Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.v.Wasica Finance GmbH

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2015

08137155 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 41
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 17, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
WASICA FINANCE GMBH & BLUEARC FINANCE AG,
Patent Owner.
_______________

Case IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524
_______________

Before RAMA G. ELLURU, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

2

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a corrected
Petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No.
5,602,524 (Ex. 1001, “the ’524 patent”). Paper 6 (“Pet.”). The Petition was
supported by a declaration from Ray Mercer, Ph.D. Ex. 1010 (“Mercer
Declaration”). Wasica Finance GmbH and BlueArc Finance AG
(collectively, “Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response. In our
Decision on Institution (Paper 11, “Dec.”), we instituted trial for claims 1–3
and 5–21 on the following grounds:
References Basis Claims
Oselin1 § 102 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21
Oselin § 103 1, 2, 5, 6, 9–11, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21
Oselin and Williams2 § 103 3, 7, 8, and 20
Oselin and Schultz3 § 103 12 and 16
Oselin and Barabino4 § 103 14
Oselin, Schultz, and Li5 § 103 17
Id. at 31–32.

1 Italian Patent No. 1219753, published May 24, 1990 (Ex. 1003, “Oselin”).
Citations to this reference refer to its English translation (Ex. 1004).
2 U.S. Patent No. 5,109,213, issued Apr. 28, 1992 (Ex. 1005, “Williams”).
3 U.S. Patent No. 5,083,457, issued Jan. 28, 1992 (Ex. 1006, “Schultz”).
4 U.S. Patent No. 4,067,376, issued Jan. 10, 1978 (Ex. 1008, “Barabino”).
5 U.S. Patent No. 4,912,463, issued Mar. 27, 1990 (Ex. 1007, “Li”).
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

3

During trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 27,
“PO Resp.”), which was accompanied by an expert declaration from Scott
Andrews (Ex. 2006, “Andrews Declaration”). Petitioner filed a Reply to the
Patent Owner Response. Paper 29 (“Pet. Reply”). An oral hearing was held
on March 9, 2015. A transcript of the hearing has been entered into the
record. Paper 40 (“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
We determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that claims 1–3, 5, 10–19, and 21 of the ʼ524 patent are
unpatentable. Petitioner, however, has not established, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that claims 6–9 and 20 of the ’524 patent are unpatentable.
B. Related Proceedings
The ’524 patent is the subject of the following co-pending federal
district court cases: Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive
Systems US, Inc., Case No. 1-13-cv-01356 (D. Del.); and Wasica Finance
GmbH v. Schrader International, Inc., Case No. 1-13-cv-01353 (D. Del.).
Pet. 1; Paper 9, 2.
C. The ’524 Patent
The ’524 patent is titled “Device for Monitoring the Air-Pressure in
Pneumatic Tires Fitted on Vehicle Wheels.” Figure 1 of the ’524 patent,
reproduced below, illustrates a vehicle including an exemplary monitoring
device.
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

4

Figure 1 is a schematic illustration of a vehicle including wheels R1–R4;
transmitting devices S1–S4, fixed to wheels R1–R4, respectively; a
receiving device, including receivers E1–E4, fixed on the vehicle body;
central control device Z; and display device A.
Transmitting devices S1–S4 send signals corresponding to each of
wheels R1–R4, respectively, to the receiving device. Ex. 1001, 6:63–64,
8:42–43. Figure 3 illustrates the composition of the signals and is
reproduced below.

IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

5

Figure 3, above, is an example of the signals sent by transmitting devices
S1–S4 in the form of a table depicting the portions of the signals (preamble,
identification-signal, data, post-amble). Id. at Fig. 3. In the example
provided, the preamble has 16 bits that enable receiving parts E1–E4 to
synchronize with the signals. Id. at 6:65–7:9. Each identification signal is a
binary number having 32 bits that contains an identification characteristic
specific to corresponding transmitting device S1–S4. Id. Each data signal
has 24 bits that contains the measured pressure value in binary form, and
each post-amble is 4 bits that completes the signal. Id.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the receiving device may include receivers
E1–E4 near each wheel R1–R4, respectively, for each transmitting device
S1–S4, respectively. Id. at 7:64-66, Fig. 5. Alternatively, the receiving
device may be common to all transmitting devices S1–S4 and may be
accommodated in a transportable housing. Id. at 11:29–35, Fig. 6. In either
embodiment, the receiving device can be switched between a normal
operating mode and a pairing mode. Id. at 9:57–60, 12:16–18. During the
pairing mode, the receiving device stores the identification signal from each
transmitting device S1–S4. Id. at 10:1–27, 11:7–15, 12:16–27.
During operation, the receiving device evaluates the signals provided
by transmitting devices S1–S4 and determines whether the identification-
signal portion matches the identification signal stored in the receiving
device. Id. at 8:42–47. The ’524 patent explains that the matching can
include the identification signal and the stored reference signal being
identical or having another predetermined mathematical relationship. Id. at
8:55–57. If the receiving device determines that the signals match, the data
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

6

portion of the signals provided by transmitting devices S1–S4 are evaluated.
Id. at 8:47–49.
Claim 1 is independent, with claims 2, 3, and 5–21 depending from
claim 1. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter and is reproduced
below:
1. A device for monitoring the air pressure in the air
chamber of pneumatic tires fitted on vehicle
wheels comprising:
a pressure measuring device mounted on a vehicle
wheel which measures the air pressure in the air
chamber of the wheel [a]nd outputs an
electrical pressure signal representative of the
air pressure in the vehicle wheel;
a transmitter mounted to the vehicle wheel which
receives the electrical pressure signal output
from the pressure measuring device and sends
out a pressure transmitting signal corresponding
to said air pressure;
a receiver associated with the transmitter and
mounted at a distance to the vehicle wheel
which receives the pressure transmitting signal
transmitted from the associated transmitters
a display device which is connected with the
receiver and displays data as numbers or
symbols which have been taken from the
pressure transmitting signal received from the
receiver;
wherein the transmitter comprises an emitter-
control device which controls the emittance of
the pressure transmitting signal and a signal-
generating device which generates an
identification signal which is unique for the
transmitter and clearly identifies same;
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

