Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: February 9, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`____________
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: February 9, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`____________
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On August 27, 2014, Petitioner (“Ford”) filed a Petition requesting an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 B1 (Ex.
`
`1001, “the ’074 patent”). A corrected Petition (“Pet.”) was filed on
`
`September 3, 2014. Paper 4. Patent Owner (“Cuozzo”) filed a Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”) on November 28, 2014. 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 the Preliminary Response, we
`
`determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Ford would prevail with
`
`respect to claims 1–6 and 9–20 of the ’074 patent. Accordingly, pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314, we institute an inter partes review on claims 1–6 and 9–20,
`
`of the ’074 patent.
`
`Ford has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with
`
`respect to claims 7 and 8 of the ’074 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Ford indicates that the ’074 patent is involved in multiple patent
`
`infringement lawsuits brought by Cuozzo. Those lawsuits are identified on
`
`pages 45–46 of the Corrected Petition (Paper 4). The ’074 patent also is the
`
`subject of two other inter partes review proceedings: (1) IPR2012-00001,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`on a petition filed by Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc.,
`
`which resulted in a final written decision on November 13, 2013 (holding
`
`claims 10, 14, and 17 unpatentable), that was affirmed by the U.S. Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC,
`
`Case No. 14-1301 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015); and (2) IPR2013-00373, also on
`
`a petition filed by Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc., which
`
`was terminated by settlement on February 12, 2014.
`
`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. 1001, 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. 1001, 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. 1001, 1:22–
`
`25. The Specification states that by allowing the driver to keep his or her
`
`eyes on the road more, the speed limit indicator reduces the chance of an
`
`accident. Ex. 1001, 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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a specifically disclosed embodiment. In that
`
`embodiment, speedometer 12 is mounted on dashboard 26. Ex. 1001, 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. 1001, 5:8–
`
`11. Global positioning receiver 22 is positioned adjacent to speedometer 12,
`
`and other gauges typically present on vehicle dashboard 26 also are
`
`provided. Ex. 1001, 5:13–17. Figure 2 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`
`
`
`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. 1001, 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.
`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
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`
`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 11–14, there is brief mention of a
`
`different embodiment. It is stated generally (Ex. 1001, 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. Illustrative Claims
`
`
`
`Claims 1 and 10 are the only independent claims and are reproduced
`
`below (Ex. 1001, 6:23–34; 7:1-11)(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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`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 a speedometer “integrally attached” to the colored
`
`
`
`display. Claim 10 is the same.
`
`
`
`Claim 20 is reproduced below (Ex. 1001, 8:16–31):
`
`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 depends from claim 1 and
`
`also includes the limitation reciting a speedometer “integrally attached” to
`
`the colored display.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Ford relies on the following prior art references:
`
`Reference
`
`Nagoshi
`
`
`
`Japanese Published
`App. JP H05-067294
`English translation
`
`Date
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`03/19/1993 Ex. 1002
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Tegethoff
`
`German Pat. DE 197 55470 A1 09/24/1998 Ex. 1009
`
`
`
`English translation
`
`
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`McKenna
`
`Canadian Pat. App. 2,186,709
`
`03/29/1997 Ex. 1006
`
`Vaughn
`
`US Pat. 5,485,161
`
`01/16/1996 Ex. 1008
`
`Evans
`
`Wendt
`
`US Pat. 3,980,041
`
`09/14/1976 Ex. 1012
`
`US Pat. 2,711,153
`
`06/21/1955 Ex. 1013
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Basis Reference(s)
`
`102(b) Nagoshi
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1, 7, 9, 10, and 19
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`
`
`
`
`Nagoshi and Vaughn
`
`2, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 20
`
`Nagoshi and Evans
`
`Nagoshi and Tegethoff
`
`4 and 5
`
`6 and 18
`
`Nagoshi, Evans, and Wendt
`
`3, 14, 15, 16, and 17
`
`Tegethoff, Vaughn, Evans, and Wendt 1
`
`Nagoshi
`
`Nagoshi and McKenna
`
`7
`
`7
`
`Ford further states that each of its alleged grounds of unpatentability,
`
`if directed to a dependent claim, also should be applied to the claim or
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`claims from which the dependent claim depends. Pet. 10. That means
`
`claims 1, 7, and 10 also are alleged as obvious over Nagoshi and Vaughn;
`
`claim 1 also is alleged as obvious over Nagoshi and Evans; claims 1 and 10
`
`also are alleged as obvious over Nagoshi and Tegethoff; claims 1 and 10
`
`also are alleged as obvious over Nagoshi, Evans, and Wendt; and claim 1
`
`also is alleged as obvious over Nagoshi alone or over Nagoshi and
`
`McKenna. Hereinafter, we refer to these additional assertions as “the
`
`implied grounds of unpatentability.”
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a), we exercise our discretion and do
`
`not institute review on any of the implied grounds of unpatentability noted
`
`above, because each claim subject to an implied ground of unpatentability
`
`either: (1) already is being instituted for trial in this proceeding based on an
`
`explicitly stated ground of unpatentability, or (2) has no claim dependent
`
`therefrom, which is being instituted for trial, such as claim 7.
