throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: April 1, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SPEED MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Ford Motor Company, filed a Corrected Petition for inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–5 and 8–13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,389,198 B1
`
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’198 patent”). Paper 7 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Speed
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`
`Monitoring Technologies LLC, filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by
`
`statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any
`
`response . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration
`
`of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude the information
`
`presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–5 and 8–13 of the
`
`’198 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties state that Patent Owner recently asserted the ’198 patent
`
`against third parties in two patent infringement lawsuits, both of which have
`
`been dismissed. Pet. 37; Paper 6, 2 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice).
`
`B. The ’198 Patent
`
`The ’198 patent relates to a vehicle speed monitoring system that
`
`generates alerts and other outputs when the vehicle speed exceeds a speed
`
`limit. Ex. 1001, Abstract. Figure 1 of the ’198 patent shows various
`
`components of the system and is reproduced below:
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 1, the system described in the ’198 patent includes
`
`components to detect vehicle speed and location, monitor time, and provide
`
`alerts. Id. at 1:64–67. For example, vehicle 16 includes transmit and receive
`
`apparatus 20, which may be a radar apparatus, to determine the speed of
`
`vehicle 16 relative to roadway marker 26, such as a speed limit sign.
`
`Id. at 2:8–12. Transmit and receive apparatus 20 may transmit a signal that
`
`detects transponder 22 located in roadway marker 26. Id. at 2:13–14.
`
`Vehicle 16 also includes position location apparatus 30, which may be a
`
`Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver. Id. at 2:27–29. In addition,
`
`vehicle 16 includes date and time apparatus 32, which may be independent
`
`or use the GPS. Id. at 2:29–30.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`
`Vehicle 16 further includes processor device 34, which may include a
`
`computation device that uses speed and speed limit detected at a particular
`
`roadway marker 26 to determine if the vehicle exceeds the speed limit.
`
`Id. at 2:36–39, 2:43–45. Date and time apparatus 32 may monitor the
`
`amount of time the vehicle speed is over the speed limit. Id. at 2:39–42.
`
`Various alerts and displays inside and outside the vehicle may indicate
`
`speed, speed limit, time, and location, and whether the vehicle has exceeded
`
`the speed limit. Id. at 2:39–40, 2:54–64. Also, processor device 34 may use
`
`speed, speed limit, and time information to determine whether a traffic ticket
`
`should be issued for a particular vehicle at a particular location. Id. at 2:45–
`
`48.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 is the only independent claim in the ’198 patent and is
`
`illustrative of the challenged claims:
`
`1. A system for monitoring a land vehicle speed relative
`
`to a speed limit comprising:
`
`an electronic transmit and receive apparatus disposed in a
`
`land vehicle to detect speed relative to a roadway marker;
`
`a position location apparatus disposed in said land
`
`vehicle[];
`
`a date and time apparatus disposed in said land vehicle
`
`and in communication with said electronic transmit and receive
`apparatus and said position location apparatus;
`
`in
`limit computation device
`a speed and speed
`
`communication [with] said electronic transmit and receive
`apparatus, said position location apparatus, and said date and
`time apparatus; and in communication with an output to an alert
`display device and an output device.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:19–33.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–5 and 8–13 of the ’198 patent are
`
`unpatentable based on the following specific grounds (Pet. 8–37):
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Breed1 and Tseng2
`Gehlot3 and Tseng
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`1, 2, 4, 5, and 8–13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`1–5, 8, and 11–13
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`
`patent 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); see
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL 448667, at *8 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction,
`
`claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007). For purposes of this preliminary proceeding, we determine that
`
`no claim terms require express construction.
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness over Breed and Tseng
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8–13 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Breed and Tseng. Pet. 8–23. To
`
`support its contention, Petitioner provides analysis and claim charts
`
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 6,720,920 B2, issued Apr. 13, 2004 (Ex. 1003, “Breed”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,959,970 B2, issued Nov. 1, 2005 (Ex. 1004, “Tseng”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,163,277, issued Dec. 19, 2000 (Ex. 1005, “Gehlot”).
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`
`explaining how the references allegedly teach the claim limitations, and
`
`provides a rationale for combining the references, relying on the testimony
`
`of Mr. P. Stuckey McIntosh. Id. (citing Ex. 1006).
`
`Breed describes a vehicle accident avoidance, warning, and control
`
`system that includes a wide variety of safety features, including
`
`communication between a vehicle and non-vehicle objects, such as roadway
`
`markers containing passive or active transponders. See, e.g., Ex. 1003,
`
`1:26–37, 44:15–20. Among other things, Breed teaches determining vehicle
`
`position using GPS, id. at 33:38–43, 36:55–67, obtaining speed limit
`
`information from roadside beacons, id. at 57:48–58:13, using radar to
`
`determine vehicle velocity relative to the ground and relative to objects,
`
`id. at 75:38–47, 76:20–26, and providing a warning when the driver exceeds
`
`a speed limit, id. at 73:25–26. Breed also teaches recording details relating
`
`to driving infractions, including time, place, and vehicle velocity.
`
`Id. at 30:36–37.
`
`Petitioner contends that Breed teaches most of the limitations of
`
`independent claim 1 of the ’198 patent. Pet. 11–17. For example, Petitioner
`
`asserts that Breed teaches a GPS receiver as the recited “position location
`
`apparatus,” and that Breed’s GPS receiver, like the GPS receiver disclosed
`
`in the ’198 patent, also is a “date and time apparatus.” Id. at 13–14.
`
`Petitioner further asserts that Breed teaches another “date and time
`
`apparatus” in the form of an “accurate clock” subsystem. Id. at 14–15
`
`(citing Ex. 1003, 77:33–45); see also Ex. 1003, Fig. 5 (subsystem 94).
`
`Petitioner concedes that Breed does not describe an “electronic
`
`transmit and receive apparatus disposed in a land vehicle to detect speed
`
`relative to a roadway marker,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 8. Petitioner,
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`
`however, states that Breed teaches taking multiple vehicle position readings
`
`relative to a roadside marker via a transceiver and using radar to calculate a
`
`vehicle velocity relative to the road and nearby objects. Id. at 8–9.
`
`Petitioner also relies on Tseng, which generally describes a vehicle stability
`
`control system. Ex. 1004, Abstract. Tseng teaches that radar transceivers
`
`may be mounted on the outside of a vehicle to determine vehicle velocity
`
`relative to a stationary object. Id. at 5:45–53. Petitioner contends that a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Tseng’s
`
`radar transceiver would benefit Breed’s system and “result in a simpler and
`
`more robust system whereby radar could be used to determine the velocity
`
`of a vehicle relative to roadside beacons.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 41).
`
`For example, as Breed describes two-way communication between vehicles
`
`and roadside beacons and also describes using radar to determine velocity
`
`relative to the road, Petitioner asserts an ordinarily skilled artisan easily
`
`could have modified Breed to direct its radar signals toward roadside
`
`beacons, and such a modification would have yielded predictable results. Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1003, 44:15–23, 76:20–26; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 41–42).
`
`The remaining limitation of claim 1 is “a speed and speed limit
`
`computation device in communication” with the recited components already
`
`discussed and “in communication with an output to an alert display device
`
`and an output device.” For this limitation, Petitioner relies on several
`
`portions of Breed, including Figure 5, which is reproduced below:
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 5 illustrates Breed’s vehicle accident avoidance, warning, and control
`
`system with various subsystems, including GPS receiver 52, radar 62,
`
`warning system 66, and accurate clock 94. Ex. 1003, 74:53–57, 74:61–63,
`
`75:38–47, 75:54–63, 77:33–45. The system “is implemented using a variety
`
`of microprocessors and electronic circuits 100 to interconnect and route
`
`various signals between and among the illustrated subsystems.” Id. at
`
`74:58–61.
`
`Petitioner also cites Breed’s teaching that a warning may be provided
`
`to the driver when the driver exceeds a safe speed limit. Pet. 15 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003, 73:25–26). In addition, Petitioner cites a detailed description of
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`
`warning system 66, which provides visual and audible warning messages
`
`both inside and outside the vehicle when a hazard exists. Id. at 16–17 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003, 75:54–67).
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner contends that Breed does
`
`not disclose a “speed and speed limit computation device,” as recited in
`
`claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 8–12. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Breed
`
`teaches a “service,” rather than a “device,” that warns a driver that a speed
`
`limit has been exceeded. Id. at 8–9. Patent Owner also argues that
`
`Petitioner does not explain how Figure 5 is relevant to this limitation or
`
`show that Breed teaches a speed and speed limit computation device that is
`
`in communication with the other recited components. Id. at 9–10. Further,
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Breed’s warning system provides warnings in
`
`response to a hazard, such as an object in the vehicle’s path, rather than
`
`when the vehicle is speeding. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1003, 75:48–49).
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded Petitioner has shown
`
`sufficiently that Breed teaches or suggests the recited “speed and speed limit
`
`computation device.” Figure 5 of Breed includes a central processor that
`
`performs the functions needed for the system to operate, and one function of
`
`Breed’s system is providing a warning when the driver exceeds a speed
`
`limit. Ex. 1003, 73:25–26, 77:49–58. Figure 5 also shows that the central
`
`processor and circuits interconnect and route signals between and among the
`
`subsystems, including the GPS receiver, radar, clock, and warning system.
`
`Id. at 74:58–61. Based on the record before us, including Figure 5,
`
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Breed teaches or at least suggests a
`
`speed and speed limit computation device in communication with the other
`
`components recited in claim 1. Petitioner also has made a sufficient
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`
`showing that Breed’s disclosure of a warning system teaches “an output to
`
`an alert display device and an output device,” as recited in claim 1, which
`
`does not limit alerts to those indicating excessive speed.
`
`For the reasons discussed, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`
`combination of Breed and Tseng teaches or suggests all of the limitations of
`
`claim 1, and has provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning
`
`for combining the references. Petitioner also has shown sufficiently that
`
`Breed teaches or suggests the additional limitations of the challenged
`
`dependent claims. Pet. 17–23. Accordingly, the information presented at
`
`this stage of the proceeding demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8–13 are
`
`unpatentable for obviousness over Breed and Tseng.
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Gehlot and Tseng
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–5, 8, and 11–13 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gehlot and Tseng. Pet. 23–37. To
`
`support its contention, Petitioner provides analysis and claim charts
`
`explaining how the references allegedly teach the claim limitations, and
`
`provides a rationale for combining the references, relying on the testimony
`
`of Mr. McIntosh. Id. (citing Ex. 1006).
`
`Gehlot describes a system for enforcing speed limits using wireless
`
`communication. Ex. 1005, Abstract; 2:1–3. The system includes an antenna
`
`capable of reading speed limit data from a roadside sign or other structure
`
`and sensors to gather driving pattern data, including vehicle speed. Id. at
`
`3:50–66, 4:26–36. The system also includes a processing unit that analyzes
`
`speed limit data and driving pattern data, determines whether a response is
`
`needed, and initiates an appropriate response. Id. at 6:21–25. Analysis may
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`
`include determining the amount of time spent in each speed limit zone and
`
`the amount that vehicle speed exceeds the speed limit. Id. at 6:26–33.
`
`When vehicle speed exceeds a speed limit, an audio or visual display may be
`
`activated. Id. at 6:42–48. The system also may communicate with a law
`
`enforcement vehicle, and law enforcement personnel can obtain previously
`
`stored driver and driving pattern information from the system on the driver’s
`
`vehicle. Id. at 6:49–50.
`
`Petitioner contends that Gehlot teaches most of the limitations of
`
`claim 1. Pet. 27–32. For example, Petitioner asserts that Gehlot teaches a
`
`GPS receiver as the recited “position location apparatus.” Id. at 28–29
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 5:52–6:4, Fig. 2). Petitioner further contends that Gehlot’s
`
`processing unit is a speed and speed limit computation device that obtains
`
`information from, and is in communication with, the other system
`
`components. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:21–34, 6:42–7:2).
`
`Petitioner concedes that Gehlot does not describe an “electronic
`
`transmit and receive apparatus disposed in a land vehicle to detect speed
`
`relative to a roadway marker,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 24–25. Petitioner,
`
`however, states that Gehlot teaches determining speed using radio frequency
`
`sensors and teaches two-way communication between vehicles and roadside
`
`markers. Id. Petitioner also relies on Tseng’s teaching that radar
`
`transceivers may be mounted on the outside of a vehicle to determine
`
`vehicle velocity relative to a stationary object. Id. at 25–26. As with the
`
`combination of Tseng with Breed, Petitioner asserts an ordinarily skilled
`
`artisan easily could have modified Gehlot to direct radar signals toward
`
`roadside beacons, and such a modification would have yielded predictable
`
`results. Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 47–48).
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`
`The remaining limitation of claim 1 is “a date and time apparatus
`
`disposed in said land vehicle and in communication with said electronic
`
`transmit and receive apparatus and said position location apparatus.”
`
`Petitioner submits that Gehlot’s GPS receiver, like the GPS receiver
`
`disclosed in the ’198 patent, satisfies this limitation. Patent Owner
`
`disagrees, arguing that Gehlot’s reference to a “global positioning system”
`
`does not indicate a GPS “receiver” is “disposed in said land vehicle,” as
`
`required by claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 12–13. Based on the present record,
`
`however, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Gehlot
`
`teaches or suggests a GPS receiver onboard the vehicle to receive GPS data.
`
`See Ex. 1005, 5:52–6:2, Fig. 2.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner also relies on Gehlot’s description of a recording
`
`feature that gathers and stores driving pattern data, including the time and
`
`duration of periods during which a driver exceeds speed limits in different
`
`speed limit zones. Pet. 29–31 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:6–25, 6:30–41, Fig. 3).
`
`Based on this disclosure, Petitioner asserts that Gehlot inherently discloses
`
`the recited date and time apparatus, or at a minimum it would have been
`
`obvious to modify Gehlot to record date and time when ascertaining and
`
`documenting penalty information due to exceeding the legal speed limit.
`
`Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 29–35); id. at 31 n.2 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 36).
`
`Patent Owner does not respond to this contention. See Prelim. Resp. 13.
`
`Based on the present record, we determine Petitioner has shown sufficiently
`
`that Gehlot at least suggests a date and time apparatus in communication
`
`with the electronic transmit and receive apparatus to monitor and record
`
`excessive speed conditions.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`
`For the reasons discussed, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`
`combination of Gehlot and Tseng teaches or suggests all of the limitations of
`
`claim 1, and has provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning
`
`for combining the references. Petitioner also has shown sufficiently that
`
`Gehlot teaches the additional limitations of the challenged dependent claims.
`
`Pet. 32–37. Accordingly, the information presented at this stage of the
`
`proceeding demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevail in showing that claims 1–5, 8, and 11–13 are unpatentable for
`
`obviousness over Gehlot and Tseng.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`
`showing that claims 1–5 and 8–13 of the ’198 patent are unpatentable. At
`
`this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination
`
`with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims or any underlying
`
`factual and legal issues.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`IV. ORDER
`
` ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is instituted as to claims 1–5 and 8–13 of the ’198 patent for the
`
`following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`A.
`
`claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8–13 for obviousness under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Breed and Tseng; and
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1–5, 8, and 11–13 for obviousness under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gehlot and Tseng; and
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01500
`Patent 7,389,198 B1
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial, which
`
`commences on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Eric A. Buresh
`Jason R. Mudd
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`jason.mudd@eriseip.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`John R. Kasha
`Kelly L. Kasha
`Kasha Law LLC
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`kelly.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`
`14
`
`

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket