IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK...

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent of: Studt, et al. Attorney Docket No.: 15625-0021IP1

U.S. Patent No.: 6,434,486

Issue Date: August 13, 2002

Appl. Serial No.: 09/648,972

Filing Date: August 28, 2000

Title: TECHNIQUE FOR LIMITING THE RANGE OF AN OBJECT SENSING SYSTEM IN A VEHICLE

Mail Stop Patent Board Patent Trial and Appeal Board U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,434,486 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319, 37 C.F.R. § 42

Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ....................... 1

A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................ 1

B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................... 1

C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ...................... 4

II. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 103 ......................................... 4

III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ....................... 4

A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)................................. 4

B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b) and Relief ................................. 4

1. Prior Art References Used in the Proposed Grounds of Rejection . 6

IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 7

V. AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’486 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ................................................................................................... 8

A. GROUND 1 – Claim 1, 6-8, 13, 14, 21, 26-28, 33, and 34 are unpatentable over Wüchner under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................ 9

B. GROUND 2 – Claims 7, 14, 27, and 34 are unpatentable over Wüchner in view of Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................. 20

C. GROUND 3 – Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 21, 26, 28 and 33 are unpatentable over Katsumata under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ......................................................... 22

D. GROUND 4 – Claims 27 and 34 are unpatentable over Katsumata in view of Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................... 29

E. GROUND 5 – Claims 1, 6, 8, 13 are unpatentable over Katsumata in view of Wüchner under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................... 32

F. GROUND 6 – Claims 7 and 14 are unpatentable over Katsumata in view of Wüchner further in view of Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................. 35

G. GROUND 7 – Claims 1, 6-8, 13, 14, 21, 26-28, 33, and 34 are unpatentable over Masami under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................ 35

H. GROUND 8 – Claims 7, 14, 27, and 34 are unpatentable over Masami in view of Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................. 42

I. GROUND 9 – Claim 1, 2, 6-8, 13, 14, 21, 22, 26-29, 33, and 34 are unpatentable over Yamamura in view of Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . 44


ii

VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 55


iii

EXHIBITS

HONDA-1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486 to Studt, et al. (“the ‘486 Patent”)

HONDA-1002 Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ‘486 Patent (“the Prosecution History”)

HONDA-1003 Declaration of Mark Rosenblum re the ‘486 Patent

HONDA-1004 Great Britain Patent No. 1,583, 664 (“Wuchner”)

HONDA-1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,061,015 (“Sugimoto”)

HONDA-1006 U.S. Patent No. 4,072,945 (“Katsumata”)

HONDA-1007 Japanese Publication No. 10119673A (“Masami”)

HONDA-1008 Japanese Publication No. H8-315300 (“Yamamura”)

HONDA-1009 Laugier, Sensor-Based Control Architecture for a Car-Like Vehicle, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (1998) (“Laugier”)


1

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Honda”) petitions for

Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of

claims 1, 6-8, 13, 14, 21, 26-29, 33, 34 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent

No. 6,434,486 (“the ’486 Patent”). As explained in this petition, there exists a

reasonable likelihood that Honda will prevail in demonstrating unpatentability with

respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims based on teachings set forth in at

least the references presented in this petition. Honda respectfully submits that an

IPR proceeding should be instituted and that the Challenged Claims should be

canceled as unpatentable.

I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)

A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)

Petitioner, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., is a real party-in-interest. Real

parties-in-interest also include Honda of America Mfg., Inc., Honda Patents &

Technologies North America, LLC, and Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)

Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat U.S.A., Inc. et al, Case No. 2-14-cv-13864, in the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, filed on October 7,2014,

currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2-14-cv-

13729, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, filed on


2

September 26, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of

America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of America, Inc. et al, Case No. 2-14-cv-03113, in the

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on April 23, 2014,

currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2-14-cv-

03106, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on

April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat USA, Inc. et al, Case No.

2-14-cv-03105, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,

filed on April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. BMW of North

America, LLC et al, Case No. 2-14-cv-03111, in the U.S. District Court for the

Central District of California, filed on April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP,

Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al, Case No. 2-14-cv-03109, in the U.S.

District Court for the Central District of California, filed on April 23, 2014,

currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case No.

2-14-cv-03114, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,

filed on April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover

North America, LLC, Case No. 2-14-cv-03108, in the U.S. District Court for the

Central District of California, filed on April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP,

Inc. v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, Case No. 2-14-cv-03107, in the U.S.



3

currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-

02962, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on

April 17, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc., Case

No. 2-14-cv-02963, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,

filed on April 17, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of

America, Inc., Case No. 8-14-cv-00491, in the U.S. District Court for the Central

District of California, filed on April 1, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v.

Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-02462, in the U.S.


currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-

cv-02459, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on

April 1, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors North

America, Inc., Case No. 8-14-cv-00497, in the U.S. District Court for the Central

District of California, filed on April 1, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v.

Kia Motors America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-02457, in the U.S. District Court for

the Central District of California, filed on April 1, 2014, currently pending; and

Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al, Case No. 2-14-cv-02454,

in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on April 1,

2014, currently pending. The ’486 Patent is also the subject of U.S. Patent


4

Reexamination No. 90/013,384 filed on October, 27 2014, which is currently

pending.

C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)

Honda designates Joshua A. Griswold, Reg. No. 46,310, as Lead Counsel

and Daniel Smith, Reg. 71,278 as Backup Counsel. Mr. Griswold and Mr. Smith

are available for service at 3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis,

MN 55402 (T: 214-292-4034). All are available for electronic service by email at

[email protected].

II. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 103

Honda authorizes charges to Deposit Account No. 06-1050 for the fee set in

37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and for any related additional fees.

III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104

A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)

Honda certifies that the ’486 Patent is available for IPR. The present

petition is being filed within one year of the April 4, 2014 service of the complaint

against Petitioner in the Central District of California action. Petitioner is not

barred or estopped from requesting this review challenging the Challenged Claims

on the below-identified grounds.

B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b) and Relief

Honda requests an IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth in


5

the table shown below and requests that each of the Challenged Claims be found

unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable under the

statutory grounds identified below is provided in the form of the detailed

description that follows. The description indicates where each claim element can

be found in the cited prior art, and explains the relevance of that prior art, including

explanations related to obviousness. Additional explanation and support for each

ground of rejection is set forth in Exhibit HONDA-1003, the Declaration of Mark

Rosenblum (“Rosenblum”), referenced throughout this Petition.

