UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR: 2014-01393
`
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`____________
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`SUMMARY OF THE ’074 PATENT .................................................................................................. 1
`
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’074 Patent ............................................................... 1
`
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’074 Patent ............................................................... 2
`
`II. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE
`’074 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .................................... 4
`
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 ................ 7
`
`
`A. Certification of Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................ 7
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ........................ 8
`
`IV. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) ................................................. 12
`
`
`A. Claim 1 (Independent) ....................................................................................................................... 12
`
`B. Claim 2 (Dependent) .......................................................................................................................... 23
`
`C. Claim 3 (Dependent) .......................................................................................................................... 25
`
`D. Claim 4 (Dependent) .......................................................................................................................... 27
`
`E. Claim 5 (Dependent) .......................................................................................................................... 28
`
`F. Claim 6 (Dependent) .......................................................................................................................... 29
`
`G. Claim 7 (Dependent) .......................................................................................................................... 30
`
`H. Claim 8 (Dependent) .......................................................................................................................... 34
`
`I. Claim 9 (Dependent) .......................................................................................................................... 36
`
`J. Claim 10 (Independent) ..................................................................................................................... 37
`
`K. Claim 11 (Dependent) ........................................................................................................................ 39
`
`L. Claim 12 (Dependent); Obvious Over Nagoshi in View of Vaughn ......................................... 40
`
`M. Claim 13 (Dependent) ........................................................................................................................ 40
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`N. Claim 14 (Dependent); Obvious Over Nagoshi in View of Evans and Further in View of
`Wendt ................................................................................................................................................... 41
`
`
`O. Claim 15 (Dependent); Obvious Over Nagoshi in View of Evans and Further in View of
`Wendt ................................................................................................................................................... 41
`
`
`P. Claim 16 (Dependent); Obvious Over Nagoshi in View of Evans and Further in View of
`Wendt ................................................................................................................................................... 41
`
`
`Q. Claim 17 (Dependent); Obvious Over Nagoshi in View of Evans and Further in View of
`Wendt ................................................................................................................................................... 42
`
`
`R. Claim 18 (Dependent); Obvious Over Nagoshi in View of Tegethoff ...................................... 43
`
`
`S. Claim 19 (Dependent); Anticipated By Nagoshi ........................................................................... 43
`
`T. Claim 20 (Independent) ..................................................................................................................... 43
`
`V. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ......................................................... 45
`
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ..................................................................... 45
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................ 45
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and Service Information Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ......................................................................................................................... 47