7

the emitter-control device works such that the
identification signal is transmitted at least once
before or after the emittance of the pressure
transmitting signal;
the receiver comprises at least a memory in which
is stored an identification reference signal
related to the associated transmitter in
accordance with a predetermined relationship
criteria;
the receiver comprises a comparison device which
checks if an identification signal transmitted
from a transmitter has the relationship criteria
to identification reference signal stored in the
receiver, and that further processing of the
pressure transmission signal taken from the
receiver only takes places if the identification
signal received by the receiver and the
identification reference signal stored in the
receiver fulfill the relationship criteria;
the identification reference signal stored in the
receiver is changeable in order that the
identification signal from the associated
transmitter matches the identification reference
signal of the receiver; and
the receiver is connected with a switching device
which enables the receiver to switch over from
normal operating mode, in which the air
pressure is monitored, to pairing mode, in
which the receiver collects the identification
signal of the transmitter and stores this as an
identification signal.
Id. at 13:19–14:3.
D. Claim Construction
The ’524 patent is expired. See Pet. 12; PO Resp. 1. “[T]he Board’s
review of the claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

8

court’s review.” In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Specifically, because the expired claims of the patent are not subject to
amendment, we apply the principle set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)), that “words of a claim ‘are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,’” as understood by a
person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.
“In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look
principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language
itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.”
DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).
1. “pressure measuring device”
Claim 1 requires “a pressure measuring device . . . which measures
the air pressure . . . [a]nd outputs an electrical pressure signal representative
of the air pressure in the vehicle wheel.” Petitioner did not offer an explicit
construction for this limitation. See Pet. 12–15.
Patent Owner contends that the limitation “requires that the pressure
measuring device mounted on a vehicle wheel outputs an electrical signal
that portrays or symbolizes a quantitative value of the measured air pressure
(i.e., an absolute pressure value or another numeric value in units of force
per area) in the wheel.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 40). Patent Owner
contends that the limitation, therefore, requires the pressure sensor to output
“a numeric value of the pressure, not merely an on/off switch for an
alarm/no-alarm category indicator” (i.e., the pressure sensor cannot be a
switch-based pressure sensor). Id. at 6–7. Patent Owner alleges that
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

9

“[e]very embodiment described in the ’524 patent includes measuring a
quantitative value of the pressure and outputting an electrical signal that
portrays or symbolizes that measured quantitative value . . . not merely an
on/off switch for an alarm/no-alarm category indicator.” Id. Petitioner
disagrees, and explains that “the ’524 patent also describes measuring
pressure with a switch-based pressure sensor described in EP-A-0417712
(Ex. 1024) or EP-A-0417704 (Ex. 1025).” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1002,6
5:1–14; Ex. 1021, 1:40–43; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 17–21).
The issue presented here is whether the scope of “pressure measuring
device” excludes a switch-based pressure sensor. Initially, we note that the
discussion of EP-A-0417712 and EP-A-0417704 (Exhibits 1024 and 1025,
respectively) in the cited portion of the ’524 patent (i.e., Ex. 1001, 5:1–14)
includes a discussion of “monitoring” tire pressure. Patent Owner, however,
acknowledges that “the [’524] patent . . . uses the terms [monitor and
measure] interchangeably” and notes that “[i]t is not crystal clear how to
distinguish between the two.” Tr. 36:15–17. Regardless of whether
“monitoring” and “measuring” are intended to have the same meaning in the
’524 patent, the ’524 patent expressly discusses “measuring” with a switch-
based pressure sensor when describing “measur[ing] the tire air-pressure by
way of pressure sensors arranged on the vehicle wheels, which measurement
signal is then displayed in a suitable way to the driver . . . for example, in
DE-3930479 A1.” Ex. 1001, 1:45–49 (emphasis added).
In addition, the German reference (DE-3930479 A1) discussed in the
’524 patent corresponds to U.S. Patent No. 5,040,561 (Ex. 1021, “the ’561

6 Petitioner’s citation appears to be a typographical error, and should,
instead, refer to Exhibit 1001 (the ’524 patent).
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

10

patent”), which is cited by Petitioner to support the contention that “the ’524
patent also describes measuring pressure with a switch-based pressure
sensor.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1021, 1:40–43). The cited portion of the
’561 patent describes a “continuously biased diaphragm [] arranged to
actuate a switching means due to an anomal tire pressure, and said switching
means will activate the transmitter means” (i.e., a switch-based pressure
sensor). Ex. 1021, 1:40–43. Thus, the ’524 patent describes a “pressure
measuring device” as including either a device outputting a numeric value of
air pressure or a switch-based device that indicates an anomalous pressure
condition (e.g., high or low pressure).
Accordingly, we do not accept Patent Owner’s overly narrow
construction of “pressure measuring device.” Instead, consistent with the
specification of the ’524 patent, we determine that the “pressure measuring
device” recited in the claims can include at least a switch-based pressure
sensor or a pressure sensor that outputs a numeric value of pressure.
2. “bit sequence”
Claim 9 requires “a transmission of at least a 4 bit sequence”
including a first bit sequence, a second bit sequence, a third bit sequence,
and a fourth bit sequence. Petitioner did not offer an explicit construction
for this limitation. See Pet. 12–15.
Patent Owner contends that the term “sequence” means a string of
multiple bits. PO Resp. 11 (emphasis added). Patent Owner notes that
“[e]very embodiment described in the ’524 patent refers to bit sequences as
including a series of multiple bits.” Id. Patent Owner additionally notes that
“[t]his interpretation of ‘bit sequence’ is also supported by the dictionary
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

11

definition of the word ‘sequence’ as ‘a series of items that have been
sequenced.’” Id. (citing Ex. 2005, 468–469).
Petitioner contends that “[t]o remain consistent with the plain and
ordinary meaning of ‘at least a 4 bit sequence,’ the first, second, third, and
fourth bit sequences recited in claim 9 must be able to comprise a single bit.”
Pet. Reply 12 (emphasis added).
We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions. Petitioner
acknowledges that the plain meaning of “sequence” is more than one. See
Tr. 26:1–4. For example, when discussing the meaning of the term
“sequence” as “one thing following another” (i.e., implying a requirement of
more than one) at oral hearing, Petitioner stated: “I would agree that in the
dictionary it generally uses those types of definitions, but the way that this
claim was drafted, and the claim appears how it appears, it uses the term at
least a four-bit sequence.” Id. Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, the plain
language of claim 9 requires eight or more bits (i.e., at least two bits for each
of a first bit sequence, a second bit sequence, a third bit sequence, and a
fourth bit sequence), which Petitioner acknowledges would be “at least a 4
bit sequence,” as required by the claim. See id. at 25:1–6. Petitioner has
failed to apprise us of any disclosure in the ’524 specification that provides a
meaning for “sequence” where a single item, such as a single bit, would
constitute a sequence. As Patent Owner notes, the specification of the ’524
patent consistently uses the term “sequence” to refer to multiple bits. See,
e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:27–29.
Accordingly, we construe a “bit sequence” as requiring two or more
bits, which is consistent with its plain meaning and use in the specification
of the ’524 patent.
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

12

3. “emittance”
Claim 17 recites that “each transmitter comprises a detector device
which recognizes emittance of a predetermined switching signal.” Petitioner
did not offer an explicit construction for this claim term. See Pet. 12–15.
Patent Owner contends that “emittance” “means energy that is
radiated or sent out representative of a predetermined switching signal.” PO
Resp. 13. More specifically, Patent Owner contends that “emit” requires
wireless transmission, and that this construction is consistent with both the
plain and ordinary meaning of “emit” and its use in the specification of the
’524 patent. Id. Petitioner responds that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning
of ‘emit,’ however, does not require wireless transmission.” Pet. Reply 10.
Although Patent Owner identifies several examples in the
specification of the ’524 patent that discuss emitting a wireless signal, Patent
Owner fails to identify anything that requires “emit” to be a transmission of
a wireless signal. See PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:12–14, 8:42–44,
10:60–62). Patent Owner’s contention that “[t]he ordinary and customary
meaning of ‘emit’ (‘send out (heat, light, vapour, etc.)’) and ‘emissive’
(‘having the power to radiate light, heat, etc.’) are also consistent with the
above-mentioned usage in the ’524 patent” are unpersuasive. Id. (citing Ex.
2003, 383; Ex. 2006 ¶ 118). The cited testimony from Mr. Andrews
generally reiterates Patent Owner’s contentions, which we find
unpersuasive. Ex. 2006 ¶ 118.
The dictionary definition of “emit” cited by Patent Owner defines the
term as “send out,” and provides non-limiting examples of sending out
“heat, light, vapour, etc.” Ex. 2003, 383. Patent Owner fails to identify, and
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

13

we do not see, anything further in the record that would limit “emit” to
sending out wireless transmissions.
Accordingly, we construe “emittance” as something sent out, such as
a signal, which may be sent by a wired or wireless transmission.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Anticipation by Oselin
We have reviewed the Petition, the Patent Owner Response, and
Petitioner’s Reply, as well as the relevant evidence discussed in those
papers. We are persuaded that Petitioner has established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21
are anticipated by Oselin. Petitioner has failed to establish, however, that
claims 6 and 9 are anticipated by Oselin.
1. Overview of Oselin
Oselin describes a system for transmitting tire pressure signals from
transmitters on a vehicle’s wheels to a receiver. Ex. 1004, 2.7 Oselin
explains that “[e]ach of the tires of the motor vehicle is associated with a
pressure sensor P (figure 2), and a related transmitter 10” that sends a signal
to “the radiofrequency stage of a receiver 20.” Id. at 5–6. Oselin discusses
“a signaling group 300, the function of which is to notify the driver of the
motor vehicle that certain operating conditions have arisen,” and explains
that the driver notifications “can include both visual units and acoustic units
(buzzers).” Id. at 18–19.

7 The page numbers of Exhibit 1004 referenced in this decision are the
original page numbers of Exhibit 1004 found on the bottom center of the
page.
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

14

Oselin describes the transmitted signals from the transmitters to the
receiver as coded signals. Id. at 6. In the example provided in Oselin, the
coded signal is a binary code including twenty symbols S1–S20. Id. The
symbols allow the receiver to distinguish between transmissions from the
receiver’s vehicle and transmissions from other vehicles. Id. at 8.
Symbols S1–S4 include data associated with the transmitter issuing the
coded signal to identify the sensor and associated tire from which the
message is generated. Id. Symbols S5–S16 include data associated with the
receiver to identify the receiver and the central unit to which the message is
sent. Id. Symbols S17–S20 include data specifying the nature of the message.
Id. at 9. In an example provided in Oselin, symbol S17 identifies a test
procedure, such as a learning phase; symbol S18 identifies an anomalous tire
pressure level; symbol S19 identifies a low battery charge; and symbol S20
indicates that the transmitter is functioning normally. Id. at 9, 17, 18.
Symbols S1–S20 may be preceded by an initial symbol, S0, which is used as a
synchronization signal between the transmitters and the receiver. Id. at 6.
Oselin explains that symbols S1–S4 can be coded manually in each
transmitter using a dip switch. Id. at 10, 22. Symbols S5–S16, however, are
generated as a pseudorandom string of values by each transmitter during the
learning phase. Id. at 21–22. The learning phase is an initial phase where
the receiver stores identifying characteristics of the transmitters, including
symbols S5–S16. Id. Oselin explains that due to the pseudorandom nature of
symbols S5–S16, it is extremely unlikely that two transmitters have the same
string of values associated with symbols S5–S16. Id. at 22, 24. During the
learning phase, the transmitters send the string of symbols S1–S20 to the
receiver, with symbol S17 indicating the learning phase, and symbols S1–S16
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

15

being stored in memory of the receiver. Id. at 23. After the learning phase
is complete, the receiver only recognizes messages from transmitters when
the string of symbols S5–S16 matches the corresponding string stored in the
receiver’s memory.
2. Claim 1
As discussed above, claim 1 is directed to “[a] device for monitoring
the air pressure in . . . tires” including “a pressure measuring device,” “a
transmitter,” “a receiver,” and “a display.” We have reviewed, and are
persuaded by, Petitioner’s contentions regarding the disclosure of Oselin
relative to this claim.
For example, Oselin discloses that “[e]ach of the tires of the motor
vehicle is associated with a pressure sensor P” (Ex. 1004, 5), which
Petitioner contends corresponds to the “pressure measuring device” recited
in claim 1 (Pet. 18). Specifically, Oselin discloses that pressure “sensor P
detects the air pressure in the tire, and depending on the pressure level
detected, orders the movement of a switch I.” Ex. 1004, 5. Oselin explains
that
sensor P can be configured as to keep the switch I in a
“floating” position while the pressure detected remains within
an acceptable range, and to bring one of the two ends of the
switch into contact with the ground M of transmitter 10 when
the air pressure inside the tire reaches an anomalous level, that
is, a lower threshold (insufficient pressure) or an upper
threshold (excessive pressure).
Id.
Patent Owner responds that Oselin’s “sensor P” does not constitute a
“pressure measuring device” as required by the claim because it “does not
output a quantitative value of an air pressure in the tire, but instead, it
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

16

incorporates a traditional contact switch I to communicate either an
‘acceptable’ category or an ‘anomalous’ category.” PO Resp. 16. Patent
Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because it relies on an improper
construction of “pressure measuring device.” As noted above, we determine
that the recited “pressure measuring device” is met by a switch-based
pressure sensor, which Patent Owner acknowledges is disclosed by Oselin.
See id. at 16–18.
Patent Owner further argues that “Oselin’s pressure sensor P does not
output an electrical pressure signal representative of the air pressure because
its output cannot distinguish between anomalous pressures that are too high
and anomalous pressures that are too low.” Id. at 18. The claim, however,
does not require any sort of resolution for the pressure signal. As Patent
Owner acknowledges (see id.), Oselin’s “pressure sensor P” outputs a signal
indicating an anomalous pressure event (i.e., pressure is too low or too high)
(Ex. 1004, 5). Thus, Oselin’s “pressure sensor P” outputs a signal
representative of air pressure (i.e., representing that air pressure is either too
low or too high).
Patent Owner offers similar arguments in response to Petitioner’s
contentions regarding the “transmitter” recited in claim 1. Claim 1 requires
that the “transmitter . . . receives the electrical pressure signal output from
the pressure measuring device and sends out a pressure transmitting signal
corresponding to said air pressure.” Petitioner contends that Oselin’s
transmitter 10 satisfies this limitation by receiving the signal indicating
anomalous air pressure from “pressure sensor P” and sending a signal
indicating the anomalous air pressure. Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not
dispute that Oselin discloses a transmitter that receives a signal indicating an
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

17

anomalous air pressure. See PO Resp. 19–23. Rather, Patent Owner
contends that Oselin does not meet this limitation because the “pressure
transmitting signal corresponding to said air pressure” recited by the claim
requires a specific air pressure value, not “‘an alarm message’—a simple
on/off alarm flag” provided by the signal indicating the anomalous air
pressure condition. Id. at 19–20. This argument is unpersuasive for the
reasons set forth above regarding the “pressure measuring device” limitation
(i.e., “pressure measuring device” does not exclude a switch-based pressure
sensor).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions regarding the
other limitations of claim 1, which we find persuasive, as noted above.
For these reasons, Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of
the evidence, claim 1 is anticipated by Oselin.
3. Claims 2, 5, 13, 15, 19, and 21
Claims 2, 5, 13, 15, 19, and 21 depend from claim 1, and Patent
Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions regarding these claims
specifically. Based on our review of Petitioner’s contentions regarding these
claims (see Pet. 23, 26–29), we are also persuaded that Petitioner has
established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 5, 13, 15, 19,
and 21 are anticipated by Oselin.
4. Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “transmission of
the signals from the transmitter to the receiver is carried out with
electromagnetic waves of constant frequency acting as carrier waves.”
Petitioner contends that Oselin discloses transmitters 10 using a constant
frequency. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1004, 8). The cited portion of Oselin explains
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

18

that “the transmissions from the sensors 10 use structurally analogous
signals, on a frequency that is the working frequency common to the
oscillators 11 of all transmitters 10 of the group of the receiver 20.” Ex.
1004, 8.
Patent Owner argues that Oselin’s “common” frequency does not
correspond to the “constant frequency” recited in claim 6 and, instead,
describes “the same center frequency of the carrier waves, which would vary
in the case of frequency shift keying.” PO Resp. 24–25. Patent Owner
contends that “the claimed ‘constant’ frequency carrier waves refer to a
characteristic of individual transmissions rather than a shared frequency to
which multiple transmitters are tuned” and that “the claimed ‘constant’
frequency carrier waves . . . are constant, for example, when using phase
shift keying.” Id. at 25.
Petitioner responds that “Oselin explicitly discloses that encoding may
be achieved ‘using any modulating scheme.’” Pet. Reply 6 (quoting Ex.
1004, 6). At oral hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that Oselin fails to
explicitly state that it uses constant frequency carrier waves. Tr. 21:19–24.
Petitioner reasons that because phase shift keying and frequency shift keying
each were well-known, Oselin contemplates phase shift keying and,
therefore, anticipates the “constant frequency” carrier waves recited in the
claim. Pet. Reply 6; Tr. 21:19–24.
We are not persuaded that Oselin’s general disclosure that “any
modulation scheme” may be used anticipates the specific features of claim 6,
which requires the use of “constant frequency” carrier waves. Accordingly,
Petitioner has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Oselin anticipates claim 6.
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

19

5. Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and further recites “every transmission
from transmitter to receiver is completed with a transmission of at least a 4
bit sequence” that includes a first bit sequence, a second bit sequence, a third
bit sequence, and a fourth bit sequence. Petitioner contends that the claimed
“bit sequence” may be a single bit. Pet. 24–25; Pet. Reply 12–13. For
example, Petitioner contends the claim requires that “the second, or third bit
sequence is a data sequence which represents the measured pressure signal,”
and Petitioner contends this is met by Oselin’s symbol S18. Pet. 24; Pet.
Reply 12.
Petitioner’s contentions are unpersuasive. Oselin explains that
“symbols S1 . . . S20, each . . . may assume two different values (the logic
positions ‘0’ and ‘1’),” each of which is “a logical binary symbol associated
with one bit of data.” Ex. 1004, 6. As noted above, we construe “bit
sequence” as requiring two or more bits. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed
to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, claim 9 is anticipated by
Oselin.
6. Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “the
transmitter comprises a timer device and is controlled in such a way that the
pressure measuring device measures pressure in predetermined, significantly
constant time intervals.” Oselin describes a “periodic operations check,
[where] each transmitter 10 sends a respective message with the symbol S20
at logic level ‘1’ at intervals established by the division factor of the circuit
104” (Ex. 1004, 27), which Petitioner contends corresponds to
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

20

“measure[ing] pressure in predetermined, significantly constant time
intervals,” as required by claim 10 (Pet. 25).
Patent Owner initially responds with arguments similar to those
presented with respect to claim 1 (i.e., Oselin’s pressure sensor does not
measure pressure) (PO Resp. 29), which are unpersuasive for the reasons
discussed above. Patent Owner additionally argues that “[t]his ‘periodic
operations check’ is used by Oselin to determine that the transmitters are
functioning properly; the operations check has nothing to do with pressure
measurement.” Id. at 30. Patent Owner acknowledges that “[t]he
transmissions sent by the transmitter 10 may be periodic,” but contends that
“Oselin [does not] teach or suggest that pressure measurements or pressure
detection functions are performed periodically.” Id.
Petitioner responds, and Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Andrews, agrees
that “pressure sensor P” in Oselin is constantly sensing the tire pressure by
responding to the applied force. Pet. Reply 13; Ex. 1016, 85:1–17.
Petitioner explains that “a POSITA would understand that a measurement
occurs whenever the transmitter samples the data produced by the pressure
measuring device,” and “Oselin’s circuit 14 samples the pressure sensor P’s
data (and encodes as bit S18) each time a pressure transmitting signal is
generated by encoder 17.” Pet. Reply 13–14 (citing Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 64–66; Ex.
1004, 10–11). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions.
Specifically, we are persuaded that bit S18 is sampled when the
periodic operations check occurs and is included in the transmission signal
for the periodic operations check (i.e., the signal where bit S20 is set at “1”).
Therefore, Petitioner has established sufficiently that Oselin discloses at
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

21

least one situation in which pressure sensor P “measures pressure in
predetermined, significantly constant time intervals.”
Accordingly, Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, claim 10 is anticipated by Oselin.
7. Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “the signal
transmitted from the transmitter contains further additional information,
which in evaluation of the signal in the receiver, allows recognition of a
false transmission as a fault and should the need arise, a correction of this
fault.” Petitioner contends that the inclusion of bit S20 in Oselin’s signal
meets the limitations of claim 18. Pet. 27. Patent Owner responds that bit
S20 “is not arranged to allow error correction by Oselin’s receiver 20.” PO
Resp. 32 (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument is not commensurate
with the scope of the claim.
The plain language of claim 18 requires that the signal is evaluated in
the receiver and “allows recognition of a false transmission as a fault and
should the need arise, a correction of this fault.” (Emphasis added). There
is no requirement that the receiver corrects the fault. We are persuaded that
the evaluation of the signal including bit S20 in Oselin allows “recognition of
a false transmission as a fault and should the need arise, a correction of this
fault.” For example, Oselin explains that “by periodically reading the
column S20 of the memory 200, the arithmetic logic unit 201 can . . . order a
corresponding warning signal to be sent to the driver of the motor vehicle.”
Ex. 1004, 29. Thus, we are persuaded that Oselin’s signal, which includes
bit S20 and is evaluated in receiver 20, “allows recognition of a false
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

22

transmission as a fault and should the need arise, a correction of this fault,”
as recited by claim 18 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, claim 18 is anticipated by Oselin.
B. Obviousness over Oselin
We have reviewed the Petition, the Patent Owner Response, and
Petitioner’s Reply, as well as the relevant evidence discussed in those
papers. We are persuaded that Petitioner has established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21
would have been obvious over Oselin. Petitioner has failed to establish,
however, that claims 6 and 9 would have been obvious over Oselin.
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21
As noted above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are
anticipated by Oselin. Because anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, a
disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.8 See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,
794 (CCPA 1982); In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026, 1031 (CCPA 1979); In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402 (CCPA 1974). Accordingly, we conclude
that Petitioner also has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence,
claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over
Oselin.