Ground ’486 Patent Claims Basis for Rejection

Ground 1 1, 6-8, 13, 14, 21, 26-28, 33, 34

Anticipated by Wüchner under 35 U.S.C. § 102

Ground 2 7, 14, 27, 34 Obvious over Wüchner in view of Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Ground 3 1, 6, 8, 13, 21, 26, 28, 33

Anticipated by Katsumata under 35 U.S.C. § 102

Ground 4 27, 34 Obvious over Katsumata in view of Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Ground 5 1, 6, 8, 13 Obvious over Katsumata in view of Wüchner under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Ground 6 7, 14 Obvious over Katsumata in view of Wüchner further in view of Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Ground 7 1, 6-8, 13, 14, 21, 26-28, 33, 34

Anticipated by Masami under 35 U.S.C. § 102

Ground 8 7, 14, 27, 34 Obvious over Masami in view of Sugimoto


6

Ground ’486 Patent Claims Basis for Rejection

under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Ground 9 1, 2, 6-8, 13, 14, 21, 22, 26-29, 33, 34

Obvious over by Yamamura and Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Prior Art References Used in the Proposed Grounds of Rejection

The proposed Grounds rely solely on prior art references that were publicly

available more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the ’486

Patent, and thus qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

The ’486 Patent issued on August 13, 2002 from application no. 09/648,972,

which was filed August 28, 2000. Accordingly, August 28, 2000 represents the

earliest possible priority date for the ’486 Patent.

Yamamura (Japanese Pub. No. H8-315300) qualifies as prior art at least

under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Yamamura was published on November 29, 1996, more

than one year before the earliest effective filing date of the Challenged Claims, and

thus is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Katsumata (U.S. Patent No. 4,072,945) qualifies as prior art at least under 35

U.S.C. § 102(b). Yoshioka issued February 7, 1978, more than one year before the

earliest effective filing date of the Challenged Claims, and thus is prior art at least

under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).


7

Wüchner (Great Britain Patent No. 1,583, 664) qualifies as prior art at least

under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Wüchner published January 28, 1981, more than one

year before the earliest effective filing date of the Challenged Claims, and thus is

prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Sugimoto (U.S. Patent No. 6,061,015) qualifies as prior art at least under 35

U.S.C. § 102(e). Shaw issued January 5, 1999, more than one year before the

earliest effective filing date of the Challenged Claims, and thus is prior art at least

under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

Masami (Japanese Pub. No. 10119673A) qualifies as prior art at least under

35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Masami was published on May 12, 1998, more than one year

before the earliest effective filing date of the Challenged Claims, and thus is prior

art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), claims in an unexpired patent are

given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the

patent in which it appears. No relevant issues of claim construction are presented

in the claims of the ‘486 Patent, and all terms should therefore simply be given

their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as commonly

understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Further details of how the claims


8

are being interpreted are discussed in the relevant sections below.

Petitioner expressly reserves the right to advance different constructions in

the matter now pending in district court, as the applicable claim construction

standard for that proceeding (“ordinary and customary meaning”) is different than

the broadest reasonable interpretation standard applied in IPR. Further, due to the

different claim construction standards in the proceedings, Petitioner identifying

any feature in the cited references as teaching a claim term of the ’ 486 Patent is

not an admission by Petitioner that that claim term is met by any feature for

infringement purposes.

Petitioner also maintains that several terms in the claims of ’486 Patent are

indefinite, but since issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112 may not be raised in Inter Partes

Review proceedings, Petitioner has attempted to interpret all claim terms.

Petitioner expressly reserves the right to raise the issue of indefiniteness should the

issue arise in this or other proceedings.

V. AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’486 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE

The sections below specifically explain how the Challenged Claims are

unpatentable pursuant to the proposed Grounds of rejection listed in Section III(B),

supra. Accordingly, for at least the reasons discussed below, Petitioner asserts that

the Challenged Claims of the ’486 Patent are unpatentable and requests


9

cancellation of all Challenged Claims.

Note that in each of the Grounds below, independent claim 21 and its

dependent claims are addressed first, because these claims are at issue in the

counterpart litigation.

A. GROUND 1 – Claim 1, 6-8, 13, 14, 21, 26-28, 33, and 34 are unpatentable over Wüchner under 35 U.S.C. § 102

Claim 21 - [21.0]: “A method for limiting the range of a [sic] object sensing system such that certain objects detected by the sensing system that are not in a vehicle path do not cause the sensing system to provide an alarm”

As a threshold matter, Petitioner does not, with the present paper, assert a

position as to whether the preamble of claim 21 or any other claim in the ’486

Patent is limiting, but reserves the right to assert such positions later in this or other

proceedings. Nevertheless, the asserted prior art references teach all limitations of

the preamble, as explained below.

Wüchner describes “a method and apparatus by which it is possible to

control the safety distance and avoid collision with a preceding vehicle” or other

obstacle “while substantially eliminating false alarms in a more positive and

discriminating manner than heretofore.” See Ex. 1004, p. 2, ll. 4-10. “In

particular, the range and area covered by the measurement can be adapted to road-

bend conditions and spurious targets (particularly stationary targets having extent

in the direction of travel) can be suppressed.” Id. at 2:7-10; Ex. 1003, ¶ 21.


10

Wüchner’s described method includes “determining a maximum safe

disturbance-free range ahead of the equipped vehicle in dependence upon the

course being followed by the equipped vehicle and monitoring ahead from the said

vehicle to ascertain whether a possible obstructive target is present within the said

range” and “measuring from the equipped vehicle the distance from the said

vehicle of a target so ascertained.” Id. at p. 2, ll. 14-19. “False alarms can again

be suppressed by comparison of the ascertained distance am to an obstacle with the

disturbance-free measurement range a.” Id. at 4:15-16. Ex. 1003, ¶ 22.

Accordingly, determining a maximum safe disturbance-free range based on

the course being followed by the vehicle and suppressing alarms for objects

outside of this range, as taught by Wüchner, discloses “a method for limiting the

range of an object sensing system such that certain objects detected by the sensing

system that are not in a vehicle path do not cause the sensing system to provide an

alarm” as recited in the claim.

[21.1]: “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle”

Wüchner describes that “the maximum disturbance-free measurement range

a can be determined from the angle α of spread of the measuring beam from a

radar transmitter on the vehicle and the mean width b of the lane.” Ex. 1004, p. 3,

ll. 18-21 (emphasis added). Wüchner further describes that “the angle α of spread


11

of the transmitter beam is also varied, for example in dependence on the angle of

turn of the steering wheel or on transverse acceleration” allowing “the disturbance-

free measurement range on bends [to] be ‘optimised’.” Id. at 4:18-21 (emphasis

added). FIG. 1 shows the maximum-disturbance free measurement range a

adjusted based on the spread angle α of the transmitter beam, Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 23:

Ex. 1004, FIG. 1 (annotated)

Further, Wüchner teaches that “[i]f the transverse acceleration and the speed

or the angle of turn of the steering wheel are measured, it is possible to determine

the curvature l/R of the bend (R=radius of bend).” Id. at p. 3, ll. 15-17. “Taking as

starting point, a vehicle travelling in the middle of a traffic lane, the maximum

Spread angle α (alpha)

Maximum disturbance-free measurement range a

Vehicle


12

disturbance-free measurement range a can be determined from the angle α of

spread of the measuring beam from a radar transmitter on the vehicle and the mean

width b of the lane.” Id. at p. 3, ll. 17-21. Wüchner continues: “[i]f the transmitter

antenna points in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle” the

maximum disturbance-free measurement range a is determined by the following

equation, Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 24:

Ex. 1004, Equation 1 (annotated)

In the above equation, R is the current radius of curvature of the vehicle,

which is determined based on “transverse acceleration bq in conjunction with the

speed v of the vehicle, particularly for higher speeds, and for low speeds, the

steering-wheel angle βL.” Id. at p. 3, ll. 25-27 (emphasis added). Thus, the

maximum disturbance-free measurement range a is based on the steering wheel

angle βL because it is based on the radius of curvature R (which is calculated from

the steering wheel angle βL). See id.; Ex. 1003, ¶ 25.

