throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 59
`Entered: January 12, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner, Toyota Motor Corporation (“Toyota”), filed a Petition for
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–4, 7–10, 30–34, 37–41, 43, 46, 48, 49, 56,
`
`59–62, and 64 of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,057 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’057
`
`patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, American Vehicular Sciences
`
`LLC (“AVS”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 17 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`On January 13, 2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted an inter
`
`partes review for all challenged claims on certain grounds of unpatentability
`
`asserted in the Petition. Paper 19 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, AVS filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper
`
`33), and later filed a Revised Patent Owner Response (Paper 45, “PO
`
`Resp.”).1 Toyota filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 40, “Pet.
`
`Reply”).
`
`A consolidated oral hearing for this proceeding and Toyota Motor
`
`Corp. v. American Vehicular Sciences, LLC, IPR2013-00424, involving the
`
`same parties and similar issues, was held on August 18, 2014. A transcript
`
`of the consolidated hearing is included in the record. Paper 58 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have 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.
`
`As explained below, Toyota has shown by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that claims 30, 32–34, 37–40, 43, 46, 48, and 49 of the ’057 patent
`
`are unpatentable, but Toyota has not shown by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that claims 1–4, 7–10, 31, 41, 56, 59–62, and 64 of the ’057 patent
`
`are unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Toyota and AVS indicate that the ’057 patent has been asserted by
`
`AVS in the following district court cases: American Vehicular Sciences
`
`LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 6:12-cv-00410 (E.D. Tex.) (filed June 25,
`
`2012); American Vehicular Sciences LLC v. BMW Group, No. 6:12-cv-
`
`
`
`1 We authorized AVS to file a Revised Patent Owner Response to make
`certain non-substantive corrections to the Patent Owner Response. See
`Papers 39, 44 (Orders on Conduct of the Proceedings).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`00415 (E.D. Tex.) (filed June 25, 2012); American Vehicular Sciences LLC
`
`v. Subaru of Am. Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00230 (E.D. Tex.) (filed Mar. 8, 2013);
`
`and American Vehicular Sciences LLC v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int’l, Inc.,
`
`No. 6:13-cv-00309 (E.D. Tex.) (filed Apr. 3, 2013). Pet. 1; Paper 27, 2–3.
`
`B. The’057 Patent
`
`The ’057 patent, titled “Vehicular Monitoring Systems Using Image
`
`Processing,” generally relates to a vehicle monitoring arrangement for
`
`monitoring an environment exterior of a vehicle. Ex. 1001, Abstract. One
`
`embodiment of such an arrangement described in the ’057 patent includes a
`
`transmitter that transmits electromagnetic waves into the environment
`
`exterior of a vehicle and one or more receivers that receive reflections of the
`
`transmitted waves from exterior objects, such as approaching vehicles.
`
`Id. at 14:8–12, 14:32–37, 38:7–13, Fig. 7. In a preferred implementation,
`
`the transmitter is an infrared transmitter, and the receivers are CCD (charge
`
`coupled device) transducers that receive the reflected infrared waves.
`
`Id. at 38:10–12, 39:25–28. One or more receivers may be arranged on a rear
`
`view mirror of the vehicle. Id. at 14:58–60, 38:22–25. The system also may
`
`include radar or pulsed laser radar (lidar) for measuring distance between the
`
`vehicle and exterior objects. Id. at 14:38–40, 39:1–6.
`
`The waves received by the receivers contain information about
`
`exterior objects in the environment, and the receivers generate signals
`
`characteristic of the received waves. Id. at 14:12–14, 39:44–49. A trained
`
`pattern recognition means, such as a neural computer or neural network,
`
`processes the signals to provide a classification, identification, or location of
`
`an exterior object. Id. at 14:17–25, 39:49–54. Training of a neural network
`
`to provide classification, identification, or location of objects is
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`accomplished by conducting a large number of experiments in which the
`
`system is taught to differentiate among received signals corresponding to
`
`different objects. Id. at 36:22–39 (describing a neural network training
`
`session in connection with an embodiment that monitors an interior of a
`
`vehicle, particularly the passenger seat). The classification, identification, or
`
`location of an exterior object may be used to affect operation of other
`
`systems in the vehicle, e.g., to show an image or icon on a display viewable
`
`by a driver or to deploy an airbag. Id. at 14:21–31, 39:54–62.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 30, 40, and 56 are independent.
`
`Claims 1, 30, and 40 are illustrative:
`
`A monitoring arrangement for monitoring an
`1.
`environment exterior of a vehicle, comprising:
`
`at least one receiver arranged to receive waves from the
`environment exterior of the vehicle which contain information
`on any objects in the environment and generate a signal
`characteristic of the received waves; and
`
`a processor coupled to said at least one receiver and
`comprising trained pattern recognition means for processing the
`signal to provide a classification, identification or location of
`the exterior object, said trained pattern recognition means being
`structured and arranged to apply a trained pattern recognition
`algorithm generated from data of possible exterior objects and
`patterns of received waves from the possible exterior objects to
`provide the classification, identification or location of the
`exterior object;
`
`whereby a system in the vehicle is coupled to said
`processor such that the operation of the system is affected in
`response to the classification, identification or location of the
`exterior object.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`30. A vehicle including a monitoring arrangement for
`monitoring an environment exterior of
`the vehicle,
`the
`monitoring arrangement comprising:
`
`at least one receiver arranged on a rear view mirror of
`the vehicle to receive waves from the environment exterior of
`the vehicle which contain information on any objects in the
`environment and generate a signal characteristic of the received
`waves; and
`
`a processor coupled to said at least one receiver and
`arranged to classify or identify the exterior object based on the
`signal and thereby provide the classification or identification of
`the exterior object;
`
`whereby a system in the vehicle is coupled to said
`processor such that the operation of the system is affected in
`response to the classification or identification of the exterior
`object.
`
`40. A monitoring arrangement for monitoring an
`environment exterior of a vehicle, comprising:
`
`a plurality of receivers arranged apart from one another
`and to receive waves from different parts of the environment
`exterior of the vehicle which contain information on any objects
`in the environment and generate a signal characteristic of the
`received waves; and
`
`a processor coupled to said receivers and arranged to
`classify, identify or locate the exterior object based on the
`signals generated by said receivers and thereby provide the
`classification[,] identification or location of the exterior object,
`
`whereby a system in the vehicle is coupled to said
`processor such that the operation of the system is affected in
`response to the classification, identification or location of the
`exterior object.
`
`Ex. 1001, 54:13–32, 55:58–56:6, 56:37–52 (emphases added).
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`D. Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted inter partes review based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability asserted in the Petition:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Lemelson2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`1–4, 7–10, 40, 41, 46, 48,
`49, 56, 59–61, and 64
`
`Lemelson and
`Borcherts3
`Lemelson and
`Asayama4
`Lemelson, Borcherts,
`and Asayama
`Yamamura5 and
`Borcherts
`
`Dec. on Inst. 38.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 30–34, 37–39, and 62
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 4, 43, and 59
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 34
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 30, 32, and 37–39
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we construed several claim terms of the
`
`’057 patent, as set forth in the following table:
`
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,553,130, issued Apr. 22, 2003 (Ex. 1002).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,245,422, issued Sept. 14, 1993 (Ex. 1004).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,214,408, issued May 25, 1993 (Ex. 1005).
