NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: 55 BRAKE LLC,

Appellant

______________________ 

2014-1554

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,449.

______________________ 

Decided: April 13, 2015

______________________ 

MATTHEW J.M. PREBEG, Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott 

PLLC, Houston, TX, for appellant. Also represented by 

ZHE WANG. 

NATHAN K. KELLEY, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by MARY L.

KELLY, WILLIAM LAMARCA, THOMAS W. KRAUSE. 

______________________ 

Before CHEN, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board relied on eight

prior-art references individually or in combination to find 

certain claims of U.S. Patent. No. 6,450,587 (the ’587 
2 IN RE: 55 BRAKE LLC

patent) invalid as obvious or anticipated. 55 Brake LLC 

appeals the Board’s validity determinations, but its 

challenge turns on issues of claim construction. Because 

the Board correctly construed the claims, we need not 

reach the specifics of the Board’s anticipation and obviousness findings. We affirm. 

I 

The ’587 patent relates to a system for automatically 

locking a vehicle’s brakes under certain predetermined

conditions. ’587 patent, Abstract. The patent teaches 

using “sensors to detect . . . potentially unsafe conditions 

in or around the vehicle” and “to automatically control the 

brakes” when appropriate. Id. at col. 4 ll. 5–11. It provides a variety of examples where “movement of a vehicle 

may be unsafe,” including when a driver exits the vehicle, 

when a vehicle door or latch is open, and when a person or 

vehicle is close enough to the vehicle to create a potential 

for collision. See id. at col. 2. ll. 37–51; see also id. at col. 

4 ll. 11–24. The claimed invention also permits a driver 

to manually apply the brakes and includes a sensor to 

“prevent[] automatic setting of the brake while the vehicle 

is traveling.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 55–62; id. at col. 6 ll. 6–8.

Claim 7 is representative of the invention and includes (1) a plurality of sensors for sensing driving conditions; (2) a management mechanism for applying the 

vehicle’s brakes; and (3) a controller connected to the 

sensors and the management mechanism that actuates 

the management mechanism when the sensors sense 

unsafe driving conditions and when the vehicle is not 

moving above a predetermined speed. Id. at col. 23 ll. 18–

38.

In April 2008, 55 Brake sued several vehicle manufacturers, alleging infringement of the ’587 patent. Two 

years later, a defendant filed a request for inter partes 

reexamination of the ’587 patent. The Patent Office 

granted the request and found certain claims invalid as 
IN RE: 55 BRAKE LLC 3

anticipated or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 55 Brake 

appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4).

II 

We review the Board’s claim construction de novo if it 

is based solely on the intrinsic record. Teva Pharm. USA, 

Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 831, 840–41 

(2015); In re Teles AG Informationstechnologien, 747 F.3d 

1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014). During reexamination, the 

Board must give claims their “broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” In re Teles, 

747 F.3d at 1366 (citing Rambus v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 

1252 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). 

The Board correctly construed the term “plurality of 

sensors” to include a “vehicle motion sensor.” The plain 

language of the claims defines a vehicle motion sensor as 

one of the “plurality of sensors.” For example, claim 7 

recites in relevant part: 

a plurality of sensors adapted to . . . sense conditions at the stations; 

a solid-state controller . . . [which] in response to 

signals from the plurality of sensors indicating a 

condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement, []

actuate[s] the management mechanism to apply 

the brakes, wherein one of said plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor, and wherein the 

controller does not actuate the management 

mechanism to apply the brake mechanism if the 

vehicle motion sensor signals the controller that 

the vehicle is moving above a certain speed.

’587 patent col. 23 ll. 25–38 (Claim 7); see also id. at 

col. 24 ll. 9–10 (Claim 9 reciting “one of said plurality of 

sensors being a vehicle motion sensor”). 55 Brake agrees 

that the plain meaning of “plurality” is “two or more.” 

Because plurality means “two or more,” and the claims 
4 IN RE: 55 BRAKE LLC

expressly recite that “one of said plurality of sensors is a 

vehicle motion sensor,” it follows that only one additional 

sensor is required to meet the claims. See Phillips v. 

AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en 

banc) (“[W]e look to the words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented invention.”) 

(quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 

1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

The recitation of a vehicle motion sensor as one of the 

plurality of sensors is consistent with the specification

and the remainder of the claim limitations. As the Board

explained, claim 7 only requires that “signals (plural) 

from the plurality of sensors (plural) indicate a condition 

(singular) that is unsafe for vehicle movement.” J.A. 12. 

In other words, the claims do not require each sensor to 

be individually capable of sensing an unsafe driving 

condition. This is consistent with the specification’s 

description of sensors that, like a vehicle motion sensor, 

are incapable of individually sensing an unsafe driving 

condition. For example, the specification describes sensors to detect: whether a driver “leaves the vehicle, or is 

otherwise not in a position to safely operate the vehicle”; 

whether a car door or trunk is open; and whether a passenger is attempting to enter or exit the vehicle. ’587 

patent col. 2 ll. 34–45. These conditions can reasonably 

be understood as “unsafe” only when the vehicle is in 

motion. See id. at ll. 34–36. 

55 Brake argues that the vehicle motion sensor cannot be one of the “plurality of sensors” because the motion 

sensor does not actuate the automatic brake mechanism. 

But the specification describes an embodiment where a 

vehicle motion sensor, such as a conventional speedometer, may be used to signal the controller to prevent automatic braking. ’587 patent col. 6 ll. 6–14. While 

55 Brake is correct that preventing actuation of a brake 

mechanism and affirmatively actuating the brake appear

conceptually different, this subtle difference is insufficient 
IN RE: 55 BRAKE LLC 5

to rebut the plain language of claims 7 and 9, which 

define a vehicle motion sensor as one of the plurality of 

sensors. Moreover, even though the specification does not 

expressly include an embodiment where a vehicle motion 

sensor actuates a brake mechanism, this is not sufficient 

to require the adoption of a more narrow construction. 

We have “expressly rejected the contention that if a 

patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of 

the patent must be construed as being limited to that 

embodiment.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 

F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

55 Brake identifies examples in the specification describing narrower embodiments of the claimed invention. 

But the Board must give claims their broadest reasonable 

interpretation consistent with the claim language and the 

specification. In re Teles, 747 F.3d at 1366. Here, a 

broader reading of “plurality of sensors,” to include a 

vehicle motion sensor, is reasonable in light of the plain 

language of the claims, the specification, and the overall 

object of the invention to “enable sensors to detect . . . 

potentially unsafe conditions in or around the vehicle . . . 

[and] to automatically control the brakes and/or other 

equipment” as appropriate. ’587 patent col. 4. ll. 5–11; cf.

In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012) (relying on the “primary purpose” of the invention and refusing to adopt a broad construction where “the 

specification contains only disparaging remarks with 

respect to [a particular embodiment]”).1

1 In contrast to claims 7 and 9, claim 13 does not 

explicitly define a vehicle motion sensor as one of the 

plurality of sensors. But because claim terms are to be 

construed consistently throughout a patent, our reasoning 

above applies equally to claim 13. See Phillips, 415 F.3d 

at 1314.

 
6 IN RE: 55 BRAKE LLC

III

Having found that the Board correctly construed the 

claims of the ’587 patent, we affirm the anticipation and 

obviousness determinations. 55 Brake’s challenge is 

limited to an argument that the prior art only teaches one 

sensor in addition to a vehicle motion sensor.2 Because 

we agree that the claims only require two sensors, which 

can include a vehicle motion sensor, we see no reason to 

disturb the Board’s determinations. 

We have considered 55 Brake’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED

2 The Patent Office found claims 7–11, 13, 14, 26, 

27, 29, 40, and 41 anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 

5,706,909 to Bevins, J.A. 16–17, and claims 15–17, 33 and 

35 obvious based on a combination of Bevins and U.S. 

Patent No. 5,675,190 to Morita, J.A. 26–27.