Trials@uspto. gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. __
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR20l5—00
`
`Patent 8,710,969
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`LATHROP & GAGE LLP
`
`J l1,Reg. No. 38,344__T _T’
`
`Allan Sternstein, Reg. No. 27,396
`
`Nikhil U. Patel, Reg. No. 70,706
`
`Timothy K. Sendek, Reg. No. 64,542
`
`Douglas W. Link, Reg. No. 68,949
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... .. 1
`
`II. Threshold ISSUES ........................................................................................... 2
`II. Threshold ISSUES ......................................................................................... .. 2
`
`A. Challenge/relief request – Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ................ 2
`A. Challenge/relief reguest — Rules 42.22ga)g1) and 42.104gb)g1)—g2) .............. .. 2
`
`B. Standing – Rule 42.104(a)........................................................................... 3
`B. Standing — Rule 42.1041a2 ......................................................................... .. 3
`
`C. Real party in interest – Rule 42.8(b)(1) ..................................................... 3
`C. Real party in interest — Rule 42.8gbgg1g ................................................... .. 3
`
`D. Other proceedings – Rule 42.8(b)(2) .......................................................... 3
`D. Other proceedings — Rule 42.8gbgg2g ........................................................ .. 3
`
`E. Counsel – Rule 42.8(b)(3) ........................................................................... 3
`E. Counsel — Rule 42.8gbgg3g ......................................................................... .. 3
`
`F. Service – Rule 42.8(b)(4)............................................................................. 4
`F. Service — Rule 42.8gbgg4g ........................................................................... .. 4
`
`G. Fees – Rule 42.103 ....................................................................................... 4
`G. Fees — Rule 42.103 ..................................................................................... .. 4
`
`H. Certification of service – Rules 42.6(e)(4)(iii) and 42.105(a) ..................... 4
`H. Certification of service — Rules 42.6gegg4ggiiig and 42.105ga[ ................... .. 4
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION – RULE 42.104(b) ............................................... 5
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION — RULE 42.104(b) ............................................. .. 5
`
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT TRW WILL PREVAIL
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT TRW WILL PREVAIL
`– RULES 42.22(a)(2) and 104(b)(4); 35 U.S.C. §314(a) ........................................ 5
`— RULES 42.22(a)(2) and 104(b)(4); 35 U.S.C. §314(a) ...................................... .. 5
`
`A. Background and Introduction ................................................................... 5
`A. Background and Introduction ................................................................. .. 5
`
`1. Vehicle accessory technology .................................................................... 5
`1. Vehicle accessory technology .................................................................. .. 5
`
`2. The original prosecution ............................................................................ 6
`2. The original prosecution .......................................................................... .. 6
`
`3. State of the art............................................................................................ 6
`3. State of the art .......................................................................................... .. 6
`
`4. The earliest possible priority date is August 18, 2004 ................................ 6
`4. The earliest possible priority date is August 18, 2004 .............................. .. 6
`
`B. Grounds of Rejection .................................................................................. 6
`B. Grounds of Rejection ................................................................................ .. 6
`
`1. Ground 1: Claims 1–7, 9–16, and 21-22 are anticipated ............................. 7
`1. Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 21-22 are anticipated ........................... .. 7
`
`a. Ground 1: Claim 1 is anticipated ............................................................. 8
`a. Ground 1: Claim 1 is anticipated ........................................................... .. 8
`
`b. Ground 1: Claim 2 is anticipated ............................................................14
`b. Ground 1: Claim 2 is anticipated .......................................................... ..14
`
`c. Ground 1: Claim 3 is anticipated ............................................................17
`c. Ground 1: Claim 3 is anticipated .......................................................... ..17
`
`d. Ground 1: Claim 4 is anticipated ............................................................17
`d. Ground 1: Claim 4 is anticipated .......................................................... ..17
`
`e. Ground 1: Claim 5 is anticipated ............................................................18
`e. Ground 1: Claim 5 is anticipated .......................................................... ..18
`
`f. Ground 1: Claim 6 is anticipated ............................................................19
`f. Ground 1: Claim 6 is anticipated .......................................................... ..19
`
`

`
`g. Ground 1: Claim 7 is anticipated ............................................................20
`g. Ground 1: Claim 7 is anticipated .......................................................... ..2O
`
`h. Ground 1: Claim 9 is anticipated ............................................................21
`h. Ground 1: Claim 9 is anticipated .......................................................... ..21
`
`i. Ground 1: Claim 10 is anticipated ..........................................................22
`i. Ground 1: Claim 10 is anticipated ........................................................ ..22
`
`j. Ground 1: Claim 11 is anticipated ..........................................................23
`j. Ground 1: Claim 11 is anticipated ........................................................ ..23
`
`k. Ground 1: Claim 13 is anticipated ..........................................................23
`k. Ground 1: Claim 13 is anticipated ........................................................ ..23
`
`l. Ground 1: Claim 14 is anticpated ...........................................................25
`1. Ground 1: Claim 14 is anticpated ......................................................... ..25
`
`m. Ground 1: Claim 15 is anticipated ..........................................................25
`m. Ground 1: Claim 15 is anticipated ........................................................ ..25
`
`n. Ground 1: Claim 16 is anticipated ..........................................................26
`n. Ground 1: Claim 16 is anticipated ........................................................ ..26
`
`o. Ground 1: Claim 21 is anticipated ..........................................................27
`o. Ground 1: Claim 21 is anticipated ........................................................ ..27
`
`p. Ground 1: Claim 22 is anticipated ..........................................................29
`p. Ground 1: Claim 22 is anticipated ........................................................ ..29
`
`2. Ground 2: Claims 1–7, 9–16, and 21-22 are obvious ................................29
`2. Ground 2: Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 21-22 are obvious .............................. ..29
`
`a. Background determinations, per KSR ....................................................30
`a. Background determinations, per KSR .................................................. ..30
`
`i. Scope and content of the prior art, and differences between prior
`i.
`Scope and content of the prior art, and differences between prior
`art and claims ...................................................................................30
`art and claims ................................................................................. ..30
`
`ii. Level of ordinary skill ......................................................................30
`ii. Level of ordinary skill .................................................................... ..30
`
`b. Ground 2: Claim 1 is Obvious................................................................31
`b. Ground 2: Claim 1 is Obvious .............................................................. ..31
`
`c. Ground 2: Claim 2 is Obvious................................................................35
`c. Ground 2: Claim 2 is Obvious .............................................................. ..35
`
`d. Ground 2: Claim 3 is Obvious................................................................36
`d. Ground 2: Claim 3 is Obvious .............................................................. ..36
`
`e. Ground 2: Claim 4 is Obvious................................................................36
`e. Ground 2: Claim 4 is Obvious .............................................................. ..36
`
`f. Ground 2: Claim 5 is Obvious................................................................38
`f. Ground 2: Claim 5 is Obvious .............................................................. ..38
`
`g. Ground 2: Claim 6 is Obvious................................................................38
`g. Ground 2: Claim 6 is Obvious .............................................................. ..38
`
`h. Ground 2: Claim 7 is Obvious................................................................39
`h. Ground 2: Claim 7 is Obvious .............................................................. ..39
`
`i. Ground 2: Claim 9 is Obvious................................................................40
`i. Ground 2: Claim 9 is Obvious .............................................................. ..4O
`
`j. Ground 2: Claim 10 is Obvious ..............................................................41
`j. Ground 2: Claim 10 is Obvious ............................................................ ..41
`
`k. Ground 2: Claim 11 is Obvious ..............................................................42
`k. Ground 2: Claim 11 is Obvious ............................................................ ..42
`
`

`
`l. Ground 2: Claim 13 is Obvious ..............................................................43
`1. Ground 2: Claim 13 is Obvious ............................................................ ..43
`
`m. Ground 2: Claim 14 is Obvious ..............................................................44
`m. Ground 2: Claim 14 is Obvious ............................................................ ..44
`
`n. Ground 2: Claim 15 is Obvious ..............................................................45
`n. Ground 2: Claim 15 is Obvious ............................................................ ..45
`
`o. Ground 2: Claim 16 is Obvious ..............................................................46
`o. Ground 2: Claim 16 is Obvious ............................................................ ..46
`
`p. Ground 2: Claim 21 is Obvious ..............................................................47
`p. Ground 2: Claim 21 is Obvious ............................................................ ..47
`
`q. Ground 2: Claim 22 is Obvious ..............................................................49
`q. Ground 2: Claim 22 is Obvious ............................................................ ..49
`
`3. Ground 3: Claims 8, 17-20, and 23 are obvious ........................................50
`3. Ground 3: Claims 8, 17-20, and 23 are obvious ...................................... ..50
`
`a. Background determinations: content of the prior art, and differences
`a. Background determinations: content of the prior art, and differences
`
`between prior art and claims ..................................................................50
`between prior art and claims ................................................................ ..5O
`
`b. Ground 3: Claim 8 is Obvious................................................................50
`b. Ground 3: Claim 8 is Obvious .............................................................. ..5O
`
`c. Ground 3: Claim 17 is Obvious ..............................................................54
`c. Ground 3: Claim 17 is Obvious ............................................................ ..54
`
`d. Ground 3: Claim 18 is obvious ..............................................................56
`d. Ground 3: Claim 18 is obvious ............................................................ ..56
`
`e. Ground 3: Claim 19 is Obvious ..............................................................57
`e. Ground 3: Claim 19 is Obvious ............................................................ ..57
`
`f. Ground 2: Claim 20 is Obvious ..............................................................58
`f. Ground 2: Claim 20 is Obvious ............................................................ ..58
`
`g. Ground 2: Claim 23 is Obvious ..............................................................59
`g. Ground 2: Claim 23 is Obvious ............................................................ ..59
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, TRW Automotive U.S. LLC (hereinafter “TRW”), seeks Inter
`
`Partes Review to invalidate claims 1-11, and 13-23 of unexpired U.S. Pat. No.
`
`8,710,969 to DeWard et al. (the “‘969 Patent”) titled “ACCESSORY SYSTEM
`
`FOR VEHICLE,” which issued on April 29, 2014 and is attached as Exhibit 1002.1
`
`The ‘969 Patent claims relate to a camera accommodated within an accesso-
`
`ry module that detachably mounts to a mounting element attached on a windshield
`
`of an automobile for use within a driver assistance system. (1002-001 at Abstract).
`
`The camera includes a CMOS photosensor array housed within the accessory
`
`module separate from a lens.
`
`The ‘969 Patent was filed on September 19, 2013 and claims priority back to
`
`a U.S. Provisional Application filed on August 18, 2004. (1002-001). The ‘969 Pa-
`
`tent consistently incorporates U.S. Patent No. 6,824,281 by reference. (See 1002-
`
`018 at 3:62-67; -024 at 16:4-13). The ‘281 Patent does not qualify as prior art un-
`
`der §102(b) as it was not published more than one year before the 8/18/2004 priori-
`
`ty date of the ‘969 Patent. (see 1006-001). While Magna Electronics Inc.,
`
`(“Magna”) disclosed the non 102(b) prior art ‘281 Patent to the USPTO during
`
`prosecution of the ‘969 Patent, it did not disclose its 102(b) prior art counterpart
`
`
`
`1 A full listing of all exhibits, per Rule 42.63(e) is provided as Exhibit 1001.
`
`Citations to exhibits are formatted as follows: “xxxx-yyy” with xxxx and yyy rep-
`
`resenting the exhibit number and page number respectively (with column, line,
`
`and/or paragraph numbers as appropriate).
`
`1
`
`

`
`PCT application publication number WO 2003/065084, which has the same speci-
`
`fication as the ‘281 Patent, but published August 7, 20032.
`II. Threshold ISSUES
`A. Challenge/relief request – Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2)
`
`TRW requests Inter Partes Review and invalidation of Claims 1-11 and 13-
`
`23 of the ‘969 Patent. The bases for this request are summarized in the table below.
`
`References to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 are pre-AIA.
`
`‘969 Claims
`
`Basis For Rejection
`
`1 – 7, 9-11, 13-
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(b) as obvious over Schofield PCT (Ex 1003)3
`
`16, and 21- 22
`
`1 – 7, 9-11, 13-
`
`35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Schofield PCT in view of
`
`16, and 21- 22
`
`Schofield ‘094 (Ex 1004)4
`
`
`
`2 This is not the first time Magna disclosed a non-102(b) prior art U.S. Pa-
`
`tent while not disclosing a 102(b) prior art publication of the identical specifica-
`
`tion. As discussed in IPR2015-00949, Magna disclosed its non-102(b) prior art
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,796,094 but did not disclose the 102(b) publication of the corre-
`
`sponding PCT application during prosecution of its U.S. Pat. No. 8,629,768.
`
`3 WIPO Pub. No. WO 03/065084 A1, published August 3, 2003; prior art
`
`under § 102(b).
`
`4 U.S. Pat. No. 5,796,094, issued August 18, 1998; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`2
`
`

`
`8, 17-20, and 23 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Schofield PCT in view of
`
`Schofield ‘094 and further in view of Bos (Ex. 1009)5
`
`B.
`
`Standing – Rule 42.104(a)
`
`TRW certifies that the patent for which review is sought is available for In-
`
`ter Partes Review, and that TRW is not barred or estopped from requesting Inter
`
`Partes Review challenging the patent claims on the grounds asserted herein.
`
`C. Real party in interest – Rule 42.8(b)(1)
`
`TRW certifies that TRW Automotive U.S. LLC of Farmington Hills, Michi-
`
`gan is the real party in interest.
`
`D. Other proceedings – Rule 42.8(b)(2)
`
`TRW is a defendant in an action filed by Magna Electronics Corporation in
`
`the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Magna Electronics
`
`Inc. v TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., Case 1:14-cv-00341 (W.D. Mich.
`
`2014). The amended complaint alleging infringement of the ‘969 Patent was filed
`
`and served on August 8, 2014. There are two other defendants in the case: TRW
`
`Automotive Holdings Corp. (which has since changed entity name to ZF TRW Au-
`
`tomotive Holdings Corp.) and TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc. Both entities are
`
`corporations related to TRW.
`
`E. Counsel – Rule 42.8(b)(3)
`
`TRW designates counsel as follows: lead counsel is Jon R. Trembath (Reg.
`
`
`
`5 U.S. Pat. No. 6,201,642, issued March 13, 2001; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`3
`
`

`
`No. 38,344); back-up counsels are Allan Sternstein (Reg. No. 27,396), Nikhil U.
`
`Patel (Reg. No. 70,706), Timothy K. Sendek (Reg. No. 64,542), and Douglas W.
`
`Link (Reg. No. 68,949).
`
`F.
`
`Service – Rule 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Papers concerning this matter should be served on the following:
`
`By Mail:
`
`By E-mail:
`
`LATHROP & GAGE, LLP
`
`Patent@LathropGage.com
`
`IP Docketing, Inter Partes Review
`
`JTrembath@LathropGage.com
`
`2345 Grand Blvd., Ste. 2400, Kan-
`
`ASternstein@LathropGage.com
`
`sas City, Missouri 64108
`
`NPatel@LathropGage.com
`
`TSendek@LathropGage.com
`
`DLink@LathropGage.com
`
`TRW’s lead counsel may also be contacted by phone at 720-931-3200.
`
`G.
`
`Fees – Rule 42.103
`
`The USPTO is authorized to charge the required fees as well as any addi-
`
`tional fees that might be due to Deposit Account No. 12-0600.
`
`H. Certification of service – Rules 42.6(e)(4)(iii) and 42.105(a)
`
`TRW certifies that a copy of this Request has been served in its entirety on
`
`the patent owner at the address provided for in 37 C.F.R. 42.6(e)(3). Specifically,
`
`this Petition for Inter Partes Review is being served on the correspondent of record
`
`for the ‘969 Patent: Gardner, Linn, Burkhart & Flory, LLP, 2851 Charlevoix Dr.,
`
`SE, Suite 207, Grand Rapids, MI 49546.
`
`4
`
`

`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION – RULE 42.104(b)
`
`TRW does not believe any additional claim construction is necessary.
`
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT TRW WILL
`PREVAIL – RULES 42.22(a)(2) and 104(b)(4); 35 U.S.C. §314(a)
`
`A. Background and Introduction
`
`Magna cited over 300 references to the USPTO including, US Patent No.
`
`6,824,281 to Schofield (hereinafter “Schofield ‘281”; Ex. 1006) which was incor-
`
`porated by reference into the ‘969 Patent as teaching certain claim limitations. (See
`
`1005-047 through -050; 1005 -867 through -869; 1005-903 through -918; see also
`
`1002-018 at 3:62-67; -024 at 16:4-13). However, Magna failed to cite the PCT ap-
`
`plication corresponding
`
`to Schofield ‘281 (WO 2003/065084, hereinafter
`
`“Schofield PCT”) which is 102(b) prior art. Schofield PCT discloses a vehicle ac-
`
`cessory module meeting the majority of the limitations of the claimed vehicle ac-
`
`cessory system. The claimed CMOS photosensor array housed in an accessory
`
`module separate from a lens were well-known in the art at the time of the inven-
`
`tion, as disclosed by Schofield '094. Taken together, both Schofield PCT and
`
`Schofield '094 demonstrate that nothing inventive is claimed by the '969 Patent.
`
`Notably, had the Schofield PCT been properly disclosed to the USPTO during
`
`prosecution of the ‘969 Patent it would likely not have been granted.
`
`1.
`
`Vehicle accessory technology
`
`TRW seeks invalidity of claims 1-11 and 13-23 of the ‘969 Patent. At a
`
`summary level, these claims address a vehicle accessory system including a CMOS
`
`imaging sensor accessory that mounts and demounts to a mounting element or but-
`
`5
`
`

