Toyota Motor North America, Inc.v.Cruise Control Technologies LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2015

09310527 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 47
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 29, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.,
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH
AMERICA, LLC, and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
Petitioner,
v.
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Patent Owner.
_______________

Case IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1
_______________

Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
(Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 12–16, 18,
19, 21, 25–28, and 34–36 of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the
’463 patent”). Petitioner submitted the Declaration of Dr. Paul Green
(Ex. 1011) in support of the Petition. Cruise Control Technologies LLC
(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 13, “Prelim. Resp.”).
On July 2, 2014, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 12–16,
18, 19, 21, 25–28, and 34–36 based on all five unpatentability grounds
alleged in the Petition. Paper 17 (“Inst. Dec.”).
After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
(Paper 26, “PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 33, “Pet. Reply”).
An oral hearing was held March 24, 2015. Paper 46 (“Tr.”). The Board has
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons provided below, Petitioner has shown, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–5, 12–16, 18, 19, 21, 25–28,
and 34–36 of the ’463 patent are unpatentable.
A. Related Proceedings
Petitioner and Patent Owner have identified several district court
proceedings that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
proceeding. Pet. 1–2; Paper 12, 2–4. The ’463 patent is also the subject of
four other inter partes review proceedings (IPR2014-00279, IPR2014-
00281, IPR2014-00289, and IPR2014-00291). Final decisions in those
proceedings are being entered concurrently with this final decision.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

3
B. The ’463 Patent
The ’463 patent discloses cruise control systems for use in a human
operated vehicle. Ex. 1001, Abst. Figures 1 and 2 of the ’463 patent are
shown below:

Figure 1 illustrates a digital speed display, while Figure 2 illustrates an
analog speedometer. Id. at 3:8–13. In Figure 1, main speed display 3 shows
the current speed at which the vehicle is operating. Id. at 3:49–53. When a
cruise control set button (not shown in Figure 1) is pressed, the vehicle
speed is stored in digital memory 12 as a preset speed. Id. at 3:53–60.
Second speed display 16 shows that preset speed. Id.
Figure 2’s analog speedometer 40 incorporates several LED
assemblies 45. Id. at 4:19–26. Each LED assembly 45 has an LED and a
detector. Id. at 4:29–30. When a cruise control set button (not shown in
Figure 2) is pressed, all of the detectors are activated, and all of the LEDs
momentarily light up. Id. at 4:48–51. The back of needle 42 reflects the
light of the lit LEDs behind the needle, and that reflected light is detected by
the detector of the LED assembly disposed at the location of needle 42. Id.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

4
at 4:51–57. The LED of that assembly is then activated to indicate the speed
at which cruise control was engaged. Id. at 4:57–64.
C. Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 of the ’463 patent is illustrative:
1. A cruise control system for [a] vehicle having a human
operator, comprising:
a speed controller that automatically maintains the
vehicle speed at a preset speed;
an enable switch associated with said controller for
enabling the system;
a set speed input in communication with said controller
for manually setting the speed of the vehicle at said preset
speed, thereby engaging the system;
a memory which stores information indicative of said
preset speed; and
a feedback system for communicating said information in
said memory to the operator of the vehicle.
Ex. 1001, 6:7–20.
D. Prior Art Supporting Instituted Unpatentability Grounds
Mitsubishi Diamante Owner’s Manual
(“Diamante,” translation Ex. 1004)1
May 1995 Ex. 1003
Mitsubishi Diamante Preview Distance Control
Manual (“Diamante PDC,” translation Ex. 1006)
May 1995 Ex. 1005
Watanabe JP 8-192663
(translation Ex. 1008)
July 1996 Ex. 1007
Toyota Celsior Owner’s Manual
(“Celsior,” translation Ex. 1010)
July 1997 Ex. 1009

1 Our opinion cites to the translations of the prior art, including the page or
paragraph numbering of the original documents reflected in the translations.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

5
E. Instituted Unpatentability Grounds
We instituted an inter partes review of the ’463 patent based on the
following five unpatentability grounds alleged in the Petition. Inst. Dec. 5,
38.
Basis Reference(s) Claim(s) Challenged
§ 102(b) Diamante 1–3, 5, 12–16, 21, 25, 26, and 28
§ 103(a) Diamante and Diamante PDC 15, 16, and 21
§ 103(a) Diamante and Watanabe 12
§ 102(b) Watanabe 18 and 19
§ 102(a) Celsior 2–5, 26–28, and 34–36

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
As a step in our analysis, we determine the meaning of the claims for
purposes of this decision. In an inter partes review, a claim in an unexpired
patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
(2014); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1279–83 (Fed. Cir.
2015). Under that construction, claim terms are given their ordinary and
customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in
the art, in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We construe the terms below in
accordance with that standard.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

6
1. “engaging the system” (claim 1) and
“engaging the cruise control system” (claim 21)
In the Institution Decision, we construed “engaging the system” in
claim 1, and “engaging the cruise control system” in claim 21, to mean
“operating the cruise control system to automatically control the vehicle at
the preset speed.” Inst. Dec. 8–9. Neither party has disputed these
constructions during trial, and we do not find any reason to deviate from
them.
2. “enabling” (claims 1 and 2) and “enabled” (claims 2 and 4)
In the Institution Decision, we construed “enabling the system” in
claim 1, and “enabling . . . the controller” in claim 2, to mean a “system on”
state for the cruise control system, which we also applied to the descriptor
“enabled” in claims 2 and 4. Inst. Dec. 9–10. Neither party has disputed
these constructions during trial, and we do not find any reason to deviate
from them.
3. “indicating to the operator the unset status of the preset speed”
(claim 15) and “displaying a symbol indicative of an unset state of the preset
speed” (claim 21)
In the Institution Decision, we construed “unset status” and “unset
state” in these two claim limitations to mean “a state or status in which there
is no preset speed for the cruise control system.” Inst. Dec. 10–11. Neither
party has disputed these constructions during trial, and we do not find any
reason to deviate from them.
4. “activating the cruise control system” (claims 12 and 15) and
“deactivated” (claims 12, 13, and 21)
In the Institution Decision, we construed “activating” in these claims
to mean “turning on,” and “deactivated” as “turned off.” Inst. Dec. 11–12.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

7
Neither party has disputed these constructions during trial, and we do not
find any reason to deviate from them.
5. Remaining Claim Terms
All other terms of the claims are given their plain and ordinary
meaning that is consistent with the specification. For purposes of this
decision, we need not construe those terms expressly.
B. Anticipation by Diamante
Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 5, 12–16, 21, 25, 26, and 28 of the
’463 patent are unpatentable as anticipated by Diamante. Pet. 15–35.
1. Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 recites a cruise control system for a vehicle, including a speed
controller. We are persuaded Diamante discloses a cruise control speed
controller. Pet. 18; Ex. 1011, 22–23.2 For example, Diamante states:
“Cruise control is a system that allows the vehicle to cruise at a constant
speed (from approximately 40–100 km/h) without depressing the accelerator
pedal.” Ex. 1004, 86.
Patent Owner contends the quoted statement from Diamante expressly
refers only to a cruise control “system” as recited in the preamble of claim 1,
and fails to disclose the “speed controller” structural component later recited
in claim 1. PO Resp. 5–6. Further, according to Patent Owner, neither
Petitioner nor Dr. Green asserts the claimed “speed controller” is inherent in
Diamante. Id. at 5.

2 Although the Green Declaration (Exhibit 1011) contains numbered
paragraphs, this opinion cites to page numbers.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

8
Patent Owner’s contentions are not persuasive. Claim 1 requires “a
speed controller that automatically maintains the vehicle speed at a preset
speed.” We agree with Petitioner that, by indicating the Diamante cruise
control system “allows the vehicle to cruise at a constant speed,” Diamante
expressly discloses that its system includes a component corresponding to
the claimed speed controller. Pet. Reply 2–3; Ex. 1004, 86. Patent Owner’s
argument fails to specify any structural feature of the claimed speed
controller that is missing from the Diamante cruise control system.3 See Pet.
Reply 3–4. Moreover, even if Patent Owner is correct that Diamante at
page 86 fails to disclose the claimed speed controller expressly, we find such
a controller is necessary to the Diamante disclosure at page 86, and,
therefore, find that such a controller is inherent to Diamante’s system. See
Pet. Reply 5.
Claim 1 also recites an enable switch and a set speed input. The
following illustration appears in Diamante:

3 The present case is distinguishable from In re Ruskin, 347 F.2d 843 (CCPA
1965), upon which Patent Owner relies. PO Resp. 5–6. In that case, the
claim specified a series of separate central magnets defining an annular fluid
passageway with a fluid supply line outer wall, which was not met
structurally by a single central magnetically permeable part surrounded by a
series of annular magnets. Ruskin, 347 F.2d at 845–46. In this case, the
claimed structure is merely a “speed controller,” which is found in
Diamante.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

9

Ex. 1004, 86. This illustration shows a main switch and a control lever used
to operate the cruise control system. Id. We are persuaded the main switch
is an enable switch as required by claim 1. Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1011, 23. In
particular, Diamante instructs the vehicle operator to “[p]ush the main
switch to turn cruise control on.” Ex. 1004, 86. We also are persuaded the
control lever corresponds to the set speed input required by claim 1. Pet. 19;
Ex. 1011, 23. In particular, Diamante instructs the vehicle operator to “push
the control lever downward and release it” to “set [the cruise control system]
to automatic fixed-speed cruise mode” at a desired speed. Ex. 1004, 86.
Claim 1 further recites a memory which stores the cruise control’s
preset speed. We are persuaded a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon
reading Diamante, would understand that the cruise control system described
therein necessarily includes a memory to perform the functions described in
Diamante. Pet. 16, 19–20; Ex. 1011, 20–21, 24.
Claim 1 finally recites a “feedback system” for communicating the
cruise control’s preset speed to the vehicle operator. Diamante’s disclosure
in this regard is exemplified by the following excerpted illustration:
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

10

Ex. 1004, 88. This illustration reflects a “Center message display” shown
when the cruise control and preview distance control systems are enabled.
Id. at 52, 88. The display includes an outline of a vehicle, representing the
vehicle being driven by the operator, surrounding a digital display of the
cruise control’s “Preset speed” (e.g., 80 km/h). Id. at 90. We are persuaded
this display corresponds to the feedback system recited in claim 1. Pet. 20;
Ex. 1011, 24–25.
Patent Owner contends Diamante discloses “two different systems,” a
“cruise control” system at pages 86–87, and a “preview distance control”
system at pages 88–93. PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner further contends
Diamante indicates no vehicle includes both systems, because: (1) Diamante
calls out features that are available only in vehicles with the preview
distance control system; (2) the preview distance control system uses the
center message display, but the cruise control system does not; (3) different
warnings are provided for the two systems; and (4) pushing the control lever
changes speed by 1.5 km/h in the cruise control system, but by 1.0 km/h in
the preview distance control system. Id. at 3–4. Patent Owner faults
Petitioner for relying on the cruise control system for some limitations in
claim 1, and the preview distance control system for other limitations in
claim 1, on the basis that such an analysis improperly combines different
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

11
embodiments of Diamante. PO Resp. 4–5 (citing Net MoneyIN, Inc., v.
VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive.4 We find Diamante
discloses the cruise control features described at pages 86–87 and the
preview distance control features described at pages 88–93 work together as
one integrated system in one vehicle, if that vehicle is equipped with
preview distance control. Pet. Reply 1–2. For example, Diamante states:
“Preview distance control is a system that controls the distance between your
vehicle and the vehicle ahead . . . after the desired vehicle speed (preset
speed) has been set” and “[w]hen no vehicle is detected ahead, the system
cruises the vehicle at the preset speed.” Ex. 1004, 88 (emphases added). In
addition, the center message display available with preview distance control
includes, at the same time, the “Preset speed” maintained by the cruise
control system as well as the “Vehicle-to-vehicle distance” and other
information provided by the preview distance control system, as shown in
the following illustration excerpt:

