in the united states patent and trademark...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
ii
VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 55
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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”)
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
District Court for the Central District of California, filed on April 23, 2014,
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
District Court for the Central District of California, filed on April 1, 2014,
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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).
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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]-
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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;
See Ground 1, [21.2], supra.
[28.3] – “determining a current distance to a sensed object as derived from the object sensor;
See Ground 1, [21.3], supra.
[28.4] – “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance.
See Ground 1, [21.4], supra.
Claim 1 - [1.0]: “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”
See Ground 1, [21.0], supra.
[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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
[1.2]: “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle”
See Ground 1, [21.1], supra.
[1.3]: “determining a current distance to a sensed object”
See Ground 1, [21.2], supra.
[1.4]: “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance”
See Ground 1, [21.3], supra.
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Claim 27 - [27.0]: “The method of claim 21, wherein the current steering angle is provided by a yaw rate sensor.”
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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,
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
See Ground 2, [27.0], supra.
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.
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
[21.1]: “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle”
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,
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
[21.2]: “determining a current distance to a sensed object”
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.
Accordingly, detecting a distance from a vehicle to an object using a radar
device, as taught by Katsumata, 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”
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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 ,
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.”
See Ground 3, [21.1], supra.
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 3, [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”
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
[28.2] – “determining a projected path of a vehicle using a current steering angle of the vehicle as derived from the steering angle sensor”
See Ground 3, [21.1], supra.
[28.3] – “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle;
See Ground 3, [21.2], supra.
[28.4] – “determining a current distance to a sensed object as derived from the object sensor;
See Ground 3, [21.3], supra.
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
28
[28.5] – “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance.
See Ground 3, [21.4], supra.
Claim 1 - [1.0]: “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”
See Ground 3, [21.0], supra.
[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.
[1.2]: “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle”
See Ground 3, [21.1], supra.
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
29
[1.3]: “determining a current distance to a sensed object”
See Ground 3, [21.2], supra.
[1.4]: “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance”
See Ground 3, [21.3], supra.
Claims 6, 8, and 13
Claims 6, 8, 13, 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, 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
Claim 27 - [27.0]: “The method of claim 21, wherein the current steering angle is provided by a yaw rate sensor.”
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
30
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, ¶ 43.
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 Katsumata and Sugimoto
One of skill in the art would have modified the object sensing system of
Katsumata 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 way. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP § 2143
I(C); Ex. 1003, ¶ 44.
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 3, [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-
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
31
60, 12:10-14; Ex. 1003, ¶ 45. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to
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
See Ground 4, [27.0], supra.
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
32
E. GROUND 5 – Claims 1, 6, 8, 13 are unpatentable over Katsumata in view of Wüchner under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 1 - [1.0]: “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”
See Ground 3, [21.0], supra.
[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).
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.
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
One of skill in the art would have modified the object sensing system of
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-
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
[1.2]: “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle”
See Ground 3, [21.1], supra.
[1.3]: “determining a current distance to a sensed object”
See Ground 3, [21.2], supra.
[1.4]: “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance”
See Ground 3, [21.3], supra.
Claims 6, 8, and 13
Claims 6, 8, and 13 recite identical limitations to claims previously
addressed. The following table identifies the portions of the arguments 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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
See Ground 4, [27.0], supra.
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
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”
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
recited in the claim.
[21.1]: “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle”
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
38
angle” as recited in the claim.
[21.2]: “determining a current distance to a sensed object”
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.
[21.3]: “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance”
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 ,
discloses “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
39
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.”
See Ground 7, [21.1], supra.
Claim 27 - [27.0]: “The method of claim 21, wherein the current steering angle is provided by a yaw rate sensor.”
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.
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 7, [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”
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
[28.2] – “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle;
See Ground 7, [21.2], supra.
[28.3] – “determining a current distance to a sensed object as derived from the object sensor;
See Ground 7, [21.3], supra.
[28.4] – “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance.
See Ground 7, [21.4], supra.
Claim 1 - [1.0]: “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”
See Ground 7, [21.0], supra.
[1.1] – “determining a projected path of a vehicle using a current steering angle of the vehicle as derived from the steering angle sensor”
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
recited in the claim.
[1.2]: “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle”
See Ground 7, [21.1], supra.
[1.3]: “determining a current distance to a sensed object”
See Ground 7, [21.2], supra.
[1.4]: “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance”
See Ground 7, [21.3], supra.
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Claim 27 - [27.0]: “The method of claim 21, wherein the current steering angle is provided by a yaw rate sensor.”
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, ¶ 58.
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 Masami and Sugimoto
One of skill in the art would have modified the object sensing system of
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
43
way. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP § 2143 I(C); Ex. 1003,
¶ 59.
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 7, [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, ¶ 60. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to
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,
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
See Ground 7, [27.0], supra.
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
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”
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
[21.1]: “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle”
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
[21.2]: “determining a current distance to a sensed object”
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”
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
Accordingly, detecting a distance from a vehicle to an object using a radar
device, as taught by Yamamura, 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 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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
Claim 26 - [26.0]: “The method of claim 21, wherein the current steering angle is provided by a steering angle sensor.”
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).
Claim 27 - [27.0]: “The method of claim 21, wherein the current steering angle is provided by a yaw rate sensor.”
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, ¶ 27.
Accordingly, the yaw rate sensor of Sugimoto that is used to calculate the
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
50
current steering angle teaches that “the current steering angle is provided by a yaw
rate sensor” as recited in the claim.
Reasons to combine Yamamura and Sugimoto
One of skill in the art would have modified the object sensing system of
Yamamura 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 way. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP § 2143
I(C); Ex. 1003, ¶ 68.
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 9, [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, ¶ 69. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
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 9, [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”
Yamamura describes “an information processing circuit 24 for generating a
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
53
[28.2] – “determining a projected path of a vehicle using a current steering angle of the vehicle as derived from the steering angle sensor”
See Ground 9, [21.1], supra.
[28.3] – “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle;
See Ground 9, [21.2], supra.
[28.4] – “determining a current distance to a sensed object as derived from the object sensor;
See Ground 9, [21.3], supra.
[28.5] – “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance.
See Ground 9, [21.4], supra.
Claim 1 - [1.0]: “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”
See Ground 9, [21.0], supra.
[1.1]: “determining a projected path of a vehicle based upon a current steering angle of the vehicle”
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
[1.2]: “determining a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle”
See Ground 9, [21.1], supra.
[1.3]: “determining a current distance to a sensed object”
See Ground 9, [21.2], supra.
[1.4]: “providing an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance”
See Ground 9, [21.3], supra.
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.
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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.
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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
Attorney Docket No 15625-0021IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486
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