`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
`
`