Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`
` Entered: August 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00419
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and HUNG H. BUI,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`On Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`
` Entered: August 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00419
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and HUNG H. BUI,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`On Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00419
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Toyota Motor Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Request for
`Rehearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)-(d) of the Board’s Decision
`(Paper 13, “Dec.”) declining to institute trial in this proceeding. Paper 14
`(“Req. Reh’g.”). The Rehearing Request seeks rehearing of the Board’s
`Decision with respect to claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73–80, 94, 95,
`97, 99–103, 106, 109–111, 113, 115, and 120 of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342
`(’342 patent) based on prior art, U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094 B2 issued to
`Ohmura in combination with other prior art references. See Req. Reh’g 1.
`In particular, Petitioner argues the Board: (1) “misapprehended or
`overlooked the cited portions of Ohmura that disclose the ‘audio generated
`by the portable device’ claim feature” and (2) “misapprehended or
`overlooked the cited portions of Ohmura that disclose the functions of the
`construed ‘integration subsystem.’” Id. at 6–13.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s request for rehearing and carefully
`considered Petitioner’s arguments. However, we are not persuaded that the
`Board misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s arguments presented with
`respect to the patentability of claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73–80,
`94, 95, 97, 99–103, 106, 109–111, 113, 115, and 120 of the ’342 patent.
`
`
`DISCUSSION
`First, Petitioner asserts the Board erred because we “misapprehended
`or overlooked the cited portions of Ohmura that disclose the ‘audio
`generated by the portable device’ claim feature.” Id. at 6. According to
`Petitioner, Ohmura discloses a number of different embodiments for
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00419
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`connecting car audio/video system 100 and portable devices 200a or 200b,
`including what Petitioner characterizes as:
`“a file transfer configuration” as summarized
`in
`(1)
`paragraph 27 and further described in paragraphs 121–124 of
`Ohmura, whereby portable device 200a or 200b “transfers its
`music data to car audio/video system 100 for storage therein
`and later reproduction” and
`
`“a streaming audio configuration” as summarized in
`(2)
`paragraph 28 and further described in paragraphs 201–206 of
`Ohmura, whereby portable device 200a or 200b “streams its
`music data to car audio/video system 100 for immediate
`decoding and output without storing therein.”
`
`Id. at 6–9 (emphasis in original).
`
`Petitioner argues the Board erred in finding that Ohmura does not
`disclose “audio generated by the portable device” because “Petitioner’s
`Petition relied on the later streaming audio embodiment” of Ohmura,
`whereas Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 9) and the Board’s
`Decision are predicated on the former “file transfer embodiment” of
`Ohmura. Id. at 7–8 (citing Decision at 27–28). Petitioner also asserts the
`Board overlooked Ohmura’s streaming audio embodiment cited in paragraph
`205 of Ohmura “in which the car audio/video system (1) does not store, but
`(2) immediately processes and outputs received music data” and Dr. Thomas
`Matheson’s Declaration. Id. at 9 (citing Pet. 30 and Matheson’s Declaration,
`¶¶ 50–52).
`We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization. At the outset, we note
`Ohmura does not describe what Petitioner characterizes as: (1) “a file
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00419
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`transfer configuration” embodiment in paragraph 27 and (2) a “streaming
`audio configuration” embodiment in paragraph 28. Id. at 6. Instead,
`Ohmura’s paragraph 27 summarizes Ohmura’s main invention, shown in
`Figure 2, in which music data (“music file”) generated from portable device
`200a or 200b is received at car audio/video system 100, and is then stored in
`an information storage unit (i.e., internal memory) of car audio/video system
`100 at step S17, shown in Figure 4. Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 27, 121. Afterwards,
`music data is reproduced or outputted as audio, via speakers 20 of car
`audio/video system 100, at step S20. Id. at ¶¶ 122–124.
`Ohmura’s paragraph 28 provides a summary of what Ohmura
`describes as “a first modification” of car audio/video system 100, as further
`described in paragraphs 200–206. The purpose of Ohmura’s modification is
`twofold: (1) to reduce the size of an information storage unit (i.e., internal
`memory) of car audio/video system 100, and (2) to eliminate the need to
`store and then erase music data in the information storage unit of car
`audio/video system 100. Id. at ¶ 206. According to Ohmura’s
`“modification,” only title data (part of music data) is stored in the
`information storage unit of car audio/video system 100 in advance. Id. at ¶
`204. Such title data can then be displayed, via display 103 of car
`audio/video system 100, for user selection. Id. When title data (title name)
`is selected by a user, music data corresponding to the title name is generated
`from portable device 200a or 200b and is then transmitted to car audio/video
`system 100 where car audio/video system 100 can “immediately perform[]
`predetermined processing such as decoding without storing it in the
`information storage unit” in order to reproduce or output as audio, via
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00419
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`speakers 20 of car audio/video system 100. Id. at ¶ 205. In other words,
`music data generated from portable device 200a or 200b is received at car
`audio/video system 100, and is then decoded on the fly, without first storing
`in the information storage unit of car audio/video system 100. Once
`decoded, music data is reproduced or outputted as audio, via speakers 20 of
`car audio/video system 100. Id.
`In both embodiments described in paragraphs 27 and 28 of Ohmura,
`music data is generated from portable device 200a or 200b, and is then
`received at car audio/video system 100 where the music data can be
`processed and reproduced as audio, via speakers 20 of car audio/video
`system 100. The only difference between the two embodiments of Ohmura
`is that in one embodiment, music data is stored upon receipt but is decoded
`on the fly, while in the other embodiment, the music data is first stored
`before being decoded and processed into audio by car audio/video system
`100. Id. at ¶¶ 27–28.
`In contrast, all challenged claims of the ’342 patent require (1) “the
`portable device” to play (i.e., decode) an audio file, and (2) “the integration
`subsystem” to receive “audio generated by the portable device.” As
`explained in the Decision, we referred to the requirement that audio
`generated by the portable device as the result of playing the audio file as
`“the audio generated by the portable device” limitation, which was
`consistent with Dr. Thomas Matheson’s Declaration at ¶¶ 50–53. Decision
`23; see also Matheson’s Declaration (Ex. 1120 ¶¶ 50–53).
`As explained in the Decision, Ohmura’s CPU 101 of car audio/video
`system 100 (which Petitioner equates to the claimed “integration
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00419
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`subsystem”) does not receive “audio generated by the portable device” in the
`manner required by all the challenged claims of the ’342 patent. Pet. 27.
`Rather, in all embodiments of Ohmura, Ohmura’s CPU 101 receives music
`data from portable device 200a or 200b that it must decode into audio for
`output, via speakers 20 of car audio/video system 100. Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 28, 205.
`Separately, we also note the Board did not overlook Petitioner’s
`arguments presented in connection with the embodiment described in
`paragraph 28 and related paragraphs 201–206 of Ohmura. See Req. Reh’g
`6–10. As explained in the Decision, we agreed with Patent Owner that:
`“paragraph 28 of Ohmura cited in the claim chart only describes
`that: (1) a user is allowed to select “contents information to be
`received”, i.e., an audio file from a list of audio files, and (2) the
`car audio/video system itself is responsible for “reproducing the
`received contents information and outputting the reproduced
`information as sound from speakers.” Id. at 23–24. In other
`words, the cited paragraph of Ohmura “explicitly states that
`audio is reproduced at the car audio system, and is not generated
`by the portable device” and, as such, does not disclose the “audio
`generated by the portable device” limitation as recited in the
`challenged claim 49. Id. at 24 (emphasis added).”
`
`Dec. 26.
`Because Ohmura’s audio is generated at car audio/video system 100
`and is not generated at portable device 200a or 200b, we were not persuaded
`that “Ohmura’s CPU 101 of car audio/video system 100, shown in Ohmura’s
`Figure 2, ‘instructs the portable device to play the audio file . . . and
`receives audio generated by the portable device’” in the manner recited in
`the challenged claims of the ’342 patent. Id. at 27.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00419
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`Second, Petitioner identifies numerous portions of Ohmura, for the
`first time, that it did not identify in the Petition or Reply. In particular,
`Petitioner contends the Board “misapprehended or overlooked the cited
`portions of Ohmura that disclose the functions of the construed ‘integration
`subsystem.’” See Req. Reh’g 10. However, we could not have
`misapprehended or overlooked portions of Ohmura that were not presented
`in the Petition or Reply. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to
`present new arguments.
`As explained in the Decision, we rejected Petitioner’s proposed
`construction of “integration subsystem” because Petitioner’s proposed
`construction required the claimed “integration subsystem” to be a
`microprocessor or processor programmed to perform a method for wirelessly
`integrating a portable device for use with a car audio/video system, shown in
`FIG. 24. Decision 13–15. Instead, we construed the term “integration
`subsystem” as performing the functions as expressly defined by the
`Specification of the ’342 patent. Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1101, 8:64–9:3).
`In the Petition, Petitioner relied solely on Berry as teaching the
`method of FIG. 24. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1103, 3:6–4:14, 5:14–40, 6:26–27,
`6:45–50, Figs. 1–3). However, Petitioner never accounted for or directed us
`to where each of the functions performed by the claimed “integration
`subsystem” is found in Ohmura’s CPU 101. Id. at 27. Regardless of the
`construction of “integration subsystem,” however, the Board’s main reasons
`to deny the Petition were explained on pages 28–29 of the Decision, i.e.,
`“[b]ecause Ohmura’s CPU 101 of car audio/video system 100 fails to
`account for . . . the ‘audio generated by the portable device’ limitation.”
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00419
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the reasons discussed, Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing does not
`
`support a modification of the Decision, and is therefore denied.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`William H. Mandir
`John F. Rabena
`Yoshinari Kishimoto
`Brian K. Shelton
`Fadi N. Kiblawi
`Margaret M. Welsh
`Sughrue Mion PLLC
`jrabena@sughrue.com
`bshelton@sughrue.com
`toyoto@sughrue.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`8
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