8 Patent Owner does not allege any secondary considerations to overcome a
case of obviousness.
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

23

2. Claims 6 and 9
In our Decision on Institution, we instituted trial for claims 6 and 9 on
this ground based on Petitioner’s allegations that Oselin teaches each
element of claims 6 and 9. See Dec. 17. As explained above, after
considering Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence presented after our
Decision on Institution, we are not persuaded that Oselin teaches the
limitations recited in these claims.
The Petition does not propose any specific rationale for a conclusion
that claim 6 would have been obvious in view of Oselin other than alleging,
generally, “to the extent that any of the variances in claim scope are not
necessarily shown by the support included in the above claim chart, such
variances would have obvious to a POSITA based on the level of ordinary
skill in the pertinent art as it existed at the purported time of the invention.”
Pet. 29.
The Petition offers the same conclusory rationale for the alleged
obviousness of claim 9 in view of Oselin, but additionally alleges, generally,
“for claim 9, a POSITA would have found the particular bit sequence
arrangement to be a mere design choice.” Id. Petitioner’s contentions
regarding design choice do not address sufficiently the deficiencies in
Oselin’s teachings noted above. For example, the contentions do not address
that Oselin’s symbol S18 is a single bit rather than a sequence. No further
explanation is offered, in the Petition, to support the alleged obviousness of
these claims.
Petitioner’s Reply fails to cure these deficiencies, as it simply alleges
that “it would be obvious to use a multi-bit sequence for the measured
pressure signal, or for the preamble or postamble.” Pet. Reply 13. No
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

24

persuasive explanation is offered, however, as to why a multi-bit sequence
would have been obvious to use for Oselin’s alarm message. Oselin’s
transmission uses “symbols S1 ... S20, each of which may assume two
different values (the logic positions ‘0’ and ‘1’)” (Ex. 1004, 6), and “[t]he
alarm message concerning the tire pressure is expressed by the presence (for
example) of logic value of ‘1’ in the position of symbol S18” (id. at 30).
A determination that claims would have been obvious to an ordinary
artisan “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The required “articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning” is missing from the Petition.
Accordingly, Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that claims 6 and 9 would have been obvious over Oselin.
3. Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and further recites that
the electrical pressure signal representative of the pressure
measurement is converted to a transmitting signal and is sent
before a next pressure measurement is carried out, and a
random circuit is provided which allows the time interval
between the pressure measurement and emittance of the
measured pressure signal to be randomly independent.
(Emphasis added). Petitioner identifies pages 6 and 12–13 of Oselin and
contends that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood
that an electrical pressure signal is converted to a transmitting signal and
sent before a next pressure measurement is carried out, and that the intervals
set by timing circuit 103 would be randomly independent of the
measurement.” Pet. 26, 29.
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

25

Patent Owner responds that “Oselin does not discuss any time interval
that dictates the time between a pressure measurement and emittance of a
measured pressure signal, let alone a time interval that is ‘randomly
independent.’” PO Resp. 40. Patent Owner acknowledges, however, that
“Oselin is concerned with randomly setting a time interval for repeated
transmissions of a message at each transmitter, so that different transmitters
on a vehicle will repeatedly transmit their messages at different rates, and
therefore at different times.” Id. at 41. Patent Owner’s argument is based on
the time interval between the pressure measurement and the initial emittance
in Oselin.
At oral hearing Petitioner argued that claim 11 does not require the
time interval to be the interval between the pressure measurement and the
initial emittance. Tr. 86:17–24. We agree. Claim 11 simply requires “the
time interval between the pressure measurement and emittance of the
measured pressure signal to be randomly independent.” It does not specify
which emittance. Thus, the “time interval” recited in claim 11 could be that
between the measurement and the second emittance in the repeating
transmission.
As noted above, and acknowledged by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 41),
Oselin sets the constant interval between repeated transmissions randomly
(Ex. 1004, 12–13). Regardless of whether the time interval between the
pressure measurement and an initial transmission in Oselin is “randomly
independent,” the time interval between the pressure measurement and the
second transmission, for example, would be “randomly independent” based
on setting the constant time interval randomly in Oselin.
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

26

Accordingly, Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, claim 11 would have been obvious over Oselin.
C. Obviousness over Oselin and Williams
We have reviewed the Petition, the Patent Owner Response, and
Petitioner’s Reply, as well as the relevant evidence discussed in those
papers. We are persuaded that Petitioner has established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, claim 3 would have been obvious over
Oselin and Williams. Petitioner has failed to establish, however, that claims
7, 8, and 20 would have been obvious over Oselin and Williams.
1. Overview of Williams
Williams describes a tire pressure monitoring system that evaluates
vehicle tire pressure, and explains that “[f]alse alarms are essentially
eliminate[d] . . . through a required match in digital source identification
information between wheel attachable units of a given vehicle with a vehicle
attachable unit of the same vehicle.” Ex. 1005, Abstract.
Figure 1 of Williams illustrates an exemplary wheel attachable unit,
and is reproduced below.

Figure 1 is a schematic functional block diagram of wheel attachable unit 01.
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

27

Wheel attachable unit 01 includes high pressure sensor 30, low pressure
sensor 40, encoder 18, and transmitter 14. Id. at 6:14–37. Encoder 18
generates information identifying the wheel to which wheel attachable unit
01 is attached, the transmission source, as well as information regarding the
pressure condition of the wheel, and communicates the information to
transmitter 14. Id. at 6:32–34, 7:6–11. Encoder 18 includes dip switch bus
70, illustrated in Figure 10, and is reproduced below.

Figure 10 is a schematic illustration of dip switch bus 70. Dip switch bus 70
has factory or user preset functions, bit assignments and a bit string
generation for alert 71, transmission source identification 72, high or low
pressure status 73, and wheel identifications 74. Id. at 6:58–62.
Figure 9 of Williams illustrates an exemplary vehicle attachable unit,
and is reproduced below.
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

28

Figure 9 is a schematic block diagram of vehicle attachable unit 60. Vehicle
attachable unit 60 includes receiver 61, decoder 62, and logic function 69.
Williams explains that vehicle attachable unit 60 contains electronic
components and circuits, which will receive, compare, process, and
communicate the information from wheel attachable unit 01 to display 80.
Id. at 7:14–18. Decoder 62 includes DIP switch bus 62–1, similar to DIP
switch bus 70 of wheel attachable unit 01, as well as eleven source
identification DIP switches, an equal number to that of wheel attachable unit
01. Id. at 11:62–67. In place of the seven DIP switches for the high or low
pressure and wheel identification, logic function 69, such as a
microprocessor, is used to manipulate the incoming information from
decoder 62 and relay it to display controller 65. Id. at 12:1–6.
2. Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “at least the
emitter-control device and the signal-generating device of the transmitter are
combined in a first microprocessor device which is controlled by a program
stored in a memory.” Petitioner contends that encoder 18 in Williams
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

29

teaches the “emitter-control device and the signal-generating device of the
transmitter” recited in claim 3, and “is contained in microprocessor device
which is controlled by a program stored in a memory” as required by the
claim. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 11:45–48). Petitioner reasons that one
skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
Oselin and Williams because the references are from the same field as the
claimed invention and are both pertinent to the problem faced by the
inventors of the ’524 patent, “communicating both source identification and
tire pressure information to a central display device of a vehicle.” Pet. 32
(citing Ex. 1004, 5–6; Ex. 1005, 11:51–12:37). Dr. Mercer testifies that one
skilled in the art would have found it obvious and cost-effective to combine
the emitter-control device and signal-generating device in a single
microprocessor controlled by a program stored in memory, such as the
memory of the transmitter or a memory associated with the microprocessor
described by Williams. Ex. 1010 ¶ 125. Dr. Mercer further testifies that
“such a decision would be an obvious design choice from the systems taught
by Williams and Oselin.” Id.
Patent Owner does not dispute that encoder 18 in Williams includes
an “emitter-control device and the signal-generating device of the
transmitter,” as required by claim 3. Instead, Patent Owner argues that
“[Petitioner] identifies [encoder 18] as teaching the ‘signal generating
device,’ but not as teaching the ‘emitter-control device.’” PO Resp. 43
(citing Pet. 47). This argument is misplaced, as the cited portion of the
Petition is directed to a different challenge, on which we did not institute
trial. See Pet. 44, 47 (directed to obviousness over the combination of
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

30

Williams and Heitschel); Dec. 30 (denying grounds based on obviousness
over Williams and Heitschel).
We are persuaded that the combined teachings of Williams, including
that “the ‘generated’ digital information from encoder 18 could conceivably
be read from a mini-computer” (Ex. 1005, 11:45–47), and Oselin would
have rendered obvious the limitations of claim 3. Although Patent Owner
contends that Dr. Mercer’s testimony as to the rationale for the combination
proposed by Petitioner is conclusory and entitled to no weight (PO Resp.
44), Patent Owner fails to even address Petitioner’s reasoning that cost
concerns would have provided a reason for the proposed modification.
Based on this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that one skilled in the art would have
combined the teachings of Oselin and Williams, and that these combined
teachings meet the limitations of claim 3.
Accordingly, Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, claim 3 would have been obvious over Oselin.
3. Claims 7, 8, and 20
Claims 7, 8, and 20 each depend from claim 6. As noted above,
Petitioner has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claim 6 is unpatentable over Oselin and Petitioner has not asserted that
Williams cures the deficiencies discussed above in regards to Oselin. For at
least these reasons, Petitioner also fails to establish that claims 7, 8, and 20
would have been obvious over the combination of Oselin and Williams.
D. Obviousness over Oselin and Schultz
We have reviewed the Petition, the Patent Owner Response, and
Petitioner’s Reply, as well as the relevant evidence discussed in those
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

31

papers. We are persuaded that Petitioner has established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, claims 12 and 16 would have been obvious
over Oselin and Schultz.
1. Overview of Schultz
Schultz describes a remotely actuated transducer and a display unit.
Ex. 1006, 1:6–12. Schultz explains that the transducer includes a tire
pressure sensor, which provides a signal indicative of tire pressure, and that
the signal is received by the display unit. Id. at 3:7–14. The display unit
includes a processor, which extracts information from the signal and
manipulates the information into a form suitable for generating indicia on a
display of the display unit. Id. at 3:45–50. Schultz explains that the display
unit remains in a “dormant” state until powered up by the user in order to
conserve energy. Id. at 4:5–7. Schultz explains that the transducer also
operates in “active” and “dormant” states. Id. at 5:50–52. When the display
unit is powered up, the processor of the display unit issues a “wake-up”
command to activate the transducer, which subsequently sends a signal
indicative of tire pressure back to the display unit. Id. at 4:31–55.
2. Claims 12 and 16
Claims 12 and 16 depend from claim 1, and Patent Owner does not
dispute Petitioner’s contentions regarding these claims specifically. Based
on our review of Petitioner’s contentions regarding these claims (see Pet.
34–37), we are also persuaded that Petitioner has established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, claims 12 and 16 would have been obvious
over the combination of Oselin and Schultz.
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

32

E. Obviousness over Oselin and Barabino
We have reviewed the Petition, the Patent Owner Response, and
Petitioner’s Reply, as well as the relevant evidence discussed in those
papers. We are persuaded that Petitioner has established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, claim 14 would have been obvious over
Oselin and Barabino.
1. Overview of Barabino
Barabino is directed to tire pressure warning systems. Ex. 1008,
1:12–16. Barabino describes a tire pressure signaling device secured to a
valve stem and configured to leak a small amount of air through passages in
the device to produce a sonic or ultrasonic signal when pressure within a tire
is either above or below a predetermined limit. Id. at 2:38–42, 3:16–37.
The signal is detected by a sensor mounted in close proximity to the tire. Id.
at 3:25–27, 36–37. Barabino explains that a sensor is mounted in each
wheel well of the vehicle and that all sensors are connected to a common
signal processor providing output to a display. Id. at 5:33–34, 36–40.
2. Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “a receiver is
associated with every pressure measurement device and transmitter fixed to
a wheel of the vehicle whereby the signals received by each receiver are
conveyed to the display device which is a central display device for all
receivers.” Petitioner contends that Barabino teaches this limitation. Pet. 38
(citing Ex. 1008, 5:31–40, 6:31–39). Petitioner reasons that “[a person of
ordinary skill in the art] would have found the inclusion of multiple
receivers for each transmitting device an obvious and well-known design
choice.” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 140).
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

33

Patent Owner responds that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art . . .
would have had no reason to incorporate the pickup sensors 64 into Oselin’s
RF system.” PO Resp. 51. This argument is unpersuasive because
Petitioner does not propose incorporating Barabino’s pickup sensors 64 into
Oselin. Rather, Petitioner relies on Barabino to support the contention that
using multiple receivers was well-known and such a modification to
Oselin’s system (i.e., to use multiple receivers) would be a design choice.
See Pet. 39. Based on the evidence presented, we are persuaded by
Petitioner’s contentions that it would have been obvious to use multiple
receivers in Oselin’s system.
Accordingly, Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, claim 14 would have been obvious over the combination of Oselin
and Barabino.
F. Obviousness over Oselin, Schultz, and Li
We have reviewed the Petition, the Patent Owner Response, and
Petitioner’s Reply, as well as the relevant evidence discussed in those
papers. We are persuaded that Petitioner has established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, claim 17 would have been obvious over
Oselin, Schultz, and Li.
1. Overview of Li
Li is directed to a remote control apparatus including a transmitter and
a receiver, and a coding system for the transmitter and receiver. Ex. 1007,
1:5–8. Li describes the remote control apparatus as applying to a variety of
applications including television receivers, garage doors, security systems,
and other devices. Id. at 1:9–11. The transmitter can be switched between a
normal mode and a changing mode, where an identification code is changed,
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

34

either manually or randomly, and stored in memory. Id. at 3:24–29, 3:62–
4:12, 4:56–5:2. The receiver also can be switched from a normal mode to a
changing mode, where the signal received from the transmitter is stored in
memory as a new address code. Id. at 5:38–44.
2. Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “each
transmitter comprises a detector device which recognizes emittance of a
predetermined switching signal and, therefore, switches the transmitter into a
pairing mode in which the identification signal and an additional signal
indicating the pairing mode is emitted.” Petitioner cites the combination of
Schultz’s “active” and “dormant” transmitter states and the “wake-up signal”
from the receiver with Li’s transmitter being changeable between a normal
mode and a changing mode to support the conclusion of obviousness. Pet.
40–41 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:50–54, 5:67–6:3; Ex. 1007, 2:21–24, 32–37).
Petitioner additionally cites Oselin’s disclosure of a pairing mode indication
by symbol S17 in the transmitted signal. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1004, 17).
Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s rationale for combining
the teachings of Oselin, Schultz, and Li (see Pet. 40–41; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 141–
147), which we find persuasive. Rather, Patent Owner argues that “[t]he
‘wake-up’ command in Schultz does not cause any device to be placed ‘into
a pairing mode in which the identification signal and an additional signal
indicating the pairing mode is emitted,’ as required by claim 17.” PO Resp.
53. This argument is unpersuasive because Petitioner proposes a further
modification based on Li for the pairing mode feature. See Pet. 41 (“Li
discloses that the transmitter is switched into a changing or pairing mode in
which the identification signal [is] emitted.”). Patent Owner’s arguments
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

35

relative to Li are based on a construction of “emittance” that requires
wireless transmission, which we did not adopt as explained above. Based on
the evidence presented, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that the
combined teachings of Oselin, Schultz, and Li would have rendered the
limitations of claim 17 obvious and that one skilled in the art would have
combined those teachings.
Accordingly, Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that claim 17 would have been obvious over Oselin, Schultz, and
Li.

III. SUMMARY
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 1–3, 5, 10–19, and 21 of the ’524 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner
has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6–9
and 20 are unpatentable.

IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that
A. Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are unpatentable
as anticipated by Oselin;
B. Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are
unpatentable as obvious over Oselin;
C. Claim 3 is unpatentable as obvious over Oselin and
Williams;
IPR2014-00295
Patent 5,602,524

36

D. Claims 12 and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over
Oselin and Schultz;
E. Claim 14 is unpatentable as obvious over Oselin and
Barabino;
F. Claim 17 is unpatentable as obvious over Oselin, Schultz,
and Li; and
FURTHER ORDERED that parties to the proceeding seeking judicial
review of this final written decision must comply with the notice and service
requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

For PETITIONER:

Gary M. Ropski
James K. Cleland
John A. Lingl
Nicholas A. Restauri
BRINKS, GILSON & LIONE
gropski@brinksgilson.com
jcleland@brinksgilson.com
jlingl@brinksgilson.com
nrestauri@brinksgilson.com

Themi Anagnos
themi.anagnos@continental-corporation.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Michael T. Hawkins
Patrick J. Bisenius
Michael Kane
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
hawkins@fr.com
bisenius@fr.com
IPR2014-00295@fr.com