In the Final Written Decision, the Board found that all of the claims of the ’973 Patent that were instituted for trial (claims 1-5 and 7-11) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over US Patent Nos. 6,271,748 (“Derbyshire”), 5,883,582 (“Bowers”), and 6,486,773 (“Bailie”).
The ’973 Patent discloses a method for preventing collisions between the data transmitted regarding tire-pressure by the wheel units of one and the same vehicle. To alleviate data collision, the invention incorporates in each wheel unit internal clocks of poor precision to introduce a natural time lag of data. The limitation at the heart of the review is “a natural time lag between various internal clocks with which each wheel unit (12) is equipped is used to prevent collisions between transmissions from the various wheel units of one and the same vehicle.”
The Board construed claim terms using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” Citing to Federal Circuit law, the Board stated that claims terms are usually given their ordinary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, but the inventor can act as his or her own lexicographer either expressly or implicitly using the written description. The Board then construed “natural lag time” and “used to prevent collisions” under this standard citing to the specification for support for its constructions.
Turning to the prior art, the Board then cited to the particular places in each reference that discloses the required limitations. The Board then stated that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the references for the purpose of alleviating data collision for which such detrimental collision is a recognized problem.
The Board then recounted Continental’s main arguments that (1) there is insufficient reason to combine the teachings of the prior art and (2) limitations of claims 3 and 8 are absent from the prior art. The Board noted that Continental’s arguments in its Response submitted pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 are similar to its Preliminary Patent Owner Response, and Continental did not provide additional evidence, such as declaration testimony of an expert. The Board specifically examined why it rejected Continental’s arguments regarding combination of the art. In adopting Schrader’s reasoning for combining the art, the Board cited to Federal Circuit precedent stating “articulated reasoning with rational underpinning is sufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness.” As to Continental’s arguments that Derbyshire “teaches against” combination with Bowers, the Board cited to Federal Circuit law for the proposition that a reference does not teach away if it merely states a general preference for an alternative invention. As to Continental’s argument that Bowers is non-analogous art, the Board cited back to its Institution Decision to support its finding that Bowers is analogous art. The Board then found that the limitations of claims 3 and 8 are adequately disclosed in the prior art, relying upon Federal Circuit precedent and stating “in an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise teachings in the prior art directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account.”
Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc. and Schrader Elecs., Inc. v. Continental Automotive Sys. US, Inc., IPR2013-00014
Paper 32: Final Written Decision
Dated: March 12, 2014
Patent 6,998,973
Before: Sally G. Medley, Josiah C. Cocks, and Mitchell G. Weatherly
Written by: Cocks