PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO...

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

__________________________________________________________________

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.

Petitioner

Patent No. 5,714,927 Issue Date: February 3, 1998

Title: METHOD OF IMPROVING ZONE OF COVERAGE RESPONSE OF AUTOMOTIVE RADAR

__________________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,714,927

PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104

Case No. IPR2015-00968 __________________________________________________________________

-i-

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ..................................................................... 1

II. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ....................................................... 2

III. Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)) and Relief Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) ......................................................................... 2

A. The ’927 Patent ............................................................................................... 3

B. Prosecution History of the ’927 Patent ....................................................... 5

C. Patents and Printed Publications Relied On ............................................... 7

D. Statutory Grounds for Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2)) .............. 7

E. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ........................................... 8

IV. How Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5)) ........ 8

A. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are Obvious in View of the combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki .......................................................................... 8

1. Bernhard ............................................................................................. 10

2. Pakett .................................................................................................. 12

3. Fujiki ................................................................................................... 13

4. The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki ....................... 16

V. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 40

-ii-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes

35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................................... 7

35 U.S.C. § 103........................................................................................................................ 2

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................................. 8, 39

35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................................. 39

Rules

37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................................. 8

37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .............................................................................................................. 2

37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ................................................................................................... 7

37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3) ................................................................................................... 2

37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ......................................................................................................... 8

37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ................................................................................................... 8

37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) ........................................................................................................... 2

37 C.F.R. § 42.8....................................................................................................................... 1

-iii-

LISTING OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 to Henderson et al. Exhibit 1002 Declaration of Dr. David M. Bevly Exhibit 1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,521,579 to Bernhard Exhibit 1004 U.K. Patent Application Publication No. GB 2 277 653 to

Bernhard Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,325,096 to Pakett Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 4,053,026 to Fujiki et al.

1

I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) Real Party-in-Interest:

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA”), which is a subsidiary of

Volkswagen AG.

Related Matters:

The following judicial matters may affect, or may be affected by, a decision in this

inter partes review:

Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-03113 (C.D.

Cal.), naming as defendants VWGoA, d/b/a Audi of America, Inc., and Bentley

Motors, Inc., which is a subsidiary of VWGoA;

Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.);

Signal IP, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al., No. 2:14-cv-03111 (C.D. Cal.);

Signal IP, Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-03108 (C.D.

Cal.);

Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America, Inc. No. 2:14-cv-02457 (C.D. Cal.);

Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00491 (C.D. Cal.);

Signal IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-03109 (C.D. Cal.);

Signal IP, Inc., v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00497 (C.D. Cal.);

Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02962 (C.D. Cal.);

Signal IP, Inc. v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-03114 (C.D. Cal.);

Signal IP, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02963 (C.D. Cal.);

2

Signal IP, Inc. v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-03107 (C.D. Cal.);

Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-03105 (C.D. Cal);

Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:14-cv-03106 (C.D. Cal.);

Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02459 (C.D. Cal.);

Signal IP, Inc. v. Chrysler Group LLC, No. 2:14-cv-13864 (E.D. Mich.); and

Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:14-cv-13729 (E.D. Mich.).

Counsel:

Lead Counsel: Michael J. Lennon, Reg. No. 26,562

Backup Counsel: Clifford A. Ulrich, Reg. No. 42,194; Michelle Carniaux, Reg. No. 36,098

Electronic Service: [email protected]

Post and Delivery: Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, One Broadway, New York NY 10004.

Telephone: 212-425-7200 Facsimile: 212-425-5288

II. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) Petitioner certifies that U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 (“the ’927 patent,” Ex. 1001),

for which review is sought, is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not

barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims

on the grounds identified in this petition.

III. Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)) and Relief Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))

Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’927 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103,

and cancelation of those claims is requested.

3

A. The ’927 Patent The ’927 patent issued on February 3, 1998 from U.S. Patent Application No.

08/762,090 (“the ’090 application”), filed December 9, 1996. The ’927 patent includes

12 claims, of which only claim 1 is independent. Independent claim 1 is reproduced

below.

1. In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to detect a

target vehicle in a blind spot of the host vehicle driver, a method of

improving the perceived zone of coverage response of automotive radar

comprising the steps of:

determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles;

selecting a variable sustain time as a function of relative vehicle

speed;

detecting target vehicle presence and producing an alert command;

activating an alert signal in response to the alert command;

at the end of the alert command, determining whether the alert signal

was active for a threshold time; and

if the alert signal was active for the threshold time, sustaining the

alert signal for the variable sustain time, wherein the zone of coverage

appears to increase according to the variable sustain time.

The ’927 patent describes detection of objects in a blind spot of a host vehicle

driver, and relates to methods of controlling alarm or alert indicators in automotive

radar systems when such objects are detected. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 7-10. The ’927

patent describes, in its background, problems associated with known radar-based near

object detection systems: false alarms due to erroneous radar reflections, signal

4

dropout due to variable reflectivity of a target, and signal flicker due to reflective field

strength quickly dropping to zero. Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 23-col. 2, l. 6. In purporting to

address these problems, the ’927 patent describes either delaying a signal turn-off or

applying a longer sustain time for keeping a signal on. If an alert activation signal is

active for less than a threshold time, the system delays the signal turn-off for a

minimal hold time; if the alert time is equal to or greater than the threshold, a longer

sustain time is applied to hold the signal on. Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 16-34. The threshold

time may vary inversely with the vehicle speed, the hold time may vary with the

vehicle speed, and the sustain time may vary with the absolute value of the relative

velocity between the host vehicle and a target vehicle. Id.

Fig. 1 (reproduced below) illustrates motor vehicle 10, mirror 12, side detection

system 16, and side detection radar antennae 14.

Fig. 3b shows a radar return signal strength from a target vehicle 36 shown in Fig.

3a, indicating the radar signal reflected from the front and rear edges of the target

vehicle, and the wheel wells of the target vehicle. Fig. 3c shows the alert commands

that result from the return signal strength, including several gaps in the alert from the

5

weak signal strength due to, e.g., the reduced reflectivity at the wheel wells. Fig. 3d

shows the sustained alert, providing a constant alert signal.

B. Prosecution History of the ’927 Patent The ’090 application was filed with the same 12 claims that issued in the ’927

patent. During prosecution, in the Notice of Allowance issued July 22, 1997, the

Examiner identified several prior art documents as pertinent to the method claimed in

the ’927 patent, indicating that systems for detecting objects around a vehicle and

controlling vehicle warning systems were described in the prior art. U.S. Patent No.

5,521,579 (“Bernhard,” Ex. 1003) was among those prior art documents:

The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered

pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.

Matsumoto discloses a warning system for vehicles.

6

Gray discloses a blindzone signal indicator.

Yamamoto discloses a radar apparatus for a vehicle.

Ben Lulu discloses a vehicle alarm system.

Bernhard discloses a method for providing guiding assistance for a

vehicle in changing lane.

In the Notice of Allowance, in the context of this prior art, the Examiner provided

the following statement of reasons for allowance:

The prior art cited herein fails to disclose a method of improving the

perceived zone of coverage response of automotive radar comprising the

steps of selecting a variable sustain time as a function of relative vehicle

speed, and sustaining an alert signal for the variable sustain time if the

alert signal was active for a threshold time.

Thus, the Examiner considered much of the claimed method of the ’927 patent

(i.e., determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles, detecting target

vehicle presence and producing an alert command, activating an alert signal in

response to the alert command, at the end of the alert command, and determining

whether the alert signal was active for a threshold time) to be disclosed in the prior

art, including Bernhard, and identified the following limitations of claim 1 as the basis

for allowance of the ’927 patent: “selecting a variable sustain time as a function of

relative vehicle speed;” and “if the alert signal was active for the threshold time,

sustaining the alert signal for the variable sustain time.”

7

C. Patents and Printed Publications Relied On U.S. Patent No. 5,521,579, assigned on its face to Mercedes-Benz AG

(“Bernhard,” Ex. 1003), issued on May 28, 1996, from U.S. Patent Application No.

08/233,761, filed April 26, 1994, constitutes prior art against the ’927 patent under 35

U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e). U.K. Patent Application Publication No. GB 2 277 653

(“Bernhard GB,” Ex. 1004), which is a foreign counterpart to Bernhard, published on

November 2, 1994, constitutes prior art against the ’927 patent under 35 U.S.C. §

102(b).

U.S. Patent No. 5,325,096, assigned on its face to Vorad Safety Systems, Inc.

(“Pakett,” Ex. 1005), issued on June 28, 1994, constitutes prior art against the ’927

patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

U.S. Patent No. 4,053,026, assigned on its face to Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

(“Fujiki,” Ex. 1006), issued on October 11, 1977, constitutes prior art against the ’927

patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

D. Statutory Grounds for Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2)) Cancelation of claims 1, 2, and 6 is requested on the following grounds, each of

which demonstrates that the challenged claims are unpatentable, and that there is a

reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the challenged claims.

8

A. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the

combination of Bernhard1, Pakett, and Fujiki

E. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) Generally, the claim terms in an unexpired patent should be given their broadest

reasonable construction in view of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The claim

terms are generally presumed to take on their ordinary and customary meaning. As the

’927 patent is unexpired, its claims should be given their broadest reasonable

construction. The specification of the ’927 patent does not present any special

definition for any claim term, and the prosecution history of the ’927 patent does not

include any claim construction arguments.

IV. How Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5)) A. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are Obvious in View of the combination of Bernhard,

Pakett, and Fujiki Claims 1, 2, and 6 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combination

of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki. As noted above, Bernhard was one of the prior art

documents describing a radar-based object detection system for a vehicle that the

Examiner cited during the original prosecution of the ’927 patent, in which the

1 Bernhard GB, which constitutes prior art to the ’927 patent under 35 U.S.C. §

102(b), provides substantially the same teachings as Bernhard discussed in this

Petition. Citations to Bernhard (Ex. 1003) in this Petition are accompanied by the

corresponding citations to Bernhard GB (Ex. 1004).

9

Examiner considered several of the claim limitations of the ’927 patent to be disclosed

by the prior art (i.e., determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles,

detecting target vehicle presence and producing an alert command, activating an alert

signal in response to the alert command, at the end of the alert command, and

determining whether the alert signal was active for a threshold time). Neither Pakett

nor Fujiki was cited by the Examiner or the Applicants during prosecution of the ’927

patent.

As described below, Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki each relate to radar-based

obstacle detection systems used to determine the presence of a dangerous obstacle in

the travel path of the vehicle, and to provide a safety measure in response. Bernhard

describes a guidance system for a motor vehicle having forward, rear, and blind spot

radar devices used to assist in changing lanes. The radar system detects the presence

of objects traveling throughout the vicinity of the driver’s vehicle, and measures the

relative speed of those objects to determine whether a lane change is possible.

Pakett describes a blind spot detection system using radar to detect an obstacle in

the vehicle’s blind spot, using a low pass filter to screen out high frequency signals

(i.e., signals of short duration), and, if the signal persists for a “persistence period,”

alerting the driver to the presence of the obstacle. Pakett then describes sustaining the

warning for at least one second after the end of the signal.

Fujiki describes a radar system for detecting objects in front of the vehicle and

controlling an automatic braking system. When an obstacle is detected, the system

10

alerts the driver and sets the brake. If no obstacle is detected, the system checks

whether the brake was already set, and if so, sustains the brake for a time period set as

a function of the relative velocity between the vehicle and the obstacle. The sustained

braking time prevents “stop starting braking” caused by brief, and possibly flawed,

breaks in the radar signal.

Accordingly, the prior art considered by the Examiner during prosecution (i.e.,

Bernhard) describes the basic method claimed in the ’927 patent, and the additional

prior art identified in this petition (Pakett and Fujiki) describes the claim limitations

that the Examiner identified as the basis for allowance of the ’927 patent.

1. Bernhard Bernhard teaches a radar-based system for detecting objects around the vehicle. In

particular, as illustrated in Fig. 7, Bernhard teaches radar devices for detecting objects

in front of the vehicle (distance radar device AR) and in the blind spot of the vehicle

(blind-spot radar device TWR), used in a computer-assisted guidance system for

assisting a motor vehicle operator in changing lanes. Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll. 34-43 (“In

FIG. 7, it can be seen that the driver’s own vehicle 0 has a rear-mounted device (HR)

for monitoring the space 23 behind in the current lane 8, a distance radar device (AR)

for monitoring the space 24 in front in the current lane 8, a blind-spot radar device

(TWR) for monitoring the space 21 behind in the adjacent target lane 9, and a

forward-directed radar device (VR) for monitoring the space 22 in front in the target

lane 9. These devices detect the presence of objects in the respective area covered by

11

them, and also permit the distance from the object to be determined.”); see also Ex.

1004, p. 7; Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. David M. Bevly, ¶ 9. As described by

Bernhard, the system “largely relieves the driver of the task of observing the

surroundings and estimating distances and speeds.” Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 3-8; see also Ex.

1004, pp. 2-3.

In further reference to Fig 7, Bernhard describes these radar devices detecting the

presence of objects 1 to 4, determining the distance to those objects, and measuring

the relative speed of those objects in comparison with the driver’s vehicle 0. Ex. 1003,

col. 3, ll. 40-43, col. 4, ll. 35-40; see also Ex. 1004, pp. 7, 9; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 10-11. The

driver’s vehicle speed v0 is measured using a speedometer. Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 35-40;

see also Ex. 1004, p. 9; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 10-11.