`
`STATEMENT REGARDING NO REDUNDANCY .............................................................. 48
`
`
`VI.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 53
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`Description
`U.S.P.N. 6,778,074
`to Cuozzo
`JP H05-067294 to
`Nagoshi (Japanese)
`JP H05-067294 to
`Nagoshi (English)
`Affidavit of Michael
`O’Keeffe
`
`Statement of Relevance
`Patent at issue
`
`Filed
`☒
`
`Invalidating prior art to the challenged
`claims
`English translation of invalidating prior art
`to the challenged claims
`Affidavit of Michael O’Keeffe attesting to
`the accuracy of the translation of the prior
`art Nagoshi reference from Japanese to
`English
`Patent Office’s brief in support of
`unpatentability of claims 10, 14, and 17
`Invalidating prior art to the challenged
`claims
`
`Patent Owner’s purported distinctions over
`prior art
`
`Invalidating prior art to the challenged
`claims
`Invalidating prior art to the challenged
`claims
`
`English translation of invalidating prior art
`to the challenged claims
`
`Affidavit of Joyce Chen attesting to the
`accuracy of the translation of the prior art
`Tegethoff reference from German to
`English
`Invalidating prior art to the challenged
`claims
`
`iii
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`Federal Circuit
`Brief
`Canadian Patent
`Application No.
`2,186,709 to
`McKenna
`Corrected
`Amendment from
`Prosecution of ’074
`Patent
`U.S.P.N. 5,485,161
`to Vaughn
`1009 DE 197 55470 A1
`to Tegethoff
`(German)
`1010 DE 197 55470 A1
`to Tegethoff
`(English)
`Affidavit of Joyce
`Chen
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`U.S.P.N. 3,980,041
`to Evans
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1013
`
`Description
`U.S.P.N. 2,711,153
`to Wendt
`
`Statement of Relevance
`Invalidating prior art to the challenged
`claims
`
`Filed
`☒
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`On behalf of Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, inter partes review is requested for claims 1-20
`
`(collectively, the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 (“the ’074
`
`Patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’074 PATENT
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’074 Patent
`
`The ’074 Patent discloses a speed limit indicator for determining the speed of a
`
`vehicle and the speed limit corresponding to the vehicle’s current location and for
`
`displaying the speed and speed limit to the driver. (Ex. 1001, Abstract.) A
`
`speedometer 12 displays the speed limit 10. (Ex. 1001 at 5:6-9.) The speedometer 12
`
`has a backplate 14, speed denoting markings 16 painted on the backplate 14, a needle
`
`20 rotatably mounted in the center of backplate 14, and “a colored display 18 made of
`
`a red plastic filter.” (Ex. 1001 at 5:9-11.)
`
`
`
`To obtain speed limit information, uploading unit 38 “uploads current data to a
`
`regional speed limit database 40.” (Ex. 1001 at 5:25-26.) A global positioning receiver
`
`22 determines the vehicle location and “identifies the relevant speed limit from the
`
`database for that location.” (Ex. 1001 at 5:27-29.) The GPS 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.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 5:29-33.)
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`The colored display 8 is adjusted via a control unit “so that the speeds above
`
`the legal speed limit are displayed in red 50 while the legal speeds are displayed in
`
`white 52. This is accomplished by the control unit rotating the red filter disc 54 to the
`
`appropriate degree.” (Ex. 1001 at 5:35-39.) Thus, the red-colored filter 18 rotates
`
`according to the uploaded speed limit information. The ’074 Patent further briefly
`
`states that “the colored display herein described could also take the form of a liquid
`
`crystal display.” (Ex. 1001 at 6:12-14.)
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’074 Patent
`
`
`
`
`The ’074 Patent was filed March 18, 2002, and issued August 17, 2004, with 20
`
`claims, of which claims 1, 10, and 20 are independent. The ’074 Patent as filed
`
`included claims 1-20, of which claims 1, 11, and 20 were independent.
`
`
`
`A non-final Office Action was mailed on October 3, 2003, and rejected claims
`
`1-3, 7-14, 18, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,515,696 to Awada (“Awada”); claims 3, 4, 7, 14, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as being obvious over Awada; and claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as being obvious over Awada in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,935,850 to Smith,
`
`Jr. (“Smith”). Responsive to the non-final Office Action, an Amendment was filed on
`
`November 9, 2003, that contained a formatting error. On January 9, 2004, a
`
`supplemental amendment (the “Corrected Amendment”) was filed that amended
`
`claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20, canceled claims 2 and 13, and added claims 21 and 22. (Ex.
`2
`
`

