive, in the
`
`absence of meaningful rebuttal from Cuozzo. We note that under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, the feature “uploading current
`
`information to regional speed limit database” is met by placing current speed
`
`limit information into the database. It seems implicit that Vaughn’s database
`
`stores current information. In any event, one with ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known to place current, rather than outdated, speed limit
`
`information into a speed limit database.
`
`D. Claims 4 and 5 as obvious over Nagoshi and Evans
`
`
`
`Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and claim 5 depends on claim 4. Claims
`
`4 and 5 recite mechanical components of a conventional speedometer, such
`
`as a needle, an axle, and a cable in claim 4, and a backplate, speed denoting
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`markings on the backplate, and a housing in claim 5. Garmin points out that
`
`Evans describes a conventional mechanical speedometer including a needle
`
`connected to one end of an axle, and that it was well known in the art that a
`
`speedometer axle is connected to a cable which controls the display needle.
`
`Pet. 35:2:11-15. Garmin also points out that the conventional mechanical
`
`speedometer of Evans includes a housing, a backplate, and a plurality of
`
`speed denoting markings on the backplate. Pet. 36:2:6-10. The contentions
`
`are supported by those portions of Evans which are cited by Garmin.
`
`
`
`Garmin acknowledges that Nagoshi does not indicate expressly that
`
`its speedometer is a conventional mechanical speedometer, or an electronic
`
`speedometer that displays the image of a conventional mechanical
`
`speedometer. Pet. 34:2:36-35:2:3. Garmin explains that assuming
`
`Nagoshi’s speedometer is not a conventional mechanical speedometer, it
`
`would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill to implement it as a
`
`conventional mechanical speedometer as described in Evans, albeit still with
`
`Nagoshi’s band of LED’s attached to the speedometer display. The
`
`reasoning is persuasive, especially in light of Figures 4 and 5 of Nagoshi,
`
`which are consistent with the appearance of a conventional mechanical
`
`speedometer.
`
`E. Claims 6 and 18 as obvious over Nagoshi and Tegethoff
`
`
`
`Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and recites that the speedometer
`
`comprises a liquid crystal display. Claim 18 depends on claim 10, and
`
`recites that the speedometer comprises a liquid crystal display. Garmin
`
`points out that Tegethoff describes a screen which is implemented by a
`
`liquid crystal display, one which displays the image of a conventional
`
`mechanical speedometer such that image-wise, it is not distinguishable from
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`a conventional mechanical speedometer. Pet. 37:2:1-9. The contentions are
`
`supported by those portions of Tegethoff cited by Garmin.
`
`
`
`Garmin acknowledges that Nagoshi does not expressly indicate that
`
`its speedometer is a conventional mechanical speedometer, or an electronic
`
`speedometer, which displays the image of a conventional mechanical
`
`speedometer. Pet. 37:2:12-15. Garmin explains that assuming Nagoshi’s
`
`speedometer is not an electronic speedometer which displays the image of a
`
`conventional mechanical speedometer, it would have been obvious to one
`
`with ordinary skill to implement it as such, as is described in Tegethoff,
`
`albeit still with Nagoshi’s band of LED’s attached to the speedometer
`
`display. Pet. 37:2:15-27. The reasoning is persuasive. Tegethoff teaches
`
`such an electronic display.
`
`F. Claims 3, 14, 15, 16, and 17 as obvious over Nagoshi, Evans, Wendt, and
`Brandt
`
`
`
`We need not discuss claim 17 because no claim involved in this
`
`proceeding depends on claim 17, and because we decline to institute review
`
`on claim 17, which was already cancelled in IPR2012-00001.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00373
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`1. Claims 3 and 14
`
`
`
`Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and recites that the colored display is a
`
`colored filter. Claim 14 depends on claim 10, and recites tha
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
