Unified Patents Inc. v. Velocity Patent LLC, IPR2017-01723 (PTAB Jul. 26, 2017)

DOCKET NO.
: 43930-0004IP1
Filed on behalf of Unified Patents, Inc.
By: C. Eric Schulman, Reg. No. 43,350
W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
Fish & Richardson P.C.
500 Arguello St., Suite 500
Redwood City, CA 94063
Tel: (650) 839-5070
Email: schulman@fr.com
Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518

Ashraf Fawzy, Reg. No. 67,914
Unified Patents, Inc.
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
Washington, DC, 20003
Tel: (202) 805-8931
Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________________________________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________________________________________
UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.

Petitioner
v.
VELOCITY PATENTS LLC
Patent Owner
IPR2017-01723
U.S. Patent 5,954,781
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF

U.S. PATENT NO. 5,954,781
CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1, 7, 13, 17 and 60
UNDER 35 U.S.C. 312 AND 37 C.F.R. 42.104
Proceeding No. IPR2017-01723
Attorney Docket No. 43930-0004IP1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Mandatory Notices .............................................................................................1

A. Real Party-in-Interest .....................................................................................1
B. Related Matters ..............................................................................................1
C. Counsel...........................................................................................................1
D. Service Information .......................................................................................2
II. Certification of Grounds for Standing ...............................................................2
III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ...............................................2
A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ....................................................3
B. Grounds for Challenge ...................................................................................4
IV. Overview Of the 781 Patent .........................................................................4
A. Summary of the Alleged Invention ................................................................4
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................................5
C. Prosecution History ........................................................................................6
D. Inapplicability of 35 U.S.C. 325(d) ...............................................................7
V. Claim Construction ............................................................................................8
VI. Specific Grounds for Petition ........................................................................9
A. Ground I: Claim 1, 7, 13, and 17 are Obvious Over Westbrook in view of
Habu and Ghitea ....................................................................................................9
1. Overview of Westbrook .............................................................................9
2. Overview of Habu ....................................................................................12
3. Overview of Ghitea ..................................................................................13
4. The Combination of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea ................................13
5. Motivation to Combine Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea ...........................16
6. Claim 1 is Obvious over Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea ..........................18
7. Claim 7 is Obvious over Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea ..........................31
8. Claim 13 is Obvious over Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea ........................32
9. Claim 17 is Obvious over Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea ........................33
B. Ground II: Claim 60 is Obvious Over Westbrook in view of Habu, Ghitea,
ii
and Rashid ............................................................................................................40

1. Overview of Rashid..................................................................................40
2. Combination of Westbrook, Habu, Ghitea, and Rashid...........................41
3. Motivation to Combine Westbrook, Habu, Ghitea, and Rashid ..............43
4. Claim 60 is Obvious over Westbrook, Habu, Ghitea, and Rashid...........44
C. Ground III: Claim 1 is Obvious Over Jurgen in view of Londt .................48
1. Overview of Jurgen..................................................................................48
2. Overview of Londt ...................................................................................49
3. The Combination of Jurgen and Londt ....................................................50
4. Motivation to Combine Jurgen and Londt ...............................................51
5. Claim 1 is obvious in view of the combination of Jurgen and Londt......53
VII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................65
iii
I. MANDATORY NOTICES
A. Real Party-in-Interest
Unified Patents, Inc. (Unified Patents or Petitioner) is the real party-in-
interest.
B. Related Matters
U.S. Pat. 5,954,781 (the 781 Patent (Ex. 1001)) is owned by Velocity
Patent LLC (Velocity or Patent Owner). The 781 patent is the subject of
Velocity Patent LLC v. Audi of America, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-08418-JWD (N.D.
Ill.), as well as litigation in the Northern District of Illinois against Mercedes-Benz
(Case No. 1:13-cv-08413-JWD), BMW (Case No. 1:13-cv-08416), Chrysler (Case
No. 1:13-cv-08419-JWD), and Jaguar Land Rover (Case No. 1:13-cv-08421). The
781 patent was previously the subject of: Reexamination Control No. 90/013,252,
and IPRs IPR2014-01247, IPR2015-00276 and IPR2015-00290, each of which has
either been completed or terminated.
C. Counsel
Lead Counsel: C. Eric Schulman (Registration No. 43,350)
Backup Counsel: W. Karl Renner (Registration No. 41,265)
Backup Counsel: David Holt (Registration No. 65,161)
Backup Counsel: Jonathan Stroud (Registration No. 72,518)
Backup Counsel: Ashraf Fawzy (Registration No. 67,914)
1
D. Service Information
3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
T: 202-783-5070
F: 877-769-7945
Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at IPR43930-
0004IP1@fr.com (referencing No. 43930-0004IP1 and ccing
PTABInbound@fr.com, schulman@fr.com, axf-ptab@fr.com, holt2@fr.com,
jonathan@unifiedpatents.com, and afawzy@unifiedpatents.com). C. Eric
Schulman can be reached directly at 650-839-5149.
II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent 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. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
claims 1, 7, 13, 17, and 60 of the 781 Patent (the Challenged Claims).
2
A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
explained below: 1
1. M. H. Westbrook & J. D. Turner, AUTOMOTIVE SENSORS (1994)
(Westbrook (EX1002)), which is a book (a written publication) that was
publically available, e.g., in at least one library, no later than November
1994, and it thus is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See Bennett Decl.
(EX1011) at 52. That Westbrook was publically available no later than the
end of 1994 is shown both by its 1994 copyright date and the declaration of
Scott Bennett stating, among other things, that Westbrook was made publicly
available by at least one library no later than November 1994. See generally
EX1011.
2. U.S. Patent 4,559,599 (filed on Mar. 11, 1983; published on Dec. 17, 1985)
(Habu (EX1003)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
3. U.S. Patent 5,693,876 (filed on May 21, 1996) (Ghitea (EX1004)), which
is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
1
The 781 Patent issued from a patent application filed on March 10, 1997, prior to
enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA). Accordingly, pre-AIA statutory
framework applies.
3
4. Automotive Electronics Handbook (Ronald Jurgen (ed.), 1995) (Jurgen
(EX1005)), which is a book (a written publication) that was publically
available, e.g., in at least one library, no later than November 1995, and it
thus is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See Bennett Decl. (EX1011) at
37. That Jurgen was publically available no later than the end of 1995 is
shown both by its 1995 copyright date and the declaration of Scott Bennett
stating, among other things, that Jurgen was made publicly available by at
least one library no later than November 1995. See generally EX1011.
5. U.S. Patent 5,017,916 (filed on March 9, 1989; published on May 21, 1991)
(Londt (EX1006)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
6. U.S. Patent 5,905,457 (filed on Feb. 25, 1993; issued on May 18, 1999)
(Rashid (EX1007)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
B. Grounds for Challenge
Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. 103. This Petition, supported by the accompanying declaration
of Mr. Scott Andrews (Mr. Andrews) (Andrews Decl. (EX1008)), demonstrates
that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to
Challenged Claims. See 35 U.S.C. 314(a).
IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 781 PATENT
A. Summary of the Alleged Invention

The 781 patent relates to an [a]pparatus for optimizing operation of an
4
engine-driven vehicle. EX1001, Abstract. It has long been recognized that the
improper operation of a vehicle may have many adverse effects. For example, the
fuel efficiency of a vehicle may vary dramatically based upon how the vehicle is
operated. EX1001, 1:12-15. The 781 patent notes that operating a vehicle at
excessive speeds, excessive RPMs, and excessive manifold pressures leads to
reduced fuel economy and increased operating costs. EX1001, 1:15-18. These
increased operating costs can be considerable, particularly for an owner or operator
of a fleet of vehicles. EX1001, 1:17-20. Accordingly, the 781 patent suggests a
processor subsystem for determining when to issue notifications regarding
recommended changes in vehicle operation that, when executed by the driver,
increase efficient vehicle operation.
But as the prior art demonstrates, the purported invention of using sensors, a
processor subsystem, and a memory in an automobile to determine whether to take
corrective actions and/or issue notifications as described in the 781 Patent was well-
known prior to the filing date of the 781 Patent.
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
A person of ordinary skill in the art related to, and at the time of the invention
of, the 781 Patent (POSITA) would have been someone with a good working
knowledge of electrical engineering, including sensors, processing systems, and
notification circuitry. The person would have a Bachelor of Science degree in
5
electrical engineering or a comparable field, in combination with training or at least
two years of related work experience with vehicular systems such as automotive
electronics. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1008) at 34.
C. Prosecution History
The 781 Patent issued from U.S. Pat. Appl. 08/813,270 (270 Application),
which was filed on March 10, 1997. File History (EX1009) at 1. In the only Office
Action, dated August 6, 1998, claims 1, 2 and 4-6 were rejected as obvious, but the
Examiner stated that claims 8-13, 25, 26, and 29-32 included allowable subject
matter because the prior art fails to disclose an upshift notification circuit coupled
to the processor subsystem. EX1009 at 81.
On May 22, 2014, Volkswagen Group of America filed a request for ex parte
reexamination of the 781 patent (EX1010), granted as Reexamination 90/013,252
(the 781 Reexam). See 781 Reexam (EX1010). In response, Velocity argued
against the reexamination Examiners construction of the term fuel overinjection
notification circuit, and asserted that
the Patent describes that all engines in vehicles will inject as much fuel
as driver [sic] demands by his or her operation of the vehicle. If the
driver operates the vehicle in a fuel inefficient manner (e.g., excessively
speeding, abruptly accelerating, etc.), the engine will overinject [sic]
more fuel than the engine would if the vehicle were being operated
efficiently.
6
Id. at 366. Velocity further argued that the inventive system of the Patent will
provide the driver with a [sic] overinjection notification as an alert that his or her
driving is fuel inefficient. Id.
Three petitions for inter partes review (IPR) have been filed against the 781
Patent. Petitions IPR2014-01247 and IPR2015-00290 were each filed by Mercedes
Benz; the former was granted adverse judgment after the patent owner cancelled the
challenged claims of the patent and the second was dismissed procedurally prior to
institution. Volkswagen filed IPR2015-00276 challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,
12, 13, 15, and 1732. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Velocity Patent LLC,
IPR2015-00276, Paper 8, at 2 (PTAB Jun. 1, 2015) (276 IPR). Volkswagens
petition was primarily based on a combination of Jurgen, U.S. Patent 4,398,174
(Smith), and Habu. Id. at 6. The Board ultimately held that Petitioners rationale
for combining Jurgen, Smith, and Habu is premised on a handful of conclusory
assertions by counsel, unsupported by testimony of an expert witness. Id. at 13.
The Board declined to institute.
D. Inapplicability of 35 U.S.C. 325(d)
None of the Grounds presented herein are the same or substantially the same
prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office. See 35 U.S.C. 325(d).
Notably, for Grounds I and II, Westbrook and Ghitea have never been cited before
the Patent Office as relevant to the 781 Patent. For Ground III, although Londt was
7
listed by Patent Owner in an Information Disclosure Statement filed in the
Reexamination, it was not argued by Petitioner in the Reexamination, substantively
addressed, or cited by the Examiner. Indeed, the Examiner in the 781 Reexam noted
that it should be assumed that only the most cursory review of the cited documents
consistent with [MPEP] guidelines has been performed. 781 Reexam (EX1010) at
407. Moreover, Londt teaches both a shift prompter and a fuel overinjection
notification circuit in a manner unlike the previously applied prior art. Accordingly,
35 U.S.C. 325(d) is not applicable to this petition because none of the Grounds
presented herein are the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
previously presented to the Office.
V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Claim terms of an expired patent in IPR are construed in accordance with the
standard set forth in Phillips. See Facebook Inc. v. Pragmatus AV LLC, 582
Fed.Appx 864, 866 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In the Institution Decision issued by the Board on June 1, 2015 in IPR2015-
00276, the Board concluded that no explicit construction is necessary for the terms
of the claims. 276 IPR Paper 8 at 6-7. However, Petitioner notes that, in the 276
IPR, Velocity proposed to construe the term fuel overinjection notification circuit
to mean a circuit that provides a driver with a notification that his or her driving is
fuel efficient or inefficient. Id. Although the Board did not preliminarily adopt this
8
construction, Velocitys proposed construction informs the scope of this term when
assessing patentability for purposes of the present petition. Aylus Networks, Inc. v.
Apple Inc., No. 2016-1599, 7-12 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017).
VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the following sections (as confirmed in the
Andrews Decl. 39-93 (Ex. 1008)) demonstrate in detail how the prior art
discloses, teaches, and/or suggests each and every limitation of the Challenged
Claims of the 781 Patent, and how these claims were obvious in view of the prior
art.
A. Ground I: Claim 1, 7, 13, and 17 are Obvious Over Westbrook in

view of Habu and Ghitea
1. Overview of Westbrook
Westbrook describes the whole range of sensors currently used in automotive
control systems with details of their construction, operation, characteristics and
methods of use. Westbrook (EX1002) at ix. Westbrook describes that sensors are
essential in any automatic control system. Id. at xiii. Indeed, there are many
systems to which electronics can be applied within the vehicle. Id. at 7. The
following figure 2.1 from Westbrook illustrates a number of examples of such
systems that can be integrated into a vehicle.
9
Westbrook explains that [t]he modern car contains on average about 30
sensors, which include, for example, the transducers necessary to ensure efficient
and clean operation of the engine. Id. at 207. [I]n a conventional data acquisition
system these transducers are connected to the central microprocessor. Id.
(emphasis added). Id. at 237-38. Figures 12.2(a) and 12.2(b), reproduced below,
each illustrate the coupling of sensors (the black boxes) to a central microprocessor.
Id. at 237-38.
10
Westbrook describes many sensors as being connected to its central processor,
including a road speed sensor, a crankshaft mounted timing/trigger/speed sensor/s
(i.e., an engine speed sensor), an inlet manifold absolute or differential pressure
sensor, a throttle position sensor, and vehicle radar. Id. at 9, 230. Westbrook teaches
that data from these and other sensors are essential to a litany of systems, including
systems that determine optimum operation [of the transmission] for economy and
performance (id. at 20), systems that determine fuel flow in order to meet the
steadily increasing demand for the measurement of instantaneous and trip fuel
economy (id. at 25), and systems for collision avoidance. Collision avoidance
systems perceiv[e] the environment and traffic situation using multiple sensors
[e.g., radar], predict[] possible collisions with objects and other vehicles and
11
provid[e] appropriate driver information and possible intervention where
appropriate (id. at 214, 230). Westbrook teaches that the goal of all of these systems
is to fulfill the need to provide the driver and control systems with more information
to make the vehicle operate more efficiently and effectively within its total
environment. Id. at 29.
2. Overview of Habu
Habu describes a shift indication apparatus for indicating shift position in
vehicles equipped with manual transmission, in order to maintain optimum fuel
consumption. Habu (EX1003), Abstract, 1:3339. Habu discloses an apparatus
with sensors for engine rotation, throttle valve, and shift position, a microcomputer
with memory for storing engine speed data, and an indicator for indicating preferable
shift positions for a driver, so as to enable the economical running of the car to be
realized. Id. at Abstract, FIG. 1, 2:2336. In particular, a microcomputer 5 uses
data obtained from the various sensors to determine the fuel consumption rate in the
current shift position and assumed fuel consumption rate(s) for the adjacent shift
position(s). See id. at 3:21-37. [W]hen either one of the assumed fuel consumption
rates . . . is better than the current fuel consumption rate be, the corresponding shift-
up lamp or shift-down lamp in the indicator 10 is illuminated, thus indicating the
necessity of the speed change operation. Id. at 7:29-34.
12
3. Overview of Ghitea
Ghitea describes a fuel economy device that computes a filtered rate of
change of instantaneous fuel economy or a filtered instantaneous fuel economy and
repetitively updates a graphical display depicting the current fuel economy. Ghitea
(EX1004), Abstract. The fuel economy device disclosed by Ghitea includes a
control unit in communication with a fuel sensor for measuring the fuel rate and a
speed sensor for measuring road speed. Id. at 1:66-2:1. The control unit computes
a weighted instantaneous fuel economy representation by combining current and
selected previous instantaneous fuel economy values on a weighted basis. Id. at
2:1-4.
The fuel economy calculated by Ghiteas device can be displayed as a
percentage of a target fuel economy, programmed by the driver or other operator of
the vehicle. Id. at Abstract. This display allows the driver to see how his or her
actions affect fuel economy. Id. at 2:48-50. Using this display, the driver can
realize significant cost savings by enabling the driver to operate the vehicle in a
manner that increases fuel economy. See id. at 1:4-6.
4. The Combination of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea
A POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate the shift and fuel
overinjection notification circuits of Habu and Ghitea, respectively, into
Westbrooks exemplary vehicle. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 58-67. As noted
13
above, Westbrook teaches an example of a vehicle in which a number of electronic
sensors are integrated into real-time control systems that are useful to optimize
economy, emissions and performance of the vehicle. See Westbrook (EX1002) at
7. Westbrook discloses that sensors are used to acquire information about the
process to be controlled, [and] a microprocessor is used to decide what action should
be taken. Id. at xiii. Westbrook provides a list of possible sensors that can be
integrated into a vehicle and coupled to a microprocessor-based control system. Id.
at 9-10. This list of sensors includes the sensors used by the shift indication
apparatus described by Habu (i.e., sensors for engine rotation, throttle valve, and
shift position) and the fuel economy device described by Ghitea (i.e., a fuel sensor
for measuring the fuel rate and a speed sensor for measuring road speed). See id.;
see Habu (EX1003) at 2:2336; see Ghitea (EX1004) at 1:66-2:1.
Two of the types of real-time control systems disclosed by Westbrook for use
in its exemplary vehicle are systems that determine optimum operation [of the
transmission] for economy and performance (Westbrook (EX1002) at 20) and
systems that determine fuel flow in order to meet the steadily increasing demand
for the measurement of instantaneous and trip fuel economy (id. at 25). Thus,
Habu and Ghitea simply teach specific implementations of each of these types of
systems. Indeed, each of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea share a common system
architecture (i.e., sensors providing data to one or more microprocessors
14
programmed to take specific action within a vehicle), which would ensure a POSITA
a reasonable expectation of success in integrating their teachings. Andrews Decl
(EX1008), 62.
Based on the collective teachings of Westbrook and Habu, a POSITA would
have found it obvious to integrate the processes of Habus microcomputer into the
central processor of Westbrooks exemplary vehicle to implement the shift indication
functionality described by Habu using the sensors disclosed by Habusensors also
present in Westbrook. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 64-65. And a POSITA would
have found it obvious to use the electronic display instrument cluster of Westbrook
to display the upshift and downshift notifications described by Habu as output by
indicator 10. Id.
Similarly, based on the collective teachings of Westbrook and Ghitea, a
POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate the processes of Ghiteas ECU
into the central processor of Westbrooks exemplary vehicle and the processes of
Ghiteas ICU into the electronic display instrument cluster of Westbrook. Andrews
Decl. (EX1008) 66-67. As a result, Westbrooks central processor would gather
data from the same sensors disclosed by Ghitea and also present in Westbrook, and
Westbrooks electronic display instrument cluster would have computed the
quantities for the numerical and graphical representation of fuel economy, as
described by Ghitea. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 67. A POSITA would have had a
15
reasonable expectation of success due to the largely similar architectures of
Westbrook and Ghitea. Id. at 62-63.
5. Motivation to Combine Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea
A POSITA would be motivated to combine the references at least because the
references disclose the same purpose (i.e.., providing the driver with more
information to make the vehicle more fuel efficient). Andrews Decl. (EX1008),
58. The shift and fuel overinjection notification circuits of Habu and Ghitea,
respectively, help Westbrooks exemplary vehicle achieve that purpose. Id.
As noted above, Westbrook describes the use of one or more real-time control
systems in a vehicle to optimize economy, emissions and performance of the
vehicle. See Westbrook (EX1002) at 7. Furthermore, Westbrook teaches that the
goal of systems utilizing the sensors it describes is to fulfill the need to provide the
driver and control systems with more information to make the vehicle operate more
efficiently and effectively. Id. at 29. Responding to the need for such systems
identified in Westbrook, the shift and fuel overinjction notification circuits taught
by Habu and Ghitea, respectively, provide the driver with more information to make
a vehicle operate more efficiently and effectively. Indeed, Habu and Ghitea teach
specific economy-improving implementations of systems already generally
described by Westbrook as being desirable within its exemplary vehicle. Andrews
Decl. (EX1008) 59-60. Throughout its teachings, Westbrook identifies optimized
16
economy as a motivating factor in implementing improved sensors and control
systems in a vehicle, which is exactly what Habu and Ghitea seek to provide.2 See
Westbrook (EX1002) at 7 (the interactive control of engine and transmission to
optimise economy, emissions and performance), 10 (significant improvements in
operation and economy can be obtained), 20 ([b]y this means the best possible
economy is obtained), 108 (evaluating the costs of a sophisticated system based
on the improvements in economy and emissions that can be obtained), 187
(driveability can be obtained at much better economy than is obtainable today);
Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 60.
Specifically, Habu teaches that integration of its shift indication apparatus in
a vehicle results in the driver being able to perform the speed change operations in
accordance with the indications so that the optimum speed running of the car can
be carried out with a preferable shift position in the optimum fuel consumption
rate. Habu (EX1003) at 7:34-38 (emphasis added). Similarly, Ghitea teaches that
integration of its fuel economy device into a vehicle results in the driver being able
2
A POSITA would have understood that Westbrooks references to economy are
synonymous with fuel economy, as fuel is the resource a vehicle expends and is
thus the primary criteria by which it can be made economic. Andrews Decl.
(EX1008) 60.
17
to see how his or her actions affect fuel economy Ghitea (EX1004) at 2:46-60.
Ultimately, the goal of Ghiteas system is to allow drivers to recognize significant
cost savings . . . by enabling drivers . . . to increase fuel economy. Id. at 1:4-6.
Because all three references provide explicit motivations to use automotive
electronics to improve fuel economy and because Westbrook suggests combining
multiple automotive electronics systems to achieve fuel economy, a POSITA would
have been motivated to integrate the shift and fuel overinjection notification circuits
of Habu and Ghitea, respectively, into Westbrooks exemplary vehicle. Andrews
Decl. (EX1008) 58-62. In addition, the proposed combination of Westbrook,
Habu and Ghitea 1) combines prior art elements (the shift and fuel overinjection
notification circuits of Habu and Ghitea, respectively, in Westbrooks exemplary
vehicle) 2) according to known methods (e.g., by programming Westbrooks
processor subsystem, such as the central processor, and programming Westbrooks
electronic instrument display cluster according to the teachings of Habu and Ghitea)
and 3) would have yielded a predictable result (an improvement in fuel economy).
Id. at 62. See also KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398,
415-16 (2007).
6. Claim 1 is Obvious over Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea
a) Apparatus for optimizing operation of a vehicle, comprising:
The combination of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea renders obvious the
18
apparatus for optimizing operation of a vehicle, recited in claim 1. In particular,
Westbrook teaches an example of a vehicle in which a number of electronic sensors
are integrated into real-time control systems that are useful to optimize economy,
emissions and performance of the vehicle. See Westbrook (EX1002) at 7. The
modern car contains on average about 30 sensors, which include, for example, the
transducers necessary to ensure efficient and clean operation of the engine. Id. at
207.
b) a plurality of sensors coupled to a vehicle having an engine,

said plurality of sensors, which collectively monitor operation of
said vehicle, including a road speed sensor, an engine speed
sensor, a manifold pressure sensor and a throttle position
sensor;
Westbrook describes that sensors are essential in any automatic control
system. Westbrook (EX1002) at xiii. Westbrook provides table 2.1 that lists
typical required specifications for sensors for engine and transmission
(powertrain) control. Id. at 8. Westbrook describes that [a] fully comprehensive
powertrain control system would have many of the devices listed in table 2.1. Id.
at 8; see also 207. Thus, Westbrook describes many sensors as being connected to
its central processor including: (1) a road speed sensor; (2) a crankshaft mounted
timing/trigger/speed sensor/s (i.e., an engine speed sensor); (3) an inlet manifold
absolute or differential pressure sensor; and (4) a throttle position sensor. Id. at 9
(Table 2.1). By their very nature, these sensors collectively monitor operation of
19
said vehicle, as recited in claim 1. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 40.
c) a processor subsystem, coupled to each one of said plurality of

sensors, to receive data therefrom;
Westbrook meets this limitation, for example by disclosing a processor
subsystem (e.g., a central processor) that is coupled to each of the sensors noted
above. Sensors are used to acquire information about the process to be controlled,
[and] a microprocessor is used to decide what action should be taken. Westbrook
(EX1002) at xiii (emphasis added). In a fully integrated control system a vehicle
relies upon in-vehicle data links or multiplex systems, which offers the capability
of providing sensor signals around the vehicle. Id. at 4.
Westbrook describes that [t]he modern car contains on average about 30
sensors. Id. at 207. [I]n a conventional data acquisition system these transducers
are connected to the central microprocessor. Id. (emphasis added). The sensors
noted above with regard to limitation (b) are examples of some of the sensors
connected to the central processor. Figures 12.2(a) and 12.2(b) are reproduced
below, each illustrating the coupling of a plurality of sensors (the black boxes) to a
central microprocessor.
20
Id. at 208.
Under plain and ordinary meaning, the recited processor subsystem is not
limited to any specific physical implementation. For example, the 781 patent only
describes it in terms of functionality without restricting the physical components or
hardware. See EX1001 at 5:54-59, 13:46-52; Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 35.
Therefore, a POSITA would have understood that the processor subsystem recited
in claim 1 could include one or more microprocessors for carrying out the
functionality attributed to the processor subsystem of the 781 Patent.
Accordingly, the central processor described by Westbrook, as well as any
processors included in any of the subsystems connected thereto (e.g., the electronic
display instrument cluster) constitute a processor subsystem, coupled to each one

21
of said plurality of sensors, to receive data therefrom, as recited in claim 1.
d) a memory subsystem, coupled to said processor subsystem, said

memory subsystem storing therein a manifold pressure set point,
an RPM set point, and present and prior levels for each one of
said plurality of sensors;
Westbrook meets this limitation, for example by disclosing a memory
subsystem (e.g., semiconductor memory) coupled to the processor subsystem (e.g.,
a microprocessor), where the memory stores the recited set points and sensor levels.
Westbrook describes various uses for semiconductor memory to store data used
by the vehicles microprocessor to decide what actions to take. See Westbrook
(EX1002) at xiii. For example, pressure and speed signals [] provide the input to
a microprocessor which is programmed to look up the optimum advance angle from
a three-dimensional table relating speed, load, and advance angle and stored in
memory (see figure 2.2). Id. at 10 (emphasis added).
22
A POSITA would have understood that the disclosed 3D lookup table relating
manifold pressure, engine speed (in rev min-1) and advance angle includes the
claimed manifold pressure and RPM set points. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 44.
Westbrook also describes the use of memory for individual sensor diagnostics
and calibration, including storing prior levels, e.g., of sensed pressure and RPM
values. For example, Westbrook describes that systems can use low-cost sensors
with relatively poor linearity but high repeatability by initially cycling each of the
sensors under carefully controlled condition through their full operating cycle,
ideally in situ in the vehicle. Westbrook (EX1002) at 5, 239-40. The incremental
change of the sensor output then represents the calibration of the sensor. Id. The
vehicle stores this data in memory where it can be used as the calibration curve
against which future operational measurements are made. Id. In other words,
previously measured values are used as prior levels against which currently
measured levals are compared and calibrated. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 45. Thus
Westbrooks vehicle stores, at least temporarily, present and prior levels for each of
the sensors so that a calibration comparison can be achieved. Id.
e) a fuel overinjection notification circuit coupled to said

processor subsystem, said fuel overinjection notification circuit
issuing a notification that excessive fuel is being supplied to said
engine of said vehicle
Ghitea teaches the recited fuel overinjection notification (FON) circuit and it
23
would have been obvious to a POSITA to integrate Ghiteas FON circuit into
Westbrooks exemplary vehicle and to couple such a circuit to Westbrooks
processor subsystem. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 66-67. As noted in Section V,
supra, Velocity has argued during the now-complete 781 Reexam that the
inventive system of the Patent will provide the driver with a [sic] overinjection
notification as an alert that his or her driving is fuel inefficient. 781 Reexam
(EX1010) at 366. Accordingly, under Velocitys own interpretation, the recited
fuel overinjection circuit is a type of fuel efficiency notification for the driver. On
a related note, the plain and ordinary meaning of excessive fuel is being supplied
is that more fuel is being supplied than is desired according to some metric such as
a target fuel efficiency.
Ghitea describes that the ICU computes quantities for a numerical and a
graphical representation of the fuel economy. Ghitea (EX1004) at 7:1-4. The ICU
further computes a representation of the fuel economy by combining values for the
instantaneous fuel economy or the rate of change of instantaneous fuel economy
from different intervals. Id. at 7:19-22. The ICU displays the rate of change
(increase or decrease) in the vehicles instantaneous fuel economy on a bar graph,
an example of which is shown in FIG. 5. Id. at 7:61-65. The ICU allows the user to
set the zero point 104 of the bar graph (highlighted in the following reproduction of
FIG. 5), which acts as a threshold from which the user will see the fuel economy
24
either increasing or decreasing. See id. at 7:63-8:8.
A POSITA would have understood that this display of fuel economy by
Ghiteas ICU is a notification that excessive fuel is being supplied to said engine
of said vehicle, as recited in claim 1. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 57. In particular,
when the bar graph shows the change in fuel consumption on the negative side of
the zero point 104, a POSITA would have understood this to indicate that excessive
fuel is being supplied to the engine as compared to the target. Id. Accordingly, the
fuel economy device of Ghitea, including the display output by the ICU, teaches the
fuel overinjection notification circuit recited in claim 1.
As noted above, a POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate Ghiteas
overinjection notification circuit into Westbrooks exemplary vehicle. Andrews
Decl. (EX1008) 66-67. Ghitea describes with reference to FIG. 2 that an engine
ECU includes memory 40, a CPU 42, and a port interface 44 connected via a bus
structure 46. Ghitea (EX1004) at 3:41-42. Ghiteas engine ECU also includes a
25
variety of sensors and controls for monitoring and controlling engine performance.
Id. at 3:47-48. The engine ECU receives data representing motion of the vehicle
from the speed sensor and computes vehicle speed from this data, and also serves
as a fuel rate measuring device. Id. at 3:52-55. Ghitea describes that the engine
ECU transmits the road speed and fuel rate parameters to an instrumentation control
unit (ICU). Ghitea (EX1004) at 7:1-4. As described above in Section VI.A.4, supra,
a POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate: 1) the processes of Ghiteas
ECU into the central processor of Westbrooks exemplary vehicle; and 2) the
processes of Ghiteas ICU into the electronic display instrument cluster of
Westbrook. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 66-67. Westbrook motivates the
combination by describing the demand for measurement of instantaneous and trip
fuel economy, usually displayed on a trip computer as one of the driver
information and diagnostics systems available in the exemplary vehicle illustrated
in Figure 2.1. See Westbrook (EX1002) at 7, 24-25.
f) an upshift notification circuit coupled to said processor

subsystem, said upshift notification circuit issuing a notification
that said engine of said vehicle being operated at an excessive
speed;
Habu teaches the claimed upshift notification circuit and it would have been
obvious to a POSITA to integrate Habus circuit into Westbrooks exemplary vehicle
and to couple such a circuit to Westbrooks processor subsystem. Andrews Decl.
(EX1008) 64-65. As shown in FIG. 1 below, the indicator 10 of Habu, to which
26
the central processor is coupled, would be part of the electronic display instrument
cluster in Westbrooks exemplary vehicle, and operate as the upshift notification
circuit, recited in claim 1. See id.
As described by Habu, an instruction signal for changing suitable shift
position relating to optimum fuel consumption rate is generated from the
microcomputer and it is indicated on the indicator 10. Habu (EX1003) at 3:33-37.
Specifically, when either one of the assumed fuel consumption rates . . . is better
than the current fuel consumption rate be, the corresponding shift-up lamp or shift-
27
down lamp in the indicator 10 is illuminated, thus indicating the necessity of the
speed change operation. Id. at 7:29-34 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the
indicator 10 issues a notification that said engine of said vehicle [is] being operated
at an excessive speed.
Habu describes an apparatus with sensors for engine rotation, throttle valve,
and shift position, a microcomputer with memory for storing engine speed data, and
an indicator for indicating preferable shift positions for a driver, so as to enable the
economical running of the car to be realized. Habu (EX1003) at Abstract, FIG. 1,
2:2336, 3:21-37. In the proposed combination of Westbrook and Habu, the
functionality of Habus microcomputer 5 would be integrated into the central
processor of Westbrooks exemplary vehicle. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 64-65.
As described in Sections VI.A.4 and VI.A.5, supra, it would have been obvious to a
POSITA to integrate the shift indication apparatus described by Habu into
Westbrooks exemplary vehicle. Id.
g) said processor subsystem determining, based upon data received

from said plurality of sensors, when to activate said fuel
overinjection circuit and when to activate said upshift
notification circuit.
As noted above in Section VI.A.6 with regard to limitations (c), (e) and (f),
Westbrook teaches a processor subsystem receiving data from the plurality of
specified sensors, and Ghitea and Habu, respectively teach the fuel overinjection
and upshift notification circuits. As described in Sections VI.A.4 and VI.A.5, supra,
28
it would have been obvious to a POSITA to integrate the fuel overinjection and shift
notification circuits taught by Ghitea and Habu, respectively, into Westbrooks
exemplary vehicle to produce the claimed functionality of the processor subsystem.
See Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 58-67.
The plain and ordinary meaning of said processor subsystem determining
when to activate a notification circuit in the context of this recitation is for the
processor subsystem to determine when to provide a notification using the specified
circuit. See id. at 37. The specification does not provide a definition of when to
activate or run contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning. See e.g., EX1001 at
13:2-17.
As described above with regard to the fuel overinjection circuit and upshift
notification circuit limitations, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to
implement the processing functionality of the shift indication apparatus described
by Habu and the fuel economy device described by Ghitea in the central processor
and electronic display instrument cluster of Westbrooks exemplary vehicle for,
among other reasons, improvement in fuel economy. In Figure 12.2, Westbrook
illustrates how the various sensors contained in the exemplary vehicle are coupled
to the central processor. See Westrbook (EX1002) at 208. Habu and Ghitea teach
how this central processor and the other processors connected thereto, when
implementing the processing functionality taught by Habu and Ghitea, would utilize
29
the signals received from these sensors to activate the fuel overinjection and upshift
notification circuits. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 65, 67.
For example, Ghitea describes a CPU-based engine control unit (ECU)
located at the engine that is connected to a variety of sensors including a fuel
rate control 48 and a speed sensor 50. See Ghitea (EX1004), 3:26-56. The ECU
provides the data from these sensors to a CPU-based instrumentation control unit
(ICU) located at the dash that computes quantities for a numerical and a graphical
representation of the fuel economy based on the road speed and fuel rate
parameters. See Ghitea (EX1004), 3:29-32, 4:24-32, 7:1-4. Similarly, Habu
describes utilizing the data corresponding to the engine speed detected by the sensor
1 and throttle valve opening detected by the throttle sensor 3 to determine the
optimum shift position. Habu (EX1003) at 3:21-26.
Accordingly, in the proposed combination of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea,
it would have been obvious for the central processor and any processors connected
thereto (i.e., the claimed processor subsystem) of Westbrooks exemplary vehicle,
implementing the processing functionality described in Habu and Ghitea, to
determin[e], based upon data received from said plurality of sensors, when to
activate said fuel overinjection circuit and when to activate said upshift notification
circuit.
30

sensor;
memory subsystem storing therein a manifold pressure set point
and present and prior levels for each one of said plurality of
sensors;
The combination of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea renders these limitations
obvious for at least the reasons discussed in Section VI.A.6, supra, with regard to
corresponding limitations (a)(e) of claim 1.
f) a downshift notification circuit coupled to said processor

subsystem, s(f)aid downshift notification circuit issuing a
notification that said engine of said vehicle is being operated at
an insufficient engine speed;
The shift indication apparatus described by Habu, combined with Westbrook
in the same manner as described with regard to limitation (f) of claim 1, is also a
downshift notification circuit. See Section VI.A.6, supra. Specifically, Habu
describes that when either one of the assumed fuel consumption rates . . . is better
than the current fuel consumption rate be, the corresponding shift-up lamp or shift-
down lamp in the indicator 10 is illuminated, thus indicating the necessity of the
31
speed change operation. Id. at 7:29-34 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the
indicator 10 issues a notification that said engine of said vehicle is being operated
at an insufficient engine speed, as recited in claim 7.

overinjection circuit and when to activate said downshift
The combination of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea renders this limitation
substantially corresponding limitation (g) of claim 1.

sensor;
an engine speed set point and present and prior levels for each
one of said plurality of sensors;
engine of said vehicle;
that said engine of said vehicle is being operated at an excessive
engine speed;

32
corresponding limitations (a)(f) of claim 1.
g) a downshift notification circuit coupled to said processor

subsystem, said downshift notification circuit issuing a
notification that said engine of said vehicle is being operated at
an insufficient engine speed;
corresponding limitation (f) of claim 7.
h) said processor subsystem determining, based upon data received

overinjection circuit and when to activate said downshift
substantially corresponding limitation (g) of claim 1.
corresponding limitation (a).
b) a radar detector, said radar detector determining a distance

separating a vehicle having an engine and an object in front of
said vehicle;
33
Westbrook describes the recited radar detector. See Westbrook (EX1002) at
229-234. Noting that if a collision can be anticipated 1 s[econd] earlier than by the
unaided driver then 90% of the collisions can be avoided at intersections and in
unidirectional traffic and 65% can be avoided in the case of two-directional traffic,
Westbrook describes the use of vehicle radar to detect objects in front of the
vehicle and in the same road lane which are either stopped or travelling at
significantly lower speed. Id. at 229-30 (emphasis added). A POSITA would have
understood that such a radar system would measure the distance to the detected
object in order to properly give a driver warning at a high level of reliability, as
intended by Westbrook. Id. at 230; Andrews Decl. (EX1008) at 47.
Westbrook also described the use of a low-cost 94 GHz system developed by
Philips for use in an intelligent cruise control system which automatically controls
the speed of the vehicle so as to follow the vehicle in front at a safe distance and a
matched speed by controlling the acceleration and braking of the vehicle according
to the speed and distance measured. Westbrook (EX1002) at 233 (emphasis
added). The distance measured by this radar system would be the distance
separating a vehicle having an engine [i.e., the vehicle in which the system is
installed] and an object in front of said vehicle [i.e., the other vehicle being
followed].
c) at least one sensor coupled to said vehicle for monitoring

operation thereof, said at least one sensor including a road speed
34
sensor, a manifold pressure sensor, a throttle position sensor and

an engine speed sensor;
corresponding limitation (b).
d) a processor subsystem, coupled to said radar detector and said

at least one sensor, to receive data therefrom;
Westbrook renders obvious the recited processor subsystem. At least for
the reasons discussed in Section VI.A.6 in corresponding limitation (c), supra,
Westbrook renders obvious a processor subsystem, coupled to...said at least one
sensor. With regard to said radar detector, a POSITA would have understood
that a radar detector described by Westbrook as part of a collision avoidance and
autonomous driver warning system is a type of sensor. Westbrook (EX1002) at 230
and Andrews Decl. (EX1008) at 48. Accordingly, a POSITA would have found it
obvious to connect the radar described by Westbrook to the central processor shown
in FIG. 12.2(a) via one of the multiplex wiring configurations described above, just
like the other sensors located throughout Westbrooks exemplary vehicle. Id. A
POSITA would have understood that this connection to the central processor may
be via one or more local processors related to the obstacle detection system. Id.
Indeed, a POSITA would have understood that the collision avoidance and
autonomous driver warning system is a type of traffic and road information
35
system shown in FIG. 2.1. Id.
e) a memory subsystem coupled to said processor subsystem said

memory subsystem storing a first vehicle speed/stopping distance
table, a manifold pressure set point an RPM set point a present
level for each one of said at least one sensor and a prior level for
each one of said at least one sensor;
The combination of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea renders the portion of this
limitation that is the same as limitation (d) of claim 1 obvious for at least the reasons
discussed in Section VI.A.6, supra, with regard to corresponding limitation (d).
In addition, a POSITA would have found it obvious for the semiconductor
memory described by Westbrook to store a first vehicle speed/stopping distance
table. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) at 49-50. Westbrook describes optimization of
engine operation through the use of data stored in a microprocessor memory in the
form of a look-up table. See Westbrook (EX1002) at xvi, 7, 10, 13; see also
Andrews Decl. (EX1008) at 49-50. For example, in an electronically controlled
ignition system, pressure and speed signals . . . provide the input to a
microprocessor which is programmed to look up the optimum advance angle from a
three-dimensional table relating speed, load, and advance angle and stored in
memory. Westbrook (EX1002) at 10.
Though Westbrook does not explicitly describe a first vehicle speed/stopping
distance table, a POSITA would have found it obvious to store such a table for use
by the exemplary vehicles central processor in implementing the functionality of
36
the collision avoidance and autonomous driver warning systems described by
Westbrook. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) at 49-50. Such tables reduce required
processing power and increase the speed of performing complex calculations. Id.
Like the look-up table described by Westbrook for use in the ignition system, a
POSITA would have found it obvious for the central processor to utilize a vehicle
speed/stopping distance table as part of a lookup routine to detect . . . objects in
front of the vehicle and give a driver warning at a high level of reliability. See
Westbrook (EX1002) at 230; see also Andrews Decl. (EX1008) at 49-50.
Indeed, the use of a vehicle speed/stopping distance table in Westbrook
would have been consistent with similar tables used in other prior art collisions
avoidance systems. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) at 50. For example, Tresse
describes that its collision avoidance unit compares as a priority, for a measured
speed V, the value D of the distance measured with a reference distance Dr obtained
from a reference table and considered to be a minimum safe distance. Tresse
(EX1012) at 4:11-13. In other examples, Montague and Davidian rely on similar
speed/distance tables. See Montague (EX1013) at 17:21-18:4; Davidian (EX1014)
at 9:20-27; see also Andrews Decl. (EX1008) at 50.
As a whole, these references clearly demonstrate that the use of a vehicle
speed/stopping distance table would have been an obvious choice for implementing
the collision avoidance functions described by Westbrook. Andrews Decl. (EX1008)
37
at 50.
f) a vehicle proximity alarm circuit coupled to said processor

subsystem, said vehicle proximity alarm circuit issuing an alarm
that said vehicle is too close to said object;
As described above, Westbrook describes the integration of collision
avoidance and autonomous driver warning systems into a vehicle. See Westbrook
(EX1002) at 229-234. Westbrook describes the use of vehicle radar to detect
objects in front of the vehicle and in the same road lane which are either stopped
or travelling at significantly lower speed. Id. at 229-30 (emphasis added). The
input from the vehicle radar is processed to give a driver warning at a high level
of reliability. Id. at 230 (emphasis added). Thus, the driver warning output and
display of the collision avoidance and autonomous driver warning systems described
by Westbrook is a vehicle proximity alarm circuit coupled to said processor
subsystem that issu[es] an alarm that said vehicle is too close to said object.
Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 48.
g) a fuel overinjection notification circuit coupled to said

h) an upshift notification circuit coupled to said processor
that said engine of said vehicle is being operated at an excessive
speed;
38
corresponding limitation (e) and (f).
i) said processor subsystem determining, based upon data received

from said radar detector, said at least one sensor and said
memory subsystem, when to activate said vehicle proximity alarm
circuit, when to activate said fuel overinjection circuit, and when
to activate said upshift notification circuit.
The combination of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea renders the portion of this
limitation that is the same as limitation (g) of claim 1 obvious for at least the reasons
discussed in Section VI.A.6, supra, with regard to corresponding limitation (g).
Also as noted in Section VI.A.6, supra, with regard to limitation (g), the plain
and ordinary meaning of said processor subsystem determining when to activate
a notification circuit in the context of this recitation is for the processor subsystem
to determine when to provide a notification using the specified circuit. Andrews
Decl. (EX1008) 37.
In addition, for the reasons set forth above with regard to limitation (d) of
claim 17, a POSITA would have found it obvious to connect the radar transducer
described by Westbrook to the central processor shown in FIG. 12.2(a) via one of
the multiplex wiring configurations, just like the other sensors located throughout
Westbrooks exemplary vehicle. A POSITA would have understood that this
connection to the central processor may be via one or more local processors related
to the obstacle detection system. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) at 48. Moreover, for
the reasons set forth above with regard to limitation (e) of claim 17, a POSITA would
39
have found it obvious for the central processor and any processors relevant to
obstacle detection and connected thereto to utilize the speed and distance Westbrook
describes as being measured by the vehicle radar to look up stopping distance in a
vehicle speed/stopping distance table stored in memory to determine when to warn
the driver that he/she needs to begin braking to avoid a collision. See Westbrook
(EX1002) at 230, 233; see also Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 49-50. Accordingly, it
would have been obvious to a POSITA based on the teachings of Westbrook for the
central processor and other processors connected thereto (i.e., the processor
subsystem) to determine, based upon data received from the radar detector and the
memory subsystem, when to activate said vehicle proximity alarm circuit, as recited
in claim 17. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 48-50.
B. Ground II: Claim 60 is Obvious Over Westbrook in view of Habu,

Ghitea, and Rashid
1. Overview of Rashid
Rashid, similar to Westbrook, discloses employing a radar system to
determine the distance to an object in front of the vehicle and providing a warning
to the driver if there is a collision risk. Rashid (EX1007) at Abstract, 2:27-58, 5:27-
42. Rashid discloses that the system includes speed control means, responsive to
the signal processing means, for automatically applying the vehicle brakes and/or
moving the vehicle accelerator to a position to slow the vehicle upon generation
40
of the first output from the signal processing means. Id., 3:20-34 (emphasis added).
Rashid also discloses that the system includes a circuit (a selector switch)
allowing the operator to toggle between a warning-only mode (i.e., an inactive
mode) and a warning and automatic control of the accelerator and brakes mode (i.e.,
an active mode). Id. at 3:53-60, 4:21-27, 6:28-34, 12:31-45; see also Andrews Decl.
(EX1008) 69.
2. Combination of Westbrook, Habu, Ghitea, and Rashid
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to integrate Rashids circuit (a
selector switch), allowing the operator to toggle between a warning-only mode (i.e.,
an inactive mode) and a warning and automatic control of the accelerator and brakes
mode (i.e., an active mode), into the radar system described generally by Westbrook.
Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 70-75. Given the similarities in the collision avoidance
systems described by Westbrook and Rashid, such a modification of Westbrooks
system would have been a simple combination of prior art elements according to
known methods to yield predictable results. Id.
As set forth above, Westbrook describes the integration of collision avoidance
and autonomous driver warning systems into a vehicle. See Westbrook (EX1002) at
229-234. Westbrook and Rashid both describe radar systems that determine the
distance to an object in front of the vehicle and providing a warning to the driver if
there is a collision risk. See Westbrook (EX1002) at 229-234; Rashid (EX1007) at
41
Abstract, 2:27-58, 5:27-42. Moreover, Westbrook and Rashid both describe radar
systems that are capable of controlling the acceleration and braking of the vehicle
according to the speed and distance measured by the radar system. See Westbrook
(EX1002) at 233; Rashid (EX1007) at 3:20-34. In other words, Westbrook and
Rashid describe very similar systems that generally perform the same functions,
meaning a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
combining their teachings. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 73-74.
Rashid describes mounting a switch to a console that allows the operator to
temporarily disable the automatic accelerator and brake control means. Rashid
(EX1007) at 6:28-34, 12:31-45. Specifically, Rashid describes that an input signal
from a disable for time switch 44 mounted on the vehicle operator control and
display console 20 is input through an amplifier 196 to the accelerator and brake
control logic 34. Id. at 12:36-40. A POSITA would have found it obvious to
integrate this switch 44 into the electronic display instrument cluster of Westbrook,
and link the input signal from Rashids switch 44 into Westbrooks central processor,
which performs the function of the accelerator and brake control logic 34. Andrews
Decl. (EX1008) 75. Moreover, a POSITA would have perceived a reasonable
likelihood of success, because the systems described by Westbrook and Rashid are
similar systems in a predictable art, and the implementation details provided by
Rashid regarding the switch 44 provide enough technical detail to permit a POSITA
42
to integrate the switch 44 into Westbrooks vehicle. Id. at 73-74.
Moreover, the integration of Rashids switch 44 would not otherwise affect
the above-described combination of Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea, as Habu and
Ghitea relate to distinct control systems within Westbrooks vehicle, and Westbrook
describes the use of numerous such control systems within a single vehicle.
Andrews Decl. (EX1008) at 72.
3. Motivation to Combine Westbrook, Habu, Ghitea, and Rashid
A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Westbrook and Rashid in
the manner set forth in the foregoing section, because such a combination would
have improved driver control over Westbrooks collision avoidance system, a known
benefit taught by Rashid. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 70-72. Specifically, Rashid
teaches that providing greater operator control over the [vehicle safety and
protection] system was a known desire for radar-based safety systems. See Rashid
(EX1007) at 1:48-54, 2:19-22. Rashids switch 44 provides the operator of the
vehicle with the capability of operating the vehicle radar safety system in an active
mode in which an indication and automatic control of the vehicle accelerator and
brakes are possible or, alternately, a warning mode only in which no active control
of the accelerator and brake occurs, which is one basis for the desired greater
operator control. See Rashid (EX1007) at 12:31-36; see also Andrews Decl.
(EX1008) 70-71.
43
A POSITA would have appreciated that integrating Rashids switch 44 and
its associated functionality into Westbrooks vehicle, as described above, would have
resulted in greater control over (and ability to configure according to user
preference) Westbrooks collision avoidance and autonomous driver warning
systems. See Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 72. Moreover, a POSITA would have
understood that such an integration would not have otherwise affected the
motivation to Westbrook, Habu, and Ghitea, as Habu and Ghitea relate to distinct
control systems, and the benefits of integrating Habu and Ghiteas teachings into
Westbrook do not contradict or interfere with the benefits of integrating Rashids
teachings. Id.
4. Claim 60 is Obvious over Westbrook, Habu, Ghitea, and Rashid

The combination of Westbrook, Habu, Ghitea, and Rashid renders this
limitation obvious for at least the reasons discussed in Section VI.A.6, supra, with
regard to corresponding limitation (a).
b) a radar detector, said radar detector determining a distance

separating a vehicle having an engine and an object in front of
said vehicle;
regard to corresponding limitation (b).
c) a plurality of sensors coupled to said vehicle for monitoring

44
operation thereof said plurality of sensors including a road speed

sensor and an engine speed sensor;
regard to corresponding limitation (b).
d) a processor subsystem, coupled to said radar detector and said

at least one sensor, to receive data therefrom;
e) a memory subsystem, coupled to said processor subsystem, said
memory subsystem storing a first vehicle speed/stopping distance
table;
f) a vehicle proximity alarm circuit coupled to said processor
subsystem, said vehicle proximity alarm circuit issuing an alarm
that said vehicle is too close to said object;
g) said processor subsystem determining whether to activate said
vehicle proximity alarm circuit based upon separation distance
data received from said radar detector, vehicle speed data
received from said road speed sensor and said first vehicle
speed/stopping distance table stored in said memory subsystem;
and
The combination of Westbrook, Habu, Ghitea, and Rashid renders these
limitations obvious for at least the reasons discussed in Section VI.A.9, supra, with
regard to substantially corresponding limitations (d)(f) and (i) of claim 17,
respectively.
h) a throttle controller for controlling a throttle of said engine of

said vehicle;
Westbrook describes the use of a low-cost 94 GHz system developed by
45
matched speed by controlling the acceleration and braking of the vehicle according
to the speed and distance measured. Westbrook (EX1002) at 233 (emphasis added).
A POSITA would have known that controlling acceleration, particularly as distinct
from braking, would have been accomplished through throttle control. Andrews
Decl. (EX1008) 74.
i) wherein said processor subsystem selectively reduces said

throttle based upon the data received from said radar detector;
Westbrook describes the use of a low-cost 94 GHz system developed by
matched speed by controlling the acceleration and braking of the vehicle
according to the speed and distance measured. Westbrook (EX1002) at 233
(emphasis added). As noted above, a POSITA would have known that controlling
acceleration, particularly as distinct from braking, would have been accomplished
through throttle control. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 74. Moreover, controlling the
throttle according to the speed and distance measured is controlling the throttle
based upon the data received from said radar system, because Westbrook describes
that the radar system measure the speed and distance. Id.
j) further wherein the processor subsystem includes (i) an active

mode in which the processor subsystem activates the vehicle
proximity alarm circuit to issue the vehicle proximity alarm and
reduces the throttle based upon the data received from said radar
detector, and (ii) an inactive mode in which the processor
46
subsystem activates the vehicle proximity alarm circuit to issue

the alarm and the throttle is not selectively reduced based upon
the data received from said radar detector;
As described in Section VI.B.2 and VI.B.3, supra, a POSITA would have
found it obvious to integrate Rashids switch 44 into the electronic display
instrument cluster of Westbrook, and link the input signal from Rashids switch 44
into Westbrooks central processor, which performs the function of the accelerator
and brake control logic 34. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) at 75. So integrated,
Rashids switch 44 provides the operator of the vehicle with the capability of
operating the vehicle radar safety system in an active mode in which an indication
and automatic control of the vehicle accelerator and brakes are possible or,
alternately, a warning mode only in which no active control of the accelerator
and brake occurs. Rashid (EX1007) at 12:31-36 (emphasis added); see also
Andrews Decl. (EX1008) at 75. The warning mode only . . . provides an
indication that the vehicle is approaching too close to an object detected in front of
the vehicle. Rashid (EX1007) at 13:26-32.
Thus, integrating Rashids switch 44 into the electronic display instrument
cluster of Westbrook, and linking the input signal from Rashids switch 44 into
Westbrooks central processor, teaches the recited active mode and inactive
mode, of claim 60.
k) a fuel overinjection notification circuit coupled to said

47

regard to corresponding limitation (e).
l) wherein said processor subsystem determines whether to

activate said fuel overinjection notification circuit based upon at
least the data received from said road speed sensor.
regard to corresponding limitation (e).
C. Ground III: Claim 1 is Obvious Over Jurgen in view of Londt
1. Overview of Jurgen
Jurgen describes that sensors and actuators are the heart of any automotive
electronics application [T]hey are described in technical depth. [A] key in-
depth chapter deals with automotive microcontrollers Displays, trip computers
and on- and off-board diagnostics are described in another section, as are systems
for passenger safety. Jurgen (EX1005) at xvii.
Jurgen teaches each of the sensors recited in the claims of the 781 Patent (i.e.,
road speed, engine speed, manifold pressure, and throttle position sensors), as well
as their use in automotive applications. Regarding the 781 Patent processor
subsystem and memory subsystem recitations, Jurgen teaches that sensors input
48
signals to the Engine Control Unit (ECU) for processing. For example, Jurgen
describes that the ECU can be a microcontroller and can be used to calculate the
vehicles speed. Id. at 14.3. Additionally, Jurgen teaches memory devices used in
automobiles, i.e., [t]the memory devices for program and data are usually
EPROMS. Id. at 13.5
2. Overview of Londt
Londt describes a shift prompter/driver information display for a highway
truck. Londt (EX1006) at Abstract. In the cruising mode, the driver can select, via
a set of switches, information about the vehicles operation that he desires to see. Id.
Among other things, one can select information concerning fuel economy. Id. In
the prompting mode, the display indicates that operation of the transmission to a
different gear is appropriate, whereas in the cruising mode it indicates actual fuel
economy relative to a desired fuel economy goal. Id.
Londt teaches both a shift prompter and a fuel overinjection notification
circuit in the form of a circuit that indicates actual fuel economy relative to a
desired fuel economy goal. Id. at Abstract. Londt teaches that [i]n the case of
fuel economy [the display] is used to show the extent to which the actual fuel
economy is above or below a goal that has been established for fuel economy by
either the driver or the fleet operator. Id. at 5:34-44 (emphasis added). The target
goal would be located at the center of the display and the extent to which the display
49
is illuminated below the center target would show the extent to which fuel
economy is not being attained. Id and FIG. 2.
3. The Combination of Jurgen and Londt
A POSITA would have found it obvious to incorporate the shift and fuel
overinjection notification circuits of Londt into Jurgens exemplary vehicle having
sensors, a processor subsystem, a memory subsystem and at least one display, e.g.,
in order to improve fuel efficiency and provide optimal drivability. Andrews Decl.
(EX1008) 89-91.
Jurgen teaches that on the functional side, the hardware configuration can
be divided into power supply, input signal transfer circuits, output stages, and
microcontroller, including peripheral components and monitoring and safety
circuits (FIG. 13.1). Id. at 13.4. Jurgen teaches numerous sensors connected with
these control systems, including a manifold pressure sensor, an engine rotational
speed sensor, a wheel speed sensor, and a throttle position sensor. Id. at 2.7, 7.6,
12.18, 12.21. Jurgen further teaches various displays. Jurgen (EX1005), FIG. 20.5
at p. 20.8, FIGS. 21.3 and 21.4 at p.21.3. In other words, the basic structural
components necessary to implement the functions of Londt are already present in
the vehicle of Jurgen.
Specifically, with reference to FIG.1, Londt teaches that the shift
prompter/driver information system includes a number of different powertrain
50
sensors that are coupled via a data bus to a microcomputer control. Londt (EX1006)
at 2:67-3:9. The microcomputer control is in turn coupled via a data bus to a display
module, and an input to the microcomputer control is provided by a set of four
switches. Id. Display module is located in the instrument cluster of the vehicle
where it is visible to the driver of the vehicle. Id. Based on these teachings, a
POSITA would have found it obvious to incorporate the shift and fuel overinjection
notification circuits and the input to the microcontroller as taught by Londt into the
processor subsystem (e.g., into the ECU microcontroller) of Jurgens exemplary
vehicle. Andrews Dec. (EX1008) 93.
4. Motivation to Combine Jurgen and Londt
A POSITA would be motivated to combine the references at least because
Jurgen and Londt disclose the same purpose (i.e., providing the driver with more
information to make the vehicle more efficient). Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 89.
For example, Jurgen expressly states that [t]he motive for using an electronic
engine control [ECU] system is to provide the needed accuracy and adaptability in
order to minimize exhaust emissions and fuel consumption, provide optimal
driveability for all operating conditions, minimize evaporative emissions, and
provide system diagnosis when malfunctions occur. Jurgen (EX1005) at p. 12.1
(emphasis added). Jurgen continues by stating that the ECU provides the fuel
metering and ignition timing precision to minimize fuel consumption. Id. at p.
51
12.4; Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 90.
Similarly, Londt teaches a shift prompter and gas mileage display relative to
a desired fuel economy goal designed to, among other things, reduce fuel
consumption. With respect to gear shifting, Londt states [t]ypically these gear
change signaling systems monitor fuel consumption and are intended to inform the
driver that better fuel economy can be obtained in a different gear and therefore
they serve to encourage the driver to shift to a gear that will result in more
economical fuel consumption. Londt (EX1006) at 1:29-34. (emphasis added).
With regard to fuel economy without gear shifting, Londt states the
display functions to indicate the extent to which the value of a particular
selected sub-category of information that is presented on the multi-digit numerical
display 24 is above or below a target value. Londt (EX1006) at 5:29-44. The
target value is a goal set by either the driver or the fleet operator. Id. Thus, the
display shows the extent to which the target fuel economy, i.e., an MPG goal (shown
via selections 26 and 28 in FIG. 2) is not being attained via an instantaneous MPG
display (also shown via selections 26 and 28 in FIG. 2). In other words, the display
shows an amount of fuel over the target is being supplied to the engine. Id.; see also
Andrews Dec. (EX1008) 87. Based on these teachings, a POSITA would have
been motivated to incorporate the shift and fuel overinjection notification circuits of
Londt into the processor subsystem (e.g., into the ECU microcontroller) of Jurgen
52
in order to, among other reasons, improve fuel economy. Andrews Dec. (EX1008)
90-91.
5. Claim 1 is obvious in view of the combination of Jurgen and Londt
The combination of Jurgen and Londt renders obvious the apparatus for
optimizing operation of a vehicle, recited in claim 1. In particular, Jurgen teaches
using an electronic engine control [ECU] system to provide the needed accuracy
and adaptability in order to minimize exhaust emissions and fuel consumption,
[and] provide optimal driveability for all operating conditions. Jurgen (EX1005)
at p. 12.1 (emphasis added).

sensor;
Jurgen discloses the plurality of recited sensors coupled to a motor vehicle to
collectively monitor operation of the vehicle. There are several applications for
rotational speed sensing. First it is necessary to monitor engine speed. . . . Linear
speed sensing can be used to measure the ground speed. Similar types of sensors
can be used in crash avoidance, proximity, and obstacle detection applications.
Jurgen (EX1005) at p. 7.6. In electronic transmission applications, information
from the road and engine speed sensors, . . . are required for the
[microcontroller] MCU to select the optimum gear ratio. Id. at p. 7.8 (emphasis
53
added). Automotive specification and testing guidelines have been developed and
published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) specifically for manifold
absolute pressure (MAP) sensors. Id. at 2.5 (emphasis added). Manifold
absolute pressure (MAP) is used as an input to fuel and ignition control in internal
combustion engine control systems. Id. at 2.7. To control the idle speed, the
[engine control unit] ECU uses inputs from the throttle position sensor, . . . ,
engine RPM, and vehicle speed. Id. at 12.18 (emphasis added).

Jurgen discloses a processor subsystem coupled to each of the sensors above
to receive their data. For example, it discloses that [t]he electronic engine control
system consists of sensing devices which continuously measure the operating
conditions of the engine, [and] an electronic control unit (ECU) which evaluates the
sensor inputs. Jurgen (EX1005) at p. 12.1. During the entire operating time of
the vehicle, the ECUs are constantly supervising the sensors they are connected to.
Id. at 22.6. On the functional side, the hardware configuration can be divided into
power supply, input signal transfer circuits, output stages, and microcontroller,
including peripheral components and monitoring and safety circuits (FIG. 13.1).
Id. at 13.4.
54
The speed sensor is one of the most critical parts in the system, because the
microcontroller calculates the vehicle speed from the speed sensors signal to within
1/32 m/h. Id. at 14.3. A POSITA would have understood the ECU microcontroller
of Jurgen is a processor subsystem, coupled to each one of said plurality of sensors,
to receive data therefrom. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 80, 84.

an RPM set point, and present and prior levels for each one of
said plurality of sensors;
55
Jurgen discloses a memory subsystem, coupled to the processor subsystem,
where the memory subsystem stores a manifold pressure set point, an RPM set point
and present and prior levels for each of the plurality of sensors. The calculators
inside the control units are usually microcontrollers. . . . The memory devices for
program and data are usually EPROMS. Jurgen (EX1005) at 13.5 (emphasis
added). Such an EPROM is shown in Jurgens FIG. 13.1 reproduced above.
A subsystem of the fuel control system is lambda closed-loop control.
Lambda... is defined as the excess-air factor that indicates the deviation
of the actual air/fuel ratio from the theoretically required ratio . . . . The
lambda sensor, or exhaust gas oxygen sensor, is installed in the engine
exhaust stream upstream of the catalytic converter. The engine load
information is provided by the manifold pressure sensor for speed
density systems and by the air meter for air flow and air mass
measurement systems and by the throttle valve position sensor. The
engine control unit contains data tables for combinations of load
and RPM. . . .[T]he electronic control unit has a feature for adapting
changes in the fuel required for the load/RPM points. At each
load/RPM point, the lambda sensor continuously provides information
that allows the system to adjust the fuel to the commanded A/F ratio.
The corrected information is stored in RAM (random access
56
memory) so that the next time the engine reaches that operating
point (load/RPM), the anticipatory value will require less
correction. These values remain stored in the electronic control
unit even after the engine is shut off. Id. at 12.9 (emphasis added);
see also Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 82.
With respect to the present and prior levels for each one of said plurality of
sensors portion of recitation (d) above, Jurgen states [o]ther safety-related items
include program code to detect abnormal operating conditions and preserving into
memory the data points associated with the abnormal condition for later
diagnostics. Id. at 14.2. Modern electronics in vehicles support diagnosis by
comparing the registered actual value with the internally stored nominal values.
Id. at pp. 22.2-22.3 (emphasis added).
Thus, Jurgen discloses a memory subsystem (e.g., RAM or EPROM), coupled
to the processor subsystem (e.g., coupled to the ECU microcontroller), where the
memory subsystem stores a manifold pressure set point (e.g., the load operating
point), an RPM set point (e.g., the RPM operating point) and present and prior levels
for each of the plurality of sensors (e.g., the registered actual values and the data
points associated with the abnormal conditions). Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 84.

57
Londt teaches a fuel overinjection notification circuit coupled to a processor
subsystem, where the circuit issues a notification that excessive fuel is being
supplied to the engine. As noted in Section V, supra, Velocity has argued during
the now-complete reexamintion of the 781 Patent that the inventive system of the
Patent will provide the driver with a [sic] overinjection notification as an alert that
his or her driving is fuel inefficient. 781 Reexam (EX1010) at 366. Accordingly,
under Velocitys own interpretation, the recited fuel overinjection circuit is a type
of fuel efficiency notification for a driver.
Jurgen describes in its preface that sensors and actuators are the heart of any
automotive electronics application. [A] key in-depth chapter deals with
automotive microcontrollers...Displays, trip computers and on- and off-board
diagnostics are described in another section. Jurgen (EX1005) at xvii.
Furthermore, Jurgen expressly states that [t]he motive for using an electronic
engine control [ECU] system is to provide the needed accuracy and adaptability in
order to minimize exhaust emissions and fuel consumption. Id. at p. 12.1
(emphasis added).
As described previously, Londt describes one particular implementation of a
fuel economy device that a POSITA would have found obvious to integrate into
Jurgens sensor and display system to minimize fuel consumption. Andrews Decl.
(EX1008) 89. A driver information display indicates actual fuel economy
58
relative to a desired fuel economy goal. Londt (EX1006) at Abstract. Londts Figs
1 and 2 are shown below:
FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram of the shift prompter/driver information
display of the present invention. FIG. 2 is a detailed view of the module that contains
the display. Id. at 2:33-37. The shift prompter/driver information display 10
of the present invention comprises ... a microcomputer control, 16 generally.
The microcomputer control 16 is in turn coupled via a data bus 18 to a display
module 20. Id. at 2:67-3:9 (emphasis added). Also forming an input to the
microcomputer control 16 is a set of four keypad switches, 22 generally. Display
59
module 20 is located in the instrument cluster of the vehicle where it is readily visible
to the driver of the vehicle. Id. at 2:67-3:9. Thus, in this combination, the display
module 20 (shown above in FIG. 1 of Londt) is the fuel overinjection notification
circuit.
The display 24 shown in FIG. 2 presents data. The particular data presented
is organized by category (function) and sub-category (mode). Running vertically
along the left hand side of display 24 are a series 26 of six data categories, namely
MPG (fuel economy in miles per gallon); [and] RPM (engine speed in revolutions
per minute); .... Running horizontally along the bottom of the display are the
following sub-categories 28: Total; Goal; Average (Avg.); Instantaneous (Inst.);
Remaining (Remain). Id. at 4:14-30. For example if the information presented
on display 24 were the instantaneous fuel consumption, MPG would be illuminated
under the function categories and Inst. would be illuminated under the mode sub-
categories. Id. at 4:34-38. Keypad switch 22 is used to select the particular
category and sub-category. The keypad has four individual switches labeled
function-up, function-down, reset, and mode. The function-up and function-
down switches are used in selecting the particular function, or category. Id. at 4:51-
56. The mode switch is used to select the particular sub-category. Id. at 4:65-66.
In the case of fuel economy, the display is used to show the extent to
which the actual fuel economy is above or below a goal that has been established
60
for fuel economy by either the driver or the fleet operator. Id. at 5:29-44 (emphasis
added). The target goal would be located at the center ... a length of illumination
below the center target would show the extent to which fuel economy is not
being attained. Id. at 5:29-44 (emphasis added).
As described above in Section VI.C.3, supra, a POSITA would have found it
obvious to integrate the processes of Londts microcomputer into the ECU
microcontroller of Jurgens vehicle (making use of Jurgens manifold pressure
sensor data) and to integrate the processes of Londts display module 20 (shown in
FIG. 1) into the instrument panel display of Jurgen. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 93.

that said engine of said vehicles being operated at an excessive
speed;
Londt teaches the recited upshift notification circuit coupled to a processor
subsystem (e.g., a microcomputer). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to
integrate the shift indication apparatus described by Londt into the Jurgens
exemplary vehicle by coupling Londts upshift notification circuit to Jurgens ECU
microcontroller. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 93.
Londt describes a shift prompter/driver information display for a highway
truck. Londt (EX1006) at Abstract. With reference to FIG.1, Londt teaches that
the shift prompter/driver information display 10 [includes]...microcomputer
control, 16 generally. The microcomputer control 16 is in turn coupled via a data bus
61
18 to a display module 20. . Display module 20 is located in the instrument cluster
of the vehicle where it is readily visible to the driver. Id. at 2:67-3:9.
With respect to gear shifting, Londt states [t]ypically these gear change
signaling systems monitor fuel consumption and are intended to inform the driver
that better fuel economy can be obtained in a different gear and therefore they
serve to encourage the driver to shift to a gear that will result in more
economical fuel consumption. Id. at 1:29-34. (emphasis added).
In the proposed combination of Jurgen and Londt, the functionality of the
microcomputer 20 would be integrated into the ECU microcontroller of Jurgens
exemplary vehicle. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 93. The upshift lamp 36 of Londts
display module, to which the microcomputer is coupled, would be part of the
instrument panel display in Jurgens exemplary vehicle, and would operate as the
upshift notification circuit, recited in claim 1. See Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 93.
In Londt, when the microcomputer control senses from the powertrain sensors that
the transmission is being operated in other than an optimal gear, the prompting mode
comes into play. Display 22 contains an upshift lamp 36. The upshift lamp is
illuminated when upshifting of the transmission is sensed as being desirable.
Londt (EX1006) at 5:47-55 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the indicator 36 (shown
above in Londts FIG. 2) issues a notification that said engine of said vehicle is
being operated at an excessive speed.
62

overinjection circuit and when to activate said upshift
As described in Section VI.C.3, supra, with regard to the overinjection and
upshift limitations, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the
processing functionality of the shift indication and the fuel economy notification
circuits described by Londt in the central processor and electronic display instrument
cluster of Jurgens exemplary vehicle for, among other reasons, improvement in fuel
economy. Andrews Decl. (EX1008) 89-91.
With reference to Londt FIG. 1, Londt teaches that [t]he shift prompter/driver
information display 10 of the present invention comprises ...a microcomputer
control, 16 generally. The microcomputer control 16 is in turn coupled via a data bus
18 to a display module 20. Also forming an input to the microcomputer control 16
is a set of four keypad switches, 22 generally. Display module 20 is located in the
instrument cluster of the vehicle where it is readily visible to the driver of the
vehicle. Londt (EX1006) at 2:67-3:9. In Londt, when the microcomputer control
senses from the powertrain sensors that the transmission is being operated in other
than an optimal gear, the prompting mode comes into play. Display 22 contains an
upshift lamp 36. The upshift lamp is illuminated when upshifting of the
transmission is sensed as being desirable. Id. at 5:47-55 (emphasis added).
Similarly, with regard to fuel overinjection and with reference to FIG. 2, [t]he target
63
goal would be located at the center [32 and]... a length of illumination below the
center target would show the extent to which fuel economy is not being
attained. Londt (EX1006) at 5:29-44 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for Jurgens ECU microcontroller
and any processors connected thereto (i.e., the claimed processor subsystem) to
implement the processing functionality described in Londt, to determin[e], based
upon data received from said plurality of sensors, when to activate the fuel
overinjection circuit and when to activate the upshift notification circuit. Andrews
Decl. (EX1008) 93.
64
VII. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Challenged Claims of the 781 Patent recite
subject matter that is unpatentable. The Petitioner requests institution of an inter
partes review to cancel these claims.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: July 26, 2017 /C. Eric Schulman/

C. Eric Schulman
Registration No. 43,350
Jonathan Stroud
Attorneys for Petitioner
65
Table of Exhibits for U.S. Patent 5,954,781 Petition for Inter Partes Review
Exhibit Description
1001 U.S. Patent 5,954,781
M. H. Westbrook & J. D. Turner, AUTOMOTIVE SENSORS

1002
(1994) (Westbrook)
U.S. Patent 4,559,599 (filed on Mar. 11, 1983; published on

1003
Dec. 17, 1985) (Habu)
1004 U.S. Patent 5,693,876 (filed on May 21 1996) (Ghitea)
1005 R. Jurgen (Ed.), AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRONICS HANDBOOK

(1995) (Jurgen)
1006 U.S. Patent 5,017,916 (published May 21, 1991) (Londt)
1007 U.S. Patent 5,905,457 (filed on Feb. 25, 1993; issued on

May 18, 1999) (Rashid)
1008 Declaration of Mr. Scott Andrews
1009 File History of U.S. Patent 5,954,781
Reexamination Image File Wrapper of U.S. Patent

1010
5,954,781 (Control No. 90/013,252) (781 Reexam)
1011 Declaration of Mr. Scott Bennett
1012 EP Publication No. 0 392 953 (Tresse)
1013 PCT Publication No. 91/07672 (Montague)
1014 U.S. Patent 5,357,438 (Davidian)
66
CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR 42.24(d)
Under the provisions of 37 CFR 42.24(d), the undersigned hereby certifies
that the word count for the foregoing Petition for Inter Partes Review totals 13,558,
which is less than the 14,000 allowed under 37 CFR 42.24(a)(i).
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: July 26, 2017 /C. Eric Schulman/

C. Eric Schulman
Jonathan Stroud
Attorneys for Petitioner
67
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to 37 CFR 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
certifies that on July 26, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Petition for Inter
Partes Review and all supporting exhibits were provided via Federal Express, to
the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
Richards Patent Law P.C.

233 S. Wacker Dr., 84th Floor
Chicago IL 60606
/Diana Bradley/
Diana Bradley
60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(858) 678-5667
68

Unified Patents Inc. v. Velocity Patent LLC, IPR2017-01723 (PTAB Jul. 26, 2017)

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Unified Patents Inc. v. Velocity Patent LLC, IPR2017-01723 (PTAB Jul. 26, 2017)

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

DOCKET NO.

Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF

I. Mandatory Notices .............................................................................................1

and Rashid ............................................................................................................40

Ill.), as well as litigation in the Northern District of Illinois against Mercedes-Benz

(Case No. 1:13-cv-08413-JWD), BMW (Case No. 1:13-cv-08416), Chrysler (Case

and IPRs IPR2014-01247, IPR2015-00276 and IPR2015-00290, each of which has

either been completed or terminated.

Lead Counsel: C. Eric Schulman (Registration No. 43,350)

Backup Counsel: W. Karl Renner (Registration No. 41,265)

Backup Counsel: David Holt (Registration No. 65,161)

Backup Counsel: Jonathan Stroud (Registration No. 72,518)

Backup Counsel: Ashraf Fawzy (Registration No. 67,914)

Fish & Richardson P.C.

3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street

Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at IPR43930-

0004IP1@fr.com (referencing No. 43930-0004IP1 and ccing

PTABInbound@fr.com, schulman@fr.com, axf-ptab@fr.com, holt2@fr.com,

jonathan@unifiedpatents.com, and afawzy@unifiedpatents.com). C. Eric

Schulman can be reached directly at 650-839-5149.

II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING

grounds identified in this Petition.

III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED

Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges

A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications

The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability

1. M. H. Westbrook & J. D. Turner, AUTOMOTIVE SENSORS (1994)

(Westbrook (EX1002)), which is a book (a written publication) that was

publically available, e.g., in at least one library, no later than November

(Habu (EX1003)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).

is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).

enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA). Accordingly, pre-AIA statutory

4. Automotive Electronics Handbook (Ronald Jurgen (ed.), 1995) (Jurgen

(EX1005)), which is a book (a written publication) that was publically

(Londt (EX1006)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).

(Rashid (EX1007)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).

B. Grounds for Challenge

Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable

under 35 U.S.C. 103. This Petition, supported by the accompanying declaration

of Mr. Scott Andrews (Mr. Andrews) (Andrews Decl. (EX1008)), demonstrates

Challenged Claims. See 35 U.S.C. 314(a).

IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 781 PATENT

A. Summary of the Alleged Invention

excessive speeds, excessive RPMs, and excessive manifold pressures leads to

increased operating costs can be considerable, particularly for an owner or operator

of a fleet of vehicles. EX1001, 1:17-20. Accordingly, the 781 patent suggests a

processor subsystem for determining when to issue notifications regarding

recommended changes in vehicle operation that, when executed by the driver,

increase efficient vehicle operation.

processor subsystem, and a memory in an automobile to determine whether to take

known prior to the filing date of the 781 Patent.

B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

knowledge of electrical engineering, including sensors, processing systems, and

notification circuitry. The person would have a Bachelor of Science degree in

electrical engineering or a comparable field, in combination with training or at least

electronics. Andrews Decl. (Ex. 1008) at 34.

to the processor subsystem. EX1009 at 81.

reexamination of the 781 patent (EX1010), granted as Reexamination 90/013,252

against the reexamination Examiners construction of the term fuel overinjection

notification circuit, and asserted that