12

Using this data from the radar devices, the system described by Bernhard

determines whether a lane change is possible. If the system determines that the

distance and relative speeds of the object prevent the possibility of a lane change, an

“instruction to stay in lane is issued to the driver.” Ex. 1003, col. 5, l. 44-col. 6, l. 22;

see also Ex. 1004, pp. 11-12; Ex. 1002, ¶ 12.

2. Pakett Pakett teaches a blind spot detection system for alerting the vehicle operator of the

presence of an obstacle in the vehicle’s blind spot. Ex. 1005, Abstract (“A radar

system for sensing the presence of obstacles in a vehicle’s ‘blind spots’ and generating

a signal to the vehicle operator indicative of the presence of such an obstacle.”).

Pakett describes a radar system for detecting obstacles in the vehicle’s blind spot, and

measuring relative speed between the two vehicles by sensing Doppler shift. If the

measured obstacle is traveling at about the same speed and in about the same

direction as the vehicle, an alarm is generated. Ex. 1005, col. 2, ll. 8-13 (“Only

obstacles that are traveling at approximately the same speed and direction as the

vehicle are considered to be of interest. Therefore, it is only these obstacles that will

cause the blind spot sensor to generate an indication that an obstacle is present in the

blind spot.”). A CPU controls an indicator circuit for alerting the driver. Ex. 1005, col.

3, ll. 58-63 (“The signal processing section 11 is coupled to a central processing unit

(CPU) 31 that determines whether the output of the signal processing section 11

13

represents an obstacle of interest in the blind spot. The CPU 31 is coupled to an

indicator circuit 41 which presents warnings to the vehicle operator.”). Ex. 1002, ¶ 13.

Pakett also describes low pass filter 27, which filters out signals of high frequency,

i.e., signals of short duration, and allows signals of lower frequency, i.e., signals having

a longer duration, to pass through the filter. Ex. 1005, col. 5, ll. 11-31; Ex. 1002, ¶ 14.

The low pass filter 27 therefore eliminates signals that appear for only a short time,

and allows signals that appear for a minimum amount of time, or threshold time. Ex.

1002, ¶ 14. These signals of longer duration are checked to see whether they persist

for a “persistence period,” described as “the amount of time that it takes the vehicle

upon which the radar system in [sic] mounted to travel 15 feet.” Ex. 1005, col. 6, ll.

43-56. Upon detecting an obstacle in the blind spot, the system taught by Pakett waits

the persistence period before sending any warnings to the driver. Warnings are sent to

the driver only if the detection of the object persists, i.e., the object is still detected

within one second after the end of the persistence period, or within two seconds after

a prior warning. Ex. 1005, col. 6, ll. 43-56. Further, in the system described in Pakett,

if a warning is presently being displayed, the system sustains the warning unless it has

been displayed for more than one second without being reactivated. Ex. 1005, col. 7,

l. 64-col. 8, l. 5; Fig. 3A; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 13-15.

3. Fujiki Fujiki describes a radar system for detecting obstacles in the vicinity of a vehicle,

and using the information from the radar system to control automatic braking. Ex.

14

1006, col. 1, ll. 13-16 (“As is well known a vehicle equipped with a radar type

automatic braking system traversing a road emits a radar signal in order to detect

obstacles (moving or otherwise) ahead of the vehicle.”). In the automatic braking

system, the braking of a vehicle is maintained even if the radar signal momentarily

indicates that braking is not required. Ex. 1006, Abstract (“Braking of a vehicle is

prolonged by an improved logic circuit for a time or a distance to overcome stop

starting braking due to momentary ‘safe’ signals caused by multiple reflection of a

radar signal.”).

According to Fujiki, the described system determines the relative speed of the host

and target vehicles, and compares the relative speed and distance between the vehicles

with a curve illustrated in Fig. 3B (reproduced below). The curve indicates when

braking must be initiated to maintain a safe distance between the vehicles. Ex. 1006,

col. 2, ll. 7-13 (“FIG. 3B is a graph showing a curve wherein the relative velocity of

the vehicle with respect to the object is plotted against the distance between the

vehicle and the object, which denotes the distance from the object for a given velocity

at which braking must be initiated in order to reduce the relative velocity

therebetween to zero.”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 16.

15

Fig. 8 (reproduced below) shows the decision logic for maintaining the automatic

brake. If the system determines that the relative speed and distance between the

vehicles does not necessitate a braking action, at Stage 3, the system determines

whether the brake was just previously on. Ex. 1006, col. 5, ll. 46-57. If so, the brake is

sustained for “a period of time.” Ex. 1006, col. 5, ll. 59-61. As described by Fujiki, the

period of time may be a function of the relative velocity of the vehicles. Ex. 1006, col.

5, ll. 59-67.

If YES the program proceeds to stage 4 where at the braking system is

further activated for a period of time. There are preferably at least three

possible periods, i.e., t1, t2, or t3, where t1 is a preselected time (only), t2 is

a function of a predetermined distance D and the actual velocity of the

vehicle Va and t3 is a function of the pre-selected distance D and the

relative velocity dR/dt just prior [sic] the danger signal disappearing, for

which the additional braking will take place.

16

Thus, if the system determines that brakes are required and sets the brakes, and

then determines that brakes are no longer required, the system sustains the brakes for

a variable period of time based on the relative vehicle speed, as a safety measure. Ex.

1002, ¶¶ 16-18.

4. The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki The combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki renders obvious claims 1, 2, and

6. The combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki teaches all of the limitations of

claims 1, 2, and 6, including the limitations that were the basis for the Examiner’s

allowance of the ’927 patent, i.e., “selecting a variable sustain time as a function of

17

relative vehicle speed” and “if the alert signal was active for the threshold time,

sustaining the alert signal for the variable sustain time.” Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 7-8.

In its preamble, claim 1 recites “[i]n a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses

radar to detect a target vehicle in blind spot of the host vehicle driver, a method of

improving the perceived zone of coverage response of automotive radar.” Bernhard

describes a radar-based object detection system for a motor vehicle having forward,

rearward, and side radar devices to detect target vehicles in the vicinity of the driver’s

vehicle and assist in guiding the vehicle in changing lanes. Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll. 33-43;

see also Ex. 1004, p. 7; Ex. 1002, ¶ 9. Pakett describes a smart blind spot sensor, using

radar to sense the presence of obstacles in a vehicle’s blind spot. Ex. 1005, Abstract;

Ex. 1002, ¶ 13. Fujiki also describes a radar-based obstacle detection system, for

detecting obstacles ahead of the vehicle. Ex. 1006, col. 1, ll. 13-16; Ex. 1002, ¶ 16.

According to the ’927 patent, sustaining an alert signal for a sustain time

“improves the zone of coverage as perceived by the vehicle driver.” See Ex. 1001, col.

2, ll. 15-34; see also Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 8-21. Because Pakett and Fujiki each describe a

sustained alert signal, as described below, they provide for “improving the perceived

zone of coverage response of automotive radar,” as recited in of claim 1. Ex. 1002, ¶¶

13-18.

Claim 1 recites “determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles.”

Bernhard describes using the various radar devices about the driver’s vehicle to

determine the relative speed of objects 1 to 4, compared to the driver’s vehicle 0, and

18

to determine the speed of the driver’s vehicle v0 using a speedometer. Ex. 1003, col.

4, ll. 35-40; see also Ex. 1004, p. 9; Ex. 1002, ¶ 10. Pakett describes a radar system

measuring the relative speed between the vehicle and an obstacle by sensing Doppler

shift, and determining whether an alarm condition exists based on the measured

relative speed. Ex. 1005, col. 2, ll. 8-13; col. 5, ll. 11-31 (“Since the purpose of the

present invention is to determine whether an obstacle which would otherwise go

undetected by the operator is present in a blind spot of the vehicle, those obstacles

which move rapidly through the blind spot are not of interest.”); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 13-14.

Fujiki discloses determining distance and relative velocity (i.e., speed and direction)

between the vehicle and an obstacle, as reflected in Figs. 3A and 3B, to determine

whether braking action is required. Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 35-68 (“The relative velocity

between the vehicle and the object is denoted by (dR/dt)1.”), col. 5, ll. 46-57; see also,

Ex. 1002, ¶ 16.

Claim 1 further recites “selecting a variable sustain time as a function of relative

vehicle speed.” Pakett describes sustaining the warning indicator for at least one

second after its activation. Ex. 1005, col 7, l. 64-col. 8, l. 5 (“If the warning has been

on display for more than one second without being reactivated (STEP 318), the CPU

31 causes the warning to cease being displayed (STEP 319).”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 13. Fujiki

describes sustaining a braking action for a variable period of time, and determining

the time for sustaining the braking action as a function of the relative velocity

19

(“dR/dt”) between the vehicles, so that the sustain time varies as a function of relative

velocity.

At stage 3 it is determined if the brake system had just been activated or

not. If NO (i.e., the braking system had not just been activated) the

program returns to START. If YES the program proceeds to stage 4

where at the braking system is further activated for a period of time.

There are preferably at least three possible periods, i.e., t1, t2, or t3, where

t1 is a preselected time (only), t2 is a function of a predetermined distance

D and the actual velocity of the vehicle Va and t3 is a function of the

pre-selected distance D and the relative velocity dR/dt just prior

[sic] the danger signal disappearing, for which the additional

braking will take place.

Ex. 1006, col. 5, ll. 56-67 (emphasis added), Fig. 8; see also, Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 16-18.

Claim 1 also recites “detecting target vehicle presence and producing an alert

command,” and “activating an alert signal in response to the alert command.”

Bernhard describes radar devices detecting the presence of objects around the driver’s

vehicle, processing the raw data from the radar, and instructing the driver whether a

lane change is possible. Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll. 40-43, col. 4, ll. 40-44, col. 5, l. 44-col. 6, l.

22; see also Ex. 1004, pp. 7, 9, 11-12; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 11-12. Pakett describes a square

wave generator which generates a square wave signal that alternates between 0 and 5

volts whenever an obstacle has been detected, and a CPU controlling an indicator

circuit to alert the driver to the obstacle via a red indicator or an audible sound. Ex.

1005, col. 5, ll. 32-39, col. 3, ll. 58-63, col. 6, ll. 50-55; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 13-15. Similarly,

20

Fujiki describes determining whether a collision is sensed to be imminent, and if so,

feeding a signal to the brake actuator 5 to apply the brakes 6. Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 25-34

(“If a collision is sensed to be imminent a signal is generated and fed to the brake

actuator 5 which in turn applies the brakes 6 to decelerate the vehicle.”), col. 5, ll. 46-

52; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 16-18.2

Finally, claim 1 recites “at the end of the alert command, determining whether the

alert signal was active for a threshold time,” and “if the alert signal was active for the

threshold time, sustaining the alert signal for the variable sustain time, wherein the

zone of coverage appears to increase according to the variable sustain time.” In

Pakett, after an obstacle is first detected, a low pass filter 27 removes high-frequency

signals (i.e., those signals having only a short duration). Ex. 1005, col. 5, ll. 11-31. To

pass through the low pass filter 27, the signals must be of low frequency (i.e., the

signals must be maintained for a threshold time). These signals of longer duration,

which appear for at least the threshold time to pass through the low pass filter 27, are

2 The ’927 patent describes the alert signal as a signal between a microprocessor and

another device. Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 26-27 (“An output port of the microprocessor

carries an alert signal to the alert signal devices.”). Thus, an “information signal[]”

described by Fujiki, such as the signal fed to the brake actuator 5, constitutes “an alert

signal” as claimed in the ’927 patent.

21

used by the system described in Pakett. Ex. 1002, ¶ 14. The system then waits a

“persistence period” of time before sending a warning to the driver. Ex. 1005, col. 6,

ll. 46-55; Ex. 1002, ¶ 13. Further, in the system described by Pakett, if a warning is

presently being displayed, a CPU 31 determines how long it has been since it was last

activated, and sustains the warning for at least one second. Ex. 1005, col. 7, l. 64-col.

8, l. 5, Fig. 3A; see also, Ex. 1002, ¶ 13. As similarly described by the zone extensions

56 and 64 of Fig. 4 of the ’927 patent, the zone of coverage in the system taught by

Pakett appears to increase, since the warning is sustained even after its last activation.

See, Ex. 1002, ¶ 15. In Fujiki, as shown in Fig. 8, if the equations are satisfied (stage 1),

a danger signal appears at the output of comparator 13 of Fig. 4 (stage 2). Ex. 1006,

col. 5, ll. 47-52. The equations are again checked (stage 1), and if not satisfied, the

system checks whether the brake was already on (stage 3). Ex. 1006, col. 5, ll. 56-57. If

the brake was already on (stage 3), the braking is sustained for a variable amount of

time (e.g., the time period can be the function of distance and the relative velocity

(velocity being speed with direction)). Ex. 1006, col. 5, ll. 59-67. As similarly described

by the zone extensions 56 and 64 of Fig. 4 of the ’927 patent, the zone of coverage of

the system described by Fujiki would correspondingly appear to increase since the

braking is sustained even though an object/vehicle was momentarily not detected, and

the danger signal momentarily dropped. See, Ex. 1002, ¶ 18.

Regarding claim 2, which requires that “the variable sustain time is an inverse

function of the relative vehicle speed,” Fujiki describes sustaining the brake for a

22

variable time determined as a function of the relative velocity between the vehicle and

the obstacle. Ex. 1006, col. 5, ll. 59-67; Ex. 1002, ¶ 17. As this time is a product of the

distance and the inverse of the relative velocity, Fujiki describes that the sustain time

is an inverse function of the relative vehicle speed. Ex. 1002, ¶ 19.

Moreover, Pakett describes distinguishing between obstacles of high and low

relative speed, and alerting the driver if the obstacle has approximately the same speed

as the host vehicle. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, Abstract (“Only obstacles that are traveling at

approximately the same speed and direction as the vehicle are considered to be of

interest, and will cause the blind spot sensor to generate an indication that an obstacle

is present in the blind spot.”). Stationary objects, such as parked cars, road signs, or

trees, are filtered out of the warning system. Ex. 1005, col. 2, ll. 5-13. As described in

Pakett, this filtering ignores these obstacles of high relative speed, since these

obstacles will likely be seen by the driver, or will pass so quickly through the blind

spot that no danger is presented.

Since the purpose of the present invention is to determine whether an

obstacle which would otherwise go undetected by the operator is present

in a blind spot of the vehicle, those obstacles which move rapidly

through the blind spot are not of interest. It is assumed that obstacles

that are moving rapidly through one of the vehicle’s blind spots will be

seen before entering the blind spot, or will pass through the blind spot

before the operator causes the vehicle to perform a maneuver which

would present a danger due to the presence of that obstacle.

23

Ex. 1005, col. 5, ll. 21-31. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time that

the alleged invention of claim 2 was made, would have recognized the greater need for

a sustained warning for those detected obstacles having a low relative speed, and

accordingly it would have been obvious to set the variable sustain time as an inverse

function of the relative vehicle speed.

Regarding claim 6, which describes “determining host vehicle speed” and

“selecting the threshold time as a function of the host vehicle speed,” Bernhard,

Pakett, and Fujiki each describe measuring vehicle speed (Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 35-40; see

also Ex. 1004, p. 9; Ex. 1005, col. 7, ll. 31-32; Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 28-31), and Pakett

describes its persistence period as the time it takes for the vehicle to travel 15 feet (Ex.

1005, col. 6, ll. 43-46; col. 7, ll. 32-36). The speed of the vehicle will dictate the time it

will take for the vehicle to travel 15 feet, and therefore this time is a function of

vehicle speed. See, Ex. 1002, ¶ 20.

A claim chart identifying exemplary portions of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki that

support a showing that claims 1, 2, and 6 are obvious in view of the combination of

Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki is provided below.

’927 Patent The Combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki

1. In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to detect a target vehicle in a blind spot of the

Bernhard E.g., col. 3, ll. 34-43, “In FIG. 7, it can be seen that the driver’s own vehicle 0 has a rear-mounted device (HR) for monitoring the space 23 behind in the current lane 8, a distance radar device (AR) for monitoring the space 24 in front in the current lane 8, a blind-spot radar device (TWR) for monitoring the space 21

24


host vehicle driver, a method of improving the perceived zone of coverage response of automotive radar comprising the steps of:

behind in the adjacent target lane 9, and a forward-directed radar device (VR) for monitoring the space 22 in front in the target lane 9. These devices detect the presence of objects in the respective area covered by them, and also permit the distance from the object to be determined.” See also Bernhard GB, p. 7. Pakett E.g., Abstract, “A radar system for sensing the presence of obstacles in a vehicle’s ‘blind spots’ and generating a signal to the vehicle operator indicative of the presence of such an obstacle.” Fujiki E.g., col. 1, ll. 13-16, “As is well known a vehicle equipped with a radar type automatic braking system traversing a road emits a radar signal in order to detect obstacles (moving or otherwise) ahead of the vehicle.”

determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles;

Bernhard E.g., col. 4, ll. 35-40, “After activation of the system, in step 11, the distances s01, s02, s03, s04 to the objects 1 to 4 are detected in the monitored areas 21 to 24, and their relative speeds with respect to the driver’s own vehicle 0 are measured by means of the radar devices. (The driver’s own speed vO is determined by means of the speedometer.)” See also Bernhard GB, p. 9. Pakett E.g., col. 2, ll. 5-13, “Analog filters and digital circuits are used to filter out Doppler frequencies attributable to objects which are of no interest, such as stationary objects (for example, parked cars, road signs, and road side trees). Only obstacles that are traveling at approximately the same speed and direction as the vehicle are considered to be of interest. Therefore, it is only these obstacles that will cause the blind spot sensor to generate an indication that an obstacle is present in the blind spot.”

25


E.g., col. 3, ll. 32-42, “If an obstacle which reflects the transmit signal is in motion relative to the antenna 7, a Doppler frequency shift occurs between the transmitted signal and the received signal. Doppler shifting is a well-known phenomenon by which a signal which is reflected off an object which is approaching the source of the signal is compressed, thereby causing the frequency of the signal to be shifted upward. Likewise, the frequency of a signal that is reflected off an object that is moving away from the source is shifted downward.” E.g., col. 5, ll. 14-31, “The low pass filter 27 serves three purposes: 1) to smooth the signal output by the sample and hold circuit 23 by removing high-frequency components of the output waveform; 2) to reduce noise, thus improving sensitivity without increasing RF power; and 3) to eliminate signals which represent objects moving rapidly relative to the vehicle, including stationary objects. Since the purpose of the present invention is to determine whether an obstacle which would otherwise go undetected by the operator is present in a blind spot of the vehicle, those obstacles which move rapidly through the blind spot are not of interest. It is assumed that obstacles that are moving rapidly through one of the vehicle’s blind spots will be seen before entering the blind spot, or will pass through the blind spot before the operator causes the vehicle to perform a maneuver which would present a danger due to the presence of that obstacle.” Fujiki E.g., col. 2, ll. 7-13, “FIG. 3B is a graph showing a curve wherein the relative velocity of the vehicle with respect to the object is plotted against the distance between the vehicle and the object, which denotes the distance from the object for a given velocity at which braking must be initiated in order to reduce the relative velocity therebetween to zero.” E.g., col. 2, ll. 39-42, “In FIG. 3B the line L denotes a vehicle approaching an object at a constant velocity. The relative velocity between the vehicle and the object is denoted by (dR/dt)1.”