Accordingly, determining the disturbance-free measurement range based on

the current angle of spread of a measure beam of a radar device or the radius of

curvature of the vehicle, wherein the angle of spread and radius of curvature

depend on the steering angle, as taught by Wüchner, discloses “determining a


13

desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle” as recited in the

claim.

[21.2]: “determining a current distance to a sensed object”

Wüchner teaches “measuring from the equipped vehicle the distance from

the said vehicle of a target[.]” Ex. 1004, claim 1 (emphasis added). Wüchner

describes that this may be performed using “previously known distance-measuring

devices for road-traffic use” which “have available a rigid search mode

characterised by the feature that the distance and relative speed of the next target,

or in some cases the next target but one, are determined.” Id. at 1:16-18 (emphasis

added). As described above, “the maximum disturbance-free measurement range a

is limited, that is targets at distances am>a are suppressed” and do not generate

alarms. See id. at p. 3, ll. 14-15; Ex. 1003, ¶ 26.

Accordingly, detecting a distance from a vehicle to an object using a radar

device, as taught by Wüchner, teaches “determining a current distance to a sensed

object” as recited in the claim.

[21.3]: “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance”

As described above, Wüchner teaches determining a distance to a sensed

object, and determining a maximum disturbance free range (i.e. a desired warning

distance) based on the current steering angle of the vehicle. See Ground 1, [21.1]-


14

[21.2], supra. Wüchner further teaches that “[p]articularly on bends, there is a

danger of false alarms, that is to say erroneous warning to the driver or unjustified

operation of the braking system.” Id. at 1:36-38 (emphasis added). Wüchner

describes that such false alarms are “suppressed by comparison of the ascertained

distance am to an obstacle with the disturbance-free measurement range a.” Id. at

4:15-16 (emphasis added).

Further, Wüchner teaches that “Equation 1 . . . permit[s] calculation of the

disturbance-free measurement range below which it is certain that no false alarms

will occur.” Wüchner, p. 3, ll. 31-32. As previously discussed, Equation 1 states

the following:

Ex. 1004, Equation 1 (annotated)

In the above equation, R is the current radius of curvature of the vehicle,

which is determined based on “transverse acceleration bq in conjunction with the

speed v of the vehicle, particularly for higher speeds, and for low speeds, the

steering-wheel angle βL.” Id. at p. 3, ll. 25-27 (emphasis added). Thus, the

maximum disturbance-free measurement range a is based on the steering wheel

angle βL because it is based on the radius of curvature R (which is calculated from

the steering wheel angle βL). See id.; Ex. 1003, ¶ 25. Wüchner describes that


15

false alarms are “suppressed by comparison of the ascertained distance am to an

obstacle with the disturbance-free measurement range a.” Id. at 4:15-16 (emphasis

added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 27.

Accordingly, suppressing alarms for objects with distances from a vehicle

greater than a maximum interference-free distance, as taught by Wüchner,

discloses “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired

warning distance” as recited in the claim.

Claim 26 - [26.0]: “The method of claim 21, wherein the current steering angle is provided by a steering angle sensor.”

Wüchner teaches a “means for measuring the angle of turning of the steering

wheel and/or the transverse acceleration of the equipped vehicle and a computer

unit to which the data ascertained by the said measuring means and the search time

are fed and which calculates therefrom control values for the antenna and for a

signal for control of the vehicle.” Ex. 1004, Claim 7 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003,

¶ 28. Accordingly, Wüchner discloses that “the current steering angle is provided

by a steering angle sensor” as recited in the claim.

Claim 27 - [27.0]: “The method of claim 21, wherein the current steering angle is provided by a yaw rate sensor.”

Wüchner describes that “the angle α of spread of the transmitter beam is also

varied, for example in dependence on the angle of turn of the steering wheel” or


16

“from the transverse acceleration bq and speed v of the vehicle” allowing “the

disturbance-free measurement range on bends [to] be ‘optimised’.” Id. at 4:18-21,

6:24-26 (emphasis added). The transverse acceleration bq and speed v of the

vehicle represent the vehicle’s yaw rate. Ex. 1003, ¶ 29. Because Wüchner

teaches that the either the yaw rate or the current steering angle can be used to vary

the spread angle α, the current steering angle can be provided from the yaw rate

(e.g., by deriving it from the calculated radius of curvature). Ex. 1003, ¶ 29.

Accordingly, using measured transverse acceleration instead of steering

wheel deflection to vary the maximum disturbance-free measurement range, as

taught Wüchner, discloses that “the current steering angle is provided by a yaw

rate sensor.”

Claim 28 – [28.0]: “An object sensing system that provides for limiting the range of the sensing system such that certain objects detected by the sensing system that are not in a vehicle path do not cause the sensing system to provide an alarm”

See Ground 1, [21.0], supra.

[28.1] - “a processor; a memory subsystem for storing information coupled to the processor; a steering angle sensor coupled to the processor; an object sensor coupled to the processor; and processor executable code for causing the processor to perform the steps of”

Wüchner teaches “a control unit which produces or determines control

values and warning signals from the values measured and from decisions taken on


17

the basis of the individual criteria,” thereby disclosing “a processor.” Ex. 1004, p.

6, ll. 21-23; Ex. 1003, ¶ 30.

Wüchner also teaches a target tracking unit which monitors detected targets

over a period of time across multiple frames or samples from a radar or other

object detection sensor. Id. at Claim 13; Ex. 1003, ¶ 31. Because the target

tracking unit maintains a lock or fix on a target over a period of time, it must store

an internal representation of the tracked target for the duration of the lock or fix.

The ability to track a target necessitates the storage of information across multiple

frames or samples, indicating that there must be memory, thereby disclosing “a

memory subsystem for storing information coupled to the processor.” Ex. 1003, ¶

31.

Wüchner teaches “a computer unit a computer unit to which the data

ascertained by the said measuring means and the search time are fed and which

calculates therefrom control values for the antenna and for a signal for control of

the vehicle[.]” Id. at p. 2, ll. 60-63. A “computer unit” includes a processor, a

memory subsystem, and processor executable code including instructions to be

executed by the processor. Ex. 1003, ¶ 32. Accordingly, Wüchner discloses “a

processor,” “a memory subsystem for storing information coupled to the

processor,” and “processor executable code” as recited in the claim.