`5 Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. H06-124340,
`published May 6, 1994 (Ex. 1012). Citations to Yamamura refer to its
`English translation (Ex. 1013).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`Claim Term
`
`Board’s Construction
`
`“trained pattern
`recognition algorithm”
`
`“trained pattern
`recognition means”
`
`“identify”
`
`“exterior object”
`
`“rear view mirror”
`
`“transmitter”
`
`“an algorithm that processes a signal that is
`generated by an object, or is modified by
`interacting with an object, in order to
`determine to which one of a set of classes
`the object belongs, the algorithm having
`been taught, through a variety of examples,
`various patterns of received signals
`generated or modified by objects”
`“a neural computer or neural network
`trained for pattern recognition, and
`equivalents thereof”
`“determine that the object belongs to a
`particular set or class”
`“a material or physical thing outside the
`vehicle, not a part of the roadway on which
`the vehicle travels”
`“a mirror that faces to the rear”
`“device that transmits any type of
`electromagnetic waves, including visible
`light”
`
`Dec. on Inst. 8–15. AVS does not contest these constructions for purposes
`
`of this proceeding, PO Resp. 9–10, and Toyota does not dispute these
`
`constructions in its Reply. We maintain these constructions for this Final
`
`Written Decision.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`To prevail in challenging AVS’s claims, Toyota must demonstrate by
`
`a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is anticipated if a single prior art
`
`reference either expressly or inherently discloses every limitation of the
`
`claim. Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., 605 F.3d 967, 975 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
`
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`
`C. Anticipation by Lemelson
`Claims 1–4, 7–10, 40, 41, 46, 48, 49, 56, 59–61, and 64
`
`Toyota asserts that claims 1–4, 7–10, 40, 41, 46, 48, 49, 56, 59–61,
`
`and 64 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
`
`Lemelson. Pet. 10–24. In support of this assertion, Toyota provides detailed
`
`analysis and claim charts explaining how Lemelson discloses each claim
`
`limitation. Id. Toyota also relies on the testimony of Dr. Nikolaos
`
`Papanikolopoulos, as set forth in his Declaration (Ex. 1016) and Reply
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1023).
`
`AVS responds that Lemelson does not disclose each limitation of the
`
`challenged claims. PO Resp. 11–25. For support, AVS relies on the
`
`testimony of Dr. Cris Koutsougeras, as set forth in his Declaration
`
`(Ex. 2001).
`
`Having considered the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence,
`
`we determine that Toyota has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that claims 40, 46, 48, and 49 are anticipated by Lemelson, but
`
`Toyota has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims
`
`1–4, 7–10, 41, 56, 59–61, and 64 are anticipated by Lemelson.
`
`1. Lemelson
`
`Lemelson discloses a computerized system in a motor vehicle that
`
`identifies possible obstacles on a roadway and either warns the driver or
`
`controls the operation of vehicle systems, such as the brakes or steering
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`mechanism, to avoid or lessen the effect of a collision. Ex. 1002, Abstract,
`
`5:15–29, 8:38–39. The system includes at least one video camera, mounted
`
`at the front end of the vehicle, such as the front end of the roof, bumper, or
`
`hood. Id. at 5:31–34. The system may include multiple cameras for front,
`
`side, and rear viewing, and for stereo imaging capabilities. Id. at 6:27–42.
`
`The video camera also may be implemented with other technologies,
`
`including infrared imaging methods. Id. at 6:34–37. In addition, the system
`
`may use radar or lidar for range detection. Id. at 5:67–6:4. “[V]ideo
`
`scanning and radar or lidar scanning may be jointly employed to identify and
`
`indicate distances between the controlled vehicle and objects ahead of, to the
`
`side(s) of, and to the rear of the controlled vehicle.” Id. at 6:5–8.
`
`The analog signal output from the video camera(s) is digitized in an
`
`analog-to-digital convertor and passed to an image analyzing computer
`
`(IAC), which is
`
`provided, implemented and programmed using neural networks
`and artificial intelligence as well as fuzzy logic algorithms to
`(a) identify objects on the road ahead such as other vehicles,
`pedestrians, barriers and dividers, turns in the road, signs and
`symbols, etc., and generate identification codes, and (b) detect
`distances from such objects by their size (and shape) and
`provide codes indicating same for use by a decision computer[]
`23, which generates coded control signals which are applied
`through the computer 11 or are directly passed to various
`warning and vehicle operating devices such as a braking
`computer or drive[] 35, which operates a brake servo 33, a
`steering computer or drive(s) 39 and 40 which operate steering
`servos 36; . . . a headlight controller 41 for flashing the head
`lights, a warning light control 42 for flashing external and/or
`internal warning lights; a horn control 43, etc.
`
`Id. at 5:39–59. The IAC also may display symbols representing hazard
`
`objects. Id. at 6:52–55, 9:60–62.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`Lemelson discloses further details regarding a neural network
`
`embodiment of the IAC for identifying objects:
`
`Neural networks used in the vehicle . . . warning system are
`trained to recognize roadway hazards which the vehicle is
`approaching including automobiles, trucks, and pedestrians.
`Training involves providing known inputs to the network
`resulting
`in desired output responses. The weights are
`automatically adjusted based on error signal measurements until
`the desired outputs are generated. Various learning algorithms
`may be applied. Adaptive operation is also possible with on-
`line adjustment of network weights
`to meet
`imaging
`requirements. The neural network embodiment of the image
`analysis computer 19 provides a highly parallel
`image
`processing structure with rapid, real-time image recognition
`necessary for the Motor Vehicle Warning and Control System.
`
`Id. at 8:1–14.
`
`2. “Generated from” Limitation
`
`A central dispute between the parties is whether Lemelson discloses a
`
`“trained pattern recognition algorithm generated from data of possible
`
`exterior objects and patterns of received waves from the possible exterior
`
`objects.” This limitation appears in independent claims 1 and 56 and in
`
`claim 41, which depends from claim 40. Although we construed “trained
`
`pattern recognition algorithm” in our Decision on Institution, we did not
`
`provide an express construction for the “generated from” language following
`
`that term in the claims. For this Final Written Decision, we construe the
`
`“generated from” limitation according to its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification of the ’057 patent. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b).
`
`AVS contends that the “generated from” limitation in claims 1, 41,
`
`and 56 requires a particular type of training to generate the “trained pattern
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`recognition algorithm” recited in the claims. PO Resp. 6. Relying on the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Koutsougeras, AVS argues that the ’057 patent discloses
`
`and claims a specific method for training the pattern recognition means
`
`using “data of possible exterior objects and patterns of received waves from
`
`the possible exterior objects.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19, 20, 53). For
`
`example, if a vehicle uses a radar receiver, AVS contends that the claims
`
`require training using “real radar waves” received from actual examples of
`
`possible exterior objects placed in front of the radar system, along with data
`
`indicating the identity or classification of the objects. Id. at 6–7 (citing
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–20). AVS contrasts the use of real waves to train a pattern
`
`recognition system, as recited in the claims, with other methods of training,
`
`such as using simulated data (e.g., a computer simulation of radar waves).
`
`Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 46, 55–63).
`
`Toyota argues that the “generated from” language of claims 1, 41, and
`
`56 does not require training with real data. Pet. Reply 2, 4. Because the
`
`claims refer to “data of possible exterior objects” and “patterns of received
`
`waves,” rather than “data from” and “patterns from,” Toyota contends that
`
`the claim language encompasses training using simulated data and patterns
`
`that represent possible objects and received waves, respectively.
`
`Id. at 2, 4–5.
`
`As neither party asserts that the “generated from” language is defined
`
`in the ’057 patent, we give the claim language its ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In describing the training of
`
`pattern recognition systems, such as neural networks, for use with the
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`invention, the ’057 patent explains that a large number of experiments are
`
`conducted in which different objects are placed in numerous positions and
`
`orientations, and signals from a CCD array are returned from the objects and
`
`measured by sensors or transducers. Ex. 1001, 36:22–39. This is the sole
`
`example of a pattern recognition training session provided in the ’057 patent.