4 Patent Owner’s argument in this regard carries through to all claims in
relation to Diamante. Our consideration of the argument here in connection
with claim 1 is representative of all challenged claims.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

12
Id. at 88. That illustration excerpt reflects the center message display shown
when the cruise control and preview distance control systems are enabled.
Id. at 52, 88. Moreover, the instructions for “Setting preview distance
control” recite pushing the main switch of the cruise control “to turn it on”
(Ex. 1004, 89 (step 2)), and then setting the cruise control at the “desired
speed” (id. (steps 3–4)).
During the oral hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel suggested the cruise
control system described at Diamante pages 86–87 is not the same cruise
control system used in conjunction with the preview distance control system
described at Diamante pages 88–93. Tr. 23:4–27:2. However, that the
preview distance control feature adds functionality not present in the cruise
control system of pages 86–87, adds a new display element in the center
message display, and comes with its own set of warnings which are different
from the cruise control warnings, indicates only that the preview distance
control system provides additional functionality to the cruise control system,
not that the two systems cannot or do not work together. The different
preset speed changes implemented by toggling the cruise control lever, i.e.,
1.5 versus 1.0 km/h, indicate only that the cruise control system is calibrated
differently when the preview distance control system is operated. The cruise
control system still has the speed controller, enable switch, set speed input,
memory, and feedback system required by claim 1. See Ex. 1004, 89
(steps 2–4, describing use of main switch to turn on cruise control, and
control lever to store a preset speed, in order to set preview distance control).
For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Diamante.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

13
2. Claims 2, 3, and 5
Claim 2, similarly to claim 1, recites a cruise control system for a
vehicle including a speed controller, a cruise control enable switch, a set
speed input, a memory, and a feedback system. We are persuaded these
claim limitations are disclosed in Diamante, for the reasons provided above.
See supra Part II.B.1; Ex. 1011, 25–27. For those same reasons, Patent
Owner’s assertion that Diamante has not been shown to disclose a speed
controller is not persuasive. PO Resp. 6.
Claim 2 further specifies the feedback system “substantially
continuously communicates the selected cruising speed . . . until either the
operator selects a subsequent cruising speed or the controller is disabled.”
We are persuaded Diamante discloses this claim requirement. Pet. 21–23;
Ex. 1011, 27–29. In particular, as to a subsequent cruising speed, Diamante
indicates the vehicle operator may change the preset speed by “operat[ing]
the control lever until the preset speed displayed on the center message
display reaches the desired speed and then releas[ing] it.” Ex. 1004, 91. As
to disabling the controller, Diamante indicates “the [preset] vehicle speed
displayed on the center message display disappears” if the driver turns off
the cruise control main switch. Id. at 92.
Claims 3 and 5 depend from claim 2, and specify, respectively, “the
feedback system includes a digital display,” which “displays information
indicative of the selected cruising speed of the vehicle.” We are persuaded
these requirements are met by Diamante’s display of the preset cruising
speed as a digital readout. Pet. 23–25; Ex. 1011, 29–31; Ex. 1004, 88.
For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
claims 2, 3, and 5 are unpatentable as anticipated by Diamante.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

14
3. Claim 12
Claim 12 recites a method for visually communicating, to a vehicle
operator, a cruising speed at which a cruise control system is set. The first
two steps of the method are “determining the speed at which the vehicle is
traveling” and “activating the cruise control system at a desired cruising
speed.” We are persuaded Diamante discloses these two steps. Pet. 25–26;
Ex. 1011, 31–32. For example, Diamante’s cruise control “allows the
vehicle to cruise at a constant speed (from approximately 40–100 km/h)
without depressing the accelerator pedal.” Ex. 1004, 86. Diamante further
instructs the operator to depress the accelerator pedal until a desired speed is
reached, and then set the system to automatic fixed-speed cruise mode. Id.
Claim 12 additionally recites “displaying a symbol indicative of the
speed at which the cruise control system is activated.” Diamante’s
disclosure in this regard is exemplified by the following excerpted
illustration:

Ex. 1004, 88. This illustration reflects a “Center message display” shown
when the cruise control and preview distance control systems are enabled.
Id. at 52, 88. The display includes an outline of a vehicle, representing the
vehicle being driven by the operator, surrounding a digital display of the
cruise control’s “Preset speed” (e.g., 80 km/h). Id. at 90. We are persuaded
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

15
this display corresponds to displaying a speed-indicative symbol as recited
in claim 12. Pet. 26; Ex. 1011, 32.
Claim 12 further recites “maintaining the activated cruise control
speed symbol upon temporary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle.”
We are persuaded Diamante discloses the “acceleration” portion of this
limitation in the following passage:
While vehicle-to-vehicle distance control is on or while
accelerating to the preset speed, the speed of your vehicle
(displayed on the speedometer) differs from the preset speed
(displayed on the center message display). When changing the
preset speed, check the preset speed setting displayed on the
center message display.
Ex. 1004, 91 (emphases added); Pet. 26; Ex. 1011, 32–33.
We further are persuaded that the “deceleration” claim requirement is
met by the same quoted passage, in combination with other passages in
Diamante, reading the reference as a whole.5 Pet. Reply 6; Pet. 26–27;
Ex. 1011, 32–34. In particular, the quoted passage indicates that “[w]hile
vehicle-to-vehicle distance control is on”—which would include instances
when the vehicle temporarily decelerates due to a braking operation, or due
to detection of a slower vehicle ahead—the actual speed display “differs
from” the preset speed display. Ex. 1004, 91; see id. at 87 (temporary

5 In the Institution Decision, we found this limitation was met in Diamante
when the operator uses the control lever to reduce the preset speed. Inst.
Dec. 18–19. Patent Owner’s Response challenges that finding. PO Resp. 6–
8. During the oral hearing, Petitioner’s counsel stated Petitioner agrees with
Patent Owner in this regard. Tr. 9:5–16. We, therefore, do not rely, in the
present decision, on the control lever deceleration display as maintaining a
symbol upon deceleration.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

16
deceleration due to braking operation), 90 (temporary deceleration due to
detection of slower vehicle ahead).
Claim 12 finally recites “removing said symbol when the cruise
control system is deactivated or a new cruising speed is selected.” We are
persuaded Diamante discloses this claim requirement. Pet. 27–28; Ex. 1011,
34. As to the deactivating component, Diamante indicates “the [preset]
vehicle speed displayed on the center message display disappears” if the
driver turns off the cruise control main switch. Ex. 1004, 92. As to
selecting a new cruising speed, Diamante indicates the vehicle operator may
change the preset speed by “operat[ing] the control lever until the preset
speed displayed on the center message display reaches the desired speed and
then releas[ing] it.” Id. at 91.
For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
claim 12 is unpatentable as anticipated by Diamante.
4. Claims 13–16
Claim 13, similarly to claim 12, recites a method for indicating, to a
vehicle operator, a preset speed for which a cruise control system is set,
including setting the preset speed, displaying a symbol indicative of the
preset speed, maintaining the display, and discontinuing the display when
the cruise control system is deactivated or a new preset speed is selected.
We are persuaded these claim limitations are disclosed in Diamante, for the
reasons provided above. See supra Part II.B.3; Ex. 1011, 34–35.
Claim 14 depends from claim 13, and specifies “displaying a second
symbol upon the selection of a new preset speed, said second symbol
indicative of the new preset speed.” We are persuaded Diamante discloses
this claim limitation when instructing the vehicle operator to “operate the
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

17
control lever until the preset speed displayed on the center message display
reaches the desired speed and then release it.” Ex. 1004, 91; Pet. 29;
Ex. 1011, 35–36.
Claim 15 depends from claim 13, and specifies “before setting the
preset speed, activating the cruise control system.” We are persuaded
Diamante correspondingly discloses activating the cruise control system by
pressing the main switch, before setting the preset speed with the control
lever. Pet. 29; Ex. 1011, 36; Ex. 1004, 86–87. Claim 15 also specifies
“after activating the cruise control system, but before setting the preset
speed, indicating to the operator the unset status of the preset speed.” We
are persuaded Diamante correspondingly shows an empty vehicle outline in
the center message display to indicate the unset status of the preset speed.
Pet. 17, 29–30; Ex. 1011, 36; Ex. 1004, 52.
Patent Owner contends Petitioner fails to establish that the empty
vehicle outline is ever shown to the operator. PO Resp. 8–9. The only time
the empty vehicle outline is illustrated in Diamante is on page 52. Id.
According to Patent Owner, when Diamante discusses “[s]etting preview
distance control” on page 89, in step 4 the cruise control indicator light on
the meter turns on simultaneously with the center message display switching
to preview distance control mode, showing a numerical value within the
vehicle outline. PO Resp. 8–9.
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Diamante fails
to disclose that the empty vehicle outline is ever shown to the operator. The
illustration on page 52 of Diamante includes an empty vehicle outline in the
“preview distance control information” item display. The accompanying
text, just above the illustration, indicates that item is “displayed” when the
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

18
MODE switch is pressed the correct number of times, and also states “[o]nly
vehicles with preview distance control display this item,” with an asterisk
indicating the displayed item, including an empty vehicle outline. Ex. 1004,
526 (emphases added); see Pet. Reply 7. The discussion of step 4 on page 89
of Diamante does not demonstrate otherwise. Rather, the illustration in
step 4 relates to the display after a cruise control preset speed is set in steps 2
and 3, not to what is displayed prior to steps 2 and 3, which is the pertinent
time frame to claim 15.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15, and specifies “wherein indicating
the unset status of the preset speed includes displaying a visual symbol to the
operator.” We are persuaded the empty vehicle outline in the center
message display is a visual symbol as claimed here. Pet. 30; Ex. 1011, 37;
Ex. 1004, 52.
For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
claims 13–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Diamante.
5. Claim 21
Claim 21, similarly to claim 12, recites a method for indicating, to a
vehicle operator, a preset speed for which a cruise control system is set,
including engaging the system and setting the preset speed, displaying a
symbol indicative of the preset speed, maintaining the display, and
discontinuing the display after the system is deactivated or a new preset

6 The translation of Diamante (Exhibit 1004, 52) has boxes surrounding the
text and the associated preview distance control display, which are not found
in the original (Exhibit 1003, 52). The original, however, has asterisks to tie
the two together.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

19
speed is selected. We are persuaded Diamante discloses these claim
limitations for the reasons provided above. See supra Part II.B.3; Ex. 1011,
37–39.
Claim 21 additionally recites “after the cruise control system is
deactivated, displaying a symbol indicative of an unset state of the preset
speed.” We are persuaded Diamante correspondingly discloses: “If . . . you
turn the main switch off, the vehicle speed displayed on the center message
display disappears.” Ex. 1004, 92 (emphasis added); Pet. 32; Ex. 1011, 39.
Patent Owner contends the quoted statement from Diamante fails to
disclose the display of a symbol indicating there is no preset speed after the
cruise control system is turned off. PO Resp. 9–10. Patent Owner asserts
the lack of a display of any information on the center message display
cannot simultaneously correspond to “discontinuing display” and
“displaying” in claim 21. Id. at 10. Patent Owner also contends Diamante
fails to disclose that information related to the preview distance control
system is displayed when the main switch is turned off, but the ignition is
on. Id. at 10.
Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive. As Petitioner points
out in the Reply Brief, and as discussed above in connection with claim 15,
Diamante displays an empty vehicle outline to indicate an unset status of the
preset speed. Pet. Reply 8–9; supra Part II.B.4. We find Diamante shows
such an empty vehicle outline, as illustrated on page 52, even when the
cruise control system is “deactivated” in claim 21 (i.e., turned off).
Ex. 1004, 52 (preview distance control display is shown whenever the
MODE switch is pressed an appropriate number of times).
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

20
For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
claim 21 is unpatentable as anticipated by Diamante.
6. Claim 25
Claim 25, similarly to claim 12, recites a method for indicating, to a
vehicle operator, a preset speed for which a cruise control system is set,
including setting the preset speed, and displaying a symbol indicative of the
preset speed. We are persuaded Diamante discloses these claim limitations,
for the reasons provided above. See supra Part II.B.3; Ex. 1011, 39–40.
Claim 25 additionally recites “accelerating the vehicle to a speed
above the preset speed” and “maintaining the display of the symbol
indicative of the preset speed while the vehicle is at the speed above the
preset speed.” We are persuaded Diamante discloses these requirements.
Pet. 33; Ex. 1011, 40–41; Ex. 1004, 91. In particular, Diamante indicates
the operator may depress the accelerator pedal to accelerate the vehicle
above the preset speed, and the system will resume the preset speed when
the pedal is released. Ex. 1004, 91 (“Advice”, first paragraph). Diamante
further indicates “[w]hile vehicle-to-vehicle distance control is on”—i.e.,
during the time the accelerator pedal is depressed—“the speed of your
vehicle (displayed on the speedometer) differs from the preset speed
(displayed on the center message display).” Id. (“Advice”, third paragraph).
Patent Owner contends the Diamante disclosure on page 91, in the
first paragraph of the “Advice” box, does not establish that the acceleration
is “above” the preset speed as required by claim 25. PO Resp. 11. We are
not persuaded. That disclosure states the system will “resume the preset
speed prior to the acceleration” when the accelerator pedal is released.
Ex. 1004, 91 (emphases added). Because depressing the accelerator pedal
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

21
increases the vehicle speed, the only way the vehicle can resume the preset
speed prior to the acceleration, once the pedal is released, is if the preset
speed is less than the accelerated speed. See Pet. Reply 10.
Patent Owner also contends the Diamante disclosure on page 91, in
the third paragraph of the “Advice” box, does not establish that the
acceleration is “above” the preset speed. PO Resp. 11–12. However, as just
discussed, the first “Advice” paragraph does disclose such an acceleration.
The third paragraph discloses that “[w]hile vehicle-to-vehicle distance
control is on”—such as during the temporary acceleration disclosed in the
first “Advice” paragraph—the preset speed continues to be displayed. Thus,
the first and third “Advice” paragraphs in combination disclose the
“accelerating” and “maintaining” steps of claim 25. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 10;
Tr. 14:12–16:9.
For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
claim 25 is unpatentable as anticipated by Diamante.
7. Claims 26 and 28
Claim 26, similarly to claim 1, recites a cruise control system for a
vehicle, including a speed controller, a set speed input, and a memory. We
are persuaded Diamante discloses these claim limitations, for the reasons
provided above. See supra Part II.B.1; Ex. 1011, 41–42. For those same
reasons, Patent Owner’s assertion that Diamante has not been shown to
disclose a speed controller is not persuasive. PO Resp. 12.
Claim 26 also recites a “first visual display apparatus operable to
display the indicative of the actual speed of the vehicle.” Diamante states:
“the speed of your vehicle (displayed on the speedometer) differs from the
preset speed (displayed on the center message display).” Ex. 1004, 91
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

22
(emphases added). We are persuaded the speedometer display corresponds
to claim 26’s first visual display apparatus. Pet. 34; Ex. 1011, 42.
Claim 26 further recites a second visual display apparatus operable to
display visual information indicative of an operation status of the speed
controller, including the preset speed. Diamante’s disclosure in this regard
is exemplified by the following excerpted illustration:

Ex. 1004, 88. This illustration reflects a “Center message display” shown
when the cruise control and preview distance control systems are enabled.
Id. at 52, 88. The display includes an outline of a vehicle, representing the
vehicle being driven by the operator, surrounding a digital display of the
cruise control’s “Preset speed” (e.g., 80 km/h). Id. at 90. We are persuaded
this display corresponds to claim 26’s second visual display apparatus.
Pet. 34–35; Ex. 1011, 42.
Claim 28 depends from claim 26, and specifies “the second visual
display apparatus comprises a digital numerical indicator.” We are
persuaded this requirement is met by Diamante’s display of the preset
cruising speed as a digital readout. Pet. 23–24, 35; Ex. 1011, 43; Ex. 1004,
88.
For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
claims 26 and 28 are unpatentable as anticipated by Diamante.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

23
C. Obviousness Based on Diamante and Diamante PDC
Petitioner contends claims 15, 16, and 21 of the ’463 patent are
unpatentable as obvious over Diamante and Diamante PDC. Pet. 37–38.
We have reviewed Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Green’s testimony that
Diamante PDC discloses “indicating to the operator the unset status of the
preset speed” as recited in claims 15 and 16, and “displaying a symbol
indicative of an unset state of the preset speed” as recited in claim 21. Id.;
Pet. Reply 7, 9; Ex. 1011, 18–19, 46–47; Ex. 1006, p. 0-11 (“When the
[preset] speed is not set, the speed (three digits) and ‘km/h’ are not
displayed; only the symbol is displayed.”). We have further reviewed
Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Green’s testimony that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason to combine Diamante and
Diamante PDC to achieve the methods recited in claims 15, 16, and 21.
Pet. 38; Pet. Reply 14–15; Ex. 1011, 47.
In opposition to this unpatentability ground, Patent Owner relies on its
argument and evidence alleging Petitioner improperly combines two
different embodiments in Diamante as disclosing the claimed subject matter,
apart from indicating an unset status or state of the preset speed. PO
Resp. 18–19. For reasons provided above, that argument is unpersuasive.
See supra Part II.B.1. The Scheduling Order cautioned Patent Owner that
any arguments not raised in the Response would be deemed waived.
Paper 18, 3. Accordingly, after due consideration of the argument and
evidence advanced by both parties, we find a preponderance of the evidence
establishes claims 15, 16, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over Diamante
and Diamante PDC.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

24
D. Obviousness Based on Diamante and Watanabe
Petitioner contends claim 12 of the ’463 patent is unpatentable as
obvious over Diamante and Watanabe. Pet. 39–40. We have reviewed
Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Green’s testimony that Watanabe discloses
“maintaining the activated cruise control speed symbol upon temporary . . .
deceleration of the vehicle” as recited in claim 12. Id.; Ex. 1011, 48–49;
Ex. 1008, Fig. 5, ¶ 36. We have further reviewed Petitioner’s argument and
Dr. Green’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
had reason to combine Diamante and Watanabe to achieve the method
recited in claim 12. Pet. 40; Ex. 1011, 49.
In opposition to this unpatentability ground, Patent Owner relies on its
argument and evidence alleging Petitioner improperly combines two
different embodiments in Diamante as disclosing the claimed subject matter,
apart from maintaining the activated speed symbol upon temporary
deceleration. PO Resp. 19. For reasons provided above, that argument is
unpersuasive. See supra Part II.B.1. Accordingly, after due consideration of
the argument and evidence advanced by both parties, we find a
preponderance of the evidence establishes claim 12 is unpatentable as
obvious over Diamante and Watanabe.
E. Anticipation by Watanabe
Petitioner contends claims 18 and 19 of the ’463 patent are
unpatentable as anticipated by Watanabe. Pet. 41–43.
Claim 18 recites a method for indicating, to a vehicle operator, a
preset speed for which a cruise control system is set, including setting the
preset speed, displaying a symbol indicative of the preset speed while
maintaining the vehicle speed at substantially the preset speed, and
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

25
maintaining the display. We are persuaded Watanabe discloses these steps.
Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1011, 50–51. That is, Watanabe discloses center message
display 41 having set vehicle speed display part 42, for displaying the set
vehicle speed Vm, in a line image schematically showing the contour of a
vehicle. Ex. 1008 ¶ 15, Figs. 2, 5.
Claim 18 also recites “upon braking the vehicle, discontinuing
maintaining the vehicle speed at substantially the preset speed while keeping
data corresponding to the preset speed in a memory device,” as well as “at a
time after braking and during which time the vehicle is not being maintained
at substantially the preset speed, displaying to the operator a symbol
indicative of the preset speed.” We are persuaded Watanabe discloses these
limitations. Pet. 42; Ex. 1011, 51. In particular, Watanabe’s disclosure in
this regard is exemplified by its Figure 5, reproduced below:

Ex. 1008, Fig. 5. The middle portion (column 3) of Figure 5 shows a series
of display contents in center message display 41 when cruise control is
carried out. Id. ¶¶ 32–33.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

26
Row (5) of Figure 5 illustrates display 41 when the brake pedal is
operated. Id. ¶ 36. As can be seen therein, display 41 includes the preset
speed (e.g., 100 km/h) when the brakes are being applied, which also cancels
the cruise control system. Id. Because of that cancellation, when the
operator releases the brakes, the vehicle will no longer be maintained at
substantially the preset speed. However, the display of the preset speed
continues until the vehicle speed drops below a prescribed value, when the
set vehicle speed display disappears. Id. In that way, if the operator
resumes cruise control before the vehicle speed drops below the prescribed
value, the operator “can detect the set vehicle speed Vm as an arrival target,
thus being able to reliably continue traveling without feeling unintended
acceleration.” Id. ¶ 40.
Patent Owner contends neither the Petition nor Dr. Green addresses
the “memory device” limitation of claim 18. PO Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 41–43
and Ex. 1011, 50–52). This argument is not persuasive. Petitioner and
Dr. Green cite Watanabe paragraph 25 in support of finding that Watanabe’s
operation switch 18 sets the preset speed. Pet. 42; Ex. 1011, 51. Watanabe
therein states, if cruise control is started by operation switch 18, “the present
vehicle speed VS is stored as the set vehicle speed Vm in the ECU 2
(Vm = VS).” Ex. 1008 ¶ 25 (emphasis added); see also id. at Fig. 1, ¶¶ 10–
12 (illustrating and describing main control device (ECU) 2). That
disclosure indicates Watanabe has the memory of claim 18.
Petitioner and Dr. Green further discuss how Watanabe Figure 5
illustrates that the preset speed remains displayed even after cruise control is
disengaged by pressing the brakes. Pet. Reply 12; Pet. 42; Ex. 1011, 51.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

27
That disclosure indicates, again, that Watanabe has the memory of claim 18,
so that the display may be maintained. Pet. Reply 12.
Claim 19 depends from claim 18, and specifies:
the symbol indicative of the preset speed displayed at the time
after braking and during which time the vehicle is not being
maintained at substantially the preset speed, is distinguishable
by the operator from the symbol indicative of the preset speed
while the vehicle is being maintained at substantially the preset
speed.
We are persuaded Watanabe discloses that limitation. Pet. 42–43; Ex. 1011,
51–52. In particular, cruise control display lamp 62 of Watanabe is lit while
cruise control is working to maintain the preset speed, but becomes unlit
when the brakes are applied to cancel cruise control. Ex. 1008 ¶ 36, Fig. 5.
Patent Owner contends the Petition does not meet the requirements of
37 C.F.R. § 42.104 because it fails to specify where each element of
claims 18 and 19 is found in Watanabe. PO Resp. 13. We have reviewed
the Petition at pages 41–43, and find that the requirements of Rule
42.104(b)(4)–(5) are met therein.
Patent Owner specifically contends the Petition, in stating that “[t]he
cruise control device of Watanabe includes an operation switch 18 to set the
preset speed (claims 18 and 19),” is unclear as to which of the claim
limitations Petitioner alleges is met by operation switch 18. PO Resp. 13
(quoting Pet. 42). We, however, agree with Petitioner that the quoted
statement refers to the limitation in claim 18 reciting “setting the preset
speed.” Pet. Reply 11–12.
For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
claims 18 and 19 are unpatentable as anticipated by Watanabe.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

28
F. Anticipation by Celsior
Petitioner contends claims 2–5, 26–28, and 34–36 of the ’463 patent
are unpatentable as anticipated by Celsior. Pet. 43–59.
1. Claims 2–5
Claim 2 recites a cruise control system for a vehicle, including a speed
controller. We are persuaded Celsior discloses a cruise control speed
controller. Pet. 47; Ex. 1011, 56. For example, Celsior directs the vehicle
operator to “use the radar control system to drive your vehicle without
depressing the accelerator pedal” such that “[y]our cruising speed is
maintained at the preset speed (from about 50–100 km/h).” Ex. 1010, 130.
Patent Owner contends the quoted statement from Celsior expressly
refers only to a cruise control “system” as recited in the preamble of claim 2,
and fails to disclose the “speed controller” structural system component later
recited in claim 2. PO Resp. 14–15. Further, according to Patent Owner,
neither Petitioner nor Dr. Green asserts that the claimed “speed controller” is
inherent in Celsior. Id. at 15.
These arguments are not persuasive. Claim 2 requires “a speed
controller for automatically maintaining the vehicle at a substantially
constant cruising speed selected by the operator.” By indicating the Celsior
cruise control system maintains a preset speed without the operator
depressing the accelerator pedal, we find Celsior expressly discloses that its
system includes a component corresponding to the claimed speed controller.
Ex. 1010, 130. Patent Owner’s argument fails to specify any structural
feature of the claimed speed controller that is missing from the Celsior
cruise control system. See Pet. Reply 3–4, 12–13.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

29
Claim 2 also recites an enable switch and a set speed input. The
following illustration appears in Celsior:

Ex. 1010, 132. This illustration shows a main switch and a control lever
used to operate the cruise control system. Id. We are persuaded the main
switch is an enable switch as required by claim 2. Pet. 47–48; Ex. 1011, 56–
57. In particular, Celsior instructs the vehicle operator to “[p]ress the main
switch to turn the radar cruise control on.” Ex. 1010, 133. We also are
persuaded the control lever corresponds to the set speed input required by
claim 2. Pet. 48–49; Ex. 1011, 57–58. In particular, Celsior instructs the
vehicle operator to “[a]ccelerate or decelerate to the desired speed” and then
“[p]ush the control lever downward” to select the preset speed. Ex. 1010,
133.
Claim 2 further recites a memory that stores the selected cruising
speed. We are persuaded a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading
Celsior, would understand the cruise control system described therein
necessarily includes a memory to perform the functions described in Celsior.
Pet. 45, 49–50; Ex. 1011, 54, 58–59.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

30
Claim 2 finally recites “a feedback system that substantially
continuously communicates the selected cruising speed information to the
operator of the vehicle until either the operator selects a subsequent cruising
speed or the controller is disabled.” Celsior’s disclosure in this regard is
exemplified by two illustrations in Celsior. The first is shown below:

Ex. 1010, 132. This first illustration reflects a multi-information display
shown to the vehicle operator. The second illustration is shown below:

Id. at 133. This second illustration includes a close-up view of the multi-
information display, shown in the first illustration underneath the analog
speedometer. The multi-information display includes an outline of a
vehicle, representing the vehicle being driven, next to a digital display of the
“Preset speed” (e.g., 100 km/h). Id.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

31
We are persuaded the multi-information display corresponds to the
feedback system recited in claim 2. Pet. 50–52; Ex. 1011, 59–61. In
particular, as to a subsequent cruising speed, Celsior indicates the operator
may toggle the control lever to change the preset speed, and “[w]hen the
preset speed displayed on the multi-information display reaches the desired
speed, release the control lever.” Ex. 1010, 135. As to disabling the
controller, Celsior indicates that when the main switch is used to cancel
cruise control, “the cruise control indicator light on the meter turns off and
the multi-information display screen switches to another screen.” Id. at 137.
Claims 3 and 5 depend from claim 2, and specify respectively “the
feedback system includes a digital display,” which “displays information
indicative of the selected cruising speed of the vehicle.” We are persuaded
Celsior correspondingly displays the preset cruising speed as a digital
display, next to an outline of a vehicle representing the vehicle being driven.
Pet. 52–53; Ex. 1011, 61–62; Ex. 1010, 133.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3, and specifies “the digital display
displays a predetermined signal when the controller is initially enabled to
indicate the state of the controller.” We are persuaded Celsior discloses this
claim limitation. Pet. 52–53; Ex. 1011, 53–55, 61–62. In particular, when
the main switch is pressed to turn the radar control system on, the phrase
“CRUISE READY” appears in the multi-information display. Ex. 1010,
133.
For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
claims 2–5 are unpatentable as anticipated by Celsior.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

32
2. Claims 26–28
Claim 26, similarly to claim 2, recites a cruise control system for a
vehicle including a speed controller, a set speed input, and a memory. We
are persuaded Celsior discloses these claim limitations, for the reasons
provided above. See supra Part II.F.1; Ex. 1011, 62–63. For those same
reasons, Patent Owner’s assertion that Celsior has not been shown to
disclose a speed controller is not persuasive. PO Resp. 16.
Claim 26 also recites a “first visual display apparatus operable to
display the indicative of the actual speed of the vehicle.” We are persuaded
Celsior discloses such a display apparatus as an analog speedometer.
Pet. 54; Ex. 1011, 64; Ex. 1010, 132.
Claim 26 further recites a second visual display apparatus operable to
display visual information indicative of an operation status of the speed
controller, including the preset speed. Celsior’s disclosure in this regard is
exemplified by the following illustration:

Ex. 1010, 133. This illustration reflects a close-up view of a multi-
information display. The display includes an outline of a vehicle,
representing the vehicle being driven, next to a digital display of the “Preset
speed” (e.g., 100 km/h). Id. We are persuaded this display corresponds to
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

33
the second visual display apparatus recited in claim 26. Pet. 50, 54;
Ex. 1011, 64–65.
Claim 27 depends from claim 26, and specifies “the second visual
display apparatus includes information reflecting whether the speed
controller is operating to maintain the vehicle at the cruising speed at the
time the display is made.” We are persuaded Celsior discloses this claim
limitation. Pet. 55; Ex. 1011, 53, 65. In particular, after the cruise control
system is enabled but before a cruising speed is selected, the multi-
information display shows the phrase “CRUISE READY.” Ex. 1010, 133.
Then, once a cruising speed is selected, the multi-information display
changes to show the selected cruising speed, and other information. Id.
Patent Owner contends the display of the selected cruising speed in
Celsior does not satisfy claim 27’s requirement to reflect that the vehicle is
being maintained “at the cruising speed at the time the display is made.” PO
Resp. 16–17. Specifically, Patent Owner points out that Celsior continues
displaying the selected cruising speed even when the vehicle is not being
maintained at that speed, when the vehicle-to-vehicle distance control slows
down the vehicle in response to detecting a slower vehicle ahead. Id. at 17
(citing Ex. 1010, 130).
Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. We agree with Petitioner
that Celsior’s second visual display, as a whole, includes information
reflecting whether the vehicle is being maintained at the displayed cruising
speed at the time the display is made. Pet. Reply 14. In particular, Celsior’s
second visual display is shown below:
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

34

Ex. 1010, 133. As shown there, the display reflects when a vehicle is
detected ahead by showing a symbol of a vehicle, which is colored white at
the far left edge of the display. Id. at 133–134. If no slower vehicle is
detected ahead, and, therefore, the driven vehicle is maintained at the
indicated 100 km/h, the white vehicle is removed. Id. at 134. By using the
white vehicle to display whether the driven vehicle has slowed down from
the 100 km/h cruising speed due to a slower vehicle being detected ahead,
Celsior meets claim 27’s requirement for displaying information reflecting
whether the vehicle is being maintained at the cruising speed at the time the
display is made.
Claim 28 depends from claim 26, and specifies “the second visual
display apparatus comprises a digital numerical indicator.” We are
persuaded this requirement is met by Celsior’s display of the preset cruising
speed as a digital readout. Pet. 55; Ex. 1011, 65; Ex. 1010, 133.
For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
claims 26–28 are unpatentable as anticipated by Celsior.
3. Claims 34–36
Claim 34 recites a method for providing a vehicle operator with
information reflecting the operating status of a cruise control device,
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

35
comprising providing a cruise control device with various components.
Similarly to claim 26, the cruise control system components of claim 34
include a speed controller, a set speed input, a memory, a first visual display
apparatus, and a second visual display apparatus. We are persuaded Celsior
discloses these claim limitations, for the reasons provided above. See supra
Part II.F.1–2; Ex. 1011, 65–68. For those same reasons, Patent Owner’s
assertion that Celsior has not been shown to disclose a speed controller is not
persuasive. PO Resp. 17–18.
The method of claim 34 additionally includes “activating the cruise
control device” and “operating the second visual display apparatus to
indicate the active status of the cruise control device.” We are persuaded
Celsior discloses activating the cruise control device by pressing the main
switch. Pet. 57; Ex. 1011, 68; Ex. 1010, 133. We also are persuaded that
Celsior’s multi-information display is operated to indicate the active status
of the cruise control device when the phrase “CRUISE READY” appears
therein. Pet. 57–58; Ex. 1011, 53, 69; Ex. 1010, 133.
Claim 35 depends from claim 34, and specifies “operating the second
visual display apparatus to display visual information indicative of the preset
speed.” We are persuaded these requirements are met by Celsior’s display
of the preset speed as a digital readout next to an outline of a vehicle.
Pet. 587; Ex. 1011, 69.

7 In this regard, the Petition (Pet. 58) refers back to “disclosures cited in
response to claim [34(b)],” which in turn (Pet. 56) refers back to
“disclosures cited in response to claim [2(c)],” which discusses (Pet. 48–49)
displaying the preset speed in the multi-information display.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

36
Claim 36 depends from claim 35, and specifies changing the preset
speed from a first preset speed to a second preset speed, and operating the
second visual display apparatus to display visual information indicative of
the second preset speed. We are persuaded Celsior discloses this claim
requirement. Pet. 58–59; Ex. 1011, 70. In particular, Celsior indicates the
operator may toggle the control lever to change the preset speed, and
“[w]hen the preset speed displayed on the multi-information display reaches
the desired speed, release the control lever.” Ex. 1010, 135.
For the foregoing reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes
claims 34–36 are unpatentable as anticipated by Celsior.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the complete record before us, we determine that Petitioner
has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:
A Claims 1–3, 5, 12–16, 21, 25, 26, and 28 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Diamante;
B. Claims 15, 16, and 21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Diamante and Diamante PDC;
C. Claim 12 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Diamante and Watanabe;
D. Claims 18 and 19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Watanabe; and
E. Claims 2–5, 26–28, and 34–36 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Celsior.
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

37
IV. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is:
ORDERED that claims 1–5, 12–16, 18, 19, 21, 25–28, and 34–36 of
the ’463 patent are unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a final decision, parties to
the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must comply with the
notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2 (2014).
IPR2014-00280
Patent 6,324,463 B1

38
FOR PETITIONER

William H. Mandir
John F. Rabena
SUGHRUE MION PLLC
wmandir@sughrue.com
jrabena@sughrue.com

Matthew D. Satchwell
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
matthew.satchwell@dlapiper.com

Matthew J. Moore
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
matthew.moore@lw.com

Eric A. Buresh
ERISE IP, P.A.
eric.buresh@eriseip.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:

John R. Kasha
Kelly L. Kasha
KASHA LAW LLC
john.kasha@kashalaw.com
kelly.kasha@kashalaw.com