[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
20-2204, Karam Technologies versus Unified Patents.

[00:00:05] Speaker 02:
Mr. Murray, whenever you're ready.

[00:00:08] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:00:11] Speaker 00:
In invalidating claim 10 and 11 of the 416 patent, the PTAP made two primary errors I'd like to focus on today.

[00:00:17] Speaker 00:
First, it failed to analyze obviousness in light of express claim language.

[00:00:23] Speaker 00:
The Board failed to explain at all how Harada discloses

[00:00:26] Speaker 00:
reducing vehicle speed according to a vehicle position in the turn.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
And second, if the board had analyzed that question, it would have been compelled to conclude that on this record, Unified failed to meet its burden of proving obviousness.

[00:00:41] Speaker 02:
Unified- Well, can I just start, too, Mr. Murray?

[00:00:42] Speaker 02:
Could I just start you with the claim construction?

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
Because I'm having a little trouble understanding the difference between the claim constructions and then how they impact the obviousness analysis.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
So is it right?

[00:00:55] Speaker 02:
Go ahead.

[00:00:55] Speaker 02:
So why don't you give me your construction of the term we're talking about or the words we're talking about, and if you could summarize your friend's construction and what the board then said briefly.

[00:01:07] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
So the issue of the definition of position in a turn, we argue for the plain meaning of that phrase as it is set out in the specification, which is

[00:01:19] Speaker 00:
the vehicle's position relative to the entry, the middle, or the exit of the turn.

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
Or is there another way of saying it, a position along a curve?

[00:01:30] Speaker 00:
That's right, the position along the curve.

[00:01:32] Speaker 02:
How does your friend's construction differ from yours?

[00:01:35] Speaker 02:
He says it's a position while turning.

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
As I understand it, unified's position is that position in a turn refers to any position when the vehicle happens to be turning.

[00:01:48] Speaker 00:
And we think that conflates position in the turn with position during the turn.

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
And the 416 patent in columns five and column six make very clear what the patent means when it uses the phrase position in the turn.

[00:02:03] Speaker 00:
It discusses the position as the entry, middle, or exit, and then it explains at length how a POSA can use the relationship between lateral acceleration at various points along the curve

[00:02:15] Speaker 00:
and the position in the turn in order to determine position in the turn and then to exercise vehicle control on that basis.

[00:02:22] Speaker 02:
Well, you argue that HRATA discloses reducing speed whether or not the vehicle is within a turn, right?

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
That's what you said?

[00:02:30] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:02:31] Speaker 02:
But you also say that in HRATA, speed is only lowered in the event that the vehicle is running in a direction opposite to a direction in which the steering wheel is operated.

[00:02:41] Speaker 02:
To have an opposite direction, your steering wheel has to be pointed to the side, right?

[00:02:47] Speaker 02:
Otherwise, lateral displacement is zero.

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
So I don't understand why Harada only reduce, why won't Harada only reduce speed when the vehicle is turning?

[00:02:59] Speaker 00:
There is a difference, I think, between the steering wheel being operated in a direction and the vehicle being in a turn.

[00:03:07] Speaker 00:
So, even if the intended lateral displacement is very low in one direction or another, Harada would still disclose

[00:03:15] Speaker 00:
reducing vehicle speed as long as the estimated displacement is large and in the opposite direction.

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
And so I think it's unusual that when you're driving your lateral displacement is completely zero because you're always adjusting yourself within the lane, within the lane of travel or perhaps you're changing lanes even if you're not turning.

[00:03:37] Speaker 00:
And Harada does not

[00:03:39] Speaker 00:
distinguish, in terms of exercising vehicle control, HRATA does not distinguish between turning and non-turning situations.

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
It only focuses on the difference between estimated and intended lateral displacement.

[00:03:53] Speaker 00:
And so even in situations where you're not turning and you have small amounts of lateral displacement as you're controlling yourself within the lane, and then you have a sudden external disturbance like a sidewind,

[00:04:04] Speaker 00:
that pushes you in the opposite direction, Harada's system would disclose reducing speed.

[00:04:09] Speaker 00:
And that analysis is set out in the declaration of Dr. Shaver, and Univise expert Mr. Andrews does not dispute that analysis, does not dispute that turning is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition in Harada for a reduction in speed.

[00:04:28] Speaker 00:
And for that reason, it's our position that Harada does not disclose on any construction

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
reducing speed according to a vehicle position in the turn because turning is neither necessary or sufficient for reduction in speed in Harada.

[00:04:42] Speaker 00:
Harada is focused on, oh, I'm sorry.

[00:04:45] Speaker 03:
Can I, okay, so I read your position with respect to what your patent says is that your patent's supposed to A, figure out if it's in a turn and then adjust speed B with respect to its position along that turn.

[00:05:04] Speaker 03:
And does Harada do the first, but in your view not the last, or do you think it does neither?

[00:05:12] Speaker 00:
The board found that Harada does determine that the vehicle is in a turn, and we don't contest that determination on this appeal.

[00:05:21] Speaker 00:
But there is a difference.

[00:05:22] Speaker 00:
The board never made the next step.

[00:05:27] Speaker 00:
The board found that Harada determines that the vehicle is turning,

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
but then did not explain how Harada discloses reducing speed according to the vehicle's position in the turn, which is a very different concept.

[00:05:40] Speaker 00:
And as the 416 patent lays out, the position in the turn refers to entry, middle, or exit.

[00:05:48] Speaker 00:
And the patent explains how or why one would use position in the turn in order to reduce speed.

[00:05:56] Speaker 00:
Because as the patent discloses, lateral acceleration

[00:05:59] Speaker 00:
increases at a growing rate at the beginning of the turn and peaks at the middle of the turn.

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
And so if you want to avoid uncomfortable or unnecessary lateral acceleration, it's important to preemptively reduce speed when you're still at the beginning of the turn.

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
And none of those teachings in the 416 patent make sense on a definition of position in the turn other than the definition given to that phrase in the 416 patent, which is position relative to the curve.

[00:06:26] Speaker 03:
Now, what about the issue that your friend on the other side raises, saying that you never really asked the board to focus on the adjusting speed based on position in the term.

[00:06:40] Speaker 03:
You didn't ask for a construction of that, and that while it was referenced in the obviousness discussion, you didn't really point out that it's an important aspect of the patent.

[00:06:54] Speaker 00:
I don't think that's true, Your Honor.

[00:06:57] Speaker 00:
Our opening response brief spent about five pages arguing that Harada does not disclose reducing speed according to a position in the turn.

[00:07:07] Speaker 00:
And a central part of that argument, this is at appendix 1011 through 1016, was that Harada does not do so because Harada is not addressed to turn position at all, as turn position is defined in the 416 patent, namely,

[00:07:23] Speaker 00:
position at the entry, middle, or exit.

[00:07:26] Speaker 00:
So that was a central feature of our argument.

[00:07:28] Speaker 00:
It is true that we did not frame that argument in explicit claim construction terms, but that's because we were simply applying the ordinary meaning of that phrase as opposed to what would understand the phrase after reading the specification.

[00:07:43] Speaker 00:
When Unified came back in their reply brief and said that the phrase position in the term requires a broader construction,

[00:07:50] Speaker 00:
We then expanded on that argument in surreply, explaining why that broader construction could not be correct.

[00:07:57] Speaker 00:
The parties addressed that argument at length at the oral hearing.

[00:08:00] Speaker 00:
And while the panel did not explicitly, while the board did not explicitly resolve that issue in its analysis, it's important to note that the board recited the party's arguments on this issue at some length and did not find the argument to be waived.

[00:08:17] Speaker 00:
So I don't see any basis for Unified's argument that this argument was waived.

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
The board clearly understood that the argument had been made and the argument was joined and Unified had the opportunity to respond in writing and orally.

[00:08:33] Speaker 00:
But I think the fundamental problem and the basis on which the court could relatively simply remand is the board's failure to address the issue at all.

[00:08:47] Speaker 00:
But because there is no evidence in the record to support the board's determination, and because that issue is fairly clear once the proper construction is applied, we think reversal rather than remand is appropriate.

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
And I would like to highlight... This is Judge Crouse.

[00:09:03] Speaker 02:
Can you explain to me a little remand?

[00:09:06] Speaker 02:
Remand for what?

[00:09:07] Speaker 02:
That we flip claim construction and let them make them analyze?

[00:09:10] Speaker 02:
What would we ask the board to reanalyze in a remand?

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
I think there are two issues.

[00:09:17] Speaker 00:
The first is that the board simply did not address the question at all of whether Harada reduces speed according to vehicle position in the turn.

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
Whether as a matter of claim construction or simply as a matter of the teachings of Harada, the board addressed other aspects of the controller limitation but never addressed that issue.

[00:09:37] Speaker 00:
So at least a remand is necessary for the board to address that issue.

[00:09:42] Speaker 00:
But because the claim construction issue is sufficiently clear,

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
And because Unified does not appear to argue that Herata does disclose reducing speed according to vehicle position in the turn, if that phrase is given the construction of position along the curve, we think there's no need to remand here because the issue here really is a clean issue of law that can be decided as a matter of claim construction, at which point there is no evidence in the record to support the board's determination.

[00:10:12] Speaker 00:
Unless there are further questions, I'll reserve my remaining time.

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:10:19] Speaker 02:
You have to help me pronounce your name, sir.

[00:10:22] Speaker 01:
Absolutely.

[00:10:22] Speaker 01:
Mr. Man Singh Hani.

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
Please proceed.

[00:10:28] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:10:30] Speaker 01:
As Your Honor has seen, claim construction is a key issue in this case.

[00:10:35] Speaker 01:
And Karam would want to construe the term, position the term,

[00:10:40] Speaker 01:
not just to mean any position in the term, but a very particular format that was only given as an example in the specification.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
That is, that the position in the term has to be relative to the entry, middle, or exit of the term.

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
The problem is this construction employs an embodiment of the specification.

[00:10:56] Speaker 01:
The specification has no disclaimer or other requirement that this embodiment be read into the claim.

[00:11:02] Speaker 01:
All the places Karen points to are either explicitly examples

[00:11:07] Speaker 01:
or would have been understood as such from reading context, for example.

[00:11:09] Speaker 03:
Well, counsel, even if they are examples, even if the beginning, the middle, and the end of the turn are examples of along the turn, that doesn't change the fact that there are two different things.

[00:11:26] Speaker 03:
One is determining if it's in a turn, and then the other is determining the position along a turn, right?

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I think the wording here is careful.

[00:11:36] Speaker 01:
The claim language doesn't even say along the term.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
But I agree with you that determining when you're in a term is different than determining your position in the term.

[00:11:46] Speaker 01:
But the key here is the language is intentionally broad.

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
So for example, claim 10 and claim 1 use the phrase path of the term or vehicle path.

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
That could have been used had the applicant intended

[00:12:01] Speaker 01:
for you to calculate a precise position along the path or curvature of the turn.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
None of that is in the claim language.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
All we have is position in the turn.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
And that could mean any position.

[00:12:13] Speaker 01:
And regardless, HRATA explicitly discloses a determining position.

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
So that's not really the issue here.

[00:12:20] Speaker 03:
But HRATA, you say, that's the question.

[00:12:25] Speaker 03:
If we were to assume that their definition

[00:12:31] Speaker 03:
what it means to determine a position or to reduce speed based on position in the turn.

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
If we were to accept Karam's definition of that, do you believe that Harada teaches that?

[00:12:46] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:12:48] Speaker 03:
And how so?

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
So you think that Harada can actually change speed and alter it based on where along the curve that the vehicle is?

[00:13:01] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
So Harada is explicit at Figure 4 of Harada, which is Appendix 543, that Harada is contemplating dealing with a turning scenario.

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
And then at Column 5, Line 54 to 59 of Harada, which is on Appendix 548, Harada explicitly said it is with respect to Figure 4, that it's determining an intended position and an estimated position.

[00:13:29] Speaker 01:
And that

[00:13:30] Speaker 01:
When a poster reads that, along with figure four, understands that that is in the term.

[00:13:34] Speaker 01:
And then, if those positions, if the estimated position is not close enough to the intended position, it will perform a correction, which would include reducing speed.

[00:13:44] Speaker 01:
So, we do believe HERADA explicitly teaches this.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
And the final written decision actually specifically addressed this at appendix page 37 to 38.

[00:13:55] Speaker 01:
But Your Honor, the real issue here is that the claim construction that Karam is seeking is not simply a position along the curve.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
Their briefing is explicit.

[00:14:07] Speaker 01:
It has to mean this particular format relative to the entry, middle, or exit of a term.

[00:14:12] Speaker 01:
And we think that does not comport with the law to bring in that type of embodiment into the claims when that is not with recited.

[00:14:21] Speaker 02:
Can I ask you for some clarification?

[00:14:23] Speaker 02:
So you're saying that Harada does show a...there's a difference between position and a turn and beginning, middle, and end, that those are two different constructions that result in a different outcome?

[00:14:38] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, I think that they do result in a different outcome.

[00:14:41] Speaker 02:
So, if the claim... Carada only shows the car, flows the car under specific circumstances, as I understand it.

[00:14:49] Speaker 02:
It flows the car first, if the car is going in the opposite direction that the steering wheel points, and second, if it's off from its target by a big enough amount.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
Both have to be true, right?

[00:15:02] Speaker 01:
I don't believe both have to be true.

[00:15:04] Speaker 01:
I think that's true in one embodiment, Your Honor, but on appendix 548, column 5, lines 54 to 59, HRATA is explicit that if the control unit determines an intended position and an estimated position based on certain signals, it can either control the rear wheel steering actuator or the vehicle speed changing actuator, and that's the one that's relevant here, based on the difference between the positions.

[00:15:27] Speaker 01:
So this is exactly what the claim language says.

[00:15:29] Speaker 01:
reduce speed according to the vehicle's position in the turn.

[00:15:33] Speaker 01:
That's what HRATA teaches.

[00:15:34] Speaker 01:
So you don't need both.

[00:15:36] Speaker 01:
As you mentioned, Your Honor, I do think that that is disclosed as one embodiment, HRATA.

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
But HRATA, the most relevant embodiment in this case is what we said in our brief, column five, line 54 to 59.

[00:15:47] Speaker 03:
So you're saying that the lateral displacements somehow show the position along the curve?

[00:15:58] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:15:59] Speaker 01:
There's been a confusion, we believe, on the understanding of what lateral displacement is.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
Parada is explicit.

[00:16:07] Speaker 01:
That intended target position and estimated target position can be represented by lateral displacement.

[00:16:14] Speaker 01:
And that is at Appendix 548, Column 6, Lines 4 through 22.

[00:16:19] Speaker 01:
So Parada is, as it mentions in Column 5, Lines 54 to 59, again, Appendix 548,

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
that it is determining the position.

[00:16:27] Speaker 01:
It's using lateral acceleration and lateral displacement to determine those positions, but it is determining a position.

[00:16:34] Speaker 01:
And as Figure 4 demonstrates, as well as Figure 6, Appendix 545, those positions are in a turn.

[00:16:41] Speaker 01:
The fact that Harada discloses

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
calculating positions in a non-turning scenario doesn't take away from the fact that it explicitly disclosed that in a turning scenario has two figures dedicated to that proposition and explanation to accompany that.

[00:16:56] Speaker 01:
So we believe that's certainly sufficient to disclose the claim language as written as well as construed by CAM.

[00:17:08] Speaker 01:
Again, the problem at Karam's construction is that they allege, and they said it here as well during our argument, that there was a definition in the specification.

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
There is not a definition in the specification on this point.

[00:17:21] Speaker 01:
In particular, Appendix 220, Column 5, Lines 41 through 45 is where the entry, middle, and exit of the term is mentioned, and the patent is explicit that this is merely an example.

[00:17:35] Speaker 01:
But this is not a definition.

[00:17:38] Speaker 01:
example here, or there's no disclosure in the patent.

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
Does it have to prove a redefinition through lexicography if it's primary?

[00:17:51] Speaker 03:
Excuse me.

[00:17:53] Speaker 03:
Is that the ordinary meaning of the phrase, position in the turn is its position along the curve?

[00:18:03] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, there's no evidence that it's the ordinary meaning of the phrase.

[00:18:08] Speaker 01:
The evidence that Karen has put forth is one based on a definition.

[00:18:14] Speaker 01:
Here, position in the turn is a broad phrase, and we can see that parada, which is also prior art and what a posa would have looked at to understand how this language could be used, also uses the word position, and it doesn't mean

[00:18:29] Speaker 01:
this exact definition or this precise format of being relative to the entry, middle, exit of the term.

[00:18:37] Speaker 01:
And the home diagnostic case that we cited in our brief we think is controlling here, the fact that the specification only has a single embodiment does not mean that the patent clearly and unambiguously disavows other embodiments.

[00:18:49] Speaker 01:
The reality is that the language here is broad, and that was intentional by the patent owner.

[00:18:57] Speaker 01:
Again, you look at the other claim language, this is confirmed.

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
Claim 1 and claim 10 use more precise language.

[00:19:03] Speaker 01:
For example, they use the term vehicle path.

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
They could have used along the path or curvature of the term if they had intended it to be so narrow.

[00:19:11] Speaker 01:
They did not.

[00:19:12] Speaker 01:
And as a result, it is broad.

[00:19:14] Speaker 01:
Regardless, as we've already talked about, Harada does explicitly demonstrate using figure 4 and figure 6.

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
in its text say that it is determining positions in the turn and then reducing speed according to those positions.

[00:19:29] Speaker 01:
So we have that in HRADA regardless, but we believe the claim terms should be construed broadly because the phrase position in the turn is broad.

[00:19:43] Speaker 02:
Anything further?

[00:19:47] Speaker 01:
Finally, Your Honor, we believe that this is also consistent with how they have accused of infringement and applied their own claim language even to today.

[00:19:59] Speaker 01:
So if you look at appendix pages 814 to 815, there they made accusations that actually work exactly the way Herodotus did.

[00:20:09] Speaker 01:
And we have that comparison in our brief, and we think that is also probative of how the claim should be interpreted,

[00:20:16] Speaker 01:
We believe Karam is interpreting it in one way for infringement purposes and another way to preserve validity.

[00:20:21] Speaker 01:
The language is broad and with that I have no further comments unless you have any questions.

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:20:29] Speaker 02:
Mr. Murray?

[00:20:31] Speaker 00:
Yes, thank you.

[00:20:32] Speaker 00:
I'd like to just make a few brief points in response.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
The first is that Mr. Mansangani suggested that Harada can reduce speed

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
even if the vehicle is not traveling in the opposite direction of that intended by the driver.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
And that's simply not an accurate characterization of Harada.

[00:20:50] Speaker 00:
He pointed to language in column five, which says that the vehicle may either control rear wheel steering or reduce speed.

[00:20:59] Speaker 00:
And the discussion in column five, in turn, is discussing figure three of Harada.

[00:21:04] Speaker 00:
Figure three of Harada on appendix 542 lays out the exact control logic contained in Harada's system.

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
It says, about the middle of the figure, it says, if Y1 and Y2 have the same sign, if no, vehicle speed is decreased.

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
And then if yes, it asks whether you're in area A or area B of figure two.

[00:21:26] Speaker 00:
In other words, which way is the vehicle turning?

[00:21:30] Speaker 00:
Is it over-spear or under-spear?

[00:21:32] Speaker 00:
And then you control rear wheel steering accordingly.

[00:21:35] Speaker 00:
But that figure and the other language that we cite in our brief from HRATA make clear that the limited circumstance in which HRATA controls vehicle speed is when Y1 and Y2 have a different sign.

[00:21:46] Speaker 00:
And that's important in connection with the discussion of Figure 4.

[00:21:50] Speaker 00:
Figure 4 is really the primary reference that Unified points to to say that HRATA discloses reducing speed according to vehicle position in the turn.

[00:21:58] Speaker 00:
And it's important to note that in figure four is not only does it not disclose reducing speed on the basis of position at entry, middle, or exit of the turn, but figure four does not even disclose reducing speed.

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
Because if you look at figure four on appendix 543, this is an example where Y1 and Y2 have the same sign.

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
They're both positive.

[00:22:22] Speaker 00:
They're both to the vehicle's left-hand side.

[00:22:25] Speaker 00:
In this case, Y1 is greater than Y2.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
So there is an understeer situation.

[00:22:30] Speaker 00:
The vehicle is not turning as much as the driver intended in the same direction.

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
This is a case where Hirata would clearly teach to control rear wheel steering to get the vehicle back on course, and not an example where Hirata would disclose reducing speed.

[00:22:45] Speaker 00:
And then finally, I want to briefly address the issue of whether or not the specification defines the turn position in the turn.

[00:22:54] Speaker 00:
We think that it does, but we also don't think that that is necessary.

[00:22:58] Speaker 00:
in order to rule in our favor on claim construction.

[00:23:01] Speaker 00:
The ordinary meaning of the phrase is determined with reference to what a POSA would understand after reading the patent and evaluating the specification as a whole.

[00:23:09] Speaker 00:
And the specifications' consistent usage, entire figures, and multiple entire columns of analysis in the patent are devoted to analyzing position in the turn with one consistent usage, and that's entry, middle, or exit.

[00:23:23] Speaker 00:
None of the patent's teachings on that issue make any sense if you divorce concept of position in the turn from position along the curve.

[00:23:32] Speaker 00:
Unless your honors have anything else, that's all I have.

[00:23:37] Speaker 02:
Hearing nothing from my colleagues, thank you.

[00:23:40] Speaker 02:
We thank both counsel, the cases submitted, and that concludes our proceedings for this morning.

[00:23:48] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:23:51] Speaker 00:
The honorable court is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.