`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CARRUM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00927
`
`Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`Title: AUTOMATIC LATERAL ACCELERATION LIMITING
`AND NON THREAT TARGET REJECTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................. 1
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’475 PATENT ......................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Specification .......................................................................................... 2
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 6
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 9
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 9
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
`EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED ................................................................. 9
`
`V. CLAIMS 1-12 OF THE ’475 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`OVER THE OTHER PRIOR ART ...........................................................10
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 Are Obvious over Winner in
`view of Fukada ....................................................................................10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Art ......................................................................................11
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................13
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................19
`
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................21
`
`4.
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................22
`
`B. Ground 2: Claim 4 Is Obvious over Winner in View of Fukada
`and Schmitt ..........................................................................................22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Art ......................................................................................23
`
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................24
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 6 and 7 Are Obvious over Winner in view of
`Fukada .................................................................................................25
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 6 .................................................................26
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`2.
`
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................32
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 8 and 9 Are Obvious over Winner in View of
`Fukada and Schmitt .............................................................................33
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................34
`
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................35
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 10 to 12 Are Obvious over Winner in View
`of Fukada and Khodabhai ...................................................................37
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Art ......................................................................................38
`
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................41
`
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................43
`
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................44
`
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8 ...............................44
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................44
`
`Related Matters ....................................................................................44
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel, and Service Information ..........................45
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................46
`
`VIII. CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.24(D) ....................................46
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,512,475 to Robert A. Perisho, Jr., and Jeremy
`
`S. Greene, titled “Automatic Lateral Acceleration Limiting and
`
`Non Threat Target Rejection,” filed on May 19, 2004, and issued
`
`on March 31, 2009 (“the ’475 patent”).
`
`Exhibit 1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,512,475.
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Expert Declaration of Azim Eskandarian, D.Sc. in Support of
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,512,475.
`
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,456,924 to Schmitt (“Schmitt”)
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0165657 to
`
`Winner and Lueder (“Winner”)
`
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,627,756 to Fukada (“Fukada”)
`
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Patent No. 5,959,569 to Khodabhai (“Khodabhai”)
`
`Exhibit 1008 Excerpt of RULES OF THE ROAD, ILL. DMV (2001)
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Petitioner BMW of North America, LLC requests Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,512,475 (“Challenged Claims”),
`
`assigned to Patent Owner Carrum Technologies, LLC. The Challenged Claims are
`
`directed to a vehicle equipped with an adaptive cruise control (“ACC”) system that
`
`provides control in turning situations by limiting lateral acceleration during the
`
`vehicle turn, Ex. 1001, 2:47-50, something that was well known before the earliest
`
`claimed priority date of the ’475 patent. Indeed, the subject matter of the
`
`Challenged Claims is expressly disclosed and/or rendered obvious by the art
`
`submitted in this Petition.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 6 recite methods of controlling a vehicle having an
`
`ACC system. Ex. 1001, 8:7-51. The ACC system monitors the speed of the
`
`equipped vehicle and decreases the vehicle’s speed when the vehicle is in a turn or
`
`an object is in the same lane as the vehicle. Id. But this concept was well known
`
`before the ’475 patent was filed. For example, Winner discloses an ACC system
`
`capable of detecting the location of an object in a turn and determining whether the
`
`object is located within the path of the host vehicle, and reducing the vehicle’s
`
`speed if the object is within the path. Winner, ¶ 0008; id., Fig. 1. Furthermore,
`
`Fukada discloses a vehicle controller that reduces the occurrence of vehicle loss of
`
`control during a turn as the result of excessive lateral acceleration. Fukada, 1:6-
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`10, 1:31-35. Using a change in the vehicle’s lateral acceleration, the system
`
`disclosed in Fukada is able to determine when a vehicle is in a turn and the
`
`characteristics of that turn. Id. at 2:1-8, 8:28-43, 19:55-65. Thus, an ACC system
`
`that was merely a combination of Winner and Fukada would have the ability to
`
`detect a turn and adjust the vehicle’s speed so that excessive vehicle lateral
`
`acceleration did not cause loss of control. The same combination would further
`
`have the ability to adjust a vehicle’s speed to avoid colliding with an object while
`
`in a turn.