18

As previously discussed, Wüchner teaches “a steering angle sensor coupled

to the processor” (See Ground 1, [21.1], supra) and “an object sensor coupled to

the processor” (See Ground 1, [21.2], supra).

[28.2] – “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle;


[28.3] – “determining a current distance to a sensed object as derived from the object sensor;


[28.4] – “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance.




[1.1] – “determining a projected path of a vehicle using a current steering angle of the vehicle as derived from the steering angle sensor”

Wüchner teaches that “[i]f the transverse acceleration and the speed or the

angle of turn of the steering wheel are measured, it is possible to determine the

curvature l/R of the bend (R=radius of bend).” Ex. 1004, p. 3, ll. 15-17. This

radius of curvature is a projected path of the vehicle because it represents a curve

the vehicle will follow if the steering wheel deflection (steering angle) is kept


19

constant. Ex. 1003, ¶ 33.

Accordingly, calculating a current radius of curvature of a vehicle based on

steering wheel deflection, as taught by Wüchner, discloses “determining a

projected path of a vehicle based upon a current steering angle of the vehicle” as

recited in the claim.







Claims 6, 8, 13, and 33

Claims 6, 8, 13, and 33 recite identical limitations to claims previously

addressed. The following table identifies the portions of the arguments previously

presented that apply to claims 6, 8, 13, and 33.

Claim Corresponding Argument 6 See Ground 1, [26.0], supra 8 See Ground 1, [21.0]-[21.3], [1.2], [28.0] – [28.1], supra 13 See Ground 1, [26.0], supra


20

33 See Ground 1, [26.0], supra

B. GROUND 2 – Claims 7, 14, 27, and 34 are unpatentable over Wüchner in view of Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103


Sugimoto describes a “vehicle obstacle detecting system” including a “yaw

rate sensor 20” that “generate[s] a signal indicative of the yaw rate (yaw angular

velocity acting at the center of gravity of the vehicle 10 about the gravitational or

vertical direction).” Ex. 1005, Abstract, 3:46-48 (emphasis added). Sugimoto

further describes that a “steer angle Θst” is determined based on “the output of the

yaw rate sensor 20[.]” Id. at 12:10-14 (emphasis added). Ex. 1003, ¶ 34

Accordingly, the yaw rate sensor of Sugimoto that is used to calculate the

current steering angle teaches that “the current steering angle is provided by a yaw

rate sensor” as recited in the claim.

Reasons to combine Wüchner and Sugimoto

One of skill in the art would have modified the object sensing system of

Wüchner to obtain the current steering angle of a vehicle from a yaw rate sensor,

as taught by the similar object sensing system of Sugimoto, because the

combination amounts to the use of a known technique to improve similar devices


21

in the same way. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP § 2143

I(C); Ex. 1003, ¶ 35.

Sugimoto teaches a “vehicle obstacle detecting system” for “detect[ing] an

obstacle present ahead of the course of vehicle travel.” See Ex. 1005, Abstract;

Ground 1, [21.0], supra. Sugimoto describes that the system includes a “yaw rate

sensor 20” that “generate[s] a signal indicative of the yaw rate” from which a

“steer angle Θst” is determined. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 3:46-48, 12:10-14 (emphasis

added). Sugimoto further describes that the “steer angle Θst” can be determined

based on signals from a steering angle sensor or the yaw rate sensor. Id. at 3:45-

60, 12:10-14; Ex. 1003, ¶ 36. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to

modify Wüchner to include the yaw rate sensor taught by Sugimoto to improve the

reliability of the object detection system, as having both sensors would allow the

object sensing method to continue to function if one sensor failed. Ex. 1003, ¶ 36.

Further, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to include the yaw rate in the

steering angle calculation to obtain an indication of the actual path of the vehicle,

as the position of the steering wheel is an indication of the desired vehicle path

based on how the driver has positioned the steering wheel. Ex. 1003, ¶ 36. The

desired vehicle path based on the position of the steering wheel does not take into

account current operational factors of the vehicle, such as the slip angle of the tires,


22

which may cause the desired vehicle path (indicated by the position of the steering

wheel) and the actual vehicle path (indicated by the yaw rate) to differ. Ex. 1003, ¶

36; see also Ex. 1005, 3:46-48. The results of such a combination would have

been predictable, because such redundant sensor configurations were well known

to those of skill in the art. See Ex. 1005, 12:10-14; Ex. 1003, ¶ 36.

Claims 7, 14, and 34


C. GROUND 3 – Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 21, 26, 28 and 33 are unpatentable over Katsumata under 35 U.S.C. § 102

Claim 21 - [21.0]: “A method for limiting the range of an object sensing system such that certain objects detected by the sensing system that are not in a vehicle path do not cause the sensing system to provide an alarm”

Katsumata describes “[a] radar-operated collision avoidance system for a

roadway vehicle” including “a radar device for sensing the vehicle speed relative

to an object and its distance thereto[.]” Ex. 1006, Abstract. Katsumata also

describes a “[a] minimum allowable distance” associated with a “sensed magnitude

of steering movement” of the vehicle. Id. “The minimum allowable distance is

compared with the distance sensed by the radar to determine that the decision is

valid only when the latter is smaller than the former.” Id. Katsumata further

describes that “danger indicating signals are given only” when “the sensed distance

is smaller than the minimum allowable distance.” Id. at Abstract, 1:9-14; Ex.


23

1003, ¶ 37. Katsumata further describes that “false signals arising from roadway

obstacles such as signposts, or guard rails which come into the detectable range of

the radar device 12 when the vehicle follows a sharp turn, are disabled[.]” Id. at

4:39-43 (emphasis added).

Accordingly, providing a minimum allowable distance above which detected

objects do not generate alarms, as taught by Katsumata, discloses “a method for

limiting the range of an object sensing system such that certain objects detected by

the sensing system that are not in a vehicle path do not cause the sensing system to

provide an alarm” as recited in the claim.


Katsumata describes a “matrix array” storing “the allowable minimum

distance from a vehicle 30” to “an object 31[.]” Ex. 1006, 3:61-65. Katsumata

teaches that “if the distance from the vehicle 30 to the object 31 as detected by the

radar device 12 is greater than the minimum distance represented by the

information read out from the memory matrix 16 . . . no alarm is given” in

response to the detected object. Ex. 1003, ¶ 38.

Katsumata teaches that “[t]he minimum allowable distance is expressed by

range-cut function Sxy(Va, 8) which varies as a function of vehicle speed Va and

the degree of steering angle 8[.]” Id. at 4:5-10 (emphasis added). Accordingly,


24

“there is a particular value of minimum allowable distance for a set of input

variables Va [speed] and Θ [steering angle]” in the matrix array. Id. at 4:10-15.

