UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________________________________________________________________ VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. Petitioner Patent No. 5,714,927 Issue Date: February 3, 1998 Title: METHOD OF IMPROVING ZONE OF COVERAGE RESPONSE OF AUTOMOTIVE RADAR __________________________________________________________________ PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,714,927 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 Case No. IPR2015-00968 __________________________________________________________________
45
Embed
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO ...fishpostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2015-00968.pdf · 3 A. The ’927 Patent The ’927 patent issued on February 3, 1998 from
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________________
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,714,927
PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
Case No. IPR2015-00968 __________________________________________________________________
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ..................................................................... 1
II. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ....................................................... 2
III. Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)) and Relief Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) ......................................................................... 2
A. The ’927 Patent ............................................................................................... 3
B. Prosecution History of the ’927 Patent ....................................................... 5
C. Patents and Printed Publications Relied On ............................................... 7
D. Statutory Grounds for Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2)) .............. 7
E. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ........................................... 8
IV. How Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5)) ........ 8
A. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are Obvious in View of the combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki .......................................................................... 8
1. Bernhard ............................................................................................. 10
Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 to Henderson et al. Exhibit 1002 Declaration of Dr. David M. Bevly Exhibit 1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,521,579 to Bernhard Exhibit 1004 U.K. Patent Application Publication No. GB 2 277 653 to
Bernhard Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,325,096 to Pakett Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 4,053,026 to Fujiki et al.
1
I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) Real Party-in-Interest:
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA”), which is a subsidiary of
Volkswagen AG.
Related Matters:
The following judicial matters may affect, or may be affected by, a decision in this
inter partes review:
Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-03113 (C.D.
Cal.), naming as defendants VWGoA, d/b/a Audi of America, Inc., and Bentley
Motors, Inc., which is a subsidiary of VWGoA;
Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al., No. 2:14-cv-03111 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-03108 (C.D.
Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America, Inc. No. 2:14-cv-02457 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00491 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-03109 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc., v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00497 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02962 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-03114 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02963 (C.D. Cal.);
2
Signal IP, Inc. v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-03107 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-03105 (C.D. Cal);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:14-cv-03106 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02459 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Chrysler Group LLC, No. 2:14-cv-13864 (E.D. Mich.); and
Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:14-cv-13729 (E.D. Mich.).
Fujiki describes determining whether a collision is sensed to be imminent, and if so,
feeding a signal to the brake actuator 5 to apply the brakes 6. Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 25-34
(“If a collision is sensed to be imminent a signal is generated and fed to the brake
actuator 5 which in turn applies the brakes 6 to decelerate the vehicle.”), col. 5, ll. 46-
52; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 16-18.2
Finally, claim 1 recites “at the end of the alert command, determining whether the
alert signal was active for a threshold time,” and “if the alert signal was active for the
threshold time, sustaining the alert signal for the variable sustain time, wherein the
zone of coverage appears to increase according to the variable sustain time.” In
Pakett, after an obstacle is first detected, a low pass filter 27 removes high-frequency
signals (i.e., those signals having only a short duration). Ex. 1005, col. 5, ll. 11-31. To
pass through the low pass filter 27, the signals must be of low frequency (i.e., the
signals must be maintained for a threshold time). These signals of longer duration,
which appear for at least the threshold time to pass through the low pass filter 27, are
2 The ’927 patent describes the alert signal as a signal between a microprocessor and
another device. Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 26-27 (“An output port of the microprocessor
carries an alert signal to the alert signal devices.”). Thus, an “information signal[]”
described by Fujiki, such as the signal fed to the brake actuator 5, constitutes “an alert
signal” as claimed in the ’927 patent.
21
used by the system described in Pakett. Ex. 1002, ¶ 14. The system then waits a
“persistence period” of time before sending a warning to the driver. Ex. 1005, col. 6,
ll. 46-55; Ex. 1002, ¶ 13. Further, in the system described by Pakett, if a warning is
presently being displayed, a CPU 31 determines how long it has been since it was last
activated, and sustains the warning for at least one second. Ex. 1005, col. 7, l. 64-col.
8, l. 5, Fig. 3A; see also, Ex. 1002, ¶ 13. As similarly described by the zone extensions
56 and 64 of Fig. 4 of the ’927 patent, the zone of coverage in the system taught by
Pakett appears to increase, since the warning is sustained even after its last activation.
See, Ex. 1002, ¶ 15. In Fujiki, as shown in Fig. 8, if the equations are satisfied (stage 1),
a danger signal appears at the output of comparator 13 of Fig. 4 (stage 2). Ex. 1006,
col. 5, ll. 47-52. The equations are again checked (stage 1), and if not satisfied, the
system checks whether the brake was already on (stage 3). Ex. 1006, col. 5, ll. 56-57. If
the brake was already on (stage 3), the braking is sustained for a variable amount of
time (e.g., the time period can be the function of distance and the relative velocity
(velocity being speed with direction)). Ex. 1006, col. 5, ll. 59-67. As similarly described
by the zone extensions 56 and 64 of Fig. 4 of the ’927 patent, the zone of coverage of
the system described by Fujiki would correspondingly appear to increase since the
braking is sustained even though an object/vehicle was momentarily not detected, and
the danger signal momentarily dropped. See, Ex. 1002, ¶ 18.
Regarding claim 2, which requires that “the variable sustain time is an inverse
function of the relative vehicle speed,” Fujiki describes sustaining the brake for a
22
variable time determined as a function of the relative velocity between the vehicle and
the obstacle. Ex. 1006, col. 5, ll. 59-67; Ex. 1002, ¶ 17. As this time is a product of the
distance and the inverse of the relative velocity, Fujiki describes that the sustain time
is an inverse function of the relative vehicle speed. Ex. 1002, ¶ 19.
Moreover, Pakett describes distinguishing between obstacles of high and low
relative speed, and alerting the driver if the obstacle has approximately the same speed
as the host vehicle. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, Abstract (“Only obstacles that are traveling at
approximately the same speed and direction as the vehicle are considered to be of
interest, and will cause the blind spot sensor to generate an indication that an obstacle
is present in the blind spot.”). Stationary objects, such as parked cars, road signs, or
trees, are filtered out of the warning system. Ex. 1005, col. 2, ll. 5-13. As described in
Pakett, this filtering ignores these obstacles of high relative speed, since these
obstacles will likely be seen by the driver, or will pass so quickly through the blind
spot that no danger is presented.
Since the purpose of the present invention is to determine whether an
obstacle which would otherwise go undetected by the operator is present
in a blind spot of the vehicle, those obstacles which move rapidly
through the blind spot are not of interest. It is assumed that obstacles
that are moving rapidly through one of the vehicle’s blind spots will be
seen before entering the blind spot, or will pass through the blind spot
before the operator causes the vehicle to perform a maneuver which
would present a danger due to the presence of that obstacle.
23
Ex. 1005, col. 5, ll. 21-31. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time that
the alleged invention of claim 2 was made, would have recognized the greater need for
a sustained warning for those detected obstacles having a low relative speed, and
accordingly it would have been obvious to set the variable sustain time as an inverse
function of the relative vehicle speed.
Regarding claim 6, which describes “determining host vehicle speed” and
“selecting the threshold time as a function of the host vehicle speed,” Bernhard,
Pakett, and Fujiki each describe measuring vehicle speed (Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 35-40; see
also Ex. 1004, p. 9; Ex. 1005, col. 7, ll. 31-32; Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 28-31), and Pakett
describes its persistence period as the time it takes for the vehicle to travel 15 feet (Ex.
1005, col. 6, ll. 43-46; col. 7, ll. 32-36). The speed of the vehicle will dictate the time it
will take for the vehicle to travel 15 feet, and therefore this time is a function of
vehicle speed. See, Ex. 1002, ¶ 20.
A claim chart identifying exemplary portions of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki that
support a showing that claims 1, 2, and 6 are obvious in view of the combination of
Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki is provided below.
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
1. In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to detect a target vehicle in a blind spot of the
Bernhard E.g., col. 3, ll. 34-43, “In FIG. 7, it can be seen that the driver’s own vehicle 0 has a rear-mounted device (HR) for monitoring the space 23 behind in the current lane 8, a distance radar device (AR) for monitoring the space 24 in front in the current lane 8, a blind-spot radar device (TWR) for monitoring the space 21
24
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
host vehicle driver, a method of improving the perceived zone of coverage response of automotive radar comprising the steps of:
behind in the adjacent target lane 9, and a forward-directed radar device (VR) for monitoring the space 22 in front in the target lane 9. These devices detect the presence of objects in the respective area covered by them, and also permit the distance from the object to be determined.” See also Bernhard GB, p. 7. Pakett E.g., Abstract, “A radar system for sensing the presence of obstacles in a vehicle’s ‘blind spots’ and generating a signal to the vehicle operator indicative of the presence of such an obstacle.” Fujiki E.g., col. 1, ll. 13-16, “As is well known a vehicle equipped with a radar type automatic braking system traversing a road emits a radar signal in order to detect obstacles (moving or otherwise) ahead of the vehicle.”
determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles;
Bernhard E.g., col. 4, ll. 35-40, “After activation of the system, in step 11, the distances s01, s02, s03, s04 to the objects 1 to 4 are detected in the monitored areas 21 to 24, and their relative speeds with respect to the driver’s own vehicle 0 are measured by means of the radar devices. (The driver’s own speed vO is determined by means of the speedometer.)” See also Bernhard GB, p. 9. Pakett E.g., col. 2, ll. 5-13, “Analog filters and digital circuits are used to filter out Doppler frequencies attributable to objects which are of no interest, such as stationary objects (for example, parked cars, road signs, and road side trees). Only obstacles that are traveling at approximately the same speed and direction as the vehicle are considered to be of interest. Therefore, it is only these obstacles that will cause the blind spot sensor to generate an indication that an obstacle is present in the blind spot.”
25
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
E.g., col. 3, ll. 32-42, “If an obstacle which reflects the transmit signal is in motion relative to the antenna 7, a Doppler frequency shift occurs between the transmitted signal and the received signal. Doppler shifting is a well-known phenomenon by which a signal which is reflected off an object which is approaching the source of the signal is compressed, thereby causing the frequency of the signal to be shifted upward. Likewise, the frequency of a signal that is reflected off an object that is moving away from the source is shifted downward.” E.g., col. 5, ll. 14-31, “The low pass filter 27 serves three purposes: 1) to smooth the signal output by the sample and hold circuit 23 by removing high-frequency components of the output waveform; 2) to reduce noise, thus improving sensitivity without increasing RF power; and 3) to eliminate signals which represent objects moving rapidly relative to the vehicle, including stationary objects. Since the purpose of the present invention is to determine whether an obstacle which would otherwise go undetected by the operator is present in a blind spot of the vehicle, those obstacles which move rapidly through the blind spot are not of interest. It is assumed that obstacles that are moving rapidly through one of the vehicle’s blind spots will be seen before entering the blind spot, or will pass through the blind spot before the operator causes the vehicle to perform a maneuver which would present a danger due to the presence of that obstacle.” Fujiki E.g., col. 2, ll. 7-13, “FIG. 3B is a graph showing a curve wherein the relative velocity of the vehicle with respect to the object is plotted against the distance between the vehicle and the object, which denotes the distance from the object for a given velocity at which braking must be initiated in order to reduce the relative velocity therebetween to zero.” E.g., col. 2, ll. 39-42, “In FIG. 3B the line L denotes a vehicle approaching an object at a constant velocity. The relative velocity between the vehicle and the object is denoted by (dR/dt)1.”
26
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
E.g., col. 5, ll. 64-67, “t3 is a function of the preselected distance D and the relative velocity dR/dt just prior the danger signal disappearing, for which the additional braking will take place.” E.g., Fig. 3B:
selecting a variable sustain time as a function of relative vehicle speed;
Pakett E.g., col. 7, l. 64-col. 8, l. 5, “The CPU 31 checks whether a warning is presently being displayed (i.e., in the preferred embodiment of the present invention, whether the red indicator is illuminated) (STEP 317) while waiting for the flag in the register 37 to be sets. If a warning is presently being displayed, the CPU 31 determines how long it has been since the warning was last activated. If the warning has been on display for more than one second without being reactivated (STEP 318), the CPU 31 causes the warning to cease being displayed (STEP 319).” Fujiki E.g., col. 5, ll. 56-67, “At stage 3 it is determined if the brake system had just been activated or not. If NO (i.e., the braking system had not just been activated) the program returns to START. If YES the program proceeds to stage 4 where at the braking system is further activated for a period of time. There are preferably at least three possible periods, i.e., t1, t2, or t3, where t1 is a preselected time (only), t2 is a function of a predetermined distance D and the actual velocity of the vehicle Va and t3 is a function of the pre-selected distance D and the relative velocity dR/dt just prior [sic] the danger signal disappearing, for which the additional braking will take place.”
27
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
E.g., Fig. 8:
detecting target vehicle presence and producing an alert command;
Bernhard E.g., col. 3, ll. 40-43, “These devices detect the presence of objects in the respective area covered by them, and also permit the distance from the object to be determined.” E.g., col. 4, ll. 40-44, “In order to retain the data for these variables, the raw data from the radar devices are preprocessed according to their purpose, faults (for example due to signal reflections) are filtered out, and sufficient plausibility tests are carried out.” See also Bernhard GB, pp. 7, 9. Pakett E.g., col. 1, ll. 59-63, “The present invention is a simple, compact, and inexpensive radar detection system configured to detect the presence of an obstacle in a vehicle’s blind spots and generate a signal to the vehicle operator indicative of the present
28
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
of such an obstacle.” E.g., col. 3, ll. 58-63, “The signal processing section 11 is coupled to a central processing unit (CPU) 31 that determines whether the output of the signal processing section 11 represents an obstacle of interest in the blind spot. The CPU 31 is coupled to an indicator circuit 41 which presents warnings to the vehicle operator.” E.g., col. 5, ll. 32-39, “The low pass filter 27 is coupled to a square wave generator 29 which generates a square wave signal that alternates between 0 volts and 5 volts. The frequency of the signal output by the square wave generator 29 is determined by the frequency of the input to the square wave generator 29 from the low pass filter 27. A square wave transition is output by the square wave generator 29 whenever an obstacle has been detected.” E.g., col. 6, ll. 46-68. “When an obstacle is first detected, as determined by a transition at the output of the square wave generator 29, the CPU 31 waits the persistence period before responding to additional transistors. During the persistence period, no warnings are sent to the driver indicators. After the end of the persistence period, a warning is sent after each such transition if the transition occurs either within one second after the end of the last persistence period or two seconds after a prior warning was sent. Otherwise, a new persistence period cycle begins. “If it is determined that an obstacle persists in the blind spot, an indication is presented to the operator of the vehicle. In the preferred embodiment, of the present invention, three types of indications are used. If the vehicle’s turn signal becomes active (as detected by a position sensor coupled to an input of the CPU 31), and an obstacle is detected in the blind spot, an audible alarm sounds (e.g., emits an audible tone, whistle, or buzz) and a red visual indicator illuminates. If the turn signal is not active and an obstacle is detected in the blind spot, the audible alarm is not activated by the red visual indicator illuminates.”
29
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
Fujiki E.g., col. 1, ll. 13-25, “As is well known a vehicle equipped with a radar type automatic braking system traversing a road emits a radar signal in order to detect obstacles (moving or otherwise) ahead of the vehicle. Ideally should the radar beam or signal strike an obstacle it is reflected and received by the antenna mounted at the front of the vehicle. The received signal is then processed by a logic circuit to determine the possibility of a collision. Should the logic circuit product [sic] a signal indicating a collision is imminent the vehicle brakes are applied and or a vehicle driver alerting system is activated. The vehicle is thus brought to a halt or decelerated to a speed which matches that of the obstacle.” E.g., col. 2, ll. 31-34, “If a collision is sensed to be imminent, a signal is generated and fed to the brake actuator 5 which in turn applies the brakes 6 to decelerate the vehicle.”
activating an alert signal in response to the alert command;
Bernhard E.g., col. 5, l. 44-col. 6, l. 22, “If, on the other hand, the computer has calculated that one of the measured distances is smaller than the associated safety distance, a current lane change is not possible. In such case, in step 15 the method according to the invention then searches for a gap in the target lane sufficient to permit a lane change, even though it is not already adjacent to the driver's own vehicle 0. (Such a gap may possibly be located, for example, obliquely in front of or obliquely behind the driver's vehicle 0 and is basically also accessible to the driver's vehicle 0.) For this purpose, the following measured distances and calculated safety distances are summed and compared by the computer. First, the sum s01+s03 of the measured distances to the vehicles 1, 3 in the target lane 9 and the sum sw01+sw03 of the associated calculated safety distances are calculated. The computer compares both sums and detects the presence of a gap in the target lane 9 if the sum of the measured distances is greater than the sum of the calculated safety distances. Second, it calculates the sum s01+s02 of the measured distances between the vehicle 1 behind in the target lane 9 and the vehicle 2 which is travelling ahead in the current lane 8, and likewise in turn
30
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
calculates the associated sum sw01+sw02 of the calculated safety distances. The same process is carried out as a third step with the distances of the two other vehicles 3, 4. Both sums s01+s02, s03+s04 of the measured distances are then in turn compared in each case with the associated sum of the calculated safety distances, and if it is detected in both cases that the sum of the measured distances is greater than the sum of the associated calculated safety distances, it is determined to mean that space is available for the driver's own vehicle 0 to accelerate or decelerate, as a result of which it may be possible to reach the detected gap in order to change lanes. “If, in one or more of the three comparisons of this interrogation step 16, the sum of the measured distances is smaller than the sum of the calculated safety distances, it is determined to mean that under the set parameters (for example reaction time, safety margin, residual distance, the driver's acceleration or deceleration and reasonable deceleration of the other vehicles), a lane change is not possible. In consequence, in a following step 17, the instruction to stay in lane is issued to the driver. The system then returns to point B before the measurement step 11 and the process is repeated, during which new measurement data, which may arise from possible changes in the positions or speeds of the vehicles, are acquired.” See also Bernhard GB, pp. 11-12. Pakett E.g., col. 1, ll. 59-63, “The present invention is a simple, compact, and inexpensive radar detection system configured to detect the presence of an obstacle in a vehicle’s blind spots and generate a signal to the vehicle operator indicative of the present of such an obstacle.” E.g., col. 3, ll. 58-63, “The signal processing section 11 is coupled to a central processing unit (CPU) 31 that determines whether the output of the signal processing section 11 represents an obstacle of interest in the blind spot. The CPU 31 is coupled to
31
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
an indicator circuit 41 which presents warnings to the vehicle operator.” E.g., col. 5, ll. 32-39, “The low pass filter 27 is coupled to a square wave generator 29 which generates a square wave signal that alternates between 0 volts and 5 volts. The frequency of the signal output by the square wave generator 29 is determined by the frequency of the input to the square wave generator 29 from the low pass filter 27. A square wave transition is output by the square wave generator 29 whenever an obstacle has been detected.” E.g., col. 6, ll. 46-68. “When an obstacle is first detected, as determined by a transition at the output of the square wave generator 29, the CPU 31 waits the persistence period before responding to additional transistors. During the persistence period, no warnings are sent to the driver indicators. After the end of the persistence period, a warning is sent after each such transition if the transition occurs either within one second after the end of the last persistence period or two seconds after a prior warning was sent. Otherwise, a new persistence period cycle begins. “If it is determined that an obstacle persists in the blind spot, an indication is presented to the operator of the vehicle. In the preferred embodiment, of the present invention, three types of indications are used. If the vehicle’s turn signal becomes active (as detected by a position sensor coupled to an input of the CPU 31), and an obstacle is detected in the blind spot, an audible alarm sounds (e.g., emits an audible tone, whistle, or buzz) and a red visual indicator illuminates. If the turn signal is not active and an obstacle is detected in the blind spot, the audible alarm is not activated by the red visual indicator illuminates.” Fujiki E.g., col. 2, ll. 28-34, “A collision imminence computing circuit 3 is fed with information signals from the radar 2 and vehicle velocity sensor 4 with which it determines if a collision is imminent. If a collision is sensed to be imminent a signal is generated and fed to the brake actuator 5 which in turn applies the brakes 6 to decelerate
32
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
the vehicle.” E.g., col. 5, ll. 46-52, “FIG. 8 is a flow chart showing the logic followed by the logic circuitry of the invention. As shown at stage 1 of the program the signals from the radar are compared. If the equations are satisfied (i.e. YES) then the program goes to stage 2 (i.e. a danger or logic 1 signal appears on the output of the comparator 13) and the braking system of the vehicle is activated.”
at the end of the alert command, determining whether the alert signal was active for a threshold time; and
Pakett E.g., col. 5, ll. 14-31, “The low pass filter 27 serves three purposes: 1) to smooth the signal output by the sample and hold circuit 23 by removing high-frequency components of the output waveform; 2) to reduce noise, thus improving sensitivity without increasing RF power; and 3) to eliminate signals which represent objects moving rapidly relative to the vehicle, including stationary objects. Since the purpose of the present invention is to determine whether an obstacle which would otherwise go undetected by the operator is present in a blind spot of the vehicle, those obstacles which move rapidly through the blind spot are not of interest. It is assumed that obstacles that are moving rapidly through one of the vehicle’s blind spots will be seen before entering the blind spot, or will pass through the blind spot before the operator causes the vehicle to perform a maneuver which would present a danger due to the presence of that obstacle.” E.g., col. 5, ll. 37-39, “A square wave transition is output by the square wave generator 29 whenever an obstacle has been detected.” E.g., col. 6, ll. 43-56, “A ‘persistence period’ is defined in the preferred embodiment as the amount of time that it takes the vehicle upon which the radar system in [sic] mounted to travel 15 feet. When an obstacle is first detected, as determined by a transition at the output of the square wave generator 29, the CPU 31 waits the persistence period before responding to
33
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
additional transitions. During the persistence period, no warnings are sent to the driver indicators. After the end of the persistence period, a warning is sent after each such transition if the transition occurs either within one second after the end of the last persistence period or two seconds after a prior warning was sent. Otherwise, a new persistence period cycle begins.” Fujiki E.g., col. 5 ll. 49-57, “If the equations are satisfied (i.e. YES) then the program goes to stage 2 (i.e. a danger of logic 1 signal appears on the output of the comparator 13) and the braking system is activated. The program returns to START, until the equations at stage 2 are not satisfied (i.e. NO, or when a safe or logic 0 signal appears on the output of the comparator 13) whereupon the program goes to stage 3. At stage 3 it is determined if the brake system had just been activated or not.”
if the alert signal was active for the threshold time, sustaining the alert signal for the variable sustain time, wherein the zone of coverage appears to increase according to the variable sustain time.
Pakett E.g., col. 5, ll. 14-31, “The low pass filter 27 serves three purposes: 1) to smooth the signal output by the sample and hold circuit 23 by removing high-frequency components of the output waveform; 2) to reduce noise, thus improving sensitivity without increasing RF power; and 3) to eliminate signals which represent objects moving rapidly relative to the vehicle, including stationary objects. Since the purpose of the present invention is to determine whether an obstacle which would otherwise go undetected by the operator is present in a blind spot of the vehicle, those obstacles which move rapidly through the blind spot are not of interest. It is assumed that obstacles that are moving rapidly through one of the vehicle’s blind spots will be seen before entering the blind spot, or will pass through the blind spot before the operator causes the vehicle to perform a maneuver which would present a danger due to the presence of that obstacle.” E.g. col 7, l. 64-col. 8, l. 10, “The CPU 31 checks whether a warning is presently being displayed (i.e., in the preferred embodiment of the present invention, whether the red indicator
34
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
is illuminated) (STEP 317) while waiting for the flag in the register 37 to be sets. If a warning is presently being displayed, the CPU 31 determines how long it has been since the warning was last activated. If the warning has been on display for more than one second without being reactivated (STEP 318), the CPU 31 causes the warning to cease being displayed (STEP 319). The CPU 31 also determines whether an audible alarm has been sounding for more than one second without being reactivated (STEP 320), and causes the audible alarm to cease if reactivation of the alarm has not occurred in the last one second (STEP 321).” Fujiki E.g., col. 5, ll. 52-67, “The program returns to START, until the equations at stage 2 are not satisfied (i.e. NO, or when a safe or logic 0 signal appears on the output of the comparator 13) whereupon the program goes to stage 3. At stage 3 it is determined if the brake system had just been activated or not. If NO (i.e. the braking system had not just been activated) the program returns to START. If YES the program proceeds to stage 4 where at the braking system is further activated for a period of time. There are preferably at least three possible periods, i.e., t1, t2, or t3, where t1 is a preselected time (only), t2 is a function of a predetermined distance D and the actual velocity of the vehicle Va and t3 is a function of the pre-selected distance D and the relative velocity dR/dt just prior [sic] the danger signal disappearing, for which the additional braking will take place.” E.g., Fig. 8:
35
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
2. The invention as defined in claim 1, wherein the variable sustain time is an inverse function of the relative vehicle speed.
Pakett E.g., col. 3, ll. 6-11, “Digital processor 49 operates according to a predetermined control algorithm as set forth herein, for controlling modulator 47, processing conditioned radar signals to determine therefrom target range and apparent velocities thereof, and to further distinguish hazard from non-hazard events.” E.g., col. 4, ll. 39-43, “The FM-CW doppler quantity fd is a measure of the apparent target velocity. The FM-CW doppler quantity fd may be positive or negative, a positive value thereof being indicative of a closing target and a negative value thereof being indicative of a receding target.” E.g., col. 6, ll. 10-18, “The retained doppler quantity fd is compared to a threshold value fth representative of a closing velocity which, if exceeded, determines that the current target detection is a hazard event. The threshold value fth is a predetermined positive value which is, in the present embodiment, a function of vehicle speed and is preferably read from a conventional two dimensional look-up table or alternatively by formula computation.” Fujiki E.g., col. 5, ll. 59-67, “If YES the program proceeds to stage 4 where at the braking system is further activated for a period of
36
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
time. There are preferably at least three possible periods, i.e., t1, t2, or t3, where t1 is a preselected time (only), t2 is a function of a predetermined distance D and the actual velocity of the vehicle Va and t3 is a function of the pre-selected distance D and the relative velocity dR/dt just prior [sic] the danger signal disappearing, for which the additional braking will take place.” E.g., Fig. 8:
6. The invention as defined in claim 1 including: determining host vehicle speed; and
Bernhard E.g., col. 4, ll. 35-40, “After activation of the system, in step 11, the distances s01, s02, s03, s04 to the objects 1 to 4 are detected in the monitored areas 21 to 24, and their relative speeds with respect to the driver’s own vehicle 0 are measured by means of the radar devices. (The driver’s own speed vO is determined by means of the speedometer.)” See also Bernhard GB, p. 9. Pakett E.g., col. 7, ll. 31-32, “The CPU 31 is coupled to a speedometer which measures the ground speed of the vehicle.”
37
’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki
Fujiki E.g., col. 2, ll. 28-31, “A collision imminence computing circuit 3 is fed with information signals from the radar 2 and vehicle velocity sensor 4 with which it determines if a collision is imminent.” E.g., Fig. 2:
selecting the threshold time as a function of the host vehicle speed.
Pakett E.g., col. 6, ll. 43-46, “A ‘persistence period’ is defined in the preferred embodiment as the amount of time that it takes the vehicle upon which the radar system in [sic] mounted to travel 15 feet.” E.g., col. 7, ll. 32-36, “The CPU 31 uses the vehicle speed to calculate how long it will take the vehicle to travel 15 feet (i.e., the persistence period) (STEP 303), and sets a timer to ‘time out’ at the end of the calculated amount of time (STEP 304).”
A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the alleged inventions of claims 1,
2, and 6 of the ’927 patent were made, would have found it obvious to combine the
teachings of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki, and, in addition, would have been
motivated to do so, as each of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki describe radar systems for
detecting obstacles in the vicinity of a vehicle, and controlling warning systems to alert
the driver to the presence of the detected obstacles. Just as described in the ’927
patent, Pakett and Fujiki each describe sustaining the alert, even when a hazardous
38
condition is no longer sensed, to ensure that the hazardous condition has passed
before the alert is removed. Where the ’927 patent describes signal “dropouts” and
signal “flicker,” and illustrates the “uninterrupted or sustained alert signal 46” in Fig.
3d (see Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 45-col. 2, l. 6; col. 3, l. 52-col. 4, l. 21), Fujiki describes
moments of an “extremely weak” signal which may cause a momentary false
indication of safety:
The object (which is for example a motor vehicle) may be proceeding up
an incline or traversing a corner and subsequently cause the signal to
reflect down onto the road to be in turn reflected to the antenna and/or
cause the signal to reflect from roadside trees or buildings, thereby
causing the signal to be extremely weak on reception and cause the radar
to momentarily produce a dangerously false “safe” signal.
Ex. 1006, col. 1, ll. 45-52. Like the ’927 patent addresses this problem by sustaining
the alert as a function of relative vehicle speed, Fujiki applies the same principles in
sustaining the alert condition, i.e., sustaining the brakes, for a sustain time that varies
as a function of relative vehicle speed. See, Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 16-18. In both the ’927 patent
and in Fujiki, the alert condition is sustained as a function of the relative vehicle speed
to address concerns of prematurely indicating that no objects are in the vicinity of the
vehicle.
For these reasons, it was well known at the time the ’927 patent was filed to
combine the features of the object detection systems of Pakett and Fujiki with the
object detection systems used in Bernhard. It would have been obvious to modify
39
radar-based object detection systems for detecting objects all around the vehicle, such
as described by Bernhard, with the sustained alerts of Pakett and Fujiki, and more
particularly, the alert sustained as a function of relative vehicle speed of Fujiki, to
ensure that the alert condition is only released under safe conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at
the time the ’927 patent was filed, to combine the teachings of Bernhard, Pakett, and
Fujiki.
In view of all of the foregoing, claims 1, 2, and 6 are obvious in view of the
combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly,
Petitioner submits that there is a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect
to the challenged claims. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
40
V. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’927 patent are invalid.
Petitioner respectfully requests cancellation of each of the claims 1, 2, and 6 of the
’927 patent.
Dated: March 30, 2015 /Michael J. Lennon / Michael J. Lennon, Lead Counsel for VWGoA Reg. No. 26,562 Michael J. Lennon (Reg. No. 26,562) Lead Counsel Clifford A. Ulrich (Reg. No. 42,194) Backup Counsel Michelle Carniaux (Reg. No. 36,098) Backup Counsel Kenyon & Kenyon LLP One Broadway New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212.425.7200 Fax: 212.425.5288 Email: [email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The foregoing Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 and
associated Exhibits 1001-1006 were served on March 30, 2015, via Express Mail upon
the following:
Counsel of Record for U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927: Ascenda Law Group, PC 333 W. San Carlos St. Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 Attorneys for Signal IP, Inc.: Jason L. Haas [email protected] Randall J. Sunshine [email protected] Ryan E. Hatch [email protected] Liner LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503 /Michael J. Lennon/ Michael J. Lennon, Lead Counsel for VWGoA Reg. No. 26,562 Michael J. Lennon (Reg. No. 26,562) Lead Counsel Clifford A. Ulrich (Reg. No. 42,194) Backup Counsel Michelle Carniaux (Reg. No. 36,098) Backup Counsel Kenyon & Kenyon LLP One Broadway New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212.425.7200 Fax: 212.425.5288 Email: [email protected]