`
`
`
`According to Cuozzo, all of Ford’s obviousness contentions must fail
`
`because Ford does not provide “a definition of a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 5. The argument is without merit. An express
`
`definition is not required in all situations, as the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art can be reflected by the cited prior art references themselves. See
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC
`
`Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91
`
`(CCPA 1978). Generally, it may not be helpful to have a definition phrased
`
`in terms of the type of education received and the number of years of
`
`experience in a field, as that may not convey what specific knowledge would
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`have been possessed by the person with ordinary skill. On this record, we
`
`are satisfied that the cited prior art is indicative of the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`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. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). Claim terms also are 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 Ford nor Cuozzo contends that the
`
`Specification, as filed, coined a new meaning for any term.
`
`
`
`If a feature is not necessary to give meaning to what the inventor
`
`means by a claim term, it would be “extraneous” and should not be read into
`
`the claim. Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1249; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
`
`v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The
`
`construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns
`
`with the inventor’s description is likely the correct interpretation. See
`
`Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1250.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`
`“integrally attached”
`
`
`
`The term “integrally attached” does not appear in the application as
`
`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 U.S. Patent No. 6,515,596 B2 (“Awada”).1 Ex. 1007, 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. 1007,
`
`6: 4–16; 7:23-25.
`
`
`
`The above-cited 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 colored display 18,
`
`which is a rotatable red plastic filter. The Specification of the ’074 patent
`
`discloses that colored display 18, in the form of a red plastic filter, is a
`
`separate item from backplate 14, speed denoting marking 16 on backplate
`
`14, and needle 20, which form a speedometer separate from the red plastic
`
`filter. Ex. 1001, 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. 1007, 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
`
`
`1 Application claim 11 issued as patent claim 10.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`
`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
`
`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. 1007, 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).
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`
`
`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 subsumed completely 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.
`
`
`
`
`That is essentially the same construction Ford proposes for purposes of this
`
`proceeding. Pet. 10–11.
`
`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,
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`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. 1003,
`
`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. 1003, Abstract. The determined speed limit at the vehicle’s
`
`current position is displayed. Id. Nagoshi discloses that vehicle location
`
`information may be determined by use of GPS (Global Positioning System).
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 19.
`
`Figure 5 of Nagoshi is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`
`
`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. 1003 ¶ 16.
`
`
`
`The above-noted operation of Nagoshi is identified and relied on by
`
`Ford, for claim 1, in its Petition on page 13, and for claim 10, in its Petition
`
`on page 37. 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.
`
`
`
`Similarly, with respect to all other features of claims 1 and 10, Ford’s
`
`Petition specifically addresses how they are described in Nagoshi. On this
`
`record, in the absence of substantive rebuttal from Cuozzo on the merits of
`
`the reference teachings, we are persuaded that Nagoshi has made a sufficient
`
`showing with respect to 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. Although the entire apparatus,
`
`including the band of LEDs, may be regarded as a speedometer, so can the
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`portion including all elements, except the band of LEDs. 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 integrally attached to a speedometer.
`
`
`
`Each of claims 1 and 10 also requires a colored display which
`
`“continuously update[s]” the delineation of which speed readings are in
`
`violation of the speed limit at a vehicle’s present 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. 1003 ¶ 7:6–12. Note also that the stated
`
`objective of Nagoshi is to make the driver aware of the speed limit,
`
`wherever the vehicle is located. Ex. 1003, Abstract; ¶ 5:2–3. 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. 1003, Abstract:
`
`7–11.
`
`
`
`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 Ford, operation of Nagoshi’s speedometer, with regard to speed
`
`detection and display, is uninterrupted by the LEDs. Pet. 15.
`
`
`
`With regard to claim 10, which requires a global positioning system
`
`(“GPS”) that provides input to a display controller to adjust the colored
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`display, Nagoshi describes that vehicle location determination can be
`
`performed by a GPS. Ex. 1003 ¶ 19. 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. 1003, Fig. 2; Abstract: 6–
`
`12; ¶ 9:11–13; ¶ 14.
`
`
`
`Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites that the display controller
`
`comprises a tone generator. Claim 19 depends from claim 10 and recites
`
`that the display controller further comprises a tone generator. For claims 9
`
`and 19, Ford, in its Petition, observes that Nagoshi discloses such a warning
`
`buzzer to inform the driver that the vehicle exceeds the speed limit.
`
`Pet. 36:20–22. On this record, Figures 2 and 6 of Nagoshi (Ex. 1003)
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Claim 7 depends from 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, Ford identifies Nagoshi’s
`
`microcomputer 12 in Figure 2 as the display controller, and the combination
`
`of receiver 6 and memory 7 in Figure 2 as the speed limit locating device.
`
`Pet. 30–31. Such identification is misplaced, for reasons discussed below.