`
`Although the described training session relates to objects inside a vehicle,
`
`the ’057 patent indicates that pattern recognition systems for identifying
`
`exterior objects are trained in a similar manner. See, e.g., id. at 40:1–9.
`
`According to the plain language of the disputed limitation, the
`
`algorithm must be generated from both “data of possible exterior objects”
`
`and “patterns of received waves from the possible exterior objects.” We are
`
`not persuaded by Toyota’s argument that the claimed “patterns of received
`
`waves,” in contrast to “patterns from received waves,” need only be patterns
`
`representing what received waves would look like. Neither the written
`
`description of the ’057 patent nor the claim language, in context, supports
`
`such parsing, particularly when the claim language further requires the
`
`waves to be received “from” possible exterior objects.
`
`In view of the claim language and the description in the ’057 patent of
`
`a training session using signal patterns actually received from real objects,
`
`we see no reasonable basis for interpreting “generated from . . . patterns of
`
`received waves from the possible exterior objects” to encompass training of
`
`a pattern recognition algorithm using simulated wave patterns. Therefore,
`
`the broadest reasonable construction of the claim language at issue requires a
`
`pattern recognition algorithm that has been generated using patterns of
`
`waves actually received from possible exterior objects.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`3. Claims 1–4, 7–10, 41, 56, 59–61, and 64
`
`The monitoring arrangement in independent claim 1 classifies,
`
`identifies, or locates an exterior object using a “trained pattern recognition
`
`algorithm generated from data of possible exterior objects and patterns of
`
`received waves from the possible exterior objects.” Independent claim 56
`
`and dependent claim 41, which depends from claim 40, recite the same
`
`limitation. In its Petition, Toyota contends that Lemelson’s IAC classifies,
`
`identifies, and locates objects through the use of a neural network for pattern
`
`recognition that has been trained on a data set. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1016
`
`¶¶ 52–55). According to Toyota, “Lemelson explains that the neural
`
`network in the IAC may be ‘trained’ using ‘known inputs.’” Id. at 13 (citing
`
`Ex. 1002, 7:47–8:10, 8:21–23).
`
`AVS contends that Lemelson does not disclose, either expressly or
`
`inherently, the specific type of training of the pattern recognition algorithm
`
`recited in claims 1, 41, and 56. PO Resp. 11. AVS admits that Lemelson
`
`discloses a system for identifying objects exterior to a vehicle using a type of
`
`pattern recognition algorithm (a neural network). Id. at 12. AVS contends,
`
`however, that Lemelson’s reference to “known inputs” fails to disclose a
`
`trained pattern recognition algorithm that is generated in the manner
`
`required by the claims. Id. at 14–21.
`
`As discussed above, we have construed “trained pattern recognition
`
`algorithm generated from data of possible exterior objects and patterns of
`
`received waves from the possible exterior objects” to require training using
`
`patterns of waves actually received from possible exterior objects. For the
`
`following reasons, we find that Toyota has not demonstrated by a
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`preponderance of the evidence that Lemelson discloses a trained pattern
`
`recognition algorithm generated in this manner.
`
`As AVS correctly asserts, id. at 12, Toyota’s Petition and supporting
`
`Declaration of Dr. Papanikolopoulos cite only one sentence from Lemelson
`
`as relating to training a neural network for pattern recognition: “Training
`
`involves providing known inputs to the network resulting in desired output
`
`responses.” Ex. 1002, 8:4–6 (emphasis added); see Pet. 11, 13, 16–17;
`
`Ex. 1016 ¶ 55. AVS’s arguments focus on whether a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood Lemelson’s “known inputs” to refer to
`
`patterns of waves actually received from possible exterior objects. AVS
`
`submits that there are other ways Lemelson’s system could have generated
`
`its pattern recognition algorithm and, therefore, Lemelson’s known inputs
`
`are not necessarily “patterns of received waves from the possible exterior
`
`objects,” as recited in the claims. PO Resp. 14–21.
`
`First, AVS argues that Lemelson could have involved generating the
`
`pattern recognition algorithm using “simulated data.” PO Resp. 14–15
`
`(citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 55–63). Relying on the testimony of Dr. Koutsougeras,
`
`AVS explains that “[s]imulated data is data that does not include any
`
`‘patterns of received waves from the possible exterior objects.’ Rather, it is
`
`generated by computer programs that simulate what sensors would be
`
`reading if they were detecting an object.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 55–
`
`63). Dr. Koutsougeras testifies that Lemelson’s “known inputs” very well
`
`could have been simulated data, as using simulated data for training neural
`
`networks was widely known, and using simulated data for training a neural
`
`network on a vehicle had been described in a published thesis. Ex. 2001
`
`¶¶ 58–59 (citing Ex. 2004, 38). AVS also argues that Lemelson’s “known
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`inputs” could have involved training with waves actually received from
`
`objects other than exterior objects to be classified or identified, e.g., training
`
`with waves from license plates rather than vehicles. PO Resp. 19–21 (citing
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 64–71).
`
`Toyota responds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that training a neural network to identify exterior objects in
`
`Lemelson would have been done with “real data,” and not with simulated or
`
`“partial data” (i.e., actual waves received from objects other than those being
`
`detected). Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 10–26). Initially, we note that
`
`Toyota introduces this argument for the first time in its Reply, along with a
`
`supporting Reply Declaration from Dr. Papanikolopoulos (Ex. 1023). A
`
`reply may only respond to arguments raised in the patent owner response.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Furthermore, “a reply that raises a new issue or
`
`belatedly presents evidence will not be considered.” Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 12, 2014).
`
`Even if we consider Toyota’s newly proffered argument and evidence
`
`as responsive to AVS’s Patent Owner Response, we are not persuaded that
`
`Toyota has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Lemelson’s
`
`“known inputs” are patterns of waves actually received from possible
`
`exterior objects, as required by the claims. Instead, we find credible the
`
`testimony of AVS’s expert, Dr. Koutsougeras, that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood that Lemelson’s “known inputs” could
`
`include real or simulated data for training a neural network. See Ex. 2001
`
`¶¶ 55–63; see also Ex. 1022, 132:24–138:5, 157:12–159:14, 163:18–164:7
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`(deposition testimony of Dr. Koutsougeras).6 This understanding is
`
`supported by Toyota’s counsel, who was asked at the hearing whether
`
`“known inputs” in Lemelson refers to “just real sensor data or is . . .
`
`understood as both” real data and simulated data. Tr. 27:25–28:1. He
`
`answered that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`[known inputs] as real sensor data, but it is not to the exclusion of simulated
`
`data.” Id. at 28:4–6 (emphasis added). In addition, Toyota’s expert,
`
`Dr. Papanikolopoulos, acknowledges in his deposition testimony that use of
`
`simulated data was a possibility for training pattern recognition algorithms.
`
`See Ex. 2002, 102:5–14 (stating that “[i]n this particular domain, you go to
`
`simulated data, or if you don’t have access to real data, to real images” for
`
`training pattern recognition systems to detect automobiles); see also id.
`
`at 48:2–9 (stating that using simulated data rather than images was a
`
`possibility).
`
`In his Reply Declaration, Dr. Papanikolopoulos opines that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood
`
`“known inputs” in Lemelson to refer to real data because an ordinarily
`
`skilled artisan “would have known that training with ‘real data’ would have
`
`yielded the best results for” the purpose of identifying exterior objects.
`
`Ex. 1023 ¶ 9. In essence, Dr. Papanikolopoulos’s supporting analysis
`
`indicates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have preferred real data
`
`over simulated or partial data for various applications. See id. ¶¶ 10–26.
`
`This preference, however, is not sufficient to show that Lemelson’s
`
`description of training with “known inputs” expressly discloses generating a
`
`
`
`6 We refer to the page numbers of the deposition transcript rather than the
`exhibit page numbers.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`pattern recognition algorithm using waves actually received from possible
`
`exterior objects, as required by the claims.7 Nor does Toyota’s evidence
`
`show by a preponderance of the evidence that Lemelson’s “known inputs”
`
`inherently, or necessarily, refer to waves actually received from possible
`
`objects, because the “known inputs” could refer to simulated data.
`
`We disagree with Toyota’s argument that Dr. Koutsougeras’s
`
`testimony should be given little weight because he has limited experience
`
`with pattern recognition in vehicles. See Pet. Reply 11–12.
`
`Dr. Koutsougeras testified that his “dissertation [was] on neural networks,
`
`particularly methods for training neural networks,” and he has taught classes
`
`and directed student theses on neural networks or for which neural networks
`
`were a substantial component. Ex. 1022, 19:19–20:24. We are not
`
`persuaded by Toyota’s argument that experience in training neural networks
`
`specifically for vehicle exterior monitoring systems is necessary to support
`
`testimony regarding an ordinarily skilled artisan’s understanding of
`
`Lemelson’s disclosure of training using “known inputs.”
`
`In addition, we are not persuaded by Toyota’s untimely citation in its
`
`Reply to a portion of Lemelson discussing “adaptive operation” and “online
`
`adjustment” of a neural network. See Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1002, 8:9–
`
`10, Figs. 1, 2). This passage refers to alterations to the neural network after
`
`training has occurred. Thus, Toyota’s evidence of “real-world” data being
`
`
`
`7 We are not persuaded by Toyota’s unsupported argument, improperly
`raised for the first time in its Reply, that “known inputs” in Lemelson are
`analogous to a genus, and “real data” is a claimed species, so that the
`“generated from” claim language is met by Lemelson’s disclosure of
`“known inputs.” See Pet. Reply 7.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`used to adjust operations of a neural network does not show that Lemelson
`
`discloses training with real data.
`
`Toyota also argues for the first time in its Reply that the “generated
`
`from” limitation is not a limitation for purposes of patentability because it is
`
`a process step within an apparatus claim and should not be given patentable
`
`weight. See Pet. Reply 3–4. We find this argument to be untimely.
`
`Toyota’s Petition does not treat the “generated from” language as if it is not
`
`a limitation, and Toyota makes no argument in its Petition that any claim
`
`contains product-by-process language. See Pet. 12–13.
`
`In any event, we are not persuaded by Toyota’s argument (Pet.
`
`Reply 4) that because the resulting pattern recognition algorithm is the same
`
`whether the algorithm is trained using real data or simulated data, the
`
`“generated from” language is not a limitation for purposes of patentability.
`
`See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“If the product in a
`
`product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the
`
`prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made
`
`by a different process.”). Toyota’s proffered expert testimony and attorney
`
`argument suggest that a pattern recognition algorithm trained with real data
`
`differs from one that is trained using simulated data. See, e.g., Ex. 1023
`
`¶¶ 18, 21 (testimony from Dr. Papanikolopoulos that simulated data would
`
`have been ineffective at the time of the invention for training a neural
`
`network to distinguish between types of objects, resulting in “garbage in-
`
`garbage out”); see also id. ¶¶ 13–15 (testimony from Dr. Papanikolopoulos
`
`that training with partial data would have been ineffective). Accordingly,
`
`we do not find that the “generated from” language of claims 1, 41, and 56 is
`
`not a limitation for purposes of patentability.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00419
`Patent 6,772,057 B2
`
`Based on the foregoing, Toyota’s Petition and supporting evidence
`
`fail to establish that the reference in Lemelson to training with “known
`
`inputs” discloses training with patterns of waves actually received from
`
`possible exterior objects. In addition, Toyota’s Reply fails to provide timely
`
`and persuasive evidence or argument that a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood that training a neural computer using “known
`
`inputs” in Lemelson necessarily describes training with patterns of waves
`
`actually received from possible exterior objects.
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket