Reply Brief in Support of KSR's Motion for Summary ... - Fried Frank

for validity under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), in view of (a) Asano and (b) electronic pedalposition sensors, such as the CTS "503 Series" sensor, that were specifically designed tobe attached to vehicle pedal's pivot and support bracket (e.g., KSR Main Br. at 25 & Ex.10), such as the pivot (54) and support bracket (50) disclosed in Figue 5 of Asano (KSRMain Br. at 22 & Ex. 6).III. TELEFLEX ERRONEOUSLY RELIES ON ALLEGED"DIFFERENCES" THAT DO NOT EXISTIN ASSERTED CLAI 4 OF THE '565 PATENT.Teleflex does not dispute that Asano, in combination with an off-the-shelf pedalposition sensor, meets each and every limitation of asserted claim 4 of the '565 Patent(Wilemsen DecL. ir 35 & Ex. 12; Krger DecL. ir 5 & Ex. 1). Teleflex also does notdispute that combining Asano with an off-the-shelf position sensor would have beenobvious to a person of ordinary skil in the ar of the '565 Patent, just as the Patent Officeruled that combing Redding with such a sensor would have been unpatentably obviousdurng prosecution ofthe '565 Patent (see Exhbits 3-5 and 8 hereto), a ruling thatTeleflex repeatedly acquiesced in (see Exhibits 6, 9 hereto).Yet according to Teleflex, sumary judgment should be denied because"combing Asano with an electronic control wou~d not have solved any ofthe problemsconfronting Engelgau in his design ofthe Engelgau Patent" (pltf. Opp. Br. at 15). This isso, Teleflex argues, because "someone in Engelgau's shoes, who was trg to create anadjustable pedal assembly with an attached electronic control that was easy to package ina narrow space and was also relatively simpleand inexpensive, would shun Asano" (pltf.Opp. Br. at 20; emphasis added).14