FIG. 4 from Katsumata shows the matrix array including different minimum

allowable distances for different steering angle (Θ) and vehicle speed (Va) values,

Ex. 1003, ¶ 39:

Ex. 1006, detail of FIG. 4 (annotated)

For example, if the vehicle speed is between 101 and 110 and the steering

angle value is between 3 and 4, a desired warning distance of 30 is read from the

array from location 1. If the vehicle speed is between 91 and 100 and the steering

Steering angle values (Θ)

Vehicle speed values (Va)

Desired warning distance values corresponding to different vehicle speed value and steering angle value combinations

Location 1

Location 2


25

angle value is between 7 and 8, a different desired warning distance of 26 is read

from the array from location 2.

Accordingly, determining a minimum allowable distance below which

detected obstacles will generate alarms based on the current steering angle, as

taught by Katsumata, discloses “determining a desired warning distance based

upon the current steering angle” as recited in the claim.


Katsumata describes a “Doppler radar device 12” that “delivers . . . a range

signal representative of the distance from the vehicle to” a detected object. Ex.

1006, 3:39-43 (emphasis added). Ex. 1003, ¶ 40.


device, as taught by Katsumata, teaches “determining a current distance to a sensed

object” as recited in the claim.


Katsumata describes that “if the distance from the vehicle 30 to the object 31

as detected by the radar device 12 is greater than the minimum distance

represented by the information read out from the memory matrix 16” then “no

alarm is given.” Ex. 1006, 4:32-37. Katsumata further states that the alarm “is

given only when the detected range (D) is lower than the minimum allowable


26

limit[.]” Id. at 4:37-38 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 41.

Accordingly, generating alarms for objects only when their distances from a

vehicle are less than a minimum allowable distance, as taught by Katsumata ,








Katsumata describes that “[t]he controller 4 preferably includes a

microprocessor to execute a program and to accomplish a predetermined

objective,” thereby disclosing “a processor” and “processor executable code.” Ex.

1006, 3:61-63 (emphasis added). Further, Katsumata teaches “a memory

subsystem for storing information coupled to the processor” as recited in the claim

because the program executed by the processor must be stored in some form of


27

memory. Ex. 1003, ¶ 28.

As previously discussed, Katsumata teaches “a steering angle sensor coupled

to the processor” (See Ground 3, [21.1], supra) and “an object sensor coupled to

the processor” (See Ground 3, [21.3], supra).

Further, Katsumata teaches a “comparator 24 [that] generates no output so

that gate 22 is disabled and no alarm is given.” Id. at 4:36. Katsumata also teaches

that the digital value stored in a given location of each matrix is different from that

stored in the corresponding location of another matrix. See id. at FIG. 5. Each

value “is expressed in binary representation by the six memory cells of each

memory unit which is accessible by a selected one of X address buses 1 to 12 and a

selected one of Y address buses 1 to 10.” Id. at 4:17-21.








28





[1.1]: “determining a projected path of a vehicle based upon a current steering angle of the vehicle”

Katsumata describes a “steering angle detector 11” that “generates an analog

signal representative of the angle of steering wheel relative to the center position”

of the wheel. Ex. 1006, 3:28-30 (emphasis added). Ex. 1003, ¶ 46. Katsumata

further describes that “false signals arising from roadway obstacles such as

signposts, or guard rails which come into the detectable range of the radar device

12 when the vehicle follows a sharp turn, are disabled[.]” Id. at 4:39-43 (emphasis

added). Accordingly, detecting a steering angle from which it is determined that

the vehicle is in a turn, as taught by Katsumata, discloses “determining a projected

path of a vehicle based upon a current steering angle of the vehicle” as recited in

the claim.




29





Claims 6, 8, and 13

Claims 6, 8, 13, 33 recite identical limitations to claims previously


presented that apply to claims 6, 8, and 13.

Claim Corresponding Argument 6 See Ground 3, [26.0], supra 8 See Ground 3, [1.0]-[1.5], Ground 3 [28.0] – [28.1], supra 13 See Ground 3, [26.0], supra 33 See Ground 3, [21.1], supra.

D. GROUND 4 – Claims 27 and 34 are unpatentable over Katsumata in view of Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103







30


yaw rate sensor 20[.]” Id. at 12:10-14 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 43.




Reasons to combine Katsumata and Sugimoto


Katsumata to obtain the current steering angle of a vehicle from a yaw rate sensor,




I(C); Ex. 1003, ¶ 44.









31


modify Katsumata to include the yaw rate sensor taught by Sugimoto to improve

the reliability of the object detection system, as having both sensors would allow

the object sensing method to continue to function if one sensor failed. Ex. 1003, ¶

45. Further, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to include the yaw rate in

the steering angle calculation to obtain an indication of the actual path of the

vehicle, as the position of the steering wheel is an indication of the desired vehicle

path based on how the driver has positioned the steering wheel. Ex. 1003, ¶ 45.

The desired vehicle path based on the position of the steering wheel does not take

into account current operational factors of the vehicle, such as the slip angle of the

tires, which may cause the desired vehicle path (indicated by the position of the

steering wheel) and the actual vehicle path (indicated by the yaw rate) to differ.

Ex. 1003, ¶ 45; see also Ex. 1005, 3:46-48. The results of such a combination

would have been predictable, because such redundant sensor configurations were

well known to those of skill in the art. See Ex. 1005, 12:10-14; Ex. 1003, ¶ 45.

Claim 34



32

E. GROUND 5 – Claims 1, 6, 8, 13 are unpatentable over Katsumata in view of Wüchner under 35 U.S.C. § 103




Katsumata describes a “steering angle detector 11” that “generates an analog

signal representative of the angle of steering wheel relative to the center position”

of the wheel. Ex. 1006, 3:28-30 (emphasis added). Ex. 1003, ¶ 46. Katsumata

further describes that “false signals arising from roadway obstacles such as

signposts, or guard rails which come into the detectable range of the radar device

12 when the vehicle follows a sharp turn, are disabled[.]” Id. at 4:39-43 (emphasis

added).

Wüchner teaches that “[i]f the transverse acceleration and the speed or the

angle of turn of the steering wheel are measured, it is possible to determine the

curvature l/R of the bend (R=radius of bend).” Ex. 1004, p. 3, ll. 15-17. This

radius of curvature is a projected path of the vehicle because it represents a curve

the vehicle will follow if the steering wheel deflection (steering angle) is kept

constant. Ex. 1003, ¶ 47.


33

Accordingly, detecting a steering angle, as taught by Katsumata, in view of

the calculation of a current radius of curvature of a vehicle based on a detected

steering angle, as taught by Wüchner, discloses “determining a projected path of a

vehicle based upon a current steering angle of the vehicle” as recited in the claim.

Reasons to combine Katsumata and Wüchner


Katsumata to determine the current vehicle path based on steering angle, as taught

by the similar object sensing system of Wüchner, because the combination

amounts to the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same

way. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP § 2143 I(C); Ex. 1003,

¶ 48.

Wüchner describes “a method and apparatus by which it is possible to

control the safety distance and avoid collision with a preceding vehicle[.]” which is

similar to the collision avoidance system of Katsumata. See Ex. 1004, p. 2, ll. 4-

10; Ground 3, [21.0], supra. Wüchner teaches determining a vehicle path based on

the current steering angle. See Ex. 1004, p. 3, ll. 15-17. One of skill in the art

would have been motivated to modify Katsumata to determine the current path of

the vehicle based on its current steering angle in order to further suppress warnings

for objects outside the vehicle path. Ex. 1003, ¶ 49; see, e.g., Ex. 1004, p. 3, ll. 15-


34

17. The results of such a combination would have been predictable, because using

the current steering angle to determine vehicle path was well known to those of

skill in the art. See Ex. 1004, p. 3, ll. 15-17; Ex. 1003, ¶ 49.







Claims 6, 8, and 13

Claims 6, 8, and 13 recite identical limitations to claims previously


presented that apply to claims 6, 8, and 13.

Claim Corresponding Argument 6 See Ground 3, [26.0], supra 8 See Ground 5, [1.0]-[1.5], Ground 3 [28.0] – [28.1], supra 13 See Ground 3, [26.0], supra


35

F. GROUND 6 – Claims 7 and 14 are unpatentable over Katsumata in view of Wüchner further in view of Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Claims 7 and 14


Reasons to combine Katsumata, Wüchner and Sugimoto

See Grounds 4 and 5, supra.

G. GROUND 7 – Claims 1, 6-8, 13, 14, 21, 26-28, 33, and 34 are unpatentable over Masami under 35 U.S.C. § 102


Masami describes “an automatic warning activation device for a motor

vehicle which is suitable for use in a system for providing an effective warning to

the vehicle operator when an obstacle is detected ahead of the vehicle.” Ex. 1007,

pp. 3-4. Masami teaches the use of a “warning timing based on the concept of time

as [a] threshold value for issuing warning[s]” to driver of a vehicle. Id. at ¶ 0032;

Ex. 1003, ¶ 50. “The warning timing Wt is compared with a predicted time to

arrival Tc to an obstacle, and a warning is issued when the predicted time to arrival

Tc has become less than the warning timing Wt.” Ex. 1007, Abstract. Masami

states that the warning threshold Wt and the predicted time of arrival Tc “can be


36

corrected” based on “the lateral overlap of the obstacle to the width of the . . .

vehicle . . . along [a] predicted course[.]” Id. at ¶ 0061; Ex. 1003, ¶ 50.

Masami also states that “[t]he concept of ‘time’ can be converted into the

concept of ‘distance’ if the vehicle speed is taken into account.” Ex. 1007, ¶ 0015

(emphasis added). Masami teaches that distance LC is related to travel time to the

obstacle TC according to the following equation:

Ex. 1007, Equation 5

where V is vehicle speed, Vob is the speed of the obstacle relative to the vehicle,

and α is “an oncoming vehicle correction coefficient” ranging between 0 and 1. Id.

at ¶ 0084. At a particular instant in time, V, Vob, α, and Lc will be constant

values. Ex. 1003, ¶ 51. The travel time to the obstacle Tc, thus, is associated with

a particular distance Lc at that instant. Ex. 1003, ¶ 51. The warning threshold Wt

represents a threshold travel time to the obstacle, and is thus similarly associated

with a particular distance at that instant. Ex. 1003, ¶ 51. Therefore, for a given

particular instant, the warning threshold Wt represents a threshold distance to the

obstacle. Ex. 1003, ¶ 51. See Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 0015, 0042, 0081, 0083.

Accordingly, the method of determining a warning threshold representing a

particular distance at a given vehicle speed based on a predicted course of a


37

vehicle, as taught by Masami, discloses “a method for limiting the range of an

object sensing system such that certain objects detected by the sensing system that

are not in a vehicle path do not cause the sensing system to provide an alarm” as



As discussed at [1.0], Masami teaches warning threshold Wt based on the

time of arrival of an obstacle given the vehicle’s current speed, which is a

threshold based on distance. See Ground 7, [21.0], supra. Also, as discussed at

[21.1], Masami teaches determining a predicted course of the vehicle based on the

current steering angle. See Ground 7, [21.1], supra. Masami states that the

warning threshold Wt “can be corrected” based on “the lateral overlap of the

obstacle to the width of the . . . vehicle . . . along [a] predicted course[.]” Id. at ¶

0061 (emphasis added). Therefore, because the Wt is determined based on the

predicted course, it is also determined based on the current steering angle from

which the predicted course is calculated. Ex. 1003, ¶ 52; see Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 0034,

0061.

Accordingly, determining a distance threshold for a given vehicle speed such

that obstacles below this distance will generate a warning, as taught by Masami,

discloses “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering


38

angle” as recited in the claim.


Masami describes “detecting a distance from [a] vehicle to [an] obstacle,”

thereby disclosing “determining a current distance to a sensed object” as recited in

the claim. Ex. 1007, ¶ 0018 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 53.


As previously discussed, the warning threshold Wt represents a particular

distance to an obstacle given the current speed of the vehicle. See Ground 7,

[21.0], supra. Masami teaches that “[i]f it is determined that the predicted time to

arrival Tc” for an obstacle “is shorter than the warning timing Wt . . . [a] warning

is activated[.]” Ex. 1007, ¶ 0088 (emphasis added). For example, Masami

describes that a warning “a command for light braking [being] issued to the brake

actuator 60, the alarm 62 [being] activated, and the brake lamp 64 [being] turned

on[.]” Id. However, “[i]f the predicted time to arrival Tc is determined to be

longer than the warning timing Wt,” Masami states that “the warning is canceled.”

Id. at ¶ 0089; Ex. 1003, ¶ 54.

Accordingly, generating warnings only for obstacles with distances less than

warning threshold Wt given the current vehicle speed, as taught by Masami ,



39





Masami describes that “the yaw rate γ of the vehicle is computed from the

signal supplied by the yaw rate sensor 34,” thereby disclosing this limitation. Ex.

1007, ¶ 0076 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶27.




Masami describes that a “control unit (computer) 10 receives various input

signals, such as . . . a signal from a steering angle sensor 28 for detecting the

steering angle Θ of the steering wheel 26, [and] a signal from a laser transceiver 30

for detecting the distance Lc (or the approaching speed DLc) to [an] obstacle[.]”

Ex. 1007, ¶ 0071. Further, as computers (such as control unit 10) were well known

to include memory for storing information and to execute processor executable


40

code, the control unit (computer) 10 of Masami discloses “a memory subsystem for

storing information coupled to the processor” and “processor executable code” as

recited in the claim. Ex. 1003, ¶ 56.










Masami describes “a signal from a steering angle sensor 28 for detecting the

steering angle Θ of the steering wheel 26[.]” Ex. 1007, ¶ 0071 (emphasis added).

Masami also teaches that “detecting a cornering condition” of the vehicle “as a

means for predicting the future course of the . . . vehicle[.]” Id. at ¶ 0033. This

“cornering condition,” and thus the future course of the vehicle, is “detected from


41

the steering angle[.]” Id. at ¶ 0034; Ex. 1003, ¶ 57.

Accordingly, inferring the future course of a vehicle based on a detected

steering angle of a vehicle, as taught by Masami, discloses “determining a

projected path of a vehicle based upon a current steering angle of the vehicle” as








Claims 6-8, 13, 14, 33, and 34

Claims 6-8, 13, 14, 33, and 34 recite identical limitations to claims

previously addressed. The following table identifies the portions of the arguments

previously presented that apply to claims 6-8, 13, 14, 33, and 34.

Claim Corresponding Argument 6 See Ground 7, [26.0], supra 7 See Ground 7, [27.0], supra. 8 See Ground 7, [21.0]-[21.3], [1.2], [28.0] – [28.1], supra 13 See Ground 7, [26.0], supra


42

14 See Ground 7, [27.0], supra. 33 See Ground 7, [26.0], supra 34 See Ground 7, [27.0], supra.

H. GROUND 8 – Claims 7, 14, 27, and 34 are unpatentable over Masami in view of Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103











Reasons to combine Masami and Sugimoto


Masami to obtain the current steering angle of a vehicle from a yaw rate sensor, as

taught by the similar object sensing system of Sugimoto, because the combination

amounts to the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same


43

way. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP § 2143 I(C); Ex. 1003,

¶ 59.









modify Masami to include the yaw rate sensor taught by Sugimoto to improve the

reliability of the object detection system, as having both sensors would allow the

object sensing method to continue to function if one sensor failed. Ex. 1003, ¶ 60.

Further, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to include the yaw rate in the

steering angle calculation to obtain an indication of the actual path of the vehicle,

as the position of the steering wheel is an indication of the desired vehicle path

based on how the driver has positioned the steering wheel. Ex. 1003, ¶ 60. The

desired vehicle path based on the position of the steering wheel does not take into

account current operational factors of the vehicle, such as the slip angle of the tires,


44

which may cause the desired vehicle path (indicated by the position of the steering

wheel) and the actual vehicle path (indicated by the yaw rate) to differ. Ex. 1003, ¶

60; see also Ex. 1005, 3:46-48. The results of such a combination would have

been predictable, because such redundant sensor configurations were well known

to those of skill in the art. See Ex. 1005, 12:10-14; Ex. 1003, ¶ 60.

Claims 7, 14, and 34


I. GROUND 9 – Claim 1, 2, 6-8, 13, 14, 21, 22, 26-29, 33, and 34 are unpatentable over Yamamura in view of Sugimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103


Yamamura describes a method for “generating notifications more

appropriately through changing a notification suppression distance depending on

the travel environment.” Ex. 1008, Abstract. Yamamura states that “the driver can

be notified that the subject vehicle has neared an object” if the object is detected at

a distance from the vehicle “less than the notification suppression distance, that is,

if there is a possibility that the subject vehicle will get too close to the object.” Id.

at ¶ 0011. Yamamura also describes “identifying the current turning direction

from the steering angle” of the vehicle in order to identify which objects are in the


45

current travel path of the vehicle. Id.; Ex. 1003, ¶ 61.

Accordingly, suppressing notifications for objects that are far away and

outside a travel path of a vehicle, as taught by Yamamura, discloses “a method for

limiting the range of an object sensing system such that certain objects detected by

the sensing system that are not in a vehicle path do not cause the sensing system to

provide an alarm” as recited in the claim.


Yamamura describes a “notification suppression distance calculating means

6 for calculating a distance for which a notification event should be suppressed,

from the steering angle detected by the steering angle detecting means 5.” Ex.

1008, ¶ 0016 (emphasis added). Yamamura also describes a “notification

suppression distance changing means 10 for changing the notification suppression

distance depending on the turning direction identified by the turning direction

identifying means 11.” Id. (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 62. As previously

discussed at [1.1], the turning direction is identified based on the current steering

angle of the vehicle. See Ground 9, [21.1], supra.

Further, Yamamura describes that the turning radius of the vehicle R0 is

determined based on the following formula:

R0 = (1+ AVf 2) N L/θ


46

where Θ is the current steering angle of the vehicle. Ex. 1008, ¶ 0026. Yamamura

also teaches that the notification suppression distance (specifically the one for the

left beam in a three-beam object detection device LCL) is set according to the

following formula:

where R0 is the turning radius. Id. at ¶ 0027-0028. Thus, since the notification

suppression distance LCL is calculated based on the turning radius R0, which is

calculated based on the current steering angle Θ, it follows that the notification

suppression distance LCL is determined based partly on the current steering angle

Θ. Ex. 1003, ¶ 63.

Accordingly, determining a notification suppression distance based on the

current steering angle of a vehicle, as taught by Yamamura, discloses “determining

a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle” as recited in the

claim.


Yamamura describes a “distance detecting means” configured to “emit a

radar beam from the subject vehicle and detect a distance to an object ahead of the

subject vehicle.” Ex. 1008, claim 5 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 64. One

example distance detecting means described by Yamamura is a “radar device 21”


47

that transmits one or more beams ahead of the vehicle to detect objects in the

vehicle path. Id. at ¶ 0017. Yamamura describes that “when a stationary object

crosses the detecting range” of one of the beams, the “distance from the subject

vehicle 32 to the stationary object 51a at the detection start time is defined as

Ra[.]” Id. at ¶ 0065.


device, as taught by Yamamura, teaches “determining a current distance to a

sensed object” as recited in the claim.


As previously described, Yamamura teaches calculating a desired warning

distance (the notification suppression distance). See Ground 9, [21.2], supra.

Yamamura describes that “no notification is carried out that the subject vehicle is

near to an object when the object, relative to the subject vehicle, is further than the

notification suppression distance.” Id. at ¶ 0011 (emphasis added). Further,

Yamamura describes that if the distance to the object is “is less than the

notification suppression distance, that is, if there is a possibility that the subject

vehicle will get too close to the object, the driver can be notified that the subject

vehicle has neared [the] object.” Id. (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 65.

Accordingly, suppressing notifications events for objects with detected


48

distances from the vehicle greater than a notification suppression distance, and

allowing notifications for objects with detected distances within the notification

suppression distance, as taught by Yamamura, discloses “providing an alarm only

if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance” as recited in the claim.

Claim 22 - [22.0]: “The method of claim 21, wherein the desired warning distance is a function of a width, a length and a radius of curvature of the vehicle, wherein the radius of curvature is derived from the current steering angle.”

As previously described, the notification suppression distance described by

Yamamura teaches a desired warning distance. See Ground 9, [21.2], supra.

Yamamura describes that “the notification suppression distance” is “calculated

based on [a] turning radius R0[.]” Ex. 1008, ¶ 0027 (emphasis added). Yamamura

also states that “the turning radius R0 of the curved lane that is currently traveled is

calculated using . . . the subject vehicle speed Vf and the steering angle θ” of the

vehicle.” Id. at ¶ 0026 (emphasis added). Yamamura further describes that the

turning radius is calculated based on the “wheelbase” of the vehicle, which is the

distance between the centers of the front and rear wheels of the vehicle (i.e. a

length of the vehicle). Id.; Ex. 1003, ¶ 65. Further, calculating the turning radius

of a vehicle is necessarily a function of wheelbase (length), track (width), and

steering angle of a vehicle, so the turning radius of Yamamura is calculated based

on the width of the vehicle. Ex. 1003, ¶ 66; see also Ex. 1009, p. 17.


49

Accordingly, calculating the notification suppression distance based on the

turning radius, wheelbase, and width of the vehicle, as taught by Yamamura,

discloses “the desired warning distance is a function of a width, a length and a

radius of curvature of the vehicle, wherein the radius of curvature is derived from

the current steering angle” as recited in the claim.


As previously described at Ground 9, [21.1], supra, Yamamura teaches a

“steering angle detecting means 5 for detecting the steering angle of the subject

vehicle,” thereby disclosing that “the current steering angle is provided by a

steering angle sensor” as recited in the claim. Ex. 1008, ¶ 0016 (emphasis added).










50



Reasons to combine Yamamura and Sugimoto


Yamamura to obtain the current steering angle of a vehicle from a yaw rate sensor,




I(C); Ex. 1003, ¶ 68.









modify Yamamura to include the yaw rate sensor taught by Sugimoto to improve

the reliability of the object detection system, as having both sensors would allow


51

the object sensing method to continue to function if one sensor failed. Ex. 1003, ¶

69. Further, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to include the yaw rate in

the steering angle calculation to obtain an indication of the actual path of the

vehicle, as the position of the steering wheel is an indication of the desired vehicle

path based on how the driver has positioned the steering wheel. Ex. 1003, ¶ 69.

The desired vehicle path based on the position of the steering wheel does not take

into account current operational factors of the vehicle, such as the slip angle of the

tires, which may cause the desired vehicle path (indicated by the position of the

steering wheel) and the actual vehicle path (indicated by the yaw rate) to differ.

Ex. 1003, ¶ 69; see also Ex. 1005, 3:46-48. The results of such a combination

would have been predictable, because such redundant sensor configurations were

well known to those of skill in the art. See Ex. 1005, 12:10-14; Ex. 1003, ¶ 69.




Yamamura describes “an information processing circuit 24 for generating a


52

notification signal by carrying out a notification event evaluation depending on the

subject vehicle speed Vf and the steering angle θ,” thereby disclosing “a

processor.” Ex. 1008, ¶ 0017 (emphasis added); See Ex. 1003, ¶ 70. Further, the

information processing circuit of Yamamura executes based on “processor

executable code,” as this term is broad enough to encompass any logic, whether

encoded in hardware or software, as no medium is recited in the claim for storing

the code. See Ex. 1003, ¶ 70.

Yamamura describes that “the distance data for the last three times, recorded

up until this point, are reset, and new distance data R are stored in memory,”

thereby disclosing “a memory subsystem for storing information coupled to the

processor.” Ex. 1008, ¶ 0035 (emphasis added); See Ex. 1003, ¶ 71.

Yamamura teaches that “the steering angle θ is read in from the steering

angle sensor 23,” thereby disclosing “a steering angle sensor coupled to the

processor.” Ex. 1008, ¶ 0050 (emphasis added).

Yamamura describes “distance detecting means” configured to “emit a radar

beam from the subject vehicle and detect a distance to an object ahead of the

subject vehicle,” thereby disclosing “an object sensor coupled to the processor.”

Ex. 1008, claim 5 (emphasis added); See Ex. 1003, ¶ 64.


53












Yamamura teaches a “steering angle detecting means 5 for detecting the

steering angle of the subject vehicle.” Ex. 1008, ¶ 0016 (emphasis added).

Yamamura also describes a “turning direction identifying means 11 for identifying

the current turning direction from the steering angle detected by the steering angle

detecting means 5.” Id. The “turning radius R0 of the curved lane that is currently


54

traveled” by the vehicle is then calculated “from the subject vehicle speed Vf and

the steering angle θ.” Id. at ¶ 0026. The turning radius calculated from the vehicle

speed and steering angle in Yamamura is a projected “turning travel path” of the

vehicle. Id. at ¶ 0012; Ex. 1003, ¶ 72.

Accordingly, identifying a turning travel path for a vehicle based on a

detected steering angle of the vehicle, as taught by Yamamura, discloses

“determining a projected path of a vehicle based upon a current steering angle of

the vehicle” as recited in the claim.







Claims 2, 6-9, 13, 14, 29, 33 and 34

Claims 2, 6-9, 13, 14, 29, 33 and 34 recite identical limitations to claims

previously addressed. The following table identifies the portions of the arguments

previously presented that apply to claims 2, 6-9, 13, 14, 29, 33 and 34.


55

Claim Corresponding Argument 2 See Ground 9, [22.0], supra 6 See Ground 9, [26.0], supra 7 See Ground 9, [27.0], supra. 8 See Ground 9, [1.0] – [1.5], [28.0] – [28.1], supra 9 See Ground 9, [22.0], supra 13 See Ground 9, [26.0], supra 14 See Ground 9, [27.0], supra. 29 See Ground 9, [22.0], supra 33 See Ground 9, [26.0], supra 34 See Ground 9, [27.0], supra.

VI. CONCLUSION

The cited prior art reference(s) identified in this Petition contain pertinent

technological teachings (both cited and uncited), either explicitly or inherently

disclosed, which were not previously considered in the manner presented herein, or

relied upon on the record during original examination of the ‘486 Patent. In sum,

these references provide new, non-cumulative technological teachings which

indicate a reasonable likelihood of success as to Petitioner’s assertion that the

Challenged Claims of the ‘486 Patent are not patentable pursuant to the Grounds

presented in this Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests institution

of an IPR for those claims of the ‘486 Patent for each of the grounds presented

herein.


56

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 3, 2015 /Joshua A. Griswold/

Joshua A. Griswold, Reg. No. 46,310 Fish & Richardson P.C. P.O. Box 1022 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022 T: 214-292-4034 F: (877) 769-7945 Attorneys for Petitioner


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned

certifies that on April 3, 2015, a complete and entire copy of this Petition for Inter

Partes Review and all supporting exhibits were provided by email to the Patent

Owner by serving the correspondence address of record as follows:

Ascenda Law Group, PC 333 W San Carlos St. Suite 200

San Jose CA 95110

Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Tarek Fahmi of the Ascenda firm consented to electronic service.

/Edward G. Faeth/____________ Edward G. Faeth Fish & Richardson P.C. 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (202) 626-6420

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK...