Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 37
`Entered: June 25, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
`NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 37
`Entered: June 25, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
`NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Background
`A.
`TRW Automotive US LLC (“TRW”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 9, 10, 12–21, and 24–28 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,655,894 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’894 patent”). Magna
`Electronics Inc. (“Magna”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7. We
`instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 10, 13–16, 25, 26, and 28
`based on the following proposed grounds of unpatentability:
`Reference[s]
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`Yanagawa,1 Vellacott,2 and
`§ 103(a) 1–3, 5, and 10
`Koshizawa3
`Yanagawa, Vellacott, Koshizawa,
`and Bottesch4
`Yanagawa, Vellacott, Koshizawa,
`and Aurora5
`Yanagawa, Vellacott, Koshizawa,
`and Kawahara6
`
`After the Board instituted trial, Magna filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 23, “PO Resp.”), to which TRW replied (Paper 27, “Pet. Reply”).
`
`§ 103(a) 16
`
`§ 103(a) 13 and 14
`
`§ 103(a) 15, 25, 26, and 28
`
`
`1 JP S62-131837 to Yanagawa (June 15, 1987) (Ex. 1005).
`2 Oliver Vellacott, CMOS in Camera, IEE REVIEW (May 1994) (Ex. 1007).
`3 US 5,177,606 to Koshizawa (Jan. 5, 1993) (Ex. 1008).
`4 US 5,166,681 to Bottesch et al. (Nov. 24, 1992) (Ex. 1010).
`5 Mai Chen, AURORA: A Vision-Based Roadway Departure Warning
`System, 1995 IEEE/RSJ INT’L CONG. ON INTELLIGENT ROBOTS AND SYS.
`(Aug. 9, 1995) (Ex. 1012).
`6 US 4,758,883 to Kawahara (Jul. 19, 1988) (Ex. 1013).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`Oral Hearing was held on February 19, 2015, and the Hearing Transcript
`(Paper 36, “Tr.”) has been entered in the record.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Decision is
`entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). We determine that TRW has not
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are
`unpatentable.
`
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`TRW discloses that the ’894 patent has been asserted in Magna
`Electronics, Inc. v. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., Case No. 1:12-cv-
`00654-PLM (W.D. Mich. 2012). Pet. 6.
`
`The ’894 Patent (Ex. 1002)
`C.
`The ’894 patent, titled “Vehicular Image Sensing System,” describes a
`system for controlling a vehicle—e.g., dimming the vehicle’s headlights—
`in response to detecting “objects of interest” in front of the vehicle—e.g., the
`headlights of oncoming vehicles and the taillights of leading vehicles.
`Ex. 1002, 1:19–24. The system uses an image sensor that divides the scene
`in front of the vehicle into “a plurality of spatially separated sensing
`regions.” Id. at 2:9–12. A control circuit with a processor receives image
`data from the image sensor and determines if individual regions include light
`sources having a particular characteristic, such as a “spectral characteristic”
`(color), or intensity. Id. at 1:60–66, 5:48–56. By comparing the lights’
`characteristics with the “distribution” of the lights across the spatially
`separated sensing regions, such as the lights’ proximity to each other and to
`the vehicle’s central axis, the system can distinguish oncoming headlights
`and leading taillights from streetlights and other lights that are not of interest
`to the system. Id. at 2:38–49.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`
`Illustrative Claims
`D.
`Of the claims at issue in this proceeding, claims 1 and 25 are
`independent, and each is drawn to an image sensing system for a vehicle.
`Ex. 1002, 12:18–15:37. Claims 2, 3, 5, 10, and 13–16 depend directly or
`indirectly from claim 1, and claims 26 and 28 depend directly or indirectly
`from claim 25. Id. at12:18–16:9.
`The independent claims share at least three common limitations:
`(1) an imaging sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of light-sensing
`photosensor elements; (2) the imaging sensor being inside the vehicle on
`which it is mounted, having a forward field of view through the vehicle’s
`windshield; and (3) a logic and control circuit comprising a processor that
`processes the image data to identify objects of interest. Ex. 1002, 12:18–32,
`13:55–67, 14: 31–42, 15:11–24. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is
`reproduced below:
`1. An image sensing system for a vehicle, said image sensing
`system comprising:
`an imaging sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of
`light sensing photosensor elements formed on a semiconductor
`substrate;
`wherein said imaging sensor is disposed at an interior
`portion of the vehicle proximate the windshield of the vehicle
`and wherein said interior portion is at or proximate to an
`interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle and wherein
`said imaging sensor has a forward field of view to the exterior
`of the vehicle through the windshield;
`a logic and control circuit comprising an image processor
`for processing image data derived from said imaging sensor;
`wherein said image sensing system identifies objects of
`interest by processing said image data to identify objects of
`interest based at least on spectral differentiation; and
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`
`wherein identification of objects of interest is enhanced by
`comparing over successive frames image data associated with
`objects in said forward field of view of said image sensor.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Claim Construction
`A.
`“A claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271,
`1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that Congress implicitly adopted the
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA.”). Under
`that standard, the claim language should be read in light of the specification
`as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco
`Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we generally
`give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary
`and customary meaning is the meaning that the term would have to a person
`of ordinary skill in the art in question.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`We construe the following term in claim 1: “wherein identification of
`objects of interest is enhanced by comparing over successive frames image
`data associated with objects in said forward field of view of said image
`sensor” (“the enhanced limitation”). No other terms require express
`construction for purposes of this decision.
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`
`“wherein identification of objects of interest is enhanced by
`comparing over successive frames image data associated with
`objects in said forward field of view of said image sensor”
`
`The parties dispute the meaning of this term, and in particular the
`meaning of the phrase “the identification of objects of interest is enhanced.”
`Magna argues that this phrase means “the quality of the identification of
`objects [of interest] is improved.” PO Resp. 6. According to Magna,
`The ordinary and customary meaning of the term “enhanced” is
`“to increase or improve in value, quality, desirability, or
`attractiveness.” (Merriam-Webster definition of “enhance,”
`Ex. 2034).
` The phrase “is enhanced” directly follows
`“identification of objects of interest.” Accordingly, the plain
`language of claim 1 is clear that the quality of the identification
`of objects is improved.
`
`Id. Magna asserts that the ’894 patent Specification “is consistent with this
`construction,” as it explains that “using a plurality of frames [of image data]
`guards against erroneous object detection due to noise and eliminates
`headlamp toggling when sources are at the fringe of the detection range.”
`Id. at 6–7 (quoting Ex. 1002, 7:28–37). Thus, Magna asserts that “the
`recited enhancement is part of the object-identification process, not separate
`from it.” Id. at 7.
`TRW’s position, however, is that the construction of “identification of
`objects of interest is enhanced” in claim 1 “includes identifying a further
`characteristic of an object of interest.” Pet. Reply 3. Like Magna, TRW
`finds support for its proposed interpretation in the dictionary definition of
`“enhanced” set forth in Ex. 2034. Id. at 2; see Tr. 8:23–9:14 (agreeing with
`Magna that “enhanced” means “to increase or improve value [or] the quality,
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`desirability or attractiveness”). And, again like Magna, TRW finds support
`for its proposed construction in the Specification. TRW states:
`[T]he ’894 Patent describes (i) obtaining information on object
`motion, (ii) by comparing objects over successive frames,
`(iii) to enhance object recognition. While the ’894 Patent does
`use hysteresis, it is clear that the ’894 Patent also initially
`identifies a headlight or taillight spectral signature in a single
`frame. See 1002 at 6:32–7:17. The hysteresis is used to
`determine when to send a signal to switch the headbeam state,
`not to identify an object. See 1002 at 7:28–35.
`
`Id. at 2–3 (emphasis in original).
`The claim language at issue recites that the “identification of objects
`of interest is enhanced” (emphasis added). It does not, as TRW’s arguments
`suggest, recite that the knowledge of various aspects of the object of interest
`is enhanced. Further, using the definition of “enhance” on which the parties
`apparently agree (PO Resp. 6 (quoting Ex. 2034); Pet. Reply 2 (same)), the
`plain meaning of “identification of objects of interest is enhanced” is that the
`identification of objects of interest is improved, e.g., in quality, as Magna
`proposes. That is, the quality of the identification of objects of interest is
`better than it would have been if the identification had not been based on
`processing multiple frames of image data.
`The Specification supports this interpretation in two ways. First, the
`Specification uses the term “enhance” in the context of describing
`processing techniques that improve the quality of an identification of an
`object of interest—i.e., that improve the likelihood of correctly identifying,
`or “recognizing,” objects of interest, and ignoring objects not of interest.
`For example, the Specification teaches that
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`
`The present invention is capable of utilizing spatial filtering to
`even further enhance the ability to identify light sources. . . .
`For example, it can be concluded that very closely adjacent red
`and white light sources are not of interest as oncoming
`headlights or taillights . . . [because they] can be identified as a
`streetlight.
`
`Ex. 1002, 10:18–31 (emphasis added). Likewise, the Specification teaches
`that
`
`Pattern recognition may be used to further assist in the
`detection of headlights, taillights, and other objects of interest.
`. . . By looking for a triad pattern, including the center high-
`mounted stoplight required on the rear of vehicles, stoplight
`recognition can be enhanced. Furthermore, “object recognition
`can be enhanced by comparing
`identified objects over
`successive frames.
` This temporal processing can yield
`information on object motion and can be used to assist in
`qualifying or disqualifying objects of interest.
`
`Id. at 10:33–45.
`Second, the Specification teaches that processing image data over
`several frames does, in fact, improve the quality of the identification of
`objects of interest. In particular, the Specification teaches a control routine
`that “requir[es] that a headlight spectral signature or a taillight spectral
`signature [to] be detected for a number of frames prior to switching the
`headlights to a low-beam state.” Id. at 7:28–31. Doing so “guards against
`erroneous detection due to noise in a given frame.” Id. at 7:33–36. That is,
`this control routine improves the quality of the identification of objects of
`interest by reducing the chance that noise in a single frame will cause the
`system to erroneously detect an object of interest when none is present.
`We do not find persuasive TRW’s argument that Magna’s
`interpretation “reads out embodiments where an object of interest is
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`recognized in a single frame.” Pet. Reply 2. The interpretation does not
`require that the identification of objects of interest always requires
`processing of multiple frames of image data; rather, it means that an
`identification based on processing multiple frames of image data is less
`likely to be erroneous than an identification based on the processing of a
`single frame of image data. To summarize, we agree with Magna that the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “identification of objects of interest is
`enhanced” is that the quality of the identification of objects of interest is
`improved. Further, the quality of such identification is improved when the
`possibility of error is reduced.7
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1–3, 5, and 10—Obviousness—Yanagawa, Vellacott,
`and Koshizawa
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). In the Decision to Institute, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed
`definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art of the ’894 patent at the
`time of the invention, which was supported by Dr. Miller’s testimony.
`
`7 We note that our construction is consistent with the court’s construction of
`the same term in Magna Elec., Inc. v. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., Civ.
`No. 1:12-cv-654, slip op. at 22 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 28, 2015p ). There, the
`court adopted Magna’s construction of the term, i.e., that “identification of
`objects if interest is improved.” Id. The court explained that “the
`specification and claims describe a system that operates better after
`comparing successive frames than it would if it captured only one frame.”
`Id. at 23.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`Dec. 12–13. The parties have not disputed this definition, and we see no
`reason to modify it in light of the record developed during trial. Therefore,
`we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least
`the qualifications of or equivalent to either (1) a master’s degree in electrical
`engineering or computer science, with course work or research in vision
`systems, or (2) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or
`computer science with at least two years of work making optical vision
`systems. Id. (citing Pet. 22, Ex. 1014 ¶ 19).
`1.
`Claim 1
`TRW relies on Yanagawa as teaching most of the limitations of
`independent claim 1. Pet. 21–22. Yanagawa describes a vehicle-mounted
`imaging apparatus that detects the high beams of oncoming vehicles and
`taillights of leading vehicles based on the “color features” of the lights and
`whether the lights are at the same height. Ex. 1005, 002–003. Yanagawa’s
`system dims the vehicle’s headlights in response to such detection. Id. at
`001.
`
`TRW relies on the following excerpt from Yanagawa to teach the
`enhanced limitation:
`The distance between vehicles is calculated in this way every
`0.05 second as the image data are stored, and the speed of the
`device vehicle relative to a vehicle traveling ahead is calculated
`from the distance between vehicles obtained every 0.05 second.
`Specifically, 0.05 second after a taillight image such as shown
`in Fig. 5(A) has been obtained, the same taillight image is
`shown in Fig. 5(B), and the distance between taillights 52 and
`53 changes from r1 to r2.
`
`Pet. 27 (quoting Ex. 1005, 4).
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`
`Magna responds that TRW is “[u]sing an incorrect construction of
`‘identification of objects of interest is enhanced’” to support its
`unpatentability argument. PO Resp. 9. Magna asserts that the quoted
`passage explains how Yanagawa’s system calculates the distance between
`the equipped vehicle and a vehicle traveling ahead, and the relative speed of
`the vehicle traveling ahead, but does not describe identifying objects of
`interest or enhancing such identification. Id. at 9–10. According to Magna,
`the described distance and speed calculations are unrelated to and separate
`from the step of recognizing headlights and taillights in Yanagawa, and, in
`fact, are carried out after Yanagawa’s system already has recognized the
`leading vehicle’s taillights. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 3).
`TRW does not dispute that the portion of Yanagawa on which it relies
`to teach this limitation does not involve the actual identification of objects of
`interest. Instead, TRW argues that this portion “expressly determines at
`least two further characteristics of identified taillights and vehicles thereof,”
`i.e. speed of the vehicle and distance to the device vehicle. Pet. Reply 3
`(emphasis omitted). Further, TRW argues that Yanagawa teaches this
`limitation even under Magna’s interpretation, because “Yanagawa utilizes
`speed and distance calculation . . . to enhance identification of objects by
`identifying detected objects as potential rear-end collision objects.” Id. at 4.
`As an initial matter, there is no dispute that the portion of Yanagawa
`on which TRW relies teaches “comparing over successive frames image data
`associated with objects in said forward field of view of said image sensor.”
`Further, there does not seem to be any dispute that the portion of Yanagawa
`on which TRW relies describes calculating the relative speed and distance of
`an object of interest that has already been identified as such. Therefore, the
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`dispute is whether that teaching corresponds to “enhanc[ing]” “identification
`of objects of interest” as claim 1 requires. We determine that it does not. As
`discussed above, we construe “identification of objects of interest is
`enhanced” to mean that the quality of the identification of objects of interest
`is improved; i.e., that the identification is less likely to be erroneous. But, as
`Magna correctly points out, Yanagawa’s speed and distance calculations of a
`leading vehicle are independent of its identification of the leading vehicle as
`an object of interest; nor does Yanagawa teach that such calculations reduce
`the possibility of error in an identification of an object of interest. See PO
`Resp. 9–10; Ex. 2032 ¶¶ 27–36 (supporting testimony of Matthew A. Turk,
`Ph.D.).
`In its Reply, TRW argues that even under Magna’s construction,
`Yanagawa teaches the “enhanced” limitation. Pet. Reply 4. According to
`TRW, “Yanagawa utilizes speed and distance calculation . . . to enhance
`identification of objects by identifying detected objects as potential rear-end
`collision objects.” Id. TRW refers to Yanagawa’s teaching that “because
`the distance between vehicles and relative speed have been calculated in this
`case, these data can be used to predict a potential rear-end collision.” Id.
`(quoting Ex. 1005, 005) (emphasis omitted).
`As an initial matter, this argument is newly raised in the Reply, and is
`based on a portion of Yanagawa that TRW alleges, for the first time,
`corresponds to the enhanced limitation. Although the argument is based on
`Magna’s proposed claim construction rather than the construction that TRW
`proposes in its Reply,8 we consider the dispute over the proper construction
`
`8 TRW did not propose a construction for the enhanced limitation in the
`Petition.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`of this term to be sufficiently foreseeable so that TRW should have
`presented the argument and evidence in the Petition. TRW’s failure to do so
`at that time has deprived Magna of the opportunity to respond to it, as
`Magna could not respond to TRW’s Reply. For this reason, we decline to
`consider it. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (stating that a reply that belatedly presents evidence
`will not be considered, and that one indication that a new issue has been
`raised in a reply is where the petitioner submits “new evidence necessary to
`make out a prima facie case” of unpatentability of an original claim).
`Even if we were to consider this argument, however, we would find it
`unpersuasive. TRW does not point us to anything in Yanagawa that
`suggests that a previously identified vehicle becomes a new “collision
`object” when it becomes a collision hazard. Nor do we find any such
`teaching in the reference. Instead, the vehicle remains a known (i.e.,
`identified) object regardless of its speed and distance relative to the equipped
`vehicle.
`In sum, we determine that TRW has not shown by a preponderance of
`the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Yanagawa,
`Vellacott, and Koshizawa.
`2.
`Claims 2, 3, 5, and 10
`Claims 2, 3, 5, and 10 depend from claim 1, and, therefore,
`necessarily contain the enhanced limitation. TRW relies on its discussion of
`claim 1 with respect to this limitation in the dependent claims. Pet. 30–34.
`Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, we determine that TRW has not
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 3, 5, and 10 would
`have been obvious over Yanagawa, Vellacott, and Koshizawa.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`
`C.
`
`Claims 13–16—Obviousness—Yanagawa, Vellacott,
`Koshizawa, and Bottesch (Claim 16), Aurora (Claims 13 and
`14), or Kawahara (Claim 15)
`Claims 13–16 depend from claim 1, and, therefore, necessarily
`contain the enhanced limitation. TRW relies on its discussion of claim 1
`with respect to this limitation in these dependent claims. Pet. 38, 40–44.
`Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, we determine that TRW has not
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 13–16 would have
`been obvious over Yanagawa, Vellacott, Koshizawa, and Bottesch (claim
`16), Aurora (claims 13 and 14), or Kawahara (claim 15).
`
`D. Claims 25, 26, and 28—Obviousness—Yanagawa, Vellacott,
`Koshizawa, and Kawahara
`Claim 25 is independent. It does not contain the enhanced limitation,
`but instead recites “wherein a comparison is made by said logic and control
`circuit of a frame comprising image data to a successor frame in order to
`identify, at least in part, an object of interest.” Claims 26 and 28 depend
`from claim 25. TRW asserts that the following portion of Yanagawa teaches
`this limitation:
`The distance between vehicles is calculated in this way every
`0.05 second as the image data are stored, and the speed of the
`device vehicle relative to a vehicle traveling ahead is calculated
`from the distance between vehicles obtained every 0.05 second.
`Specifically, 0.05 second after a taillight image such as shown
`in Fig. 5(A) has been obtained, the same taillight image is
`shown in Fig. 5(B), and the distance between taillights 52 and
`53 changes from r1 to r2.
`
`Pet. 47, 50, 57 (quoting Ex. 1005, 004). This is the same passage on which
`TRW relies in the Petition as teaching the enhanced limitation of claim 1.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`
`Magna disputes that this portion of Yanagawa teaches this limitation.
`As it argued with respect to the enhanced limitation in claim 1, and based on
`the same reasoning, Magna argues that this passage “is unrelated to the
`identification of objects.” PO Resp. 21. TRW likewise counters with the
`same arguments it raised with respect to claim 1. Pet. Reply 5.
`Claim 25 expressly requires that the comparison of a frame of image
`data with a successor frame be for the purpose of “identify[ing], at least in
`part, an object of interest.” For the reasons discussed above in Section
`II.B.1, we determine that the passage on which TRW relies is not directed to
`the identification of objects of interest; instead, it describes calculating the
`relative speed and distance of a previously identified object of interest.
`Accordingly, for the reasons discuss above, we determine that TRW has not
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 25, 26, and 28 would
`have been obvious over Yanagawa, Vellacott, Koshizawa, and Kawahara.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that TRW has not shown by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5, 10, 13–16, 25, 26, and
`28 of the ’894 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`For the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that claims 1–3, 5, 10, 13–16, 25, 26, and 28 of the ’894
`patent have not been shown to be unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00262
`Patent 7,655,894 B2
`
`
`This is a Final Decision. Parties to the proceeding seeking judicial
`review of the decision must comply with the notice and service requirements
`of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Josh Snider
`A. Justin Poplin
`Timothy Sendek
`LATHROP & GAGE LLP
`patent@lathropgage.com
`jpoplin@lathropgage.com
`tsendek@lathropgage.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`David K.S. Cornwell
`Jason Eisenberg
`Robert Sterne
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
`Davidc-PTAB@skgf.com
`jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Timothy A. Flory
`Terence J. Linn
`GARDNER, LINN, BURKHART & FLORY, LLP
`Flory@glbf.com
`linn@glbf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
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
