Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01476/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01476-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
LeRoy G. Hagenbuch
Appellant
Toyota Motor Corp.
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: LEROY G. HAGENBUCH,

Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1476

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013-

00483. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN RE: LEROY G. HAGENBUCH,

Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1633

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013-

00638.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN RE: LEROY G. HAGENBUCH,

Appellant

______________________ 

Case: 15-1476 Document: 47-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/21/2016
2 IN RE: HAGENBUCH 

2015-1745, 2015-1747

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

IPR2014-00123, IPR2014-00124. 

______________________ 

Decided: March 21, 2016

______________________ 

 JONATHAN HILL, Freeborn & Peters, LLP, Chicago, 

IL, for appellant. Also represented by DAVID TER MOLEN. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges. 

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

LeRoy G. Hagenbuch appeals from the final written 

decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) 

cancelling all claims of U.S. Patent 8,014,917 (“the ’917

patent”) and claims 1–7, 10, 11, 15–20, 23, and 24 of U.S. 

Patent 8,532,867 (“the ’867 patent”) as unpatentable. 

Toyota Motor Corp. v. Hagenbuch, IPR2013-00483, Paper 

No. 37 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014); Toyota Motor Corp. v. 

Hagenbuch, IPR2013-00638, Paper No. 42 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 

30, 2015); Toyota Motor Corp. v. Hagenbuch, IPR2014-

00123, Paper No. 32 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2015); Toyota Motor 

Corp. v. Hagenbuch, IPR2014-00124, Paper No. 36 

(P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2015). Because the Board did not err in 

determining that the petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable 

as obvious in view of the prior art, we affirm. 

Case: 15-1476 Document: 47-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/21/2016
IN RE: HAGENBUCH 3

BACKGROUND

Hagenbuch is the inventor and owner of the ’917 and 

’867 patents, which are both directed to methods and 

apparatus for recording vehicular data during a collision 

(“event data recorder” or “EDR”) and automatically sending a wireless distress signal (“automatic collision notification” or “ACN”). The ’867 patent is a continuation of 

the ’917 patent. The claims recite a number of parameters to be recorded before and after detecting a collision, 

including “an RPM of the engine”; “a load on the engine”; 

“degree of braking”; and “an on/off status of a braking 

system [of the vehicle].” See, e.g., ’917 pat. col. 25 ll. 61, 

65, 48–49, col. 26 l. 2.

Toyota Motor Corp. filed four inter partes review petitions, challenging all claims of both patents. As the 

issues relating to the patentability of the claims of both of 

these patents are essentially the same, we evaluate both 

of them here in one opinion and decision.

The Board instituted review of all claims of the ’917 

patent on the grounds of obviousness over Japanese 

Patent Publication H03-085412 (Apr. 10, 1991) (“Aoyanagi”) and one or more of International Patent Publication 

WO 90/03899 (Apr. 19, 1990) (“Vollmer”), U.S. Patent 

4,939,652 (“Steiner”), and some other references. The 

Board also instituted review of all claims except claims 25 

and 26 of the ’867 patent, on the grounds of obviousness 

over Aoyanagi, Vollmer, and Steiner, and additionally

over other references for certain claims not substantially 

at issue on appeal. Both patents expired after institution.

The Board first found that Aoyanagi teaches most of 

the limitations of the challenged claims. Specifically, the 

Board found the “detecting a collision of the vehicle in 

response to a sudden change in the velocity of the vehicle” 

limitation met by Aoyanagi’s use of “shock” and “vehicle 

speed becom[ing] zero in a short time” to determine that 

an accident occurred, and the engine-RPM limitation met 

Case: 15-1476 Document: 47-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/21/2016
4 IN RE: HAGENBUCH 

by Aoyanagi’s disclosure of recording engine speed. The 

Board also found that brake on/off status is binary and 

therefore that Aoyanagi’s recording of brake pedal position would indicate both degree of braking and on/off 

status. The Board further noted that the claims do not 

require separate sensors for on/off status and degree of 

braking.

The Board next found that Vollmer and another reference both teach automatically sending a wireless distress 

signal upon accident detection, and that one of skill would 

have been motivated to combine either reference with 

Aoyanagi, because the references are all directed to 

detecting collisions, even if they disclose different methods for doing so, and both references provide additional 

benefits.

Additionally, the Board found that Steiner teaches a 

dual-memory system that records vehicle parameters 

before and after detecting a collision. The Board found 

that Steiner’s method for preserving data written in 

overwritable memory (transferring to a second memory) 

was a known alternative to Aoyanagi’s method (stopping 

recording) and thus would have been an obvious combination. The Board further found the engine-load limitation 

met by Steiner’s disclosure of fuel consumption data 

recorded at fixed time intervals.

The Board also rejected Hagenbuch’s evidence of 

commercial success for lack of nexus between Toyota’s 

safety service subscription sales and the specific features 

claimed. The Board therefore concluded that Toyota had 

demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 

all claims of the ’917 patent and claims 1–7, 10, 11, 15–20, 

23, and 24 of the ’867 patent are unpatentable as obvious. 

Hagenbuch timely appealed from the Board’s final 

written decisions. Before oral argument, Toyota and 

Hagenbuch settled. Toyota was dismissed from the 

appeal, but Hagenbuch continues to seek relief from the 

Case: 15-1476 Document: 47-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/21/2016
IN RE: HAGENBUCH 5

Board’s final written decisions. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4).

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal conclusions of obviousness de novo, and the Board’s factual findings underlying 

those determinations for substantial evidence. In re 

Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In 

re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Hagenbuch argues that Aoyanagi does not disclose 

the “detecting a collision of the vehicle in response to a 

sudden change in the velocity of the vehicle” limitation 

because it only detects an accident if the vehicle also 

completely stops, whereas the claimed system detects all

crashes based on any sudden changes in velocity. Hagenbuch asserts that the claim language recites that the 

emergency signal must be sent upon sensing any crash, 

i.e., all situations requiring an emergency response, but

that the Board’s unsupported interpretation narrows the 

detected crash conditions to match Aoyanagi’s teachings. 

Hagenbuch also disputes the Board’s equivalence of brake 

pedal position with brake on/off status; Aoyanagi does not 

inherently teach on/off, Hagenbuch contends, because

pedal position can be low/medium/high and thereby not

provide on/off data.

Hagenbuch further argues that the Board erred in ignoring the increased costs and higher failure risks associated with using Steiner’s dual memory and transferring 

large amounts of data. Because Aoyanagi also teaches 

that recording all disclosed types of data is not necessary, 

Hagenbuch contends that the prior art teaches away from 

combining Steiner with Aoyanagi. Lastly, Hagenbuch 

argues, Toyota provided no reason to combine EDR and 

ACN in one device because the combination provides no 

improved functionality, and Toyota’s successful sales of its 

safety subscription service are proof of the nonobviousness of the combination. 

Case: 15-1476 Document: 47-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/21/2016
6 IN RE: HAGENBUCH 

We agree with the Board that the few limitations not 

explicitly or inherently disclosed by Aoyanagi are taught 

by Vollmer and Steiner (and other prior art not significantly at issue on appeal), and we find that substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s finding of a motivation to 

combine the art. We do not see error in the Board’s 

interpretation of the collision-detection claim limitation, 

nor do we find fault with the Board’s factual determinations regarding the teachings of the prior art. Substantial 

evidence also supports the Board’s findings that one of 

skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation 

of success in combining the prior art to obtain the claimed 

invention, regardless of commercialization concerns. 

Moreover, the Board did not err in finding that Hagenbuch’s scanty evidence of commercial success was lacking 

a nexus to the claims and thus insufficient to show nonobviousness. The Board therefore did not err in concluding that the challenged claims would have been obvious to 

one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art.

CONCLUSION

We have considered the remaining arguments and 

conclude that they are without merit. Because there was 

no error in the Board’s determination that the petitioner

met its burden in showing that all claims of the ’917 

patent and claims 1–7, 10, 11, 15–20, 23, and 24 of the 

’867 patent are unpatentable as obvious over the cited

prior art of record, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1476 Document: 47-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/21/2016