Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 2211726-00141
`Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Daniel V. Williams, Reg. No. 45,221
`Ellyar Y. Barazesh, Reg. No. 74,096
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
`Ashraf A. Fawzy, Reg. No. 67,914
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, DC, 20009
`Tel: (202) 805-8931
`Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`Email: afawzy@unifiedpatents.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`COLLISION AVOIDANCE TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`Patent Owner
`IPR2017-01355
`Patent 6,268,803
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS SHOULD BE
`REJECTED ...................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Same Constructions from Preliminary Response .................................. 1
`B.
`Location and Traverse Location ............................................................ 2
`C.
`Control Module and Fuses Data ............................................................ 3
`1.
`“control module” ......................................................................... 4
`2.
`“fuses data” ................................................................................. 8
`PATENT OWNER’S INTERPRETATION OF CLAIM 21 SHOULD BE
`REJECTED .................................................................................................... 12
`IV. HAYASHIKURA TEACHES THE LIMITATIONS OF CLAIM 21 .......... 17
`A.
`“control module” ................................................................................. 17
`B.
`“each of the plurality of receiving devices receives a return
`representative of one of the plurality of transmitted signals…” ......... 18
`Incorporation by Reference of the POPR ............................................ 19
`C.
`V. HAYASHIKURA TEACHES THE LIMITATIONS OF CLAIMS 22 AND
`28 ................................................................................................................... 19
`A. Hayashikura Teaches “fuses data” ...................................................... 19
`JP ’265 TEACHES THE LIMITATIONS OF CLAIM 21 ........................... 21
`A.
`“control module” ................................................................................. 22
`B.
`“each of the plurality of receiving devices receives a return
`representative of one of the plurality of transmitted signals…” ......... 23
`VII. JP ’265 TEACHES THE LIMITATIONS OF CLAIM 22 ........................... 24
`A.
`JP ’265 teaches “fuses data” ................................................................ 24
`VIII. JP ’265 TEACHES THE LIMITATIONS OF CLAIM 25 ........................... 25
`
`VI.
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`
`IX. CHERRY IN COMBINATION WITH THE PRIMARY REFERENCES
`TEACHES THE LIMITATION OF CLAIM 24 ........................................... 26
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 28
`
`X.
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`
`I.
`
`respect to claims 21, 22, 24, 25, and 28. Decision at 31, Paper 9. Patent Owner
`
`now proposes erroneous constructions of the terms “control module” and “fuses
`
`data.” Resp. at 8, 12, 21, Paper 17. Patent Owner also advances an improper
`
`interpretation of how the “receiving devices” are described as operating in
`
`independent claim 21. For the reasons discussed herein, the Board should maintain
`
`that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS SHOULD BE
`REJECTED
`Patent Owner’s proposed constructions either improperly incorporate by
`
`reference Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (POPR), or they change the
`
`construction, both without providing any new support. And for the terms “control
`
`module” and “fuses data,” Patent Owner improperly proposes unduly narrow
`
`constructions in an effort to define around the prior art.
`
`A.
`Same Constructions from Preliminary Response
` The Patent Owner relies entirely on “incorporate[ing] its Preliminary
`
`Response” to support it proposed constructions for the following terms: “sensor,”
`
`“measure,” “detects an object,” “calculates a distance to …the object,” “calculates
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`a …location of the object,” and “distance.”1 Resp. at 7, 11-13, Paper 17. These
`
`constructions should be rejected; the Board preliminarily found that an explicit
`
`construction wasn’t necessary, and nothing has changed; Patent Owner provided no
`
`new substantive arguments. Decision at 8-9, Paper 9. Moreover, Patent Owner’s
`
`reliance on the POPR was an improper incorporation by reference. 37 CFR 42.6(a)(3)
`
`(“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another
`
`document. Combined motions, oppositions, replies, or other combined documents
`
`are not permitted.”).
`
`B.
`Location and Traverse Location
`Patent Owner first proposed constructions for the terms “location” and
`
`“traverse location.” Prel. Resp. at 17, 22, and 23, Paper 8. Patent Owner now
`
`proposes different constructions, but provides no additional support.
