Unified Patents Inc. v. Paul Michelotti, IPR2017-02060, (PTAB Sept. 8, 2017)

IPR2017-02060 Petition
Patent 6,023,221
Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.

By: Jonathan Stroud, Reg. 72,518
Unified Patents Inc.
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
Washington, DC 20009
Tel: (650) 999-0899
Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
Roshan S. Mansinghani, Reg. 62,429

Unified Patents Inc.
13355 Noel Road, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75240
Tel: (214) 945-0200
Email: roshan@unifiedpatents.com
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________________________________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________________________________
UNIFIED PATENTS INC.

Petitioner
v.
PAUL MICHELOTTI
Patent Owner
IPR2017-02060
Patent 6,023,221
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
US PATENT NO. 6,023,221
CHALLENGING CLAIMS 16
UNDER 35 U.S.C. 312 AND 37 C.F.R. 42.104
Patent 6,023,221
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 6
A. Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................ 6

B. Related Matters ..................................................................... 6
C. Counsel .................................................................................. 6
D. Service Information ............................................................... 6
II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................. 7
III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ................... 7
A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................ 7

B. Grounds for Challenge .......................................................... 8
IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 221 PATENT ........................................................... 8
A. Summary of the Alleged Invention ....................................... 8

B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................... 11
C. Prosecution History ............................................................. 11
V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 13
A. Explicitly Defined Terms .................................................... 14
1. hazard warning light or hazard light .................. 14

2. acceleration ............................................................ 15
B. Means-Plus-Function Terms ............................................... 15
1. sensing means to detect acceleration and deceleration

of the vehicle (Claim 1) ........................................... 16
2. said sensing means including means to produce a
signal indicating the rate of acceleration or
deceleration of the vehicle (Claim 1) ...................... 18
3. means to determine when the rate of deceleration
exceeds a predetermined threshold level for a
predetermined time interval (Claim 1) .................... 19
4. means to automatically activate the hazard warning
lights when said rate of deceleration exceeds said
1
Patent 6,023,221
predetermined threshold level for said predetermined

time interval (Claim 1) ............................................ 21
5. means to maintain hazard warning light activity
beyond the incident of deceleration which causes
activation (Claim 1) ................................................. 22
6. means to automatically deactivate the hazard
warning lights when the rate of deceleration drops
below the predetermined threshold level for a
predetermined length of time and changes in
acceleration of the vehicle indicate normal vehicle
operation (Claim 1) ................................................. 23
7. manual control means connected to the hazard
warning lights for manually activating and
deactivating the hazard warning lights; and the
manual control means, when [a]perated [sic],
overrides the automatic system (Claim 2) ............... 25
VI. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ....................................................... 25
A. Ground I: Claims 16 are obvious considering Gerhaher in

view of Neuffer, further in view of obvious features of
Spangler and Boser ............................................................. 26
1. Overview ................................................................... 26
2. Claim 1 is obvious..................................................... 27
3. Claim 2 is obvious..................................................... 75
4. Claim 3 is obvious..................................................... 79
5. Claim 4 is obvious..................................................... 80
6. Claim 5 is obvious..................................................... 80
7. Claim 6 is obvious..................................................... 80
VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 81
2
Patent 6,023,221
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Description
EX1001 U.S. Patent 6,023,221 ("the '221 Patent")
EX1002 U.S. Patent 4,723,078 (Neuffer)
EX1003 U.S. Patent 5,594,416 (Gerhaher)
EX1004 U.S. Patent 5,495,414 (Spangler)
EX1005 Declaration of Scott Andrews
Order, Michelotti v. Robert Bosch, LLC, 2:14-cv-14441, (ED Mich.

EX1006
Sept. 6, 2016)
EX1007 U.S. Patent 5,389,913 (Boser)
EX1008 File History, Application (8/25/1997)
EX1009 File History, Preliminary Amendment (6/5/1998)
EX1010 File History, Office Action (7/22/1998)
EX1011 File History, Amendment (12/28/1998)
EX1017 File History, Notice of Allowance (10/12/1999)
EX1018 U.S. Patent 4,990,887 (Lee)
3
Patent 6,023,221
EX1019 U.S. Patent 5,139,115 (Browne)
EX1020 U.S. Patent 5,394,326 (Liu)
EX1021 Victor Wilfred Page, The Ford Model T Car 160161 (1924)
Jessica Gross, Who Made That? (Turn Signal),

EX1022
N.Y. Times Magazine, at MM20, July 12, 2013
EX1023 U.S. Patent 2,122,508 (Bell)
EX1024 U.S. Patent 2,178,343 (Hebler)
EX1025 U.S. Patent 2,435,389 (Wilford)
EX1026 U.S. Patent 5,309,141 (Mason)
EX1027 U.S. Patent 3,559,164 (Bancroft)
EX1028 U.S. Patent 3,760,353 (Hassinger)
EX1029 U.S. Patent 2,474,610 (Wunsch)
EX1030 U.S. Patent 3,528,056 (Voevodsky)
EX1031 U.S. Patent 3,683,329 (Sattler)
EX1032 U.S. Patent 3,708,782 (Mori)
EX1033 U.S. Patent 4,807,101 (Milde)
Ronald Jurgen, Automotive Electronics Handbook

EX1034
(McGraw-Hill 1995)
EX1035 U.S. Patent 3,805,097 (Yanchich)
EX1036 U.S. Patent 3,452,175 (Wilkes)
EX1037 U.S. Patent 3,643,049 (Lu Conic)
4
Patent 6,023,221
EX1038 U.S. Patent 4,985,604 (Tyebkhan)
EX1039 U.S. Patent 3,781,824 (Caiati)
EX1040 U.S. Patent 4,620,442 (MacGugan)
EX1041 Halliday and Resnick, Physics (3d ed., John Wiley & Sons 1968)
EX1042 U.S. Patent 3,846,749 (Curry)
EX1043 U.S. Patent 4,258,353 (Carlson)
EX1044 U.S. Patent 4,357,594 (Ehrlich)
EX1045 U.S. Patent 3,686,506 (Offner)
5
Patent 6,023,221
I. MANDATORY NOTICES
A. Real Party-in-Interest
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1), Unified Patents Inc. (Unified or
Petitioner) certifies that Unified is the real party-in-interest, and further certifies
that no other party exercised control or could exercise control over Unifieds
participation in this proceeding, the filing of this petition, or the conduct of any
ensuing trial.
B. Related Matters
U.S. Patent 6,023,221 (221 Patent (EX1001)) is owned and has been
asserted by Paul Michelotti (Michelotti or Patent Owner). The 221 Patent is
the subject of the following pending district court proceeding: Michelotti v. Robert
Bosch, LLC, et al., 2:14-cv-14441-SFC-DRG (E.D. Mich.).
C. Counsel
Jonathan Stroud (Reg. No. 72,518) will act as lead counsel; Roshan
Mansinghani (Reg. No. 62,429) will act as primary backup counsel.
D. Service Information
Unified consents to electronic service at jonathan@unifiedpatents.com and
roshan@unifiedpatents.com. Petitioner can be reached at Unified Patents Inc., 1875
Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10, Washington, DC 20009, (650) 999-0899.
6
Patent 6,023,221
II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which review
is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or
estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the
grounds identified in this Petition.
III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)(2), Petitioner challenges
claims 1-6 of the 221 Patent.
A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability: 1
1. U.S. Patent 4,723,078 (filed May 15, 1987; issued February 2, 1988)
(Neuffer (EX1002)); prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
2. U.S. Patent 5,594,416 (filed November 20, 1995; issued January 14, 1997)
(Gerhaher (EX1003)); prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
3. U.S. Patent 5,495,414 (filed April 7, 1993; issued February 27, 1996)
(Spangler (EX1004)); prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
4. U.S. Patent 5,389,913 (filed May 17, 1994; issued February 14, 1995)
(Boser (EX1007)); prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
1
The 221 Patent issued from an application filed prior to enactment of the America
Invents Act (AIA). Accordingly, pre-AIA statutory framework applies.
7
Patent 6,023,221
B. Grounds for Challenge
This Petition, supported by the declaration of Scott Andrews (EX1005),
challenges claims 1-6 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. See 35 U.S.C.
314(a).
IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 221 PATENT
A. Summary of the Alleged Invention
The 221 Patent discloses a vehicle safety device employing hazard warning
lights that automatically activate when rapid deceleration is detected. (EX1001 at
Abstract.) The 221 Patent includes one independent and five dependent claims, a
two-page specification, and one figure:
8
Patent 6,023,221
Housing 10 includes digital accelerometer 20, microcontroller 22, pushbutton
16, and latching relay 18. (Id. at Fig. 1, 2:62-3:45.) Digital accelerometer 20
produces electrical signals proportional to the magnitude of vehicle acceleration.
(id. at 2:4-6.) Microcontroller 22 receives these signals from the accelerometer, and
transmits an on signal to latching relay 18 when a series of deceleration values
corresponding to heavy or prolonged braking occurs. (Id. at 2:810.) Latching relay
18 subsequently closes upon receiving the on signal, thereby automatically
activating the hazard warning lights. (Id. at 3:3048.)
The 221 Patent also discloses an automatic deactivation mechanism
turning off the hazard lights after the vehicle returns to normal operation. When
latching relay 18 closes, it remains closed until it receives a subsequent off signal.
(Id. at 3:31-40.) Microcontroller 22 transmits an off signal to latching relay 18
when a series of positive accelerations corresponding to normal vehicle operation
occurs following an automatic activation. (Id. at 2:10-13.)
It allows the vehicle operator to activate the hazard warning lights manually
or to cancel an automatic activation by cycling the pushbutton on and then off. (Id.
at 3:53-55.) These automatic and manual mechanisms correspond to claims 1 and 2,
respectively.
The specification allows the alleged invention [to] be constructed on either a
digital or analog circuit using any vehicle mounted lights for alerting or warning
9
Patent 6,023,221
other vehicles of a hazardous condition. (EX1001 at 4:1-4.) Claims 1 and 2 are
written in largely functional terms. Dependent claim 3 defines hazard lights as
flashing lights; dependent claims 4, 5, 6 recite a digital accelerometer, a
microcontroller, and a relay, respectively.
Although aspiring to provid[e] the earliest possible indication of heavy
braking or collision, the 221 Patent imposes a minimum time requirement meant
to prevent momentary acceleration values associated with road irregularities from
activating the system. (EX1001 at 1:39-40, 2:39-41.) For example, a series of very
high deceleration values might require a duration of one second while a moderate
series of deceleration values ... might require a duration of five or more seconds.
(EX1001 at 2:28-33.) The 221 Patent also requires that the [s]pecific thresholds
of deceleration and activation [be] predetermined via prior testing and evaluation
and thus may be vehicle specific. (EX1001 at 3:33-37 and 2:33-34.) Together,
these minimum time and predetermined thresholds requirements from the
specification find expression within the claims as the predetermined threshold level
for a predetermined time interval limitation of independent claim 1.
The 221 Patent purports to improve more conventional systems such as
U.S. Patent 4,990,887 (Lee (EX1018)) and U.S. Patent 5,139,115 (Browne
(EX1019)). (EX1001 at 1:48-67.) The 221 Patent describes Lee as teaching a brake
light warning system in which, when the lights are energized[,] they will continue
10
Patent 6,023,221
to be illuminated for a predetermined period of time. (EX1001 at 1:56-60.) The
221 Patent describes Browne as teaching a system in which the lights are
illuminated in the usual manner under normal braking conditions but also flash
when the anti-lock braking system of the vehicle is activated. (Id. at 1:61-64). The
specification attempts to distinguish Lee and Browne because they allegedly fail to
show a system in which the rapid deceleration of the vehicle is detected []
independently from the brake and brakelight system. (Id. at 1:65-67.)
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) for the 221 Patent would have
at least a bachelors degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related
subject, or equivalent knowledge obtained through work experience, and at least two
years of experience in designing automotive electronic systems using sensors and
microprocessors. (EX1005 III.A.)
C. Prosecution History
The 221 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 08/917,590, which was
filed on August 25, 1997, and originally included nine claims. (EX1008.) The
applicant filed a preliminary amendment that added another independent and five
dependent claims. (EX1009.) The examiner indicated, without further explanation,
that newly added claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim [10]. (EX1012 at 11.) After failing
11
Patent 6,023,221
to obtain allowance of the remaining claims, applicant amended claim 11with
certain changesand canceled original application claims 110. (EX1016 at 2-4.)
Application claim 11 issued as claim 1 of the 221 Patent. Claim 1,
reproduced below, emphasizes the limitations and concepts found in application
claim 11 that the examiner found allowable:
1. In a motor vehicle having hazard warning lights and a manual

control switch, an improvement consisting of electronic circuitry which
causes the hazard warning lights to automatically activate under
circumstances of rapid decelearation and to remain activated until
manaually reset by the vehicle operator or automatically reset by
electronic recognition of a resumption of normal vehicle operation,
said electronic circuitry comprising:
sensing means to detect acceleration and deceleration of the
vehicle;
said sensing means including means to produce a signal
indicating the rate of acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle;
means to determine when the rate of deceleration exceeds a
predetermined threshold level for a predetermined time interval;
means to automatically activate the hazard warning lights when
said rate of deceleration exceeds said predetermined threshold level for
said predetermined time interval;
means to maintain hazard warning light activity beyond the
incident of deceleration which causes activation;
means to automatically deactivate the hazard warning lights
when the rate of deceleration drops below the predetermined
12
Patent 6,023,221
threshold level for a predetermined length of time and changes in

acceleration of the vehicle indicate normal vehicle operation; and
whereby the hazard lights are automatically activated to provide
a warning that a rapid deceleration of the vehicle is occurring or has
taken place and automatically deactivate when normal operation of
the vehicle is resumed.
Compare (EX1009 at 5-6 with EX1001 at Cl. 1.)
V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
In inter partes review, claim terms in expired patents are construed according
to Philips v. AWH Corp. 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). This patent
claims a priority date of August 25, 1997, and issued on February 8, 2000. (EX1001
at 1.) Thus, the 221 patent expired on August 25, 2017, and a district-court-type
(i.e., Phillips) claim construction applies.
This standard gives claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as
understood by a POSITA at the time of invention. Id. at 1321; Interthinx v. Corelogic
Sols., CBM2012-00007, Paper 16 at 15 (Jan. 31, 2013). The ordinary meaning of
a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321. The construction is thus based primarily on the
specification. Id. at 1315. Dictionaries, encyclopedias, and treatises can inform the
ordinary meaning of a claim term, id. at 132223, as long as it does not contradict
any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.
13
Patent 6,023,221
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The
only exceptions are 1) when the applicant acts as his own lexicographer; and 2) when
the applicant disavows or disclaims the full scope of a claim term in the specification.
Poly-Am., L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The proposed constructions below are the ordinary meaning of the claim terms
as they would have been understood by a POSITA at the time and thus comply with
a district court-type claim construction. Any claim terms not included should be
interpreted in the same way. Scott Andrews, an expert in automotive systems, has
reviewed and agrees with these interpretations. (See EX1005 at VI.)
In a pending district court litigation, the court construed certain claim terms
while denying a summary judgment motion alleging indefiniteness, which we
discuss where appropriate. (See EX1006.)
A. Explicitly Defined Terms
The following terms are explicitly defined by the specification with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
1. hazard warning light or hazard light
The 221 Patent defines that the term hazard warning lights as used herein
includes any vehicle mounted lights for alerting or warning other vehicles of a
hazardous condition. (EX1001 at 3:664:3.)
14
Patent 6,023,221
2. acceleration
The 221 Patent defines acceleration to include negative acceleration or
deceleration. (EX1001 at 4:4-5.)
B. Means-Plus-Function Terms
The following terms invoke the term means, and thus create a rebuttable
presumption that they should be construed under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6. See
Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161
F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Whats more, in the Eastern District of Michigan,
the parties stipulatedand the Court confirmedthat Claim 1 invokes means-plus-
function claim limitations. (EX1006 at 8.)
The Boards rules require that, [w]here the claim to be construed contains a
means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f), the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the
specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each
claimed function. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3).
In Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015),
the en banc Federal Circuit explained that, where a corresponding general-purpose
computer or processor is the structure disclosed, the specification must also provide
algorithmic support. An algorithm is a set of instructions for how to perform the
15
Patent 6,023,221
recited functions, but it is not as specific as computer source code. See, e.g., Triton
Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 753 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The function of certain of the terms listed below are performed, at least in
part, by a special-purpose computer (i.e., microcontroller 22). As such, the
algorithms used by the microcontroller are also identified. See id. at 1352.
Thus, the following terms, which invoke the term means and describe
function, should be construed under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6.
1. sensing means to detect acceleration and deceleration of the

vehicle (Claim 1)
The recited function is detect[ing] acceleration and deceleration of the
vehicle.
The corresponding structures disclosed by the specification include at least
the following:
a single-axis digital accelerometer, (EX1001 at 2:2);
a digital accelerometer, (see, e.g., id. at 3:13-15);
a single integrated unit consisting of a sensing element and an electronic chip,
where the sensing element consists of machined microstructures that respond
to acceleration by changing their capacitances, and the integrated electronics
chip measures changes in capacitance caused by acceleration and converts
those changes to a digital pulse output in which the number of pulses per clock
16
Patent 6,023,221
cycle represents both the amount and the direction of acceleration of the
vehicle, (id. at 3:13-17);
the Model 1010 unit sold by Silicon Designs, Inc. (id. at 3:1720); and
equivalents thereof.
The specification discloses:
A digital accelerometer 20 consists of a sensing element and an

electronic chip assembled in a single integrated unit. The sensing
element consists of machined microstructures that respond to
acceleration by changing their capacitances. The integrated
electronics chip measures changes in capacitance caused by
acceleration and converts those changes into a digital pulse output. The
digital acceleration unit is a commercially available device and may be
of the type sold by Silicon Designs, Inc. as Model 1010.
A microcontroller 22 includes a clock generator which is

activated upon closure of the ignition key switch. A clock signal is
transmitted to the digital accelerometer and the number of pulses
generated per clock cycle represents both the amount and direction of
acceleration of the vehicle. That is, based on rated measuring capacity
of the accelerometer 20, a zero pulse rate would indicate full scale
negative acceleration, and a maximum pulse rate would indicate full
scale positive acceleration. A mid-range value would reflect zero
acceleration.
17
Patent 6,023,221
EX1001 at 3:13-30 (emphases added); see also EX1001 at 2:3-6; 4:57-58 (4. A
system, as in claim 1, in which the sensing means is a digital accelerometer.); Figure
1 (element 20).
2. said sensing means including means to produce a signal

indicating the rate of acceleration or deceleration of the
vehicle (Claim 1)
The recited function is produc[ing] a signal indicating the rate of acceleration
or deceleration of the vehicle, and it is included within the sensing means
construed above.
The corresponding structures disclosed by the specification include at least
the following:
a single-axis digital accelerometer, (id. at 2:2);
a digital accelerometer, (see, e.g., id. at 3:13-15);
an electronic chip that produces a digital pulse output representative of
measured acceleration rate, (id. at 3:16-17);
the commercially available device and may be of the type sold by Silicon
Designs, Inc. as Model 1010, (id. at 3:17-20); and
See, e.g., EX1001 at 3:13-30 (reproduced in V.B.2, supra); see also id. at 2:3-6;
4:57-58 (4. A system, as in claim 1, in which the sensing means is a digital
accelerometer.); Figure 1 (element 20).
18
Patent 6,023,221
Some of these structures are the same as some of those identified for the
sensing means above, which is appropriate where, as here, the specification clearly
ties the same structure to the multiple functions. Intellectual Prop. Dev. Inc. v. UA-
Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc., 336 F.3d 1308, 1320 n.9, 67 U.S.P.Q.2d
1385 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc.,
236 F.3d 1363, 1369, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
3. means to determine when the rate of deceleration exceeds a

predetermined threshold level for a predetermined time
interval (Claim 1)
The recited function is determin[ing] when the rate of deceleration exceeds
a predetermined threshold level for a predetermined time interval.
The corresponding structure involves a special-purpose microcontroller that
processes the acceleration readings. (EX1001 at Abstract.)
In one disclosed algorithm, the microcontroller receives and stores
accelerometer output (id. at 2:6-7), and then determines [w]hen a series of
deceleration values [are] in excess of a predetermined threshold. (id. at Abstract.)
A POSITA would have understood an example of this algorithm to be examining
each of a set of deceleration values accumulated over a time period (thus
representing the rate of deceleration), and counting the number of values in the set
that exceed the threshold without regard to by how much each value exceeds the
threshold. (EX1005 at VI.A.)
19
Patent 6,023,221
In another disclosed algorithm, the microcontroller uses time versus pulse
rate summation by, e.g., determining that:
a series of very high deceleration values might require a duration of one

second in order to activate the lights. A moderate series of deceleration
values, on the other hand, might require a duration of five or more
seconds to activate the system.
(EX1001 at 2:28-32.) The specification further suggests that an accumulated pulse
count is used to indicate rapid deceleration. (Id. at 3:32-34.) A POSITA would
have understood this algorithm to operate in situations where a deceleration value is
represented by a set of pulses (e.g., a large deceleration value will have more pulses
in a given time period than a small deceleration value). (EX1005 at VI.A.) For
example, a pulse count threshold could be set at 90, and the number of pulses could
be summed (i.e., accumulated) over a period of five seconds. (Id.) In this
example, moderate deceleration values are represented by 20 pulses a second, while
high deceleration values are represented by 100 pulses a second. (Id.) Hence, high
deceleration values would exceed the 90-pulse sum after one second, while moderate
deceleration values would exceed the 90-pulse sum after five seconds. (Id.) As this
example demonstrates, a POSITA would have understood that this disclosed
algorithm differs than the previous algorithm in that it accounts for the relative sizes
of the deceleration values that exceed a threshold. (Id.)
20
Patent 6,023,221
This accords with the Eastern District of Michigans analysis:
The 221 patent teaches that a digital accelerometer generates digital

pulses representative of the amount of acceleration or deceleration.
221 Pat. col. 3:22-30. Then the digital pulses from the digital
accelerometer for a specific time period are compared to a
predetermined threshold to determine whether an accumulated pulse
count is indicative of rapid deceleration resulting from hard or
prolonged braking or sudden stoppage of the vehicle. Id. at col. 3:31-
37.
(EX1006 at 14 (citations in original).) Hence, the corresponding structure of this
term is a microcontroller configured to perform the algorithms discussed above, and
4. means to automatically activate the hazard warning lights

when said rate of deceleration exceeds said predetermined
threshold level for said predetermined time interval (Claim
1)
The recited function is automatically activat[ing] the hazard lights when said
rate of deceleration exceeds said predetermined threshold level for said
predetermined time interval.
The corresponding structure is a special-purpose microcontroller and latching
relay, where the microcontroller sends a signal to a latching relay, which in turn
causes power from the vehicles electrical system to be supplied to the hazard
21
Patent 6,023,221
warning lights via another relay, as the Eastern District of Michigan accurately
summarized:
The 221 Patent teaches that the microcontroller is programmed to

transmit an on signal to the latching relay 18 when an accumulated
pulse count indicative of rapid deceleration resulting from hard or
prolonged braking or sudden stoppage is recognized. Id. at col. 3:31-
35. When the latching relay 18 receives an on signal from the
microcontroller, the latching relay closes, causing the voltage from the
vehicles electrical system to be supplied to the turn signal/hazard
warning relay 24 which, in turn, activates the hazard warning lights. Id.
at col 3:41-45.
(EX1006 at 14-15; see also EX1001 at Fig. 1.)
5. means to maintain hazard warning light activity beyond the

incident of deceleration which causes activation (Claim 1)
The recited function is maintain[ing] hazard warning light activity beyond
the incident of deceleration which causes activation.
The corresponding structure disclosed by the specification includes a relay, a
latching relay, and equivalents thereof that, upon receiving an on activation signal,
will continue to cause the hazard warning lights to receive power from the vehicles
power supply. For example, the specification discloses:
The latching relay 18 contains two coils which open and close the relay
contacts. When an "on" signal is received from the microcontroller, the
22
Patent 6,023,221
relay closes and it remains closed until a subsequent "off" signal is

received from either the microcontroller or the pushbutton switch 16.
With the relay closed vehicle electrical system voltage is supplied to

the turn signal/hazard warning relay 24 which, in turn, activates the
hazard warning lights.
(EX1001 at 3:41-49; see also id. at 4:62-64 (6. A system, as in claim 1, in which
the means to maintain hazard warning light activity beyond the incident of
deceleration which causes activation further comprises a relay.) (emphasis
added); Figure 1 (element 18).)
6. means to automatically deactivate the hazard warning

lights when the rate of deceleration drops below the
predetermined threshold level for a predetermined length of
time and changes in acceleration of the vehicle indicate
normal vehicle operation (Claim 1)
The recited function is automatically deactivat[ing] the hazard warning light
when the rate of deceleration drops below the predetermined threshold level for a
predetermined length of time and changes in acceleration of the vehicle indicate
normal vehicle operation.
The corresponding structure is a special-purpose microcontroller transmitting
an off signal . . . to the latching relay when the recited conditions are detected by
the microcontroller (i.e., when the rate of deceleration drops below the
predetermined threshold level for a predetermined length of time and changes in
23
Patent 6,023,221
acceleration of the vehicle indicate normal vehicle operation). (EX1001 at 2:10-
13; 3:40-45; Fig. 1.)
Notably, the district court in the pending case involving this patent came to a
similar conclusion:
The specification, including the claim language itself, teaches

comparing the current acceleration or deceleration to a predetermined
threshold for a period of time. If the rate of deceleration drops below
the threshold, then the 221 Patent teaches that the microcontroller can
be programmed to send an off signal to the latching relay 18 and
thereby cut the voltage to the vehicles hazard lights. Id. at col. 3:36-
40.
(EX1006 at 15; see also EX1001 at 2:10-13 and 3:41-45.)
As the district court recognized, this is not a pure software means-plus-
function limitationthe corresponding structure is a system with signals sent from
two hardware devices: a microcontroller and a latching relay (like the means to
automatically activate limitation discussed supra V.B.4). Thus, an algorithm
for the microcontroller is not needed. To the extent the Board requires otherwise,
the claim itself recites an algorithm (as the district court again recognized), and the
specification identifies that the deactivation signal is sent to the latching relay when
the microcontroller detects a series of positive accelerations corresponding to normal
vehicle operation. (EX1001 at 2:10-13 and 3:36-40.)
24
Patent 6,023,221
7. manual control means connected to the hazard warning

lights for manually activating and deactivating the hazard
warning lights; and the manual control means, when
[a]perated [sic], overrides the automatic system (Claim 2)
The recited function is manually activating and deactivating the hazard
warning lights in a manner which overrides the automatic system.
The corresponding structure disclosed by the patent is an on/off button or
pushbutton switch connected to the lights and connected to a relay used to
automatically activate the lights, and equivalents thereof.
For example, the specification discloses:
A dual function on/off button on the vehicle dashboard allows for

manual operation of the warning lights and also enables the vehicle
operator to over-ride automatic activations or cancellations.
(EX1001 at 2:14-17 (emphases added).) Further:
The pushbutton switch allows vehicle electrical system voltage to be

connected directly to the turn signal/hazard warning relay and, through
a resistor 28, to the "off" coil of the latching relay. This arrangement
allows the vehicle operator to activate the hazard warning lights
manually or to cancel an automatic activation by cycling the
pushbutton on and then off.
(Id. at 3:49-55 (emphases added); see also id. at Figure 1, Abstract, 2:21-26, 3:5-6,
and 3:41-45.)
VI. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
25
Patent 6,023,221
Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)(5), the following sections detail the grounds
of unpatentability for the challenged claims of the 221 Patent.
A. Ground I: Claims 16 are obvious considering Gerhaher in view

of Neuffer, further in view of obvious features of Spangler and
Boser
1. Overview
As discussed above in Sections IV.A and IV.C, the only aspects of these
claims that the patentees considered inventive were a system in which the rapid
deceleration of the vehicle is detected [] independently from the brake and brakelight
system. (EX1001 at 1:65-67.) Originally filed claim 11, the only claim indicated
allowable, included the following three elements appearing in claim 1:
1) a system that can be automatically reset by electronic

recognition of a resumption of normal vehicle operation,
2) a means to automatically deactivate the hazard warning

lights when the rate of deceleration drops below the predetermined
threshold level for a predetermined length of time and changes in
acceleration of the vehicle indicate normal vehicle operation; and
3) a system that will automatically deactivate when normal

operation of the vehicle is resumed.
26
Patent 6,023,221
(See EX1001 at Cl. 1.) These features are explicitly disclosed by Gerhaher and
Neuffer, references not cited during prosecution. Moreover, Gerhaher and Neuffer
render other trivial aspects of these claims obvious, since those aspects involve
conventional components and techniques well-known by the time of the 221
Patentsuch as the use of a digital accelerometer to detect deceleration, and the use
of relays to power vehicle lights. Even so, Petitioner identifies Spangler and Boser
to demonstrate their obviousness.
2. Claim 1 is obvious
a) [Preamble] In a motor vehicle having hazard warning

lights and a manual control switch
To the extent the Board gives weight to the preamble of claim 1, Gerhaher
and Neuffer disclose a motor vehicle having hazard warning lights and a manual
control switch[.]
Regarding a motor vehicle having hazard warning lights, both Gerhaher
and Neuffer disclose vehicle mounted lights for alerting or warning other vehicles
of a hazardous condition, which is the specifications definition of this term. (See
supra V.A.1.) Gerhaher discloses deceleration warning lights in a vehicle
warning system to warn other drivers of hazards that cause a driver to decelerate.
(EX1003 at Title, 14:39-43, 14:64-15:2, 5:20-21, Figs. 6a-6c.) Neuffer discloses a
hazard warning system that turns on indicator lights . . . for producing a warning
27
Patent 6,023,221
flashing signal in case of impact accidents and emergency braking situations[.]
(EX1002 at Title, Abstract, 5:5-10, Fig. 1; see also id. at 4:1-9.)
Regarding a manual control switch, Gerhaher notes manually operated
warning blinking systems were prescribed by law (in Germany), and identifies
prior art systems that must be operated by hand, but notes only experienced
driver[s] could anticipate a jam or an accident from a distance and react by
manually activating the warning lights. (EX1003 at 2:27-45 (emphasis added).) A
POSITA would have recognized the deceleration warning system of Gerhaher to
improve these manual-only systems while still operating within the regulatory
framework surrounding blinking warning systems. (EX1003 at Abstract, 3:42-48;
EX1005 at VII.B.1.)
Further, Neuffer explicitly discloses the claimed manual control switch:
The vehicle driver may, as usual, manually actuate the hazard

warning switch 4 whereby a warning or emergency flashing of all
turn indicator lights 8R, 8L [occurs]. Both operations can be turned off
manually by a corresponding switch actuation so that the switches 3
and 4 assume again the illustrated position.
(Id. at 4:55-62 (emphasis added).) In particular:
A manually actuatable hazard warning switch 4 includes a turn-on

switch 5 and a double-throw switch 6 which are mechanically coupled
and are actuated in unison.
28
Patent 6,023,221
(Id. at 3:50-53 (emphases added); see also id. at 1:7-17, 1:52-62, and 5:36-52.)
Neuffer and Gerhaher are analogous art, address the same problem, and are
reasonably pertinent to one another. (EX1005 at VII.B.2.)
A POSITA would have been motivated to include Neuffers manual switch
with Gerhahers automatic system for at least three reasons.
First, because Gerhaher itself discloses similar, known manual-only systems
in the context of German regulatory law as part of the background prior art. (Id. at
VI.B.1; VI.B.2.) The manual system would have been required by law, and so
would be present in any event. (Id.)
Second, because it would have been obvious to include a manually actuated
reset, such as the one disclosed in Neuffer, over any automated control such as the
one disclosed in Gerhaher, to yield the predictable results of allaying safety
concerns, safeguarding against malfunctions, and to avoid catastrophic situations.
(EX1005 at VI.B.1; VI.B.) Combining them would eliminate redundant lamps
and their associated wiring, thus saving cost, reducing weight, and allowing for
simpler wiring. (Id.) It would have added a known techniquea manual on/off
switchinto the system of Gerhaher, and would have required no great skill (as
Neuffer itself discloses how to include a manual/automatic system), and would have
led to increased safety, control, and adaptability. (Id. at VI.B.2.)
29
Patent 6,023,221
Third, Gerhaher does not disclose that the automatic system replaces or does
not include the usual manual control, as was common to include, thus indicating that
manual hazard warning switches were known, standard, and preferred; a POSITA
would have had a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating a manual on/off
switch into the same system as Gerhahers automatic switch, and it would have
predictably resulted in allowing a user to turn the hazard lights on or off at will, as
generally required by law. (EX1005 at VI.B.1; VI.B.2.)
b) [Preamble] an improvement consisting of electronic

circuitry
If the Board gives the preamble weight, Gerhaher and Neuffer each disclose
an improvement consisting of electronic circuitry. Gerhahers system is
implemented using a computer and electronic equipment which a POSITA
would have understood as disclosing, or at least rendering obvious, electronic
circuitry. (EX1003 at 7:62-66 and 8:3-19; EX1005 at VII.B.3.) Regardless,
Neuffer discloses circuit diagrams and discusses electronic components such as
accelerometers and relays in implementing its hazard warning system. (EX1002 at
Abstract; 3:41-65; and Figs. 1-3.)
c) [Preamble] which causes the hazard warning lights to

automatically activate under circumstances of rapid
decelearation [sic]
If the Board gives the preamble weight, both Gerhaher and Neuffer disclose
this limitation. Gerhaher discloses a system in which deceleration warning lights
30
Patent 6,023,221
are automatically turned on under conditions in which a deceleration of the
decelerating vehicle exceeds a selected deceleration value (EX1003 at 15:56-67.)
Gerhaher discloses that when a predetermined . . . limit value for deceleration . . .
is reached, the lights automatically start blinking, thus warning vehicles that the
preceding vehicle is strongly braked. (EX1003 at 4:15-22.) Neuffer similarly
discloses automatic engagement of a motor vehicle hazard warning system when
either accelerations of high intensity (impact accident) and of lower intensity (full-
, [sic] emergency braking) is detected. (EX1002 at Abstract and 2:14-20; see also
EX1005 at VI.B.2.)
d) [Preamble] and to remain activated until manaually [sic]

reset by the vehicle operator
If the Board gives the preamble weight, Gerhaher renders this obvious, as
does Gerhaher in view of Neuffer.
Gerhaher discloses that the hazard warning lights generally remain activated
after first being switched on. (EX1003 at 8:19-34 (This leads to the significant
advantage that a warning is produced as long as an overall danger factor is stored.)
Gerhaher discloses that they do so until the lights are automatically deactivated.
(EX1003 at 8:54-60.) Nonetheless, as background, Gerhaher notes manual control
of hazard warning lights in the context of discussing German law requirements for
more than 20 years prior. (EX1003 at 26-37.) In view of this, a POSITA would
31
Patent 6,023,221
have found it obvious to include manual control overrides with Gerhahers
automatic system, at least because it would have been legally advantageous, would
have led to increased safety by allowing users to check the automated system, and
provided an override for malfunctioning equipment. (EX1005 at VI.B.2.; see also
VII.B.21.) It was common at the time to include manual reset control over
automatic systems, especially in the heavily regulated vehicle industry. (EX1005 at
VII.B.1.)
A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Gerhahers known,
disclosed manual reset mechanisms discussed in the background and as generally
mandated by German law with Gerhahers system, at least for all the reasons noted
and discussed above at VI.A.2.a).
Regardless, Neuffer discloses such an arrangement. Neuffer discloses a
hazard warning switch that can be manually activated to turn off its emergency
warning system. Neuffer claims:
1. An arrangement for automatically engaging a hazard warning system

of a motor vehicle which is operable to be selectively turned on and
off by hand, in case of impact accidents and emergency braking
situations, comprising . . . a manually actuatable hazard-warning switch
means including a turn-on switch for manually turning on the hazard-
warning system, . . . the hazard-warning switch means including further
a change-over switch which, when manually actuated, turns off the
32
Patent 6,023,221
hazard-warning system after its automatic engagement effected by the

inertia switch means . . . .
(EX1002 at 6:56-7:4 (emphasis added); see also id. at 1:52-62, 4:25-29, 5:1-10, and
5:36-52.) In the specification, Neuffer details how its hazard warning system
remains activated until manually turned off:
For turning off the hazard warning system engaged by way of the relay
switch 9.2 [i.e., automatically engaged], the self-holding circuit 10 [i.e.,
the circuit that maintains the automatically activated lights on] can be
interrupted either by opening of the ignition switch 2 or by switching
the double-throw switch 6 in the emergency or hazard warning switch
4 into the non-illustrated position. . . . Admittedly, as a result thereof,
the emergency warning system is now manually turned on at the same
time because the double-throw switch 6 can be actuated only in unison
with the emergency turn-on switch 5. However, by a renewed actuation
of the turned-on, detented emergency warning flasher switch 4, the
emergency warning system is then finally turned off.
(Id. at 5:36-52.) A POSITA would have understood this to teach the following order
of operation:
1. the hazard warning system is automatically engaged and the lights are turned
on and remain on;
2. the manual hazard warning switch is pressed, but the lights stay on;
33
Patent 6,023,221
3. the manual hazard warning switch is pressed again, and the lights are turned
off.
(EX1005 at VII.A.) Thus, Neuffer discloses this limitation.
A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Neuffers manual reset
mechanism with Gerhahers system at least for all the reasons noted and discussed
above at VI.A.2.a), and further because Gehaher suggests that a manual system
must be present (as required by law) (EX1003 at 26-37; EX1005 at VII.B.1), while
Neuffer teaches how to combine the manual system and the automated system to
allow both manual operation of the flashers and supports automatic operation. (Id.
at VII.B.21.) Thus, combining Neuffers wiring concept with the deceleration-
dependent flasher control scheme of Gerhaher, and these familiar elements, would
have produced expected, predictable results. (Id. at VII.B.2.)
e) [Preamble] [and to remain activated until] automatically

reset by electronic recognition of a resumption of normal
vehicle operation
Gerhaher discloses this. Gerhaher discloses automatic activation and
deactivation of a warning system by electronically analyzing deceleration and
acceleration values that indicate the level of danger experienced by the vehicle.
When the level of danger has sufficiently diminished, Gerhaher discloses
deactivating the warning system automatically. Gerhaher discloses determining the
34
Patent 6,023,221
level of danger by electronically calculating a danger factor based on deceleration
and acceleration of the vehicle. (See, e.g., EX1003 at 3:53-65.)
Gerhaher discloses that the danger factor increases as deceleration values
indicate an emergency:
It is more particularly advantageous in this respect if the level of the

overall danger factor G is determined, from the, [sic] mean
deceleration and the time of the deceleration and/or the deceleration
distance , [sic] since even a relatively slowing braking down from a
high speed for a long period of time or a long deceleration distance until
a very low speed is reached or even till the vehicle is stationary may
lead to high overall danger factors.
(EX1003 at 4:22-29.) A POSITA would have understood this to mean that the danger
factor is increased with deceleration indicative of an emergency. (EX1005 at
VII.B.4.)
Gerhaher also discloses decreasing the danger factor when there is less
danger:
However in order for the intensity of the warning to be reduced when

there is less danger in the case of deceleration warning system
acceleration of the vehicle also taken into account, because in fact
acceleration of the vehicle following a braking operation the danger of
a rear end collision is reduced again. Since in the case of acceleration it
is a question of a negative acceleration, the data processing preferably
takes place in the computer in accordance with the same functions so
35
Patent 6,023,221
that in the case of an acceleration of the vehicle by integration of

negative partial danger values -G there is bit by bit a cancellation of
the stored overall danger factor G.
(EX1003 at 8:35-46 (emphases added).) A POSITA would have understood this to
mean that the danger factor decreases with normal vehicle operation such as normal
acceleration. (EX1005 at VII.B.5.)
Gerhaher discloses turning off its warning system once the danger factor is
sufficiently small:
After the respective time the warning device switches itself off
completely after it has previously warned in accordance with the
decreasing level of the residual danger factor still stored with a
declining intensity.
(EX1003 at 9:63-67 (emphasis added).) Thus, a POSITA would have understood
Gerhahers turning off the warning device based on a reduced danger factor due to
accelerations indicative of normal driving operation as disclosing, or at least
rendering obvious, this limitation. (EX1005 at VII.B.6.)
f) sensing means to detect acceleration and deceleration of

the vehicle
This is a means-plus-function limitation whose function is detecting
acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle and the corresponding structure includes
a digital accelerometer. (See supra V.B.1.) Both Gerhaher and Spangler disclose
36
Patent 6,023,221
the function of this limitation; Gerhaher renders the corresponding structure
limitation obvious; and regardless of whether such a structure would be obvious
considering Gerhaher alone, Spangler discloses this structure.
Gerhaher discloses the function of this limitation. Gerhaher discloses
continuous detection . . . of . . . deceleration (or acceleration)[.] (EX1003 at 7:52-
57; see also id. at 7:62-66.)
Gerhaher suggests and renders obvious using a digital accelerometer as the
structure for accomplishing the function of this limitation. Gerhaher states that the
acceleration values are processed by a computer. (Id. at 8:3-7.) Gerhaher also notes
that measuring acceleration and deceleration can be performed using available
relatively inexpensive electronic equipment. (EX1003 at 7:62-66.) A POSITA
would have understood that a digital accelerometer was a common, well-known,
computer-compatible option to detect acceleration and deceleration values to be
processed by a computer. (EX1005 at VII.B.7.) Hence, Gerhahers disclosure
renders obvious using a digital accelerometer to perform this function.
The 221 Patent itself concedesas Gerhaher indicated more than a year
beforedigital accelerometers for use in vehicles were already well-known and
commercially available, and names an exemplary model: [t]he digital acceleration
unit is a commercially available device and may be of the type sold by Silicon
Designs, Inc. as Model 1010. (EX1001 at 3:19-21.)
37
Patent 6,023,221
That that the routine use of digital accelerometers imparts no patentability was
highlighted twice during prosecutionboth explicitly and by Official Notice.
First, the examiner took Official Notice that the use of digital accelerometers
for detecting acceleration of a vehicle is well known in the art[.] (EX1013 at 2.)
Applicant did not traverse. (EX1014 at 7.)
Second, the examiner cited U.S. 5,394,326 (Liu) (EX1020) as disclosing a
digital accelerometer for determining acceleration levels in a vehicle independent
of brake activation and throttle changes. (EX1015 at 2.) Examiner found that it
would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time the invention was made to
substitute the digital accelerometer of Liu in place of the analog accelerometer. (Id.)
Again, applicant did not traverse. (EX1016 at 4.) Thus the prosecution history
confirms: Gerhahers disclosure of processing digital acceleration signals renders
obvious the use of digital accelerometers. (EX1003 at 7:62-66, 8:3-7; EX1015 at 2;
EX1016 at 4.)
Regardless of the above, Spangler discloses a digital accelerometer used in
just this way.
More than four years prior to the filing of the 221 Patent, Spangler disclosed
the use accelerometers to detect the occurrence of a high impact condition in the
vehicle which includes both acceleration and deceleration. (EX1004 at 1:9-11; 8:1-
18.) Spangler, providing background, describes a digital accelerometer akin to that
38
Patent 6,023,221
of the 221 Patent: a sensor that changes its capacitance in response to acceleration
and outputs the detected acceleration using a digital pulse output (i.e., the width of
digital pulses). (EX1004 at 2:26-39; cf. EX1001 at 3:13-21.) Spangler discloses a
digital accelerometer that is part of a single-point impact sensor that operates like
that of the 221 Patent: a sensor that changes its capacitance in response to
acceleration and outputs the detected acceleration using digital pulses rather than the
width of digital pulses. (EX1004 at 2:49-54 & 3:4-37; cf. EX1001 at 3:13-21.)
Thus, Gerhaher in view of Spangler renders obvious the function and structure of
this limitation.
Gerhaher and Spangler are analogous art, Spangler is reasonably pertinent to
the problem at hand in Gerhaher, and a POSITA would have understood that
Gerhahers deceleration warning system could be implemented using Spanglers
accelerometer by directly coupling the two; a POSITA would have possessed the
requisite knowledge and skill to do so. (EX1005 at VII.B.8.) A POSITA would
have enjoyed a reasonable expectation of success in combining Spanglers common
digital accelerometer into the system of Gerhaher, at least because similar ends
could be achieved using the same or similar techniques. (Id.)
A POSITA would have been motivated to use a digital accelerometer like the
one disclosed in Spangler, at least because it used known methodscommercially
available digital accelerometersto yield predictable results, i.e., to act as an
39
Patent 6,023,221
accelerometer; it would simply substitute a digital accelerometer for the
accelerometer of Gerhaher, as it was one of the finite accelerometers known and
marketed at the time. (Id.)
And POSITA would have been motivated to combine Gerhaher with
Spangler to save costs, reduce complexity, and avoid the need to compensate for
temperature-induced errors that can arise with single-capacitor accelerometers. (Id.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine the common digital
accelerometer of Spangler into the system of Gerhaher.
g) said sensing means including means to produce a signal

indicating the rate of acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle
This is a means-plus-function limitation whose function is producing a signal
indicating the rate of acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle; the corresponding
structure includes (1) a digital accelerometer and (2) an electronic chip that produces
a digital pulse output representative of measured acceleration. (See supra V.B.2.)
In sum, both Gerhaher and Spangler disclose the function of this limitation;
Gerhaher renders one of the corresponding structures of this limitation obvious,
while Spangler discloses both. Hence, Gerhaher alone and in view of Spangler
renders this limitation obvious.
Gerhaher discloses the function of this limitation. Gerhaher discloses
continuous detection . . . of . . . deceleration (or acceleration). (EX1003 at 7:52-
40
Patent 6,023,221
57; see also id. at 7:62-66.) Gerhaher likewise discloses producing a signal
indicating the detected acceleration or deceleration by disclosing the processing of
acceleration and deceleration values via computer. (Id. at 7:52-61 and 9:3-9.)
Further, the processing disclosed by Gerhaher involves analyzing the deceleration
values with respect to a time period in which they were produced (i.e., the rate of
deceleration). (See, e.g., EX1003 at 4:38-48 (calculated over the time t).) A
POSITA would have understood that to process the rate of acceleration or
deceleration, values representing such rates must have been produced (or would have
been obvious to produce), especially since Gerhaher discloses measuring
acceleration and deceleration can be performed using available relatively
inexpensive electronic equipment. (Id. at 7:62-66; EX1005 at VII.B.9.)
Spangler too discloses the function of this limitation. Spangler discloses
generating pulses within a time period to represent both acceleration rates and
deceleration rates, just like the 221 Patent. (EX1004 at 3:4-37 & 8:1-18; cf. EX1001
at 3:13-21.)
Gerhaher renders obvious performing this limitations function using a digital
accelerometer as the structure. (See supra VI.A.2.f).)
Whats more, Spangler discloses performing this limitations function using
a digital accelerometer. (See supra VI.A.2.f) (discussing Spanglers disclosure of
41
Patent 6,023,221
a digital accelerometer outputting digital pulses representative of acceleration and
deceleration).)
Spangler also discloses performing this limitations function using an
electronic chip that produces a digital pulse output in a time period representative of
measured acceleration rate as the structure. Spangler discloses implementing a
digital accelerometer on a single chip (called an impact sensor) that can also
process the output of the accelerometer. (EX1004 at 2:61-66.) In Figure 1s
embodiment, impact sensor 10 includes blocks 12 (sense element) and 35
(capacitance-to-pulse count converter circuit), which together form the digital
accelerometer portion of the sensor:
42
Patent 6,023,221
(Id. at Fig. 1, 4:26-28, 6:60-7:4.)
Spangler discloses that circuit 35 generates digital pulses that represent the
acceleration detected by sense element 12. (Id. at 3:4-37.) Spanglers sense element
12 reflects acceleration by the difference between two capacitances, C. (Id. at 3:22-
25; Fig. 1.) Spanglers capacitance-to-pulse count converter circuit then creates a
digital pulse train that represents the C. (Id. at 3:26-33.)
Spangler teaches that the digital pulse train is generated such that zero
acceleration is represented by a reference number of pulses per unit of time, positive
acceleration is represented by a greater number of pulses than the reference, and
43
Patent 6,023,221
deceleration is represented by a lesser number of pulses than the reference. (Id. at
8:1-18.) Spanglers manner of representing acceleration as digital pulses is virtually
identical to the 221 Patents disclosure. (EX1001 at 3:17-30.) Thus, Spangler
discloses an electronic chip that produces a digital pulse output representative of
measured acceleration a structure corresponding to the function of this limitation.
A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Spanglers digital
accelerometer structures with Gerhaher, at least for the reasons discussed above in
VI.2.f. (EX1005 at VII.B.8.)
h) means to determine when the rate of deceleration

exceeds a predetermined threshold level for a predetermined
time interval
This is a means-plus-function limitation whose function is determining when
the rate of deceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold level for a predetermined
time interval; corresponding structures include a microcontroller programmed to:
perform time versus pulse rate summation;
determine when a series of deceleration values exceed a predetermined
threshold; or
(See supra V.B.3.) In summary, Gerhaher discloses, or at least renders obvious,
the function of this limitation, while Spangler explicitly discloses the function of this
limitation; Gerhaher alone, as well as Gerhaher in view of Spangler, renders one of
44
Patent 6,023,221
the corresponding structures of this limitation obvious, while Spangler explicitly
discloses another of these structures.
Gerhaher alone discloses, or at least renders obvious, the function of
determining when the rate of deceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold level
for a predetermined time interval. Briefly, Gerhaher discloses comparing a value
representing the rate of deceleration over a time period, called the danger factor,
to a threshold. (EX1003 at 11:37-41, 4:23-25, 4:38-48.) Gerhahers thresholding
of the danger factor discloses, or at least renders obvious, the function of this
limitation, as it discloses examples of computing the danger factor based only on
deceleration and time.
For instance, claim 1 of Gerhaher identifies that the danger factor can
depend on deceleration and a time duration t. (EX1003 at 16:1-50.) The
specification gives several examples of determining the danger factor based only
on deceleration and time. (Id. at 4:22-5:19; 4:38-48.) As the discussion below
demonstrates, a POSITA would have understood thresholding the danger factor
computed using these examples as disclosing a manner of determining when the
rate of deceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold level for a predetermined
time interval. (See EX1005 at VII.B.10.a)c).)
Preliminarily, Gerhahers threshold is predetermined as claimed. Gerhaher
states that the danger factor must be equal to or exceed a certain threshold,
45
Patent 6,023,221
indicating that the threshold is predetermined. (EX1003 at 11:37-41.) Gerhaher
explores what the particular threshold should be set at by explaining the
significance of certain deceleration values. (Id. at 11:4-28.) Further, Gerhaher
discloses an embodiment in which the threshold is fixed and unchanging as the
vehicle is being driven, while only the danger factor changes depending on driving
conditions." (Id. at 8:7-13.) Thus, a POSITA would have understood Gerhaher to
disclose, or at least render obvious, a predetermined threshold level. (EX1005 at
VII.B.10.a).)
Thresholding the danger factor computed using the examples disclosed by
Gerhaher discloses determining when the rate of deceleration exceeds a
predetermined threshold level for a predetermined time interval. In one example,
Gerhaher discloses computing the danger factor from the mean deceleration and
the time of the deceleration, noting that relatively slow decelerations can result in
a dangerous situation, if done for long enough. (EX1003 at 4:22-29.) This echoes
the 221 Patents observation of benefit of accounting for time as claimed:
[A] series of very high deceleration values might require a duration of

one second in order to activate the lights. A moderate series of
deceleration values, on the other hand, might require a duration of five
or more seconds to activate the system.
46
Patent 6,023,221
(EX1001 at 2:28-32.) A POSITA would have understood that thresholding an
average (i.e., mean) deceleration for a predetermined amount of time t (e.g.,
EX1003 at claim 1), as disclosed by Gerhaher, is a manner of determin[ing] when
the rate of deceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold level for a predetermined
time interval as claimed because averaging deceleration is a manner of calculating
a rate of deceleration since it reflects the various, and possibly changing,
deceleration values over time. (EX1005 at VII.B.10.b).)
Gerhahers averaging technique accomplishes the same benefits as the
claimed function recited by the 221 Patent: prevent[ing] momentary acceleration
values associated with road irregularities from activating the system. (EX1001 at
2:38-41.) The two resonate because, as a POSITA would have recognized, the
average will still be lower than the threshold, even with a momentary spike in
deceleration. (EX1005 at VII.B.10.b.) Thus, Gerhahers example of computing
the danger factor from the mean deceleration and the time of the deceleration,
(EX1003 at 4:24-25), discloses, or at least renders obvious, the function of this
limitation.
In another example, Gerhaher discloses integrating deceleration (b) over
time period (t) to calculate the danger factor:
47
Patent 6,023,221
(EX1003 at 4:38-45.) A POSITA would have understood that comparing the result
of this integral to a threshold as Gerhaher teaches is a way of implementing the
claimed function because using the result of this integral would allow for considering
more than one predetermined threshold or more than one predetermined time
interval. (EX1005 at VII.B.10.c.) The integral reflects the changing deceleration
over a given time period, thus representing the rate of deceleration. (EX1005 at
VII.B.10.c).) Importantly, the 221 Patent identifies just such an embodiment
when discussing this function in the Summary of the Invention:
A microcontroller receives and stores accelerometer output and

activates the hazard warning lights through a switching circuit when a
series of deceleration values corresponding to heavy or prolonged
braking occurs.
...
The activation program consists of a time versus pulse rate summation.

For example, a series of very high deceleration values might require
a duration of one second in order to activate the lights. A moderate
series of deceleration values, on the other hand, might require a
duration of five or more seconds to activate the system.
48
Patent 6,023,221
(EX1001 at 2:5-8 and 2:27-32 (emphasis added).) Indeed, this example from the
221 Patent itself can be implemented using Gerhahers integral technique, simply
by choosing an appropriate danger factor threshold (e.g., a threshold that will be
exceeded by the integral when moderate deceleration for five seconds occurs and
that will not be exceeded when high deceleration for less than one second occurs).
(EX1005 at VII.B.10.c.)
Scott Andrews provides additional examples demonstrating how this would
work, reproduced here and as explained at in his declaration. (Id. at VII.B.10.)
Acceleration vs Time
12
Acceleration Value
10
6
Accel A
4 Accel B
2 Accel C
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time
49
Patent 6,023,221
Danger Factor vs Time

Danger Factor 25
20
15
Accel A
10 Accel B
5 Accel C
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Threshold
Time
Just as with the previous example involving averaging, these examples realize
the same benefits as the claimed function recited in the 221 Patent: prevent[ing]
momentary acceleration values associated with road irregularities from activating
the system. (EX1001 at 2:38-41.) This is because, as a POSITA would have
recognized, the integral will still be lower than the threshold even if a momentary
spike in deceleration occurs. (EX1005 at VII.B.10.b).) Thus, Gerhahers example
of computing the danger factor by integrating deceleration over time discloses, or
at least renders obvious, the function of this limitation.
Even so, Spangler discloses the function of this limitation. In Spangler, a
circuit evaluates a deceleration signal in the form of pulses (i.e., the greater the
number of pulses, the higher the deceleration value). (EX1004 at 3:26-31.) The
circuit counts:
the number of pulses [i.e., deceleration values] in a fixed amount of

time at different time intervals. A flag is set each time the number of
50
Patent 6,023,221
pulses exceeds a certain threshold. If the number of flags set within a

selected time interval exceeds a predetermined limit, an activation
signal is generated to actuate the passenger restraint.
(Id. at 3:39-44 (comments added.) Spangler discloses determining whether the rate
of deceleration exceeds the threshold by comparing a series of deceleration values
(represented by a series of pulses) to a threshold over a period of time, noting when
each one exceeds the threshold, and noting when the number of values exceeding
the threshold has reached a limit.
The pulse examples are illustrated by Mr. Andrews below, which adopt the
same scenarios as those above, as explained at length in the declaration. (EX1005
at VII.B.14.)
Pulses Per Interval

12
10
Pulses Per Interval
6
Accel A
4
Accel B
Accel C
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIme Interval
51
Patent 6,023,221
Summation of Pulses
25
20
Speed Change Accel A
15
10
Accel B
5
Accel C
0
Threshold
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time
This is almost identical to one way of performing this function disclosed by
the 221 Patent: When a series of deceleration values in excess of a predetermined
threshold is detected, the microcontroller transmits an activation signal and the
hazard warning lights are activated to warn other motorists. (EX1001 at Abstract
(emphasis added).) Thus, a POSITA would have understood Spangler as disclosing,
or at the least rendering obvious, determin[ing] when the rate of deceleration
exceeds a predetermined threshold level for a predetermined time interval as
claimed. (EX1005 at VII.B.11.)
Gerhaher in view of Spangler discloses the corresponding structure of this
limitation. As discussed above in section V.B.3, the corresponding structure
includes a microcontroller programmed to:
perform time versus pulse rate summation;
52
Patent 6,023,221
determine when a series of deceleration values are in excess of a
predetermined threshold; or
First, Gerhaher discloses a microcontroller by disclosing a computer that
performs the calculation and thresholding of the danger factor. (EX1003 at 8:3-
13.) A POSITA would have understood that a computer discloses a microcontroller
because a microcontroller is a form of a computer, and a POSITA in 1995 would
have understood Gerhahers use of the term computer to refer to a microcontroller
for at least three reasons. (See EX1005 at VII.B.13.) First, the functionality
disclosed by Gerhaher was usually implemented with microcontrollers for
automobiles; second, interpreting Gerhahers computer as a personal computer,
laptop, desktop, or the equivalent would nonsensically frustrate the purposes of
Gerhaher; and third, computer processing functions implemented in a vehicle using
a microcontrollera low-power, self-contained computerwould reduce cost, size,
and complexity, and improve reliability via fewer components and interconnections.
(Id.)
Regardless, a POSITA would have understood that Gerhahers computer is
equivalent to the 221 Patents microcontroller because the differences are
insubstantial as related mainly to whether the components are integrated onto a
single chip or a mainboard, they perform the same function of processing sensor data
53
Patent 6,023,221
and indicating the result in the same way, using processor-executed programming,
to achieve the same result of identifying when acceleration data meets or exceeds a
threshold for a certain time. (EX1005 at VII.B.13.)
Regardless, Spangler also discloses the corresponding structure. Regarding
the microcontroller, Spangler discloses a non-volatile memory coupled to a circuit,
both as part of a microchip. (EX1004 at 2:61-3:3, 3:45-52, and 9:40-45.) A POSITA
would have understood was a microcontroller or at least an equivalent of a
microcontroller (EX1005 at VII.B.13.), at least because the differences are
insubstantial as related mainly to whether the components are integrated onto a
single chip or a mainboard; they perform the same function of processing sensor data
and indicating the result in the same way, i.e., using programming executed by a
processor, to achieve the same result of identifying when acceleration data meets or
exceeds a threshold for a certain time. (Id.)
Next, Gerhaher in view of Spangler discloses the 221 Patents algorithm of
time versus pulse rate summation in which an accumulated pulse count [is]
indicative of rapid deceleration[.] (See supra V.B.3.) As discussed above,
Gerhaher discloses integrating deceleration (b) over a time period (t) to
calculate the danger factor:
54
Patent 6,023,221
(EX1003 at 4:38-45.) A POSITA would have understood that integrals are a form
of a summation. (EX1005 at VII.B.14.) The integral from Gerhaher discloses a
form of summation of deceleration with respect to time. (Id. at VII.B.14.) While
Gerhaher does not disclose the exact form its deceleration values take, Spangler
discloses that deceleration values are preferably a series of pulses. (See EX1004 at
3:26-31.) Thus, Gerhaher in view of Spangler discloses time versus pulse rate
summation. (EX1005 at VII.B.15.)
Additionally, Spangler discloses the 221 Patents algorithm of determining
when a series of deceleration values exceed a predetermined threshold. Spangler
discloses counting:
the number of pulses in a fixed amount of time at different time

intervals. A flag is set each time the number of pulses exceeds a certain
threshold. If the number of flags set within a selected time interval
exceeds a predetermined limit, an activation signal is generated to
actuate the passenger restraint.
(EX1004 at 3:39-44.) A POSITA would have understood that Spangler uses flags
to demarcate the series of deceleration values that exceed the predetermined
threshold. (EX1005 at VII.B.11.) Spangler discloses determining whether the rate
55
Patent 6,023,221
of deceleration exceeds the threshold by comparing a series of deceleration values
(represented by a series of pulses) to a threshold over a period of time, noting when
each one exceeds the threshold, and noting when the number of values exceeding
the threshold has reached a limit. This mirrors the algorithm disclosed by the 221
Patent itself: When a series of deceleration values in excess of a predetermined
threshold is detected, the microcontroller transmits an activation signal and the
hazard warning lights are activated to warn other motorists. (EX1001 at Abstract
(emphasis added).) Thus, Spangler discloses corresponding structure for this
limitation.
A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Gerhaher with Spanglers
microcontroller programmed with the above algorithms, at least because Spanglers
accelerometer belongs on an integrated chip that also includes an on-chip
microprocessor interface, and a POSITA would have understood how it could easily
be directly coupled to Gerhahers computer. (EX1005 at VII.B.12.) A POSITA
would have enjoyed a reasonable likelihood of success in combining the two
systems, similar ends could be used to achieve the same goal, i.e., thresholding
deceleration events, and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
(Id.)
Further, each element would still perform the same function that they do
separatelyGerhahers system would still receive a signal to automatically activate
56
Patent 6,023,221
the hazard lights, and Spanglers system would still perform the thresholding of
acceleration and provide a signal indicating that threshold was met. (Id.; see also
VI.A.2.h, supra.) As Scott Andrews notes, having read Spangler, a POSITA
would have appreciated how similar endsdeploying safety measurescould be
achieved using the same or a similar technique to implement Gerhahers teaching
regarding calculating the danger factor using mean deceleration. (EX1005 at
VII.B.12.) For at least these reasons, Gerhaher in view of Spanglers programmed
microcontroller would have been obvious to a POSITA.
i) means to automatically activate the hazard warning

lights when said rate of deceleration exceeds said
predetermined threshold level for said predetermined time
interval
This is a means-plus-function limitation whose function is to automatically
activate the hazard warning lights when said rate of deceleration exceeds said
predetermined threshold level for said predetermined time interval. (See V.B.4,
supra.) The corresponding structure is a microcontroller and latching relay, where
the microcontroller sends a signal to a latching relay, which in turn causes power
from the vehicles electrical system to be supplied to the hazard warning lights via
another relay. (See V.B.4, supra.)
57
Patent 6,023,221
In summary, Gerhaher discloses, or at least renders obvious, the function of
this limitation; Gerhaher alone renders obvious, and Gerhaher in view of Boser
discloses, the corresponding structure of this limitation.
Gerhaher discloses this limitations function: automatically activat[ing] the
hazard lights when said rate of deceleration exceeds said predetermined threshold
level for said predetermined time interval. (Supra V.B.4.) As previously
discussed, Gerhaher discloses determining when said rate of deceleration exceeds
said predetermined threshold level for said predetermined time interval as claimed,
by disclosing thresholding a danger factor calculated based on deceleration and
time. (Supra VI.A.2.h.) Gerhaher further discloses automatically causing warning
lights to blink if the threshold is met or exceeded. (EX1003 at 11:36-40.) Thus,
Gerhaher discloses, or at least renders obvious, the function of this limitation.
Similarly, Gerhaher alone renders obvious the corresponding structure of this
means-plus-function limitation: a signal sent from the microcontroller to a latching
relay that causes power from the vehicles electrical system to be supplied to the
hazard warning lights via another relay. As discussed above regarding the function
of this limitation, Gerhaher discloses a computer-controlled, automatic activation of
the hazard warning lights. Gerhaher discloses a computer, which a POSITA would
have understood discloses a microcontroller, or at the very least is the equivalent to
58
Patent 6,023,221
a microcontroller, as discussed above. (See supra VI.A.2.h); see also EX1005 at
VII.B.13.)
Gerhaher does not explicitly disclose the exact conventional components
identified in the corresponding structure, but such components would have been
obvious in view of Gerhahers disclosure of its computer automatically activating,
maintaining the activation of, and automatically deactivating the hazard lights.
(EX1003 at 8:3-57; EX1005 at VII.B.17.) A POSITA would have understood that
Gerhaher disclosed sending signals from the computer to effect these states.
(EX1005 at VII.B.17.)
Moreover, the use of a latching relay followed by another relay to activate
lights was a well-known option in the automotive industry by at least 1972. (See
EX1045 (Offner) at 2:8-15 (describing that latching relays can be manually set and
later electronically re-set to control vehicle lights); EX1005 at VII.B.18.)
The 221 Patent essentially admits that the use of relays to activate and
maintain vehicle lights was in the prior art. The specification identifies U.S.
4,990,887 to Lee (EX1018) as admitted prior art regarding brake lights (EX1001 at
1:56-60) as using relays to activate and maintain lights. (See, e.g., EX1018 at Cl. 7,
8.) Then the 221 Patent identifies U.S. 5,139,115 to Browne as prior art (EX1001
at 1:61-64)which likewise discloses using relays to activate vehicle lights. (See,
e.g., EX1019 at Fig. 2, 1:40-43; 3:53-62.) Thus, the structure of using a latching a
59
Patent 6,023,221
relay along with another relay to implement Gerhahers teaching would have been
obvious to a POSITA, as even the 221 Patents disclosure demonstrates. (EX1005
at VII.B.18.) As such, Gerhaher alone renders the corresponding structure of this
limitation obvious, in that arranging relays to perform this limitations function was
obvious to a POSITA in view of Gerhahers disclosure and the specification itself.
Nevertheless, Boser teaches such relays. As discussed above, Gerhaher
discloses computer-controlled, automatic activation of automobile hazard warning
lights. Gerhaher discloses a computer, and a POSITA would have understood that
a computer discloses a microcontroller for the reasons outlined above in section
VI.A.2, or is at least the structural equivalent. (EX1005 at VII.B.13.)
And while Gerhaher does not explicitly disclose the conventional components
identified in the corresponding structure for supplying electrical power to the hazard
warning lights, Boser does. Boser discloses the following structure for activating
vehicle lights in a warning system:
60
Patent 6,023,221
(EX1007 at Fig. 2 (annotated); see also id. at Title & Abstract.) Using this circuit,
Boser can activate parking lamps, back-up lamps, and/or head lamps (highlighted in
yellow) automatically. (Id. at 1:41-54, 1:60-66, and 2:65-3:7.) This occurs by power
being first applied to latching relay 30 (highlighted in green). (Id.) Then, because
latching relay 30 is closed, power is applied to these various lights through their
respective relays (highlighted in blue). (Id.)
A POSITA would have understood Boser as disclosing a latching relay that
causes power from the vehicles electrical system to be supplied to . . . lights via
61
Patent 6,023,221
another relay. (EX1005 at VII.B.19.) As such, a POSITA would have understood
that Gerhahers teaching of using a computer to automatically turn on the hazard
warning lights could be implemented by the computer sending the signal to the
latching relay, and that this latching relay could have sent power to Gerhahers
hazard warning lights via another relay as taught by Boser. (Id.)
Boser is analogous art to Gerhaher, (id.) is reasonably pertinent to the problem
of designing and implementing warning systems manipulating lights in automobiles
(id.), and a POSITA would have looked to Bosers conventional components for
automatically activating and deactivating lights when exploring with the problems
of Gerhaher.
A POSITA would have been motivated to look to Bosers relay architecture
to implement Gerhahers teaching of automatically activating the hazard warning
lights for at least three reasons. First, Boser discusses including flashing or turned
on hazard lights in the context of its system, as Gerhaher does. (Id.) Second, a
POSITA would have considered combining Gerhahers computer to the on/off input
of Bosers latching relay (and connecting Bosers vehicle light relay to Gerhahers
blinking light system) to be a straight-forward task only involving routine skills,
knowledge, and tools. (Id.) Third, combining the two would have yielded the
predictable results of using the common circuitry of Boser to automatically
manipulate vehicle-mounted lights. (Id.) And each element still does in combination
62
Patent 6,023,221
what they do separatelyGerhahers system would still continuously receive
information and process data, while Bosers latching relay would still be connected
in serial and would be activated the same way. (Id.)
j) means to maintain hazard warning light activity beyond

the incident of deceleration which causes activation
This is a means-plus-function limitation whose function is maintaining hazard
warning light activity beyond the incident of deceleration which causes activation.
(Supra V.B.5.) The corresponding structure disclosed by the specification includes
a relay, a latching relay, and equivalents thereof that, upon receiving an on
activation signal, will continue to cause the hazard warning lights to receive power
from the vehicles power supply. (Id.)
In sum, Gerhaher discloses the function; Gerhaher alone renders the
corresponding structure of this limitation obvious; Boser discloses the corresponding
structure of this limitation; and Gerhahr in view of the teachings of Boser would
have likewise rendered the corresponding structure obvious.
Gerhaher discloses the function. Gerhaher discloses automatically causing
warning lights to blink after the danger factor threshold has been reached (EX1003
at 11:36-40), and further discloses turning off the lights after the danger factor has
been reduced and/or after the passage of time (id. at 9:61-66 and 16:54-59; see also
id. at 8:19-34.) Further monitoring of acceleration or deceleration can lead to
63
Patent 6,023,221
canceling (i.e., reducing) the danger factor value over time. (Id. at 8:35-46 and 8:62-
9:3.) Since Gerhaher teaches integrating the acceleration value from the
accelerometer to obtain the danger factor, a POSITA would understand that the
integral value would begin to fall once the acceleration value returned to zero (or
became negative), but that the danger factor would not necessarily immediately fall
below the predetermined threshold, as explained in the declaration. (See EX1005 at
VII.B.17.) This is shown in these examples:
12
Acceleration Level
10
6 Accel A
4 Accel B
2 Accel C
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time
64
Patent 6,023,221
12
Acceleration Level
10
6 Accel A
4 Accel B
2 Accel C
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time
(See EX1005 at VII.B.4.) Thus, a POSITA would have understood Gerhaher as
disclosing maintain[ing] hazard warning light activity beyond the incident of
deceleration which causes activation. (Id.)
Gerhaher alone renders obvious the corresponding structure: a relay, a
latching relay, and equivalents thereof that, upon receiving an on activation signal,
will continue to cause the hazard warning lights to receive power from the vehicles
power supply. As discussed above regarding the function of this limitation,
Gerhaher discloses a computer-controlled, automatic activation of the hazard
warning lights. (EX1003 at 11:36-40.) While Gerhaher does not disclose the
conventional components identified in the corresponding structure, such
components would have been obvious in view of Gerhahers disclosure as explained
above in section VI.A.2.i. (See also EX1003 at 8:3-57; EX1005 at VII.B.17.)
65
Patent 6,023,221
Moreover, the use of a latching relay or relay to maintain active the lights was
a well-known, and common in automobiles, as discussed above in section VI.A.2.i).
(EX1005 at VII.B.18.) As such, Gerhaher alone renders the corresponding
structure of this limitation obvious.
Nonetheless, to the extent an explicit disclosure of the structure is needed or
preferred, Boser discloses it. Boser discloses providing and maintaining power to
various vehicle lights or lamps using a latching relay followed by a secondary set
of relays corresponding to each set of vehicle lamps being activated:
66
Patent 6,023,221
(EX1007 at Fig. 2 (annotated); see also id. at Title & Abstract.)
Boser discloses that these lamps remain on until the latching relay receives a
signal to turn them off. (Id. at 2:57-3:7.) Thus, a POSITA would have understood
Boser as disclosing the latching relay implementation of the corresponding structure.
(EX1005 at VII.B.19.) As such, a POSITA would have understood that
Gerhahers teaching of using a computer to automatically turn on and keep on the
hazard warning lights could be implemented by Gerhahers computer sending the
signal to turn on the hazard warning lights to the latching relay of Boser, and that
this latching relay would could have sent power to Gerhahers hazard warning lights
via another relay until the latching relay received an off signal as taught by Boser.
(Id. at VII.B.17.)
A POSITA would have been motivated to use Bosers relay architecture to
implement Gerhahers teaching of maintaining the hazard warning lights on, as
discussed above. (See supra VI.2.i.)
k) means to automatically deactivate the hazard warning

lights when the rate of deceleration drops below the
predetermined threshold level for a predetermined length of
time and changes in acceleration of the vehicle indicate normal
vehicle operation
This is a means-plus-function limitation whose function is automatically
deactivating the hazard warning lights under a particular circumstance (i.e., when
the rate of deceleration drops below the predetermined threshold level for a
67
Patent 6,023,221
predetermined length of time and changes in acceleration of the vehicle indicate
normal vehicle operation). (Supra V.B.6.) The corresponding structure is a
microcontroller transmitting an off signal to the latching relay when the recited
conditions are detected by the microcontroller. (Id.) In summary, Gerhaher
discloses the function; Gerhaher alone renders obvious the corresponding structure
of this limitation, while Gerhaher in view of Boser discloses the corresponding
structure.
Gerhaher discloses the function of this limitation. First, Gerhaher discloses
a computer automatically turning off the lights after the danger factor has reduced
(EX1003 at 8:40-46, 9:61-66, and 16:54-59.) Therefore, Gerhaher discloses
automatically deactivating the hazard warning lights as claimed.
Second, Gerhaher discloses performing the claimed automatic deactivation
function as laid out in the claim. Gerhaher discloses that once the deceleration value
is sufficiently high, a danger factor is stored and updated (id. at 8:9-19 and 16:44-
47); after activation of the lights, if the incoming deceleration values cease to be so
high, Gerhaher discloses that the hazard lights should remain activated for a
predetermined amount of time rather than being turned off right away. (EX1003 at
8:27-35.) Gerhaher accomplishes this by reducing the danger factor value by a
predetermined rate as long as the incoming deceleration values remain low. (Id. at
8:54-9:13, 9:63-67, and 10:1-4.) After this time has expired, Gerhaher teaches that
68
Patent 6,023,221
the computer will observe the value of the danger factor to determine whether to
deactivate the lights. (Id. at 9:63-67 and EX1005 at VII.B.5-6.) Hence, Gerhaher
discloses when the rate of deceleration drops below the predetermined threshold
level for a predetermined length of time as claimed.
Moreover, Gerhaher teaches that, in at least some embodiments, positive
accelerations are needed as well to deactivate the lights.2 In such embodiments,
Gerhaher teaches that the lights will not deactivate simply by reducing the danger
factor over time while incoming deceleration values are sufficiently low; rather,
Gerhaher discloses that reducing the danger factor in this manner will still result
in the danger factor being high enough to keep the lights on. (EX1003 at 10:1-20;
EX1005 at VII.5.) But the danger factor can also be reduced by accelerations of
the vehicle that signify less dangeri.e., those indicative of normal operation.
2
Scott Andrews explains that Gerhaher teaches such embodiments so that in
situations where a vehicle must make an emergency stop or is in a collision, the
hazard lights will not deactivate simply because deceleration values are no longer so
high. (EX1005 at VII.B.17.) Rather, positive accelerations are also incorporated so
that the system deactivates the lights after the vehicle begins moving after the
emergency is over. (Id.).
69
Patent 6,023,221
(EX1003 at 8:35-46, 8:62-9:3, and 16:48-50.) The accelerations are incorporated
into the danger factor using the same techniques as decelerations (e.g., averaging
or integrating over time), since accelerations can simply be represented as negative
decelerations (thereby reducing, rather than increasing, the danger factor). (Id. at
8:35-46). This means that multiple acceleration values are taken into account by
Gerhaher. (EX1005 at VII.B.20.) Importantly, this corresponds to the 221
Patents disclosure of performing this function by detecting a series of positive
accelerations indicative of normal operation. (EX1001 at 2:10-13, 3:36-40.)
Thus, a POSITA would have understood Gerhaher disclosing that the danger
factor could be reduced below the threshold to automatically deactivate the lights
in such embodiments when both [1] the rate of deceleration drops below the
predetermined threshold level for a predetermined length of time and [2] changes in
acceleration of the vehicle indicate normal vehicle operation, as claimed. (EX1005
at VII.B.17.) Automotive expert Scott Andrews illustrated Gerhahers teachings
of how the danger factor is reduced beyond the threshold below:
70
Patent 6,023,221
Integrated Acceleration
(10-Second Integration Interval)
25
20
Danger Factor
15 Accel A
10 Accel B
5
Accel C
Threshold
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time
Gerhaher also discloses the claimed function in situations where the vehicle begins
to accelerate shortly after the hazard lights are activated (e.g., where the vehicle does
come to a complete stop). In such situations, the danger factor will decrease below
the threshold (thereby deactivating the lights) due to the processing of the
acceleration values resulting in a negative value as discussed above. (EX1003 at
8:35-46, 9:61-66, and 16:54-59.) But as a POSITA would have understood, this
occurs only after the predetermined time period used by Gerhaher to process the
acceleration values (e.g., the time period over which the acceleration values are
averaged or integrated). During this predetermined time period over which the
acceleration values are processed, the deceleration values must be sufficiently low
so as not to cause an increase, rather than a decrease, in the danger factor.
(EX1003 at 11:4-16; 4:3-8.) Thus, in such situations, the claimed predetermined
71
Patent 6,023,221
length of time is disclosed by the predetermined time period used by Gerhaher to
integrate or average the acceleration values. The examples provided by Mr.
Andrews demonstrate that this is how a POSITA would have understood Gerhaher.
(EX1005 at VII.B.17.)
Thus, a POSITA would have understood Gerhaher to disclose, or at least
render obvious, deactivating the lights when the rate of deceleration drops below
the predetermined threshold level for a predetermined length of time and changes in
acceleration of the vehicle indicate normal vehicle operation, as claimed. (EX1005
at VII.B.17.)
And Gerhaher alone likewise renders obvious the corresponding structure of
this limitation: a microcontroller transmitting an off signal to the latching relay
when the recited conditions are detected by the microcontroller. As discussed above
regarding the function of this limitation, Gerhaher discloses a computer-determined,
automatic deactivation of the hazard warning lights. Gerhaher mentions a computer,
and a POSITA would have understood that a computer discloses a microcontroller
for the reasons outlined above in section VI.A.2., or is at least a structural equivalent.
(EX1005 at VII.B.13.)
While Gerhaher does not disclose the conventional components identified in
the corresponding structure, such everyday components would have been obvious in
72
Patent 6,023,221
view of Gerhahers disclosure, as exlained in section VI.A.2.i) above. (EX1003 at
8:3-57; EX1005 at VII.B.17.)
Moreover, the use of a latching relay to maintain active and deactivate the
lights was a well-known, and common option in automobiles as discussed above in
section VI.A.2.i). (EX1005 at VII.B.18.) As such, Gerhaher alone renders the
corresponding structure of this limitation obvious.
While this limitations function was obvious to a POSITA in view of
Gerhahers disclosure and in view of the specification itself, nonetheless, Boser
discloses this option. Boser discloses providing and maintaining power to various
vehicle lights or lamps using a latching relay followed by a secondary set of relays
that correspond to each set of vehicle lamps being deactivated:
73
Patent 6,023,221
(EX1007 at Fig. 2 (annotated); see also id. at Title & Abstract.)
Boser discloses that these lamps remain on until the latching relay receives a signal
to turn them off. (Id. at 2:57-3:7.) Thus, a POSITA would have understood Boser
as disclosing the latching relay implementation of the corresponding structure.
(EX1005 at VII.B.19.) A POSITA would have understood that Gerhahers
teaching of using a computer to automatically turn off the hazard warning lights
could be implemented by Gerhahers computer sending the signal to turn off the
74
Patent 6,023,221
hazard warning lights to the latching relay of Boser, and that this latching relay
would have deactivated Gerhahers hazard warning lights. (Id. at VII.B.19.)
A POSITA would have been motivated to use Bosers relay architecture to
implement Gerhahers teaching of deactivating the hazard warning lights. (See
supra VI.2.i.)
l) whereby the hazard lights are automatically activated to