`
`ton that is attached to the vehicle windshield. The imaging sensor is used in con-
`
`nection with a driver assistance system.
`
`2.
`
`The original prosecution
`
`The application resulting in the ‘969 Patent (Ex. 1002) was subject only to a
`
`single nonstatutory double patenting rejection (1005-879) requiring the Patent
`
`Owner to file a Terminal Disclaimer (1005-870).
`
`3.
`
`State of the art
`
`Schofield PCT discloses a vehicle accessory system with the majority of the
`
`elements claimed in the ‘969 Patent. The ‘969 Patent admits Schofield ‘281, which
`
`has the same specification as Schofield PCT, discloses the claimed accessory mod-
`
`ule and mounting element. (1002-018 at 3:62–67; 1002-024 at 16:4-13). The ‘969
`
`Patent also admits that the claimed CMOS imaging sensor and lens is disclosed by
`
`Schofield ‘094. (1002-019 at 5:19-30).
`
`4.
`
`The earliest possible priority date is August 18, 2004
`
`The ‘969 Patent claims priority to Provisional application 60/522,123, filed
`
`August 18, 2004, which establishes the earliest possible priority date. (1002-001).
`
`B. Grounds of Rejection
`
`The following discussion proceeds element-by-element for each claim of the
`
`‘969 Patent. Claim language is reproduced as headings in italics. The ensuing dis-
`
`cussion states with particularity where the element(s) may be found in the prior art.
`
`For each dependent claim, the discussion of the claim from which the dependent
`
`claim depends is incorporated by reference. The discussion, where applicable, also
`
`provides the rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, pursuant to the stand-
`
`6
`
`

`
`ards enunciated in KSR v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). A Declaration of Dr.
`
`Homayoon Kazerooni accompanies this Petition. (Ex. 1007). The discussion below
`
`stands on its own, but cites to the expert declaration for supportive facts, evidence,
`
`and reasoning from a perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`1. Ground 1: Claims 1–7, 9–11, 13-16, and 21-22 are anticipat-
`ed
`
`Claims 1–7, 9–11, 13-16, and 21-22 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`
`anticipated by Schofield PCT. Ground 1 relies upon Schofield PCT incorporating
`
`Schofield ‘094 by reference. (1003-037 at 20-26). A reference is anticipatory if
`
`“the host document [identifies] with detailed particularity what specific material it
`
`incorporates and clearly indicate[s] where that material is found in the various
`
`documents.”. (See Calloway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1346-47,
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) (The incorporating patent identified with specificity both what
`
`material is being incorporated by reference (foamable polymeric compositions
`
`suitable for golf ball cover layers) and where it may be found (the Molitor patent)).
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1346–47, (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Schofield PCT incorporates Schofield ‘094 to disclose a headlamp controller
`
`and aspects of its “image or vision system.” (see 1003-026 at 1-29). As in Callo-
`
`way, Schofield PCT identifies with particularity that it incorporates the disclosure
`
`of the Schofield ‘094 “image or vision system” and where such material can be
`
`found. Specifically, the Schofield ‘094 describes features of the invention as fol-
`
`lows: “such as an imaging system utilizing the principles disclosed in U.S. Pat.
`
`Nos. … 5,796,094” (1003-037 at 20-24); and … “a high/low headlamp controller,
`
`7
`
`

`
`such as disclosed in U.S. Pat. … 5,796,094 … with the disclosures of the refer-
`
`ences patents … being hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entireties”.
`
`(1003-026 at 1-29). Therefore, Schofield ‘094’s disclosure of a lens separated from
`
`a CMOS imaging array is specifically incorporated by reference into Schofield
`
`PCT because it is a part of the “principles” of the “imaging system … disclosed in
`
`U.S. Pat. Nos. … 5,796,094. (1003-037 at 20-24; -026 at 1-29)
`
`Ground 1 below shows that because of the incorporation practices within
`
`Schofield PCT, it discloses each limitation of Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-16, and 21-22
`
`and thus Inter Partes review should be granted under § 102. Nevertheless, Ground
`
`2 below establishes the obviousness of these claims if Schofield ‘094’s incorpora-
`
`tion by reference does not support anticipation. TRW prefers Institution under
`
`Ground 2 to avoid arguments about the efficacy of Schofield PCT’s incorporation
`
`by reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`a. Ground 1: Claim 1 is anticipated
`
`1. An accessory system for a vehicle, said accessory system compris-
`
`ing:
`
`Schofield PCT “relates generally to accessories useful for a vehicle and,
`
`more particularly, to accessories used in windshield electronic modules and interior
`
`rearview mirror assemblies.” (1003-003
`
`at 10-13).
`
`a windshield, said windshield
`
`having an outer surface that is
`
`exterior of the vehicle when said
`
`windshield is mounted to a vehi-
`
`8
`
`

`
`cle equipped with said accessory system and an inner surface that is
`
`interior of the vehicle when said windshield is mounted to the
`
`equipped vehicle;
`
`Schofield PCT, Figure 1 (right), shows “an accessory module 10 mounted
`
`toward and against an interior surface 12a of [a] windshield 12 …” (1003-013 at
`
`25-26; 1003-079).
`
`wherein said windshield is at a windshield angle relative to vertical
`
`when said windshield is mounted to the equipped vehicle;
`
`Schofield PCT, Figure 1, shows the windshield 12 at an angle relative to ver-
`
`tical. (1003-079 at Fig. 1). Schofield PCT discloses that “[p]referably, accessory
`
`module 10…is adjustable to set the accessory 42…to be at the desired angle re-
`
`gardless of the angle of the windshield to which the accessory module 10 is load-
`
`ed.” (emphasis added)). (see 1003-019 at 18-20; Figures 9, 21, 32).
`
`wherein said windshield has a mounting element attached at said
`
`inner surface;
`
`Schofield PCT’s “Accessory module 10
`
`is mounted to the vehicle windshield and in-
`
`cludes an extender 16, which is mounted to
`
`and extends from a mounting attachment 18
`
`(such as a conventional mirror mounting but-
`
`ton) at the windshield 12.” (1003-014 at 9-11; see also 1003-080 to -081 at Figures
`
`2-4). Mounting attachment element 18 is directly attached to windshield inner sur-
`
`face 12a and extender 16 is indirectly thereto attached to the windshield via ele-
`
`ment 18, as shown in Figure 4, above. (1003-080). Mounting element 18,either
`
`9
`
`

`
`alone or combined with extender 16, meets the claimed mounting element.
`
`wherein said mounting element is adapted for mounting of an ac-
`
`cessory module thereto and demounting of said accessory module
`
`therefrom;
`
`Mounting element 18 is adapted for mounting extender 16 thereto. (1003-
`
`014 at 9-11; see also 1003-083 at Figures 8, 7). Moreover, extender 16 may de-
`
`mount from mounting element 18 where “[p]referably, the mirror and accessory
`
`mounting components [e.g. elements 18 and extender 16] provide a breakaway
`
`type of connection or mount.” (1003-016 at 10-13). A breakaway is a demount.
`
`Extender 16 also “allow[s] for removal of body 10a of accessory module 10 from
`
`the windshield for service maintenance or replacement.” (1003-016 at 28-31).
`
`an accessory module adapted for mounting to and demounting from
`
`said mounting element;
`
`Extender 16 mounts to attachment member 18 (1003-014 at 9-11; see also
`
`1003-080 to -081 at Figures 2-4) and demounts therefrom because it “preferably…
`
`provides a breakaway type of connection or mount.” (1003-016 at 10-13). Extender
`
`16 is part of the accessory module. (1003-014 at 9-11). Additionally, module 10 is
`
`also configured to mount to
`
`and demount from extender
`
`16. Schofield PCT, in Figures
`
`7-8 (right), teaches “removal
`
`of body 10a of accessory
`
`module 10 from the wind-
`
`shield for service, mainte-
`
`10
`
`

`
`nance or replacement.” (Id.; see also 1003-083 at Figs. 7-8, above). Schofield PCT
`
`teaches that “teeth 34b are positioned along a flexible tab or portion (not shown) of
`
`mounting portion 34 of structural member 26 to allow the tab to be flexed radially
`
`outward and away from extender 16 to allow for removal of body 10a of accessory
`
`module 10 from the windshield for service, maintenance or replacement.” (Id.).
`
`Thus, the accessory module 10 is adapted to mount and demount from extender 16
`
`and mounting attachment element 18 in two ways.
`
`said accessory module accommodating a camera comprising a
`
`CMOS photosensor array and a lens;
`
`Schofield PCT discloses “an accessory
`
`[that] may comprise a forward facing image sen-
`
`sor or camera (preferably a video camera, such
`
`as a CMOS imaging sensor array sensor, a CCD
`
`sensor or the like…).” (1003-018 at 30-34). Fur-
`
`ther, Schofield PCT Figure 11, reproduced right,
`
`shows the imager (i.e. camera) has a lens. (1003-086).
`
`wherein said CMOS photosensor array is accommodated at said ac-
`
`cessory module separate from said lens;
`
`As shown above, Fig. 11 of Schofield PCT discloses an imager with lens.
`
`(1003-018 at 30-34; 1003 at Figure 11). To disclose the details of its imaging sys-
`
`tem, Schofield PCT stated: “an image or vision system … including an imaging
`
`sensor, such as a video camera, such as a CMOS imaging array sensor … such as
`
`the types disclosed in commonly assigned, U.S. Pat. Nos. … 5,796,094, … incor-
`
`porated by reference), an intelligent headlamp controller (such as the type dis-
`
`11
`
`

`
`closed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,796,094…” (1003-037 at 20-24; see also 1003-018 at 28-
`
`34).
`
`Schofield ‘094, in Fig. 2 (below), has a lens 36 (highlighted yellow) separate
`
`from the circuit board/CMOS photosensor array 38 (highlighted red). (1004-002 at
`
`Fig. 2, elements 36, 38). Schofield ‘094 discloses
`
`“an image sensor module 14 [that] includes an op-
`
`tical device 36, such as a lens, an array 38 of pho-
`
`ton-accumulating light sensor …. [and] a filter ar-
`
`ray 40 disposed between optical device 36 and
`
`light-sensing array 38.” (1004-014 at 4:16-21; see
`
`also 1004-002 at Fig. 2, 1004-004 at Figs. 4-5).
`
`Schofield ‘094 taught its accessory “is especially
`
`adapted for use with, but not limited to, photoarray imaging sensors, such as
`
`CMOS … arrays.” (1004-014 at 3:1-3, emphasis added). Because Schofield PCT
`
`incorporates Schofield ‘094 by reference to disclose features of its imaging or vi-
`
`sion system, Schofield PCT anticipates this limitation. Indeed, the ‘969 Patent also
`
`relies on Schofield ‘094 to disclose aspects of the array and lens: “imaging sensor
`
`18 and lens 20 may be implemented with or incorporated in a forward viewing im-
`
`aging system, such as an imaging system utilizing the principles disclosed in U.S.
`
`Pat. Nos. … 5,796,094, which are incorporated herein by reference in their entire-
`
`ties.” (1002-019 at 5:19-30).
`
`wherein said CMOS photosensor array is disposed on a circuit
`
`board;
`
`12
`
`

`
`Schofield PCT discloses that the image sensor (one of the “accessory or ac-
`
`cessories”) is a CMOS imaging array sensor (1003-037 at 20-23) and that “[t]he
`
`accessory or accessories may be positioned at or within the accessory module
`
`housing … and may be included on or integrated in a printed circuit board posi-
`
`tioned within the respective housing …, without affecting the scope of the present
`
`invention.” (1003-026 at 29-32).
`
`wherein said accessory module is configured so that, when mounted
`
`to said mounting element attached at said windshield, said lens has
`
`a field of view through said windshield appropriate for a driver as-
`
`sistance system of the equipped vehicle; and
`
`Schofield PCT discloses that “as the accessory module is loaded toward and
`
`against the windshield, the accessory 38 contacts the interior surface 12a of the
`
`windshield 12 and is pressed aga