`
`Patent Owner now proposes that the term “location” be construed as a
`
`“position of an object relative to the vehicle,” Resp. at 7, Paper 17, without support,
`
`instead arguing that it “more succinct” than Petitioner’s construction. Resp. at 7,
`
`Paper 17. That, without more, is improper.
`
`
`1 While Patent Owner cites to “Patent Owner’s Response, at 18,” for the term
`
`“distance,” it appears the cite should have listed the Preliminary Response at 17.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`Regarding “traverse location,” Patent Owner now proposes that the term be
`
`construed as “the position of an object relative to the closest portion of the vehicle,”
`
`Resp. at 12, Paper 17, but again fails to provide a reason why the Board’s decision
`
`not to construe this term was in error.
`
`C. Control Module and Fuses Data
`Patent Owner proposes constructions for “control module,” as recited in
`
`independent claim 21, and “fuses data,” which is recited in dependent claims 22 and
`
`28. Resp. at 8, 10, Paper 17. But Patent Owner’s proposed constructions for these
`
`terms are erroneous.
`
`Patent Owner relied on Mr. Pfeiffer’s declaration to support its proposed
`
`constructions of these terms. Resp. at 8, 11, Paper 17. The Board should not give it
`
`weight. Mr. Pfeiffer’s experience in collision avoidance systems is unclear both
`
`from his declaration and his testimony, and no CV was submitted. Moreover, Mr.
`
`Pfeiffer testified that he had no experience in collision avoidance hardware or
`
`firmware design until 2004—more than five years after the ’803 patent’s filing
`
`date,—and that he has a two-year associate’s degree rather than a bachelor’s or an
`
`advanced degree. Pfeiffer Decl. ¶ 4, EX2002; Pfeiffer Tr. 5:19-6:3, 7:24-8:8
`
`(EX1015); ’803 patent, cover (EX1001). These findings at least raise a question as
`
`to whether Mr. Pfeiffer qualifies as a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the ’803 patent’s alleged invention, which the Board determined as having “a
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`bachelor’s or advanced degree in a discipline such as electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, or related disciplines, and [] at least two years of practical
`
`experience in automotive collision avoidance systems.” Decision at 10-11
`
`(emphases added).
`
`1.
`“control module”
`Patent Owner’s original proposed construction for “control module” was a
`
`“customized PC2 configured to perform functions related to the measurement of
`
`return signals, detection of an object as a function of the return signals, calculation
`
`of the distance to and location of the object, and display of the object.” Prel. Resp.
`
`at 16, Paper 8. The Board disagreed. Decision at 8, 9, 14, and 15, Paper 9. Patent
`
`Owner doubled down, and even added a requirement that the control module “must
`
`be more than a [sic] ‘a processor or microcontroller and accompanying components
`
`or circuitry that perform the claimed functions.’” Resp. at 10-11, Paper 17. Not so,
`
`for multiple reasons.
`
`
`
`First, Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Pfeiffer, testified that a “control module”
`
`may be a “microprocessor or microcontroller”:
`
`
`2 Mr. Pfeiffer explained that “PC” stands for “personal computer.” Pfeiffer Tr.
`
`30:23-25.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`
`Q. How about before 1998? Can you give us an
`
`example of a control module you worked on before 1998?
`
`A. The same answer; a microprocessor or
`
`microcontroller.
`
`Q. So are you indicating that a microprocessor or
`
`microcontroller is a control module?
`
`A. That is one example, yes.
`
`Pfeiffer Tr. 9:1-7 (emphasis added). To be sure, Mr. Pfeiffer may have been thinking
`
`of a “control module” in general, but this admission at least demonstrates how
`
`strained the modified construction proposed by Patent Owner is.
`
`Patent Owner also selectively points to Figure 16 of the ’803 patent’s
`
`Certificate of Correction (“COC”) in an effort to support its construction. 3 Prel.
`
`Resp. at 13, Paper 8; Pfeiffer Decl. ¶ 26, EX2002. Figure 16 of the COC is one of
`
`many embodiments that mention a control module. For example, the ’803 patent
`
`describes that “FIGS. 4a-c show operator interface units which can be used with the
`
`Control modules [plural] of Figures 1 and 3….” ’803 patent at 3:3-9; see also id. at
`
`3:21-22 (EX1001). At least based on the ’803 patent describing control “modules”
`
`
`3 This “Figure 16” in the COC is different than the “Fig. 16” shown on sheet 17 of
`
`35 in the original publication of the ’803 patent.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`(plural), one would have understood that the ’803 patent is not limited to only one
`
`control module embodiment. Further, Patent Owner’s expert also acknowledges that
`
`the specific details of the Figure 16 embodiment is not required by all embodiments
`
`in the ’803 patent specification.
`
`Q. (By Mr. Williams) : Mr. Pfeiffer, is it your
`
`understanding -- strike that.
`
`Mr. Pfeiffer, can you please turn to -- I'm going to
`
`repeat my previous question. Do you see where on the
`
`page titled Certificate of Correction it states “Figure 16
`
`illustrates one embodiment of a rear guard detector radar
`
`module system.”?
`
`MR. SANCHEZ: Objection. Form.
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. (By Mr. Williams) : Is it your opinion that all
`
`of the embodiments discussed in the 803 Patent would
`
`necessarily include that rear guard detector radar module
`
`system?
`
`A. No. This is one embodiment.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`Pfeiffer Tr. 28:6-20 (emphasis added). Therefore, without more, there is no reason
`
`to limit the claimed “control module” to the very specific details proposed by Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`The Patent Owner also relies on the following portion of the Figure 16
`
`embodiment in an effort to restrict the control module to a customized personal
`
`computer:
`
`
`
`’803 patent at p. 18 of 51 in the COC (EX1001).
`
`At best, this is a description of the specific Figure 16 embodiment, not a
`
`definition that applies to all embodiments of the ’803 patent’s control module.
`
`What’s more, this description isn’t a definition at all. For example, it doesn’t say
`
`“as used herein the term control modules means …,” and doesn’t include any other
`
`definitional language that narrows the disclosure. Also telling is that, while the
`
`different embodiments of the control modules noted earlier in specification use
`
`reference numeral “12,” the Figure 16 embodiment uses a different reference
`
`numeral, i.e., “280.” See, e.g., ’803 patent at 3:37-38, 4:10-11, p. 18 of 51 in the
`
`COC (EX1001).
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`If a construction is deemed necessary, it should explicitly include a
`
`microprocessor or microcontroller, based on the ordinary and customary use of the
`
`term, as supported by the non-limiting embodiments disclosed in the specification
`
`and the testimony noted above by Patent Owner’s expert. Pfeiffer Tr. 9:1-7 (“Q. So
`
`are you indicating that a microprocessor or microcontroller is a control module? A.
`
`That is one example, yes.”).
`
`2.
`“fuses data”
`Patent Owner’s original proposed construction for “fuses data” was “resolves
`
`redundant data from multiple sensors for the same object.” Prel. Resp. at 22, Paper
`
`8. Patent Owner now asserts that the term should be construed to mean “updating
`
`the distance and location of an object by combining additional measurements of an
`
`object with previous detections of that object.’” Resp. at 8, Paper 17.
`
`If a construction is deemed necessary, the term “fuses” should be construed
`
`to mean “combine.” Petition at 13-14, Paper 3. 4 The ’803 patent does not
`
`
`4 The Board indicated that an explicit construction of terms in the challenged claims
`
`is not required. Decision at 9, Paper 9. The Board also asserted that they are unlikely
`
`to issue a Final Written Decision as to the challenged claims before August 2018,
`
`such that the Phillips standard should apply. Id. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner
`
`used the broadest reasonable interpretation standard; however, Petitioner’s expert
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`specifically define “fuses.” Id. However, the ’803 patent indicates that “[t]he
`
`present invention relates generally to sensor-based systems, and more particularly to
`
`a multi-sensor collision avoidance system which combines data from two or more
`
`sensors to provide range, range rate, or location information.” (’803 patent at 1:6–9
`
`(emphasis added) (EX1001)). Id. Thus, Petitioner’s construction is consistent with
`
`the specification of the ’803 patent, and with the ordinary use of the term “fuses.”