`

`1007 at 2-5.) The Patent Owner argued that amended independent claim 1 was not
`
`anticipated by Awada because:
`
`Awada (6,515,596) lacks a speedometer integrally attached to the speed
`limit display (column 2, lines 40-42 and Figs. 1 and 4-6). The vehicle’s
`driver is forced to look in two separate locations and then mentally
`compare the speed limit with his vehicle’s speed to determine how close
`he is to speeding if he is not already doing so sufficiently to activate the
`light and/or tone. This significant complexity could be distracting to the
`driver, thereby increasing the risk of an accident. In contrast, the
`present invention provides an integrated display allowing the driver to
`immediately ascertain both his speed and its relation to the prevailing
`speed limit.
`Id. at 6 (emphases added.) Thus, the Patent Owner overcame Awada by arguing that
`
`the speed limit and the current speed were displayed, such that the driver does not
`
`have to look in two different places on the dashboard and further so the driver can
`
`see how close he is to speeding (i.e., the relative difference between the speed and the
`
`speed limit).
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner further commented on the independent adjustment of the
`
`colored display with respect to the speedometer. In arguing over Smith, the Patent
`
`Owner noted that Smith’s interrupter plate “rotates in conjunction with the
`
`speedometer needle axis,” whereas “the colored display of the present invention
`
`adjusts independently of the speedometer by rotation of a colored filter by the display
`
`controller.” Id. at 7.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`A Notice of Allowance dated February 18, 2004, was mailed in response to the
`
`Corrected Amendment and identified claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 as allowable. No
`
`comments on allowance were provided by the Examiner. The ’074 Patent issued on
`
`August 17, 2004.
`
`II. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’074 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)
`
`This Petition is the third request for IPR filed on the ’074 Patent (albeit the
`
`
`
`first request filed by Petitioner). The first IPR, IPR2012-00001 (herein referred to as
`
`“IPR1”), resulted in claims 10, 14, and 17 being cancelled. See, IPR2012-0001, Final
`
`Written Decision, Paper 59. The Patent Owner is currently appealing the Board’s final
`
`decision in IPR1 to the Federal Circuit in an appeal styled, In re Cuozzo Speed
`
`Technologies, LLC, No. 14-1301 (Fed. Cir.). The second IPR, IPR2013-00373 (herein
`
`referred to as “IPR2”), was instituted for claims 1-6, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 of the
`
`’074 Patent. IPR2013-00373, Decision, Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper 12 at
`
`2. The Parties to IPR2 later settled without IPR2 resulting in a final decision on the
`
`merits. IPR2013-00373, Judgment, Termination of Proceeding, Paper 19 at 3-4. The
`
`present request for IPR seeks review of the cancelled claims from IPR1 (claims 10, 14,
`
`and 17) in addition to the remaining claims of the ’074 Patent (claims 1-6, 9, 11-13,
`
`15, 16, and 18-20). Petitioner recognizes that in IPR2, the Board elected not to
`
`institute IPR on the cancelled claims from IPR1. However, because there is not yet a
`4
`
`

`

`final decision of unpatentability from the Federal Circuit for IPR1, Petitioner requests
`
`institution of IPR on the cancelled claims from IPR1 in the event the Federal Circuit
`
`should reverse the Board’s decision in IPR1.
`
`
`
`In both IPR1 and IPR2, the Board construed the claim phrase “integrally
`
`attached” to be “two elements being discrete parts physically joined together as a unit
`
`without each part losing its own separate identity.” Patent Owner Cuozzo proposed
`
`an alternative construction. As noted by the Patent Office in its Brief for Intervenor
`
`filed with the Federal Circuit in the appeal of IPR1 (Ex. 1005 at 47), the cancelled
`
`claims are still unpatentable even under Cuozzo’s construction. This is because
`
`Cuozzo’s construction
`
`is actually a broader construction than the Board’s
`
`construction adopted in IPR1 and IPR2. Thus, Petitioner has applied the Board’s
`
`construction of “integrally attached” herein and does not provide an analysis of the
`
`unpatentability of the Challenged Claims applying Cuozzo’s broader construction,
`
`because the Challenged Claims would still be unpatentable even if Cuozzo’s broader
`
`construction were applied.
`
`
`
`This Petition presents the same grounds of unpatentability on which IPR2 was
`
`already previously instituted, though this Petition differs from the IPR2 Petition in
`
`that it: i) does not present the grounds based on Hauler found to be redundant, and ii)
`
`provides additional grounds and argument for the unpatentability of claim 7, which
`
`5
`
`

`

`was not instituted in IPR2. In IPR2, claim 8 depends from claim 7, and thus, IPR on
`
`claim 8 was also no instituted.
`
`
`
`JP H05-067294 to Nagoshi (Ex. 1003), cited in IPR2 but not IPR1, discloses a
`
`speed limit indicator comprising a band of green and red LEDs concentrically
`
`mounted about a speedometer dial. There is a reasonable likelihood that Nagoshi
`
`alone renders independent claims 1 and 10 unpatentable, as the colored LEDs and
`
`speedometer are discrete elements physically joined together as a unit, as the Board
`
`previously found. Moreover, neither the speedometer nor the colored concentric band
`
`of LEDs loses their separate identity—the LEDs retain their identity as a colored
`
`band to indicate whether a speed is below or above the speed limit, and the
`
`speedometer retains its identity as a speed-disclosing device. However, the two
`
`components are joined together to display to a driver of a vehicle the speed, the speed
`
`limit, and the relation of the speed to the speed limit.
`
`
`
`The art even discloses the key feature that resulted in allowance of the ’074
`
`Patent, namely displaying vehicle speed and its proximal relationship to the speed
`
`limit so that the driver can “immediately ascertain both his speed and its relation to
`
`the prevailing speed limit” without having to perform a mental comparison. (Ex. 1007
`
`at 6). In particular, Nagoshi discloses a colored display that allows the driver to see the
`
`relationship of the current vehicle speed to the speed limit, i.e., how near the current
`
`vehicle speed is to the speed limit.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`The prior art also discloses a colored display that is a red plastic filter, i.e., the
`
`same embodiment disclosed in the ’074 Patent. In particular, the combination of
`
`Evans and Wendt teaches a rotatable colored plate for indicating the speed limit.
`
`
`
`In sum, Petitioner cites below a variety of prior art references that teaches or in
`
`combination renders obvious the claimed speed limit indicator, and as such, there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Challenged Claims of the ’074 Patent are unpatentable.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. §§ 42.104  
`
`
`
`As set forth below and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104, each requirement for
`
`inter partes review of the ’074 Patent is satisfied.
`
`Certification of Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)  
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’074 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging claims 1-20 of the ’074 Patent on the grounds identified herein. More
`
`particularly, Petitioner certifies that: (1) Petitioner is not the owner of the ’074 Patent;
`
`(2) Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the ’074
`
`Patent; (3) this Petition is filed less than one year after the date on which Petitioner,
`
`its real party-in-interest, or its privy was served with a complaint alleging infringement
`
`7
`
`

`

`of the ’074 Patent1; and (4) the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) do not
`
`prohibit this inter partes review; and (5) this Petition is filed after the date of
`
`termination of any post-grant review of the ’074 Patent as the ’074 Patent is not
`
`eligible for post-grant review.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested  
`
`
`
`The precise relief requested by Petitioner is that claims 1-20 of the ’074 Patent
`
`be found unpatentable.
`
`1.
`
`Claims for Which Inter Partes Review Is Requested Under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,778,074.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Identification of the Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on
`Which
`the Challenge
`Is Based Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(2)
`
`Inter partes review of the ’074 Patent is requested in view of the following
`
`references: (1) Japanese Patent Application JP H05-067294 to Nagoshi (Ex. 1003)
`
`published March 19, 1993, and prior art under § 102(b); (2) USPN 5,485,161 to
`
`Vaughn (Ex. 1008) issued January 16, 1996, and prior art under § 102(b); (3) German
`
`
`1 Petitioner notes that no complaint for patent infringement asserting the ’074 Patent
`
`has been filed against or served on Petitioner.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. DE 197 55 470 A1 to Tegethoff (Ex. 1010) issued September 24, 1998,
`
`and prior art under § 102(b); (4) USPN 3,980,041 to Evans (Ex. 1012) issued
`
`September 14, 1976, and prior art under § 102(b); (5) USPN 2,711,153 to Wendt (Ex.
`
`1013) issued June 21, 1955, and prior art under § 102(b); and (6) Canadian Patent
`
`Application No. 2,186,790 to McKenna (Ex. 1006) published March 31, 1998, and
`
`prior art under § 102(b). Vaughn was cited on the face of the ’074 Patent but was not
`
`applied as the basis for a rejection.
`
`Claim
`No.
`1
`1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`7
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections
`for the ’074 Patent
`Claim 1 is anticipated under § 102(b) by Nagoshi
`Claim 1 is obvious under § 103(a) over Tegethoff in view of Vaughn and
`further in view of Evans and Wendt
`Claim 2 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Vaughn
`Claim 3 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Evans and
`further in view of Wendt
`Claim 4 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Evans
`Claim 5 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Evans
`Claim 6 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Tegethoff
`Claim 7 is anticipated under § 102(b) by Nagoshi
`Claim 7 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi
`Claim 7 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of McKenna
`Claim 8 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Vaughn
`Claim 9 is anticipated under § 102(b) by Nagoshi
`Claim 10 is anticipated under § 102(b) by Nagoshi
`Claim 11 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Vaughn
`Claim 12 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Vaughn
`Claim 13 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Vaughn
`Claim 14 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Evans and
`further in view of Wendt
`Claim 15 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Evans further
`in view of Wendt
`Claim 16 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Evans and
`9
`
`

`

`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`
`further in view of Wendt
`Claim 17 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Evans and
`further in view of Wendt
`Claim 18 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Tegethoff
`Claim 19 is anticipated under § 102(b) by Nagoshi
`Claim 20 is obvious under § 103(a) over Nagoshi in view of Vaughn
`
`
`Petitioner also submits that because each dependent claim includes all of the
`
`features of the claim(s) on which it depends, each of the proposed rejections for a
`
`dependent claim is also applied to any claim(s) from which the dependent claim
`
`depends. Thus, for example, because claim 2 is obvious over Nagoshi in view of
`
`Vaughn and claim 2 depends from claim 1, claim 1 is also obvious over Nagoshi in
`
`view of Vaughn. Petitioner, therefore, expressly requests that the grounds for
`
`unpatentability instituted for any dependent claim also be instituted for any claims
`
`from which that dependent claim depends.
`
`3. How the Challenged Claim(s) Are to Be Construed Under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`A claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 42 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). For the purposes of the IPR, the claim terms are presumed to take on
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning that the term would have to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Additionally, Petitioner submits that “integrally attached,” as recited in
`
`claims 1 and 10 and via incorporation by reference in claim 20, should be construed as
`
`“two elements being discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each
`
`10
`
`

`

`part losing its own separate identity.” This is the Board’s construction from IPR1
`
`(IPR1, Paper 59 at 9; Paper 15 at 8) and IPR2 (IPR2, Paper 12 at 12) and is the
`
`broadest reasonable construction.
`
`To further support this construction, Petitioner notes that claim 10 of the ’074
`
`Patent does not merely recite an “integrated” speedometer and colored display.
`
`Rather, claim 10 recites a speedometer “integrally attached” to a colored display,
`
`meaning each component has a separate identity. Therefore, the claim term
`
`“attached” must be a limitation on the claim. Second, the ’074 Patent consistently
`
`describes the colored display and speedometer as separate components that are
`
`attached. (IPR1, Paper 15 at 8; Ex. 1001 at 5:9–12.) Cuozzo proffers in IPR1 that the
`
`two components can be “integrated” because the specification discusses a
`
`speedometer that “has” a colored display. (IPR, Paper 31 at 3–4 (citing Ex. 1001 at
`
`5:8–10).) But, this disclosure is entirely consistent with a speedometer that has an
`
`attached colored display and never suggests that the two components are merged into
`
`a single, indivisible electronic display. Indeed, the specification never once discloses a
`
`single electronic display that itself operates as both a speedometer and a colored
`
`display.
`
`Third, importantly, when Cuozzo amended the claims to add “integrally
`
`attached,” he cited to these very same portions of the specification that describe the
`
`speedometer and colored display as separate and discrete elements. (IPR1, Paper 15 at
`
`11
`
`

`

`8 (citing Ex. 1001 at 7:23–25).) Indeed, Cuozzo concedes in IPR1 that this disclosure
`
`describes the components “as separate and discrete elements.” (IPR1, Paper 31 at 6.)
`
`Cuozzo’s proposed construction, on the other hand, improperly reads out the
`
`“attached” requirement of the plain claim language.
`
`4. How
`the Construed Claim(s) Are Unpatentable and
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), (5)
`
`The following requirements are provided in Section IV, below: (1) an
`
`explanation of how construed claims 1-20 of the ’074 Patent are unpatentable under
`
`the statutory grounds identified above, including the identification of where each
`
`element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications; and (2)
`
`the exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge
`
`and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific
`
`portions of the evidence that support the challenge.
`
`IV. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)
`A.
`Claim 1 (Independent)  
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`A speed limit
`indicator
`comprising:
`
`a colored display
`to delineate
`which speed
`readings are in
`violation of the
`
`Anticipated By Nagoshi (Ex. 1003)
`Nagoshi discloses a “vehicle speed limit warning device.” (Title, ¶
`0006.) The stated “Purpose” of Nagoshi’s invention is “to make
`the driver aware of the speed limit of the road, no matter what
`road is being driven.” (Summary, p. 1.)
`Nagoshi discloses a “display apparatus 13 [that] displays the
`speed limit information acquired from said microcomputer 12.”
`(¶¶ 0014–0015.) The speed limit information is “of the road
`where the driver is driving at present by means of the
`coordinates information of the current vehicle location from the
`12
`
`

`

`speed limit at a
`vehicle's current
`location;
`
`navigation system 11 . . . .” (Summary, p. 1; see also ¶¶ 0006,
`0012, 0014.)
`
`
`Nagoshi’s display apparatus is a colored display. In particular, the display
`
`
`
`apparatus 13 displays the speed readings in green or red depending on whether the
`
`speed reading is below or above a speed limit. (¶ 0016.) Nagoshi teaches that the
`
`speed limit information can be both alphanumerically displayed as part of the
`
`speedometer, and further that “the driver is informed of the speed limit of the road
`
`currently being driven by the display green LEDs of the velocities below the speed
`
`limit on the outer side of the speedometer, and the velocities above the speed limit in
`
`red.” (¶ 0016; Fig. 5.) Thus, as shown in Fig. 5 below, for speeds below the speed
`
`limit of 40 km/h, a concentric region of LEDs surrounding the speed denoting
`
`markings of 40 km/h and below are colored green, and a region of LEDs surrounding
`
`the speed denoting markings above 40 km/h are colored red.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Nagoshi thus discloses a colored display, namely the green and red LEDs, and
`
`the colored LEDs delineate the speed readings in violation of the speed limit at the
`
`vehicle’s current location.
`
`In ¶ 0016, Nagoshi references Fig. 4, which illustrates lead lines for “green”
`
`and “red” but that does not expressly show the green region shaded below 40 km/h,
`
`as it is in Fig. 5. The teaching of ¶ 0016 in combination with Fig. 5 illustrates that any
`
`speeds below 40 km/h are in green, and any speeds above 40 km/h are in red, with 40
`
`km/h being the speed limit.
`
`a speedometer
`integrally
`attached to said
`colored display;
`
`Nagoshi discloses a speedometer 17, and the speed limit
`information is “displayed as part of the speedometer.” (¶ 0016;
`Fig. 5, illustrating a circular speedometer dial with a needle and
`speed denoting markings; ¶ 0020, referring to the “speedometer
`display” of Figs. 4 and 5.)
`
`Nagoshi teaches that the speedometer of Fig. 5 is integrally attached to the
`
`
`
`colored LEDs comprising the colored display. The speedometer dial with its needle
`
`and speed denoting markings is a discrete part from the colored LEDs, i.e., the LEDs
`
`are separate and distinct from the needle and speed denoting markings of the
`
`speedometer dial. The dial and the LEDs are joined together as a unit in the
`
`“speedometer display” and without each part losing its own separate identity. In
`
`particular, the concentric band of LEDs surrounding the circular speedometer dial
`
`could be removed from the speedometer display, and the speedometer dial with the
`
`needle and speed denoting markings would still maintain the functionality as a
`
`14
`
`

`

`speedometer indicating to a driver the speed of the vehicle. Conversely, the colored
`
`LEDs could be mounted in the display 13 as presented, without the needle and speed
`
`denoting markings of the speedometer. The LEDs would still have their own separate
`
`identity as a circuitous band of colored indicators.
`
`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.
`
`Nagoshi discloses a display controller, namely the
`microcomputer 12, that “perform[s] the overall
`process control.” (¶ 0009.) Nagoshi explains that at
`Step F305, its microcomputer 12 receives “the speed
`limit information of the road currently being driven”
`as an output, acquires the output at Step F310, and
`sends the output, comprising the received speed limit
`information, to the display apparatus 13 at Step F315.
`(¶¶ 0013 and 0014.) “Said display apparatus 13
`displays the speed limit information acquired from
`said microcomputer 12.” (¶ 0015.)
`
`Thus, Nagoshi’s display controller, i.e., the microcomputer 12, is connected to
`
`
`
`the colored display, i.e., the LEDs of the display apparatus 13.
`
`Nagoshi further teaches that its display controller, namely the microcomputer
`
`12, adjusts the colored LEDs independently of the speedometer. In particular, the
`
`speed limit information represented by the colored LEDs changes as the speed limit
`
`information is acquired from the microcomputer 12. (¶¶ 0015 and 0016.) Additionally,
`
`the detected current speed of the vehicle changes and is shown on the speedometer of
`
`Figs. 4 and 5. The operation of the Nagoshi speedometer is not otherwise interrupted
`
`by the respective emitting of the green or red LEDs based on the current speed limit.
`
`Moreover, the colored LEDs delineate, i.e., indicate—including by marking the
`
`15
`
`

`

`outline of—the speed readings in violation of the speed limit at the vehicle’s present
`
`location. In particular, Nagoshi teaches that all speeds above the speed limit are
`
`identified by the concentric band of red LEDs surrounding the speeds. (¶ 0016,
`
`referring to displaying “velocities above the speed limit in red.”)
`
`Claim 1
`
`A speed limit
`indicator
`comprising:
`
`Obvious Over Tegethoff (Ex. 1010) in View of Vaughn (Ex.
`1008) and Further in View of
`Evans (Ex. 1012) and Wendt (Ex. 1013)
`Tegethoff discloses a display system 1 for displaying a variety of
`vehicle information, including a maximum permissible speed. (See,
`p. 5, col. 2: “Fig. 2 shows a display according to the invention for
`the current speed of the vehicle as well as additional
`information.”)
`a colored display to
`Tegethoff discloses determining “a permissible maximum
`delineate which
`speed for the road section where the car is currently located. This
`speed readings are in
`maximum speed can either be set manually or according to an
`violation of the
`element for navigation and a database with traffic control
`speed limit at a
`information or by an element for receiving transmitters
`vehicle's current
`outside the vehicle for traffic control.” (P. 6, col. 1) (emphasis
`location;
`added.)
`
`Therefore, Tegethoff teaches determining the speed limit at a vehicle’s current
`
`location, as claimed. To the extent the disclosed permissible maximum speed for a
`
`road class is not the speed limit of the current po