provide a warning that a rapid deceleration of the vehicle is
occurring or has taken place
To the extent this whereby clause is considered limiting,3 Gerhaher and
Neuffer disclose this. (See supra VI.A.2.c.)
m) whereby the hazard lights are . . . automatically

deactivate [sic] when normal operation of the vehicle is
resumed.
To the extent this whereby clause is considered limiting, (see supra
VI.A.2.l at footnote 3), Gerhaher discloses this. (See supra VI.A.2.k.)
a) A system, as in claim 1, further comprising: manual

control means connected to the hazard warning lights for
manually activating and deactivating the hazard warning lights;
3
See Minton v. Natl Assn of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
2003); cf. Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(explaining that a whereby clause is given no weight when it simply expresses
the intended result of a process step positively recited).
75
Patent 6,023,221
and the manual control means, when operated, overrides the

automatic system.
This is a means-plus-function limitation whose function is manually
activating and deactivating the hazard warning lights in a manner that overrides
the automatic system; the corresponding structure is an on/off button or
pushbutton switch connected to the lights and connected to a relay used to
automatically activate the lights, and equivalents thereof. (See supra V.B.7.) In
summary, Gerhaher alone renders obvious this limitation, while Gerhaher in view
of Neuffer discloses this limitation.
Gerhaher alone renders this limitation obvious, as discussed and for the
reasons outlined above in section VI.A.2.d; and Neuffer discloses the function, as
discussed and for the reasons outlined above in section VI.A.2.d. (EX1005 at
VII.A.7.)
Further, Neuffer discloses the structure: an on/off button or pushbutton
switch connected to the lights and connected to a relay used to automatically
activate the lights, or equivalents thereof. Neuffer states that [t]he vehicle operator
may, as usual, manually actuate hazard warning switch 4 whereby a warning
or emergency flashing of all turn indicator lights 8R, 8L. (EX1002 at 4:55-60).
Likewise, the hazard lights can be turned off manually by a corresponding
switch actuation so that [switch 4] assume[s] again the [original] position[.]
76
Patent 6,023,221
(EX1002 at 4:60-62 (emphasis added)). Thus, as a POSITA would have understood,
Neuffers switch 4 corresponds to the on/off button of the 221 Patent. (EX1005
at VII.B.21.)
Neuffers switch 4 is connected to the hazard warning lights, just as in the 221
Patent. Switch 4 includes a turn-on switch 5 and a double-throw switch 6 which
are mechanically coupled and are actuated in unison and, with a closed switch 5,
[switch 6] is connected to the terminal Kl 15, which in turn is directly connected to
lights 8R, 8L. (Id. at 3:50-65; see id. at Fig. 1). Thus, as shown below, the hazard
lights are activated and deactivated using switch 4. (EX1005 at VII.B.21.)
Manual Activation
221 Patent, Figure 1 Neuffer, Figure 1
Neuffers switch 4 is connected to a relay used to automatically activate the
lights, just like the 221 Patent. Neuffer discloses that switch 4 is connected to a
self-holding circuit 10 that includes relay 9.1 and 9.2, used to automatically
activate the lights. (EX1002 at 4:25-30; see Fig. 1.) Neuffer discloses that to turn[]
off the hazard warning [that has been automatically] engaged by way of the relay
77
Patent 6,023,221
switch 9.2, the self-holding circuit 10 can be interrupted . . . by switching the double-
throw switch 6 in the emergency or hazard warning switch 4 into the non-illustrated
position. (Id. at 5:36-41.) As Neuffer explains, [a]dmittedly, as a result thereof, the
emergency warning system is now manually turned on at the same time because the
double-throw switch 6 can be actuated only in unison with the emergency turn-on
switch 5. (Id. at 5:45-52.)
Manual Deactivation First, turn-on.
221, Figure 1 Neuffer, Figure 1
However, by a renewed actuation of the turned-on, detented emergency
warning flasher switch 4, the emergency warning system is then finally turned off.
(EX1002 at 5:45-52.) Like the 221 Patent, the automatically activated hazard lights
78
Patent 6,023,221
of Neuffer may be manually reset by the vehicle operator by turning switch 4 on and
then off again due to the coupling of switch 4 to the relays 9.1 and 9.2. (Cf. EX1001
at 3:52-55 (This arrangement allows the vehicle operator to cancel an automatic
activation by cycling the pushbutton on and then off.).)
Manual Deactivation Then, turn-off.
221 Patent Neuffer, Figure 1
Therefore, Neuffer discloses the corresponding structure.
A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Neuffers manual reset
mechanism with Gerhahers system at least for the reasons discussed above in
section VI.A.2.a. (See also EX1005 at VII.B.2.)
a) 3. A system, as in claim 1, in which the hazard warning

lights are flashing lights.
Gerhaher discloses this claim. Gerhaher discloses:
Preferably the deceleration Warning [sic] system comprises two or

more deceleration lights instead of conventional brake lights, which
79
Patent 6,023,221
when a predetermined furthermore limit value for deceleration of for

instance 0.5 m/sec2 is reached, start blinking.
(EX1003 at 4:15-19 (emphasis added).) Indeed, Gerhaher discloses various
blinking (i.e., flashing) patterns for the hazard lights. (See id. at Figs. 1-5, 7a-7f,
and 13:25-15:54.) Thus, Gerhaher discloses this claim.
a) 4. A system, as in claim 1, in which the sensing means

is a digital accelerometer.
Gerhaher renders this claim obvious while Spangler discloses this claim for
the same reasons as discussed above regarding the sensing means . . . limitation of
claim 1; a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Gerhaher and Spangler
in this manner. (See supra VI.A.2.f.)
a) 5. A system, as in claim 4, in which the means to activate

the hazard warning lights further comprises a
microcontroller.
Gerhaher discloses, or at least renders obvious, this claim as discussed above
for the same reasons as discussed above regarding the means to determine . . .
limitation of claim 1. (See supra VI.A.2.h.)
a) 6. A system, as in claim 1, in which the means to

maintain hazard warning light activity beyond the incident of
80
Patent 6,023,221
deceleration which causes activation further comprises a

relay.
Gerhaher renders this claim obvious, while Gerhahr in view of Boser
discloses this claim for the same reasons as discussed above for the means to
maintain . . . limitation of claim 1; a POSITA would have been motivated to
combine Gerhaher and Boser. (See supra VI.A.2.j.)
VII. CONCLUSION
The challenged claims of the 221 Patent are unpatentable. Petitioner requests
institution of an inter partes review to cancel these claims.
Respectfully,
/Jonathan Stroud/
Jonathan Stroud
Registration No. 72,518
Roshan Mansinghani
Registration No. 62,429
81
Patent 6,023,221
CERTIFICATE UNDER 37 CFR 42.24(d)
Under the provisions of 37 CFR 42.24(d), the undersigned hereby certifies
that the word count using Microsoft Word for Mac (version 15.33) for the
foregoing Petition for Inter Partes Review totals 13,968, not including the
mandatory notices, which is less than the 14,000 words allowed under 37 CFR
42.24(a)(i).
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 8, 2017 _____________

Jonathan Stroud
i
Patent 6,023,221
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 8, 2017, I caused a true and correct copy
of the Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 6,023,221 and accompanying
papers and exhibits to be served via Federal Express on the following correspondent
of record as listed on PAIR:
PAUL MICHELOTTI
2850 BANYON BOULEVARD CIRCLE NW
BOCA RATON FL 33431
_____________
Jonathan Stroud
ii

Unified Patents Inc. v. Paul Michelotti, IPR2017-02060, (PTAB Sept. 8, 2017)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unified Patents Inc. v. Paul Michelotti, IPR2017-02060, (PTAB Sept. 8, 2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IPR2017-02060 Petition

Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.

Roshan S. Mansinghani, Reg. 62,429

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNIFIED PATENTS INC.

I. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 6

A. Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................ 6

II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................. 7

III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ................... 7

A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................ 7

IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 221 PATENT ........................................................... 8

A. Summary of the Alleged Invention ....................................... 8

V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 13

A. Explicitly Defined Terms .................................................... 14

1. hazard warning light or hazard light .................. 14

B. Means-Plus-Function Terms ............................................... 15

1. sensing means to detect acceleration and deceleration

predetermined threshold level for said predetermined

VI. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ....................................................... 25

A. Ground I: Claims 16 are obvious considering Gerhaher in

VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 81

EX1001 U.S. Patent 6,023,221 ("the '221 Patent")

EX1002 U.S. Patent 4,723,078 (Neuffer)

EX1003 U.S. Patent 5,594,416 (Gerhaher)

EX1004 U.S. Patent 5,495,414 (Spangler)

EX1005 Declaration of Scott Andrews

Order, Michelotti v. Robert Bosch, LLC, 2:14-cv-14441, (ED Mich.

EX1007 U.S. Patent 5,389,913 (Boser)

EX1008 File History, Application (8/25/1997)

EX1009 File History, Preliminary Amendment (6/5/1998)

EX1010 File History, Office Action (7/22/1998)

EX1011 File History, Amendment (12/28/1998)

EX1012 File History, Office Action (2/2/1999)

EX1013 File History, Office Action (4/13/1999)

EX1014 File History, Amendment (6/17/1999)

EX1015 File History, Office Action (8/26/1999)

EX1016 File History, Amendment (9/13/1999)

EX1017 File History, Notice of Allowance (10/12/1999)

EX1018 U.S. Patent 4,990,887 (Lee)

EX1019 U.S. Patent 5,139,115 (Browne)

EX1020 U.S. Patent 5,394,326 (Liu)

Jessica Gross, Who Made That? (Turn Signal),

EX1023 U.S. Patent 2,122,508 (Bell)

EX1024 U.S. Patent 2,178,343 (Hebler)

EX1025 U.S. Patent 2,435,389 (Wilford)

EX1026 U.S. Patent 5,309,141 (Mason)

EX1027 U.S. Patent 3,559,164 (Bancroft)

EX1028 U.S. Patent 3,760,353 (Hassinger)

EX1029 U.S. Patent 2,474,610 (Wunsch)

EX1030 U.S. Patent 3,528,056 (Voevodsky)

EX1031 U.S. Patent 3,683,329 (Sattler)

EX1032 U.S. Patent 3,708,782 (Mori)

EX1033 U.S. Patent 4,807,101 (Milde)

Ronald Jurgen, Automotive Electronics Handbook

EX1035 U.S. Patent 3,805,097 (Yanchich)

EX1036 U.S. Patent 3,452,175 (Wilkes)

EX1037 U.S. Patent 3,643,049 (Lu Conic)

EX1038 U.S. Patent 4,985,604 (Tyebkhan)

EX1039 U.S. Patent 3,781,824 (Caiati)

EX1040 U.S. Patent 4,620,442 (MacGugan)

EX1042 U.S. Patent 3,846,749 (Curry)

EX1043 U.S. Patent 4,258,353 (Carlson)

EX1044 U.S. Patent 4,357,594 (Ehrlich)