`
`Petition at 13-14.
`
`The Patent Owner cites to page 32 of the ’803 patent COC for disclosing that
`
`radar modules “may detect the same object. It is the task of the Data Fusion
`
`Algorithm to sort all of5 this out.” Resp. at 9, Paper 17. However, the use of an
`
`algorithm for sorting out data does not support an interpretation of “fuses data” that
`
`requires the limitations proposed by Patent Owner.
`
`
`testified that he considered the patent specification and file history when forming his
`
`opinions regarding claim construction, such that the Petitioner’s proposed
`
`constructions are consistent with and would not change under the Phillips standard.
`
`Kitchen Tr. 14:18-22, 61:19-22, 65:14-66:4.
`
`5 The actual language on p. 32 of the COC does not include the words “all of.”
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`Patent Owner also cites to the Declaration of Mr. Pfeiffer for allegedly
`
`supporting the proposed construction. Resp. at 8, Paper 17.6 As an initial matter,
`
`Mr. Pfeiffer opines that the term “fuses,” not the larger term “fuses data,” should be
`
`construed as proposed by Patent Owner. Nevertheless, Mr. Pfeiffer does not explain
`
`how the functions of “updating the distance and location” and “combining additional
`
`measurements of an object with previous detections of that object,” in the proposed
`
`construction, are supported by the specification. Instead, Mr. Pfeiffer quotes two
`
`sentences of the ’803 patent, neither of which discuss “updating” or “combining
`
`additional measurements” with “previous detections.” Pfeiffer Decl. ¶ 29, EX2002.
`
`The Patent Owner’s citations to Mr. Kitchen’s deposition testimony also do
`
`not support the proposed construction. Resp. at 9, 10, Paper 17. When referencing
`
`Mr. Kitchen’s testimony, Patent Owner, though it is unclear why, relies on what
`
`the ’803 patent refers to as the “Deepest Hole Function.” Id. Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments do not clarify why or how the “Deepest Hole Function” supports its
`
`proposed construction of “fuses data.” Moreover, Mr. Pfeiffer testified that the
`
`deepest hole function is separate from data fusion, i.e., it “happens after data fusion.”
`
`Q. Can you please turn to column 14, line 27?
`
`
`6 The Patent Owner cites to “¶40, pp. 10-11” of the Pfeiffer Declaration, while it
`
`appears that the intended cite is “¶¶27-30, pp. 9-10.”
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. Do you see the phrase "deepest hole function"?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Is that a form of data fusion?
`
`A. It's not a form of data fusion. It's the software
`
`activity that happens after data fusion.
`
`Pfeiffer Tr. 46:4-14 (emphasis added). Since the “Deepest Hole” aspect happens
`
`after “data fusion,” it is not correct to say that the ’803 patent’s Deepest Hole
`
`disclosure supports the proposed construction of “fuses data.”
`
`Patent Owner’s reference to the file history is also unavailing. Resp. at 10,
`
`Paper 17. Applicant argued that the “control module ‘fuses’ data from the first and
`
`second transceivers not ‘uses’ data as noted by the Examiner.” Amendment dated
`
`December 20, 1999 at p. 10 (EX1011)).
`
`Applicant’s use of the term “fusion” during a prosecution history traversal
`
`argument does not support interpreting the term “fuses data” as proposed by Patent
`
`Owner. First, the term “fusion” in the file history was not used with reference to
`
`challenged claim 22 and was instead made with reference to application claim 32,
`
`which issued as dependent claim 13. Challenged dependent claim 22 has a different
`
`scope than claim 13 and was newly added in the December 20, 1999, Amendment,
`
`as dependent application claim 41, without any argument as to why it defined over
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`the prior art. Amendment dated December 20, 1999, at 5, 10, 12 (EX1011)). Thus,
`
`the file history does not support the Patent Owner’s lengthy proposed construction
`
`of the term.
`
`III. PATENT OWNER’S INTERPRETATION OF CLAIM 21 SHOULD
`BE REJECTED
`Claim 21 recites that “each of the plurality of receiving devices receives a
`
`return representative of one of the plurality of transmitted signals….” Patent Owner
`
`again misconstrues this limitation. Indeed, it seems as though Patent Owner is
`
`interpreting “each of the plurality of receiving devices receives a return
`
`representative of one of the plurality of transmitted signals” to require that each
`
`“receiving device” as claimed must be arranged such that it can receive a “return”
`
`representative of a transmitted signal from any one of the claimed “plurality of
`
`transmitting devices,” no matter where they are arranged around a vehicle.
`
`Annotated Figure 2 of the ’803 patent, shown below, reflects an example of Patent
`
`Owner’s apparent interpretation of how each receiver of claim 21 should function.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`
`
`
`’803 Patent, Annotated excerpt of Figure 2
`As shown above, it appears as though Patent Owner is interpreting claim 21
`
`to require that each receiver, such as the top right receiver with a yellow coverage
`
`area, must be arranged to receive a “return” representative of a transmitted signal
`
`from any one of the claimed “plurality of transmitting devices,” including those that
`
`are outside of this coverage area, such as those generated by the top far left
`
`transmitter. Under this interpretation, the top right receiver would be required to
`
`receive a return from object 2, which is within its yellow coverage area, as well as
`
`object 1, which is within a different coverage area external to the yellow coverage
`
`area.
`
`But this interpretation is unsupported within the context of claim 21, the
`
`specification, and the file history, and is instead a strained attempt to circumvent the
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`cited prior art. Claim 21 only requires that each “receiving device” receive a “return”
`
`representative of “one of the plurality of transmitted signals.” The claim does not
`
`specify that each “receiving device” must be arranged to receive a “return”
`
`representative of a transmitted signal from any one of the claimed “plurality of
`
`transmitting devices.” If the Applicant had desired such a restrictive interpretation
`
`of the claim, Applicant would have amended or drafted the claim accordingly. The
`
`language of claim 21 explicitly shows that Patent Owner’s interpretation is incorrect.
`
`Moreover, the Patent Owner never sought claim construction – in the POPR nor the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response – for this limitation. Nor has Patent Owner shown or
`
`explained why the Board should adopt its interpretation of “each of the plurality of
`
`receiving devices receives a return representative of one of the plurality of
`
`transmitted signals….”
`
`
`
`And in view of the specification and file history, a POSITA would not have
`
`understood “each of the plurality of receiving devices receives a return
`
`representative of one of the plurality of transmitted signals...” as requiring each
`
`“receiving device” must be arranged to receive a “return” representative of a
`
`transmitted signal from any one of the claimed “plurality of transmitting devices,”
`
`as asserted by Patent Owner. Kitchen ¶19 (EX1014).
`
`For example, the ’803 patent describes an embodiment where sensors 14 are
`
`mounted around the periphery of a vehicle. ’803 patent at 4:5-7, FIG. 2. The dashed
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`lines in the figure reflect the coverage area of each sensor 14. Id. at Certificate of
`
`Correction, pages 5 and 6 of 51 (describing area of coverage with respect to Figures
`
`15 and 16, which have the same type of markings representing coverage area as
`
`Figure 2). Annotated Figure 2 shows this arrangement below.
`
`
`In the Figure 2 embodiment, each sensor 14 is described as including “a
`
`
`
`transmitter 16 and receiver 18.” ’803 patent, 4:13-14. Each sensor 14, however,
`
`does not have an overlapping coverage area. As shown by annotated Figure 2, the
`
`sensor 14 with the green coverage area cannot have a receiver that is arranged to
`
`receive a return representative of a transmitted signal from sensor 14 with the blue
`
`coverage area because the sensors are on opposite sides of the vehicle and do not
`
`have overlapping coverage areas. Kitchen ¶21 (EX1014).
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`A POSITA reviewing the ’803 specification would therefore not have
`
`understood this limitation as requiring each “receiving device” being arranged to
`
`receive a “return” representative of a transmitted signal from any one of the claimed
`
`“plurality of transmitting devices.” Kitchen Dec. The ’803 patent does not teach
`
`such a restrictive reading of claim 21. Kitchen ¶21 (EX1014).
`
`
`
`In addition, Patent Owner’s own expert, Mr. Pfeiffer, testified that Patent
`
`Owner’s position is improper. Regarding Figure 2 of the ’803 patent, Mr. Pfeiffer
`
`testified as follows.
`
`Q. If the sensor on the top sends a signal, can that
`
`be received by the sensor that’s on the bottom of the
`
`figure?
`
`A. I will state in general that none of the sensors
`
`receive data from any other sensor.
`
`Pfeiffer Tr. 50:8-21, 51:25 – 52:4 (emphasis added). Thus, the testimony of Mr.
`
`Pfeiffer further shows that Patent Owner’s interpretation of claim 21 is erroneous.
`
`Further, the file history does not discuss how this limitation should be interpreted
`
`and is therefore unsupportive of Patent Owner’s claim 21 interpretation.
`
`
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner’s interpretation of “each of
`
`the plurality of receiving devices receives a return representative of one of the
`
`plurality of transmitted signals,” as recited in claim 21, is erroneous.
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`
`IV. HAYASHIKURA TEACHES THE LIMITATIONS OF CLAIM 21
`A.
`“control module”
`Patent Owner did not include substantive arguments as to why its proposed
`
`construction of “control module” is not taught by Hayashikura, and instead provided
`
`mere conclusory remarks. See Section I, supra; Resp. at 4, Paper 17. Regardless,
`
`as established above, Patent Owner’s construction of “control module” is erroneous
`
`and should not be adopted by the Board. The claimed “control module” does not
`
`require a “customizable PC,” and should instead be interpreted under a plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. Under this correct interpretation, Hayashikura teaches a “control
`
`module.”
`
`As noted in the Petition, Hayashikura teaches a control module in the form of
`
`a processing device as shown below in annotated Figure 4.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Hayashikura at Fig. 4 (EX1002) (annotation added).
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`
`The processing device 4 provides various forms of control, including signal
`
`processing with respect to the radar devices, image and sound control, and general
`
`vehicle control. (Id. at 3:56–60; 4:38–46; 4:66–5:5; 5:27–42; Fig. 4 (EX1002));
`
`Petition at 18, Paper 3; Kitchen ¶26 (EX1014).
`
`And as noted in Section II.C.1, supra, Patent Owner expert testified that a
`
`control module may be in the form of a microprocessor or microcontroller, which
`
`one of ordinary skill would have understood as corresponding to a processing device
`
`as disclosed by Hayashikura. Pfeiffer Tr. 9:1-7. Hayashikura teaches a control
`
`module, as recited in claim 21. Kitchen ¶26 (EX1014).
`
`B.
`
`“each of the plurality of receiving devices receives a return
`representative of one of the plurality of transmitted signals…”
`As noted in Section III, supra, Patent Owner’s asserted interpretation of this
`
`limitation is erroneous. Under the correct interpretation using its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, Hayashikura teaches the limitation.
`
`As noted in the Petition, Hayashikura discloses that receivers 20 each receive
`
`a return representative of one of the plurality of electromagnetic wave signals.
`
`Petition at 21, Paper 3; Kitchen ¶28 (EX1014). For example, Hayashikura describes
`
`that its transmitters transmit electromagnetic waves that are subsequently received
`
`by the receivers. Hayashikura at 2:12–13 (“each of the transmitter sections
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`transmitting an electromagnetic wave, each of the receiver sections receiving a
`
`reflective wave from an object ….”; see also 3:64–67; 4:1–3; 4:25–30; 6:14–19
`
`(EX1002)). Hayashikura also describes that the radar devices may be activated
`
`simultaneously or sequentially “so that an electromagnetic wave radiated from the
`
`transmitting antenna of one radar device 3 will not be received by the receiving
`
`antenna of another radar device 3.” Id. at 4:58–63 (EX1002). Thus, Hayashikura
`
`teaches this limitation. Petition at 21, Paper 3; Kitchen ¶28 (EX1014).
`
`C.
`Incorporation by Reference of the POPR
`Patent Owner incorporates by reference its arguments from pages 24 through
`
`29 of the POPR. Resp. at 17, Paper 17. These sections of the POPR contain Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments against Hayashikura’s teaching of claims 21, 22, and 26-28 in
`
`Ground 1. Id. However, as noted above with respect to Patent Owner’s other
`
`instances of incorporating the POPR by reference, such an incorporation is improper.
`
`Moreover, the Board has already considered the incorporated arguments of the
`
`POPR and was unconvinced. Decision at 15-16, Paper 9.
`
`V.
`
` HAYASHIKURA TEACHES THE LIMITATIONS OF CLAIMS 22
`AND 28
`A. Hayashikura Teaches “fuses data”
`As noted above, Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “fuses data” is
`
`erroneous and should not be adopted by the Board. See Section II.C.2, supra. When
`
`properly interpreting “fuses data” as meaning “combine,” as proposed in the
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`Petition, as well as under a plain meaning interpretation, Hayashikura teaches this
`
`element. Petition at 13-14, Paper 3. Patent Owner does not contend that any other
`
`limitation from claims 22 and 28 is lacking.
`
`
`
`Indeed, as noted in the Petition, Hayashikura teaches that the plurality of
`
`transmitter and receiver sections detect obstacles over a 360 degree range around a
`
`vehicle, and that processing device 4 “updatably stores the data representative of the
`
`determined distances in all the directions.” Hayashikura at 2:29–32, 4:54–65
`
`(EX1002); Petition at 26-28, Paper 3. As noted in the Petition, one skilled in the art
`
`would have been taught that the data of Hayashikura is fused at least by being
`
`cumulatively stored and combined to represent object detection in all directions.
`
`Kitchen ¶30 (EX1014); Petition at 26-28, Paper 3.
`
`
`
`Hayashikura also discloses that monitored results are displayed on an image
`
`display device 51, and as the petition states, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that Hayashikura’s storing of data followed by providing a single
`
`image, representative of objects in all directions, is accomplished by using the data
`
`cumulatively as a combination or in a fused manner. Hayashikura at 7:46–52
`
`(EX1002); Kitchen ¶¶63-65, 69-70 (EX1006); Petition at 26-28, Paper 3. Thus,
`
`Hayashikura teaches this limitation of claims 22 and 28. Kitchen ¶31 (EX1014).
`
`Even if Patent Owner’s improper construction is adapted, Hayashikura still
`
`teaches this element. Kitchen ¶32 (EX1014). For example, as noted above,
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`Hayashikura teaches that “[t]he provision of the plurality of the transmitter and
`
`receiver sections on and along the entire periphery of the vehicle permits detection
`
`obstacles or the like over an entire (virtually 360°) range around the vehicle.”
`
`Hayashikura at 2:29–32 (EX1002). Hayashikura further discloses that “[i]n this
`
`way, the processing device 4 determines presence or absence of an obstacle over the
`
`entire range (virtually 360°) around the vehicle and a distance to the obstacle if
`
`any…. The processing device 4 updatably stores the data representative of the
`
`determined distances in all the directions.” Id. at 4:54–65 (EX1002) (emphasis
`
`added). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have understood that since
`
`Hayashikura updatably stores data, it would have been obvious to updatably store
`
`location and distance data for an object by combining additional distance and
`
`location measurements with previous detections of the distance and location.
`
`Kitchen ¶32 (EX1014). Updatably storing data would have combined already
`
`captured data (e.g., previous data) with newly captured additional data. Id.
`
`VI. JP ’265 TEACHES THE LIMITATIONS OF CLAIM 21
`The Patent Owner asserts that JP ’265 is allegedly deficient for not disclosing
`
`“each of the plurality of receiving devices receives a return representative of one of
`
`the plurality of transmitted signals.” Resp. at 18-19, 21, Paper 17. Without
`
`explanation and using conclusory remarks, Patent Owner also appears to suggest that
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2017-01355
`
`JP ’265 does not teach a “control module.” As explained below, Patent Owner is
`
`incorrect.
`
`A.
` “control module”
`As noted above, Patent Owner did not include substantive arguments as to
`
`why its proposed construction of “control module” is not taught by JP ’265, and