`
`Thus, the ’475 patent claims nothing more than obvious combinations of
`
`well-known elements of ACC systems present in the art before the claimed priority
`
`date of the ’475 patent. Accordingly, all the Challenged Claims are unpatentable.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’475 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Specification
`
`The ’475 patent makes various representations regarding prior art ACC
`
`systems. For example, prior art ACC systems are “not only capable of maintaining
`
`a set vehicle speed, but they also include object sensing technology, such as radar,
`
`laser, or other types of sensing systems, that will detect a vehicle in the path of the
`
`vehicle that contains the ACC (or other form of cruise control) system (i.e., ‘host
`
`vehicle’).” Ex. 1001, 1:21-26. Thus, prior art ACC systems could “automatically
`
`adjust[] a set speed to allow a vehicle to adapt to moving traffic.” Id., 1:27-29.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`However, these prior art ACC systems had two problems. First, these
`
`systems in turns may detect “an abundance of out-of-path stationary targets,”
`
`causing unnecessary braking and possibly driver discomfort. Id., 1:64-67.
`
`Additionally, these systems’ strict “maintenance of a set cruise speed in turning
`
`situations may cause excessive lateral acceleration and the possible loss of control
`
`of the host vehicle.” Id., 2:32-36. This problem is illustrated in Figure 1 of the
`
`’475 patent (below).
`
`
`
`The ’475 patent discloses a “system and method for enabling a vehicle
`
`having adaptive cruise control to reduce its speed in a turn according to the
`
`vehicle’s position within the turn as well as ignoring objects detected during the
`
`turn that are not in the vehicle’s path.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. It describes a method
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`of controlling a vehicle equipped with an ACC system that detects changes in a
`
`vehicle’s lateral acceleration to determine if the vehicle is in a turn. Id., 2:51-57.
`
`If the ACC system determines that the vehicle is in a turn, the patent discloses that
`
`the system reduces the speed of the vehicle according to its position in the turn. Id.
`
`The ’475 patent explains that the ACC system is capable of reducing the speed of
`
`the vehicle either by downshifting the transmission, decreasing the throttle, or
`
`applying the brake. Id., 4:30-36.
`
`The ’475 patent also describes another method of controlling a vehicle with
`
`an ACC system that is capable of determining the vehicle’s path in a curve,
`
`detecting objects in front of the vehicle, and distinguishing between objects that are
`
`in and out of the path. Id., 2:58-67. ACC systems according to the ’475 patent can
`
`detect objects using any known sensor, including radar (doppler, microwave, laser,
`
`or ultrasonic) sensors, forward looking infrared sensors, a stereo imaging system,
`
`or a combination of a radar sensor with a camera system. Id., 4:42-46.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`FIG. 4 of the ’475 patent (below) illustrates the method of controlling a
`
`vehicle with an ACC system of the kind disclosed in the ’475 patent. Id., 3:57-58.
`
`As shown, the ACC system takes data from the sensors and determines whether to
`
`initiate a braking routine. Id., Fig.4.
`
`However, the concept of controlling a car with an ACC system was well
`
`known in the art before the earliest claimed priority date of the ’475 patent, as the
`
`specification itself acknowledges. See id., Fig.1, 1:14-2:43. As is set out below,
`
`the concepts of equipping a car with lateral acceleration sensors and object
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`detection sensors capable of determining the path of the equipped vehicle were
`
`also well known in the art before the earliest claimed priority date of the ’475
`
`patent. Thus, the ’475 patent is invalid.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’475 patent was filed on March 19, 2004, as U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 10/804,745 (“the ’745 application”). Ex. 1002 at 1. The ’475 application
`
`initially claimed methods of controlling a vehicle having an ACC system that
`
`generally comprised the steps of determining when the vehicle is in a turn based on
`
`a detected change in the vehicle’s lateral acceleration and reducing the vehicle’s
`
`speed according to the vehicle’s position in the turn. Ex. 1002 at 16. Certain
`
`independent claims also called for monitoring for objects in the equipped vehicle’s
`
`path, id. at 18, and estimating the vehicle’s radius of curvature based on the
`
`vehicle’s speed and lateral acceleration, id. at 24-25. A system for controlling a
`
`vehicle including an ACC system and a controller, capable of reducing a vehicle’s
`
`speed, connected to at least one lateral acceleration sensor and at least one object
`
`detection sensor was also claimed in the ’475 application. Id. at 23.
`
` In response to the rejection of these claims as rendered obvious by the prior
`
`art, id. at 97-104, the applicants left the claims largely unchanged, arguing that the
`
`prior art did not render the claims obvious because no reference taught the
`
`“utilization of a change in lateral acceleration to determine when a vehicle is in a
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`turn.” Id. at 121. The examiner again rejected the claims as obvious over the prior
`
`art because “the use of change in lateral acceleration to determine when the vehicle
`
`[sic] is well known in the art at the time the invention was made.” Id. at 136. The
`
`applicant again left the claims largely unchanged and argued that, in fact, none of
`
`the cited art suggested that the change in a vehicle’s lateral acceleration could be
`
`used to determine if the vehicle was in a turn. Id. at 144-61.
`
`After the examiner issued a restriction requirement and the applicant made
`
`an election of claims, id. at 166-72, the examiner again rejected the elected claims
`
`as obvious over the prior art. Id. at 173-80. Specifically, the examiner argued that
`
`prior art references “suggest the turning from the change rate of the lateral
`
`acceleration [of a vehicle].” Id. at 179. In response, the applicants amended the
`
`claims to include the step of detecting a change in lateral acceleration to determine
`
`where a vehicle is in a turn and the steps of detecting objects and determining if the
`
`objects are in the vehicle’s path. Id. at 183-95. In addition, the applicants argued
`
`that the subject matter claimed in the ’745 application differed from the prior art
`
`because the applicants’ ACC system “measures a lateral acceleration sensor,
`
`detects a change in the measured lateral acceleration, and uses the change in
`
`measured lateral acceleration for reducing the speed of a vehicle making a turn.”
`
`Id. at 197.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`On November 20, 2008, the examiner notified the applicants that the
`
`application was allowed for issuance as a patent. Id. at 207.1
`
`
`1 Winner was cited in an IDS filed on May 18, 2006. Id. at 105. Pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d), when “determining whether to institute ... the Director may
`
`take into account whether ... the same or substantially the same prior art or
`
`arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The Board considers several
`
`factors in determining when to exercise this discretion. See Becton, Dickinson &
`
`Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, No. IPR2017-01586, at 17 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15,
`
`2017) (Paper 8). The significant factor here is “the extent to which the asserted art
`
`was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for
`
`rejection.” Id. This is because, where a reference is merely listed in an IDS during
`
`prosecution, the Examiner has not considered it for purposes of § 325(d). Id. at 22-
`
`23 (“And, the asserted prior art for this ground of unpatentability ... were each
`
`considered by the Examiner, albeit in separate obviousness rejections, during
`
`prosecution. This is not a case where the prior art was simply listed in an IDS
`
`during prosecution.”).
`
`Such is the case here. Winner was only ever listed in an IDS during
`
`prosecution. The reference was never used by the Examiner as a basis for
`
`rejection. Thus, the Examiner did not formally consider this reference.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“person of skill”) at the time the ’475
`
`patent was filed would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, or a related engineering discipline and two to three years of
`
`industry experience in the field of automotive control systems or automotive
`
`engineering, or equivalent experience, education, or both. Ex. 1003, ¶ 23. The
`
`person would also have knowledge or familiarity with in-vehicle computing. Id.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The plain meaning should be applied to all claim terms. For the purposes of
`
`this Petition, no explicit construction is needed. As noted above and explained
`
`below, however, several claim elements are not limiting.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`
`Petitioner requests review under 35 U.S.C. §311 of the Challenged Claims
`
`and cancellation of these claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
`
`following reasons:
`
`Grounds Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’475 Patent
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 are obvious under § 103(a) over Winner in
`view of Fukada
`
`Claim 4 is obvious under § 103(a) over Winner in view of Fukada
`and Schmitt
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`Grounds Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’475 Patent
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Claims 6 and 7 are obvious under § 103(a) over Winner in view of
`Fukada
`
`Claims 8 and 9 are obvious under § 103(a) over Winner in view of
`Fukada and Schmitt
`
`Claims 10-12 are obvious under § 103(a) over Winner in view of
`Fukada and Khodabhai
`
`V. CLAIMS 1-12 OF THE ’475 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER
`THE OTHER PRIOR ART
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 Are Obvious over Winner in view
`of Fukada
`
`Winner discloses every element of claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 except detecting a
`
`change in a vehicle lateral acceleration based on a change in the measured lateral
`
`acceleration, determining when the vehicle is in a turn based on the detected
`
`change in the vehicle lateral acceleration, and determining the vehicle’s position
`
`within the turn, and reducing the speed if the vehicle lateral acceleration exceeds a
`
`predetermined limit. Fukada, however, discloses these because it discloses a
`
`vehicle controller that determines when a vehicle is in a turn based on a change in
`
`either measured lateral acceleration or lateral acceleration calculated with
`
`measured vehicle speed and yaw rate.
`
`Thus, a combination of Winner and Fukada would disclose every limitation
`
`of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 5.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`1.
`
`The Art
`
`a. Winner
`
`Winner was filed on March 31, 2001, and published on November 7, 2002.
`
`Winner, Cover. Winner is thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e).
`
`Moreover, because the Challenged Claims are not entitled to a priority date before
`
`March 19, 2004, Winner is also prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Winner describes a method of controlling the speed of a vehicle that has a
`
`vehicle traveling ahead of it in the same lane within radar detection range. Id.,
`
`Abstract. The method disclosed includes the use of an ACC system to control the
`
`speed of an equipped car as a function of a vehicle traveling ahead in the same
`
`lane, particularly in curves. Id., ¶¶ 0001, 0008; Ex. 1003, ¶ 38. The disclosed
`
`system is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of Winner, below.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`Winner also discloses predicting a vehicle’s path using, for example, yaw
`
`rate or lateral acceleration, was known in the art even before Winner was filed.
`
`Winner, ¶ 0006; Ex. 1003, ¶ 39. Winner additionally describes monitoring for
`
`objects, detecting objects, and determining whether the location of an object is
`
`within the equipped vehicle’s path. Winner, ¶¶ 0005-0006; Ex. 1003, ¶ 39.
`
`Finally, Winner discloses that lateral acceleration can be calculated using yaw rate.
`
`Winner, ¶ 0016.
`
`b.
`
`Fukada
`
`Fukada was filed on June 2, 1995, and published on May 6, 1997. Fukada,
`
`Cover. Fukada is thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e).
`
`Moreover, because the Challenged Claims are not entitled to a priority date before
`
`March 19, 2004, Fukada is also prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`Fukada discloses a device for controlling the behavior of a vehicle in a turn.
`
`Id., 1:65-57; Ex. 1003, ¶ 41. This device uses a means for detecting a vehicle’s
`
`lateral acceleration to determine when the vehicle is in a curve. Fukada, 2:1-15;
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 41. Alternatively, the device detects the vehicle’s speed and yaw rate
`
`to calculate the vehicle’s lateral acceleration, mathematics that was “well known in
`
`the art” at the time of Fukada. Fukada, 7:5-9; Ex. 1003, ¶ 41.
`
`When the lateral acceleration is obtained, the magnitude of the change in the
`
`vehicle’s lateral acceleration over a predetermined time is calculated and compared
`
`to a preset standard. Fukada, 19:55-67; Ex. 1003, ¶ 42. If the change in lateral
`
`acceleration exceeds the standard, the device sends signals to the engine to reduce
`
`the vehicle’s lateral acceleration. Fukada, 19:55-67; Ex. 1003, ¶ 42.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1
`
`a.
`
`[1.0] “A method of controlling a vehicle having an
`adaptive cruise control system capable of controlling a
`vehicle speed and obtaining a vehicle lateral
`acceleration, said method comprising the steps of:”
`
`If limiting, Winner in view of Fukada renders the preamble obvious.
`
`Winner discloses a method of controlling a vehicle having an ACC system, while
`
`Fukada discloses obtaining a vehicle lateral acceleration.
`
`Winner describes an ACC system for controlling the speed of a host vehicle
`
`as a function of another vehicle traveling ahead in the same path, particularly in
`
`curves. Winner, ¶¶ 0001, 0005, 0008; Ex. 1003, ¶ 44. Based on this disclosure,
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`one of skill in the art would have sought prior art that discloses how to determine
`
`when the host vehicle is entering a curve, which is the same as a turn. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 41. Fukada discloses determining when a host vehicle is turning by using a
`
`change in the vehicle’s lateral acceleration. Fukada, 2:1-8, 19:55-65. Fukada’s
`
`system presumes turn behavior, or determines when the vehicle is in a turn, based
`
`on the integration over time of the difference between the lateral acceleration and
`
`the product of the speed and yaw rate, which indicates the change over time of that
`
`data. Fukada, 2:1-15, 7:5-9, 19:55-67; Ex. 1003, ¶ 44.
`
`Further, combining Winner with Fukada would have been predictable and
`
`yielded no unexpected results. Winner discloses a system for controlling the speed
`
`of a host vehicle as a function of another vehicle traveling ahead in the same path,
`
`particularly in curves. This system already includes a lateral acceleration sensor,
`
`Winner, ¶¶ 0006-0008, which Fukada uses to determine when the vehicle is
`
`turning. See, e.g., Fukada, Abstract (disclosing a “turn behavior control device
`
`[that] detects lateral acceleration Gy of a vehicle body”); Ex. 1003, ¶ 45. As such,
`
`combining Winner and Fukada would predictably lead to claim limitation [1.0].
`
`For the same reasoning, such a combination would not yield an inoperable
`
`combination.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`b.
`
`[1.1] “measuring a lateral acceleration from a lateral
`acceleration sensor;”
`
`Fukada teaches measuring a lateral acceleration from a lateral acceleration
`
`sensor. Fukada discloses that one contemplated embodiment includes “means for
`
`detecting lateral acceleration Gy of a vehicle body.” Fukada, 2:1-8; Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 46. A means for detecting lateral acceleration is a lateral acceleration sensor.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 46. Thus, Fukada discloses measuring a lateral acceleration from a
`
`lateral acceleration sensor.
`
`c.
`
`[1.2] “detecting a change in a vehicle lateral
`acceleration based on a change in the measured lateral
`acceleration;”
`
`Fukada teaches detecting a change in a vehicle lateral acceleration based
`
`on a change in the measured lateral acceleration. The Fukada device constantly
`
`compares “the absolute value of [the difference] between the lateral acceleration at
`
`the current cycle and that at a cycle proceeding to the current cycle by a
`
`predetermined number of cycles.” Fukada, 19:55-65; Ex. 1003, ¶ 47. A person of
`
`skill would understand this to mean that the Fukada device detects a change in
`
`lateral acceleration over a set time. Ex. 1003, ¶ 47. Thus, Fukada discloses
`
`detecting a change in a vehicle lateral acceleration based on a change in the
`
`measured lateral acceleration.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`d.
`
`[1.3] “determining when the vehicle is in a turn based
`on the detected change in the vehicle lateral
`acceleration; and”
`
`Fukada teaches determining when the vehicle is in a turn based on the
`
`detected change in the vehicle lateral acceleration. Fukada discloses “a turn
`
`behavior control device [that] detects lateral acceleration Gy of a vehicle body.”
`
`Fukada, Abstract; Ex. 1003, ¶ 48. The Fukada device is then able to “presume
`
`[the] turn behavior of the vehicle based upon at least [the] lateral slide velocity Vy
`
`of the vehicle by obtaining the lateral slide velocity Vy through integration of
`
`deviation Gy-Vr with a predetermined integration time constant.” Fukada, 2:1-8;
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 48.
`
`A person of skill would have understood that by “presuming turn behavior,”
`
`Fukada really means determining at least when the vehicle is in a turn. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 49. Further, a person of skill would understand by “integration of deviation Gy-
`
`Vr with a predetermined integration time constant,” Fukada discloses the process
`
`of calculating, from measured lateral acceleration, a change in vehicle lateral
`
`acceleration over time. Id. Accordingly, a person of skill would come to
`
`understand Fukada as disclosing a device that determines when the vehicle is in a
`
`turn based on the detected change in the vehicle lateral acceleration. Id. Thus,
`
`Fukada discloses determining when the vehicle is in a turn based on the detected
`
`change in the vehicle lateral acceleration.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`e.
`
`[1.4] “if a vehicle is in a turn, reducing the vehicle
`speed according to the determination that the vehicle is
`in the turn and the detected change in the vehicle
`lateral acceleration.”
`
`Winner and Fukada together render an ACC system that reduces vehicle
`
`speed according to the determination that the vehicle is in a turn and the detected
`
`change in the vehicle lateral acceleration obvious. Winner discloses ACC systems
`
`that are capable of reducing a vehicle’s speed. And Fukada discloses reducing the
`
`vehicle speed according to the determination that the vehicle is in a turn and the
`
`detected change in the vehicle lateral acceleration.
`
`As discussed above, Winner describes an ACC system for controlling the
`
`speed of a host vehicle as a function of another vehicle traveling ahead in the same
`
`path, particularly in curves. Winner, ¶¶ 0001, 0005, 0008; Ex. 1003, ¶ 51; see
`
`supra Section V.A.2.a. However, and as the applicants admit, it was a known
`
`problem of prior art ACC systems that “the systems’ maintenance of a set cruise
`
`speed in turning situations may cause excessive lateral acceleration and the
`
`possible loss of control of the host vehicle.” Ex. 1001, 2:32-35; Ex. 1003, ¶ 51.
`
`An example of this prior art problem is shown in Figure 1 of the ’475 patent
`
`(below).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`
`
`Based on this disclosure, one of skill in the art would have sought prior art
`
`that discloses how to determine when the host vehicle is entering a turn. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 52. Fukada discloses determining when a host vehicle is turning by using a
`
`change in the vehicle’s lateral acceleration. Fukada, 2:1-8, 19:55-65; Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 52. As discussed above, Fukada’s system presumes turn behavior, or determines
`
`when the vehicle is in a turn, based on the integration over time of the difference
`
`between the lateral acceleration and the product of the speed and yaw rate, which
`
`indicates the change over time of that data. Fukada, 2:1-15, 7:5-9, 19:55-67; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 52; see supra Sections V.A.2.b-V.A.2.d.
`
`Additionally, one of skill in the art would have known to reduce the vehicle
`
`speed according to the determination that the vehicle is in a turn, which is based on
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`the detected change in the vehicle lateral acceleration. Ex. 1003, ¶ 53. It is
`
`universally known that one should reduce vehicle speed when entering a turn. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 53.
`
`As discussed above, Winner and Fukada are readily combined. See supra
`
`Section V.A.2.a. Thus, a combination of Winner and Fukada would predictably
`
`lead to a method of the same scope as claim limitation [1.4].
`
`3.
`
`Claim 2
`
`a.
`
`[2.0] “The method of claim 1 wherein said step of
`determining includes steps of measuring the vehicle
`speed; measuring a vehicle yaw rate; and”
`
`As discussed above, Winner describes an ACC system for controlling the
`
`speed of a host vehicle as a function of another vehicle traveling ahead in the same
`
`path, particularly in curves. Winner, ¶¶ 0001, 0005, 0008; Ex. 1003, ¶ 55; see
`
`supra Section V.A.2.a. To distinguish between in-path and out-of-path objects,
`
`Winner’s ACC systems must project the path of the host vehicle. Winner, ¶ 0006.
`
`In Winner, this is done using lateral acceleration. Id. A person of skill would
`
`know that also calculating the vehicle’s lateral acceleration using vehicle speed and
`
`yaw rate would lead to higher confidence in the ACC system’s knowing the
`
`vehicle lateral acceleration. Ex. 1003, ¶ 55. This could be done using equation 3
`
`of Ishizu. So a person of skill would have sought to calculate lateral acceleration
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`using multiple sources of measured data such as vehicle speed and yaw rate. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 55.
`
`Fukada discloses a device that determines when a vehicle is in a turn using
`
`the vehicle’s directly measured lateral acceleration. Fukada, 2:1-15, 7:5-9, 19:55-
`
`67; Ex. 1003, ¶ 56; see supra Sections V.A.2.b-V.A.2.e. A person of skill would
`
`know that also calculating the vehicle’s lateral acceleration would lead to higher
`
`confidence in the device’s knowing the vehicle lateral acceleration, thereby
`
`allowing the device to make a more accurate determination about the turn’s
`
`character leading to a more accurate determining of when to reduce the vehicle’s
`
`speed. Ex. 1003, ¶ 56. It was known at least by the filing of the ’475 patent that
`
`lateral acceleration could be calculated as “a product of Vr vehicle speed and yaw
`
`rate r of the vehicle body.” Fukada, 7:5-9; Ex. 1003, ¶ 56. So a person of skill
`
`would have sought to calculate lateral acceleration using multiple sources of
`
`measured data such as vehicle speed and yaw rate. Ex. 1003, ¶ 56.
`
`Fukada discloses measuring a vehicle speed. In several embodiments of the
`
`Fukada device, a “means for detecting vehicle speed V” are required. See, e.g.,
`
`Fukada, 2:2, 17, 37, 52; Ex. 1003, ¶ 57. Similarly, Fukada also discloses
`
`measuring a vehicle yaw rate. Several embodiments of the Fukada device require
`
`a “means for detecting yaw rate r of the vehicle body.” See, e.g., Fukada, 2:3, 18,
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,512,475
`
`37-38, 52-53; Ex. 1003, ¶ 57. The measured vehicle speed and yaw rate are then
`
`used to calculate an “estimated lateral acceleration.” E.g., Fukada, 7:5-11.
`
`b.
`
`[2.1] “measuring a rate of change in the vehicle yaw
`rate.”
`
`Fukada teaches measuring a rate of change in the vehicle yaw rate. Given a
`
`measured vehicle yaw rate, see supra Section V.A.3.a, a person of skill would
`
`know that it would be necessary to