`
`
`
`The Summary of the Invention portion of Nagoshi states:
`
`In order to achieve said objectives, the invention of claim
`
`1 as represented in FIG. 1 corresponding to the claim, said
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`
`vehicle speed limit warning device is configured from an
`information reception means 1 receiving the speed limit
`information of each specific road section which is transmitted
`from beacons disposed on the roads, and an information
`recording means 2 recording the speed limit information
`acquired by means of this information reception means 1, and a
`vehicle location computation means 3 computing the location
`coordinates of the current location of the vehicle, and a
`determination means 4 acquiring
`the current
`location
`coordinates of the vehicle location from that vehicle location
`computation means 3 and
`finding
`the
`road
`section
`corresponding to the current vehicle location coordinates and
`determining
`the
`speed
`limit
`information
`from
`the
`information recorded in said information recording means
`2 and determining the speed limit information of that road
`section, and a notification means 5 notifying the driver of the
`speed
`limit
`information determined by means of
`that
`determining means 4.
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 6 (emphases added). Determining means 4 is very much a part
`
`of any speed limit locating device identifiable in Nagoshi’s disclosure.
`
`There appears to be no reasonable basis to regard receiver 6 and
`
`memory 7 collectively as a speed limit locating device without also
`
`including determining means 4. In that regard, Nagoshi further describes
`
`determining means 4 as performing overall process control, which would
`
`include locating the applicable speed limit. Ex. 1003 ¶ 9:12–13. Nagoshi
`
`specifically identifies microcomputer 12 as determining means 4. Id. at
`
`¶ 9:11–12. Note that the action performed by receiver 6, i.e., receiving
`
`transmitted data, and the action performed by memory 7, i.e., storing data,
`
`do not by themselves “locate” the speed limit without action of the
`
`determining means.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`
`
`Because microcomputer 12 is a portion of any speed limit locating
`
`device reasonably identifiable in Nagoshi, Ford’s assertion is unpersuasive
`
`that in Nagoshi, an electrically conducting wire connects microcomputer 12,
`
`as a display controller, with a speed limit locating device, such that
`
`microcomputer 12 is at one end of the wire and the speed limit locating
`
`device is at an opposing end of the wire. In that respect, as a part of the
`
`speed limit locating device, microcomputer 12 is not viewed reasonably as
`
`also connected to the speed limiting locating device. In the context of claim
`
`7, the display controller is a separate element from the speed limit locating
`
`device, and the two are connected by electrically conductive wire. We do
`
`not read claim 7 so broadly such that the wiring requirement can be met
`
`simply by connecting the internal components of the speed limit locating
`
`device.
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Ford has shown a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it would prevail in demonstrating that each of claims 1, 9, 10, and 19 is
`
`unpatentable as anticipated by Nagoshi. Ford, however, has not shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating that claim 7 is
`
`unpatentable as anticipated by Nagoshi.
`
`C. Claims 2, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 20
`as Obvious over Nagoshi and Vaughn
`
`
`
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the colored
`
`display is a liquid crystal display. Similarly, claim 12 depends from claim
`
`10 and recites that the colored display is a liquid crystal display. As
`
`discussed above, the colored display 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,
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`which is not a liquid crystal display. Ford 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. Pet. 24:5–8. Vaughn describes the use of an electronic
`
`display for showing the current location and speed of a vehicle, as well as
`
`the speed limit at that location. Ex. 1008, 9:20–23. Furthermore, Vaughn
`
`describes that its display screens can be implemented by LEDs, liquid
`
`crystal display, or cathode ray tube. Ex. 1008, 9:14–17. On this record, we
`
`are persuaded by Ford, in the absence of substantive rebuttal from Cuozzo,
`
`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 from claim 7. Ford relies on Vaughn to account for
`
`features additionally recited in claim 8. Pet. 35. The deficiencies of
`
`Nagoshi with regard to claim 7, as discussed above, are not cured by Ford’s
`
`reliance on Vaughn.
`
`
`
`Claim 11 depends from claim 10, and further recites that the global
`
`positioning system receiver further comprises a database of locations and
`
`their corresponding speed limits. Ford acknowledges that the memory
`
`described in Nagoshi for storing speed limit information is not expressly
`
`described as a database. Pet. 39:14–15. Ford 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. 35:26–28; 36:5–7. We are persuaded. Vaughn discloses a
`
`GPS based navigation system, which includes a GPS computer and an
`
`associated local database. Ex. 1008, 2:58–60; 8:52–55.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01393
`Patent 6,778,074 B1
`
`
`
`Ford 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 database which
`
`stores locations and their corresponding speed limits. Pet. 36:5–10. Without
`
`substantive rebuttal from Cuozzo on the merits, we are persuaded that Ford’s
`
`stated reasoning is sufficient.
`
`
`
`Claim 13 depends from 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, Ford 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 from claim 1. With respect to claim 20, we have
`
`reviewed Ford’s argument on pages 43–45 of the Petition, as well as Section
`
`V(H) as referenced on page 44 of the Petition, and Section V(A) as
`
`referenced on page 45 of the Petition. The analysis is sufficient to meet the
`
`threshold of § 314(a), in the absence of substantive rebuttal on the merits
`
`from Cuozzo. We note that under the rule of broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the feature “uploadin
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