26


E.g., col. 5, ll. 64-67, “t3 is a function of the preselected distance D and the relative velocity dR/dt just prior the danger signal disappearing, for which the additional braking will take place.” E.g., Fig. 3B:

selecting a variable sustain time as a function of relative vehicle speed;

Pakett E.g., col. 7, l. 64-col. 8, l. 5, “The CPU 31 checks whether a warning is presently being displayed (i.e., in the preferred embodiment of the present invention, whether the red indicator is illuminated) (STEP 317) while waiting for the flag in the register 37 to be sets. If a warning is presently being displayed, the CPU 31 determines how long it has been since the warning was last activated. If the warning has been on display for more than one second without being reactivated (STEP 318), the CPU 31 causes the warning to cease being displayed (STEP 319).” Fujiki E.g., col. 5, ll. 56-67, “At stage 3 it is determined if the brake system had just been activated or not. If NO (i.e., the braking system had not just been activated) the program returns to START. If YES the program proceeds to stage 4 where at the braking system is further activated for a period of time. There are preferably at least three possible periods, i.e., t1, t2, or t3, where t1 is a preselected time (only), t2 is a function of a predetermined distance D and the actual velocity of the vehicle Va and t3 is a function of the pre-selected distance D and the relative velocity dR/dt just prior [sic] the danger signal disappearing, for which the additional braking will take place.”

27


E.g., Fig. 8:

detecting target vehicle presence and producing an alert command;

Bernhard E.g., col. 3, ll. 40-43, “These devices detect the presence of objects in the respective area covered by them, and also permit the distance from the object to be determined.” E.g., col. 4, ll. 40-44, “In order to retain the data for these variables, the raw data from the radar devices are preprocessed according to their purpose, faults (for example due to signal reflections) are filtered out, and sufficient plausibility tests are carried out.” See also Bernhard GB, pp. 7, 9. Pakett E.g., col. 1, ll. 59-63, “The present invention is a simple, compact, and inexpensive radar detection system configured to detect the presence of an obstacle in a vehicle’s blind spots and generate a signal to the vehicle operator indicative of the present

28


of such an obstacle.” E.g., col. 3, ll. 58-63, “The signal processing section 11 is coupled to a central processing unit (CPU) 31 that determines whether the output of the signal processing section 11 represents an obstacle of interest in the blind spot. The CPU 31 is coupled to an indicator circuit 41 which presents warnings to the vehicle operator.” E.g., col. 5, ll. 32-39, “The low pass filter 27 is coupled to a square wave generator 29 which generates a square wave signal that alternates between 0 volts and 5 volts. The frequency of the signal output by the square wave generator 29 is determined by the frequency of the input to the square wave generator 29 from the low pass filter 27. A square wave transition is output by the square wave generator 29 whenever an obstacle has been detected.” E.g., col. 6, ll. 46-68. “When an obstacle is first detected, as determined by a transition at the output of the square wave generator 29, the CPU 31 waits the persistence period before responding to additional transistors. During the persistence period, no warnings are sent to the driver indicators. After the end of the persistence period, a warning is sent after each such transition if the transition occurs either within one second after the end of the last persistence period or two seconds after a prior warning was sent. Otherwise, a new persistence period cycle begins. “If it is determined that an obstacle persists in the blind spot, an indication is presented to the operator of the vehicle. In the preferred embodiment, of the present invention, three types of indications are used. If the vehicle’s turn signal becomes active (as detected by a position sensor coupled to an input of the CPU 31), and an obstacle is detected in the blind spot, an audible alarm sounds (e.g., emits an audible tone, whistle, or buzz) and a red visual indicator illuminates. If the turn signal is not active and an obstacle is detected in the blind spot, the audible alarm is not activated by the red visual indicator illuminates.”

29


Fujiki E.g., col. 1, ll. 13-25, “As is well known a vehicle equipped with a radar type automatic braking system traversing a road emits a radar signal in order to detect obstacles (moving or otherwise) ahead of the vehicle. Ideally should the radar beam or signal strike an obstacle it is reflected and received by the antenna mounted at the front of the vehicle. The received signal is then processed by a logic circuit to determine the possibility of a collision. Should the logic circuit product [sic] a signal indicating a collision is imminent the vehicle brakes are applied and or a vehicle driver alerting system is activated. The vehicle is thus brought to a halt or decelerated to a speed which matches that of the obstacle.” E.g., col. 2, ll. 31-34, “If a collision is sensed to be imminent, a signal is generated and fed to the brake actuator 5 which in turn applies the brakes 6 to decelerate the vehicle.”

activating an alert signal in response to the alert command;

Bernhard E.g., col. 5, l. 44-col. 6, l. 22, “If, on the other hand, the computer has calculated that one of the measured distances is smaller than the associated safety distance, a current lane change is not possible. In such case, in step 15 the method according to the invention then searches for a gap in the target lane sufficient to permit a lane change, even though it is not already adjacent to the driver's own vehicle 0. (Such a gap may possibly be located, for example, obliquely in front of or obliquely behind the driver's vehicle 0 and is basically also accessible to the driver's vehicle 0.) For this purpose, the following measured distances and calculated safety distances are summed and compared by the computer. First, the sum s01+s03 of the measured distances to the vehicles 1, 3 in the target lane 9 and the sum sw01+sw03 of the associated calculated safety distances are calculated. The computer compares both sums and detects the presence of a gap in the target lane 9 if the sum of the measured distances is greater than the sum of the calculated safety distances. Second, it calculates the sum s01+s02 of the measured distances between the vehicle 1 behind in the target lane 9 and the vehicle 2 which is travelling ahead in the current lane 8, and likewise in turn

30


calculates the associated sum sw01+sw02 of the calculated safety distances. The same process is carried out as a third step with the distances of the two other vehicles 3, 4. Both sums s01+s02, s03+s04 of the measured distances are then in turn compared in each case with the associated sum of the calculated safety distances, and if it is detected in both cases that the sum of the measured distances is greater than the sum of the associated calculated safety distances, it is determined to mean that space is available for the driver's own vehicle 0 to accelerate or decelerate, as a result of which it may be possible to reach the detected gap in order to change lanes. “If, in one or more of the three comparisons of this interrogation step 16, the sum of the measured distances is smaller than the sum of the calculated safety distances, it is determined to mean that under the set parameters (for example reaction time, safety margin, residual distance, the driver's acceleration or deceleration and reasonable deceleration of the other vehicles), a lane change is not possible. In consequence, in a following step 17, the instruction to stay in lane is issued to the driver. The system then returns to point B before the measurement step 11 and the process is repeated, during which new measurement data, which may arise from possible changes in the positions or speeds of the vehicles, are acquired.” See also Bernhard GB, pp. 11-12. Pakett E.g., col. 1, ll. 59-63, “The present invention is a simple, compact, and inexpensive radar detection system configured to detect the presence of an obstacle in a vehicle’s blind spots and generate a signal to the vehicle operator indicative of the present of such an obstacle.” E.g., col. 3, ll. 58-63, “The signal processing section 11 is coupled to a central processing unit (CPU) 31 that determines whether the output of the signal processing section 11 represents an obstacle of interest in the blind spot. The CPU 31 is coupled to

31


an indicator circuit 41 which presents warnings to the vehicle operator.” E.g., col. 5, ll. 32-39, “The low pass filter 27 is coupled to a square wave generator 29 which generates a square wave signal that alternates between 0 volts and 5 volts. The frequency of the signal output by the square wave generator 29 is determined by the frequency of the input to the square wave generator 29 from the low pass filter 27. A square wave transition is output by the square wave generator 29 whenever an obstacle has been detected.” E.g., col. 6, ll. 46-68. “When an obstacle is first detected, as determined by a transition at the output of the square wave generator 29, the CPU 31 waits the persistence period before responding to additional transistors. During the persistence period, no warnings are sent to the driver indicators. After the end of the persistence period, a warning is sent after each such transition if the transition occurs either within one second after the end of the last persistence period or two seconds after a prior warning was sent. Otherwise, a new persistence period cycle begins. “If it is determined that an obstacle persists in the blind spot, an indication is presented to the operator of the vehicle. In the preferred embodiment, of the present invention, three types of indications are used. If the vehicle’s turn signal becomes active (as detected by a position sensor coupled to an input of the CPU 31), and an obstacle is detected in the blind spot, an audible alarm sounds (e.g., emits an audible tone, whistle, or buzz) and a red visual indicator illuminates. If the turn signal is not active and an obstacle is detected in the blind spot, the audible alarm is not activated by the red visual indicator illuminates.” Fujiki E.g., col. 2, ll. 28-34, “A collision imminence computing circuit 3 is fed with information signals from the radar 2 and vehicle velocity sensor 4 with which it determines if a collision is imminent. If a collision is sensed to be imminent a signal is generated and fed to the brake actuator 5 which in turn applies the brakes 6 to decelerate

32


the vehicle.” E.g., col. 5, ll. 46-52, “FIG. 8 is a flow chart showing the logic followed by the logic circuitry of the invention. As shown at stage 1 of the program the signals from the radar are compared. If the equations are satisfied (i.e. YES) then the program goes to stage 2 (i.e. a danger or logic 1 signal appears on the output of the comparator 13) and the braking system of the vehicle is activated.”

at the end of the alert command, determining whether the alert signal was active for a threshold time; and

Pakett E.g., col. 5, ll. 14-31, “The low pass filter 27 serves three purposes: 1) to smooth the signal output by the sample and hold circuit 23 by removing high-frequency components of the output waveform; 2) to reduce noise, thus improving sensitivity without increasing RF power; and 3) to eliminate signals which represent objects moving rapidly relative to the vehicle, including stationary objects. Since the purpose of the present invention is to determine whether an obstacle which would otherwise go undetected by the operator is present in a blind spot of the vehicle, those obstacles which move rapidly through the blind spot are not of interest. It is assumed that obstacles that are moving rapidly through one of the vehicle’s blind spots will be seen before entering the blind spot, or will pass through the blind spot before the operator causes the vehicle to perform a maneuver which would present a danger due to the presence of that obstacle.” E.g., col. 5, ll. 37-39, “A square wave transition is output by the square wave generator 29 whenever an obstacle has been detected.” E.g., col. 6, ll. 43-56, “A ‘persistence period’ is defined in the preferred embodiment as the amount of time that it takes the vehicle upon which the radar system in [sic] mounted to travel 15 feet. When an obstacle is first detected, as determined by a transition at the output of the square wave generator 29, the CPU 31 waits the persistence period before responding to

33


additional transitions. During the persistence period, no warnings are sent to the driver indicators. After the end of the persistence period, a warning is sent after each such transition if the transition occurs either within one second after the end of the last persistence period or two seconds after a prior warning was sent. Otherwise, a new persistence period cycle begins.” Fujiki E.g., col. 5 ll. 49-57, “If the equations are satisfied (i.e. YES) then the program goes to stage 2 (i.e. a danger of logic 1 signal appears on the output of the comparator 13) and the braking system is activated. The program returns to START, until the equations at stage 2 are not satisfied (i.e. NO, or when a safe or logic 0 signal appears on the output of the comparator 13) whereupon the program goes to stage 3. At stage 3 it is determined if the brake system had just been activated or not.”

if the alert signal was active for the threshold time, sustaining the alert signal for the variable sustain time, wherein the zone of coverage appears to increase according to the variable sustain time.

Pakett E.g., col. 5, ll. 14-31, “The low pass filter 27 serves three purposes: 1) to smooth the signal output by the sample and hold circuit 23 by removing high-frequency components of the output waveform; 2) to reduce noise, thus improving sensitivity without increasing RF power; and 3) to eliminate signals which represent objects moving rapidly relative to the vehicle, including stationary objects. Since the purpose of the present invention is to determine whether an obstacle which would otherwise go undetected by the operator is present in a blind spot of the vehicle, those obstacles which move rapidly through the blind spot are not of interest. It is assumed that obstacles that are moving rapidly through one of the vehicle’s blind spots will be seen before entering the blind spot, or will pass through the blind spot before the operator causes the vehicle to perform a maneuver which would present a danger due to the presence of that obstacle.” E.g. col 7, l. 64-col. 8, l. 10, “The CPU 31 checks whether a warning is presently being displayed (i.e., in the preferred embodiment of the present invention, whether the red indicator

34


is illuminated) (STEP 317) while waiting for the flag in the register 37 to be sets. If a warning is presently being displayed, the CPU 31 determines how long it has been since the warning was last activated. If the warning has been on display for more than one second without being reactivated (STEP 318), the CPU 31 causes the warning to cease being displayed (STEP 319). The CPU 31 also determines whether an audible alarm has been sounding for more than one second without being reactivated (STEP 320), and causes the audible alarm to cease if reactivation of the alarm has not occurred in the last one second (STEP 321).” Fujiki E.g., col. 5, ll. 52-67, “The program returns to START, until the equations at stage 2 are not satisfied (i.e. NO, or when a safe or logic 0 signal appears on the output of the comparator 13) whereupon the program goes to stage 3. At stage 3 it is determined if the brake system had just been activated or not. If NO (i.e. the braking system had not just been activated) the program returns to START. If YES the program proceeds to stage 4 where at the braking system is further activated for a period of time. There are preferably at least three possible periods, i.e., t1, t2, or t3, where t1 is a preselected time (only), t2 is a function of a predetermined distance D and the actual velocity of the vehicle Va and t3 is a function of the pre-selected distance D and the relative velocity dR/dt just prior [sic] the danger signal disappearing, for which the additional braking will take place.” E.g., Fig. 8:

35


2. The invention as defined in claim 1, wherein the variable sustain time is an inverse function of the relative vehicle speed.

Pakett E.g., col. 3, ll. 6-11, “Digital processor 49 operates according to a predetermined control algorithm as set forth herein, for controlling modulator 47, processing conditioned radar signals to determine therefrom target range and apparent velocities thereof, and to further distinguish hazard from non-hazard events.” E.g., col. 4, ll. 39-43, “The FM-CW doppler quantity fd is a measure of the apparent target velocity. The FM-CW doppler quantity fd may be positive or negative, a positive value thereof being indicative of a closing target and a negative value thereof being indicative of a receding target.” E.g., col. 6, ll. 10-18, “The retained doppler quantity fd is compared to a threshold value fth representative of a closing velocity which, if exceeded, determines that the current target detection is a hazard event. The threshold value fth is a predetermined positive value which is, in the present embodiment, a function of vehicle speed and is preferably read from a conventional two dimensional look-up table or alternatively by formula computation.” Fujiki E.g., col. 5, ll. 59-67, “If YES the program proceeds to stage 4 where at the braking system is further activated for a period of

36


time. There are preferably at least three possible periods, i.e., t1, t2, or t3, where t1 is a preselected time (only), t2 is a function of a predetermined distance D and the actual velocity of the vehicle Va and t3 is a function of the pre-selected distance D and the relative velocity dR/dt just prior [sic] the danger signal disappearing, for which the additional braking will take place.” E.g., Fig. 8:

6. The invention as defined in claim 1 including: determining host vehicle speed; and

Bernhard E.g., col. 4, ll. 35-40, “After activation of the system, in step 11, the distances s01, s02, s03, s04 to the objects 1 to 4 are detected in the monitored areas 21 to 24, and their relative speeds with respect to the driver’s own vehicle 0 are measured by means of the radar devices. (The driver’s own speed vO is determined by means of the speedometer.)” See also Bernhard GB, p. 9. Pakett E.g., col. 7, ll. 31-32, “The CPU 31 is coupled to a speedometer which measures the ground speed of the vehicle.”

37


Fujiki E.g., col. 2, ll. 28-31, “A collision imminence computing circuit 3 is fed with information signals from the radar 2 and vehicle velocity sensor 4 with which it determines if a collision is imminent.” E.g., Fig. 2:

selecting the threshold time as a function of the host vehicle speed.

Pakett E.g., col. 6, ll. 43-46, “A ‘persistence period’ is defined in the preferred embodiment as the amount of time that it takes the vehicle upon which the radar system in [sic] mounted to travel 15 feet.” E.g., col. 7, ll. 32-36, “The CPU 31 uses the vehicle speed to calculate how long it will take the vehicle to travel 15 feet (i.e., the persistence period) (STEP 303), and sets a timer to ‘time out’ at the end of the calculated amount of time (STEP 304).”

A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the alleged inventions of claims 1,

2, and 6 of the ’927 patent were made, would have found it obvious to combine the

teachings of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki, and, in addition, would have been

motivated to do so, as each of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki describe radar systems for

detecting obstacles in the vicinity of a vehicle, and controlling warning systems to alert

the driver to the presence of the detected obstacles. Just as described in the ’927

patent, Pakett and Fujiki each describe sustaining the alert, even when a hazardous

38

condition is no longer sensed, to ensure that the hazardous condition has passed

before the alert is removed. Where the ’927 patent describes signal “dropouts” and

signal “flicker,” and illustrates the “uninterrupted or sustained alert signal 46” in Fig.

3d (see Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 45-col. 2, l. 6; col. 3, l. 52-col. 4, l. 21), Fujiki describes

moments of an “extremely weak” signal which may cause a momentary false

indication of safety:

The object (which is for example a motor vehicle) may be proceeding up

an incline or traversing a corner and subsequently cause the signal to

reflect down onto the road to be in turn reflected to the antenna and/or

cause the signal to reflect from roadside trees or buildings, thereby

causing the signal to be extremely weak on reception and cause the radar

to momentarily produce a dangerously false “safe” signal.

Ex. 1006, col. 1, ll. 45-52. Like the ’927 patent addresses this problem by sustaining

the alert as a function of relative vehicle speed, Fujiki applies the same principles in

sustaining the alert condition, i.e., sustaining the brakes, for a sustain time that varies

as a function of relative vehicle speed. See, Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 16-18. In both the ’927 patent

and in Fujiki, the alert condition is sustained as a function of the relative vehicle speed

to address concerns of prematurely indicating that no objects are in the vicinity of the

vehicle.

For these reasons, it was well known at the time the ’927 patent was filed to

combine the features of the object detection systems of Pakett and Fujiki with the

object detection systems used in Bernhard. It would have been obvious to modify

39

radar-based object detection systems for detecting objects all around the vehicle, such

as described by Bernhard, with the sustained alerts of Pakett and Fujiki, and more

particularly, the alert sustained as a function of relative vehicle speed of Fujiki, to

ensure that the alert condition is only released under safe conditions.

Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at

the time the ’927 patent was filed, to combine the teachings of Bernhard, Pakett, and

Fujiki.

In view of all of the foregoing, claims 1, 2, and 6 are obvious in view of the

combination of Bernhard, Pakett, and Fujiki under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly,

Petitioner submits that there is a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect

to the challenged claims. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

40

V. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’927 patent are invalid.

Petitioner respectfully requests cancellation of each of the claims 1, 2, and 6 of the

’927 patent.

Dated: March 30, 2015 /Michael J. Lennon / Michael J. Lennon, Lead Counsel for VWGoA Reg. No. 26,562 Michael J. Lennon (Reg. No. 26,562) Lead Counsel Clifford A. Ulrich (Reg. No. 42,194) Backup Counsel Michelle Carniaux (Reg. No. 36,098) Backup Counsel Kenyon & Kenyon LLP One Broadway New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212.425.7200 Fax: 212.425.5288 Email: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The foregoing Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 and

associated Exhibits 1001-1006 were served on March 30, 2015, via Express Mail upon

the following:

Counsel of Record for U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927: Ascenda Law Group, PC 333 W. San Carlos St. Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 Attorneys for Signal IP, Inc.: Jason L. Haas [email protected] Randall J. Sunshine [email protected] Ryan E. Hatch [email protected] Liner LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503 /Michael J. Lennon/ Michael J. Lennon, Lead Counsel for VWGoA Reg. No. 26,562 Michael J. Lennon (Reg. No. 26,562) Lead Counsel Clifford A. Ulrich (Reg. No. 42,194) Backup Counsel Michelle Carniaux (Reg. No. 36,098) Backup Counsel Kenyon & Kenyon LLP One Broadway New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212.425.7200 Fax: 212.425.5288 Email: [email protected]

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO...

Documents

Transcript of PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO...